Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement: Section 32 Analysis ...

Environment Waikato Policy Series 2010/14Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement: Section 32Analysis of Costs, Benefitsand Alternatives(November 2010)www.ew.govt.nzISSN : 1174-7234

Prepared by:Sarah MackayFor:Environment WaikatoPO Box 4010HAMILTON EAST17 July 2010Doc # 1451856

Table of ContentsIntroductionPurpose of this reportPurpose of a regional policy statementRequirements of Section 32Decision-making requirements of the Local Government ActConsultationStatutory driversStructure of this reportvvvvviviviiiixPART A1 Issues 1-1Issue 1.1 State of resources 1-1Issue 1.2 Effects of climate change 1-2Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demand 1-2Issue 1.4 Managing the built environment 1-3Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao) 1-4Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River 1-52 Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato - Vision and Strategy for theWaikato River 2-12.1 Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2-12.2 Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill 2-12.3 The Vision and Strategy and the Waikato Regional Policy Statement 2-22.4 Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River 2-23 Objectives 3-13.1 Integrated management 3-13.2 Decision making 3-43.3 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River 3-83.4 Energy 3-113.5 Adapting to climate change 3-143.6 Managing the coastal environment 3-163.7 Ecosystem services 3-213.8 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao) 3-243.9 Efficient use of resources 3-263.10 Air quality 3-293.11 Built environment 3-323.12 Marine water quality 3-363.13 Mauri and health of fresh water bodies 3-383.14 Allocation and use of fresh water 3-433.15 Riparian areas and wetlands 3-463.16 Geothermal 3-493.17 Historic and cultural heritage 3-523.18 Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversity 3-553.19 Outstanding natural features and landscapes 3-583.20 Amenity 3-613.21 Natural character 3-653.22 Public access 3-693.23 Natural hazards 3-713.24 Values of soil 3-74Doc # 1451856Page i

3.25 High class soils 3-76PART B4 Integrated management 4-14.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 4-14.2 Risk of acting or not acting 4-144.3 Appropriate policies and methods 4-154.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 4-165 Air 5-15.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 5-15.2 Risk of acting or not acting 5-85.3 Appropriate policies and methods 5-85.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 5-96 Built environment 6-16.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 6-16.2 Risk of acting or not acting 6-456.3 Appropriate policies and methods 6-456.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 6-476A Development principles 6-617 Coastal marine area 7-17.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 7-17.2 Risk of acting or not acting 7-97.3 Appropriate policies and methods 7-97.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 7-10References 7-128 Fresh water bodies 8-18.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 8-18.2 Risk of acting or not acting 8-508.3 Appropriate policies and Methods 8-508.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 8-538A High value water bodies 8-61References 8-639 Geothermal 9-19.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 9-19.2 Risk of acting or not acting 9-559.3 Appropriate policies and methods 9-559.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 9-59References 9-6810 Heritage 10-110.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 10-110.2 Risk of acting or not acting 10-1510.3 Appropriate policies and methods 10-1610.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 10-1610A Assessment criteria 10-2011 Indigenous biodiversity 11-111.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 11-111.2 Risk of acting or not acting 11-2011.3 Appropriate policies and methods 11-21ii Doc # 1451856

11.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 11-2111A Criteria for determining significance of indigenous biodiversity 11-2612 Landscape, natural character and amenity 12-112.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 12-112.2 Risk of acting or not acting 12-3612.3 Appropriate policies and methods 12-3712.4 Proposed wording of policies and methods 12-3912B Landscape values assessment criteria 12-44References 12-4513 Natural hazards 13-113.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 13-113.2 Risk of acting or not acting 13-1613.3 Appropriate policies and methods 13-1813.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 13-1814 Soils 14-114.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies and methods 14-114.2 Risk of acting or not acting 14-2914.3 Appropriate policies and methods 14-3114.4 Proposed wording for policies and methods 14-32Appendix 1: Relevant sections of the Resource Management Act A1-1Appendix 2: Area subject to the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River A2-1Doc # 1451856Page iii

IntroductionPurpose of this reportThis Section 32 analysis report accompanies the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement.Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires councils toconsider alternative ways to achieve the environmental outcomes sought. WaikatoRegional Council is required to assess the extent to which each objective proposedthrough the Waikato Regional Policy Statement is the most appropriate to achieve thepurpose of the Act and by assessing efficiency and effectiveness, which policies andmethods are the most appropriate to achieve the objectives.This report fulfils the requirements of Section 32 of the Act and documents the policyanalysis that has been followed in the development of the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement.Relevant sections of the Act are provided in Appendix 1.Purpose of a regional policy statementSection 61 of the Act requires every region to prepare a regional policy statement. Thepurpose of a regional policy statement is to achieve the purpose of the Act by providingan overview of the resource management issues of the region, and policies andmethods to achieve the integrated management of natural and physical resources.The required contents of regional policy statements are set out in Section 62 of the Act.Requirements of Section 32During the process of developing a regional policy statement, the council is required bySection 32 of the Act to make an evaluation of the appropriateness of the objectives,policies and methods to be proposed.To fulfil the requirements of Section 32 the council must carry out an evaluation thatexamines whether, or to what extent, the chosen objectives are the most appropriatemeans to achieve the purpose of the Act (see below).Section 5Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physicalresources.(2) In this act sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection ofnatural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities toprovide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excludingminerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;andb) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, andecosystems; andc) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on theenvironment.The evaluation must also examine, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness,whether the proposed policies and methods are the most appropriate for achieving theobjectives. The evaluation of the policies and methods must take into account theDoc # 1451856v

costs and benefits of each policy option and must also make an assessment of the riskof acting or not acting if there is insufficient information.Section 32(5) of the Act requires a report be prepared that summarises the evaluationof the appropriateness of the proposed provisions of a regional policy statement. TheSection 32 report must be made available for public inspection at the same time as theregional policy statement is notified. This report fulfils that statutory requirement.Decision-making requirements of the LocalGovernment ActIn developing the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement the procedures set outin Sections 76-81 (decision making) of the Local Government Act 2002 have beenappropriately observed.The analysis provided in this report meets the decision-making requirements of thecouncil in relation to the identification and assessment of reasonably practical optionsand the consideration of the known views of persons with an interest in this matter.ConsultationThis section describes the consultation processes associated with the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement. The minimum statutory requirements are outlinedand the consultation process and philosophy are described.Statutory obligations – Resource Management Act 1991Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Act is explicit about who the council must consultwith when preparing policy statements or plans. This includes ministers of the Crown,other local authorities, and tāngata whenua. Feedback from these parties hasinformed the development of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.Waikato Regional Council is required under Clause 5(1C) of the First Schedule topublicly notify the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Included in thenotification process is the requirement to provide a copy of the public notice and anyother information the council sees fit to any person considered to be directly affected bya proposed policy statement.The Act also stipulates that a minimum period of 40 working days is to be provided forthe public to comment on the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement(submission period).Subsequent clauses of the First Schedule outline additional process requirements,including the publication of a summary of submissions. Further submissions can bemade in support or opposition to those submissions already received. Submissionsand further submissions will then be considered by a hearings committee. Thiscommittee will be aided by a Section 42A report which is prepared by staff andprovides recommendations to the committee on the submissions received. After thehearing of submissions, the council will deliberate and release decisions based on allthe information received.Consultation undertakenClause 3A(1) of the First Schedule of the requires the agreement of a consultationprocess for the review of a regional policy statement to be embedded into the triennialagreement for the region (Section 15 Local Government Act 2002). For the purposesvi Doc # 1451856

of the current review this agreement was made through the Regional Policy StatementConsultation Strategy 1 (the Strategy).The Strategy outlines specific approaches for working with territorial authorities,tāngata whenua and neighbouring regions, as well as approaches to consultation onparticular themes. The Strategy was adopted by the Waikato Region Triennial Forumin August 2008 and focuses primarily on consultation prior to the commencement of theformal First Schedule process.The participation of stakeholders has been a key part of the regional policy statementconsultation process. There has been an emphasis on encouraging feedback from anearly stage. This feedback has helped to shape the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement.In March 2009, a discussion document 2 was distributed to the following keystakeholders to initiate conversation: Waikato Regional Council councillors; the chief executive officers of the 12 territorial authorities within the region; the chief executive officers of the five adjacent regional councils; iwi partners; the Regional Policy Statement Reference Group (senior territorial authority staff);andmore than one hundred representatives of central government ministries,scientific/research institutes, industry, energy companies, and non-governmentalorganisations.The purpose of the discussion document was to initiate discussion with stakeholdersand to gauge stakeholder sentiment on current and emerging issues. Approximately150 discussion documents were distributed. In addition, the discussion document wasavailable for download from the council’s website. The document provided a snapshotof the condition of regional resources and the current understanding of present andpotential future issues affecting the management of natural and physical resourceswithin the region. It incorporated information available at the date of release about thequality and quantity of those resources that local government collectively is chargedwith managing under the Resource Management Act.The discussion document posed a number of questions relating to potentialmanagement targets and relied on current objectives, community outcomes and recentresource monitoring information for this process. Questions were also posed throughthe document in regards to possible policies and methods to pursue. These possiblepolicies and methods were guided by the changed role of regional policy statements,the 2007 evaluation of the Operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement 3 by EnfocusConsultants and the recognition of the changing central government policy environmentincluding proposed and forthcoming national policy statements, legislative changes andTreaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations. A wide range of questions were also posedto assist with the analysis of the costs and benefits of pursuing different policy options.Over 60 individual pieces of feedback were received on the discussion document. Thisfeedback was presented to Waikato Regional councillors and iwi partners during aseries of workshops, and contributed to the development of preferred policy optionscontained in the Regional Policy Statement Working Draft which was released tostakeholders in December 2009, marking the start of a second round of consultation.Approximately 200 copies of the Regional Policy Statement Working Draft 4 weredistributed, and 81 pieces of feedback were received from a wide range of1Regional Policy Statement: Consultation Strategy; EW document number 13150942http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/10522/RPSdiscussiondocumentmarch09.pdf3http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/10522/Evaluation%20EW%20RPS.pdf4http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/10522/1560229-v7-RPS_WORKING_DRAFT.pdfDoc # 1451856vii

stakeholders. This feedback informed an intensive series of workshops with WaikatoRegional councillors, iwi partners, territorial authorities and stakeholder groups duringthe first half of 2010. These workshops ultimately guided the development of theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.During both phases of consultation, Waikato Regional councillors have engaged withtheir counterparts at a political level through a series of briefings, first at the time of therelease of the Working Draft, and also prior to approving the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement for notification.A summary of the discussion document feedback and a list of those individuals andorganisations that provided feedback on the Working Draft are available atwww.ew.govt.nz/rpsreview.Statutory driversThere are several statutory drivers that make up the framework within which theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement is developed. The most relevantprovisions of the Resource Management Act have been discussed in earlier sections ofthis report and are provided in Appendix 1. Other key drivers are discussed brieflybelow. These drivers have been considered in the development of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement.National Environmental StandardsThe Act provides for central government to develop technical standards relating to theuse, development and protection of natural and physical resources (nationalenvironmental standards). These standards have the force of regulation and aredeveloped in accordance with Sections 43 and 44 of the Act. National standardsoverride existing provisions in plans that require a lesser standard. However, where aplan specifies a higher standard, it prevails over a national standard.Currently the following four standards are in effect: National Environmental Standards for Air Quality; National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water; National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities; and National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission.A further five are in various stages of development and relate to: contaminants in soils; ecological flows and water levels; future sea level rise; forestry; and on-site wastewater systems.Vision and Strategy for the Waikato RiverAs part of the Waikato River settlement between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui,Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for the WaikatoRiver has been developed. The Vision and Strategy is deemed to be part of anyWaikato Regional Policy Statement.The Vision and Strategy was developed by the Guardians Establishment Committeewhich included representatives of the Waikato River Iwi and the community and will beperiodically reviewed by the Waikato River Authority. Further guidance on therelevance of this Strategy and iwi settlements can be found in Chapter 2 of this report.viii Doc # 1451856

National Policy StatementsNational policy statements are prepared by central government and cover matters ofnational importance. Regional policy statements must give effect to national policystatements. There are currently two national policy statements in effect: New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. This statement has been operative sinceMay 1994 and is currently under review. National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission. This statement has beenoperative since March 2008. It recognises the national importance of the nationalgrid and provides high level guidance for its management and future planning.Both of the existing national policy statements have been considered in thedevelopment of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement and provisions havebeen inserted to give effect to these statements. National policy statements currentlyproposed by the Minister of the Environment but not yet finalised are the: Proposed National Policy Statement on Renewable Electricity Generation; and Proposed National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management.These proposed national policy statements may come into effect before the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement becomes operative. Council will endeavour toprovide for changes to the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement as a result ofthese national policy statements through the submission process.Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act seeks to better integrate the management efforts ofthe different agencies that have jurisdiction over the Hauraki Gulf. Sections 7 and 8 ofHauraki Gulf Marine Park Act have the effect of a New Zealand coastal policystatement and set out the matters of national significance and the managementobjectives for the Gulf. The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement must giveeffect to Sections 7 and 8.Sections 7 and 8 go beyond the coverage of the New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement (which is limited to the coastal environment) and recognise the downstreameffects on the Hauraki Gulf from the entire catchment. The Hauraki Gulf is defined asthe east coast coastal marine area for the Waikato and Auckland regions.The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement gives effect to Sections 7 and 8 ofthe Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act, by including specific objectives, policies andmethods that:a) promote a catchment-based approach;b) recognise the importance of the Hauraki Gulf as a management unit;c) recognise the importance of ecosystem services; andd) recognise and provide for the relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment.Structure of this reportThis report closely emulates the structure of the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement and has been arranged to correspond with the layout of the chapters in it.The introductory section above outlines: the requirements of the Resource Management Act in preparing this report; the consultation process adopted in developing the proposed provisions; and the statutory framework within which the provisions have been developed.The remainder of this report is set out in two substantive parts:Doc # 1451856ix

Part A: Issues and ObjectivesPart A of this report starts by detailing the regionally significant resource managementissues, and issues of significance to iwi authorities of the region as identified in theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement. This part also contains Te TureWhaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River, whichis the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and its catchments.Chapter 3 provides a summary of the analysis undertaken to determine the mostappropriate objectives to address these issues.Part B: Policies and MethodsIn Part B, chapters 4 - 14 mirror the chapters in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement by separating the policies and methods into resource areas. Each chapterin turn summarises the alternative policy options, and their efficiency and effectivenessin achieving the objectives.This report aims to document and make transparent the analysis undertaken indeveloping the proposed provisions, and inform the reader of the assumptions andjustifications behind the decisions taken over preferred objectives, policies andmethods.x Doc # 1451856

PART A1 Issues2 Vision and Strategy3 ObjectivesDoc # 1451856

Doc # 1451856

1 IssuesThe Resource Management Act (the Act) requires regional policy statements to stateboth the regionally significant resource management issues and issues of significanceto iwi authorities of the region. This section fulfils both requirements.Issue 1.1State of resourcesDeclining quality and quantity of natural and physical resources impacts their lifesupportingcapacity, reduces intrinsic values and ecosystem services, and in generalreduces our ability to provide for our wellbeing.While addressing this issue generally, specific focus should be directed to addressingthe following matters:a) risk to human health from poor air quality caused by fine particulate matter;b) effects of intensive agriculture including accumulation of contaminants in soils andeffects on water quality;c) effects of sedimentation and nutrients in estuaries and harbours;d) indigenous biodiversity decline;e) increasing potential for conflicts between activities in the coastal marine area; andf) increasing demand for fresh water.ExplanationNatural and physical resources include air, water, soil, plants, animals and the thingswe build such as infrastructure. We rely on natural and physical resources for oursocial, cultural and economic wellbeing, as will future generations. Natural resourcesalso have intrinsic value, or a value beyond their usefulness to us.Through the use of natural and physical resources we provide for the necessities of lifeas well as the comforts and pleasures that come with prosperity. In order to remainprosperous and healthy, we need continued access to a healthy environment. Weneed to ensure ecosystems can continue to provide us with the services we rely onsuch as healthy soils to grow food, clean water for drinking and to service our farmsand industries, wetlands to provide flood protection and water purification, clean air tobreathe, and so on.A healthy environment not only provides for our physical needs, but also influences oursense of wellbeing. People derive satisfaction from having access to natural areas andliving in healthy and attractive surroundings. The health, or mauri, of the environmentis important to the tāngata whenua of the region who view much of the degradation thatoccurs as unacceptable. Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environmentis consistent with the holistic and inter-connected view Māori have of the environment,and their role as kaitiaki.In many ways, our use of natural and physical resources is resulting in their decliningquality and quantity or availability. Use of resources by one party can conflict with theway others want to use a resource. The matters of particular concern in the Waikatoregion are as follows: There are areas where poor air quality is resulting in unacceptable health risks.This mainly occurs in certain urban areas due to discharges from some homeheating systems. Some intensive agricultural practices are causing a reduction in soil qualityincluding damage to soil structure, fertility and porosity, and a build-up ofcontaminants such as cadmium, zinc and fluorine. Agriculture and other land usesDoc # 1451856 1-1

are also resulting in reduced water quality in some areas, such as by causing anincrease in sediment, pathogens and algal growth in water bodies.There is an increase in demand for fresh water, and people want more water thanis available in some catchments.Indigenous biodiversity, including fisheries, is continuing to decline, mainly due toreducing health and extent of natural ecosystems.Increasing pressure for development in the coastal marine area is likely to lead toincreasing tensions between uses such as aquaculture, recreation, tourism, energydevelopments and sea floor mining.Issue 1.2Effects of climate changeThe effects of climate change may impact our ability to provide for our wellbeing,including health and safety.While addressing this issue generally, specific focus should be directed to the followingmatters:a) increased potential for storm damage and weather-related natural hazards; andb) long-term risks of sea level rise to settlements and infrastructure such as throughincreased coastal flooding and erosion.ExplanationUnder the Resource Management Act, Waikato Regional Council is required to haveparticular regard to the effects of climate change. The council should ensure that weprepare for and adapt to these changes so that their impacts on us and on resources isminimised. New Zealand’s response in terms of actions to reduce climate change isprimarily a central government rather than a local government role.As a result of climate change, the Waikato region is at risk from increasing sea levelsand greater climate variability, including changing temperature and rainfall patterns,and increasing storm intensities.In terms of resource management, the main immediate threats that need to beresponded to are the effects from higher storm intensities and potential for weatherrelatednatural hazards such as floods, slips and drought. In some cases, these posesignificant risks to life and property.Over the longer term, climate change and sea level rise is likely to increase risks tocoastal properties due to increased coastal flooding and erosion. Although sea levelrise will happen gradually, we need to make responsible decisions today about thenature of development in coastal areas if we are to minimise risks to our communities.The changing climate will also lead to changes in the habitat range of plant and animalspecies, including pest and domestic species. We can therefore expect to facechallenges in managing indigenous biodiversity and biosecurity including the increasedincursions of pest species that may have previously been unable to survive in ourclimate. We can also expect there to be implications for primary production industries,such as:the need to change animal management practices to account for shifting seasonsand conditions; andchanges to the region’s suitability for different crops.Issue 1.3Providing for energy demandWith increasing energy demand, there is increasing need for new energy projects andassociated infrastructure, and increasing potential for adverse effects on naturalresources.1-2 Doc # 1451856

While addressing this issue generally, specific focus should be directed to addressingthe following matters:a) potential for conflicts between energy generation and transmission and other landor water uses; andb) the need to find sites for generation where such conflicts can be minimised.ExplanationDemand for energy is increasing in order to service our growing population, economicdevelopment, expanding urban areas and more technological lifestyles. We aretravelling more and freighting more product, which is adding further to energy demand.On the supply side, we are facing a decline in availability and an increase in the cost ofoil.The Waikato region is rich in energy resources including geothermal, water (for hydro),coal, marine and wind. It is also a region crossed by important energy transmissionlines that take gas and electricity from energy sources in the south to the Aucklandregion in the north. There is likely to be increasing demand for new electricitygeneration and transmission infrastructure through the region.To provide for our increasing energy demands, there will be further pressure fordevelopment of the region’s energy resources. We will need to find new ways ofmeeting energy demands into the future. Central government recognises the need tofocus on development of renewable energy sources. This will create a greater need forelectricity generation from sources such as geothermal, wind, tides, wave energy andpossibly biofuels.The development of new energy sources and related infrastructure poses potential forgreater effects on resources such as water bodies, landscapes and biodiversity. It willalso mean greater potential for conflicts with existing land and water uses. Thesematters need to be carefully managed into the future.Issue 1.4Managing the built environmentDevelopment of the built environment, transport and other infrastructure is impacting onour ability to sustainably manage natural and physical resources and provide for ourwellbeing.While addressing this issue generally, specific focus should be directed to the followingmatters:a) high pressure for development in Hamilton City, Waipa District, Waikato District,around Lake Taupo, along the Waikato River and in the coastal environment;b) increasing potential for natural hazards;c) increasing conflict with, and demands for, infrastructure; andd) the effect of development on access to mineral resources (particularly aggregates),high quality soils, and future energy development sites.ExplanationUnder the Resource Management Act, physical resources must be sustainablymanaged. The built environment includes physical resources such as buildings andinfrastructure, which are important for our social, economic and cultural wellbeing.Efficient and effective infrastructure is crucial for our economic progress and socialwellbeing. However, land use change can adversely affect this, for example ribbondevelopment along arterial roads results in the need to slow traffic and affects theefficiency of transport along these routes. The Act requires the strategic integration ofinfrastructure with land use so that such problems can be minimised.Doc # 1451856 1-3

Development can also lead to a range of other undesirable and unsustainableoutcomes if not appropriately managed. For example, in parts of the Waikato region,natural hazards are increasing due to ongoing development in hazard-prone areas.The region has some of the most productive soils in the world, but options for farmingthese soils in some areas are being compromised by widespread rural-residentialdevelopment. Development of the built environment needs access to nearbyaggregate sources which are sometimes made inaccessible by urban and ruralresidentialdevelopment. Such development can be very important to the region, butrequires careful management to avoid these kinds of outcomes.Territorial authorities manage land use change through district plans. Increasingly,they use tools such as structure plans and growth strategies to strategically plan fordevelopment. Such planning is particularly important in high growth areas. In areas ofthe region that are not experiencing the pressure of high growth, planning principlesthat prevent unsustainable outcomes should still be the foundation of district plans.There is a need to keep improving strategic planning for development in order toensure ongoing development is sustainable.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua withthe environment (te taiao)The relationship tāngata whenua have with the domains of Ranginui (sky) andPapatūānuku (Earth) is of paramount importance and this relationship is beingdamaged through:a) activities that degrade the mauri of the environment, including through cumulativeeffects;b) loss of access to, and use and enjoyment of, resources and places;c) loss or diminishment of the ability of tāngata whenua to be involved in or influencemanagement decisions; andd) loss of ability to exercise and provide for kaitiakitanga.ExplanationMāori see the natural world holistically – being wholly inter-connected andcomplementary. According to this concept Ranginui (sky), Papatūānuku (Earth), themountains, open lands, rivers and the sea and the life therein exist seamlessly togetherand not as individual resources in isolation from one another. Māori believe thathumans, too, form part of the natural world. An interdependent relationship existsbetween humans and the natural world. This allows people to live off the environmentand use resources but at the same time requires them to ensure that the resources arecared for and protected. This relationship extends from ancestral beginnings andcarries with it resource management knowledge (mātauranga Māori) andresponsibilities that are shared by successive generations. The nature of thisrelationship is recognised and provided for in Part II of the Resource Management Act.Mātauranga Māori informs tikanga and kawa, which guide resource managementpractices used by Māori. An example of such a practice is the imposition of rāhui toenable regeneration of stocks, to preserve and protect species, or to minimise anyadverse effects of resource use. The relationship with te taiao suffers when tāngatawhenua cannot fulfil their responsibilities, including managing resources to ensuremauri is preserved and that they are not depleted beyond their ability to replenish.These management responsibilities are embodied in the concept of kaitiakitanga.Kaitiakitanga extends beyond purely protection or preservation of resources to use andenjoyment, and includes for economic purposes.An inability to influence decision making has been a long-standing and commonconcern of tāngata whenua within the region. One of the impacts of this is on theability of tāngata whenua to effectively carry out their kaitiaki duties. While there has1-4 Doc # 1451856

een improvement in recent years, including through the settlement of Treaty ofWaitangi claims, this remains an issue for tāngata whenua.A lack of understanding, awareness and recognition of the nature and existence ofcultural heritage and its importance to tāngata whenua has frequently led to thedestruction of areas, sites, places, landscapes or resources of significance, or thedestruction of their values and/or the relationship of tāngata whenua with them.Issue 1.6RiverHealth and wellbeing of the WaikatoThe health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and its catchments has been andcontinues to be degraded. Of particular concern is:a) adverse effects on the mauri of the river;b) the ability of the river to sustainably and safely provide food and cultural, economicand recreation opportunities; andc) the effect this has on the relationship of Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Tūwharetoa,Te Arawa River Iwi, Maniapoto and Raukawa and the regional community with theriver.ExplanationThe relationship of the Waikato River Iwi with the Waikato River lies at the heart of theirspiritual, cultural, historic and physical wellbeing and their identity.To Waikato-Tainui, the Waikato River is a tūpuna which has mana and in turnrepresents the mana and mauri of the tribe. Ngāti Tūwharetoa have a direct interest in,and special relationship with, the Waikato River. This includes the rights andresponsibilities associated with kaitiakitanga. The people of Raukawa have their ownunique and ancient relationship with the Waikato River. Prominent in their beliefs is thehereditary right and responsibility to protect the river. Te Arawa River Iwi compriseNgāti Tahu-Ngāti Whaoa, Ngāti Kearoa-Ngāti Tuarā and Tūhourangi-Ngāti Wahiao. TeArawa River Iwi exercise mana whakahaere in accordance with their long-establishedtikanga to ensure the wellbeing of the Waikato River. The Waipa River forms part ofthe catchment of the Waikato River. It flows within the rohe of Ngati Maniapoto and isintegral to their spiritual, cultural, historic and physical wellbeing, and their identity.Deeds and settlements between the Crown and the respective Waikato River Iwiacknowledge that the deterioration of the health of the Waikato River while the Crownhad authority over the river has been a source of distress. They set in place aframework with the overarching purpose of restoring and protecting the health andwellbeing of the Waikato River for current and future generations.This Regional Policy Statement recognises that the Waikato River is degraded andcontains provisions aimed at restoring the river’s health as a regional priority.Doc # 1451856 1-5

2 Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato -Vision and Strategy for the WaikatoRiver2.1 Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Act 5The Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 (the Act) giveseffect to the 2009 deed of settlement in respect of the raupatu claims of Waikato-Tainuiover the Waikato River. The overarching purpose of the settlement is to restore andprotect the health and wellbeing of the river for future generations.The purpose of the Act, as set out in Section 4 is to:a) give effect to the settlement of raupatu claims under the 2009 deed:b) recognise the significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui:c) recognise the vision and strategy for the Waikato River:d) establish and grant functions and powers to the Waikato RiverAuthority:e) establish the Waikato River Clean-up Trust:f) recognise certain customary activities of Waikato-Tainui:g) provide co-management arrangements for the Waikato River:h) provide redress to Waikato-Tainui relating to certain assets:i) recognise redress to Waikato-Tainui of the Kiingitanga Accord andother accords provided for in the schedule of the Kiingitanga Accord.2.2 Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa RiverIwi Waikato River Bill 6The Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill (the Bill)gives effect to the deeds of settlement entered into between the Crown and NgātiTūwharetoa, Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi. The Crown and each iwi have agreedto the establishment and participation of each iwi in a co-governance framework. Theoverarching purpose of the Bill is to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River for present and future generations.The purpose of the Bill, as set out in Section 4 is to:a) recognise the significance of the Waikato River to Ngati Tuwharetoa,Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi:b) recognise the vision and strategy for the Waikato River:c) establish and grants functions and powers to the Waikato River Authority:d) establish the Waikato River Clean-up Trust:e) acknowledge and provides a process that may recognise certaincustomary activities of Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa RiverIwi:f) provide co-management arrangements for the Waikato River.56The Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 was passed on 7 May 2010. However, at thetime of printing, not all provisions of the Act had come into force, with the remaining provisions expected to comeinto force by the end of 2010.The Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill is currently before the House, with itsfinal reading likely to occur before the end of 2010.Doc # 1451856 2-1

2.3 The Vision and Strategy and the WaikatoRegional Policy StatementSchedule 2 of the Act contains Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Visionand Strategy for the Waikato River. The Vision and Strategy is the primary directionsettingdocument for the Waikato River and its catchments, which includes the lowerreaches of the Waipa River (refer to Appendix 2).Under Section 11 of the Act, the Vision and Strategy is deemed in its entirety to be partof any regional policy statement for the Waikato region without the need for publicconsultation. The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement cannot be inconsistentwith the Vision and Strategy. If there is any inconsistency, the Vision and Strategyprevails over that part of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. This also applies toany future reviews of the Vision and Strategy. There is therefore no need for anevaluation that considers alternatives, benefits or costs of the Vision and Strategy.Section 12 of the Act clarifies that, in the event of any inconsistency, the Vision andStrategy for the Waikato River prevails over any national policy statement or NewZealand coastal policy statement.2.4 Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River2.4.1 Vision for the Waikato RiverTooku awa koiora me oona pikonga he kura tangihia o te maataamuri“The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last”Our vision is for a future where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life andprosperous communities who, in turn, are all responsible for restoring and protectingthe health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and all it embraces, for generations tocome.2.4.2 Objectives for the Waikato RiverIn order to realise the vision, the following objectives will be pursued:a) The restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.b) The restoration and protection of the relationships of Waikato-Tainui with theWaikato River, including their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual relationships.c) The restoration and protection of the relationships of Waikato River Iwi according totheir tikanga and kawa with the Waikato River, including their economic, social,cultural and spiritual relationships.d) The restoration and protection of the relationships of the Waikato Region’scommunities, with the Waikato River, including their economic, social, cultural andspiritual relationships.e) The integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach to management of the natural,physical, cultural, and historic resources of the Waikato River.f) The adoption of a precautionary approach towards decisions that may result insignificant adverse effects on the Waikato River, and in particular, those effects thatthreaten serious or irreversible damage to the Waikato River.g) The recognition and avoidance of adverse cumulative effects, and potentialcumulative effects, of activities undertaken both on the Waikato River and within thecatchment on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.h) The recognition that the Waikato River is degraded and should not be required toabsorb further degradation as a result of human activities.2-2 Doc # 1451856

i) The protection and enhancement of significant sites, fisheries, flora and fauna.j) The recognition that the strategic importance of the Waikato River to NewZealand’s social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing requires therestoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.k) The restoration of water quality within the Waikato River so that it is safe for peopleto swim in and take food from over its entire length.l) The promotion of improved access to the Waikato River to better enable sporting,recreational, and cultural opportunities.m) The application to the above of both maatauranga Maaori and the latest availablescientific methods.2.4.3 Strategies for the Waikato RiverTo achieve the vision, the following strategies will be followed:a) Ensure that the highest level of recognition is given to the restoration andprotection of the Waikato River.b) Establish what the current health status of the Waikato River is by utilisingmaatauranga Maaori and latest available scientific methods.c) Develop targets for improving the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River byutilising maatauranga Maaori and latest available scientific methods.d) Develop and implement a programme of action to achieve the targets forimproving the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.e) Develop and share local, national and international expertise, includingindigenous expertise, on rivers and activities within their catchments that may beapplied to the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River.f) Recognise and protect waahi tapu and sites of significance to Waikato-Tainui andother Waikato River iwi (where they do decide) to promote their cultural, spiritualand historic relationship with the Waikato River.g) Recognise and protect appropriate sites associated with the Waikato River thatare of significance to the Waikato regional community.h) Actively promote and foster public knowledge and understanding of the healthand wellbeing of the Waikato River among all sectors of the Waikato community.i) Encourage and foster a ‘whole of river’ approach to the restoration and protectionof the Waikato River, including the development, recognition and promotion ofbest practice methods for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River.j) Establish new, and enhance existing, relationships between Waikato-Tainui,other Waikato River iwi (where they so decide), and stakeholders with an interestin advancing, restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the WaikatoRiver.k) Ensure that cumulative adverse effects on the Waikato River of activities areappropriately managed in statutory planning documents at the time of theirreview.l) Ensure appropriate public access to the Waikato River while protecting andenhancing health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.Doc # 1451856 2-3

3 ObjectivesSection 32(3)(a) of the Resource Management Act (the Act) requires an evaluation ofobjectives. This examination must analyse the extent to which each proposed objectiveis the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act.The determination of appropriateness of objectives includes consideration of relevance,usefulness, achievability and reasonableness.Each objective proposed in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement has beentested as to whether it will address one or more issues in a way that achieves thepurpose of the Act by using the components of the definition of sustainablemanagement contained within the Act. An objective must also: directly relate to at least one issue; make a substantial difference in addressing that issue or issues; add value; guide decision making; and fall within the council’s functions, powers and policy tools.There are twenty-five objectives in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statementand these are evaluated in this chapter.3.1 Integrated managementThe management of natural and physical resources recognises the inter-related natureand multiple values of those resources. Particular recognition will be given to the interrelationshipswithin and values of:a) water body catchments;b) riparian areas and wetlands;c) the coastal environment;d) the Hauraki Gulf; ande) the Waikato River.Objective 3.1 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.4 Managing the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.1.1 Principal reasons for adoptingIn order to protect the natural resources of the region, these resources need to bemanaged in an integrated manner which recognises the inter-relationships anddependencies between resources and the impact that activities have on the range ofresources.3.1.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.1 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Doc # 1451856 3-1

Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet needsof future generationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity of air,water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy or mitigateadverse effects ofactivities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their cultural wellbeingAchievementObjective 3.1 provides for the sustainable management of naturaland physical resources by recognising the importance of the interrelationshipsand shared values between resources.This objective aims to ensure that the effects of land activities donot adversely impact on water bodies and the marine area and viceversa. To achieve this will also require a co-ordinated approachacross local authority jurisdictional boundaries. Decision makingfor management of resources must take an integrated approachthat will protect the potential of the region’s resources for futuregenerations.Objective 3.1 recognises that co-ordinated management ofresources must take place to ensure that the life-supportingcapacity of water bodies, the marine area and the surrounding landis safeguarded. In particular, the objective seeks to ensure thatwater bodies and the marine environment are not just seen to be a‘receiving environment’ for discharged pollutants from land-basedactivities. The objective has the potential to contribute tosafeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil andecosystems.Objective 3.1 seeks to ensure that activities that are likely to haveadverse effects on natural resources are managed in an integratedway, rather than looking at resources in isolation. An integratedand strategic approach to decisions relating to activities providesan understanding of the wider effects of an activity, includingcumulative adverse effects, and enables strategies to avoid,remedy or mitigate adverse effects.Natural resources such as water bodies, riparian areas and thecoast are a significant part of most New Zealanders’ social andrecreational experiences. Objective 3.1 seeks to ensure thatpeople can continue (into future generations) to enjoy a range ofexperiences involving natural and physical resources. In thisrespect it is critical that an integrated approach is taken tomanaging the use of these resources.Water bodies and the marine area are a significant economicresource for industries (such as agriculture, fishing, marinefarming) as well as for communities (such as tourism supportservices). Objective 3.1 seeks to ensure that people can continue(into future generations) to gain economic advantages from waterbodies and coastal resources. In this respect it is critical that anintegrated and strategic approach is taken to managing the use ofthese resources.Water bodies and the marine area make a significant contributionto people’s and communities’ cultural wellbeing. In particular, fortāngata whenua, the protection of coastal environment, rivers andwater bodies is part of their role as kaitiaki which is an integral partof Māori culture. Water resources are viewed as a holistic unit andthis objective seeks to reinforce this approach by recognising thatthese resources need to be managed in an integrated manner.Objective 3.1 also recognises the historical links many people havewith these environments by ensuring that decisions regardingactivities in these areas are based on a balanced approach thatrecognises the inter-related nature of resources.3-2 Doc # 1451856

Enable people andcommunities to providefor their health and safetyBy recognising the integrated nature of these environments,Objective 3.1 seeks to ensure that natural resources such as riversand the marine area are not degraded by land-based activities. Inthis respect managing the quality of water and of kaimoana throughintegrated management decisions contributes to the health andsafety of people using water bodies and marine resources.3.1.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising the need for theintegrated management of resources. Activities on land, such as agriculture,construction, development of the coastal environment and use of freshwater, have thepotential to create adverse effects on water bodies and the marine area. Theseadverse effects may include degradation of water quality, sedimentation, and loss ofhabitat. There is a need to ensure that decisions regarding land use and water bodiesrecognise the impact they each have on other natural and physical resources so thateffects can be considered in their entirety and managed appropriately to avoid furtherdecline of these resources.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.2 by taking an integratedapproach, ensuring that development is located in appropriate places in order toreduce the risk from sea level rise, inundation or erosion and flooding caused bynatural hazards. Careful management of the coastal environment and riparian areas isrequired to ensure that the physical processes of natural resources can operate asnaturally as possible, rather than being restricted by buildings and infrastructure.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by ensuring that opportunitiesfor allocating areas that are suitable for generating electricity are not closed off byincompatible land uses and that the effects of energy generation are assessed in anintegrated manner. Electricity generation is often located in areas close to the marinearea or water bodies and managing these areas in a co-ordinated manner will ensurethat the most appropriate sites for this activity are identified.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by ensuring that land-basedactivity decisions are compatible with natural resources and are located in a mannerthat does not lead to future pressures from limiting natural processes. It is also criticalthat we recognise the importance of the wide range of natural values associated withthese environments. By providing an integrated approach to management of theseresources we can provide for sustainable use and development.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the interrelationshipbetween resources, particularly land and water. The objective provides forintegrated management of resources which will help to minimise adverse effectscaused by related activities that have the potential to impact on the mauri of theenvironment and the role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki. This objective takes a similarapproach to the environment as tāngata whenua, who view the natural worldholistically, as inter-connected and complementary.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.1 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by taking an integratedapproach to the management of activities that have the potential to impact on thehealth and wellbeing of the Waikato River. This includes an integrated approach to themanagement of land use activities, particularly in relation to water bodies, which willensure that adverse effects are managed.Doc # 1451856 3-3

3.1.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.1 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State of resources) because itclearly recognises that there is a need to manage the effects of activities on naturalresources in an integrated and strategic manner. The integrated management ofresources will enable a more robust assessment of cumulative effects which can thenbe managed to avoid unacceptable decline of natural resources.Objective 3.1 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climate change)because it recognises the inter-relationships between the land and marine areas in thecoastal environment which are a significant factor in managing the effects of sea levelrise. The objective also recognises the need for integrated management across thejurisdictional boundaries to manage the effects of climate change on the region’sresources.Objective 3.1 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.3 (Providing for energy demand)because it clearly recognises the need for ensuring that energy demand is provided forin a way that minimises the adverse effects on natural resources. The objectiveprovides for a co-ordinated approach which will help to select the most suitable sites forenergy generation based on a holistic view of the region’s resources.Objective 3.1 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing the built environment)because it recognises that there are development pressures in areas that have thepotential impact on natural resources and that these resources should be managed inan integrated, co-ordinated and strategic manner, to ensure that efficient use of land,water and marine resources is achieved.Objective 3.1 useful in addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship of tāngata whenuawith the environment (te taiao)) because it adopts a holistic approach to naturalresources that is similar to the view of Māori. The resources are inter-connected andtherefore management of these resources should be integrated.Objective 3.1 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health and wellbeing of theWaikato River) because it recognises the cross-boundary nature of the river andprovides for a co-ordinated approach through integrated management of activities thathave the potential to impact on the river.3.1.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.1 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because the issues arecomplex and relate to more than one resource and cross territorial boundaries,therefore the management of these resources must be integrated to achieve the bestoutcomes.Integrated management is a function of regional councils as set out in Section 30 (1)(a)and of territorial authorities as set out in 31(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act andthis objective seeks to achieve this. In order to achieve this objective, there needs tobe a change in the way resources are managed and not actually in the activitiesundertaken by the various stakeholders. This objective is therefore achievable throughrecognising the need for an integrated approach and putting the right processes inplace to achieve this.3.1.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.1 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.2 Decision makingResource management decision making is holistic and consistent and:a) is aligned across legislation and national and regional strategies;3-4 Doc # 1451856

) takes an integrated approach to managing resources that cross regional andfunctional boundaries;c) adopts an appropriate planning timeframe;d) adopts a precautionary approach;e) is transparent;f) has particular regard to the potential for cumulative effects from activities;g) is based on the best available information, including mātauranga Māori;h) allows for flexible solutions for local variations;i) recognises that time may be needed for change to occur;j) includes working with tāngata whenua;k) includes working with key stakeholders;l) considers a mix of methods to achieve objectives; andm) results in solutions which include processes to minimise conflicts.Objective 3.2 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.4 Managing the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.2.1 Principal reasons for adoptingIn order to manage the region’s resources sustainably, decision making needs to beconsistent across boundaries, taking an integrated approach and consideringcumulative effects. This will help to ensure that natural and physical resources aremaintained and enhanced while allowing for flexible solutions and a mix of methods tohelp achieve the other objectives in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.3.2.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.2 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet needsof future generationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementObjective 3.2 provides for the sustainable management of resourcesby ensuring that: decision making takes an integrated approach in relation toregional and functional boundaries; planning timeframes are appropriate; cumulative effects of activities are taken into account; a mix of methods are considered to achieve objectives; and a precautionary approach is used where appropriate.This approach will contribute to sustaining the potential of naturaland physical resources for the needs of future generations.Objective 3.2 recognises that the integrated management ofresources will assist in ensuring that the life-supporting capacity ofair, water, soil and ecosystems is safeguarded. In taking thisapproach, having regard to cumulative effects, using best availableinformation and taking a precautionary approach to decisionmaking, Objective 3.2 seeks to ensure that all life-supportingenvironments and the effects upon them are considered in thedecision-making process.Doc # 1451856 3-5

Avoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyObjective 3.2 seeks to ensure that all activities are managed in aholistic and consistent way through a strategic approach tomanagement decisions that recognises the integrated nature ofresources and the impacts from activities. Considering a mix ofmethods to achieve objectives, along with flexible solutions for localvariations are key to managing adverse effects of activities acrossthe region.Objective 3.2 seeks to ensure that people can continue (into futuregenerations) to enjoy a range of experiences (recreational, spiritual,community etc) within the regional environment. In this respect it iscritical that an integrated approach is taken to decision making, andthat key stakeholders including tāngata whenua are involved indecision making where such decisions have potential to impactadversely on natural resources, restricting the social wellbeing ofpeople and communities.Objective 3.2 seeks to ensure that people can continue (into futuregenerations) to gain economic advantages from a variety of naturalresources (for example, agriculture, marine farming, tourism). Theconsideration of cumulative impacts from activities, a precautionaryapproach and an appropriate planning timeframe will contribute toachieving this objective. It is critical that an integrated approach istaken to decision making, enabling economic activity to continue.The quality of our natural environment contributes significantly to thecultural wellbeing of people and communities. Objective 3.2 seeksto reinforce this by recognising and ensuring that decision making isholistic and consistent, and seeks to engage key stakeholders,including tāngata whenua. The objective recognises the historicallinks many people have with natural and physical resources byensuring that the decisions for activities allow flexible solutions forlocal variations.Objective 3.2 seeks to ensure that resources are not degraded byair, water or land-based activities. In this respect, applyingintegrated decision management, along with the best availableinformation, a flexible approach to solutions that allows for localvariation, and a precautionary approach contribute to the health andsafety of people using these resources.3.2.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising, acknowledgingand planning for the full impact of decisions in an integrated manner. For exampledecisions to undertake activities in an upper catchment must be considered in relationto the impact the activity may have on the remainder of the catchment, and similarlydecisions on land must consider the impact on other natural resources, such as waterbodies. Consequently, there is a need to ensure that integrated decisions recognisethe impact they each have on other resources and areas, ensuring that the decision isnot made in isolation and is sustainable.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.2 by ensuring that decisions madein relation to development are made holistically in an integrated manner, with aprecautionary approach. As a result, development will be located in appropriate placesin order to reduce the risk from sea level rise, coastal inundation or erosion and naturalhazards.3-6 Doc # 1451856

Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by requiring that an appropriateplanning timeframe be used and that flexible solutions for local variation areconsidered. Objective 3.2 ensures that future development of new energy resources inresponse to increasing demand is managed in an integrated manner and in doing soacknowledges and identifies the potential effects decisions may have on the region’snatural resources.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by ensuring that developmentdecisions align with regional strategies, take into account adverse effects on otherresources, and are located in a manner that is sustainable. Transparent decisionmaking that involves key stakeholders, including tāngata whenua, along withappropriate planning timeframes, and solutions inclusive of processes to minimiseconflicts will contribute to making a positive difference to this issue.Issue 1.5 Relationships of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring that the decisionmakingprocess is holistic, transparent, inclusive, takes into account cumulative effects,and is based on best available information, including mātauranga Māori.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.2 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by ensuring that the decisionmakingprocess in relation to the Waikato River and activities that affect the riverdirectly and indirectly are integrated, holistic, transparent and inclusive while makingappropriate consideration of cultural factors relating to the regional environment.3.2.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.1 (State of resources)because it clearly recognises that there is a need to make decisions and manage theeffects of these decisions in a holistic and consistent manner, taking into account theimplications of decisions for other resources.Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) because it requires that best available information be used, and that aprecautionary approach be taken. The objective recognises that decisions made tomitigate the potential effects of climate change on development must be done in aholistic, transparent and consistent manner across the jurisdictional boundaries.Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.3 (Providing for energydemand) because it clearly recognises the need for ensuring that future developmentof new energy resources is managed in a holistic and consistent manner, taking intoaccount the potential effect decisions have on the region’s resources and the conflictsthat may arise through competing uses for resources.Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.4 (Managing the builtenvironment) because it recognises that there are development pressures throughoutthe region that need to be managed in an integrated and strategic manner, and thatdecision making needs to be precautionary, transparent and allow for flexible solutionsto ensure that efficient use of resources is achieved and undesirable and unsustainableoutcomes are avoided.Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.5 (Relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment (te taiao)) as it recognises the importance and value ofinclusive relationships and decision making within the management of the regionalenvironment.Doc # 1451856 3-7

Objective 3.2 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.6 (Health and wellbeing ofthe Waikato River) because it recognises that the decision-making processes inrelation to the Waikato River and activities that affect the river need to be integratedand transparent, and inclusive of key stakeholders including tāngata whenua, in orderto ensure both cultural and environmental factors are accounted for.3.2.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.2 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because the interconnectednature of natural and physical resources, and activities within thatenvironment, means that decisions made on single or multiple issues, areas orresources will usually have flow-on effects to other areas and resources that must beconsidered. This objective ensures that the jurisdictional boundaries between theregional and territorial authorities do not hinder the integrated management ofresources that cross these regional and functional boundaries. Integrated managementis a function of regional councils as set out in Section 30 (1)(a) and of territorialauthorities as set out in 31(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act.Objective 3.2 seeks to ensure a consistent framework for decision making across theregion which does not involve local authorities undertaking new functions, but coordinatingexisting decision-making practices so that they are aligned. It is thereforeconsidered to be achievable.3.2.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation Objective 3.2 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.3 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverThe health and wellbeing of the Waikato River is restored and protected and the Visionand Strategy is achieved.Objective 3.3 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.3.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe Deed of Settlement between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui and the subsequentWaikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 (which gives effect tothe Deed) has the overarching purpose to restore and protect the health and wellbeingof the Waikato River. The Act also contains the Vision and Strategy for the WaikatoRiver which must be included in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement in itsentirety. This objective recognises this requirement and identifies that the health andwellbeing of the Waikato River needs to be improved as a priority.3.3.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.3 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:3-8 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementThe Waikato River is one of the primary natural resources inthe region and Objective 3.3 aims to restore and maintain thehealth and wellbeing of the river. The objective provides forthe sustainable management of the river through achievingthe Vision and Strategy. Restoring the quality of the river willensure that this resource is available to provide for the needsof future generations.Objective 3.3 will contribute to safeguarding the lifesupportingcapacity of water, soil and ecosystems throughrestoring and protecting the health of the Waikato River. Theintegrated nature of the natural environment will necessitatemanaging a range of resources (for example soil, water) inorder to achieve this objective, bringing a range of benefits.Restoring the health and wellbeing of the river will improve itslife-supporting capacity.Restoring the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River is away of remediating the historical adverse effects of activitieson the river. Achieving the Vision and Strategy will help toavoid and mitigate further adverse effects in the future.The Waikato River has historical significance for Waikatocommunities and is part of the social landscape. The river isused for recreational and cultural activities. Objective 3.3 willrestore and enhance the potential for communities to accessand enjoy the river, contributing to their social wellbeing.The Waikato River is of strategic importance to the economicwellbeing of the Waikato region and New Zealand (e.g.hydro-electricity generation, use of water for irrigationpurposes). Objective 3.3 recognises this and provides foreconomic wellbeing by restoring the health and wellbeing ofthe river and protecting this into the future. Objective 3.3 alsoseeks to achieve the Vision and Strategy, which aims torecognise the economic relationship between Waikato RiverIwi and the river, and the strategic importance of the river toNew Zealand’s economic wellbeing.The Waikato River is a significant cultural resource for manyWaikato communities including Waikato-Tainui. This isrecognised in the Vision and Strategy and Objective 3.3 willenable communities to provide for their cultural wellbeing byprotecting and restoring the health and wellbeing of the river.This will in turn ensure the continued use and enjoyment ofthe river by communites including to provide for or enhancecultural connections to the river.Objective 3.3 seeks to restore the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River. This will contribute to the health and safety ofthe community by minimising any public health risksassociated with the quality of the river environment.3.3.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.3 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by seeking to limit or remediateadverse effects on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. The Vision andStrategy recognises the importance of the restoration of the river, and will achieve thisthrough improving understanding of the river’s current health and developing anDoc # 1451856 3-9

implementation plan to reach an improved level of health and wellbeing. The Visionand Strategy also seeks to manage the river based on a ‘whole of river’ approachwhich will address the issue of the declining state of this resource, and other interrelatedresources.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.3 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the relationshipthat the Waikato River Iwi have with the Waikato River. The Vision and Strategyaddresses the degradation of the river by seeking to restore its health and wellbeing.This objective also aims to address the loss of access to, and use and enjoyment of,resources and places of importance to the Waikato River Iwi. This contributes torestoring the relationships between Waikato River Iwi and the region’s communities, aswell as improving access to the river for enhanced sporting, recreational and culturalopportunities. It deals with the loss of tāngata whenua influence in decisions andexercise of kaitiakitanga by recognising the relationship between Waikato River Iwi andthe river, and seeking to achieve an integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach tothe management of the resources of the river.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.3 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 as the objective directly seeks toprotect and restore the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. Achievement of thisobjective will promote the realisation of the Vision and Strategy. Remediation of theriver will also help to restore its ability to provide food and cultural, economic andrecreational opportunities.3.3.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.3 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) as it seeks to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of one of theregion’s most significant resources which has historically been in decline. Objective 3.3aims to achieve the Vision and Strategy for the river, which is required through existinglegislation and is therefore the most useful way to address the issue.Objective 3.3 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) as it recognises the significance of theriver to tāngata whenua. The Vision and Strategy seeks to restore and protect therelationship of Waikato River Iwi with the Waikato River and the objective aims toachieve the Vision and Strategy.Objective 3.3 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) as it is directly linked to the issue of past and presentdegradation of the Waikato River. The objective seeks to address the adverse effectsof activities on the river by restoring the health and wellbeing, and protecting it in thefuture, thereby safeguarding its life-supporting capacity.3.3.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.3 is considered achievable and reasonable because the health andwellbeing of the Waikato River is essential to the economic, cultural and social valuesof regional communities, and restoration and maintenance will enable a significantongoing contribution to regional wellbeing. The health and wellbeing of the WaikatoRiver has also been identified as a national priority through the Waikato RaupatuClaims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa andTe Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. Therefore Objective 3.3 is consideredreasonable.The Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 puts in place therelevant framework to support the achievement of this objective, including identifyingthe relevant stakeholders and partnerships and forums required to restore the health3-10 Doc # 1451856

and wellbeing of the Waikato River. It is therefore considered that Objective 3.3 isachievable.3.3.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation Objective 3.3 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.4 EnergyEnergy use, and electricity generation and transmission is managed in a way that:a) minimises demand for energy;b) increases efficiency of energy use;c) recognises the need for renewable energy development;d) reduces reliance on fossil fuels; ande) addresses adverse effects on natural and physical resources.Objective 3.4 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.4 Managing the built environment; and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.4.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe use of energy and the generation and transmission of electricity has the potentialto adversely impact on the natural and physical resources of the region but may alsocontribute to sustainability through the promotion of renewable and efficient energysources. Appropriate management of these activities can ensure any adverse effectsare addressed as appropriate. An important aspect of reducing the adverse effects ofenergy use and the generation and transmission of electricity is to ensure demand isminimised, thus reducing the need to develop new energy sources.3.4.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.4 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementObjective 3.4 will help to reduce reliance on non-renewableenergy sources and provide for the long-term energy needsof the population through the recognition of the need forrenewable energy development, and the reduction in relianceon fossil fuels. In this way, the potential of natural andphysical resources will be sustainably managed to meet theneeds of future generations.The management of the use of energy, and generation andtransmission of electricity through increases in efficiency ofenergy use, renewable energy development and reductionsin the use of fossil fuels will contribute to the overall health ofair, water, soil and ecosystem resources.Doc # 1451856 3-11

Purpose of RMAAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirsocial wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementBy aiming to minimise the demand for energy, Objective 3.4will help to avoid additional adverse effects associated withenergy use, and electricity generation and transmission. Thepreference for renewable energy sources will also help tominimise adverse effects caused by the use of nonrenewablesources.Objective 3.4 aims to manage the energy use, and electricitygeneration and transmission in a way that addresses adverseeffects on natural and physical resources. In this way, thevalues associated with social wellbeing (for example,amenity, recreation, sense of place) can be maintained.Energy resources and electricity generation are majorcontributors to the economy in the Waikato region andObjective 3.4 allows for this activity to continue whilstaddressing adverse effects and recognising the need forrenewable energy development. Renewable energy sourcedevelopment, and increases in efficiency of energy use maycontribute to improvements in the economic wellbeing ofpeople and communities of the region.The effects of energy use, and electricity generation andtransmission have the potential to impact on the culturalwellbeing of people and communities in the Waikato region.Cultural wellbeing is often linked to the protection of naturaland physical resources, and the values these resourcesprovide. Objective 3.4 aims to address the adverse effects ofenergy-related activities on these resources.Objective 3.4 aims to address the adverse effects of energyand electricity-related activities on the environment, includingeffects on water and air quality. In doing so, this willcontribute to the health and safety of people andcommunities using these resources, providing a safer andcleaner environment.3.4.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.4 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by increasing efficiency ofenergy use, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and managing the use of energy and thegeneration and transmission of electricity, to address the adverse effects on naturaland physical resources. This approach will help to minimise risks to human health,protect biodiversity and manage the demand for water, and therefore addresses Issue1.1.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.4 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by managing the use andgeneration of electricity to increase the efficiency of energy use, minimise demand forenergy and recognise the need for renewable electricity generation.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.4 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by managing the energy use,and electricity generation and transmission in a sustainable manner. Growth within theregion will result in an increasing demand for energy. This increasing demand will bemanaged through increases in efficiency of energy use, minimising demand wherepossible, and recognising the need for the development of renewable energy sources.It is necessary for this management to ensure that not only the current needs of the3-12 Doc # 1451856

community are met but also that we are sustainably managing energy resources forfuture generations. Objective 3.4 also targets reducing the adverse effects of energyinfrastructure (generation and transmission).Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.4 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by minimising the effects ofelectricity generation including the effects on water bodies such as the Waikato River.The Waikato River is an important resource for electricity generation within the regionand this generation is one of the key activities that can contribute to the degradation ofthe mauri of the river. Managing the effects of this activity will help to address thisissue.3.4.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.4 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it ensures that energy use, and electricity generation andtransmission are managed in a way that recognises the potential significant adverseeffects of these activities on resources and aims to address these effects to avoidfurther degradation of the state of the resources.Objective 3.4 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.3 (Providing forenergy demand) because it directly addresses the need to provide for the energyneeds of the community, which are increasing, while ensuring that the adverse effectsof energy use, and electricity generation and transmission are addressed, including theeffects of the use of freshwater.Objective 3.4 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing the builtenvironment) because it recognises the energy demands arising from development ofthe built environment and provides for meeting these demands while seeking to reducedemand for energy and encourage renewable forms which are more sustainable.Objective 3.4 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it recognises the role that electricitygeneration has on the Waikato River and aims to minimise the effects of electricitygeneration which will contribute to the restoration of the health and wellbeing of theriver.3.4.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.4 is considered achievable and reasonable because energy use, andelectricity generation and transmission are significant activities in the Waikato regionand have the potential to generate significant adverse effects on natural and physicalresources. The objective seeks to reduce demand for energy, encourage the use ofrenewable energy sources and minimise the effects of these activities whilst providingfor the energy needs of the community. The achievement of this objective will require aconsistent approach across the region and consideration to be given to this across anumber of different functions and resource areas. The integrated managementapproach taken in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement will help toachieve this and collaboration with other stakeholders also makes Objective 3.4achievable.3.4.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.4 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.Doc # 1451856 3-13

3.5 Adapting to climate changeLand use is managed to avoid the potential adverse effects of climate change inducedweather variability and sea level rise on:a) amenity;b) the built environment, including infrastructure;c) indigenous biodiversity;d) natural character;e) public safety; andf) public access.Objective 3.5 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change; and1.4 Managing the built environment.3.5.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe effects of climate change are not fully known. However through prudentmanagement of land use and infrastructure it is possible to limit the scale of adverseeffects that may be experienced. Sea level rise has the potential to create adverseeffects on the natural and physical environment and as such land use should bemanaged to minimise these effects.3.5.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.5 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementObjective 3.5 will contribute to ensuring appropriatemanagement practices are undertaken to sustain natural andphysical resources for future generations. This is pertinentfor the management of coastal processes as beaches, dunesand coastal wetland areas will be particularly vulnerable toclimate change impacts, such as sea level rise and increasedstorm events. Similarly, the ability to cope with variability inweather, for example droughts and floods, will affect ourability to provide for ourselves, and to manage our land in asustainable way.Objective 3.5 recognises the importance of understanding theimpacts of climate change on natural processes and ensuringthat resources are managed appropriately to avoid significantimpacts. Managing land use in the presence of sea level riseand climate change induced weather variability will assist inensuring that soils, water and other essential ecosystems areprotected, in order to support life.3-14 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.5 recognises that resources, in particular withinthe coastal environment, can be significantly influenced byclimate, which in turn drives physical processes. In the past,development decisions have been made that have ignoredpotential impacts from climate change. This has resulted inadverse effects on the built environment as well as on naturalresources, for example, accelerated erosion. Managing landuse and development carefully can avoid, remedy, or mitigatethe future impacts of climate change on natural processesand the built environment.Coastal areas are highly desirable locations for many peopleto live, and along with other resources such as water bodies,provide a range of recreation opportunities. Land usemanagement practices for dealing with the potential effects ofclimate change and ensuring adverse effects are minimisedwill allow continued use of the coastal area and other naturalresources which will enable people and communities toprovide for their social wellbeing.Economic wellbeing has the potential to be adverselyaffected by the impacts of climate change. Coastalresources are a significant contributor to industries such astourism and recreation. For agriculture, the effects ofweather variability such as droughts and floods are likely tobe an increasing issue. Ensuring the actual and potentialeffects of climate change are managed carefully will assist inincreasing the resilience of use and development activitiesthat support economic wellbeing.Many of the region’s resources are significant in providing forcultural wellbeing, including water bodies, the coastal areaand other natural resources. The natural functioning ofprocesses in the coastal area and in other resources is afundamental component of the cultural significance.Management of land use to avoid the likely impact of climatechange on resources will contribute to cultural and traditionalvalues.Objective 3.5 contributes to people and communities’ healthand safety by recognising the risks of climate change andmanaging land use in a way that minimises these risks to thecommunity.3.5.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.5 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising the potential forweather variability and sea level rise related to climate change. Achievement of thisobjective will result in land use activities being managed in a way that minimises theeffects of climate change on these activities and therefore minimises the potential fordegradation of natural and physical resources.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.5 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.2 as it directly addresses the riskposed by climate change from weather-related natural hazards and sea level rise. Theobjective recognises the potential adverse effects of climate change on natural andphysical resources, and on amenity, public safety and public access, and avoids theseeffects through land use management.Doc # 1451856 3-15

Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.5 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by recognising the importanceof understanding the climatic impacts on natural and physical resources and processesand ensuring there is appropriate management of land use activities in areas likely tobe affected by climate change, such as the coastal environment, where pressure fromdevelopment is high. This will also help to ensure that resources are more resilient tothe potential effects of climate change in the future.3.5.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.5 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources). Achievement of this objective requires consideration of the potentialimpacts of climate change and management of current and future land uses in amanner that minimises potential effects on natural and physical resources. Not doingthis would lead to further decline of these resources.Objective 3.5 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) because it directly addresses the potential risks of climate change relating tosea level rise and weather variability, and the objective seeks to manage land use in away that will minimise those risks.Objective 3.5 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing the builtenvironment) because it aims to ensure that land use activities are located in a mannerthat does not lead to future pressures from natural processes as a result of climatechange. Objective 3.5 clarifies the importance of understanding climatic impacts on thebuilt environment and ensuring that land use activities are managed appropriately toavoid the adverse effects of natural hazards and sea level rise caused by climatechange.3.5.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.5 is considered achievable and reasonable as climate change cannot beavoided and it is therefore essential that we look to manage activities so that climatechange does not cause significant adverse effects, wherever possible.By managing land use activities that have the potential to be adversely affected byclimate change we can minimise the effects on the region’s natural and physicalresources, as far as possible. This requires a collaborative approach between differentorganisations with the responsibility for managing land use activities and the integratedapproach taken throughout the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement will helpto achieve this. However, achievement of this objective will rely on up-to-dateinformation on a subject that is constantly changing and it will be important to have aflexible approach that takes into account any new or updated information.3.5.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.5 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.6 Managing the coastal environmentThe coastal environment is managed in an integrated way which:a) protects the unique features and values of the coastal environment;b) avoids conflicts between uses and values; andc) recognises the need to link marine-based and land-based activities.Objective 3.6 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;3-16 Doc # 1451856

1.4 Managing the built environment; and1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao).3.6.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe inter-related nature of elements of the coastal environment means that it isnecessary to manage this environment as an integrated unit, comprising both marineand land areas. In this manner, adverse effects generated in one area are not borneelsewhere and the uses of the coastal environment are strategic, collaborative andefficient.There are many competing uses within the coastal environment. Conflicts betweenuses and values will be avoided by providing direction in the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement about where and what uses are appropriate.The coastal environment crosses jurisdictional boundaries of the regional and territorialauthorities within the region and there is a need to ensure that there is an integratedapproach taken to activities on either side of the boundary of mean high water springs.In addition, Objective 3.6 gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement1994.3.6.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.6 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsAchievementObjective 3.6 recognises that the coastal environment is anintegrated unit that comprises both the marine waters and thelandward coastal areas. This objective is relevant tosustaining the potential of natural and physical resources, byrecognising that these two areas (that make up the coastalenvironment) are intimately linked and activities in one areagenerally impact the other. Therefore, there is a need torecognise the ‘unique features and values’ and managethese resources appropriately for future generations to useand enjoy.Natural coastal processes such as waves, currents andsediment transport will impact on the land-sea interface, withfluctuating trends of erosion and accretion. To besustainable for the future, development within the coastalenvironment (both on land and in marine waters) must bemanaged carefully and take into account natural processes.Objective 3.6 provides for the sustainable management ofresources by ensuring that the effects of land activities do notadversely impact on the marine area and vice versa.Achievement of this objective will require a co-ordinatedapproach and collaboration across local authorityjurisdictional boundaries. Strategic decisions that take intoaccount both the land and marine areas will help to protectthe coastal resources for future generations.Doc # 1451856 3-17

Purpose of RMASafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementObjective 3.6 recognises that co-ordinated management ofcoastal resources must take place to ensure that the lifesupportingcapacity of the marine area is safeguarded.Objective 3.6 recognises that the marine and coastal edgeecosystems are vulnerable to changes. To enable coastalprocesses to operate as naturally as possible, carefulmanagement of the land-sea interface will be required toensure that the life-supporting capacity of the marine area issafeguarded. In addition, while the marine area is significantin size, it is the near shore areas where highly abundant anddiverse ecosystems are under the most pressure from humanactivity. Objective 3.6 recognises the need to identify thevalues and uses of these areas and avoid the conflictsbetween them.Objective 3.6 seeks to ensure that the marine environment isnot just seen to be a ‘receiving environment’ for land-basedactivities, including in particular discharges, and recognisesthat decisions about land use in coastal catchments havesignificant effects on harbours and estuaries.Avoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingObjective 3.6 seeks to ensure that activities on land and inthe marine area of the coastal environment are managed asco-ordinated unit. A strategic approach to managementdecisions relating to activities in this area is therefore a keypart to managing adverse effects of activities in thisenvironment. Objective 3.6 seeks to ensure that activities aremanaged in a co-ordinated manner within the coastalenvironment (that is, the marine area as well as the landwardcoastal area). An integrated approach to managementdecisions relating to activities in this wider coastalenvironment area is critical to managing the adverse effectsresulting from subdivision, use and development activities. Inparticular, it recognises that the landward activities mayimpact on the marine activities and vice versa.The coast is a significant part of most New Zealanders’ socialand recreational experiences. Objective 3.6 seeks to ensurethat current and future generations can enjoy a range ofexperiences in the coastal environment. In this respect it iscritical that a co-ordinated and integrated approach is takento managing activities in the coastal environment to avoidsignificant adverse effects that may impact on people’s socialwellbeing.The coastal environment is a significant economic resourcefor marine industries (such as marine farming) as well as forcoastal communities (such as tourism support services).Objective 3.6 seeks to ensure that people can continue togain economic advantages from coastal resources both nowand in the future. It is therefore critical that an integrated andstrategic approach is taken to managing activities within thecoastal environment to minimise adverse effects and allowactivities that will enable people to provide for their economicwellbeing.3-18 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingAchievementFor all New Zealanders, the coastal environment area makesa significant contribution to their own and their communities’cultural wellbeing, in particular historical and recreationalvalues.Tāngata whenua regard the coastal environment as a holisticunit and have a range of customary and cultural associationswith the coastal environment. Objective 3.6 seeks to reinforcethis holistic approach by recognising that the impacts ofactivities on land may impact on marine areas (and viceversa). The objective also recognises the historical linksmany people have with coastal resources by ensuring thatdecisions made in regard to activities in this area take intoaccount the features and values people hold important.Enable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyBy recognising the integrated nature of the land and marineareas of the coastal environment, Objective 3.6 seeks toensure that the marine resources are not adversely affectedby use and development activities. The coastal features andvalues identified in this Objective 3.6 contribute to the healthand safety of people using the marine resources, as well asto their enjoyment.3.6.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.6 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising the: need for careful management of coastal land and marine resources to avoid thedecline of these resources; and impacts that subdivision, use and development can have on coastal resources.The Waikato region’s estuaries and harbours are heavily used for recreational pursuits.They are also affected by sediment and other contaminant (e.g. nutrient) inputs fromcatchment land uses. In addition, landward uses along the coastal edge can impact onthe ability of sand dunes and estuarine vegetation to fluctuate or migrate over time.Without an integrated approach to the management of the coastal environment theincreasing pressures from development of land on the sea could detrimentally affectthe quality of coastal resources. Objective 3.6 fulfils the need for integratedmanagement in the coastal environment in order to enhance the quality and quantity ofnatural and physical resources.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.6 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.2 by recognising that the coastalenvironment is particularly susceptible to the effects of sea level rise and weathervariability caused by climate change (e.g. storm surge).Objective 3.6 recognises the need for careful management of marine resources, inparticular the ability of natural physical processes to operate without hindrance fromlandward constraints (such as buildings) in order to ensure our health and safety.Achievement of Objective 3.6 will ensure that activities in the coastal environment aremanaged in an integrated way that avoids conflicting land uses and minimises thepotential for adverse effects on coastal processes, including those arising from climatechange.Doc # 1451856 3-19

Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.6 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by ensuring that anyopportunities for generating electricity within the coastal area: are appropriate; will not cause significant adverse effects on the unique features and values of thecoastal environment; and will not conflict with other uses.Marine energy is an emerging technology that would contribute significantly to NewZealand’s focus on renewable electricity sources. Proximity to shore and the ease oftransmission across land are key issues that require integrated management.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.6 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by ensuring that decisions onland-based activities are compatible with the marine area and activities are located in amanner that does not lead to future pressures from natural coastal processes on thebuilt environment. This requires an integrated approach to the coastal environmentthat recognises the importance of the wide range of natural values associated with thecoast.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.6 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the relationshipof tāngata whenua with the coastal environment by ensuring a holistic and integratedapproach is taken to managing coastal resources, in a way that protects the mauri ofthe environment and the unique features and values that are fundamental to tāngatawhenua.3.6.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.6 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it clearly recognises the integrated nature of the coastalenvironment. The objective provides a clear management direction that integrationacross the line of mean high water springs is essential to ensure the state of resourcesis managed appropriately.Objective 3.6 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) because it recognises that the effects of climate change, in particular sea levelrise, will be particularly relevant to the coastal environment and seeks to manageactivities within this environment to minimise any adverse effects, including thosearising from climate change.Objective 3.6 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.3 (Providing forenergy demand) because it recognises the need for ensuring that access to renewableenergy resources is provided for in a way that minimises the effects on the coastalenvironment by taking an integrated approach to land and marine-based energyactivities in the coastal environment. Objective 3.6 is also supported by the NewZealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 to which the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement has to give effect.Objective 3.6 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing the builtenvironment) because it recognises that there are development pressures within ourcoastal areas that need to be managed in a manner that avoids conflicts between usesand values, and requires an integrated approach. For example, the expansion ofaquaculture can impact on landing and transport infrastructure, and marinas canimpact on parking and access to areas of the coast. Objective 3.6 is also supported bythe New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 to which the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement has to give effect.3-20 Doc # 1451856

Objective 3.6 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it clearly sets out the need toidentify features, uses and values, and manage these features to protect them and toavoid conflicts between differing uses and values. This includes recognising therelationship tāngata whenua have with the coastal environment and ensuring coastalresources are managed appropriately and the integrated management of coastalresources reflects the holistic view of the coastal environment held by tāngata whenua.3.6.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.6 is considered achievable and reasonable because the coastalenvironment contains a number of different inter-related resources and cuts across thejurisdictional boundaries between the coastal marine area and landward part of thecoastal area and between local authorities. It therefore needs to be managed in anintegrated way in order to protect the unique features and values, and avoid conflictbetween uses. Integrated management is a function of regional councils as set out inSection 30(1)(a) and of territorial authorities as set out in Section 31(1)(a) of theResource Management Act.Objective 3.6 relies on a collaborative approach to managing the coastal environmentbetween organisations with responsibility for the marine area and the landward side.One of the functions of Waikato Regional Council is to work across territorial authorityboundaries and the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement has an underlyingtheme of integration and collaboration and it is therefore considered that Objective 3.6is achievable.3.6.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.6 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.7 Ecosystem servicesThe range of ecosystem services associated with natural resources are recognised andmaintained or enhanced to enable ongoing contribution to regional wellbeing.Objective 3.7 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.7.1 Principal reasons for adoptingPeople and communities depend on the services provided by the environment(ecosystem services) for their wellbeing. The environment provides people withobvious necessities such as food and fresh water but also less obvious services suchas storm protection and pollination. Development and other uses of resources canadversely impact on ecosystem services but at the same time ecosystem servicessustain development and resource use. It is necessary to identify and recognise therange of ecosystem services that contribute to our wellbeing and ensure that theseservices are maintained or enhanced.3.7.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.7 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Doc # 1451856 3-21

Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.7 provides for the sustainable management ofresources to ensure that economic, cultural and social valuesare recognised and enhanced. The objective recognises thebroad range of benefits of ecosystem services and seeks toensure the range of services is available for current andfuture generations.Objective 3.7 recognises that natural resources form part ofour economic, cultural and social values and in many casesthe ecosystem services provided by natural resources areirreplaceable, or difficult to replicate, and essential to life. Inorder to maintain and enhance ecosystem services, naturalresources need to be maintained to safeguard their lifesupportingcapacity.Objective 3.7 seeks to ensure that the range of ecosystemservices provided by natural resources is recognised andmaintained so that the resources can be managed in asustainable way.Objective 3.7 recognises the contribution that naturalresources make our social wellbeing through the provision ofa broad range of ecosystem services, including recreationvalues. This objective aims to maintain or enhance thiscontribution through an approach to decision making thatrecognises these values.Healthy ecosystems represent a significant contribution toeconomic wellbeing, for example to marine farming,agriculture and tourism. Objective 3.7 seeks to ensure thatpeople and communities can continue (into futuregenerations) to gain economic advantages from healthy andflourishing ecosystems that support economic activity byrecognising the value of ecosystems to economic activity andmaintaining or enhancing these ecosystems.Natural resources are a significant contributor to culturalwellbeing and in many cases there are historical linksbetween communities and regional resources. Objective 3.7recognises the cultural values that are associated withecosystem services, and seeks to maintain or enhancethese, enabling people to provide for their cultural wellbeinginto the future.By recognising the range of ecosystem services and theirvalues, Objective 3.7 seeks to maintain and enhance theseservices which will help to protect ecosystems. Protectingthese ecosystems ensures that they can continue to providethe services valued by people and communities, andcontribute to the health and safety of the regional community.3.7.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.7 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by requiring that the range ofecosystem services provided by the natural environment are recognised andmaintained, ensuring that the natural and physical environment remains healthy andthe state of resources is improved and continues to provide the necessities of life forpeople and communities.3-22 Doc # 1451856

Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.7 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.2. There are many servicesprovided by the environment that assist in moderating the effects of climate changeincluding the natural functioning of the coastal edge (particularly the buffering providedby mangroves and dune systems, for example), wetlands and their ability to mitigatethe effects of flood flows, etc. Maintaining or enhancing these ecosystem services willassist the region in addressing the effects of climate change.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.7 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3. A key ecosystem service is theability of the environment to provide renewable energy sources. Of particularrelevance to this region is the ability to generate electricity from hydro schemes andgeothermal resources. It is necessary to ensure that this aspect of the serviceprovided by these resources is recognised and the resource managed to ensure themaintenance or enhancement of these services.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.7 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the interconnectionsbetween humans and the environment, particularly in relation toecosystem services. The objective seeks to ensure that ecosystem services aremaintained and enhanced through a proactive, holistic and inclusive approach.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.7 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by recognising the ecosystemservices associated with natural resources, including those provided by the WaikatoRiver, and seeking to maintain or enhance these services through protection andrestoration of the river.3.7.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.7 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it recognises that the need and importance of maintainingecosystems services is dependent on the quality of our resources.Objective 3.7 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) as the services provided by ecosystems already exist and therefore if theirvalue is adequately recognised and provided for they can continue to be used to assistin reducing the adverse effects of climate change.The environment can provide us with renewable energy sources. The use of renewableenergy has many less adverse effects than non-renewable sources. However, theresources need to be managed appropriately to ensure that they can continue toprovide these services into the future. Objective 3.7 is useful for addressing part ofIssue 1.3 (Providing for energy demand) as it recognises the services provided by theenvironment, such as renewable energy sources.Objective 3.7 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it recognises the broad rangeof services and values provided by the natural resources in a way that is aligned withthe relationship of tāngata whenua and the environment and the cultural values thatecosystems services can provide.Objective 3.7 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it seeks to maintain or enhance theecosystem services provided by natural resources, including the Waikato River, andrecognises that maintenance and enhancement of the ecosystem services will beachieved in part through the wellbeing of the Waikato River.Doc # 1451856 3-23

3.7.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.7 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because the existence ofhealthy functioning ecosystems and the services they provide are essential to theeconomic, cultural and social wellbeing of the regional community. The naturalenvironment must be maintained or enhanced to enable ongoing contribution toregional wellbeing. The management of ecosystems is complex and requires anintegrated approach across a range of resource areas within the region. The ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement aims to achieve an integrated approach toresource management which would enable Waikato Regional Council to achieve thisobjective.3.7.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.7 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.8 Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment (te taiao)The relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment is recognised and providedfor, including:a) the provision for use and enjoyment of natural and physical resources inaccordance with tikanga Māori;b) the role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki.Objective 3.8 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.8.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe strong relationship between tāngata whenua and the environment is recognised inthe Resource Management Act and by Waikato Regional Council. This relationshipshould be provided for and enhanced where possible. Objective 3.8 recognises thisrelationship.3.8.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.8 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementRecognising tāngata whenua as kaitiaki in their relationshipwith the environment supports the sustainable use ofresources, which is one of the main principles of the kaitiakirole. Use and enjoyment of natural and physical resourceswill be in accordance with the guardianship of the kaitiaki,protecting these resources for the use and enjoyment offuture generations.The role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki includes the protectionof natural resources to maintain their life-supporting capacityinto the future. Objective 3.8 recognises the importance ofthis role.3-24 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.8 aims to provide for the use and enjoyment ofresources and for tāngata whenua to exercise their role askaitiaki, which includes protecting these resources fromadverse effects where possible.Objective 3.8 recognises the importance of the relationship oftāngata whenua through recognition of their tikanga and roleas kaitiaki. Allowing for the use and enjoyment of naturalresources also contributes to social wellbeing.Objective 3.8 allows for the use and enjoyment of naturalresources in accordance with tikanga Māori, which includesuses that contribute to the economic wellbeing of people andcommunities. Recognising the role of tāngata whenua askaitiaki will help to sustain natural resources and theircontribution to long-term economic wellbeing associated withthe use of natural and physical resources in the region.Recognising that tāngata whenua have a relationship with theland both as kaitiaki and through their tikanga Māori providesfor the cultural wellbeing of tāngata whenua as these rolesare central to their cultural values.Recognising tāngata whenua as kaitiaki will enhance thequality of natural and physical resources, which willcontribute to the health and safety of people andcommunities. Community health is an outcome of the holisticconsideration of where food is produced or collected withinthe region. The collection and use of resources for thepurposes of traditional medicine also contributes to the healthof the community.3.8.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.8 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by allowing tāngata whenua theability to be involved in, or influence, decisions relating to resource management. Thisis done by providing for the use of resources in accordance with tikanga Māori andrecognising the role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki of which the protection of resourcesis a key element. In fulfilling this role, the declining state of resources would beaddressed.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.8 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 as it directly recognises therelationship between tāngata whenua and the environment. It provides for the use andenjoyment of natural and physical resources in accordance with tikanga Māori, whichmay include the ability to be involved in or influence management decisions; andacknowledges the role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki, which allows them to haveinfluence in resource use.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.8 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by acknowledging the role ofMāori as kaitiaki in relation to the environment, including the Waikato River. Thisrelationship is explicitly recognised with regards to Waikato River Iwi in the Vision andStrategy for the Waikato River and Objective 3.8 will help to address this issue.Doc # 1451856 3-25

3.8.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.8 is the most useful way of addressing Issue part of 1.1 (State ofresources) because it recognises maaturanga Māori which informs tikanga and kawa,guiding resource management practices. Through the concept of guardianship,sustainable management of the environment will be achieved in the long term whichwill help to improve the state of resources.Objective 3.8 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it directly seeks to addressthe issue of the relationship between tāngata whenua and the environment.Objective 3.8 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it recognises the relationship of tāngatawhenua as kaitiaki with regard to the river, which in turn will promote communityresponsibility and the sustainable management of the river in the long term.3.8.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.8 is considered achievable and reasonable as the relationship betweentāngata whenua and the environment is essential to the economic, cultural and socialvalues of Waikato Iwi. The objective recognises this relationship and the ongoingcontribution to regional wellbeing for people and communities.Waikato Regional Council has ongoing relationships with iwi groups and is progressingdiscussions on partnership on a number of issues, such as the Waikato River. It isconsidered that Objective 3.8 is achievable as there are already processes in placeand willingness to co-operate to work towards this.3.8.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.8 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.9 Efficient use of resourcesUse and development of natural and physical resources occurs in a way and at a ratethat is efficient and minimises the generation of waste.Objective 3.9 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.4 Managing of the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.9.1 Principal reasons for adoptingUse of natural and physical resources should be managed in a way that protects and,where possible, enhances valuable resources for future generations. This use shouldalso avoid irreversible adverse effects where possible to allow for the sustainable useof these resources now and into the future. The balancing of uses should consider theoverall efficiency of the respective uses.In order to limit potential impacts on natural and physical resources we need to beefficient in the way that these resources are used.3.9.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.9 in achieving the purposeof the Resource Management Act:3-26 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirsocial wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.9 is directly linked to the purpose of the ResourceManagement Act as it seeks to make efficient use of naturaland physical resources. Efficient use and development inthis context takes a broad view, considering the range ofcosts and benefits from a long-term perspective. This willhelp to sustain the potential of natural and physical resourcesto meet the needs of future generations.Using resources in an efficient way and minimising theproduction of waste (particularly to air, water and soils) willminimise potential impacts on natural resources andecosystems, therefore safeguarding their life-supportingcapacity.The efficient use of resources seeks to use resources in away that will maximise the benefits of this use whilstminimising the adverse effects, including the generation ofwaste. By aiming to use resources more efficiently, Objective3.9 is seeking to avoid effects by locating activities in themost appropriate location through efficient use of landresources and minimising effects caused by activities throughmore efficient processes.Objective 3.9 provides for people’s and communities’ socialwellbeing by allowing use and development of natural andphysical resources, taking into account the range of costsand benefits associated with activities, whilst seeking tominimise waste generation. This recognises the linksbetween the environment, use of resources and socialwellbeing.Objective 3.9 provides for the economic wellbeing of peopleand communities by allowing use and development of naturaland physical resources but recognises the importance ofensuring that these resources are used efficiently. Theefficient use of resources and minimisation of waste willcontribute to economic wellbeing over the long term.Objective 3.9 provides for the cultural wellbeing of peopleand communities by seeking to manage the use anddevelopment of resources efficiently. This long-term outlookwill include evaluating how the use of resources impacts oncultural wellbeing.Objective 3.9 enables people and communities to provide fortheir health and safety by using resources efficiently and byseeking to minimise waste generation. Long-term health andsafety is dependent on this approach.3.9.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.9 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by seeking to minimise anywaste being generated through the use of resources which has the potential toadversely affect the quality of natural resources, such as water and air. It also seeksthe efficient use of natural and physical resources which will provide a framework fordecision making between competing activities, for example demand for fresh water,which takes into account the efficiency of the end use of the resource.Doc # 1451856 3-27

Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.9 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by allowing further developmentof energy resources and seeking the most efficient use of these natural and physicalresources. This includes in energy use, and electricity generation and transmission,which will take into account the adverse effects of this infrastructure and the competinguses of resources.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.9 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by seeking to use natural andphysical resources efficiently while ensuring the evaluation of the costs and benefits ofactivities to people and communities. This objective assists in addressing the issueparticularly the issue of conflict with, and demand for, infrastructure through siteselection.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.9 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by evaluating activities throughthe identification and evaluation of costs and benefits affecting the wellbeing of peopleand communities, including tāngata whenua.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.9 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by seeking to minimise adverseeffects on the mauri of the Waikato River by minimising the generation of waste.Further, efficient use of natural and physical resources (including the river itself) willconsider the river’s ability to sustainably and safely provide food and cultural, economicand recreation opportunities, and the value of this to the regional community.3.9.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.9 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because seeking to use natural and physical resources efficiently andminimising waste generation will directly contribute to addressing the declining state ofresources within the region, and the efficient use of resources is in accordance with theoverall purpose of the Resource Management Act.Objective 3.9 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.3 (Providing forenergy demand) because seeking to use natural and physical resources efficiently willresult in identifying of the most suitable sites for electricity generation based onevaluation of the four wellbeings including adverse effects on the environment, and willprovide a framework for comparison of competing activities.Objective 3.9 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing the builtenvironment) because it allows for development of the built environment but seeks touse resources efficiently and minimise the generation of waste, which will provide aframework for assessing conflicting and competing demands on resources.Objective 3.9 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it seeks to use resourcesefficiently and minimise waste while still allowing the use of natural and physicalresources. Evaluation of efficient use of resources takes account of cultural outcomes,along with social, economic and environmental outcomes.Objective 3.9 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it recognises the need for use of resources,including the river, and guides decision making in terms of efficiency while minimisingwaste generation, which has the potential to impact on the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River.3-28 Doc # 1451856

3.9.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.9 is considered achievable and reasonable because managing resourcesin an efficient manner enables better use of the regional resources that balances theneeds of different users and minimises conflicts that may arise. Taking an integratedapproach to resource management will help to achieve the efficient use of resources,as the effects of activities will be assessed in their entirety and the costs and benefitswill be considered in decision making. Objective 3.9 is therefore considered achievablebecause the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement seeks to achieve integratedmanagement throughout and in order to manage resources efficiently, this is a keyfactor.3.9.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.9 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.10 Air qualityAir quality is managed in a way that:a) ensures that where air quality is better than national environmental standardsand guidelines for ambient air, any degradation is as low as reasonablyachievable;b) avoids unacceptable risks to human health and ecosystems, with high priorityplaced on achieving compliance with national environmental standards andguidelines for ambient air;c) avoids, where practicable, adverse effects on local amenity values and people’swellbeing including from discharges of particulate matter, smoke, odour and dust;andd) recognises that it is appropriate that some areas will have a lower amenity thanother areas.Objective 3.10 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.4 Managing the built environment.3.10.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe principal reasons for adopting part a) of Objective 3.10 are to ensure air quality ismanaged to keep any degradation as low as reasonably achievable in areas where airquality is acceptable. This allows new use but limits that use to ensure that, where airquality meets acceptability criteria and where technology is readily available tominimise the discharge, the allocation cannot simply be used up to a maximum level.Part b) of Objective 3.10 sets bottom line limits to ensure air quality meets a level thatdoes not pose unacceptable risks to human health and ecosystems as defined bystandards and guidelines. There are areas in the region where air quality does notmeet thresholds set to protect human health, in particular the National EnvironmentalStandard for fine particulate matter (or PM 10 ). The objective signals that high prioritywill be given to achieving compliance to ensure that air is of an acceptable quality inthe future.Amenity values can also be impacted by discharges to air. Part c) of Objective 3.10seeks to avoid such effects, while part d) recognises that different land uses havevarying sensitivity to amenity impacts so that lower amenity can be expected in someareas compared to what would be acceptable elsewhere.Doc # 1451856 3-29

3.10.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.10 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentAchievementObjective 3.10 enables use of air but within limits that keep anydegradation as low as reasonably achievable. This sustains thepotential of air to support life and will ensure air is managed toachieve an acceptable quality for future generations.Air is fundamental to life. Both life’s abundance and quality areenhanced by clean air. Part b) of Objective 3.10 provides bottomlineprotection from unacceptable risks to both humans andecosystems in order to safeguard that life.Objective 3.10 part a) seeks to minimise degradation in air quality,which serves to avoid adverse effects on the environment. Part b)places high priority on achieving compliance where there isunacceptable risk to human health and ecosystems. Theremediation of adverse effects on the health of populations exposedto fine particulate matter (PM 10 ) will be achieved by placing highpriority on achieving compliance with the national environmentalstandard.Part c) will serve to avoid, where practicable, adverse effects onamenity, principally through appropriate controls on discharges.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingGood air quality makes people feel good, both mentally andphysically. Under Objective 3.10 part a), air quality will be managedso that any degradation is as low as reasonably achievable in areaswhere air quality is better than standards and guidelines, thusmaintaining wellbeing.Part b) will serve to reduce impacts such as premature deaths andrestricted activity days due to elevated levels of air pollutants, inparticular PM 10 . Restricted activity days include days off work orschool for respiratory-related complaints e.g. asthma. Socialwellbeing will be better provided by avoiding premature deaths, andor lessening reduced activity days due to illness.Part c) seeks to avoid adverse effects on amenity values. Amenityassociated with air that has good visibility, and is free fromobjectionable odour, dust and smoke, enables people to provide fortheir social wellbeing, for example, enjoyment of an outdoor lifestylewithout being adversely affected by local discharges or activities.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingDirect economic benefits are gained through Objective 3.10, whichenables resource use, albeit within limits that will ensure the air’slife-supporting capacity is safeguarded and adverse effects onamenity are avoided where practicable. Ensuring air quality is notallowed to pose unacceptable risks to human health andecosystems via part b) brings economic benefits through reducedburden on the health system and fewer days off sick from work orschool. Good air quality provides economic benefits to the Waikato;a green image assists with marketing of primary produce and of theenvironment for tourism. Objective 3.10 provides for additional useof air with its attendant economic benefits, provided degradation isas low as reasonably achievable. Individual point sources requiringconsent will be assessed, accepting that air dispersion modelingmay show elevated concentrations at some locations, but thefrequency, exposure and magnitude of these peaks will be3-30 Doc # 1451856

¾ºº ÈÇÄÇÁÏËÁÅïÇÌÀÌa 1 ,...,a k ØÓÙÑ ∆ m A n−1(0) = ∆ m (A n−1 )º  ÔÓÜÓÙÑ Ø ØÓ ∆ m A n−1(k)Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n − 2 n k, 0 ≤ k ≤mº k =0ÙØ Ñ Ò ØÓ ÞØÓÑÒÓ ÔÓØÐ×ÑºÇ ×ÕÙÖ×Ñ Ñ Ò Ð n = 1 Ø ØÓ ÑÓÒ ×ØÓÕÓ ØÓÙ∆ m (A n−1 ) × ÙØÒ ØÒ ÔÖÔØÛ× Ò ØØÖÑÑÒ ÑÖ׺ ËØ ×ÙÒÕÙÔØÓÙÑ Ø ØÓ ∆ m A l(m−k) Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× l−1 1 ≤ l ≤ n − 1 0 ≤ k ≤ m ÔÓÒÓÙÑ Ø ØÓ ∆ m A n(m − k) ÒÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n − 1 k¸ 0 ≤ k ≤ mº ÉÖ×¹ÑÓÔÓÓÑ ÔÛ Û ÔÖÓ kº k =0ØÓ ÑÓÒÓÔÐØ ×ÑÔÐÑ ∆ m A n(m)Ò ×ÑÓÖÓ Ñ ØÓÒ ôÒÓv ∗ ∆ m A n−1(0)¸ Ó ÓÔÓÓ Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n−1 ÐÛ ÔÛ ÄÑÑØÓ ¾º¾º ÍÔÓØÓÙÑ ×Ø ×ÙÒ¹Õ Ø ØÓ ∆ m A n(m−k) Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n−1. Ò ÜÓÙÑ ØÓ Ó ØÓ ∆ m A n(m − k − 1)¸ ÛÖÓÑ Ø ÛÒÓÙ v 1 ,...,v n ÑÖÓ ØÓ a m−k ØØÑÒ ×ÑÛÒ Ñ ØÒ¸ Ø Ø ÓÖ ØÓÙ ÖÓÐÓÓ¸ ØÜØÛÒ ÓÖØôÒ Ô ØÓ a m−k ÖÛÒ ØÓÙ¸ ÔÛ ×ØÓ ËÕÑ ¾º¾º ÖÑÞÓÙÑØÓ ÄÑÑ ¾º½ ×ØÓ ∆ m A n(m − k − 1) ØÓ ×ÒÓÐÓ ÛÒÛÒ {v 1 ,...,v n }º ÃØÖ¹ÕÒ¸ ÔÖØÖÓÑ Ø ∆ m A n(m − k − 1) \{v 1 ,...,v n } =∆ m A n(m − k)¸ ØÓ ÓÔÓÓÒ ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n−1 ÐÛ ÔÛº ÔÓÑÒÛ¸ ×ÙÒ (i) ØÓÙ ÄÑÑØÓ ¾º½ ÒÓÔÓغ ËØ ×ÙÒÕ ×ÕÙÖÞÑ×Ø ØØÓ ∆ i =∆ m A n(m − k − 1)/v i \{v 1 ,...,v i−1 } Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø ÓÖÙ Õ ×Ø× n − 2 i =1,...,nº ÈÖØÖÓÑ Ø ØÓ ×ÑÔÐÑ ∆ iÔÖÓÔØ Ô ØÓ ∆ m A n/v i ÖÓÒØ Ø ÛÒÓÙ v 1 ,...,v i−1 ô Ô× Ð Ø ÛÒÓÙ Ñ ÖÓ ÔÓÓ Ô Ø a 1 ,...,a m−k−1 º Ô׸ ¹ôÒÓ v i ÙÔÓÖ ØÓ (2m(n +1)+2)¹ÛÒÓ × Ò (mi +2)¹ÛÒÓ ×ØÓ ÓÔÓÓÒÓÙÒ Ø ×Ñ a 1 ,...,a m−k × Ò (m(n +1− i) +2)¹ÛÒÓº ÔÓÑÒ¹Û¸ ÖÓÒØ Ø ÔÖÓÒÖÑÒ ÛÒÓÙ Ô ØÓ ∆ m A n/v i ×ÓÙÒÑ ÑØÓ Ò ÖÝÓÙÑ Ð Ø ÛÒÓÙ Ñ ÖÓ ÔÓÓ Ô Ø a 1 ,...,a m−k ×ØÓ(mi +2)¹ÛÒÓº Ô ÙØ ÔØ Ø ØÓ ×ÑÔÐÑ ∆ i Ò ÑÓÒÓÔÐØ ×Ò¹× Ó ×ÙÑÔÐÑØÛÒ ×ÑÓÖÛÒ Ñ ∆ m A i−1(m − k) ∆ m A n−i(0) ÒØ×ØÓÕÛºÙØ ÑÛ Ò ÒÐ×Ñ Ø ÓÖÙ ÐÛ ØÓÙ ÄÑÑØÓ ¾º¾ ÐÛ Ô¹Û Õ Ø ×Ø× ÔÓÙ ÐÓÙѺ ÔÓÑÒÛ¸ ×ÙÒ (ii) ØÓÙ ÄÑÑØÓ ¾º½ÒÓÔÓØ ÙØ ÓÐÓÐÖôÒ ØÒ ÔÜ ÑºÈÖØ× ¾º¾º ÌÓ ÑÓÒÓÔÐØ ×ÑÔÐÑ ∆ m (B n ) Ò ÒÐ×ÑÓ Ø Ó¹ÖÙºÔܺ ³ÇÔÛ ÔÖÓÓÙÑÒÛ¸ ÔÓÜÓÙÑ ØÓ ÒØ×ØÓÕÓ ×ÕÙÖØÖÓÔÓØÐ×Ѻ ³×ØÛ Ò (2mn +2)¹ÛÒÓ P v Ñ ÐÕ×Ø B¹ôÒÓ¸Ð Ñ ôÒÓ ÓÔÓ ÙÔÓÖ ØÓ P × Ò ÞÓ (m+2)¹ôÒÛÒ Ò

Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.10 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 in that it avoids, wherepractical, adverse effects on local amenity values (part c) and recognises that somegeographic areas will have lower amenity than others (part d).3.10.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.10 is useful as it sets a direction for managing air quality that is consistentwith the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act.Objective 3.10 is the most useful way of addressing parts of Issues 1.1 and 1.4because it provides specific direction for Waikato Regional Council to manage air.Without the direction provided, the region could expect to see areas of non-compliancecontinue, air quality degraded in the medium to long term and increasing incidence ofadverse effects on amenity, reducing wellbeing.The National Environmental Standard for Air Quality places certain obligations onWaikato Regional Council in regards to air quality. Objective 3.10 is useful as itsachievement will ensure that Waikato Regional Council meets the legislativeobligations.Objective 3.10 provides the platform to develop policies and methods while stillproviding enough detail and direction to be usefully applied to decisions and bemeasurable. The most immediate need in relation to human health risk is to take actionto reduce PM 10 levels in non-complying areas and the objective provides clear directionfor this.3.10.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.10 is considered achievable and reasonable because it is within thefunctions and powers of Waikato Regional Council to achieve these outcomes. Bothregulatory and non-regulatory approaches are directly available to Waikato RegionalCouncil to have influence over achievement of the objective.3.10.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above, Objective 3.10 is assessed as appropriate for achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act.3.11 Built environmentDevelopment of the built environment (including transport and other infrastructure) andassociated land use occurs in an integrated, sustainable and planned manner whichprovides for positive environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes, includingby:a) promoting positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes;b) integrating land use and infrastructure planning;c) recognising the value and long-term benefits of regionally significant infrastructureand protecting regionally significant transport and energy corridors;d) protecting access to identified mineral resources;e) minimising land use conflicts, including minimising potential for reverse sensitivitywith existing land uses; andf) anticipating and responding to changing land use pressures outside the Waikatoregion which may impact on the built environment within the region.Objective 3.11 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.4 Managing the built environment;3-32 Doc # 1451856

1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.11.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThere is a need to ensure appropriate co-ordination between territorial authorities andWaikato Regional Council in order to manage the built environment, transport andinfrastructure.Growth and development patterns need to be managed in order to achieve thesustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 30 (1)(gb) of theResource Management Act gives regional councils the function of achieving ‘thestrategic integration of infrastructure and land use through objectives, policies andmethods’. To achieve this, as well as to better support Waikato Regional Council’sfunctions of management of the natural and physical resources of the region, thereneeds to be greater integration between territorial authorities, Waikato RegionalCouncil, iwi partners and key stakeholders with respect to land use.There is a need to change the way the development of the built environment ismanaged so that the pattern of land use is integrated, planned and sustainable in thelong term.Objective 3.11 aims to achieve positive environmental, social, cultural and economicoutcomes, and it lists a number of specific matters to address (listed a) to f)).3.11.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.11 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingAchievementProactive planning for the built environment that tries to anticipateand manage any long-term cumulative adverse effects ofdevelopment will help sustain the potential of resources to meet theneeds of future generations.Ensuring the development of the built environment occurs in anintegrated, sustainable and planned manner will help safeguard thelife-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems. Some ofthe specific matters raised in Objective 3.11 are for this purpose,such as promoting positive biodiversity outcomes.Proactive planning for the built environment that tries to anticipateand manage effects of development will help to minimise adverseeffects of activities on the environment.Objective 3.11 specifically aims to manage the built environment toachieve positive social outcomes. Ensuring good planningprocesses are in place for managing development will help toenable people to provide for their social wellbeing through theplanning process.Objective 3.11 specifically aims to manage the built environment toachieve positive economic outcomes. Ensuring good planningprocesses are in place for managing development will help toenable people to provide for their economic wellbeing withoutreducing other wellbeings.Doc # 1451856 3-33

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementObjective 3.11 specifically aims to manage the built environment toachieve positive cultural outcomes. Ensuring good planningprocesses are in place for managing development will help toenable people to provide for their cultural wellbeing through theplanning process.A well-planned built environment that functions well and that isserviced by appropriate infrastructure will enable people to providefor their health and safety.3.11.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesDevelopment of the built environment, transport and other infrastructure has had anumber of adverse effects on the quality and availability of natural resources in theWaikato region. For example, urban and rural-residential development has reducedoptions for productive use of high quality soils and has reduced availability of mineralresources in some cases. In some cases, development has reduced biodiversityresources such as by clearing indigenous vegetation, and creating barriers tomigration. Urban stormwater can reduce water quality in lakes and small streams.Development of building platforms and infrastructure has sometimes resulted in soilerosion and sedimentation of water bodies. Urban development can lead to air qualitydeterioration. Objective 3.11 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by ensuring thatdevelopment of the built environment is planned so that effects on the quality andavailability of natural resources are reduced.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeClimate change has the potential to increase damage to the built environment fromstorms, coastal flooding and erosion. Objective 3.11 substantially addresses part ofIssue 1.2 by requiring a more planned, sustainable and integrated approach todevelopment of the built environment, considering the potential effects of climatechange. Planning more proactively for development will help to direct it to areas lessprone to climate change effects such as flooding and coastal erosion. It will allowdevelopment to better adapt to climate change risks by, for example, ensuringstormwater systems are designed to cope with larger storm events.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandIssue 1.3 recognises that energy demands are increasing and that new energydevelopments and additional transmission infrastructure will be required. Developmentof the built environment can reduce the ability to develop new energy sources such asby locating rural-residential development near potential wind energy sources or inareas where new electricity transmission lines are required. The way the builtenvironment develops can also affect energy demand and the ability to use energyefficiently, for example, urban sprawl and development which does not easily allowpublic transport services and increases transport energy demand. Objective 3.11substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by requiring more planned and sustainabledevelopment.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentIssue 1.4 specifically raises concerns about the adverse impacts of development of thebuilt environment. Objective 3.11 will help to address the adverse effects ofdevelopment, particularly in the parts of the region where there is high pressure fordevelopment such as around Hamilton. It will help to address the potential for naturalhazards, increasing conflicts with and demands for infrastructure, and effects ofdevelopment on access to mineral resources, high quality soils and future energydevelopment sites.3-34 Doc # 1451856

Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Development of the built environment can impact on many of the matters raised inIssue 1.5. By encouraging a more planned and proactive way to manage the builtenvironment, many of these matters can be addressed. For example, planningprocesses can ensure that tāngata whenua have input into development planning sotheir concerns can be raised and addressed. Promoting positive environmental, social,cultural and economic outcomes from development of the built environment willsubstantially address part of Issue 1.5.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverThere are a large number of urban areas along the length of the Waikato River, andincreasing rural-residential development on its margins. Development of the builtenvironment has contributed to some of the degradation in the health and wellbeing ofthe Waikato River such as through stormwater and wastewater discharges, dischargesof sediment during earthworks, and clearing of riparian vegetation. Some infrastructure,such as hydro dams, have greatly impacted on the river, for example by preventing fishmigration. More proactive planning for development of the built environment that seeksto achieve positive outcomes across the four wellbeings will help to reduce impacts ofdevelopment on the river. Objective 3.11 will therefore substantially address part ofIssue 1.6.3.11.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.11 is a useful way of addressing part of Issues 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and1.6 because without it there would be no regional direction or framework for integratingthe management of the built environment. It will provide a strong basis for WaikatoRegional Council to be actively involved in management of the built environment. Thisis important because development of the built environment can affect many of thematters that the council is charged with managing. It is a vital part of meeting regionalcouncil obligations and functions under the Resource Management Act andcomplementary legislation.Objective 3.11 provides the platform for developing a suite of policies and methods andprovides enough detail and direction to be useful and measurable. The objective willsupport many other objectives that can be impacted by development of the builtenvironment.3.11.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Waikato Regional Council has the functions, powers and policy tools to achieveObjective 3.11 (Section 30 Resource Management Act). Given the consistency ofObjective 3.11 with a number of statutory and non-statutory documents, and thefunctions of other agencies and authorities, Waikato Regional Council can realisticallyexpect to work collaboratively with and influence other parties to achieve this outcomeas part of achieving integrated management.The built environment objective will not be achieved in isolation. The objectiverepresents a process that will occur over time. Some outcomes may not be fullyachieved over the lifetime of this Waikato Regional Policy Statement but at each reviewof the document (or every five years as part of Resource Management Act Section 35monitoring) clear progress toward Objective 3.11 can be demonstrated.3.11.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.11 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.Doc # 1451856 3-35

3.12 Marine water qualityThe mauri and health of marine waters is maintained and where necessary enhancedto provide for human uses and values, and the health of marine ecosystems. Inparticular, the adverse cumulative effects of different land use activities on water in thecoastal marine area are reduced.Objective 3.12 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao).3.12.1 Principal reasons for adoptingObjective 3.12 gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994.Activities that occur on land affect the coastal marine area, particularly marine waterquality. Due to the vast and dynamic nature of oceans, the assimilative capacity islarge and impacts on water quality are often not well understood or considered.In relation to marine water quality, little consideration has been given in the past to thecumulative impacts of activities within catchments on the marine receivingenvironment; rather the consideration of effects has focused on more local impacts.While the effects of activities might be considered negligible off-shore due to mixingand assimilation, our near shore environment is more vulnerable to the effects ofcontaminants.The quality of marine water is fundamental to the social, cultural and economicwellbeing of people who use and enjoy the marine area, and for ensuring the health ofmarine ecosystems.3.12.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.12 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentAchievementObjective 3.12 sustains the potential or resources and provides forthe needs of future generations by ensuring that marine waterquality is maintained at a standard that meets people’s uses andvalues and protects marine ecosystems.This recognises that there are areas where water quality isdegraded and that the water quality in those areas needs to beimproved. Water quality is important for people’s use andenjoyment and there is a general expectation that swimming andshellfish gathering, in particular, should be able to occureverywhere. Marine water quality is also important for sustainingmarine life and ecosystems.The quality of marine water can have a significant impact on thelife-supporting capacity of the marine area. Marine life isfundamentally reliant on good water quality for survival. Objective3.12 recognises the importance of protecting water quality as afundamental part of the overall marine ecosystem.Objective 3.12 recognises that land use and catchment activitiesimpact on marine water quality (including having cumulativeadverse effects over time). This occurs from direct and indirectdischarges into marine waters and is also significantly impacted bythe quality of water flowing from rivers and streams.3-36 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAAchievementThe coastal marine area dilutes contaminant concentrations viaexchange with the open ocean. However, the dilution capacity of aspecific coastal environment depends on its hydrodynamicconditions and can be restricted in regions with low flushing. Manyof these coastal environments are intensively used and highlyvalued as they provide safe access to the sea. The resultingcumulative impacts pose a particularly high risk of degraded waterquality. In order to maintain and enhance the mauri and health ofmarine water, it will be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigateadverse effects from direct and indirect discharges to marine water.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyThe coast contributes significantly to many people’s recreationaland social wellbeing. Objective 3.12 reflects the importance ofensuring that water quality is managed so that people can continueto enjoy the water quality to the same or higher levels than theycurrently value. This includes being able to swim and gathershellfish safely.Objective 3.12 recognises that marine water quality is fundamentalto industries such as fishing, aquaculture and tourism, as well as toother commercial activities associated with recreation. Ensuringmarine water quality is managed appropriately will ensure thatpeople and communities can continue to gain economic value fromthe marine area.New Zealanders place significant value on the quality of water andits intrinsic values. Objective 3.12 recognises the need to manageactivities in a way that ensures the mauri of marine water isprotected and that marine water quality is not degraded.Recreation, tourism, fishing and aquaculture are among thesignificant uses of the marine area. Objective 3.12 recognises theimportance of high water quality for the maintenance of people’shealth, for example from direct contact from swimming, as well asensuring safe and healthy seafood for human consumption.3.12.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.12 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising the need forcareful management of activities that impact on marine water quality. Marine speciesand their habitat are fundamentally reliant on good marine water quality, as is theeconomic, cultural, and recreational wellbeing of tāngata whenua, people andcommunities.The marine environment is an extremely large and complex area, but regarding it as asink will jeopardise the mauri of the water and water quality over time. Therefore,Objective 3.12 clearly states that marine water quality will be managed to ensure anydegradation over time is managed appropriately.Marine water quality is a significant part of natural character and is significant for Māorirelationships with the sea, as provided for in Sections 6 and 7 of the ResourceManagement Act.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)Objective 3.12 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring a holistic andintegrated approach is taken to managing coastal resources, in a way that protects themauri of the environment and the unique features and values that are fundamental toDoc # 1451856 3-37

tāngata whenua. Maintaining or enhancing marine water quality will support the safeharvesting of kai moana which is an important aspect of Māori culture.3.12.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.12 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources), and Issue 1.5 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment(te taiao)) because it clearly recognises the importance of maintaining (and enhancing)marine water quality and ensuring it is not degraded from adverse effects of activitiesincluding cumulative effects from within the marine area as well as from land use andcatchment activities.3.12.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.12 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because marine waterquality is fundamental to people’s health, use and enjoyment of the marine area and forsupporting the marine life and ecosystems within it.3.12.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.12 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.13 Mauri and health of fresh water bodiesThe mauri and health of fresh water bodies are protected by:a) recognising and maintaining the following values:i) natural character and natural functioning;ii) health and functioning of indigenous biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats;iii) the relationship of tāngata whenua with fresh water;iv) availability and suitability of drinking water;v) harvesting of aquatic food species and mahinga kai that is safe to eat; andvi) recreation values including swimming;b) restoring or enhancing the values of fresh water bodies where they have beendegraded as a result of human activities, with demonstrable progress made by2030;c) protecting the values of fresh water bodies where they are high; andd) while not detracting from the above values, enabling people and communities toprovide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health andsafety.Objective 3.13 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.13.1 Principal reasons for adoptingObjective 3.13 sets out the importance of the mauri or ‘life force’ of water bodies andthe expectation that water bodies will be healthy and the mauri protected. Theseaspects, together with the values listed in a) result in a broader assessment of valuesthan is provided by Waikato Regional Council’s current abiotic water quality monitoringprogramme.Objective 3.13 recognises that some water bodies have high values and that thesewater bodies should not be allowed to degrade. It also acknowledges that some waterbodies do not currently provide for the values, and sets the expectation that over thelong term, all water bodies will achieve the set of values listed in a). For water bodiesthat do not currently meet the identified values, actions taken to effect improvements3-38 Doc # 1451856

should be in place with progress in achieving the values able to be demonstrated by2030. Improvements to water bodies may occur over a longer period of time; andsignificant intervention may be needed to maintain or improve some water bodies overthe long term, with associated costs and timeframes developed through regional anddistrict planning processes.The values listed in a) reflect the range of values that the community considersimportant for water bodies and encompasses water quality, water quantity andecological health indicators.Objective 3.13 also recognises that water bodies have value to the community for theiruse but that it is important that the use of these resources does not compromise thevalues of the water bodies.3.13.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.13 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of the RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet theneeds of futuregenerationsAchievementObjective 3.13 sets a long-term policy direction by providing a basisfor the assessment and management of water bodies according totheir value to the community. The objective recognises that thesevalues need to be maintained, or restored or enhanced where theyare degraded, if the resource is to sustain future generations. Thelist of values in Objective 3.13 is not exhaustive, but the intent isthat the values listed adequately describe the key attributes of waterbodies, encompassing both their intrinsic value and theircontribution to social, economic and cultural wellbeing. In definingvalues, the natural resource is described broadly as including theland and water interface, including the coastal marine area as areceiving environment, as well as the water column itself.Objective 3.13 provides for the sustainable management of theregion’s water bodies by providing further guidance about desiredoutcomes for the values listed. The objective sets both a long-termpolicy direction for high value water bodies and an intermediateoutcome of demonstrable improvement by 2030 for degraded waterbodies.The state of the region’s water bodies ranges from near pristine tohighly modified. Waikato Regional Council monitoring showsthere are differing levels and qualities of the listed values. Waterbodies with high intrinsic values exist, where natural functioning isrelatively unmodified by human activities. This objective sets along-term outcome of ensuring the level and quality of these waterbodies remain.Monitoring also indicates that many water bodies have high levelsof contaminants. The causes of degradation vary and the objectiveis focused on restoring values where degradation stems fromhuman activity. Addressing naturally occurring contaminants, suchas the release of arsenic from geothermal activity, is excluded fromthe outcome sought.Doc # 1451856 3-39

Purpose of the RMASafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingAchievementIn addition to providing water essential for people and animals,water bodies support ecosystems which are valued for their aquaticand riparian habitats and indigenous biodiversity. Protecting themauri and health of water bodies will ensure that the life-supportingcapacity of these ecosystems is safeguarded.Objective 3.13 recognises that the life-supporting capacity of somewater bodies is high but in others it is degraded and should berestored over time. In doing so, the objective will ensure that waterbodies’ current life-supporting capacity is safeguarded or enhanced.Fresh water is used by a variety of activities either within the waterbody, for example as a receiving environment for the discharge ofcontaminants, or outside the water body as a result of waterabstraction.Use of water affects both the quality and quantity of water. Theeffects of activities such as discharges, dams, diversions and takesthat affect water quality or quantity may be cumulative over time.The objective directs that the outcome sought for high value waterbodies is that adverse effects of land use and activities will begenerally avoided, and where values are degraded, action isneeded to restore those values.Objective 3.13 includes an explicit reference to social wellbeing inrecognition of values that people and communities place on waterbodies for their wellbeing and amenity. The continued existence ofthese values is seen as generally enhancing social and culturalwellbeing.Maintaining values where they are high and improving values wherethey are degraded will increase the use that can be made of waterbodies. The existence of high values in some water bodiesincreases social wellbeing for people who place importance on andare satisfied in the knowledge that some areas of the region arerelatively unmodified by human activity. Improvement of values indegraded water bodies will increase social wellbeing derived fromcurrently degraded water bodies.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingObjective 3.13 includes an explicit reference to economic wellbeingin recognition of the value of water to the economy.Gross regional product and employment opportunities areassociated with land uses and activities that rely on and affect waterbodies. The overall outcome of the objective is to enable theeconomic wellbeing desired by the community and by individuals. Itdoes so by ensuring the availability to future as well as currentgenerations of water and the services that water bodies provide, byensuring high value water bodies remain high value, and those thatare degraded are restored.It also recognises that water bodies filter, dilute and removecontaminants that are a by-product of economic activity. Healthyfunctioning water bodies and aquatic ecosystems are a prerequisiteto maximising the human use values of water.The continued ability for people and communities to provide for theireconomic wellbeing will be achieved in future plans and throughnon-statutory initiatives informed by primary industry, localcommunity and regional perspectives.3-40 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of the RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingAchievementObjective 3.13 includes explicit references to the protection ofmauri, cultural wellbeing, and food gathering values. Tāngatawhenua and other members of the regional community include intheir concept of wellbeing a connection to water bodies.The ecological health of water bodies will also influence how peoplefeel about, and make use of water bodies. For instance, a waterbody with healthy riparian vegetation undisturbed by stock orvehicles may have watercress available for food gathering. Longgrass and rushes for native fish spawning and shelter will contributeto cultural wellbeing for all members of a local community byincreasing populations of whitebait for food gathering.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyObjective 3.13 includes an explicit reference to health and safety,recognising that water supply for drinking should not becontaminated. The National Environmental Standards for Sourcesof Human Drinking Water requires community supply drinking waterto be safe after existing treatment but does not specify protectionfor other, smaller supplies.The objective also recognises the value of aquatic food species thatare safe to eat. This may require courses of action that preventcontamination by microbial contaminants or heavy metals that posea risk to human health.3.13.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.13 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by identifying values to bemaintained or restored in order to protect the mauri and heath of water bodies.Protecting the mauri and health of water bodies will address the declining quality andquantity of the water resource.Objective 3.13 also guides actions required to address changes in the state of thevalues of water bodies. Issue 1.1 is concerned with declining quality and quantity ofnatural and physical resources in the region. Waikato Regional Council informationabout the current state and trends in the region’s water bodies indicates a range ofwater bodies in the region, from near pristine to highly modified, and that the values ofthese water bodies and threats to them differ widely.The objective addresses the declining state of water bodies by seeking to reverse thedecline in many water bodies and ensuring ground and surface water exists at a levelof value that enables them to be used by individuals and communities in the future.The cumulative effects of diffuse or point source discharges and habitat modification ofwater bodies are addressed in the setting of an objective which includes theidentification of long-term improvements.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.13 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 in identifying values of waterbodies. The objective also guides actions to prevent decline in value or addresschanges required in values.The traditions and values that frame the relationship between tāngata whenua andwater were articulated in discussions between tāngata whenua and Waikato RegionalCouncil staff and decision makers. Issues around the quality, habitat values, and flowsof water were raised including that effects of activities on biota living in the water andon people are interlinked. Tāngata whenua relationships with natural resources andDoc # 1451856 3-41

provision for, and acknowledgement of, tāngata whenua roles in management of thosetaonga was emphasised. Degraded mauri can detract from the mana of the iwi, hapūor whanau for whom that water is a taonga.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.13 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by identifying values of waterbodies. The objective also guides action to prevent decline in value or addresschanges required in values.The Waikato River is the largest river in the region in terms of flow volume and length.Water quality monitoring at ten sites on the main stem of the Waikato River and threesites on its main tributary, the Waipa River, indicates that relative to the river’s highquality at the outflow of Lake Taupo, the lower reaches of the Waikato River have poormeasured water quality.Waikato Regional Council has acknowledged that the Waikato River is degraded andthat its health and wellbeing should be improved. Achievement of Objective 3.13 wouldresult in an improvement in the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and all waterbodies within its catchment.3.13.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.13 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because without guidance on achieving mauri and health of water bodiesand establishing a process for managing water bodies, water quality could remaindegraded or continue to degrade further. Objectives that seek only to hold waterquality at its current state would not adequately safeguard the life-supporting capacityof the region’s water bodies and would not guide an improvement in degraded valuesover the long term.Objective 3.13 provides a mechanism (values) for informing consent authorities aboutthe state of the resource including that the resource has been depleted. Values set outin Objective 3.13 are described in broad terms, and it will be necessary to furtherdefine, describe and quantify these values in order to improve certainty for the regionalcommunity. Detailed numerical and narrative standards will also increase certaintyabout environmental outcomes as any gap between ‘current state’ and ‘desired state’ ismore closely specified.Decision making will be improved by linking the values to be protected or enhancedwith an intermediate outcome of demonstrable progress to restore degraded waterbody values by 2030. This provides certainty for the regional community that progresswill be tracked and reported toward achieving the long-term outcome.The values in Objective 3.13 link with outcomes for water allocation, biodiversity andsoils as achieving this objective will directly assist in achieving objectives 3.14, 3.18and 3.24.Objective 3.13 is the most useful way of achieving part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it will guide local authoritydecision making when assessing the effects of activities on land and in water that affectthe quality and quantity of water in all water bodies in the region and the ecosystemsthat those water bodies support. This objective will facilitate the management ofcumulative adverse effects and contribute towards protecting the mauri and health ofwater bodies.Objective 3.13 is the most useful way of achieving part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it will guide local authority decision making ina way that is consistent with the Vision and Strategy. The Vision and Strategyestablishes objectives and strategies to achieve the restoration and protection of thehealth and wellbeing of the Waikato River including:3-42 Doc # 1451856

the relationship of iwi and the community with the river; an integrated approach to management of the river, management of cumulativeeffects and access; and that the river is safe to swim in and take food from over its entire length.3.13.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Waikato Regional Council has the functions, powers and policy tools to achieveObjective 3.13. The objective is reasonable and achievable because it provides a clearstatement of where values are to be protected and where they are to be improved. Theinterim timeframe for demonstrable improvement is considered reasonable andsufficient to allow actions to be taken as a result of implementation of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement in regional and district plans. Waikato RegionalCouncil has used economic and catchment scale modeling and a comprehensiveprogramme of meetings and joint projects with primary sector groups to inform itsdevelopment of policy on water and to give an expectation of progress in restoringwater quality where it is degraded.Objective 3.13 is reasonable as it addresses matters within Part II of the ResourceManagement Act, including Section 6(a), (c), (e) and (g), and Section 7(a), (aa), (b),(d), (f), (g), and (h). In particular, kaitiakitanga in Section 7(a) is recognised as part ofthe relationship of tāngata whenua with fresh water. Seeking protection of mauri andhealth of all water bodies in the objective is fundamental to enabling tāngata whenua toexercise kaitiakitanga. This may include local whanau or hapū taking an active role, orsupport other Māori to ensure kaitiakitanga and management aspirations are fulfilled.3.13.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.13 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.14 Allocation and use of fresh waterThe allocation of fresh water is managed so that the values (as listed in Objective 3.13a)) are maintained and where necessary restored or enhanced, and:a) over-allocation of ground and surface waters is avoided;b) priorities for the take and use of water are established; andc) efficiency in the use of water is increased.Objective 3.14 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change;1.3 Providing for energy demand;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.14.1 Principal reasons for adoptingObjective 3.14 provides for the protection of flow regimes in all rivers and waterways,or parts of them, which contributes to the values of the water body including naturalcharacter and functioning, ecosystems and recreation. It focuses on avoiding overallocationand using allocable flows and sustainable yields efficiently.The region is experiencing an increasing demand for water. At certain times of theyear, and in some locations, there is not enough water in the region’s rivers, lakes andaquifers to meet the demand. As a result there is a need to prioritise competingdemands to ensure those uses prioritised by the community are considered first.Doc # 1451856 3-43

There is only a limited water resource available for use in the region. Objective 3.14recognises that as the demands for this resource continue to increase, it will beimportant to ensure efficient use of the resource if benefits to the community are to bemaximised.3.14.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.14 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of the RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsAchievementWater is a finite resource. Its uses and values derive from boththe quantity of water available for use and from the minimumflow and yield of water remaining in water bodies. Overallocatingwater for use at the expense of uses and valuesderived from minimum flows and yields will adversely affectfuture needs.Objective 3.14 seeks to ensure that water available for use ismanaged in a way that prevents and reduces over-allocation,thus maintaining the resource at a level that supports all of theuses and values of water bodies and ensures availability ofsurface and ground water for these uses and values in thefuture.Safeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirsocial wellbeingSafeguarding the life-supporting capacity of water requires themaintenance of sufficient water for that purpose in each waterbody. Objective 3.14 seeks to manage water available for usein a way that does not compromise the flow required to sustainlife-supporting capacity. This will primarily be achieved bypreventing over-allocation and reducing it where it currentlyoccurs.Objective 3.14 ensures that natural character, naturalfunctioning, ecosystems, habitats, indigenous biodiversity andthe values associated with these features are not adverselyaffected by over-allocating ground and surface waterresources.Objective 3.14 ensures that water bodies provide for the use ofwater for drinking and sanitation purposes as well as forrecreation, amenity and other values that contribute to people’ssense of wellbeing.Preventing over-allocation ensures that the water resource ismanaged in a way that both enables use of the water andmaintains water quality and quantity needed to support valuesof the water body.Enable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingAchievement of Objective 3.14 will enable water bodies tocontribute to economic wellbeing through their contribution toeconomic services, biodiversity, primary production, industryand tourism sectors.Objective 3.14 enables the water resource to contribute tocultural values derived from all uses and values of waterbodies. Ensuring that over-allocation does not adversely affectminimum flows required for life-supporting capacity and othervalues enables cultural relationships and practices to bemaintained.3-44 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of the RMAEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.14 provides for water to meet health and safetyneeds by enabling use without compromising water quality andquantity.3.14.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.14 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising that the amountof water available for use is limited, there is potential for conflict among competingusers, and that how water is used will affect its availability for both other users and thefuture demand. Preventing over-allocation and establishing priorities for use willensure continued supply and will assist in maintaining water quality and themaintenance of values set out in Objective 3.13.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.14 substantially addresses part of Issue1.2. The effect of climate changeon the variability of weather patterns has the potential to change the amount of water inwater bodies. Changes in water quantity will affect the ability of water bodies toassimilate contaminants and the availability of water for use. Ensuring that waterbodies are not over-allocated and increasing efficiency in the use of water will reducethe adverse effects of climate change on water bodies.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.14 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by ensuring that the benefits tobe derived to the regional community from the use of water for energy generation aremaintained. Increasing demand for energy from renewable resources may result inconflicts between users for water. Preventing over-allocation of water and managingpriorities for takes will ensure that water is used in a way that does not reduce the flowsrequired to maintain the values set out in Objective 3.13 and which are also used forthe generation of energy.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.14 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5. There is increasing concernabout the effects of abstractions on the health and ecology of water bodies which aretraditional food sources and have cultural significance. Preventing over-allocation willprotect aquatic ecosystems and their contribution to the mauri of the water and therelationship of tāngata whenua with the environment.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.14 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6. The Waikato River is subjectto a range of competing uses including energy generation, discharges and large-scaleabstractions. These affect the health and wellbeing of the river. Preventing overallocationand maintaining flows that support healthy ecosystems will contribute torestoring the health and wellbeing of the river.3.14.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.14 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because without guidance on allocation and on increasing efficiency of useof water, the resource may not be used in the most effective and efficient manner tomeet increasing demand, and over-allocation may degrade values of water bodies.Objective 3.14 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) in respect of responding to changes in availability of water as a result ofclimate change. Preventing over-allocation, establishing priorities and increasingDoc # 1451856 3-45

efficiency of water use will reduce the effects of climate change on the values of waterand the availability of water for use.Objective 3.14 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.3 (Providing forenergy demand) because the objective will enable the allocation of water to meetassessed priorities, of which renewable energy is one. Objective 3.14 guides allocationand use so that pressure to erode the minimum flows necessary for renewable hydroenergy generation is reduced.Objective 3.14 is the most useful way of addressing part of issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it ensures that thoseactivities that contribute to degradation of mauri can be managed to the extent that thedegradation occurs as a result of over-allocation and inefficient use of water. It guidesdecision making by ensuring that flows necessary to maintain values of water bodiesare not compromised by over-allocation.Objective 3.14 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it guides the management of the WaikatoRiver in a way that will contribute to the restoration of the health and wellbeing of theriver.3.14.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Waikato Regional Council has the functions, powers and policy tools to achieveObjective 3.14. The objective is considered achievable and reasonable because itprovides guidance on allocation of water by setting priorities for takes and managingtakes to avoid over-allocation. This will provide certainty to those users given priorityand provide a basis for managing other takes in a way that does not compromise thevalues established for water bodies. Managing the water resource efficiently and in away that addresses the future demand for water enables better use of water to meetthe needs of different users and minimises conflicts that may arise. The objective isreasonable as it addresses matters within Part II of the Resource Management Actincluding: Section 6(a) by maintaining flow characteristics and ecosystems of water bodiesthat contribute to natural character of wetlands, lakes and rivers; Section 6(c) by contributing to the protection of significant aquatic habitats throughthe management of allocation of water; Section 6(e) by managing the quantity of water in water bodies important to tāngatawhenua and to their relationships with water; Section 7(b) by efficient allocation and use of water; Section 7(h) by maintaining flows in water bodies providing habitat for trout andsalmon; and Section 7(j) by avoiding over-allocation and maintaining hydro electricity generation.3.14.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.14 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.15 Riparian areas and wetlandsThe extent and quality of riparian areas (including coastal dunes) and wetlands isincreased and these areas are managed to maintain and enhance the following:a) public access;b) natural character;c) amenity values;d) water quality;e) indigenous biodiversity;3-46 Doc # 1451856

f) natural hazard risk reduction; andg) cultural values.Objective 3.15 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.15.1 Principal reasons for adoptingEnhancing the quality and extent of riparian areas and wetlands is important to oursocial, economic and cultural wellbeing. Many of the region’s ecosystems, includingwetlands, are declining in both quality and extent. This loss is predominately a result ofresource use, such as drainage and vegetation clearance.Riparian areas, coastal dunes and wetlands are critical components of ecosystems, butalso provide valuable services such as reducing flood flows or mitigating the adverseeffects of sea level rise. Enhancing the extent and quality of riparian areas andwetlands is important in achieving the purpose and principles of the ResourceManagement Act. Objective 3.16 provides a basis for achieving Sections 5(b), 6(c),6(d), 6(d), 6(e) and 7(c) of the Resource Management Act.3.15.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.15 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potentialof natural andphysical resources tomeet needs of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverseeffects of activities onthe environmentEnable people andcommunities toprovide for their socialwellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theireconomic wellbeingAchievementObjective 3.15 will sustain the potential of riparian areas, coastaldunes and wetlands to meet the needs of future generations byincreasing the extent and quality of these resources. Thisobjective also recognises the broad range of benefits andservices that riparian areas and wetlands afford futuregenerations.Riparian areas, coastal dunes and wetlands are a keycomponent of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Increasingthe extent and quality of these resources will safeguard the lifesupportingcapacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems andecosystem services.Objective 3.15 seeks to ensure that the range of values andservices that these resources provide are maintained andenhanced. This objective also ensures that decision makerstake into account the values and services listed in a) to g) whenconsidering appropriate methods for avoiding, remedying ormitigating adverse effects on the environment.Objective 3.15 recognises the contribution that riparian areas,coastal dunes and wetlands make to our social wellbeing. Thisobjective seeks to maintain and enhance a broad range ofvalues (such as natural character, amenity, cultural, biodiversity)and services (public access) that contribute to people’s andcommunities’ social wellbeing and way of life.Healthy ecosystems, including riparian areas, coastal dunes andwetlands, contribute to economic wellbeing for example, toagriculture, marine farming and tourism. Objective 3.15 seeks toenable people and communities to continue to generateeconomic benefits from ecosystems by maintaining andenhancing their values and services.Doc # 1451856 3-47

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theircultural wellbeingEnable people andcommunities toprovide for theirhealth and safetyAchievementObjective 3.15 recognises the relationship between ecosystems(including riparian areas, coastal dunes and wetlands) andpeople’s and communities’ cultural wellbeing. This objectiverequires decision makers to manage these resources to maintainor enhance ecosystem values, including cultural values.Riparian areas and wetlands provide key services and functionswhich provide for the health and safety of people andcommunities. Healthy water is fundamental for people’s health.The services provided by an increase in quality and extent ofriparian areas and wetlands reduces natural hazard risks whichhave the potential to impact on people and communities healthand safety.3.15.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.15 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by seeking to maintain andenhance the life-supporting capacity of natural resources by increasing the quality andextent of riparian areas, wetlands and coastal dunes. The Regional Policy StatementEvaluation Report for Biodiversity and Natural Heritage (2007) identified that many ofthe region’s ecosystems, including wetlands and coastal dunes, are still declining ingeographic extent and in quality. This decline is primarily attributed to resource use.Achievement of Objective 3.15 would make a substantial difference in halting thedecline in the extent of wetland and coastal dune ecosystems.Sediment and microbial contamination of water bodies as a result of land use activitiescontinues to be a significant issue for the region. Sediment is the primary influence onwater clarity, which is the most common reason that Waikato rivers fail to meet contactrecreation standards. Monitoring shows that almost two thirds of samples fromregional rivers (outside the Waikato River) fail to meet clarity standards. Microbialcontamination of water bodies is also widespread throughout the region and can resultin the unsuitability of fresh water for contact recreation or food gathering. Monitoringshows that almost a third of samples from regional rivers (outside of the Waikato River)exceed maximum E.coli standards for contact recreation. Increasing the quality andextent of riparian areas throughout the region will reduce the amount of sediment andmicrobes entering water bodies and make a substantial difference in addressing part ofIssue 1.1.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.15 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the relationshipand cultural association tāngata whenua have with the natural environment. Theobjective seeks to increase the quality and extent of riparian areas, wetlands andcoastal dune ecosystems which contribute towards improving the mauri of theenvironment. Enhancing access to resources provides tāngata whenua with greateropportunities for the use and enjoyment of natural resources and to exercisekaitiakitanga.Issue 1.6Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.15 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by seeking to maintain andenhance the values and services provided by riparian areas, wetlands and coastaldunes. Many of these values, including improvements in water quality, increasedpublic access, and recognition of cultural values and associations are explicitlyprovided for in the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River. Achieving this objectivewill substantially address Issue 1.6 and assist in restoring and protecting the health andwellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations.3-48 Doc # 1451856

3.15.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.15 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) as it provides regional direction and a framework for increasing the qualityand extent of riparian areas, wetlands and coastal dunes. The objective providesappropriate policy direction by listing the values and services that are to be maintainedand enhanced through regional and district plans. Setting regional direction isimportant in achieving an integrated approach towards the management ofsedimentation and nutrient in estuaries and harbours, biodiversity decline, and theadverse effects of intensive agriculture on water quality.Objective 3.15 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) by providing for cultural values in themanagement of riparian areas, coastal dunes and wetlands. Providing a list of valuesand services guides decision makers and planners as to matters to be considered inthe management of these resources.Objective 3.15 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) by providing direction to local authorities on the valuesand services that are to be maintained or enhanced in the management of the riparianareas and wetlands within the catchment of the Waikato River. Providing direction asto values and services to be maintained and enhanced will assist decision making anda more integrated approach to the management of the Waikato River catchment.3.15.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.15 is considered achievable and reasonable, as management of riparianareas and wetlands is vital in maintaining and enhancing the values and services thatriparian areas and wetlands provide. Support for the inclusion of the values andservices in Objective 3.15 is provided by Sections 6(c), 6(d), 6(e) and 7(c) of theResource Management Act.The management of riparian areas and wetlands is often complex, involves more thanone resource and crosses territorial boundaries. Therefore, to achieve an increase inthe quality and extent of riparian areas and wetlands an integrated approach isrequired. Integrated management is a function of regional councils as set out in Section31(1)(a). Direction and guidance to decision makers is provided by the list of valuesand services that are to be considered in the development of policy approaches toachieve Objective 3.15. It is considered that Waikato Regional Council has thefunctions, powers and policy tools to ensure the objective is achieved.3.15.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.15 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.16 GeothermalSustainable management of the regional geothermal resource is promoted by:a) ensuring integrated management of geothermal systems;b) allocating some of the geothermal resource for take, use and discharge in a waythat enables current energy needs and the reasonably foreseeable energy needs offuture generations to be met, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating significantaverse effects on the regional geothermal resources; andc) protecting some characteristics of the regional geothermal resources fromsignificant adverse effects.Objective 3.16 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.3 Providing for energy demand;Doc # 1451856 3-49

1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.16.1 Principal reasons for adoptingSustainable management of geothermal resources will only be possible by consideringthe regional geothermal resource in its entirety and managing each individualgeothermal system in a way that collectively achieves Objective 3.16.To ensure that the regional geothermal resource is allocated, protected and usedappropriately, it is recognised that a range of uses including energy extraction, lowimpact use, research and protection of geothermal features should be provided for.To provide for the energy needs of current generations and the reasonably foreseeableneeds of future generations, it is necessary that the use of geothermal water andenergy is efficient and that future generations have equitable access to the sameresources that we do. Cascaded use of the resource contributes to the efficient useand development of that resource.3.16.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.16 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet needsof future generationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingAchievementObjective 3.16 provides for the sustainable management of thegeothermal resource and part b) specifically targets ensuring thatthe resource is available to meet the reasonable needs of futuregenerations. Sustainable management of the geothermalresource requires ensuring that the resource is managedappropriately so that it can be used (take or use of geothermalenergy and water) but also that the valued geothermalcharacteristics are protected. There are a range of geothermalcharacteristics that may require protection and part c) of theobjective provides for this.The geothermal resource includes geothermal features and canprovide habitat for dependent rare thermophilic, thermotolerant,and extremophilic ecosystems. Objective 3.16 provides for thesustainable management of the geothermal resource and theprotection of geothermal features which consequently safeguardsthe life-supporting capacity of the geothermal resource.Integrated management of the regional geothermal resourceavoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the resource,receiving environments, and the land overlying geothermalsystems.Objective 3.16 provides for the allocation of some of thegeothermal resource for extractive use meaning a portion of theresource is then available for non-extractive uses, such as forcultural, scientific and tourism uses. Allowing for a combination ofuses enables people to provide for their social wellbeing.Objective 3.16 enables extractive uses of geothermal heat,minerals and fluid, enables employment-generating direct uses,and protects geothermal features for non-extractive commercialapplications such as tourism.3-50 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementObjective 3.16 provides for the allocation of the geothermalresource for traditional uses in accordance with tikanga Māori.Integrated management of the regional geothermal resourceminimises the adverse effects of extraction including fresh watercontamination, land subsidence, slope instability, andhydrothermal eruptions.3.16.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.16 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by allocating the regionalgeothermal resource so that a range of uses are provided for, including the protectionof valued geothermal features and availability of geothermal energy and water forfuture generations.Issue 1.3 Providing for energy demandObjective 3.16 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.3 by allocating the regionalgeothermal resource in a way that allows for some large-scale energy uses that aresustainable over several generations.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.16 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring the protection ofgeothermal characteristics valued by tāngata whenua and enabling kaitiaki theopportunity for appropriate use and development of geothermal resources.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.16 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring that discharges ofgeothermal energy and water are returned to the geothermal system and do notcontaminate surface waters, including the Waikato River.3.16.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.16 is the most useful way of addressing issues 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6because it enables sustainable extractive use of some geothermal systems whilepreserving others with their dependent thermophilic ecosystems. This provides abalance between the energy needs of current generations on one hand and futuregenerations on the other, and between the protection of geothermal features and largescaleextractive use of geothermal resources.3.16.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.16 is considered achievable and reasonable because it provides forsustainable use of the regional geothermal resource, while protecting some SignificantGeothermal Features. It allows people and communities to have access to energywhile ensuring that the valued characteristics of geothermal features are retained.Feedback received on the March 2009 Regional Policy Statement discussiondocument indicated that geothermal policy, which became operative in December2007, should be carried over into the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.This indicates that the regional community considers it both achievable andreasonable.3.16.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.16 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.Doc # 1451856 3-51

3.17 Historic and cultural heritageSites, structures, landscapes, areas or places of historic and cultural heritage aremaintained or enhanced in order to retain the identity and integrity of New Zealand’shistory and culture.Objective 3.17 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.4 Management of the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.17.1 Principal reasons for adoptingHistoric heritage is under threat from a variety of activities and influences. Historicheritage may be unknowingly destroyed or modified and can be difficult to identify andevaluate against a background of constant change that alters people’s andcommunities’ points of reference. Modified sites may still have significant historicheritage values. There is a lack of identification, investigation and documentation ofhistoric heritage that can lead to compromised decision making.Identifying, assessing, documenting, protecting and maintaining historic heritage canbe time-consuming and ultimately costly. Historic heritage resources have specificvalues or sensitivities associated with them that are purposely not always readilyaccessible.Property owners, managers, developers, people and communities require certainty asto the process for dealing with historic heritage. There is limited consultation and coordinationbetween the large number of different agencies, legislation andorganisations that have historic heritage protection responsibilities, requirements andinterests. Demolition by neglect is occurring.Until recently, historic heritage has been viewed narrowly with greater attention toindividual buildings or sites rather than the wider context that is required, whichincludes historical and cultural landscapes. Tāngata whenua interpret sites of culturaltraditional(including archaeological) landscapes as places of ancestry and belongingthrough a living Māori oral tradition.The following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.17 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet theneeds of futuregenerationsAchievementHistoric heritage is an important component of natural and physicalresources. Objective 3.17 will sustain these resources for futuregenerations through consistent identification, assessment andprotection. The objective is appropriate because it is consistentwith Section 6(e)-(f) of the Resource Management Act requiringlocal authorities to recognise and provide for: ‘The relationship ofMāori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga’ and: ‘The protection ofhistoric heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use anddevelopment.’ This enables decisions to be made about whethermodification, use and development are inappropriate inrelationship to historic heritage qualities.Objective 3.17 also assists in sustaining the potential of physicalresources to meet the needs of future generations throughadaptive re-use of structures and materials.3-52 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMASafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingAchievementSection 62(1)(a)-(b) of the Resource Management Act states that aregional policy statement must state the significant resourcemanagement issues for the region and the resource managementissues of significance to iwi authorities in the region. ‘Historicheritage’ as defined in Section 2 of the Act includes, amongst otherqualities: ‘places, areas; sites of significance to Māori, includingwahi tapu; and surroundings associated with natural and physicalresources.’ Objective 3.17 provides for the identification andprotection of historic heritage qualities which are also a part ofsafeguarding the life-supporting capacity of water, soil andecosystems on these sites.Objective 3.17 enables the consideration of historic heritagequalities and then a weighing of factors in order to evaluate howbest to achieve the purpose and principles of the ResourceManagement Act in relation to proposed activities. Adaptive reuseof built heritage reduces the need for construction of newstructures and their associated natural resource costs (buildingmaterial lifecycle costs), therefore avoiding adverse environmentaleffects for longer.‘Choosing Futures Waikato’ (2005) identified regional communityoutcomes. Outcome 4: Culture and Identity states that: ‘We areproud of our region’s distinctive identity, its strong Māoritanga, andits rich and diverse natural and cultural heritage; heritage sites andlandscapes of significance to Whanau, Hapū and Iwi are preservedand valued; our historic buildings and places are retained andcared for. New developments are designed to be sensitive topeople, places and the environment.’ Objective 3.17 sustainsthose elements of historic heritage (such as architectural,archaeological, and sites of significance to Māori including wahitapu) that have important amenity values and contribute to qualityof life.Objective 3.17 also takes into account the principles of the Treatyof Waitangi as required by Section 8 of the Act. This will providefor people’s and communities’ cultural and social wellbeing asencompassed by the Resource Management Act definition of‘environment’.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingObjective 3.17 enables the regional historic heritage resource tobe sustained and to continue to provide use value and non-usevalue economic benefits. Market use value relates to the value ofa good or service from historic heritage that can be directlyexpressed in monetary terms, such as from cultural or historicheritage-based tourism. Non-market or non-use value includes theoption value (i.e. the value of knowing people can go and enjoy thehistoric heritage), and the existence value (the value attributed toknowing that the historic heritage item is still intact).Objective 3.17 enables decisions to be made as to whether or notmodification, use and development are compatible with historicheritage qualities. It provides for the ongoing cultural relationshipsand traditions with historic heritage to be maintained andenhanced. In particular, it provides for the ongoing relationship ofiwi with taonga and provides for kaitiakitanga.Doc # 1451856 3-53

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementThe identification and protection of historic heritage resources willprevent harm to the resources and spiritual and cultural valuesheld by people and communities. Protection entails monitoringand maintaining historic heritage including built heritage occupiedby people and this will enable people and communities to providefor their health and safety. ‘Sustainable subdivision development –An Environment Waikato perspective’ (2006) states that: ‘Māoriconsider that how development occurs can affect their relationshipwith their traditional lands, water bodies, resources as well as theirrelationships with spiritual entities. This in turn can affect theirspiritual and physical health and wellbeing’.3.17.2 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesHistoric heritage is defined to mean those natural and physical resources thatcontribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures,derived from a number of qualities. Insofar as the decline of natural resources resultsin a decline or loss of historic heritage qualities, then Objective 3.17 will substantiallyaddress part of Issue 1.1.The Regional Policy Statement Evaluation Report for Heritage (2007) and ScopingStudy on Historic Heritage Management by Waikato Local Authorities (2008) concludedthat a lack of identification, significance assessment and appropriate management ofthe historic heritage resource prevented an appropriate assessment of its quality andavailability and the potential impacts that activities are having upon it. Achievement ofthe proposed objective will identify and protect historic heritage and address thedecline in the quality and availability of the resources. Loss of historic heritage valuesalso leads to a loss of ecosystem services including amenity values as defined by theResource Management Act.Historic heritage also has direct economic and tourism benefits, together with indirectbenefits that are diminished with ongoing incremental loss. Achievement of Objective3.17 will ensure the long-term provision of a broad range of amenity values associatedwith historic heritage and sustain economic, social and cultural wellbeing.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentOngoing ad hoc or unco-ordinated development continues to have adverse effects onremaining historic heritage values. This includes the diminishment of historical context.Achievement of Objective 3.17 will provide the regional framework to protect historicheritage values and determine what is ‘inappropriate’ use and development. Objective3.17 will therefore address a significant part of Issue 1.4.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Ongoing ad hoc or uninformed development continues to diminish the relationshipbetween tāngata whenua and the environment. Tāngata whenua are custodians(kaitiaki) safeguarding the resource for future generations in an intact and spirituallyhealthy and functioning state. Achievement of Objective 3.17 will strengthen thatunique relationship and assist in providing for the exercise of kaitiakitanga. Objective3.17 will therefore address a significant part of Issue 1.5.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverOngoing ad hoc or uninformed development and a culture of neglect has diminishedthe relationship of Waikato-Tainui, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa, Maniapoto, Raukawaand the regional community with the river. The river is an inclusive cultural landscapeentity and it retains a hierarchy of places from the most to the least significant, with3-54 Doc # 1451856

much of its value being relational. The achievement of Objective 3.17 will assist inenhancing the relationship of tāngata whenua to the river. Objective 3.17 will thereforeaddress a significant part of Issue 1.6.3.17.3 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.17 is the most useful way of addressing part of issues 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6because without it there would be no co-ordination, direction or framework for territorialauthorities, tāngata whenua and Waikato Regional Council to manage the historicheritage resource. It will ensure that Waikato Regional Council and territorialauthorities meet their legislative obligations. The objective provides the platform for thedevelopment of a suite of policies and methods while still providing enough detail anddirection to be useful and measurable. The most immediate need in relation to theprotection and use of historic heritage is to identify and assess the values attributed tothem.3.17.4 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Waikato Regional Council has the functions, powers and policy tools to achieveObjective 3.17. However, investment in regional leadership, in-house expertise, andregulatory and non-regulatory methods will be required to ensure that the outcome canbe achieved. Given the consistency of Objective 3.17 with a number of statutory andnon-statutory documents and the functions of other agencies and authorities, WaikatoRegional Council can realistically expect to work collaboratively with and influenceother parties to achieve this outcome as part of achieving integrated management.Objective 3.17 will not be achieved in isolation. The heritage objective may not beachieved over the lifetime of this Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement but ateach review of the document (or every five years as part of State of the Environmentmonitoring) clear progress toward Objective 3.17 can be demonstrated.3.17.5 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.17 is the most appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.18 Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversityThe full range of ecosystem types, their extent and the indigenous biodiversity thatthose ecosystems can support exist in a healthy, functional state.Objective 3.18 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.18.1 Principal reasons for adoptingMaintaining biodiversity is critical in achieving the purpose and principles of theResource Management Act. Section 5(c) refers to safeguarding the life-supportingcapacity of ecosystems. Biodiversity is a component of ecosystems, and maintainingand enhancing it is one means of achieving the direction of Section 5(c).Biodiversity provides for elements of indigenous natural character that need to bepreserved as part of Section 6(a).Section 6(c) refers to protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation andsignificant habitats of indigenous fauna. Areas of significant indigenous vegetation andhabitats of indigenous fauna are a part of biodiversity and ecosystems, and due to thesevere reduction in their extent and health it is important that they are protected toensure that there is no further loss of significant areas.Doc # 1451856 3-55

Indigenous biodiversity has important cultural values reflected in Section 7(a) by havingregard to kaitiakitanga and in Section 8. Section 7(d) requires that particular regard begiven to the intrinsic values of ecosystems. Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity willcontribute to achieving these directions.3.18.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.18 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meet theneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementObjective 3.18 will sustain indigenous biodiversity (a key componentof natural resources) to meet the needs of future generations bymaintaining and enhancing the quality and extent of habitats andecosystems and aiming to prevent further loss or extinction ofspecies, where appropriate.Biodiversity and habitat are a key component of ecosystems.Maintaining, enhancing and restoring them is one means ofsafeguarding the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems. Healthy,functioning ecosystems will assist in providing essential ecosystemservices such as clean air, productive soil and good water quality topeople and communities.Objective 3.18 ensures that decision makers will take into accountbiodiversity and ecosystem values (part of the ResourceManagement Act’s definition of ‘environment’) when consideringproposed activities. Objective 3.18 will also enable decision makersto weigh a broader range of factors when evaluating how to bestachieve the purpose of the Act.Objective 3.18 sustains those elements of biodiversity andecosystems (such as natural character and landscapes) that provideimportant amenity values and contribute to communities’ quality oflife.Objective 3.18 enables regional ecological biodiversity to performimportant ecosystem services and help to sustain primary productionand tourism sectors.Objective 3.18 enables ongoing cultural links, relationships andpractices in relation to biodiversity to be maintained and enhanced.Objective 3.18 provides for protection of ecosystems and habitats,resources that may also provide for recreation opportunities thatmeet people’s spiritual, mental and physical health needs. Objective3.18 will enable ecosystem services such as flood mitigation ornatural coastal defences to provide for people’s safety.3.18.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesBiodiversity is part of the definition of natural resources within the ResourceManagement Act. The Regional Policy Statement Evaluation Report for Biodiversityand Natural Heritage (2007) identified that many of the region’s ecosystems, includingdepleted ecosystems (such as wetlands and lowland forest) are still declining ingeographic extent and in quality, as a result of resource use activities.3-56 Doc # 1451856

Achievement of Objective 3.18 will address maintaining the extent and quality ofbiodiversity. Historical and ongoing loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resourcesreduces the range of other values that it provides such as amenity, cultural andscientific. It also reduces ecosystems’ ability to provide services such as clean air andwater, nutrient recycling and flood mitigation. Achievement of the proposed objectivewill address long-term provision of ecosystem services to sustain economic, social andcultural wellbeing and therefore substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environmentThe continuing decline in extent and health of the region’s biodiversity also hasimplications for the mauri of those resources and on the ability of tāngata whenua toexercise their role as kaitiaki. Achievement of Objective 3.18 will assist in enhancingthe mauri of the environment and in providing for the exercise of kaitiakitanga andtherefore substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverHistorical loss in extent and quality of biodiversity and ecosystems within the WaikatoRiver catchment have adversely impacted on the mauri of the river and reduced theprovision of ecosystem services that help to sustain the cultural relationship of Waikatoiwi to the river. Achievement of Objective 3.18 will assist in enhancing the health andwellbeing of the Waikato River, including the provision of improved ecosystem servicesand therefore substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6.3.18.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.18 is a useful way of addressing part of Issues 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6 becausewithout it there would be no regional direction or framework for integrating themanagement of regional indigenous biodiversity. It is a vital part of meeting WaikatoRegional Council’s obligations and functions under the Resource Management Act andcomplementary legislation. The objective provides the platform for developing a suiteof policies and methods, and provides enough detail and direction to be useful andmeasurable.Reference to ‘health and functioning’ within Objective 3.18 relates to the definition ofintrinsic values within the Resource Management Act which includes ‘the essentialcharacteristics that determine an ecosystem’s integrity, form, functioning andresilience’. The objective reflects recent amendments to the Resource ManagementAct legislation, goals in national strategies (New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000)and New Zealand’s commitments under international agreements (United NationsConvention on Biological Diversity 1993). It is consistent with the New ZealandCoastal Policy Statement 1994, in particular Policies 1.1.2 and 1.1.4.3.18.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Waikato Regional Council has the functions, powers and policy tools to achieveObjective 3.18. However, further investment in regional leadership, in-house expertise,and improved co-ordination and targeted use of regulatory and non-regulatory methodswill be required to ensure that the outcome can be achieved. Given the consistency ofObjective 3.18 with a number of statutory and non-statutory documents, and thefunctions of other agencies and authorities, Waikato Regional Council can realisticallyexpect to work collaboratively with and influence other parties to achieve this outcomeas part of achieving integrated management.Objective 3.18 will not be achieved in isolation. The objective may not be achievedover the lifetime of this Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement but at eachreview of the policy statement (or every five years as part of state of the environmentmonitoring) clear progress toward Objective 3.18 can be demonstrated.3.18.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.18 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.Doc # 1451856 3-57

3.19 Outstanding natural features and landscapesThe values of outstanding natural features and landscapes are identified and protectedfrom inappropriate subdivision, use and development.Objective 3.19 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.19.1 Principal reasons for adoptingSections 5 and 6(b) of the Resource Management Act require local authorities toprotect outstanding natural features and landscapes. Objective 3.19 seeks to balancethe need for people and communities to use and develop landscapes within the region,with the need to ensure that the values of outstanding natural features and landscapesare identified and protected.Requiring outstanding natural features and landscapes to be identified providescertainty for both resource users and the people and communities of the region, byproviding a general understanding of the spatial extent of the areas identified asoutstanding natural features and landscapes and, importantly, a description of thevalues of outstanding natural features and landscapes.Objective 3.19 seeks to protect the values of outstanding natural features andlandscapes rather than to absolutely protect the entire spatial extent of the areasdefined as outstanding natural feature and landscapes. This management approachwill enable appropriate use and development of the natural featured and landscaperesources of the region, whilst also protecting the values of these areas for futuregenerations.3.19.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.19 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementOutstanding natural features and landscapes are importantresources and must be sustained for future generations inaccordance with the requirements of Sections 5 and 6(b) of theResource Management Act.Objective 3.19 ensures that the values of the outstanding naturalfeatures and landscapes of the region are identified and that theseidentified values are protected from inappropriate subdivision, useand development in order to meet the needs of future generations.Outstanding natural features and landscapes also contributesignificantly to the biodiversity of the region.Landscapes are the visible expression of physical, biological, socialand cultural processes occurring in a particular place. This meansthe identification of an outstanding natural feature or landscape isnot purely a matter of ‘aesthetics’ but arises as a result of the interrelationshipbetween landform (geology, topography and naturalprocesses), land cover (including vegetation and water bodies andthe accompanying biological processes) and land use (reflectingcultural and social values such as farming, public areas andsettlements).3-58 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAAchievementObjective 3.19 seeks to identify and protect the values of theoutstanding natural features and landscapes including the naturaland physical values (such as air, water, soil and ecosystems) thatcontribute to its ‘outstanding’ nature, and therefore safeguard thelife-supporting capacity of those areas identified as outstandingnatural features and landscapes.Avoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingObjective 3.19 seeks to protect the values of outstanding naturalfeatures and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use anddevelopment. This management approach is considered to enablethe appropriate use and development of the natural feature andlandscape resources of the region. This includes ensuring anyadverse effects on the environment arising from use anddevelopment affecting the values of outstanding natural featuresand landscapes are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.Landscapes are the visible expression of physical, biological, socialand cultural processes occurring in a particular place, and arise asa result of the inter-relationship between landform, land cover andland use (reflecting cultural and social values such as farming,public areas, settlements, etc).Objective 3.19 seeks to identify and protect those values ofoutstanding natural features and landscapes including social values(such as recreational values, sense of place) that contribute to its‘outstanding’ nature. Protecting these areas from inappropriatesubdivision, use and development will enable people andcommunities to provide for their enjoyment and social wellbeing.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingOutstanding natural features and landscapes make a considerablecontribution to our recreational and tourism industries. Objective3.19 seeks to ensure that people can continue (into futuregenerations) to gain economic advantages from industries based onpeople’s access to and enjoyment of outstanding natural featuresand landscapes.Through the analysis involved in preparing the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement, it has been identified that mostoutstanding natural features and landscapes identified in the regionare not on private land required for economic primary production.Economic activities on both private and public land will not becurtailed provided that the values that contribute to the ‘outstanding’nature of the outstanding natural features and landscapes areprotected. Where outstanding natural features and landscapes areon private land required for primary economic production, existinguses and values of the community would be acknowledged in theidentification of the values of the outstanding natural features andlandscapes.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingThe identification of an outstanding natural features and landscapesarises as a result of the inter-relationship between landform, landcover and land use, which would also include an expression ofcultural values. It is anticipated that all outstanding natural featuresand landscapes would contribute strongly to the cultural identity ofthe region, and particularly to the cultural heritage of tāngatawhenua.Protection of the values of outstanding natural features andlandscapes, including identified cultural values, will protect theseresources from inappropriate subdivision, use and development andenable people and communities (including tāngata whenua) toprovide for their cultural wellbeing.Doc # 1451856 3-59

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementWhile Objective 3.19 does not directly address health and safetyissues, the outstanding natural features and landscapes identified inthis objective would contribute to the overall health and safety ofpeople.Access to and enjoyment of these resources through for example,visual amenity, recreational activities and the contribution theseoutstanding natural features and landscapes make to people’ssense of place, would contribute to the overall health and safety ofthe people and communities of the region.3.19.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.19 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by giving effect to a specificmatter of national importance identified in the Resource Management Act, beingSection 6(b). Section 6(b) of the Resource Management Act states Waikato RegionalCouncil must recognise and provide for ‘the protection of outstanding natural featuresand landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development’ as a matter ofnational importance. Objective 3.19 is directly relevant to Section 6(b) of the ResourceManagement Act, and gives effect to Waikato Regional Council’s obligations underSection 6(b) of the Resource Management Act. Outstanding natural features andlandscapes are identified for the special characteristics and values that set them apartfrom all other landscapes and features. As such, they are resources of high quality andare of regional significance.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.19 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring a consistentapproach is taken to managing outstanding natural features and landscapes, in a waythat recognises and protects the mauri of the environment and the unique features andvalues that are fundamental to tāngata whenua. It could also enable them to exerciseand provide for kaitiakitanga in these areas.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.19 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 because it emphasises theneed to identify and protect outstanding natural features and landscapes within thecontext of the whole Waikato River and its catchments. This objective recognises theneed to protect outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriateactivities.3.19.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.19 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it clearly recognises the national importance of the outstandingnatural features and landscapes and the contribution they make to the overall state ofthe region’s resources. This objective seeks to protect the values of these resourcesfrom inappropriate subdivision, use and development.Objective 3.19 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it clearly sets out the need toidentify outstanding natural features and landscapes and to protect them frominappropriate subdivision, use and development. This includes recognising therelationship tāngata whenua have with these outstanding natural features andlandscapes and ensuring that the values tāngata whenua hold in relation to theseareas are recognised and managed appropriately. Objective 3.19 is also useful in that itrecognises that landowners (including Māori landowners) should be able to undertakedevelopment opportunities within outstanding natural features and landscapes.3-60 Doc # 1451856

Objective 3.19 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it recognises the contribution the WaikatoRiver makes when identifying outstanding natural features and landscapes, andrecognises the relationship that tāngata whenua and the regional community have withthe river.3.19.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.19 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because outstandingnatural features and landscapes are significant for the region and for futuregenerations. Local authorities must give effect to the Resource Management Act, inparticular Section 6(b) (as discussed above). In addition, Objective 3.19 contributes togiving effect to Section 6(f) ‘the protection of historic heritage from inappropriatesubdivision, use, and development’ (which is also a matter of national importance).There is a clear overlap between outstanding natural features and landscapes andhistoric heritage, given that natural heritage features are often valued for the same orsimilar reasons that features and landscapes are valued for their ‘outstanding’ nature.Likewise Objective 3.19 contributes to giving effect to other matters of nationalimportance identified in Section 6 of the Resource Management Act insofar aselements of these other matters could be identified as values of the outstanding naturalfeatures and landscapes of the region (for example natural character, significantindigenous vegetation and habitats, relationship of Māori with ancestral resources).Section 8 of the Resource Management Act requires the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi to be taken into account in the development of the objective. Manyoutstanding natural features and landscapes are also resources of importance totāngata whenua and have significant cultural values. Objective 3.19 is reasonable as itrecognises the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and provides for the protection ofcultural values and taonga from inappropriate subdivision use and development, whichis required under the Act.Under Section 30(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Resource Management Act, the WaikatoRegional Council is required to develop objectives to address integrated management,and management of resources of regional significance. Outstanding natural featuresand landscapes fall under these responsibilities. Section 30(1)(gb) requires WaikatoRegional Council to take a proactive approach to infrastructure planning. Theidentification of outstanding natural features and landscapes assists the region inidentifying areas where use and development are not desirable which in turn can assistinfrastructure providers in their planning.3.19.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.19 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.20 AmenityThose qualities and characteristics of areas and features valued for their contribution toamenity are maintained or enhanced.Objective 3.20 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.4 Managing the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.Doc # 1451856 3-61

3.20.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe maintenance and enhancement of amenity values is identified in Section 7 of theResource Management Act as a matter that shall be given regard to. It is importantthat communities identify the qualities and characteristics that contribute to amenity inorder for areas and features to be appropriately managed. Objective 3.20 seeks tomanage and enhance the qualities and characteristics of these landscape resourcesthat contribute to the amenity of the region.3.20.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.20 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentAchievementObjective 3.20 provides for the sustainable management ofresources by ensuring that those qualities and characteristics thatcontribute to the amenity 7 of an area are maintained or enhancedfor future generations. As New Zealand’s population increases, it isanticipated that there will be increasing pressures to use anddevelop areas (for example for recreation and enjoyment of naturalareas) that are valued for their amenity. It is therefore important toensure that such areas are managed appropriately, for futuregenerations. The qualities and characteristics of the region’slandscapes make a significant contribution to the amenity of theregion.Objective 3.20 recognises that amenity values would contributesignificantly to safe-guarding the life-supporting capacity ofresources by ensuring that the areas are protected from theadverse effects of use and development and are available forpeople to access and enjoy as natural ecosystems. Landscapesare the visible expression of physical, biological, social and culturalprocesses occurring in a particular place. This means landscapesarise as a result of the inter-relationship between landform(geology, topography and natural processes), land cover (includingvegetation and water bodies and the accompanying biologicalprocesses) and land use. Objective 3.20 seeks to maintain orenhance the natural and physical values (such as air, water, soiland ecosystems) that contribute to the amenity values of the region,and including its landscapes.Objective 3.20 seeks to ensure that amenity values are managedappropriately by recognising the impacts that can arise frompeople’s use and development of an area. Impacts can enhance ordegrade amenity values. This objective emphasises the importanceof maintaining or enhancing the qualities and characteristics thatcontribute to the amenity values of the region, including itslandscapes amenity values. This does not mean that no changecan occur. However it does mean that significant change which mayhave adverse effects on the qualities and characteristics thatcontribute to the overall amenity value of an area will need to becarefully assessed.7Note: ‘amenity values’ is defined in s2 of the RMA as: ‘…those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of anarea that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreationalattributes.’3-62 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingAchievementObjective 3.20 recognises that amenity values contributesignificantly to people’s enjoyment of their environment and to theirsocial wellbeing (for example through pleasantness of environs,recreation opportunities and cultural attributes). The amenity valuesassociated with landscapes provide people with a sense of placeand identity. As amenity and the sense of place and identity arefundamental components of people’s living environment,maintaining and enhancing the qualities and characteristics thatmake up these areas is vital to enabling people to provide for theirsocial wellbeing.Maintaining and enhancing amenity values would contribute topeople’s economic wellbeing, particularly through tourism andrecreation activities. These economic activities rely on the amenityqualities and characteristics of particular areas to give tangiblepoints of difference for these local economies (for example LakeTaupo and surrounding environs, Rotorua’s lakes and the beachesof the Coromandel Peninsula).Amenity values also contribute to business and residential locationdecisions. Development and economic activities such asconstruction, farming, production forestry, infrastructure, subdivisionand other forms of development can have adverse effects on thequalities and characteristics that contribute to the amenity value ofan area. Objective 3.20 would enable change and development tooccur, while ensuring the actual qualities and characteristics of anarea that contribute to the amenity of the region are maintained andenhanced.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAmenity values have strong cultural connections and are importantto the identity of place and the historic associations of place andexperiences. They provide a significant contribution to culturalwellbeing. Maintaining or enhancing the cultural qualities andcharacteristics that contribute to the amenity values of an area willfurther enable people and communities to provide for their culturalwellbeing. Objective 3.20 enables local people and communities todetermine what qualities and characteristics are valued, in order toensure that they are maintained or enhanced.By carefully managing amenity values, Objective 3.20 seeks toensure people can continue to enjoy the health and safety benefitsassociated with their appreciation of areas, resources, andassociated values that make these places/resources important tothem.3.20.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.20 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising that amenityvalues can be adversely affected by use and development. By managing amenityvalues in a way that maintains or enhances them would contribute to a healthyenvironment that meets not only our physical needs but also our appreciation ofpleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational needs. Unlessamenity values are proactively addressed there is a risk that over time a decline in thequality and quantity of natural resources could also contribute to a degradation ofamenity values. An incremental degradation of the amenity values over time frominappropriate activities could also affect our economic progress and social wellbeing.Doc # 1451856 3-63

Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.20 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by recognising that amenityvalues are a fundamental component of our appreciation of the built environment, andhave an impact now and for future generations. Undesirable and unsuitable outcomesfrom inappropriately managed development can have a significant impact on amenityvalues. Maintaining or enhancing amenity values would contribute to a healthyenvironment and to people’s enjoyment and appreciation of the pleasantness of anarea. Maintaining and enhancing amenity values also contributes to our economicprogress and social wellbeing.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.20 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 because amenity values are afundamental part of protecting the relationship tāngata whenua have with theenvironment. Those characteristics and qualities that are a fundamental part ofamenity contribute to the inter-connectedness tāngata whenua have with the naturalworld. Any degradation of the natural world also impinges on the cultural values heldby tāngata whenua.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.20 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by ensuring the amenity valuesassociated with the Waikato River are maintained or enhanced. Amenity valuescontribute to the spiritual, cultural, historic and physical wellbeing of the Waikato RiverIwi. Amenity values are inter-connected with the health of the Waikato River and thewellbeing of tāngata whenua.3.20.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.20 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it provides a clear link between the state of natural and physicalresources and people’s appreciation of amenity values that are associated with areasor features. This objective also recognises the contribution that amenity values make toour views on the state of our resources. A healthy environment contributes to oursense of wellbeing and this objective recognises the value to be gained from pleasantsurroundings.Objective 3.20 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing thebuilt environment) because there is a recognition that there is a strong interconnectednessbetween the way the built environment is developed and our perceptionof what qualities and characteristics are important to provide for amenity values.Maintaining and enhancing amenity values will contribute to sustainably managing theresources that make up our living environment. Amenity values also contribute to theeconomic and social wellbeing of our communities.Objective 3.20 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)), because the Resource ManagementAct definition of amenity values clearly includes cultural values as an important aspectthat needs to be addressed. The objective also recognises the holistic view of thenatural world and the contribution that amenity makes to the overall appreciationtāngata whenua have of the world. Some of the region’s landscapes may be valued forcultural qualities and characteristics that contribute to the overall amenity of the region.Objective 3.20 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it identifies the need to manage amenityvalues as a key part of the management of the river and its environs. The objectiverecognises the contribution that the Waikato River landscape qualities andcharacteristics make to amenity values and therefore to the holistic management of theWaikato River. Maintaining or enhancing the qualities and characteristics of theWaikato River will assist in addressing issue of the degradation of the mauri of the3-64 Doc # 1451856

iver, and restoring the relationship of Waikato-Tainui, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa,Maniapoto and Raukawa and the regional community with the river.3.20.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.20 is considered achievable and reasonable because amenity values areidentified as a Section 7 matter in the Resource Management Act and as a matter ofnational importance in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994. This objectiveis also relevant to the overall achievement of various matters of national importanceunder Section 6 of the Resource Management Act (including Section 6(a), the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment, Section 6(b), the protection of outstanding naturalfeatures, Section 6(c), protection of indigenous vegetation and significant habitats,Section 6(d), public access to coastal marine area lakes and rivers, Section 6(e), Māoriculture and traditions, Section 6(f), historic heritage, and Section 6(g) customaryactivities). Likewise, achieving this objective would recognise the principles of theTreaty of Waitangi under Section 8 of the Resource Management Act, by providing forthe maintenance or enhancement of the cultural values that contribute to the amenityvalues of the region.Objective 3.20 is also considered to be reasonable and achievable since it is not overlyprotectionist or directive, but signals the importance of the qualities and characteristicsthat contribute to the amenity values of the region.3.20.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.20 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.21 Natural characterThe coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins aremanaged to ensure a range of natural character values from pristine to modified areprovided for, and areas of:a) pristine natural character are protected; andb) high natural character are maintained or enhanced.Objective 3.21 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.4 Managing the built environment;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.21.1 Principal reasons for adoptingSections 5 and 6(a) of the Resource Management Act require local authorities tomanage natural character. In managing the region’s natural character values,Objective 3.21 seeks to specifically recognise the existing level of natural character ofdifferent parts of the region’s coastal environment and inland water bodies and theirmargins.Objective 3.21 provides a clear management framework for the preservation andprotection of natural character values of the region. Clause a) will ensure that the fewareas in the region that are pristine will be protected. Clause b) will ensure that inareas with high natural character, the values that contribute to natural character will bemaintained and enhanced. The objective will also have the effect of directingdevelopment to areas in the region where natural character has already beencompromised.Doc # 1451856 3-65

3.21.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.21 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingAchievementObjective 3.21 recognises the national importance accorded tonatural character by the Resource Management Act. This objectiverecognises that there is a range of natural character values, andseeks to protect pristine areas and maintain or enhance areas ofhigh natural character. This objective would therefore contribute tomanaging the natural and physical resources in a way that wouldalso provide for natural character in a sustainable manner, for futuregenerations.The life-supporting capacity of the coast, wetlands, lakes and riverscontributes strongly to natural character. In addition, landscape isan important component in defining natural character andcomprises the natural and physical values (such as air, water, soiland ecosystems) that contribute to the natural character of theregion. Objective 3.21, by seeking to manage natural charactervalues, will also contribute to safeguarding the life-supportingcapacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems.Natural character is a fundamental part of our coasts, wetlands,rivers and lakes. In addition, it is these areas that are underpressure for people to access and use. Objective 3.21 seeks toensure that activities are managed in a way that natural charactervalues are provided for in any management decisions. This includesprotecting pristine areas and maintaining or enhancing areas ofhigh natural character. To achieve this objective, natural charactervalues need to be carefully managed.Objective 3.21 recognises the importance of natural character topeople’s enjoyment of the coast, wetlands, rivers and lakes. Thesocial wellbeing of people and communities is closely linked to theirenjoyment of these environments for aesthetic and recreationalvalues. The natural character of these environments alsocontributes to people’s sense of place and identity. Therefore thecharacteristics or qualities that contribute to natural character needto be managed carefully to enable people to continue to provide fortheir social wellbeing.Coasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes are significant economicresources for a range of industries or commercial activities (such astourism, fishing, aquaculture, recreation, energy).Objective 3.21 seeks to ensure that people can continue (into futuregenerations) to gain economic advantages from these resources,particularly where the economic gain is based on the appreciationof natural character qualities (including natural character associatedwith clean water). Therefore it is critical to ensure that naturalcharacter is provided for when managing economic activities, toensure that the economic benefits from our marine and waterwaysresources can be sustained for the future.3-66 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingAchievementThe coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and rivers and theirmargins are valued for their natural character. Objective 3.21 willenable people and communities to provide for their culturalwellbeing by ensuring the values that they have in relation to naturalcharacter, including for example, recreation values, sense of place,cultural identity, customary associations and heritage values, arerecognised and appropriately managed.These environments are of particular importance to tāngata whenuaand the careful management of natural character as a componentof these environments is required to achieve cultural wellbeing.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyBy recognising the importance of natural character to theenvironments of our coasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes, Objective3.21 seeks to ensure that the resources are not degraded as aresult of the effects of use and development activities. Carefulmanagement of natural character values contributes to the healthand safety of people, by ensuring the natural state of waterresources is managed to avoid health risks for people orecosystems, and by contributing to people’s enjoyment of and useof the water resources and the margins to these waters.3.21.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.21 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by recognising the impacts thatactivities (subdivision, use and development) can have on the natural character ofcoasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes and their margins. The Waikato region has about1,150km of coastline 8 , a range of rivers from minor to significant rivers such as theWaikato River, more than one hundred lakes and many wetlands. The levels of naturalcharacter of these resources range from pristine to modified. Objective 3.21 seeks toprotect pristine areas of natural character and maintain or enhance areas of highnatural character. This provides clear guidance for managing the environmental effectsfrom increasing development pressures in these environments.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.21 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by ensuring that thecontribution of natural character to our built environment and to our enjoyment ofnatural areas is recognised and provided for appropriately. Under the ResourceManagement Act it is nationally important that that the characteristics and valuesassociated with natural character of our coasts, rivers, lakes and wetlands are notadversely affected by use and development now or in the future.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.21 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by ensuring access to andenjoyment of the resources associated with the region’s coasts, wetlands, rivers andlakes. Managing the natural character of these sensitive environments would alsocontribute to protecting the mauri of the environment and the cultural and customaryvalues associated with these areas that are fundamental to tāngata whenua.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.21 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 as it emphasises the need tomanage the river and its estuarine and coastal influences as an integrated whole. Thisobjective recognises the contribution natural character makes to the Waikato River andits catchments and the need to manage natural character appropriately in this context.8Includes estuarine shorelineDoc # 1451856 3-67

3.21.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.21 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it clearly recognises the need for careful management of naturalcharacter in these sensitive environments. Natural character is a fundamentalcomponent in ensuring the quality of the environment is managed to meets the social,economic and cultural wellbeings of the regional community. In addition, the land nearcoasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes are significant locations for communities in theWaikato region.Objective 3.21 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing thebuilt environment) because it clearly recognises that there are development pressureswithin these sensitive marine and waterway environments that need to be managed ina strategic manner, to ensure that natural character is protected, or maintained orenhanced, in pristine or high natural character areas. This assists in providing a prioritymanagement approach to natural character when considering further use anddevelopment of the built environment.Objective 3.21 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.5 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)) because it clearly sets out the need toidentify natural character values and manage them to protect, maintain or enhancethose that are pristine or of high value. This includes recognising the relationshiptāngata whenua have with the marine and waterway environments and ensuring theseresources are managed appropriately. Importantly, Objective 3.21 also provides theflexibility for sensitive and appropriate development to occur on areas of land in thecoastal environment, including areas of Māori-owned land.Objective 3.21 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.6 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) because it identifies the need to manage naturalcharacter as a fundamental component of our marine and waterway environments andto recognise the effects catchment activities can have on the quality of these sensitiveresources.3.21.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.21 is considered to be achievable and reasonable because the naturalcharacter of our coasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes is a matter of national importanceunder the Resource Management Act and the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement must give effect to these provisions. In particular, under Section 6(a) of theAct, local authorities must recognise and provide for ‘the preservation of the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, andlakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriatesubdivision, use and development’ as a matter of national importance.Objective 3.21 also recognises and provides for other matters of national importanceunder Section 6 9 given that components of these other matters of national importance(such as indigenous vegetation and significant habitats) also contribute to naturalcharacter. In addition, the objective contributes to achieving Section 7(f) maintenanceand enhancement of the quality of the environment, by providing a clear framework formanaging natural character. Likewise, under the Section 8 requirements of the Act, thePrinciples of the Treaty of Waitangi are particularly relevant when it comes to managingnatural character due to the importance of the marine and waterway resources totāngata whenua.Waikato Regional Council is also required to give effect to the New Zealand CoastalPolicy Statement, which includes a range of policies that relate to the management ofnatural character and resources in the coastal environment.9Such as Section 6(c), (d) and (e).3-68 Doc # 1451856

Objective 3.21 will require areas of pristine natural character to be protected, and areasof high natural character to be maintained or enhanced, thereby setting a clearmanagement framework for natural character of our coasts, wetlands, rivers and lakes.3.21.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.21 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.22 Public accessPublic access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers is:a) not inappropriately restricted; andb) where appropriate, is enhanced.Objective 3.22 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao); and1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.3.22.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marinearea, lakes and rivers is identified in Section 6 of the Resource Management Act as amatter of national importance which must be recognised. Objective 3.22 provides clearmanagement guidance on how to manage public access to the coastal marine area,lakes and rivers within the region.3.22.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.22 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAchievementObjective 3.22 provides for the sustainable management ofresources by ensuring that public access is available for currentand future generations. This includes access to the coast, lakesand rivers from land and access along the marine, lake edge andriver banks. Access within the marine and fresh waters isgenerally freely accessible. Public access is closely tied to thelocation of development along the edge of waterways. Sustainingthe potential of the natural and physical resources along thewaterway edges to enable access requires that these edges canfluctuate naturally over time (i.e. accommodate accretion anderosion cycles), without being restricted by development andwithout development compromising access.Objective 3.22 recognises that public access can have dualimpacts. By requiring access, it can provide for the life-supportingcapacity of the habitat that is at the edge of waterways such asdunes and wetlands; at the same time too much access in someareas can damage sensitive areas such as plants, dunes or birdnesting areas. Therefore this objective recognises that there is aneed to specify where it is appropriate to enable or restrict publicaccess.Doc # 1451856 3-69

Purpose of RMAAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementObjective 3.22 seeks to ensure that activities recognise theimpacts they have on public access. To this extent, public accesscan be adversely and cumulatively affected by landwardactivities, particularly during times of erosion or high water levels.Likewise, too much access can result in adverse effects on theenvironment (e.g. overuse of pathways).Objective 3.22 recognises that access to waterways is a part ofall New Zealanders’ heritage and that it contributes to their socialwellbeing. However, it is also recognised that there are instanceswhen access is not appropriate and should be restricted.Waterways are a significant economic resource and publicaccess contributes to people’s ability to gain economic value fromactivities, through fishing and tourism for example.Cultural areas of significance may not always be appropriate forpublic access. Objective 3.22 recognises that there may beinstances where access should be limited (and/or enhancedwhere there is difficult access).By providing for public access, Objective 3.22 seeks to ensurepeople can continue to enjoy areas they value, including, inparticular, access to recreational beaches, lakes and rivers.3.22.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.22 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 because of its contribution topeople’s health and wellbeing through recreational and environmental appreciation ofthe waterway environments. Appreciation of the quality and quantity of our waterwayresources and their landward edges is inter-related with people’s ability to access andenjoy the areas safely. This objective recognises that public access is a valuablecomponent that should be considered when managing the quality of resources. Theobjective particularly recognises the increasing pressure for development in the coastalmarine area and the pressure that this could put on public access, now and for futuregenerations. Objective 3.22 would protect access for the use of current and futuregenerations.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Objective 3.22 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 as it seeks to ensure thatpublic access needs are managed carefully, to ensure the relationship of tāngatawhenua to the environment is not damaged through loss of access (or from excessiveaccess), and that adverse effects from activities do not degrade cultural values overtime.Issue 1.6 Health and wellbeing of the Waikato RiverObjective 3.22 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.6 by ensuring that public accessto and along the river is maintained or enhanced. Public access is fundamental to thefuture management of the river, with the ability of the river to contribute to physical,cultural, social and economic wellbeing of tāngata whenua and the community ingeneral. This is also closely tied to the ability of the river to provide for food andrecreational activities.3-70 Doc # 1451856

3.22.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.22 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.1 (State of resources)because it focuses on the need to provide for public access in the coastal marine area,lakes and rivers, while recognising that people’s safety, enjoyment and wellbeing fromaccess is closely tied to the quality of water resources and the landward edges.Objective 3.22 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.5 (Relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment (te taiao)), because public access can impact on the useand enjoyment of resources and places, and on cultural values and areas ofsignificance. Appropriate management of public access needs to be addressed toensure that the holistic approach to managing the natural world is appropriatelyrecognised.Objective 3.22 is the most useful way of addressing Issue 1.6 (Health and wellbeing ofthe Waikato River) because it identifies the need to manage public access as a part ofthe overall management of the river and its environs. The objective recognises thecontribution that public access makes to people’s enjoyment and use of the WaikatoRiver and that access is one element requiring to be addressed in the overallmanagement of the river.3.22.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.22 is considered achievable and reasonable because public access is seento be an expectation that most people have for their enjoyment of the waterways andthe associated resources. However, it is also recognised that in some instances it willbe appropriate to restrict access and for some areas there may not be access providedfor cost and feasibility reasons. In addition, it is a requirement of the ResourceManagement Act and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994, and thereforethe Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement must give effect to these provisions.3.22.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.22 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.23 Natural hazardsThe risk to people, property and the environment from natural hazards is reduced.Objective 3.23 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources;1.2 Effects of climate change; and1.4 Management of the built environment.3.23.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe Waikato region is affected by a variety of natural hazards, including coastalerosion, river flooding, land instability and volcanism. These natural hazards pose athreat to people, property and the environment, with the potential impact ranging frombeing a nuisance to creating significant loss.Objective 3.23 introduces a risk management approach that will guide the managementof natural hazard risk in the Waikato region and assist local authorities in carrying outtheir functions.3.23.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.23 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Doc # 1451856 3-71

Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsAchievementObjective 3.23 seeks to reduce the impact that natural hazardevents have on the environment, including people’s property andlives. This objective is relevant to sustaining the potential ofnatural and physical resources because these resources have arole in determining how vulnerable the environment is to naturalhazard events.For example, river flooding is a natural process that involves theinundation of flood plains. The range of natural and physicalresources that exist on the floodplain, in the river and in the widercatchment influence how this process occurs. Objective 3.23seeks to ensure that the management of these natural andphysical resources is undertaken in such a way that naturalprocesses associated with natural hazard events can continue tooccur in a way that current and future generations do not becomeincreasingly vulnerable to natural hazard events.Safeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their socialwellbeingHealthy resources and ecosystems, and the natural systems thatthey support, are reliant on their ability to respond to sudden andlong-term changes in the environment. Objective 3.23 requiresrecognition of the importance of these natural systems in thecontext of natural hazards, along with the importance of allowingthem to occur as naturally as possible and without beingunnecessarily constrained by development. This recognition alsosupports the safeguarding of the life-supporting capacity of theresources and ecosystems that are associated with these naturalsystems.Objective 3.23 seeks to ensure that activities are managed in away that reduces the potential impacts from natural hazard eventson the environment, as well as on property and life.Applying a risk management approach to activities taking place inareas prone to natural hazards will be critical to managing thescale of adverse effects that could arise from a hazard event. Italso recognises the importance of enabling the environment to‘cope’ with a hazard event in as natural a manner as possible.The Waikato region is vulnerable to a range of natural hazardevents (e.g. floods, land slips, debris flows, fire, erosion,earthquakes and volcanoes). Objective 3.23 seeks to ensure thatcommunities are designed and located in a way to reduce thisvulnerability.Objective 3.23 seeks to reduce the social costs of preparing for,responding to, and recovering from, natural hazard events.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingThe Waikato region is economically vulnerable to a range ofnatural hazard events (e.g. floods, land slips, debris flows, fire,erosion, earthquakes and volcanoes). Objective 3.23 seeks toreduce the economic impacts of these events on the environment,people and property. This includes reducing the economic costs ofpreparing for, responding to and recovering from these events.The economic costs associated with a natural hazard event can besignificant. By reducing the risk of these costs being incurred,Objective 3.23 is helping to enable people to provide for theireconomic wellbeing while also making their communities moreresilient.3-72 Doc # 1451856

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingAchievementObjective 3.23 recognises that natural hazard events arefundamentally natural occurrences that adversely impact onpeople, property and the environment.Māori have a holistic world view of the environment and along withother New Zealanders have a range of customary and historicalassociations with different areas of our region that may bevulnerable to natural hazard events.Objective 3.23 seeks to reinforce a wider view of natural hazardevents and the associated natural processes, along with seekingan approach that reduces the vulnerability of areas of cultural andhistorical significance.Enable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyObjective 3.23 makes a strong contribution to protecting the healthand safety of individuals and communities by seeking to reducetheir vulnerability to natural hazard events. The risk of injuries andfatalities, along with the level of damage to property due to naturalhazard events, is dependent on the type and scale of the event,and its proximity to people and property. The event and the posteventperiod can also have an ongoing impact on health and safetyissues. By reducing the vulnerability of people, Objective 3.23provides for better health and safety outcomes.3.23.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.23 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 as it requires the recognitionthat natural hazard events (such as floods or coastal erosion) are natural occurrencesthat need to be valued in their own right. Reducing the vulnerability of people andproperty to such events would enable these natural processes to occur with as littleconstraint as possible from buildings and infrastructure (in particular) and byassociation with less impact on people and communities.Objective 3.24 also requires the recognition that the natural environment can ‘buffer’the effects of natural hazards events. For example, healthy riparian margins help tostabilise river banks during flood events, unimpeded floodplains can absorb a majorityof flood waters and slow the rise in flood levels, and intact dune systems providestability against shoreline erosion. Therefore, this objective contributes to addressingthis issue by recognising the natural processes associated with natural hazards, andthe positive influence that a healthy environment can have on reducing the vulnerabilityof people and property.Issue 1.2 Effects of climate changeObjective 3.23 would substantially address part of Issue 1.2 as it requires therecognition of the effects of climate change when seeking to reduce the vulnerability ofthe environment to natural hazard events, including the impact on people’s health andsafety and on their property. Future climate change is predicted to lead to increasedstorminess, higher rainfall intensities and an increase in sea level. As a consequence,the natural hazards are expected to intensify, as is the vulnerability of people andproperty.Issue 1.4 Managing the built environmentObjective 3.23 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.4 by ensuring that elements ofthe built environment (in particular buildings and infrastructure) are located in areaswhere the vulnerability to natural hazards is tolerable, along with ensuring that it doesnot lead to increasing vulnerability for future generations. Where the existing builtenvironment is already vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards, it will be importantDoc # 1451856 3-73

that any expansion or change of this environment assesses the vulnerability to naturalhazard events and seeks to reduce that vulnerability over time.3.23.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.23 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State ofresources) because it requires the recognition of the importance of natural systems(e.g. rivers, flood plains, dunes, etc) and that natural hazard events are naturalprocesses. It also requires the recognition that it is important for the environment to beable to accommodate such events.Objective 3.23 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.2 (Effects of climatechange) because it requires an understanding of and response to the effects of naturalhazards now and into the future. Reducing the vulnerability of the environment tonatural hazards will require use and development to adapt to these changing climatepatterns.Objective 3.23 is the most useful way of addressing part of Issue 1.4 (Managing thebuilt environment) because it requires the recognition that the built environment cancontribute to the vulnerability of the environment to natural hazards. Therefore, there isa strong need to recognise natural hazards when controlling the built environment andreduce the vulnerability of individuals and the community.3.23.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.23 is considered achievable and reasonable because it sets out aframework for managing activities that may influence the vulnerability of theenvironment to natural hazards. This framework is based on a reduction approach. Itrequires that the vulnerability of people, property and the environment is assessed andactivities managed appropriately. While we cannot control the natural events that leadto ‘hazards’, we can seek to reduce the effects of those events on our communities andon the environment. In particular, Objective 3.23 supports a management approachthat would avoid increasing the vulnerability of communities to the impacts of naturalhazards. It also recognises that there are significant economic and social costsassociated with preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural hazardevents.3.23.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.23 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.24 Values of soilThe values of the soil resource are maintained or enhanced, including:a) the existing and foreseeable range of uses; andb) its life-supporting capacity.Objective 3.24 addresses the following issues:1.1 State of resources; and1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao).3.24.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThe soil resource is vital to the region’s wellbeing, and particularly to the primaryproduction industry which underpins the regional economy. Meeting the reasonablyforeseeable needs of future generations and safeguarding the life-supporting capacityof soil are explicit components of sustainable management under the ResourceManagement Act.Achieving other objectives, including those relating to fresh and marine water qualitywill be jeopardised if Objective 3.24 is not pursued.3-74 Doc # 1451856

There is an expectation that for current and future generations, valued characteristicsand qualities of soil (soil values) will be maintained where they are good or enhancedwhere they are degraded.Soils provide ecosystem services. Ecosystem services include the productive capacityof land and the role of soil in buffering adverse environmental impacts, includingspecifically contaminants with respect to water quality.Inappropriate soil management practices can result in changes that are difficult toreverse, and which reduce the productive versatility of the soil. Some past and currentdegradation can be reversed with good management. However, restoration may takemany years and in some cases retirement may be the only option.3.24.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.24 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsSafeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementBy identifying areas vulnerable to soil degradation and practicesthat degrade soils, and by the education and regulation of landusers reversing these processes to ensure this resource (soil)meets the needs of future generations.By measuring soils values enabling the identification andmanagement of detrimental trends with respect to ecosystemservices.By identifying and advocating ‘best practices’ by land users to avoidsoil degradation, remedy soils that have become degraded andmitigate the detrimental effects of land use.By acknowledging that people and communities require land uponwhich to live and that location will play a role in quality of life whilebalancing these needs with the necessity to identify and maintainthe productive capacity of our soils.By ensuring that current and future generations enjoy similarproductive capacities (area and quality) of the regions soils.By identifying and supporting the role of soils in the provision ofecosystem services particularly in relation to the protection andenhancement of water quality, both the mauri and recreationalaspects are preserved.By recognising and supporting the role of soils as a bufferingcapacity to mitigate the impacts of environmental contaminants andflood events, aspects of the health and safety of communities isrecognised and enhanced.3.24.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesThere are clear links between declining soil quality and the intensification of land use inthe region. National soil quality targets have been developed by the Ministry for theDoc # 1451856 3-75

Environment. In 2008, only 30 per cent of the region’s productive soils had satisfactorysoil quality for their current use. Compaction and excessive fertility are the main soilquality issues in the intensively used areas of the region. Surface soil compaction couldbe impacting on regional pasture productivity by as much as $200 million per annum.Soil loss through erosion is also of concern, especially in hill country. The build-up ofcontaminants in soil is a growing concern. Impacts of increasing stock density andcontinued subdivision of productive rural land are also important issues.Soil is an irreplaceable natural resource that underpins the region, deliveringecosystem services that are fundamental to our prosperity. Soil ecosystem servicesinclude food production, providing a platform for construction, filtering and regulatingwater and gases, recycling and storing organic matter and nutrients and maintaininghealthy habitats and biodiversity. Achievement of Objective 3.24 will substantiallyaddress part of Issue 1.1 by keeping our soil available for use and in good conditionand ensuring that soil can continue to provide the same ecosystem services now andfor many years to come.Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (tetaiao)Tāngata whenua value all aspects of the natural environment, including the land/soil(whenua). In accordance with the Māori world view, the natural environment, includingall animate and inanimate components, is inter-connected and inter-dependent.Objective 3.24 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.5 by recognising the importanceand values of the soil resource and seeking to maintain or enhance those values. Thiswill contribute to protecting the mauri of the resource, and will ensure the ability oftāngata whenua to access, use and enjoy the resource is not foreclosed due to loss ordiminishment of the values.3.24.4 Is the objective useful?The intrinsic characteristics of soils determine the range of uses to which they aresuited. Degradation of soils will reduce the potential range of uses and theirproductivity. In the absence of soil quality monitoring and suitable regulations tocontrol activities that degrade soil, there could be gradual degradation of productivecapacity and ecosystem services which would impact on regional wellbeing.The relationship of tāngata whenua with the soil resource will also suffer through itsdegradation. Activities which degrade soil will impact on the mauri of the soil and onthe ability of tāngata whenua to access, use and enjoy clean, healthy, good qualitysoils.3.24.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?Objective 3.24 is considered achievable and reasonable because it provides for theprotection and sustainable use of soil, which is effectively a non-renewable resourcegiven the timeframes over which it is naturally formed.3.24.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.24 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.3.25 High class soilsThe value of high class soils for primary production is recognised and high class soilsare protected from inappropriate subdivision, use or development.Objective 3.25 addresses the following issue:1.1 State of resources.3-76 Doc # 1451856

3.25.1 Principal reasons for adoptingThere is a need to protect our high class soils from long-term or irreversible loss toprimary production and to optimise this soil resource now and into the future. Highclass soils comprise five per cent of soils nationally of which about 22 per cent reside inthe Waikato region. Of the region’s soils, high class soils comprise about 13 per cent(approximately 300,000 hectares) of the most robust soils in New Zealand. Wellmanaged, these soils are capable of more sustainable primary production and theprovision of ecosystem services at a reduced cost than lesser soils.Protection of high class soils can be achieved by making best possible use of thestrengths of these soils and minimising the regional impacts of land use intensification,urbanisation and rural-residential expansion that can reduce the availability of thesesoils for use in primary production.3.25.2 Relevance of the objectiveThe following table summarises the relevance of Objective 3.25 in achieving thepurpose of the Resource Management Act:Purpose of RMASustain the potential ofnatural and physicalresources to meetneeds of futuregenerationsAchievementThrough the sustainable management of a finite (and very small intotal area) resource, the potential of the soil resource will besustained. Some land uses can remove or diminish both the valueand extent of this resource i.e. there are irreversible or long-termlosses under certain uses (housing, urban and roading).While acknowledging that precluding certain land uses on highclass soils may adversely impact on the economic aspirations ofcurrent landowners, the emphasis for management must be onsustainable economic wellbeing over the long-term and this is betterserved by preventing some uses.High class soils can support the full range of horticulture uses.Other soils, (other than high class soils) support only a narrowrange of horticulture as they have inherent management limitations.Only high class soils have high suitability for all pastoral, forestryand cropping uses and therefore Objective 3.25 looks to protectthem from inappropriate subdivision, use and development toensure that they continue to be available for use by current andfuture generations.Safeguard the lifesupportingcapacity ofair, water, soil andecosystemsAvoid, remedy ormitigate adverse effectsof activities on theenvironmentEnable people andcommunities to providefor their social wellbeingObjective 3.25 safeguards the life-supporting capacity of high classsoils by protecting these soils from loss and degradation of theirdefining characters of high life-supporting capacity and the ability tobuffer other ecosystems, especially aquatic.A characteristic of high class soils is their robustness comparedwith less versatile soils. This robustness enables high class soils tobetter withstand the demands of primary production thus mitigateadverse effects off-site (i.e. on the environment). Avoiding activitiesthat degrade this resource will help ensure its availability for futuregenerations.The provision for social wellbeing is through the knowledge thatprotecting the resource of high class soils will ensure that futuregenerations will enjoy the economic and ecological values.Doc # 1451856 3-77

Purpose of RMAEnable people andcommunities to providefor their economicwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their culturalwellbeingEnable people andcommunities to providefor their health andsafetyAchievementMaintaining the availability of the country’s most productive soils forprimary production will help ensure economic wellbeing now and forfuture generations. The robustness of high class soils and theirinherent ability for sustained production with reduced inputscompared to lesser soils confers an economic advantage.Communities restricted economically are less able to provide fortheir cultural wellbeing.The sustainable management of high class soils will enable thesesoils to fulfil their role including the provision of ecosystem services.These services include a buffering capacity for contaminants andflood events that protect both the health and safety of communities.3.25.3 Does the objective substantially address the issue?Issue 1.1 State of resourcesObjective 3.25 substantially addresses part of Issue 1.1 by ensuring that the economicand environmental values of high class soils are maintained for use by current andfuture generations through the restriction of development and inappropriate activitieson these soils.High class soils include Land Use Classes – classes 3e1 and 3e5 units that are alsoclassified as Allophanic Soils. 10 These soils are on tephra and occur primarily in theSouth Waikato and Taupo Districts where these soils form a significant proportion ofthe productive soils. Because of their intrinsic characteristics, these soils are bestsuited for sustainable production and retaining an ability to provide ecosystem services.3.25.4 Is the objective useful?Objective 3.25 is useful in addressing part of Issue 1.1 (State of resources) as in theabsence of the recognition of the role and extent of high class soils, this resource maybe irretrievably lost under urban or urban style development. The objective recognisesthe economic value of high class soils and is designed to assist territorial authorities injustifying planning areas for urban expansion and infrastructure.In the absence of the identification, delineation and protection of high class soils thecumulative ‘nibbling away’ of these soils would continue. Territorial authorities wouldlack important information for the justification for planning areas of urban expansionand infrastructure.3.25.5 Is the objective achievable and reasonable?As long as high class soils are clearly defined and delineated in individual instancesand long-term urban planning is enabled to recognise the role of high class soils, theirprotection is achievable.Objective 3.25 is reasonable because it provides for a process for which to considerthe importance of high class soils when urban and rural-residential subdivision occursor is being planned. The policy is flexible, allowing reasonable development to occurwhere developing on high class soils is unavoidable.10Hewitt (1998)3-78 Doc # 1451856

3.25.6 ConclusionOn the basis of the above evaluation, Objective 3.25 is assessed as appropriate forachieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act.Doc # 1451856 3-79

PART B4 Integrated management5 Air6 Built environment7 Coastal marine area8 Fresh water bodies9 Geothermal10 Heritage11 Indigenous biodiversity12 Landscape, natural character andamenity13 Natural hazards14 SoilsDoc # 1451856

Doc # 1451856

PART BUnder section 32(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act, an evaluation must examinewhether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies and methodsare the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. The evaluation must take intoaccount the benefits and costs of policies and methods, and the risk of acting or notacting if there is uncertain or insufficient information.Effectiveness means how successful an option is in achieving the stated objective.This may be whether the objective can be achieved outright, or it may be the extent towhich progress will be made towards the objective and the speed at which progress ismade.The evaluation of efficiency includes considering whether the benefits of a particularapproach outweigh the costs (including environmental, economic and social benefitsand costs) either immediately or over time. These may be quantitative or qualitative.The most efficient option will achieve the stated objective with the greatest benefit andthe least cost. Testing efficiency ensures good resource management outcomes areachieved, at the lowest practicable cost to individuals and the community.The following chapters (4-14) identify alternative policies and methods that could beadopted to achieve the objectives. The evaluation then considers which options aremost appropriate given their likely effectiveness and efficiency, and provides thosepolicies and methods recommended for inclusion in the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement. Please note that where maps have been referred to in the proposedpolicy options, these maps can be found in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement and have not been repeated in this report.Doc # 1451856

4 Integrated management4.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethodsThe policies and methods in this section of the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement relate to integrated management of natural and physical resources. Theyare included to support objectives that are intended to be cross-cutting across thewhole Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement. These objectives either discussprocesses, or resources and issues that cross jurisdictional or functional boundaries,and therefore the policies and methods that achieve these objectives often contributeto more than one objective. It is also often the case that there is only one realisticpolicy option, with slightly different methods that achieve the same outcome, but todiffering degrees. The format of this assessment may therefore differ to those relatingto individual resources.4.1.1 Integrated managementThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsevaluated to achieve Objective 3.1 (Integrated management), Objective 3.2 (Decisionmaking); Objective 3.7 (Ecosystem services); Objective 3.8 (Relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment) and Objective 3.9 (Efficient use of resources).Policy OptionRMA s32 testEffectivenessPolicy option 1:IntegratedmanagementThe aim of this policy option is to encourage an integratedapproach to the management of resources recognising the interrelatednature of these resources and that effects on one resourcecan have a secondary effect on others. The policy also seeks tomaximise benefits by contributing to a number of differentobjectives and taking a long-term approach.The methods include a range of processes that will help to achieveintegrated management including:recognising the potential adverse effects of large-scale land usechange;seeking opportunities to align the activities and projects ofWaikato Regional Council;collaborating with tāngata whenua, territorial authorities andstakeholders;assessing the cumulative effects of activities;developing environmental management plans;adopting a long-term approach;providing consistency across regional plans and strategies;considering appropriate terms for which resource consentsshould be granted;seeking mitigation for environmental effects including use ofeconomic instruments and offsite mitigation; andmonitoring and gathering of information.The policy and methods achieve the objective of integratedmanagement through providing for a variety of approaches.Integrated management is a cross-cutting theme of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement and the policy and methods areintended to provide processes to enable regional resources to beDoc # 1451856 4-1

managed in an integrated way. This policy option thereforeaddresses a number of objectives.The policy option includes methods that establish processes forintegrated management as well as some methods that relate tointegrated management to address a particular issue, e.g. climatechange. These specific methods are discussed in a separateanalysis (see below).The policy option takes a long-term approach to developingintegrated management practices which includes advocacy andeducation, collaboration and adopting a 100-year planningtimeframe. By taking this approach, the policy option will achievethe long-term outcome of greater integration in the management ofresources, while achieving better environmental outcomes in theshort term through greater recognition of the inter-related nature ofresources.In particular, this policy option makes a strong contribution toachieving Objective 3.1 (Integrated management) by puttingprocesses in place that will recognise the inter-related nature ofresources to enable them to be managed appropriately. Thisincludes processes that affect decision making (Objective 3.2) suchas assessing cumulative effects and management of resources thatcross regional boundaries, and the competing demands forresources. In this way it contributes to Objectives 3.3 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River), 3.4 (Energy), and 3.6 (Coastalenvironment).The policy option takes a similar approach to the environment asthat of tāngata whenua who view the environment as a holistic unit,therefore contributing to achieving Objective 3.8 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment). The policy optionrecognises the relationship between people and ecosystems(Objective 3.7) and in particular the economic, cultural and socialvalues that natural resources provide and seeks to maintain andenhance these values, and will also contribute to achievingObjective 3.9 (Efficient use of resources) through plans andstrategies that take into account cumulative effects and avoidconflict between different uses.The policy option contributes, in part, to Objectives 3.3, 3.4, 3.5,3.6, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20,3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsConsideration of the effects ofactivities on multiple resourceswill encourage greater mitigationimproving environmentaloutcomes.Environmental:CostsThis policy option may requiretrade-offs between differentresource users.The integrated approach willensure that cumulative effectsare considered and that theknock-on effects of activitiesusing one resource on others areminimised.4-2 Doc # 1451856

The long-term planningtimeframe will recognise thelong-term nature of effects andconsider these in decisionmaking.Community:Recognition of the range ofvalues provided by naturalresources including ecosystemsand maintaining these resourcesto provide social, cultural andeconomic benefits to thecommunity.Efficiencies gained from use ofeconomic instruments.Community:The policy option develops along-term approach toachieving integratedmanagement which will requirecommitment and resources.The policy option does notrequire any specific additionalactivities, but instead seeks tochange the way the existingactivities are carried out. Thecost to Waikato RegionalCouncil, territorial authoritiesand stakeholders will be spreadover the life of the plan andbeyond and will require a lowlevel of cost to be incurredthroughout.The costs to territorialauthorities associated withamending district plans to giveeffect to the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statementthough this process will dependon what stage the respectivedistrict plans are currently at.Policy option 2:Lesser extent ofintegratedmanagementPossible cost to landowners interms of acceptable uses as aresult of long-term planningapproach.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessThe Resource Management Act (Section 30(1)(a)) requiresregional councils to develop objectives, policies and methods toachieve the integrated management of the region’s natural andphysical resources. There is therefore no alternative to integratedmanagement. There are, however, different degrees of integrationthat could be used. This policy option alternative requires a lesserdegree of integration through fewer implementation methods.By removing some of the implementation methods such asadvocacy and education, monitoring and information gathering andco-ordination with other plans and strategies, the effectiveness ofthe policy in achieving the objectives will be lower. This takes amore immediate approach to integrated management, incorporatingthis practice into planning documents and using economicinstruments and offsite mitigation to balance the effects of activitieson different resources. It does not take a long-term approach,however, to embedding the practice of integrated management ofresources.Doc # 1451856 4-3

The outcome of this policy option would be a short-termimprovement in the management of resources through recognitionof the inter-related nature of these resources, though it will notresult in a long-term shift towards an integrated managementapproach.This policy option would contribute to achieving Objective 3.1(Integrated management). However, an absence or weaker focuson the policy methods would reduce its effectiveness.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsThe policy option still includes adegree of integration which willreduce adverse effects causedas a result of the inter-relatednature of resources.Community:There will be fewer trade-offsbut some will still be required tomanage resources in anintegrated way.A lesser degree of integrationmay result in decisions beingmade that allow the use of aparticular resource in a waythat has the potential toadversely affect otherresources.Short-term approach may resultin long-term adverseenvironmental effects.Community:The community benefits will besimilar to those in Policy option1, though the extent of integratedmanagement will affect the scaleof the benefits and providing fora lesser degree of integration willresult in fewer benefits, e.g. alesser degree of co-ordination ofworks and services.The cost to the community willnot differ significantly from thecosts associated with Policyoption 1. Fewer implementationmethods will mean a reducedcost but when spread over thelong term, this will not besignificant.Policy option 2 does not includemethods such as advocacy andeducation which wouldincrease the likelihood of widersocial and economicconsiderations being includedin integrated managementdecisions.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficient4.1.2 Objective 3.5 Adapting to climate changeThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsevaluated to achieve Objective 3.5 (Adapting to climate change).4-4 Doc # 1451856

Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Integratedmanagement toaddress climatechangeRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option requires an integrated approach to resourcemanagement that recognises the inter-connected nature ofresources and the diversity of effects that can occur, and takes along-term strategic approach that seeks to maximise the benefitsand apply consistent standards.In respect of adapting to climate change, the proposed methodsinclude those that relate to integrated management in general,such as monitoring and information gathering and advocacy andeducation, as well as specific methods relating to climate change.These include providing for the predicted effects of climatechange including increasing rainfall intensity, increase intemperature and predicted sea level rise.This policy option recognises that climate change has thepotential to impact on a wide range of resources, and thereforerequires an integrated approach to manage and adapt to theeffects of climate change.The outcome of this policy option would be a long-term, strategicand co-ordinated approach to managing the effects of climatechange which is necessary to adapt the region’s resources tominimise the adverse nature of effects.This policy option will make a strong contribution to achievingObjective 3.5 (Adapting to climate change), and will alsocontribute to Objectives 3.1 (Integrated management), 3.2(Decision making), 3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.20 (Amenity) and3.23 (Natural hazards) as well as supporting all of the otherobjectives.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Recognising the multipleeffects of climate change andtaking a strategic approach toaddress the effects across anumber of resources will resultin a more consistent approachto managing environmentaleffects.This policy package takes along-term approach and theremay be adverse effects arisingfrom climate change in theshort term.The approach will minimise thepotential adverse effects arisingfrom climate change on naturaland physical resources in theregion.Using consistent informationregarding climate change willhelp to co-ordinate mitigationstrategies.Community:The policy will help to achieveconsistency across resourcesand throughout the region inadapting to climate change.Community:The integrated approach toaddressing climate change willrequire a commitment ofresources over the long termDoc # 1451856 4-5

Policy Option 2:Individual approachesto climate changeAvoidance of adverse effectsarising from climate change onindividuals and communities.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessfrom Waikato Regional Council,territorial authorities and otheragencies and groups. Thiscost will be spread over thelong term.This policy option allows the issue of climate change to be dealtwith in respect to each individual resource by the authoritiesresponsible.This policy option does not account for the inter-related nature ofresources and is likely to result in an inconsistent approach todealing with the effects of climate change across the region.Given the uncertainty about the potential effects of climatechange, this approach could lead to different practices fordifferent resources and in different areas that will have variablesuccess in dealing with the issue of climate change.This policy option would contribute to achieving Objective 3.5(Adapting to climate change). However, an unco-ordinatedapproach across the region will not ensure an effective policy.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate / LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe response to climatechange will be based on localconditions which may result ingreater benefits to individualresources.Community:The accountability for individualactions relating to climatechange will be clear.Taking an individual approachto managing the effects ofclimate change fails torecognise that the inter-relatednature on resources may leadto protection of one resource atthe expense of another.The individual management ofresources does not allow for across-boundary approach toadapting to climate changewhich will lead to different\outcomes across the region.Community:An inconsistent approach toresponding to climate changecould cause confusion for thecommunity.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientBy establishing individualstrategies to adapt to climatechange, this may lead toadditional costs associated withnumerous approaches.The costs to individuals andcommunities resulting from theadverse effects of climatechange may be high.4-6 Doc # 1451856

4.1.3 Objective 3.6 Coastal environmentThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsevaluated to achieve Objective 3.6 (Coastal environment).Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Integratedmanagement of thecoastal environmentRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option requires integrated management of natural andphysical resources. It recognises the inter-related nature ofresources and, in particular, the importance of integratedmanagement with respect to management of the coastalenvironment. It recognises the long-term strategic approach that isneeded to manage such complex resources.The policy option encourages coastal land and water resources tobe managed in a coherent and well-aligned manner across thewhole region. It is recognised that different agencies are involvedin managing the land and water, but that the area is fundamentallya unit, where the impacts of land can affect the marine area andvice versa.The methods that support an integrated and regionally consistentapproach include: a common interpretation and application in plans of whatconstitutes the landward boundaries of the coastal environment; encouragement to undertake a joint planning approach tomanaging coastal resources and cross-boundary issues,including the strategic management of coastal reserves; addressing adverse effects on the coastal environment; and providing guidance on specific values that can be affected bycoastal use and development (including cumulative effects) andto ensure that these values are recognised and provided for inplans.In the previous generation of Resource Management Act plansthere was limited consistency in the way that the coastalenvironment was defined and managed. In particular, the effects ofland use on the marine area and vice versa were often omittedfrom planning provisions. To ensure a long-term coherentapproach to planning for use and development in the coastalenvironment, a consistent approach is required between the districtand regional councils.The long-term outcome of this policy option will be a change in theway that the coastal environment is managed. In the short term,there will be improved environmental outcomes through recognitionof the effects of land-based activities on the marine area and viceversa, and the assessment of cumulative effects.This policy option therefore strongly contributes to achievingObjective 3.6 (Coastal environment), as it seeks to protect theunique features of the coastal environment, avoid conflicts betweenvalues and recognises the link between marine and land-basedactivities through integrated management of these resources. Itrecognises the need to manage the coastal environment as acomprehensive unit, in a way that is regionally consistent acrossjurisdictional boundaries.The policy option will also contribute to 3.1 (Integratedmanagement), 3.2 (Decision making), 3.11 (Built environment),3.13 (Mauri and health of fresh water bodies), 3.15 (Riparian areasand wetlands), 3.20 (Amenity), 3.22 (Natural character), and 3.24Doc # 1451856 4-7

(Natural hazards) and will support all of the other objectives.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:The effects of land use on themarine area (and vice versa)are addressed appropriately,e.g. nutrients from agriculturalland use in marine water bodies.There could be future trade-offsbetween use and developmentaspirations and protectionaspirations.Land use and marine decisionsabout activities do not ignoreoffsite effects.The coast can function naturally.A consistent approach toidentifying and recognisingcoastal values would ensurecoastal values are identified andmanaged appropriately.Community:Community:Policy option 2:Management ofindividual resourcesin the coastalenvironmentA more holistic and consistentapproach taken to managing thecoastal environment by bothregional and territorialauthorities.The recognition of theimportance of key valuesincluding social, economic andcultural provides for continueduse and enjoyment of thecoastal area.Benefits related to functioningecosystems and the provision ofservices, including recreationvalues.Community has a clear outlineof what values are important inwhich areas.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessBy requiring councils to take aconsistent approach, the areadefined as being coastalenvironment may include awider area than is locallydesired or than is currentlydefined.The financial costs of identifyingcoastal values will vary indifferent areas of the region,depending on what work hasalready been undertaken. Thecost of identifying coastal areasto Waikato Regional Council willinclude mapping and a changeto the Regional PolicyStatement to incorporate themaps.The aim of this policy option is to recognise that the RMAjurisdictional boundaries separate the land resource from themarine resource and that the two parts of the coastal environmentshould be managed as separate units.While recognising that the Resource Management Act requiresconsideration of cross-boundary effects, this approach would allowfor individual agencies with responsibilities in the coastalenvironment to be guided directly by the New Zealand CoastalPolicy Statement and to develop local approaches to managingtheir respective resources in the coastal environment.This policy approach has been taken in the past and could beregarded as reinforcing the status quo. The outcome of thisapproach would be to manage the separate elements of the coastal4-8 Doc # 1451856

environment as individual resources to address individual effects.This policy option would allow for coastal values to be identified ona case-by-case basis through the consents process and allow fordistricts to define the values in accordance with their local areas ofinterest. Any guidance on key values to be considered would restwith the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.An ad hoc approach to decisions about values could result in awide variation in the way that the values are determined and takeninto account in decision making. This policy option could lead toan incremental loss of the qualities that support the various valuesconsidered important within the coastal environment.There is a risk that decision making would be focused narrowly onthe area being managed with less attention focused on the offsiteor downstream effects of an activity. There are examples wherethis approach has been taken that have led to some crossboundaryeffects being ignored to the detriment of the overallcoastal environment. For example expansion of aquaculture farmswithout due consideration to landward demands for landing andtransport, or the development of marine reserves without dueconsideration to managing the pressures associated with peoplevisiting the area.This policy option would not be effective in achieving Objective 3.6as it does not provide any level of consistency or a co-ordinatedapproach across the region, and does not recognise the linksbetween land- and marine-based activities.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:The changing nature of valuesover time could be monitored asthey are defined at a local level.Ongoing ad hoc approaches tomanaging the coastalenvironment could result inincreasing degradation ofcoastal resources over time.Land decisions adverselyimpacting on beach values andvice versa.The inability to manage crossboundaryeffects of consents.Community:This approach would ensure aspecific management focus onone area thereby avoiding anyconfusion about jurisdiction.The financial costs foridentifying the values would liewith a consent applicant ratherthan the wider communitythrough the regional planprocess.Localised identification of valuescould mean some of the valuesare ignored, particularly thosewith cross-boundaryimplications.Community:A lack of integrated planningcould lead to dual and at timesconflicting managementregimes.Uncertainty for public as to whois managing which aspects ofthe environment.Any debate to be had on valueswould need to be repeated atDoc # 1451856 4-9

Summary of efficiency: Not efficienteach consent hearing.The cost of identifying the extentof the coastal environmentwould sit with territorialauthorities.4.1.4 Collaborative approachThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of policy optionsevaluated to achieve Objectives 3.1 (Integrated management), 3.2 (Decision making),3.3 (Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River), 3.4 (Energy), 3.5 (Adapting to climatechange), 3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.7 (Ecosystem services), 3.8 (Relationship oftāngata whenua with the environment) and 3.9 (Efficient use of resources) primarily.However, this policy option also contributes to the remaining objectives as all require acollaborate approach.Policy OptionRMA s32 testEffectivenessPolicy option 1:CollaborativeapproachThis policy option encourages collaboration, participation andinformation sharing between Waikato Regional Council, territorialauthorities, tāngata whenua and other stakeholders to achieveresource management objectives.The policy and methods help to achieve a range of objectivesthrough: working together with other resource management agencies; regular liaison with tāngata whenua; recognition of a range of interests in particular resources orissues; information sharing; joint planning in relation to particular issues (including thecoastal environment and the Waikato River); working with neighbouring regional authorities; and identifying responsibilities of different organisations.This policy option recognises that working collaboratively acrossboundaries and between people with an interest in resourcemanagement will achieve better environmental, social, cultural andeconomic outcomes. In the case of cross-boundary resources suchas the coastal environment, the Hauraki Gulf and the WaikatoRiver, collaboration is the only way to achieve the desiredobjectives.This policy option will make a strong contribution to achievingObjectives 3.1 (Integrated management), 3.2 (Decision making)and 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment). Inaddition, this policy will assist in addressing cross-boundaryresource issues in relation to Objectives 3.3 (Health and wellbeingof the Waikato River), 3.4 (Energy), 3.5 (Adapting to climatechange), 3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.7 (Ecosystems services) and3.9 (Efficient use of resources).This policy option will also contribute to achieving Objectives 3.10,3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22,3.23, 3.24 and 3.25.Summary of effectiveness: High4-10 Doc # 1451856

Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThis policy option will result in amore consistent approach toresource management acrossboundaries which will improvethe state of resources.A collaborative approach to themanagement of cross-boundaryresources will result in betterenvironmental results for theresource as a whole as it willtake into account activities in thewider catchment that may havean effect in another area.Community:Collaborating with stakeholderswith an interest in particularresources working withcommunity groups, tāngatawhenua and others which willresult in greater social, culturaland economic benefits.By working collaboratively, arange of views will be taken intoaccount in decision making.There may be potential adverseeffects on individual resourcesas a result of balancing theneeds of different stakeholders.Community:To work collaboratively willrequire an investment of timeand resources from a broadrange of stakeholders.Waikato Regional Councilstaffing resources: seven fulltime equivalent staff members@ $150,000/FTE per annum =$1,050,000 per annum.Methods within the collaborativeapproach will reduce duplicationand clarify responsibilitiesbetween Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authoritiesand improve efficiency.Policy option 2:Individual authoritiesresponsible formanagement ofresourcesThis approach will also providemore consistency for thecommunity.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessThis policy option involves letting individual organisations takeresponsibility for certain aspects of resource management. WaikatoRegional Council would take responsibility for those areas specifiedin the Resource Management Act with territorial authoritiesresponsible for their own areas of responsibility.The Resource Management Act requires collaboration on crossboundaryissues and this would at least involve working withterritorial authorities to address these issues. Under this policyoption, regional resources that cross administrative boundaries willbe managed by separate authorities in the relevant locations. Thiswill mean that there will be different management approachesapplied to different parts of a resource, which would result invariable environmental standards across the region.This policy option would not be effective in achieving the objectivesas they require integrated management, decision making that takesinto account cross-regional resources and recognition of theDoc # 1451856 4-11

elationship of tāngata whenua with the environment.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:This policy option allows localauthorities to take an individualapproach to management ofresources which could lead tomore locally sensitiveenvironmental solutions forspecific resources.Community:Local solutions may be moreacceptable to members of thecommunity and take intoaccount local social, economicand cultural factors.Managing resources on alocation-by-location basis islikely to mean that managing theenvironmental effects that arewider than the local area will belost.It will also mean thatenvironmental standards aredifferent in each location andleading to inconsistentenvironmental results.The lack of collaboration maymean that some environmentaleffects are not considered indecision making.Community:By taking this approach,communities may feel that theyare not involved in the decisionmakingprocess as they are notpart of a collaborative group.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientOverlap of responsibilitiesbetween Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authoritiesand their associated costs, forexample in the case of naturalhazards.The costs to Waikato RegionalCouncil will be lower as fewerstaff members will be required.However, the overall cost to thecommunity may be higher dueto duplication of activities.4.1.5 Objective 3.8 Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironmentThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsevaluated to achieve Objective 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment).4-12 Doc # 1451856

Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Tāngata whenuainvolved in decisionmakingRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option requires appropriate opportunities for tāngatawhenua to enhance their relationship with the environment throughresource management and other processes.The policy option includes methods such as: developing formal strategic partnerships with iwi authorities; involvement of tāngata whenua in decision making, plans andstrategies and monitoring and enhancement programme; providing for tāngata whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki; and recognition of the cultural wellbeing brought about by enjoymentof resources.The outcomes of this policy option will be enhanced relationshipswith iwi authorities, a greater understanding of cultural issues and agreater role for tāngata whenua in decision making in relation toregional resources.The policy option will make a strong contribution to achievingObjective 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment) which aims to recognise the role of tāngata whenuaand provide for the use and enjoyment of natural resources and therecognition of the role of kaitiaki. It also contributes theachievement of objectives 3.1 (Integrated management), 3.2(Decision making) and 3.17 (Historic and cultural heritage) andsupports all of the additional objectives.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsTāngata whenua, through theirrole as kaitiaki, will seek toprotect and enhance the naturalresources of the region which islikely to improve environmentaloutcomes.Community:Cultural values will be givenmore significance in thedecision-making process.Natural resources may beprioritised over physicalresources.Community:Environmental outcomes maybe prioritised over economic orsocial values.Loss of environmental valuesmay be associated with use andenjoyment of resources.Policy option 2:Minimum involvementof tāngata whenuaSummary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessIwi involvement in decisionmaking often incurs a financialcost associated with the timeand resources required.There is no alternative to the involvement of tāngata whenua indecision making, as this is specified in the Resource ManagementAct.Doc # 1451856 4-13

It is a requirement under the Resource Management Act thatorganisations should take into account the Treaty of Waitangi(Section 8) and the relationship of Māori with their ancestral landsis recognised as a matter of national importance (Section 6). Thereare also obligations under other parts of the ResourceManagement Act to take into account tāngata whenua values andconsult tāngata whenua on particular issues.This policy option involves undertaking this requirement in a waythat limits the involvement of tāngata whenua to that which isexpressly required by the Resource Management Act.The outcome of this policy option would be for tāngata whenua tobe involved in decision-making processes related to particularareas, as outlined in the Resource Management Act. This wouldnot include methods such as developing formal strategicpartnerships with iwi groups, except where required in otherlegislation.This policy option would contribute to achieving Objective 3.8(Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment), throughinvolvement in decisions regarding environmental issues.However, the limited nature of the involvement would not achievethe objective to the same degree as more comprehensiveinvolvement.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsIndividual resources wherethere is cultural significancewill be protected by theinvolvement of tāngata whenuain these areas.Community:Other values such as social andeconomic values not associatedwith tāngata whenua may begiven a higher priority.The role of kaitiaki would onlybe recognised in relation tospecific areas and this mayresult in adverse environmentaleffects in areas not subject totāngata whenua involvement.Some resources may beprioritised over others,particularly those with significantcultural values.Community:Some cultural values may notbe recognised as a result oflimited involvement.Issues that are not of culturalsignificance to tāngata whenuawill not require involvement.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficient4.2 Risk of acting or not actingSection 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take into account the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.4-14 Doc # 1451856

With regard to integrated management, there is neither uncertain nor insufficientinformation regarding the subject matter of policies, rules and methods relating toObjectives 3.1 (Integrated management), 3.2 (Decision making), 3.3 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River), 3.4 (Energy), 3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.7(Ecosystem services), 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment) and3.9 (Efficient use of resources).Although the effects of climate change are the subject of extensive research andinvestigation, the precise nature of the effects is not yet known. Objective 3.5(Adapting to climate change) aims to manage land use in a way that avoids potentialadverse effects of climate change including sea level rise and variable weatherpatterns. The Resource Management Act Section 7(i) requires particular regard to behad for the effects of climate change in managing the use, development and protectionof natural and physical resources.The risk of acting in the way proposed is that some costs will be imposed on localauthorities and, in some cases, on resource consent applicants.The risk of not acting in the way proposed is that Waikato Regional Council would notbe acting in accordance with Section 30(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act, whichexplicitly requires regional councils to set policies and methods for the integratedmanagement of resources. This would be achieved in part through all the policiesproposed. Further, not including policies and methods to implement Objective 3.6(Management of the coastal environment) would mean that the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement was not giving effect to the New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement and Sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (as requiredby Section 62(3) Resource Management Act). With regard to effects of climate change,the risk of not acting in the way proposed is that it would not be acting in accordancewith the Section 7(i) of the Resource Management Act.4.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyIntegrated managementPolicy option 1: IntegratedmanagementPolicy option 2: Lesser degree ofintegrated managementCoastal environmentPolicy option 1: IntegratedmanagementPolicy option 2: Management ofindividual resourcesClimate changePolicy option 1: IntegratedmanagementPolicy option 2: Individual responseto managing the effects of climatechangeCollaborative approachPolicy option 1: CollaborativeapproachHighModerateHighHighlyefficientHighlyefficientHighlyefficientSelectedOption/sYes [Policy 4.1]NoYes [Policy 4.1]Low Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes [Policy 4.1]Moderate / Low Not efficient NoHighModeratelyefficientYes [Policy 4.2]Doc # 1451856 4-15

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy option 2: Individualauthorities responsible formanagement of resourcesLowRelationship of tāngata whenua with the environmentPolicy option 1: Tāngata whenuainvolvement in decision makingPolicy option 2: Minimuminvolvement of tāngata whenuaHighModerateModeratelyefficientModeratelyefficientModeratelyefficientSelectedOption/sNoYes [Policy 4.3]NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and3.9 is by inclusion of Policy option 1 for each of the different policy option ‘topics’ orobjectives.4.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsThe following policies and methods are recommended for inclusion in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS) Chapter 4 Integrated Management:Policy 1 Integrated Management (PWRPS Policy 4.1)An integrated approach to resource management will be adopted that:a) recognises the inter-connected nature of natural and physical resources (includingspatially and temporally);b) recognises the multiple values of natural and physical resources includingecosystem services;c) responds to the nature and values of the resource and the diversity of effects(including cumulative effects) that can occur;d) seeks to maximise benefits by considering opportunities to align interventions(including regulatory and non-regulatory) and/or to achieve multiple objectives;e) takes a long-term strategic approach which recognises the changing environmentand changing resource use pressures and trends; andf) applies consistent and best practice standards and processes to decision making.Implementation methods1.1 Amendments to regional and district plansAmendments to regional and district plans to give effect to this Regional PolicyStatement shall be notified within two years of its operative date.1.2 Land use changeWaikato Regional Council will manage the adverse effects of large-scale land usechange or intensification, including by:a) recognising that large-scale land use change has the potential to adversely affecta range of natural and physical resources, including effects occurring off site;b) recognising the potential cumulative effects of large-scale land use change;c) collaborating with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua, industry, landownersand other stakeholders to identify potential future land use pressures that maycause or increase the pace of land use change; andd) investigating options for managing large-scale land use change including:i) regulation;ii) education and advocacy; and4-16 Doc # 1451856

iii)use of economic instruments.1.3 Co-ordinated approachWaikato Regional Council will seek opportunities to align its own activities, includingthe provision of works and services, regulation, education programmes andenvironmental initiatives, to maximise the benefits achieved.1.4 Plans and strategiesIn developing plans and strategies for the management of resources, Waikato RegionalCouncil will:a) adopt an appropriate scale of management; andb) seek opportunities to promote positive environmental outcomes across a range ofresources.1.5 Environmental management plansWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua,industry and stakeholders to investigate the benefits of and options for developingproperty level environmental management plans to promote positive outcomes andmanage the effects of rural land uses including farming.Environmental management plans should identify:a) potential and actual adverse effects of the current land use;b) options/recommendations for addressing identified adverse effects;c) an implementation plan to address identified adverse effects;d) options and opportunities for environmental enhancement;e) recommended sustainable land management practices; andf) any monitoring required.The appropriateness of requiring environmental management plans as part of theconsenting process will be further investigated and discussed as part of the review ofthe Waikato Regional Plan.1.6 Advocacy and educationWaikato Regional Council will promote an integrated approach to resourcemanagement, including by:a) promoting sustainable land management practices;b) educating landowners/managers about the adverse effects of land use practices,including off-site and cumulative effects;c) promoting understanding of the values and benefits of resources in contributing tocommunity wellbeing through providing ecosystem services;d) promoting understanding of the different ways in which resources are valued bypeople and communities;e) advocating for consistent application of best practices standards and processes;f) encouraging research to increase understanding of the effects of climate change;g) making submissions on the long-term plans and annual plans of territorialauthorities to seek the appropriate allocation of resources to give effect to theRegional Policy Statement; andh) advocating to central government agencies, tāngata whenua, and otherstakeholders to assist implementation of the Regional Policy Statement.1.7 Managing the coastal environmentLocal authorities should:a) recognise and manage the coastal environment as an integrated unit; andDoc # 1451856 4-17

) recognise the special context of the coastal environment, including the recognitionthat it has particular values and issues that are of regional and national significanceand that impact on the wellbeing of the Waikato region, including:i) its contribution to the regional and local economy;ii) its cultural values and association, including historic heritage;iii) its value as a pātaka kai;iv) its public nature;v) its amenity values, including its contribution to open space;vi) its dynamic and hazardous nature;vii) the difficulty in containing adverse effects due to its inter-connected nature;viii) its potential for renewable energy generation;ix) its ecological diversity and indigenous biodiversity values; andx) the importance of the coastal marine area as the receiving environment forland-based discharges of sediment and contaminants and its sensitivity tothem.1.8 Identifying extent of the coastal environmentIn relation to the coastal environment:b) the Regional Policy Statement shall map the landward extent of the coastalenvironment at a property scale;c) until such time as the property level maps are incorporated into the Regional PolicyStatement, regional and district plans shall refer to the indicative maps shown insection 4A; andd) regional and district plans shall contain provisions that:i) address adverse effects of activities on the coastal environment, includingcross-boundary and cumulative effects; andii) recognise the particular values and issues present in the coastal environment;andiii) provide for integrated management and consistent provisions to give effect tothe policy direction of the Regional Policy Statement for the coastal marine areaand the adjoining land in the coastal environment.1.9 Planning approachRegional and district plans shall:a) ensure that cumulative adverse effects are managed within appropriate limits;b) recognise the long timeframes at which natural physical processes operate andadopt a 100-year planning timeframe to allow for expected changes in theseprocesses; andc) adopt a precautionary approach towards any proposed activity whose effects areas yet unknown or little understood.1.10 Terms of consentsLocal authorities should consider the appropriate term for which resource consentsshould be granted for activities with respect to:a) the level of uncertainty arising from any lack of understanding of the effects of theactivity;b) the dynamic nature of the coastal environment and river margins;c) the risk to the activity from natural hazards;d) the predicted effects of climate change;e) the level of investment involved; andf) the adverse effects arising from the activity on public values such as public access,amenity and natural character.4-18 Doc # 1451856

1.11 Economic instrumentsWaikato Regional Council will investigate and implement options for using economicinstruments in regional plans and other plans and strategies where appropriate, toassist in the management of natural and physical resources. Options investigated mayinclude:a) offsets or financial contributions for adverse effects generated by consentedactivities;b) differential rates and remissions policies for managing land-based activities,particularly where a public good is provided by private interests;c) full-cost pricing to ensure negative externalities are borne by those responsiblewhere possible;d) occupation charges for the use of public space; ande) tradable permits to assist in the efficient management of resources.1.12 Offsite mitigation of adverse effectsLocal authorities should consider the following priorities for restoration or enhancementas possible alternatives to onsite mitigation in situations where it is not appropriate orpractical to mitigate the adverse effects of an activity on site:a) public access to and along the coastal marine area and land adjacent to the coastand inland water bodies;b) health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and its catchment;c) functioning and stability of natural physical processes (including by retirement ofland along the coastal margin, retirement of steep land from production, andenhancement of riparian areas);d) indigenous biodiversity (including creation, restoration and enhancement ofwetlands and corridors);e) degraded geothermal features/characteristics; andf) natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers andtheir margins.1.13 Other plans and strategiesLocal authorities should, where appropriate, seek consistency with the objectives andpolicies of the Regional Policy Statement in other plans and strategies, including:a) asset management plans;b) long-term plans;c) regional pest management strategies;d) regional land transport strategies;e) navigation safety and other bylaws;f) zone management plans;g) civil defence and emergency management group plans;h) structure plans;i) growth strategies; andj) reserve management plans.1.14 Incorporating effects of climate changeLocal authorities should, and regional and district plans shall, recognise and provide forthe predicted effects of climate change, having particular regard to:a) predicted increase in rainfall intensity, taking account of the most recent nationalguidance and assuming a minimum increase in temperature of 3C by 2090(relative to 1990 levels); andb) predicted increase in sea level, taking into account the most recent nationalguidance and assuming a minimum increase in sea level of 0.8m by 2090 (relativeto 1990 levels).Doc # 1451856 4-19

1.15 Monitoring and information gatheringWaikato Regional Council will:a) track changes in use of natural and physical resources to ensure early identificationof new land use and resource use trends that may result in adverse effects on theenvironment;b) develop and maintain processes and resources to enable the effects of activities,including cumulative effects, to be monitored;c) monitor the state of resources and ensure that an appropriate level ofunderstanding is available and maintained to assist policy and managementinitiatives;d) identify relevant ecosystem services and assess their role and value to the region;e) consider and integrate mātauranga Māori indicators and measures as part of theinformation and monitoring regime;f) consider opportunities for communities to be involved in local monitoringprogrammes; andg) investigate the use of integrated spatial planning tools including to explorealternative long-term development options and associated trade-offs.Policy 2 Collaborative approach (PWRPS Policy 4.2)Waikato Regional Council will encourage collaboration, participation and informationsharing between resource management agencies, tāngata whenua and relevantstakeholders, particularly where there are shared or overlapping responsibilities orfunctions for issues or resources, and including when resources or issues crossboundaries.Implementation methods2.1 Co-ordinated approaches to resource managementWaikato Regional Council will seek to collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngatawhenua and other agencies with resource management responsibilities to ensureconsistent and co-ordinated approaches to resource management planning, includingby:a) working proactively with territorial authorities in the early stages of preparingresource management plans and strategies;b) providing advice on the intended implementation of regional council policy; andc) facilitating regular liaison with tāngata whenua and other local authorities onresource management issues.2.2 Recognition of interestsLocal authorities should:a) ensure appropriate processes and opportunities are established and maintained toinform relevant agencies, including neighbouring local authorities, relevantinfrastructure providers and tāngata whenua of any anticipated regional or districtplan changes or reviews, growth strategies, structure plans, and land use orsubdivision consent processes which may have an effect on the interests of theseparties; andb) provide opportunities for meaningful involvement in such processes.2.3 Consistent information systemsLocal authorities should:a) ensure that, as far as practicable, information is collected, analysed and storedusing methods and technologies that are consistent and compatible to enable easysharing of such information;b) develop protocols as to how and when information will be shared; andc) consider developing shared information services.4-20 Doc # 1451856

2.4 Joint planningWaikato Regional Council will investigate opportunities for joint initiatives (includingacross regional boundaries) particularly in relation to managing:a) the coastal environment;b) the Waikato River and its catchment;c) the Hauraki Gulf;d) geothermal resources; ande) Lake Rotorua and its catchment.2.5 Inter-agency liaisonWaikato Regional Council will:a) liaise with central government agencies where there are overlapping functions toreduce duplication, cost and uncertainty for resource users. This may involveestablishing protocols for information sharing or joint processes and preparing ordistributing information to resource users; andb) seek opportunities to align activities such as the provision of works and services,regulation, education programmes and environmental initiatives with other localauthorities, agencies and stakeholders to maximise the benefits achieved.2.6 General cross-boundary issuesWaikato Regional Council will work with adjoining local authorities and other agencies,including central government to identify resource management issues that crossboundaries and to reach agreements and put in place mechanisms for managingissues that are identified.2.7 Cross-boundary issues specific to Bay of Plenty Regional CouncilWaikato Regional Council will liaise with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to ensure:a) any regional plans for that part of the Rotorua Lake catchment within the Waikatoregion achieve the objectives set for the lake, particularly in relation to managingland use and nutrient discharge levels; andb) consistent management across jurisdictional boundaries of the geothermalresource in the Taupō volcanic zone, including through means such as memorandaof understanding.2.8 Hauraki Gulf Forum: Strategic IssuesLocal authorities shall have particular regard to the Hauraki Gulf Forum: StrategicIssues 2008 when preparing regional and district plans.2.9 Hauraki Gulf ForumWaikato Regional Council will:a) actively participate in and contribute to the Hauraki Gulf Forum;b) advocate for the Hauraki Gulf Forum to play an active role in management,research, advocacy and education in relation to the Hauraki Gulf and itscatchments; andc) liaise with relevant Forum partners and other stakeholders to investigatepreparation of a spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf.2.10 Hazardous substancesRegional and district plans shall recognise and provide for the following division ofresponsibilities when developing provisions for the control of the use of land for theprevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal ortransportation of hazardous substances:a) Waikato Regional Council shall be responsible for developing objectives, policies,rules and other methods for land in the coastal marine area and the beds of lakesand rivers; andDoc # 1451856 4-21

) territorial authorities shall be responsible for developing objectives, policies, rulesand other methods for all other land.2.11 Natural hazardsFor the purposes of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards, territorial authorities shall beresponsible for the control of the use of land except for the following, which shall be theresponsibility of the Waikato Regional Council:a) the control of the use of land in the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes andrivers; andb) the control of structures in primary hazard zones.2.12 Transfer of functionsWaikato Regional Council will investigate transferring its functions for the control ofstructures in primary hazard zones for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating naturalhazards to the relevant territorial authority.2.13 Indigenous biodiversityIn carrying out their resource management functions, local authorities shall maintainindigenous biodiversity. Territorial authorities shall be responsible for the control of theuse of land to maintain indigenous biodiversity, excluding land in the coastal marinearea and the beds of lakes and rivers, which shall be the responsibility of the WaikatoRegional Council.Policy 3 Tāngata whenua (PWRPS Policy 4.3)Tāngata whenua are provided appropriate opportunities to express, maintain andenhance their relationship with their rohe through resource management and otherlocal authority processes.Implementation methods3.1 Strategic partnerships with iwi authoritiesWaikato Regional Council will seek to develop strategic and formal partnerships withiwi authorities which should include addressing the following:a) involvement in regional plan development and review;b) involvement in resource consent processes; andc) protocols for information sharing and transfer.3.2 Tāngata whenua involvementLocal authorities should ensure that tāngata whenua have opportunities to be involvedin relevant resource management processes, including:a) developing and implementing plans and strategies;b) developing and implementing monitoring and enhancement programmes;c) decision making; andd) by establishing formal arrangements such as joint management agreements ormemoranda of understanding.3.3 KaitiakitangaLocal authorities should work with tāngata whenua to develop:a) an understanding of kaitiakitanga;b) processes and protocols for providing for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga,which may include:i) agreeing who should be consulted, when and how;ii) establishing formal arrangements such as joint management agreements ormemoranda of understanding;iii) tāngata whenua representation on hearings and other council committees;4-22 Doc # 1451856

iv) support for preparation, implementation and review of iwi planning documents;v) establishing an inventory of matters raised by tāngata whenua to reduceduplication of effort; andc) by establishing protocols for information sharing and transfer.3.4 Use and enjoyment of resourcesIn developing relevant resource management processes, including regional and districtplans, local authorities should provide for the cultural wellbeing of tāngata whenua byenabling appropriate access to and use and enjoyment of their resources.Doc # 1451856 4-23

5 Air5.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods5.1.1 Objective 3.10 Air QualityThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.10.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Improve degraded airquality.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe policy and its methods give effect to part b) of Objective 3.10 (Airquality), aiming to improve air quality where there is an unacceptablerisk to human health and/or ecosystems. Fine particulate matter fromhome heating and transport has been identified as being of particularconcern.The methods include the provision of incentives (such as some formof subsidy) and regional plan controls to reduce emissions from solidfuel home heating, and consideration will be given to controllingdomestic solid fuel burning. Monitoring wood burner installations willreveal useful trend information. Education and advocacy will be usedto encourage reductions and minimise emissions from burning andtransport. An Air Strategy will be developed to prioritise measuresneeded to improve air quality. A strategy provides a means toconsider issues such as PM 2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5microns) and acid gases, where new information about human healthrisks is emerging.Immediate outcomes will be limited. However, over time, as incentivestake effect, regional plan controls become operative and strategiesare implemented, air quality would be expected to be improved inareas where it is currently degraded, to the point where air qualityguidelines and standards are met and risks to human health and/orecosystems will be at acceptable levels.Assumptions are that Waikato Regional Council will put financialresources into providing incentives and will develop strategies andcontrols where necessary to be effective in improving air quality.There is a risk that incentives and controls will fall short of achievingrequired improvements (the risk lessening with increases in fundingavailable).This policy will make a strong contribution to achieving Objective 3.10,and will also assist in achieving Objectives 3.4, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.20.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsAir quality improved where innon-compliance.Community:NoneCommunity:Doc # 1451856 5-1

Reduced premature deaths,restricted activity and healthcosts associated with air pollutionin non-complying areas.Health costs (excludingpremature deaths) for theWaikato region have been valuedat $7.2 million per annum. 11 Thebenefit received from this optionwill be proportional with fundingavailable and compliance.Ecosystem values improved.Waikato Regional Council staffcosts associated with currentmonitoring levels, enforcementand consents for air dischargesare estimated at 2.25 full timeequivalent staff (costing $337,500per annum, assuming a standardcost of $150,000 per year per fulltime equivalent).The cost to Waikato RegionalCouncil of education, incentivesand developing strategies toimplement controls. Estimatedcosts: 2-3 full time equivalentstaff (longer term), costing$300,000 - $450,000 per annum.Territorial authority costs: 0.1-0.3full time equivalent per council,costing $15,000-$45,000 perannum. 12Costs to industry associated withconsenting activities: 0.75 fulltime equivalent, costing$112,500 per annum 13 .Policy Option 2:Status quoSummary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessCosts of providing incentives willvary depending on the size of thesubsidy. Who pays will dependon council decisions i.e. atargeted rate would impact onlyon homeowners receiving theupgrade. Larger subsidies mayrequire additional financing by theentire community.This policy provides no direction for action to be taken to reduceemissions in areas where it is degraded. The status quo would apply,which would be controls on industrial discharges under the WaikatoRegional Plan. However, these controls are inadequate to achieve airquality improvements because degraded air quality is principally as aresult of domestic solid fuel burning.This option is not considered to be compliant with the ResourceManagement Act, and the continued degradation of air quality wouldmean the objective is not achieved.This policy will make a weak contribution to achieving Objective 3.10.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEfficiencyCosts11Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., O’Dea, D. (2004). A cost-benefit evaluation of housing insulation: Results fromthe New Zealand housing, insulation and health study. Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universityof Otago.12Refer EW Docs# 1725709.13Based on current costs.5-2 Doc # 1451856

Environmental:LimitedCommunity:Health improvements, but limitedbecause of high levels of pollutionassociated with home heating.Environmental:Areas with degraded air qualitywould remain.Community:Estimated Waikato RegionalCouncil staff costs associatedwith current level of monitoring,enforcement and consents forair discharges: 2.25 full timeequivalent staff, costing$337,500 per annum. 14Current costs to industryassociated with consentingactivities: 0.75 full timeequivalent staff, costing$112,500 per annum.Premature deaths, restrictedactivity and health costsassociated with air pollution innon-complying areas.Uncertainty for industry asconsents for PM 10 dischargesare not allowed after a certaindate in non-complying airsheds. This would impact thelocal economy, with new andexisting industries locating orrelocating in complyingairsheds.Policy Option 3:Unacceptable riskavoided anddegradation in airquality as low asreasonably achievableSummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessNumber of industrial airconsents within Waikatoregion: 61 15Employment by affectedindustries: 1300 (approx)Contribution to GRP byaffected industries: $178m(2007)Affected schools with airconsents for boilers: 13The policy gives effect to parts a) and b) of the objective aiming toensure any degradation of air quality is as low as reasonablyachievable and avoiding unacceptable risks to human health andecosystems. The policy incorporates guidance for assessing whetherdegradation is as low as reasonably achievable.The methods provide for controls on discharges and set criteria fordetermining unacceptable risk.The immediate outcome will be that use of the resource will beallowed to continue, but in a way that the capacity for future uses of14Full time equivalent staff charged at $150,000 per full time equivalent per annum based on Ministry for theEnvironment (2010). Proposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management: Section 32 evaluationwww.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nps-freshwater-management-section32-evaluation. Accessed 1 April 2010.15EW Docs #1264732. Affected Industry Spreadsheet.Doc # 1451856 5-3

air will be maintained. This assumes that technology will keep pacewith growth in discharges to ensure that air quality is, within reason,maintained. There remains the risk that incremental degradation ofair quality could lead to a decline in air quality to the point where therisk to health and ecosystems becomes unacceptable to thecommunity.This policy will make a strong contribution to achieving Objective 3.10,and will also assist in achieving Objectives 3.7, 3.9 and 3.20.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsGood air quality maintained belowstandards and guidelines.Community:Positive for tourism and exporting‘clean green’ image.Community health and wellbeingmaintained.Health costs (excluding prematuredeaths) for the Waikato region havebeen valued at $7.2 million perannum. 16 The benefit received willdepend on technology keepingpace with growth in discharges.Certainty for industry that futureconsents can be granted.Number of industrial air consentswithin Waikato Region: 61 17Employment by affected industries:1300 (approx)Contribution to Gross RegionalProduct (GRP) by affectedindustries: $178 million (2007).Affected schools with air consentsfor boilers: 13NoneCommunity:Estimated regional council staffcosts associated with currentlevel of monitoring,enforcement and consents forair discharges: 2.25 full timeequivalent staff, costing$337,500 per annum. 18Cost of technologies to keepany degradation as low asreasonably achievable.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 4:Allow unrestraineddegradation in airqualityEffectivenessWhere air quality is good it could be degraded to a level that ismarginally compliant with air quality standards and guidelines.Ineffective in complying with the Resource Management Act.This policy will not contribute to achieving objective 3.10.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:None.BenefitsEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Potential for significantly lower air16Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., O’Dea, D. (2004). A cost-benefit evaluation of housing insulation: results fromthe New Zealand housing, insulation and health study. Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universityof Otago.17EW Docs #1264732. Affected Industry Spreadsheet.18Staffing costs to regional council expected to remain similar to status quo option (option 2)5-4 Doc # 1451856

Community:Lower direct costs to dischargersbecause less impetus to applythe best available controls.quality than at present withadverse effects on human healthand ecosystems.Community:Estimated Waikato RegionalCouncil staff costs: 2.25 full timeequivalent staff costing $337,500per annum.Negative impact on ‘green image’and tourism.Reduced wellbeing from lower airquality. Health costs excludingpremature deaths for the Waikatoregion have been valued at $7.2million per annum. 19Less certainty for industry thatconsents will continue to be ableto be granted.Number of affected industrial airconsents: 61.Employment by affectedindustries: 1300 (approx).Contribution to Gross RegionalProduct by affected industries:$178 million (2007).Policy Option 5:Limiting adverseeffects on amenitySummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessAffected schools with airconsents for boilers: 13.The policy seeks to avoid, remedy, or mitigate objectionable effectson amenity beyond property boundaries. The methods focus oncontrolling discharges for objectionable effects and working withterritorial authorities on amenity where responsibilities overlap.Guidance is provided on how adverse effects of an objectionablenature will be assessed.Air amenity effects will be reduced by controlling discharges to ensureeffects are maintained within property boundaries, or action beingtaken to remedy or mitigate effects when they occur. Assumes thatWaikato Regional Council and the territorial authorities will be able towork together to provide an effective response on air amenity issues.There is the risk that territorial authorities will not agree to work on airrelated amenity issues.This policy will contribute to achieving Objectives 3.10 and 3.20 andwill also assist in achieving Objective 3.2.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:Adverse effects on air amenityprincipally retained withinproperty boundaries.EfficiencyEnvironmental:NoneCosts19Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., O’Dea, D. (2004). A cost-benefit evaluation of housing insulation: results fromthe New Zealand housing, insulation and health study. Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universityof Otago.Doc # 1451856 5-5

Community:Daily life uninterrupted byadverse effects on amenityvalues and subsequent negativeimpacts on wellbeing reduced.Improved response to air amenitycomplaints.Community:Waikato Regional Council stafftime to develop an understandingwith each territorial authorityarea. Cost in staff time:Waikato Regional Council: 0.5 fulltime equivalent staff, costing$75,000 per annum.Territorial authorities: 0.25 fulltime equivalent staff, costing$37,500 per annum per territorialauthority.Costs to dischargers tointernalise all effects on amenity.Where it may not be practicableto do this, industry may close ormove, representing economiccosts to the community.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientPolicy Option 6:No provisions toaddress amenityPolicy Option 7:Retain existingpolicies to protect highair quality, enhancedegraded air qualityand maintain other airqualityEffectivenessDoes not achieve the objective or the Resource Management Act.The objective would not be able to be achieved.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:None.BenefitsCommunity:No costs of compliance.EfficiencySummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessCostsEnvironmental:Adverse effects on amenityvalues continue at current levelsor increase.Community:Conflict due to adverse effects onamenity. Potentially poorresponse to amenity relatedcomplaints.The policy seeks to protect the significant characteristics of high airquality, enhance significant characteristics of degraded air quality andmaintain significant characteristics of other air quality via maintainingan information base, consulting to identify characteristics of differentair qualities (high, degraded, other), via plans and resource consents,education and guidance.What constitutes high and degraded air quality was defined in theWaikato Regional Plan, but significant characteristics have neverbeen successfully determined and there is confusion as to how thisregime would be applied in practice. The policy does not recognisethat some additional resource use may be appropriate. The existingprovisions are uncertain and hence open to interpretation.This policy would make an uncertain contribution to achievingObjective 3.10.Summary of effectiveness: Low5-6 Doc # 1451856

EfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Potential for some characteristicsof high air quality to be protected.Community:Uncertain.CostsEnvironmental:Uncertain outcome as whatcharacteristics will be protectedand maintained.Community:Estimated Waikato RegionalCouncil staff costs associatedwith current level of monitoring,enforcement and consents for airdischarges: 2.25 full timeequivalent staff, costing $337,500per annum.Estimated costs to industryassociated with consentingactivities: 0.75 full time equivalentstaff, costing $112,500 perannum.Policy Option 8:Retain existing policyfor avoiding adverseeffects on humanhealth and flora andfaunaSummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessAdditional costs to council andconsent applicants due touncertainty in implementation.Provisions open to challenge anddebate through the consentprocess. May be overly restrictivewith development not allowed.The policy seeks to manage discharges to avoid adverse effects onhuman health and flora and fauna through plans and resourceconsents, education and codes of practice.The methods do not provide any guidance as to how ‘adverse effects’are to be determined. Interpreted in the widest sense health includeswellbeing, therefore avoidance of all adverse effects may be verydifficult to achieve.This policy would make an uncertain contribution to achievingObjective 3.10.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:Adverse effects of discharges onflora and fauna (ecosystems)avoided.Community:Adverse effects of discharges onhealth avoided.Health costs (excludingpremature deaths) for theEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.CostsCommunity:Cost to consent applicants ofavoiding all adverse effects asthey relate to human health andflora and fauna likely to beextremely high, exceeding currentDoc # 1451856 5-7

Waikato region have been valuedat $7.2 million per annum. 20 Thebenefit received will depend onthe extent of the policy.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient5.2 Risk of acting or not actingcosts.Increase in current costs forWaikato Regional Council forstatus quo option (as described inOption 2).Section 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation of theappropriateness to take into account the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.With regard to maintaining air quality, there is neither uncertain nor insufficientinformation about the causes of degradation of air quality and the adverse effectsassociated with degraded air, upon which to base analysis as to the appropriateness ofacting or not acting.The risk of acting in the way proposed is that some costs will be imposed on localauthorities, home owners (if solid fuel burner replacement is required), and thoseapplying for resource consents.The risk of not acting in the way proposed is that non-compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Standards for Air Quality, in particular for PM 10 , will continue. Air qualitymay be further degraded so that the number and incidence of non-complianceincreases with the associated adverse effects on health and costs to the community.Continuing breaches of the PM 10 standard would mean that the Waikato RegionalCouncil would be unable to grant resource consents for industrial discharges in noncomplyingairsheds.5.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 1:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy option 1: Improve degradedair qualitySelectedOption/sHigh Highly efficient Yes [Policy 5.1]Policy option 2: Status quo Low Not efficient NoPolicy option 3: Managingdischarges to airPolicy option 4: Allow unrestraineddegradation in air qualityPolicy option 5: Limiting adverseeffects on amenityPolicy option 6: No provisions toaddress amenityPolicy option 7: Retain existingpolicies to protect high air quality,enhance degraded air quality andmaintain other air qualityHigh Highly efficient Yes [Policy 5.2]Low Not efficient NoHighModeratelyefficientYes [Policy 5.3]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient No20Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., O’Dea, D. (2004). A cost-benefit evaluation of housing insulation: results fromthe New Zealand housing, insulation and health study. Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universityof Otago.5-8 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy option 8: Retain existingpolicy for avoiding adverse effectson human health and flora andfaunaSelectedOption/sLow Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.10 is by inclusion of Policy options 1, 3and 5.5.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsThe following policies and methods are recommended for inclusion in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS) Chapter 5 Air:Policy 1 Improve degraded air quality (PWRPS Policy 5.1)Reduce the adverse effects on air quality caused by discharges from home heatingappliances and transport, with particular emphasis on:a) discharges of fine particulate matter; andb) areas where there are unacceptable risks to human health and ecosystems.Implementation methods1.1 Control dischargesRegional plans shall control discharges to air from solid fuel home heating appliancesto avoid unacceptable risks to human health or ecosystems.1.2 Determine unacceptable riskIn determining unacceptable risk to human health and ecosystems Waikato RegionalCouncil will have regard to:a) National Environmental Standards for Air Quality;b) World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines;c) National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines;d) Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines; ande) other nationally or internationally accepted criteria.1.3 Strategic approachWaikato Regional Council will seek to work with territorial authorities, tāngata whenuaand other stakeholders to:a) identify potential gaps in how air quality issues are addressed;b) identify implications for communities of addressing local air quality issues, includinghealth, financial or other implications;c) develop targeted education programmes to improve community understanding ofair quality related issues; andd) prioritise future actions for improving air quality where it is degraded.1.4 Incentives for clean heating appliances and insulationWaikato Regional Council will work with relevant agencies to deliver incentives toreplace solid fuel home heating appliances that do not comply with Regulations 23 and24 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard Relating to CertainAir Pollutants, Dioxins and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004, with clean heatingappliances, and to improve housing insulation.Doc # 1451856 5-9

1.5 Education and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) use environmental education programmes to increase public awareness of:i) the impacts and causes of poor air quality;ii) the benefits of correct operation of solid fuel home heating appliances andappropriate fuel quality;iii) the benefits of appropriate insulation;iv) how to avoid or reduce adverse effects from outdoor open burning;v) the benefits of alternative modes of transport; andvi) the benefits of low emission vehicles; andb) promote the inclusion of initiatives that minimise air emissions from land transportincluding in:i) the Waikato Regional Land Transport Strategy, andii) urban growth strategies and structure plans.5.1.6 Quality wood supplyWaikato Regional Council will encourage wood fuel suppliers to provide good quality(low moisture) wood fuel for domestic home heating.5.1.7 Monitor trends in wood burner installationsWaikato Regional Council will work with territorial authorities to gather informationabout new wood burner installations and to monitor trends in the number and type ofwood burners being installed.Policy 2 Manage discharges to air (PWRPS Policy 5.2)Manage discharges to air (other than from home heating or transport) to ensure anyresulting degradation avoids unacceptable risks to human health, and is as low asreasonably achievable. In determining whether any degradation is as low asreasonably achievable, the following will be taken into account:a) existing air quality;b) the age of and ability to upgrade existing infrastructure;c) any alternative modes/methods of discharge;d) applicable emission control techniques;e) the extent to which it is possible to apply the best available technique;f) the relative effects on the environment of the options; andg) economic and social factors.Implementation Methods2.1 Control discharges to airRegional plans shall control discharges to air, including from:a) open burning in urban areas;b) industrial and trade premises; andc) agrichemical application.2.2 Determine unacceptable riskIn determining unacceptable risk to human health and ecosystems, Waikato RegionalCouncil will have regard to:a) National Environmental Standard for Air Quality;b) World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines;c) National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines;d) Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines; ande) other nationally or internationally accepted criteria.5-10 Doc # 1451856

Policy 5.3 Limit adverse effects on amenity (PWRPS Policy 5.3)Ensure discharges to air are managed so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate objectionableeffects beyond the property boundary.Implementation Methods3.1 Control dischargesRegional plans shall control discharges to air to avoid, remedy or mitigate objectionableeffects beyond the property boundary. In determining whether an objectionable effecthas occurred, regard shall be had to the:a) frequency, intensity, offensiveness, duration and location of the incident; whileb) recognising the amenity usually associated with the area and land uses.3.2 Manage air amenityWaikato Regional Council will work with territorial authorities to develop a joint processincluding:a) the division of responsibilities for responding to complaints about discharges to air;andb) for managing adverse effects on amenity resulting from discharges to air.Doc # 1451856 5-11

5-12 Doc # 1451856

6 Built environment6.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods6.1.1 Objective 3.11 Built EnvironmentThe following table summarises the policy options that have been evaluated toprimarily achieve Objective 3.11 Built Environment.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Provisions formanaging developmentof the built environmentRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option is to ensure development of the built environmentoccurs in a planned and co-ordinated manner appropriate to the scaleof development, which: is guided by a set of development principles; recognises and addresses potential for cumulative effects ofdevelopment; andis based on sufficient information to allow assessment ofpotential long-term effects of development.The policy will be supported by a number of methods that will give moredirection and guidance as to how the policy direction should beimplemented.The development principles set a direction for future development thatminimises adverse effects while maximising the benefits ofdevelopment, representing a vision for development to move towards.A method will require councils, in managing the built environment, tohave particular regard to the principles when preparing or changingdistrict plans, or planning mechanisms such as structure plans andgrowth strategies. Application of the principles will need to beappropriate in any particular situation. Some developments will be ableto support certain principles more than others, resulting in the need fortrade-offs of certain principles against others. It is important that allprinciples are appropriately considered when councils are managingthe built environment. Methods will ensure that the principles aresupported through advocacy and development manuals and designcodes.A supporting method will ensure rural-residential development isdirected away from natural hazard areas, high quality soils, locationsidentified as likely renewable energy generation sites and fromidentified mineral resources and their access routes. The method willalso state that where development pressures are likely to be high (suchas in the vicinity of Hamilton), district plans shall ensure rural-residentialdevelopment occurs in identified rural-residential areas. This is toensure that rural-residential development does not spread across theregional landscape in an unco-ordinated way.A supporting method will encourage the development of growthstrategies in areas where high population growth is occurring. Suchstrategies should identify at a least a 30-year land use pattern in orderto ensure there is a strong basis for decisions about spending ontransport and other infrastructure.Supporting methods will encourage decisions about the location of newurban development to be based on comprehensive information whichallows the potential long-term effects of urban development to bedetermined and addressed. Structure plans will be required before landDoc # 1451856 6-1

is to be rezoned for urban development. District plans will be requiredto ensure that where there is no structure plan in place, and whereurban development is to be decided through consent decisions, thedecisions are still based on information that facilitates a strategicunderstanding of the development.Other methods to support the policy will include: a method that encourages involvement of parties such as tāngatawhenua and infrastructure providers, who have interests, knowledgeand experience that would help good development planning, to beinvolved in the preparation of growth strategies, structure plans andother such development planning mechanisms; a method that ensures the Waikato River Vision and Strategy issupported through development planning; a method that encourages the use of economic instruments; and a method that ensures that Waikato Regional Council aligns itsactivities with the development principles.These methods will support the policy direction by ensuringdevelopment planning processes are in place that will have appropriateregard to the development principles, will manage cumulative effects ofdevelopment, and will ensure development decisions are based ongood information.This policy/method package is considered a very important package forensuring Objective 3.11 is achieved. The objective seeks developmentof the built environment to occur in an integrated, sustainable andplanned manner. The package supports this by encouraging gooddevelopment planning processes that are guided by sounddevelopment principles.The principles support the specific matters identified in Objective 3.11as well as many matters subject to other objectives. The principles willhelp ensure planning for the built environment is integrated, therebyavoiding ad hoc decision making that is inconsistent with the full suiteof objectives and policies in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement. They will provide guidance to ensure key matters that canbe impacted on by development are considered during developmentplanning. They will encourage integrated and co-ordinateddevelopment planning by setting a direction for future development toapply across the region. The principles will also provide a basis forassessing the success of development planning over time.The policy package supports the use of proactive development planningtechniques such as growth strategies and structure plans. Suchtechniques are very effective ways of achieving desired outcomes fromdevelopment of the built environment. The process of developing suchstrategies and plans allows discussions with interested parties aboutthe nature of development. The basic pattern of development, itsenvironmental effects and potential benefits for the local community canbe proactively managed through such techniques. Ad hoc, shortsighteddevelopment decisions can be avoided in this way.Rural-residential development in the Waikato region, as in many partsof New Zealand, has been fast, widespread and ad hoc over the last 30years, particularly within the last 10 years. Waikato Regional Councilhas produced a map that shows the large extent of new ruralresidentialdevelopment within the Waikato region between 1997 and2008. This map is available on request. Rural-residential developmenthas often been poorly controlled by district plans and has often resultedin a range of cumulative adverse environmental and community effects.Rural-residential development can cause widespread effects on arange of matters identified in the objective and in other objectives such6-2 Doc # 1451856

as efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure, options for use of highquality soils, access to minerals and extent of natural hazard risk. Wellmanagedrural-residential development can have positive social,economic, cultural and environmental benefits by, for example,providing lifestyle choice and in some cases improving localbiodiversity. Improving the management of rural-residentialdevelopment will therefore strongly support achievement of Objective3.11.This policy package, by establishing development principles andensuring good strategic development planning processes are in place,will also support in part, Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9,3.10, 3.13, 3.15, 3.17, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25.This policy package aims to improve consistency in terms of planningfor the development of the built environment by setting developmentprinciples and encouraging good development planning mechanisms.The planning mechanisms are already commonly used by localauthorities and represent accepted best practice for managing the builtenvironment. For the reasons stated, this policy package is considereda very effective way of achieving Objective 3.11 and of supporting theabove listed objectives.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:Many of the developmentprinciples will be aboutenvironmental outcomes, such asminimising energy and carbonuse, protection of landscapevalues, encouraging ecologicalcorridors and enhancingbiodiversity, avoiding adverseeffects on soil stability, waterquality, flooding, aquifer rechargeand aquatic ecosystems, andprotecting the natural character ofthe coastal environment.Promoting such principles willtherefore encourage a range ofenvironmental benefits.The use of good developmentplanning processes will ensurethat the nature of development inan area is appropriate with respectto the existing environmentalvalues. In this way, valuedaspects of the environment, suchas water bodies, coastalcharacter, significant areas ofindigenous flora and fauna, can beprotected or enhanced. Potentialconflicts between infrastructureprovision and natural values canbe avoided.Clear direction for thedevelopment or evaluation ofdistrict plan policy and methods ofimplementation.EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo significant environmentalcosts.Doc # 1451856 6-3

Clear guidance on relevantmatters to be taken into accountwhen making decisions ondevelopment proposals andconsent applications within thebuilt environment.Clear linkages through theprinciples to the other keyobjectives and policies of theProposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement that relate to thedevelopment of the builtenvironment.Community:Many of the developmentprinciples will be about outcomesthat will benefit the community(apart from through environmentalprotection). For example,principles may cover such mattersas protection of efficiency andeffectiveness of infrastructure,maintenance of access tominerals, water bodies and highquality farm land, development isavoided in hazard areas, reversesensitivity with respect to industryand infrastructure is avoided,development supports existingurban areas and does not limitfuture development options, andeffects on the unique tāngatawhenua relationships, values,aspirations, roles andresponsibilities with respect to anarea are recognised. Ensuring thatsuch principles are givenparticular regard during themanagement of the builtenvironment will thereforeencourage a range of communitybenefits.Development planning techniquessuch as growth strategies andstructure plans can have verysignificant community benefits.For example, planning can ensureurban design allows forappropriate open space forpassive and active recreation, thatnew areas connect well to existingurban areas, that new urbandevelopment maximizes the rangeof transport options (includingpublic transport, walking andcycling), that existing investmentin infrastructure is protected, thatpublic facilities such as schoolsand commercial facilities areprovided for and so on. Gooddevelopment planning can avoidmany of the problems associatedCommunity:Development planning can be asignificant cost to local authorities.For example, it would not beuncommon for the development ofa structure plan in the Waikato tocost in the order of $200,000. Thecost is minimised through thispolicy option by only requiringstructure plans when a new areais to be zoned urban. It should benoted that structure plans can bedeveloped by developers, and thecost passed onto land purchasers.The fact that such structureplanning is now common practicewith many territorial authoritieswould indicate that it is costeffective.There will be a loss of subdivisionoptions for some land ownersalthough a small number of landowners may have increasedsubdivision options as a result ofthis policy. Loss of subdivisionoptions may result in a loss of landvalue in some areas, particularlythose areas close to urban areasthat currently can be readilysubdivided. Waikato RegionalCouncil contracted DarrochValuations to assess the potentialimpact on land values fromdifferent constraints on ability tosubdivide. The Darroch reportinvestigated hypotheticaldevelopment options for a 2hectare lot and a 100 hectare lot,within 5 kilometres of Hamilton, 2kilometres of Morrinsville andfurther than 30 kilometres fromany town. Each hypothetical lotwas valued under the following 4scenarios: district plan rulesallowed 4, 3, 2 and 0 lots to besubdivided from the parent title.The land value did not change forthe location 30 kilometres fromany town under the ‘no6-4 Doc # 1451856

with ad hoc unco-ordinateddeveloped identified in Issue 1.4.Well managed rural-residentialdevelopment will also result in arange of community benefits. Forexample, such management canreduce the likelihood ofdevelopment in hazard proneareas, reduce potential for reversesensitivity with respect to existingfarm activities, reduce the need forroad improvements and newservices and infrastructure toserve rural-residential areas,reduce road congestion andribbon development along roads,reduce fragmentation of farm land,reduce development effects onrural landscape and amenity andso on.subdivision’ scenario, theestimated values of the 100hectare and 2 hectare Hamiltonblocks were 7.6% and 31% lowerrespectively than under the 4 lotsubdivision scenario. Similarly, theMorrinsville blocks were estimatedto be 5% and 36% lower in valuerespectively. The land valueswere fairly uniformly lower in thescenarios where the ability tosubdivide was lower. It should benoted that in most cases, currentrules already do not allow some ofthe subdivision scenarios to occur.In Waikato District, for example, amaximum of two lots can besubdivided off a rural lot. Thestudy would indicate that if furthersubdivision was prevented inWaikato District’s rural zone, landvalues for a 100 and 2 hectareblock near Hamilton could reduceby about 2.7% and 7.5%respectively.There will also be costs tocommunities in that new districtplan provisions will need to bedeveloped to give effect to thepolicy, but this could occur as partof wider district plan reviews thatare occurring. A number ofterritorial authorities are currentlyreviewing their district plans andcould incorporate changes in linewith this policy for little additionalcost. Some are already puttingpolicies in their district plans thatare in line with this policy option,as they are very aware of thedeficiencies of past planningapproaches. This policy option willtherefore largely reinforce workalready underway.Summary of efficiency: HighCommunity costs of this policyoption will vary greatly for differentterritorial authorities and differentland areas within each district.Use of development planningtechniques and controls ondevelopment through district plansare now common. The policyoption includes some flexibilitywhereby the highest costs ofmanagement will be wheredevelopment pressures, andtherefore benefits of management,are highest. This policy option isthen considered to be highlyefficient.Doc # 1451856 6-5

Policy Option 2:Influencing builtenvironment decisionmaking throughsubmissions on plans,plan changes, consentapplications andnotices of requirementEffectivenessThis option assumes that Waikato Regional Council would participate ina vigorous way in the plan making and consent process to ensure thatrelevant matters were being taken into account in relation to the builtenvironment, without necessarily clear guiding policy on howdevelopment of the built environment should be managed.As there would not be strong policy guidance, Waikato Regional Councilwould need to be a lot more proactive on a case-by-case basis. Thiswould require a great deal more resources for responding to individualplan changes and consent applications. It would mean a more ad hocapproach that was not informed by a consistent policy approach.The outcome in the short term could be the development of anadversarial relationship between Waikato Regional Council and theterritorial authorities. Unless there was a clear regional issue at stake itcould also antagonise local communities.This policy option would not make a significant contribution to achievingObjective 3.11.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:There would be someenvironmental gains based onadvocacy with respect to otherRPS environmental policy.However these environmentalresults are likely to be variable,depending on the policies of theindividual territorial authorities anddependent also on WaikatoRegional Council’s resourcing forsubmissions.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Less consistent environmentalresults across the region.Increased loss of high quality soils,loss of access to minerals andother problems that are currentlyoccurring due to development insome areas.Community:This approach could result ingreater flexibility for local planning.Community:Less proactive developmentplanning, such as through the useof growth strategies and structureplans.Greater potential for conflictsbetween development planningapproaches across territorialboundaries. For example strongergrowth controls in one district maydirect development to a lesscontrolled neighbouring district.Summary of efficiency: LowLess co-ordination of land use andinfrastructure resulting inunplanned for pressures oninfrastructure and demand for newinfrastructure where developmenthas occurred where infrastructurewas not planned.6-6 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 3:Waikato RegionalCouncil requiring landuse consents fordevelopmentEffectivenessThis policy option would be that the Waikato Regional Council wouldtake over subdivision and land use consent responsibilities fromterritorial authorities in the region. There are advantages with this optionin terms of integration of land use development with infrastructure and interms of more consistent development decisions across the region.However, this option is not considered effective for the following reasons. The option would require Resource Management Act transfers ofresponsibilities from territorial authorities to Waikato RegionalCouncil. It would be very unlikely to be supported by territorialauthorities. The Waikato Regional Council does not currently have experienceand expertise with territorial subdivision consents. It would be very difficult to integrate territorial authority service andinfrastructure provision and management responsibilities withdevelopment, if Waikato Regional Council controlled urbandevelopment.There may be conflicts between the Waikato Regional Council’senvironmental functions and the role of granting subdivision consentsprimarily for socio-economic benefits.For these reasons this is unlikely to be an effective option for supportingObjective 3.11 (Built environment) or other objectives.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:There may not be environmentalbenefits from this option over andabove the benefits to be achievedwith land use consents remainingwith territorial authorities. This isbecause Waikato Regional Councilmay not be able to be such astrong environmental advocategiven that it would also havedevelopment agendas.Community:CostsEnvironmental:There should be no significantenvironmental cost.CommunityPolicy option 4: Codesof compliance toimprove developmentoutcomesGiven that territorial authorities aretraditionally closer to theircommunities due to greaterinvolvement in local serviceprovision, there may not be localcommunity benefits if WaikatoRegional Council takes oversubdivision and land use consentprocessing.Summary of efficiency: LowThere would be a large cost to thecommunity with respect to thetransfer of responsibility,development of new regional planprovisions for urban subdivisionand land use consents, changes todistrict plans, and the increasedstaffing and upskilling required bythe Waikato Regional Council.EffectivenessThis policy approach would seek to achieve Objective 3.11 (Builtenvironment), and other objectives that require management ofdevelopment of the built environment, through codes of compliance toimprove development outcomes. Codes of compliance can be usefulwhere there are very clear standards that should apply to an activity.They are useful for example to show compliance with building standards.However, this kind of approach would not be suitable for developmentplanning, given that each development area will have a range ofcharacteristics and features that need to be individually assessed andDoc # 1451856 6-7

Policy Option 5:Regional GrowthStrategytaken into account in development planning and decisions. The principleapproach used in Policy Option 1 is therefore more appropriate to thissituation. This policy option is therefore not considered to be effective inachieving Objective 3.11.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:This policy option is unlikely toresult in significant additionalenvironmental benefits, over andabove the benefits from the otherpolicies that would appear to bemore effective and efficient.Community:This policy option is unlikely toresult in significant additionalcommunity benefits, over andabove the benefits from the otherpolicies that would appear to bemore effective.Summary of efficiency: LowEfficiencyEffectivenessCostsEnvironmental:There should be no significantenvironmental cost.Community:There would be some costs fromthis policy option in that resourceswould be needed to prepare codesof compliance and administerthem.This policy option is to create a detailed regional growth strategy for thewhole region which establishes a development pattern for the region. Toeffectively manage growth, this would need to establish a settlementpattern across the region that gives strong direction to where urban,industrial and rural-residential development can occur. It would alsoneed to influence the nature of development, such as urban density.This policy option may result in more consistently established andintegrated development across the region. However, there are a numberof reasons why this policy option is unlikely to be effective.This would be a very large project that would be very timeconsuming and take a number of years to establish. A growthstrategy of this extent may become an unwieldy project that is toolarge to be responsive to local change in trends and pressures asthey occur.There would be a number of territorial authorities that would beunlikely to support a regional scale growth strategy, even at a broadscale. It may be very difficult to achieve agreement on developmenttrade-offs across different districts that may be required to achieve aconsistent regional growth strategy.This approach would reduce the ability for local communities to beinvolved in local growth management and may therefore reducelocal community buy-in to development planning.For these reasons this is unlikely to be an effective option for supportingObjective 3.11 (Built environment) or other objectives that need a degreeof management of the built environment.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:The main potential environmentalbenefit of this approach would bethat regional development is moreEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:There should be no significantenvironmental cost.6-8 Doc # 1451856

consistent with regional patterns ofinfrastructure. However, in general(and in practice), this approach isunlikely to result in environmentalbenefits that are greater than anapproach where the RPS providespolicy guidance for development ofthe built environment, which is thenimplemented as appropriate (withWaikato Regional Council input)through district plans and localgrowth strategies.Community:This approach could potentiallyreduce development conflictsacross district boundaries.Community:This approach could be seen asreducing self determination ofcommunities at the local level.Policy option 6: Policyon new development ofthe built environment inthe coastalenvironmentThere could be greater consistencyof development decisions acrossthe region which for example mayreduce the potential fordevelopment to be encouraged indistricts with poorer developmentcontrols.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessThere may be increased conflictand disagreement betweenWaikato Regional Council andterritorial authorities if agreementson direction cannot be achieved.There would be a significantfinancial cost to the region inundertaking such an extensivegrowth strategy.This policy option will provide policy guidance for development of thebuilt environment in the coastal environment. This is in recognition of thefact that there is particular pressure for development in the coastalenvironment and that there are potential effects of developmentparticular to the coastal environment. The policy and its methods willrequire that territorial authorities will develop provisions in district plansand growth strategies to avoid effects on coastal character and amenity,to respond to potential sea level rise and increased coastal hazards suchas erosion and inundation. The policy should also ensure as far aspracticable that development does not compromise current or anticipatedcoastal infrastructure, recognising the potential need for increasedcoastal infrastructure to service a growing aquaculture industry, potentialcoastal energy developments and so on.A supporting method will require Waikato Regional Council and territorialauthorities to collaborate to identify where they need to allow for inlandmigration of built coastal habitats as sea level rises.Waikato Regional Council has responsibility for the allocation of space inthe coastal marine area. A method will ensure that Waikato RegionalCouncil provides for the integrated management of infrastructure in thecoastal marine area such that there is a strategic framework thatintegrates land and marine infrastructure. Methods will also ensure thatregional and district plans provide for coastal development setbacks thatavoid effects of development on coastal values.The sensitive nature of coastal environments, high pressure fordevelopment of such areas, and increasing demand for coastal mining,aquaculture, energy developments and recreation, mean that land useconflicts and adverse social, economic, cultural and environmentaleffects will increase if land use planning in the coastal environment doesnot evolve to keep up with these pressures. In general, territorialauthorities are very aware of this, and are attempting to improveplanning to deal with it. Having the policy and methods in the RPS will,Doc # 1451856 6-9

however, provide support for their efforts in the face of increasingpressure from developers and resources users, and in some caseschangeable political will to address the pressures. Because district plansare required to give effect to the RPS, such a policy will be an effectiveway of ensuring district plans and growth strategies address theseissues in a consistent and long-term manner.This policy provides a list of outcomes to be achieved from developmentin the coastal environment consistent with the New Zealand CoastalPolicy Statement. In so doing, it provides good guidance to regional anddistrict plans and will help to ensure management of the builtenvironment in the coastal environment is well planned, sustainable andintegrated. In this way the policy package will help to achieve Objective3.11 (Built environment). This policy package will also contributetowards the achievement of the objectives that relate to climate change,natural hazards, and the quality and amenity of the natural environment.The policy option does not require the development of district planmethods which are not already commonly used. There is therefore noreason to believe that the policy and its methods could not beimplemented.This policy is therefore considered to be an effective way to deliverObjective 3.11 and will also contribute towards achieving Objectives 3.1,3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.12, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23 and 3.24.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:This policy option will support thework of territorial authorities byproviding strong policy guidancefor protection of environmentalvalues in the coastal environment.It would not be possible to ascribeparticular environmental results tosuch a policy over and above theenvironmental results that areachieved by territorial authoritycoastal provisions. However, itwould help to provide a moreconsistent management of coastaldevelopment in the Waikatoregion.Community:The comments above with respectto environmental benefits wouldalso apply to community benefits.There would, however, beadditional community benefit byhaving the long-term certainty ofregional policy for development. Itwill provide territorial authoritieswith support in the face ofincreasing pressure fordevelopment from industry andproperty developers.There will likely be benefits from amore strategic approach toinfrastructure in the coastal marinearea. This approach would ensureEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:There should be no significantenvironmental cost.CommunitySome landowners may experienceloss of subdivision options.Limiting development, for examplesubdivision, may result in a loss ofland value in some areas.Some costs associated withdeveloping district plan provisionsto give effect to this policy(although some district plans arecurrently under review, so costsmay be limited).There will be a cost to WaikatoRegional Council to establish astrategic framework for6-10 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 7:Policy for co-ordinatingand integrating growthand infrastructureplanning and provisionbetter use of existing infrastructureand result in better linkagesbetween land and marineinfrastructure.Provides strong long-term policyguidelines for the retention ofexisting community amenitythrough controlled developmentwithin the coastal environment.Summary of efficiency: Medium-HighEffectivenessinfrastructure in the coastal marinearea. The cost will depend on thescope of the task, and may requirefunding in the order of several tensof thousands of dollars.This policy package is to provide direction and processes that ensurethat planning for new development is co-ordinated with planning forinfrastructure required to service that development, and to ensure thatnew development does not reduce the efficiency and effectiveness ofexisting infrastructure. The policy option will also seek to ensuremanagement of the built environment is co-ordinated and integratedacross regional boundaries. It is to help to protect investment in existinginfrastructure, allow for its future maintenance and upgrade asappropriate, and enable optimal decisions about new infrastructureprovision.The policy package will support long-term strategic land use planning asa basis for infrastructure decisions. It will state that growth strategies arerequired to achieve this, where strong population growth is anticipated. Amethod will require regional and district plans to ensure a strategicapproach that seeks to achieve particular outcomes with respect toinfrastructure such as roading patterns that support public transport andindustry located where there is good access to strategic transportnetworks (Method 6.3.1). A method will encourage urban development tobe directed to existing towns where there is no growth strategy thatplans otherwise.Other methods will: encourage collaboration between councils and infrastructureproviders; promote the need for financial planning for infrastructure beforedevelopment occurs; promote incorporation of the directions of the policy in developmentplanning, regional land transport strategies and other appropriatestrategies and manuals; promote integration of growth planning with all levels of transportplanning; and promote Integrated Transport Assessments where development willresult in additional major trip-generating activities.This option directly responds to the requirement in Section 30(1)(gb) ofthe RMA that regional councils provide for the strategic integration ofinfrastructure with land use through objectives, policies and methods.Integrated planning is a key aspect of Objective 3.11. This policydirection will ensure that the management of the built environment takesaccount of the potential for land use change to compromise existinginfrastructure. It will also ensure decisions about new infrastructure aremade at the same time as decisions about the nature of newdevelopment. Ensuring the integration of land use and infrastructure isaddressed in such a way will greatly help to achieve this objective.The policy package also responds to the requirement in the LandTransport Management Act for a 30-year land use pattern to informDoc # 1451856 6-11

decisions about future development and spending on transportinfrastructure. 21There are some examples in the region where development planning,such as through growth strategies and structure plans, is alreadyseeking to proactively integrate infrastructure and land use planning. Anumber of territorial authorities within the Waikato region are workingtowards changing district plans to implement their growth strategies andstructure plans. This policy option therefore supports current goodplanning practice which is already occurring in the region. The optiondoes provide support for councils already working with such processesand does provide guidance in terms of how to protect existing transportinfrastructure. It also encourages greater collaborative effort betweenrelevant parties and greater integration between the variousinfrastructure and growth planning tools. For these reasons, this policyoption is expected to be workable, and an effective way of supportingObjective 3.11. Improving integration between land use andinfrastructure planning will also support Objective 3.2 (Decision making),3.4 (Energy), 3.6 (Coastal environment) and 3.9 (Efficient use ofresources).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnsuring that infrastructure isplanned and provided for prior toland use change occurring willhelp to ensure appropriatestormwater and wastewaterinfrastructure is provided that willminimise environmental effectsfrom stormwater and wastewaterdischarges. Low impact designmethods can be considered earlyin the planning phase so that suchmethods can be an integral part ofthe development, rather thanbeing an afterthought such thatstormwater management optionsbecome limited.No significant environmental cost.The location of infrastructure suchas roads, pipes, culverts, andpower and telecommunicationinfrastructure can be plannedearly to avoid conflicts withsensitive natural environments. Insome cases, infrastructure cansupport environmental values by,for example, improving access tonatural areas through appropriatefootpaths and bridges.Structures (includinginfrastructure) are part of thephysical environment. This policywill help to protect the efficient and21 Note in “Sizing up the City: Urban form and transport in New Zealand”, P Howden-Chapman, K Stuart and RChapman, New Zealand Centre for Sustainable Cities, University of Otago, Wellington 2010: “’Business as usual’growth is not affordable or desirable. A more deliberate approach to managing changes in land use and transportpatterns will improve outcomes and limit negative consequences” pg1306-12 Doc # 1451856

effective functioning of existingroading infrastructure by, forexample, reducing developmentpatterns that could lead tounplanned increases incongestion of roadways andintersections.By ensuring industry is locatedwhere there is good access tostrategic transport networks,integrating walking and cyclingfacilities with developments,encouraging the use of rail freightsystems and encouragingmultimodal transport connectionsand systems, future energydemand can be minimised. Thiswill also have other environmentalbenefits such as reducing theneed for development of newenergy sources, reducing carbonemissions and reducing theresource cost of building newinfrastructure.Community:There would also be manycommunity benefits from thispolicy option. Integratingdevelopment and infrastructureplanning can ensure developmentdoes not compromise the functionof existing infrastructure such asby causing reverse sensitivityissues (for example, developmenttoo close to existinginfrastructure), puttingunsustainable pressure onexisting infrastructure, or bylimiting the potential to upgradeexisting infrastructure (such as byrestricting the ability to widen aroad or maintain a stop bank).Avoiding such outcomes reducesunnecessary costs tocommunities.Community:Development potential of someland is reduced. This will effectivelybe a cost to some individuals.The policy option also hasrequirements for changes to plansand the development of growthstrategies. However, in manycases, territorial authorities arealready moving in the directionencouraged by the policy option, soit is likely that the additionalcommunity costs of this optionwould be minor in comparison tothe benefits.If the broader infrastructureimplications of new developmentare recognised early in theplanning process, decisions canbe made about how and wheredevelopment should occur thatminimizes the need for and cost ofnew infrastructure. Newdevelopments can also beplanned to connect moreeffectively to existinginfrastructure, thereby protectingthe safety, efficiency andeffectiveness of existinginfrastructure. In some cases,early planning of developmentinfrastructure needs can ensureDoc # 1451856 6-13

that the costs of new infrastructureare passed on to the new landowners, rather than being a costto all ratepayers.Policy Option 8:No specific policy ormethods to supportintegration of land useand infrastructure.There can also be health benefitsassociated with this policyapproach by reducing the potentialfor unplanned and sporadiccongestion problems which canresult in reduced air quality andincreased travel times.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis option avoids any attempt to co-ordinate the growth of developmentwith that of infrastructure. The assumption is that this co-ordination willbe achieved through the existing district plan provisions and Long TermPlan processes and plans.The absence of a policy relating to the co-ordination of growth andinfrastructure presupposes that the current pattern of growth is likely tobe sustained over the next 30 to 50 years, with little or no change in thefocal points of that growth. It also assumes that current growthmanagement systems and processes at the district level are sufficientlyrobust to cope with the need to integrate growth with infrastructure.This policy also assumes that there are no growth or infrastructureprovision issues that transcend the main growth strategy areas. Thismay not be the case in relation to roading infrastructure or energyreticulation.This policy direction would not be consistent with recent nationaldirections for better integration of land use and infrastructure, such asthe: New section 30(1)gb of RMA; Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding; Recent changes to the Land Transport Management Act; and National Infrastructure Plan.These policy directions from the government would indicate that thereneeds to be stronger integration of land use and infrastructure, whichpresumably means current integration is insufficient.For these reasons, this policy direction would not be an effective way ofachieving Objective 3.11 (Built environment).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo net environmental gain overPolicy option 7.Community:No net community gain over Policyoption 7.Less integration of land use andinfrastructure may result in theneed for new infrastructure whichotherwise would not have beenrequired.Community:Less integration of land use andinfrastructure is likely to result ingreater costs from newinfrastructure requirements.6-14 Doc # 1451856

Potential effects relating to theefficiency and effectiveness ofexisting infrastructure, forexample as a result of roadcongestion or reverse sensitivitywith respect to facilities such asthe Hamilton airport.Policy option 9:Recognise theimportance of maraeand papakainga andprovide for their useand development.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessThis policy option is to recognise the historical, cultural and socialimportance of marae and papakainga and to provide for their ongoinguse and development. Methods would encourage district plans to makeprovision for development of marae and papakainga and to support theirdevelopment such as through assisting provision of appropriateinfrastructure and services.Objective 3.11 is intended to ensure the built environment develops in aplanned manner which provides for positive social, cultural andeconomic outcomes. Objective 3.8 recognises and provides for therelationship of tāngata whenua with the environment. This policypackage particularly supports these objectives.The immediate and intermediate outcomes of this would be thatprovision is made within district planning documents for acknowledgingthe relationship between iwi and their marae and papakainga. Longtermoutcomes of such a policy option would be an improvement in thesocial infrastructure provided for by marae and papakainga. Theseassets may also be of community benefit to non-Māori communitieswithin the region through their use as meeting places or civil defencebases.On evaluation, this is considered an effective way of achieving thisobjective. It will guide and direct district planning documents throughoutthe region with regard to marae and papakainga.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsTraditional marae and papakaingarepresent elements of historic andcultural heritage. Their ongoingrestoration and enhancement cantherefore be seen as anenvironmental benefit.Recognising the importance ofmarae and papakainga in Māoriculture may benefit theenvironment through the efficientuse of resources on which theseare located.Community:Recognising the importance ofmarae and papakainga, andsupporting their enhancementwould have a positive benefit onthe Māori community.No adverse costs to theenvironment.Community:The package encourages territorialauthorities to support marae andpapakainga. The cost of this will bedetermined through long-termplans and annual plans.Doc # 1451856 6-15

Marae are also used as acommunity resource for non-Māoriin some cases. Ongoing supportfor marae can therefore be ofbenefit to the whole community.Policy option 10:No specific policy onrecognition of theimportance of maraeand papakainga.Summary of efficiency: Medium-highEffectivenessThis option avoids any attempt to recognise the historical, cultural orsocial importance of marae and papakainga in Māori society. It isassumed that this already exists or that there is no requirement for it.Most district plans are likely to have provisions that relate to the maraeand papakainga within their districts.The outcomes of this approach will be a lack of regional guidance as tohow these values are recognised. This may result in an inconsistentapproach across the various districts within the region.Objective 3.11 is, among other things, to ensure the built environmentdevelops in a planned manner that provides for positive social, culturaland economic outcomes. Objective 3.8 is that the relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment is recognised and provided for. This policyoption will not support these objectives.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo environmental benefits fromthis policy approach.Community:Some environmental costs wherethe importance of marae andpapakainga may not berecognised, potentially resulting inless protection for marae andpapakainga as historic and culturalheritage resources.Community:Policy Option 11:Policy to encourageincreased energyefficiency and tominimise energydemand.Districts may have flexibility to notrecognise importance of maraeand papakainga.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessLack of regional support for tāngatawhenua groups who want to getgreater recognition of their maraeand papakainga. This could resultin some community costs wherethe importance of marare andpapakainga may not berecognised.This policy option is that in the management of the built environment,Waikato Regional Council and territorial authorities will encouragedevelopment that minimises transport energy demand, minimises wasteproduction and encourages beneficial reuse of waste materials andpromotes the reuse of energy.Minimisation of waste production and reuse of waste materials isincluded in this policy as these are ways of reducing the energy used inthe production chain of goods.The focus within the region in addressing the transport energy demandis to encourage modal shift and to ensure that network is being managedefficiently to optimise existing capacity. Given that in the Waikato region,6-16 Doc # 1451856

39% of energy demand is for domestic travel and freight, there are largegains to be made from a more energy-efficient transport system.The methods to support this policy would include: provisions in district plans to encourage energy-efficient urbandevelopment, buildings, innovative energy and renewable energy; the promotion of energy-efficient technologies and multi-modaltransport systems; the development of design codes and development manuals; local strategies for encouraging walking, cycling and use of publictransport in urban areas; investigations to reduce the need for commuting; and advocacy and education.This policy option recognises the need to reduce carbon-based energyand sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meetneeds of future generations. It will encourage development thatminimises transport energy demand and promotes the efficient use ofenergy.Globally, climate change is strongly connected with energy use,especially petroleum products for transportation.The policy option also responds to a number of recent national initiativesincluding the: 2004 RMA s7 amendment to include the benefits to be derived fromuse and development of renewable energy; Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000, which promotes theuse of renewable sources of energy; and New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 (NZES) and the New ZealandEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NZEECS), which seekto increase renewable energy generation (amongst other things).The policy will also respond to the Waikato Regional Energy Strategy.There are many opportunities for minimising the region’s energy demandthrough managing development of the built environment. This policyoption seeks to make use of these opportunities to ensure that newdevelopment is energy efficient.Objective 3.11 will be supported by this policy package as it will help toachieve positive environmental, social and economic outcomes throughmanagement of the built environment. The policy will also help tosupport Objective 3.4 (Energy), 3.9 (Efficient use of resources) and 3.14(Allocation and use of fresh water).Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsReducing energy demand willreduce the need for development ofnew energy sources. This will in turnreduce the range of environmentaleffects that can result from energydevelopments and the building ofnew energy infrastructure (e.g. newtransmission lines). It will also helpto reduce carbon emissions and tosome extent result in air qualityimprovements.Environmental:CostsNo environmental costs.Doc # 1451856 6-17

Community:Community:Policy option 12:No specific policyto encourageincreased energyefficiency and tominimise energydemand.Making efficient use of existingenergy infrastructure will help toprotect the community’s investmentin this infrastructure.More energy-efficient transportsystems are likely to also result incommunity health benefits.The Waikato region uses about 112Petajoules (PJ) of energy per year. Itcosts $20-$30 million per Petajouleto produce (Waikato RegionalEnergy Strategy). The region alsouses over 500 million litres of oil peryear. The cost of energy such as oilis increasing, as is demand forenergy. The Waikato RegionalEnergy Strategy states thatcommercial energy efficiencyprogrammes resulted in energysavings worth $88 million between2001 and 2005. There is, therefore,potential for very large energy costsavings for the community as aresult of this policy direction.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessCommunity costs from thedevelopment of energy efficiencyprogrammes, infrastructure andtransport systems. The extent ofthese costs will be determinedthrough long-term plan andannual plan processes.Potential increase in buildingcosts to achieve energy-efficientoutcomes.Note: Energy-efficient outcomesare being encouraged nationallyand the region will need tobecome more energy efficient,irrespective of this policydirection.This option would mean that there is no policy relating to management ofenergy demand and efficiency of energy use. This would not provideany methods for achieving the objective.Such a policy option would not support the national and regionalinitiatives aimed at increasing energy use efficiency and decreasingenergy demand. There would not be a consistent direction beingpromoted across the region in terms of these matters.The way the built environment is managed will greatly influence futureenergy demands. For example, development of the built environmentcan greatly influence the viability of public transport use or the ability towalk or cycle to work or schools. Under this option, the RPS would notbe used for providing direction for these kinds of matters.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes of this approachwould be a region that is less energy efficient and where energy demandis greater than it needs to be.For these reasons, this policy option will not support Objective 3.11 (Builtenvironment) or Objective 3.4 (Energy).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo significant environmentalbenefits from this option.Greater than necessary increase indemand for development of newenergy sources and electricitytransmission infrastructure. Thiswill result in greater adverseenvironmental effects than is6-18 Doc # 1451856

otherwise necessary.Community:Community:Policy option 13:Protect regionallysignificantinfrastructure andrecognise benefits fromnew development ofinfrastructure andenergy resources.No significant community benefitsfrom this option.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessOver the long term, greater thannecessary costs of energyproduction and transmission.This policy option is to ensure that the built environment is managedsuch that the efficiency and effectiveness of regionally significantinfrastructure is protected, and that the development benefits of new,regionally significant infrastructure and energy resources are recognised.Methods will include: regional and district plans ensuring new development does notreduce the functioning of significant transport corridors andrecognises the need for new electricity generation to locate wherehigh quality energy resources exist. At the same time, plans need tomanage adverse effects of such developments; encouraging the development of a transmission corridormanagement approach; and encouraging collaboration with infrastructure providers, includingimproving the resilience of regionally significant infrastructure.The policy option would need to be supported with appropriatedefinitions such as for regionally significant infrastructure. Regionallysignificant infrastructure may include gas pipelines, strategictelecommunications, the national electricity grid and facilities forelectricity generation, the strategic transport network, lifelineinfrastructure, flood and drainage infrastructure and key transportfacilities.This policy option recognises that regionally significant infrastructure andenergy resources deserve an additional level of protection due to theirimportance to the wellbeing of people and communities in the region. Inmany cases, such infrastructure is also nationally important in terms ofNew Zealand’s social and economic wellbeing. Such infrastructure isincreasingly recognised as being a primary determinant of economicgrowth in the country.The policy option also responds to a number of recent national initiativesincluding: Government infrastructure initiatives such as the establishment of aNational Infrastructure Unit within Treasury and the production of theNational Infrastructure Plan; the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission; the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding; and the New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 (NZES) and the NewZealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NZEECS)which seek to increase renewable energy generation (among otherthings).Land use change can occur in a way that: reduces potential for new infrastructure and energy developments(such as due to reverse sensitivity); and impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure, (such asby ribbon development along highways which can increase accidentrisk and increase unplanned for congestion).This policy aims to reduce such conflicts. In so doing, it supportsObjective 3.11 (Built Environment) which seeks to manage developmentof the built environment to integrate land use and infrastructure planningDoc # 1451856 6-19

and protect regionally significant transport and energy corridors (amongother things). The option also supports Objective 3.2 (Decision making),3.4 (Energy), 3.9 (Efficient use of resources) and 3.16 (Geothermal). Thepolicy and methods are considered achievable and workable as they areconsistent with normal planning practice.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsProtection of the efficiency andeffectiveness of regionallysignificant infrastructure (part ofthe physical environment), fromthe effects of adversedevelopment patterns.There should be no significantenvironmental cost.The potential for renewableenergy development andassociated infrastructure will beconsidered before decisions aremade for a particular area.Considering an area’s ability to beused for renewable energygeneration in the future will allowthese areas to be retained forpotential future use. This providesNew Zealand with a greateropportunity to keep carbonemissions at a minimal level in thefuture.Community:This policy option will help toprotect the regional community’sinvestment in regionally significantinfrastructure, and ensure bestuse is made of this investment. Itshould be noted in this respectthat New Zealand has a very highinvestment in infrastructure. Thegovernment’s 2010 budgetallocated another $1.45 billion incapital spending in 2010/11, thesecond year of a five-year $7.5billion infrastructure funding plan.In addition to budget initiatives,the government is investing $10.7billion over the next 10 years inNew Zealand's State Highwaynetwork and $3.3 billion throughTranspower in the next five yearsto upgrade the national grid.Community:Some land will have less potentialfor profit from subdivision and salessuch as in the case of land suitablefor wind farm development(although this may be offset by theearning potential if the land isdeveloped for energy production).Some changes to district plans(such as adding matters from thispolicy option in assessment criteriaof rules) will be required. Suchchanges may be made alongsideothers that respond to the reviewedRPS so the additional cost isminimised.The policy would help to maintainan appropriate level of servicefrom regionally significantinfrastructure over the long term.The policy would help to protectrenewable energy resourceswhich could be developed to offset6-20 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 14: Nospecific policy toprotect regionallysignificantinfrastructure andrecognise the benefitsof new development ofinfrastructure andenergy resources.carbon costs in the long term. Thisalso therefore represents a longtermcost saving for the regionaland national community.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis option means there is no policy relating to how the builtenvironment is managed in a way the efficiency and effectiveness ofregionally significant infrastructure is protected and the benefits ofdevelopment of new regionally significant infrastructure and energyresources is recognised.Objective 3.11 (Built environment) specifically aims to manage the builtenvironment so that it recognises the value and long-term benefits ofregionally significant infrastructure and protects regionally significanttransport and energy corridors. Objective 3.4 (Energy) is to manageenergy resources in a way that recognises the need for renewableenergy development. This policy option would mean that there is nopolicy support for these objectives.The immediate outcomes of this approach may be that there is moreuncontrolled development of the built environment near existingtransport and energy infrastructure. In the intermediate to longer termthis may lead to increased conflict between development andinfrastructure.For these reasons this is not an effective option for supportingObjectives 3.11 and 3.4.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:No significant environmentalbenefits of this policy option.Conflicts between developmentand existing infrastructure mayreduce the effectiveness andefficiency of that infrastructure,requiring further infrastructureupgrades and resulting inadditional adverse environmentaleffects.Future land use conflicts mayprevent the development of someinfrastructure and energyresources.Community:There may be greater choice forlocation of development.Summary of efficiency: LowCommunity:Potential for higher costs ofinfrastructure maintenance andconstruction in the long term dueto conflicting development.Doc # 1451856 6-21

Policy option 15:Policy that provides adirection for themanagement ofmineral resource withinthe region.EffectivenessThis policy option is to manage the built environment in a way thatrecognises the potential impacts of development on the ability to accessmineral resources, the benefits from the use of minerals (such as forinfrastructure provision) and the importance of some mineral resourcesto Māori. Implementation methods would require Waikato RegionalCouncil to work with relevant parties to identify significant mineralresources and to encourage methods whereby territorial authoritiesprotect access to these mineral resources and their haulage routes.Minerals are a valuable commodity for New Zealand. Some minerals,particularly aggregates, are very important for use in development ofthe built environment. Rocks for making concrete and building roadsaccount for 75% of all the rock quarried in the country. A typical newhouse in New Zealand contains about 250 tonnes of aggregate. A largecity building may contain up to 100,000 tonnes, used in concrete,foundation materials, roads, drainage systems and car parks(http://www.minerals.co.nz).Mineral extraction and haulage can sometimes have effects, such asnoise, vibration and visual effects that are difficult to avoid entirely.Mineral extraction can be made more difficult when land uses, such ashousing, develop near mineral resources. This is not always possible toavoid, but good planning for development of the built environment canminimise this problem.The policy direction will address Objective 3.11 (Built Environment)which seeks to protect access to identified mineral resources and toavoid potential for reverse sensitivity issues arising between differentkinds of land use. The policy direction will also support Objective 3.4(Energy) in that some regional mineral resources such as coal can beused for energy development and 3.9 (Efficient use of resources). It willalso help to achieve Objectives 3.2 (Decision making) and 3.8(Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment).A lot of information about location of minerals in the Waikato region iscurrently available. The mapping task should largely be undertakenbased on existing information or information that can be derived fromgeological and soil maps. The policy package provides flexibility as tohow district plans protect access to mineral resources. Methods arelikely to vary depending on the kinds of minerals in the district and thepressure for development. For these reasons it is envisaged that thepolicy option will be effective.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsReduces pressure to use lessaccessible resources or thoseresources more distant to wherethey are needed, for example,reducing effects of haulage.Community:By protecting access to aggregateresources close to urban areas,the cost of maintaining andproviding new buildings andinfrastructure will be minimised. 22No significant environmentalimpacts.Community:Some costs to communities assome development may not beable to occur in order toaccommodate the future extractionof minerals.22Note that aggregate is generally a low value resource and the cost of haulage is high. For an aggregate to beeconomically viable, it generally needs to be close to where it will be used. For example in some Auckland areas6-22 Doc # 1451856

New Zealand’s mineral output,excluding oil and gas, wasapproximately $1500 million in2006. The industry employs 4000people directly and 8000indirectly. 23Some cost to the regionalcommunity to identify and mapsignificant mineral resources.Policy option 16:No specific policy forthe management of themineral resource in theregion.The minerals industry is a veryimportant part of the Waikatoregional economy. Maintainingthe viability of the mineral industryin the Waikato region has thepotential to have significant socialand economic benefits.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis option would mean that there was no policy to encourageprotection of access to significant mineral resources. The commentaryabove in relation to Option 15 explains how development can limit theability to access minerals such as aggregate.Objective 3.11 (Built environment) aims to ensure that development ofthe built environment is managed in a way that protects access toidentified mineral resources. This policy option would mean there areno specific policies or methods to support this objective.The longer term outcome will be the inability to access importantmineral resources, particularly aggregates. This may impose costs onthe development of key infrastructure through having to importaggregates at greater distances from where it is needed.Associated with this would also be an unco-ordinated approach todevelopment of the built environment in relation to the existing mineralextraction activities. This will impact on the quality of the builtenvironment and the associated environmental and community benefits.Reverse sensitivity effects would become more apparent.This is not considered to be an effective way of achieving Objective3.11. It also does not support other objectives including Objective 3.2(Decision making) and 3.9 (Efficient use of resources).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo net environmental gain overOption 15.Community:There may be greater flexibility as towhere development of the builtenvironment can occur.Mineral extraction does notoccur in a co-ordinated way.Community:Additional costs associated withhaving to source mineralresources, particularlyaggregates, from more distantlocations.Costs relating to the uncoordinatedmineral extraction inrelation to the development ofthe built environment.development has effectively made nearby aggregate resources inaccessible, resulting in costs being higher than theyotherwise would be.23http://www.minerals.co.nzDoc # 1451856 6-23

Summary of efficiency: LowPolicy option 17:Policy direction oncollection andmonitoring ofinformation relating todevelopment.EffectivenessThis policy option would require that Waikato Regional Council andterritorial authorities will monitor and report on development andinfrastructure trends and pressures in the region. A supporting methodwould state that relevant information will be collected to help explaintrends and pressures. Key information requirements would be specified.Other methods will be that Waikato Regional Council regularly producesa report summarising trends and pressures from the monitoring and thatRegional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) monitoring reports include astatement about integration of transport infrastructure and land use.Monitoring and reporting is needed to ensure that: new trends that may affect the ability to achieve the objective areidentified early enough to respond to them; the effectiveness of current policies and methods is evaluated sothat changes can be made where necessary (such as through RPSreviews, district plan reviews, and reviews of other councilstrategies, manuals and guidelines); the public, developers and infrastructure providers can be keptinformed about trends that may affect or interest them; future infrastructure needs are anticipated as early as possible; and the assumptions and information used to determine growthstrategies remain accurate and valid.Territorial authorities already collect a lot of the information needed totrack regional development trends and pressures. The informationcollected from territorial authorities will help Waikato Regional Councilreport against its policies and methods, as required by Section 35 of theRMA. The intermediate and ultimate outcomes of this policy optionwould be that better data collection and monitoring occurs across theregion.Providing for the collection of this information will help to achieveObjective 3.11 (Built environment) as it will ensure ongoing planning forthe built environment is based on good information about trends andpressures. The policy option will also help to achieve Objective 3.2(Decision making). For these reasons, the policy option is consideredeffective.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsBetter information management willallow improved tracking ofdevelopment and infrastructurepressures on the environment andwill therefore allow for a moreproactive approach to managingeffects.Environmental:CostsThere should be no significantenvironmental cost.Improved monitoring and reportingwill ensure new trends that maycause new adverse environmentaleffects are identified and respondedto as early as possible.6-24 Doc # 1451856

Community:Good monitoring and reporting ondevelopment and infrastructuretrends and pressures will ensuretransparency and appropriateresponses in regional and districtplanning documents.Will help to provide clarity anddirection to those involved with oraffected by development trendssuch as commercial businesses,developers, infrastructure providersand service providers.Community:In order to achieve the benefitslisted here, there will be afinancial cost associated withimproved monitoring andreporting, although in manycases, the information is alreadycollected by councils and held insome form.Good monitoring and managementof the built environment willmaximise community benefitsthrough minimised costs associatedwith development.Policy option 18:No specific policydirection on collectionand monitoring ofinformation relating todevelopment.Information collection by partnercouncils should be standardised,making it more usefully andconsistently reported.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis option would mean that there was no policy relating to thecollection and monitoring of information relating to development trendsin the built environment and regional infrastructure.Once new buildings and infrastructure are constructed, it is generallytoo late to address any adverse effects that they cause. Sometimes alot of development can occur before it becomes obvious that adverseeffects (particularly cumulative effects) are occurring. It is thereforevery important that good information is collected, and that this isregularly analysed to see if developments are resulting in unwantedeffects.In the past, Waikato Regional Council has not collected, or had accessto, good information on built environment trends and pressures. It has,for example, only become recently clear that the extent of ruralresidentialdevelopment in the vicinity of Hamilton is taking largeamounts of high quality soils out of production and is increasing trafficcongestion in a way that was not anticipated. Although territorialauthorities often have good information about the extent ofdevelopment, it is not often analysed in terms of the effect on matters ofinterest to the Waikato Regional Council such as transport systems,extent of regional hazard risk and ability to access minerals.For these reasons, it is important that development trends andpressures are tracked and regularly analysed. This policy option wouldnot ensure this occurs. It would therefore not support Objective 3.11(Built environment) as well as other objectives including Objective 3.2(Decision making), 3.6 (Management of the Coastal Environment), 3.9(Efficient use of resources) and 3.23 (Public access).Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEfficiencyCostsDoc # 1451856 6-25

Environmental:No net environmental gain overOption 17.Community:No net community gain overOption 17.Environmental:Lack of monitoring of developmenttrends leading to increasingcumulative environmental effectsfrom development.Community:Inadequate information forconsidered decision making aboutdevelopment.Policy option 19:Policy to supportimplementation of theBlueprint GrowthStrategy.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessPotential for increased costs to thecommunity relating to unforeseenproblems resulting fromdevelopment of the builtenvironment.This policy option is to support the Coromandel Peninsula BlueprintPreferred Future and Implementation Framework (the CoromandelBlueprint) that has been prepared for the Coromandel Peninsula,reiterating its main strategic matters. These include that themanagement of development protects key values identified by thestrategy, focuses development on the three centres of Thames,Whitianga and Whangamata, and encourages more concentrateddevelopment in these centres.The methods provide for the Thames-Coromandel District Plan to giveeffect to the policy and the development of more detailed local areablueprints to support the strategy. A method will also encourageWaikato Regional Council to align its activities as appropriate with theCoromandel Blueprint.The Coromandel Blueprint supports many of the elements of Objective3.11 (Built environment). However, it has little legal weight in RMAbaseddevelopment decisions. By supporting these key aspects of theCoromandel Blueprint in the RPS, these matters are more likely toinfluence development decisions.Thames-Coromandel District Council intends to implement theCoromandel Blueprint in its district plan. This policy option will supportthis process. It will also help to protect the implementation of theCoromandel Blueprint over the long term as district plan provisions aresubject to change by private plan changes while RPS provisions arenot.The outcomes of the policy in the short term are that the CoromandelBlueprint receives statutory support through the RPS and the RMAwhile its more detailed provisions are written into the district plan. Theoutcome over the intermediate period is that the RPS, the growthstrategy and the district plan will provide an integrated approach to themanagement of built development.The policy option has been developed in conjunction with the Thames-Coromandel District Council staff and is therefore considered aworkable option.The policy option will also support other objectives, including Objective3.1 (Integrated management), Objective 3.2 (Decision making),Objective 3.5 (Adapting to climate change), Objective 3.6 (CoastalEnvironment), Objective 3.9 (Efficient use of resources), Objective 3.17(Historic and cultural heritage), Objective 3.18 (Ecological integrity andindigenous biodiversity), Objective 3.20 (Amenity), Objective 3.216-26 Doc # 1451856

(Natural character) and Objective 3.23 (natural hazards).For the above reasons, this option will be an effective way of supportingthe objective in the Thames-Coromandel area.Summary of effectiveness: Medium-highEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe policy option wouldencourage development that doesnot adversely affect thelandscape, biodiversity, naturalcharacter and heritage values ofthe Coromandel Peninsula, andsupports the efficient and effectiveuse of infrastructure. By helping toachieve more compactdevelopment in the three selectedurban areas, there would bebenefits in terms of energy use,reduced carbon emissions andreduction of urban sprawl(reducing other options for use ofland).There should be no significantenvironmental cost.This policy option is to support theCoromandel Blueprint, local areablueprints and the district plan, toencourage achievement of theseenvironmental outcomes.It is not possible to determine thebenefits of this policy option as aseparate ‘method’ to the otherprocesses. However, it isexpected that this RPS policywould definitely help to achievethese environmental outcomes.Community:The policy option specifies thatdevelopment of the CoromandelPeninsula does not increase therisk of natural hazards.The option protects the districtcommunity’s investment ininfrastructure.By supporting the achievement ofthe outcomes sought by theCoromandel Blueprint, this optionprotects the community’sinvestment in its development.Community:The Coromandel Blueprint hasdetermined growth directions forthe Peninsula. The policy optionsupports this, but does not ineffect require any furthercommitments than those alreadydecided by the strategy. Thepolicy option would not thereforecreate further significantcommunity costs.It is not possible to isolate thecommunity benefits from thispolicy from the other instrumentssupporting the CoromandelBlueprint; however, this option isexpected to help achieve thecommunity outcomes statedabove.Doc # 1451856 6-27

Policy option 20:Policy to supportimplementation of theTaupo GrowthStrategy.Summary of efficiency: Medium-highEffectivenessThis policy option is to support the Taupo District 2050 growth strategy(the Taupo strategy). The policy and methods state that management ofdevelopment in the Taupo district will be in accordance with the strategyand support key aspects of it including:ensuring patterns of future urban development are consistent withurban growth areas identified by the strategy; avoiding urban development in the rural environment outsideidentified urban growth areas to prevent a dispersed pattern ofsettlement and the resulting inefficiencies in the management ofresources; ensuring development is supported by adequate infrastructure; and ensuring the strategy is supported by appropriate district planprovisions and structure plans.A method will also encourage Waikato Regional Council to align itsactivities as appropriate with the Taupo strategy.The Taupo strategy supports many of the outcomes sought byObjective 3.11 (Built Environment). It is a strategy that supportsplanned and integrated development of the built environment. Byensuring that development is well planned, opportunities are created toseek a range of environmental and community outcomes.The Taupo strategy also supports many of the Proposed RPS policydirections that are being considered such as ensuring structure plansare provided where appropriate, identifying areas for future ruralresidentialdevelopment, ensuring land use planning is integrated withinfrastructure planning and so on.Although the Taupo District Council intends to implement the strategy inits district plan, the support in the RPS will give support to this process.It will also help to protect the implementation of the strategy over thelong term as district plan provisions are subject to change by privateplan changes while RPS provisions are not.The policy option has been developed in conjunction with Taupo DistrictCouncil staff.The outcomes of the policy in the short term are that the Taupo strategyreceives statutory support through the RPS and the RMA as its moredetailed provisions are written into the Taupo district plan. The outcomeover the intermediate period is that the RPS, the Taupo strategy andthe Taupo district plan become an integrated approach to managementof built development.For the above reasons, the option will be an effective way of supportingObjective 3.11 (Built environment) in the Taupo District.The policy option will also support Objectives 3.1 (Integratedmanagement), 3.2 (Decision making), and 3.9 (Efficient use ofresources).Summary of effectiveness: Medium-highEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBy strategically planning fordevelopment in the Taupocatchment, development will beencouraged that results in a rangeThere should be no significantenvironmental cost.6-28 Doc # 1451856

of environmental benefits. TheTaupo strategy itself seeks toprotect outstanding landscapesand natural areas, enhance waterquality of the district’s lakes andrivers, protect biodiversity, protectrural land for productive purposes,and integrate land use andinfrastructure and so on. Byproviding support for the Taupostrategy through the RPS, thepolicy option also provides supportfor the achievement of theseenvironmental outcomes.This policy supports the growthstrategy and the district plan toencourage achievement of theseenvironmental outcomes. It is notpossible to determine the benefitsof this policy option as a separatemethod to these other processes.However, it is expected that thispolicy would help to achieve theseenvironmental outcomes.Community:The Taupo strategy seeks toachieve a range of communityoutcomes including strengtheningthe function of towns, ensuringappropriate land supply is madeavailable for development,protecting existing infrastructure,improving urban design, planningfor social and communityinfrastructure needs, encouragingcommunity engagement in growthissues and ensuring growthreflects a strong partnership withtāngata whenua. By providingsupport for the Taupo strategythrough the RPS, the policy optionalso provides support for theachievement of these communityoutcomes.Community:The Taupo strategy hasdetermined growth directions forthe district. The policy optionsupports this, but does not ineffect require any furthercommitments than those alreadydecided by the strategy. Thispolicy option would not thereforecreate further significantcommunity costs.Policy option 21:Policy to implement theFranklin District GrowthStrategy.It is not possible to isolate thecommunity benefits from thispolicy from other instrumentssupporting the strategy. However,it is expected to help achieve thecommunity outcomes statedabove.Summary of efficiency: Medium-highEffectivenessAuckland local government reform in November 2010 will dis-establishthe Franklin district, with the northern part becoming part of theAuckland region and the southern part being amalgamated with theWaikato district. The Franklin District Council has prepared a growthstrategy to respond to the pressures for development in that area. Thispolicy option provides for the Franklin District Growth Strategy tocontinue to be implemented by the Waikato District Council until suchDoc # 1451856 6-29

time that it is replaced by a subsequent growth strategy.The effectiveness of this policy and its associated methods lies in thereinforcement of growth focused on Pokeno and Tuakau, andrecognition of the particular strategies identified for the four ruralcharacter areas that now fall predominantly within the Waikato region.This policy also recognises the investment made and the support givenby the community in the Franklin District Growth Strategy.The growth pressures of metropolitan Auckland have extended into therural hinterland south of Pukekohe, and it will be important to recognisethis through integrated management of the built environment in thevicinity of the regional boundary post-November 2010.The short-term outcome of adopting the policy and its associatedmethods would be to maintain a consistent approach to growthmanagement, and the longer-term outcome would be the integration ofthe Franklin District Growth Strategy with the Future Proof GrowthStrategy 24 .The policy supports Objective 3.11 (Built environment) in that thegrowth strategy is largely consistent with the approach for managementof the built environment described in the objective. The policy option willalso support Objective 3.1 (Integrated management), and Objective 3.2(Decision making).Summary of effectiveness: Medium-highEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe Franklin District GrowthStrategy has a number ofenvironmental objectives, such asto safeguard rural character,protect the natural environment,protect and plant native trees,protect versatile soils, and so on.Supporting the Franklin DistrictGrowth Strategy through the RPSwill therefore help to achievethese aims.Community:Promoting implementation of theFranklin District Growth Strategywill help to protect the localcommunity investment involved inits production.A number of aims will benefit thelocal community, such asprotecting heritage values andculturally and historicallysignificant sites. Supporting theFranklin District Growth Strategythrough RPS provisions willtherefore help to achieve thesecommunity benefits.There should be no significantenvironmental cost.Community:The Franklin District GrowthStrategy has determined growthdirections for the district. Thepolicy option supports this, butdoes not require any furthercommitments than those alreadydecided by Franklin DistrictGrowth Strategy. The policy optionwould not therefore create furthersignificant community costs.24 The Future Proof Growth Strategy (Future Proof) is a growth strategy for the sub-region comprising Waipa District,Hamilton City and Waikato District. It was developed according to a Local Government Act process adopted by thethree territorial authorities, Waikato Regional Council and tāngata whenua, along with input from other parties, inparticular the NZ Transport Agency.6-30 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 22:No policies to supportsub-regional anddistrict growthstrategies.Summary of efficiency: MediumEffectivenessThis policy direction is that no specific RPS policies support or help toimplement growth strategies such as Coromandel Blueprint, the Taupo2050 strategy, the Franklin District Growth Strategy and the FutureProof Growth Strategy.All the growth strategies are to be implemented by district plans.However, district plan processes will be developed using RMASchedule 1 processes which could result in changes to the originalintent of each strategy. In addition, each district plan process will besubject to different pressures from submitters, and decisions will bemade by councillors and commissioners who may each apply a differentunderstanding of the original intent of each strategy.The RPS is not subject to private plan changes which can changedistrict plans over time, so supporting these growth strategies willensure more consistent implementation over the long term.In some cases, growth strategies involve a range of parties such astāngata whenua, Department of Conservation and different territorialauthorities. Interpretation of the strategies can be different for differentparties. The RPS can help to ensure the key matters in the strategiesare interpreted in a consistent way.The Waikato Regional Council has worked alongside territorialauthorities to prepare the forementioned growth strategies and toensure they support regional objectives. Leaving key growth strategydirections out of the RPS means that Waikato Regional Council will nothave a clear legal position when it comes to being involved in futureprocesses such as submissions on consent applications to territorialauthorities and private plan changes. This will hinder Waikato RegionalCouncil’s ability to work effectively toward achievement of Objective3.11 (Built environment) and other objectives such as 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9,3.18, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsFewer environmental benefits thanif RPS policies specificallysupported the growth strategies.Community:Fewer community benefits than ifRPS policies specificallysupported the growth strategies.More flexibility for territorialauthorities to change growthstrategy directions.Summary of efficiency: LowNo significant environmental costsbut less incentive forenvironmental improvementthrough growth management.Community:Fewer benefits from WaikatoRegional Council’s investment inthe preparation of these growthstrategies.Potentially less integration ofgrowth strategies withdevelopment in other parts of theregion.Doc # 1451856 6-31

Policy option 23:Policy to encouragegovernancecollaboration in theFuture Proof area.EffectivenessThe Future Proof Growth Strategy (Future Proof) is a growth strategyfor the sub-region comprising Waipa District, Hamilton City and WaikatoDistrict. It was developed according to a Local Government Actprocess adopted by the three territorial authorities, Waikato RegionalCouncil and tāngata whenua, along with input from other parties, inparticular the NZ Transport Agency.The aim of this policy direction is to ensure the Future Proof partnercouncils work collaboratively with respect to growth management in thespecified area. Methods would include ensuring governance structuresare in place and that adequate resources are provided to implement theactions in the strategy that supports the settlement pattern. Anothermethod would be that the partner councils agree to protocols whichdocument how Future Proof is to be implemented.In order to achieve integrated, planned and sustainable development ofthe built environment it is important that the partner councils continue towork together toward achievement of the directions established byFuture Proof. Subdivisions, commercial developments and other suchgrowth initiatives in one part of the sub-region can affect other parts. Itis therefore important that partner councils work together to ensurethese initiatives do not change the pattern or nature of development sothat it becomes inconsistent with agreed Future Proof directions.To ensure the nature and pattern of the Future Proof settlement ismaintained as described by the strategy, appropriate resources andgovernance structures need to be in place over the long term. Therewill need to be regular meetings to advance actions supporting thestrategy, regular monitoring of development against the strategy aims,and ongoing work to ensure the strategy is maintained effectively toaddress changing growth issues.Ongoing collaboration and seeking of agreements will help to ensurethere are no surprises in terms of development trends and actions in thesub-region, and to open avenues for resolving conflicts. If suchcollaboration does not occur, there is more potential for inconsistentstrategy implementation, for failures in addressing new pressures asthey arise, and for local decisions that cause unwanted cross-boundaryeffects.For these reasons, this policy is considered a very effective way ofsupporting Objective 3.11 (Built environment). Future Proof hasdetermined a number of principles that are consistent with many of theobjectives in the RPS. Therefore this policy option will also supportother objectives such as Objective 3.1 (Integrated management) andObjective 3.2.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBy ensuring that the partnercouncils work together to promoteand provide for the Future Proofsettlement pattern, there is amuch greater chance that the formand nature of the settlementpattern in the sub-region developsin a way that is consistent withFuture Proof principles, whichseek to minimise effects ofdevelopment on the environmentThere would be no adverseenvironmental effect as result ofthis policy implementation.6-32 Doc # 1451856

and maximize the positive effectsof development.Community:Community:Policy option 24:Policy to ensureadoption of the FutureProof land use pattern.This policy supports the FutureProof vision. Achieving the visionwill have definite long-termcommunity benefits such as moreeffective and efficient use ofinfrastructure, higher amenitydevelopments and more effectivepublic transport systems.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessSome resourcing costs to ensureongoing collaboration, for examplestaff and administrative costs. It islikely that the Future Proofimplementation costs, at least forthe first three years, will be in theorder of $200,000 per year,spread amongst the four partnercouncils.This policy option will require that urban development occurs accordingto the settlement pattern established in the Future Proof GrowthStrategy, and according to the tables that allocate population andindustrial land. The policy will require that industrial development shouldoccur predominantly within ‘Strategic Industrial Nodes’ identified in atable. The policy should also provide guidance on when industrialdevelopment can occur outside these strategic nodes.The form of broad settlement pattern established by Future Proof isrepresented in the strategy by a map and a series of tables. At presentthe map shows lines indicating urban limits, rather than detailedproperty scale lines. The finer detail of urban limits needs to bedetermined by each partner territorial authority through their districtplans, territorial growth strategies and structure plans. This policyoption requires that urban development occurs only within the indicativeurban limits established on this map.The tables in the Future Proof strategy most appropriate for this policyoption are Tables 3 (Allocation and staging of residential growth) and 5(Industrial Business Land). However, since Future Proof wascompleted, further work has been done to refine the industrial landallocation. This was initiated after work on the Waikato RegionalTransport Model found that Future Proof had: Over estimated the amount of industrial land required in thesub-region; Did not acknowledge capacity of existing industrial nodes; Identified too many warehousing/logistics nodes; and Did not give sufficient guidance on prioritization of nodes.For these reasons, it was found that the Future Proof industrialallocation table could not be a good basis for future transport planning.The Future Proof Business Land Review (FPBLR) was undertaken byLatitude Planning Services Ltd to provide better information on which tobase industrial land allocation. This study was supported by an analysisof the existing sub-regional business environment and employmentgrowth projections (Property Economics Ltd) and a number ofworkshops with Future Proof partners and NZ Transport Agency.The FPBLR compared three industrial land development scenarios(Business as usual, Future Proof policy and Market led) and found thatthe Future Proof policy scenario ranked highest in terms of transportefficiency, economic efficiency and meeting Future Proof principles.However, the study found that changes to the industrial land allocationwere needed to ensure future industrial development was consistentwith the Future Proof policy scenario.Doc # 1451856 6-33

As a result of this review, the RPS should include an updated industrialland allocation table as part of this policy option. This table should focuson the most important industrial areas (strategic industrial nodes). Thepolicy option should direct most industrial development to these nodes,but should also allow other industrial development providing it does nothave adverse effects on the arterial road network, other infrastructureand existing zoned and serviced industrial land. A new industrial landallocation was developed on the basis of the recent technical studies,and discussions at a Future Proof Implementation Committee meetingand Future Proof Implementation Management Group meeting on 24and 25 August 2010 respectively.Likely methods to support this policy option would require the partnerterritorial authorities to prepare changes to district plans to ensure thatdevelopment is consistent with the Future Proof map and tables.Objective 3.11 (Built environment) promotes the development of thebuilt environment in a planned way. The Future Proof strategy hasestablished a desired settlement pattern. This pattern is consideredconsistent with the growth principles supporting the strategy. However,the strategy on its own cannot strongly influence development decisionsmade through RMA processes so it is important that the settlementpattern is ‘anchored’ through the RPS and appropriate district planprovisions. Because the RMA states that district plans must give effectto an RPS, such a policy direction would be a very effective way ofensuring the objective is achieved. If the settlement pattern is notanchored in this way, there would be less chance that Objective 3.11 isachieved in the Future Proof area, and that the Future Proof directionsare realised through future development decisions.In assessing effectiveness, it is worth noting the words of the RoyalCommission on Auckland Governance. In their final report, theCommission discussed urban limits and intensification policies. Theyconcluded, based on extensive research on successful cities, that thesetwo policies are ‘essential to the development of a successful city in the21st century’ 25 .The effectiveness of this policy option does depend on theappropriateness of the urban limits and allocation tables. If too little landis made available for development at appropriate times, this may forceup the price of land within the urban limits to the point where the limitsbecome a disincentive for development in the Future Proof area. Thiswould not support the vision for the area.The urban limits were developed by the Future Proof territorialauthorities while they were developing their individual district growthstrategies, and in association with the other Future Proof partners andNZ Transport Agency. Population predictions were calculated by theUniversity of Waikato specifically for the Future Proof project andresidential land areas were calculated based on the populationpredictions and assumptions about likely achievable housing density.The short-term outcome of this policy option is the establishment of aframework for growth that at the sub-regional level is sustainable overtime, integrates management of natural and physical resources, andwhich is capable of attracting funding support through the LTCCPprocesses of the strategic partners.The longer-term outcome is the achievement of substantial efficienciesin the allocation of scarce resources to urban development andinfrastructure provision, and the maintenance and enhancement ofamenity values.25 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Vol 1 Report, March 2009, page 533.6-34 Doc # 1451856

For the reasons given above, this policy option will be an effective wayof achieving Objective 3.11 (Built environment) in the Future Proof area.It will also support Objective 3.2 (Decision making).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThis policy direction wouldeffectively limit urban sprawl in theHamilton sub-region and wouldensure development occurs in aplanned and orderly way. In thisway, the adverse environmentaleffects of development would beconsidered and there is morelikelihood that such affects wouldbe avoided remedied or mitigatedduring the development process.This helps to prevent the ‘death bya thousand cuts’ creep ofenvironmental effect that occurswhen development occurs in anad hoc manner. In particular, morecompact development will help tomake urban areas less energyintensive (shorter travellingdistances with a greater potentialfor introducing multi-modaltransport options), in turn reducingtransport-related carbonemissions.Community:This policy direction offers manybenefits to people andcommunities. By limiting urbandevelopment to selected areasand a predefined rate andproviding guidance about futureareas of industrial development,the development may be betterintegrated with infrastructure(RMA, s30(1)(gb)). In this way,infrastructure and servicing can beprovided in a timely manner and ata rate the community can afford.Infrastructure provision can beplanned and budgeted for well inadvance of when it is needed,which can result in cost savingsand efficiencies for thecommunity.Planned development will preventgrowth from having adverseeffects on the efficiency andeffectiveness of existinginfrastructure such as roads. Thisalso reduces timing and costuncertainties associated withmultiple developments.There should not be anysignificant environmental costs.Community:There may be costs involved withthis policy direction, but thesecould be minimised by ensuringland allocations are consistentwith demand, that a range ofhousing choices are provided forwithin the urban limits, andensuring allocations are regularlyreviewed.Although the costs of urban limitsto the community can bemitigated, they can probably notbe eliminated. It is difficult toquantify the community costs andbenefits of this policy direction. Toa large extent they will depend onthe total package, of which urbandevelopment limits are only one ofthe tools. However, reputablestudies favour the use of urbanlimits and therefore the benefits ofthis policy option are assumed tooutweigh the costs.Doc # 1451856 6-35

Setting urban limits, if doneappropriately, can ensure there issufficient land made available forthe needs of the community. Thisprovides more certainty fordevelopers in terms of knowingwhere different kinds ofdevelopment are acceptable andwhere they are not.Ensuring development occurs indefined areas and at a plannedrate allows more consistentdevelopment decisions asopposed to decisions that result infragmented piecemealdevelopment. This plannedapproach allows growth to betterreflect good urban designprinciples. For example,‘Internationally, the use of urbangrowth boundaries is associatedwith greater urban connectivity.’ 26Limiting urban sprawl also limitsmany other effects of urbandevelopment. For example itreduces the need to take goodquality farm land out of production.It can also encourage morecompact urban development,which has benefits in terms ofreducing travel distances andtherefore energy use. Suchbenefits reduce costs andmaintain options for futuregenerations in the areas protectedfrom urban sprawl.A recent literature reviewconcluded ‘that pursuing a morecompact urban form will lead tobenefits in terms of improvedeconomic development.’ Thisresearch generally supports thenotion that densification has thepotential to better utilise existinginfrastructure and limitinfrastructure expenditure. Whereexisting infrastructure requiresupgrading, this often has a greaterbenefit than the provision of newinfrastructure at the city edge. 27Summary of efficiency: Medium-high26 Yan Song, Impacts of Urban Growth Management on Urban Form: A comparative Study of Portland, Oregon,Orange Country, Florida and Montgomery County, Maryland, 2003, quoted in “The Effectiveness of the AucklandMetropolitan Urban Limit – Ring-fencing Urban Development”, Environmental Defence Society Conference, 11-12 June2008, Greg Hill, Consultant and former General Manager - Policy and Planning, Auckland Regional Council.27International Trends and Lessons in Growth Management – A review of literature, Auckland Regional Growth Forum,March 2007, page 946-36 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 25:Policy to provide urbandevelopment densitytargets for the FutureProof area.EffectivenessThe Future Proof Growth Strategy has determined density targets fordevelopment. This policy option will promote these densities as targetsthrough the RPS. Methods to support this policy would state thatterritorial authorities will seek to achieve these targets via provisions indistrict plans and through advocacy with developers. In addition,Hamilton City has set itself a target of 50% of growth through infillhousing and intensification of existing urban areas. This target will besupported through a method.This policy direction will help to achieve planned and sustainable urbandevelopment by encouraging more compact development. This is likelyto be an effective way of supporting Objective 3.11, given that districtplans must give effect to provisions in a RPS. It also ensures that theaim of more compact urban areas is given due consideration during thedevelopment of subdivision proposals.The policy does not require that the targets be achieved in all situationsas there may be some case-specific situations where the target is notappropriate. The targets are also to be achieved over time as this wasthe allowance agreed on through the Future Proof process. There istherefore no guarantee that the targets will be met, but having targetsshould have some effect in encouraging more compact development.In the short term, the policy will be effective in promoting more compactgrowth within the various communities covered by the Future Proofstrategy. In the longer term, the policy should be an effective means ofpromoting cost-effective urban development.Generally more compact development is likely to make better use ofinfrastructure. Therefore this policy option will help to achieve greaterefficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure, which is an outcomesought by Objective 3.11. More compact development will also help tosupport Objective 3.2 (Decision making) and 3.9 (Efficient use ofresources). For the above reasons, this policy option is likely to beeffective in supporting these objectives.Summary of effectiveness: MediumEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe environmental benefits of thispolicy direction would be similar tothose stated above in relation tothe urban limits (reduce energyuse, protect high quality soils andso on), as both policies willencourage more compactdevelopment. As further evidenceof environmental benefit, a recentreport from the United StatesDepartment of Energy concludedthat ‘more compact, mixed-usedevelopment can producereductions in energy consumptionand CO 2 emissions both directlyand indirectly’ 28 . The report alsostated there could be lessconversion of agricultural land intoThere is a risk that more compactdevelopment would create moreimpervious services and thereforegreater stormwater runoffvelocities and peaks. There maybe less room for biodiversityresources. However, such riskscan be managed by ensuringdevelopments are in accordancewith good urban design principles,that more compact developmentallows sufficient open space (suchas parks and other public spacesto offset less private space fromsmaller sections), and thatstormwater run-off is appropriatelymanaged. Other policiesencourage these development28Report summarised in US Transportation Research Board: “Driving in the built environment – the effects of compactdevelopment on motorized travel, energy use and CO2 emissions”, August 2009http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298summary.pdfDoc # 1451856 6-37

urban use.Community:requirements.Community:Policy Option 26:Policy to provideguidance on futurecommercialdevelopment in theFuture Proof area.The community benefits of thispolicy direction would be similar tothose stated above in relation tothe urban limits (such as moreefficient use of infrastructure), asboth policies will encourage morecompact development. Note thatthe Department of Energy reportalso points out that compactdevelopment can provide ‘greateropportunities for physical activityby facilitating the use of nonmotorizedmodes of travel, suchas walking and bicycling’.Summary of efficiency: Medium-highEffectivenessIf not well planned, more compacturban development can lead to aloss of amenity values andbiodiversity values. There can beadditional pressure on existinginfrastructure, which can lead tothe need for costly upgrading ofstormwater and water supplypipes.This policy option aims to encourage and consolidate future commercialactivity in existing commercial centres. It should be supported by a tablewhich identifies the main centres where commercial development is tooccur within the period of time covered by the Future Proof strategy.The policy should support the principles in the Future Proof strategythat relate to commercial development. Such principles include: maintaining the Hamilton CBD as the primary retail, economic,business and social centre of the sub-region; maintaining thriving town centres and supporting people to ‘live,work, play and visit’; ensuring a cohesive commercial and retail strategy; encouraging development that supports existing infrastructure;and ensuring development is planned to support efficient transportinfrastructure.The policy option should support these principles by ensuring futurecommercial development supports existing centres. It should allow newcommercial centres to develop only where specified adverse effects areavoided. It should also support the functional hierarchy of existingcommercial centres so that development in one centre does not reducethe functions being performed by other centres.During the Future Proof process, it was clear that, in some areas,dispersed commercial development has redirected shopping activityaway from existing commercial areas. This has resulted in a range ofadverse effects such as: changing traffic patterns which creates congestion in some areasand under-use of roads in others; greater distances to be travelled to new commercial areas(increasing energy use); reducing profitability of some existing commercial areas which insome cases increases vacant commercial space;the under-use of existing commercial services and infrastructure;reduction in industrial land capacity through development of otherland use activities on industrial zoned land, particularly commercial;andincreasing the price of industrial land which is being used forcommercial activity, so the land price elevates to commercial prices.This policy direction is supported by a study by Property Economics Ltd(July 2010) which undertook an analysis of the existing sub-regionalbusiness environment and employment growth projections. This studynoted that in Hamilton, there has been a trend of decentralized6-38 Doc # 1451856

commercial activity as firms take advantage of lower rents and landcosts in dispersed locations. It noted, however, that this is placing astrain on peripheral infrastructure and that when a retail market isspread too thinly, it lowers competition and impedes retail development.The study notes that it is important to have a well-planned commercialdevelopment strategy that provides some certainty for the market interms of future development. This policy option aims to help to addressthese issues arising from (and for) commercial development in theFuture Proof area.The option supports the directions of Future Proof. It will help to ensureintegration of commercial development with infrastructure developmentand therefore supports RMA section 30(1)(gb) which requires WaikatoRegional Council to provide policies and methods for the strategicintegration of infrastructure with land use. The option provides clearguidance for the way that Future Proof territorial authority district plansshould manage future commercial development, in order to address thematters raised above.This policy option supports Objective 3.11 (Built environment) whichseeks to ensure development of the built environment occurs in anintegrated, sustainable and planned manner, which, among otherthings, integrates land use and infrastructure planning and protects theeffectiveness and efficiency of regionally significant infrastructure. Italso supports Objectives 3.2 (Decision making) and 3.9 (Efficient use ofresources).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsReduced need for newinfrastructure, such as roads, willreduce associated potentialenvironmental effects.There should be no significantenvironment costs.Efficiency and effectiveness ofexisting infrastructure will besupported.Reduction of uncontrolledcommercial sprawl will help toreduce the energy footprint ofurban areas.Amenity values associated withthe commercial centres ofHamilton city and sub-regionaltowns are maintained orenhanced.Community:Reinforcement of the commercialviability of town and city centreswhich protects investment inservices and infrastructure forexisting town centres. This willhelp to maintain and improve thevitality and amenity of existingcommercial centres.Community:Loss of flexibility in terms oflocational options for commercialdevelopment.Potentially higher initialdevelopment costs associatedwith higher land costs closer toexisting commercial centres.Less potential for commercialdevelopment to result in transportDoc # 1451856 6-39

congestion and the need forexpensive transport infrastructureupgrades.Greater certainty for commercialbusinesses in terms of where themain commercial development isto occur in future.More compact urban developmentwith its resulting benefits.Economies of scale in terms ofinfrastructure provision particularlytransport and parking, whichrepresents a cost saving to thecommunity.Policy option 27:Policy to addressstrong pressure forrural-residentialdevelopment in theFuture Proof area.Avoidance of transfer of industrialland to commercial or retailactivities, which can force up thecost of industrial land.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis policy option is to ensure the Future Proof councils recognise andaddress the strong pressure for rural-residential development in thevicinity of Hamilton City. It will list the key effects that need to bemanaged including potential conflicts between development andexisting infrastructure and land uses, the additional demand it places onservices and infrastructure, and the potential for cross-boundaryconflicts. For example, development around Hamilton city can greatlyreduce opportunities for long-term expansion of the city 29 .Methods will include the need to: change district plans to manage this issue; limit rural-residential development in the vicinity of Hamilton; form agreements between Future Proof councils about how toaddress this matter; and investigate transferable development rights as a way of directingdevelopment away from Hamilton.Rural-residential development can cause widespread effects on a rangeof matters identified in the RPS objectives such as effectiveness oftransport systems and other infrastructure, natural hazard risk, reversesensitivity with rural business and quarry operations, increasingcommuter energy use, and reducing options for high quality farm landand mineral resources.Well-managed rural-residential development can have positive social,economic, cultural and environmental benefits by providing lifestylechoices, supporting local rural communities and services, and in somecases, increasing local biodiversity. It is important, however, that ruralresidentialdevelopment is located carefully to avoid adverse effects.For the reasons described above, this policy option will help to achieveObjective 3.11 (Built environment) by ensuring rural-residentialdevelopment in the vicinity of Hamilton city is integrated, sustainableand planned to achieve positive outcomes. It will also help to achieveObjective 3.2 (Decision making) and ensure policy outcomes such asmore compact urban form in Hamilton are not undermined.29Noting that the population of Hamilton could quadruple in 100 years and there will likely be a need for someexpansion beyond current city boundaries.6-40 Doc # 1451856

The policy option would require changes to district plans to identifysuitable locations for future rural-residential development and to providea rule framework to direct rural-residential development to these areas.These kinds of methods are already commonly used with respect tourban and industrial zones but have not traditionally been usedextensively for rural-residential development. However, the methods area generally proven and accepted means of managing development andare increasingly being used in district plans to manage rural-residentialdevelopment. For these reasons the policy is likely to be effective.Summary of effectiveness: Medium-highEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsMinimise energy demand andincreased production ofgreenhouse gases generated byvehicle movements.There should be no significantenvironmental costs.Avoiding adverse effects on ruralamenity and open space in thevicinity of Hamilton.Directing development onto landthat does not comprise soils ofhigh value for food production.Community:Protecting ability for Hamilton toexpand in the long term, which willhave long-term financial benefits.Reducing potential for unplannedadditional demand on Hamiltoncity services and infrastructure.Maintaining options for newinfrastructure provision in thevicinity of Hamilton city. 30Community:Opportunity costs associated withthe loss of subdivisiondevelopment potential forlandowners outside the areaszoned for rural-residentialdevelopment.Community costs associated withdevelopment of structure plansand plan changes to implementthe policy.Policy option 28:Policy to provideinformation andreporting requirementsfor the Future Proofarea.Reducing potential for conflictsbetween rural-residentialdevelopment and existing landuse and infrastructure in thevicinity of Hamilton.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessPolicy option 28 provides information collection and reportingrequirements for the whole Waikato region. Further information isrequired in the Future Proof area. This policy option seeks to ensurethat information additional to that required by Policy option 28 iscollected and reported in the Future Proof area to deal with the veryhigh pressure for development in this area and to help Future Proofcouncils respond in a timely way to changing trends and pressures.The information will be needed to support future reviews of the FutureProof strategy and to inform reviews of the Future Proof map and tablescontained in the Proposed RPS (Policy 6.13). A method will list moredetailed information requirements for the Future Proof area.30Note that already rural-residential development near Hamilton is creating problems for finding a viable route for theSouthern Links highway connection, and raising questions about the viability and capacity of the planned HamiltonEastern Bypass route.Doc # 1451856 6-41

This policy option will particularly support Objective 3.11 (Builtenvironment) by ensuring good information is available to supportongoing planning for growth in the Future Proof area. The Future Proofprocess provided some surprises by, for example, identifying just howmuch rural-residential development is occurring in the sub-region. Such‘surprises’ need to be avoided by good information that tracks changes.Future Proof provides urban limits and tables for allocating and stagingresidential and industrial growth. The danger of more rigorous growthplanning is that its success is very dependent on the validity of theunderlying assumptions. For example, if population growth occurs at afaster rate than anticipated, the urban limits and land allocations maybecome inappropriate. Tracking of growth trends and pressures willtherefore help to update planning as appropriate to stay relevant to theconditions.For these reasons, this policy option is considered very important, andan effective way of supporting Objective 3.11 in the Future Proof area.This will also support achievement of Objective 3.2 (Decision making).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsTracking development andinfrastructure pressures andtrends will provide information thatwill help improve the managementof the built environment, includingimprovement of environmentaloutcomes. Good monitoring andreporting can ensure new trendsthat may cause newenvironmental effects areidentified and responded to asearly as possible.Community:Good monitoring and reporting ondevelopment and infrastructuretrends and pressures to ensuretransparency and accountabilitywith respect to these matters.Allowing the community to seehow effectively key developmentissues are being managed andhow effective they are.No significant environmental costfrom this policy option.Community:Community costs associated withthe monitoring, collection of dataand reporting. This is to somedegree offset by currentmonitoring activity and thestatutory requirement on councilsto monitor and carry out state ofthe environment reporting.Access to reliable data to supportprivate sector decision making.Good monitoring to improveWaikato Regional Council’smanagement of the builtenvironment thereby maximisingcommunity benefits andminimising costs associated withdevelopment.6-42 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 29:Policy to provide for areview of settlementpattern maps andtables for the FutureProof area.Standardising data collection bythe partner councils to enableconsistent use and reporting.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThis policy option is that the Waikato Regional Council may review theurban limits and land allocations established by RPS Policy option 24 if: the monitoring report (Policy option 28) recommends a change; actual population varies by more than 10% from the Future Proofpredictions; the Future Proof partners agree that insufficient land exists to caterfor growth anticipated within 10 years; the Future Proof partners agree that exceptional circumstanceshave arisen that make the review necessary.The Future Proof settlement pattern and land allocation must beanchored in the RPS to provide certainty, such as with respect to futureinfrastructure needs. However, it is not possible to predict housing andindustry land needs over the long term with any degree of certainty. Itis therefore highly likely that some changes will need to be made to theurban limits and allocations in RPS Policy 6.13 over time. The urbanlimits and allocations are a tool to achieve the objective. Option 29signals that the tool can be altered when conditions require it. Thisprovides some assurance to stakeholders that there is flexibility in theapproach, while ensuring the approach is rigorous enough to achievethe relevant objectives.It is noted that Waikato Regional Council can review the RPS as andwhen it sees fit so this is not a necessary policy. However, in reality, areview process can be very expensive, and therefore a decision toreview RPS provisions would not be taken lightly. Some guidance aboutwhen a review will be considered is therefore useful for the Future Proofpartners and other stakeholders. It will help to identify when a change tothe policy is needed in order to keep working towards achievement ofthe objective.This policy option helps to achieve Objective 3.11 (Built environment)by ensuring the key policy that controls development in the Future Proofarea (Policy 6.13) remains valid in terms of growth trends andpressures on the sub-region. It will also help to support Objective 3.2(Decision making).Summary of effectiveness: Medium-highEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThis policy direction will not resultin direct environmental benefits.However, by ensuring some of thekey elements of the approach tomanaging development in theFuture Proof area remain validover time, the overall success ofthe approach will be supported.Community:The approach would support therange of community benefitsanticipated by the Future Proofstrategy by ensuring growthcontrols remain appropriate to theNo environmental costs directlyrelated to the implementation ofthis policy.Community:The cost of regularly assessingthe need to review the RPS FutureProof policies will not besubstantial. There will besignificant costs to the communityDoc # 1451856 6-43

growth trends and pressures.The approach provides somecertainty to the community that thepolicy approach can be amendedover time to keep pace withchanging socio-economiccircumstances.Summary of efficiency: Highif the policies do need to bealtered through an RPS change.However, if the decision toproceed with such a change ismade, it would be because thebenefits of the change would beconsidered to exceed the costs.Policy option 30: Donothing.EffectivenessThe RPS has not previously contained policy to significantly influencethe development of the built environment. Apart from some exceptions(such as policy to promote efficient energy use and policy to avoidsignificant effects on regionally significant infrastructure) the RPS hasdone little to influence development outcomes. At the same time, theproblems of ad hoc and unco-ordinated growth have continued toincrease. The ‘do nothing’ option therefore would not address the fourthIssue statement in the RPS, relating to managing the built environment.It is clear that territorial authorities are increasingly developing growthstrategies, district plan provisions and structure plans that would help toachieve Objective 3.11. However, it is important that the RPS also takesa strong role in managing development of the built environment and hasrigorous policy to achieve the objective for the following reasons: Currently some district plans do not address growth issues in a waythat will achieve Objective 3.11 (Built environment). Although district plans are continuing to develop better provisionsfor managing development of the built environment, each districtplan change will be decided on by different hearing committeesfrom different territorial authorities, with different developmentpressures and agendas. A lack of RPS guidance means therewould continue to be inconsistent management of developmentacross the region. District plans can sometimes easily be changed by private planchanges and by territorial authorities under the leadership of newcouncillors. By providing clear requirements for growthmanagement in the RPS it is more likely that district plans willcontinue to support the RPS objectives over the long term. Section 104 of the RMA states that consent authorities must haveregard to a Proposed RPS. Therefore, as soon as the RPS isproposed, it must be considered when making consent decisions.This is an effective way of quickly introducing a more planned andintegrated way of managing development across the region. The RPS is a very good vehicle for aligning the Waikato RegionalCouncil’s management of transport with the management of thebuilt environment. The RPS can ensure that directions in growth strategies, wherethese have been prepared, are not compromised by managementof the built environment where there are none. Section 30(1)(gb) requires that regional councils provide for thestrategic integration of infrastructure with land use throughobjectives, policies, and methods. The ‘do nothing’ approach wouldtherefore mean that Waikato Regional Council is not carrying out itsstatutory responsibilities.For these reasons, the ‘do nothing’ option would not effectively achieveObjective 3.11 (Built environment) or other RPS objectives such as 3.1(Integrated management), 3.2 (Decision making), 3.4 (Energy), 3.8(Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment), 3.9 (Efficientuse of resources), 3.18 (Ecological integrity and indigenousbiodiversity), 3.20 (Amenity), 3.21 (Natural character) and 3.25 (Highclass soils).6-44 Doc # 1451856

Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:No environmental benefit from thispolicy option.Community:The main community benefitwould be that there would begreater flexibility for those wishingto subdivide or develop land.Summary of efficiency: LowSignificant environmental costs, asdevelopment continues to degradethe environment.Community:There would likely be significantcommunity costs from this optionincluding: adverse effects ofdevelopment on infrastructureand greater need for new orupgraded infrastructure; reduced vitality of someexisting town centres; continued loss of access tohigh quality soils and mineralresources; continued adverse effects ofdevelopment on landscapeand amenity values; increasing exposure to naturalhazards; lost opportunity fordevelopment that maximizescommunity benefits; development conflicts withtāngata whenua values; and cross-boundary effects fromconflicting territorial authoritygrowth management.6.2 Risk of acting or not actingSection 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain orinsufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods.With regard to the built environment, there is sufficient information upon which to baseanalysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. There is sufficient informationto demonstrate the scale and nature of the effects of development of the builtenvironment.The risk of not acting in the proposed ways is that the adverse effects of developmentof the built environment continue to increase.The risk of acting in the ways proposed is that costs may be imposed on individuallandowners and on the community, local government, and developers, as discussed inthe analyses of efficiency above.6.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.11:Doc # 1451856 6-45

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyOption 1: Provisions for managingdevelopment of the built environmentOption 2: Influencing built environmentdecision making through submissions onplans, plan changes, consent applicationsand notices of requirementOption 3: Regional Council requiring landuse consents for developmentOption 4: Codes of compliance to improvedevelopment outcomesHighHighSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 6.1]Low Low NoLow Low NoLow Low NoOption 5: Regional Growth Strategy Low Low NoOption 6: Policy on new development ofthe built environment in the coastalenvironmentOption 7: Policy for co-ordinating andintegrating growth and infrastructureplanning and provisionOption 8: No specific policy or methods tosupport integration of land use andinfrastructureOption 9: Recognise the importance ofmarae and papakainga and provide fortheir use and developmentOption 10: No specific policy onrecognition of the importance of maraeand papakaingaOption 11: Policy to encourage increasedenergy efficiency and to minimise energydemandOption 12: No specific policy to encourageincreased energy efficiency and tominimise energy demandOption 13: Protect regionally significantinfrastructure and recognise benefits fromnew development of infrastructure andenergy resourcesOption 14: No specific policy to protectregionally significant infrastructure andrecognise the benefits of newdevelopment of infrastructure and energyresourcesOption 15: Policy that provides a directionfor the management of mineral resourcewithin the regionOption 16: No specific policy for themanagement of the mineral resource inthe regionOption 17: Policy direction on collectionand monitoring of information relating todevelopmentOption 18: No specific policy direction oncollection and monitoring of informationrelating to developmentHighHighMedium-highHighYes[Policy 6.2]Yes[Policy 6.3]Low Low NoHighMedium-highYes[Policy 6.4]Low Low NoHighHighYes[Policy 6.5]Low Low NoHighHighYes[Policy 6.6]Low Low NoHighHighYes[Policy 6.7]Low Low NoHighHighYes[Policy 6.8]Low Low No6-46 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyOption 19: Policy to supportimplementation of the Blueprint GrowthStrategyOption 20: Policy to supportimplementation of the Taupo GrowthStrategyOption 21: Policy to implement theFranklin District Growth StrategyOption 22: No policies to support subregionaland district growth strategiesOption 23: Policy to encouragegovernance collaboration in the FutureProof areaOption 24: Policy to ensure adoption ofthe Future Proof land use patternOption 25: Policy to provide urbandevelopment density targets for theFuture Proof areaOption 26: Policy to provide additionaldevelopment principles for the FutureProof areaOption 27: Policy to address strongpressure for rural-residential developmentin the Future Proof areaOption 28: Policy to provide informationand reporting requirements in the FutureProof areaOption 29: Policy to provide for a reviewof settlement pattern maps and tables forthe Future Proof areaMedium-highMedium-highMedium-highMedium-highMedium-highMediumSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 6.9]Yes[Policy 6.10]Yes[Policy 6.11]Low Low NoHighHighMediumMediumMedium-highHighMedium-highHighMedium-highMedium-highHighHighHighHighYes[Policy 6.12]Yes[Policy 6.13]Yes[Policy 6.14]Yes[Policy 6.15]Yes[Policy 6.16]Yes[Policy 6.17]Yes[Policy 6.18]Option 30: Do nothing Low Low NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.11 and supporting other objectives thatcan be addressed by management of development of the built environment is byinclusion of Policy options 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28and 29.6.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsThe following policies and methods are recommended for inclusion in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS) Chapter 6 Built Environment:Policy 1 Planned and co-ordinated development (PWRPS Policy 6.1)Development of the built environment, including transport and other infrastructure,occurs in a planned and co-ordinated manner which:a) is guided by the principles in section 6A;b) recognises and addresses potential cumulative effects of development; andc) is based on sufficient information to allow assessment of the potential long-termeffects of development.Doc # 1451856 6-47

Implementation methods1.1 District plans and development planning mechanismsTerritorial authorities shall have particular regard to the principles in section 6A whenpreparing, reviewing or changing district plans and development planning mechanismssuch as structure plans, town plans and growth strategies.1.2 AdvocacyLocal authorities should advocate for the principles in section 6A with respect todevelopment (including infrastructure development) proposals and private plan changeproposals.1.3 Development manuals and design codesTerritorial authorities should, as appropriate, ensure development manuals and designcodes allow and encourage development which is consistent with the principles insection 6A.1.4 District plan provisions for rural-residential developmentDistrict plans shall ensure that rural-residential development is directed away fromnatural hazard areas, high class soils, locations identified as likely renewable energygeneration sites and from identified significant mineral resources and their accessroutes. In addition, where demand for or potential adverse effects from rural-residentialdevelopment is high, the large majority of new rural-residential lots should be inidentified rural-residential areas.1.5 Growth strategiesIn areas where significant growth is occurring or anticipated, territorial authoritiesshould develop and maintain growth strategies which identify a spatial pattern of landuse for at least a 30-year period. The use of integrated spatial planning tools, such asthe Waikato Integrated Scenarios Explorer, should be considered to explore futuredevelopment options and to integrate land use planning with infrastructure.1.6 Urban development planningTerritorial authorities should ensure that before land is rezoned for urban development,urban development planning mechanisms such as structure plans and town plans areproduced, which facilitate proactive decisions about the future location of urbandevelopment and allow the information in Implementation Method 6.1.7 to beconsidered.1.7 Information to support new urban developmentDistrict plan zoning for new urban development (and redevelopment where applicable),and subdivision and consent decisions for urban development, shall be supported byinformation which identifies, as appropriate to the scale and potential effects ofdevelopment, the following:a) the type and location of land uses (including residential, industrial, commercial andrecreational land uses, and community facilities where these can be anticipated)that will be permitted or provided for, and the density, staging and triggerrequirements;b) the location, type, scale and staging of infrastructure required to service the area,including transport, stormwater, water and sewerage infrastructure;c) multi-modal transport links and connectivity, both within the area of new urbandevelopment, and to neighbouring areas and existing transport infrastructure; andhow the safe and efficient functioning of existing and planned transport and othermajor infrastructure will be protected and enhanced;d) how existing values, and valued features of the area (including amenity, landscape,natural character, ecological and heritage values, water bodies, high class soils andsignificant view catchments) will be managed;6-48 Doc # 1451856

e) potential natural hazards and how the related risks will be managed;f) potential issues arising from the storage, use, disposal and transport of hazardoussubstances in the area and any contaminated sites and describes how related riskswill be managed;g) how stormwater will be managed having regard to low impact design methods;h) any significant mineral resources in the area and any provisions (such asdevelopment staging) to allow their extraction where appropriate; andi) how the relationship of tāngata whenua and their culture and traditions with theirancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga has been recognised andprovided for.1.8 Subdivision and consent decisions for urban developmentDistrict plans shall ensure that where subdivision and consent decisions allowing urbandevelopment are to be made in the absence of development planning mechanismssuch as structure plans and town plans, the matters in Method 6.1.7 will be given dueconsideration, as appropriate to the scale and potential effects of the development.1.9 Other party involvementWhere development planning mechanisms are being produced, territorial authoritiesshould ensure that Waikato Regional Council, neighbouring regional and territorialauthorities, infrastructure providers, tāngata whenua and affected land owners areprovided the opportunity to have meaningful involvement in development planning.1.10 Economic instrumentsTerritorial authorities should investigate and implement as appropriate, economicinstruments which could help to direct rural-residential development to locationsidentified in the district plan for rural-residential development.1.11 Co-ordinated approachWaikato Regional Council will seek opportunities to align its own activities, includingthe development of strategies such as the Regional Land Transport Strategy, theprovision of works and services, education programmes and environmental initiatives,with the principles in section 6A.Policy 2 Planning for development in the coastal environment(PWRPS Policy 6.2)New development of the built environment in the coastal environment occurs in a waythat:a) ensures sufficient development setbacks to protect coastal natural character, publicaccess, indigenous biodiversity, natural physical processes, amenity and naturalhazard mitigation functions of the coast;b) protects hydrological processes and natural functions of back dune areas;c) is in keeping with local coastal character;d) allows for the potential effects of sea level rise, including allowing for sufficientcoastal habitat inland migration opportunities;e) protects the valued characteristics of remaining undeveloped, or largelyundeveloped coastal environments;f) ensures adequate water and wastewater services will be provided for thedevelopment;g) avoids increasing natural hazard risk associated with coastal erosion andinundation;h) has regard to the potential effects of a tsunami event, and takes appropriate stepsto avoid, remedy or mitigate that risk;i) avoids ribbon development along coastal margins;j) does not compromise the function of current or anticipated coastal infrastructure;andDoc # 1451856 6-49

k) provides for safe and efficient connectivity between land-based infrastructurerequired to service activities occurring within the coastal marine area.Implementation methods2.1 Planning for development in the coastal environmentLocal authorities shall give effect to this policy through provisions in plans, and shouldgive effect to the policy when developing growth strategies, structure plans and otherdevelopment planning mechanisms.2.2 Provisions for inland migration of habitatsWaikato Regional Council will seek to collaborate with territorial authorities to identifyvalued coastal habitats that may be affected by sea level rise, and where developmentcontrols should be established to allow inland migration of these habitats.2.3 Coastal development setback (new development)Regional and district plans shall require that new development along the coast besufficient distance from the coastal edge to allow for the following:a) preserving natural character values;b) avoiding natural hazards;c) protecting the values associated with marine water quality;d) maintaining and enhancing public access to public areas;e) natural ecosystem functioning; andf) natural functioning of physical processes, including the ability of natural featuressuch as wetlands, beaches and dunes, to migrate inland, and including thepredicted effects of climate change.2.4 Coastal development setback (existing development)Regional and district plans shall identify the circumstances when it is appropriate torequire existing development along the coast be realigned, and shall include provisionsto provide for this realignment, to be sufficient distance from the coastal edge to allowfor the following:a) preserving natural character values;b) avoiding natural hazards;c) protecting the values associated with marine water quality;d) maintaining and enhancing public access to public areas; ande) natural functioning of physical processes, including the ability of natural featuressuch as wetlands, beaches and dunes, to migrate inland, and including thepredicted effects of climate change.2.5 Co-ordinated approachWaikato Regional Council will seek opportunities to align its own activities, includingthe provision of works and services, development of plans and strategies including theRegional Land Transport Strategy, education programmes and environmentalinitiatives, with Policy 6.2.Policy 3 Co-ordinating growth and infrastructure (PWRPS Policy 6.3)Management of the built environment ensures:a) the nature, timing and sequencing of new development is co-ordinated with thedevelopment, funding, implementation and operation of transport and otherinfrastructure, in order to:i) optimise the efficient and affordable provision of both the development and theinfrastructure;ii) maintain or enhance the operational effectiveness, viability and safety ofexisting and planned infrastructure;6-50 Doc # 1451856

iii) protect investment in existing infrastructure; andiv) ensure new development does not occur until appropriate infrastructure is inplace;b) the spatial pattern of land use development, as it is likely to develop over at least a30-year period, is understood sufficiently to inform reviews of the Regional LandTransport Strategy. As a minimum, this will require the development andmaintenance of growth strategies where strong population growth is anticipated;c) the efficient and effective functioning of infrastructure, including transport corridors,is maintained, and the ability to maintain and upgrade that infrastructure is retained;andd) a co-ordinated and integrated approach across regional and district boundaries andbetween agencies.Implementation methods3.1 Plan provisionsRegional and district plans shall include provisions that provide for a long-term strategicapproach to the integration of land use and infrastructure and that give effect to Policy6.3, including by ensuring as appropriate that:a) roading patterns and design support the use of public transport;b) walking and cycling facilities are integrated with developments;c) the different transport modes are well connected;d) industry is located where there is good access to strategic transport networks androad, rail or freight hubs;e) development maintains and enhances the safe, efficient and effective use ofexisting transport infrastructure and can be integrated with future transportinfrastructure needs where these can be determined;f) development does not add to existing road safety risks and where possible shouldreduce such risks;g) development does not unnecessarily prevent likely future land transport networkimprovements and upgrades;h) development patterns support the use of rail or sea for freight movement; andi) provisions support the Waikato Regional Council Travel Demand ManagementStrategy.3.2 Aligning infrastructure and land use planningTerritorial authorities should, in association with Waikato Regional Council, the NewZealand Transport Agency and other infrastructure providers, ensure transportplanning and land use planning initiatives are aligned, and should co-ordinate theprovision of appropriate infrastructure and services for new development prior todevelopment occurring.3.3 Financial provision for infrastructureLocal authorities should ensure financial provision is made for infrastructure andservices required for each development area or redevelopment area.3.4 Urban growth outside of growth strategy areasDistrict plans shall ensure that in areas not subject to a growth strategy, urbandevelopment is predominantly directed to existing towns (as opposed to villages andhamlets) and is contiguous with, and well connected to, those towns.3.5 Planning for land use and transportLocal authorities should ensure as appropriate, that growth strategies, structure plans,regional land transport strategies and development manuals and design codes areconsistent with the directions in Policy 6.3.Doc # 1451856 6-51

3.6 Transport planningWaikato Regional Council will promote the integrated management of land use andtransport through involvement with the management of national, regional, sub-regionaland district transportation policies, actions and funding.3.7 Future infrastructure changes and upgradesWaikato Regional Council will seek to work with territorial authorities, the NZ TransportAgency, other infrastructure providers and relevant developers to ensure thatdevelopment does not unnecessarily prevent likely future infrastructure changes andupgrades.3.8 Working with neighbouring regionsLocal authorities should work with other local authorities in neighbouring regions toensure the management of the built environment is co-ordinated and integratedthrough development of regional policy statements, regional and district plans, regionalland transport strategies, regional land transport programmes and relevant growthstrategies.3.9 Integrated Transport AssessmentsTerritorial authorities should ensure an Integrated Transport Assessment is prepared tosupport a structure plan, plan change or resource consent application where thedevelopment may result in additional major trip-generating activities. In determiningwhen an Integrated Transport Assessment should be prepared, reference should bemade to the Transit Planning Policy Manual – for integrated planning and developmentof State Highways, Version 1, 2007, or other relevant guidelines.3.10 Strategic planning for infrastructure within the coastal marine area andconnections with landTo ensure integrated management of infrastructure in the coastal marine area, WaikatoRegional Council will seek to collaborate with territorial authorities, the NZ TransportAgency and other relevant agencies to investigate:a) establishing a strategic framework for infrastructure, including marinas,moorings, aquaculture, energy generation and transport routes within thecoastal marine area with particular consideration to the connectivity with thenecessary supporting land-based infrastructure; andb) identifying and protecting through regional and district plans any regionallysignificant routes and infrastructure in the coastal marine area, and necessarylinkages with land-based infrastructure.Policy 4 Marae and papakāinga (PWRPS Policy 6.4)To recognise the historical, cultural and social importance of marae and papakāingaand to provide for their ongoing use and development.Implementation methods4.1 Provision for marae and papakāingaDistrict plans shall make appropriate provision for development of marae andpapakāinga.4.2 Sustainability of marae and papakāingaLocal authorities should support the sustainable development, restoration orenhancement of marae and papakāinga, including where appropriate by assisting withthe identification and appropriate provision for:a) infrastructure and utilities requirements;b) social services, such as kōhanga, kura and wānanga, urupā and health services;andc) associated customary activities.6-52 Doc # 1451856

Policy 5 Energy demand management (PWRPS Policy 6.5)Development should minimise transport energy demand and waste production,encourage beneficial re-use of waste materials, and promote the efficient use ofenergy.Implementation methods5.1 District plan provisionsDistrict plans shall:a) encourage energy-efficient urban development, such as through promotion ofenergy-efficient urban design, energy-efficient buildings, innovative energytechnologies and provision for multi-modal transport systems; andb) encourage the use of on-site and community-based renewable energytechnologies.5.2 Advocacy and educationLocal authorities should advocate the directions of Policy 6.5 with respect todevelopment proposals.5.3 Development manuals and design codesTerritorial authorities should, as appropriate, ensure development manuals and designcodes allow and encourage development which is consistent with Policy 6.5.5.4 Local transport strategiesTerritorial authorities should consider the developing local strategies for encouragingwalking, cycling, use of public transport in urban areas and other demand managementinitiatives.5.5 Public transport servicesWaikato Regional Council will, through its Regional Passenger Transport Plan andRegional Land Transport Strategy:a) investigate opportunities to improve public transport services for establishedtowns, villages and rural-residential centres; andb) promote the benefits and uptake of public transport.5.6 Managing travel demandWaikato Regional Council will, through its Travel Demand Management Strategy,investigate a range of methods to reduce the demand for transport.Policy 6 Significant infrastructure and energy resources (PWRPSPolicy 6.6)Management of the built environment ensures that the effectiveness and efficiency ofexisting and planned regionally significant infrastructure is protected and that particularregard is given to the benefits that can be gained from the development and use ofregionally significant infrastructure and energy resources.Implementation methods6.1 Plan provisionsRegional and district plans shall include provisions that give effect to Policy 6.6, and inparticular, that management of the built environment:a) does not result in adverse effects on the function of significant transport corridorsas defined in Maps 6.1 and 6.1A (section 6B);b) avoids ribbon development along the defined significant transport corridors;c) avoids as far as practicable, the need for additional access points onto the definedsignificant transport corridors;d) avoids where practicable, exacerbation of community severance by the definedsignificant transport corridors;Doc # 1451856 6-53

e) does not result in land uses incompatible with existing and planned regionallysignificant infrastructure;f) recognises the increasing requirement for electricity generation from renewablesources such as geothermal, wind and marine;g) recognises the need for electricity generation to locate where high quality energysources exist, and transmission infrastructure to connect these generation sites tothe national grid; andh) recognises that infrastructure development can result in adverse effects oncommunities and that effects need to be managed by appropriate location ofinfrastructure.6.2 Transmission corridor management approachWaikato Regional Council will seek to work with territorial authorities and energycompanies to develop a transmission corridor management approach which:a) recognises the benefits of the national electricity grid;b) identifies key transmission corridors and provides for their protection frominappropriate subdivision, use and development, including through identification ofcorridors in district plans as appropriate;c) identifies and addresses potential effects on communities and natural and physicalresources from new transmission infrastructure;d) seeks opportunities for alignment with other infrastructure corridors;e) recognises that energy companies may be affected parties with respect to land usechange; andf) seeks to manage the effects of third parties on the safe and efficient operation ofthe transmission network.6.3 CollaborationWaikato Regional Council will seek to collaborate with territorial authorities and the NZTransport Agency to ensure development protects the function of significant transportcorridors as defined in Maps 6.1 and 6.1A in section 6B.6.4 Regional Land Transport StrategyWaikato Regional Council will ensure the Regional Land Transport Strategy includesprovisions to support the protection of nationally and regionally significant transportcorridors including through the development of a regional transport hierarchy whichgives a consistent approach to be used by territorial authorities in their district plans.6.5 Measures to avoid adverse effectsLocal authorities should ensure that measures such as buffer zones are implementedto avoid adverse effects of development of the built environment on the safe, efficientand effective operation of regionally significant infrastructure. With respect to electricitytransmission corridors, development should be in accordance with Transpower’sTransmission Corridor Management Guidelines.6.6 Resilience of regionally significant infrastructureLocal authorities should work with other infrastructure providers to encourage ways tomaintain and improve the resilience of regionally significant infrastructure, such asthrough back up systems and protection from natural hazards.Policy 7 Access to minerals (PWRPS Policy 6.7)Management of development of the built environment appropriately recognises:a) the potential for impacts of development on access to mineral resources;b) the need for aggregate resources to be available for infrastructure and buildingdevelopments;c) the potential benefits of further development of the region’s minerals;d) the potential for land use development that is inconsistent with nearby miningactivities; ande) that some mineral resources are considered taonga or traditional resources bytāngata whenua.6-54 Doc # 1451856

Implementation methods7.1 Identification of mineral resourcesWaikato Regional Council will seek to work with territorial authorities, iwi authorities,relevant industry and other agencies to identify and map the location of significantmineral resources. This mapping will be made available to territorial authorities. Indetermining significance, regard will be had to at least the following:a) relative scarcity;b) contribution to regional economy;c) current and potential demand, and location with respect to demand;d) constraints on extraction including existing or planned settlement;e) quality and size of deposit;f) importance of the mineral resource to tāngata whenua; andg) importance to infrastructure development.7.2 Plan provisionsDistrict plans shall include provisions to protect access to significant mineral resourcesidentified pursuant to Implementation Method 6.7.1.7.3 Aggregate haulageLocal authorities should work with the minerals industry and the NZ Transport Agencyto identify suitable routes (road and rail) for aggregate movement, and to determinemethods to manage development which may conflict with aggregate haulage.Policy 8 Information collection (PWRPS Policy 6.8)Information will be collected on development and infrastructure trends and pressures inthe Waikato region, so that these trends and pressures can be responded toappropriately and in a timely manner, through management of the built environment.Implementation methods8.1 Keeping recordsLocal authorities should keep records that will help to track and explain developmentand infrastructure trends. As a minimum, territorial authorities should keep, and makeavailable to Waikato Regional Council, records on:a) locations, lot numbers and lot sizes of subdivision consents granted, categorisedaccording to district plan zones;b) locations of building consents granted, categorised as residential and nonresidential,and categorised according to district plan zones;c) locations of vacant residential (including rural-residential) and industrial allotments;andd) major infrastructure changes and upgrades, including with respect to water supply,wastewater and local roading.8.2 Reporting on development and infrastructure trendsDuring its five-yearly policy effectiveness reporting (Section 35 Resource ManagementAct), Waikato Regional Council will, in consultation with territorial authorities,infrastructure providers and tāngata whenua, report on development and infrastructuretrends and pressures (including ecological footprint, urban water use, energy use,waste generation).8.3 Report on the Regional Land Transport StrategyDuring its three-yearly monitoring of the Regional Land Transport Strategy, WaikatoRegional Council will report on the strategic integration of transport and land use.Doc # 1451856 6-55

Policy 9 Implementing Blueprint growth strategy (PWRPS Policy 6.9)As established in the Coromandel Peninsula Blueprint Preferred Future andImplementation Framework, management of development in the Thames-CoromandelDistrict will:a) ensure that development:i) does not adversely affect the landscape, indigenous biodiversity, naturalcharacter and heritage values of the Coromandel Peninsula;ii) supports the efficient and effective use of infrastructure; andiii) does not increase the risk of natural hazards;b) focus future urban development (beyond the existing zoning and infrastructureprovision) on the three main centres of Thames, Whitianga and Whangamata; andc) encourage concentrated development through intensification and consolidation inThames, Whitianga and Whangamata.Implementation methods9.1 District plan provisionsThames-Coromandel District Council shall seek to include provisions in the Thames-Coromandel District Plan that give effect to Policy 6.9.9.2 Local area BlueprintsThames-Coromandel District Council and Waikato Regional Council should, inassociation with Hauraki Whaanui and Department of Conservation, develop local areablueprints to implement the Coromandel Peninsula Blueprint Preferred Future.9.3 Co-ordinated approachWaikato Regional Council will seek opportunities to align its own activities, includingthe provision of works and services, regulation, education programmes andenvironmental initiatives, with the Coromandel Peninsula Blueprint Preferred Futureand Implementation Framework.Policy 10 Implementing Taupo District 2050 (PWRPS 6.10)As established in Taupo District 2050, the growth management strategy for the TaupoDistrict, management of development in the Taupo District will:a) recognise the appropriateness of the urban growth areas as an important resourcefor providing for new urban land development and as the focus for future urbangrowth;b) ensure patterns of future urban development that are consistent with the identifiedurban growth areas;c) avoid urban development in the rural environment outside of the identified urbangrowth areas to prevent a dispersed pattern of settlement and the resultinginefficiencies in managing resources;d) avoid the cumulative effect that subdivision and consequent fragmented landownership can have on the role of the urban growth areas in providing the supply ofland for urban development;e) ensure that staging of development in the urban growth areas is efficient, consistentwith and supported by adequate infrastructure; andf) ensure that urban development of an identified urban growth area occurs by way ofa Taupo District 2050 structure plan process and associated plan change process.Implementation methods10.1 District plan provisionsTaupo District Council shall seek to include provisions in the Taupo District Plan thatgive effect to Policy 6.10.10.2 Structure planningTaupo District Council should develop structure plans to implement the Taupo District2050 identified urban growth areas.6-56 Doc # 1451856

10.3 Co-ordinated approachWaikato Regional Council will seek opportunities to align its own activities, includingthe provision of works and services, regulation, education programmes andenvironmental initiatives, with Taupo District 2050.Policy 11 Implementing Franklin District Growth Strategy (PWRPSPolicy 6.11)Management of growth in the part of Waikato District that was the Franklin Districtoccurs in accordance with the Franklin District Growth Strategy until such time as thisis replaced by a subsequent growth strategy.Implementation methods11.1 Managing growthWaikato District Council should ensure that growth in the part of Waikato District thatwas the Franklin District is managed in accordance with the Franklin District GrowthStrategy.Policy 12 Governance collaboration in the Future Proof area (PWRPSPolicy 6.12)Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council will work collaboratively with respect to growth management in theFuture Proof area.Implementation methods12.1 Resourcing implementationWaikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council should ensure governance structures are in place, and adequateresources provided, to facilitate the implementation of the actions in the Future ProofGrowth Strategy (2009).12.2 ConsultationConsultation should occur between Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council,Waipa District Council, Waikato District Council, tāngata whenua, the NZ TransportAgency and other infrastructure providers, with respect to major initiatives that couldaffect the interests of these parties.12.3 Implementation protocolsWaikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council should agree to protocols which document how the Future ProofGrowth Strategy (2009) is to be implemented.Policy 13 Adopting Future Proof land use pattern (PWRPS Policy 6.13)Within the Future Proof area:a) new urban development within Hamilton City, Cambridge, Te Awamutu/Kihikihi,Pirongia, Huntly, Ngaruawahia, Raglan, Te Kauwhata, Meremere, Taupiri, HorotiuNorth, Matangi, Gordonton, Rukuhia, Te Kowhai and Whatawhata shall occur withinthe indicative Urban Limits shown on Map 6.1 (section 6C);b) new residential (including rural-residential) development shall be in accordance withthe timing and population for growth areas in Table 6.1 (section 6C);c) where it is impractical to develop a particular greenfield area or part of a greenfieldarea, the equivalent population allocation in Table 6.1 may be transferred toanother greenfield area within urban limits, as long as it can be serviced byappropriate infrastructure;d) new industrial development should predominantly be located in the strategicindustrial nodes in Table 6.2 (section 6C) and in accordance with the indicativeDoc # 1451856 6-57

timings in that table. Other industrial development should only occur within theindicative Urban Limits shown on Map 6.1 (section 6C), and providing adverseeffects on the arterial road network, other infrastructure and existing zoned andserviced industrial land are avoided;e) industrial development in areas other than the strategic industrial nodes in Table6.2 (section 6C) shall be provided for as appropriate in district plans. These areasshall be predominantly for the provision of local service employment and shall notbe of a size or location where they undermine the role of any strategic node;f) where land is required for activities that require direct access to Hamilton Airportrunways and where these activities cannot be accommodated within the industrialland allocation in Table 6.2, such activities may be provided for within other landadjacent to the runways, providing adverse effects on the arterial road network andother infrastructure are avoided.Implementation methods13.1 District plan provisionsHamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall, inconsultation with Waikato Regional Council, tāngata whenua and the NZ TransportAgency, review or prepare changes to their district plans to identify locations and limitsfor future urban development, including future areas of major commercial and industrialdevelopment. The district plans shall ensure that urban development is located andmanaged in accordance with Policy 6.13.13.2 Land releaseHamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall providezoned and serviced land in accordance with Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in section 6C.Policy 14 Density targets for Future Proof area (PWRPS Policy 6.14)Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall seek toachieve compact urban environments that support existing commercial centres, multimodaltransport options, and allow people to live, work and play within their local area.In doing so, development provisions shall seek to achieve, over time, the followingaverage gross density targets:Development type and locationHamilton Central Business DistrictHamilton Intensification AreasHamilton GreenfieldGreenfield development in Cambridge, TeAwamutu/Kihikihi, Huntly, Ngaruawahia,Raglan/Whaingaroa and Te KauwhataGreenfield development in Waikato District rural villageswhere sewerage is reticulated (Matangi, Taupiri, Eureka,Gordonton, Maramarua, Meremere, Horotiu, Te Kowhaiand Whatawhata)Average gross density target50 households per hectare30 households per hectare16 households per hectare12-15 households per hectare8-10 households per hectareImplementation methods14.1 District plan provisions and other mechanismsHamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall includeprovisions in their district plans and other mechanisms that seek to implement Policy6.14.6-58 Doc # 1451856

14.2 AdvocacyWaikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council should advocate for the matters in Policy 6.14 with respect todevelopment proposals in the Future Proof area.14.3 Hamilton infill targetHamilton City Council should aim for at least 50 per cent of growth to be through infilland intensification of existing urban areas.Policy 15 Commercial development in the Future Proof area (PWRPSPolicy 6.15)Management of the built environment in the Future Proof area shall provide for varyinglevels of commercial activity to meet the wider community’s social and economicneeds, primarily through the encouragement and consolidation of such activities inexisting centres of commercial activity, and predominantly in those centres identified inTable 6.3. Commercial activities are to be managed to:a) support and sustain the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercialcentres identified in Table 6.3 (section 6C);b) support and sustain existing physical resources, and ensure the continuing ability tomake efficient use of, and undertake long-term planning and management for thetransport network, and other public and private infrastructure resources includingcommunity facilities;c) recognise and enhance the Hamilton Central Business District as the primary retail,economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area, by:i) encouraging the greatest diversity, scale and intensity of activities in theHamilton Central Business District; andii) avoiding or managing adverse effects on the Central Business District, includingfrom activities which may adversely affect function, vitality or amenity of theCentral Business District;d) ensure commercial development is not located on land specifically provided forindustrial activities unless it is ancillary to those industrial activities;e) ensure new centres of commercial activity are only developed where they areconsistent with a) to d) of this policy and avoid adverse effects, both individuallyand cumulatively on:i) the distribution, function and infrastructure associated with those centresidentified in Table 6.3 (section 6C);ii) people and communities who rely on those centres identified in Table 6.3(section 6C) for their social and economic wellbeing, and require ease ofaccess to such centres by a variety of transport modes;iii) the safety and function of the arterial road network; andiv) the extent and character of industrial land and associated physical resources,including through the avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects.Implementation methods15.1 District plan provisionsHamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council district plansshall manage the development of new commercial activity in accordance with Policy6.15.15.2 AdvocacyWaikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council should advocate for the directions in Policy 6.15 with respect todevelopment proposals in the Future Proof area.Policy 16 Rural-residential development in Future Proof area (PWRPSPolicy 6.16)Management of rural-residential development in the Future Proof area will recognisethe particular pressure for, and address the adverse effects of, rural-residentialDoc # 1451856 6-59

development in parts of the sub-region, and particularly in areas within easy commutingdistance of Hamilton and:a) the potential effects (including cumulative effects) from the high pressure for ruralresidentialdevelopment;b) the high potential for conflicts between rural-residential development and existinginfrastructure and land use activities;c) the additional demand for servicing and infrastructure created by rural-residentialdevelopment; andd) the potential for cross-territorial boundary conflicts with respect to rural-residentialdevelopment.Implementation methods16.1 District plan provisions and growth strategiesWaipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall include provisions in districtplans and growth strategies to give effect to Policy 6.16. This will include strictly limitingrural-residential development in the vicinity of Hamilton City.16.2 Rural-residential development around HamiltonWaipa District Council and Waikato District Council shall work collaboratively withHamilton City Council, and in association with Waikato Regional Council, tāngatawhenua, the NZ Transport Agency and other infrastructure providers, to developagreements about the nature of rural-residential development in the vicinity of HamiltonCity, and ways to prevent adverse impacts on infrastructure that services Hamilton Cityand future city development.16.3 Directing development to rural-residential zonesWaipa District Council and Waikato District Council will investigate, and consideradopting through district plans, provisions such as transferable development rightswhich will allow development to be directed to rural-residential zones identified indistrict plans.Policy 17 Monitoring development in Future Proof area (PWRPS Policy6.17)Information will be collected on development and infrastructure trends and pressures inthe Future Proof area, so that these trends and pressures can be responded toappropriately and in a timely manner, to support further revisions of the Future ProofGrowth Strategy and so this information can be used to assess the need for changes toPolicy 6.13.Implementation methods17.1 ReportingWaikato Regional Council, Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and WaikatoDistrict Council should, in association with tāngata whenua and NZ Transport Agency,prepare a report at least at five-yearly intervals, which:a) summarises monitoring results in accordance with Policy 6.8;b) assesses development (residential, industrial, commercial) pressures and trends,including population, household and business growth rates and property marketbehaviour, both within and external to the Future Proof area;c) reviews the densities of new development in relation to the targets in Policy 6.14;d) summarises transport trends including with respect to private transport, publictransport, walking and cycling, and freight movement;e) assesses settlement patterns, pressures and trends; andf) makes recommendations with respect to Policy 6.18.Policy 18 Review of Future Proof map and tables (PWRPS Policy 6.18)Waikato Regional Council will consider the need to review Policy 6.13, including theextent, location and release of land for development as identified in the map and tables6-60 Doc # 1451856

in section 6C, in consultation with Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council andWaikato District Council, tāngata whenua and the NZ Transport Agency, if any of thefollowing situations occur:a) the reporting required by Policy 6.17 and Method 6.17.1 recommends that a reviewis needed;b) household and population growth varies by more than 10% over 5 consecutiveyears from the household and population predictions in the Future Proof GrowthStrategy;c) the Future Proof partners agree that insufficient land exists within the Urban Limitsshown in Map 6.2 to cater for the growth anticipated within 10 years of the analysis;ord) the Future Proof partners agree that exceptional circumstances have arisen suchthat a review is necessary to achieve Objective 3.11 in the Future Proof area.Implementation methods18.1 Review of provisionsWaikato Regional Council, in conjunction with Hamilton City Council, Waipa DistrictCouncil and Waikato District Council, and in consultation with tāngata whenua and theNZ Transport Agency will assess the need for a review of Policy 6.13 at a minimum offive-yearly intervals.6A Development principlesGeneral development principlesNew development should:a) support existing urban areas and development nodes in preference to creatingnew ones, and occur in a manner that provides clear delineation between urbanareas and rural areas;b) make use of opportunities for urban intensification and redevelopment tominimise the need for urban development in greenfield areas;c) not compromise the safe, efficient and effective operation and use of existinginfrastructure, including transport infrastructure, and should allow for futureinfrastructure needs, including maintenance and upgrading, where these can beanticipated;d) connect well with existing development;e) be directed away from identified significant mineral resources and their accessroutes, natural hazard areas, energy transmission corridors, locations identifiedas likely renewable energy generation sites, and high class soils;f) minimise energy and carbon use such as by compact urban form, and designand location which minimises the need for private motor vehicle use, encouragewalking, cycling and use of public transport and maximise opportunities forpeople to live, work and play within their local area;g) maintain or enhance landscape values and provide for the protection of historicand cultural heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development;h) promote positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes and protect significantindigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Developmentwhich can enhance ecological integrity, such as by improving the maintenance,enhancement or development of ecological corridors, should be encouraged;i) maintain or enhance public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakesand rivers;j) avoid as far as practicable adverse effects on natural hydrological characteristicsand processes (including aquifer recharge and flooding patterns), soil stability,water quality and aquatic ecosystems, including through low impact designmethods where appropriate;Doc # 1451856 6-61

k) adopt, where appropriate, sustainable design technologies such as theincorporation of energy-efficient (including passive solar) design, low-energystreet lighting, rain gardens, renewable energy technologies, rainwater harvestingand grey water recycling techniques;l) not result in incompatible adjacent land uses, such as with respect to industry,rural activities and existing or planned infrastructure;m) be appropriate with respect to expected effects of climate change and bedesigned to allow adaptation to these changes;n) consider effects on the unique tāngata whenua relationships, values, aspirations,roles and responsibilities with respect to an area. Where appropriate,opportunities to visually recognise tāngata whenua connections within an areashould be considered;o) support the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River in the Waikato Rivercatchment;p) encourage waste minimisation and efficient use of resources (such as throughresource-efficient design and construction methods); andq) avoid adverse effects on ecosystem services.Principles specific to rural-residential developmentNew rural-residential development should:a) be more strongly controlled where demand is high;b) not conflict with foreseeable long-term needs for expansion of existing urbancentres;c) avoid open landscapes largely free of urban and rural-residential development;d) avoid ribbon development and, where practicable, the need for additional accesspoints, along state highways and other arterial routes;e) recognise the advantages of locating near employment centres or near current orlikely future public transport routes for reducing fuel consumption;f) minimise visual effects and effects on rural character such as through locatingdevelopment within appropriate topography and through landscaping;g) be capable of being serviced by onsite water and wastewater services unlessservices are to be reticulated; andh) be recognised as a potential method for protecting sensitive areas such as smallwater bodies if the development is appropriately managed.Table 6-1: Allocation and staging of residential growth 2006-2061Growth areasResidential population2006 2021 2041 2061Hamilton existing urban 119400 136400 161100 187900Hamilton Greenfield 15000 37000 60000 60000Future Hamilton Greenfield 3000 29700Hamilton City Total 134400 173400 224100 277600Cambridge 13225 17500 23200 25145Te Awamutu / Kihikihi 12625 15900 20100 21565Huntly 6915 8940 10925 12275Ngaruawahia 5120 8340 12375 158756-62 Doc # 1451856

Growth areasResidential population2006 2021 2041 2061Raglan and Whaingaroa 3220 4340 5025 5200Te Kauwhata 1020 3430 5825 7675Waipa Rural Villages 2350 3300 4290 5330Waikato Rural Villages 6725 9050 12400 15775Waipa Rural 15500 18800 19410 21460Waikato Rural 22400 24800 27350 29800Future Proof sub-regional total 223500 287800 365000 437700Sub-regional split by settlement typeCity 134400 173400 224100 277600Towns 42125 58450 77450 87735Rural Villages 9075 12350 16690 21105Rural 37900 43600 46760 51260Sub-regional split – proportion of total populationCity 60% 61% 61% 63%Towns 19% 20% 21% 20%Rural Villages 4% 4% 5% 5%Rural 17% 15% 13% 12%Table 6-2: Industrial land allocation in the Future Proof areaStrategic Industrial Nodeslocated in Central Future Industrial land allocation and timing (ha)Proof area (based ongross developable area) 1 2010 to 2021 2021 to 2041 2041 to 2061Total Allocation2010 to 2061 (ha)Rotokauri 85 90 90 265Ruakura 30 70 30 130Te Rapa North 14 46 25 85Horotiu North 56 84 10 150Hamilton Airport 70 46 36 152Huntly and Rotowaro 8 8 7 23TOTAL HA 263 344 198 805Potential North WaikatoStrategic Industrial node 21Gross Developable Area includes land for building footprint, parking, landscaping, open space, bulk and locationrequirements and land for infrastructure including roads, stormwater and wastewater facilities.2 Further work is to be undertaken on a potential strategic industrial node for the North Waikato. This work will reflectboundary changes to Waikato District Council coming into affect on 1st November 2010.Doc # 1451856 6-63

Table 6-3: Hierarchy of major commercial centres in the Future Proof areaFunctional typeCity centreSub-regional centresLocationHamilton Central Business DistrictThe BaseChartwellTown centresCambridgeTe AwamutuHuntlyNgaruawahiaRaglanTe KauwhataAfter 1 November 2010, Waikato District will expand to include other commercial areas from Franklin District includingTuakau and Pokeno. These have not been included in Table 6-3 as it only relates to commercial areas within the FutureProof area, which excluded Franklin District.6-64 Doc # 1451856

7 Coastal marine area7.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods7.1.1 Objective 3.6 Coastal EnvironmentThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.6 Coastal Environment that have been evaluated:Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Recognising themarine area is publicspace and ensuring itis managed efficientlyby allocating space todifferent activities.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe aim of this policy option is to ensure that the public nature of themarine area is recognised and that space is allocated to activities ina way that recognises the Crown’s interest, conflicting uses,customary activities and ecosystem and ‘human’ values.The methods that would support an allocation regime for activities inthe marine area include: requiring the regional coastal plan to identify areas that areappropriate for different purposes or activities; through the regional coastal plan, address the Crown’s interest inreclamations, commercial use of sediments and occupationrights; establishing an occupation charges regime through the regionalcoastal plan, for the private occupation of public space; and establishing an aquaculture strategy collaboratively with otherkey stakeholders.In the previous generation of the regional coastal plan an emphasiswas placed on effects of activities rather than allocating spacethrough, for example, setting criteria or zoning. This has resulted ina plan that provides limited guidance in areas where there aresignificant conflicts and demand for use of areas. Requiring plans toallocate areas for appropriate uses will provide more certainty to allusers of the marine area in terms of where to locate developmentand what values will be protected. It will also help to avoid conflictswith recognised customary activities. Recognising the Crown’sinterest in certain activities is a requirement of the NZCPS 1994 andas such must be implemented through the regional coastal plan.The RMA provides for an occupation charging regime in Section64A. This method would recognise that where public space is beingused for private interests, some recompense to the public should bemade. In addition, aquaculture has been recognised as a nationalissue.Together, these methods contribute to the implementation of thepolicy option and implement the NZCPS and RMA provisions(Section 64A). The policy option would assist in providing a morecertain approach to decision making for activities in the marine area.This policy option contributes to achieving the objectives relating tomarine water quality and climate change as these objectives reflectthe Crown’s interests as expressed through the NZCPS. The policyoption will also enable integrated management of the marine/landinterface by ensuring the coastal environment is recognised as acomprehensive unit, in a way that is regionally consistent andprovides for careful management between different activities,ecosystem values and people’s aspirations.Doc # 1451856 7-1

There are no risks in implementing this policy option for the purposesof ensuring that conflicts between different uses and values areavoided as far as is practicable. However, there is a risk thatallocating zones within the marine area could be controversial andresult in public debate on priorities for uses.This policy option will make a strong contribution to achievingObjectives 3.6 and a significant contribution to Objectives 3.21 and3.22. The policy will assist in achieving Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5,3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20 and 3.23.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsMore efficient use of spacethrough effective allocation ofintensively used and highlyvalued areas.Enhancement of marineresources as a result of revenuefrom occupation charges.Ecosystems are identified andprotected.Significant financial value byensuring the marine area isprotected from inappropriatedevelopment in inappropriateplaces (ecosystem quality ismaintained and reduces theneed for future ‘restoration’ ofdegraded areas).Community:The public nature of the marinearea is respected andcommercial interests arebalanced with the need to protectthe public interestsA more holistic and consistentapproach is taken to managingthe marine area.More certainty for usersregarding appropriate locationsfor certain activities (which inTrade-offs between differentuses of the marine resourcesmay be required to protect keyvalues or features important tothe community. For example,locating aquaculture off-shore toprotect the high use near-shoreareas for people’s recreationalneeds.Community:Additional charges may fall onsome parties for occupation ofpublic space for private use(Note: This can be forcommercial users as well asprivate users such as mooringholders).Costs relating to any associatedregional coastal plan change.These costs would fall onWaikato Regional Council andwould be included in the31Market Economics Ltd. 2009. Waikato region economy-environment model. Presented to Environment CommitteeMay, 2009.Ministry of Tourism. 2009. Accommodation by Region. Tourism data files. http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Statistics New Zealand. 2009. Tourism Satellite Account 2009. Statistics New Zealand publications.http://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/analytical-reports/tourism-satellite-account-2009.aspx32Irvine, R., Robinson, M., & Carboni, A., 2007. Economic Impact of Aquaculture in the Waikato Region. Prepared byCovec for the Waikato Regional Council. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/33.33Patterson and Cole (1999). Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato region. Limitations on thisvaluation are that indirect values were derived from international studies, and not necessarily applicable to the WaikatoRegion; the global data used in the study by Costanza et al (1997) that this study was derived from was incomplete, andprobably means a ‘significant underestimate’ for the Waikato regional values; it was assumed that ecosystems in theWaikato region produced the same services as the international studies showed, however services may vary (Pattersonand Cole, 1999).7-2 Doc # 1451856

some instances will reduce theneed for and therefore the costsfor individuals for makingsubmissions on applications).Revenue from occupationcharges used to enhance marineareas, contributing to social,cultural and economic values.mandatory review of the regionalcoastal plan tentativelyscheduled for 2012.There are no costs associatedwith this policy package fordistrict councils, as only WaikatoRegional Council is authorised toimplement it.Policy option 2:Status QuoRetain an effectsbasedapproach toallocation of spacewithin the marine areaKey community values (social,cultural and economic) areidentified and protected.Customary activities are clearlyrecognised.Amenity and recreation valuesthat are important to thecommunity will be identified andprotected from inappropriatedevelopment, for exampleseascapes, landscapes, surfbeaches, mooring areas, openspace experiences and coastalwalkways.The estimated value of coastaltourism to the regional economyis at least $300 million 31 , whilethe value of aquaculture to theregion was estimated at$27million in 2007 32 . Both thesesectors need to be certain aboutcoastal space being allocated foruse, development andprotection.Ecosystem values for the coastalmarine area include direct valuesassociated with food production,and indirect values includingnutrient recycling, biologicalcontrol, gas regulation andcultural values. The totalecosystem value has beenestimated at $500 per hectare(1997), or $1,200m (1997) forthe 2,293,700 hectares within theWaikato region. 33Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessThere may need to be trade-offsbetween community values anduse, commercial developmentopportunities and protectionaspirations (which may be off-setby occupation charges). Activeplanning of the marine area willmake these trade-offs explicitrather than allowing them tooccur in an ad hoc manner. Thesize of any trade-off requiredwould be based on communityvalues and the types of activitiesinvolved. Who is likely to beimpacted would also bedetermined on a case-by-casebasis.Commercial activities could beconstrained in some locationsbecause of the need to protectpublic uses and values. Thiswould impact on consentapplicants and commercialdecision making in regard to thelocation of commercial activities.The size of any impact woulddepend on the size of thecommercial activities and thelevel of protection that isconsidered to be appropriate.The aim of this policy option is to recognise that the RMA is basedon addressing the effects of activities – rather than just the activitiesthemselves. This is consistent with the underlying philosophy of theRMA and allows for each activity to be considered on the basis of itseffects.The methods that would support an effects-based regime foractivities in the marine area include: requiring the regional coastal plan to set performance criteriaand rules for controlling the effects of activities; through the regional coastal plan, addressing the Crown’sinterest in reclamations, commercial use of sediments andDoc # 1451856 7-3

occupation rights; allowing space to be occupied for no charge. 34This performance criteria approach has been taken in the past andcould be regarded as reinforcing the status quo. The outcome of thisapproach has been a lack of guidance on spatial planning foractivities (for example marinas and (in some areas) aquaculture).This lack of guidance has been criticised by the Environment Court(for example the Whangamata marina, Whangamata Golf Club vWaikato Regional Council (ENC, 19/02/01)). The Waikato RegionalCoastal Plan must give effect to the NZCPS, which sets out a rangeof policies defining the Crown’s interest in certain activities. Whilethe RMA provides for an occupation charging regime in Section 64A,Waikato Regional Council could decide not to charge for the privateuse of public space.Together, these methods contribute to the implementation of thepolicy direction and implement the NZCPS and RMA provisions(including Section 64A). However, this policy option would not beeffective in meeting Objective 3.6 (Coastal environment). There is arisk that decision making would be focused narrowly on thegeographic area being managed, with less attention focused on offsiteeffects of an activity or on cumulative effects. In addition, an adhoc approach to managing community and cultural values couldresult in a wide variation in the way these values are addressed. Asa result, long-term cumulative degradation of these values couldoccur. Not charging for occupation of the marine area reinforces thestatus quo and does not assign any economic value to the publicarea.This policy option will make a low contribution to achieving objective3.6 because of the potential for a narrow focus on the area ofmanagement, with little attention on wider impacts. The policy optionwill make a partial contribution to achieving Objectives 3.4, 3.7, 3.8,3.9, 3.11, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21 and 3.22.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNoneCommunity:NoneThis approach would notstrategically address the spatialeffects of activities, and wouldhave a high risk of degradingnatural areas throughinappropriate co-location ofactivities.Inefficient way to allocate thepublic space of the marinearea.Community:A lack of integrated planningcould lead to conflictingactivities being located close toeach other.An inability to effectivelymanage the protection of34Note: This includes a transparent decision by Waikato Regional Council to decide not to establish an occupationcharges regime through the coastal plan, for the private occupation of public space.7-4 Doc # 1451856

significant community andcultural values.The public value of the marinearea is not accounted for.The financial costs foridentifying the marine valuessignificant to an area would liewith the consent applicant.There would be no costs toterritorial authorities forimplementing this policy, asonly Waikato Regional Councilcan prepare a regional coastalplan and this policy optionrelates only to the coastalmarine area.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe costs for Waikato RegionalCouncil to implement this policyoption would be included as apart of the regional coastal planreview.7.1.2 Objective 3.12 Marine Water QualityThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.12 Marine water quality that have been evaluated:Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Manage discharges tomarine waters tomaintain or improve onqualities of waters toprotect biological andhuman values.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe intent of this policy option is to manage discharges to ensureecosystems, amenity and tāngata whenua values are protected. Itseeks to avoid further degradation and to improve water qualitywhere it is currently of poor quality. This policy draws on the variouswater management policy directives in the NZCPS.Methods to implement this policy include: requiring the regional coastal plan to define marine water types,reasonable mixing and discharge standards and to establishappropriate water quality standards; requiring Waikato Regional Council to develop and monitorwater quality standards; requiring both the region and district councils to promoteinitiatives to improve water quality, for example througheducation, guidelines, enhancement of riparian wetland areasand industry standards.This policy option contributes to achieving Objective 3.12 by settingout a range of methods that can contribute to managing waterquality. While the marine area is considered to have a significantability to assimilate contaminants, the effects of discharges(including cumulative effects) can result in degradation of the nearshore areas. It is these near shore areas that are the most highlyused by people and that support most shellfish beds (used forhuman consumption). In addition, there are increasing pressuresfrom intensifying development and use on land and in catchmentareas that feed into the marine waters.Doc # 1451856 7-5

The key risk to achieving the objective is recognising that catchmenteffects and land use activities have a significant impact on themarine environment, particularly after storms. Unless these landbasedaspects are managed effectively it could be difficult to achievethe objective.This policy option will make a contribution to achieving Objective3.12, and will make a significant contribution to achieving Objectives3.20 and 3.21. The policy will assist in achieving Objectives 3.1, 3.2,3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.18.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsHigh quality water is maintainedor achieved.None.Marine life is plentiful.Diverse marine animalcommunities are supported byhigh water quality.Community:People can swim safely andenjoy the amenity of clean water.Shellfish collected from nearshore areas by the community issafe to eat.Marine life is plentiful,contributing to direct values ofthe CMA ecosystem of $185 perhectare or $400 million(1997$) 35 .Measurable water qualitystandards and improvementgoals enable effective waterquality management.Commercial aquaculture wasestimated at $27 million for theregion in 2007. 36 High waterquality is essential to theiroperations.Tourism advantages of cleansafe water. Coastal tourism wasvalued as being worth $300million to the regionaleconomy. 37Community:The public costs of managingdirect discharges could increase,for example should sewagesystems need upgrading.There may be applicant costsassociated with improving thequality of a discharge before it isreleased into the marine area.For example, these costs couldfall on communities (where thedistrict council upgradescommunity facilities) orindividuals (where thedischarges from septic tanks areidentified as affecting waterquality, or individual businessesseek to discharge directly to themarine area). However, thecertainty provided by waterquality standards could balanceout any additional costs for anapplicant to meet any specificconsent standards.The costs associated withestablishing defensible waterquality standards could besignificant as there are areas35Patterson and Cole (1999). Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato region. Refer to limitations ofthis data in Footnote 3.36Irvine, R., Robinson, M., & Carboni, A., 2007. Economic Impact of Aquaculture in the Waikato Region. Prepared byCovec for the Waikato Regional Council. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/33.37Market Economics Ltd. 2009. Waikato region economy-environment model. Presented to Environment CommitteeMay, 2009.Ministry of Tourism. 2009. Accommodation by Region. Tourism data files. http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Statistics New Zealand. 2009. Tourism Satellite Account 2009. Statistics New Zealand publications.http://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/analytical-reports/tourism-satellite-account-2009.aspx7-6 Doc # 1451856

Resource consent applicantsknow what water qualitystandards they have to meet.More consistency in thestandards that discharges arerequired to meet.where Waikato Regional Councildoes not have sufficientinformation (see discussion onrisk below). For example, toreinstate the discontinuedswimming beach monitoringwould cost approximately$20,000 per annum. Toincrease estuary water qualitymonitoring to every five years inthe five estuaries (which wouldprovide more acceptable trenddata) would cost approximately$40,000 per annum. The cost ofa nutrient monitoring programmeis $25,000.Policy option 2:Managing water qualityon a case-by-casebasis, with no genericguidance on waterquality standards(status quo).Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessWater quality standards wouldprovide for greater efficiency inassessing resource consentapplications. Plan developmentcosts have been budgeted for aspart of the upcoming regionalcoastal plan review. Tightercontrols on consents (byimplementing the standardsincluded into the regional coastalplan) would not incur any extracosts for council but could incurmonitoring and managementcosts for applicants.This policy option assumes that water quality is high in most parts ofthe region and that there are only some areas where water quality isdegraded. Managing direct discharges on a case-by-case basisinvolves individual standards being set as consent conditions. Whilemonitoring could be used to indicate trends in water quality, withoutset standards, there is no benchmark for assessing whether thewater quality is protecting community values. Under this approachthere is no management undertaken of diffuse discharges.However, it is assumed that this would be managed under thefreshwater provisions of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement.This policy option could also result in inconsistent managementstandards being set for different discharges, as the standards wouldbe applied on a case-by-case basis. The outcomes of this approachcould therefore be cumulative degradation of marine water qualityover time, which would not achieve objective 3.12 (Marine waterquality).The policy option would assist in achieving Objectives 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,3.15, 3.18, 3.20 and 3.21.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsDoc # 1451856 7-7

All activities within the marinearea are managed to protectwater quality.Community:There are no standardrestrictions on discharges to bemet by consent applicants, thatis, any standards are set on acase-by-case basis.Inshore areas can becomedegraded over time from theeffects of direct and catchmentdischarges (including cumulativeeffects) which are not managedto meet specific marine waterquality standards.Community:Can be financially expensive forthe resource consent applicantto improve the quality of directdischarges, e.g. the Raglansewage upgrade. 38 Currentlythere are approximately fivesignificant resource consentapplications required annually toauthorise discharges fromwastewater treatment plants towater. 39Summary of efficiency: Not efficientLess certainty for the public onwhat are acceptable waterquality standards.Cumulative impacts ofdischarges can adversely affectcultural, recreational andamenity values.To implement this policy, staffwould need to undertakesufficient data gathering to beable to develop informed waterquality standards.The costs for territorialauthorities upgrading theirwastewater facilities woulddepend on the standardsconsidered appropriate.The cost for including the waterquality standards into theregional coastal plan would bepart of the upcoming review, andtherefore already budgeted for.However, in undertaking a caseby-caseapproach, more stafftime is spent on individualconsent assessments and whilethat cost is charged to theapplicant, it means less counciltime is available for otherenvironmental workprogrammes.38The Raglan sewage upgrade (Wastewater Treatment Plant) cost the Waikato District Council $5m. Costs depend onfactors including whether the plant is for a new or existing town, loadings (i.e. summer visitors) and the sensitivity ofreceiving waters. The cost of the Raglan upgrade was considered a modest amount in terms of sewage plants andupgrades (Richard Bax, WAIDC, pers.comm. 19 July 2010).39Refer EW Docs# 1722945.7-8 Doc # 1451856

7.2 Risk of acting or not actingSection 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation to take intoaccount the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient informationabout the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods.With regard to the coastal marine environment, there is sufficient information uponwhich to base analysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. There issufficient information to demonstrate the scale and nature of issues relating tooccupation of space within the coastal marine area, the state of marine water qualityand the policies and methods proposed will assist in addressing these issues.The risk of acting in the ways proposed is that costs may be imposed on individuallandowners and on the community, local government, and developers.The risk of not acting in the ways proposed would be that the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement was not giving effect to the NZCPS and Sections 7 and 8 ofthe Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (as required by Section 62(3) of the ResourceManagement Act). In addition, issues related to allocation of space under increasingpressures for space will not be addressed.7.3 Appropriate policies and methods7.3.1 Objective 3.6 Coastal EnvironmentThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.6 (Coastal environment):Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy Option 1: Recognising themarine area is public space andensuring it is managed efficiently byallocating space to differentactivitiesPolicy Option 2: Status Quo -Retain an effects-based approachto allocation of space within themarine areaHighHighly efficientSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 7.1]Low Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, taking into account the benefits and costs, and therisks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that the mostappropriate way of achieving Objective 3.6 is by inclusion of Policy option 1.7.3.2 Objective 3.12 Marine water qualityThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.12 Marine water quality:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy Option 1: Manage discharges tomarine waters to protect values and tomaintain or improve on specified waterquality standardsPolicy Option 2: Managing water qualityon a case-by-case basis, with no genericguidance on water quality standards(status quo)HighHighly efficientSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 7.2]Low Not efficient NoDoc # 1451856 7-9

7.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsThe following policies and methods are recommended for inclusion in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS) Chapter 7 Coastal Marine Area:Policy 17.1)Interests in the coastal marine area (PWRPS PolicyThe coastal marine area is recognised as generally being public space and its efficientuse is ensured by allocating space to activities in a way that:a) recognises the Crown’s interest in the coastal marine area;b) recognises conflicting uses;c) provides for recognised customary activities; andd) provides for ecosystem values as well as people’s social, economic and culturalaspirations.Implementation methods1.1 Allocation of space within the coastal marine areaThe regional coastal plan shall establish criteria to determine the appropriateness ofdifferent activities within the coastal marine area and identify areas that are appropriatefor different purposes or activities including areas to be protected from development.Particular regard will be had to:a) opportunities for recreational access across a range of experiences;b) opportunities for electricity generation from renewable sources;c) the functional necessity for activities to locate in the coastal marine area;d) avoiding the effects of natural hazards;e) the public benefit from any development in public space;f) changes predicted as a result of climate change;g) avoiding sprawling and sporadic development;h) existing economic, cultural and social uses of the coastal marine area;i) linking activities taking place in the marine area to land-based infrastructurenecessary for its support; andj) avoiding adverse effects, including cumulative effects on:i) areas of significance to tāngata whenua;ii) open space and amenity values;iii) public access;iv) existing/future marine transport corridors;v) marine water quality;vi) indigenous biodiversity values; andvii) natural character and landscape values.1.2 Crown’s interest in the coastal marine areaThe regional coastal plan shall include provisions that ensure that regard is had to anyavailable alternative and to the applicant’s reasons for making the proposed applicationwhen making decisions on any applications for coastal permits in relation to lands ofthe Crown in the coastal marine area for:a) reclamations;b) the removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural materials for commercialpurposes; andc) the rights to occupy such land.1.3 Occupation charging in the coastal marine areaThe regional coastal plan shall establish a charging regime for the private occupation ofpublic space within the coastal marine area. Charges will be levied for private7-10 Doc # 1451856

occupation of public space within the coastal marine area, with a varying scale ofcharges based on the degree of public benefits which would accrue from the activity.Monies collected will be used to enhance the sustainable management of the coastalmarine area and adjacent land within the coastal environment, including by:a) acquiring land on the coastal edge for public benefit;b) improving understanding of the coastal marine area; andc) enhancing public access, indigenous biodiversity, landscape, natural character,cultural and amenity values.1.4 Aquaculture strategyWaikato Regional Council will develop an aquaculture strategy, which will includeidentifying:a) any actual or potential effects;b) constraints to development;c) potential areas for development;d) areas that should not be developed due to other values and uses;e) servicing requirements, including land- and marine-based infrastructure andtransport routes; andf) research and monitoring requirements.Policy 2 Marine water quality (PWRPS Policy 7.2)Discharges to marine waters shall be managed to maintain or enhance the mauri andhealth of marine water and to protect ecosystem, amenity, and tāngata whenua values.Implementation methods2.1 Marine water typesThe regional coastal plan shall:a) identify types of marine waters based on their capacity to assimilate discharges andestablish water quality standards for each type;b) include provisions for each of the marine water types to ensure water quality ismaintained at or above standards where it is high, or is improved to meet theminimum standards where it is degraded, with demonstrable progress by 2030;andc) ensure that after reasonable mixing, discharges to the coastal marine area do notresult in breaches of the water quality standards or loss of local values.2.2 Promotion of initiatives to improve water qualityLocal authorities should promote and support initiatives to improve marine water quality(including diffuse discharges and discharges of stormwater and wastewater) such thatadverse effects on marine water quality are lessened. These could include:a) information dissemination and education;b) protection or enhancement of existing, or creation, re-creation or restoration of newappropriately vegetated riparian and wetland areas;c) creation of esplanade reserves and/or strips, or similar, where this would have apositive effect on marine water quality; andd) development and implementation of best practice guidelines and industrystandards.2.3 Information gatheringWaikato Regional Council will establish a programme of information gathering to:a) set baselines for marine water quality;b) determine the causes of marine water quality degradation; andc) assess the limits of marine waters for assimilating discharges.Doc # 1451856 7-11

ReferencesCostanza, R., d’Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M.(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature (387)pp.253-260.Enfocus (2007). Evaluation of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Report preparedby Enfocus Limited for the Waikato Regional Council.Patterson, M., Cole, A. (1999). Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in theWaikato Region. Environment Waikato Internal Series 1999/02/7-12 Doc # 1451856

8 Fresh water bodies8.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods8.1.1 Objective 3.13 Mauri and health of fresh water bodiesThe following table summarises the policy options that have been evaluated toprimarily achieve Objective 3.13 Mauri and health of fresh water bodies.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Set out the overalldirection for watermanagement in theRegional PolicyStatement and, inparticular, require theWaikato Regional Planto establish standardsand limits and use acatchment-basedapproach to manageactivities.RMA s32 testOverall Policy ApproachEffectivenessThis option sets out a framework for the overall approach for themanagement of all water bodies. The approach centres on theidentification of current and desired values of all water bodies in theregion, and directing the Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) to setstandards and limits and to manage activities to ensure these areachieved. The values attributed to water bodies are those identifiedin Objective 3.13. The Objective also sets out in broad terms theWaikato Regional Council’s approach to involving and consultingpeople.A key part of this option is to require the WRP to establish narrativeand numerical limits and standards for both water quality and waterquantity. The approach requires the WRP to use a catchment-basedapproach to manage activities.The WRP will set water quality standards for all water bodies. It willalso set limits for the quantity of water needed for the continued lifesupportingcapacity of groundwater and surface water bodies. Forwater quantity, the Proposed Regional Policy Statement directs theWRP to establish minimum flows in rivers and sustainable yields fromgroundwater resources.WRP standards and limits that can be written as narratives ornumbers are, essentially, a detailed ‘translation’ of the generallydefined water body values listed in Objective 3.13. Management ofactivities will focus on relating activity status to values on the basisthat the higher the value, the greater the risk to that value of adverseeffects arising from an activity.The policy option requires management of water bodies at a subregionalor catchment level, recognising the inter-connected nature ofground and surface water and land use. The option also includesguidance about investigations that would provide importantinformation for the future management of water bodies.The management of water bodies attracts the interest andinvolvement of many sectors of the community. The optionrecognises the special relationship that tāngata whenua have withwater resources, as well as providing for a consultative approach withother sectors of the community and those likely to be most affectedby changes in management of the resource.Achievement:By providing an outline of the Proposed Regional Policy Statementfresh water body provisions, this policy option increases clarity forDoc # 1451856 8-1

users about how Objectives 3.13 and 3.14 will be achieved.Objective 3.13 is based around values of water bodies. Itsachievement requires processes and methodology which allowsassessment of changes in values over time and of the effects ofactivities on values. The policy option will allow the differentiationbetween high and degraded values required in Objective 3.13. TheProposed Regional Policy Statement lists other relevant objectivesthat will be partly achieved through the overall managementapproach to fresh water bodies, such as riparian management, theWaikato River and the relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment.This policy will also contribute to Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8,3.9, 3.12, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22.Outcomes:In the short term, this policy option provides Proposed RegionalPolicy Statement users with an outline of how water resources will bemanaged. In the medium term, standards and limits will beestablished against which the effects of activities can be assessedand managed. This will assist users and regional ratepayers tounderstand the extent to which management of water bodiesachieves the values listed in the Proposed Regional Policy Statementobjectives.The policy option contains aspects which seek to recognise theinterconnections between land and ground and surface water acrossthe region.There is spatial variation in the natural characteristics of waterbodies. Topography, rock type and catchment vegetation influencesthe biotic and abiotic characteristics in any water body. In directingthe WRP to adopt a catchment-based approach, the policy optionallows for future standards and limits to reflect variation in subregionalor catchment level characteristics. For instance, there isnatural variation in water temperature in the region, which is relevantto trout habitat or spawning preference. Coromandel streams, evenwhen shaded, routinely have higher water temperatures. Anotherexample of sub-regional differences in natural ‘background’ levels ofwater body indicators is that streams in the Taupo catchment havenaturally higher levels of phosphorus than in Coromandel. Thesedifferences will be relevant in later consideration of WRP numericalor narrative standard settings.Assumptions: That the values listed in Objective 3.13 broadly define the waterbody state that is acceptable to the regional community. That numerical and/or narrative limits and standards arenecessary to further describe and provide detail about thegenerally worded water body values. This will increase certaintyabout the degree to which a particular water body demonstratesthe listed water body values. This certainty is important forregional and local communities. For those people who wish to make economic use of the waterresource, certainty about the relative effect of their activities isimportant, as they make investment decisions about theiractivities. By starting with the values set out in Objective 3.13, WaikatoRegional Council can, and should, use its technical expertise inboth qualitative and quantitative assessments to ‘translate’ theseinto WRP standards and limits. That WRP standards and limits will take account of sub-regionalvariation in natural characteristics. This means that WRPnarrative and/or numerical standards and limits are unlikely to be8-2 Doc # 1451856

the same for every water body in the region.That water body standards and limits can be readily understoodand applied by both applicants and Waikato Regional Councildecision makers when preparing and processing resourceconsents against which the effects of activities can be assessed.That the higher the value of a water body, the greater the risk ofadverse effects arising from any activity and that the activitystatus will adequately reflect that risk.That Waikato Regional Council and tāngata whenua can developstandards and a monitoring programme around mātaurangaMāori which adequately reflects values to tāngata whenua.Risks:If the part of this option concerning WRP water body standards andlimits is not implemented, water may become over-allocated andcontaminated. Waikato Regional Council is not able to easilymeasure and report changes to broadly described values. In its taskof granting or declining consent applications, the council does nothave a mechanism for assessing whether the water resource is, ormay become, depleted as a result of its decisions.Lack of standards against which to assess activities, and resulting adhoc decision making on the likely effect of proposed activities on thewater resource, is likely to reduce the effectiveness of any actionstaken to improve values.There is a risk that the level of resources within Waikato RegionalCouncil required to value all water bodies is underestimated and thatthis policy and subsequent policies which depend on establishmentof standards, are not fully implemented for all fresh water bodies.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsPotential to maintain or improvethe values relating toecosystems and habitat in allwater bodies.A catchment-based approachand recognition ofinterconnections betweenground and surface water willhave better outcomes forecosystems, habitats andbiodiversity.Community:Identifying values for all waterbodies will provide certaintyabout which water bodies havehigh value and which requireaction to improve values.Knowledge about values willallow actions to be moretargeted and potentially moreeffective, and the effects ofactions will be measurable.Standards will provide certaintyabout the issues to beNone.Community:Resources are required to assessvalues for all water bodies,develop standards and develop amonitoring programme. It isassumed that this can beundertaken using existing staffresources.Resources for tāngata whenuaspecialists to developmātauranga Māori indicators willbe required. Whilst the policyoption does not specify wherecosts will fall for this task, theDoc # 1451856 8-3

addressed in any water body toachieve the values.The framework providescertainty about how fresh waterbodies will be managed.development of other indicatorsof water body values is a costthat is undertaken using thegeneral rate and is, therefore,shared amongst regionalratepayers.Delay in establishing all valuesand standards and in developingrules in the regional plan tomanage activities may contributeto a continuing decline in somewater bodies.Policy option 2:Set out the overalldirection for watermanagement in theProposed WaikatoRegional PolicyStatement, but do notrequire WRP to setstandards or limits,and, instead, managewater bodies accordingto the generally statedvalues in Objective3.13.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessIdentification of values of waterbodies may cause concern tosome landowners, if the valuesare associated with activitiesbeing given a higher activitystatus, or the values haveimplications for how a water bodyor land is managed.This policy option is similar to Option 1 in that it provides an outline ofthe RPS provisions for freshwater bodies. It sets out in broad termsWaikato Regional Council’s approach to involving and consultingpeople. It differs in that it does not direct Waikato Regional Council todevelop standards and limits for water quantity and quality.This option does not require the WRP to set water quality standards.It relies on decision making based on the values set out in Objective3.13 but without any further numerical or narrative detail. Resourceusers and decision makers will, therefore, interpret the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement water body values as theyassess the effects of activities and measure progress to achievingthe objective.Achievement:This option does not achieve Objective 3.13 in a consistent orcomprehensive manner, because the values set out in the objectivewill be interpreted differently by different people, and there may be alack of consistency in how values are assessed for different waterbodies and how effects of activities on values are assessed. Valuesfor water bodies may not be maintained or enhanced, if the valuesare not well described or understood. Degraded water bodies couldcontinue to degrade in the absence of an ability to assess thedegradation or the measures required to improve the values.Outcomes:In the short term, users have the same amount of certainty about theoverall approach, as the aspects of the policy option relating to howthe Council will interact with tāngata whenua, and regional and localcommunities are the same.In the longer term, some water bodies may be managed to improvevalues, but the benefits over time may be undermined by lack ofcertainty about achieving water body values. For instance, theCouncil may continue to collect comprehensive data about currentmeasured abiotic water quality, but without WRP standards or limits,there is no measure of progress toward achieving objectives.The option lacks focus in the absence of guidance on standards to beachieved, if values of water bodies are to be maintained or8-4 Doc # 1451856

enhanced. The extent to which improvements occur would bedifficult to assess, in the absence of standards acting as indicators ofwhether or not values were achieved. The ability to addresscumulative effects would be reduced.Assumptions: That applicants and Waikato Regional Council staff have anadequate knowledge and understanding of the values set out inObjective 3.13 and can apply this consistently to enableassessment of the effects of activities on values. That achievement of the objective could be assessed in theabsence of standards against which to determine changes invalues.Risks:All policies relating to fresh water would be compromised, ifstandards are not set and the policy did not guide a catchment-basedapproach in achieving standards.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Benefits would be limited tolocalised effects on individualwater bodies or to part of acatchment.Community:Cost in developing standardsnot incurred (staff time could bespent on other matters).There would be less delay inimplementing the policy,because time taken to developstandards would not berequired.A less rigorous assessment ofeffects for applications may berequired.Environmental:CostsEcological values of individualwater bodies and of catchmentsmay be overlooked, and specificissues affecting ecosystems,habitats and biodiversity within awater body may not beaddressed.Community:Less certainty about the values ofwater bodies and that the councilis addressing the key issuesaffecting the values.Less certainty that positive effectson values would be achieved.Less certainty that positive effectson ultimate receivingenvironments, including thecoastal marine area, will beachieved.Community efforts to improvewater body values may bemisguided or less effective, ifstandards are not availableagainst which actions can beassessed.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientDoc # 1451856 8-5

High Value Water BodiesPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Highlight the need toprotect high value waterbodies, define and listsome water bodiesaccording to abioticmeasured water qualityand leave furtherdefinition of others tothe WRP.RMA s32 testEffectivenessWaikato Regional Council monitoring shows there are some highvalue rivers, streams and lakes in the region. The policy optionsignals that Waikato Regional Council believes it is important to notonly set out a programme of action to retain these at their high level,but also to highlight their existence through listing and mappingthese water bodies. The option contains a two-pronged approach.Firstly, it lists high value lakes and rivers identified in monitoring.Secondly, the option envisages future identification and protection ofhigh value water bodies through the WRP.Achievement:This option directly contributes to achieving Objective 3.13, whichseeks to protect high value water bodies. The option provides acourse of action whereby the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement lists where water body values are high, and also providesfor identification of further high value water bodies at a later date.The policy option also directly contributes to achieving Objective 3.3,as the upper reach of the Waikato River, from the Lake Taupocontrol gates to the Waipapa tailrace, is listed as a high value riverin Section 8A of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.This policy option will also support Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, 3.8, 3.14,3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22.Outcomes:The two overall long-term outcomes are that, firstly, there will begreater awareness of high value water bodies for Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement and WRP users, and, secondly, anydegradation of high values will be able to be clearly demonstratedfor the identified water bodies. The key mechanism for the secondoutcome is to ‘benchmark’ high value water bodies using numericaland/or narrative descriptions of values and, where this is done,provide a corresponding year that this information was gathered. Indoing so, the value for which each water body is identified is clearlyreferenced in time and space.Choice of high value rivers and lakes in Section 8A of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement:High value water bodies have been measured in the WaikatoRegional Council’s water quality monitoring programme and inextensive studies of lakes of the Region 40 . Waikato RegionalCouncil monitors abiotic indicators of water quality in arepresentative sample of rivers in the region. An indicator can bedefined as a repeatable measure of a variable that is used to detecta change in the state of, or the pressure on, the receiving waterbody relative to a benchmark, condition or guideline.In the operative RPS, the water quality objective in Section 3.4.5was ‘Net improvement of water quality across the region’. Toachieve net improvement in water quality, the course of action mostrelevant to high value water bodies was set out in Policy 1 as‘Ensure the protection of significant characteristics of the quality ofoutstanding water bodies.’ Guidance on significant characteristics ofwater bodies was given in a footnote to Policy 1 of the operative40 Wildland Consultants Ltd. 2009. Scoring and ranking of lake ecosystems in the Waikatoregion for biodiversity management: final report. Report No. 2091a. Rotorua, New Zealand.Edwards, T., de Winton, M. and Clayton, J. 2010. Assessment of the ecological condition of thelakes in the Waikato Region using LakeSPI - 2010. Environment Waikato Technical Report2010/14. Hamilton, New Zealand.8-6 Doc # 1451856

RPS. Users of the operative RPS could infer that a water body wasmore likely to qualify as outstanding if it was large, had high aquatichabitat and aesthetic qualities, and was free of toxic substances oraspects that adversely affect biota.Robust data are available for the rivers listed in Section 8A. Thedata enables Waikato Regional Council to set reference points forthe desired values of the listed rivers, to be referenced to a specificyear and for a set of indicators of abiotic water quality. The medianmeasured water quality is given for the listed water qualityindicators, with a five year period of 1998–2002 centred on the year2000 baseline date. In 2010, the long-term water quality monitoringprogramme included 114 river sites monitored in the region byWaikato Regional Council or as part of national monitoring by NIWA.Two abiotic water quality aspects are reported against: supportingecological health and contact recreation, with seven and two waterquality indicators, respectively. These sites can be rankedaccording to their overall measured water quality. The ten sites withthe best water quality for supporting ecological health and the tensites with the best water quality for contact recreation were listed intwo tables in Section 8A of the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement. There is considerable overlap in the rivers identifiedbetween the tables. Some rivers appear in both tables, as they areranked highly for both contact recreation and ecological health.Following the general guidance given in the first generation RPSthat a river was more likely to be considered an outstanding waterbody if it had significant size and flow, several highly ranked sites onsmall rivers draining very small catchments (less than 50 squarekilometres) were excluded from the tables in Section 8A.When the WRP was notified in 1998, it did not list outstanding waterbodies. A Waikato Regional Council staff assessment 41 resulted ina list of high value fresh water lakes and rivers. This assessmentwas used as a starting point for the identification of high value waterbodies in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement.It noted (page 7) that there was a category of water bodiesconsidered to be significant because they were in a catchment eithernot degraded by human activities or regenerated to a near naturalstate. The WRP Section 3.2.4.2 contains a water managementclass called “Natural State Water class” specifically for these waterbodies. These water bodies were not identified as high value waterbodies in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement for two reasons.Firstly, in general, they are small head water streams for which nowater quality data are collected by Waikato Regional Council.Secondly, most of the streams could be classed as having lowvulnerability to degradation from human activities, as they are inpublicly owned land managed by the Department of Conservationand, therefore, are not impacted by human activities or contaminant41 Waikato Regional Council 2004. Characteristics of High Value Water Bodies in the Waikato Region.Environment Waikato Internal series 2004/04. Document 898939.42 Edwards, T., de Winton, M. and Clayton, J. 2010. Assessment of the ecological condition of the lakes inthe Waikato Region using LakeSPI - 2010. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/14. Hamilton,New Zealand.43 Edwards, T., de Winton, M. and Clayton, J. 2010. Assessment of the ecological condition of the lakes inthe Waikato Region using LakeSPI - 2010. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/14. Hamilton,New Zealand.44 Wildland Consultants Ltd. 2009. Scoring and ranking of lake ecosystems in the Waikato region forbiodiversity management: final report. Report No. 2091a. Rotorua, New Zealand.45 Waikato Regional Council 2004. Characteristics of High Value Water Bodies in the Waikato Region.Environment Waikato Internal series 2004/04. Document 898939.46 Vant B 2008. Trends in River Water Quality in the Waikato Region 1987-2007. Environment WaikatoTechnical Report 2008/33.47 Waikato Regional Council 2007. Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions 2006 - A survey ofresidents of the Waikato Region. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/06.Doc # 1451856 8-7

discharges.The choice of high value lakes was made following extensiveassessment and ranking of lakes and a 2010 re-assessment of thevalues of shallow lakes. To place lakes in the appropriate category,the following information was used:LakeSPI: this tool, developed by NIWA 42 , uses SubmergedPlant Indicators (SPI) for assessing the ecological condition ofNew Zealand lakes and for monitoring trends in ecologicalcondition. Key assumptions of the method are that native plantspecies and high plant diversity represent healthier lakes orbetter lake condition 43 . The assessment is expressed as apercentage, with a score close to 100% representing a lakeclose to pristine condition. De-vegetated lakes receive a scoreof 0%.Priority ranking for Biodiversity Management. This rankingsystem was developed as part of Waikato Regional Council’sSNA project and scored all regional lakes across 19 categoriesrelating to ecological significance, ecosystem condition,vulnerability to change and potential restoration outcomes.Rankings and justifications for scores are provided in a reportby Wildland Consultants Ltd 44 .The existence of robust data to provide detailed reference points forthe values of the listed high value rivers and lakes listed in Section8A was a key consideration in their identification. Rivers andstreams classed as Natural State in the WRP were not specificallylisted in the RPS because of the lack of monitoring data.The policy option does not define the criteria the WRP should use.The staff assessment undertaken in 2004 45 did set out a table ofindicators and parameters of high value in Section 3 of the report.These varied from specific numerical limits or range, such as‘temperature < 10 degrees Celsius May-Sept’ for water quality, togeneral narrative descriptions, such as ‘scenic value’ for flowregimes.There are two reasons for leaving any future definition of water bodyindicators of high value to later processes. Firstly, since that reportwas produced, Waikato Regional Council has not completed anymore specific indicators or undertaken any regional assessment forwhat constitutes a high value water body. Secondly, if very generalcriteria for identification of high value water bodies are used, this islikely to capture a much wider range of water bodies. Doing so couldwiden the focus so that a ‘high value’ status becomes lessexceptional.Benchmark year of 2000 for riversFor the listed rivers in Section 8A of the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement, the date for water quality indicators to becompared against is benchmarked at the year 2000. The currentoperative RPS was made operative in 2000. The reason forchoosing a retrospective date for protection of high value rivers, isthat the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement shouldcontinue the policy direction set in the first, as opposed to ‘re-setting’the benchmark each time the RPS is reviewed. This is particularlyimportant because of the general trends of measured water qualitydecline in the water quality monitoring programme. In the decade1987-2007, there was not a worsening trend in rivers for sediment ormicrobial contamination 46 . Although there was a worsening trend fornutrients, these do not have significant adverse effects in everyreceiving water body. In 2010, there are worsening trends inshallow lake condition, compared to previous shallow lake surveys.8-8 Doc # 1451856

Waikato Regional Council holds historical data for a representativesample of the region’s water bodies for abiotic indicators of waterquality, but other indicators of water body values are lesscomprehensive, both in the length of records available and thevalues they benchmark.Management of high value rivers and lakesA short to medium term outcome of this policy option is to providefurther certainty about other high value water bodies, in addition tothe rivers and lakes listed in Section 8A of the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement. This will be done in the review of theWaikato Regional Plan, commencing in 2011.Once high value water bodies are identified and valuesbenchmarked to the year 2000, the information gathering provisionsin the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement provide formonitoring and review. Changes to WRP methods (regulatory andnon-regulatory) may be required for the identified high value waterbodies to maintain their values, as the surrounding land use andactivities will affect the degree of risk of degradation of each river orlake.Assumptions for all high value water bodies That Waikato Regional Council is able to apply policyinstruments that require changes to land use and activities, ifchanges to policy are required in the Waikato Regional Plan tomanage high value water bodies. That the intent and philosophy of ‘protecting the best waterbodies’ continues to be a widely held view in the regionalcommunity and one supported by Waikato Regional Council’senvironmental perception surveys, which demonstrate that waterquality is the top environmental concern 47 . That for shallow lakes in the region, it is more technicallyfeasible and cost effective to protect values where they are high,than to restore where they are degraded, due to the complexityof the land, water and plant and fish pest interactions. That identifying which water bodies have high values and settingout numerical values will assist public confidence that theWaikato Regional Council will manage those water bodies tomaintain their high values.Assumptions for listed water bodies:That the numerical values set out in Section 8A of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement are the individualbenchmarks for each of the listed water bodies.That a five year median value is a sufficiently long period to‘smooth’ natural seasonal fluctuations for the tabled numericalvalues. For instance, in any one year and from year to year,there may be climatic events that cause the measured waterquality record to show ‘spikes’ of contaminants, such assediment during floods.Assumptions for water bodies to be identified later:That Waikato Regional Council will develop internally agreedcriteria of what constitutes high value for each of the values setout in Objective 3.13 and can, therefore, assess changesrelative to this point. The criteria could be in the form ofnumerical or narrative standards.Doc # 1451856 8-9

Risks:The risk of not including criteria for what constitutes a high valuewater body is that doing so can cause uncertainty for users.An associated risk is that defining the best rivers according to abioticwater quality indicators of contact recreation and supportingecological health implies criteria and potentially pre-empts, andunnecessarily narrows, later processes to identify other high valuerivers.The risk of using a benchmark date of 2000 for listed rivers is thatthis implies that, in the future, water bodies will be benchmarked tothe same year, although the preferred policy does not explicitly givea benchmark year.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:For the rivers identified inSection 8A of the ProposedWaikato Regional PolicyStatement, five year medians ofnumerical indicators of abioticwater quality give a very specificbenchmark of the valueassociated with that river. Forlakes, key indicators of lakehealth are given for each lake.This means that monitoring andreporting will pick up degradationof those values much morequickly than a relatively coarsermeasure of change, such as anarrative description of anindicator, or a broad descriptionof what constitutes a ‘high value’water body.The second part of this option,where further high quality waterbodies are identified in theWaikato Regional Plan, willensure that a process isundertaken to check that acomplete range of existing highvalue water bodies is identified.Community:In Section 8A, benchmarkingwater quality for the listed waterbodies gives a specific andpublic record of what thecommunity wants to maintain forfuture generations.The two-pronged approach ofthis option, where further highquality water bodies areidentified, will be seen by someratepayers as a positive signalthat Waikato Regional Council istaking a proactive stance toEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Reliance on a limited range ofwater value indicators may haveresulted in rivers with other highvalues excluded from Section 8Aof the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement. As aresult, the Proposed RPS has anarrower focus than it otherwisemight have if a comprehensiveassessment of values had beenundertaken. During the delay inidentifying and benchmarkinghigh value water bodies withnumerical and narrative data,lakes and rivers may degrade.This was the case for LakeWhangape, which was identifiedas high value in 2004, but uponrecent reassessment, hassignificantly degraded, to theextent it is no longer listed inSection 8A.Community:There will be both delays inachieving certainty of where highvalue water bodies are locatedand additional costs to regionalratepayers to implement thesecond part of this policy option.The cost is for Waikato RegionalCouncil to use its technicalresources to first define thevalue that is important to retain,and then to monitor and reportagainst it. It is assumed this canbe undertaken using existingstaff resources, but the8-10 Doc # 1451856

protecting existing high valuewater bodies.The greater the amount of detaildescribing the values for each ofthe identified rivers and lakes,the more clearly and easilymonitoring can show whetherchanges to these values haveoccurred over time. Therefore,Waikato Regional Council canbe more responsive to smallchanges in water body valuesthat have been tightly defined,compared to water bodies withgenerally described values suchas those listed in Objective 3.13.Demonstrating that values havedegraded through continuedmonitoring is the first step indeciding to take action toaddress the cause(s). This isset out further in options forcatchment-based intervention.consequence of this may be todefer or stop other aspects ofexisting technical workprogrammes.As noted under ‘effectiveness’,there will be a delay inidentifying other high value waterbodies through the WRP review.There will be a correspondingdelay in achieving certainty onhow flows will be managed inhigh value water bodies.For listed rivers, the definition of‘high value’ is relatively narrow.This is because it uses abioticindicators measured by WaikatoRegional Council, and these‘chemistry and clarity’ indicatorsdo not give a holistic picture of awater body’s value. Otheraspects that can be used todescribe the value of waterbodies, such as mauri, flowregimes and aquatic habitatvalues, are not included in thecollation of the listed rivers inSection 8A. This means theidentification of high value riversleaves a full analysis of whatconstitutes a high value waterbody for the WRP review. Theimplication of leaving thisprocess until a later date is thatthe public perception of whatconstitutes a high value waterbody is relatively narrow.However, the potential risk of anarrow public perception isbalanced by the policy optionbeing clear about the intent ofensuring the values aremaintained.Policy option 2:Highlight the need toprotect high value waterbodies and tocomprehensivelyidentify lakes and riversthat have high value,for one or more of therange of values listed inIn the future there may belandowners who have a negativeresponse to the preferredProposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement policy option, ifthey are in a high value waterbody catchment that is presentlyunknown to them.Summary of efficiency: Moderately to highly efficientEffectivenessThis policy option highlights the need to protect high value waterbodies, and identifies the lakes and rivers that have high value forone or more of the range of values listed in the water objective 3.13.Water bodies are listed in Section 8A of the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement, and this section also providesbenchmark data for the year and the level of value for which theyhave been listed.Doc # 1451856 8-11

Objective 3.13. Listthese water bodies inthe Proposed WaikatoRegional PolicyStatement and providebenchmark data for theyear and the level ofvalue for which theyhave been listed.Achievement:This policy option achieves Objective 3.13 by defining the high valuewater bodies and providing data to benchmark their value.Outcomes:In the short term, the option highlights particular water bodies andprovides a clear direction to users on which water bodies have highvalue, and provides benchmark data for each water body.In the long term, this policy option does two things. Firstly, itprovides a comprehensive and detailed record of which waterbodies the regional community believed had particularly high value,for the entire range of values in Objective 3.13. Secondly, inachieving Objective 3.13(c), high value water bodies will remain inthe state that they were benchmarked at the time of ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement notification.Assumptions: That a rigorous data set is available to assess values of differentwater bodies for all values listed in the objective. For instance, itassumes that data is available on aquatic ecosystem valuesacross all, or at least a representative range of, water bodies inthe region. That technical agreement has been reached on the criteria fordefining ‘high value’ and the criteria used are available fordecision makers and the public to assess. That where historical records are lacking, it is acceptable tohave different dates to which the data are benchmarked. That in the future, if insufficient data are available, either in thelength of the monitoring record or the number of water bodiesable to be assessed against each criteria, that there is provisionto add to the list of high value water bodies.Risks:The risk of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statementidentifying a list of high value water bodies without a provision to addto that list at a later date is that the list is static and incomplete.Users may assume all water bodies have been assessed, and thatany omissions are due to degraded values, rather than simply beingunknown at the time the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement was notified.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate to highEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Inclusion of a wider range ofwater value indicators may seewater bodies with high valuesother than abiotic water qualityincluded as a managementfocus.Community:Community values of a waterbody could be recognised by thispolicy option, such as high usefor recreation or a valued foodsource.CostsEnvironmental:If the focus for managementbecame broader, there could befewer resources available forundertaking action in specificcatchments.Community:There is a high cost to regionalratepayers of identifying highquality water bodies for the fullrange of values listed inObjective 3.13. That cost is,chiefly, in staff labour time forcollating and assessing data anddefining criteria for what8-12 Doc # 1451856

constitutes high value.Summary of efficiency: LowThere will also be staff labourcosts for any new data collectionor monitoring programmes forvalues not routinely monitoredby the Waikato RegionalCouncil. Costs to regionalratepayers are also likely toinclude the cost of expertexternal input from tāngatawhenua about aspects of waterbody value.Policy option 3: Donothing to identify highvalue water bodies,instead rely on generalvalues in Objective 3.13and other policy optionsto protect water bodyvalues where they arehigh.EffectivenessThis policy option relies on the other Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement policy options to achieve the outcome ofmaintaining existing high values. In this option, high value waterbodies are not identified, either in an appendix with associatedindicators of values, or by mapping. This policy option mirrors theapproach to water bodies whose values are currently degraded. Itsets the high level outcome to be achieved and, while the course ofaction in policies will apply to degraded water bodies, no specificidentification of particular water bodies is made.Achievement:This option does not have a direct link to achieving Objective 3.13because it does not recognise the particular esteem with which highvalue water bodies are held by the community. In addition, theoption gives no specific information about where those high valuewater bodies are and the current level of their value. For thisreason, the policy option may not safeguard those values.Outcomes:This option results in high quality water bodies potentially being lostas a focus for policy and action.Risk:That the concept and philosophy of maintaining water body valueswhere they are currently high is not at the forefront of decisionmakers and ratepayers minds, therefore any additional cost toachieve that part of the objective is not agreed. This may lead to asituation where existing high water body values degrade tomoderate or average values.In the medium to long term, current or future generations wouldhave a more technically difficult or costly task to restore waterbodies to their former high value.Assumptions: That Waikato Regional Council has an internally agreedbenchmark of what constitutes high value for each of the valuesset out in the Objective and can, therefore, assess changesrelative to this point. The benchmark could be in the form of anumerical or narrative standard. That council’s monitoring of water body values is sufficientlycomprehensive to be able to identify where any movement awayfrom existing high value occurs. That Waikato Regional Council continues to analyse waterquality trends and report them in summary form in technicalreports, and for the monitored river sites, continues to report acategory of ‘excellent’ abiotic water quality on the website.Doc # 1451856 8-13

Assessment of pressures and state of water body values iscarried out by Waikato Regional Council according to theinformation gathering provisions of the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement, and this provides a means ofassessing whether high values are degrading or at risk ofdegrading in particular areas.Summary of effectiveness: Low to moderateEnvironmental:NoneBenefitsCommunity:There could be a small saving tothe ratepayer in not directingextra effort on tracking the stateof high value water bodies,especially where these are notparticularly under threat.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:If Waikato Regional Councildoes not develop an internallyagreed benchmark of whatconstitutes high value for eachof the values set out in theobjective, it will not be able toassess changes relative to thispoint. This is because thecurrent ‘excellent’ category forwater quality reported byWaikato Regional Council on itswebsite still encompasses waterbodies of exceptional quality, aswell as those of high quality. Inthat case, cumulative effects onwater bodies that result in slowdeterioration of values towardthe bottom of the ‘excellent’category will not be reported.CommunityNot identifying high value waterbodies makes it more timeconsuming and costly forinterested people to find out howWaikato Regional Council isprogressing with achievement ofthe Objective on protectingvalues where they are currentlyhigh. It is possible that WaikatoRegional Council will publishsummaries of this information.For instance, Waikato RegionalCouncil is required to undertakestate of the environment (SOE)reporting, but there is nodirection to highlight the ‘best’water bodies. Summaries of theregion’s SOE, and associatedmedia coverage, can oftenhighlight the most urgent andnegative aspects of watermanagement, such as particulardegraded water bodies andnegative trends.The operative RPS has policydirection to identify the qualitiesof outstanding water bodies inthe Waikato Regional Plan.This option fails to identify anywater bodies that have8-14 Doc # 1451856

Summary of efficiency: Not efficientparticularly important values.Interested parties who wish tosee this direction followedthrough will incur costs in theProposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement First Scheduleor Annual Planning submissionprocesses.All water bodiesPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:General region-wideapproaches for therange of aspects thataffect water bodies andthat will need to bemanaged to maintainand enhance values.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis option contains a policy whose course of action is to givegeneral region-wide approaches for the range of aspects that affectwater bodies and that will need to be managed to maintain andenhance values in Objective 3.13.The policy option provides detail on the sorts of activities that canaffect water bodies across the region and covers aspects of waterbodies related to the margins and beds of water bodies, abiotic waterquality, amount of water and flow, and ability of the water body tosupport life. The associated methods seek to manage landmanagement activities that may threaten these aspects. One of themethods is focused on the riparian zone, with the intent of reducingsediment and microbes entering water bodies. Other methods focuson how point source contaminants will be managed, establishingallocable flows and setting water levels for lakes and wetlands, andwhat is expected in regional and district plans, and in advocacy andeducation, and from primary industry self-management.For some catchments, other specific actions may be required. Theseare covered in policy options described in this document under theheading ‘Action within specific catchments’.This policy option recognises that indigenous biodiversity occurs infreshwater habitats and ecosystems, as well as terrestrial and marinehabitats and ecosystems, and that there is a high level of interconnectednessbetween ecosystem types. The option recognisesthe specific Waikato Regional Council functions for maintainingecosystems in water bodies (Section 30(1)(c)(iii) ResourceManagement Act). This option provides a combination of anoutcomes-based approach for important aspects of aquaticecosystem health and biological integrity and an activity-basedapproach that seeks to identify and manage factors that contribute tothe decline in aquatic ecosystem health.In developing this option, it is recognised that in managingindigenous biodiversity, Waikato Regional Council must ensure thescope of the provisions includes inter-connected systems across allland and water environments, as well as specific areas or sites, suchas those identified as Significant Natural Areas (SNAs). This policyoption is strongly linked to the preferred policy option aboutsafeguarding coastal and marine ecosystems under the coastalobjective.This policy option also necessitates looking closely at the land andwater interface and the control of activities on land, as well as withinwater, and the co-ordination of methods within regional and districtplans, particularly in terms of riparian management.Doc # 1451856 8-15

A group of methods are contained in this policy option which, inaddition to regional and district plan rules and other methods, createsa comprehensive management approach. This includes both urbanactivity (through managing the effects of subdivision, use anddevelopment) and rural land use.The policy option will make a strong contribution to achievingObjectives 3.15 and 3.7 and a co-ordinated and integrated approachto the maintenance and enhancement of the region’s freshwaterindigenous biodiversity, which will also make a partial contribution toachieving objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.18,3.20, 3.21 and 3.22.This policy option addresses matters under Resource ManagementAct Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(c)(iii), and 30(1)(ga).This policy option is consistent with the Waikato-Tainui RaupatuClaims (Waikato River) Settlement Act, in that it will assist inaddressing components of the Vision and Strategy for the WaikatoRiver, its tributaries and catchments.The management of indigenous biodiversity within freshwaterenvironments will also provide for the management of thoseelements of indigenous biodiversity that contribute to the naturalcharacter and amenity values of wetlands, lakes, rivers and theirmargins, and make a strong contribution to achieve Objective 3.13.This policy option is consistent with, and will assist in addressing, thefreshwater biodiversity objective and actions in the New ZealandBiodiversity Strategy.This policy provides appropriate direction to the regional plan to raisethe profile of indigenous biodiversity in relation to water managementand to provide stronger regulatory and non-regulatory protection.These actions are consistent with the recommendations of theBiodiversity Policy Effectiveness Report. 48This policy option requires the regional plan to ensure thesustainable management of flow regimes by establishing minimumand allocable flows in rivers and sustainable yields from groundwaterresources. The policy option recognises the inter-relationshipsbetween surface and groundwater takes, and that there are locationswhere flow regimes need protection and aquatic ecosystems are tobe protected or restored. There may be no allocable flow, ifallocation will degrade the value of a high value water body identifiedin the Waikato Regional Plan.Management of catchment flow regimes and establishing bed andwater levels of lakes and wetlands will increase the extent andquality of the region’s wetlands. It acknowledges the need for activemanagement of wetland water levels and ensures that the protectionafforded by setting levels is not eroded by activities, such as furtherdrainage, or events, such as weir structure failure.This policy option provides direction to territorial authorities to assistthem to meet their Resource Management Act Section 31 functionsand to provide for integrated management of the land and waterinterface. For instance, territorial authorities are required to manageland use activities, such as subdivision, and development thatconsiders the effect of increasing impermeable surfaces in themaintenance of flow regimes and availability of water.48Waikato Regional Council. Progress toward achievement of Environment Waikato's Regional Policy StatementObjectives: Biodiversity and Natural heritage. Policy Effectiveness Paper No.1. Policy and Strategy Group,Environment Waikato.8-16 Doc # 1451856

The policy option signals that the Waikato Regional Council expectsall land owners to undertake land management in a way that controlssediment and microbes entering water. Water bodies and the bed ofa river are defined in the Resource Management Act and theWaikato Regional Plan. This policy option lists land use activities inand around water bodies that are known to result in sediment andmicrobes contaminating water bodies.There is guidance about the approach taken by Waikato RegionalCouncil where non-point source contaminants, including nutrients,are to be managed, that is, where they pose a threat to water bodyvalues listed in the water objective. Inclusion of this aspect of thepolicy option is in response to Waikato Regional Council’s monitoringof water bodies and analyses of impacts of changes in agriculturalpractices. 49Achievement:In the long term, this option will improve the natural functioning ofwater bodies across the region and ensure values of water bodiesare benefited by the course of action set out in the policy, by thespecific methods that guide regional and district plans and also theaspects on which Waikato Regional Council will collaborate withprimary industry. The part of the option relating to riparianmanagement will reduce sediment and microbes in waterways.In the short term, this option will improve clarity about the approachto be taken, as it sets out a general framework of aspects that shouldbe managed that can be used in discussion of implementationstrategies between the Waikato Regional Council and tāngatawhenua, territorial authorities and primary industry. Some of themethods refer to processes to be undertaken through plan reviews.Other methods contain immediate signals about rural land usepractices that can be actioned through non-statutory processes withprimary industry, such as development of agreements and roleclarification.In the short term, the outcome is to define implementation actionsthat require input and actions on the part of Waikato RegionalCouncil, territorial authorities, land owners and the agriculturalindustry. Technical information about actions to reduce non-pointsource contaminants from rural land use is available as a startingpoint for decisions on implementing this policy option 50 . This willinclude the review of all or part of regional or district plans. Specificmention is made of the usefulness of non-statutory agreements withother parties that require collaboration between Waikato RegionalCouncil and other groups and agencies, for instance, agreements forvoluntary targets for excluding dairy cattle from water bodies madebetween the dairy industry, Waikato Regional Council and otherparties to the Clean Streams and Dairying Accord.A key reason for the policy option containing a strong signal toaddress activities in the riparian zone around water bodies is toimprove clarity of water bodies. Rivers commonly fail to meet WRPwater class standards for clarity, with the biggest part of this coming49 Ledgard S, Power I. Nitrogen and Phosphorus losses from ‘average’ Waikato farms to waterways asaffected by best or potential management practices. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2006/37.Document 1095998. and Cameron M, Barrett P, Cochrane B and McNeill K. Implications of AgriculturalChange in the Waikato Region: Current Trends and Future Scenarios. Environment Waikato TechnicalReport 2009/28. Document number 1505953.50 McKergow L, Tanner C, Monaghan R and Anderson G. 2007. Stocktake of diffuse pollution attenuationtools for New Zealand Pastoral farming systems. NIWA client report to Pastoral 21 Research Consortium.51 Ritchie H 2009. Diffuse Effects of Rural Land Use on Soil and Water in Waikato Region. Reportprepared for Waikato Regional Council. Document number 1534337.52 Ritchie H, Donaldson A, 2010. Faecal contamination of rural Waikato waterways – sources, survival,transport and mitigation opportunities. Report prepared for Waikato Regional Council.Doc # 1451856 8-17

from sediment 51 . If sediment input to water can be reduced, this hasa secondary benefit of reducing phosphorus, which is attached tosoil. Actions set out in the riparian activities method will also havepositive effects on water body values, by reducing microbes andimproving habitat value and biodiversity if riparian zones are plantedand managed for plant pests.Reducing microbial contamination is the key reason why all classesof stock are included in the riparian method. While sheep havedifferent behaviour near water bodies than cattle, their faeces are aconcentrated source of microbes and when deposited in the riparianarea can be carried by run-off into the water 52 . The alternative is tofocus solely on excluding deer and cattle, due to the increased risk ofbank destabilisation from heavy animals and direct deposit of effluentto water, as cattle and deer are more likely than sheep to enter waterbodies.Assumptions: That the option will be fully implemented by Waikato RegionalCouncil by being followed up with regulation in the WaikatoRegional Plan, and for actions outside the ability of the ProposedRegional Policy Statement to direct (such as development ofincentives and actions by primary industry) that combinedCouncil and primary industry effort will facilitate this occurring. That sufficient technical information about cause and effect isavailable to define activities that will result in adverse effects onwater bodies being managed. That practicable options exist for achieving the course of actionset out. That minimum and allocable flows and sustainable yields will bedetermined at levels that facilitate healthy functioning of waterbodies, and that the assessments are carried out before overallocationhas occurred, with the process sufficiently flexible androbust to review and re-set allocations and yields as required. That territorial authorities will support and implement the range ofmethods to effectively co-ordinate a cross-boundary approach toimplement the policy direction. That both Waikato Regional Council and territorial authoritieshave sufficient staff, resources and capacity to implement thepolicy direction.Risks:The risk of setting out in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement the broad suite of aspects to be managed, without WRPsub-regional or catchment detail about how the policy option is to befully implemented, is a longer period of uncertainty for landowners.Under this policy option, the scope and cost of detailed methods andactions required through future planning documents has not beendecided. An associated risk to the broad outline given in this policyoption is concern about the negative impacts on social and economicwellbeing as a result of what may be perceived to be signals ofregion-wide controls, and resulting negative responses on the part ofpotentially affected landowners. For instance, dry stock farmerspresently do not have an industry focus on fencing water bodies thatdairy farmers have had through the Clean Streams and DairyingAccord.The policy option encompasses many aspects for Waikato RegionalCouncil to address across a wide geographic range, with theresulting risk that limited resources and effort will be spread thinly. Insome cases this may reduce the effectiveness of the aspectsattempted to being managed. For instance, methods specifying theapproach to maintaining and enhancing lakes and wetlands, and8-18 Doc # 1451856

oth investigation and controlling activities needing to be completedfor the water objectives to be met. If this does not occur, it is likelythat wetlands and shallow lakes in the region will continue to bedegraded and drained.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:If full implementation of thepolicy option occurs throughResource Management Actplans and primary industryaction, there are potentialimprovements in all water bodyvalues across the region.The integrated nature of theoption directing actions to betaken to improve values acrossland and water means thatactions in this policy option willbe more successful than ifactions were focused solely inone part of the biophysicalsystem and ignored biophysicalconnections. For instance,actions with the intent ofreducing sediment enteringwater bodies will improve clarityof water and have spin-off effectson reducing phosphorus andincreasing aquatic habitat value.Excluding stock and vehiclesfrom the beds and banks ofwater bodies will assist inimproving ecological health inwater bodies, by avoidingphysical disturbance andreducing the amount of sedimentand phosphorus entering waterbodies. Microbial contaminationwill also be reduced when stockare excluded.The wide distribution of effortmay only result in relatively smallenvironmental gains across theregion, as opposed to anapproach that concentrates effortin achieving larger gains over asmaller area.When water bodies are fencedthere is an increased risk ofanimal pests and weeds in theriparian area. This may detractfrom the potential biodiversityvalues.If riparian areas that werepreviously pasture becomeshaded from tall vegetationgrowth, there may be atemporary increase in sedimentas the contours of the streambanks change.Levels set for wetlands may notbe optimum due to compromisewith other catchment activities.When bare soil and reducedinfiltration on compacted soilsare combined with prolonged wetconditions and animal effluentdeposited near water bodies,greater quantities of sediment,microbes and phosphorus canenter water bodies. This can bemitigated by retaining vegetationnear water bodies that creates abuffer for overland flow.The option targets the keycauses of freshwater ecosystemdegradation. As a result, thisoption provides for improvedmanagement of freshwaterDoc # 1451856 8-19

iodiversity. It provides cleardirection for development ofregional plan policy, rules andother methods for freshwaterbiodiversity and SignificantNatural Areas.A focus of this option is improvedintegration and clarity aroundroles and responsibilities forfreshwater biodiversitymanagement. Doing so will leadto improved management ofland-water margins and anincrease in values of waterbodies listed in the waterobjective.The intrinsic values ofindigenous freshwaterbiodiversity are protected andretained for future generations.Flow regimes and water levels oflakes and wetlands are givenprotection.Establishing minimum flows willprevent loss of water bodies andaquatic habitat and protectdegradation in values from overallocation.The ecologicalbenefits from establishingminimum flow regimes, includingaquatic habitat and fish passage,will be maintained. Sustainablemanagement of groundwater willhelp maintain surface waterflows and prevent salt watercontamination of coastalgroundwater aquifers.Community:When water bodies are fenced,there are benefits to the regionalcommunity of the ecosystemservices from vegetation, andwhere trees are allowed to growto five metres of more andconstitute about a third of thecanopy, there are regionalbenefits of carbonsequestration. 53 The increase inbiodiversity in the fenced andvegetated margins of wetlands,lakes and streams is a regionalbenefit that is a significantpositive offset to the individualland owner costs of riparianprotection.Community:There are costs to regional anddistrict ratepayers associatedwith plan developmentprocesses to implement thisoption. These include the cost ofgathering and analysingtechnical information, anddrafting and consulting withindividual landowners andgroups on new provisions inplans.There are social and economiccosts associated withinterpretation, governance anddecision-making processes,including ongoingimplementation costs.53Journeaux P, Matthews Y 2010. Draft Cost Benefit Analysis of reducing nutrient inflows into the WaikatoRiver.54 Ritchie H 2006. Environment Waikato Catchment services report.55 Patterson M, Cole A 1999. Estimation of the Value of Ecosystem Services in the Waikato Region.Environment Waikato Internal Series 1999/02.8-20 Doc # 1451856

For individual landowners whohave water bodies on theirproperties, the benefits offencing riparian margins includefewer stock losses, and farmdevelopment benefits throughsubdivision of paddocks beingaided if there is a permanentfence alongside water bodies onthe farm. 54The option establishes a clearintent and direction to protectaquatic ecological health. Thisprovides certainty and clarity toresource users as to aquaticbiodiversity outcomes.The policy option allowsmanagement of water allocationto take account of assimilativecapacity of water bodies andcontinued use of water bodies forthat purpose, if values are notcompromised.Without setting the allocableflows, the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statementcannot reliably estimate thecosts of limiting allocation.If access to surface andgroundwater takes is not limited,decreased flows may adverselyimpact on recreational valuesand water quality, and the cost oftreating water for domestic usemay increase. Setting allocableflows which take into account theassimilative capacity of waterbodies reduces the requirementfor, and costs of, alternativemethods of treatment ofdischarges.It assists and clarifies territorialauthority roles andresponsibilities with respect toriparian margins, and promotesadministrative efficiencies forrespective agencies in thedevelopment of plans byreducing effort on the samesubject.Freshwater biodiversity isretained and provides forecosystem services such aswatershed management, nutrientcycling, and tourism, withoutManagement of freshwaterbiodiversity depends partly onwider catchment management.The costs of catchmentmanagement are high, but onlypartially attributable to this policy.Implementation will requireactions such as SNA mapping,ecological assessments, andwhere necessary, developmentof management plans. Costs aremore certain for lakes than forrivers and streams, for examplethere are approximately 100lakes identified as SNA with anecological assessment costingaround $3,000 - $5,000 forsmall-to-medium-sized lakes and$5,000 - $10,000 for large lakes.Cost will be incurred toinvestigate and construct waterlevel structures in lakes andwetlands.Establishing allocable flows mayrestrict the availability of waterfor consumptive use. This couldlimit the growth of someindustries.Setting allocable flows mayaffect hydro generation,depending on the level to whichthe flows are set. Allocatingwater to consumptive takesreduces the amount of wateravailable for electricitygeneration and the ability tostore water to meet peakdemand.The annual cost to WaikatoRegional Council of setting andreviewing minimum and allocableflows and sustainable yields is$500,000, including three fulltimeequivalent staff fromexisting resources. Additionalresource required to manageflows is indicated for other policyoptions.If there are mandatoryrequirements in the WRP or fromprimary industry for landownersto fence water bodies, thiscreates significant costs to thosepeople who have water bodies56 Matthews 2010. Scenarios for riparian management costs. Internal Environment Waikato memorandum.57 Storey R 2010. Riparian characteristics of pastoral streams in the Waikato Region. EnvironmentWaikato Technical Report 2010/07.Doc # 1451856 8-21

which society could face greatercosts or foregone opportunities.In a 1999 report 55 , the value ofecosystem service benefitsassociated with wetlandecosystems was estimated,giving some ‘visibility’ to theimportance of ecosystemservices in the Waikato region byquantifying their value. Thereport noted that the absence ofprices for ecosystem servicescan lead to the false conclusionthat they have insignificant valueand, therefore, are not importantin public policy formation. Using1997 data, wetland ecosystemservices were priced atapproximately $33,000 perhectare per year; for lakes thefigure was $20,000 per hectareper year; and for rivers it was$17,000 per hectare per year.The option promotes social andcultural benefits by contributingto the regional community’squality of life, sense of place andcultural values.It promotes inter-generationalbenefits by providing for therights of future generations toenjoy freshwater biodiversityvalues to the same (or better)extent as present generations.Freshwater biodiversity valuesare retained and may have futurepotential use. For example,species may hold as yetunrecognised properties formedicines or cures for diseases.The policy option promotes theongoing relationship that Māorihave with indigenous biodiversitywithin freshwater habitats.on their properties. Theindividual cost will vary widely,primarily on the nature of therequirement for fencing,including the time over whichfencing is to be completed.Future implementation of thisoption will have to take intoaccount practicalities, such asfencing appropriate to the type ofstock run on the property, as wellas terrain, flood impacts andavailability of electricity. Theseare matters that cannot be fullyassessed until RPSimplementation occurs.However, a summary ofindicative costing for rivers andstreams (referred to as streams)is set out below for differentscenarios 56 . Costing for fencinglakes, wetlands and ripariancoastal margins would be inaddition to the scenariosdescribed.For all stream fencing scenarios,it was assumed that the targetfencing rate was 140% for everystream (comprised of 70%fencing of each bank). Theremaining portion of the streamwas assumed to be inindigenous or plantation forest.Currently, only 52% of streamson dairy farms are fenced and41% of dry stock farms. 57Actions were assumed to bespread over 20 years and atreasury recommended discountrate was used 58 . Some of thescenarios assumed riparianmargins would be planted andweed controlled. Varying fencetypes and setbacks were costed.Individual farmer costs andbenefits were estimated, as werebenefits at a regional level offenced and planted riparianmargins.The least cost scenario was atotal regional net cost ofapproximately $57,000 for a twowireelectric fence and a fivemetre unplanted setback fromthe stream. The most costlyscenario was a total net cost ofapproximately $523,000 for a 20metre planted and pestcontrolled setback alongsidestreams, with land in dairyfarming having a two-wireelectric fence, and land in8-22 Doc # 1451856

Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientdrystock farming having an eightwirepost and batten fence. Byfar, the largest component of thiscost was the riparian plantingand weeding cost to thelandowner, relative to the cost ofthe fences and lost revenue fromreduced grazed area on thefarm. The assessment showedfencing and planting provideoverall benefit to the region, and,therefore, to all regionalratepayers, from carbonsequestration and ecosystemsservices and biodiversitybenefits.Policy option 2: Setout a comprehensivelist of activities thatapply to particularareas in the region.EffectivenessThis policy option seeks to set out a comprehensive list of activitiesthat adversely affect water bodies, and which apply to all parts of theregion. A relatively large amount of resource and effort is needed todefine and implement the specific activities across the region. Themethods would be more prescriptive about what activities areexpected, relative to the Policy option 1. For example, a greaterdegree of specificity in this policy option about riparian managementwould be included, to the level of whether fencing and planting islikely to be mandatory, and where and what type of fencing isappropriate for different circumstances.The policy option seeks to link the specific activities to the effect ondifferent receiving water bodies, in recognition that the sensitivity ofwater bodies is different and there are different hydrologicalpathways and timing. For instance, underlying geomorphology mayaffect the size of the time lag between land use nitrogen dischargesand effect measured in receiving water bodies.Achievement:The short-term outcome of this policy option is that there is likely tobe an immediate response from landowners, primary industry andother groups to the mix of specific activities chosen. In the long term,this option is likely to make a strong contribution to achievingObjectives 3.13, but might require a lot of extra work and cost, bothfor Waikato Regional Council and for potentially affected parties.Assumptions: That providing a comprehensive list of actions at a policy andmethod level in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statementwill assist faster achievement of Objective 3.13. WaikatoRegional Council will have a focus for implementing the currentWRP provisions relating to water bodies, and with territorialauthorities, tāngata whenua and primary industry will be able tostart work on new non-statutory and industry-led mandatoryactions immediately. The specificity of the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement will allow a ‘head-start’ for regional and district planreviews, and the associated certainty about any new mandatoryactions to implement the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement direction benefits social wellbeing for both regionalratepayers and directly affected resource users. That Waikato Regional Council has sufficient technicalunderstanding about the full range of aspects needing to bemanaged in and around water bodies, to define specific activitiesthat should be managed for particular locations.Doc # 1451856 8-23

Risks:The two biggest risks for this option are that firstly, the level of detailspecified in the mix of policy and methods is such that it narrows therange of potential methods in regional and district plans. Secondly,that Waikato Regional Council may not have sufficient expertise todefine the link between either the effects of activities, or the land useactivities themselves and the effect in receiving water bodies, that isneeded to achieve Objective 3.13.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:If assumptions hold for this optionand Waikato Regional Councilhas enough information to justifythe type and level of control,there could be highenvironmental benefits across theregion. For instance, ahypothetical example of the levelof specificity is that the ProposedWaikato Regional PolicyStatement could contain mapsand associated direction forspecific regional rules controllingaspects that reduce sedimentrun-off, such as vegetationclearance and grazingmanagement. This level ofcontrol could have immediatebenefits-reducing the largestcause of clarity decline in theregion’s water bodies.Community:The focus of effort in particularaspects of land and watermanagement may result in fasterenvironmental results achieved,thereby improving wellbeing forthose people who live in the localarea.If the activities and effects chosenfor focus in the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statementprovisions are relevant to thosewater bodies that are in moderateor good environmental condition,there may be relatively less costto ratepayers to get the same orgreater benefit than if the waterbody was degraded from humanactivities. This is in comparisonto effects in degraded waterbodies such as shallow lakes,Environmental:This option potentially allowsdegradation of aspects of theregion’s water bodies that arenot part of the focus for the suiteof activities specified.If the cause and effect links aresubsequently challenged or,otherwise, found by council tobe incomplete, this could resultin not achieving the long-termwater outcomes.Community:For those aspects of waterbodies not chosen to be coveredby this policy option, there maybe loss of values which haveimportance to local people andothers who wish to see allvalues maintained or improved.If the cause and effect links,between actions spelt out in thispolicy option and effects inreceiving water bodies, aresubsequently challenged orotherwise found by WaikatoRegional Council to beincomplete, this could createunnecessary costs forlandowners, as future methodsare altered and different actionsare required from landowners.For instance, there may be loss58 Journeaux P, Matthews Y 2010. Draft Cost Benefit Analysis of reducing nutrient inflows into the WaikatoRiver.59 Professor David Hamilton personal communication Sept 2009.8-24 Doc # 1451856

which have multipleenvironmental stressors and forwhich technical solutions forimprovement are presently eitherextremely costly or unknown. 59of capital and time invested intechnologies to meet an activityrequired in the WRP, if methodsabout that activity aresubsequently changed.Policy option 3: Do notspecify any particularaspects to be managedor attempt to directregional and districtplans to containmethods to manageactivities and interconnectivityof land andwater. Instead, rely onother preferred optionsto address activitiesacross the region.The specificity of this option, interms of location and aspects tobe managed, improves clarity andcertainty for landowners and therest of the regional communityand primary industry. The WRPreview may require lessinvestigation into the feasibility ofdifferent policy instruments,therefore a saving ofapproximately three full-timeequivalent staff, that is one fulltimeequivalent staff member peryear for the WRP review, startingin 2011 and publicly notifying aproposed WRP in 2014. At thetime of Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statementnotification, there was expectedto be a three to four year gapbefore the second generationWRP was notified. If this timeperiod could be shortened, it alsoreduces the amount ofuncertainty about new mandatoryactions to implement theProposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement direction.Overall this is expected to benefitboth landowner and regionalratepayer social wellbeing.Actions taken under this policycould have similar communitybenefits to those specified forPolicy Option 1.Summary of efficiency: Low efficiency.EffectivenessThere is a cost to regionalratepayers of developingtechnically feasible detailedpolicy and methods at a subregionallevel. The cost isapproximately three full-timeequivalent staff taken from theexisting staff labour componentthat is budgeted to occur duringthe WRP review commencing in2011.Limitations in growth ofindustries arising from theactivities of actions specified willbe localised to areas to whichthe policy applies.As in the preferred option, thereare likely to be significantindividual landowner costs, ifregional and district plansrequire changes to currentactivities. In this option,because of the specificity of theactions required, the time framefor which they are to commencemay be shorter, bringing costsforward in time. While thedecision about where costs willfall is not appropriate to bemade in a regional policystatement, if costs are partiallyshared by the regionalcommunity, this may increaserates, but give no direct localbenefit to ratepayers.Under this policy option, the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement would not attempt to define aspects that should bemanaged across the region to achieve integrated management ofland and water resources. Instead, reliance is placed on catchmentspecificpolicy options in the proposed RPS, Waikato RegionalCouncil’s existing WRP and other non-statutory documents, and thegeneral understanding of territorial authorities and primary industryon land and water interactions and potential actions to mitigate oravoid adverse effects.Achievement:In the short term, the lack of any specific direction to regional anddistrict plans on particular activities across the region to implementObjective 3.13 gives primary industry groups more time to beproactive and develop ways of managing effects of activities onwater bodies.In the short term, there is also less clarity for users of the RPS,Doc # 1451856 8-25

Waikato Regional Council and territorial authorities in plan reviews,in regards to the aspects to be managed. For this reason, therecould be delays in achieving outcomes. For instance, in the timebetween the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement beingnotified and the notification of the second generation WRP, regionwideaction to achieve Objectives 3.13 by excluding stock from waterbodies may not occur. Evidence to date shows voluntary change toexclude stock is occurring, particularly with incentives that offsetlandowners fencing costs. However, if the current rate of fencingstreams in the region continues at that reported in Waikato RegionalCouncil’s riparian monitoring 60 , it would take many decades toachieve riparian protection from stock exclusion of water bodies.In the short term, the lack of guidance in this policy option may resultin ad hoc development of methods by territorial authorities, as theyseek to ensure their plans are consistent with the outcomes set in theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement objectives.In the long term, the outcome of this policy option may not differsignificantly from that of Option 1. The other preferred policy optionsin the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement will beimplemented and the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy StatementObjective 3.13 will guide the WRP review.Assumptions: That it is not essential for the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement to guide territorial authorities and primary industryabout the aspects of land and water interactions that should bemanaged region-wide. Instead, voluntary practices or anymandatory controls on activities developed and managed byterritorial authorities and primary Industry could occur at thecurrent time. That in the absence of overall guidance on land activities thataffect water, Waikato Regional Council has sufficient resourcesto work on a case-by-case basis with any party, includinglandowners, across the region. That ad hoc decision making on consent applications willachieve the objectives at the current time, and that WRP andterritorial authority policy, non-regulatory method and rule reviewwill ensure the inter-connected nature of land and water ismanaged to achieve Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement objectives.Risk:The lack of guidance on where and what to focus on and the interconnectionsmay result in misplaced effort.If voluntary changes to improve environmental outcomes andindustry self-management occurs sporadically or only for particularactivities, the environmental gains may be offset by continued oreven increased levels of non-point source contaminant dischargeselsewhere, which are not controlled by regional or district plans. Forinstance, the current stocking rate intensification on dairy farms 61 willincrease the total amount of nutrients reaching water bodies if noother changes to nutrient management activities are made. Thismay remove the benefit of voluntary changes by farmers taking upparticular nutrient innovations, even if this is increased by intensive60 See Section 3.1 Summary of statistics of fencing, in: Storey R 2010. Riparian characteristics of pastoralstreams in the Waikato Region. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/07.61 Cameron M, Barrett P, Cochrane B and McNeill K. Implications of Agricultural Change in the WaikatoRegion: Current Trends and Future Scenarios. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2009/28.Document number 1505953.8-26 Doc # 1451856

one-on-one interactions with landowners to promote innovationsrelevant to the farm context 62 , either between Waikato RegionalCouncil staff or agricultural industry representatives and farmers.Under this option, there is no guarantee that there will be anyvoluntary change or self-regulation across the region.Without guidance provided by establishing allocable and minimumflows, applications for water take would be assessed on an ad hocbasis. This increases the risk of cumulative adverse effects onsurface and groundwater, and of water being over-allocated.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Actions to maintain or enhancevalues of water bodies are alreadyoccurring across the region,directed by territorial authoritiesand in the Waikato RegionalCouncil’s regulatory and nonregulatorymethods. This optionwould not detract from the benefitsto the environment of theseactions, but would not add to them.Community:Allowing primary industry morefreedom to choose where and whatareas are focused on as theydevelop methods to address waterbody aspects, may result inincrease in goodwill and positivemessages to landowners as aresult of primary industry action.This option is potentially less costlyto regional ratepayers, in the shortterm, due to reduced effort on RPSimplementation across the region.Potentially less cost falls onindividual landowners as theProposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement would not direct regionalor district plans to containrequirements to encourage positivebehaviour change, or take up newtechnology or agriculturalinnovations to reduce adverseeffects on water bodies.Potential ongoing degradationof water bodies across theregion.Community:Lack of certainty about whataction Waikato RegionalCouncil will take may createsocial costs, as the approachto be taken in the WRP reviewis less transparent. Thesecosts are incurred by regionalratepayers, who may rely onsummaries of the directionsset in the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement, aswell as affected resourceusers.In the longer term, the costs toregional ratepayers will behigh, if Objective 3.13 is notmet and water body valuesdegrade.Without guidance on minimumand allocable flows andsustainable yields, decisionson water allocation are likely tobe ad hoc. If this occurs, itcould result in financial coststo consent applicants and toregional ratepayers, throughthe cost of Waikato RegionalCouncil’s staff and decision62 Longhurst R, Smeaton D. July 2008. Improving Nutrient efficiency through integrated catchmentmanagement in Little Waipa and Waipapa. Reporting summary for Upper Waikato Catchment Project.Environment Waikato Technical report 2008/39.Doc # 1451856 8-27

Summary of efficiency: Not efficientmakers’ time to considerindividual applications.8-28 Doc # 1451856

Policy OptionPolicy option 1: Forthose water bodies thatrequire additionalaction to achieveObjective 3.13,establish criteria forchoosing to take actionin specific catchments.Outline the generalapproach to be takenand who should beinvolved and how. TheWaikato River andLake Taupocatchments are listedas having already beenchosen as prioritycatchments for action.Action within particular catchmentsRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option will result in some catchments being chosen forpolicy development processes, in addition to the aspects of waterbodies managed under the preferred policy option that applies to allwater bodies.There are two parts to this policy option. Firstly, the option willdefine catchments where further policy development will occur.These catchments become priorities for the regional community forthe life of the RPS. They include two catchments already named aspriorities for further catchment-level policy development (WaikatoRiver catchment and Lake Taupo catchment). Secondly, this policyoption will provide clarity for landowners, primary industry andregional ratepayers about the policy development process itself.The general process is set out in terms of the different stages to beundertaken and who will be involved. Within this general process,there is a separate method giving further detail about how theWaikato Regional Council will approach particular contaminants(diffuse nutrient discharges).In defining priority catchments, the course of action is to set out a listof criteria which will elevate one catchment over another forimmediate attention. A key criterion relates to information about thestate and trends of water bodies and the evidence relied on toassess values associated with the water body. Information will varyacross the region. For instance, only a representative subset ofrivers and streams in the region are regularly monitored by WaikatoRegional Council. The policy notes that some causes of poor waterquality are unmanageable by humans, such as arsenic from naturalgeothermal sources. Priority is given to catchments experiencingrapid or large scale changes that will impact water bodies. Anoverall assessment is required of whether there would be a netbenefit to the community that justifies taking action in specificcatchments.It is likely that actions and timeframes developed as a result of thepolicy option will include identified significant biodiversity values andthe control of flow regimes and lake levels. Actions in prioritycatchments include setting receiving water body limits for thecontaminants that are causing adverse effects, with mandatoryrequirement at a property level for achieving those limits over time.This is in addition to actions in all parts of the region, such asrequiring riparian management practices, promoting good practicefor subdivisions and limiting point source discharges.The part of this policy option relating to nutrient-sensitive waterbodies focuses on actions to control nutrient losses from land useactivities where they cause a loss in water body values.Conditions for growth of algae are favourable when there is sufficientlight and residence time in the water body. Excess nutrients can,therefore, be a problem anywhere there is no shading and slowmovingwater. Receiving water bodies most at risk of adverseeffects on colour and clarity from nutrient-influenced algal growth arestill or slow-moving waters such as lakes. Algal growth is promotedin slow-moving water or lakes that are naturally limited inphosphorus or nitrogen. For example, Lake Taupo catchment hasnaturally high levels of phosphorus, with the limiting nutrient in thelake being nitrogen. Increases in the amount of nitrogen entering thislake will result in growth of microscopic algae. Inland water bodiesare more commonly phosphorus-limited.Doc # 1451856 8-29

Any work done to reduce sediment will reduce phosphorus, such asthe practices in the riparian method. If Waikato Regional Councilrequires good riparian management, this will assist water bodyvalues by increasing shading, especially in small streams.Choice of Lake Taupo and Waikato River as prioritycatchments:The choice of Lake Taupo as a priority catchment in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement highlights its status as a large,deep lake with very high-measured water quality within the Lake andinflowing tributaries, and will provide the lead-in to the WaikatoRegional Council’s regional plan variation for this catchment. Inresponse to threats to the clarity of lake water from increases indiffuse sources of nitrogen from land use, Waikato Regional Councilinitiated a policy process in 1999 involving Ngati Tuwharetoa,national and local government agencies, and owners of pastoral,forestry and undeveloped land. The resulting variation to the WRPis an economic instrument with supporting regulation. This took theform of a cap and trade of nitrogen, and a publicly funded charitabletrust for the Lake Taupo catchment, the aim of which was topermanently remove nitrogen from the catchment.The choice of the Waikato River as a priority catchment reflects itssignificance as the largest river in the region, and the focus of thevision and strategy as part of the implementation of the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.Several aspects of the river’s water quality are considered to beexcellent for sustaining aquatic life, for example dissolved oxygen,total ammonia and pH. Other aspects are good or better in theupper river and the hydro lakes, but are poorer further downstream,for example clarity, E. coli, nitrogen and phosphorus. Even then,conditions are generally better than in rivers in many otherdeveloped countries. However, concentrations of geothermalcontaminants (e.g. arsenic and boron) tend to be close to ecologicalguideline values in the upper river, but further downstream they aresomewhat diluted.Over the past 20 years, there have been both improvement anddeterioration in water quality throughout the river, depending onwhich water quality indicator is examined. Continued improvementsin wastewater treatment have meant that concentrations of somecontaminants have declined, for example total ammonia. But at thesame time concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the riverhave slowly increased, reflecting the ongoing increases in the manytributaries that drain areas of pastoral land.At present, the main cause of concern in regards to the water qualityof the upper reaches of the Waikato River is the prediction thatincreasing loads of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the river fromlarger and more intensively-used areas of land will increase the riskof harmful algal blooms occurring in the river.Outcomes:The short term outcome is that clear criteria for defining prioritiesand an outlined process means primary industry groups and WaikatoRegional Council can assess where effort will be focused. Localcommunities and land owners are also assured they have a role inpolicy processes within the chosen catchments. In the short term,while priorities and processes are set up, it is unlikely there will beany direct environmental benefit solely attributable to this policyoption.8-30 Doc # 1451856

The combination of thorough technical assessment, and focus onconsultation processes and preparing affected communities forchange, is expected to take time to implement. This is particularlythe case, as it involves multiple stakeholders who define problemsdifferently and, thus, seek different outcomes. The human andbiophysical inter-relationships add to the complexity of the policyissues at stake, and require flexibility and adaptation to change.However, the sound ground work will assist Waikato RegionalCouncil to develop specific actions in a catchment that achieve theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement objectives.Over a longer period, it is expected considerable progress towardsachieving Objective 3.13 will be made in the specific catchments. Asthe Waikato River catchment is one of the catchments alreadyidentified as a priority catchment, it is expected the long-termoutcome of this policy option will assist in achieving that objective.Processes that give Waikato Regional Council a betterunderstanding of the implications to land owners of potential policyinstruments are a key part of this policy option. Early inclusion ofthese results, with analysis of feasible policy instruments and landmanagement practices, is expected to minimise negative responsein the local community and avoid policy instruments that will notachieve the outcomes sought.Implementation of this policy option is likely to be more effective thanreliance on policy instruments implemented in the same way acrossthe entire region. This policy option seeks to tailor future policyinstruments to address catchment-specific information on causesand effects for point and non-point source discharges. It alsoexplicitly considers that any changes to capabilities and roles for therelevant agencies is integral to developing a tailored approach.Waikato Regional Council will draw on its own and other councils’and agencies’ experience, and seek advice in designing effectivestakeholder management processes and use of policy choiceframeworks (see, for instance, Waikato Regional Councilstakeholder strategy and review of Lake Taupo catchmentprocess 63 ). Waikato Regional Council is also guided by emergingnational directions and processes, 64 in the absence of final NationalPolicy Statements and National Environmental Standards for freshwater management.This policy option also support Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8,3.12, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22.Assumptions: That sound catchment-level policy development processes arelikely to be successfully implemented, that involve multipleparties and relate the desired outcome to the current context,including the individual land owner, community and institutionalcontext. That the proposed RPS needs to signal that effort will befocused in selected catchments, in order to implement policyinstruments that change behaviour and achieve the waterobjectives. The reason for this is that, even in conjunction withprimary industry groups, Waikato Regional Council does nothave enough resource in the life of the second generation RPSto implement the same degree of focus intended for selected63 Young J, Kaine G 2010. Application of the Policy Choice framework to Lake Taupo Catchment.Environment WaikatoTechnical Report 2010/ Document 1379466.64 Ministry for the Environment 2010. Report and Recommendations of the Board of Inquiry into theProposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.Doc # 1451856 8-31

catchments across the region.That catchment level solutions are necessary due to regionalvariation in topography, soil type, hydrology, land use andhistory of land development. This results in differences in thesensitivity of receiving water bodies to different contaminantsand differences in the feasibility of policy instruments.That Waikato Regional Council and other agencies continue tobe willing to work together and focus resources (both fortechnical investigation and stakeholder engagement) inundertaking intensive work in catchments chosen by the regionalcommunity.That significant changes to land management practices at aproperty level will be required in the catchments identified, whichmay require agricultural innovations to be taken up bylandowners to achieve the policy outcome.Risks:A risk associated with this policy option is that Waikato RegionalCouncil analyses and continues to gather information and focus onprocess at the expense of taking action. This may result in either anavoidable delay in achieving objectives, or in having the sameoutcome as a ‘do nothing’ option.As with other Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement policyoptions that outline future processes rather than list specific actions,there is a risk that water body values decline, due to the time delayof relying on future statutory process, such as the WRP review, toset out specific actions.By focusing most of Waikato Regional Council’s effort only in someparts of the region, the risk is that other preferred policy options toachieve objective 3.13 are insufficient, potentially allowingdegradation of the remainder of the region’s water bodies. This willadversely affect social and cultural wellbeing of those local peoplewho perceive that their local environment is seen as less importantby the regional community.An alternative risk of this policy option is the scenario where thereare a number of catchments identified as requiring intervention, inaddition to the listed catchments (Lake Taupo and Waikato River). Ifthis is the case, it may dilute Waikato Regional Council’s and otherwilling agencies resources to the extent that the approach is nolonger one of focused effort. The end result of this scenario is thatthe policy option is no longer effective.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsAs the option is evidence based,resulting changes in behaviourwill address the cause ofadverse effects.Outcomes may be achievedfaster, overall, if people in acatchment are engaged. Acatchment-specific approach canbe better focused on actualissues and how best to addressthem, using local knowledge andEnvironmental:CostsIn the catchments chosen forspecific additional policydevelopment, it is possible waterbody values will degrade duringthe delay while processes arebeing set up and informationcollected.For catchments which are notpart of this policy option, thepreferred policy option for allwater bodies will achieve some8-32 Doc # 1451856

eing able to solve complexproblems with many heads.Environmental benefits are likelyto be greater, because analysisof practices that will make themost difference to the biggestissues in the target catchmentshas been done. This allowstargeting of resources to achieveenvironmental benefits in a costeffectiveway.Community:This policy allows the WaikatoRegional Council to focus costswhere they are created.It may be seen as ‘fairer’ andmore cost-effective to onlyintervene where necessary.Less litigation may result whereaffected people and primaryindustry agencies have beeninvolved in policy development.Community wellbeing couldincrease as a result of proactiveinvolvement.Before Waikato RegionalCouncil takes any catchmentlevel action, for example torequire changes to land use,activities or discharges, it willanalyse the need for andimplications of that action.Actions are described in generalterms to avoid pre-empting themethods and rules that primaryindustry groups, iwi and localauthorities will specify in industryagreements and regional anddistrict plans.For the regional communitythere is more certainty ofknowing that focused action willbe taken where required. Thepolicy option seeks to giveregional resource users somecertainty about the approachWaikato Regional Council willuse, and the factors it willconsider to achieve theobjectives.environmental benefit. However,under this geographicallydifferentiatedpolicy option, thereis potential for behaviouralresponse to the policy option toresult in adverse effects of landuse and activities on waterbodies that are not covered bythis option. For instance, landowners may choose to shiftoperations out of catchmentsthat are listed in the ProposedWaikato Regional PolicyStatement, and into catchmentsor parts of New Zealand whichare perceived to have less costlyresource use regimes.Community:There are process costs toregional ratepayers fromcatchment-level stakeholder andconsultation management.There will be delays beforegetting the right mix of policyinstruments, as the processoutlined is iterative and has torespond to new information andfindings of the different stages.The part of this policy optionrelating to nutrient-sensitivewater bodies focuses on actionsto control nutrient losses fromland use activities where theycause a loss in water bodyvalues. Many nutrientmanagement practices, such aswintering off, are costly ordisruptive to farm businesses. 65The catchment-specific approachmay have far-reachingimplications for land owners, ifthere are requirements tochange behaviour to meetenvironmental limits. For somefarmers, this results in a wholefarm system change.It is not possible to assess coststo individual farmers of actions tocontrol nutrient losses, when thedecision to do so has not beenmade. Also, the choice of policyinstrument and supportingregulation and incentives willinfluence the cost.65 Ritchie H 2008. On farm Nutrient Management Practice - Research and Applicability to Upper Waikato.Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/42. Document number 1232279.Doc # 1451856 8-33

There is acknowledgement thatcommunities are oftenconcerned about more thanwater quality in a given area,and that policy issues can beinter-related. Cost effectivenessis increased for example, ifconsultation processesassociated with policydevelopment address multipleconcerns.Policy option 2:Catchment-specificaction, including criteriafor choosing whichcatchments to takespecific additionalaction in, as well as thetwo listed catchmentsLake Taupo andWaikato River. Optionseeks to providemaximum clarity andcertainty about theparticular actions to beundertaken incatchments.An overall assessment will bemade of whether there would bea net benefit to the communitythat justifies taking action. Anexample of encouraging apositive change in landmanagement is a publicly fundedsubsidy for fencing materialsbeing given to a landowner whois allowing bush regenerationabove a water body. Thepositive change has a publicbenefit of increased biodiversityand reducing sediment loads,while the encouragement hasoffset some of the private costthe landowner was incurring.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessPolicy option 2 is similar to Option 1 described above, but differs inthe following ways. It will result in some catchments being chosenfor policy development processes, in addition to the general directioncontained in the region-wide policy option about aspects of waterbodies to be managed. As with Option 1, it will include criteria forchoosing in which catchments specific additional action is required,as well as the two listed catchments, Lake Taupo and Waikato River.This key difference with this policy option is that it seeks to providemaximum clarity and certainty about the particular actions to beundertaken within catchments. The Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement will, therefore, identify actions to manage the fullrange of aspects affecting water bodies, which the WRP and districtplans will then implement. Specific actions are set out for thecatchments already identified as priorities. For instance, the policyoption could contain specific catchment targets and policyinstruments to be used, including directing the WRP to develop newmethods, including rules to implement this part of the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement.The policy option contains methods addressing all aspects of theLake Taupo and Waikato River catchments that affect water bodyvalues. In addition to methods about how nutrient-sensitivecatchments will be managed, there are methods guiding how andwhere in each catchment Waikato Regional Council and territorialauthorities should take a more stringent approach to aspectsaffecting water bodies than that set out in the region-wide policyoption. The approach spells out in some detail how values set out inObjective 3.13, such as aquatic habitat, natural character andbiodiversity, will be protected in the identified catchments.8-34 Doc # 1451856

Within this policy option, some catchments may be identified at alater date, requiring Waikato Regional Council, territorial authoritiesand other agencies to take action to address the particular issues.For this reason, no attempt is made in this option to define specificcatchment-specific actions for all catchments in the region.Outcomes:In the short term, the specificity of this policy option for actions in theWaikato River and Lake Taupo catchments is likely to trigger aresponse from all potentially affected or interested parties andindividuals. The attitudes formed may be positive or negativedepending on perceived implications.In the longer term, the outcome of this policy option galvanisespeople into action, and may result in iwi, primary industry, WaikatoRegional Council and territorial authorities implementing behaviouralchange sooner than options that set out general outlines andprocesses. However, if affected individuals and agencies are notsufficiently prepared for change or involved in the development ofspecific policy instruments, this option potentially creates outrage 66and subsequent litigation costs for the regional ratepayers.Assumptions: That it is better to do ‘something’ than delay action whileevidence is gathered and Waikato Regional Council consults onthe technical justification for, and feasibility of, potential policyinstruments to address specific catchment issues. That providing a comprehensive list of actions at a policy andmethod level in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement will assist faster achievement of Objective 3.13.Waikato Regional Council will have a focus for implementing thecurrent WRP provisions relating to water bodies. Also, WaikatoRegional Council, with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua andprimary industry, will be able to start work on new non-statutoryand industry-led mandatory actions immediately. That Waikato Regional Council has sufficient technicalunderstanding about the full range of aspects needing to bemanaged in and around water bodies, to define specific activitiesthat should be managed for particular locations. That the right targets and actions are chosen using availableinformation. That for potentially affected people and agencies there is abenefit in the certainty of knowing the boundaries of the likelyfuture policy instruments in the WRP or in industry-led selfmanagementcontrols.Risks:The key risk is that there is insufficient information tocomprehensively define specific actions under this option. It wouldunnecessarily narrow the scope of this part of the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement, if the specific actions and activities aresubsequently found to need alteration as policy developmentprocesses in catchments occur. Defining specific actions in theProposed Regional Policy Statement short-circuits the stakeholderand technical investigation within the catchment process, may notreveal gaps in logic and assumptions and may not get commitmentfrom other parties. If this is the case, litigation and enforcement ismore expensive because affected people were not involved indiscussing whether the actions set out in the Proposed Waikato66 Outrage is defined as the public’s negative response to a risk or the behaviour of risk managers in:Sandman, P M, Miller P M, Johnson B B, Weinstein N D 1993. Agency communication, communityoutrage, and perception of risk: three simulation experiments. Risk Analysis 13 (6), 585-598.Doc # 1451856 8-35

Regional Policy Statement are the most practical implementationoptions.The specificity of the approach could get a big reaction frompotentially affected individuals, but because the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement does not include rules, Waikato RegionalCouncil has no ability to regulate or enforce change.There is a risk the policy option is not evidence-based or defendable.This option might result in policy instruments that appear to addressthe catchment issues, but potentially have unforeseenconsequences.By focusing most of Waikato Regional Council’s effort only in someparts of the region, the risk is that other preferred policy options toachieve Objectives 3.13 are insufficient, potentially allowingdegradation of the remainder of the region’s water bodies. This willadversely affect social and cultural wellbeing of those local peoplewho perceive that their local environment is seen as less importantby the regional community.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThis policy could make gains, ifthe right actions were chosen forparticular areas and catchments.Community:This option gives certainty forinvestment decisions.In addition to certainty for thecommunity, there would also becertainty for Waikato RegionalCouncil staff because they wouldhave targets to respond to.If the chosen actions do notachieve the intended results,benefits would not be achievedin the short to medium term.Subsequent review of methodswould enable them to beadjusted so they were moreaccurately targeted.There could be more delays inachieving environmentalbenefits, as Waikato RegionalCouncil would be focused onrepairing relationships or dealingwith objections from potentiallyaffected people. Land ownerand resource user commitmentto carrying out the necessarychanges would not be builtthrough the process, meaninggreater likelihood of partial ornon-compliance. The result is alower benefit for the environmentthan if these factors were notpresent.Community:This option requiresconsiderable resources, paid forby regional ratepayers, forWaikato Regional Council to dothe necessary work to ensure itis confident of the technicalfeasibility of the actions andactivities listed. WaikatoRegional Council has a thoroughunderstanding of cause andeffect of land use activities and8-36 Doc # 1451856

Summary of efficiency: Not efficientpractices that affect water bodyvalues. However, it relies oncatchment-level processes withiwi groups, primary industry andpotentially affected parties andindividuals to refine policyinstruments so they aresuccessfully implemented.There is potential for large costsin defending a specificintervention regime twice (RPSand WRP).Investment in ineffectivesolutions that lead to rules andregulations in the WRP, createcompliance costs to regionalratepayers. For individualsaffected by changes to rules andregulations, there may beadditional capital and operatingcosts of having to changetechnologies and practices.This policy option could result inadverse effects on socialwellbeing, particularly health orstress effects to affectedindividual landowners andgroups.Policy option 3:No catchment-specificapproach. Instead, theProposed WaikatoRegional PolicyStatement relies onpolicies and methodsthat apply throughoutthe region.EffectivenessThis policy option is to rely on the region-wide provisions in the RPSrelating to water bodies. No additional catchment-specificapproaches are set out in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement. The result of this policy option is that the overallmanagement approach for water bodies would rely on generalpolicies, rather than a catchment-specific approach. High valuewater bodies are identified in the RPS, and any management ofthese in addition to the general approaches will occur in the WRP.Under this option, there are no policies or methods setting out aprocess to choose catchments to focus resources on. Instead, theCouncil will rely on its annual planning process or reviews of theLong Term Plan to signal it will focus resources in a particular areaor issue, as a significant consultation item.Achievement:In the short term, the focus of RPS users will be on the region-widepolicy options. By trying to address all adverse effects everywhere, itmay achieve the objective in the long term, but at a high cost ofcompliance.Assumptions: That a region-wide approach contained in other preferred policyoptions is sufficiently comprehensive and specific about theaspects to be managed, to direct territorial authorities andWaikato Regional Council in its WRP review. There is alsosufficient guidance in other policy options to facilitate WaikatoRegional Council and primary industry development of policyresponses to address effects of activities and land use on waterbodies.Doc # 1451856 8-37

That Waikato Regional Council’s RMA functions and regularmonitoring and reporting will pick up any specific catchment thatrequires further action. Waikato Regional Council can and willrespond to particular concerns at a catchment-specific level.That Waikato Regional Council will follow an appropriate androbust policy development process. If this is the case, there is noneed for a policy option such as Option 1 (above), that spells thisout in an RMA statutory document.Risks:The risk of this policy option is an ad hoc approach (which doesn’tpredict or look forward), to dealing with catchment-specific issues.This may mean having to look at catchments again. There is alsothe risk of policy failure, where Waikato Regional Council losescredibility in pushing for actions which do not make an environmentaldifference. There is also the risk that Waikato Regional Councilprocesses fail to integrate with each other, for example the LongTerm Plan and WRP plan review.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsGiven sufficient resources,environmental benefit could behigh.There is no migration of activityaway from catchments withtighter regulatory regimes,creating pressure in other areas.Community:The Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement has ‘oneregime’ that applies across theregion. This makes thedocument more straightforward,and there is less uncertainty forindividual landowners aboutwhether their local area is, or willbe, a priority for action.Applying the wrong tool to thewrong area is an opportunitycost (not making the most gain).Community:Individual property owners orprimary industry groups mayanticipate particular parts of theregion that will be subject toenvironmental limits in the WRPreview. This second-guessingof what decisions WaikatoRegional Council may make inthe future could lead tounnecessary effort or moneybeing spent by these parties.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientPotentially high rate payer costsfor monitoring. Costs could fallon individuals or ratepayers withblanket approaches that are notnecessary.If processes are sound, then itcould save on costs incurredthrough the RMA schedule oneprocess of the ProposedWaikato Regional PolicyStatement.8-38 Doc # 1451856

Policy OptionPolicy option 1: Provideguidance to RPS usersabout the scope of thelikely changes to beimplemented in the TeTure Whaimana o TeAwa o Waikato – theVision and Strategy forthe Waikato River.Waikato River CatchmentRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe policy option seeks to provide guidance to RPS users about thescope of the likely changes to be implemented in Te Ture Whaimanao Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River.This option is linked to the preferred policy option for action inparticular catchments, which lists the Waikato River as a prioritycatchment for the Council. The identification of the Waikato Rivercatchment for specific policy intervention assists in ensuring that thehealth and wellbeing of the Waikato River is restored and protected.The Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010(the Act) gives effect to the 2009 deed of settlement in respect of theraupatu claims of Waikato-Tainui over the Waikato River 67 . The Actestablishes the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River as theprimary direction-setting document for the management of the river.Section 11 of the Act deems the Vision and Strategy in its entirety tobe part of the first generation Regional Policy Statement, without theneed for public consultation.A single entity called the Waikato River Authority is establishedthrough the settlement legislation. This entity has equal Crown-Māori membership, including one Crown member nominated byWaikato Regional Council and one Crown member nominated byrelevant territorial authorities. Its purpose will be to fund rehabilitationinitiatives for the Waikato River, in its role as trustee for the RiverClean-Up Trust, and to provide direction to achieve the Vision andStrategy. While general direction is contained in the wording of theVision and Strategy, there are future decisions to be made by theWaikato River Authority that will provide further clarity to potentiallyaffected land owners and agencies within the Waikato Rivercatchment. A key process undertaken by the Waikato RiverAuthority is a review of the Vision and Strategy to consider theaddition of targets and methods, as necessary. The outcome of thisreview must be reflected in Waikato Regional Council’s planningdocuments, including the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement and the WRP.A regional policy statement cannot be inconsistent with the Visionand Strategy. This policy option provides specific recognition of thatdocument and outlines how Waikato Regional Council will respondto the directions of the Act and the Vision and Strategy.Outcomes:In the short term, this policy option provides clarity to RPS users byoutlining the aspects relating to the Waikato Raupatu Claims(Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 that will be managed underboth Waikato Regional Council and territorial authority planningdocuments.In the medium term, it is likely the wording within this policy option inthe Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement will be changedand updated, as part of the outcome of the Waikato River Authority’sreview of the Vision and Strategy to consider adding targets andmethods. This policy option will be the first place in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement that users will refer to forinformation about the scope and implications of the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.67The Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 was passed by Parliament in May 2010. However,not all of its provisions had come into force at the time of printing this document. The remaining provisions areexpected to come into force by the end of 2010.Doc # 1451856 8-39

There are likely to be changes throughout the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement after Waikato Regional Council checks itsplanning documents for consistency with the review of the Visionand Strategy, but the key direction and processes will remain. Thismakes the policy option a central point of reference on the emerginggovernance and management of the Waikato River, from an RPSusers point of view.In the long term, it is a combination of this policy option and thecourse of action in the preferred policy options for the remainder ofthe Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement that will fullyimplement Waikato Regional Council’s role under the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.The policy option will make a significant contribution to achievingObjectives 3.13 and 3.3 and will also contribute to Objectives 3.1,3.2, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22.Assumptions That Waikato Regional Council’s understanding of the scope ofthe Resource Management Act aspects of the Waikato RaupatuClaims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, combined withdiscussions with relevant Waikato River catchment iwi duringdevelopment of the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement, has resulted in an accurate outline of the scope ofchanges necessary for managing the Waikato River catchment. That a complete ‘information summary’ to assist understandingof the process and actions within the Waikato Raupatu Claims(Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 will be set out elsewherefor potentially affected and interested people. This will includeprocesses and actions, such as the River Clean-Up Fund, thatare outside Waikato Regional Council’s Resource ManagementAct functions, or those the council will be directly involved in withWaikato River Iwi. That this policy option contains text that will be part of theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement that will bereviewed, and may be altered to give effect to the targets andmethods developed by the Waikato River Authority.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo specific environmentalbenefits of this option, in additionto those created by the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Act 2010. However,the Act focuses attention on theriver and the necessity toaddress its health and wellbeing.Community:The key benefit of this option tothe community is signalling to thecommunity and to iwi that thehealth and wellbeing of the riveris a priority.There has been uncertaintyNo environmental costsenvisaged under this option.Community:While this option provides ageneral outline of what isexpected to occur under theResource Management Actplanning documents, it is not acomplete ‘information summary’to assist understanding of the8-40 Doc # 1451856

about the scope of futurechanges frompotentially affected individualsand agencies who have not beenparty to the Crown and River Iwinegotiations and finalisation ofthe Waikato Raupatu Claims(Waikato River) Settlement Act2010. Without this policy option,potentially affected individualswould have to search multipledocuments to find out the generalprocess to be followed, or thatthe Deed of Settlement is likely toresult in controls on diffusedischarges.The option provides more detailand is focused more on activitiesmanaged under the ResourceManagement Act, than othergeneral guidance that theregional community can access,such as that contained on centralgovernment websites. Forinstance, the general summary ofthe Deed of Settlement providedby the Office of TreatySettlements 68 notes that dairyfarmers and hydroelectric damswill be affected by the settlement,but provides no further detail.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientprocess and actions in theWaikato Raupatu Claims(Waikato River) Settlement Act2010. As a result, this optionmay give a false impression ofbeing comprehensive and causesome individuals and groups inthe regional community to relysolely on it.The result of the review of theVision and Strategy maybecome available, at some pointduring the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement FirstSchedule process. At this point,this policy option may need tobe altered to be consistent withnew methods and targetsdeveloped by the Waikato RiverAuthority. It may be confusingfor RPS users to have theirsubmission points rejected byWaikato Regional Council at thispoint.Policy Option 2:Prior to the review ofthe Vision andStrategy, the ProposedWaikato RegionalPolicy Statement doesnot give any specificguidance on the scopeof future changes toimplement Te TureWhaimana o Te Awa oWaikato – the Visionand Strategy for theWaikato RiverEffectivenessThis policy option does not give specific guidance on the scope offuture changes to implement Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa oWaikato – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River. Instead,Objective 3.3 of would be achieved by a combination of preferredpolicy options in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement.At a later date, the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement willbe changed and updated, as part of the outcome of the WaikatoRiver Authority’s review of the Vision and Strategy to consideradding targets and methods. At the time of notification of theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement, this process had notbegun.Assumptions: That at the time of notification of the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement, there were other agencies and informationsources that regional ratepayers could go to for informationabout the emerging process and implications of the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. That under the Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Act 2010, the Vision and Strategy will be deemedinto the operative first generation RPS in 2010. There will be agap of several years until the results of the Vision and Strategyreview can be assessed by Waikato Regional Council. There willalso be a gap of several years until the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement is operative. The reviewed Visionand Strategy is then deemed into the second generationRegional Policy Statement. Inserting policy and methods relating68Waikato River Settlement Summary www.OTS.govt.nz accessed 7 July 2010.Doc # 1451856 8-41

to the Waikato Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act2010, adds to the cost of processing submissions under the FirstSchedule process of the Resource Management Act. Until theresults of the Vision and Strategy review are available, WaikatoRegional Council can keep up-to-date information outside theProposed Regional Policy Statement. This avoids the formalityand cost of making changes to a RMA statutory document,before the full implications of the Waikato Raupatu Claims(Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 are known.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo specific environmental benefitsof this option, in addition to thosecreated by the Waikato RaupatuClaims (Waikato River) SettlementAct 2010.Community:Under this policy option there maybe some individuals who do notsubmit on aspects of the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Act 2010 contained inthe Proposed Regional PolicyStatement. This may be a benefit tothem, as they save time and efforton matters that may be deemedinto the Regional Policy Statementat a later date, and are, therefore,outside an RMA First Scheduleprocess.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientNo environmental costsenvisaged under this option.Community:Under this option, the regionalcommunity will have to rely onaccessing informationsummaries of the WaikatoRaupatu Claims (WaikatoRiver) Settlement Act 2010,such as those contained onCentral Government websites.This may create uncertainty ofthe implications to them offuture governance and policyintervention in the catchment.This option adversely affectsthe cultural and socialwellbeing of those who feel itis not consistent with the spiritof the settlement, in that itdoes not highlight involvementof Waikato River Iwi at anearly stage of the RMA policydevelopment process.8.1.2 Objective 3.14 Allocation and use of fresh waterThe following table summarises the policy options that have been evaluated toprimarily achieve Objective 3.14 Allocation and use for fresh water.Allocation of WaterPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Set priorities for theallocation of freshwater and manageallocation to maintainminimum and allocableRMA s32 testEffectivenessThis option manages allocation of water, by providing a framework forsetting priorities for the take and use of water, and managing thetakes to maintain minimum flows and sustainable yields and avoidover-allocation. The option recognises that as demand for waterincreases, there is not always enough water at the right time or8-42 Doc # 1451856

minimum and allocableflows and sustainableyields.location to meet demand. It also recognises that water for humanhealth, sanitation and animal welfare is essential and must beconsidered before other demands.Certainty is provided to domestic and municipal water supplies byenabling their abstractions to continue and to be given priorityconsideration before other water abstractors.Achievement:This policy achieves Objective 3.14 and makes a significantcontribution to achieving Objective 3.13, because it manages theallocation within the allocable and minimum flows and sustainableyields. Maintaining minimum flows and sustainable yields contributesto protecting values associated with natural character, naturalfunctioning, ecosystems, habitats, biodiversity, the relationship oftāngata whenua with water, and recreation values. The policyprovides for management of flows in all water bodies, including highvalue water bodies or their catchments, and during periods of lowflow.The policy option also supports Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7,3.8, 3.9, 3.12, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20 and 3.21.Outcomes:In the short and medium term, the methods provide transparency inhow water allocation priorities are determined. This is supported bythe regional plan specifying the criteria to be used to implement thepriorities for take and establishing how the takes will be managed.Implementation of the policies and rules in the regional plan will guidethe determination of applications for surface and groundwater takes,so that demand for water is managed over the medium and longerterm, water is less likely to be over-allocated, and values of waterways are not adversely affected by water takes. The methodsrecognise that flows vary during the year, and that minimum flowsshould be protected in times of water shortages.The policy and methods are consistent with the Waikato RegionalEnergy Strategy (WRES) in that they recognise that existing use ofwater for electricity generation should not be compromised by howwater takes are managed into the future.Assumptions: That the Waikato Regional Council has sufficient information andexpertise to define how takes are to be managed, and that thedemand can be managed without compromising the values ofwater bodies. That the option is fully implemented in the regional plan before anyincrease in demand increases over-allocation. That the plan provisions allow for new information on allocationand yields to inform the decision-making process.Risks:Some water users will likely seek to change the priorities so that moreusers are given high priority, resulting in difficulties in managing thetakes within the allocable flows and sustainable yields. This willincrease the risk of over-allocation.Failure to implement the policy through the regional plan and indecision making will lead to over-allocation and consequential effectson values of water bodies.Over-allocation already occurring in some catchments maycompromise the ability to establish how takes will be managed.Summary of effectiveness: HighDoc # 1451856 8-43

Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEstablishing priorities results in lessneed to erode the minimum flowsrequired to sustain river ecologyand other values to meet waterdemand.Community:None.CommunityPolicy option 2:Priorities are set for awide range of uses,including industry andagriculture.Ensures availability of wateressential for human and animalneeds.Ensures that the benefits currentlyderived from use of water forelectricity generation are notreduced.Greater understanding of whereand how water is used.Water is allocated to maximise thebenefits from its use.Existing water users have somecertainty that their takes willcontinue over time.Increased certainty that waterquality will not degrade due to overallocationof surface and groundwaters.Increased certainty about howtakes will be managed at times oflow flow.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessEstablishing priorities will meanthat some users will miss out onwater if they are not afforded ahigh priority.Giving priority to municipal usemay result in opportunity costsof lost pastoral or horticulturalproduction, or restrictions ongrowth of industry due toinability to use water.Alternatively, individual users orgroups of users who are notpriority users may incur costs ofestablishing other means ofwater harvest or storage toensure water supply.The cost to municipal users, ifnot given priority, may includethe cost of treating water fordrinking, if water allocation toother uses reduces flows andadversely affects water quality.The cost to Waikato RegionalCouncil of managing flows andconsents is estimated to be atleast one to two full-timeequivalent staff. This includesstaff resource to ensurecouncils meets water meteringrequirements and consentprocessing times under new orproposed legislative changes.The methods considered under this option would be similar to thoseunder Policy Option 1 for managing water allocation, but theguidelines on priorities would include other community prioritiesrelating to types of industry or irrigation uses.Achievement:Objective 3.14 will be met, in part, through prioritisation of allocationand managing the allocation, but maximum benefits from the use ofwater may not be achieved depending on which uses are givenpriority. Objective 3.13 is met, in part, by maintaining minimum flowsand sustainable yields, but the likely pressure to increase allocableflow and reduce minimum flow in times of high demand or at times oflow flow may be inconsistent with the intent of the policies.8-44 Doc # 1451856

Outcomes:Initial outcomes would be achievable in the short to medium termtimeframe. In the longer term, there may not be enough water to meetall the prioritised purposes, causing more conflict. As demand forwater increases, there would be increased pressure for allocatingmore water, with the effect of reducing the minimum flow if allocableflow is increased to accommodate the demand.Assumptions That Waikato Regional Council has sufficient information andexpertise to define how takes are managed, and that the demandcan be managed without compromising the values of waterbodies. That the option is fully implemented in the regional plan beforeany increase in demand increases over-allocation. That the plan provisions allow for new information on allocationand yields to inform the decision-making process. That the additional priorities do not adversely affect the ability tomeet the demands for municipal supply. That sufficient water is available to meet all prioritised uses.Risks:That there would be insufficient water to meet the demands of allprioritised users and essential uses may not be met.Some users not afforded priority may seek to change the priorities tofurther increase the number of priority users, resulting in difficulties inmanaging the takes within the allocable flows and sustainable yields.This will increase the risk of over-allocation and consequentialadverse effects on values of water bodies.Failure to implement the policy through the regional plan and indecision making will lead to over-allocation.Over-allocation already occurring in some catchments maycompromise the ability to establish how takes will be managed.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEstablishing priorities results in lessneed to erode minimum flowsrequired to sustain river ecologyand other values to meet waterdemand.Community:Larger list of uses with prioritystatus.Environmental:CostsHabitat and water quality issuesaffected by flow may be overlooked.There will be pressureto increase allocable flows andreduce minimum flows to meetincreasing water demand. Anyreduction in minimum flow mayadversely affect water quality,ecology, biodiversity, mauri andother values of water bodies. Itwould be more difficult to dealwith cumulative effects.Community:Insufficient water to meet all ofthe priorities, resulting in eitherinability to meet water needs ofall prioritised users or anincreased risk of overallocation.Doc # 1451856 8-45

Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientSome water uses listed maybecome redundant with timeand lock up the resource.It is difficult, and ofteninequitable, to separatedifferent industries intopriorities. Priorities may changeover time and this might not bereflected by the plan.Increased likelihood that userswithout priority would be unableto secure any water.Policy option 3:Do nothing (no policydirection to prioritiseuse).EffectivenessThis option would rely on applications for abstraction of water beingdealt with on a case-by-case or ad hoc basis. Methods would belargely non-existent, as the option would not require establishment ofpriorities or a framework within which minimum and allocable flowsand sustainable yields would be managed.Achievement:Objective 3.14 may not be met, as there would be no guidance onregional priorities when processing applications for water takes. Thepolicy would not contribute to achieving Objective 3.13, if takes werenot managed to maintain minimum flows and sustainable yields.Outcomes to ensure community priorities would be difficult to achieve,as there would be no guidance on matters to address.Assumptions: That the council has sufficient information and expertise to assessapplications on an ad hoc basis without compromising the valuesof water bodies. That the plan provisions allow for new information on allocationand yields to inform the decision-making process. That sufficient water is available to meet new demands foressential use.Risk:That water required to meet increasing demand for essential use maybe allocated to other users.That environmental concerns relating to flow are overlooked ormanaged poorly in times of water shortage or high demand.That the links between ground and surface waters are overlooked andexisting takes for essential uses are compromised.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:NoneBenefitsEnvironmental:CostsHabitat and water quality issuesaffected by flow may be overlooked.There will be pressure toincrease allocable flows andreduce minimum flows to meet8-46 Doc # 1451856

Community:Those who apply first will haverights to take and use water.Some industries or agricultural orhorticultural users will maximisetheir benefits from the use ofwater.increasing water demand. Anyreduction in minimum flow mayadversely affect water quality,ecology, biodiversity, mauri andother values of water bodies. Itwould be more difficult to dealwith cumulative effects.CommunityCommunity issues may not beaddressed, including provision ofadequate water for essentialhuman and animal needs. Waterneeded to meet increasingdemand for essential uses (forexample drinking and sanitation)may be allocated to irrigation orindustrial purposes.Considerable financial costs inlitigation, due to the lack of policydirection.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientInconsistent decisionsthroughout the region resulting inuncertainty for users.Efficient allocation and use of fresh waterPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Efficient allocation anduse of water.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThere is a need to ensure that the available water (allocable flowand sustainable yield) is apportioned in a way which ensures that thegreatest efficiency is obtained, particularly in the case of waterbodies subject to the highest demands.The main means of implementing this policy is through regionalplans and the processing of resource consents. Conservation ofwater resources applies to all water users irrespective of priority.Encouraging the careful use of water by domestic households,industry, agriculture and other consumers can avoid excessive orwasteful use. Other economic instruments such as tradable waterpermits may also encourage efficient use.The priority status given to municipal and domestic users requiresthat, where consents are required, the applicant is to prepare awater management plan to demonstrate that there is a need for thewater and that the applicant has considered future water demandsand water efficiency measures. The intention of this method is toensure some level of equity for other users who are not afforded thislevel of priority.The methods provide for the gathering of information regardingwater take and use during the processing of consent applications.This information will better enable Waikato Regional Council tomanage water resources, by monitoring how much, when, whereand by whom water is taken, and assess the potential adverseeffects on the environment.Doc # 1451856 8-47

Achievement:The use of plans and resource consents is considered to be themost efficient and effective means of achieving Objective 3.14. It willalso support Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9. Themethods also include non-regulatory advocacy to improve efficiencyand achieve the objective.Outcomes would be achievable in the short- to medium-termtimeframe by providing guidelines on allocation efficiency and use.In the longer term the implementation of efficient allocation practiceswill minimise the extent to which any increased demand for waterarises as a result of water already allocated being wasted.The policy is consistent with proposed national directions regardingmeasuring and reporting water intakes and standards on watermeasuringdevices.The policy is consistent with the WRES to the extent that it promotesenergy conservation and efficiency of energy use.Assumptions: That the option will be fully implemented through the regionalplan and when processing resource consents. That all water users consider and adopt conservation measuresand water metering to improve efficiency of use of water andenable measurement of water use, and that these practicescontinue. That the ability of people to take water for domestic needs overtime may be limited by inefficient use of a finite resource.Risks:That voluntary water saving measures and more efficienttechnologies are not adopted by water users. In the absence ofvoluntary conservation and efficiency measures, the policy wouldachieve the objective in part only.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsLess need to erode minimumflows and adversely affectaquatic ecosystems to meetwater demand.Community:Water available for out-of-streamuse is used efficiently, resultingin the potential for highereconomic benefit per unit ofwater because it is used moreefficiently.Greater understanding and useof alternative methods to harvestand store water to meet needs.Water is allocated efficiently tomaximise the benefits from itsuse and minimise wastage.Environmental:None.CommunityCostsSuppliers of water may incuradditional costs to prepare thewater management planrequired by the consentingprocess. Additional initial costswill be incurred if water suppliersadopt technologies to improvewater conservation and efficientuse, for example increasedmetering of water use andtechnology to detect leaks andmonitor losses. This is likely toresult in an increased cost toratepayers.8-48 Doc # 1451856

Greater understanding byWaikato Regional Council andusers of where and how water isused, and greater uptake ofwater conservation measures asa result of that understanding.Water is used where mostneeded and reflects thecommunity’s needs andprioritised takes.Adopting voluntary waterefficiency and conservationmeasures may incur initial coststo individuals or self imposedrestrictions on use of water fornon-essential use.The cost of advocating andpromoting water conservationmeasures and practices isincluded within other policies.Policy option 2:No policy onefficient use.Potential savings in costs tocouncils and ratepayers over thelonger term, if water suppliersadopt water metering andefficient technologies to reducewastage of water. This minimisestheir need to take and treat waterfor domestic and municipal use.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessThere would be no policy and no supporting methods to guide theefficient allocation and use of water.In the short term, the lack of guidance would result in an ad hocapproach to decision making and rely on water users to propose andimplement efficiency measures. In the long term, increased demandor increased frequency of restrictions on water use imposed onusers may encourage users to be more efficient, and the objectivemay be achieved in part.Any improved efficiency may be offset by degradation of values ofwater bodies, due to delay in implementation of efficiencies andefficiency measures being inadequate to balance the increase indemand.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone.Community:Reduced cost in assessing waterresource requirements.Some users will benefit, but at theexpense of others.Greater pressure to allocatemore resource to meetdemand arising frominefficient use, resulting inadverse effects on aquaticecosystems and biodiversityand on water quality arisingfrom higher allocation.Loss of fisheries values due toimpediments to fish passagearising from low flows.Community:Community aspirations for instreamrequirements and usesof water will not be providedfor.Water is wasted and peoplemiss out on using theDoc # 1451856 8-49

esource.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientDecline in water quantity andquality. Water may not meetthe standard for which itneeds to be used for andwater treatment costs mayincrease.8.2 Risk of acting or not actingSection 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting, if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.With regards to fresh water, there is sufficient information upon which to base theanalysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. There is sufficientinformation to demonstrate the scale and extent of the effects of resource use on thewater resource.The risk of acting in the manner proposed is that some costs will be imposed on localauthorities and, in some cases, resource consent applicants.The risk of not acting in the way proposed is that Waikato Regional Council would notbe acting in accordance with Section 30(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act whichrequires regional councils to set policies and methods for the integrated managementof natural and physical resources. Acting in an integrated manner is particularlyimportant due to the inter-connected nature of land and water. Further, not includingpolicies and methods to implement the Objectives 3.13 and 3.1.4 would mean that theadverse effects of land use activities would continue to occur and result in thecontinued decline in the quality and availability of fresh water.8.3 Appropriate policies and Methods8.3.1 Objective 3.13 Mauri and health of fresh water bodiesThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.13:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyOverall Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement water approachPolicy Option 1: Set out the overall directionfor water management in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement andrequire WRP to set standards and limits.Policy Option 2: Set out the overall directionfor water management in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement, but donot require the WRP to set standards orlimits, and instead, manage water bodiesaccording to the generally stated values inObjective 3.13.ModerateModeratelyefficientSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 8.1]Low Not efficient No8-50 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyHigh Value Water BodiesPolicy Option 1: Highlight the need toprotect high value water bodies, define andlist some water bodies and leave furtherdefinition of others to the WRP.Policy Option 2: Highlight the need toprotect high value water bodies, andcomprehensively identify lakes and riversthat have high value for one or more of therange of values listed in Objective 3.13. Listthese water bodies in the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement and providebenchmark data for the year and the level ofvalue for which they have been listed.Policy Option 3: Do nothing to identify highvalue water bodies, instead rely on generalvalues in Objective 3.13 and other policyoptions to protect water body values wherethey are high.All water bodiesPolicy Option 1: General region-wideapproaches for the range of aspects thataffect water bodies and that will need to bemanaged to maintain and enhance values.Policy Option 2: Set out a comprehensivelist of activities that apply to particular areasin the region. The same amount ofresources and effort is applied, but it isconcentrated in a smaller geographic area.Policy Option 3: Do not specify anyparticular aspects to be managed or attemptto direct regional and district plans to containmethods to manage activities and interconnectivityof land and water. Instead, relyon other preferred options to addressactivities across the region.Action within particular catchmentsPolicy Option 1: Set out criteria for choosingto take action in specific catchments. Outlinethe general approach to be taken and whoshould be involved and how. The WaikatoRiver and Lake Taupo catchments are listedas having already been chosen as prioritycatchments for action.Policy Option 2: Catchment-specific action,including criteria for choosing whichcatchments to take specific additional actionin, as well as the two listed catchments LakeTaupo and Waikato River. Option seeks toprovide maximum clarity and certainty aboutthe particular actions to be undertaken withincatchments.Policy Option 3: No catchment-specificapproach. Instead, the Proposed WaikatoRPS relies on policies and methods thatHighModeratehighSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 8.2]High Low NoLow-moderate Not efficient NoModerateModerateYes[Policy 8.3]Moderate Low NoLow Not efficient NoHighHighYes[Policy 8.4]Moderate Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoDoc # 1451856 8-51

Policy Option Effectiveness Efficiencyapply throughout the region.Waikato River CatchmentPolicy Option 1: Provide guidance to RPSusers about the scope of the likely changesto be implemented in the Te Ture Whaimanao Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision andStrategy for the Waikato River.Policy Option 2: Prior to the review of theVision and Strategy, Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement does not give anyspecific guidance on the scope of futurechanges to implement Te Ture Whaimana oTe Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategyfor the Waikato River.ModerateModerateSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 8.5]Moderate Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.13 is by inclusion of Policy Option 1 foreach of the different policy option ‘topics’ described in the table above.8.3.2 Objective 3.14 Allocation and use of fresh waterThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.14:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sAllocation of waterPolicy Option 1: Set priorities for allocatingfresh water and manage allocation tomaintain minimum and allocable flows andsustainable yields.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 8.6]Policy Option 2: Priorities are set for a widerange of uses including industry andagriculture.ModerateModeratelyefficientNoPolicy Option 3: Do nothing (no policydirection to prioritise use).Efficient allocation and usePolicy Option 1: Efficient allocation and useof water.Low Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 8.7]Policy Option 2: Do nothing (no policy). Low Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.14 is by inclusion of Policy Option 1 foreach of the different policy option ‘topics’ described in the table above.8-52 Doc # 1451856

8.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsThe following policies and methods are recommended for inclusion in the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS) Chapter 8 Fresh Water Bodies:Policy 1 Approach to managing water bodies (PWRPS Policy 8.1)The current and desired values of water bodies will be identified and activities will bemanaged to ensure that water bodies achieve the desired values.Implementation methods1.1 Integrated catchment management of water resourcesRegional plans shall adopt a catchment-based approach to ensure the integratedmanagement of water resources, including through the management of:a) the allocation and use of water;b) flow regimes;c) quantity and quality of groundwater;d) quantity and quality of surface water;e) quality of marine waters; andf) land and water interactions.1.2 Establish water body standardsRegional plans shall identify the current and desired values for water bodies andestablish associated standards. These standards will be based on the values providedin Objective 3.13 and will act as indicators as to whether a water body achieves avalue.1.3 Manage activities to achieve standardsRegional plans shall manage activities to achieve the identified standards for waterbodies including by relating the activity status of any rules to the quality and values ofthe water body.1.4 Tāngata whenua involvementWaikato Regional Council will work with tāngata whenua to develop systems andprocesses to:a) adequately involve tāngata whenua in the management and decision makingregarding water bodies and associated ecosystems;b) identify values and interests in water bodies and associated ecosystems; andc) develop monitoring programmes (including mātauranga Māori) to monitor theachievement of identified values of water bodies.1.5 Stakeholder involvementWaikato Regional Council will take a consultative approach to investigating andimplementing future water body management approaches. This will include:a) providing for the early and meaningful involvement of stakeholders and directlyaffected parties;b) collaborating with stakeholders for the development and delivery of nonregulatorypolicy options including education programmes; andc) involving stakeholders in the process identifying costs and benefits of anyproposed regulatory management options.1.6 Information gatheringWaikato Regional Council will:a) investigate, monitor and review information to assess the effects of nutrients andother contaminants on water quality including in estuarine environments andslow-flushing shallow coastal water such as the Firth of Thames;Doc # 1451856 8-53

) investigate and collate information about activities and land use practices that willmake a positive difference to water body values;c) investigate and collate information about the current and potential risks andthreats to water bodies including those posed by cumulative adverse effects orsignificant land use changes;d) regularly review land use trends within catchments with high value water bodies;ande) undertake research, funded in part by consent holders, to determine minimumflows, allocable flows, sustainable yields, water flow rates and the effects ofreduced flows/levels, especially in relation to areas of high use/demand.Policy 2 High value water bodies (PWRPS Policy 8.2)Ensure that the values of high value water bodies are protected and where appropriateenhanced, with priority given to intrinsic values where there is any conflict.Implementation methods2.1 Identify high value water bodiesRegional plans shall define and identify high value water bodies including thoseidentified in section 8A.2.2 Managing high value water bodiesRegional plans shall provide for the protection of the values of high value water bodiesincluding through the management of:a) direct discharges to these water bodies;b) takes and uses of water;c) the damming and diversion of water (including off-line dams and/or the diversionof flood waters);d) changes in land use (including intensification of existing land uses) within thecatchment of the water body; ande) existing land use where this may compromise the values of the water bodies.Policy 3 All water bodies (PWRPS Policy 8.3)Manage activities to maintain or enhance the values of water bodies by:a) reducing:i) sediment in fresh water bodies (including bank instability);ii) accelerated sedimentation of estuaries;iii) microbial and nutrient contamination;iv) other contaminants; andb) protecting and restoring:i) riparian and wetland habitat;ii) instream habitat diversity;iii) natural flow regimes; andc) providing for where practicable, migratory patterns of indigenous freshwaterspecies up and down rivers and streams and to the coastal marine area; andd) avoiding:i) physical modification of water bodies where practicable; andii) inappropriate development in flood plains; ande) managing:i) groundwater and surface water flow/level regimes; andii) linkages between groundwater and surface water.8-54 Doc # 1451856

Implementation methods3.1 Point source dischargesRegional plans shall control point source discharges of contaminants into water bodies,or onto or into land where the contaminant may reach water, in a way that:a) does not undermine the desired values of the water body;b) relates the activity status of any rules to the quality and values of the receivingwater body;c) provides for land-based mitigation of the effects of contaminants prior to theirdischarge to water where practicable;d) provides for offsite mitigation or offsetting of adverse effects where appropriate;ande) does not reduce the allocation potential of the water body.3.2 Riparian activitiesRegional plans shall control riparian activities, including tracking and earthworks,removal of riparian vegetation and access to the beds and banks of water bodies byvehicles and stock to ensure:a) reduced sedimentation of fresh water bodies (including bank instability) andestuaries;b) reduced microbial contamination of water bodies; andc) the desired values of the water body are not undermined.3.3 Non-point source dischargesWaikato Regional Council will manage the effects of non-point source discharges ofnutrients and other contaminants where such discharges result in, or are likely to resultin, the loss of values of a water body, including by:a) collaborating with industry and other stakeholders to ensure appropriateinformation on good practice land use is available;b) investigating options for controlling the adverse effects of increases in intensity ofactivities that may involve the discharge of contaminants (including nutrients) towater;c) introducing controls on intensification of primary production; andd) introducing controls on contaminant discharges.3.4 Establish allocation baselinesRegional plans shall establish:a) minimum and allocable flows in rivers; andb) sustainable yields from groundwater resources.3.5 Maintain and enhance lake and wetland water levelsRegional plans shall identify lakes and wetlands requiring water level protection and:a) specify the bed and water levels required to protect the values of those lakes andwetlands; andb) control activities to protect lake and wetland water levels.3.6 Management of lakesWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngata whenuaand other stakeholders to:a) identify lakes that are, or could potentially become significantly degraded;b) ascertain the likely causes of this degradation; andc) investigate and recommend options, including regional or district plan changes,to maintain or enhance the values of the lakes.Doc # 1451856 8-55

3.7 Natural functioning and ecological health of water bodiesRegional and district plans shall ensure that the natural functioning and ecologicalhealth of water bodies is maintained and where appropriate enhanced, including by:a) controlling water abstraction;b) recognising the inter-connectedness of ground and surface waters;c) controlling extraction activities, including sand and gravel extraction;d) controlling structures in or on the banks or beds of water bodies;e) avoiding the modification of water bodies including the piping or straightening ofthe water body where practicable;f) controlling the damming and diverting of water including off line dams and thediversion of flood waters;g) addressing adverse effects including effects on natural character, mauri andmigration of indigenous species; andh) providing for appropriate development setbacks from water bodies.3.8 Industry self-managementWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with primary industry to investigate the roleand ability of industry self-management to achieve the required reduction in non-pointsource discharges of contaminants, including through:a) appropriately managing animal waste;b) adopting best practice in fertiliser application and soil disturbance;c) adopting property-level nutrient management and soil conservation plans;d) preventing stock access to water bodies; ande) protecting existing, and promoting new, appropriately vegetated riparian margins.3.9 Effects of subdivision, use and developmentTerritorial authorities should manage the effects of subdivision, use and developmentincluding through district plans, development and subdivision guidelines and structureplans to:a) maintain flow regimes and the availability of water, including by preventing thesealing of aquifer recharge areas;b) protect existing and promote new appropriately vegetated riparian margins;c) minimise the potential for contaminants to enter water bodies;d) reduce flows into stormwater networks including through the adoption of lowimpact design;e) provide for the creation of esplanade reserves and/or strips where this will have apositive effect on a water body;f) promote best practice stormwater management for urban areas, including theneed for stormwater catchment plans for greenfield urban development;g) maintain the natural flow regimes and functioning of water bodies;h) reduce and manage contaminant loadings (including sediment) enteringstormwater networks;i) provide for the regular inspection of communities serviced by onsite wastewatersystems, such as in villages and concentrated rural-residential areas, to identifyand address any surfacing of effluent from onsite wastewater systems; andj) minimise stormwater entering wastewater networks.3.10 Advocacy and educationWaikato Regional Council will:a) encourage adoption of land-based mitigation of stormwater, including the use ofwetlands;b) promote awareness of the effects of stormwater discharges on water quality;8-56 Doc # 1451856

c) promote low-impact design options;d) provide information on the value of water bodies and the ecosystem services theyprovide;e) encourage the replacement of onsite wastewater disposal with reticulatedwastewater systems where applicable;f) promote the benefits of retaining, enhancing or recreating areas of riparianvegetation and wetlands;g) promote awareness of relevant regional and district plan provisions;h) promote awareness of soil erosion issues;i) encourage adoption of sustainable land management practices; andj) provide information to territorial authorities to assist in managing land useactivities which may adversely affect flow regimes and the availability of water.Consideration will be given to collaborating with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua,industry and other stakeholders to undertake the above where it is assessed that thismay provide a more effective or efficient outcome.Policy 4 Catchment-based intervention (PWRPS Policy 8.4)Maintain or improve the values of water bodies by identifying catchments that requirespecific intervention to address the adverse effects of activities and land use changes.Demonstrable progress in maintaining or improving the values of the relevant waterbodies will be achieved by 2030. In identifying catchments that require intervention,the following will be considered:a) current and desired values of the water bodies;b) national or legislative direction;c) degree of improvement in water quality able to be influenced by human action;d) potential to address more than one environmental issue through the intervention;e) timing, intensity and scale of change to land use and activities required tomaintain or improve the values of the water bodies;f) vulnerability and values of the receiving environment (including the coastalmarine area);g) tāngata whenua values; andh) net benefit to the community.Implementation methods4.1 Identify catchments for specific interventionWaikato Regional Council will undertake an assessment of water body catchments todetermine a priority order for catchment intervention. This assessment will be basedon the criteria in Policy 8.4 with the priorities for intervention consulted upon duringlong-term plan/annual plan processes. The relative priority of catchments and theinclusion of additional catchments requiring intervention will be reviewed at regularintervals using a consultative process.For the purposes of Policy 8.4, the catchments of the Waikato River and Lake Taupōhave been identified as priority catchments that require intervention (refer to section8B) to address the adverse effects of activities and land use changes on water bodies.4.2 Process for identifying catchment management approachWaikato Regional Council will develop management approaches to achieve desiredoutcomes in catchments identified as requiring intervention by:a) defining measurable interim and long-term desired targets for the receiving waterbody;b) analysing the change in management required;c) assessing which potential policy instruments are technically feasible;Doc # 1451856 8-57

d) researching changes in land management and land use practices that would beeffective in addressing the cause of adverse effects;e) working with stakeholders, tāngata whenua and other groups and individuals inlocal communities taking into account local information, in order to understandimplications to them of, and their likely response to, potential policy instruments;f) taking into account the results of work undertaken between Waikato RegionalCouncil and industry groups;g) working with tāngata whenua, territorial authorities, other agencies and industryto agree changes to roles and responsibilities if appropriate;h) identifying, in consultation with stakeholders, the implications for communities(including financial implications) of the scale and rate of change required;i) determining whether further scientific monitoring and investigation is required asissues are identified in catchments; andj) directing regional and district plans to control land use including changes orintensification of land use.4.3 Nutrient-sensitive water bodiesWhere nutrients pose a significant threat to water bodies in priority catchments,Waikato Regional Council will:a) manage land use and activities that discharge nitrogen and phosphorus wherechanges in total load of nitrogen and phosphorus in the receiving water body(including the coastal marine area) will cause the loss of values;b) consider mechanisms for the control of land use including through the regionalplans and industry self management; andc) work with primary industry to develop property-level policy instruments, including:i) nutrient management plans sufficiently detailed to ensure nutrient lossescan be tracked and management options for landowners identified includingthe financial and environmental implications of meeting nitrogen andphosphorus limits; andii) roles and responsibilities for property-scale delivery of advice, support andincentives to implement property-level policy instruments.4.4 Work with primary industryWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with primary industry groups to investigateoptions to meet the interim and long-term desired outcomes for an identifiedcatchment, including to:a) develop methods for property-scale delivery of advice, including advice in relationto the practical (financial and environmental) options for meeting environmentallimits; andb) promote land management practices that may assist in achieving the desiredwater body values.Policy 5 Waikato River catchment (PWRPS Policy 8.5)Recognise Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for theWaikato River – as the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River andensure that the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River is restored and protected forfuture generations.Implementation methods5.1 Waikato River AuthorityWaikato Regional Council and territorial authorities will, in conjunction with the WaikatoRiver Authority, promote an integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach toimplementing the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River and managing the WaikatoRiver and its catchments.8-58 Doc # 1451856

5.2 Regional and district plansRegional and district plans shall:a) recognise the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River as the primary directionsettingdocument for the Waikato River; andb) ensure activities within the Waikato River catchment (refer to Map 8.2) arecontrolled with respect to any adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River, including activities which:i) result in the destabilisation of the beds and banks of waterbodies;ii) result in discharges of contaminants to water bodies;iii) result in adverse effects on significant sites, fisheries, flora and fauna;iv) result in a loss of public access; andv) adversely affect the cultural association of Waikato-Tainui, NgātiTūwharetoa, Te Arawa River Iwi, Maniapoto and Raukawa with the WaikatoRiver.5.3 Joint management approachWaikato Regional Council, in partnership with Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, TeArawa River Iwi, Maniapoto and Raukawa, will:a) establish monitoring programmes, which shall incorporate mātauranga Māori, todetermine and monitor the health status of the Waikato River;b) develop targets for improving the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River; andc) develop and implement a programme of action to achieve those targets, includingrecommendations for changes to regional and district plans.5.4 Education and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with the Waikato River Authority to:a) promote and foster the regional community’s knowledge and understanding ofthe health and wellbeing of the Waikato River;b) develop and share information on rivers and the effects and management ofactivities within their catchments;c) encourage and foster a ‘whole of river’ approach to the restoration and protectionof the Waikato River;d) promote the restoration and enhancement of indigenous riparian vegetation andwetlands within the Waikato River catchment; ande) promote the development and adoption of best practice methods within theWaikato River catchment to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of theWaikato River.Policy 6 Allocating fresh water (PWRPS Policy 8.6)Manage the allocation of fresh water in a manner that ensures sufficient water isavailable to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of people and communitiesincluding by:a) prioritising applications for the take and use of water; andb) managing the increasing demand and competition for water resources.Implementation methods6.1 Manage allocation of waterRegional plans shall ensure that the take and use of water does not compromise thevalues of water bodies, including by:a) managing the adverse effects of the use of water, including the damming anddiversion of water and off- stream water storage;b) establishing how surface water takes will be managed in order to maintainminimum flows and allocable flows;Doc # 1451856 8-59

c) establishing how groundwater takes will be managed to ensure sustainableyields;d) establishing methods to prevent and reduce over-allocation of surface water andgroundwater resources;e) establishing how restrictions shall be applied during water shortages; andf) not adversely affecting existing electricity generation from renewable energysources.6.2 Manage increasing water demandRegional plans shall prioritise resource consent applications for the take and use ofwater in the following order of priority:a) domestic and municipal supply;b) replacement of previously authorised takes; andc) all other applications.Policy 7 Efficient allocation and use of water (PWRPS Policy 8.7)Ensure the allocable water resource is allocated and used efficiently.Implementation Methods7.1 Manage the allocation and use of waterRegional plans shall ensure allocable flows and sustainable yields are allocated andused efficiently, including by:a) requiring relevant resource consent applications for the take and use of water tobe reasonable and justifiable with regard to its intended use;b) requiring a water management plan in any resource consent application fordomestic and municipal water takes;c) promoting shared use of water, including through water management groups;d) promoting water conservation measures where appropriate;e) providing for the temporary or permanent transfer of (in whole or in part) a groundor surface water take; andf) providing for water harvesting and water storage.8.7.2 Water conservationWaikato Regional Council will advocate for water conservation measures and theadoption of water conservation practices including the use of:a) water-saving devices;b) water metering;c) water recycling;d) water demand management plans;e) water-efficient technology; andf) leak detection and loss-monitoring technologies.8-60 Doc # 1451856

8A High value water bodiesTable 8-1: High value water bodies – ecological healthHikutaia (at OldMaratoto Rd)Hinemaiaia (atSH1)Kauaeranga (atSmiths cableway)Kuratau (at LakeTaupō )Tauranga –Taupō (at TeKono slackline)Tongariro (atTurangi)Waihaha (atSH32)Waikato, upper(between TaupōGates & Waipapatailrace)Waitahanui (atBlake Rd)Waiwawa (atSH25 Coroglen)Dissolvedoxygen(% ofsaturation)pHTurbidity(NTU)Totalammonia(mgN/m 3 )Temperature( o C)Totalnitrogen(mg/m 3 )Totalphosphorous(mg/m 3 )95 7.0 1.5 10 13.6 160 12101 7.4 1.0 5 11.7 130 3899 7.0 1.1 5 (5) 14.5 100 3101 7.4 1.1 5 12.4 550 16101 7.3 0.7 5 10.1 90 20101 7.5 0.8 2 10.0 75 18102 7.2 0.5 5 10.3 170 26102 7.4 0.8 5 15.9 160 1799 7.4 0.6 5 10.7 360 53102 7.1 1.4 5 15.1 110 5Table 8-1 includes ten rivers with the best water quality (centred on the year 2000) forsupporting ecological health (median water quality during 1998-2002).Table 8-2: High value water bodies – contact recreationHorizontal clarity (m)E. coli (cfu/100mL)Hinemaiaia (at SH1) 2.6 21Kuratau (at Lake Taupō ) No data 38Pueto (at Broadlands Rd) 1.8 30Tauranga – Taupō (at Te Konoslackline)3.8 No dataTongariro (at Turangi) 2.9 No dataWaihaha (at SH32) 5.2 9Waihou (at Whites Rd) 6.0 41Waikato, upper (between TaupōGates and Waipapa tailrace)3.2 5Waitahanui (at Blake Rd) 3.7 50Whanganui (at Lake Taupō ) No data 28Table 8-2 includes ten rivers with the best water quality (centred on the year 2000) forswimming and other water-based recreation (medium water quality during 1998-2002).Doc # 1451856 8-61

Table 8-3: High value water bodies – lakesCategory One Lakes – high condition, low vulnerabilityLake Lake SPI Score (%) Regional ranking Other informationRotopounamu 71% 2 equalUpper Tama Naturally unvegetated 2 equal Considered to beclose to pristineLower Tama Naturally unvegetated 2 equal Considered to beclose to pristineBlue Lake Naturally unvegetated 5 Considered to beclose to pristineKoraha Unknown 8 equal Known to havesubmerged plants butnot yet surveyed forLake SPIEmerald Lakes Naturally unvegetated 10 equalCategory Two Lakes – high condition, high vulnerabilityLake Lake SPI Score (%) Regional ranking Other informationTaupō 36% 1Maratoto Naturally unvegetated 6 equal TP 29 mg m -3 , TN1400 mg m -3 , Chla 32mg m -3 (waters ofWaikato 2010)Harihari 45% 8 equalTaharoa 35% 10 equalRotoaira 23% 12Rotopiko (Serpentine) 89% (max 3 lakes) 15Otamatearoa 31% 16 equalNgahewa 29% 19 equalParangi 22% 24 equalCategory One Lakes – high condition, low vulnerability: These lakes have waterquality that is close to pristine for their type. They are generally remotely located andhave a high percentage of native vegetation cover in the catchment. They are locatedon Crown-owned reserve land and are not expected to be subject to changes incatchment land use in the foreseeable future.Category Two Lakes – high condition, high vulnerability: These lakes tend to havewater quality that has been impacted in some way by either catchment land use and/orintroduced plants and/or animals. However, they make up a very small group of lakesthat retain a relatively clear water, macrophyte-dominated state. Due to a variety ofexisting or potential stressors they are considered to be very vulnerable to a change instate from clear water and vegetated to one that is algal-dominated and devoid ofsubmerged macrophytes.8-62 Doc # 1451856

ReferencesBroekhuizen N, Zeldis J 2008. Forecasts of Possible Phytoplankton Responses toElevated Riverine Nitrogen Delivery into the Southern Firth of Thames. EnvironmentWaikato Technical Report TR06/11.Cameron M, Barrett P, Cochrane B and McNeill K. Implications of Agricultural Changein the Waikato Region: Current Trends and Future Scenarios. Environment WaikatoTechnical Report 2009/28. Document number 1505953.Davies A, Kaine G, Lourey R. 2007. Understanding Factors Leading to Noncompliancewith Effluent Regulations by Dairy Farmers. Environment WaikatoTechnical Report 2007/37. Document 1210295.EBoP, EW, Horizons Workshop Managing diffuse discharges under the RMA -Experiences to date and lessons learnt. Document 1563423.Edwards, T., de Winton, M. and Clayton, J. 2010. Assessment of the ecologicalcondition of the lakes in the Waikato Region using LakeSPI - 2010. EnvironmentWaikato Technical Report 2010/14. Hamilton, New Zealand.Hamilton D. Personal communication Sept 2009. Environment Waikato file note.Journeaux P 2009. Terms of reference for Cost Benefit Analysis of reducing nutrientinflows into the Waikato River. Document 1577677.Leathwick J, Julian K 2009. Identification of high value rivers and streams in theWaikato Region: Final Report. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2009/05.Ledgard S, Power I. Nitrogen and Phosphorus losses from ‘average’ Waikato farms towaterways as affected by best or potential management practices. EnvironmentWaikato Technical Report 2006/37. Document 1095998.Longhurst R, Smeaton D. July 2008. Improving Nutrient efficiency through integratedcatchment management in Little Waipa and Waipapa. Reporting summary for UpperWaikato Catchment Project. Environment Waikato Technical report 2008/39.Mc Donald G, Smith N. 2008. Upper Waikato Catchment Futures Model. WaikatoRegional Council Technical Report. Document number 1463486.Neilson K 2010. High priority shallow lakes for special consideration in the RegionalPolicy Statement. Internal memorandum. Document 1693725.Matthews Y 2010. Riparian management cost scenarios. Internal Environment Waikatomemorandum.McKergow L, Tanner C, Monaghan R and Anderson G. 2007. Stocktake of diffusepollution attenuation tools for New Zealand Pastoral farming systems. NIWA clientreport to Pastoral 21 Research Consortium.Ministry for the Environment 2010. Report and Recommendations of the Board ofInquiry into the Proposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.Ministry for the Environment 2010. Regional Council practice for setting and measuringRMA-based limits for fresh water flows and quality. National Summary Report preparedby SKM.Doc # 1451856 8-63

Office of Treaty Settlements. Waikato River Settlement Summary in: www.ots.govt.nzaccessed 7 July 2010.Pannell D J 2004. Heathens in the chapel? Economics and the conservation of nativebiodiversity. Pacific Conservation Biology Vol 10: 88-105.Patterson M, Cole A. 1999. Estimation of the Value of Ecosystem Services in theWaikato Region. Environment Waikato Internal Series 1999/02.Phillips Y 2008. Waikato Economic model - Report to Environment Committee.Document number 1475023.Ritchie H 2000. Good farm management? A review of hill country resourcemanagement issues in the Waikato Region (full report). Waikato Regional Councilpublished document. Document 645897.Ritchie H 2008. On farm Nutrient Management Practice - Research and Applicability toUpper Waikato. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/42. Document number1232279.Ritchie H 2009. Diffuse Effects of Rural Land Use on Soil and Water in WaikatoRegion. Report prepared for Waikato Regional Council. Document number 1534337.Ritchie H 2009a. Briefing summary - Diffuse Effects of Rural Land Use on Soil andWater in Waikato Region. Report prepared for Waikato Regional Council. Documentnumber 1536831.Ritchie H 2010. Faecal contamination of rural Waikato waterways – sources, survival,transport and mitigation opportunities. Draft Report prepared for Waikato RegionalCouncil. Document number 1712589.Sandman, P M, Miller P M, Johnson B B, Weinstein N D 1993. Agencycommunication, community outrage, and perception of risk: three simulationexperiments. Risk Analysis 13 (6), 585-598.Sinner J, Ritchie H, Pawson M. August 2008. Towards sustainable agriculture in theWaikato, a review of Environment Waikato’s policies and programmes. CawthronReport No 1510 prepared for Environment Waikato Document 1354872.Storey R 2010. Riparian characteristics of pastoral streams in the Waikato Region.Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/07.Vant B 2008. Effect of land use on water quality in the Upper Waikato River. Internalmemorandum. Document 112388.Vant B 2008. Trends in River Water Quality in the Waikato Region 1987-2007.Environment Waikato Technical Report 2008/33.Vant B 2009. E coli in freshwaters: compliance with guidelines. Internal memorandum.Document 1454584.Vant WN 2010: Water quality. In: Collier KC, Hamilton DP, Vant WN, Howard-WilliamsC eds. The Waters of the Waikato: ecology of New Zealand's longest river.Environment Waikato and University of Waikato, Hamilton. pp. 93-114 (in prep).Vink K 2008. Industry Self Management of the impacts of Pastoral farming on Land andWater Quality. Internal Memorandum July 2008. Document 1462229.8-64 Doc # 1451856

Waikato Regional Council 2004. Characteristics of High Value Water Bodies in theWaikato Region. Environment Waikato Internal series 2004/04. Document 898939.Waikato Regional Council 2007. Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions 2006- A survey of residents of the Waikato Region. Environment Waikato Technical Report2007/06. Document 1138482.Waikato Regional Council July 2008. The Condition of Rural Water and Soil in theWaikato Region – Risks and Opportunities.Waikato Regional Council 2008. Permitted Activity Monitoring (excluding dairy effluent).Report to Regulatory Committee. Document number 1357692.Waikato Regional Council 2009. Waikato Economic Report 2009. Technical Report2009/26. Document number 1511248.Waikato Regional Council 2002. Waikato River catchment Services “ProjectWatershed” – Level of Service and Funding Policy. June 2002. Document 752002.Wildland Consultants Ltd. 2009. Scoring and ranking of lake ecosystems in theWaikato region for biodiversity management: final report. Report No. 2091a. Rotorua,New Zealand.Young J, Kaine G 2010. Application of the Policy Choice framework to Lake TaupoCatchment. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/ Document 1379466.Doc # 1451856 8-65

9 Geothermal9.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods9.1.1 Objective 3.16 GeothermalCosts of policy developmentThe geothermal policy has been reviewed in recent years, and accurate figures on thecost to Waikato Regional Council of development of the policy are available. The totalcost of staff time, technical expert fees, legal representation, travel, accommodationand administration was $1.5 million. Confidential indicative figures from some of thefive major submitters in the process indicate that approximately $7.5 million was spentby all other parties. This does not include the cost to the taxpayer of the operation ofthe Environment Court and High Court.These costings have been used to estimate the cost of developing new policiescompared to retaining the existing policy direction. In the cost/benefit analysis below,the overall estimated cost of $9 million has been apportioned according to the knownresources directed by parties to the development of individual existing policies.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of the relationship oftāngata whenua with geothermal resources.Policy OptionPolicy option 1a:Retain the policydirection of existing3.7.2 Policy One in theoperative RPS ensuringprotection of geothermalcharacteristics valuedby tāngata whenua.Tāngata WhenuaRMA s32 testEffectivenessIn the operative RPS 2000, 3.7.2 Policy One recognises andprovides for the ahi kaa relationship of tāngata whenua with, andtheir role as kaitiaki of, geothermal resources. It achieves Objective3.16 by protecting geothermal characteristics valued by tāngatawhenua. It also contributes to Objectives 3.2, 3.8 and 3.17.The methods implement the policy by requiring Waikato RegionalCouncil to consult with tāngata whenua, engage in activemanagement of valued geothermal features and supportmanagement plans. They also require implementation throughregional plans, district plans and resource consents.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: a continuing ability for tāngata whenua to be involved inprotection of geothermal features valued by them; a continuing protection of Significant Geothermal Featuresgenerally; a net improvement in the condition of geothermal features in theregion.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Council andtāngata whenua having the resources to engage in consultation, andon Waikato Regional Council having the resources and appropriateprocedures to implement the objective and policy through education,provision of assistance to care groups, input to district plans andresource consent decision making, and regulatory and enforcementactions.Doc # 1451856 9-1

An absence of these resources can lead to loss of valued features,as can activities undertaken by third parties causing adverse effectson features that are inconsistent with the objective and policy. A lackof resources to undertake education and enforcement can lead topoor compliance, and degradation of features without any mitigation.In addition, tāngata whenua may not choose this mechanism toassist their kaitiaki role.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnsures protection of somespecific characteristics, includingenergy flow, geothermalfeatures, their dependentecosystems and the ecosystemservices they provide. This is alarge benefit as it ensures valuedcharacteristics are retained forfuture generations as, once lost,they may not be able to berestored.Community:Ensures protection ofcharacteristics important totāngata whenua. This is a largebenefit as it ensures valuedcharacteristics are retained forfuture generations.Recognises that Māori have aspecial relationship withgeothermal resources andconsider them taonga. This is alarge benefit as it is a statutoryrequirement under RMA s6.None.Community:Consultation with tāngatawhenua to determine whatcharacteristics are to beprotected can be timeconsumingand may involve anoverall time commitment of 0.1%of a full time staff equivalent.Policy Option 1b:Do not specificallyinclude a policyregarding the ahi kaarelationship of tāngatawhenua withgeothermal resources.Promotes sustainablemanagement. This is a largebenefit as it is a statutoryrequirement under RMA s5.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessThis option would not give certainty to resource users and affectedparties. It could lead to the loss of important cultural characteristicsof the regional geothermal resource. It does not achieve Objective3.16 because it does not address adverse effects on geothermalsurface features. It would not recognise and provide for the mattersspecified in RMA s6(e), nor have regard to kaitiakitanga, and wouldnot take into account the Treaty of Waitangi.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone.This could lead to the loss ofimportant geothermal features9-2 Doc # 1451856

and their dependent ecosystems,with associated biodiversity andecosystem services. This is alarge cost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Community:None.Community:Does not ensure protection ofcharacteristics important totāngata whenua. This is a largecost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientReduces certainty to tāngatawhenua and developers. Thisincreases the need for, and costto, all parties of engagement inresource consent processes byup to $10,000 per application.Tāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $100,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of categorising geothermalsystems into different usage categories.Policy OptionPolicy Option 2a:Retain existing policydirection promotingsustainablemanagement ofgeothermal resourcesincluding by categorisinggeothermal systems intousage categories andidentifying ProtectedGeothermal Systems.Categorising Geothermal SystemsRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe geothermal section of the operative RPS allocates the RegionalGeothermal Resource for different uses. It achieves Objective 3.16by allocating some geothermal systems for protection and others forsustainable uses. It defines some geothermal systems as ProtectedGeothermal Systems. It also contributes to Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.4and 3.9 by allowing some use of geothermal resources for energygeneration and taking an integrated approach to managing theresource.It is implemented by categorising the geothermal systems of theWaikato region into different usage categories based on systemsize, existing uses and the characteristics of the system. Thisenables large-scale usage of systems allocated for development,and protection of Significant Geothermal Features in all other systemtypes.Because this and some other matters dealt elsewhere in thegeothermal section of the operative RPS are fundamental tosustainable management, they can be combined into an overarchingpolicy of sustainable management of the Regional GeothermalResource. In addition to the methods already described in thisoption, the following policies and methods found within variouspolicies of the operative RPS implement this policy:Doc # 1451856 9-3

that geothermal energy and water be used efficiently (3.7.2.1Policy One Method 3, 3.7.2.1 Policy Four Methods 2 & 3, 3.7.2.2Policy One Methods 2 and 3, 3.7.2.3 Policy One Method 6,3.7.2.4 Policy One Method 6, 3.7.2.5 Policy One Methods 2 and3); that the potential for adverse effects arising from the take, use,and discharge of geothermal energy and water be addressed(3.7.2.1 Policy Six Method 2, 3.7.2.2 Policy Four Methods 1, 2and 3); that Waikato Regional Council increase public understandingthrough environmental education and community groups (3.7.3Policy One Methods 6 and 7).The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: a certain and equitable policy framework for sustainablemanagement and lower costs to small users in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems; low regulatory barriers to sustainable large takes in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems and greater small-scale use inDevelopment Geothermal Systems; a net improvement in the condition of geothermal featuresthroughout the region, coupled with provision of energyavailability to future generations and greater uptake of efficienttechnologies.These outcomes are dependent on the availability of sufficientinformation to classify geothermal systems appropriately, availabilityof appropriate technologies at attractive prices, willingness of peopleto take up efficient technologies, and the establishment andimplementation of district plan rules that are compatible with thepolicy. Since the user incurs no rental or purchase price on thegeothermal energy or fluid they extract, efficient use is not promotedthrough a resource price mechanism. Except on a greenfieldsproperty development, co-ordination between incumbents isrequired for group heating schemes to be implemented, and despiteobvious cost efficiencies, people may be reluctant to participate.Property developers have shown little interest to date in establishinggroup heating schemes on new subdivisions.An absence of information can lead to unsustainable development,adverse effects on features or other natural resources, or limits ondevelopment.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures protection of somegeothermal features, theirdependent ecosystems, and theecosystem services theyprovide. This is a large value as,once lost, the characteristicsoften cannot be recovered.Energy extraction inDevelopment GeothermalSystems enabled, providingaccess to low air-emissionelectricity and process heat,worth up to $71 million per yearEnvironmental:CostsLeads to loss of less-valuedfeatures in developmentsystems. Small cost as this lossshould be mitigated.Access to low air-emissionenergy for electricity andprocess heat in other systemtypes prevented, excludingaccess to $57 million per year inreduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone.9-4 Doc # 1451856

in reduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone(Denne 2007).Community:Energy extraction inDevelopment Systems enabled,worth up to $160 million per yearfor electricity generators.Provides for all usage typesincluding energy, tourism,cultural and passive uses. Thisis a large benefit, allowing foremployment and regionalincome generation throughtourism and direct uses.Geothermal tourism is worthapproximately $110 million peryear to the regional economy.Community:Energy extraction in othersystem types prevented, with anopportunity cost of up to $130million per year for electricitygenerators.Provides certainty to resourceusers. This is a medium benefit,reducing the cost of making,processing, and contestingconsent applications.Policy Option 2b:Do not promotesustainablemanagement ofgeothermal resourcesand do not dividegeothermal systems intousage categories.Provides flexibility, allowing forchange of system identificationthrough plan or policy change.This is a medium benefitreducing the cost of applying forresource consents.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessThis policy direction would not give any guidance on whichgeothermal systems are best used for conservation or extractiveuses. It would lead to ad hoc decision making. This could lead touncertainty and extra costs for users of the land. It does notachieve Objective 3.16 because it could lead to the loss of importantcharacteristics of the Regional Geothermal Resource. It would notaddress adverse effects on geothermal surface features. Thisoption is unsupportable as the resulting issues such as allocation ofthe Regional Geothermal Resource are unsolvable within theframework of a resource consent hearing. It undermines thesustainable management of the geothermal resource.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:Energy extraction in allgeothermal systems enabled,providing access to up to 81%more low air-emission electricityand process heat, worth anadditional $57 million per year inreduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone..Community:Valued geothermal features andtheir dependent ecosystems,with associated biodiversity andecosystem services, will be lost.This is a large cost, as once lost,the characteristics often cannotbe recovered.Community:Doc # 1451856 9-5

Geothermal extraction in allgeothermal systems could beenabled, potentially resulting inan additional $130 million peryear for developers.Valued geothermal features andtheir dependent ecosystems willbe lost. Consequent depletion orloss of the $110 milliongeothermal tourism industry.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientCould lead to prematuredepletion of geothermalresources over the course of onegeneration, with subsequentgenerations having less accessto energy. Large cost.Environmental effects have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis without the benefit of apolicy direction. Likely toincrease consent processingcosts up to $1 million for eachapplication for a large-scaletake.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,developers and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$500,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated regarding managing the effects ofother uses of land and water on sustainable use of geothermal resources.Policy OptionPolicy Option 3a:Retain existing policydirection to regulateuses of land and waterto ensure compatibilitywith sustainablegeothermalmanagement.Effects of use of land and water on Geothermal ResourcesRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.3 Policy Two in the operative RPS achievesObjective 3.16 by ensuring that development and use of land or nongeothermalwater within geothermal systems are compatible with thepurpose for which each geothermal system is classified. This alsocontributes to Objectives 3.1 and 3.2.The method implements the policy by promoting the preparation ofgrowth management strategies and other policy directions to ensurecompatibility.Because this matter is fundamental to sustainable management, itcan be combined with the policy on classification of geothermalsystems into an overarching policy of sustainable management of theRegional Geothermal Resource. In addition to the methods alreadydescribed in this option and Option 3, the following policies andmethods found within various policies of the geothermal section ofthe operative RPS implement this policy:9-6 Doc # 1451856

that Waikato Regional Council increase public understandingthrough environmental education and community groups (3.7.3Policy One Methods 6 and 7); that the use of land and non-geothermal water is compatible withthe management regime for each geothermal system (3.7.3 PolicyTwo); that Waikato Regional Council encourage landowners withgeothermal features to protect them (3.7.3 Policy One Method 5); that Waikato Regional Council promote the use of growthmanagement strategies to address effects on geothermalresources (3.7.3 Policy Two Method 1).The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: greater input by Waikato Regional Council into district planning; no loss in accessibility of geothermal resources arising fromincompatible land uses; increased sustainability of geothermal resource use.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Council havingsufficient internal resources to ensure implementation of the policy byitself and territorial authorities. A lack of resources to undertakepolicy development, implementation, education and enforcement canlead to poor compliance, degradation of features without anymitigation, and reduced ability to access geothermal energy and fluid.Uptake of efficient technology is dependent partly on the availabilityof price-competitive down-hole heat exchangers and otherinnovations.Due to the high initial cost of down-hole heat exchanger technology,the uptake of this technology is currently low.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnergy extraction inDevelopment GeothermalSystems protected, providingaccess to low air-emissionelectricity and process heat,worth up to $71 million a year inreduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone.Community:Energy extraction inDevelopment GeothermalSystems protected, worth up to$160 million per year forelectricity generators.Environmental:CostsEnables use of DevelopmentGeothermal Systems for energyproduction, resulting in somedegradation of characteristics.This is a small cost, as adverseeffects are to be remedied ormitigated.Community:Restricts some uses of naturaland physical resources. This is asmall cost because all of theactivities it restricts can occurelsewhere.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 3b:Provide no policydirection regardingcompatibility betweengeothermal resourceEffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportcompatibility between geothermal resources and other uses of landand water.Summary of effectiveness: LowDoc # 1451856 9-7

use and other uses ofland and water.Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsCould lead to DevelopmentGeothermal Systems not beingavailable for development,thereby protecting their featuresfrom extractive uses. This is asmall benefit because onDevelopment GeothermalSystems, adverse effects fromdevelopment have to remediedor mitigated anyway.Community:Enables the community to benefitfrom other uses of land andwater overlying geothermalsystems. This is a low-valuebenefit, as all the activities couldoccur elsewhere.Can lead to adverse effects suchas loss of highly valued features,as environmental effects have tobe assessed on a case-by-casebasis.Restricts large-scaledevelopment, resulting in greaterair emissions from the use offossil fuels. This is a large cost,up to $71 million per year fromelectricity generation alone(Denne, 2007).Community:Reduces certainty tocommunities living in geothermalsystems, developers, and usersof other physical and naturalresources. This increases theneed for, and cost to, all partiesof engagement in resourceconsent processes by to$100,000 per application.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientExisting and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,developers and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$500,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated regarding information requirementsfor sustainably managing the Regional Geothermal Resource.Sustainable Management of Geothermal ResourcesPolicy OptionPolicy Option 4a:Retain existing policydirection regardinginformationrequirements forsustainably managingthe RegionalGeothermal Resource.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.4 Policy One in the operative RPS achievesObjective 3.16 by promoting increased knowledge andunderstanding of the Regional Geothermal Resource. This policydirection is fundamental to the sustainable management ofgeothermal resources, and rather than retaining it as a separatepolicy, its methods can be reorganised and included in the methodsfor the suggested new policy on sustainable management describedabove.The suggested methods to be included here are: that Waikato Regional Council undertake and encourage researchand the provision of publicly available information (3.7.4 PolicyOne Methods 1, 4 and 7);9-8 Doc # 1451856

that Waikato Regional Council require consent holders to provideinformation on the effects of their activities on the geothermalresource (3.7.4 Policy One Methods 2 and 3); that Waikato Regional Council increase public understandingthrough environmental education and community groups (3.7.4Policy One Method 8).These methods implement the policy by facilitating obtaining andproviding public access to the results of research and monitoringobtained by Waikato Regional Council, resource consent applicantsand holders, and other parties.A method that directs regional plans to define large-scale takes isalso considered appropriate for sustainable management of theRegional Geothermal Resource.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: improved amount and quality of information about the undisturbedstate of the Regional Geothermal Resource and the effects ofdevelopment; improved public understanding about the Regional GeothermalResource and its characteristics.These outcomes are dependent on effective policy implementationby Waikato Regional Council, the Ministry for the EnvironmentEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Environment Courtduring the resource consent application process; effectiveenforcement of non-compliant consent-holders; adequate funding ofpublic awareness campaigns; and adequate funding by centralgovernment of independent research.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Improved information availabilitycan lead to better protection ofthe environment through policydevelopment and mitigationactions. This is a large benefit.Community:Ensures adequacy of informationto sustainably manage theRegional Geothermal Resource.Makes data publicly available,avoiding need for duplicatestudies.Puts the cost of monitoring largescaleactivities on the users.Enables public scrutiny ofresults.Will lead to greater publicawareness of the value ofCostsEnvironmental:Greater scrutiny of adverseeffects may lead to greatercontrol on developments thatcause adverse effects, leading toincreased air discharges fromalternative fuel sources. This isa medium cost.Community:Will prevent developers treatinginformation about the resourceand the effects of their use of itas a commercial asset. Thisrepresents a large cost todevelopers.Greater scrutiny of adverseeffects may lead to greatercontrol on developments thatcause adverse effects, reducingprofits for developers. Mediumcost.Greater monitoring andinformation management costsDoc # 1451856 9-9

geothermal resources and theeffects of development.for developers and councils.Medium cost.Encourages scientific andtechnical skills.Promotes efficient use of theresource.Underpins improved policymaking,allowing some lowimpactactivities to be permitted.All these benefits amount to alarge value.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 4b:Provide no policyguidance regardingmanaging informationabout the RegionalGeothermal Resource.EffectivenessThis option does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would notsupport increased knowledge and understanding of geothermalresources.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:NoneCostsEnvironmental:Can lead to adverse effects ongeothermal energy production,geothermal features, and othernatural and physical resourcesgoing unnoticed. Potentially avery large cost.Community:Reduces certainty tocommunities living in geothermalsystems, developers, and usersof other physical and naturalresources. This increases theneed for, and cost to, all partiesof engagement in resourceconsent processes by up to$100,000 per application.Will increase costs to WaikatoRegional Council and others,who may have to do their ownresearch to discover informationthat already exists in privatehands. Large cost.Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authoritiesand/or those concerned aboutsustainability or public safety,researchers are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs of9-10 Doc # 1451856

up to $200,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of protection of geothermalfeatures:Policy OptionPolicy Option 5a:Retain existing policydirection recognisingsome geothermalfeature types asSignificant GeothermalFeatures and requiringdifferent levels ofprotection ofgeothermal features ina range of situations.Protection of Geothermal FeaturesRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2 Policy Two in the operative RPS recognises somegeothermal features as Significant Geothermal Features. PolicyThree allocates the Regional Geothermal Resource so that, amongother things, some geothermal features are protected. In the policysub-section for each geothermal system type, there are policiesrelating to the management of the effect of geothermal takes anddischarges on geothermal features in that system type. In addition,3.7.3 Policy One addresses effects of uses of land and nongeothermalwater on Significant Geothermal Features.This policy direction can be combined into one policy that recognisessome geothermal feature types as Significant Geothermal Features,and protects them.It achieves Objective 3.16 by assisting appropriate allocation of somecharacteristics of the Regional Geothermal Resource for protection,and by assisting protection of some geothermal resources whileallowing extractive use of others. This policy option also supportsObjectives 3.2, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.20.The methods set out the management regime for SignificantGeothermal Features in each geothermal system type, and requireregional plans to map them in Development Geothermal Systemsand Limited Development Geothermal Systems.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: provision of clear guidelines to determine Significant GeothermalFeatures; increased statutory protection for valued geothermal features; a net improvement in the condition of geothermal featuresthroughout the region.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Council havingavailable staff, financial and other resources and appropriateprocedures to implement the objective and policy through education,provision of assistance to care groups, input to district plans,resource consent decision making, advocacy to the EPA andEnvironment Court consenting processes, and regulatory andenforcement actions.An absence of these resources can lead to loss of valued features,as can third-party adverse effects on features that are inconsistentwith the objective and policy. A lack of resources to undertakeeducation and enforcement can lead to poor compliance, anddegradation of features without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighDoc # 1451856 9-11

EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures protection of rare andvulnerable geothermal features,their dependent ecosystems, andthe ecosystem services theyprovide. This is a large benefitas, once lost, they may not beable to be restored.Community:Provides clear guidelines of whatis a Significant GeothermalFeature, based on scientificprinciples. This providescertainty for users, reducingcosts of policy compliance,saving users up to $50,000 peryear in independent research foreach site. This figure is basedon a proportion of the amountthat Waikato Regional Councilspends on research into thecharacteristics of geothermalfeatures annually.Environmental:CostsFeatures not consideredsignificant will have a lower levelof protection. This is a smallcost, as many such features arenot valued by the community andprovide no discernable benefit.Community:Some uses of some geothermalresources and other naturalresources will be prevented.This is a small cost, as all ofthese activities can beundertaken elsewhere in theregion.Waikato Regional Council willface compliance monitoring costsof approximately 0.1 fulltimeequivalent staff.Allows for culturally significantfeatures, ensuring valuedfeatures are protected foremployment-generating usessuch as tourism. This is a largebenefit.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 5b:Protect all geothermalfeatures andecosystems.EffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could require that all existing geothermalfeatures and ecosystems be protected, by prohibiting all activitiesthat cause or may cause adverse effects on them, and by ensuringthat measures are taken to improve the health of the geothermalfeatures and ecosystems. Methods that flow from this policy wouldbe to redefine Development Geothermal Systems as LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems. Although this would preventadverse effects occurring, it does not achieve Objective 3.16because it would also prevent almost all uses of the geothermalresource. Several feature types exist that are neither comparativelyrare nor vulnerable, and that do not have a high degree of intrinsic orcultural value.While such a policy would maintain the extent and variety ofgeothermal features in the region, this would be dependent on highercosts of implementing the policy. These costs would include publiceducation and compliance monitoring and enforcement. Councilresources are already constrained in these areas. Therefore, thepolicy is unlikely to be adequately implemented.Defence of the policy through the policy development process wouldbe costly as stakeholders wishing to use geothermal energy for otherpurposes would vigorously argue for the status quo.9-12 Doc # 1451856

This policy would severely limit the amount of electricity that could besourced from geothermal resources, and would be likely to lead tocentral government intervention, possibly at a national level, throughlegislation either amending or over-riding the RMA.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnsures protection of allgeothermal features, theirdependent ecosystems, and theecosystem services they provide.This is a large benefit as oncelost, they may not be able to berestored.Restricts large-scaledevelopment, resulting in greaterair emissions from the use offossil fuels. This is a large cost,up to $71 million per year(Denne, 2007).Community:Ensures protection of amenityand scientific values of allfeatures. This benefit is large asit ensures valued characteristicsare retained for futuregenerations. Once lost, theymay not be able to be restored.Provides certainty to resourceusers regarding what effects mayor may not occur. This is a smallbenefit.Community:Energy extraction inDevelopment Systems restricted,with an opportunity cost of up to$160 million a year for electricitygenerators.The regional community wouldface moderate compliance costs,as there would be some smalluses that would no longer beallowed.Waikato Regional Council wouldface increased compliancemonitoring requirementsestimated to be serviced by a 0.2fulltime staff equivalent.People wanting to ensureavailability of geothermal energyand water or use of landsurrounding geothermal featuresare likely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $2 million falling onthe challengers and ratepayers.Policy Option 5c:Do not protectgeothermal features.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessSuch a policy would enable destructive uses of all geothermalsystem types. Implementation methods would include defining allgeothermal system types as Development Geothermal Systems, butwith no requirement to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects ongeothermal features.This would lead to the loss of important characteristics of the regionalgeothermal resource. It does not achieve Objective 3.16 because itdoes not address adverse effects on geothermal surface features. Itdoes not take into account RMA Part II matters. This option isDoc # 1451856 9-13

unsupportable, as the resulting region-wide issues are unsolvablewithin the framework of a resource consent hearing. It underminesthe sustainable management of the regional geothermal resource.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnergy extraction in all geothermalsystems enabled, providing accessto up to 81% more low air-emissionelectricity and process heat, worthan additional $57 million per year inreduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone.Community:Energy extraction in other systemtypes may be enabled, potentiallyworth up to $130 million per year forelectricity generators.Environmental:CostsValued geothermal featuresand their dependentecosystems, with associatedbiodiversity and ecosystemservices, will be lost. This is alarge cost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannotbe recovered.Community:Valued geothermal featuresand their amenity andscientific values will be lost.Consequent depletion or lossof the $110 million geothermaltourism industry.Reduces certainty tocommunities living ingeothermal systems anddevelopers. This is a mediumcost, as it increases the needfor, and cost to, all parties ofengagement in resourceconsent processes.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,territorial authorities,recreational users, tourismoperators, tāngata whenuaand other parties are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costsof up to $2 million falling onthe challengers andratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9-14 Doc # 1451856

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated regarding the effects of nongeothermaluses of land and water on Significant Geothermal Features.Effects of other activities on Significant Geothermal FeaturesPolicy OptionPolicy Option 6a: Retainexisting policy directionto regulate uses of landand water to ensure nosignificant adverseeffects on SignificantGeothermal Features.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.3 Policy One in the operative RPS ensures thatuses of land and non-geothermal water have no more than minoradverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features. It achievesObjective 3.16, which requires protection of Significant GeothermalFeatures from uses of other natural and physical resources. It canbe combined into the new policy described in Option 1 (above)about managing the effect on Significant Geothermal Featuresfrom use of both geothermal and other natural and physicalresources. This also supports Objectives 3.2, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.20.The methods implement the policy by providing mechanisms forregional plans and district lands to protect Significant GeothermalFeatures, and ensuring that Waikato Regional Council’s own worksdo not damage or threaten Significant Geothermal Features.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: greater public understanding of the characteristics ofSignificant Geothermal Features; a reduction in land uses that presently reduce the extent andquality of Significant Geothermal Features; no new activities that cause adverse effects.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving available staff, the financial and other resources andappropriate procedures to implement the objective and policythrough education, provision of assistance to care groups, input todistrict plans, resource consent decision-making, advocacy to EPAand Environment Court consenting processes, and regulatory andenforcement actions.They are also dependent on third parties not adversely affectingfeatures.An absence of internal resources and processes to implement thepolicy will lead to poor compliance and disregard for the policy,with degradation of Significant Geothermal Features without anymitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures protection ofgeothermal features, theirdependent ecosystems, and theecosystem services theyprovide. This benefit is largeas, once lost, they may not beable to be restored.EfficiencyEnvironmental:None.CostsCommunity:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This benefit isCommunity:Restricts some uses ofgeothermal features andsurrounding natural andDoc # 1451856 9-15

large as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered. Protects thegeothermal tourism industry,worth an estimated $110 millionper year.physical resources. This is asmall cost as there are notmany uses affected, and theycan all be relocated.Landowners incur costs offencing and weed control. Thisis a small cost because of thesmall amount of land involved,and because fencing and weedcontrol have to be done anywayto protect stock and reduceweed invasion of productiveland.Waikato Regional Councilwould face increasedcompliance monitoringrequirements estimated to beserviced by a 0.1 fulltime staffequivalent.Policy Option 6b:Include a policy enablingadverse effects onSignificant GeothermalFeatures from uses ofland and water.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could choose to not protect the naturalgeothermal characteristics and the natural flow of geothermalwater in geothermal systems. This would lead to degradation ofthe geothermal resource, which is inconsistent with Objective 3.16.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:None.Community:Provides up to 500 hectaresmore land in the Waikato regionfor uses such subdivision,farming, and forestry. This is asmall benefit because of thesmall amount of land involved,and because much of it isunsuitable for most uses due toits geothermal character.Will lead to adverse effects onsurface features. This is a largecost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Community:Will lead to adverse effects onbenign uses of geothermalfeatures such as tourism. Thisis a medium cost as not allcharacteristics of geothermalfeatures will be affected, andsome landowners will stillprotect their features.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing users of features,and/or tāngata whenua arelikely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $150,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.9-16 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option 6c:Provide no policydirection regarding theprotection of SignificantGeothermal Featuresfrom the adverse effectsof uses of land andwater.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.The purpose of the Significant Geothermal Feature category is toensure protection of highly valued geothermal features and theirdependent ecosystems.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:None.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Can lead to adverse effects, asenvironmental effects have tobe assessed on a case-by-casebasis without the benefit of apolicy direction.Community:Reduces certainty. Adverseeffects of activities have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis without the benefit of apolicy direction. These costscan amount to $100,000 fordevelopers and the regionalcommunity per application.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing users of features,and/or tāngata whenua arelikely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $150,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of protecting SignificantGeothermal Features in Protected Geothermal Systems.Policy OptionSignificant Geothermal Features in Protected Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 7a:Retain existing policydirection for Protectionof SignificantGeothermal Features inProtected, Researchand Small GeothermalSystems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.3 Policy One, 3.7.2.4 Policy One and 3.7.2.5Policy One in the operative RPS require protection of SignificantGeothermal Features in Research, Protected, and SmallGeothermal Systems from adverse effects of the take, use anddischarge of geothermal energy and water. They achieve Objective3.16 by preventing adverse effects on Significant GeothermalFeatures in Research, Protected, and Small Geothermal Systems.This policy direction can be combined into the new policy describedDoc # 1451856 9-17

in Option 1 (above) regarding managing the effect on SignificantGeothermal Features from use of both geothermal and other naturaland physical resources.Some of the methods of the operative policies implement thepolicies by providing mechanisms to identify Significant GeothermalFeatures, protect geothermal ecosystems, and seek remediation ofpast adverse effects.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: increased protection of Significant Geothermal Features; increased protection of geothermal tourism resources; increased awareness and appreciation of geothermalecosystems.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving sufficient internal resources to ensure implementation of thepolicy by itself and territorial authorities, and on third parties notadversely affecting features. A lack of resources to undertakeeducation and enforcement can lead to poor compliance, anddegradation of features without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures adverse effects areavoided. This benefit is largeas, once lost, the characteristicsoften cannot be recovered.Community:CostsEnvironmental:None.Community:Policy Option 7b:Prohibit all extractiveuses in Protected,Research and SmallGeothermal Systems.Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This is a largebenefit because it providesprotection for the geothermaltourism industry.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessRestricts some uses ofgeothermal features andsurrounding natural and physicalresources. This is a low-valuecost as the activities restrictedcan occur elsewhere or withother energy and water sources.Waikato Regional Council could prohibit all uses of geothermalresources within Protected, Research and Small GeothermalSystems. This does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it wouldnot allow for benign uses such as scientific investigation leading togreater knowledge of the system, existing uses that have noapparent adverse effects, and new uses that are unlikely to haveadverse effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures significant adverseEnvironmental:None.Costs9-18 Doc # 1451856

effects are avoided. This benefitis large as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This is a largebenefit, because it providesprotection for the geothermaltourism industry.Community:Restricts research. This is alarge cost as it would not enableResearch Systems to bereclassified as Development.Restricts existing small takesand new benign uses. This is amedium cost, as it includes oneor two employment-generatingoperations.Existing users of features,researchers and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$70,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientPolicy Option 7c:Provide no policydirection recognisingand protectingSignificant GeothermalFeatures in Protected,Research and SmallGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the regional geothermal resource. Thepurpose of the Protected System category is to ensure protection ofhighly-valued geothermal features and their dependent ecosystems.The purpose of the Research System category is to ensureprotection of potentially vulnerable highly-valued geothermalfeatures and their dependent ecosystems until enough is knownabout the geothermal system to determine whether some otheruses can be enabled. The purpose of the Small System category isto enable appropriately-sized small uses while ensuring protectionof any highly-valued geothermal features and their dependentecosystems. Some people may want to undertake activities thatcould lead to significant adverse effects on Significant GeothermalFeatures. A lack of policy direction could lead to such effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Environmental:CostsEnvironmental effects have tobe assessed on a case-by-casebasis with no policy guidance,potentially leading to poor andad hoc decision making withlower protection of features insome cases. This is a large costas, once lost, the characteristicsoften cannot be recovered.Doc # 1451856 9-19

Community:None.Community:Reduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures. Environmental effectsof new activities have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis, without the benefit of apolicy direction. This increasesconsent processing costs by upto $10,000.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientDegradation or loss of featureswill result in large costs tocommercial tourism operatorsand the regional economy.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing users of features, and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $70,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management ofSignificant Geothermal Features in Development Geothermal Systems.Significant Geothermal Features in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 8a:Retain existing policydirection regardingSignificant GeothermalFeatures inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.1 Policy Five in the operative RPS allows for useof geothermal fluid and provides guidance on avoiding, remedyingor mitigating adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features,including such measures as remediation or protection of SignificantGeothermal Features in Protected, Limited Development andResearch Geothermal Systems. It achieves Objective 3.16 byenabling the effects of large-scale extractive uses to be remediedor mitigated, rather than avoided, which would prevent large-scaletakes.In the operative RPS, Method 1 requires the Waikato Regional Planto map Significant Geothermal Features in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems, which provides certainty to developers as towhat the features are and what their boundaries are. Method 2enables Waikato Regional Council, through the consents process,to require all applicants to consider appropriate mitigationmeasures for the activity they are proposing to undertake, insituations where the adverse effects cannot otherwise be avoidedor remedied.This policy direction can be combined into a policy regardingmanagement of effects on Significant Geothermal Features asdescribed in Policy Option 1 (Protection of Geothermal Features).The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be:9-20 Doc # 1451856

continued protection of Significant Geothermal Features inDevelopment Geothermal Systems; better protection of Significant Geothermal Features in othersystem types; a net improvement in the condition of geothermal featuresthroughout the region.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving sufficient staff and other resources to ensure that theregional plan maps are updated as changes occur to features andbetter information on features is obtained, and on other unrelatedfactors such as third parties not adversely affecting features. Theyare also dependent on Waikato Regional Council having theresources and appropriate procedures to implement the objectiveand policy through education, provision of assistance to caregroups, input to district plans and resource consent decisionmaking,advocacy to EPA and Environment Court consentingprocesses, and regulatory and enforcement actions.Budget constraints have already led to postponement of some mapvariations. This can lead to valued features not being protected. Alack of resources to undertake education and enforcement can leadto poor compliance, and degradation of features without anymitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures that adverse effects areremedied or mitigated. Thisbenefit is large as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered. Mitigation byconsent holders can amount toseveral million dollars per yearbeing spent on environmentalmitigation and research.Community:Provides certainty to thecommunity that adverse effectswill be remedied or mitigated.Mitigation by consent holderscan amount to several milliondollars per year being spent onenvironmental mitigation andresearch.Environmental:CostsAccepts that there will beadverse effects on geothermalfeatures. This is a small cost,as it is offset by mitigationmeasures.Some features that meet thecriteria for SignificantGeothermal Features will bemissed from maps. This is amedium cost. Although, oncelost, the characteristics oftencannot be recovered, thelikelihood of adverse effects onfeatures is low.Community:Can lead to adverse effects onfeatures valued by thecommunity. This is a small cost,as it is offset by mitigationmeasures.Maps of features requireconstant updating to reflectnatural and induced changes,an estimated cost of 0.1%equivalent fulltime staffcomponent.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientDoc # 1451856 9-21

Policy Option 8b:Provide no policydirection regardingSignificant GeothermalFeatures inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would lead touncertainty for developers, as they could be required through theresource consent process to have no effect on particular surfacefeatures. This could lead to severe limitations on extractive uses,as it is recognised that large-scale extraction can affect geothermalfeatures. On the other hand, it could lead to the adverse effects onfeatures not being recognised and not being avoided, remedied ormitigated.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsCan lead to greater protection ofSignificant Geothermal Featuresin Development GeothermalSystems, as protection offeatures is based on ad hocdecisions. This has mediumvalue as the features are not themost vulnerable but, once lost,their characteristics often cannotbe recovered.Community:Can lead to greater protection ofSignificant Geothermal Featuresin Development GeothermalSystems, as protection offeatures is based on ad hocdecisions. This has mediumvalue as the features are not themost vulnerable but once lost,their characteristics often cannotbe recovered.Developers of land and energymay not have to mitigate theiradverse effects, saving eachpower station up to severalmillion dollars in mitigation, andup to $100,000 in consentapplication and monitoringcosts. This benefit is potentiallylarge.Can lead to adverse effects ongeothermal features asprotection of features is basedon ad hoc decisions. This is alarge cost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.If features are protected it maylead to increased use of fossilfuel and its environmental costs.This is potentially a large cost.If all takes were eliminated, thecost could be up to $71 millionper year (Denne, 2007).Community:Reduces certainty for thecommunity, and for developers,leading to higher costs forconsent application engagementand processing. These costscan amount to $100,000.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing users of features,developers and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$300,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9-22 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option 8c:Allow destruction ofSignificant GeothermalFeatures inDevelopmentGeothermal Systemswith no mitigation.EffectivenessThis would not support sustainable management of the geothermalresource and other natural and physical resources. It does notachieve Objective 3.16 because it does not enable remediation ormitigation of adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features.In Development Geothermal Systems, Significant GeothermalFeatures would have no protection, and any land use or use ofgeothermal fluid would be able to affect or destroy features that arevalued by the community. The adverse effects of those uses wouldfall on the community rather than on the person causing the effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.Community:BenefitsDevelopers of land and energywill not have to mitigate theiradverse effects, saving themup to several million dollars inmitigation, and up to $100,000in consent application andmonitoring costs. This benefitis large.Environmental:CostsGeothermal features will bedestroyed with no mitigation.This is a large cost as, once lost,the characteristics often cannotbe recovered.Community:The amenity, scientific andcultural values of geothermalfeatures will be lost. This is alarge cost as, once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Conservation groups, Departmentof Conservation, existing users offeatures, developers and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $300,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of protecting SignificantGeothermal Features in Limited Development Geothermal Systems.Significant Geothermal Features in Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 9a:Retain existing policydirection for protectionof SignificantGeothermal Features inLimited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.2 Policy Two in the operative RPS restricts takesand discharges in Limited Development Geothermal Systems toensure that there are no cumulative adverse effects on SignificantGeothermal Features. It achieves Objective 3.16 by ensuringsustainable management of geothermal resources in LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Doc # 1451856 9-23

The methods require the Waikato Regional Plan to map SignificantGeothermal Features in Limited Development GeothermalSystems, require remediation or mitigation of adverse effects, andrequire consent holders to monitor the effects of their activities.They enable geothermal takes while avoiding significant adverseeffects, and seek remediation of past adverse effects as mitigationfor adverse effects in Development Geothermal Systems.This policy direction can be combined into a policy regardingmanagement of effects on Significant Geothermal Features asdescribed in Option 1 (above) in respect of protection of geothermalfeatures.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: certainty for developers and the community regarding use ofLimited Development Geothermal Systems and adverse effects; continued prevention of adverse effects in Limited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems arising from development; sustainable use of these systems.Larger scale use of Limited Development Geothermal Systems isdependent on economic factors making extractive uses viable,while the outcomes of this policy are dependent on WaikatoRegional Council having sufficient staff and other resources toensure that the regional plan maps are updated as changes occurto features and better information on features is obtained. They arealso dependent on Waikato Regional Council having the resourcesand appropriate procedures to implement the objective and policythrough education, provision of assistance to care groups, input todistrict plans and resource consent decision-making, advocacy toEPA and Environment Court consenting processes, and regulatoryand enforcement actions.Budget constraints have already led to postponement of some mapvariations. This can lead to features that should be protected notbeing protected. A lack of resources to undertake education andenforcement can lead to poor compliance, and degradation offeatures without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures adverse effects areavoided, remedied, or mitigated.This benefit is large, as oncelost, the characteristics oftencannot be recovered.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This is a mediumvalue, as while there are notmany such uses and they do nothave high economic worth,some have high cultural andtraditional value.Environmental:CostsDoes not protect non-significantfeatures. This is a small cost asthe features are generally not ofhigh environmental value.Community:Restricts some access toenergy, potentially leading toreduction of opportunity fordevelopers. This is a small cost,as there are other geothermalsystems available for energyproduction.9-24 Doc # 1451856

Provides certainty to resourcedevelopers, users of geothermalfeatures, and the regionalcommunity regarding use andmanagement of adverse effects.This is a medium benefit,reducing cost of resourceconsent applications.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 9b:Provide no policydirection regardingSignificant GeothermalFeatures in LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy over an economic plant life of thirty years to maximisefinancial benefits. This could lead to significant adverse effects onSignificant Geothermal Features. One of the fundamentalpurposes of the Limited Development Geothermal Systemclassification is to allow an appropriate degree of development,while ensuring the protection of Significant Geothermal Features.Not having a policy to clearly state that could lead to confusion,poor implementation, and degradation of Significant GeothermalFeatures.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:NoneEnvironmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects ongeothermal features, as protectionof features is based on ad hocdecisions. This is a large cost as,once the features are affected, fullremediation may not be possible.Community:A lack of policy guidance couldlead to serious adverse effects.This is a large cost as, once lost,the characteristics often cannot berecovered.Reduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures, the community, and fordevelopers, leading to higherconsent application costs forextractive uses. These costs canamount to tens of thousands ofdollars.Conservation groups, Departmentof Conservation, existing users offeatures, developers and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs of upto $70,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Doc # 1451856 9-25

Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management ofDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 10a:Retain existing policydirection promotingefficient use andcontrolled depletion inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe operative RPS Section 3.7.2.1 sets out the managementregime for Development Geothermal Systems. Policy One providesfor large-scale takes and discharges, and recognises that there willbe controlled depletion.It achieves Objective 3.16 by striking a balance between providingfor current generations and providing for future generations. Themethods set out the mechanisms for achieving this, through theWaikato Regional Plan and resource consents. This option alsocontributes to Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9 and 3.11.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: greater certainty for developers regarding the regulatoryframework for development; reduced incidence of adverse effects from large-scale extraction; greater certainty in provision of energy availability to futuregenerations.These outcomes are dependent on the provision of sufficientinformation by developers to determine appropriate developmentsteps. They are also dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving the resources and appropriate procedures to implement theobjective and policy through resource consent decision making,advocacy to EPA and Environment Court consenting processes,and regulatory and enforcement actions.An absence of information can lead to unsustainable development,adverse effects on features or other natural resources, or limits ondevelopment. A lack of resources to undertake education andenforcement can lead to poor compliance, and degradation offeatures without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsStrongly promotes avoidance,remediation and mitigation ofadverse environmental effects.This is a large benefit, asenvironmental effects ofgeothermal resource use can besignificant.Environmental:CostsAccepts some adverse effectson geothermal features. This isa small cost, as the developer isrequired to remedy or mitigatethem.9-26 Doc # 1451856

Community:Ensures sustainable energyavailability. This is a largebenefit for current and futuregenerations.Community:Restricts unsustainable accessto energy, potentially leading toshort-term reduction ofopportunity for electricitygenerators in favour ofreasonably foreseeable needs offuture generations. This is asmall cost as it is short term.Does not guarantee energyaccess beyond severalgenerations. This is a small costas it enables the most costeffectiveuse of the resource.May restrict the plans of alandowner or potential developerfor short-term gain. This is asmall cost, as sustainable use ismore profitable in the long run.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 10b:Do not promote efficientuse and controlleddepletion inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy through new or existing plant in the shortest possible time,to maximise financial benefits. This could lead to future generationsbeing less able to provide for their need for energy, includingelectricity.Since the developer incurs no rental or purchase price on thegeothermal energy or fluid they extract, there is no resource pricemechanism to encourage efficient use. In a DevelopmentGeothermal System, where large-scale extraction of geothermalresources is enabled, the constraints of sustainability and efficiencyare required to achieve Objective 3.16.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:None.Environmental:CostsCould lead to serious adverseeffects on geothermal featuresand other natural and physicalresources. This is an enormouscost because it does not requiremitigation or remediation. Mostof these effects cannot bereversed. They includesubsidence and inundation ofland, increased risk ofhydrothermal eruptions, andslope instability.Community:Could lead to serious adverseeffects on people andDoc # 1451856 9-27

infrastructure, includingdecrease in property value andloss of life from hydrothermaleruptions.Leads to large cost to thecommunity of engagement inpolicy development and theresource consent process, likelyto be up to $10 million perapplication.Territorial authorities and othersconcerned with public safety arelikely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $700,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.Does not guarantee energyaccess beyond currentgenerations. This is a large costto future generations.Policy Option 10cRetain existing policydirection for integratedmanagement ofDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThe subsurface nature of geothermal systems means thatknowledge about the system is difficult to obtain. A lack of certaintyhas implications for identifying the effects of using the resource, butalso for the developer to optimise production.The existing 3.7.2.1 Policy Two in the operative RPS requiresSystem Management Plans and Peer Review Panels, and makesprovision for System Liaison Groups. It achieves Objective 3.16 bysetting out the sustainable management regime for DevelopmentGeothermal Systems. It will also contribute to Objective 3.1 throughthe integrated management of resources.The methods set out the mechanisms for achieving this, through theWaikato Regional Plan and resource consents.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: greater involvement by Waikato Regional Council in reservoirmanagement; improved resource information provided by developers; more certainty in provision of energy availability to futuregenerations.These outcomes are dependent on the provision of sufficientinformation by developers to determine appropriate developmentsteps, and on regulatory oversight by Waikato Regional Council,including implementation of the policy through resource consentconditions and advocacy to EPA and Environment Court consentingprocesses.This policy can be combined with the existing 3.7.2.1 Policy One inthe operative RPS to form one policy for sustainable and integratedmanagement of Development Geothermal Systems.9-28 Doc # 1451856

An absence of information can lead to unsustainable development,adverse effects on features or other natural resources, orprecautionary limits on development.Adverse effects of take, use and discharge of the geothermalresource are difficult to assign to one of multiple operators becauseof uncertainty around cause and effect relationships. Avoiding andremedying adverse effects relies on a co-ordinated and integratedapproach and understanding.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Strongly promotes avoidance,remediation and mitigation ofadverse environmental effects.This is a large benefit, asenvironmental effects ofgeothermal resource use can besignificant.Community:Provides certainty to resourceusers regarding sustainable useand minimisation of adverseeffects. Aids clear liability foradverse effects. These aremedium benefits that lower thecost to the community ofengagement in policydevelopment and the resourceconsent process.Environmental:CostsAllowing development leads tosome adverse effects ongeothermal features. This is asmall cost, as these effects areto be remedied or mitigated.Community:Restricts some access toenergy, potentially leading toreduction of opportunity fordevelopers. This is a small cost,because it will result in greateraccess to energy for futuregenerations.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 10d:Do not requireintegrated managementin DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessFailure to require an integrated approach to development within asystem would not support sustainable management of thegeothermal resource. Resource allocation within a system wouldbe guided only by the RMA and not by any regional policy. Thisoption does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it does not promoteintegrated management.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsAllowing unfettered developmentleads to adverse effects onfeatures and other resources.This is a large cost as, once lost,features cannot be recovered.Can result in inundation of landand habitat changes throughsubsidence.Doc # 1451856 9-29

Community:Allows for large-scaledevelopment, possibly resultingin short-term opportunity gainsfor developers. This is a smallbenefit, because it will result inhigher costs later.Community:Does not guarantee energyaccess beyond currentgenerations. This is a large costto future generations.Could lead to serious adverseeffects on people andinfrastructure, includingdecrease in property value andloss of life from hydrothermaleruptions. This is a large cost.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientLeads to large cost to thecommunity of engagement inpolicy development and theresource consent process.Territorial authorities and othersconcerned with sustainability orpublic safety are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $700,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of reinjection/injection inDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Policy OptionPolicy Option 11a:Retain existing policydirection for managingreinjection/injection of usedgeothermal fluid inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Reinjection in Development Geothermal SystemsRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.1 Policy Three in the operative RPS requires aDischarge Strategy, in which most of the used geothermal fluid isreinjected into the geothermal system or injected outside thesystem, while allowing for small surface takes associated withcascaded uses. It achieves Objective 3.16 by ensuring sustainablemanagement, promoting efficiency, and minimising adverse effects.The large-scale take, use and discharge of geothermal energy andwater in a Development Geothermal System can cause adverseeffects, including differential subsidence and hydrothermal eruptionrisk, and damage in the built environment. The policy directiontherefore seeks to avoid, remedy, or mitigate differentialsubsidence and hydrothermal eruption risk and damage in the builtenvironment. It also seeks to ensure that the costs of avoiding,remedying or mitigating these adverse effects fall on those whocause them.The methods set out the mechanisms for achieving this, throughthe Waikato Regional Plan and resource consents.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: greater involvement by Waikato Regional Council in reservoirmanagement; improved resource information provided by developers;9-30 Doc # 1451856

educed adverse effects of development.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving available staff, financial and other resources andappropriate procedures to implement the objective and policythrough resource consent decision making, advocacy to EPA andEnvironment Court consenting processes, and regulatory andenforcement actions. They are also dependent on an appropriatelevel of monitoring and provision of sufficient information bydevelopers to determine appropriate discharge strategies. Anabsence of information can lead to unsustainable development,adverse effects on features or other natural resources, and limits ondevelopment.This policy can be combined with the existing 3.7.2.1 Policies Oneand Two in the operative RPS to form one policy for sustainableand integrated management of Development Geothermal Systems.Adverse effects of take, use and discharge of the geothermalresource are difficult to assign to one of multiple operators becauseof uncertainty around cause and effect relationships. Remedyingadverse effects relies on a co-ordinated and integrated approachand understanding.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Reduces discharges to surfacewater, effects on surfacefeatures, risk of subsidence, andlikelihood of hydrothermaleruptions and other adverseeffects. This benefit isenormous as adverse effectscan be great.Environmental:CostsCould prematurely cool thegeothermal reservoir, resultingin greater air emissions from theuse of fossil fuels. This is asmall cost, as probability is low ifthere is an appropriatedischarge strategy andmonitoring regime.Aids long-term sustainableextraction of low-emissionenergy. This benefit is large.Community:Provides certainty to resourceusers regarding sustainable useand minimisation of adverseeffects. This has medium value,reducing the need forengagement in policydevelopment and resourceconsent processes.Aids long-term sustainableextraction. This benefit is largeas it reduces the need forenergy from more expensivesources.Community:Could prematurely cool thegeothermal reservoir, leading toreduced profits for developers.This is a small cost, asprobability is small if there is anappropriate discharge strategyand monitoring regime.Developer incurs cost of severalmillion dollars per reinjectionwell and ongoing operationalcosts.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientDoc # 1451856 9-31

Policy Option 11b:Do not requirereinjection/ injection inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis would not support sustainable management of the RegionalGeothermal Resource and other natural and physical resources. Itdoes not achieve Objective 3.16 because there would be a lack ofguidance on the matter for resource consent applications, anddecisions about discharges of geothermal fluid to other natural andphysical resources would be made on an ad hoc basis. Ifdischarged elsewhere, the energy, fluid and minerals are lost fromthe geothermal system and may contaminate natural and physicalresources. This option is not preferred, because it does notpromote integrated management.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone.Community:NoneAllowing unfettereddevelopment without mitigationcan lead to serious adverseeffects on features and otherresources. The environmentalcost of this can be large.Community:Could lead to serious adverseeffects on people and infrastructure,including loss of lifefrom hydrothermal eruptions andproperty collapse. This is alarge cost.Does not promote energyaccess beyond currentgenerations. This is a large costto future generations.Leads to large cost to thecommunity of engagement inpolicy development and theresource consent process.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,users of the Waikato River,and/or tāngata whenua are likelyto challenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $2 million falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9-32 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option 11c:Require full reinjectionand make-up injection inDevelopment.Geothermal SystemsEffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could require full reinjection and injectionof additional fluid to ensure full volume replacement. This wouldnot take into account the additional cascaded uses that some usedgeothermal fluid is put to, which result in some surface discharge.It also would not provide sufficient flexibility for losses such as indrilling, routine operational losses, and emergency discharges.Injection of cold fluid may have an adverse effect on the geothermalsystem and cool the resource. It does not achieve Objective 3.16because it does not allow for surface discharge of fluid to remediateor mitigate effects on surface features, and it does not promoteefficient use of the geothermal fluid by way of cascaded uses. Thisoption is not preferred, because it does not promote integratedmanagement.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:No discharges to surfacewaters. This is a large benefitbecause it improves the qualityof the Waikato River system andits ecosystems.Community:Provides certainty to resourceusers. This has medium value,reducing the need forengagement in policydevelopment and resourceconsent processes.Reduces the cost of dealing withpollution. This benefit is large.Environmental:CostsNo opportunity for use of fluidfor remediation of effects onsurface features or other naturaland physical resources. This isa medium cost as there is littleuse of geothermal water in thisway.Community:Less availability of geothermalwater for cascaded uses, andtherefore less efficient use mayresult in greater use of fossilfuels for energy conversion.This is medium cost, as theamounts affected are not large.No opportunity for remediationon culturally significant features.This is a small cost, as there isvery little use of geothermalwater in this way.Less opportunity foremployment-generatingcascaded uses. This is amedium cost, as only somecascaded uses will beprevented.Existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to $2million falling on the challengersand ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: LowDoc # 1451856 9-33

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management of effectson other natural and physical resources in Development Geothermal Systems.Effects on other resources in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 12a:Retain existing policydirection regardingeffects on other naturaland physical resourcesin DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessIt is important to ensure that any adverse effects arising from thetake, use and discharge of geothermal resources are avoided,remedied, or mitigated, and to ensure that the cost these actionsfalls on those who cause the adverse effects. The existing 3.7.2.1Policy Six in the operative RPS requires that geothermal takes anddischarges avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on othernatural and physical resources. It achieves Objective 3.16 byenabling sustainable use of the regional geothermal resource, whileminimising adverse effects. This will also contribute to Objectives3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7.The methods make provision for mechanisms such as remediationbonds.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: better mechanisms in resource consents for addressing adverseeffects; fewer adverse effects of new developments compared toexisting developments; greater protection of property and infrastructure.These outcomes are dependent on all potential adverse effectsbeing recognised and dealt with. They are also dependent onWaikato Regional Council having the resources and appropriateprocedures to implement the objective and policy through resourceconsent decision making, advocacy to EPA and Environment Courtconsenting processes, and regulatory and enforcement actions.An absence of information about adverse effects can lead tounintended consequences, or an overly restrictive precautionaryapproach. A lack of resources and appropriate procedures toimplement the policies and monitor compliance can lead to poorcompliance, and adverse effects without any mitigation.This policy can be combined with the existing 3.7.2.1 Policies One,Two and Three in the operative RPS to form one policy forsustainable and integrated management of DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures that adverse effects areavoided, remedied or mitigated.This benefit is large, as adverseeffects can be huge.Environmental:CostsRestricts some access to energyin the short term, potentiallyleading to short-term increase inair discharge from fossil fuels.This is a small cost as the fossilfuels will be used eventuallyanyway.9-34 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option 12b:Provide no policydirection regardingeffects on other naturaland physical resourcesin DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Community:Ensures that adverse effects areavoided, remedied or mitigated.This benefit is large, as adverseeffects on the built environmentcan be huge.Provides certainty to resourceusers that adverse effects will beavoided, remedied or mitigated.This has medium value,reducing the need forengagement in policydevelopment and resourceconsent processes.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessCommunity:Restricts some access to energyin the short term, potentiallyleading to short-term reductionof opportunity.Past take, use and discharge of geothermal energy have causedsignificant adverse effects on overlying structures (the builtenvironment) and other natural and physical resources, includingland subsidence. This option does not achieve Objective 3.16because it would not promote the sustainable management ofnatural and physical resources. This option could encourageadverse effects on the environment. It would not be consistent withthe RMA, which requires regional councils to control takes anddischarges. Environmentally and economically, it could be costly inthe long term.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:Reduces short-term costs forlarge-scale development,possibly resulting in short-termopportunity gains for developers.This is a small benefit as it isoffset by higher costs later.Environmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects.Community:Could lead to serious adverseeffects on people andinfrastructure, including loss oflife from hydrothermal eruptionsand property collapse. This is alarge cost.Reduces certainty tocommunities living in geothermalsystems, developers, and usersof other physical and naturalresources. This increases theneed for, and cost to, all partiesof engagement in resourceconsent processes by up to $1million per application.Those concerned withsustainability and public safety,Department of Conservation,territorial Authorities, users ofthe Waikato River, and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,Doc # 1451856 9-35

esulting in processing costs ofup to $1,000,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientPolicy Option 12c:Do not allow anydevelopments that havethe potential for adverseeffects on other naturaland physical resourcesin DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThe purpose of Development Geothermal Systems is to enablelarge-scale geothermal development to satisfy the energy needs ofcurrent and future generations. This will always have the possibilityof causing adverse effects on other natural and physical resources.However as long as these can be avoided, remedied or mitigated, alevel of risk is acceptable. A policy that excludes any activity thathas the potential for adverse effects on natural and physicalresources would not be enabling of development. Not providing forthe options of remediating and mitigating such adverse effects doesform an appropriate balance in Development Geothermal Systems,and does not enable sustainable use with appropriate control ofadverse effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:No adverse effects on naturaland physical resources. Thisbenefit is large.No adverse effects on thesustainability of the geothermalsystem. This has mediumvalue.Community:Provides certainty and safety forcommunities from adverseeffects on their property andsafety issues. This benefit islarge.Environmental:CostsDevelopers would sourceenergy from more pollutingsources such as fossil fuel,leading to air pollution anddepletion of more finiteresources. This is a large cost.Community:Excessive caution unnecessarilyrestricts access to energy insituations where adverse effectscould be adequately avoided,remedied or mitigated. Thiscould lead to reduction ofopportunity for energygenerators.Existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, organisations wantingto promote development, and/ordevelopers are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $1,000,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9-36 Doc # 1451856

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management of smallandmedium-sized uses in Development Geothermal Systems.Policy OptionPolicy Option 13a:Retain existing policydirection providing forsmaller uses ofgeothermal fluid inDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Small Uses in Development Geothermal SystemsRMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.1 Policy Four in the operative RPS allows forsmaller uses that are not incompatible with the SystemManagement Plan. It achieves Objective 3.16 by enabling peopleand communities to make use of geothermal resources for theirsocial, cultural, and economic needs. It also contributes toObjectives 3.4 and 3.9.The methods set out the mechanisms for achieving this, throughthe Waikato Regional Plan, district plans and resource consents.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: lower costs to small users in Development GeothermalSystems; greater small-scale use in Development Geothermal Systems;and greater uptake of efficient technologies.These outcomes are dependent on the availability of appropriatetechnologies at attractive prices, willingness of people to take upefficient technologies, and the establishment and implementation ofdistrict plan rules that are compatible with the policy.This policy can be combined with the existing 3.7.2.1 Policies One,Two, Three and Four in the operative RPS to form one policy forsustainable and integrated management of DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsSmall uses of geothermalenergy displace fossil fuel useand its air discharge in the shortterm and on a local scale. Thisis a small benefit.Community:Enables people to provide fortheir energy, recreation, andemployment needs. This hasmedium benefit as it providesaccess to a cheap energysource.Enabling multiple small usescan lead to cumulative effectson geothermal features. This isa small cost, as adverse effectsare both unlikely and small.Community:None.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientDoc # 1451856 9-37

Policy Option 13b:Provide no policyguidance regardingsmaller uses.EffectivenessThere would be a lack of guidance on the matter for resourceconsent applications, and decisions about discharges ofgeothermal fluid to other natural and physical resources would bemade on an ad hoc basis, guided only by the RMA and not by anyregional policy. This option does not achieve Objective 3.16because it does not promote integrated management of geothermalsystems.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:None.Community:None.Ad hoc small development canlead to individual or cumulativeeffects on geothermal features.This is a small cost, as smalluses do not have high potentialfor large effects.Community:Reduces certainty to communitiesliving in geothermal systems,developers, and users of otherphysical and natural resources.This increases the need for, andcost to, all parties of engagementin resource consent processes byup to $1 million per application.Small users are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $100,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Policy Option 13c:Reserve geothermaluse in DevelopmentGeothermal Systemsonly for larger uses.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThis would not support sustainable management of the geothermalresource and other natural and physical resources. It would beunfair to the many small users, most of which do not have adverseeffects on the resource. It does not achieve Objective 3.16because it does not allow for the needs of current generations.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe small uses can have acumulative effect and lead toeffects on features, depletion ofthe resource, as well ascommunication betweenaquifers by poorly built andmaintained wells, althoughthese effects are not likely to bemajor. Preventing small usescan prevent these effects.People would source energyfrom more polluting sourcessuch as fossil fuel and woodburning,leading to depletion offinite resources and air pollution.This is a medium cost as it canlead to air pollution limitsexceedences and thereforerestrict industry.9-38 Doc # 1451856

Community:None.Community:It would cost people more tosource other forms of heat. Thisis a medium cost, as WaikatoRegional Council records showthat more than 500 householdsin Taupo and Tokaanu usegeothermal bores.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientPeople would source energyfrom more polluting sourcessuch as fossil fuel and woodburning,leading to depletion offinite resources and air pollution.This is a large cost as it canlead to air pollution limitsexceedences and thereforerestrict industry as well ascausing health problems.Small users and territorialauthorities are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $100,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management of LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Management of Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 14a:Retain existing policydirection allowingsustainable and efficientuse of LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe Limited Development Geothermal System classification isapplied to large Geothermal Systems in the Waikato region thathave the potential for use and development, but which have valuesmaking them potentially more sensitive to development impactsthan is the case for the Development Geothermal Systems.Sustainable management in Limited Development GeothermalSystems is achieved through carefully controlling take, use anddischarge of geothermal energy and water in a manner that ensuressignificant adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.The existing 3.7.2.2 Policy One in the operative RPS achievesObjective 3.16 by enabling use of these systems and managingtheir effects. This allows the community to provide for their bathing,tourism, leisure and energy needs and provides future generationswith the same opportunities, while protecting the life-supportingcapacity of the Regional Geothermal Resource. This policy alsosupports Objectives 3.2, 3.4, 3.9 and 3.11.The methods provide implementation mechanisms through regionalplans, district plans and resource consents, and allow for efficientexisting and new takes, while avoiding significant adverse effect.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be:Doc # 1451856 9-39

certainty for developers and communities regarding the level ofdevelopment that is allowed to occur and the likely effects; continued lack of adverse effects in Limited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems arising from development; greater knowledge of system dynamics in those systems.Larger-scale use of Limited Development Geothermal Systems isdependent on economic factors making extractive uses viable.An absence of information about adverse effects can lead tounintended consequences, or a restrictive precautionary approach.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures that adverse effects areavoided, remedied or mitigated.This benefit is large as adverseeffects can be huge.Environmental:None.CostsCommunity:Provides certainty to resourcedevelopers, users of geothermalfeatures, and the regionalcommunity regarding use andmanagement of adverse effects.This has medium value,reducing the need forengagement in policydevelopment and resourceconsent processes.Community:Restricts unsustainable accessto energy, potentially leading toshort-term reduction ofopportunity for energygenerators. This is a small costas there are other geothermalsystems available fordevelopment.Enables people to provide fortheir energy needs. This is amedium benefit as there is littleuse of geothermal water in thisway.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 14b:Provide no policydirection regardingtakes in LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the regional geothermal resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy through new or existing plant in the shortest possible time tomaximise financial benefits. This could lead to significant adverseeffects on Significant Geothermal Features and on other natural andphysical resources, with future generations being less able toprovide for their heat and electricity needs.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:CostsEnvironmental:9-40 Doc # 1451856

None.Can lead to adverse effects ongeothermal features and othernatural and physical resources.This is a large cost, as theeffects can be large, includinglandslides and riparian landsubsidence, inundatingproductive land and alteringwetland ecosystems.A lack of policy guidance canlead to greater restriction on thelarge-scale use of thesesystems, causing greaterreliance on fossil fuel, withincreased air pollution. This is amedium cost as the amount ofenergy that may be extractedfrom these systems is relativelysmall.Community:None.Community:A lack of policy guidance couldlead to serious adverse effectson people and infrastructure.These costs can be large andinclude loss of life andinfrastructure.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientA lack of policy guidance couldlead to greater restriction on thelarge-scale use of thesesystems, reducing opportunityfor developers.Reduces certainty tocommunities living in geothermalsystems, developers, and usersof other physical and naturalresources. This increases theneed for, and cost to, all partiesof engagement in resourceconsent processes by up to $1million per application.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,organisations wanting topromote development,developers, those concernedabout sustainability or publicsafety and/or tāngata whenuaare likely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $500,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.Doc # 1451856 9-41

Policy Option 14c:Reclassify LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems asDevelopment.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy through new or existing plant in the shortest possible time tomaximise financial benefits. This could lead to significant adverseeffects on Significant Geothermal Features and on other natural andphysical resources, with future generations being less able toprovide for their heat and electricity needs.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnergy extraction in two moregeothermal systems madeeasier, providing access to up to13% more low air-emissionelectricity and process heat(based on generation capacitycomparison betweenDevelopment and LimitedDevelopment Systems), worthup to $9 million per year inreduced air discharge fromelectricity generation alone.Community:Energy extraction in LimitedDevelopment Systems madeeasier, potentially worth up to$21 million per year forelectricity generators.Reduces short-term costs forlarge-scale development,possibly resulting in short-termopportunity gains for developers.Environmental:CostsDevelopment is likely to lead tosignificant adverse effects ongeothermal features and othernatural and physical resources.Large cost.Community:Development is likely to lead toeffects such as subsidenceinducedflooding, slopeinstability causing damage toroads, settlements and otherinfrastructure, with potential forloss of life, and loss of valuedfeatures. Large cost.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,those concerned aboutsustainability or public safetyand/or tāngata whenua are likelyto challenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $500,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Policy Option 14d:Reclassify LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems asProtected.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource. Itwould reduce the availability of geothermal resources forsustainable extractive use.9-42 Doc # 1451856

Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnsures total protection ofgeothermal features and othernatural and physical resourcesfrom the effects of development,with no unintendedconsequences. Large benefit.Community:Ensures people are protectedfrom unintended consequencesof development such assubsidence-induced flooding,slope instability causing damageto roads, settlements and otherinfrastructure, and loss of valuedfeatures. Large benefit.Environmental:CostsMay lead to greater use of fossilfuels and greater pollution.Medium cost, as the potential forelectricity generation fromLimited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems is notlarge.Community:Reduces the availability ofenergy, potentially leading toreduced opportunity fordevelopers. Medium cost, asthere are only two suchsystems, and the energy thatmay be produced from them isrelatively small.Existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, territorial authorities,organisations wanting topromote development, and/ordevelopers are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $500,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of managing adverseeffects on other natural and physical resources in Limited Development GeothermalSystems.Effects on other resources in Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 15a:Retain existing policydirection regardingadverse effects on othernatural and physicalresources in LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.2 Policy Three in the operative RPS provides fortakes and discharges, while ensuring that adverse effects on othernatural and physical resources are avoided, remedied or mitigated.It achieves Objective 3.16 by ensuring protection of infrastructureand public safety in Limited Development Systems from theadverse effects of geothermal resource use. It also contributes toObjectives 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7.The methods specify mechanisms such as bonds to addressadverse effects. They also provide for and encourage reinjection tolimit adverse effects.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be:Doc # 1451856 9-43

certainty for developers and the community regarding use ofLimited Development Geothermal Systems and adverse effects; continued lack of adverse effects in Limited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems arising from development; sustainable extractive use of these systems.Larger-scale use of Limited Development Geothermal Systems isdependent on economic factors making extractive uses viable.An absence of information about adverse effects can lead tounintended consequences or an overly restrictive precautionaryapproach.This policy can be combined with the existing 3.7.2.2 Policy One inthe operative RPS to form one policy for sustainable and integratedmanagement of Limited Development Geothermal Systems.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures adverse effects areavoided, remedied or mitigated.Large benefit.Community:Provides certainty to resourceusers. Medium benefitCostsEnvironmental:None.Community:None.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 15b:Provide no policydirection regardingadverse effects on othernatural and physicalresources in LimitedDevelopmentGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy through new or existing plant in the shortest possible timeto maximise financial benefits. This could lead to significantadverse effects on other natural and physical resources, and publicsafety issues regarding increased likelihood of landslides andhydrothermal eruptions. One of the purposes of the LimitedDevelopment Geothermal System classification is to allow anappropriate degree of development, while conservatively managingthe risk of adverse effects on other natural and physical resources.Not having a policy to clearly state that could lead to confusion,poor implementation and the degradation of Significant GeothermalFeatures.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects asenvironmental effects have tobe assessed on a case-by-casebasis. Costs can be large.9-44 Doc # 1451856

Community:None.Community:Reduces certainty tocommunities living ingeothermal systems,developers, and users of otherphysical and natural resources.This increases the need for andcost to all parties ofengagement in resourceconsent processes by up to $1million per application.Territorial authorities and/orthose concerned aboutsustainability or public safetyare likely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $500,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of managing ProtectedGeothermal Systems.Management of Protected Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 16a:Retain existing policydirection for managinguse of geothermalresources in ProtectedGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe existing 3.7.2.4 Policy One in the operative RPS seeks tomaintain the stocks and flows of geothermal energy and water inProtected Geothermal Systems. It achieves Objective 3.16 bypreventing adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features.This will also support Objectives 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9.The methods implement the policy by setting out the regime formanaging take and discharge of geothermal energy and water.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expected tobe: increased protection of Significant Geothermal Features; increased protection of geothermal tourism resources; increased awareness and appreciation of geothermalecosystems.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving sufficient internal resources to ensure implementation of thepolicy by itself and territorial authorities. A lack of resources toundertake education and enforcement can lead to poor compliance,and degradation of features without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsDoc # 1451856 9-45

Ensures adverse effects areavoided. This benefit is large,as, once lost, the characteristicsoften cannot be recovered.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This benefit islarge because it providesprotection for the geothermaltourism industry.None.Community:Restricts some uses ofgeothermal features andsurrounding natural and physicalresources. This is a small costas the activities restricted canoccur elsewhere or with otherenergy sources.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 16b:Prohibit all uses inProtected GeothermalSystems.EffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could prohibit all uses of geothermalresources within Protected Geothermal Systems. This does notachieve Objective 3.16 because it would not allow for benign usessuch as scientific investigation leading to greater knowledge of thesystem, existing uses that have no apparent adverse effects, andnew uses that are unlikely to have adverse effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnsures significant adverseeffects are avoided. This benefitis large as once lost, thecharacteristics often cannot berecovered.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. This is a largebenefit because it providesprotection for the geothermaltourism industry.Not providing for tourism canlead to geothermal features notbeing valued by the community,resulting in poor managementand stewardship. This has thepotential to be a large cost.Community:Restricts existing uses and newbenign uses, including existingsmall employers, tourismoperations, and cultural uses.This is a large cost asgeothermal tourism alone is amajor economic driver for theregion, worth approximately$110 million per annum.Existing users of features,including tourism operators,researchers and/or tāngatawhenua, are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$70,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9-46 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option 16c:Provide no policydirection for managinguse of geothermalresources in ProtectedGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the Regional Geothermal Resource.The purpose of the Protected System category is to ensureprotection of highly-valued geothermal features and their dependentecosystems. Some people may want to undertake activities thatcould lead to significant adverse effects on Significant GeothermalFeatures. A lack of policy direction could lead to such effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:None.Can lead to adverse effects, asenvironmental effects have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis. This is a large cost as,once lost, the characteristicsoften cannot be recovered.Community:None.Community:Reduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures. Degradation or loss offeatures will result in large coststo commercial tourism operatorsand loss of environmentalqualities. This increases theneed for and cost to all parties ofengagement in resource consentprocesses by up to $1 millionper application.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientConservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing users of features, and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $70,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Doc # 1451856 9-47

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of protection of othergeothermal features in Protected Geothermal Systems.Policy OptionPolicy Option 17a:Retain existing policydirection encouragingprotection of othergeothermal features inProtected GeothermalSystems.Protection of Features in Protected Geothermal SystemsRMA Section 32 TestEffectivenessProtected Geothermal Systems are large Geothermal Systems withrare and vulnerable highly-valued natural characteristics that cannotco-exist with any more than minimal extractive uses.To contribute to the maintenance of the extent and variety of thecharacteristics of the Regional Geothermal Resource, it isappropriate to protect Significant Geothermal Features in thesesystems from the adverse effects arising from the extraction ofgeothermal energy and water. It is also appropriate to encouragethe protection of the full range of geothermal characteristics in thesesystems.The existing 3.7.2.4 Policy Two in the operative RPS encouragesthe protection of all valued geothermal features in ProtectedGeothermal Systems. It achieves Objective 3.16 by encouragingprotection of the full range of biodiversity and geodiversity ofgeothermal features and their characteristics. This will alsocontribute to Objectives 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7.The method implements the policy by providing a mechanism ofimplementation through the Waikato Regional Plan, district plansand resource consents. The immediate, intermediate and ultimateoutcomes are expected to be: increased protection of all geothermal features; increased protection of geothermal tourism resources; increased awareness and appreciation of geothermalecosystems.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving sufficient internal resources to ensure implementation of thepolicy by itself and territorial authorities, third parties not adverselyaffecting features, and the availability of price-competitive down-holeheat exchangers. Budgetary constraints have led to a reduction inpolicy implementation by Waikato Regional Council, and there isnow no co-ordinated input to district policy development. A lack ofresources to undertake education and enforcement can lead to poorcompliance, and degradation of features without any mitigation.This policy can be combined with parts of the existing 3.7.2.3 PolicyOne in the operative RPS to create a single policy for sustainablymanaging Protected Geothermal Systems.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsProtects all features in ProtectedSystems. Large value.Community:Protects features, theirNone.Community:Has some potential to restrict9-48 Doc # 1451856

ecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. Large value.uses of non-significant featuressuch as farming and forestryaround hot ground. Small cost,as the potential for this is nothigh and will depend on a caseassessment.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 17b:Provide no policydirection regarding othergeothermal featuretypes in ProtectedGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could provide no policy directionregarding the protection of geothermal features that do not meet thecriteria of Significant Geothermal Features within ProtectedGeothermal Systems. This does not achieve Objective 3.16 becauseit does not ensure protection of all geothermal characteristics.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:None.Environmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects, asenvironmental effects on nonsignificantfeatures are unlikelyto be considered by land userswhen undertaking activities.Medium cost.Community:Reduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures. For most, this is asmall cost. However,degradation or loss of featureswill result in large costs tocommercial tourism operators.This can increase the need for,and cost to, all parties ofengagement in resource consentprocesses by up to $100,000 perapplication.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, Territorial Authorities,researchers and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$200,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientDoc # 1451856 9-49

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated in respect of management ofResearch Geothermal Systems.Policy OptionPolicy Option 18a:Retain existing policydirection formanagement ofResearch GeothermalSystems.Management of Research Geothermal SystemsRMA s32 testEffectivenessLarge systems about which not enough is known to either definethem as Development, Limited Development or Protected, aredefined as Research Geothermal Systems. In such cases, a lack ofknowledge about the types of surface features and theirvulnerability to development, or about the possibility of ahydrological connection to a Protected System, requires aprecautionary approach to their use to ensure that adverse effectsare limited. In these systems, small uses of geothermal energy andwater, and research about the system are provided for. Anypresently undiscovered large systems, or parts of large systemsthat are outside the boundaries mapped in the Waikato RegionalPlan, would fall into this class.It is anticipated that research into these systems will eventuallyprovide the information required to reclassify these systems aseither Development, Limited Development or Protected GeothermalSystems.The existing 3.7.2.3 Policy One in the operative RPS restricts takesand discharges to ensure that there are no adverse effects onSignificant Geothermal Features, while enabling existing uses andtakes for research purposes. This protects the life-supportingcapacity of the Research Geothermal Systems until enough isknown about them to determine the appropriate usage category. Itachieves Objective 3.16 by ensuring sustainable management ofgeothermal resources in Research Geothermal Systems. It alsosupports Objectives 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9.The methods describe how Significant Geothermal Features are tobe identified. They provide the mechanisms for protecting naturalflows and Significant Geothermal Features, and for allowing forexisting takes and some new takes. They prevent new takes thatmay have adverse effects.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: continued protection of Significant Geothermal Features inResearch Geothermal Systems; an increase of in-situ uses of energy; improved understanding of the characteristics of ResearchGeothermal Systems through controlled research.These outcomes are dependent on Waikato Regional Councilhaving sufficient internal resources to ensure implementation of thepolicy by itself and territorial authorities, third parties not adverselyaffecting features, and research being undertaken in ResearchGeothermal Systems. A lack of resources to undertake educationand enforcement can lead to poor compliance, and degradation offeatures without any mitigation.Summary of effectiveness: High9-50 Doc # 1451856

Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnsures significant effects areavoided. Large benefit.Community:Provides certainty to resourceusers. Medium benefit.Promotes research into thecharacteristics of ResearchSystems. Medium benefit.None.Community:Restricts some access toenergy, potentially leading toreduction of opportunity fordevelopers. Medium cost.Policy Option 18b:Prohibit all uses inResearch GeothermalSystems.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could prohibit all uses of geothermalresources within Research Geothermal Systems. This wouldprotect the system and its features, but would not allow for benignuses such as scientific investigation leading to greater knowledgeof the system, existing uses that have no apparent adverse effects,and new uses that are unlikely to have adverse effects. It does notimplement Objective 3.16 because it does not allow for researchthat would enable sustainable management.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsEnvironmental:Environmental:Ensures significant adverseeffects are avoided. Largebenefit.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems, and non-extractiveuses of them. Large benefit.Restricts research that couldlead to large-scale production ofa clean energy source,displacing the use of fossil fuels.Potentially large cost.Community:Restricts research. Mediumcost.Restricts existing uses, newbenign uses, and potentiallarge-scale uses. Large cost.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientExisting and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, organisationswanting to promotedevelopment and/or researchersare likely to challenge this policydirection, resulting in processingcosts of up to $500,000 fallingon the challengers andratepayers.Doc # 1451856 9-51

Policy Option 18c:Provide no policydirection regardingtakes in ResearchGeothermal Systems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the regional geothermal resource.Some people extracting geothermal energy or water for research orother purposes, or users of other natural resources, may want toundertake activities that could lead to significant adverse effects onSignificant Geothermal Features. A lack of policy direction couldlead to such effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:None.Environmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects asenvironmental effects have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis, in the absence ofsufficient information toundertake the assessment.Large potential cost includingloss of features.Community:Can lead to adverse effects, asenvironmental effects have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis in the absence of sufficientinformation to undertake theassessment. Large potentialcost including loss of tourismventures.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientReduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures. For most, this is asmall cost. However,degradation or loss of featureswill result in large costs tocommercial tourism operators.This increases the need for, andcost to, all parties ofengagement in resourceconsent processes by up to$10,000 per application.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,territorial authorities, and/ortāngata whenua are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $500,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.9-52 Doc # 1451856

The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.16 that have been evaluated regarding management of SmallGeothermal Systems.Management of Small Geothermal SystemsPolicy OptionPolicy Option 19a:Retain existing policydirection to allowsustainable and efficientuse of SmallGeothermal Systems.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe Small Geothermal System classification is applied to individualfeatures or groups of features that are not known to be connectedto a large Geothermal System. Sustainable management in SmallGeothermal Systems is to be promoted through limiting the take,use and discharge of geothermal energy and water in a mannerthat ensures significant adverse effects are avoided, and adverseeffects are remedied or mitigated.The existing 3.7.2.5 Policy One in the operative RPS allowssustainable and efficient use and development of Small GeothermalSystems. It achieves Objective 3.16 by enabling small takes, usesand discharges of geothermal energy and water. It will also supportObjectives 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9.The methods implement the policy by providing mechanisms thatregulate takes, discharges and other activities, and requiringefficiency of use.The immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes are expectedto be: improved certainty for users and potential users of SmallGeothermal Systems; increased protection of Significant Geothermal Features; greater long-term sustainability of use.These outcomes are dependent on implementation of the policy byWaikato Regional Council.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures adverse effects areavoided, remedied, or mitigated.Large value.Community:Provides certainty to resourcedevelopers, users of geothermalfeatures, and the regionalcommunity regarding use andmanagement of adverse effects.Medium value.Environmental:None.Community:None.CostsEnables people to provide fortheir energy needs. Small value,as usage rates are not high.Enables use for tourism anddirect uses. Large value.Doc # 1451856 9-53

Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientPolicy Option 19b:Prohibit all uses inSmall GeothermalSystems.EffectivenessWaikato Regional Council could prohibit all uses of geothermalresources within Small Geothermal Systems. This does not achieveObjective 3.16 because it would not allow for benign uses such asscientific investigation leading to greater knowledge of the system,existing uses that have no apparent adverse effects and thatgenerate employment, and new uses that are unlikely to haveadverse effects.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Ensures significant adverseeffects are avoided. Smallvalue, as adverse effects are notlikely.Community:Protects features, theirecosystems and non-extractiveuses of them. Small value, asthere are very few SignificantGeothermal Features in SmallGeothermal Systems.Environmental:None.Community:CostsRestricts research. Mediumcost.Restricts existing uses and newbenign uses. Medium cost.Existing and potential users ofthe resource are likely tochallenge this policy direction,resulting in processing costs ofup to $100,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientPolicy Option 19c:Provide no policyguidance regarding useof Small GeothermalSystems.EffectivenessThis does not achieve Objective 3.16 because it would not supportsustainable management of the regional geothermal resource.Some resource users may want to extract the maximum amount ofenergy through new or existing plant in the shortest possible time,to maximise short-term financial benefits. This could lead tosignificant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features andprevent other, more sustainable or efficient takes being enabled.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsCan lead to adverse effects, asenvironmental effects have to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis. Small cost, as significantadverse effects are not likely.9-54 Doc # 1451856

Community:None.Community:Reduces certainty for existingbenign users of geothermalfeatures. For most, this is asmall cost.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient9.2 Risk of acting or not actingPossibility of applications forunsustainable takes increasesthe need for, and cost to, allparties of engagement inresource consent processes byup to $10,000 per application.Conservation groups,Department of Conservation,existing and potential users ofthe Regional GeothermalResource, and/or tāngatawhenua are likely to challengethis policy direction, resulting inprocessing costs of up to$100,000 falling on thechallengers and ratepayers.For Objective 3.16, the risk of acting or not acting if information is uncertain orinsufficient is premature depletion of geothermal energy resources, adverse effects ongeothermal features and their dependent ecosystems, consequent loss of amenityvalue of those features, adverse effects on other natural and physical resources, anincrease in danger to people and communities from those adverse effects, andunnecessary restriction on use of geothermal resources.9.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.16.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sTāngata WhenuaPolicy Option 1a: Retain existing policydirection ensuring protection of geothermalcharacteristics valued by tāngata whenua.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.1]Policy Option 1b: Do not specifically includea policy regarding the ahi kaa relationship oftāngata whenua with geothermal resources.Low Not efficient NoCategorising Geothermal ResourcePolicy Option 2a: Retain existing policydirection promoting sustainablemanagement of geothermal resources bycategorising geothermal systems into usagecategories.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.2]Doc # 1451856 9-55

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 2b: Do promote sustainablemanagement of geothermal resources anddo not divide geothermal systems intousage categories.Low Not efficient NoEffects of use of land and water on Geothermal ResourcesPolicy Option 3a: Retain existing policydirection to regulate uses of land and waterto ensure compatibility with sustainablegeothermal management.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.2]Policy Option 3b: Provide no policy directionregarding compatibility between geothermalresource use and other uses of land andwater.Low Not efficient NoSustainable Management of Geothermal ResourcesPolicy Option 4a: Retain existing policydirection regarding information requirementsfor sustainably managing the RegionalGeothermal Resource.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.2]Policy Option 4b: Provide no policyguidance regarding managing informationabout the Regional Geothermal Resource.Low Not efficient NoProtection of Geothermal FeaturesPolicy Option 5a: Retain existing policydirection recognising some geothermalfeature types as Significant GeothermalFeatures and requiring different levels ofprotection of geothermal features in a rangeof situations.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.3]Policy Option 5b: Protect all geothermalfeatures and ecosystems.Low Not efficient NoPolicy Option 5c: Do not protect geothermalfeatures.Effects of other activities on Significant Geothermal FeaturesPolicy Option 6a: Retain existing policydirection to regulate uses of land and waterto ensure no significant adverse effects onSignificant Geothermal Features.Policy Option 6b: Include a policy enablingadverse effects on Significant GeothermalFeatures from uses of land and water.Low Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.3]Low Not efficient NoPolicy Option 6c: Provide no policy directionregarding the effects on SignificantGeothermal Features of the adverse effectsof uses of land and water.Low Not efficient NoSignificant Geothermal Features in Protected Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 7a: Retain existing policydirection for Protection of SignificantGeothermal Features in Protected,Research and Small Geothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.3]9-56 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy Option 7b: Prohibit all uses inProtected, Research and Small GeothermalSystems.SelectedOption/sLow Not efficient NoPolicy Option 7c: Provide no policy directionregarding Significant Geothermal Featuresin Protected, Research and SmallGeothermal Systems.Low Not efficient NoSignificant Geothermal Features in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 8a: Retain existing policydirection regarding Significant GeothermalFeatures in Development GeothermalSystems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.3]Policy Option 8b: Provide no policy directionregarding Significant Geothermal Featuresin Development Systems.Policy Option 8c: Allow destruction ofSignificant Geothermal Features inDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoSignificant Geothermal Features in Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 9a: Retain existing policydirection for protection of SignificantGeothermal Features in LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.3]Policy Option 9b: Provide no policy directionregarding Significant Geothermal Featurestakes in Limited Development GeothermalSystems.Low Not efficient NoDevelopment Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 10a: Retain existing policydirection promoting efficient use andcontrolled depletion in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.4]Policy Option 10b: Do not promote efficientuse and controlled depletion inDevelopment Geothermal SystemsLow Not efficient NoPolicy Option 10c: Retain existing policydirection for integrated management ofDevelopment Geothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.4]Policy Option 10d: Do not require integratedmanagement in Development GeothermalSystems.Low Not efficient NoReinjection in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 11a: Retain existing policydirection for managing reinjection / injectionof used geothermal energy and water inDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Policy Option 11b: Do not requirereinjection/injection in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.4]Low Not efficient NoDoc # 1451856 9-57

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy Option 11c: Require full reinjection inDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Effects on other resources in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 12a: Retain existing policydirection regarding effects on other naturaland physical resources in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Policy Option 12b: Provide no policydirection regarding effects on other naturaland physical resources.Policy Option 12c: Do not allow anydevelopments that have adverse effects onother natural and physical resources.Small Uses in Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 13a: Retain existing policydirection providing for smaller uses ofgeothermal fluid in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems.Policy Option 13b: Provide no policydirection guidance regarding smaller usersPolicy Option 13c: Reserve geothermal usein Development Geothermal Systems onlyfor larger users.SelectedOption/sLow Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.4]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHighManagement of Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 14a: Retain existing policydirection allowing sustainable and efficientuse of Limited Development GeothermalSystems.Policy Option 14b: Provide no policydirection regarding takes in LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Policy Option 14c: Reclassify LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems asDevelopment.Policy Option 14d: Reclassify LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems asProtected.ModeratelyefficientYes[Policy 9.4]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.5]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoEffects on other resources in Limited Development Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 15a: Retain existing policydirection regarding adverse effects on othernatural and physical resources in LimitedDevelopment Systems.Policy Option 15b: Provide no policydirection regarding adverse effects on othernatural and physical resources in LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems.Management of Protected Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 16a: Retain existing policydirection for management of ProtectedGeothermal Systems.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.5]Low Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.6]9-58 Doc # 1451856

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy Option 16b: Prohibit all uses inProtected Geothermal Systems.Policy Option 16c: Provide no policydirection for managing use of geothermalresources in Protected GeothermalSystems.Protection of Features in Protected Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 17a: Retain existing policydirection to encourage protection of othergeothermal features in Protected Systems.Policy Option 17b: Provide no policydirection regarding other geothermal featuretypes in Protected Geothermal Systems.Management of Research Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 18a: Retain existing policydirection for management of ResearchGeothermal Systems.Policy Option 18b: Prohibit all uses inResearch Geothermal Systems.Policy Option 18c: Provide no policydirection regarding Significant GeothermalFeatures takes in Research GeothermalSystems.Management of Small Geothermal SystemsPolicy Option 19a: Retain existing policydirection for sustainable and efficient use ofSmall Geothermal Systems.Policy Option 19b: Prohibit all uses in SmallGeothermal Systems.Policy Option 19c: Provide no policyguidance regarding use of SmallGeothermal Systems.SelectedOption/sLow Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.6]Low Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.7]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 9.8]Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.16 is by inclusion of Policy Options 1a,2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 10c, 11a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, and19a.9.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsPolicy 1 Geothermal characteristics valued by tāngatawhenua (PWRPS Policy 9.1)Ensure that the ahi kā (mana whenua) relationship of tāngata whenua with, and theirrole as kaitiaki of, characteristics of particular geothermal systems, fields andgeothermal features is recognised and provided for, once specific resourcemanagement matters of traditional and contemporary cultural significance have beenidentified by tāngata whenua.Doc # 1451856 9-59

Implementation methods1.1 Characteristics of the regional geothermal resource significant totāngata whenuaWaikato Regional Council will, in consultation with tāngata whenua:a) identify the characteristics of the regional geothermal resource significant totāngata whenua;b) identify threats to these characteristics; andc) provide strategies for avoiding, remedying, or mitigating these threats.1.2 Hapū and iwi geothermal management plansLocal authorities should support, and where appropriate facilitate, the development ofhapū and iwi geothermal management plans.1.3 Statutory documentsRegional and district plans shall ensure that the geothermal characteristics valued bytāngata whenua are recognised and provided for.Policy 2 Sustainably manage geothermal systems (PWRPSPolicy 9.2)Sustainably manage the regional geothermal resource in a way that provides formultiple uses and the extent and variety of the region’s geothermal features includingby:a) classifying geothermal systems for management based upon:i) system size;ii) the vulnerability of Significant Geothermal Features to extractives uses; andiii) existing uses;b) managing the effects of development and use of land and non-geothermal wateron the regional geothermal resource; andc) allocating some of the geothermal resource for take, use and discharge.Implementation methods2.1 Classification of geothermal systemsRegional plans shall classify geothermal systems as follows:a) Development Geothermal Systems are large geothermal systems wheredevelopment of geothermal resources will be enabled because there is noevidence of a flow of subsurface geothermal fluid to or from a system describedin b), c) or d) below, and:i) the system contains few geothermal features that are moderately to highlyvulnerable;ii) existing geothermal features are significantly impaired by lawfullyestablished large-scale takes; oriii) the system is already subject to large-scale energy use and development;b) Limited Development Geothermal Systems are large geothermal systems wherethere are Significant Geothermal Features that could be adversely affected bylarge-scale development but where smaller-scale uses are unlikely to adverselyaffect those features;c) Protected Geothermal Systems are large geothermal systems where particularcare must be taken to ensure that any use of the geothermal resource issustainable and has no adverse effect on significant natural geothermalcharacteristics because either:9-60 Doc # 1451856

i) the system supports a substantial number of geothermal features that aremoderately to highly vulnerable to the extraction of fluid;ii) the system is largely or wholly within a National Park or a World HeritageArea; oriii) there is evidence of a flow of subsurface geothermal fluid to or from asystem described in i) and ii) above;d) Research Geothermal Systems are all other large geothermal systems, including:i) where there is insufficient information to identify them as Development,Limited Development, Protected Geothermal Systems or Small GeothermalSystems;ii) any large geothermal systems undiscovered at 23 August 2003; oriii) any part of the regional geothermal resource that has not been identified asDevelopment, Limited Development, Protected or Small GeothermalSystems; ande) Small Geothermal Systems are small geothermal systems comprising individualfeatures or groups of features that are not known to be connected to a largegeothermal system.2.2 Identification of Protected Geothermal SystemsRegional plans shall identify the following systems as Protected Geothermal Systems:a) Horomatangi;b) Orakeikorako;c) Te Kopia;d) Tongariro; ande) Waikite-Waiotapu-Waimangu.2.3 Define large-scale takesRegional plans shall define thresholds over which a take of geothermal water or energyis considered to be large-scale for each type of geothermal system.2.4 Conserving geothermal energy and waterRegional plans shall promote the efficient use of geothermal energy and waterincluding by:a) preferring the use of energy- and water-efficient technologies; andb) promoting the use of down-hole heat-exchangers and group-heating schemesover ad hoc extraction for individual use.2.5 Remediation and mitigationRegional plans shall ensure that the potential for adverse effects arising from takes,uses or discharges of geothermal energy and water is recognised and addressed,including through:a) appropriate resource consent conditions;b) the use of bonds;c) provision for site remediation;d) abandonment of wells; ore) removal of building and structures including surface pipework.2.6 Environmental education and community groupsWaikato Regional Council will use environmental education programmes to increasepublic understanding and awareness of the rarity and vulnerability of geothermalfeatures (including ecosystems) and assist in the establishment of community groups ingeothermal areas with significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats ofDoc # 1451856 9-61

indigenous fauna (as defined in section 11A) to maintain or protect their naturalgeothermal characteristics or remedy and mitigate existing adverse effects on them.2.7 Use of land and non-geothermal water within geothermal systemsRegional and district plans shall ensure that development and uses of land and nongeothermalwater within and adjacent to all geothermal systems is compatible with thepurpose for which each geothermal system is classified and adverse effects on thesustainability of the geothermal system as a whole are avoided.2.8 Assist landowners and occupiersWaikato Regional Council will encourage and assist landowners and occupiers withgeothermal features on their land to protect those features where appropriate and tomodify land management practices to accommodate changes in geothermal energyand fluid outflows to ensure the protection of new areas of heated ground and othernew surface geothermal features where appropriate.2.9 Growth management strategiesWaikato Regional Council will promote the preparation of growth managementstrategies, structure plans or similar mechanisms to identify and address potentialeffects on geothermal resources.2.10 Research and monitoringWaikato Regional Council will:a) facilitate investigation, research and monitoring of the characteristics ofgeothermal systems;b) ensure that high-quality data, research and monitoring of the regional geothermalresource and of the effects of its use, commensurate with the scale of anyactivity, are, where appropriate, independently peer reviewed and made publiclyavailable having regard to commercial and cultural sensitivity; andc) encourage and provide for the collation and dissemination of data andinformation about the undisturbed state of characteristics and the effects ofdevelopment and use of geothermal systems.2.11 Information requirementsRegional plans shall:a) require relevant information relating to the use and development of geothermalresources and of the effects of their use and development be lodged withWaikato Regional Council; andb) for large-scale takes in Development Geothermal Systems require publiclyavailable System Management Plans and regular monitoring and reporting of theeffects of exercising consents.Policy 3 Significant Geothermal Features (PWRPS Policy 9.3)Recognise that some geothermal features are significant and provide the appropriatelevel of protection for these features within different geothermal systems.Implementation methods3.1 Significant Geothermal Features within Protected, Research andSmall Geothermal SystemsRegional and district plans shall:9-62 Doc # 1451856

a) recognise that geothermal features located within Protected, Research and SmallGeothermal Systems that meet the description of one or more of the geothermalfeature types listed in section 9B are Significant Geothermal Features;b) ensure adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features within Protected andResearch Geothermal Systems from take, use or discharge of geothermal energyand water are avoided;c) ensure significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features withinSmall Geothermal Systems from take, use or discharge of geothermal energyand water are avoided; andd) ensure adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features within Protected,Research and Small Geothermal Systems from development and uses of landand non-geothermal water are avoided with the exception of existing effects fromthe operation of the Waikato River system for hydroelectric generation.3.2 Significant Geothermal Features within Development and LimitedDevelopment Geothermal SystemsRegional plans shall list and map those features within Development and LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems that are Significant Geothermal Features.3.3 Managing effects on Significant Geothermal Features withinDevelopment and Limited Development Geothermal SystemsRegional and district plans shall ensure:a) significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features in DevelopmentGeothermal Systems from take, use or discharge of geothermal energy andwater are remedied or mitigated;b) significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features in LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems from take, use or discharge of geothermalenergy and water are avoided;c) consent holders are required to remedy or mitigate any unintended significantadverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features in Limited DevelopmentGeothermal Systems occurring as a result of the exercise of a consent for take,use or discharge of geothermal energy and water;d) a comprehensive monitoring programme is associated with resource consents forthe take, use or discharge of geothermal energy and water to detect significantadverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features; ande) adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features in Development and LimitedDevelopment Geothermal Systems from development and uses of land and nongeothermalwater are avoided with the exception of existing effects from theoperation of the Waikato River system for hydroelectric generation.3.4 Mitigation of adverse effectsRegional and district plans shall ensure appropriate remediation or mitigation ofadverse effects on Significant Geothermal Resources, including through ‘like for like’restoration or enhancement of degraded systems or features, or protection frompotential adverse effects, within any geothermal system.3.5 Waikato Regional Council worksWaikato Regional Council will ensure that any works it undertakes, promotes, or fundsdo not damage or threaten Significant Geothermal Features.Policy 49.4)Development Geothermal Systems (PWRPS PolicyDevelopment Geothermal Systems shall be managed in a way that provides for largescaleuse and development of geothermal energy and water and:Doc # 1451856 9-63

a) promotes efficient use of the geothermal resource;b) recognises and allows for controlled depletion of energy so as to provide for theenergy needs of current and future generations;c) takes an integrated management approach, including through:i) the development of a system management plan for each developmentsystem;ii) establishing a peer review panel; andiii) the development and imposition of appropriate resource consentconditions;d) requires reinjection/injection of the geothermal water from large-scale takesremaining after use;e) provides for small- and medium-scale use and development that is notinconsistent with any approved system management plan; andf) avoids, remedies, or mitigates adverse effects on other natural and physicalresources including overlying structures.Implementation methods4.1 Large-scale takes and useFor large-scale takes and use of geothermal energy and water from DevelopmentGeothermal Systems, regional plans shall:a) require preparation of a System Management Plan for each system prior to anyuse which, with reference to Policies 9.1-9.4, defines the objectives for themanagement of the system and provides for, as appropriate:i) operational flexibility and adaptive management including provision forsubsequent uses;ii) reservoir modelling and subsidence modelling;iii) a mechanism(s) to ensure co-ordination and promote co-operation betweenall consent holders for large-scale takes;iv) research, monitoring and reporting;v) non-statutory review of the System Management Plan if in the opinion ofthe consent holders and the Waikato Regional Council, such amendmentsare minor; andvi) identification of anticipated significant adverse effects on SignificantGeothermal Features and the remediation or mitigation to be undertaken,which may include ‘like for like’ remediation or mitigation in any geothermalsystem;c) require that the geothermal water remaining after use is reinjected/injected;d) manage controlled depletion, including through modelling assessments todetermine appropriately stepped production; ande) require preparation of a Discharge Strategy, which shall form part of the SystemManagement Plan, and shall address:i) disposal of waste water;ii) return of geothermal water to that system;iii) facilitation of further extraction of energy from the system;iv) any likely benefits to or adverse effects on the system or its productivecapacity;v) the need for adaptive management and flexibility over time;vi) the benefits, costs and adverse effects of the Discharge Strategy;vii) remedying or mitigating significant adverse effects on SignificantGeothermal Features;viii) avoiding, remedying or mitigating contamination of surface and groundwaters;9-64 Doc # 1451856

ix) the need to avoid or mitigate potential differential subsidence, and remedyor mitigate the adverse effects of subsidence, particularly in the builtenvironment; andx) the need to reduce the risk of hydrothermal eruptions particularly in the builtenvironment.4.2 Small- and medium-scale takes and useRegional plans shall ensure small- and medium-scale takes and use of geothermalenergy and water from Development Geothermal Systems are not inconsistent withany approved system management plan.4.3 Peer review panelWaikato Regional Council will establish a peer review panel of independent experts foreach Development Geothermal System which will:a) assess the commencement, ongoing exercise and effects of resource consentsagainst achieving the objectives of the system management plan, and thecontinued use and application of the system management plan;b) make recommendations for updating and reviewing the system managementplan and changes to resource consents that are operative within that system; andc) report to Waikato Regional Council on a) and b), with findings being publiclyavailable.Policy 5 Limited Development Geothermal Systems (PWRPSPolicy 9.5)Limited Development Geothermal Systems shall be managed in a way that:a) allows sustainable and efficient use and development of geothermal resources;b) avoids, remedies or mitigates significant adverse effects from take, use ordischarge of geothermal energy and water on non-geothermal natural andphysical resources, including overlying structures; andc) requires consent holders to remedy or mitigate any unintended significant effectsoccurring as a result of the exercise of a consent.Implementation methods5.1 Takes, discharges and other activities in Limited DevelopmentGeothermal SystemsWithin Limited Development Geothermal Systems regional and district plans shall:a) ensure that existing takes of geothermal energy and water and associateddischarges are provided for, providing there are no cumulative adverse effects;b) provide for takes and discharges of geothermal energy and water undertaken forscientific investigation or remediation or mitigation of existing adverse effects;c) ensure that consent holders are required to remedy or mitigate any unintendedsignificant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features occurring as aresult of the exercise of a consent;d) provide for and encourage the reinjection/injection of taken geothermal water inorder to minimise adverse effects on fresh water bodies and targeted to limitadverse effects such as subsidence and land instability; ande) seek remediation of past adverse effects in Limited Development GeothermalSystems as mitigation for adverse effects in Development Geothermal Systems.Doc # 1451856 9-65

Policy 6 Protected Geothermal Systems (PWRPS Policy 9.6)Protected Geothermal Systems shall be managed in a way that:a) protects Significant Geothermal Features from adverse effects, including bymaintaining the natural stocks and flows of geothermal energy and waterincluding the flow of deep geothermal water to the surface; andb) encourages the protection of other geothermal features where they are valued foramenity, cultural or scientific reasons.Implementation methods6.1 Takes, discharges and other activities in Protected GeothermalSystemsRegional and district plans shall, within Protected Geothermal Systems:a) allow the continuation of legally established, existing takes of geothermal energyor water and associated discharges, providing there are no significant adverseeffects;b) prevent new takes of geothermal water and associated discharges;c) provide for limited new takes of geothermal energy;d) provide for takes and discharges undertaken for scientific investigation or theremediation or mitigation of existing adverse effects;e) regulate activities (other than takes and discharges of geothermal energy andwater) in a manner that avoids any adverse effects on the sustainability of eachgeothermal system as a whole; andf) recognise the value of all geothermal features and where appropriate provide fortheir protection or remediation.Policy 7 Research Geothermal Systems (PWRPS Policy 9.7)Protect the geothermal characteristics of Research Geothermal Systems from adverseeffects by maintaining the natural stocks and flows of geothermal energy and waterincluding the flow of deep geothermal water to the surface.Implementation methods7.1 Takes and discharges in Research Geothermal SystemsRegional plans shall, in Research Geothermal Systems:a) allow the continuation of legally established, existing takes of geothermal energyor water and associated discharges, providing there are no significant adverseeffects;b) prevent new large-scale takes of geothermal water and associated discharges;c) provide for limited new small- and medium-scale takes of geothermal energy andwater where it can be demonstrated that they will not adversely affect the stocksand flow of geothermal energy and water;d) provide for takes and discharges undertaken for the remediation or mitigation ofexisting adverse effects; ande) provide for takes and discharges undertaken for scientific investigation, includingfor:i) determining whether or not the system is connected to another;ii) delineating the resistivity, hydrological and other boundaries of the system;iii) determining other characteristics of the system such as heat and massoutflow, and gas and water chemistry; oriv) identifying, mapping, or describing geothermal features and theircharacteristics within the system.9-66 Doc # 1451856

Policy 8 Small Geothermal Systems (PWRPS Policy 9.8)Small Geothermal Systems shall be managed in a way that allows sustainable andefficient use and development.Implementation methods8.1 Takes, discharges and other uses in Small Geothermal SystemsRegional and district plans shall, within Small Geothermal Systems:a) provide for the continuation of existing small-scale takes of geothermal energy orfluid and associated discharges, providing there are no cumulative adverseeffects;b) control the establishment of new small-scale takes of geothermal energy or fluidand associated discharges; andc) provide for takes and discharges undertaken for scientific investigation orremediation or mitigation of existing adverse effects.Doc # 1451856 9-67

ReferencesBaldwin, D., 2008: Chief Executive’s Review,http://www.contactenergy.co.nz/web/pdf/financial/ar_20080923_chairman_ceo_review.pdfDenne, T. 2007: Environmental Costs of Electricity Generation, Waikato RegionalCouncil Technical Series 2007/09, http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/5080/tr07-09.pdfGeotherm Group Ltd v Waikato Regional Council 13/4/06, Judge Whiting,Commissioners Borlase, Oliver, and Stewart, ENC Auckland A047/06. WaikatoRegional Council Document no. 1069539Huser B 2005. Environment Court Evidence of Beat Huser for Environment Waikatoon appeals on Proposed Change 1 to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement andProposed Variation 2 to the Waikato Regional Plan. 11 p. Waikato Regional Council,Hamilton.Luketina, K.M., 2002: Numbers of Visitors to Geothermal Attractions in the WaikatoRegion, Waikato Regional Council Technical Series 2002/05,http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/2418/TR02-05.pdfLuketina, K.M., 2005. Environment Court Rebuttal Evidence of Katherine Luketina forEnvironment Waikato on appeals on Proposed Change 1 to the Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement and Proposed Variation 2 to the Waikato Regional Plan. 21 p. Docno. 1020832. Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton.McDermott Fairgray Group Ltd and Hill Young Cooper Ltd, 1996: Taupo Visitor IndustryStudy: Prospects, Issues and Future Scenarios, Prepared for Taupo District Council,Taupo.Ministry of Economic Development, 2009: New Zealand Energy Data File, ISSN: 1177-6684.Ministry of Energy, 1982: A Review of the Role of Geothermal Resources in NewZealand, Ministry of Energy, Wellington.Phillips, Y. 2009: Waikato Economic Report 2009, Waikato Regional Council TechnicalSeries 2009/26, http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/14939/TR0926.pdfSheppard, D.S and Mroczek, E.K., 2002: C02 Fluxes from Geothermal Systems:Assessing the Effects of Exploitation, and the Carbon Tax Implications, New ZealandGeothermal Workshop.Sinclair Knight Merz 2002. Resource Capacity Estimates for High TemperatureGeothermal Systems in the Waikato Region. Auckland, Waikato Regional Council,Hamilton. Pp. 48. http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/13830/TR2002-22.pdfWaikato Regional Council, 2004: WAIKATO REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT:Proposed Change No. 1: Geothermal (Decisions Version) and PROPOSED WAIKATOREGIONAL PLAN: Proposed Variation No. 2: Geothermal (Decisions Version):Summary report: Analysis of alternatives, benefits and costs, Waikato Regional CouncilPolicy Series 2004/15, Waikato Regional Council Document no. 9217649-68 Doc # 1451856

10 Heritage10.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods10.1.1 Objective 3.17 Historic and cultural heritageThe following table summarises the policy options that have been evaluated to achieveObjective 3.17.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Regionally consistenthistoric and culturalheritage management.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe aims of this policy are to identify, assess and document regionalhistoric heritage resources in a consistent way; to identify, assessand protect a broader range of historic heritage resourcesrepresentative of the regional resource; and to provide for anintegrated, inter-agency approach to historic heritage management.Ad hoc and reactive identification processes, in the past, have led toan overemphasis on some parts or periods of the city’s, district’s orregion’s heritage resource, and an ineffective, one dimensionalapproach to interpreting the region’s historic heritage, at the expenseof the cultural diversity, representative and visual variety that arecharacteristic of all cultural or historical landscapes encompassed bythe Resource Management Act definition of ‘historic heritage’.A key method for implementing this policy is use of the criteria inSection 10A, sets 1 and 2 in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement. The criteria are adapted from those developed andeffectively implemented by the adjacent Bay of Plenty RegionalCouncil. 69The criteria are consistent with best practice guidance by the NZHistoric Places Trust in their publication ‘Sustainable Management ofHistoric Heritage Guide No.1 – Regional Policy Statements (2007)’.The criteria 70 are robust and have been developed by qualifiedprofessionals. They are designed to assist with regulatory decisionmaking by resource management practitioners and heritagespecialists. They provide for cross-boundary consistency with iwi andthe Bay of Plenty region. Assessment criteria provide a structuredformat for identification, and their application will substantiate thestatement of significance that is required to inform and supportheritage management policy and practice.The inclusion of the criteria in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement provides consistency and transparency to the decisionmakingprocess, and the ability to develop a sound knowledge basefor the historic heritage asset. Good knowledge about historic69Section 61(2) (b), RMA.70The criteria are adapted from the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (EBOP), made operative on 26 June, 2008incorporating Plan Change No.1. The generic, “cross-cutting”, criteria subset has been removed pending the current2010 review of the Historic Places Act (1993); and the EBOP Māori Culture and Traditions criteria subset have beenamended from a Waikato iwi perspective and woven into historic heritage rather than separated out from it.The primary means for giving effect to the recognition of historic heritage is to include items of historic heritage in plansunder Schedule 1 of the RMA. If a place or area is not so scheduled, the s6(f) requirement to protect historic heritagefrom inappropriate subdivision, use and development still applies and the criteria assist resource managementpractitioners and heritage specialists to make an assessment for the purposes of section 6. If one or more criteria of asubset are considered to have been triggered, then section 6 applies. In determining whether or not the s6 activity isinappropriate, decision making of a proposal shall have particular regard to a number of matters concerning protectionfrom the effects of development on historic heritage in Policy option 5 below.Doc # 1451856 10-1

heritage at the regional scale is an important first step in effectiveintegrated management by a range of different players. A group ofmethods is identified to assist with collaborative historic heritagemanagement, including the development of a heritage inventory,regional heritage forum, sharing information and clarifying roles andresponsibilities.This policy will make a strong contribution in achieving Objective3.17.This policy will provide for a co-ordinated and integrated approach tothe protection and enhancement of the region’s historic heritageresources, and will make some contribution to achieving Objective3.2.The management of historic heritage will also assist in theidentification and protection of those elements of historic heritage thatcontribute to amenity values, and make some contribution toachieving Objective 3.20.This policy option provides for the holistic management of historicheritage and the relationship of sites and places within culturallandscapes, and in this regard will make a contribution to achievingObjective 3.3.This policy option addresses matters under sections 5, 6, 7, 12(1)(g),30(1)(a), and 30(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act.It sets clear direction for identifying historic heritage and the relevantmatters to be considered. It provides clarity about the location andvalues of historic heritage for property owners and the community.It increases understanding of relevant characteristics to considerwhen evaluating historic heritage and will help to streamlineregulatory processes.Regional consistency will be established over time as plans (regionaland district) are changed in a staggered fashion.The policy option is consistent with NZ Coastal Policy StatementPolicy 3.1.2 for historic heritage within the coastal environment.The policy option, through the criteria, seeks to move away frominvestigating single sites, objects and structures only, and towardsinterpreting history in a broader spatial context, and to thinkingthematically.This policy option encourages the sharing of information, facilitatesrelationship building and ensures a co-ordinated multi-agencyapproach in dealing with specific issues and issues in common.There will not always be positive responses from private landowners,who are the custodians of most historic heritage. The policy requiresworking closely alongside landowners to achieve positive outcomes.The policy provides a consistent framework for development ofpolicies, rules and methods across the region. This consistency willprovide a comprehensive basis for decision-makers to understandthe region-wide context of their historic and cultural heritagedecisions. The guidance the framework gives will enable decisionmakersto make well-informed decisions that will result in themaintenance and enhancement of the region’s historic and culturalheritage. It also provides for the assessment of historic heritage asper the 2003 amendment to the Resource Management Act.Summary of Effectiveness: High10-2 Doc # 1451856

EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsImproved and morecomprehensive identification(including sites of significance toMāori) of the resource, consistentimplementation and decisionmaking, and better protection offinite natural and physicalresources with historic heritagequalities.The policy provides for a broaderrange of historic heritage to beidentified and evaluated, leadingto better and more completedecision making.Decisions about what to includein district and regional plans willbe made within a consistentpolicy framework.Environmental:CostsThe time lag betweenimplementing the policy and astaggered roll-out across theregion may lead to continuedlack of identification and loss ofhistoric heritage resources in theshort term.Loss of historic heritage valuesmay still occur after ‘protection’,as a result of non-compliance ora lack of active management, forexample the staggeredidentification and prioritisation ofhistoric heritage values, and ashortage of incentives or grantswhile a framework is establishedfor the management of historicand cultural heritage within theregion.Improved clarity and guidance onthe qualities to consider whendetermining the values of historicheritage.Improved co-ordination andclarity around roles andresponsibilities results in betteridentification and protection ofhistoric heritage values fromcombined expertise and sharingof information.Information or knowledge of thehistoric heritage resourceprovides the ability to proactivelymanage that resource.Ensures environmental outcomesconsistent with all legislative andnon-statutory frameworks.Ensures environmental outcomesare consistent when resourcemanagement practitioners,heritage specialists and externalconsultants are engaged bycouncils to provide expert advice.Enables strategic thinking anddialogue around common historicheritage issues, leading toimproved outcomes.By providing an appropriatecontextual basis for decisionmaking, this option will result inenhanced protection of theregion’s historic heritageDoc # 1451856 10-3

esource through avoidance,remediation and mitigation.Adaptive re-use of historicheritage (buildings) utilisesenergy and materials expendedduring original construction andreduces the generation of wasteto landfill.Community:Decisions about what to includein plans will be made at theregional and local level within aconsistent policy frameworkacross the region.Increases transparency andcertainty about what the historicheritage values are and wherethey exist within the landscape.Provisions (regulatory and nonregulatory)to protect theresource can be more targetedand efficient, including promotingadministrative efficiencies.Community:There are social and economicresource costs for landowners,councils and communitiesassociated with research,analysis, interpretation,governance and decision-makingprocesses, to consistentlyidentify and collaborativelymanage historic heritage.However, these costs can bemore clearly defined and sharedunder a co-ordinated approach.Costs may be associated withidentifying precise locations forhistoric heritage. These may fallon individuals, however, such71 The Waikato region’s known historic heritage resource in territorial authority and regional council plans are: 87scheduled items for Franklin District including scientific geological and other important sites; 105 scheduled items forHamilton City including heritage precincts, character areas, and classified tāngata whenua historical and cultural sites;Hauraki District has 86 items scheduled in addition to archaeological sites; Matamata-Piako District has 87 items, 78waahi tapu items, 216 items of outstanding or significant natural features and trees scheduled, and a character area;Otorohanga District schedule has five archaeological sites, nine buildings and sites, and the Tokanui historic area(relating to three pa sites); Rotorua District has 48 items scheduled; South Waikato District has 36 built heritage items;Taupo District has four scheduled items; Thames-Coromandel District has a heritage register that includes buildingsand sites and notable trees, and four areas containing significant heritage resources; Waikato District has over 163items on their historic heritage schedule including battlefield view-shafts; the Waipa District building schedule includesresidential, educational, government, commemorative structures and religious buildings; Waitomo has 16 items on aheritage sites schedule plus an archaeological schedule; Waikato Regional Council Regional Coastal Plan has Areasof Significant Conservation Value. The schedule includes ‘Conservation Values’ under which Māori cultural values andhistoric places of outstanding value are identified – general archaeological, and tāngata whenua values, also a‘Significant site of early European settlement’ is noted for Purangi Estuary and Te Whanganui-a-Hei (Cathedral Cove)Marine Reserve south to Hereheretaura Peninsula – but no specific historic heritage resources are mentioned. Thereare 8745 Archaeological Association known archaeological sites in the region. The summary of the known resource istaken from the September 2008 ‘Scoping Study on Historic Heritage Management by Waikato Local Authorities’ byGreg Mason & Dr. Ann McEwan prepared for Waikato Regional Council. Please note that there have been additionsand deletions to the known recorded resource since the time the report was prepared.There were 484 buildings and places listed on the Historic Places Trust Register in Waikato Region territorial authorityareas as at April 2010, compared with 474 in April 2009 (excluding wāhi tapu sites). The main difference is anincrease in Category II historic places, including Lake House in Hamilton and the Water Tower in Cambridge. As atApril 2010, approximately 60 Category 2 buildings and/or sites had been removed from the Historic Places TrustRegister. Category 2 places are "of historical or cultural heritage significance or value". Detail on buildings removedas opposed to sites is not available. There is also no readily available information on why a record is removed, forexample due to demolition or another reason.72Zahra, A, & Walter, N. (2007). The Waikato Region: Major tourism issues and opportunities to facilitate tourismdevelopment: Public summary. A report comissioned by Katolyst. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.Respondents stated that: Waikato has heritage and cultural tourism potential, including Māori and the arts. (p.31). In10 years time respondents would like to see: sustained, co-ordinated and active cultural tourism, including arts,heritage, and Māori. (p.34). Employment in the Waikato region tourism sector has grown quite significantly thisdecade with 11.4% growth per annum. (p.18). The Multiplied Visitor Expenditure for the Waikato region takes past andforecasted visitor expenditure to give an approximate indication of the final economic impact of tourism on the regionaleconomy. The 2007 Ministry of Tourism forecasts for the Multiplied Impact of Visitor Expenditure for the Waikato in2012 are: $1,001m total visitor expenditure, with the positive multiplier total economic impact on the region estimatedat $3,183m. (p.19). ‘Arts and Cultural Economic Impact on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Economy’, Dr Warren Hughes,Department of Economics, University of Waikato (April, 2002) quoted in ‘Napier City Council. Heritage and Arts Policy’(p.23) states that: “The annual economic impact of Hawke’s Bay Arts and Cultural sector (comprising over 736organisations) on the regional economy has been estimated in this study as follows: Total sales value or output -$83m or 1.2% of the Hawke’s Bay region; Net (after text) household income: $17m or 1.4% of the Hawke’s Bayregion; Value added or regional GDP - $35m or 1% of the Hawke’s Bay GDP; Employment in full-time equivalent jobs– 856 or 1.7% of Hawke’s Bay employment. For Dunedin City, the Arts and Culture sector has a 2% employmentimpact.”10-4 Doc # 1451856

Promotes economic use valuebenefits through tourism andattracting residents andinvestment to the region.Promotes non-use valueincluding inter-generationalbenefits, by providing for therights of future generations toenjoy heritage values and placesto the same (or better) extent aspresent generations. Theretention of historical materialculture in the interests of theyounger generation allows forheritage resources to shapenational identity.Promotes social and culturalbenefits by contributing to theregional community’s quality oflife, community self-definition,cultural values, sense of placeand local pride, historicallinkages and spiritual renewal.Also brings wider benefits, suchas better health and educationoutcomes, reduced levels ofcrime and improvements incommunity cohesion and socialinclusion.Enables communities to holddebates and discussions aboutthe meaning of the past.Less inter-agency andstakeholder conflict or debateover what factors to considerwhen a consistent, region-wideand collaborative approach isused.There will be a reduction inresource costs through nonduplicationof the issuesseparately by the variousagencies and stakeholders.Strategic processes allow forimproved consultation andsharing of information withaffected parties and landowners,and for flexibility in reachingsolutions.costs are transparent. The scaleof costs could be uncertain,dependent on the extent andtype of values present.The policy direction will requirecouncils to undertakeassessments according to thecriteria, adding compliance costs,although it is considered thatthese matters should beconsidered regardless of thispolicy direction under Section 6of the RMA, so additional costsare low.Improved identification andmanagement of historic heritagemay inhibit achievement of othercommunity outcomes, such ashousing and other builtdevelopment spatial needs.However, such trade-offs aretransparent.Regional leadership to manageregional heritage functions andassist territorial authorities willrequire Waikato Regional Councilto develop in-house expertise.Many New Zealand city andregional councils (though notWaikato Regional Council), haveretained specialist in-househeritage expertise for someyears. A cost estimate is for 2.5-3.5 full time equivalent staff (or$375,000-$525,000 per year).Ongoing heritage programmesinclude:an additional GIS full timeequivalentwith accompanyingbudget to undertake the RegionalHeritage Inventory work; 0.5 fulltimeequivalent within theResource Use Group forassistance with the processing ofresource consents having ahistoric heritage component; andadditional full-time equivalentstaff for programmes.Increased awareness of thehistoric heritage resource assistsin its protection throughincreased communitysupervision.With regional intervention now,the benefits of identifying,Doc # 1451856 10-5

assessing or maintainingheritage resources 71 for usevalue, such as growth intourism 72 , and non-use value, willgrow. The costs of delays tostatutory processes will decline.Summary of efficiency: Medium-highPolicy option 2:The identification ofhistoric heritage(without using aspecified set ofcriteria).EffectivenessThis policy direction is to continue with the status quo of ad hocdecision making with or without different sets of criteria within theregion. The continuation of the current framework for decisionmakerswould be expected to lead to a continuation of currentoutcomes – that is, an ongoing loss in the region’s historical andcultural heritage resource. Although it provides more flexibility tocouncils, it allows for inconsistent council approaches to historicheritage identification, undermining efforts to gain a regionalunderstanding of, and sustainable regional outcomes for, Waikatohistoric heritage resources.Localised and ad hoc approaches discourage the integrated sharingof resources, knowledge and best practice for management of thefinite resource.It could lead to regional variations and outcomes that do not giveeffect to the 2003 ‘Historic Heritage’ amendment to the RMA. Mostplans have not changed since the amendment elevated protection ofhistoric heritage to a matter of national importance. Adverse effectsof activities on historic heritage may not be being given dueconsideration by councils or applicants during the developmentcontrol process.This option would not provide certainty about the values of identifiedhistoric heritage to the community and affected and interestedparties. This leads to misunderstanding and unnecessary litigationand delays.There is a risk that continuing this approach will not achieve thehistoric heritage objective.The policy would make only a limited contribution to achievingObjective 3.17.Summary of Effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsProvides for some identificationof historic heritage.Environmental:CostsLack of regionally consistentcriteria to protect historic heritagewill lead to variable assessmentand decision making.Environmental outcomes willcontinue to be variable acrossthe region. Decision making willcontinue to suffer from unevenpractice.Environmental costs will occur ifhistoric heritage is evaluated indifferent ways, particularly wherehistoric heritage crosses regionalor territorial authority boundaries.10-6 Doc # 1451856

Ad hoc approaches toidentification of the historicheritage resource offer little in theway of certainty for propertyowners and resource users, andadd to resource consent costs.Community:Social and economic benefits willarise from the identification ofsome historic heritage. Theseinclude use values and non-usevalues.Councils have increasedflexibility, as decisions are madeon a case by case basis at theregional and local level.Inconsistent approaches tohistoric heritage identification andevaluation undermine efforts togain a regional understanding ofmanaging the resource (includingcumulative effects), inhibitstrategic responses anddiscourage information sharing.Community:This policy option would notprovide certainty nor instilconfidence about the value andprotection of identified historicheritage for the community andaffected and interested parties.Without transparent criteria,decision making will be lessrobust and more costly to thecouncil and community to justifyand ultimately defend.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientWithout transparent criteria,external experts’ advice will bemore variable than wouldotherwise be the case.Ad hoc approaches increasecosts involved in establishingevaluation criteria. The loss ofcouncil institutional knowledgeabout the interpretation ofapproaches can also increasecosts. Lack of direction can leadto conflict and incompleteconsideration of heritage values.Inconsistent approaches tohistoric heritage identification andevaluation can increaseduplication and reduce efficiency.Policy option 3:Direction to councils toprotect historic heritageresources frominappropriatedevelopment (withoutusing activity decisionmaking assessmentcriteria).EffectivenessThis policy direction would seek protection of the historic heritageresource through regional and district plan provisions, but in theabsence of a regionally consistent set of decision makingassessment criteria to determine whether or not an activity wasinappropriate.This policy direction would provide some flexibility to territorialauthorities, but would not give specific guidance or direction as to thetype of activities or effects to be managed in making a decision.Lack of decision making assessment criteria could inhibit efforts to beconsistent and transparent, increasing the likelihood of the policyDoc # 1451856 10-7

eing interpreted inconsistently, with differences in approach andvariability of resulting outcomes that can diminish historic heritageresources.Without decision making assessment criteria, this option may notprotect historic heritage values consistent with the new definition ofhistoric heritage in the RMA.Historic heritage is typically a highly specialised and evaluative fieldof resource management for practitioners and heritage specialistsoften working in narrow fields of discipline. The use of differentdecision making assessment criteria across various council plansdoes not effectively focus decision making upon heritage areas,consensually considered to be of concern.This policy direction would not achieve integrated management(Objective 3.1) and only make a modest contribution to achievingObjective 3.17.Summary of Effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:Some protection of specificcomponents of historic heritage.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Lack of regionally consistentassessment activity criteria toprotect historic heritage will leadto variable decision making.Environmental outcomes willcontinue to be variable acrossthe region.Community:Social and economic benefits willarise from the protection of somehistoric heritage. The benefitsinclude the consideration of thehistoric environment beingintegrated into planningprovisions, thereby promoting theshaping of places and communityidentities. Also the positivecontribution of heritage to localcharacter and sense of place isbetter recognised and valued.Historic heritage may not beprotected given the not so wellunderstoodeffects by resourcemanagement practitioners.Environmental costs will occur ifhistoric heritage is evaluatedand protected in different ways,particularly where historicheritage crosses regional orterritorial authority boundaries.The differing interpretation ofwhat is and isn’t appropriatebetween councils will continue toresult in incongruous outcomes,in relation(ship) to the differenttreatment of items andlandscapes that straddlejurisdictions.Community:Lack of decision makingassessment criteria will reduceconsistency and transparency indecision making and increaseuncertainty.Without transparent criteria,decision making will be lessrobust and more costly to theregional and district councils andcommunity to justify andultimately defend.10-8 Doc # 1451856

Councils have increasedflexibility, as decisions are madeon a case-by-case basis at thelocal level.Ad hoc approaches increasecosts involved in establishingevaluation and protectioncriteria. Lack of direction couldlead to conflict and incompleteconsideration of heritage values.Policy option 4:Relationship of Māorito taonga.Summary of Efficiency: Not Efficient.EffectivenessInconsistent approaches tohistoric heritage evaluation andprotection can increaseduplication and reduceefficiency.The aim of this policy option is to recognise the relationship of Māoriand their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites,wāhi tapu and other taonga consistent with s6(e) of the RMA in thecontext of historic heritage.This includes the recognition that it is sometimes inappropriate andineffective to identify sites or areas of cultural significance withinpublic documents, and to provide a process that provides for suchsensitivities, with the ownership and repository for the informationbeing held at the marae level, to ensure that the information that issignificant to Māori is utilised in an effective manner.A key method for implementing this policy option is the use of thecriteria in section 10A, set 2, in the RPS (adapted from a Waikato iwiperspective), along with the Regional Heritage Inventory in theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement that will assist inrecognising the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditionsin the context of historic heritage, where it is appropriate for theinformation to be made publicly available. Another method in theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement is the encouragementof iwi planning documents.This policy will ensure that consistent criteria are used for theassessment of Section 6(e) where it concerns Section 6(f) heritagevalues and places throughout the region, and provide for theintegrated management of heritage resources into the future.This policy will strongly contribute in achieving Objectives 3.17, 3.3and 3.8.This policy will provide a co-ordinated and integrated approach to theprotection and enhancement of the region’s historic heritageresources, resulting in some contribution to achieving Objective 3.2.This policy addresses matters under sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 30(1)(a), and30(1)(b) of the RMA.The criteria 73 remain broad, but describe a common set of values thatare important to all iwi and are consistent with matters that have beenshown to be relevant considerations under the RMA. They are alsoconsistent with the definition of historic heritage in the RMA andaddress those Section 6(e) matters that relate to Section 6(f).73Although there are no national criteria nor guidelines for determining matters relevant to Māori in resourcemanagement, the principle that only Māori can identify their relationship, and the relationship of their culture andtraditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga has been accepted for some time. TheMinistry for the Environment (1993) ‘Taking Into Account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ guide noted that:Realistically, tāngata whenua local to the resource are the only people able to assess the characteristics of therelationship with a particular place or resource. The section 10A, set 2 criteria in the Proposed RPS have beendeveloped from a Waikato iwi perspective.Doc # 1451856 10-9

Consultation with iwi has refined and developed the criteria, basedupon what is appropriate to each iwi.The policy explicitly recognises and builds on already establishedpractical mechanisms used by territorial authorities and WaikatoRegional Council to ensure that proper consultation takes place withiwi (such as lists of local Māori interests to be consulted and councilcommittees having tāngata whenua representatives).The policy will enable the consideration of the effect of a proposedactivity on the relationship of Māori with the relevant land or othermatters listed, in addition to regional or district plan changesconcerning historic heritage.The policy provides a framework for the development of policies,rules and methods across the region, and provides for an integratedapproach using criteria consistent with an adjacent region. It providesincreased certainty for all affected and interested parties.In promoting the identification and protection of historic heritage,Policy Option 4 recognises the need for the community to havegreater access to information. However, the policy also recognisesthat it is sometimes inappropriate 74 to identify sites or areas ofcultural significance to Māori within public documents, and thatwritten documentation itself may not be appropriate for certain typesof information (the living Māori oral tradition), and provides a specificprocess for recognising the sensitivities of Māori, in particular to theirsignificant heritage values and places.Summary of Effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsWill lead to more environmentallysustainable decision making andprotection of finite natural andphysical resources with Māoriculture and traditions historicheritage qualities.All relevant parties are required towork together to identify andassess historic heritage (includingMāori culture and traditions),resulting in improvedenvironmental outcomes.Recognising and providing for thesensitivity associated with somehistoric heritage will lead to betterdecision making and, in particular,address the loss of sensitiveMāori culture and traditions andother historic heritage.Environmental:CostsThe time lag betweenimplementing the policy and itsstaggered roll out across theregion may lead to continuedinconsistent or non-identificationof cultural heritage values andloss of resources in the shortterm.Improved identification andmanagement of historic heritagemay inhibit achievement of othercommunity outcomes, such ashousing space requirementsneeds. However, such tradeoffsare transparent.The policy manages the potentialadverse effects of activities onhistoric heritage of significance toMāori that may be unidentified ornot widely known.74The policy is consistent with S42 RMA which also provides for protection of sensitive information.10-10 Doc # 1451856

Increased awareness of thehistoric heritage resource assistsin its protection through increasedcommunity supervision.Community:Increased awareness of thehistoric heritage resource assistsin its protection through increasedcommunity supervision.Increases transparency aboutwhat the Māori culture andtraditions historic heritage valuesare.All relevant parties must worktogether to identify historicheritage, resulting in improvedsocial outcomes. In someinstances, economic benefits (liketourism) could occur throughbetter appreciation of Māoriheritage values.Community:There are social and economicresource costs for applicants,territorial authorities andcommunities associated with theassessment, consultation,governance and decisionmakingprocesses. However,these costs already exist withestablished practicalmechanisms to ensure thatproper consultation takes placewith iwi.There are costs associated withdeveloping systems to protectsensitive information abouthistoric heritage that issignificant to Māori.Less polarisation or debate overwhat factors to consider whendetermining the values of Māoriculture and traditions.Because these values are alreadyidentified, there will be somereduction in the resources neededby applicants to evaluate effectsof proposals on historic heritageMāori culture and traditionsvalues.Utilising criteria used in theneighbouring region can reducecompliance costs.Provides for the protection ofMāori culture and traditions andother historic heritage that wouldotherwise be unknown to a largeproportion of the community.Forms collaborative partnershipswith iwi to address the ongoingmanagement of sensitive Māoriculture and traditions and otherhistoric heritage.Provides for partnerships built ona mutual respect and trust foreach other’s needs to achievepositive outcomes.The policy explicitly recognisesand builds on already establishedpractical mechanisms used byterritorial authorities to ensurethat proper consultation takesplace with iwi, for example lists ofDoc # 1451856 10-11

local Māori interests to beconsulted and council committeeshaving tāngata whenuarepresentatives.Summary of Efficiency: Highly Efficient.Policy option 5:Effects of developmenton historic heritage.EffectivenessThe aim of this policy direction is to provide consistent regionaldirection and guidance on the protection of historic heritageconsistent with Section 6(f) of the RMA, including a method on whatconstitutes inappropriate use and development with regards todecision making, if one or more criterion of a Section 6 subset insection 10A, sets 1 and 2 is considered to have been triggered. Theaim of the policy is also to take a strategic and proactive approach tointegrate historic heritage within new development, includingopportunities to enhance amenity, cultural and historic valuesassociated with historic heritage. It is supported by a suggestedrange of protection mechanisms in plans, including the protection ofunidentified historic heritage that may be discovered duringdevelopment or land use.The method and assessment criteria as to whether an activity isinappropriate 75 in relation to s6 historic heritage protection isconsistent with those from the Bay of Plenty Regional CouncilRegional Policy Statement, incorporating Plan Change 1 madeoperative on 26 June, 2008. It clarifies those matters to be givenparticular regard to in decision making.This policy will strongly contribute in achieving Objective 3.17.This policy will provide a co-ordinated and integrated approach to theprotection and enhancement of the region’s historic heritageresources, and will make some contribution to achieving Objective3.2.This policy addresses matters under sections 5, 6, 7, 30(1)(a) and30(1)(b) of the RMA.The policy provides a consistent framework for the development ofpolicies, rules and methods across the region. Setting out matters tobe considered in determining whether or not an activity isinappropriate gives clarity and promotes consistency in terms of theinformation required to inform decision making.It provides for an integrated approach in particular with theneighbouring Bay of Plenty Regional Council.It provides the flexibility to protect, through incorporating, avoiding orappropriately mitigating any adverse effects.It provides clarity and transparency for territorial authorities, WaikatoRegional Council, applicants, the community and tāngata whenuaabout what is considered to be inappropriate for historic heritageassets under Section 6 of the RMA when making decisions.Increasingly, residents have an expectation that councils will work ontheir behalf to achieve a sustainable balance between privateproperty rights and community heritage values.Summary of Effectiveness: High75The policy and method acknowledge that protecting and integrating s6 heritage values and places may be able to beachieved while allowing subdivision, use and development. While still consistent, the method wording has beenslightly amended from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council RPS, incorporating Plan Change 1.10-12 Doc # 1451856

Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEstablishes a consistent regionalpolicy framework and requires allpertinent plans to apply similarmechanisms and decision makingassessment criteria.Will lead to more consistent and,ultimately, environmentallysustainable decision making andprotection of finite, natural andphysical resources.The time lag betweenimplementing the policy and itsstaggered roll out across theregion may lead to continuedinconsistent evaluation of‘inappropriate use anddevelopment’ and to loss ofhistoric heritage resources in theshort term.Provides clear direction andclarifies matters to be givenparticular regard to in decisionmaking.Requires development to addressspecified matters relating toimpact, risk and opportunity.Continued use of historic heritage(buildings) reuses embodiedenergy expended during initialconstruction and reduces thegeneration of waste to landfill. Itdrastically reduces the whole lifeenergy costs and waste impactsthat would otherwise result fromdemolition and replacement.Increased awareness of thehistoric heritage resource assistsin its protection through increasedcommunity supervision.Community:Resource management decisionsare still made on a case-by-casebasis at the local level, but withina consistent region-wide policyframework.Increases transparency as towhat is and is not considered tobe appropriate subdivision, useand development.Increased consistency allowsproposals to be measured orbenchmarked against each otherfor the collective consciousnessof communities.Provides for proactive andstrategic guidance ondevelopment possibilities andopportunities across the region,as well as on what restrictionsapply.Community:There are social and economicresource costs for landowners,councils and communitiesassociated with evaluation,interpretation, governance anddecision-making processes toconsistently apply assessmentcriteria identifying inappropriateactivities and effects. However,costs to the historic heritageresource can be more clearlyunderstood.The policy direction will requirecouncils and applicants toundertake assessmentsaccording to the decision makingcriteria, thereby addingcompliance costs. However,these matters should beconsidered regardless of thispolicy direction, as they stemfrom the RMA requirements, soDoc # 1451856 10-13

Less indecision and loss of timeover which factors to considerwhen determining subdivision,use and developmentapplications.additional costs are low. Thedecision making criteria clarifyrather than expand upon theRMA.Consistency and clarity promoteimproved certainty for applicants,communities, interested andaffected parties and councils.Reduced resources are neededby applicants to evaluate what isrequired and why, and to achievecompliance.Improved protection promoteseconomic benefits throughtourism and attracting residentsand investment to the region.Promotes non-use value such asinter-generational benefits, byproviding for the rights of futuregenerations to enjoy heritagevalues and places to the same orbetter extent as presentgenerations.Promotes social and culturalbenefits, by contributing to theregional community’s quality oflife, cultural values, and sense ofplace, historical linkages andspiritual renewal.Summary of Efficiency: Medium-high.Policy option 6:Doing Nothing - noIntervention.EffectivenessThis option is not consistent with Objective 3.18 and it will also limitthe achievement of Objectives 3.2, 3.3, 3.8 and 3.20.This option will not address matters under sections 5, 6, 7, 30(1)(a),30(1)(b), and 30(1)(ga) of the RMA.This option relies on voluntary historic heritage protection measuresand other agencies such as the NZ Historic Places Trust, who areresourced primarily for their management of historic heritage underthe Historic Places Act 1993.This option does not acknowledge the 2003 amendment to the RMAand is unlikely to achieve the objective, if there are no policies ormethods in place. It will not achieve integrated management.Summary of Effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:NoneBenefitsEnvironmental:CostsThere is a high risk of furtherloss and degradation to historicheritage, if no regional directionis provided. The continuing loss10-14 Doc # 1451856

of these resources would beexpected to lead to increasinglyunsustainable environmentaloutcomes.Community:It would fall short of providing acohesive, integrated frameworkfor historic heritage protectionand management.Community:Summary of Efficiency: Not Efficient.10.2 Risk of acting or not actingWould lead to increasinglyunsustainable environmentaloutcomes, resulting in economicand social costs from loss ofquality of life, cultural values,sense of place and historicallinkages. Fails to sustain andenhance the significance ofhistoric heritage, and of utilisingits positive role in place shapingand the positive contribution thatconservation of heritage cangenerally make to theestablishment and maintenanceof sustainable communities andeconomic vitality.Costs incurred as each territorialauthority and Waikato RegionalCouncil develops an appropriatepolicy response on a case-bycasebasis, thereby increasingthe likelihood of duplication.As the issue has been found tobe of national importance, doingnothing would be a neglect offunctions and duty under theRMA and would not give effectto the 2003 ‘Historic Heritage’amendment.Section 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain orinsufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods.With regards to historic heritage, there is sufficient information upon which to baseanalysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting, in particular bydemonstrating the scale and nature of the historic heritage resource issue, and that thepolicies and methods proposed will add to the level of historic heritage knowledge overtime.The risk of not acting in the ways proposed is that the regionally significant issue ofongoing historic heritage loss and degradation will continue into the future. There maybe irreversible and unrecognised loss of historic heritage of potential importance to theWaikato region. Territorial authorities, Waikato Regional Council and their communitieswill not be able to make choices about the use of resources informed by the knowledgeof what may be lost. Objectives and policies to address the issue will become lessDoc # 1451856 10-15

effective, and more difficult to implement, if the issue is allowed to persist. This willincrease costs into the future.The risk of acting in the ways proposed is that costs may be imposed on individuallandowners and on the community, local government and developers.10.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.17.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy option 1: Regionallyconsistent historic and culturalheritage management.Policy option 2: The identification ofhistoric heritage without using aspecified set of criteria.Policy option 3: Direction tocouncils to protect historic heritageresources from inappropriatedevelopment without using activitydecision making assessmentcriteria.Policy option 4: Relationship ofMāori to taonga.Policy option 5: Effects ofdevelopment on historic heritage.Policy option 6: Do nothing - NoIntervention.HighMedium-highSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 10.1]Moderate Low Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoHighHighHighlyefficientMedium-highYes[Policy 10.2]Yes[Policy 10.3]Low Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.17 is by inclusion of policy options 1, 4and 5.10.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsPolicy 1 Managing historic and cultural heritage (PWRPS Policy 10.1)Provide for the collaborative, consistent and integrated management of historic andcultural heritage resources.Implementation methods1.1 Identification and assessmentRegional and district plans shall as a minimum identify known sites, structures, areas,landscapes or places of historic or cultural heritage that require protection frominappropriate subdivision, use and development. The criteria provided in section 10Ashall form the basis of any new assessment of historic and cultural heritage.1.2 Regional heritage inventoryWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua,the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and other stakeholders, to facilitate thedevelopment of and access to an inventory of areas and places of historic and culturalheritage (Regional Heritage Inventory). This inventory will:a) bring together and refine existing inventories;10-16 Doc # 1451856

) include agency registrations and other items, objects, sites and places of culturalor historic interest;c) include the spatial identification of sites and link to detailed information aboutthose sites; andd) be used to monitor the condition and extent of heritage resources over time.1.3 Regional heritage forumWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngata whenua,the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and other stakeholders to facilitate theestablishment of a Regional Heritage Forum. This forum will develop and assessoptions for a framework for the management of historic and cultural heritage. Thisframework may include recommendations such as:a) the development of a heritage advisory panel;b) new or additional provisions in regional or district plans;c) the development of regional and local heritage strategies;d) the development of protocols for dealing with cross-boundary issues;e) identification of available incentives or grants; andf) identification and monitoring of threats and recommendations to address orrespond to these threats.1.4 Education and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) prepare information to assist with interpreting the criteria set out in section 10A;b) advocate for appropriate recognition and consideration of specialist assessmentand other resources including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust GuidanceSeries;c) undertake and support education programmes and the provision of informationthat promote awareness, understanding and conservation of historic and culturalheritage; andd) encourage decision makers to have regard to the conservation principlescontained within the International Council on Monuments and Sites, New ZealandCharter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value when preparingregional and district plans.Policy 2 Relationship of Māori to taonga (PWRPS Policy 10.2)The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga, are recognised and provided for.Implementation methods2.1 Sensitive informationWaikato Regional Council will facilitate a process to assist tāngata whenua indeveloping and implementing a system to protect sensitive information whilst enablinglandowners and local authorities to access information as appropriate.2.2 Identification of taongaWaikato Regional Council will encourage tāngata whenua to identify (using the criteriaprovided in section 10A) those areas, places, landscapes and resources ofsignificance, including those with significant spiritual or cultural historic heritage values,and:a) appropriate protocols for the use of or access to them;b) opportunities to recognise or reflect the stories, names, events, proverbs andbeliefs associated with them;c) opportunities to restore and enhance the relationship tāngata whenua have withthem;Doc # 1451856 10-17

d) any priorities for restoration and enhancement; ande) areas that should be monitored and the indicators to be used (mātauranga Māori)to measure the state of:i) places, areas, sites or landscapes with significant spiritual or cultural historicheritage value;ii) water bodies managed for cultural purposes;iii) pātaka kai; andiv) access requirements.2.3 Maintaining or enhancing tāngata whenua relationships with their roheLocal authorities should work with tāngata whenua to identify opportunities to maintainor enhance their relationship with their rohe through recognition, protection,maintenance or enhancement of Māori cultural landscapes and should provide forthese within regional and district plans. This may include:a) the use of traditional place names;b) protection, enhancement and restoration of mauri;c) the use of appropriate plant species;d) appropriate access (use and enjoyment) for tāngata whenua; ande) incorporation of traditional or sympathetic design elements.2.4 Information and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) undertake and support programmes and the provision of information thatpromotes awareness of Māori culture and heritage; andb) ensure that sites and resources of significance to Māori are added to theRegional Heritage Inventory where it is appropriate for this information to bemade publicly available.Policy 3 Effects of development on historic and culturalheritage (PWRPS Policy 10.3)Manage subdivision, use and development to give recognition to historic and culturalheritage and to integrate it with development where appropriate.Implementation methods3.1 Protect historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate subdivision useand developmentRegional and district plans shall provide for the protection of historic and culturalheritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Mechanisms mayinclude:a) heritage alert layers;b) accidental discovery protocols;c) cultural value assessments and/or cultural impact assessments;d) conservation and open space covenants;e) heritage orders; andf) financial and other incentives.3.2 Inappropriate subdivision, use and developmentIn determining whether an activity is inappropriate, regional and district plans shallrequire that regard is had to:a) the character and degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction of heritagequalities;b) the duration and frequency of effect;c) the magnitude or scale of any effect on heritage qualities;10-18 Doc # 1451856

d) the opportunities available to remedy or mitigate pre-existing or potential adverseeffects on heritage qualities;e) the probability of damage to immediate or adjacent heritage qualities;f) the degree to which unique or special materials and/or craftsmanship are retained;g) whether the activity will lead to cumulative adverse effects on historic and culturalheritage;h) whether the relationships between distinct elements of a historic place, site or areawill be maintained;i) whether the relationships between sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage toother sites or areas of historic and cultural heritage will be maintained;j) the irreversibility of adverse effects on heritage values including:i) the loss of unique or rare features;ii) opportunities for remediation;iii) the costs and technical feasibility of remediation or mitigation;iv) the relocation of heritage away from its original site or context;v) the loss of value or integrity of historic places, sites or areas through lack ofappropriate maintenance and management; andvi) a significant reduction in the value of the historical, cultural and spiritualassociations with historic and cultural heritage resources which are held bytāngata whenua and the wider community; andk) the resilience of heritage qualities or places to change including:i) the ability of the feature to assimilate change; andii) the vulnerability of the feature to external effects.Doc # 1451856 10-19

10A Assessment criteriaTable 10-1: Criteria in relation to historic heritage qualitiesInformationResearchRecognition orProtectionStyle or typeDesignConstructionDesigner orBuilderSentimentIdentityAmenity orEducationAssociativeValueHistoricalPatternInformationPotential –ScientificResearchTechnicalAchievementArchaeological qualitiesThe potential of the place or area to define or expand knowledge of earlierhuman occupation, activities or events through investigation usingarchaeological methods.The potential of the place or area to provide evidence to addressarchaeological research questions.The place or area is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for itsarchaeological values, or is recorded by the New Zealand ArchaeologicalAssociation Site Recording Scheme, or is an 'archaeological site' as defined bythe Historic Places Act 1993.Architectural QualitiesThe style of the building or structure is representative of a significantdevelopment period in the region or the nation. The building or structure isassociated with a significant activity (for example institutional, industrial,commercial or transportation).The building or structure has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic orfunctional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, detail,fenestration, ornamentation, artwork, functional layout, landmark status orsymbolic value.The building or structure uses unique or uncommon building materials, ordemonstrates an innovative method of construction, or is an early example ofthe use of a particular building technique.The building or structure’s architect, designer, engineer or builder was anotable practitioner or made a significant contribution to the region or nation.Cultural QualitiesThe place or area is important as a focus of spiritual, political, national or othercultural sentiment.The place or area is a context for community identity or sense of place, andprovides evidence of cultural or historical continuity.The place or area has symbolic or commemorative significance to people whouse or have used it, or to the descendants of such people. The interpretativecapacity of the place or area and its potential to increase understanding of pastlifestyles or events.Historic QualitiesThe place or area has a direct association with, or relationship to, a person,group, institution, event or activity that is of historical significance to Waikato orthe nation.The place or area is associated with broad patterns of local or national history,including development and settlement patterns, early or importanttransportation routes, social or economic trends and activities.Scientific QualitiesThe potential for the place or area to contribute information about an historicfigure, event, phase or activity.The degree to which the place or area may contribute further information andthe importance of the data involved, its rarity, quality or representativeness.Technological QualitiesThe place or area shows a high degree of creative or technical achievement ata particular time or is associated with scientific or technical innovations orachievements.10-20 Doc # 1451856

Table 10-2: Māori culture and traditions assessment criteriaMauriKo te mauri me te mana o te wāhi, te taonga rānei, e ngākaunuitia anae te Māori.The mauri (for example life force) and mana (for example prestige) ofthe place or resource holds special significance to Māori.Wāhi tapuKo tērā wāhi, taonga rānei he wāhi tapu, arā, he tino whakahirahira kingā tikanga, ki ngā puri mahara, ki te taha wairua hoki a te Māori.The place or resource is a wāhi tapu of special, cultural, historic andor spiritual importance to Māori.Kōrero-o-mua/historicalKo tērā wāhi e ngākaunuitia ana e te Māori ki roto i ōna kōrero-o-muame ōna tikanga.The place has special historical and cultural significance to Māori.Rawa tūturu/customary resourcesHiahiatanga tūturu/customary needsHe wāhi tērā e kawea ai ngā rawa tūturu a te Māori.The place provides important customary resources for Māori.He wāhi tērā e pupuru nei i ngā tikanga ahurea, wairua hoki a teMāori.The place or resource is a venue or repository for Māori cultural andspiritual values.Whakaaronui o te wa/contemporary esteemHe wāhi rongonui tērā ki ngā Māori, arā, he wāhi whakaahuru, hewāhi whakawaihanga, he wāhi tuku mātauranga rānei .The place has special amenity, architectural or educationalsignificance to Māori.Explanation of terms:Hiahiatanga tūturu means those parts of the landscape that are important for the exercise oftikanga – the principles and practices to maintain the mauri of parts of the natural world. Thismight be a place where a particular ritual is performed or a particular feature that is noted for itsability to identify the boundaries of ancestral tribal lands that is acknowledged in iwi or hapūoratory.Kōrero-o-mua refer to places that are important due to particular historical and traditionalassociations (in pre-European history).Rawa tūturu means the cultural value of places that provide, or once provided, importantcustomary resources to tāngata whenua. Customary resources might include food andmaterials necessary to sustain life in pre-European and post-European times.Whakaaronui o te wa refers to the contemporary relationships tāngata whenua have withMāori heritage places. Appreciation of features for their beauty, pleasantness, and aestheticvalues is important to tāngata whenua. Recreational values attributed to features are alsoimportant to tāngata whenua as they illustrate the relationship that individuals and groups canhave with the environment.Doc # 1451856 10-21

11 Indigenous biodiversity11.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods11.1.1 Objective 3.18 Indigenous BiodiversityThe following table summarises the policy options that have been evaluated toprimarily achieve Objective 3.18 Indigenous Biodiversity.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Direction to identifyand protect SNAs as acomponent ofmaintaining indigenousbiodiversity.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option addresses the requirements of Section 6(c) of theResource Management Act, which is an important component of theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement indigenous biodiversityobjective. It also provides guidance on appropriate mitigation forunavoidable loss or damage to Significant Natural Areas (SNAs),where activities cannot avoid adverse effects.A key method for implementing this policy is the criteria identified inAppendix 11A, with Waikato Regional Council identifying and rankingSNAs as part of its broader biodiversity information gathering role.The criteria are similar to those in the Operative Regional PolicyStatement 2000, which were developed and introduced through arobust Environment Court mediation process. The criteria have beenwell supported to date.The ongoing inclusion of criteria provides consistency andtransparency to decision making. Waikato Regional Council’s role inidentifying SNAs is part of a project called ‘Prioritising Natural Areasfor Biodiversity Management’. The majority of costs for this projecthas been borne by Waikato Regional Council (with contributions fromterritorial authorities), as territorial authorities have identified the costof developing schedules or inventories of SNAs using the criteria as abarrier to their implementation. A group of methods (11.2.1 – 11.2.4)are identified to assist with protection of SNAs, combining regulatoryand non-regulatory approaches.This policy will make a strong contribution to achieving Objective 3.18and a co-ordinated and integrated approach to the protection andmanagement of the region’s significant natural areas, which will alsomake some contribution to Objective 3.2.The policy is consistent with achieving regional community outcome1b) under the Local Government Act 2002.The policy is consistent with NZCPS policies 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 forindigenous biodiversity within the coastal environment.The policy addresses matters under Sections 5, 7, 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b),30(1)(c)(iiia), 30(1)(ga) and provides a consistent approach toidentifying biodiversity that meets Section 6(c) of the ResourceManagement Act across the region.The policy addresses matters under Section 5(2)(c) and allows for abalancing or ‘weighing up’ of biodiversity values in decision making.The policy is consistent with best practice approaches to managementof SNAs (Quality Plan Guidance Note).Doc # 1451856 11-1

It provides a regionally consistent set of criteria for identification andassessment. The criteria 76 are robust and have been developedthrough a comprehensive public consultation process.It provides a regional context within which to assess and prioritisebiodiversity management of SNAs and assigns clear roles andresponsibilities for regional and local councils. It also providescouncils with a comprehensive picture of remnant SNAs.The policy provides direction and guidance to avoid adverse effects inrelation to SNAs and what might constitute appropriate mitigation, ifadverse effects are unavoidable. It also promotes collaborationbetween Waikato Regional Council and territorial authorities to refinedata and to develop a unified approach to engaging landowners ofSNAs.A unified approach to collection and analysis of SNA ecologicalinformation reduces duplication of effort and cost. It achieves betterdata quality through sharing of information between councils andensures a comprehensive information base from which councils candevelop more targeted biodiversity policy and methods. Enhanceddata quality and quantity allows for improved region-wide monitoringof SNA biodiversity and habitat condition and extent.The policy assumes that the community and territorial authorities willsupport and implement the protection of SNAs and that councils havesufficient staff, resources and capacity to initiate the range of methodsto implement the SNA policy direction. It also assumes thatmonitoring and enforcement of regulatory mechanisms is adequateand that funding levels are appropriate to implement non-regulatorymethods.There may be negative landowner and political reaction to impositionof regulatory controls on SNAs.Loss of biodiversity values within SNAs may still occur after‘protection’, for example from lack of active management or from noncompliance.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsImproved and morecomprehensive identification ofSNAs, consistent implementationand decision making, and betterprotection of natural resources(SNAs).Provides clarity and consistencyon the types of adverse effects tobe managed in relation to SNAs.Provides for appropriateecological mitigation orenhancement of SNA in thosesituations where adverse effectscannot be avoided.There may be short-term risks tobiodiversity until provisions areincluded in all relevant plans.The effect of this policy option isto bring forward such losses andin the absence of the policy, thelosses will likely occur at a laterdate. For example, landownerswith SNAs on their property mayreact negatively, resulting inpotential loss of biodiversityvalues before plan provisions are‘locked in’.Some loss of indigenousbiodiversity values is allowed for,but the loss is explicit in decision76The criteria were developed and implemented through Variation 3 to the RPS (see Environment Waikato Policy series1999/07) and subsequent Environment Court process.11-2 Doc # 1451856

Improved identification andprotection of biodiversity valuesfrom combined expertise andsharing of information.making (rather than as apermitted activity) and isbalanced by mitigation andremediation opportunities.Good information of the SNAbiodiversity resource provides theability to proactively manage andprioritise that resource.Ensures environmental outcomesare consistent with all legislativeand other non-statutoryframeworks.Enables strategic thinking anddialogue around commonbiodiversity issues, leading toimproved outcomes.Community:Comprehensive identification ofSNAs provides a coherent planfor their management assisting aco-ordinated response that isjustifiable, efficient and equitable.Collection of data at regional levelreduces cost barriers at locallevel, provides potential foreconomies of scale and avoidsduplication.Ranking sites can assist inprioritising funds, sharing costsacross all levels government andprioritising management action.Provides for more targeted andeffective planning provisions(rules are generally targeted towhere values exist) and financialor other assistance.Provides certainty for allinterested parties.Promotes administrativeefficiencies for plans andresource consents.Increased transparency abouthow and why SNAs have beenidentified.Reduced conflict or debate overCommunity:There are social and economiccosts for landowners, councilsand communities associated withresearch, analysis, interpretation,governance and decision-makingprocesses, to identify, protect andcollaboratively manage SNAs.Costs would be more clearlydefined and shared under a coordinatedapproach.Costs may be associated withidentifying precise locations forSNAs which may fall onindividuals, however, such costsare transparent.Perceived loss of financialopportunities to convert orchange land use from indigenousvegetation to other ‘productive’uses.Costs will fall to Waikato RegionalCouncil for providing territorialauthorities with district inventoriesof SNAs 79 and other biodiversityvalues (method 11.2.1).Costs may fall to territorialauthorities (or Waikato RegionalCouncil) for ground truthing ofsites 80 and for undertakingecological assessments of sites 81 .These costs are likely to be one-77From Patterson and Cole, 1999, Estimation of the Value of Ecosystem Services in the Waikato Region, EnvironmentWaikato Internal Series 1999/02. Adjusting for inflation between 1997 and 2009 would yield a figure of $700.78Ibid. Adjusting for inflation would yield a figure of $52,000/ha/year.79An approximate cost for each district is, on average, around $100,000 (some territorial authorities provide somecontribution). Funding is secured through the “Managing Priority Habitats” work brief.80“ground truthing” is verifying the SNA boundaries and the basic vegetation type which is probably required for D Planreview purposes due to scale. Cost estimate is $100-150 per site. The number of sites varies for each district, forexample Hauraki District has 136 SNAs on private land, by comparison Waitomo has 429.81Ecological assessment includes compiling a full species list, assessing vegetation pattern, significance level andidentifying key threats. Cost estimate is $2-3,000 per site.Doc # 1451856 11-3

what factors or characteristics toconsider when determining SNAvalues.If regulatory incentives areprovided under method 10.1.4(a),there may be positive effects onthe market value of land withsignificant biodiversity values.Promotes social and economicbenefits from ongoing provision ofecosystem services, such as theprovision of a habitat for nativebirds, endemic biodiversity,landscape amenity, passivevalue, climate regulation andrecreation. The ecosystemservice benefits from indigenousforest and scrubland ecosystemshave been estimated at $500 perhectare per year 77 . Similarlyecosystem service benefits fromwetland ecosystems have beenestimated at $40,000 per hectareper year 78 . The benefits of thesevalues are ongoing.off costs and may be apportionedin different ways, for exampleterritorial authorities may pay forthe assessments at time ofresource consent application tobalance the public good aspectsof protection, or the full cost mayfall to applicants who wish toremove or degrade existingvalues.The cost of incentive programmesto support biodiversity requires asecure funding base.Promotes inter-generationalbenefits by providing for the rightsof future generations to enjoybiodiversity values protectedwithin SNAs.Promotes social and culturalbenefits by contributing to theregion’s quality of life, culturalvalues, amenity values and clean,green image.Summary of efficiency: Medium-HighPolicy option 2:Status Quo – RegionalPolicy Statementcriteria guide SNAidentification, territorialauthorities protect asappropriate.EffectivenessThe aim of this policy direction is to provide a ‘hands-off’ minimumguidance approach. The key method is the criteria in Appendix 10.It provides more flexibility than Policy option 1 to territorial authorities,while still allowing for ‘significant biodiversity’ to be identified in aregionally consistent manner.It allows for local knowledge of land to be applied to data collection.It could allow for inconsistent approaches and timing to proactivelymanage SNAs, which could hamper efforts to gain region-wideunderstanding of biodiversity and habitat resources.Costs would fall mostly to territorial authorities and success would bedependent on resources and expertise at district level.It increases chance for duplication of effort and discourages efficientsharing of resources and knowledge.The policy direction would not support prioritisation of significance andimportance by territorial authorities, and does not provide a set ofregional priorities.11-4 Doc # 1451856

This policy direction would allow for variable policy/method responsesat local level to protect SNAs and would not achieve integratedmanagement.Variable responses may not meet S6c) requirements.The Regional Policy Statement Policy Effectiveness Report onbiodiversity and natural heritage found that biodiversity had continuedto decline under this policy and recommended a number of policychanges to improve management.There is a risk that continuing this approach will not achieve Objective3.18.The policy is only partially consistent with Objectives 3.18.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsProvides for consistentidentification of SNAs.Biodiversity values areprotected where territorialauthorities take acomprehensive approach toimplementation.Provides some ability tomonitor and compare SNAsacross the region and targetfunding and assistance tothose landowners.Without regional direction andassistance, environmentaloutcomes will be variable across theregion. Where implementation isincomplete, further losses inbiodiversity values are likely tooccur.Inconsistent approaches toevaluation and implementationundermine efforts to gain a regionalunderstanding of managing SNAs(including cumulative effects), inhibitstrategic and proactive responses,and discourage information sharing.Ad hoc approaches to SNAprotection are leading to continuingloss of indigenous biodiversityvalues, particularly the cumulativeeffects of many small losses. Forexample between 1996 and 2002,580 hectares of indigenous forestand scrub was removed, whilebetween 1995 and 2002, theWaikato region lost a further 600hectares (approximately) ofwetlands 82 (this is in addition to the92% of wetlands already lostbetween 1840 and 1995) 83 .Community:Councils have increasedflexibility in how they protectbiodiversity, and decisions areLosses are also likely to continue tooccur outside identified SNAs.Community:Costs would fall mostly to territorialauthorities (though some may berecoverable) or individuallandowners within each district, and82Progress toward achievement of Environment Waikato’s Regional Policy Statement Objectives: Biodiversity andnatural heritage.83Ausseil A-G, Gerbeaux P, Chadderton WL, Stephens T, Brown D, Leathwick J 2008. Wetland ecosystems of nationalimportance for biodiversity: criteria, methods and candidate list of nationally important inland wetlands. Prepared byLandcare Research for Department of Conservation Landcare Research contract report no. LC0708/158.Doc # 1451856 11-5

made on a case-by-case basisat the local level.Provides some increasedcertainty to landowners aboutlocation of some SNAs.Public awareness of SNAlocations is improved.success would be dependent onresources and expertise at districtlevel. Initial estimates suggest costsper district of $200,000 or more toestablish the necessary capacity,and $150,000 per year on anongoing basis.It increases chances of duplicationof effort and discourages efficientsharing of resources andknowledge.The policy direction would inhibitterritorial authorities and the regionin prioritising levels of significanceand importance.There is increased uncertaintyabout how SNAs will be protected,particularly where indigenousbiodiversity values cross districtboundaries.Ad hoc approaches to protectioncan lead to loss of ecosystemservices and loss of cultural,amenity, and natural charactervalues. The loss of ecosystemservices is expected to besubstantial and cumulative. Forexample, if losses of wetlandscontinued at the same rate asrecorded between 1995 and 2002,this would be estimated to incur anadditional $3.4 million costs eachyear. 84Policy option 3:Direction to maintain allindigenous biodiversity.Summary of efficiency: LowOver a similar period (1996-2002),the loss of 580 hectares ofindigenous forest and scrubequates to additional losses inecosystems services of between$52,000 and $229,000 per year. 85EffectivenessThe aim of this policy option is to provide direction to WaikatoRegional Council and territorial authorities to achieve their functions tomaintain indigenous biodiversity across the landscape. Direction isprovided by the Policy and supported by methods which combineregulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms to achieve the policydirections.The methods recognise that there are a range of mechanisms bywhich regional and district plans can maintain or enhance indigenousbiodiversity when managing activities, and provide guidance onadverse effects to be avoided, remedied or mitigated when managingactivities.84Based on the loss of 86 hectares per year and an ecosystem service of $40,000 per year per hectare. Ecosystemservice values are derived from Patterson & Cole, 1999 – Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in theWaikato Region – EW Internal Series 1999/02. If figures are adjusted for inflation to show 2009 dollar values, theannual increase in annual losses would be $4.5 million (i.e. $52,000 x 86ha = $4.5 million).85Based on the loss of 97 hectares per year and estimated ecosystem services valued at $500 per year per hectare forscrub and $2,400 per year per hectare for forest. After adjusting for inflation the annual increase in annual losseswould be between $68,000 and $302,000.11-6 Doc # 1451856

Methods also provide a range of non-regulatory approaches intendedto allow councils to work collaboratively and strategically to identifyopportunities and priorities for enhancement and restoration activities,to ensure that they have appropriate funding mechanisms, incentivesand information to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes locally andregionally, and to develop a methodology to enable improved regionwidemonitoring and assessment of ecosystem health and functioning(quality).This policy will make a strong contribution to achieving Objectives3.18 and 3.7 and a co-ordinated and integrated approach to themanagement of the region’s indigenous biodiversity, which will alsomake a contribution to Objectives 3.1 and 3.11.The policy provides for an assessment of the health or condition ofregional biodiversity – an important component of Objective 3.18.The policy recognises the need for improved ecological connectivityand ecological enhancement to maintain indigenous biodiversity. Itsupports and complements the narrower SNA policy direction inOption 1.The policy is consistent with the requirements of the ResourceManagement Act Sections 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 6a), 6(c), 6(e), 7(d), 8,30(1)(a), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(c)(iiia), 30(1)(ga), 31(1)(b)(iii).The policy provides for the management of terrestrial and freshwaterindigenous biodiversity beyond SNAs and makes a contribution toachieve Objectives 3.3, 3.8, 3.13 and 3.15. .The management of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marineindigenous biodiversity beyond SNAs will provide for those elementsof indigenous biodiversity that contribute to the natural character of thecoastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins, and ofamenity values, and make a contribution to achieve Objectives 3.20and 3.21.The policy addresses matters under Section 5(2)(c) and allows for abalancing or ‘weighing up’ of biodiversity values in decision making.It provides regionally consistent guidance on the type of adverseeffects to be avoided in relation to indigenous biodiversity and onappropriate mitigation, if effects cannot be avoided.The policy is consistent with achieving regional community outcome1(b) under the Local Government Act 2002.The policy is consistent with NZ Coastal Policy Statement policies1.1.2 and 1.1.4 for indigenous biodiversity within the coastalenvironment.The policy is consistent with best practice approaches to managementof SNAs and it addresses one of the key issues identified in thebiodiversity best practice guide (Quality Plan Guidance Note), thatthere is inadequate information on trends in biodiversity condition fordifferent ecosystem types to evaluate policy performance.It provides councils with a comprehensive picture of remnantbiodiversity, its extent and degree of loss.It assumes that the community and territorial authorities will supportand implement the broader approach to maintaining biodiversity, andthat councils have sufficient staff, resources and capacity to initiate therange of methods to implement the policy direction.Doc # 1451856 11-7

It provides for assessment of biodiversity values that may besignificant, for example ecosystems and habitats not identified assignificant due to limitations of the methodology to accurately identifyareas below half a hectare in size, and would otherwise be lost ormodified.It ensures a comprehensive information base from which councils candevelop more targeted biodiversity policy and methods and whichenables decision making that supports biodiversity outcomes.Enhanced data quality and quantity allows for improved region-widemonitoring of biodiversity and habitat condition and extent.The policy assumes that an appropriate methodology for measuringecosystem health and condition can be developed.The policy assumes that Waikato Regional Council will work withnational agencies such as the Department of Conservation, NIWA andLandcare to avoid duplication and share resources in developing amethodology for measuring ecosystem health and condition.Budgetary constraints may compromise the size of funding availableto implement the range of non-regulatory methods, and inhibitdevelopment of a methodology for measuring ecosystem health andcondition.There may be negative landowner and political reaction to impositionof additional regulatory controls.Incentives to remove or degrade indigenous biodiversity may continueto be a stronger influence on behaviour than incentives to protect it.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsImproved and morecomprehensive identification,assessment and monitoring ofregional biodiversity values andbetter management of natural(biodiversity) resources.Provides for assessment ofcumulative adverse effects onbiodiversity values and foradaptive management.Provides clarity and consistencyon the types of adverse effects tobe managed in relation toindigenous biodiversity.Provides for appropriateecological mitigation orenhancement in those situationswhere adverse effects cannot beavoided.Environmental:CostsAllows for some loss ofindigenous biodiversity values,but loss is explicit in decisionmaking (rather than as apermitted activity) and balancedby mitigation and remediationopportunities.Territorial authorities have widelyvarying capacities to assesspotential impacts of proposedland use activities on terrestrialbiodiversity and habitat.Implementation may lackconsistency across differentdistricts and across differenttypes of SNAs and habitat types.The more common or degradedindigenous biodiversity cancontribute to the overall11-8 Doc # 1451856

ecological health and indigenouscharacter of the region.Good information of thebiodiversity resource provides theability to proactively manage thatresource and to apply flexibleapproaches to suit varyingsituations in each district.Biodiversity values outside ofSNAs can be assessed as part ofdecision making.Supports management of SNAsby recognising links, connectionsand buffers across the landscape.Provides for improved resiliencefor biodiversity to cope withclimate change.Enables regional plan to developstronger methods for biodiversityprotection consistent withbiodiversity policy effectivenessreport recommendations.Clarifies that Waikato RegionalCouncil develops policies andrules for SNAs in the coastalmarine area, freshwater andriparian margins.Community:Better and more comprehensivebiodiversity information able to beincorporated into decisionmaking.Collection of data at a regionallevel reduces cost barriers atlocal level, reduces significantinformation gaps and avoidsduplication.Consistent regional developmentof methodology to monitorecosystem health will result inimproved biodiversity outcomes infuture, with the potential togenerate large ecosystem servicevalues.Provides clarity about wherebiodiversity condition is decliningand where to apply resources tomanage it.Provides for more effective andtargeted planning provisions andCommunity:There are social and economiccosts for landowners, councilsand communities associated withresearch, analysis, interpretation,governance and decision-makingprocesses, to identify, protect andcollaboratively manageindigenous biodiversity. Costsare likely to be ongoing, but canbe more clearly defined andshared under a co-ordinatedapproach.Where changes to regional anddistrict plans affect the ability oflandowners to undertakeparticular activities or tosubdivide, market values of landmay be affected. Estimating thesize and extent of such effects isdifficult without the informationthat would be gathered under theproposed methods.Costs may be associated withidentifying precise locations of86Patterson & Cole, 1999 – Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato Region – EW Internal Series1999/02, unadjusted for inflation. Adjusted for inflation between 1997 and 2009, these figures would be$700/ha/year for scrubland; $52,000/ha/year for wetlands; $61,000/ha/year for estuaries; $27,000 for lakes; $23,000for rivers; and $10,600 for the coastal zone.Doc # 1451856 11-9

financial or other assistance toaffected landowners.Provides certainty for allinterested parties.Promotes social and economicbenefits from ongoing provision ofecosystem services. The valuesprovided by ecosystems varywidely, depending on type. Forexample the ecosystem servicebenefits associated withindigenous forest and scrublandecosystems have been estimatedat $500 per hectares per year; forwetland ecosystems the estimateis $40,000/ha/yr; for estuarineecosystems the estimate is$46,000/ha/yr; for lakes the figureis $20,000/ha/yr; for rivers it is$17,000/ha/yr and for the coastalzone it is $8,000/ha/yr 86 . Eachhectare of functional ecosystemthat is protected represents anannual stream of benefits fromservices provided.Promotes inter-generationalbenefits by providing for the rightsof future generations to enjoyindigenous biodiversity values.Promotes social and culturalbenefits by contributing to theregion’s quality of life, amenityvalues and clean, green image.Promotes ongoing relationship ofMāori with indigenous biodiversityand habitats.Reflects that territorial authoritieshave a closer relationship withlandowners with biodiversityvalues on their land.The different levels of localgovernment can provide for moretargeted and effective planningprovisions and financial or otherassistance.If regulatory incentives areprovided, there may be positiveeffects on the market value ofland with important biodiversityvalues.remnant indigenous biodiversity,which may fall on individuals;however, such costs aretransparent and territorialauthorities are able to balancepublic good and private costs.The approach to land usecontrols are somewhat morerestrictive than the status quo andassociated administrative costsmay be higher. It is noted,however, that such an approachshould be currently undertaken aspart of the ResourceManagement Act framework, inwhich case additional costs of thepolicy are minor.For indigenous biodiversity valuesunder the threshold foridentification (less than 0.5hectares in size), there may stillbe uncertainty for landowners asto whether they are affected.Additional costs incurred (tocouncils and landowners ordevelopers) in bringing allbiodiversity values into decisionmaking, and in terms ofecological expertise. Territorialauthorities can incur these costsor pass them onto landownersand applicants.Waikato Regional Council is likelyto incur increased costs toimplement the range of advocacymethods to achieve this policydirection, the most significantbeing collaborative developmentof local biodiversity strategies(requiring an estimated one fulltimestaff member, costingaround $150,000 over a two tothree year period = $300,000 to$450,000). Other costs largelyabsorbed by current regionalintegration team budgets.Costs of developing methodologyto measure ecosystem health arehighly uncertain, but likely to besignificant, and could fall largelyon Waikato Regional Council andratepayers. However, costs maybe offset through a collaborativenational effort, including coordinationwith other regionalcouncils 87 .87See MAC report Exec Summary recommendation 5 – national guidance on biodiversity info and monitoring extent andcharacter, and TFBIS funding application seeking consistent approach to monitoring biodiversity on private land byall regional councils.11-10 Doc # 1451856

Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientThe financial costs of monitoringare estimated to require one fulltimeequivalent staff member onan ongoing basis, that is,$150,000 per year.Territorial authorities are likely toincur increased costs to beinvolved in local biodiversitystrategies (possibly one half toone full-time equivalent staffmember for between six and 12months per territorial authority($37,500 -$150,000)).Costs of gathering information areexpected to averageapproximately $20,000 per year.An additional cost of maintainingthe inventory, disseminatinginformation, and interpreting thedata for territorial authorities isinitially estimated as equivalent toa half to one full-time equivalentstaff member ($75,000 -$150,000) on an ongoing basis.There is the potential forconfusion from landowners whomust engage with differentcouncils across boundaries.Policy option 4:Identify and protectSNAs as the onlyapproach to maintainindigenous biodiversity.EffectivenessThis policy option focuses on SNA identification and protection only,without acknowledgement of indigenous biodiversity values beyondSNAs. The key methods for this policy option are those identified inOption 1 above. This policy direction prioritises managementintervention and available resources to selected areas only.This policy may partially achieve Objectives 3.18 and 3.7, howeverthere is a risk that continuing this approach longer term will notachieve these objectives.This policy is partially consistent with achieving regional communityoutcome 1(b) under the Local Government Act 2002.This policy is consistent with S(6c) of the Resource Management Act1991.This policy helps to prioritise scarce resources to the higher valuesites.This policy will not address matters under sections 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b),5(2)(c), 6(a), 6(e), 7(d), 8, 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(c)(iiia), 30(1)(ga),31(1)(b)(iii).The policy will not address the issue of ongoing loss of indigenousbiodiversity beyond SNAs and its continuing decline.The policy will not consider indigenous biodiversity that buffers, linksor otherwise supports or complements the management of SNAs.A focus on SNAs alone will not improve ecological integrity or providefor the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems. Over time, this willDoc # 1451856 11-11

impact on the SNAs themselves, reducing their functioning andresilience.The policy will not consider potentially significant areas of less than0.5 hectares in size that are not captured by the methodology.It provides a regionally consistent set of criteria for identification andassessment of SNA. The criteria 88 are robust and have beendeveloped through a comprehensive public consultation process.The policy provides a regional context within which to assess andprioritise SNA management and assigns clear roles andresponsibilities for regional and local councils with respect to SNAs. Itprovides direction and guidance on the type of adverse effects to beavoided in relation to SNAs and what might constitute appropriatemitigation, if effects cannot be avoided.It provides for collaboration between regional council and territorialauthorities to refine SNA data and to develop a unified approach toengaging landowners with SNA on their property.Budgetary constraints may compromise the size of funding availableto implement the range of non-regulatory methods. There may also benegative landowner and political reaction to imposition of additionalregulatory controls.Summary of effectiveness: MediumEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsImproved and morecomprehensive identification ofSNAs, consistent implementationand decision making.Highest priority ecosystems,habitats, and areas withregionally significant biodiversityvalues that satisfy assessmentcriteria are protected.A focused and targeted approachto highest priority areas canimprove active management.In general, the benefits ofprotecting a given area areexpected to be greatest wherebiodiversity losses have beengreatest in the past.The reduced risk of further loss ofecosystem types and associatedindigenous species of flora andfauna.Environmental:CostsThere may be short-term risks tobiodiversity until provisions areincluded in all levels of relevantplans. For example, landownerswith SNAs on their property mayreact negatively, resulting inpotential loss of biodiversityvalues before plan provisions are‘locked in’.Loss of biodiversity values maystill occur after protection, forexample from lack of activemanagement or from noncompliance.A focus on SNAs alone will notimprove ecological integrity orprovide for the life-supportingcapacity of ecosystems.There may be a loss ofbiodiversity values outside ofSNAs through lack of activemanagement, or due to valuesnot being considered as part ofconsent or plan processes.Losses outside of SNAs will leadto increased fragmentation ofremnant ecosystems, andconsequently reduce the88The criteria were developed and implemented through Variation 3 to the RPS (see Environment Waikato Policy series1999/07) and subsequent Environment Court process.11-12 Doc # 1451856

environmental benefits generatedby the SNA network itself.A reduced ability to planstrategically may undermine SNAhealth and function.Community:Lower social and economicresource costs for landownerswith ‘non-significant’ biodiversityvalues.Reduced implementation costsfor territorial authorities andWaikato Regional Council aspolicy deals only with areascontaining significant values.Greater clarity of roles, reducingthe potential for duplication offunctions across localgovernment, and avoidsassociated costs.Better biodiversity information isable to be incorporated intodecision making on SNAs,however, there will be gaps ininformation reflecting thelimitations to the methodology. Inparticular, it focuses on areasgreater than half a hectare.The values provided byecosystems vary widely,depending on the type. Forexample, wetlands are estimatedto provide services valued at$40,000 per hectare per annum,whereas forests provide servicesof approximately $2,400 perhectare per annum 89 . Eachhectare of functional ecosystemthat is protected as part of anSNA represents an annual streamof benefits from servicesprovided.A focus on protecting fragmentswill not provide resilience topotential climate change impacts.Community:Where changes to regional anddistrict plans affect the ability oflandowners to undertakeparticular activities or subdivide,market values of land may beaffected. The informationrequired to estimate size andextent of such effects would occuras part of the implementation ofpolicy option 1. However, since itonly applies to SNAs, the affectedproperties will be fewer thanunder policy option 3(substantially fewer in somedistricts, and marginally fewer inothers).Providing territorial authoritieswith inventories of SNAs isestimated to cost WaikatoRegional Council, on average,around $100,000 per district.The cost of identifying preciselocations and ecological values ofremnant indigenous biodiversitymay range from $100 for groundtruthing, up to $5,000 fordeveloping a management planper site. These costs may beborne by councils, or may berecovered from landowners. Thenumber of SNAs in each districtvaries, for example, there are 123SNAs on private land in Haurakicompared with 481 SNAs inWaitomo. The cost ofimplementing management planswill also vary widely.There is no ability to assistlandowners with indigenousbiodiversity values that are notsignificant but still important.To the extent that biodiversity andassociated ecosystem servicesare lost outside SNAs, there willbe an annual stream of costs(services lost), ranging in size89Patterson & Cole, 1999 – Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato Region – EW Internal Series1999/02, unadjusted for inflation.Doc # 1451856 11-13

Summary of efficiency: Moderate-lowdepending on the type ofecosystem.There are social and economiccosts associated with the loss ofcontribution to quality of life,amenity values and clean, greenimage. Such costs are ongoing(permanent).The policy will not promote therelationship of Māori withindigenous biodiversity andhabitats.The policy will not promote intergenerationalequity, as futuregenerations will be denied accessto enjoy indigenous biodiversity.Policy option 5:Collaborativemanagement.EffectivenessThis policy option recognises the importance of engaging withlandowners and land managers, and co-ordinating the range ofagencies that need to be involved to achieve integrated managementof the region’s indigenous biodiversity. This policy option is supportedby non-regulatory methods that encourage positive behaviour,information sharing and awareness in relation to indigenousbiodiversity. This policy option is an important corollary to some of theearlier regulatory-based options, and is informed by informationgathering and monitoring methods. These methods provide the abilityto assess the range of mechanisms to improve collaborativemanagement within a more coherent regional biodiversity picture.The policy will make a strong contribution toward achieving Objective3.18 and a co-ordinated and integrated approach to the maintenanceand enhancement of the region’s indigenous biodiversity, which willalso make a contribution to achieving Objective 3.2.The policy addresses matters under Resource Management Actsections 5, 6, 7(a), 7(aa), 7(d), 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(ga), 62(1)(e).The policy is consistent with the report recommendations of theMinisterial Advisory Committee on Biodiversity and Private Land toencourage approaches to collaboration to enhance biodiversity onprivate land, and to overcome some of the barriers to action.The policy is complementary to the other biodiversity policy directionsand would be expected to increase their expected effectiveness also.In this regard, this policy will contribute to Objectives 3.3 and 3.8.The policy allows for awareness to be raised about biodiversity issuesthat arise under other legislation 90 where local authorities may nothave functions, but have responsibilities to pass on this information tolandowners or resource users.The policy recognises that territorial authorities, the Minister ofConservation, Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Agriculture andForestry have primary responsibility for the management of land andindigenous flora and fauna. Waikato Regional Council‘s role is tomanage the use, development and protection of natural and physical90For example the Wildlife Act would require permits to be sought from the Director-General of Conservation ifabsolutely protected wildlife were to be disturbed or damaged in the course of undertaking an activity that modifiedits habitat.11-14 Doc # 1451856

esources and to control use of land to maintain biodiversity in thecoastal marine area and in fresh water.The policy supports and assists regional council co-ordination oforganisations, landowners and iwi to ensure that biodiversity,ecosystems, and the protection of significant indigenous vegetationand the significant habitats of indigenous fauna are addressed throughtheir different functions and responsibilities.The policy supports more effective use or integration of other existingmechanisms, including funding, to enhance biodiversity.It recognises that many landowners have acted as kaitiaki of theindigenous biodiversity values remaining on their properties, andsupporting landowners to maintain and enhance these values into thefuture is an important policy direction.It assumes that the community and territorial authorities will supportand implement the policy direction, and that councils will havesufficient staff, resources and capacity to initiate the range of methodsto implement the policy direction.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsImproved biodiversitymanagement on private land fromharnessing landowners’ cooperation.None.Biodiversity features on privateland are viewed as assets ratherthan liabilities.An improved ability to assess andtarget a range of incentiveinstruments that contribute to acoherent regional plan forbiodiversity maintenance.The reduced risk of individualincentives creating ad hoc ordisconnected protected areaswith limited ecological viability orresilience.Improved co-ordination and clarityaround roles and responsibilitiesresulting in better protection ofindigenous biodiversity fromcombined expertise andinformation sharing.The intrinsic values of biodiversitywill be protected and retained forfuture generations.Community:Regional collaboration can avoidduplication of local levelapproaches and reduceinefficiency.Community:There are likely to be additionalfinancial costs to WaikatoRegional Council, reflecting theeffort to engage with a variety ofDoc # 1451856 11-15

Relationships with Māorilandowners can provide forbiodiversity protection and kaitiakiresponsibilities.Financial and other supportovercomes some of the barriersto engagement or action bylandowners or groups.Support may stimulate privateeffort and commitment, andvoluntary efforts will add to orexceed the value of the incentiveprovided.stakeholders across the region.In practice this is likely to involveimproved co-ordination of thecollaborative work undertaken indifferent parts of the organisation.An indicative estimate for this isthat it would take around a fifth ofa full time equivalent staff, oraround $30,000 per annum.Cost includes ongoing funding ofnon-regulatory methods, whichrequires successive councilendorsement through annualplans.Landowners, community groupsand iwi are valued, appreciatedand supported.Biodiversity values are retainedand may have future potentialuse, for example species mayhold as yet unrecognisedproperties for medicines or curesfor diseases.Biodiversity is retained andprovides for ecosystem services,such as watershed management,nutrient cycling and tourism.Promotes inter-generationalbenefits by providing for the rightsof future generations to enjoybiodiversity values to the same(or better) extent as presentgenerations.Promotes social and culturalbenefits by contributing to theregional community’s quality oflife, sense of place and culturalvalues.Summary of efficiency: highly efficientPolicy option 6:Safeguardcoastal/marineecosystems.EffectivenessThis policy option recognises that indigenous biodiversity occurs incoastal and marine habitats and ecosystems, as well as terrestrial andfreshwater habitats and ecosystems, and that there is a high level ofinter-connectedness between ecosystem types. This policy optionrecognises the specific functions allocated to regional councils formaintaining and enhancing ecosystems in coastal water (Section30(1)(c)(iii) Resource Management Act). It provides an outcomebasedapproach for important aspects of coastal ecosystems, habitathealth and biological integrity. The supporting methods provide a linkto identification of SNAs within the coastal and marine environment,recognise the benefits of protecting representative marine habitats in amarine protected area network, and provide for a regulatory approachto maintain biodiversity in the coastal marine area.Coastal and marine habitats and the biodiversity they support arereceiving environments for the sediments and contaminants fromfreshwater systems that flow from catchments, requiring a strong11-16 Doc # 1451856

focus on a whole of catchment approach 91 .The policy will make a strong contribution to the achievement ofObjectives 3.18, 3.6 and 3.15, and a co-ordinated and integratedapproach to the maintenance and enhancement of the region’scoastal and marine indigenous biodiversity, which will also make acontribution to Objectives 3.1 and 3.2.The policy addresses matters under Resource Management Actsections 5, 6, 7, 8, 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(c)(iii), and 30(1)(ga).The policy is consistent with the requirements of the NZ Coastal PolicyStatement, in particular 1.1.2 and 1.1.4.The management of coastal and marine indigenous biodiversity willassist in the protection and enhancement of those elements ofindigenous biodiversity that contribute to the natural character of thecoastal environment, lakes, wetlands and their margins, and toamenity values, and make a contribution to achieve Objectives 3.20and 3.21.An integrated catchment response to implement this policy isconsistent with and gives effect to Sections 7 and 8 of the HaurakiGulf Marine Park Act.It assumes that both Waikato Regional Council and territorialauthorities have sufficient staff, resources and capacity to implement acatchment-wide approach.Summary of effectiveness: Medium-HighBenefitsEnvironmental:Provides for improvedmanagement of coastal andmarine biodiversity.Provides for improved integratedmanagement of catchments andland-water margins.Provides clear direction fordevelopment of regional planpolicy, rules and other methodsfor coastal and marinebiodiversity.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:There may be some loss ofsignificant marine/coastalbiodiversity in areas under the 0.5hectare threshold foridentification.The intrinsic values of indigenouscoastal and marine biodiversityare protected and retained forfuture generations.Community:Community and inter-agencystrengthening as a result ofintegrated approach.Establishes a clear intent anddirection to protect coastal andmarine biodiversity.Community:Effective management of coastaland marine biodiversity dependspartly on the wider catchment.The costs of catchmentmanagement are high, but areonly partially attributable to thispolicy.91This is exemplified by the Coromandel Blueprint process – an inter-agency project that looks at the use, developmentand protection of resources in a holistic manner for the Coromandel Peninsula with implementation based oncatchments or groups of catchments and responses that cross usual jurisdictional boundaries.Doc # 1451856 11-17

Provides certainty and clarity toresource users as to coastal andmarine biodiversity outcomes.Assists and clarifies with territorialauthorities’ roles andresponsibilities with respect tocatchment-wide approaches, andpromotes administrativeefficiencies for plans.Targets directly some of the keycauses of coastal and marineecosystem degradation.Coastal and marine biodiversity isretained and provides forecosystem services such aswatershed management, nutrientcycling and tourism. Theecosystem service benefitsassociated with coastal andmarine areas are typically veryhigh, ranging from $500 perhectare for the coastal marinearea to $46,000 per hectare forestuarine ecosystems 92 .Implementation will requireactions such as identification andmapping, ecologicalassessments, and wherenecessary, development ofmanagement plans. There is lesscertainty about these costs thanis the case for terrestrial sites.However, as an example,estuarine mapping costs WaikatoRegional Council between $1,700and $8,000 per harbour, plusinternal staff time.Costs may be associated withidentifying precise locations forcoastal/marine SNAs, which mayfall on individuals. However, suchcosts are transparent.For coastal indigenousbiodiversity values under thethreshold for identification (lessthan 0.5 hectare) there may stillbe uncertainty for landowners asto whether they are affected.Promotes social and culturalbenefits by contributing to theregional community’s quality oflife, sense of place and culturalvalues.Promotes inter-generationalbenefits by providing for the rightsof future generations to enjoycoastal and marine biodiversityvalues to the same (or better)extent as present generations.Coastal and marine biodiversityvalues are retained and may havefuture potential use.Promotes the ongoingrelationship that Māori have withindigenous biodiversity withincoastal and marine habitats.Summary of efficiency: Medium-High92Patterson & Cole, 1999 – Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato Region – EW Internal Series1999/02, unadjusted for inflation.11-18 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 7:Do nothing.EffectivenessThis option is not consistent with Objective 3.18, and it will also limitthe achievement of Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13,3.15, 3.20 and 3.21.This option will not address matters under sections 5, 6, 7, 30(1)(a),30(1)(b), and 30(1)(ga) of the Resource Management Act.This option does not acknowledge the 2003 amendment to theResource Management Act and the clear role of regional councils inbiodiversity management.This option relies on ad hoc protection measures applied by territorialauthorities without clear regional guidance or direction, and will notachieve integrated management.This option would be a dereliction of functions and duty under theResource Management Act.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThere is a high risk of further lossand degradation of indigenousbiodiversity values if no regionaldirection is provided. Between1996 and 2002, an average of 80-90 hectares of wetland and nearly100 hectares of forest and scrubwas lost each year. Theirreversible loss of remnantbiodiversity would be expected tocontinue or even accelerate.Loss of intrinsic biodiversityvalue.Community:There may be windfall gains toindividual landowners ifrestrictions on activities areremoved.Community:Biodiversity values andecosystem services wouldcontinue to be lost. Each ‘unit’lost would result in the loss of anannual stream of ecosystemservice benefits. Moreover, thevalue of the benefits lost wouldincrease as the remnantbiodiversity in the region becameincreasingly scarce. Estimates ofecosystem service values werederived for the Waikato region in1998. These figures do not takeaccount of inflation, nor theincrease in scarcity. These values(and the type of servicesprovided) vary widely, dependingon the ecosystem type, forexample agricultural landprovides approximately $1,000per hectare, forest $2,400 perDoc # 1451856 11-19

Summary of efficiency: Not efficient11.2 Risk of acting or not actinghectare and wetlands $40,000per hectare 93 .Lack of action now could lead toincreased costs of restoring andrecreating habitats and specieslater.There would be no direct financialcosts for Waikato RegionalCouncil from this policy option.Territorial authorities may facesubstantial costs if they choose tofill the gap left by WaikatoRegional Council.Costs would be incurred as eachlocal authority would have todevelop an appropriate policyresponse on a case-by-casebasis, increasing the likelihood ofduplication and inefficiency.The increased social andeconomic costs from loss ofquality of life, cultural valuesassociated with biodiversity,sense of place and amenityvalues.The cost to future generationsfrom loss of biodiversity valuesnow.Section 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting, if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.With regards to indigenous biodiversity, there is sufficient information upon which tobase analysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. There is sufficientinformation to demonstrate the scale and nature of the biodiversity problem, and thepolicies and methods proposed will add to the level of regional biodiversity knowledgeover time. A combination of rules and incentives to implement the policies can betargeted to where the biodiversity values exist and to provide a balance of public goodand private cost. Waikato Regional Council would take the lead in promoting integratedmanagement practices across the Waikato region.The risk of not acting in the proposed ways is that the regionally significant issue ofongoing biodiversity loss and degradation will continue into the future. Objectives andpolicies to address the issue will become less effective and more difficult to implement,if the issue is allowed to persist. This will increase costs into the future.The risk of acting in the ways proposed is that costs may be imposed on individuallandowners and on the community, local government and developers.93Patterson & Cole, 1999 – Estimation of the value of ecosystem services in the Waikato Region – EW Internal Series1999/02, unadjusted for inflation.11-20 Doc # 1451856

11.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.18:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyPolicy option 1: Direction to identifyand protect Significant NaturalAreas as a component ofmaintaining indigenous biodiversity.Policy option 2: Regional PolicyStatement criteria guide SignificantNatural Area identification andTerritorial Authorities protect asappropriate.Policy option 3: Direction tomaintain all indigenous biodiversity.Policy option 4: Identify and protectSignificant Natural Areas as thesole approach to maintainindigenous biodiversity.Policy option 5: Collaborativemanagement.Policy option 6: Safeguard coastaland marine ecosystems.HighMedium-HighSelectedOption/sYes[Policy 11.2]Low Low NoHighHighYes[Policy 11.1]Medium Medium-Low NoHighMedium-HighHighMediumYes[Policy 11.3]Yes[Policy 11.4]Policy option 7: Do nothing. Low Low NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.18 is by inclusion of policy options 1, 3,5, and 6.11.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsPolicy 1 Maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity(PWRPS Policy 11.1)Promote positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes to maintain or enhance (includingthrough restoration of) indigenous biodiversity with particular focus on areas that areimportant for:a) continued functioning of ecological processes;b) supporting (buffering and/or linking) ecosystems, habitats and areas identified assignificant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;c) providing ecosystem services;d) the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and its catchment;e) providing natural character and amenity values; andf) tāngata whenua relationships with indigenous biodiversity including their holisticview of ecosystems and the environment.Implementation methods1.1 Maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversityRegional and district plans shall maintain or enhance indigenous biodiversity, includingby:Doc # 1451856 11-21

a) providing for positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes when managing activitiesincluding subdivision and land use change;b) having regard to any local indigenous biodiversity strategies developed underMethod 11.1.6;c) providing for the creation of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips to maintainand enhance indigenous biodiversity values; and/or to create buffers, linkages andcorridors to protect and support indigenous biodiversity values; andd) providing for the re-creation and restoration of habitats.1.2 Adverse effectsRegional and district plans shall recognise that adverse effects on indigenousbiodiversity include:a) fragmentation and isolation of indigenous ecosystems and habitats;b) reduction in the extent of indigenous ecosystems and habitats;c) loss of corridors or connections linking indigenous ecosystems and habitatfragments or between ecosystems and habitats (ecological sequences frommountains to sea);d) loss or disruption to migratory pathways in water, land or air;e) effects of changes to hydrological flows, water levels, and water quality onecosystems;f) loss of buffering of indigenous ecosystems;g) loss of ecosystem services;h) loss, damage or disruption to ecological processes, functions and ecologicalintegrity;i) changes resulting in an increased threat from animal and plant pests;j) effects which contribute to a cumulative loss or degradation of indigenous habitatsand ecosystems;k) noise and disturbance on indigenous species, particularly within the coastalenvironment; andl) loss of habitat that supports indigenous species under threat of extinction.1.3 Remediation and mitigationRegional and district plans shall require that where loss or degradation of indigenousbiodiversity is authorised, adverse effects are remedied or mitigated through protectionor enhancement that:a) replaces like-for-like habitats or ecosystems (including being of at least equivalentsize or ecological value);b) involves the legal and physical protection of existing habitat; orc) involves the creation of new habitat.Remediation or mitigation may occur off site if improved ecological outcomes will result.1.4 Plan developmentLocal authorities should consider (including when developing regional and districtplans):a) offering incentives for indigenous biodiversity enhancements or protection; andb) using financial contributions and other economic instruments to maintain orenhance indigenous biodiversity.1.5 Funding and assistanceWhen preparing long-term plans and annual plans, local authorities should ensure thatappropriate funding is provided for the protection and enhancement of indigenousbiodiversity. This could include provision for:11-22 Doc # 1451856

a) developing and implementing complementary biodiversity advocacy and protectionprogrammes (including the development of on-site biodiversity plans) focused onlandowner liaison and community partnership; andb) the promotion of voluntary legal protection, restoration or enhancement ofindigenous biodiversity, including through the operation of contestable funds,incentives, rates relief and grants.1.6 Local indigenous biodiversity strategiesWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities to develop localindigenous biodiversity strategies. These strategies will be developed at a district scaleand will:a) use the information produced under Methods 11.1.10 a) and 11.2.1;b) establish indigenous biodiversity targets to enable local authorities to prioritiseresourcing, track progress and monitor effectiveness in achieving indigenousbiodiversity objectives;c) identify:i) opportunities and priorities for re-creating habitat;ii) opportunities and priorities for restoring, enhancing or re-creating buffers,linkages and corridors;iii) important threats to indigenous biodiversity; andd) map areas or sites:i) of indigenous biodiversity value;ii) that may require protection; andiii) that may require enhancement.Territorial authorities should have regard to these strategies when considering the mostappropriate combination of regulatory and non-regulatory methods for each district.1.7 Pest managementWaikato Regional Council will have regard to indigenous biodiversity values, includingany areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenousfauna, and any local indigenous biodiversity strategies when preparing any RegionalPest Management Strategy and prioritising pest management activities.1.8 Natural heritage inventoryWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities and otherstakeholders, to establish and maintain a natural heritage inventory for use inadvocacy, education, information provision, policy development and decision making.1.9 Threatened species informationLocal authorities should liaise with the Department of Conservation and other relevantagencies to ensure threatened species location and distribution data are availablewhen preparing and implementing regional or district plans.1.10 Information gatheringWaikato Regional Council will:a) collect, analyse and make available the following information for each district:i) extent of the remaining indigenous habitat and ecosystems;ii) extent of indigenous habitat and ecosystem loss (from 1840 baseline); andiii) indigenous biodiversity trends; andDoc # 1451856 11-23

) facilitate the establishment of baselines and indicators for ecosystem health andcondition.Policy 2 Protect significant indigenous biodiversity (PWRPS Policy11.2)Significant indigenous vegetation and the significant habitats of indigenous fauna shallbe protected by ensuring that the characteristics that identify the area as significant arenot adversely affected to the extent that the significance of the vegetation or habitat isreduced. The identification of the characteristics of any area will be undertaken prior toany modification of the area or site and will inform the decision-making process as towhether the proposed activity or modification is appropriate.Implementation methods2.1 Identify significant natural areasWaikato Regional Council will identify at the regional scale areas that meet one ormore of the criteria in section 11A as significant natural areas. This information will bemade available to territorial authorities.2.2 Protect significant areasRegional and district plans shall:a) protect or enhance areas of significant indigenous vegetation and the significanthabitats of indigenous fauna, including all identified significant natural areas;b) require that activities avoid the loss or degradation of areas of significantindigenous vegetation and the significant habitats of indigenous fauna, inpreference to remedying or mitigating adverse effects; andc) require that any unavoidable adverse effects on areas of significant vegetationand significant habitats of indigenous fauna are effectively remedied or mitigatedthrough processes that:i) replace like-for-like habitats or ecosystems (including being of at leastequivalent size or ecological value);ii)involve the legal and physical protection of existing habitat; oriii) involve the creation of new habitat.Remediation or mitigation may occur off site if improved ecological outcomes will result.2.3 Assess significanceWhere regional and district plans require an assessment of the biodiversity value ofareas that have not been identified as significant natural areas, the criteria in section11A shall be used.2.4 Identify threats to significant natural areasWaikato Regional Council will identify important threats to significant natural areas andwork with relevant agencies and landowners to facilitate the management of thesethreats.Policy 3 Collaborative management (PWRPS Policy 11.3)Maintaining and enhancing indigenous biodiversity shall be promoted in an integratedand efficient manner including by working collaboratively with landowners, resourcemanagers, tāngata whenua and other stakeholders.Implementation methods3.1 Working with tāngata whenua11-24 Doc # 1451856

Local authorities should recognise tāngata whenua relationships with indigenousbiodiversity values. This could include involving tāngata whenua when identifyingopportunities for re-creating habitat and providing opportunities for tāngata whenuainvolvement in implementing local indigenous biodiversity strategies.3.2 Education and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) liaise with resource managers and industry to encourage the adoption of bestpractice biodiversity management practices (including the recognition of localindigenous biodiversity strategies) into their management/operational plans;b) advocate to relevant agencies and landowners the use and requirements of otherlegislation (such as the Wildlife Act 1953 and the need for permits to destroy ordisturb protected wildlife, Conservation Act 1987, Fisheries Act 1983, BiosecurityAct 1993) or mechanisms (such as the Biodiversity Condition Fund and SustainableManagement Fund) to protect or restore areas of indigenous habitats andbiodiversity; andc) work with territorial authorities, landowners, tāngata whenua and other relevantstakeholders to promote positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes and improveunderstanding of the importance and benefits of improved indigenous biodiversity.Policy 4 Safeguard coastal/marine ecosystems (PWRPS Policy 11.4)In managing activities in the coastal environment, have particular regard to maintainingor enhancing:a) any area in the inter-tidal or sub-tidal zone that contains unique, rare, distinctive orrepresentative coastal/marine species or habitats;b) areas used by marine mammals and wading/coastal birds including breeding,feeding, roosting and haul-out sites;c) whitebait spawning areas and shellfish beds;d) habitats, corridors and routes important for preserving the range, abundance, anddiversity of indigenous and migratory species; ande) indigenous habitats and ecosystems that are unique to the coastal environment andvulnerable to modification and the impacts of climate change, including estuaries,lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, rocky reef systems, seagrass and saltmarsh.Implementation methods4.1 Regional plansRegional plans shall:a) identify and protect high priority marine habitat in the coastal marine area. Theseareas will be identified through the significant natural areas identification projectdescribed in Method 11.2.1; andb) control activities within the coastal marine area to maintain and enhance indigenousbiodiversity.4.2 Marine protected areasWaikato Regional Council will support and advocate for a network of marine protectedareas that is comprehensive and represents the region’s marine habitats andecosystems.Doc # 1451856 11-25

11A Criteria for determining significance ofindigenous biodiversityThe following criteria are to be used to identify areas of significant indigenous vegetation andsignificant habitats of indigenous fauna as they exist at the time the criteria are being applied.Table 11-1: Criteria for determining significance of indigenous biodiversityPreviously assessed site1. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat for indigenous fauna that has beenspecially set aside by statute or covenant for protection andpreservation unless the site can be shown to meet none of criteria 3-11.2. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat recommended for protection by theNature Heritage Fund, or Nga Whenua Rahui committees, or the QueenElizabeth the Second National Trust Board of Directors, unless the site canbe shown to meet none of criteria 3-11.Ecological values3. It is vegetation or habitat that is currently habitat for indigenous species orassociations of indigenous species that are:classed as threatened, at risk, or data deficient; orendemic to the Waikato region.4. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat type that is under-represented (20%or less of its known or likely original extent remaining) in an EcologicalDistrict, or Ecological Region, or nationally.5. It is indigenous vegetation or habitat that is, and prior to human settlementwas, nationally uncommon such as geothermal, chenier plain, or karstecosystems.6. It is wetland habitat for indigenous plant communities and/or indigenousfauna communities (excluding exotic rush/pasture communities) that hasnot been created and subsequently maintained for or in connection with:waste treatment;wastewater renovation;hydro electric power lakes (excluding Lake Taupō);water storage for irrigation; or water supply storage;unless in those instances they meet the criteria in Whaley et al. (1995).7. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or naturally occurring habitat that islarge relative to other examples in the Waikato region of similar habitattypes, and which contains all or almost all indigenous species typical of thathabitat type. Note this criterion is not intended to select the largestexample only in the Waikato region of any habitat type.8. It is aquatic habitat (excluding artificial water bodies, except for thosecreated for the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity or asmitigation as part a consented activity) that is a portion of a stream, river,lake, wetland, intertidal mudflat or estuary, and their margins, that is criticalto the self sustainability of an indigenous species within a catchment of theWaikato region and which contains healthy, representative populations ofthat species. In this context “critical” means essential for a specificcomponent of the life cycle and includes breeding and spawning grounds,juvenile nursery areas, important feeding areas and migratory pathways.9. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that is a healthy and11-26 Doc # 1451856

epresentative example of its type because:its structure, composition, and ecological processes are largelyintact; and if protected from the adverse effects of plant and animal pests and ofadjacent land use (e.g. stock, discharges, erosion), can maintain itsecological sustainability over time.10. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat that forms part of anecological sequence, that is either not common in the Waikato region or anecological district, or is an exceptional, representative example of its type.Role in protecting ecologically significant area11. It is an area of indigenous vegetation or habitat for indigenous species(which habitat is either naturally occurring or has been established as amitigation measure) that forms, either on its own or in combination withother similar areas, an ecological buffer, linkage or corridor and which isnecessary to protect any site identified as significant under criteria 1-10from external adverse effects.Doc # 1451856 11-27

12 Landscape, natural character andamenity12.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods12.1.1 Objective 3.19 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes(ONFL)The following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.19 that have been evaluated:Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Do nothing / statusquo.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option would omit any reference to ONFL from the RPS.This would leave management of ONFL to be addressed directlythrough individual councils’ district or regional plans.The operative RPS does not specifically address the landscaperesource of the region and does not identify ONFL at the regionalscale (although there is opportunity for ONFL to be included as asignificant resource under the heritage chapter). This policy option,therefore, reflects the status quo (i.e. providing no guidance for themanagement of ONFL in the RPS).Currently, many territorial authorities in the region have identified andprotect (to varying degrees) ONFL; however, not all territorialauthorities do so. 94This policy option would not be effective in addressing the objective,given the growing pressure across the region for subdivision, use anddevelopment, and the varied range of methods used by territorialauthorities for assessing landscapes, many of which have notincorporated public perceptions; none have specifically addressedcultural landscapes of value to iwi, and some have not identifiedONFL. 95Adopting this policy option would also result in Waikato RegionalCouncil failing in its duty to protect ONFL from inappropriatesubdivision, use and development in accordance with Section 6(b), ofthe RMA, and to appropriately manage resources of regionalsignificance, in accordance with s30, RMA. In addition, it is noted thatterritorial authorities have called for Waikato Regional Council toaddress landscape at the regional level to assist in supporting thepublic interest of protecting these resources.This policy package would not contribute to achieving other relatedobjectives, such as Objective 3.2 (Decision making); 3.8 (Relationshipof tāngata whenua with the environment); and 3.20 (Amenity).Summary of effectiveness: Low94Waikato Regional Policy Statement : Landscape Scoping Report. Prepared for the Waikato Regional Council by BoffaMiskell. August 2008.95Ibid. p22.Doc # 1451856 12-1

BenefitsEnvironmental:None.Community:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBy not identifying and protectingONFL, the region is riskingineffective or ad hoc managementof significant regional resources.Development pressure on theseresources could lead to severedegradation of the qualities thatmake these ONFL areas special.Community:Economic benefits to land usedevelopers as there might befewer constraints put on whereand what sort of developmentscould occur in ONFL areas.Social, cultural and economiccosts if the ONFL are degraded.This could potentially result in aloss of these areas, a loss ofsense of place, and a loss ofcultural identity.Tourism is a significant part of theWaikato region’s economy,estimated to be the 14 th largestbusiness sector in the region, withan estimated $700 million spentby visitors to the region in 2007. 96A reduction or degradation of thevalues of the ONFL may result ina reduction in the value of regionaltourism.An ad hoc approach to identifyingcriteria for ONFL could lead to aninconsistent approach tomanaging locally and regionallysignificant ONFL. The cost of aninconsistent approach isincreased costs to individualsthrough multiple consentprocesses.Policy option 2:Identify ONFL andprovide policy directionfor absolutepreservation andprotection of ONFL.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessIn terms of implementing thispolicy, there would be no costs toWaikato Regional Council.Territorial authorities would berequired to undertake work toidentify and manage ONFL (inaccordance with the RMArequirements), and the cost ofdoing so would vary from districtto district depending on the extentof work already undertaken and/orthe level of funding available.This policy option identifies and protects ONFL with absoluteprotection, so that little or no activity (subdivision, use or development)can occur within these areas. This policy option would give effect toObjective 3.19.96Waikato Economic Report (2009). Environment Waikato Technical Report 2009/26.12-2 Doc # 1451856

The key risk associated with this option is that absolute protection ofthe ONFL would restrict the ability for any development to occur, butsome development, such as public recreation facilities, is vital for thepublic to be able to enjoy the values of the ONFL. The territorialauthorities would also be unlikely to support this policy option, as it isextremely difficult to justify prohibited activity rules (particularly onprivate land).Implementation of this policy option would potentially requiresignificant resources from Waikato Regional Council and the territorialauthorities, particularly through plan drafting, Environment Court legalinput, and through enforcement.This policy option was similar to that put forward in the Regional PolicyStatement Working Draft in 2009. Feedback from stakeholders on theWorking Draft did not support the absolute protection and preservationof the ONFL of the region.This policy would not be effective in achieving Objective 3.19(outstanding natural features and landscapes), because of the highcosts of implementation and, therefore, risks, including lack of supportfrom other agencies. In addition, it could result in the size of the areaor the significance status of an ONFL being challenged, to the extentthat some areas are ‘downgraded’. It would be extremely difficult toprogress this policy option through the statutory plan-making process,as it is anticipated that it would be widely challenged.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNo built development or changein ONFL.Areas remain in a pristine state.Community:Future generations would beable to appreciate ONFL in thesame state.Protected areas would beavailable for all people toappreciate and enjoy (asopposed to being used forprivate developments gains).Opportunities that use anddevelopment can sometimes bringto ONFL through the provision ofmaintenance activities,enhancement works or improvedguardianship of resources wouldnot readily occur if ONFL werepreserved and protected in theabsolute. For example, the lack ofaccess to such resources forpeople to enjoy or appreciatethem.Community:There would be economic costs todevelopers and private propertyowners who wished to undertakeactivities (subdivision, use anddevelopment), as no or littleactivity would be provided for orwould occur within the boundariesof the areas identified as ONFL.It is noted that some ONFL land isin private ownership (see Table:ONFL Coverage and OwnershipStructure in Policy option 4).Approximately 40% of the landproposed for inclusion in theidentified ONFL is in privateownership. Further, a significantDoc # 1451856 12-3

portion (approximately 65%) isprivate Māori land. Therefore,curtailing the potential activitieslandowners could undertake ontheir land (within an ONFL) resultsin their bearing the costs for thepublic benefits of having theseareas protected.There would be high costs toprivate landowners who would notbe able to develop the land. Highcosts to tourism and recreationalusers of ONFL as service facilitieswould be unlikely to be developedwithin the ONFL. Potential loss ofenjoyment of ONFL bycommunities due to lack ofphysical access facilities.Discussions with territorialauthorities and stakeholders onthe Regional Policy StatementWorking Draft in 2009 indicatedthat absolute preservation orprotection of ONFL is not desiredby many stakeholders andcommunities of interest in theregion. Therefore, there is likely tobe a significant cost associatedwith progressing such a policythrough the statutory RMAprocess.Some ONFL are ‘workinglandscapes’, i.e. activities withinthem are part of the character andvalue of the ONFL. The ability forlandowners within ONFL to useland productively might becurtailed.Policy option 3:Provide policy directionto protect the values ofONFL.Summary of efficiency: Not EfficientEffectivenessRestrictions on activities couldinterfere with ability for tāngatawhenua to exercise kaitiakitangaand realise the potential of theirresources.This policy option provides direction for protecting the values of ONFLas opposed to the protection of all land within the boundary of theareas identified as ONFL. The policy option would involve focusing onprotecting the values of the ONFL, with methods requiring regionaland district plans to protect ONFL (but without any guidance onidentification of ONFL).This policy option would require few full time equivalent resources toimplement, as it sets a policy direction that could rely on settingcriteria for which values need to be considered and does not require alandscape identification assessment to be undertaken. This policyoption would not constrain territorial authorities to taking any particularapproach to ‘defining’ ONFL and, therefore, each territorial authoritycould choose its own approach to protecting ONFL.12-4 Doc # 1451856

A key risk associated with this level of flexibility is that it could result ina piecemeal and inconsistent approach to protecting ONFL across theregion, due to differing views on what values are important.This option (identifying values only) could also result in uncertainty asto which resources or areas the policy relates to. This in turn couldresult in conflicting views, for example between landowners andconservation groups, over what development level is acceptablebefore the values are compromised.This policy, which focuses on identifying the values only, will bemoderately effective in achieving objective 3.19 (outstanding naturalfeatures and landscapes), which directs the identification andprotection of ONFL.The policy will contribute to achieving Objectives 3.2 (decisionmaking); 3.8 (relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment)and 3.20 (amenity).Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsValues identified as beingimportant to the ONFL would beprotected.Community:Protecting the values of ONFLstill allows activity to occur withinan ONFL area provided it issensitive to the values.Here would be economic benefitsfrom the use of ONFL areas bythe private landowners and bypeople that generate economicbenefit from the values of theONFL (such as tourism andrecreation-based businesses).There would be a low cost forlocal authorities to implement thisapproach.Some ONFL areas that warrantprotection may not be identifiedand could be degraded throughlack of careful management.A lack of consistent managementof ONFL values could occur dueto differences in planningprovisions between differentterritorial authorities. This couldresult in different values beingprotected in different districts andresult in cross-boundarydifferences where an ONFL areastraddles more than one districtarea.Community:There would be no costs toWaikato Regional Council inimplementing this policy, asidentifying the values to beprotected would rest at theterritorial authority level. It is notpossible to determine what thecosts would be for territorialauthorities, as the costs woulddepend on the criteria theyidentified and to what extent theythen imposed planning controls.The costs would relate toidentifying the criteria to be used,and including them into districtplan provisions.People wanting to use resourceswithin ONFL would need toprotect the values of the ONFL –this could have economic costs tothose users of protecting theDoc # 1451856 12-5

values or from curtailing theiractivities.The lack of certainty around whichareas ONFL cover could havehigh social and economic costs tothe community. For example,determining how far the valuesspread geographically couldinvolve a debate over landscapeissues on a development-bydevelopmentbasis.This flexible approach toidentifying values could lead toterritorial authorities taking a ‘dominimum’ approach whenmanaging ONFL. The risk of thisis that the ONFL could bedegraded incrementally over time,resulting in social and culturalcosts to the community andeconomic costs to businesses thatrely on the quality of ONFL.Policy option 4:Provide policy directionto protect the values ofONFL at the regionallevel, identify ONFL ofregional significanceand encourageterritorial authorities toidentify ONFL of localsignificance.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessThis approach could result inhigher resource consent costs forapplicants and increased risks ofEnvironment Court appeals due toa lack of common understandingon what areas are to be protected.There may be high social costs forcommunities due to polarisationaround landscape issues.This policy option involves the specific identification of regional anddistrict ONFL areas, along with identifying the values andcharacteristics within these areas and requiring them to be protectedfrom the adverse effects of activities. The methods for implementingthis policy option include provisions in regional and district plans thatidentify and protect ONFL at the regional level and encourageterritorial authorities to use common criteria for assessing ONFL. Inaddition, Waikato Regional Council would work with tāngata whenuato confirm the values that they associate with ONFL.This approach would be highly effective in achieving the objective as itinvolves both identification and protection of ONFL areas and values.Information on this option has been developed in some detail. Aregional landscape assessment has been commissioned by WaikatoRegional Council and has identified 10 ONFL in the region. The areacovered by the ONFL in the region represents 12% of the region’sland resource. The analysis of this policy option is based on theprotection of the values associated with the 10 ONFL that have beenidentified in the regional landscape assessment commissioned byWaikato Regional Council. This allows an accurate analysis to beundertaken of the effectiveness of this policy option. The table belowrecords the details of these ONFL. One of the assumed methods forthis policy option will require the protection of these ONFL.12-6 Doc # 1451856

Table : ONFL Coverage And Ownership StructureIdentifierONFL1ONFL2ONFL3ONFLDescriptorTongariroNational ParkKaimanawaMountainsNorthernHerangiRangePer cent ofregionaffected byONFL 97Ownershipstructure ofthe ONFLclassified aseitherprivate,public orunspecified 981.4% Private 11percentPublic 78percentUnspecified11 percent2.0% Private 28percentPublic 71%percentUnspecified 1percent0.6% Private 25percentPublic 73percentUnspecified 2percentONFL4 Mount Karioi 0.2% Public 34percentONFL5CoromandelRange andMoehauRangeUnspecified66 percent3.8% Private 21percentPublic 74percentUnspecified 5percentONFL6 Maungatautari 0.3% Private 59percentOther localauthoritiesaffected orpotentiallyaffected 99Taupo District;Manawatu-WanganuiRegion;RuapehuDistrictTaupo District;Manawatu-WanganuiRegion;Hawkes BayRegion;RangitikeiDistrict;RuapehuDistrictWaitomoDistrict; CMAadministeredbyEnvironmentWaikato.WaikatoDistrict; CMAadministeredbyEnvironmentWaikato.Thames-CoromandelDistrict;HaurakiDistrict; CMAadministeredbyEnvironmentWaikato.Waipa District;Public 38percentONFL7MountPirongiaUnspecified 3percent0.5% Private 39%percentUnspecified14 percentOtorohangaDistrict; WaipaDistrict;Waikato97The Region is 2.5 million hectares. The area of the ONFL is shown as a percentage of this total. Numbers have beenrounded to one decimal place.98Owners have been classified as either Private (being land owned privately by individuals, companies, private Māoriownership), Public (being Crown or Local Authority) or Unspecified (being Multiple Titles, Unknown Ownership orOther).99The territorial authorities within which the ONFL is located and an indication on adjacent regions and districts whichmay be affected including whether adjacent to the CMADoc # 1451856 12-7

ONFL8 Kaimai Range 0.7% Private 22percentPublic 76percentUnspecified 2percentONFL9 Lake Taupo 2.5% Private 100percentONFL10 Coromandel 0.2% Cathedral;Cove, CookBluff,ShakespeareCliff andcoastline.Private 57percentDistrictMatamata-Piako District,HaurakiDistrict; Bay ofPlenty Region;Western Bayof PlentyDistrictTaupo DistrictThames-CoromandelDistrict; andthe CMAadministeredby theWaikatoRegionalCouncil.Public 29percentUnspecified14 percentNorthern tip oftheCoromandelPeninsula andwesternslopes.Private 58percentPublic 37percentUnspecified 4percentTuatewaCoast.Private 89percentPublic 8percentTotal 12.2% 100Unspecified 3percentThe effectiveness of this option is considered to be high as it providescertainty of areas and values that are considered to be outstanding forthe region. The policy and methods would clearly give effect toObjective 3.19 (Outstanding natural features and landscapes). Thispolicy does not seek a total protection of values/areas; rather, thefocus is on avoiding adverse effects (from activities) that coulddegrade the ONFL. The policy option will also contribute to Objectives3.2, 3.8 and 3.20.To achieve this policy option, it is assumed that there will be acommon agreement to these areas being identified as ONFL and thateffective provisions can and will be incorporated into regional anddistrict planning documents to protect them from adverse effects of100Approximately 300,000ha12-8 Doc # 1451856

activities.The outcomes of this policy option are that there would be certainty ata regional level of what areas and values are considered to be‘outstanding’. This provides clear development directions for peoplewishing to undertake activities within or nearby ONFL areas. In thelong term, this policy would contribute to the protection of these areasfor the benefits of future generations.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsIdentification of specific ONFLareas and values provides forcertainty and protection.Consistent management ofONFL that cross or are adjacentto jurisdictional boundaries.Community:Land use and developmentactivities can still occur in theseareas as long as the values ofthe ONFL are not adverselyaffected.Resource users within ONFLcan still gain economic benefitsfrom economic activities such asagriculture, farming and tourismactivities.In some cases, particularly inONFL in Māori ownership, theseeconomic benefits can be usedto support social andenvironmental programs.ONFL are clearly identified andthe public understands whichareas are paramount forprotecting landscape values.Benefits would accrue to theinfrastructure sectors, who seeka stronger direction (improvedcertainty) as to whereinfrastructure is not to go.This level of certainty also hasflow-on benefits for resourceconsent costs and timeframes.None.Community:Some private land is affected(approximately 122,000 hectares);however, the majority is publicland, thereby limiting theopportunity cost for privateresource users.Nine of the region’s 12 districts willbe required to protect one or moreONFL area in their district plans.Several ONFL are adjacent to thecoastal marine area and will haveto be addressed in both theregional coastal plan and districtplans.There will be costs for localauthorities in developing andimplementing provisions to protectthese ONFL. For WaikatoRegional Council most costswould be associated withadvocacy of this policy into districtplans and working with tāngatawhenua to confirm these areasand values. The latter could resultin additional values or areasneeding to be incorporated intoplanning documents.It is difficult to assess what level ofresource would be required forterritorial authorities to implementthis policy option. Some territorialauthorities have alreadyundertaken landscape work attheir district level. This policywould provide additional supportto the directions already beingtaken. Where no work has beenDoc # 1451856 12-9

undertaken, a landscapeassessment to define ONFL oflocal importance would incur somebase research costs. However, itmust also be borne in mind thatthese are costs that already fall onthe councils as a result from RMAprovisions. In addition, whileWaikato Regional Council willencourage territorial authorities toidentify local ONFL, they canchoose when they will undertakethis work. There will beopportunities for territorialauthorities to combine this workwith other processes, particularlydistrict plan reviews or changes,which provides the opportunity toreduce the overall costs toterritorial authorities.It is noted that Rotorua and SouthWaikato are unaffected by theidentification of regional ONFL.Several ONFL are adjacent tojurisdictional boundaries, whichmeans that local authorities willneed to work together to ensureconsistent approaches are takento protecting the ONFL. Someadditional costs may be incurredfor addressing cross-boundarymanagement of ONFL.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessPolicy option 5:Require territorialauthorities to identifyand protect local ONFLand provide guidanceon how to do so.This policy option would direct territorial authorities to identify ONFL atthe local level and to protect the values of these ONFL. This policyoption could also set a direction on the assessment methodology toencourage consistency. This would contribute to achieving Objective3.19.The key benefits of this directive approach are that it would provideguidance to territorial authorities and result in a consistent approach tothe identification and protection of ONFL across the region. Thiswould involve consultation between all councils to ensure it wasachievable. It is noted that Waikato Regional Council already hasprocesses in place to facilitate discussion between all local authoritiesof the region on common resource management issues. This forumcould be used to hold conversations on landscape issues.Given Waikato Regional Council and territorial authority functionsunder the RMA and the recent legislative requirement for territorialauthorities to give effect to the RPS, it is considered appropriate forthe RPS to set a directive to territorial authorities to protect ONFL atthe local level. This policy would require a consistent approach to betaken to managing activities that could have adverse effects on ONFL,and it would allow some discretion to be taken as to what values andcharacteristics are important within the ONFL.A key risk with this option is that a consistent approach to definingONFL could enshrine an outdated approach into planning documents(given the rapidly evolving nature of landscape practice). This risk canbe managed by ensuring best practice approaches are taken and12-10 Doc # 1451856

further guidance provided (if warranted).The ability of territorial authorities within the region to respond to thisdirective based on the costs it imposes is a further risk to achievingthe objective.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsHigh environmental benefits, aslandscapes are considered withinthe regional and district contextand managed in a holisticmanner.Community:Improved environmentalmanagement through cooperationand efficiency ofresourcing.Using the same criteria foridentifying ONFL promotesconsistency.Provides guidance on how toidentify ONFL but gives somediscretion to allow local values tobe incorporated – benefits to localenvironmental resources.Provides clear direction toterritorial authorities, tocommunities and to individuals onthe need to identify and protectONFL – many territorialauthorities face substantiallandscape issues in their districtsand this direction lends support tothem for landscape protection.Some districts do not have ONFLidentified at present. Therefore,the identification of ONFL in theirdistricts will be a positiveoutcome for protecting theseareas for future generations.Significant benefits to thecommunity, as those wishing toundertake resource use activitieswill have certainty as to whichareas and values are to beprotected.A robust and consistent approachcould have considerable costsavings to the region in resourcemanagement decision making, forexample the potential to reduceappeals and consent time delays.Environmental:NoneCommunityCostsTerritorial authorities will need toconsider how they give effect tothis policy. Many territorialauthorities already have a cleardirection on ONFL and this willrequire a review to ensure theycontinue to be consistent with thispolicy option, which may bringabout additional costs.Cost savings for territorialauthorities and local communitiesbecause the RPS sets out clearguidance for assessing ONFL.There will be costs for localauthorities in developing andimplementing provisions toprotect the identified ONFL andfor the territorial authorities inidentifying local ONFL. ForWaikato Regional Council, mostcosts would be associated withadvocacy of this policy intodistrict plans and working with thetāngata whenua to confirm theseareas and values. The lattercould result in additional valuesor areas needing to beincorporated into planningdocuments.It is difficult to assess what levelof resource would be required forterritorial authorities to implementthis policy approach. Somecouncils have already undertakenlandscape work at their districtlevel. This policy would provideadditional support to thedirections already being taken.Research and discussion withterritorial authorities has revealedthat the district-wide landscapeassessments have ranged in costfrom $7,500 to $360,000 for theDoc # 1451856 12-11

districts that have undertakenassessments in the last threeyears.Based on these figures, it isestimated that across the region,the cost of district-wide landscapeassessments is estimated to costin excess of $1 million. Inaddition, territorial authorityspending would also be requiredto incorporate the findings ofthese district-wide landscapeassessments into the relevantdistrict plans, including the costsof legal challenges. It is estimatedthat this cost could be in excessof $100,000 for each territorialauthority. However, it is alsorecognised that these processescould be combined with otherplan changes in order torationalise costs.This approach provides noflexibility for territorial authoritiesin terms of managing theirresources to address landscapefor their district, including theoption of undertaking landscapeassessments for specific areas ofas part of structure planningprocesses, as opposed toundertaking entire district-wideassessments.Several regional ONFL areadjacent to jurisdictionalboundaries, which means thatlocal authorities will need to worktogether to ensure consistentapproaches are taken toprotecting the ONFL. Someadditional costs may be incurredfor addressing cross-boundarymanagement of ONFL.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientPolicy option 6:Require territorialauthorities to undertakea district-widelandscape assessment.EffectivenessThis policy option would direct territorial authorities to identify ONFL atthe local level and to protect the values of these ONFL. This policyoption could also set a direction on the assessment methodology toencourage consistency. It would also include an additional methodrequiring territorial authorities to undertake a district-wide landscapeassessment.This policy option would require all territorial authorities to undertake alandscape assessment to give effect to the Proposed RPS. Thiswould involve substantial work and expense. There is therefore a riskthat the quality of such assessments could be compromised by theability to afford this work.The scoping study identified that nine out of 12 territorial authorities12-12 Doc # 1451856

had undertaken a district-wide landscape assessment in the past 20years. 101 However, the study identified a wide range of methodologiesand approaches had been used. Also, because landscape practicehas to date been largely guided by case law developments rather thannational standards or guidelines, the age of the study is a key factor inassessing whether the methodology used is consistent with orappropriate, given current best practice.This policy option would achieve the objective by ensuring that ONFLwere identified and protected at a district level, and in a consistentmanner. A key assumption is that whatever is protected at a locallevel would also be regionally significant. However, focusing at adistrict level would not necessarily address regional interests onONFL.Summary of effectiveness: HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsFresh assessment of all areasusing consistent criteria is likelyto identify areas not currentlyprotected, so benefits will accrueto these areas.Community:Will require those councils thathave not undertakenassessments to date (Hamiltonand Waitomo) to undertake anassessment and to seekcommunity agreement on whichareas and values are important tothe district or city, and whatplanning provisions areappropriate to protect these areasfor future generations.Environmental:None.Community:CostsLandscape is a subjective issueand there is no national standarddirecting how to undertake anassessment. Therefore, bestpractice is largely defined by caselaw which is always changing anddeveloping.Many territorial authorities haverecently undertaken landscapeassessments at considerableexpense. This policy optionwould require these assessmentsto be undertaken again using astandardised methodology.Consultation with territorialauthorities has confirmed thatmany are opposed to beingdirected to commission a freshdistrict-wide assessment giventhe costs expended to date onlandscape assessments. Alldistricts within the region exceptfor Hamilton, Otorohanga andWaitomo have undertakenlandscape assessments in thepast 20 years.Research and discussion withterritorial authorities has revealedthat district-wide landscapeassessments have ranged in costfrom $7,500 to $360,000 for the101Waikato Regional Policy Statement: Landscape Scoping Report. Prepared for the Waikato Regional Council by BoffaMiskell. August 2008.Doc # 1451856 12-13

districts that have undertakenassessments in the last threeyears.Based on these figures, it isestimated that, across the region,the cost of district-wide landscapeassessments is estimated to be inexcess of $1 million. In addition,territorial authority spendingwould also be required toincorporate the findings of thesedistrict-wide landscapeassessments into the relevantdistrict plans including the cost oflegal challenges. It is estimatedthat this could also be in excessof $100,000 for each territorialauthority.This approach provides noflexibility for territorial authoritiesin terms of managing theirresources to address landscapefor their district, including theoption of undertaking landscapeassessments for specific areas oras part of structure planningprocesses, as opposed toundertaking entire district-wideassessments.Implementing this policy will alsohave a significant cost impact onthe Waikato and Hauraki Districtsas a result of the re-organisedcouncil boundaries. As of 1November 2010, the WaikatoDistrict will increase by 25% inarea due to it absorbing the partsof Franklin District notamalgamated into the newAuckland Council. HaurakiDistrict will also have a smallincrease in size. Attending tolandscape assessments withinthese areas (approximately100,000 hectares) could be aconsiderable additional cost forthese two territorial authorities.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessPolicy option 7:Encourage territorialauthorities to undertakea district-wide.assessmentThis policy option would encourage territorial authorities to identifyONFL at the local level and to protect their values. This policy optioncould also set a direction on the assessment methodology toencourage consistency. It would also include an additional methodencouraging territorial authorities to undertake a district-widelandscape assessment.A risk of this approach is that if territorial authorities do not undertakea district-wide assessment based on consistent methodology andcriteria, they may rely on reworking old information that had beendeveloped using different criteria. This could lead to non-standardapproaches being taken between different councils. This would be12-14 Doc # 1451856

less effective in achieving the objective than a study based on thenew standardised criteria. However, territorial authorities could alsoreassess any existing landscape assessments against the proposednew criteria set and determine the need to undertake further work.Many recent landscape assessments have been undertaken withcriteria sourced from the same environment court decisions(particularly the assessment criteria derived from WakatipuEnvironmental Society Incorporated and others v. Queenstown–LakesDistrict Council C180/1999) and therefore while it may have beenapplied slightly differently, often similar matters have been considered.Therefore, this policy package could still be effective in achievingObjective 3.19 (Outstanding natural features and landscapes), byencouraging landscape assessments of ONFL to be undertaken at alocal level. Making it an optional approach gives territorial authoritiesthe ability to determine when and to what extent any further landscapeassessments would be required. This approach would also contributeto achieving Objective 3.2 (Decision making), by recognising that theterritorial authorities have a responsibility in their own right toundertake this work, but that they also need to recognise the crossboundarynature of resources and values and work collaboratively.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsSome additional ONFL could beidentified by those territorialauthorities that do a district-wideassessment.Community:Environmental:CostsIf territorial authorities rely ondated and non-standardisedinformation, this could result insome areas not being identifiedas ONFL when according to theproposed new criteria they shouldbe. This means these areaswould not be as well protectedand could be subject tocumulative degradation over time.Community :Allows territorial authorities somediscretion given that to date,many have expendedconsiderable resources onlandscape assessment studies.Consultation with territorialauthorities has confirmed that thispolicy option is considered to bea more efficient and cost-effectiveapproach, as it provides anopportunity to build on existingdata held.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientMost territorial authorities haveexisting landscape assessmentsthat inform their ONFL areas.This policy package would mostlikely require reviews (estimatedat $10,000 per district) to confirmthe ONFL to be protected. Shoulddistricts consider further work isrequired, this could be pursued inaccordance with territorialauthority priorities.Doc # 1451856 12-15

12.1.2 Objective 3.20: AmenityThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsthat have been evaluated to achieve Objective 3.20:Policy OptionPolicy option 1: Donothing / status quo.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option reflects the status quo, which is to leave amenitymatters to be addressed at the plan level. The operative RPS doesnot specifically address the amenity of areas or of the landscaperesource from a region-wide perspective. This policy option thereforereinforces the current approach by remaining silent on themanagement of the landscape resource (which is not otherwisecovered by ONFL status) and its contribution to Objective 3.20(Amenity).Management of amenity values is generally addressed in many waysthrough regional and district plan provisions, such as lightingrestrictions, planting requirements and visual design. These measuresare assessed on a consent-by-consent basis depending on theactivity, location and design. While this can be effective in addressingsome management issues associated with amenity, the amenityvalues of other landscapes (which do not meet the ONFL threshold)can often be ignored or be degraded from the cumulative effects ofmultiple activities.Therefore, in the absence of any clear direction at the regional levelon managing the amenity values associated with other landscapes,insufficient attention could be given to them in resource managementdecision making. However, it is unclear to what extent this currentlyoccurs.This option would involve no Waikato Regional Council resourcing,and would leave the management of landscapes clearly to theterritorial authorities to manage according to their own local approachset out in their district plans.This option is not considered to be effective in achieving the directionset by Objective 3.20 (which is to specifically address amenity and thelandscape as a contributor to amenity value), as it does not provide acomplementary policy package to Objective 3.19 (Outstanding naturalfeatures and landscapes).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone.Community:Amenity is determined on a caseby-casebasis and can beassessed as part of a localisedcommunity perspective.The value of all other landscapesnot deemed to be ONFL mightnot be recognised and managedappropriately, so as to avoidcumulative degradation of thelandscape resource.Community:Community values held aboutamenity and landscapes maychange over time and this couldresult in changes to thelandscape of an area from a12-16 Doc # 1451856

ange of land use activities.Where such change has adverseeffects on the landscape, this canimpact on people’s appreciationand enjoyment of an area.Amenity values would decrease,which would have social,economic and cultural costs.Policy option 2:Provide policy whichrecognises all thelandscape.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessAd hoc management of land useactivities or ad hoc decisionmaking on resource consentswhen assessing the amenityvalue of landscape may result incumulative effects, which coulddegrade the overall landscapevalues within an area over time.This policy option recognises that all parts of the region are part of thelandscape. The policy option focuses on recognition of landscape, butdoes not provide any guidance on managing landscape values.The assumption behind this policy is that landscape can berecognised and considered without the need to consider thecomponent values that contribute to its importance. This policy wouldbe implemented on a case-by-case basis through the resourceconsent process, (ie the importance of landscape would be taken intoaccount during resource consent decision making).The key risk of this policy option would be the cumulative andincremental loss of values associated with landscapes being impactedby different activities. Over time, this would have a negative effect onamenity for the localised and potentially wider geographical area.The environmental outcomes realised under this policy are likely to bevariable and difficult to quantify. Overall, the absence of any firmmethod to implement this policy limits the effectiveness of this option.The policy option would not achieve the Objective (3.20 Amenity),which includes managing qualities and characteristics of areas andfeatures. These are components that contribute to a person’s orcommunity’s appreciation of landscape.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe recognition of landscape mayresult in an increased awarenessof landscape values, which mayhave some minor environmentalbenefits.Community:Increases in communityawareness about landscapevalues by setting a policydirection in the RPS.Recognition of landscape values,but not providing any guidance onmanagement options, includingprotection of values/ areas.Community:The costs of implementing thispolicy are low for both the regionand territorial authorities, as thecosts would be borne by resourceconsent applicants.There could be a cumulative lossDoc # 1451856 12-17

Policy option 3:Recognise the valuesof all landscapes andset a direction formanagement.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessof landscape values, resultingfrom a number of small ad hocland use or activity changes. Thiscould contribute to degradation ofamenity values of an area overtime.This policy option recognises that all parts of the region are part of thelandscape. The policy option focuses on recognition of landscape, andincludes a method to direct how landscape values should beidentified, effects assessed and values maintained.This policy would be implemented through district plans. Currently, inmany district plans a landscape assessment is already required formany activities. These existing plan provisions could be amended toalign more closely with this policy option, without the need for totallynew decision-making processes to be put into place.This policy option is considered to be effective in achieving theObjective 3.20 (Amenity) because it recognises the contribution thatlandscape makes to maintaining or enhancing the amenity of an area.It would also contribute to achieving Objectives 3.2, 3.3 and 3.8.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsLandscape values and the impactof landscapes on amenity valuesare recognised and maintained orenhanced.Community:Benefits in landscape outcomeshave flow-on effects to amenityvalues, providing social, culturaland economic benefits toindividuals and the community.This approach manages activitieswithin the context of a landscape,rather than maintaining orenhancing those attributes thatcontribute to a landscape and toamenity.While land use change will occurand have an effect onlandscapes, there is a risk thatthe cumulative change fromactivities could result in loss oflandscape values.Community:Resource consent applicants willbe required to provide landscapeassessments to ensurelandscape values and theircontribution to the amenity of anarea are considered.Applicants would bear the cost ofproviding a landscapeassessment, while the widerpublic and ratepayers would bearlittle cost.This policy option provides a clearpolicy direction, with only a smallimplementation cost to territorialauthorities having to insert planprovisions requiring landscapeassessments from consent12-18 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 4:Recognise the valuesof all landscapes andprotect these values.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientapplicants.EffectivenessThis option seeks to protect (rather than maintain and enhance)landscapes values. It also requires that all landscape values arerecognised. The plan provisions would also restrict the ability forsubdivision, use and development to occur.This policy option would require resources at Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authority level to draft the provisions, to dealwith increased consenting processes and to monitor and enforcecompliance.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe restriction of newdevelopment would reducenegative environmental effectsassociated with development.Community:Benefits in landscape outcomeshave flow-on effects to amenityvalues, providing social, culturaland economic benefits toindividuals and the community.None.CommunityVery high costs for developers,landowners and the community,as development and land usechange would be curtailed.Development costs would be highdue to the stringency of resourceconsents.The community would forego thesocial, economic and culturalbenefits of development ofresources.Policy option 5:Landscapecharacterisation studyas a basis for resourcemanagement.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessHigh costs associated withmonitoring and enforcementactivities for territorial authoritiesand Waikato Regional Council.This policy option involves a landscape characterisation study toidentify a landscape type for each area of the region. This policyoption is an approach used and promoted by landscape practice as itseeks to manage the landscape and its resources in an integratedmanner.This approach would require Waikato Regional Council to undertake aregional landscape characterisation study to establish character units.Territorial authorities would be required to undertake more localisedstudies to refine these character units further. These character unitswould then become management units, with land use zoning andplanning rules linked to the underlying character unit. This contrastswith the more traditional zoning-based approach which can group verydifferent landscape types together. For example, rural zoningstypically include plains and steep hill country, however theenvironmental issues and land management requirements of eachvary considerably.Doc # 1451856 12-19

This approach allows territorial authorities to work together to addressthe issues facing each landscape unit, rather than on a district-bydistrictbasis. The method would require territorial authorities to adoptthe landscape characterisation approach in their district plans, whichmay involve considerable restructuring of the basis that planningprovisions are normally based on zoning or effects-based provisionsrather than landscape unit.The landscape characterisation approach is supported in landscapepractice as environmentally effective. Managing based on landscapetypes rather than zoning can offer a more tailored resourcemanagement framework which can be more effective.In terms of effectiveness in achieving the objective, this option, if ableto be implemented, would be highly effective and would exceed theexpectation of Objective 3.20 (Amenity).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsLandscapes protected andactivities managed in the contextof landscapes.Community:Community:Local authorities would incursubstantial costs to developlandscape characterisation studyand district plan provisions. Costscould be reduced by seekingsome efficiencies becausedistricts with similar landscapetypes could pool together to dealwith developing resourcemanagement frameworks forlandscape types.Policy option 6:Identifying highamenity areas andbeing clear on howthese areas should bemanaged.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThis option would result in aduplication of landscapeassessment work that has beenpreviously undertaken byterritorial authorities.The aim of this policy option is to ensure that amenity values arerecognised and that areas having high amenity values are identifiedand managed in a way that maintains or enhances the values of thoseareas. Amenity values are defined in s2 of the RMA as “those naturalor physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute topeople’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, andcultural and recreational attributes”.Therefore, this policy package seeks to ensure there is carefulmanagement of activities to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverseeffects of activities on high amenity values. This approach requiresthat high amenity values and/or areas are identified and appropriatemanagement strategies included in regional and district plans.The methods that would support this policy directive include: requiring regional and district plans to identify areas that are12-20 Doc # 1451856

valued for their high amenity and to ensure that plans includeprovisions to maintain or enhance those values;the coastal environment has been given a particular focus throughthe NZCPS policy directives, providing additional guidance formanaging this area through the regional and district plans; andenhancing public amenity values through works and services andthrough statutory and non-statutory plans, relating to the coastalenvironment.Requiring regional and district plans to identify and carefully manageamenity values will not only enable these values to be protected forfuture generations but would also provide more certainty for resourceconsent applicants and council decision makers on what areas needto be carefully managed, particularly for those areas where there maybe significant conflicts between differing uses. Clearly identifyingareas with high amenity will assist in managing incremental andcumulative changes to the environment that could, over time, degradethe amenity of the area.In terms of the coastal environment, the NZCPS provides strongguidance on how amenity values are to be managed. Guidance istherefore provided in this policy package on the different componentsand aspects that contribute to amenity in the coastal environment andwhich need to be addressed when developing regional and districtplans.Likewise, when works and services are being undertaken in thecoastal environment, enhancing amenity values should be considered.Together, the methods contribute to the implementation of the policyoption and implement the NZCPS and RMA provisions (s7c). Thepolicy package would assist in providing a more certain directiveapproach to decision making for activities in areas where high amenityvalues are important.This policy package contributes to achieving Objective 3.20 (Amenity)by providing guidance on how to manage amenity and how to giveeffect to the provisions of s7(c) of the RMA and the NZCPS policies.The policy option will also enable integrated management between theregion and districts to ensure areas of high amenity values aremanaged consistently between the respective regional and districtplans. It is assumed that there would be agreement on whatconstitutes ‘high amenity’. However, the policy also provides fordistrict and regional plans to determine whether other amenity values(ie those that are not agreed to as being of high value) should also beidentified and managed through plan provisions.This policy option will contribute to achieving objectives 3.6 (Coastalenvironment), in that managing high amenity values appropriatelywould contribute to ensuring that the national values of the coastalenvironment are maintained or enhanced, as required by the NZCPS.This policy option would also contribute to 3.8 (Relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment), 3.17 (Historic and cultural heritage)and 3.22 (Public access).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsAmenity values identified andareas maintained or enhanced.Cumulative and incrementalAs debate over what constitutes“high” amenity is likely to occur,some areas may end up notDoc # 1451856 12-21

change is avoided as much aspossibleCommunity:being protected as effectively asothers.Community:Policy option 7:An effects-basedapproach to identifyingamenity values, whichallows for decisions tobe made on a case-bycasebasis.There is significant financial valuein ensuring amenity values areprotected from inappropriatedevelopment in inappropriateplaces (ecosystem quality ismaintained; tourism is based inpart on amenity values. Forexample the tourism value of theCoromandel areas is worth $300million to the local economy) 102 .Amenity values are closely linkedto the public’s perceptions andvalues. As such, this policyoption reflects a public interest inan area.The policy option enables thecultural and spiritual values to beidentified and managed as part ofthe wider context of an area.Public values are respected anduse or development interests arebalanced with the need to protectthe public interests.A more holistic and consistentapproach is taken to managingamenity values between regionand districts.More certainty is provided forusers on where appropriatelocations are for certain activities(which in some instances willreduce the need for and thereforethe costs for individuals formaking submissions onapplications).Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessManaging amenity values toprotect some areas may constrainother use and development inthat area. This could impact onlandowners and developers (e.g.through design and locationconstraints), or it could constrainpeople’s access to sensitiveareas.Additional costs may fall ondevelopers if they have to locatein alternative areas, (e.g. routingpower lines around high amenityareas).Costs associated withidentification of amenity valueswould fall on Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authorities,but could be included in thelandscape assessment, andtherefore marginal costs would berelatively low.There may need to be trade-offsbetween use and developmentaspirations and amenityprotection aspirations, i.e. publicvs private interests in maintainingor enhancing amenity values.This policy option recognises that the RMA is based on addressing theeffects of activities – rather than just the activities in themselves. Thisis consistent with the underlying philosophy of the RMA and allows foreach activity to be considered on the basis of its effects.The methods that would support an effects-based regime for activitiesinclude: requiring plans to set performance criteria and rules for controllingthe effects of activities on amenity values; and requiring provisions in plans to address cumulative andincremental effects on amenity values.The effects-based approach enables the amenity of a particular site or102Market Economics Ltd. 2009. Waikato region economy-environment model. Presented to Environment CommitteeMay, 2009.Ministry of Tourism. 2009. Accommodation by Region. Tourism data files. http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Statistics New Zealand. 2009. Tourism Satellite Account 2009. Statistics New Zealand publications.http://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/analytical-reports/tourism-satellite-account-2009.aspx12-22 Doc # 1451856

area to be considered in the context of a proposed use ordevelopment. This recognises that amenity values can vary indifferent areas. However, this approach may also not address thewider public or cultural values associated with an area.This performance criteria approach has been taken in the past andcould be regarded as reinforcing the status quo in some plans (forexample the regional coastal plan). The outcome of this approach hasbeen a lack of guidance on spatial planning for maintaining orenhancing amenity values, representing a risk of achieving theobjective.Together, these methods contribute to the implementation of thepolicy direction and implement the NZCPS and RMA provisions(s7(c)). However, this policy option would not be effective in meetingObjective 3.20 (Amenity). There is a risk that decision making wouldbe focused narrowly on the area being managed with less attentionfocused on the off-site effects on amenity or on cumulative effects. Inaddition, an ad hoc approach to managing community and culturalvalues could result in a wide variation in the way values are addressedand a long-term cumulative degradation of those values.This policy package contributes to addressing Objectives 3.6, 3.8,3.17 and 3.22 but would not be as effective as Policy Option 6.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsChanging public values orperceptions of amenity could berecognised over time, potentiallyproviding environmental benefits(e.g. some areas are valued fortheir remoteness. However, ifthis value changed, developmentcould occur in such areas in thefuture).Community:The financial costs for identifyingthe amenity values would lie withthe consent applicant rather thanwith the wider community(through a plan process).This policy option would notstrategically address the spatialeffects of activities on amenityvalues, and could lead to a highrisk of degrading areas throughinappropriate location of activities(including cumulative effects overtime).Community:Ad hoc decisions based on thevalues held by council decisionmakerscould lead to incrementaldegradation of public amenityvalues.Consent applicants would bearthe costs of identifying amenityvalues of the areas in which theywanted to undertake an activity.The risk of this would be thatpublic values may be consideredto be of less value than thoseheld by the applicant.Inability of council decisionmakersto effectively manage theprotection of significant amenityand cultural values, due toconflicting views on theimportance of amenity values.These costs would be hard toDoc # 1451856 12-23

quantify, but could contribute toan incremental decline in amenityvalues over time for individualsand communities.Recognition of the publicresponsibilities for managingamenity values is not accountedfor.A lack of integrated planningcould lead to conflictingunderstanding of what amenityvalues are important in any area.The costs of identifying amenityvalues would be included into theplan development phase forregional and district plans.Summary of efficiency: Not efficient12.1.3 Objective 3.21: Natural CharacterThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.21 that have been evaluated:Policy OptionPolicy option 1: Statusquo / insert naturalcharacter into otherkey resourcemanagement areas.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option retains the natural character provisions of the RPS2000 (refer pp 59, 65, 66, 83 viii, 144). These provisions include:Wetlands 3.4.8 Policy One: which states: “ensure that the naturalcharacter of significant wetlands are protected”.Coastal 3.5.4 Objective: which states “preservation of the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment, including the physical andecological processes which ensure its dynamic stability”Coastal 3.5.4 Policy One: which covers “….identify and protectsignificant areas, features, processes…including natural character ofthe coastal environment…”Geothermal 3.7.2 addresses natural character as a component ofmanaging this resource.Heritage 3.15.1 recognises natural character as a component fornatural heritage management.This policy option focuses on including natural character as amanagement consideration by building it into a range of differentresource areas, namely wetlands, coastal, geothermal and heritage.The wetlands and coastal sections, in particular, are specific inreferring to “identifying and protecting significant areas”.It is noted that section 6(a) of the RMA refers to coastal environment,wetlands, rivers and lakes and their margins. This approach is morewide-ranging than that taken by the operative RPS.The effectiveness of the operative RPS coastal provisions forpreserving natural character was assessed as part of its evaluation 103 .This review identified that the objective (to preserve natural character)was unachievable and the interpretation and meaning of the policy103Enfocus, 2007. Evaluation of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. pp43 - 56.12-24 Doc # 1451856

directions was unclear. In particular, there was a concern raised at thelack of clarity between natural character, landscapes and amenity. 104The outcomes under this option would be ineffective in achieving theobjective, due to the issues of achievability and clarity as discussedabove. This could lead to a steady degradation of natural character ascoastal areas, as well as rivers, lakes, wetlands and their margins aredeveloped. For example, evaluation of change in land use along theCoromandel coastline has identified some areas where change hasbeen significant 105 and natural character values have been degraded.As such, there is a high degree of certainty that the existing “statusquo”approach would be ineffective, not only in light of the abovereview comments on the coastal section, but also because of theomission of any policy references to the natural character of rivers andlakes and their margins.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNatural character of wetlands andcoastal areas (directly) andheritage and geothermal(indirectly) protected.High environmental costs asineffectively controlledsubdivision, use and developmentin the coastal environment, andthe margins of lakes, rivers andwetlands would lead to thedegradation of natural charactervalues.Loss of ecosystems due to poormanagement of development.Cumulative loss of naturalcharacter due to a lack of clarityabout what values orcharacteristics are important toprotect.Community:Ongoing subdivision, use anddevelopment, which does not“protect” natural character.Natural character is assessed ona site-specific basis when aresource consent is requested.This allows for local views ofnatural character to be voicedand addressed.Community:Degraded natural charactervalues would have flow-on effectsto tāngata whenua, residents andlandowners in the coastalenvironment, wetlands, lakes andrivers and their margins.Economic costs related to local,national and international tourismas natural character is degraded.The benefit of tourism to theregional economy was estimatedat $300 million in 2007 106 , whichmeans the potential loss frommismanagement of theenvironment is high.Recreational values relating tothe natural character of the104Ibid, pp 51, 53105Ibid p 48106Market Economics Limited (2009). Waikato region economy-environment model. Presented to EnvironmentCommittee May 2009Doc # 1451856 12-25

coastal environment, wetlands,lakes and rivers and their marginswould be degraded.Policy option 2:Encourage themanagement of naturalcharacter relative to itsexisting level of naturalcharact.rSummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThere would be relatively smallcosts to Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authoritiesin implementing this approach.This policy option sets out to manage natural character issues by“encouraging” activities to be “appropriate” when considered in thecontext of the area’s existing level of natural character. This policyoption could be regarded as undertaking the minimum amount of workrequired to give effect to the objective.The outcomes under this policy option would be uncertain due to thediscretion which is provided for under this policy. Some regional orterritorial resource consent decision makers may implement theprovisions but many may not, creating a risk in terms of achieving theobjective. This will flow down to how effective the methods are for dayto-dayimplementation through resource consent processes.This policy option would not be certain enough to meet WaikatoRegional Council’s obligations under the RMA. Therefore as it isuncertain to what extent individuals (consent decision-makers as wellas consent applicants) may comply with this policy, the effectivenessis considered to be low.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsSome positive environmentalbenefits may occur but these willbe dependent on the degree towhich the local authorities andresource consent applicantsapply the policy and method.Community:Local decision making canaddress natural character at alocal site-specific basis.Environment costs are high,because many people will notappropriately manage effects ifthis is voluntary.Cumulative degradation of areasover time.Community:The public will bear the costs ofdegraded environments, loss ofaesthetic and recreation values.Loss of economic wellbeingbased on the quality of marineand waterway environments, forexample reduced tourismactivities at local, national andinternational level.Policy Option 3:Provide clearrequirements for theSummary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessLow costs to implement thispolicy and method.This policy option seeks to provide a clear direction as to how naturalcharacter should be managed relative to the existing natural character12-26 Doc # 1451856

management of naturalcharacter relative to itsexisting level of naturalcharacter.of an area. This policy package would be implemented by the regionaland territorial authorities through their regional and district plans.This option assumes the support of the territorial authorities inachieving the objective and recognises that the they are equallyrequired to implement the natural character provisions set out insection 6(a) of the RMA.This option will set a clear direction to plan drafters, enabling naturalcharacter to be managed to avoid ongoing degradation, while alsoallowing for development in areas where appropriate.The outcomes of this policy option would be to provide some regionalguidance on the way that natural character is managed, but also allowfor decisions to be made at a local level and take into account thelocal state of natural character.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe environmental benefits of thisapproach are considered to behigh because a clear policydirection is provided that wouldprotect natural character at locallevels.Community:The policy creates a clear linkbetween the policy direction at anational level (through Part II ofthe RMA and the NZCPS) andplan drafting by local authorities.It identifies and guides howappropriateness of developmentwhich impacts on naturalcharacter will be determined.Ongoing and cumulative effectsof use and development coulddegrade natural character.Community:The requirement for regional anddistrict plans to give effect to thispolicy will create plandevelopment costs for the bothregional and territorial authorities.Policy option 4:Provide clearrequirements for themanagement of naturalcharacter relative to itsexisting level of naturalcharacter plus includeassessment criteria inthe methods.The policy would provide morecertainty to individuals andcommunities as to how naturalcharacter would be managed.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessThis option seeks to provide a clear direction as to how naturalcharacter should be managed, relative to the existing naturalcharacter of an area. This policy package would be implemented byWaikato Regional Council and territorial authorities through theirregional and district plans. Specific guidance would be provided formanaging activities (subdivision, use and development) to ensure thatspecified characteristics that contribute to natural character areaddressed appropriately. This method provides a detailed level ofguidance for local authorities on how and where to manage naturalcharacter, along with guidance on defining natural character.The key risk of this approach is that the policy is too directive anddoes not allow for sufficient “room to move” when developing localplan provisions in regional or district plans.However, as the Objective 3.21 (Natural character) is implementingthe requirements of section 6(a) of the RMA, the outcomes from thisDoc # 1451856 12-27

policy package are expected to provide strong management directionsfor ensuring that natural character is protected and/or maintained andenhanced. This policy package would also lead to a more regionallyconsistent approach to managing the coastal environment as well asrivers, lakes and wetlands and their margins. In the long term, it isexpected that this approach would also reduce the ongoing andcumulative degradation of existing natural character.This policy would also contribute to Objectives 3.3 (Health andwellbeing of the Waikato River) and 3.6 (Coastal environment).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsImproved management of naturalcharacter values will lead toimprovements in the coastalenvironment, wetlands, lakes andrivers.Ecosystems associated withthese natural environments willbe improved.Community:None.Community:Policy option 5:Provide policy andmethods to severelylimit activities in thecoastal environment,rivers, lakes, wetlandsand their margins.Natural character values areprotected or maintained orenhanced, which has significantsocial and cultural benefits,including recreation values forusers of the resources identifiedin the policy.Provides more certainty toindividuals and communities, aswell as to resource consentapplicants, on the aspects ofnatural character that need to bemanaged carefully.Economic benefits related tolocal, national and internationaltourism will be enhanced.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessLimits the ability for newdevelopment in pristine areas,which may hinder some resourceusers.There could be additional costsfor undertaking activities such asdesign and location ofinfrastructure development toensure that the adverse effectson natural character are avoidedor remedied.There would be costs associatedwith incorporating detailedprovisions for managing naturalcharacter into regional and districtplans.This policy option provides for a strong level of protection for naturalcharacter. To achieve this it would severely restrict activities thatcould occur in the coastal environment, rivers, lakes, wetlands andtheir margins. This policy option would be implemented throughregional and district plans, and through strong planning provisionssuch as stating prohibited or non-complying activities.The risk of this approach would include Environment Court challengesto the policy as being too restrictive when defining what is“appropriate” in these marine and fresh water environments. As theRMA does not state a protection regime is required, it would bedifficult to defend this policy option. Individuals would be concernedabout property rights, while restrictions could also impact oncommunity aspirations for activities occurring on the margins of thesewaterways, for example, access ways.12-28 Doc # 1451856

A restrictive policy approach would only be partially effective inaddressing the objective. The objective provides for both protectionas well as for maintenance and enhancement. This is not reflectedinto the policy package.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsLittle or no development alongthe marine or freshwater margins.No further loss of naturalcharacter near coastal areas,wetlands, rivers and lakes.Community:There is certainty about the levelof protection to be given tonatural character to prevent futuredegradation. This benefits thecommunity, local residents andany resource consent applicant.No enhancements of naturalcharacter.Community:Restricts the ability of people tomake any change to the currentstate of natural character, forexample, developing moreenvironmentally sensitive newactivities to replace existingactivities.High costs to both WaikatoRegional Council and territorialauthorities in implementing thisapproach, including developingand defending planningdocuments and enforcingresource consent conditions).High consenting and compliancecosts for individuals andcommunities.Monitoring costs would berequired to ensure the level ofprotection was achieving theintent of the policy package.Policy option 6:Provide policy toencourageenhancement ofcompromised naturalcharacter.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessRestricts ability to efficiently useand develop existing physicalresources in the coastalenvironment, wetlands, lakes andrivers and their margins.This policy option provides direction to encourage enhancement ofnatural character values where they have already been compromised.The previous options above have focused on policy options for themanagement of new activities. This option considers the approach toenhancement of existing areas of degraded natural character.It is assumed that by providing a policy direction to encourageenhancement of natural character, some enhancement can and willoccur. If this doesn’t occur, there is a risk to achieving the objective.Territorial authorities cannot require that enhancement is undertakenwith regard to lawful and consented existing activities. However, thispolicy option can require regional and territorial authorities to considerDoc # 1451856 12-29

opportunities for enhancement of natural character, for example whenthey are undertaking works and services, or planning for future growthand development.This sets a clear direction to require regional and territorial authoritiesto consider enhancement when undertaking developments or policyinitiatives in compromised areas.The outcomes of this policy option would be to see an enhancementof the state of natural character in ad hoc areas. These areas wouldinclude areas where natural character has been degraded in the pastand where new activities are envisaged, making it moderatelyeffective in achieving the Objective 3.21 (Natural character).Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEnhancement of natural characterin some areas.Community:Social, economic and culturalbenefits if natural charactervalues are enhanced.The level of benefit would dependon the level of uptake of thispolicy option.Enhanced areas could be usedfor improved tourism or primaryproduction activities.Social and cultural benefits wouldresult where the compromisedareas are of significance totāngata whenua or thecommunity.Areas not enhanced maycontinue to be degraded overtime.Community:Resource consent applicantswould bear the economic costs ofenhancements where they areadded as a consent condition tothe activity.Community works and servicesundertaken by local authoritiescould require additional funding toensure natural character wasenhanced, for example design orlocation considerations.There are likely to be someeconomic benefits as a result ofenvironmental improvement.12.1.4 Objective 3.22: Public AccessSummary of efficiency: Moderately efficientThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy options toachieve Objective 3.22 Public Access.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Specifies thosecircumstances when itmay be appropriate torestrict public access.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe intent of this policy is to specify those circumstances when itmay be appropriate to restrict public access, by setting clear criteriafor guiding decision making. The policy recognises that there aretimes and places when and/or where it will be appropriate to restrictpublic access to and along the coast, lakes or rivers. Methods ofimplementation are strongly linked to the management of thelandward margins and include requiring regional and district plans toidentify when it is appropriate to restrict public access, ensuring12-30 Doc # 1451856

sensitive coastal areas are protected from inappropriate vehicle useand working with other agencies to address issues and considerrestrictions on access through district plans or through bylaws.The assumption behind this policy is that access should not berestricted unless there is a good reason for doing so. At the sametime, it is not intended that public access is provided everywhere, asthat is not feasible nor affordable. Therefore, one risk of this policy isthat public expectations for more access may exceed what councilscan provide. This would be addressed through each council’sLTCCP process.In terms of managing sensitive coastal areas from the adverseeffects of vehicles, there is a risk that the regional and district plansmay not be effective for achieving this. This is supported byconsidering other mechanisms as well such as bylaws.This policy gives effect to the requirements of the RMA (section 6(d))and the NZCPS. Subordinate plans must give effect to theseprovisions. As such, it is not an option to avoid addressing thismatter.This policy package would achieve Objective 3.22 by setting outclear guidance of when and/or where it is appropriate to restrictpublic access. It is the near shore/near waterways areas that are themost highly used by people, and that people expect to be able toreadily access.This policy package would also contribute to achieving Objectives3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua withthe environment), 3.18 (Ecological integrity and indigenousbiodiversity) and 3.24 (Values of Soils).Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Protection (for example fromexcessive access to an area)provided for sensitive areas,such as dunes, bird nestingareas and vegetation.Community:Provision of public access in allbut exceptional circumstances.For example, restrictions mayapply for reasons such as healthand safety, species protection,cultural sensitivity.Focusing access and use intospecific areas could lead todegradation of access areasfrom overuse.Community:Some areas may be restrictedfor cultural, health or safety, orproperty control reasons, that is,not all areas will be accessible toall people.Waikato Regional Council andterritorial authority costs ofimplementing this policy relateprimarily to the costs associatedwith plan changes. As it is anational directive, it is not a newdirection for councils.Identification of sensitive coastalareas to restrict access mayrequire some work in somelocalities. This is estimated atone full-time equivalent for twoDoc # 1451856 12-31

Policy option 2:Managing restrictionson public accessthrough consentconditions on a caseby-casebasis, orthrough other non-RMA methods.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientEffectivenessweeks per territorial authority,which is equivalent to $69,230 intotal. 107 In addition to the staffingcost will be costs relating totravel and other inputs, e.g.software. It is anticipated thatthere could be a similar cost forWaikato Regional Council.This policy option to managing public access would rely on theResource Management Act and NZCPS provisions as the guidelinesfor managing public access. Such provisions would be implementedon a case-by-case basis through consent conditions and/or throughthe use of other methods such as bylaws, reserve managementplans or Local Government Act access strategies.It is assumed that all these methods would complement the RMAdirectives, and that these other tools are more effective than aplanning approach taken through district and regional plans. Therisk of a consent-based approach is that ad hoc decisions are madewithout any overall strategic planning guidance on public access.This could lead to an incremental loss of public access over time. Forexample, where access for one activity is not considered importantcumulatively over several activities or developments, it could be amajor impediment to access.Managing public access issues on a case-by-case basis wouldinvolve individual criteria being set when consent applications arebeing considered. This could result in a variation in the managementstandards set for managing public access, resulting in a regionallyinconsistent approach being taken. It could also result in incrementalloss of access opportunities and the inability to link different accessways due to development encroachments, e.g. lack of any consistentapproach to esplanade reserves.This policy package would partially contribute to achieving Objective3.22 (Public Access) as well as Objectives 3.6 (Coastalenvironment), 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment), 3.18 (Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversity)and 3.24 (Values of Soils).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsSome protection of sensitiveareas from access.Access provided as a result of aresource consent condition.Community:Provision of additional publicaccess to and along the coast,rivers and lakes.Ad hoc protection of sensitiveareas, increasing the risk of lossof these sites.Community:Provision of access is onlytriggered when a resourceconsent is being sought, leadingto an ad hoc approach toproviding access, for example ifthere is no overall strategy tolink access opportunities107Based on FTE cost of $150,000 per annum, across 12 territorial authorities.12-32 Doc # 1451856

together.The provision of public accesscan impact on private property,for example the loss ofseclusion/ exclusive access towaterways.Ad hoc decision making couldrequire the community to bemore involved in consentapplications. This would requiretime spent preparingsubmissions to maintain accessor protect sensitive areas.Policy Option 3:Provide guidance onhow maintenance andenhancement of publicaccess may beachieved, to ensurethat opportunities forpublic access are notlost.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientEffectivenessThe costs to Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authoritiesin implementing this policy wouldbe incorporated into the resourceconsent decision-makingprocess which is borne by theconsent applicant.The intent of this policy is to provide some guidelines on how publicaccess could be maintained or enhanced. The policy recognisesthat there are opportunities to increase public access to and alongthe coast, lakes or rivers, and ensure that use or development isdesigned and located to avoid unnecessary restrictions on publicaccess. Methods for implementing this policy are strongly linked tothe management of the landward margins (of rivers, lakes andcoast). Methods to implement this policy include: requiring regional and district plans to:- identify where and when it is appropriate to enhance publicaccess;- specify that the loss of beach access is inappropriate; and- requiring an “off-set” for any loss of public access, throughthe provision of additional access elsewhere; and encouraging local authorities to enhance public access throughnegotiations with landowners/ managers, when there are distinctpublic advantages for doing so.This policy gives effect to the requirements of the RMA (section 6(d))and the NZCPS. Sub-ordinate plans must give effect to theseprovisions. As such, it is not an option to avoid addressing thismatter.This policy option assumes councils are prepared to accept the costsof developing and maintaining new access opportunities. It alsoassumes that the government will address issues related to privateproperty rights (for access across private lands). The associated riskis that councils may not implement this in terms of funding prioritiesthrough their respective Long Term Plans and may not seekesplanade reserves/access strips from subdivision consents due tothe costs of maintaining the areas.This policy option would achieve the objective by setting out clearguidance of how public access could be maintained or enhanced. Itis the near shore/near waterways areas that are the most highlyused by people and that people expect to be able to readily access.Doc # 1451856 12-33

This policy option will also contribute to achieving Objective 3.3(Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River), 3.5 (Adapting to climatechange), 3.6 (Coastal environment), 3.8 (Relationship of tāngatawhenua with the environment), 3.15 (Riparian areas and wetlands)and 3.20 (Amenity).Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsContributes to biodiversitycorridors.Community:Provision of public accessincreased over time, includingthe potential to link differentareas.People readily able to get to andalong the coast, lakes andrivers.Additional areas of cultural andamenity value, publiclyaccessible.Sensitive areas degraded byuse.Potential loss of remote areas.Community:The costs of maintaining publicaccess may result in ratesincreases (this has beenidentified as a barrier to takingesplanade reserves fromsubdivision consents by someterritorial authorities).When coastal erosion threatensprivate property, protectionworks can protect the privateinterests, but this is at theexpense of public access (e.g.through loss of high tide drybeaches).Cumulative impacts of publicaccess can adversely affectother community values (e.g.amenity of an area).The costs of including provisionsinto the planning documents ofWaikato Regional Council andterritorial authorities would beincluded in their respective plandevelopment budgets.Policy option 4:Managing themaintenance orenhancement of publicaccess throughconsent conditions ona case-by-case basis,or through other non-RMA methods.Summary of efficiency: Moderately efficientEffectivenessThe costs of negotiatingadditional access (andmaintaining it) could besignificant, but would need to beassessed on a case-by-casebasis.This policy option to managing public access would rely on the RMAand NZCPS provisions as the guidelines for maintaining orenhancing public access. Such provisions would be implemented ona case-by-case basis through consent conditions and/or through theuse of other methods such as esplanade reserves, access strips,other reserve purchases, etc.This policy option assumes that the RMA regional and district plansare minor tools available for addressing public access. It assumesthat other strategies and options (such as reserve purchase) are12-34 Doc # 1451856

more appropriate for enhancing public access, but recognises thatthese other methods could be supported by resource consentconditions in some instances.Maintaining or enhancing public access on a case-by-case basiswould involve individual criteria being set (to address maintaining orenhancing public access) when consent conditions were beingconsidered. This could result in a variation (over time and location)in the management approaches taken to managing public access,resulting in a regionally inconsistent approach being taken. Theresult is likely to be that fewer opportunities would be taken forenhancing public access.This policy option would partially contribute to achieving Objective3.22 (Public Access) as well as Objectives 3.3 (Health and wellbeingof the Waikato River), 3.5 (Adapting to climate change), 3.6 (Coastalenvironment), 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua with theenvironment), 3.15 (Riparian areas and wetlands) and 3.20(Amenity).Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsPotential for an increase inbiodiversity corridors.Community:Public access opportunities toand along the coast, rivers andlakes is increased over time,contributing to cultural, socialand economic values.Public access is provided for (orrestricted) whenever any use ordevelopment in the coastalenvironment or along rivers andlakes is considered.Disjointed pockets of land madeavailable for public access couldresult in unused and potentiallyinaccessible land areasCommunity:Ad hoc decisions on resourceconsents relating to enhancingpublic access could mean thatpockets of land, while deemedfor public access, may not belinked to existing access routes(i.e. making them inaccessible).The community, (through rates)would be responsible for anynew areas for public access, andits on-going maintenance.Cumulative impacts of publicaccess can adversely affectother community values (e.g.amenity of an area).Ad hoc decision making aboutwhen and where public accessshould be provided for as aconsent condition, could meanthat people repeatedly aremaking submissions to hearingson access issues.The costs for Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authoritiesin the short term would be minor,as most costs would be borne bythe consent applicant. In thelonger term, it could be costly toDoc # 1451856 12-35

Summary of efficiency: Not efficient12.2 Risk of acting or not actingtry to link ad hoc parcels of landso that public access becameintegrated.Section 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain orinsufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods.With regard to ONFL, there is neither uncertain nor insufficient information. Alandscape assessment has been commissioned and has identified the proposedONFL. Therefore, the public have an understanding of what resources the ONFLobjective, policy and methods will be applied to. Landscape is a subjective issue, so itis likely that the extent of these ONFL will be refined through the RPS developmentprocess.With natural character, Waikato Regional Council does not hold a full inventory of thecurrent state of natural character of each part of the coastline, nor does it monitor anychange in natural character over time. However, some work has been undertaken onresearching this issue, primarily where there are high development pressures. WaikatoRegional Council has an incomplete analysis of the issue, but the knowledge it doeshave indicates that an improved approach to natural character is required, and thatnatural character is under threat from development pressure.With regard to public access, some data is collected by Waikato Regional Council onpublic access for coasts, but it is not collected for lakes and rivers. Trend data is notavailable to demonstrate either change in extent or change in quality of access to waterbodies 108 .This risk of acting in the way proposed is that some costs will be imposed on localauthorities and communities, and on applicants for resource consents.The risk of not including policies and methods to implement Objective 3.19 OutstandingNatural Features and Landscapes, Objective 3.20 Amenity and Objective 3.21 NaturalCharacter would mean that the RPS was not giving effect to Sections 6 & 7 of theRMA, the NZCPS and Sections 7 & 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (asrequired by Section 62(3) RMA). It is therefore considered that, based on the statutoryrequirement for compliance with the RMA and the NZCPS, there is a high risk of noncomplianceif the preferred policy packages were to be left out of the revised RPS. Inaddition, the policies and methods to implement Objectives 3.19; 3.20 and 3.21 enablepeople and communities to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing;without these policies there is a risk of loss of wellbeing.The risk of not including policies and methods to implement Objective 3.22 PublicAccess would mean that the RPS was not giving effect to s6(d) of the RMA or to theNZCPS and Sections 7 & 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (as required bysection 62(3) RMA). There is a high risk of on-going incremental loss of public accessopportunities for future generations if a proactive approach to managing public accessis not taken. However, it is acknowledged that there are a range of other non-RMAmechanisms available to councils to manage public access to achieve the objective.108Ibid pp49 and 34.12-36 Doc # 1451856

12.3 Appropriate policies and methods12.3.1 Objective 3.19: Outstanding Natural Features and LandscapesThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.19.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 1: Do nothing / statusquoPolicy Option 2: Identify ONFL andprovide policy direction for absolutepreservation and protection of ONFLPolicy Option 3: Provide policydirection to protect the values of ONFLPolicy Option 4: Provide policydirection to protect the values of ONFLat the regional level, identify ONFL ofregional significance and encourageterritorial authorities to identify ONFLof local significance.Policy Option 5: Require territorialauthorities to identify and protect localONFL and provide guidance on how todo soPolicy Option 6: Require territorialauthorities to undertake a district-widelandscape assessmentPolicy Option 7: Encourage territorialauthorities to undertake a district-wideassessmentLow Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoModerateHighHighHighModerateModeratelyefficientHighly efficientModeratelyefficientModeratelyefficientHighly efficientNoYes[Policy 12.1]NoNoYes[Policy 12.1]Having regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.19 is by inclusion of Policy options 4and 7.12.3.2 Objective 3.20: AmenityThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.20.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 1: Do nothing / statusquoPolicy Option 2: Provide policy whichrecognises all the landscapePolicy Option 3: Recognise the valuesof all landscapes (to the amenity of theregion) and a (policy) direction for themanagement of these values.Low Not efficient NoLowModerateModeratelyefficientHighly efficientNoYes[Policy 12.2]Doc # 1451856 12-37

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 4: Recognise the valuesof all landscapes and set policy toprotect these valuesPolicy Option 5: Undertake aLandscape Characterisation Study (forthe region) as a basis for resourcemanagement (of the amenity values ofthe region’s landscapes)Policy Option 6: Identifying highamenity areas and being clear on howthese areas should be managed.Policy Option 7: An effects-basedapproach to identifying amenity values,which allows for decisions to be madeon a case-by-case basis.High Not efficient NoHigh Not efficient NoHighHighly efficientYes[Policy 12.4]Low Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.20 is by inclusion of Policy options 3and 6.12.3.3 Objective 3.21: Natural CharacterThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.21.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 1: Retain the policyapproach in the RPS 2000Policy Option 2: Encourage themanagement of natural characterrelative to its existing level of naturalcharacterPolicy Option 3: Provide clearrequirements for the management ofnatural character relative to itsexisting level of natural characterPolicy Option 4: Provide clearrequirements for the management ofnatural character relative to itsexisting level of natural characterplus include assessment criteria inthe methodsPolicy Option 5: Provide policy andmethods to severely limit activities inthe coastal environmentPolicy Option 6: Provide policy toencourage enhancement ofcompromised natural characterLow Not efficient NoLow Not efficient NoModerateHighModeratelyefficientHighly efficientNoYes[Policy 12.3]Moderate Not efficient NoModerateModeratelyefficientYes[Policy 12.3]Having regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that the12-38 Doc # 1451856

most appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.21 is by inclusion of Policy options 4and 6.12.3.4 Objective 3.22: Public AccessThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective\ 3.22.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy Option 1: Specifies thosecircumstances when it may beappropriate to restrict public accessPolicy Option 2: Managingrestrictions on public accessthrough consent conditions on acase-by-case basis, or throughother non-RMA methods.Policy Option 3: Provide guidanceon how maintenance andenhancement of public access maybe achieved, to ensure thatopportunities for public access arenot lost.Policy Option 4: Managing themaintenance or enhancement ofpublic access through consentconditions on a case-by-case basis,or through other non-RMA methods.HighHighlyefficientYes[Policy 12.5]Low Not efficient NoHighModeratelyefficientYes[Policy 12.6]Low Not efficient NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of contributing to achieving Objectives 3.22 Public Access is byinclusion of Policy options 1 and 3.12.4 Proposed wording of policies and methodsPolicy 112.1)Outstanding natural features and landscapes (PWRPS PolicyIdentified values and characteristics of outstanding natural features and landscapes ofregional or local significance are protected from adverse effects, including cumulativeeffects, arising from activities within or adjacent to the landscape or feature.Implementation methods1.1 Protect values of outstanding natural features and landscapesRegional and district plans shall identify and provide for the protection of the values ofoutstanding natural features and landscapes, including those of regional significanceidentified in section 12A.1.2 Identify local outstanding natural features and landscapesWaikato Regional Council will encourage territorial authorities to undertake a districtwideassessment of outstanding natural features and landscapes of local significance,using the criteria in section 12B as the basis of any new assessment.Doc # 1451856 12-39

1.3 Values of outstanding natural features and landscapes to tāngata whenuaWaikato Regional Council will work with tāngata whenua to confirm the values ofoutstanding natural features and landscapes included in section 12A and ensure theseare recognised in regional and district plans.Policy 2 Other landscape values (PWRPS Policy 12.2)Recognise that areas have landscape values which add to the sense of place andamenity of an area and that these values should be maintained or enhanced wherepossible.Implementation methods2.1 Regional and district plansRegional and district plans shall ensure that where an activity may have adverseeffects on landscape values that:a) landscape values are identified (based on the criteria in section 12B);b) the adverse effects of the activity on the identified landscape values are assessed;andc) the identified landscape values are maintained or enhanced.Policy 3 Protect natural character (PWRPS Policy 12.3)Ensure that activities within the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and riversand their margins are appropriate in relation to the level of natural character:a) where pristine, activities should only be allowed when there would be no loss ofnatural character;b) where natural elements/influences are dominant, activities should be undertaken insuch a way that natural character is maintained or enhanced; andc) where man-made elements/influences are dominant, it may be appropriate thatactivities result in further adverse effects on natural character, though opportunitiesto remedy or mitigate adverse effects should still be considered.Implementation methods3.1 District and regional plansRegional and district plans shall:a) recognise that different levels of natural character exist within the coastalenvironment and inland water bodies and their margins;b) ensure activities are appropriate with respect to the level of natural character,including particularly those activities that:i) alter the natural appearance and functioning of beach and dune systems, orwetlands, lakes or rivers (and their margins);ii) damage or remove areas of indigenous vegetation;iii) introduce man-made elements/structures where none were previously presentor obvious; oriv) introduce man-made elements/structures into a modified area which results in asignificant change to natural character; andc) have particular regard to the following:i) protecting the special values of inland water bodies, estuaries and bays,beaches and dune systems, including the unique physical processes that occurwithin and between them;ii) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of fresh water aquatic, coastal andmarine ecosystems;iii) maintaining or enhancing indigenous biodiversity and the functioning ofecosystems;iv) location, design and form of the man-made elements/structures and anymitigation measures necessary or proposed;12-40 Doc # 1451856

v) protecting natural functioning of physical processes over a 100-year timeframe;andvi) protecting geological features.3.2 Enhance natural character where compromisedLocal authorities should consider opportunities to enhance the natural character of thecoastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins where it hasbeen compromised, including when undertaking works and services or preparing orreviewing growth strategies, structure plans, or regional and district plans. In particular,opportunities to achieve the following should be considered:a) the removal of derelict or unnecessary structures;b) restoration or enhancement of natural elements;c) enhancement of water quality; andd) modification of existing development to be less intrusive.Policy 4 Protect areas of high amenity value (PWRPS Policy 12.4)Areas of high amenity value are identified, and those values are maintained orenhanced. These may include:a) areas within the coastal environment and along inland water bodies;b) scenic, recreational or historic areas;c) areas of spiritual or cultural significance; andd) scientific and landscape features.Implementation methods4.1 Protect areas of high amenity valueRegional and district plans shall ensure areas of particular amenity value to regional orlocal communities are appropriately identified and/or protected so that those qualitiesand characteristics for which they are valued are maintained or enhanced.4.2 Amenity value of the coastal environmentRegional and district plans shall ensure that the amenity values of the coastalenvironment are maintained or enhanced, including by:a) recognising the contribution that open space makes to amenity values andproviding appropriate protection to areas of open space;b) maintaining or enhancing natural sites or areas of particular value for outdoorrecreation;c) employing suitable development setbacks to avoid a sense of encroachment ordomination of built form, particularly on areas of public open space and along thecoastal edge;d) avoiding forms and location of development that effectively privatise the coastaledge and which discourage or prevent public access to and use of the coast;e) recognising that some areas derive their particular character and amenity valuefrom a predominance of structures, modifications or activities, and providing fortheir appropriate management;f) ensuring the removal of derelict or unnecessary structures within the coastal marinearea;g) encouraging appropriate design of new structures and other development toenhance existing amenity values;h) maximising the public benefits to be derived from developments; andi) ensuring public access to public areas is enhanced where practicable.Doc # 1451856 12-41

4.3 Enhance public values in the coastal environmentLocal authorities should seek to incorporate the enhancement of public amenity values,including when undertaking works and services or preparing or reviewing growthstrategies, structure plans, or regional and district plans.Policy 512.5)Appropriate restrictions on public access (PWRPS PolicyPublic access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers will only berestricted where necessary:a) to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats ofindigenous fauna;b) to protect cultural values of tāngata whenua;c) to protect public health or safety;d) to ensure a level of security consistent with the purpose of a resource consent;e) to avoid conflicts with activities of landowners or occupiers;f) to protect the stability of banks or dunes; org) in other exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the restriction,notwithstanding the national importance of maintaining that access.Implementation methods5.1 Restrictions on public accessRegional and district plans shall identify the circumstances when it is appropriate torestrict public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers inaccordance with Policy 12.5.5.2 Regional plan restrictions on vehicle use in the coastal environmentRegional plans shall ensure inappropriate vehicle use in sensitive areas of the coastalenvironment, including the foreshore, beaches and dunes is avoided, in order toprotect:a) the stability of dunes (including through damage to sand-binding dune vegetation);b) indigenous vegetation;c) shellfish beds;d) habitat important to threatened or at risk species and ecological corridorsconnecting such areas;e) areas important to migratory species, and to vulnerable stages of indigenousspecies; andf) people’s safety and enjoyment of the coast.5.3 Other mechanisms for restricting vehicle use in the coastal environmentLocal authorities should:a) collaborate with tāngata whenua, the Department of Conservation, NZ Police andother agencies and stakeholders to identify and address issues arising from the useof vehicles in sensitive areas of the coastal environment, including the foreshore,beaches and dunes; andb) consider the appropriateness of imposing restrictions on vehicle use usingmechanisms such as:i) district plan rules regarding accessways and roading; andii) local or regional bylaws.Policy 6 Maintain or enhance public access (PWRPS Policy 12.6)Public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers will bemaintained or enhanced by:a) providing direction about where and when additional access should be established;12-42 Doc # 1451856

) ensuring that subdivision, use and development do not constrain the ability of theland/water edge to adjust over time in response to natural processes, including theeffects of climate change;c) seeking to provide access across a range of experiences in a way that avoidsconflicts between different types of access; andd) ensuring subdivision, use and development do not result in inappropriate loss ofexisting public access.Implementation methods6.1 Regional and district plansRegional and district plans shall:a) provide for the enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area,lakes, and rivers by:i) identifying areas where it is appropriate; orii) establishing criteria to enable assessment through resource consent processesof when it would be appropriate; andiii) including provisions to ensure it occurs in appropriate circumstances andlocations;b) recognise that activities which result in:i) lowering of the beach face and loss of a high-tide beach, either immediately orover time; andii) loss (either in whole or in part) of existing lawful public access to and along thecoastal marine area, including to beach areas from adjacent land;are inappropriate in terms of effects on public access to and along the coastalmarine area; andc) require that where subdivision, use or development requires a restriction on publicaccess they should provide for, or contribute to, the provision or enhancement ofpublic access elsewhere.6.2 Enhance public accessLocal authorities should seek to enhance public access to and along the coastal marinearea, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, including through negotiation ofaccess arrangements with landowners/managers. In determining priorities, localauthorities should consider whether:a) suitable alternative access is already available;b) the access would link other existing accessible areas;c) the area to be accessed has particular cultural, amenity or other values; ord) the access would improve the range of access opportunities, including allowingaccess to less mobile members of the community.Doc # 1451856 12-43

12B Landscape values assessment criteriaTable 12.2: Landscape values assessment criteriaAESTHETIC VALUES1. Memorability – Is the landscape easily remembered and worth remembering?2. Vividness – Is the landscape immediately impressive, as a result of its visualdistinctiveness, diversity, or other compositional and geophysical factors?3. Expressiveness – Does the landscape demonstrate the formative processes that haveled to it?4. Cohesion – Is there a continuity of key statements / patterns / themes and accents thatgive the landscape character and a sense of unity?5. Eminence – Is the landscape exalted, distinguished, and remarkable in degree?PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES / NATURAL SCIENCE FACTORS6. Geological components.7. Topographical features.8. Ecological aspects.9. Dynamic components.ASSOCIATIONS10. Historical associations/endemic values – Are there natural or man-made qualities inthis landscape that give it a sense of place and identity?11. Value to tāngata whenua.12. Recreational values.13. Values that are shared and recognised – e.g. art, poetry, literature, tourism.NATURAL CHARACTER14. Absence of development – Is the landscape one in which there are few or no manmadeworks or structures?15. Natural elements – Are biophysical characteristics, such as landform, rock-outcropsand communities of vegetation evident in the landscape?16. Natural patterns – Are there patterns in the landscape that result from interactionbetween landscape elements and the processes operating on them?17. Natural processes – Are dynamic processes such as erosion, deposition, colonisation,succession and regeneration at work, shaping the biophysical landscape?12-44 Doc # 1451856

ReferencesBoffa Miskell Limited (2008) Waikato Regional Policy Statement: Landscape ScopingStudy;Boffa Miskell Limited (2010) Regional Policy Statements: Stock take of OutstandingNatural Landscape Provisions;Enfocus (2007) Evaluation of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement;Environment Waikato (2009) Regional Policy Statement Working Draft;Environment Waikato (2009) Waikato Regional Policy Statement review: DiscussionDocument;Environment Waikato (2010) range of GIS data;Environment Waikato Technical Report 2009/26, Waikato Economic Report 2009;Mary C. Buckland, Landscape Architect; O’Connor Planning Consultants Limited;Chow Hill; and GHD (2010) Waikato Regional Landscape Assessment EnvironmentWaikato Technical Report 2010/12.Phillips, Y. (2009). Waikato Economic Report. Environment Waikato Technical Report2009/26.Quality Planning Website (2010), Landscape Policy Guidance.Market Economics Limited (2009). Waikato region economy-environment model.Presented to Environment Committee May 2009.Doc # 1451856 12-45

13 Natural hazards13.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods13.1.1 Objective 3.23 Natural hazardsThe options identified have been assessed to determine how effective and efficientthey will be in achieving Objective 3.23. This assessment is presented in the followingtables.General ApproachThe general approach that is adopted to manage the effects of natural hazards in anResource Management Act context requires decisions and assumptions to be madeabout matters such as the underlying science, the influencing of ResourceManagement Act decision-making processes and communication with stakeholders.The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement can influence these decisions andassumptions. To determine the most effective and efficient approach for the ProposedWaikato Regional Policy Statement to take in this regard, the following options havebeen considered that broadly describe the content of the RPS:Option 1 (Do nothing): The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement does notprovide policies and methods that guide the approach that is adopted whenmanaging the effects of natural hazards on use and development. Option 2 (Integration and co-ordination): The Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement supports the use of an integrated and co-ordinated approach whenmanaging the effects of natural hazards on use and development.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Do nothing.RMA s32 testEffectivenessIn the absence of policy in the Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement that guides the approach for managing the effects ofnatural hazards on land use and development, the achievement ofObjective 3.23 will be reliant on relevant legislative support (e.g.RMA and the Building Act), the support that is provided by the CivilDefence and Emergency Management (CDEM) framework, andrelevant New Zealand standards.With regard to the legislative support, the RMA provides localauthorities with the function of recognising the effects of naturalhazards when controlling land use (Sections 30 and 31), along withallowing RMA decision-making processes to respond to the effectsof natural hazards (Section 106). The Building Act 2004 also allowsdecision-making processes to respond to the effects of naturalhazards (Section 71), while the Building Regulations 1992 providebuilding performance standards that relate to natural hazards(Section E1). These provide a good foundation for managing theeffects of natural hazards on use and development; however, thelack of outcome specificity creates the potential for uncertain andinconsistent decision-making processes, particularly with regard todetermining land use suitability. There is also a missed opportunityto improve the integration of the decision-making processes thatare associated with use and development, including those that lieoutside of the RMA framework, for example those decisionsinvolved with property purchases and feasibility assessments.Doc # 1451856 13-1

The support that is provided by the CDEM framework is broad. Itcovers all hazards and involves the consideration of the four ‘R’s(readiness, reduction, response and recovery) when looking tomanage the effects of those hazards. This contrasts with the RMAframework, which has a narrower focus that concentrates onnatural hazards and reduction. Consequently, by relying on theCDEM framework to support RMA decision-making processes,there is the potential for this wider focus to dilute the effectiveachievement of Objective 3.23.New Zealand standards provide a good basis for process as wellas performance. However, most are voluntary and must be giveneffect to by relevant planning instruments in order to have a morecertain role in RMA decision-making processes.In order to be effective in achieving Objective 3.23, the approachadopted by the RPS for managing the effects of natural hazards onuse and development needs to be co-ordinated, integrated andconsistent. The failure to co-ordinate decision making in this regardis also likely to mean that the defences against natural hazardsprovided by natural systems are unlikely to be effectively utilised.This in turn will put more pressure to provide man-made structuresas alternative defences. The above discussion indicates that the‘do nothing’ approach is unlikely to achieve this, therefore reducingthe effectiveness to achieve Objective 3.23.Summary of effectiveness: Not effective.EnvironmentalBenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmentalCostsNone identified.Community:Local authorities 109 (andconsequently the community) donot have to fund work by localauthorities associated with themanagement of natural hazards,for example advocacy andliaison. For regional councils,this is a potential saving of 1.5full-time equivalent staff, orapproximately $225,000 perannum compared to the statusquo. For territorial authorities,the potential savings will dependon the district.Natural processes andresources are degraded, due toa lack of co-ordination betweendecision makers and acrossdecision-making processes.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur higher regulatory costs,due to a lack of co-ordinationbetween stakeholders andintegration across decisionmakingprocesses. Thisincrease in costs will more thanoffset the savings that areachieved, with the regulatorycost of just one resourceconsent application easilyexceeding several hundredthousand dollars onceproceedings reach the courts oflaw.Land developers (andconsequently land owners) incurhigher regulatory costs for thereasons above.The community lacks109The term ‘local authorities’ refers to both territorial and regional councils.13-2 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 2:Integration and coordination.awareness of natural hazardsand fails to take natural hazardsinto consideration when makinga variety of decisions.The community (including localauthorities and emergencyservices) incur higher costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardevents, due to a lack of coordinationbetween stakeholdersand a reduction in communityawareness.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThis option imposes significant costs on the community, due to lackof co-ordination across stakeholders and integration betweendecision-making processes.EffectivenessWhen managing the effects of natural hazards on use anddevelopment, an approach that relies on legislation, the CDEMframework and New Zealand standards is not expected to be veryeffective in achieving Objective 3.23, due to the voluntary andgeneral support that exists. To overcome this and achieve thedesired reduction in risk, a more active, integrated and co-ordinatedmanagement approach is required.Integration recognises the need to align the range of decisionmakingprocess that are linked to managing the effects of naturalhazards on use and development, including those that lie outside ofthe RMA framework, in order to reduce the levels of risk fromnatural hazards. This option achieves this integration by:identifying the need for community based, holistic strategies tobe developed to manage the vulnerability to the effects ofnatural hazards;recognising the need for stakeholder awareness, so as toinfluence decision-making processes that lie outside of theRMA framework. For example, those decisions related toproperty purchase and feasibility assessment;ensuring that, where appropriate, natural features are utilisedas defences against natural hazards; andrequiring regional and district plans to incorporate a riskmanagement framework, in accordance with the relevantstandards, strategies and plans 110 .A risk-based approach provides a useful basis for the developmentof land use controls that recognise the level of risk thataccompanies different proposals in different environments.The challenge of using a risk-based approach is the highlysubjective nature of risk management, and the difficultly that existsin translating risk management into clear outcomes that support theeffective achievement of Objective 3.23. To overcome thissubjectivity and improve the effectiveness of this approach, theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement and other planningdocuments need to provide an appropriate level of guidance for therisk management process. In particular, decision-making processesneed clear guidance on what outcomes are acceptable and whatoutcomes are not.Co-ordination recognises the need to involve the full range of110These include NZS9401:2008 (Flood Risk Management – A Process Standard), the Waikato Civil Defence andEmergency Management Group Plan, and ISO 31000:2009 (Risk Management).Doc # 1451856 13-3

stakeholders that are involved in managing the effects of naturalhazards on use and development. This option achieves coordinationby:clearly identifying local authority roles;maintaining transparent and consist decision-makingprocesses;identifying the need for consistent advocacy; andeducating stakeholders.This option builds on the foundation that is provided by legislationand the CDEM framework, and, in particular, aims to support theconsistency and effectiveness of the various decision-makingprocesses that influence the vulnerability of use and developmentto the effects of natural hazards. The resulting regional frameworkfor managing natural hazard risks provides for the effectiveachievement of Objective 3.23. It also supports achievement ofObjectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.11, 3.15, 3.20 and 3.21.Summary of effectiveness: Effective.EnvironmentalBenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmentalCostsNatural processes andresources benefit from betterco-ordination between decisionmakers and better integrationacross decision-makingprocesses.CommunityLocal authorities (andconsequently the community)incur lower regulatory costs dueto better co-ordination betweenstakeholders and betterintegration across decisionmakingprocesses. Thislowering of costs will more thanoffset the increased cost ofcouncil business. For example,the regulatory cost associatedwith just one resource consentapplication that would otherwisebecome protracted could easilyexceed several hundredthousand dollars, if proceedingsreach the environment court.Land developers (andconsequently land owners) alsoincur lower regulatory costs forthe reasons above.The community has anincreased awareness of naturalhazards, including theconsideration of natural hazardswhen making a variety ofdecisions.None identified.CommunityLocal authorities (andconsequently the community)have to fund work by authoritiesassociated with themanagement of natural hazards(for example, advocacy andliaison), as well as maintainingan increased regulatoryinvolvement. This is estimatedat three full-time equivalentstaff for Waikato RegionalCouncil (or approximately$450,000 per year). There mayalso be a cost to territorialauthorities; however, thesignificance of this will varydepending on the district, forexample there is varyingvulnerability to natural hazardsbetween districts, and some arealready investing significantresources because of their highvulnerability.The community (including localauthorities and emergency13-4 Doc # 1451856

services) incur lower costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardevents, due to an increase incommunity awareness.The effectiveness of CDEMactivities in the community isimproved, due to the reinforcingof consistent messagesbetween the RMA and CDEMsectors.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientThis option provides a range of benefits to the environment andcommunity, due to improved co-ordination between stakeholdersand integration across decision-making processesManaging activities to reduce the vulnerability of use and activities from theeffects of natural hazardsUse and development is vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards. In someinstances, this vulnerability may be greater than can be sustained. New use anddevelopment also has the potential to increase this vulnerability.The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement can help reduce the vulnerability ofuse and development to the effects of natural hazards by providing policies andmethods that relate to the control of use and development by local authorities. Severaloptions are available with regard to the content of the Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement, with the preferred option being the one that is most effective andefficient in achieving Objective 3.23. The options discussed in this report are:Option 1 (Do nothing): The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement does notprovide policies and methods that relate to the control of use and development inresponse to the effects of natural hazards. Note that this option with also result inWaikato Regional Council implicitly taking the role of controlling land use for thepurpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards (as per Section30(1)(c)(iv) of the RMA).Option 2 (Control by Waikato Regional Council): The Proposed Waikato RegionalPolicy Statement provides policies and methods that relate to the control of use anddevelopment in response to the effects of natural hazards. This option differs fromoption 1 in that it provides explicit guidance to Waikato Regional Council (asopposed to the implicit role and lack of specific guidance that would occur underoption 1).Option 3 (Control by territorial authorities): The Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement provides policies and methods that relate to the control of use anddevelopment in response to the effects of natural hazards. However, it alsotransfers the role to implement these policies and methods to territorial authorities,which is consistent with the status quo. Option 4 (Control by both): The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statementprovides policies and methods that relate to the control of use and development inresponse to the effects of natural hazards. However, it provides for a split in rolesbetween Waikato Regional Council and territorial authorities.The four options identified have been assessed to determine how effective and efficientthey will be in achieving Objective 3.23. This assessment is presented in the followingtables.Doc # 1451856 13-5

Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Do nothing.RMA s32 testEffectivenessIn the absence of policies and methods in the RPS that relate to thecontrol of use and development in response to the effects of naturalhazards, RMA decision-making processes will be reliant onlegislative support (for example, the RMA and BA), the CDEMframework and relevant New Zealand standards for guidance onhow Objective 3.23 is to be achieved.With regard to the legislative support, the RMA allows decisionmakingprocesses to respond to the effects of natural hazards (e.g.section 106). The Building Act 2004 also allows decision-makingprocesses to respond to the effects of natural hazards (e.g. section71), while the Building Regulations 1992 provide buildingperformance standards that relate to natural hazards (e.g. sectionE1). These provide a good foundation for the recognition of naturalhazards by RMA decision-making processes. However, there is alack of specificity around what use and development outcomes areacceptable and what outcomes are not acceptable. Such specificityis essential to the effective achievement of Objective 3.23, becauseit supports the measurability that Objective 3.23 requires.The support that is provided by the CDEM framework is broad. Itcovers all hazards and involves the consideration of the four ‘R’s(readiness, reduction, response and recovery) when looking tomanage the effects of those hazards. This contrasts with the RMAframework, which has a narrower focus that concentrates onnatural hazards and reduction. Consequently, by relying on theCDEM framework to support RMA decision-making processes,there is the potential for this wider focus to dilute the clarity ofoutcomes that are sought by the decision-making process in orderto effectively achieve Objective 3.23.New Zealand standards provide a good basis for process as wellas performance. However, most are voluntary and must be giveneffect to by relevant planning instruments, in order to have a morecertain role in RMA decision-making processes (and a more certainrole in the effective achievement of Objective 3.23).In order to be effective in achieving Objective 3.23, the RMAdecision-making process needs to be supported by planningdocuments and guidance that provide a clear distinction betweenacceptable and unacceptable outcomes. The above discussionindicates that the ‘do nothing’ approach will not achieve this,therefore reducing the effective achievement of Objective 3.23.In addition to the provision of guidance to the RMA decision-makingprocess, the lack of policies and methods in the Proposed WaikatoRegional Policy Statement regarding the control of use anddevelopment in response to the effects of natural hazards will alsogive Waikato Regional Council the role of controlling land use forthe purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards (refer toSection 30(1)(c)(iv) of the RMA).Waikato Regional Council has a range of functions that are definedby the RMA. With regard to the control of land use, these functionsrelate to the effect of land use on the natural environment andinclude soil conservation, the maintenance and enhancement of thequality of water in water bodies and coastal water, the maintenanceof the quantity of water in water bodies and coastal water, and themaintenance and enhancement of ecosystems in water bodies andcoastal water. The implementation of these functions is currentlyeffects based, with control of land use indirectly achieved byrequiring the authorisation of activities that result in a discharge to13-6 Doc # 1451856

the wider environment.The additional role around controlling land use and natural hazardsrequires a more direct input by Waikato Regional Council into thecontrol of land use, in a similar manner that territorial authorities doin order to implement their respective functions. The need for bothterritorial authorities and Waikato Regional Council to be directlyinvolved in the control of land use will require two separate RMAdecision-making processes to be followed. This may reduce theeffectiveness of this approach, given the increased level ofcomplexity that is required and the possibility that the twoprocesses may not be consistent and co-ordinated. It is also likelythat the efficiency of the overall RMA decision-making processwould be reduced. Again, this is likely to lead to the defenceservices provided by natural systems being unlikely to beeffectively utilised, resulting in more pressure to provide man-madestructures as alternative defences.However, while this approach may not be as effective or efficient inthe general sense, there is one specific and particularly importantsituation where this approach is effective: the management ofexisting use rights.Existing use rights relate to the protection that the RMA providesexisting land uses that were lawfully established, despite beingcontrary to any rules that exist under the RMA framework. In anatural hazards context, existing use rights mean that existing landuses can continue, regardless of the vulnerability to natural hazardsand regardless of even broad prohibition by district plans. The onlyway to override the protection that is provided by existing use rightsis through the use of the regional plan and, hence, the directinvolvement of Waikato Regional Council in the control of land use.It is, however, important to recognise that the use of a regional planto override existing use rights is an approach that is not widelyused. Therefore, it is likely to be subject to a complex and uncertainpolitical and legal environment that may undermine the alreadynarrow justification for it.Summary of effectiveness: Not effective.There are reasons for and against the direct involvement ofWaikato Regional Council in order to be effective in achievingObjective 3.23. It should, however, be noted that the reasonssupporting involvement, (that is, the more effective management ofexisting use rights), are only one part of a broad process to controlland use in an RMA context, which exists in a complex anduncertain political and legal environment.EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsNone identified.Community:None identified.Natural processes andresources are degraded, due tothe unnecessary encroachmentof development and lack ofguidance for decision-makingprocesses.Community:The degradation of theprotective function of naturalsystems may require costlyman-made structures to be builtand maintained as analternative.Doc # 1451856 13-7

Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur higher regulatory costs,due to a lack of guidance fordecision making, regulatoryduplication and thecontestability of decisions.These costs are significant, withjust one resource consentapplication having the potentialto incur costs of severalhundred thousand dollars, oncethe courts of law becomeinvolved.Land developers (andconsequently land owners) incurhigher regulatory costs for thereasons above.The community becomes morevulnerable to natural hazardsthan what can be tolerated, dueto a lack of guidance fordecision making and thelikelihood of bargainedoutcomes. This results ingreater expected damage toproperty, infrastructure and theenvironment, and increasedsocial dislocation due to hazardevents.Policy option 2:Control by WaikatoRegional Council.Natural hazard events imposecosts on our communities, withthe last significant eventrequiring in excess of $1 millionfor response and repair 111 . Theimpact of such an occurrencebecoming more frequent isclearly significant from a purelyeconomic perspective, but alsofrom an environmental andsocial perspective.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThis option imposes significant costs on the environment and thecommunity, due to a lack of guidance to support clear, consistentand transparent decision making.EffectivenessThe control of new land use involves varying proposals in equallyvarying environments. The risk associated with new land use notachieving Objective 3.23, (that is, avoiding vulnerability to naturalhazards), is also variable. For example, the risk that a paddock orgarden shed is vulnerable to natural hazards is very different to therisk associated with a dwelling, or to the risk associated with aservice that is essential during emergency response.A risk-based approach provides a useful basis for the developmentof land use controls that recognise the level of risk thataccompanies different proposals in different environments. Thefundamentals of a risk-based approach are defined by the111Waikato Regional Council and Thames Coromandel District Council, Reducing the Risk – River flooding of theThames Coast. A business case to central Government, p6.13-8 Doc # 1451856

international standard ISO31000:2009: establishing the context of the risk management exercise; assessing the risks, including identification, analysis andevaluation; and implementing necessary controls so that the risk is acceptable.These fundamentals are also defined in the New Zealand Standardfor managing flood risk, but with a stronger focus on flood hazards(as opposed to the broad context of ISO31000:2009).The challenge of using a risk based approach is the highlysubjective nature of risk management, and the difficultly that existsin translating risk management into clear outcomes that support theeffective achievement of Objective 3.23. To overcome thissubjectivity and improve the effectiveness of this approach, theProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement and other planningdocuments need to provide an appropriate level of guidance for therisk management process. In particular, decision-making processesneed clear guidance on what outcomes are acceptable, and whatoutcomes are not.The vulnerability of land use to natural hazards consists of severalelements, including: injury of death; property damage; offsite impacts; public infrastructure; and response capability.In some instances this vulnerability is localised and can bemanaged by ensuring that relevant stakeholders understand andaccept the associated risks. However, there are other instanceswhere this vulnerability affects a much broader area, with local,district and regional communities being affected.In many cases, the involvement of these broader communities inthe RMA decision-making process is limited to the representationthat is provided by local authorities. Therefore, during the RMAdecision-making process, local authorities are accepting a risk thatland use will be vulnerable to natural hazards on behalf of thesebroader communities.In order to accept risk on behalf of their communities, localauthorities need to establish the level of risk that is acceptable,through consultative processes such as those that fall under theLGA and RMA frameworks, for example the development of theRPS, regional plan and district plans. Once the level of acceptablerisk is established, it needs to be incorporated into the RMAdecision-making processes in a way that is strong enough torequire the avoidance of land use where it represents a risk that isgreater than what the broader community is prepared to accept.The clear definition of ‘no go’ areas in the RMA context will supportthe RMA decision-making processes, along with the decisionmakingprocesses that relate to land use, but occur outside of theRMA framework, e.g. the land purchase, feasibility studies anddesign work.The more integrated nature of decision making under this policyoption will also mean that the defences against natural hazardsprovided by natural systems are likely to be more effectivelyutilised, potentially reducing the need for man-made structures asalternative defences in some instances.Summary of effectiveness: Partially effective.Doc # 1451856 13-9

The use of a risk-based approach, but with an appropriate level ofunderlying guidance on appropriate and inappropriate outcomes,will help RMA decision-making processes to achieve clear andconsistent outcomes that support the achievement of Objective3.23. However, this option fails to leverage off territorial authorities’strengths (such as more detailed local knowledge and greatercapacity in land use decision making). The consequent potential formore complicated decision making means this option is consideredonly partially effective.EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsNatural processes andresources are protected fromunnecessary encroachment ofdevelopment, due to clearguidance for decision-makingprocesses.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur lower regulatory costs dueto the provision of clearguidance for decision making.These cost savings will besignificant, with a cleardecision-making processmeaning the difference betweenresource consent applicationsincurring several thousanddollars in costs and severalhundred thousand dollars (alikelihood if the courts of lawbecome involved). Given thevolume of applications perannum, this cost saving isexpected to offset anyadditional costs that areincurred by Waikato RegionalCouncil.Land developers (andconsequently land owners)incur lower regulatory costs forthe reasons above.The vulnerability of thecommunity to natural hazardsdoes not increase beyond whatis tolerable, due to the provisionof clear guidance for decisionmaking.The community (including localauthorities and emergencyservices) incur lower costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardNone identified.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur higher regulatory costsdue to regulatory duplication.This includes Waikato RegionalCouncil needing to provideadditional resources for theprocessing of land useconsents in the primary hazardzone. It is estimated that thiswould require at least anadditional one full-timeequivalent staff member (orapproximately $150,000 perannum).Higher regulatory constraints onland use, including existinguses, and a correspondingeconomic, environmental andsocial cost on land owners.However, this cost is more thanoffset by the benefits to thecommunity. For example, oneterritorial authority has morethan 900 properties expected tobe vulnerable to coastal erosionover the next 100 years. Thevalue at risk is more than onebillion dollars, and there is apossibility that further significantinvestment will be required bythe community in order tosustain these residences 112 .112Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (2004) Cooks Beach Coastal Erosion Management Strategy, Part I – Strategy,Environment Waikato.13-10 Doc # 1451856

events, due to improved clarityaround what vulnerability canbe tolerated and what cannot.The retention of naturalsystems as defences reducesthe need for costly man-madestructures as alternatives.Policy option 3:Control by territorialauthorities.This option isconsistent with Policyoption 2 regarding theimplementation of arisk-based approach;however, it involvesthe transfer of thepreviously-statedregional council role toterritorial authorities.(Option 3)The effectiveness of CDEMactivities in the community isimproved by avoiding thecreation of new vulnerabilities inthe community, along withaddressing existingvulnerability.Summary of efficiency: Partially efficientThis option provides a range of benefits to the environment andcommunity, due to the provision of guidance that supports clear,consistent and transparent decision making. However, theefficiency of this option is reduced, due to the need for duplicateregional council and territorial authority regulatory processes.EffectivenessThe RMA defines a split of functions between territorial authoritiesand Waikato Regional Council with regard to the control of landuse. This split intends to recognise the strength and core businessof each local authority, while also providing for a transfer offunctions if an alternative split is justified.In general, Waikato Regional Council is provided with functions thatrelate to the impact that land use has on the surroundingenvironment. This requires an indirect involvement in the land usedecision-making process, which is focused on the authorisation ofactivities that are required to support the land use, for example thetaking of potable water, the discharge of storm water and thetreatment of wastewater.An exception to this generally indirect involvement in land usecontrol by Waikato Regional Council is the control of land use forthe avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. This functionrequires a more direct involvement in the land use decision-makingprocess, so that natural hazards can be identified and addresses.However, it also represents a likely loss in the efficiency of land usecontrol, due to the need for two decision-making processes undertwo local authorities.This loss in efficiency was recognised during the development ofthe previous RPS, and, as a consequence, it transferred thefunction of controlling land use to avoid or mitigate natural hazardsto territorial authorities. Similarly, under this option, territorialauthorities would take responsibility for implementation of the riskbasedapproach in regard to land use controls.Summary of effectiveness: Partially effective.In general, this approach continues to be seen as appropriate, butfor one important exception - the recognition that territorialauthorities (through district plans) are unable to override existinguse rights. In some cases, this is a significant barrier to reducingthe vulnerability of existing land use to natural hazards and,therefore, also a barrier to the achievement of Objective 3.23.Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsDoc # 1451856 13-11

Natural processes andresources are protected fromunnecessary encroachment ofdevelopment, due to clearguidance for decision-makingprocesses.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur lower regulatory costs dueto the provision of clearguidance for decision making.Waikato Regional Council doesnot have to provide resourcesfor the processing of land useconsent applications. However,this cost saving will be morethan offset by the ongoing costto the community to addressexisting vulnerabilities (refer todiscussion opposite).None identified.Community:Higher regulatory controls onland use.Existing vulnerabilities unable tobe reduced. As a result, thecommunity will be required(through the functions of localauthorities) to support work toaddress this.The retention of naturalsystems as defences reducesthe need for costly man-madestructures as alternatives.Land developers (andconsequently land owners)incur lower regulatory costs forthe reasons above.The vulnerability of thecommunity to natural hazardsdoes not increase beyond whatis tolerable, due to the provisionof clear guidance for decisionmaking.The community (including localauthorities and emergencyservices) incur lower costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardevents, due to improved clarityaround what vulnerability canbe tolerated and what cannot.The effectiveness of CDEMactivities in the community isimproved, by avoiding thecreating of new vulnerabilities inthe community, along withaddressing existingvulnerability.Summary of efficiency: Partially efficientThis option provides a range of benefits to the environment andcommunity, due to the provision of guidance that supports clear,consistent and transparent decision making. However, theefficiency of this option is reduced due to the inability ofcommunities to address existing vulnerabilities that are supportedby existing use.13-12 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 4:Control by both.Note: This option isconsistent with options2 and 3 regarding theimplementation of arisk-based approach;however, it involvesthe partial transfer ofthe previously statedregional council role toterritorial authorities.EffectivenessOptions 2 and 3 have been identified as only being partiallyeffective in achieving Objective 3.23.With regard to Option 2, the involvement of Waikato RegionalCouncil has the potential to duplicate regulatory process andcomplicate decision making.With regard to Option 3, the limitations that have been placed onterritorial authorities in relation to existing use rights limits theachievement of Objective 3.23, in instances where the riskassociated with the vulnerability of an existing use to the effects ofnatural hazards is beyond what can be tolerated by the community.Option 4 recognises that regional and territorial authorities haveimportant and, in some cases, unique roles (e.g. Waikato RegionalCouncil’s role in respect of existing use rights) in the RMA decisionmakingprocess regarding use and development. Both the regionaland territorial authorities would have key roles in implementing therisk-based management approach, reflecting these respectiveinstitutional strengths.Summary of effectiveness: EffectiveThe careful differentiation between the role of regional council andterritorial authorities in the RMA decision-making process regardinguse and development overcomes the ineffectiveness noted inoptions 2 and 3, therefore providing for the effective achievement ofObjective 3.23. This policy option will also contribute to Objectives3.1, 3.2, 3.5 and 3.6.EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsNatural processes andresources are protected fromunnecessary encroachmentof development, due to clearguidance for decision-makingprocesses.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)incur lower regulatory costs,due to the provision of clearguidance for decision making.Land developers (andconsequently land owners)incur lower regulatory costsfor the reasons above.The retention of naturalsystems as defences reducesthe need for costly manmadestructures asalternatives.Environmental:None identified.Community:CostsHigher regulatory controls on landuse, including existing uses, and acorresponding effect on landvalues.Local authorities (andconsequently the community) incurhigher regulatory costs, due toregulatory duplication. However,this is lower when compared withOption 2, given the shared rolesbetween Waikato RegionalCouncil and territorial authorities.The vulnerability of thecommunity to natural hazardsdoes not increase beyondDoc # 1451856 13-13

what is tolerable, due to theprovision of clear guidance fordecision making.The community (includinglocal authorities andemergency services) incurlower costs to prepare for,respond to, and recover fromnatural hazard events, due toimproved clarity around whatvulnerability can be toleratedand what cannot.The effectiveness of CDEMactivities in the community isimproved, by avoiding thecreating of new vulnerabilitiesin the community, along withaddressing existingvulnerability.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientThis option provides a range of benefits to the environment andcommunity due to the provision of guidance that supports clear,consistent and transparent decision making. It also overcomes thereduction in efficiency that was noted under previous options, byproviding for a shared role between regional council and territorialauthorities.High impact, low probability natural hazard eventsIn an RMA context, the vulnerability of use and development to the effects of naturalhazards is controlled by using specific events as a basis for control, for example a floodevent with a one per cent Annual Exceedance Probability 113 . It is, however, important torecognise the potential for natural hazard events to occur that exceed what is used asa basis for control. These events have a lower probability of occurring, but are alsolikely to have a more significant impact on use and development.The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement can support the management ofhigh impact but low probability events by ensuring recognition during the RMAdecision-making process. The following options have been considered for thisrecognition:Option 1 (Do nothing): The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement does notprovide policies and methods that relate to the control of new land use with regardto natural hazards. Option 2 (Support of CDEM planning): The Proposed Waikato Regional PolicyStatement supports the recognition of CDEM planning and ensures that thisplanning is supported by the RMA decision-making process.The options identified have been assessed to determine how effective they will be inachieving the stated objective. This assessment has been completed by considering:How appropriately the approach reflects the opened ended nature of these types ofnatural hazard events.How fair decision-making processes will be.The effectiveness and efficiency of these options is discussed in the following tables.113The chance that an event will occur during any one year.13-14 Doc # 1451856

Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Do nothing.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThe rarity of these events is such that they do not easily fall withinthe bounds of the risk management framework set out in Policies13.1 and 13.2. For example, the expected damage from such asevent in a given time period may be very low, but this is due to thevery low probability of occurrence outweighing the very highdamage that would eventuate. This may not accurately reflect thecommunity’s degree of risk aversion in respect of such naturalhazards. As a result, such events are considered to warrant aseparate policy approach.In general, the impact of high impact but low probability naturalhazard events are managed by the CDEM framework, by ensuringcommunity readiness, providing appropriate response planning andsupporting sustainable and ongoing recovery. In the absence of anProposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement policy thatrecognises and provides for the management of these types ofnatural hazard events, there is the potential for RMA decisionmakingprocesses to undermine the readiness, response andrecovery planning that is undertaken under the CDEM framework.An example is the failure of development to provide for effectiveevacuation routes, or the failure to recognise the limitations ofdefences.Any attempt to reduce the vulnerability of the community to theeffects of natural hazards needs to recognise the range of eventsthat occur, as opposed to traditional approaches that focused onmanaging the effects of specific ‘design’ events.Summary of effectiveness: Not effectiveDue to the potential for CDEM planning to be undermined, alongwith the lack of recognition regarding the full range of naturalhazard events that may occur.EfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsEnvironmental:CostsNone identified.Community:Local authorities (andconsequently the community)do not have to fund work bylocal authorities associated withpreparing for natural hazardevents that exceed designthresholds. However, the smalllevel of savings achieved will bemore than offset by the cost tothe community of failing toprepare for natural hazardevents that exceed designthresholds.None identified.Community:The community lacksawareness of natural hazardsand the need to prepare forevents that exceed designthresholds.The community (including localauthorities and emergencyservices) incur higher costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardevents that exceed designthresholds. This is due to thepotential for RMA decisionmaking to counter readiness,response and recovery effortsby the CDEM sector. Forexample, the failure of an RMAdecision-making process torecognise the need to providefor evacuation routes wouldreduce the effectiveness ofDoc # 1451856 13-15

Policy option 2:CDEM supportevacuation planning by theCDEM sector.Summary of efficiency: Not efficientThis option fails to recognise the opportunities to integratevulnerability reduction through land use control with CDEMactivities that also contribute to a reduction in vulnerability.EffectivenessThe CDEM framework recognises the importance of taking aholistic approach when looking to reduce the vulnerability of thecommunity to the effects of natural hazards. This approach followsthe four ‘R’s (reduction, readiness, response and recovery).There is good recognition of the role that the RMA decision-makingprocess has with regard to reduction. However, to provide for aneffective reduction in community vulnerability, the RMA decisionmakingprocess needs to recognise and support this holisticapproach. This policy will therefore achieve Objective 3.23.Summary of effectiveness: EffectiveDue to the recognition of the holistic approach to reducingcommunity vulnerability that is promoted by the CDEM framework.Environmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone identified.Community:None identified.Community:The community has awarenessof natural hazards and the needto prepare for events thatexceed design thresholds.The community (including localauthorities and emergencyservices) incurs lower costs toprepare for, respond to, andrecover from natural hazardevents that exceed designthresholds.The effectiveness of CDEMactivities in the community isimproved, through an increasedcommunity awareness of theneed to plan for natural hazardevents that exceed designthresholds.13.2 Risk of acting or not actingLocal authorities (andconsequently the community)fund work by local authoritiesassociated with preparing fornatural hazard events thatexceed design thresholds.However, this cost is small (ataround half of one full-timeequivalent staff member, or$75,000) when compared withthe economic, environmentaland social costs that areincurred by a community duringa significant natural hazardevent.Summary of efficiency: Highly efficientThis option recognises and takes the opportunity to integratevulnerability reduction through land use control with CDEMactivities that also contribute to a reduction in vulnerability.Section 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting, if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.13-16 Doc # 1451856

With regards to natural hazards, there is generally sufficient information upon which tobase analysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. There is, however,often scientific and statistical uncertainty associated with the understanding of naturalhazards and the potential effects on use and development. The risks associated withacting and not acting are outlined in the following tables.Risks associated with not actingRiskControls to reduce likelihood of riskNatural hazard information collected underthe CDEM framework does not sufficientlysupport the decision-making processes thatoccur under an RMA framework, leading tothe requirement for duplicate informationcollection.The vulnerability of use and development tonatural hazards is understated.Natural hazard information guidance tosupport the resource management decisionmakingprocess is too general and leads tounexpected procedural delays andinformation requirements.The regional community becomes morevulnerable to the effects of natural hazards.The vulnerability of existing land use cannotbe reduced due to existing use rights.Natural hazard guidance with regard to newland use is too general, leading toinconsistent decision making.Risks associated with actingProactive liaison between CDEM andRMA work streams with regard to thecollection of natural hazard information.Proactive involvement by the RMA workstream in the development andimplementation of the Waikato CDEMGroup plan.Develop of guidance that is specific tothe RMA framework (i.e. options 2, 3 and4).Ensure the RPS provides for instanceswhere a lower level of risk is sought withregard to the vulnerability of some landuses, for example those that areessential during an emergency response.Ensure the RPS clearly states naturalhazard ‘bottom lines’ that are to beadhered to with regard to both base-levelnatural hazard events and the variablesthat underlie those events.Provide for the involvement of WaikatoRegional Council in the control of landuse, that is, the full or partial retention ofWaikato Regional Council function that isprovided for by the RMA.Identify regionally consistent naturalhazard ‘bottom lines’ that are to beachieved by local authorities.RiskControls to reduce likelihood of riskNatural hazard information collected underthe RMA framework does not sufficientlysupport the outcomes that are sought by theCDEM framework, leading to the requirementfor duplicate information collection.The vulnerability of use and development tothe effects of natural hazards is overstated,leading to unnecessary constraints on useand development.Proactive liaison between CDEM andRMA work streams with regard to thecollection of natural hazard information.Proactive involvement by the CDEM workstream in the development of documentsprepared under the RMA framework, forexample the RPS, regional plan anddistrict plans.Ensure approaches promoted by theRPS are consistent with best practice.Ensure the RPS clearly states naturalhazard ‘bottom lines’ that are to beadhered to with regard to both base-levelnatural hazard events and the variablesDoc # 1451856 13-17

The overriding of existing use rights by theregional plan is subject to legal challenge.The direct involvement of Waikato RegionalCouncil in the control of existing land usetransfers a liability to resolve previous landuse decisions.13.3 Appropriate policies and methodsthat underlie those events.13-18 Doc # 1451856Confirm the legal context that allows forthe regional plan to override existing userights.Receive legal advice regarding the likelyoutcome of such an action, including theidentification of precedent.Receive legal advice regarding theconsequence of direct involvement byWaikato Regional Council in the controlof existing land use.The following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.23:Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencyGeneral ApproachSelectedOption/sPolicy option 1: Do nothing. Not effective Not efficient NoPolicy option 2: Integration and coordination.Managing ActivitiesEffectiveHighlyefficientYes[Policy 13.1]Policy option 1: Do nothing. Not effective Not efficient NoPolicy option 2: Waikato RegionalCouncil.Policy option 3: Territorial authorities.Policy option 4: Both.High Impact, Low Probability EventsPartiallyeffectivePartiallyeffectiveEffectivePartiallyefficientPartiallyefficientHighlyefficientNoNoYes[Policy 13.2]Policy option 1: Do nothing. Not effective Not efficient NoPolicy option 2: CDEM Support.EffectiveHighlyefficientYes[Policy 13.3]Having regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.23 and supporting other objectiveswhich can be addressed by management of natural hazard risks is by inclusion ofpolicy options 2 (general approach), 4 (managing activities), and 2 (CDEM support).13.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objective 3.23 is by inclusion of the followingpolicies and methods.Policy 113.1)Natural hazard risk management approach (PWRPS PolicyNatural hazard risks are managed using an integrated and holistic approach that:a) enhances community resilience;b) is aligned with civil defence approaches;c) prefers the use of natural features over man-made structures as defences againstnatural hazards;

d) recognises natural systems and takes a ‘whole of system’ approach; ande) seeks to use the best available information/best practice.Implementation methods1.1 Define primary hazard zonesWaikato Regional Council will identify primary hazard zones within which the risk to life,property or the environment from natural hazards is considered to be extreme andthese shall be recognised in regional and district plans.1.2 Assess natural hazard risk to communitiesWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities, tāngata whenuaand other agencies to undertake assessments of coastal and other communities at riskor potentially at risk from natural hazards, and develop long-term strategies for thesecommunities. The strategies will, as a minimum:a) include recommendations for any hazard zones that should be applied, includingprimary hazard zones;b) identify risks to the community from natural hazards; andc) identify options for reducing the risks to the community and the relative benefits andcosts of those options, including taking into account any effects on:i) public access;ii) amenity values; oriii) natural character (including natural physical processes, indigenous biodiversity,landscape and water quality).1.3 Risk management frameworkRegional and district plans shall incorporate a risk-based approach into themanagement of subdivision, use and development in relation to natural hazards. Thisshould be in accordance with relevant standards, strategies and plans, including:a) NZS9401:2008 (Flood Risk Management – A Process Standard);b) the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan; andc) ISO 31000: 2009 (Risk Management).1.4 Regional natural hazards forumWaikato Regional Council will establish and co-ordinate a regional natural hazardsforum to promote organisational integration and information sharing acrossjurisdictional and plan boundaries.1.5 Information, education and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) collaborate with:i) territorial authorities to support the collection and analysis of natural hazard riskinformation;ii) territorial authorities, the Ministry of Civil Defence and EmergencyManagement, the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Groupand other agencies to develop and implement public education and awarenessprogrammes on natural hazards and their associated risks; andiii) agencies involved in the property market, including insurance companies,lending agencies and real estate agencies to promote understanding andawareness of natural hazard risk to properties; andb) store all natural hazard risk information that is available and relevant to the Waikatoregion, and share this information with territorial authorities and other relevantstakeholders; andc) advocate for:i) a proactive approach to natural hazard identification in district and regionalplans;ii) the use of best practice approaches to natural hazard identification andmanagement of the associated risks; andDoc # 1451856 13-19

iii) a strategic approach to development (including redevelopment) that seeks thatany increase in risk from natural hazards (including residual risk) is minimised.Policy 2 Manage activities to reduce the risks from natural hazards(PWRPS Policy 13.2)Subdivision, use and development are managed to reduce the risks from naturalhazards, including by:a) reducing the risks associated with existing use and development;b) seeking to avoid new use or development in areas subject to natural hazards;c) ensuring risk is assessed for proposed activities on land subject to natural hazards;d) minimising any increase in vulnerability due to residual risk; ande) avoiding the need or demand for new structural protection works.Implementation methods2.1 Control of structures within primary hazard zonesRegional plans shall control any use or development of structures within identifiedprimary hazard zones to reduce the risk from natural hazards over time.2.2 Control of subdivision within extreme risk areasDistrict plans shall control subdivision to avoid creating demand for new structureswithin high risk flood zones and primary hazard zones.2.3 Floodplain managementRegional plans shall:a) control activities that divert or discharge flood water, including the importation ofcleanfill into floodplains, in order to avoid or mitigate adverse effects of flooding anderosion; andb) ensure that an integrated catchment approach to flood management is adopted.2.4 Control of development within a floodplain (1% annual exceedanceprobability)Outside of high risk flood zones, regional and district plans shall ensure thatsubdivision, use and development only occurs in a 1% annual exceedance probabilityfloodplain when it is essential infrastructure and either cannot be located elsewhere orwill not increase the risk of or from the natural hazard; or:a) appropriate assessment of the risks and likely effects of subdivision, use anddevelopment have been undertaken;b) any adverse effects of a 1% annual exceedance probability flood event onhabitable buildings are avoided or mitigated;c) any new structure or reclamation will not divert overland flows, increase runoffvolumes or otherwise create a new or exacerbate an existing flood hazard,including off site; andd) any hazardous substance stored as part of the development, or during theconstruction, will not create a hazard.2.5 Control of use and development (high risk flood zones)Regional and district plans shall ensure that use and development within high risk floodzones is appropriate, including by:a) avoiding the placement of structures or development where these would beparticularly vulnerable to a natural hazard event or would place a community at risk,including:i) habitable structures;ii) significant community infrastructure such as hospitals and emergency services;andiii) lifeline utilities; and13-20 Doc # 1451856

) giving priority to the use of non-structural solutions over the construction of newprotection works or structures.2.6 Control of subdivision, use and development (residual risk zones)District plans shall identify residual risk zones and shall control subdivision, use anddevelopment within these zones so that residual risk is minimised. In doing so,particular regard shall be had to:a) the level of service provided by the structural defences;b) the physical, environmental and financial sustainability of the structural defencesover a period of at least 100 years;c) the impact caused by an overwhelming or structural failure of protection works; andd) a reduction in the ability of a community to respond to and recover from a naturalhazard event.2.7 Other natural hazardsRegional and district plans shall control subdivision, use and development outsideprimary hazard zones, high risk flood zones and residual risk zones to ensure:a) they do not create or exacerbate natural hazard risks elsewhere; andb) they are appropriate by considering:i) the likelihood that defensive structures or works will be required to protect theactivity from the effects of natural hazards;ii) the vulnerability of the activity to the effects of natural hazards;iii) the potential for adverse effects on the wider local and/or regional community;andiv) whether or not the development is consistent with a growth strategy or structureplan.Policy 3 High impact, low probability natural hazard events (PWRPSPolicy 13.3)The risks associated with high impact, low probability natural hazard events such astsunami, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and debris flows are considered, havingparticular regard to:a) personal health and safety;b) damage and/or disruption to essential community services;c) the ability of a community to respond and recover; andd) civil defence readiness, response and recovery planning.Implementation methods3.1 Planning for readiness, response and recoveryLocal authorities should consider the potential effects of high impact, low probabilitynatural hazard events and addressing these, including by:a) where possible avoiding new development in high risk hazard areas (for example,tsunami run-up areas). Development that may be directed away from such areascould include:i) residential, commercial and industrial uses (especially those involvinghazardous materials);ii) lifeline utilities; andiii) emergency services facilities including police, hospital and fire services;b) using other land use planning measures where it is not feasible to restrict land usesto open-space uses. These may include controlling the type of development anduses allowed in hazard areas, and avoiding high value and high occupancy uses tothe greatest degree possible;c) for tsunami risk, considering site-specific mitigation measures aimed at slowing,blocking, or redirecting water, or raising structures and habitable areas above theexpected level of inundation;Doc # 1451856 13-21

d) avoiding or restricting the location of facilities such as hospitals, schools and otherfacilities that may be difficult to evacuate quickly in areas at risk from tsunami,lahars, lava and pyroclastic flows, and debris avalanches;e) liaising with civil defence and lifeline utility agencies; andf) designing safeguards for critical community networks (for example, water supply).3.2 AdvocacyWaikato Regional Council will advocate for appropriate consideration and recognitionof the likely effects of high impact, low probability natural hazard events, includingthrough regional and district plans, structure plans, growth strategies and resourceconsent processes.13-22 Doc # 1451856

14 Soils14.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of policies andmethods14.1.1 Objective 3.24 Values of soilsThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsrelating to maintaining the region’s soil resource to achieve Objective 3.24.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Managing activities tomaintain or enhancethe soil resource.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option seeks to maintain or enhance the values of thesoil resource by managing land use activities that lead to soildegradation through soil loss and reduced soil stability and quality.A combination of regulatory and non-regulatory methods implementthe policy, including: control of activities affecting soil quality and erosion; soil conservation and catchment management programmes; education and advocacy about best practice landmanagement; and control of pest species which threaten soil stability.This policy option achieves Objective 3.24 because it managesactivities which have the potential to cause erosion or degrade soilquality. Monitoring has shown that soil and nutrient loss towaterways is excessive in parts of the region. Preventing erosionand maintaining soil quality will retain the life-supporting capacity ofsoil and ensure that the range of uses is maintained or enhanced.In the medium term, this policy will result in changes in landmanagement practices. In the long term, soils will remain on siteand functioning in good condition.The policy assists in achieving Objectives 3.12 and 3.13 relating tomarine and freshwater quality and Objective 3.25 on high classsoils. Achievement of these objectives will be indicated byimproved soil quality and soil stability, and improved ground andsurface water quality through reduction in sediments, nitrates andphosphorus in waterways. The policy also supports Objectives 3.7(Ecosystem services) and 3.8 (Relationship of tāngata whenua withthe environment).The policy option signals a more stringent regulatory andenforcement environment over the long term. The regulatorymethods will control activities, such as grazing (intensity andtiming), cropping (type and planting) and changes of land use, thatresult in soil disturbance, erosion and loss of soil quality.The regulatory methods will necessitate additional resources and astrong political will to achieve the desired outcomes. There is a riskof resistance to regulatory methods from land users and industry,possibly involving a court challenge, and the financial cost ofimplementation may be seen as too high. If there are delays inimplementing regulations as a consequence, further soildegradation would be expected.The policy option would require greater resources than currentlyDoc # 1451856 14-1

allocated under present policy for monitoring and complianceenforcement. Changes in monitoring methods may be required.Enforcement and the adoption of economic instruments would beemployed as necessary.Non-regulatory methods will be implemented by Waikato RegionalCouncil through soil conservation and catchment managementprogrammes, advocacy for research, a collaborative approach withprimary industries, and control of pest species that might damageprotective (riparian) vegetation.Provision of information and education about land managementpractices may assist in achieving compliance with regulation.Education and advice is also effective in increasing the rate ofadoption of voluntary land management practices, where landmanagers perceive that there are benefits from adopting thepractice. Relying on education alone is unlikely to achieve changein soil management, if practices are not perceived to be beneficialby the land manager. Education and advice is not the method ofchoice in situations involving high-risk activities.Monitoring of soil quality, soil loss and the effects of land use onsoil values is an important aspect of implementation of this policyoption. Results from monitoring soil and water will inform thedevelopment of best practice management methods.The use of both regulatory and non-regulatory methods allows themanagement of soils to respond to changes over time in climateand in land use intensification. Climate change may, for example,result in higher rainfall in the west of the region and a consequentincrease in ‘natural’ erosion and landslides on farmed land duringstorms.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate-HighEfficiencyEnvironmental:BenefitsSoils require hundreds, and insome locations thousands, ofyears to develop. Managing thisfinite resource to preserve thequalities that enhance waterquality, biodiversity, and thestorage of carbon will sustainthese outcomes.Environmental:CostsSome reduction in ecosystemservices as, with limitedregulatory control overmanagement practices,intensification of land use willimpact on soil disturbance, thusincreasing the risk of erosion(soil loss).Degraded soil quality will meanthe loss of productive capacityand, unless better managed, anenvironmental cost, as extrafertiliser applied to maintainproductivity finds its wayunwanted into otherecosystems.Community:Soil versatility and ecosystemservices maintained, andcapacity to support life forcurrent and future generations.Long-term flexibility forCommunity:Accommodating Best Practice(BP) will result in someintrusion into managementpractices, while implementationcosts for environmentaleducation and industry liaison14-2 Doc # 1451856

esource users.will be borne by ratepayers.Provision of ecosystemservices in the form ofregulating nutrients, water andrecycling waste, and off-sitebenefits of improved waterquality and maintenance, orenhancement, of biodiversityfrom retention of woodyvegetation and protectingaquatic environments, andcarbon storage.Contribution to improving therelationship between tāngatawhenua and the environment bymaintaining the versatility ofsoils for their full range of uses.Summary of efficiency: Moderate-HighThere may be a cost to landmanagers of implementingimproved practices, but this willbe offset in the long term bysavings in inputs, such asfertiliser and machinery, whichwill be required to maintainproductivity of some soils ifallowed to degradeThe staff resource currentlyrequired (under existing policy)for implementation ofcatchment managementprogrammes, soil monitoring(including research andadvocacy) and compliance isthree full-time equivalent staff,plus additional capital worksexpenditure. A significantincrease in staff is required tofulfil this policy option.Policy option 2:Regulate activities thatare known to causesoil degradation.EffectivenessThis policy option seeks to maintain or enhance the values of thesoil resource by regulating land use activities that lead to soildisturbance. Reducing the incidence and type of soil disturbancewould contribute to maintaining or enhancing the values of soils(Objective 3.24).This option would require regulation to ensure avoidance ofactivities that might lead to soil disturbance. Activities such asgrazing (intensity and timing), cropping (type and planting) andchanges of land use would be regulated. The policy would requiregreater resources than currently allocated under the present policyfor monitoring and compliance enforcement. Changes to currentmonitoring methodology may be required to monitor all activitiesregulated.Achievement of Objective 3.24 would be measured by reducedsediments, nitrates and phosphorus in waterways. Monitoring todate has shown that erosion and nutrient loss to waterways isexcessive. Results from monitoring also inform development ofregulations to reduce soil loss and maintain values. There is ahigher likelihood of achievement of the objective using regulatorymethods than if there was no regulation.This policy would require the development of a comprehensive listof rules and may involve a court process, if they are challenged. Inthe long term, there would be a more stringent regulatoryenvironment (including the possible need for more enforcement toachieve objectives). This would necessitate additional resourcesand a strong political will to achieve the desired outcomes.There is a risk of resistance from land users, and adverse effectson industry relationships, particularly if they do not buy in to theobjectives. The financial cost of implementation may be seen as toohigh. If there are delays in implementing regulations as aconsequence, further soil degradation would be expected.Waikato Regional Council would advocate for research, acollaborative approach with primary industries and control of pestDoc # 1451856 14-3

species that might damage protective (riparian) vegetation.Monitoring of soil quality, loss, and the effects of land use on soilvalues would also be an important aspect of implementation, aswould monitoring of compliance where regulations are in place, andthe use of enforcement or economic instruments.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBy targeting activities known toresult in soil erosion withregulation, management maybe more precise.Greater effectiveness inpreserving of soil values.Community:Certainty that environmentalobjectives will be achieved whenthe purpose is clear and rulesare supported byimplementation.Increased economic andcommunity safety (e.g. reducedflood and health risks), as aresult of better soil protection.Contribution to improving therelationship between tāngatawhenua and the environment bymaintaining versatility of soil.Continued soil degradationarising from delays caused byinsufficient information to justifyregulation, and litigationagainst regulations.Efficiency may becompromised by the additionalcosts of regulating moreactivities, if soil erosion is notmanaged adequately.Community:Monitoring and compliancecosts are expected to require anincrease in staff resource abovethe current level of three fulltimeequivalent staff.Litigation costs borne byappellants, if knowledgesupporting the regulations is notstrong.While effectiveness is likely tobe greater because activities arecontrolled, there may be greaterimplementation costs associatedwith compliance monitoring andconsent processing.The preparation andadministration of soilconservation and catchmentmanagement programmeswould be similar to current costlevels (seven full-time equivalentstaff).Policy option 3:Status quo.Summary of efficiency: Moderate-LowEffectivenessCosts for research and researchadvocacy are expected to be ator about current levels (threefull-time equivalent staff).This policy option seeks to maintain or enhance the values of thesoil resource by some regulation of land use activities that lead tosoil degradation. The existing policy framework would be retained.This framework provides for regulatory and non-regulatory methodsto control activities causing erosion, and advocate best practice inrespect of managing erosion. The policy and methods do not seekto manage those aspects of soil quality which ensure the provision14-4 Doc # 1451856

of ecosystem services, and protection of the range of uses of thesoil resource.The policy option would achieve Objective 3.24 in part. Monitoringdata indicate that current policies are not effective in reducing theincidence and type of soil disturbance to a degree that wouldeffectively achieve the objective. The current policy aims toimprove soil quality and stability, and reduce sediments, nitratesand phosphorus in waterways. Monitoring has shown, however,that soil loss and nutrient loss to waterways is excessive in parts ofthe region. While some aspects of the objectives may be met insome catchments, the objectives would be unlikely to be achievedin their entirety. The outcome of this policy is likely to be minimalsoil conservation effort, with land users likely to have difficultyreconciling productivity with sustainability. Major soil disturbanceswould be regulated, but current gaps in policy allow soildegradation to continue.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Minimal benefits, althoughflexibility might allow otheropportunities and innovation.Community:More flexibility for land users.CostsEnvironmental:Continuation of soildegradation leading to reducedecosystem services.Community:Less direction may result incontinued soil degradation andreduced economic (productive)value.No costs associated withcompliance monitoring.No change to costs foradvocacy or consentprocessing.Summary of efficiency: ModerateThere is likely to be continuedmisunderstanding of tāngatawhenua issues in respect ofsoil.Policy option 4:Farm managementplans.EffectivenessThis policy option seeks to maintain or enhance the values of thesoil resource by contracting farms to agreed standards for land useactivities that lead to soil degradation. It would involve a voluntaryscheme that encourages land users to assess the quality andquantity of farm resources, and manage for sustainable production.The methods would likely involve advocacy of best farm practice,establishment of standards or targets in respect of land affected byerosion and for soil quality indicators, and working with landmanagers to develop and implement their plans. A catchment -based approach could be incorporated.Farm management plans would be linked to soil managementtargets, as part of an organisational approach for sustainableagriculture. The farm management plan could be managed as acontract with Waikato Regional Council in return for rates rebates,Doc # 1451856 14-5

or as a contract with the produce buyer. In either case, the contractwould be a voluntary activity. Where appropriate, economicinstruments would be incorporated. There would be an expectationof central government involvement in the form of an advisoryservice adequate to ensure uniform application of objectives, if notnationally, at least, regionally.To be effective all farms would have to be targeted. However,implementation would be staged according to individual farmresources (financial and personnel). Outcomes would be requiredto be measured per individual farm on the basis of the propertymanagement plan. This option would be backed by the currentlevels (and resourcing) of environmental education and monitoring.The adoption of farm management plans would raise awareness ofthe role of soil quality in sustainable and productive farming. Therewould be an associated increase in paper work for farmers,producers and/or produce buyers.Given the extent of support and information that would be requiredfor industry to support the concept, it is considered that supportfrom central government would be required. A lack of resources fordevelopment, monitoring and management of the farm plans wouldundermine the effectiveness of this option.The incentives to participate in this scheme (via economicinstruments and sustainability gains) may be perceived asinadequate or too uncertain. Alternatively, if the plans are seen astoo complicated or undirected, implementation may be low. If thisresulted in a low level of uptake, the policy would not be achieved.This policy option would contribute in part to achieving objective3.24.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsThe best option to retain theavailability of the soil resource,intact and on site for futuregenerations, since it targetsresources to specific areas todeal with key issues. Forexample the manager or ownerof a site would be assisted tomanage the soil resourceaccording to their ownresources and abilities.Community:More knowledgeable about therole of soil values leading tobetter motivation to act in waysthat preserve soil values.Issues able to be dealt with inindividual situations, takingaccount of differingcircumstances.Consistency of objectivesacross individual farms and theCatchments may be prioritisedfor action, resulting in lowpriority catchments receivingless or no action, and resultingin problems (and costs) in theirreceiving environments, forexample, in the case ofestuaries.Community:High cost to landowner andcouncil for all farms toparticipate in a comprehensivefarm management plan system.A proportion of the overall costsof implementing a full farm plansystem will be associated withinclusion of soil managementtargets in that farm plan.For Waikato Regional Councilto develop and implement farm14-6 Doc # 1451856

opportunity to integrate theseplans into catchmentmanagement.Increased soil ecosystemservices, including increasedproductive capacity, water andnutrient regulation andretention. Achieving the policygoals on an individual farmbasis would mean thatindividual farm benefits wouldaccrue in terms of moreefficient use of the soil resource(for example less and bettertargeted fertilise use).Summary of efficiency: Moderateplans, the estimated costs,assuming 4000 farms in theWaikato region and one advisorcould effectively implement thepolicies on 200 farms, theresources required would beabout 20 full-time equivalentstaff each year. This could bereduced by involving industryconsultants, for example DairyNZ, fertiliser companyconsultants, or involving centralgovernment.This option does not necessarilyfocus resources for best resultsbut relies on tailored conformity.This may accrue additionalcommunity costs to achieve asatisfactory outcome.Uncertainty about effectivenessand implementation.14.1.2 Objective 3.25 High class soilsThe following table summarises the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy optionsrelating to high class soils to achieve Objective 3.25.Policy OptionPolicy option 1:Protecting high classsoils from urbandevelopment –Waikato RegionalCouncil to define butnot to map high classsoils.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option is designed to protect high class soils from urbanand residential development. It relies on Waikato Regional Councilto define high class soils and territorial authorities to map them,assuming that the latter will have more information about currentand planned urban services (for example, provisions for sewerageand stormwater drainage networks). How effective this will bedepends on the availability of resource and funding across theregion, and whether subsequent territorial authority policies arewritten, interpreted and enforced in a way which protects high classsoils.The soils may be identified at a cost to the developer, who wouldbe charged as part of a permitted activity. This could lead toadditional costs to both territorial authorities and land users shouldthey resort to litigation to resolve disagreements over whatconstitutes high class soils or their extent. It is, therefore, importantthat territorial authorities come to an agreed stance on theresolution (the number of samples required to confirm thedistribution of the high class soils) and scale of mapping. Boththese factors have direct cost implications, which may becomeprimary determinants at the expense of protecting areas of highclass soils.By their nature, high class soils are best suited for a wide range ofprimary production uses, with minimal need for management toovercome inherent soil limitations. The Future Proof GrowthStrategy, involving Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton CityCouncil, Waikato and Waipa District Councils and tāngata whenua,in association with the New Zealand Transport Agency, hasidentified the need to protect and manage the high class soilresource for primary production.Doc # 1451856 14-7

The intended outcome of this policy would be that development isavoided on high class soils, with specific reference to theavailability of these soils for primary production. Activities would beidentified that restrict the versatility of high class soils, and directionwould be provided for district plans in the form of mappedinformation on the location of soils. In the short term, territorialauthorities would be required to identify where high class soils areand direct development away from them. This would mean thathigh class soils continue to be available for a range of primaryproduction and there are no irreversible effects on the soils.It is assumed that territorial authorities can deploy sufficientresources to identify high class soils effectively, and that asignificant proportion, if not all, of the mapping costs could berecovered from developers. Similarly, monitoring and enforcementof regulations is assumed to be sufficient to achieve Objective 3.25.This policy option will also support Objectives 3.7 and 3.9 andcontribute to Objective 3.24.There is a risk that the approach may vary among territorialauthorities, depending on their interpretations of high class soilsand on how they identify them or require them to be identified bydevelopers. There is a risk of variation in interpretation betweendistricts, arising from contracted soil science experts employingdiffering methodologies to establish areas constituting high classsoil. The non-uniform distribution of high class soils means that theresolution and scale of mapping is critical, and it may not beeffective to undertake the exercise independently of developmentplans.Under this option, mapping would be piecemeal and dictated by thedemands of development and, as a result, the completion of theexercise may take many years.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsFocusing intensive farming andarable operations on areaswhich have more robust (highclass) soils will lessenassociated environmentaleffects such as nutrient losses,as less fertiliser is needed.Reduced likelihood of floodingthrough superior ability of highclass soils to absorb rainfall.Compared to less versatile soils,absorption of contaminants ismore readily sustained by highclass soils, particularly underintensive agricultural use.Community:Flexibility in deciding land use,as territorial authorities mapsoils in consultation with theircommunities.Production per hectare fromhigh class soils is greaterThe requirement to avoid, forexample, locating services orinfrastructure on high class soilsmay result in adverse effects onthe environment associated withthe alternative locations.Community:Changes in urban planning insome areas may necessitate arevision of transport andinfrastructure plans.If staged to pace (urban)development, the14-8 Doc # 1451856

compared to other soils.Ensures future generationshave a similar ability to sustainlife as a result of investment inhigh class soils.Ensuring a sustainable primaryproduction industry will accrueregional GDP benefits.Maintaining the versatility ofland use in terms of primaryagricultural production.implementation costs toterritorial authorities are unlikelyto be much above current costsfor permitted activities.Costs to Waikato RegionalCouncil to define high classsoils and determine locationson a broad scale are withincurrent resource allocation, asthe information is alreadyavailable.Restricted urban developmentin some areas (for exampleMatamata) may oblige thesecommunities to ‘develop up’,thereby incurring additionalbuilding costs.Real and perceived lostopportunity may be an issue forindividual landowners.Changes in land values maybenefit some and disadvantageothers.Resolution of equity issues foriwi land with multiple owners.Conflict, as intensiveagricultural use develops inareas close to urbancommunities, where urbandwellers object to noise, smellsand chemicals associated withintensive primary production.Policy option 2:Protecting high classsoils from urbandevelopment –Waikato RegionalCouncil to define andmap high class soils.Summary of efficiency: HighEffectivenessLessening of individualopportunity for land usedevelopment.This policy option designed to protect high class soils from urbandevelopment relies on the resources of the Waikato RegionalCouncil to both define and map these soils. The level of mappingwould be at a broad scale for use by the territorial authorities for theplanning of development infrastructure. Location of high class soilsat a property level would require field confirmation by a trained soilscience expert.To fully cover all areas in the region where high class soils arelikely to be present, about 300,000 hectares would requiremapping. At a 1:10,000 scale minimum, a cost of $100 per hectareis estimated. (NB offset by 100 year life of a soil map). This meansthat if mapping was completed at a rate of 3000 hectares per year,the estimated cost would be $300,000 per year. Alternatively, at thecurrent rate of subdivision, a minimum of 500 hectares a yearwould require soil surveys, costing about $50,000. The WaikatoRegional Council, with input from the territorial authorities, would beresponsible for the resolution and scale of mapping. This shouldprovide uniformity in interpretation and application, allowing forclear demarcation. This, in turn, should benefit planning andDoc # 1451856 14-9

development.Effectiveness will, in part, rely on territorial authority policies beingwritten, interpreted and enforced in a way that protects high classsoils. Regional interpretation and mapping of high class soils mayresult in challenges to policy being more regionally based, reducingthe cost to territorial authorities and land users should they resort tolitigation to resolve disagreements on what constitutes, or is theextent of, high class soils. By their nature, these soils are bestsuited for a wide range of primary production uses. Consequently,allocating primary production use restrictions should not be anissue. Effectiveness of this policy would be enhanced if theresource (high class soils) were viewed as a national assetwarranting protection at a national level.It is noted that the scale of mapping will be an importantconsideration. Too large a scale could exclude some soils fromprotection, or include soils not requiring protection. Litigation mayarise as a consequence of mapping discrepancies.This policy option would contribute in part to achieving objective3.25.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBy focusing intensive farmingand arable operations onareas which have morerobust high class soils, thenegative environmentaleffects will be lessened. Theability to absorb rainfall(decreasing the chance offlooding) and contaminants ismore readily sustained underintensive agricultural use. Aproactive and consistentapproach to mapping willimprove the opportunity toplan and zone land use.Community:Uniform standards anddelivery of high class soilsidentification and mappingacross the region.Increased soil nitrogenretention, and subsequentnitrogen leaching, by 10%,as a result of improved soilmap information.Inadequate mapping scale tocapture all high class soils wouldrisk cumulative losses.The need to protect high class soilsmay in some areas complicateurban planning, necessitating arevision of transport andinfrastructure plans.Community:Variable and possibly inadequateregulation should territorialauthorities fail to protect high classsoils from urban development.Resulting lost opportunities forfuture generations if access to highclass soils is lost.Market value loss for land ownerswhose land designation changesfrom urban to rural (protected).Regional rate payer cost ofdefending mapping exercise. If thescale chosen was finer than CRI1:50000, then ongoing mappingcosts (these may fall on eitherratepayers or be recovered from14-10 Doc # 1451856

Summary of efficiency: Moderatedevelopers). Scale of costsdependant on scale of mapping.Mapping 300,000 hectares of highclass soils at an appropriate scalespread would cost about $300,000per year (at 3000 hectares peryear) and take 100 years. Mappingon an ‘as needed’ basis for urbangrowth would cost around $50,000per year.Proximity to high class soils mayrestrict urban development in someareas.Perceived lost opportunity may bean issue for individual landowners,including multiple landowners.Intensive agricultural use in areasclose to urban development maypromote conflict, when urbandwellers object to noise, smells andchemicals associated with intensiveprimary production.Mapping exercise may result incommunity perception of lessopportunity for consultation.Perceived and real lessening ofindividual opportunity for land usedevelopment.Policy option 3:Status quo – leavemanagement of highclass soils to individualterritorial authorities.EffectivenessIn the absence of policy direction with respect to high class soilsfrom Waikato Regional Council, the reliance to protect this resourceis vested solely in the territorial authorities.Achievement of the objective is likely to be variable across theregion and difficult to measure due to inadequate mapping. Theretention of high class soils for primary production would depend onthe actions and records of individual territorial authorities, with noguarantee that the level of protection required to achieve Objective3.25 would be consistent across the region. Current State of theEnvironment reporting suggests that, without guidance from theRPS, territorial authorities may choose to do nothing to protect highclass soils.In general, it is considered that non-statutory growth strategies maybe insufficient for territorial authorities to protect high class soils.Inconsistent interpretation of the role of high class soils across theregion may affect the pattern of development in unintended ways,for example, if some areas are viewed as less restrictive of urbandevelopment activities on high class soils.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsCostsDoc # 1451856 14-11

Environmental:Minimal and very likely to beinconsistent across region.Environmental:Loss of scarce high quality soils.Sporadic or randomdevelopment patterns fromurban sprawl, leading to thephysical dividing of high classsoil resources and reduction inenvironmental services.Potential to lose high class soilsat an increased rate and thecontribution they make to thelocal economy andenvironmental services theyprovide.Reduced environmentalservices are likely to result inincreased offsite environmentaldegradation.Community:Lower cost infrastructure, withcomplete flexibility as to wherepeople live.Capital gains for landowners asland designated urban stays assuch and retains market valuefor subdivision.Community:Loss, in the long term, ofversatility and productivecapacity of the soil at asignificant regional and nationalscale, along with thecontribution they make both toecosystem services and thelocal economy.Sporadic or randomdevelopment patterns fromurban sprawl, leading to thephysical dividing of high classsoil resources and reduction inareas of economic viability.High class soils lost fromprimary productive use at anincreased rate.Reduced contribution to thelocal economy and theenvironmental services theyprovide.Policy option 4:Protecting ‘elite’ soilsfrom urbandevelopment –Waikato RegionalCouncil to define, butnot to map, ‘elite’ soils.Summary of efficiency: ModerateEffectivenessReduced environmentalservices are likely to result inincreased offsite environmentalcosts.This policy option is designed to protect ‘elite’ soils from urbandevelopment to maintain the range of future primary productionland use options. ‘Elite’ soils are identified as being on Land UseCapability Class 1 land. They comprise 1.9% of the region’s soils(about 45,000 hectares). Subdivision on ‘elite’ soils accounts for8% of the total subdivision on land in the Waikato region, occurringat a rate of 42 hectares per year since 1991. They occupy about3% of the 1,380,000 hectares in intensive land use in the Waikato14-12 Doc # 1451856

egion.This policy option relies on the resources of the territorial authoritiesto map the soils, on the assumption that they will have a better ideaof current or planned urban services (for example, provision forsewerage and stormwater drainage). In theory, this should allowbetter efficiencies in demarcation. However, there may beadditional costs to both the territorial authorities and land users, ifresorting to litigation becomes an accepted way to resolvedisagreements on what constitutes, or is the extent of, ‘elite’ soils.Additionally, there is the issue of the resolution (the number ofsamples required to confirm the distribution of the elite soils) andscale of mapping. Both these factors have direct cost implicationswhich may become primary determinants as to how to best protectareas of ‘elite’ soils. By their nature, these soils are best suited for awide range of primary production uses and have no managementlimitations. Consequently, allocating primary production userestrictions should not be an issue.In the short term, territorial authorities would be required to identifywhere ‘elite’ soils are and direct development away from them. Asa result, these soils would be available for a range of alternativeprimary production on an ongoing basis, and there are would be noirreversible effects on the soils.These outcomes are based on the assumption that territorialauthorities can identify these soils and map them effectively and,via their district plans, can control the loss of this soil resource.This policy would be subject to the risk of significant variation ininterpretation of the area that constitutes high class soil betweendistricts. Resolution and scale of mapping would be critical, as thearea of ‘elite’ soils is small (44,850 hectares) compared with thearea of intensive land uses (1,380,000 hectares). As the policy islimited to protecting ‘elite’ soils, which form a small proportion ofhigh class soils, it is unlikely that extensive benefits will accrue.This policy option will not achieve Objective 3.25.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyBenefitsEnvironmental:Reduced environmentaleffects, as a result offocusing intensive farmingand arable operations onsoils with no inherentmanagement limitations.Ecological services, such asthe ability to absorb rainfall(decreasing the chance offlooding) and contaminantsmore readily sustained underintensive agricultural use, willbe available, albeit to a muchsmaller area than if highclass soils were targeted forprotection.Environmental:CostsThe need to protect ‘elite’ soils will,in some areas, complicate urbanplanning, necessitating a revisionof transport and infrastructureplans, with associated planningcosts. Some urban centres will notbe able to expand, potentiallycreating unintended consequences,including greater ruralfragmentation on less versatilesoils and a net loss of soils fromprimary production.Reduced onsite and offsiteenvironmental impacts byobtaining the sameDoc # 1451856 14-13

production from a smallerarea of land than would bepossible from less versatilesoils.Community:In consultation with theircommunities, territorialauthorities will develop newplanning approaches tominimise urban sprawl,similar to urban planningmodels used in Germany andNetherlands.Identification and bestutilisation of ‘elite’ soils willenable the best return oninvestment, as production isgreater from every hectarecompared to other soils.Community:Loss of long-term versatility andproductive capacity of the soil atregional and national scale.Potential to remove high class soilsfrom primary productive use at anincreased rate.Reduced contribution to the localeconomy and the environmentalservices they provide.Reduced environmental servicesare likely to result in increasedoffsite environmental costs.14.1.3 Soil contaminantsAn investment for futuregenerations to ensure theyhave the ability to sustain life.By ensuring a sustainableprimary production industry,there will accrue grossregional product benefits fornational trade and exportearnings.Summary of efficiency: LowPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Regulate to ensure nofurther accumulationfor key contaminantsin soils.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option would set a stringent soil target of no furtheraccumulation for key contaminants in regional soils. This would beachieved through setting maximum annual mass loadings for keycontaminants that correspond to no net accumulation of thosecontaminants. It would represent a precautionary, rather than riskbased,approach.The policy would achieve Objective 3.24 in relation to the impact ofsoil contaminants on the capacity of soils to support life, theprovision of ecosystem services and soil versatility.Rules would be developed in the Waikato Regional Plan that wouldresult in industry action to reduce or eliminate contaminants atsource to maximum levels that correspond to no net accumulationin soils. The capacity of soil to support ecosystem services wouldbe protected, and there would be little prospect of offsite impactson freshwater or marine receiving environments. There would be noneed for debate about where to set guidelines for soil contaminantsin productive land, because the aim would be no furthercontaminant accumulation.It is assumed that industry will find ways to reduce or eliminatecontaminants at source, but the policy may have significant farmproduction costs if cleaner alternative products are more expensive.There is also potential for landowners and operators to achieve thetarget of ‘no accumulation’ by diluting contamination by deep soil14-14 Doc # 1451856

mixing. While the rules may be relatively clear, the feasibility ofenforcement may be an issue.It is assumed that mass loading limits corresponding to no netaccumulation of the contaminant in soils (as has been done forcadmium) can be reliably identified.It is noted that while the RMA allows for risk-based approaches,this would represent a precautionary approach, and may beconsidered contestable as a result.Summary of effectiveness: HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEcosystem services fullyprotected from cumulativecontaminants.Community:Certainty of low health risk andthe other identified risks. Thisleads to a cumulative flow ofhealth benefits by avoidingrising contamination levels thatwould otherwise have growingcosts to human health andproduction.Avoidance of contaminatedsoils, and the consequent risk ofbreaching health guidelines inthe future, will also help tomaintain the value of theregion’s primary produce.Use of new nutrient sources toaddress contaminant issuesmay result in other, as yetunknown, adverse effects on theenvironment that requireseparate management.Community:Additional financial costs will beincurred where managementpractices change (although it isnoted that this is largely aprocess of internalising costs –so while financial costs mayincrease, there is notnecessarily any increase incommunity costs per se).Cost of effective research,including developing newmethodologies and testing forrobustness, advocacy andeducation likely to increase bythree full-time equivalentemployees, costing around$450,000 per year.Costs of intervention andregulation are minimised bytargeting the source ofcontamination, rather than at alater point in the supply chain,for example testing crops,product or the consumer. Thefurther along the supply chainintervention occurs, the higherthe costs incurred to get to thatpoint.For example, testing that findsconsumer food products haveunsafe levels of contaminantswill mean that producers andsuppliers have incurred costs ofproduction for which there maybe no return.Summary of efficiency: Low (short run)-Moderate (long run)Doc # 1451856 14-15

Policy option 2:ALARA. Accumulationof key contaminants insoil is kept As Low AsReasonablyAchievable.EffectivenessThis policy option would regulate to ensure that the content of keycontaminants is as low as reasonably achievable (the ALARAprinciple) and alternative options 114 have been considered.Documentation would be required to demonstrate that the ALARAprinciple is being followed, taking into account Best AvailableTechnology (BAT) and Best Practicable Environment Options(BPEO). If progress was unsatisfactory, maximum limits could beset for key contaminants in products or substances 115 applied tosoil, unless covered by resource consent. Limits could be phasedin over time.In the short term, soils would maintain the capacity to support life,and the provision of ecosystem services and soils would retain theirexisting, and the foreseeable, range of uses. A reduction in anyoffsite impacts on freshwater or marine receiving environmentswould also be expected. In the longer term, improvements inavailable technology should ensure progressive reductions incontaminant loadings to soil. 116While accumulation of contaminants would be slower, it wouldcontinue to occur, and in some cases guidelines may be exceededover time. In cases where the contaminant is an active ingredient(for example zinc sulphate in facial eczema remedies, or somepesticides), it may not be possible to reduce contaminant loadingswhile maintaining the same source.This policy option will partially contribute to achieving Objective3.24.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsSoil protected from further rapidaccumulation of contaminants.This leads to a cumulative flowof health benefits, by avoidingrising contamination levels thatwould otherwise have growingcosts to human health.Avoidance of contaminatedsoils, and the consequent risk ofbreaching health guidelines inthe future, will also help tomaintain the value of theregion’s primary produce.Accumulation continues. Notstopping the accumulation alltogether could result in thetarget still being exceeded withthe set maximum annual massloadings.As described for the previousoption, costs of intervention andregulation are minimised bytargeting the source ofcontamination, rather than at alater point in the supply chain.These benefits will be similar tothose described for the previousoption, but will be lower overtime where accumulation occursto the point where safetyguidelines or standards arereached.114For example, an alternative to use of zinc for facial eczema control is pasture application of fungicide.115Examples of products include fertilisers, lime and gypsum. Examples of other substances may include dredgings orsoil or overburden from another property (for example).116It is assumed that technical support is available to industry to adequately define BAT and BPEO.14-16 Doc # 1451856

Community:Certainty that actions which arepracticable and achievable arebeing done.Community:Costs of fertiliser may rise asmore expensive substitutes arerequired to be adopted.Policy option 3:Adopt maximum soilguidelines for keycontaminants.Summary of efficiency: ModerateEffectivenessAdditional costs for WaikatoRegional Council for increasedresearch, advocacy andeducation (one full-timeequivalent staff member, at anestimated cost of $150,000).This policy option would regulate to set maximum soil guidelines forkey contaminants, such as cadmium, to protect the life-supportingcapacity, ecosystem services, and versatility of the region’s soils.Implementation would involve regulatory controls, possibly linked topermitted activity rules governing discharges of substances to soils.The policy would involve industry self-monitoring, plus somemonitoring and enforcement by Waikato Regional Council.It is assumed that the process for developing or adopting guidelinesis independent and subject to full peer review and that risk-basedguidelines can reliably be identified. Guidelines would be designedto protect ecological receptors, food production and human health.Offsite impacts on freshwater or marine receiving environmentscould be considered in guideline development. If risks cannot beaccurately evaluated, the appropriateness of guidelines may not beable to be determined with confidence. This may result inguidelines that are too precautionary (resulting in unnecessarycosts) or too loose (resulting in potential risks to health).This policy option will help to achieve Objective 3.24 and will alsocontribute to Objectives 3.1, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.25.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate-HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsEcosystem services protectedfrom cumulative contaminants.Community:Certainty of low risk to humanhealth.The benefits of this option aresimilar to those described foroptions 1 and 2. The extent towhich they are higher or lowerwill depend on the extent ofscientific understanding of therelationship betweenAccumulation to continue untilguidelines reached.Potential for guidelines to beexceeded unless effectivemonitoring is in place.Risk of avoidance or noncompliancewith guidelines withself-monitoring.Community:The costs of this option aresimilar to those described forOptions 1 and 2. Achieving aleast-cost approach will dependon being able to set guidelinesaccurately. If guidelines are setat too low a level, additionalregulatory costs on producerswould be unnecessarily high;conversely, if guidelines are setDoc # 1451856 14-17

contaminants and their effectson health and productivity.too high, adverse effects ofcontaminants may result insignificant environmental andhealth costs before theguidelines take effect.Summary of efficiency: Moderate-HighPolicy option 4: Adoptidentified ranges forkey contaminants,depending on landuse.EffectivenessThis policy option would involve advising land users about tolerableranges for key contaminants in soil and consequences of rangesbeing exceeded, and relying on land users to make informedchoices. Waikato Regional Council staff would review, update andpromulgate information about relevant risk-based guidelines andwhat they are designed to protect. Landowners will take lead rolein ensuring their soil remains fit for their intended range ofpurposes. There are likely to be low direct costs to industry, butthere is considerable uncertainty about whether this policy optionwould be effective in achieving Objective 3.24, as implementationrelies upon on land users choosing to moderate contaminantinputs.The effectiveness of this policy option is also limited in that therewould be no specific immediate sanction in the event guidelines areexceeded. The fertiliser industry may seek to downplay risks bydebating target ranges, in cases where sale of product isthreatened.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsContaminants may be reducedwhere landowners choose toimplement advice (but there is ahigh level of uncertainty as tothe extent to which this wouldoccur, as it is reliant on fullknowledge of issues by allfarmers).Community:Farmers engaged through beingentrusted to balance risksagainst benefits, possibleindustry support.Potential for disengagement anda voluntary form of avoidance orlow level implementation,stemming from a lack ofknowledge of the issues byfarmers.Community:Voluntary short-term costs toindividual farmers, balancedagainst potential long-termcosts.Where this option is effective,benefits would be similar innature to those described for theprevious options. However, theoverall level of benefit is likely tobe lower, since theimplementation of the policy islikely to be more uneven.Summary of efficiency: Low – ModerateWhere the option is effective,the costs would be similar tothose described for the previousoptions.14-18 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 5: Statusquo.EffectivenessUnder this policy option, no advisory or regulatory efforts would bemade to identify and manage soil contaminants. It is expected thatidentified ‘modern’ contaminants, such as cadmium and fluorine,would continue to accumulate in regional soils. Objective 3.24would not be met in relation to the impact of soil contaminants onthe capacity of the region’s soil resource to support life, theprovision of ecosystem services and soil versatility.In the long term, this is expected to have increasing impacts onability to farm livestock, compliance with relevant food standards,and soil versatility. Increasing levels of contaminants may give riseto potential for barriers to international trade. There are alsoincreased prospects of offsite impacts on freshwater or marinereceiving environments. There may be a risk of judicial review ofWaikato Regional Council’s lack of implementation of RMAfunctions.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNone identified.Progressive increase in totalland area where guidelines areexceeded.Reduction in soil versatility andcapacity to support life.Community:Low financial cost (direct) inshort term.Summary of efficiency: LowCommunity:Higher remediation cost longterm and reduced versatility ofsoil.Rising levels of contaminationwould lead to increasing costs,either in the form of adverseeffects on health (where thecontaminants are allowed toenter the food chain), or throughreducing the value of primaryproduce 117 .117This may occur if contamination means some land ceases to be available for production, where contaminants affectthe productivity of plant or animal growth, or where the level of contamination affects the marketability of products.Doc # 1451856 14-19

14.1.4 Peat SoilsPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Peat soils regulatoryprovisions for drainageand cultivation.RMA s32 testEffectivenessUnder this policy option, regional plan rules would control activitiesto address adverse effects, and methods to ensure activitiescontrolled are ones that we know will have a positive effect onreducing the rate of subsidence. Regulations would be adopted tomanage land use activities, and include specific provisions relatingto drainage to manage water tables, and specified cultivationmethods to reduce water loss of peat soils, combined withenvironmental education and research to avoid their degradation.The rate of subsidence would be monitored by Waikato RegionalCouncil regionally.The expected result of this policy would be to slow the loss of peatsoils to 50%, compared with no intervention. For the HaurakiPlains, monitoring would have to show a change in averageannual rate from 3.3 cm to 1.65 cm per year for the Moanatuatua,1.85 cm to 0.925 cm per year, and 2.56 cm to 1.28 cm per year forRukuhia peat soils 118 .In the short term, there may be resistance from farmers as theylearn to manage differently. In the long term, policy failure wouldresult in the loss of peat soil depth, with underlying soil and subsoileventually being exposed. On the Hauraki plains, the loss ofthe peat will expose the underlying marine clay sediments that areless productive, so depletion of the peat soil resource wouldultimately affect the productive capacity of the land. Additionally inthis area, ongoing subsidence of peat will increase the impacts offlooding, as the extent of land below sea level both increases inarea and deepens.It is assumed that a narrow scope of interventions is capable ofachieving the objective of preserving peat soils. It is also assumedthat sufficient information will be available for activity-based rulesto be defined. Present land use activities can be continued under aregime where the water table is higher than that which currentlyexists.There is a risk that regional monitoring may not pick up trends ofsubsidence. The absence of a target in this policy option alsoresults in an uncertain outcome, because a small change in therate of subsidence would achieve the policy, but not necessarilythe objective.This policy option will partially achieve Objective 3.24.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsRetention of water regimes andhydrology preserving adjoiningwetlands.Maintaining higher water levelsenhances anaerobicdenitrification in wet peatThe continued loss of peat soilsand the ecosystem servicesthese soils provide, for examplebuffering for contaminants,excessive nutrients and floodwaters.118Environment Waikato Technical report 2004/17, Environment Waikato Technical report 2004/18 and EnvironmentWaikato Technical report 2004/20,14-20 Doc # 1451856

(nitrogen reduction) mitigatingthe effects of excessivenitrogen from pastoral farming.Community:Community:Policy option 2:Targets for subsidenceof peat soils.Peat soils retained for pastoralfarming and ecosystemservices provide buffering forcontaminants, excessivenutrients and flood waters. 119Summary of efficiency: ModerateEffectivenessDirect costs to land users tomodify techniques andequipment.Some limitation of land use, forexample cropping methods.Under this policy option, peat loss targets would be established, atwhich point interventions, which may include regulations, areinvoked. There would be an initial reliance on education andvoluntary adoption to manage land use activities, including specificprovisions relating to drainage to manage water tables, andspecified cultivation methods to reduce water loss of peat soils.The rate of subsidence would be monitored by Waikato RegionalCouncil on a regional basis, with targets 120 set within the RPS orRegional Plan whereby the Waikato Regional Council isresponsible for managing existing drains. The aim would be toslow the loss of peat soils to 50% of that occurring withoutintervention.It is assumed that the scale and extent of the monitoring of theloss of peat soils with currently available technology would besufficient to measure the changes on an annual basis.However, there may be a variable response to peat soilconservation, as rates of peat subsidence may vary within theregion. Specific targets may only work at a property level, and it ispossible that regional plan rules would be too complex toimplement and require specialised monitoring. Activity-basedrules may, however, not achieve the objective because the causeand effect link is not well understood.This policy option will partially achieve Objective 3.24.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsAs per Option 1, but with lowerrates of subsidence andpotentially more peat retainedover a longer period, thebenefits would be greater.Community:Certainty of achieving outcome,especially if sub-regionaltargets exist. This allowsflexibility to link activities incertain areas with specificoutcomes.Continued loss of peat soils,albeit at a reduced rate.Community:Direct costs to land users tomodify farm managementpractices and in use ofequipment.Additional monitoring andcompliance enforcement costs119Peat soils can, for example, lessen costs of remediation of contaminants, prevent eutrophication of waterways andestuaries, and provide a substitute for some infrastructure such as flood protection and pumping.120For example, less than 1 cm per year for the Waikato Region.Doc # 1451856 14-21

Policy option 3:Regulation of watertables in peat soils.Peat soils retained for pastoralfarming.While peat soils are retainedthe ecosystem services thatthese soils provide (buffering forcontaminants, excessivenutrients and flood waters) arealso retained.Summary of efficiency: Moderate - LowEffectivenessto be met by the community.Loss of ecosystem servicesthese soils provide, includingbuffering for contaminants,excessive nutrients and floodwaters.This policy option would involve voluntary adoption of best peatfarming practices, augmented by regulatory intervention. Specifictargeting with regulations would aim to ensure that water levels inpeat soils in strategic locations (for example, where directlyimpacting on wetlands) are at all times at ground level, thuseliminating peat oxidation and degradation of adjacent wetlands.These areas would constitute wetland farming areas. Some landwould be permanently removed from peat land farming andreturned to wetland, with resulting benefits of improved wetlandviability, flood control (including protection of infrastructure andremaining farmland) and carbon sequestration. The overall aimwould be to ensure no net loss of carbon from existing peat land,with peat levels maintained at 100% of current levels in strategiclocations and peat accumulation possible.In the short term, this would result in some peat land beingunderwater, and on some of this land current farming practiceswould no longer be viable. In the long term, enhanced ecosystemservices would be expected to lead to a reduction in contaminants(nutrients) entering waterbodies.It is assumed that, in strategic locations, current pastoral farmingtechniques would be replaced by wetland farming (for example ‘cutand carry’) that would offer an economic return. However, thiswould entail significant change for some in the community,potentially resulting in community opposition and non-compliance.This policy option would help to achieve Objective 3.24 and alsosupport Objectives 3.7, 3.9, 3.11 and 3.15.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate - HighBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsWetland ecosystem servicesestimated to be worth $40,000per hectare per year 121 .Based on these figures, thereturn of 10% of the Haurakipeat land to wetland wouldequate to no net reduction inbenefits.Community:Tourism opportunities fromPossible increase ingreenhouse gases due torelease of nitrous oxide.Community:Peat land may become121From Patterson and Cole (1999), Estimation of the Value of Ecosystem Services in the Waikato Region, EnvironmentWaikato Internal Series 1999/02. These figures are based on 1997 estimates; adjusting for inflation using theConsumers Price Index, a hectare of wetlands provides ecosystem services of approximately $52,000/year in 2009dollars.14-22 Doc # 1451856

wetlands.Improvement of the recreationalamenity of the Firth of Thames,and possible increasedpotential for marine farming.uneconomical to farm, withconsequential loss to regionaleconomic output.Improved flood protectionSummary of efficiency: ModeratePolicy option 4:Status quo.EffectivenessThis policy option would continue to rely on existing drainageregulations and education to prevent the loss of peat soils. Thecurrent average loss of peat soils occurs at a regional rate of 30mm per year under pastoral farming, and up to 200mm where peatis cultivated.In the short term, peat land would be retained for farming.However, ecosystem services would decline with time and the costto maintain water drainage from lower land levels would increase.Large areas of the Hauraki plains would subside to below sea leveland be exposed to greater flood risk and sea water incursion.While the Kopuatai peat dome may have capacity to absorb floodwaters, there is currently insufficient data to assess this. It is likelythat the flood regulation capacity of Kopuatai has been adverselyaffected by adjacent land use changes in the last 20 years.This approach would implicitly assume that the ecosystemservices of peat lands are not important either economically orecologically.There is a risk that the value of the ecosystem services of peatsoils are only realised when they are lost. For example, WaikatoRegional Council may face an increasing expectation that it willprovide protection from increased flood risk and loss of land thathas subsided.This policy option would therefore not achieve Objective 3.24.Summary of effectiveness: LowEfficiencyEnvironmental:None.Community:BenefitsRetention of productivefarmland and associatedincomes.Environmental:CostsOngoing subsidence of peatsoils.Community:Increased risks from flooding,soil contaminants andeutrophication of waterwaysand estuaries.Lost opportunity for ecosystemservices provided by peat soilsconverting to wetlands, at acost of $40,000 per hectare peryear 122 .122From Patterson and Cole (1999), Estimation of the Value of Ecosystem Services in the Waikato Region, EnvironmentWaikato Internal Series 1999/02. These figures are based on 1997 estimates; adjusting for inflation using theConsumers Price Index, a hectare of wetlands provides ecosystem services of approximately $52,000/year in 2009dollars.Doc # 1451856 14-23

14.1.5 Contaminated landSummary of efficiency: LowPolicy OptionPolicy option 1:Prevention andremediation of allcontaminated land.RMA s32 testEffectivenessThis policy option retains the policies and methods used in the RPS2000, which include management of contaminated sites, taking intoaccount the type and scale of contamination, potential risks, availableremediation and associated costs. In addition, this policy option alsorequires remediation of all existing contaminated sites to minimise thepotential adverse effects to human health and the environment andpreventing the creation of new contaminated sites.The methods include identifying contaminated sites, applying aconsistent approach to remediation of sites and requiring rules inplans that prevent the creation of new contaminated sites.There are currently 124 contaminated sites in the Waikato region, andmore are added as investigations are conducted. On average, 19sites are remediated each year. This option, if achievable, wouldresult in all contaminated sites being remediated as they arediscovered, while preventing new sites from being created.This option contributes to the achievement of objective 3.24 (Valuesof soils) by remediating contaminated land, which will increase theforeseeable range of uses of the soil resource. Prevention of newcontaminated sites would also contribute to maintaining the values ofsoil.This policy option will also contribute to several other objectives,including integrated management (3.1), decision making (3.2),ecosystem services (3.7), efficient use of resources (3.9), air quality(3.10) and mauri and health of water bodies (3.13). Contaminatedland has the potential to adversely affect multiple resources and,therefore, needs to be managed in an integrated way to achieve thegreatest environmental benefit.There is no strong liability regime in New Zealand for contaminatedland, and many owners of contaminated sites do not have theresources to undertake remediation. The Ministry for theEnvironment’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund is finite, andnot all sites would qualify for funding to achieve this objective. It maynot be possible, therefore, to require remediation of all contaminatedsites. Lack of resource to enforce remediation or to cope with anyincrease in remediation activity would prevent achievement of thisoption.Summary of effectiveness: ModerateBenefitsEnvironmental:Better awareness of land wherethere is potential forcontaminants to reduce the soil’scapacity to support life andprovide ecosystem services.Better long-term protection ofwater and air resources. Fewercontaminated sites.EfficiencyCostsEnvironmental:Increased regulatory involvementmay encourage landowners andoperators to avoid disclosingpotential issues and increaseillegal disposal of hazardoussubstances to avoid perceivedadditional costs.Local authorities may end upusing resources to enforceremediation on all contaminated14-24 Doc # 1451856

sites, rather than focusing effortson high priority sites.Community:Less risk of exposure to negativeeffects of contaminated land.Options for future uses of soilmaintained or enhanced.Community:Significant costs to individualowners of contaminated sites.The cost of each site remediationwill vary, but some wouldcertainly exceed $1 million.High costs for local authorities.Waikato Regional Council wouldneed to increase staff levels byfour to five full-time equivalentstaff, costing an estimated$600,000 to $750,000, to copewith increased levels ofenforcement.Policy option 2:Prevention ofcontaminated sites,and remediation wherepossible.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessAdditional costs to territorialauthorities are estimated to beone half to one full-timeequivalent staff ($75,000-$150,000 per year).Risk that landowners wouldappeal the decision to classifytheir land as ‘contaminated’,resulting in costly and lengthydisputes.Similar to Option 1 but without the required remediation of allcontaminated sites. This includes intervention strategies to preventcreation of new contaminated land, particularly by discharges ofcontaminants to land that do not fall under control of s15 of the RMA,as well as the identification of existing and potentially contaminatedsites, and remediation as appropriate.This option would meet Objective 3.24 by maintaining the values ofsoils on non-contaminated sites and enhance the potential range ofuses by remediation of contaminated sites.This policy option will also contribute to several other objectivesincluding integrated management (3.1), decision making (3.2),ecosystem services (3.7), efficient use of resources (3.9), air quality(3.10) and mauri and health of water bodies (3.13).The outcome of this policy option will be less contaminated land andfewer new contaminated sites being created. Protection of lake andriver beds will also be facilitated, because they fall under the definitionof land, and the downstream effects of contaminated land on waterquality and air quality will be minimised.However, the creation of new contaminated sites is an issue thataffects more than the soil resource. It requires integratedmanagement of natural and physical resources to ensure thatactivities in the built environment do not have adverse effects onnatural resources.Summary of effectiveness: HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsDoc # 1451856 14-25

Better awareness of land wherethere is potential forcontaminants to reduce the soil’scapacity to support life andprovide ecosystem services.Better long-term protection ofwater and air resources. Fewercontaminated sites.Prioritisation for the remediationof contaminated sites to targetthose sites with the highestpotential adverse effects.Community:Less risk of exposure to negativeeffects of contaminated land.Options for future uses of soilmaintained.Increased regulatory involvementmay encourage landowners andoperators to avoid disclosingpotential issues and increaseillegal disposal of hazardoussubstances to avoid perceivedadditional costs.Managing the creation of newcontaminated sites requires anintegrated approach, and needsto be addressed in the builtenvironment objectives andpolicies to be effective.Community:Unwillingness of landowners andoperators to share informationand voluntarily remediate landmay leave some health risksunidentified and unmanaged.Additional resource costs ofregulatory staff and the gatheringand maintaining of landinformation (refer Option 3 forcurrent costs) estimated at half toone and a half full-timeequivalent staff ($75,000-$225,000 per year).Policy option 3:Manage existingcontaminated land andremediate whereappropriate.Summary of efficiency: ModerateEffectivenessInclusion of a policy to preventthe creation of new contaminatedland duplicates policy andmethods on maintaining orenhancing the values of the soilresource, and managingdischarges to land.This policy option includes the identification of contaminated land,remediation of contaminated sites where possible through changes inland use or resource consent conditions, and a consistent approachto remediation. This approach relies on current RMA provisions andpotential requirements for territorial authorities in the ProposedNational Environmental Standard for Assessing and ManagingContaminants in Soil, as well as provisions in other sections of theRPS, such as the built environment and Policy 14.3, to prevent newcontaminated sites.This will achieve Objective 3.24 by providing opportunities toremediate sites to enhance the range of foreseeable uses of the soilresource. The outcome of the policy option will be to enhance therange of uses of existing known contaminated sites and identify othercontaminated sites. This option does not include a specific provisionto prevent new contaminated land, as it is anticipated that this will beachieved through other policy options, including maintaining orenhancing values of soils, and mauri and health of freshwater bodies,and through rules in the regional plan controlling deposition ofcontaminants.This policy option will also contribute to other objectives, including14-26 Doc # 1451856

integrated management (3.1), decision making (3.2), ecosystemservices (3.7), efficient use of resources (3.9), air quality (3.10) andmauri and health of water bodies (3.13).The amount of new contaminated land may increase faster thancontaminated land is remediated. The Proposed NES may notproceed, or may be enacted in different form, leaving our regionwithout policy. If the NES proceeds as proposed, it does not addressthe protection of the environment from contaminated land, theidentification of new and historical sites, nor the creation of newcontaminated land.Summary of effectiveness: Moderate-HighEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsBetter awareness of land wherethere is potential forcontaminants to reduce the soil’scapacity to support life andprovide ecosystem services.Prioritisation for the remediationof contaminated sites to targetthose sites with the highestpotential adverse effects.Community:Creation of new contaminatedsites is still possible, as there isno specific provision in the policyto avoid this.Community:Policy option 4:Current approachwithout identificationand informationhandling protocol.Reduced risk of exposure tonegative effects of contaminatedland, because existing sites willbe identified and informationshared.Options for future uses of soil aremore likely to be maintained.Prevention of new contaminatedsites is addressed in anintegrated way that addressesthe diverse causes ofcontaminated land.Summary of efficiency: ModerateEffectivenessStaff levels for monitoring,consents and enforcement:Regional Council: 0.7 of a fulltimeequivalent staff member =$105,000 per annum, plus half ofone full-time equivalent =$75,000 per year reimbursed bylandholders.Territorial authorities: less than0.1 of a full time equivalent =$15,000 each per year.Remediation costs will sit withindividual consent applicants andland owners.This policy option is similar to the Operative RPS policy andmethods, but with the removal of the method regarding theidentification of existing or potentially contaminated sites in theregion, and the development of a protocol for the use and release ofthis information. This policy option would reflect RMA amendmentsand Proposed National Environmental Standard for Contaminants inSoil requirements for territorial authorities.This policy option is unlikely to meet Objective 3.24, because theProposed National Environmental Standard for Assessing andManaging Contaminants in Soil is only designed to cover a specificaspect of contaminated land management, which is about ensuringthat land is fit for human habitation at the point a land use consentapplication is received by a territorial authority. This would notincrease the range of uses of soil or contribute to other objectives,such as air quality and the mauri and health of water bodies.Doc # 1451856 14-27

This would also fail to achieve integrated management as gaps in thepolicy include: ensuring land is fit for purpose in the absence of a land-useconsent application; ensuring that no adverse effects on ecological receptors andgroundwater occur under land use consents; ensuring protection of ecological receptors or groundwatersupplies in land that remains undisturbed (and so is not coveredby discharge requirements); and preventing new land from becoming contaminated.There are 7000 properties listed on the Selected Land Use Registeras having been used for a purpose that may have led to thecontamination of land. Only 4% of these properties have been fullyinvestigated, and of those, 34% have been confirmed as beingcontaminated and not yet remediated, or subject to specialmanagement to reduce risks to human health or the environment.Relying on the Proposed NES to manage contaminated land will notprovide sufficient guidance for territorial authorities to be effective,because they will not be able to locate and record contaminated land.Under the 2005 amendment to the RMA, regional councils areresponsible for identifying contaminated land.The outcome of this policy option would be a less effective approachto the management of contaminated land than the current situation.This would increase the risk of adverse effects of contaminated land,including risks to human health from known sites and risks fromidentified discharges from land.A focus on overt problems and consent processing may detract frommanaging underlying causes and risks.Summary of effectiveness: LowBenefitsEnvironmental:EfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsContaminated land alreadyidentified by Waikato RegionalCouncil would assist inappropriate management of thatland, but only at point of new landuse consent.Community:Some management of risk ofexposure to human health fromthe effects of contaminated land.Creation of new contaminatedsites is possible.Contaminated sites not alreadyidentified by Waikato RegionalCouncil (for example most sheepdip sites) will not be addressed.Ecological receptors in soil, wateror air that may be at risk fromcontaminated land will not beidentified.Community:Most existing contaminated siteswill not be addressed (unlessland use consent is sought), andsites that have not yet beenidentified may pose risks tohuman health.Significant risks may remainunidentified indefinitely. Potentialconsequences are the increasedprobability of a negative eventand consequent costs to the14-28 Doc # 1451856

Policy option 5: Donothing.Summary of efficiency: LowEffectivenessindividual, and an increasedlikelihood of subsequent courtaction.No advisory or regulatory efforts made to actively identify andmanage contaminated land.This option would not contribute to the achievement of any objectives,and does not reflect functions assigned by the RMA.The outcome of this policy option would be no management ofcontaminated land and no control on the development and use ofland that is contaminated, or potentially contaminated. Adverseeffects on the environment, from contaminated land may or may notbe subject to enforcement and any remediation of land wouldcontinue to be voluntary. The liability regime may also becomeunclear.Summary of effectiveness: LowEnvironmental:BenefitsEfficiencyEnvironmental:CostsNoneCommunity:No financial or regulatory barriersto the development, re-zoningand change of land use withrespect to contaminated sites.Summary of efficiency: LowContinued impact ofcontaminated land on the widerenvironment, and creation of newcontaminated sites.Reducing air, water and soilquality, and negative impacts oncoastal and wetland areas.Community:Human health will not beprotected, and inappropriate landuse activities may increaseexposure to contaminants.Potential consequences are theincreased probability of anegative event (effects on humanhealth, livestock health) andconsequent costs to theindividual/s, and an increasedlikelihood of subsequent courtaction. Liabilities are unclear.14.2 Risk of acting or not actingSection 32(4)(b) of the Resource Management Act requires the evaluation ofappropriateness to take account of the risk of acting or not acting, if there is uncertainor insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or othermethods.With regards to soils, there is generally sufficient information upon which to baseanalysis as to the appropriateness of acting or not acting. The risks associated withacting and not acting are outlined below.Doc # 1451856 14-29

Values of soil maintained or enhancedFailure to protect the existing and foreseeable range of uses of the soil resource willcompromise its life-supporting capacity. This characteristic includes the productivecapacity, carbon sequestration and the provision of environmental services.Environmental services include buffering capacity for water (flood protection) andcontaminants (natural remediation), and support for biodiversity. The degradation orloss of any of these characters severely compromises the ability of future generationsto provide for themselves at a level enjoyed by the current generation. Acting to protectthe values of soils carries negligible risk.High class soilsFailure to recognise the values of high class soils in the provision of environmentalservices, carbon sequestration and, in particular, sustainable primary (agricultural)production, and to protect this resource will result in their irretrievable loss. High classsoils require fewer inputs (fertiliser and machinery costs) than less versatile soils andare characterised by an ability to sustain production indefinitely, if adequatelymanaged. To date much of the urban development in the Waikato region has been atthe cost of high class soils. Stopping this trend will incur costs, for example in instanceswhere real or perceived individual opportunities are reduced, and where urbaninfrastructure might need to be redesigned to accommodate changes in urbandevelopment plans.Soil contaminantsFailure to ensure that soil contaminants do not accumulate in soils to the point wherehuman and animal health, the ability to produce food, micro-nutrient availability, soilecology and water quality are compromised, will deprive future generations of the soilresource and incur incremental costs through the food chain. Addressing this issue atsource (soil contamination) reduces the risk and costs of addressing contamination athigher levels (i.e. crops/products/consumer). The risk of acting may be a signal tocompetitors that may be used to their market advantage. Transparency in objectivesand process would alleviate this risk.Peat soilsFailure to manage activities to slow the rate of peat soil subsidence will exacerbatecarbon loss and degradation of environmental services, for example flood protectionand denitrification capacity. There will not only be the loss of a finite resource anddeprivation of future generations, but also, in the instance of the extensive peat soils onthe Hauraki plains, the exposure of the community to an ever increasing risk ofdevastating flood, as progressively more area subsides to below sea level. Acting toprotect peat soils may invoke community resistance, if the objectives are improperlyunderstood and real/perceived opportunities are lessened.Contaminated landThe RMA assigns the function of controlling discharges of contaminants to land, air andwater to regional authorities. The risk of not including a policy in relation tocontaminated land is that this function is not fulfilled. There are also environmentalrisks to other resources and risks to human health that may arise as a result of notincluding this policy.The extent of management of contaminated land required is linked to other areas of theRPS and national policy. The prevention of new contaminated land is a cross-cuttingissue that relates to the built environment, soils, water quality, air quality and integratedmanagement. The policy option needs to include provisions not addressed by otherpolicies in the RPS.. The policy options that minimise Waikato Regional Council’sinvolvement in contaminated land rely on national policies (such as the Proposed NES)and other parts of the RMA. If the Proposed NES does not proceed, or is enacted indifferent form, our region may be without policy to manage contaminated land.14-30 Doc # 1451856

Potentially and known contaminated sites are listed on the Selected Land Use Registerfor this region, but Waikato Regional Council is aware that records are still poor insome areas (including sheep dips) and more sites may exist. Information held on thistopic indicates that while the probability of a negative event associated withcontaminated land ranges from low to medium (depending on the policy optionsselected), the consequences can be high for individuals or landholders.14.3 Appropriate policies and methodsThe following table summarises the appropriateness of the policy options to achieveObjective 3.24 and 3.25.Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sValues of SoilsPolicy option 1: Managing activitiesto maintain or enhance the soilresource.Policy option 2: Regulate activitiesthat are known to cause soildegradation.Moderate-highYes[Policy 14.1]High Moderate-low NoPolicy option 3: Status quo. Moderate Moderate NoPolicy option 4: Farm managementplans.Policy option 1: Protecting highclass soils from urban development– Waikato Regional Council todefine, but not to map, high classsoils.Policy option 2: Protecting highclass soils from urban development– Waikato Regional Council todefine and map high class soils.Policy option 3: Status quo - leavemanagement of high class soils toindividual territorial authorities.Policy option 4: Protecting ‘elite’soils from urban development –Waikato Regional Council to define,but not to map, ‘elite’ soils.Soil ContaminantsPolicy option 1: Regulate to ensureno further accumulation for keycontaminants in soils.Policy option 2: Accumulation of keycontaminants in soil is kept as lowas reasonably achievable.Policy option 3: Adopt maximum soilguidelines for key contaminants.Policy option 4: Adopt identifiedranges for key contaminantsdepending on land use.Moderate Moderate NoHigh Class SoilsModerateHighYes[Policy 14.2]Moderate Moderate NoLow Moderate NoLow Low NoHighLow (shortrun);Moderate(long run)NoModerate Moderate NoModerate-highLowModeratehighModeratehighLowmoderateYes[Policy 14.3]NoDoc # 1451856 14-31

Policy Option Effectiveness EfficiencySelectedOption/sPolicy option 5: Status quo. Low Low NoPeat SoilsPolicy option 1: Peat soilsregulatory provisions for drainageand cultivation.Policy option 2: Targets forsubsidence of peat soils.Policy option 3: Regulation of watertables in peat soils.Moderate Moderate NoModerate Moderate-low NoModerate-high Moderate Yes [Policy 14.5]Policy option 4: Status quo. Low Low NoContaminated LandPolicy option 1: Prevention andremediation of all contaminatedland.Policy option 2: Prevention ofcontaminated sites and remediationwhere possible.Policy option 3: Manage existingcontaminated land and remediatewhere appropriate.Policy option 4: Current approachwithout identification andinformation handling protocol.Moderate Low NoHigh Moderate NoModerate-HighModerateYes[Policy 14.4]Low Low NoPolicy option 5: Do nothing. Low Low NoHaving regard to this information, and taking into account the benefits and costs, andthe risks of acting or not acting due to insufficient information, it is proposed that themost appropriate way of achieving Objectives 3.24 and 3.25 is by inclusion of policyoptions as indicated in the tables above.14.4 Proposed wording for policies and methodsPolicy 1 Maintain or enhance the values of the soil resource (PWRPSPolicy 14.1)Manage land use activities to:a) retain soil on site and in situ;b) maintain or enhance biological, chemical and physical soil properties; andc) protect the existing and foreseeable range of uses of the soil resource.Implementation methods1.1 Manage activities to maintain soil quality and reduce risk of erosionRegional plans shall control activities to maintain soil quality and to reduce the risk oferosion, including:a) activities on land with high erosion potential and/or near water bodies; andb) earthworks and soil disturbance, including controlling the timing, duration, scale andlocation of soil exposure.14-32 Doc # 1451856

1.2 Soil conservationWaikato Regional Council will prepare and administer soil conservation and catchmentmanagement programmes to manage erosion risk.1.3 Research and advocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) advocate for research into the risks from and effects of erosion and soildegradation, and the development of land management practices that enhance thevalues of the soil resource; andb) seek to collaborate with primary industry, landowners and other stakeholders todevelop and adopt best practice, and to provide education and advice to landmanagers.1.4 Pest managementWaikato Regional Council will ensure that the Regional Pest Management Strategyaddresses the control of pest species that may threaten or damage vegetation thatoffers protection from soil erosion.Policy 2 High class soils (PWRPS Policy 14.2)Avoid a decline in the availability of high class soils for primary production due toinappropriate subdivision, use or development.Implementation methods2.1 Manage the form and location of developmentDistrict plans shall give priority to productive uses of high class soils over nonproductiveuses including through:a) restricting urban and rural-residential development on high class soils;b) restricting the level of impermeable surfaces allowable on high class soils;c) facilitating the return or continued availability of high class soils to primaryproduction activities, for example through amalgamation of small titles; andd) directing urban and rural-residential development onto soils of lesser versatilitywhere there is an option to do so.2.2 Provision of informationWaikato Regional Council will make information on high class soils, including the soilclassifications, available to territorial authorities and other interested parties.Policy 3 Soil contaminants (PWRPS Policy 14.3)Ensure that accumulation of contaminants in soils does not cause a reduction in therange of existing and foreseeable uses of the soil resource. Particular attention will begiven to the potential for effects on:a) human health;b) animal health;c) suitability of soil for food production;d) micro-nutrient availability;e) soil ecology; andf) groundwater.Implementation methods3.1 Control discharges to landRegional plans shall control discharges to land to ensure the accumulation of soilcontaminants does not reduce the range of existing and foreseeable uses of the soilresource. For key soil contaminants including cadmium, fluorine and zinc, WaikatoRegional Council will consider:a) setting maximum annual discharge limits; andDoc # 1451856 14-33

) adopting risk-based guidelines for contaminants in soil and linking these withspecific management actions.3.2 Research, advocacy and educationWaikato Regional Council will:a) seek to work with industry and other stakeholders to identify, and incorporate intoland management practices, actions to reduce the rate of accumulation of key soilcontaminants including cadmium, fluorine and zinc;b) collaborate with relevant agencies to work towards increasing the understanding ofdiffuse contaminant issues and development of land management practices andtechnologies that reduce the rate of accumulation of contaminants;c) advocate for sustainable land management practices and the use of alternativetechnologies that minimise the risk of diffuse soil contamination, including throughenvironmental education programmes; andd) develop methodology to measure the rates of accumulation of contaminants.Policy 4 Contaminated land (PWRPS Policy 14.4)Identify and manage contaminated land to ensure human, plant and animal health, andwater, air and soil quality are protected from unacceptable risk.Implementation methods4.1 District plansDistrict plans shall require a soil assessment prior to land use change, development orsubdivision of any land that:a) is listed on any regional or district council land use information register as beingaffected or potentially affected by soil contaminants;b) is known to be associated with a current or historic industry or activity listed on theHazardous Activities and Industries List; orc) exhibits any other evidence of being affected by contaminants.Such an assessment shall identify any limitations of the site due to soil contamination.4.2 Approach to identifying and remediating contaminated landWaikato Regional Council will collaborate with territorial authorities and other relevantstakeholders to:a) identify existing or potentially contaminated land and develop a protocol for theproper use and release of this information; andb) develop consistent, efficient and effective approaches to remediating and managingcontaminated land.4.3 AdvocacyWaikato Regional Council will:a) seek guidance and assistance from central government on the management ofspecific contaminated lands; andb) encourage the active management and remediation of identified areas ofcontaminated land.Policy 5 Peat soils (PWRPS Policy 14.5)Manage activities to address adverse effects resulting from use and development ofpeat soils, including by slowing the rate of subsidence and the loss of carbon byoxidation from peat soils.Implementation methods5.1 Manage peat subsidenceRegional plans shall control activities on peat soils to:a) slow the rate of subsidence of peat soils and carbon loss; and14-34 Doc # 1451856

) address the adverse effects resulting from use and development of peat soils,including off-site effects on habitats, infrastructure, properties and otherdevelopment.5.2 ResearchWaikato Regional Council will undertake and promote research to increase informationon the rates and long-term impacts of subsidence and carbon loss on peat soils,associated environments and infrastructure.5.3 Advocacy and educationWaikato Regional Council will advocate soil management and land use practices thatavoid degradation of peat soils, including through environmental educationprogrammes.Doc # 1451856 14-35

Appendix 1: Relevant sections of theResource Management Act6 Matters of national importanceIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it,in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physicalresources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including thecoastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and theprotection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriatesubdivision, use, and development:(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitatsof indigenous fauna:(d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastalmarine area, lakes, and rivers:(e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, anddevelopment:(g) the protection of recognised customary activities.7 Other mattersIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it,in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physicalresources, shall have particular regard to —(a) kaitiakitanga:(aa) the ethic of stewardship:(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy:(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:(e) [Repealed](f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:(h) the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:(i) the effects of climate change:(j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.8 Treaty of WaitangiIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it,in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physicalresources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti oWaitangi).30 Functions of regional councils under this Act(1) Every regional council shall have the following functions for the purpose of givingeffect to this Act in its region:Doc # 1451856 A1-1

(a)(b)(c)(ca)(d)(e)(f)(fa)(fb)the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, andmethods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physicalresources of the region:the preparation of objectives and policies in relation to any actual or potentialeffects of the use, development, or protection of land which are of regionalsignificance:the control of the use of land for the purpose of—(i) soil conservation:(ii) the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in waterbodies and coastal water:(iii) the maintenance of the quantity of water in water bodies and coastalwater:(iiia) the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems in water bodiesand coastal water:(iv) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:(v) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:the investigation of land for the purposes of identifying and monitoringcontaminated land:in respect of any coastal marine area in the region, the control (inconjunction with the Minister of Conservation) of—(i) land and associated natural and physical resources:(ii) the occupation of space on land of the Crown or land vested in theregional council, that is foreshore or seabed, and the extraction ofsand, shingle, shell, or other natural material from that land:(iii) the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water:(iv) discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water anddischarges of water into water:(iva) the dumping and incineration of waste or other matter and thedumping of ships, aircraft, and offshore installations:(v) any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protectionof land, including the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards andthe prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:(vi) the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:(vii) activities in relation to the surface of water:the control of the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water, and thecontrol of the quantity, level, and flow of water in any water body, including—(i) the setting of any maximum or minimum levels or flows of water:(ii) the control of the range, or rate of change, of levels or flows of water:(iii) the control of the taking or use of geothermal energy:the control of discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water anddischarges of water into water:if appropriate, the establishment of rules in a regional plan to allocate any ofthe following:(i) the taking or use of water (other than open coastal water):(ii) the taking or use of heat or energy from water (other than opencoastal water):(iii) the taking or use of heat or energy from the material surroundinggeothermal water:(iv) the capacity of air or water to assimilate a discharge of a contaminant:if appropriate, and in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation,—(i) the establishment of rules in a regional coastal plan to allocate thetaking or use of heat or energy from open coastal water:(ii) the establishment of a rule in a regional coastal plan to allocate spacein a coastal marine area under Part 7A:A1-2 Doc # 1451856

(g)(ga)(gb)(h)in relation to any bed of a water body, the control of the introduction orplanting of any plant in, on, or under that land, for the purpose of—(i) soil conservation:(ii) the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in thatwater body:(iii) the maintenance of the quantity of water in that water body:(iv) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, andmethods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity:the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use through objectives,policies, and methods:any other functions specified in this Act.(2) A regional council and the Minister of Conservation may perform the functionsspecified in subsection (1)(d) to control the harvesting or enhancement of aquaticorganisms to avoid, remedy, or mitigate—(a) the effects on fishing and fisheries resources of occupying a coastal marinearea for the purpose of aquaculture activities:(b) the effects on fishing and fisheries resources of aquaculture activities.(3) However, a regional council and the Minister of Conservation must not perform thefunctions specified in subsection (1)(d)(i), (ii), or (vii) to control the harvesting orenhancement of aquatic organisms for the purpose of conserving, using,enhancing, or developing any fisheries resources controlled under the FisheriesAct 1996.(4) A rule to allocate a natural resource established by a regional council in a planunder subsection (1)(fa) or (fb) may allocate the resource in any way, subject to thefollowing:(a) the rule may not, during the term of an existing resource consent, allocatethe amount of a resource that has already been allocated to the consent;and(b) nothing in paragraph (a) affects section 68(7); and(c) the rule may allocate the resource in anticipation of the expiry of existingconsents; and(d) in allocating the resource in anticipation of the expiry of existing consents,the rule may—(i) allocate all of the resource used for an activity to the same type ofactivity; or(ii) allocate some of the resource used for an activity to the same type ofactivity and the rest of the resource to any other type of activity or notype of activity; and(e) the rule may allocate the resource among competing types of activities; and(f) the rule may allocate water, or heat or energy from water, as long as theallocation does not affect the activities authorised by section 14(3)(b) to (e).32 Consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs(1) In achieving the purpose of this Act, before a proposed plan, proposed policystatement, change, or variation is publicly notified, a national policy statement orNew Zealand coastal policy statement is notified under section 48, or a regulationis made, an evaluation must be carried out by—(a) the Minister, for a national environmental standard or a national policystatement; or(b) the Minister of Conservation, for the New Zealand coastal policy statement;or(c) the local authority, for a policy statement or a plan (except for plan changesthat have been requested and the request accepted under clause 25(2)(b) ofSchedule 1); orDoc # 1451856 A1-3

(d)the person who made the request, for plan changes that have beenrequested and the request accepted under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1.(2) A further evaluation must also be made by—(a) a local authority before making a decision under clause 10 or clause 29(4) ofSchedule 1; and(b) the relevant Minister before issuing a national policy statement or NewZealand coastal policy statement.(3) An evaluation must examine—(a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achievethe purpose of this Act; and(b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies,rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving theobjectives.(3A) This subsection applies to a rule that imposes a greater prohibition or restriction onan activity to which a national environmental standard applies than any prohibitionor restriction in the standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whetherthe prohibition or restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the regionor district.(4) For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), anevaluation must take into account—(a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and(b) the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient informationabout the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.(5) The person required to carry out an evaluation under subsection (1) must preparea report summarising the evaluation and giving reasons for that evaluation.(6) The report must be available for public inspection at the same time as thedocument to which the report relates is publicly notified or the regulation is made.59 Purpose of regional policy statementsThe purpose of a regional policy statement is to achieve the purpose of the Act byproviding an overview of the resource management issues of the region and policies andmethods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of thewhole region.61 Matters to be considered by regional council (policy statements)(1) A regional council shall prepare and change its regional policy statement inaccordance with its functions under section 30, the provisions of Part 2, and itsduty under section 32 and any regulations.(2) In addition to the requirements of section 62(2), when preparing or changing aregional policy statement, the regional council shall have regard to—(a) any—(i) management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts; and(ii) [Repealed](iia) relevant entry in the Historic Places Register; and(iii) regulations relating to ensuring sustainability, or the conservation,management, or sustainability of fisheries resources (includingregulations or bylaws relating to taiapure, mahinga mataitai, or othernon-commercial Māori customary fishing); and(iv) [Repealed]to the extent that their content has a bearing on resource management issues ofthe region; and(b) the extent to which the regional policy statement needs to be consistent withthe policy statements and plans of adjacent regional councils.A1-4 Doc # 1451856

(2A) A regional council, when preparing or changing a regional policy statement, must—(a) take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwiauthority, and lodged with the council, to the extent that its content has abearing on resource management issues of the region; and(b) recognise and provide for the management plan for a foreshore and seabedreserve located in whole or in part within its region, once the managementplan has been lodged with the council.(3) In preparing or changing any regional policy statement, a regional council must nothave regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.62 Contents of regional policy statements(1) A regional policy statement must state—(a) the significant resource management issues for the region; and(b) the resource management issues of significance to—(i) iwi authorities in the region; and(ii) the board of a foreshore and seabed reserve, to the extent that thoseissues relate to that reserve; and(c) the objectives sought to be achieved by the statement; and(d) the policies for those issues and objectives and an explanation of thosepolicies; and(e) the methods (excluding rules) used, or to be used, to implement the policies;and(f) the principal reasons for adopting the objectives, policies, and methods ofimplementation set out in the statement; and(g) the environmental results anticipated from implementation of those policiesand methods; and(h) the processes to be used to deal with issues that cross local authorityboundaries, and issues between territorial authorities or between regions;and(i) the local authority responsible in the whole or any part of the region forspecifying the objectives, policies, and methods for the control of the use ofland—(i) to avoid or mitigate natural hazards or any group of hazards; and(ii) to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of the storage, use,disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and(iii) to maintain indigenous biological diversity; and(j) the procedures used to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of thepolicies or methods contained in the statement; and(k) any other information required for the purpose of the regional council'sfunctions, powers, and duties under this Act.(2) If no responsibilities are specified in the regional policy statement for functionsdescribed in subsection (1)(i)(i) or (ii), the regional council retains primaryresponsibility for the function in subsection (1)(i)(i) and the territorial authorities ofthe region retain primary responsibility for the function in subsection (1)(i)(ii).(3) A regional policy statement must not be inconsistent with any water conservationorder and must give effect to a national policy statement or New Zealand coastalpolicy statement.Doc # 1451856 A1-5

Appendix 2: Area subject to the Visionand Strategy for the Waikato RiverDoc # 1451856 A2-1