Non RMA Plan Examples of Hazard Management

The Horizons Regional Council Sustainable Land Use Initiative

During the February 2004 storm event, three territorial authorities (Tararua District Council, Palmerston North City Council, and Horowhenua District) and others within the Manawatu River catchment were devastated from regional catchment-wide flooding. Following this event, Horizons Regional Council held a meeting with a wide range of community representatives to discuss what could be done to reduce hill country erosion and flooding of the plains. The result was the formation of the Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI). SLUI aims to provide a 'mountains to sea ' approach to wise land use by developing and then implementing Whole Farm Plans with individual farmers. This initiative incorporates a regional approach, with benefits to local authorities as erosion, siltation and flooding impacts are reduced. It aims to improve the resilience of the region to extreme weather events. More information on this approach is available on the Horizons Regional Council website.

Back to guidance note

Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan

The Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan presents a holistic approach to managing flood hazard effects, combining:

• physical protection (structural measures)
• appropriate ways of using land and preparing communities for flooding (non-structural measures)
• opportunities to enhance the river environment (environmental opportunities).

The plan 's ultimate goal is to improve the community 's resilience to flooding, and enable Upper Hutt and Hutt Cities to maintain or enhance their present level of economic vitality and quality of life. The plan is published on the Greater Wellington Regional Council website.

Back to guidance note

Queenstown Lakes District Council and Otago Regional Council: an example of a joint flood risk management strategy

Flooding of Lakes Wanaka and Wakatipu is a natural occurrence primarily caused by the large variation between the inflow and outflow capacity of each lake.

Development of the high value lakefront land has occurred within the natural range of both lakes, leading to heightening of the flood risk posed to the communities of the area.

In the last 150 years, significant floods occurred in 1878, 1924, 1994, 1995 and 1999. The 1999 flood was Lake Wakatipu 's most severe and Lake Wanaka 's second most severe flood ever experienced. Flooding caused the closure of lakefront businesses for up to three weeks and resulted in $56 million lost revenue and commercial damage costs in Queenstown alone.

In April 2005, both councils agreed to jointly undertake the following key tasks:

1. develop key flood management measures by:
• assisting individuals, businesses, utilities and the Queenstown Lakes District Council in flood preparedness and response
• encouraging flood-sensitive building and infrastructure design and operation
• ensuring effective use of planning mechanisms, for example the RMA, the Building Act 2004 and bylaws, to mitigate the effects of flooding
• considering the appropriateness of physical mitigation works
• raising public awareness through education and the availability of flood response and preparedness information
2. ensure that, collectively, the initiatives developed represent an integrated response to flood risk management
3. cost the activities involved and manage the allocation of resources to see them completed
4. maintain communication with stakeholders, both in the local and wider communities, and within government agencies
5. ensure that projects included in the strategy can be economically, environmentally and technically justified to the necessary standards
6. ensure that planning processes are thorough and comprehensive.

This work is now completed, and has culminated in a comprehensive strategy for consideration and adoption. Implementation of the Joint Flood Risk Management Strategy and the initiatives scoped within it is now required. This process will necessitate continued close collaboration by both councils.

More information on the Joint Flood Risk Management Strategy is available on the Otago Regional Council website.

Back to guidance note

Integrating resource management plans and CDEM group plans

The Horizons Regional Council (covering the Manawatu-Wanganui region) is currently working through statutory processes associated with its new 'One Plan '. The One Plan will replace Horizons Regional Council's seven current resource management plans with one document. The One Plan will be a combined Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Regional Plan dealing with matters for which Horizons is responsible under the RMA, including natural hazards.

As part of this process, the policy planners checked their CDEM Group Plan for reduction measures. Table 1 of the CDEM Group Plan includes planning as a key issue (see below). In summary, the plan queries whether future subdivisions are linked to an analysis of all hazards. It also identifies a number of gaps within current planning practices with regard to hazards.

Horizons Regional Council took the opportunity to provide a linkages between their CDEM plans and the regional policy statement when drafting their One Plan. This allowed gaps and inconsistencies that had been identified by those implementing previous documents to be addressed.

If good natural hazard risk reduction policies can be included in the RPS when it is being reviewed, then those policies can be adopted by the CDEM group when they review their CDEM plan. The process can be assisted by using existing statutory and non-statutory documents that contain hazard information as a resource.

Manawatu-Wanganui CDEM Group Plan Strategic Component Diagram

Functional Criteria	What is being done	Gaps and inconsistencies	Issues
Planning	Local Government
Future subdivisions linked to analysis of all hazards? At risk buildings identified? Plans used by emergency services, health and local government all linked?	All territorial authorities have completed planning (to varying degrees) that relates building consents to perceived hazards with s.36 of the Building Act and s.106 of the RMA. The quality of planning is often dependent on hazard information available. Flood and volcanic information is relatively comprehensive, however, more information is required for other hazards. Regulatory systems throughout the region generally focus on ensuring consents comply with stipulated conditions on consent notices. "At risk" (seismic ) building information is collected in some Territorial Authorities but this is variable in quality. Property IMS often used as the basis for standard information.   All Territorial Authorities have involved Emergency Services Representatives in some areas of emergency planning. This is generally focussed on response. In many cases this has been documented through Y2K planning - but to a limited degree. Liaison with Health Authorities (District Health Boards) has commenced. Interface with ambulance services is good in most Territorial Authorities. There is a sound basis for emergency management planning through activities of CDEMG Committee, Coordinating Executive Advisory Group and Emergency Management Office.	Often not all hazards have been identified (notable exceptions are technological hazards). Information regarding hazards and risks that is available to local authorities is not always utilised to maximum benefit ie: seismic hazard analysis. All territorial authorities require more in depth "risk analysis" for all hazards at CEDEMG and local area. Several territorial authorities do not have data on "at risk" structures - particularly those with rural communities - where central business districts are quite aged. In many cases Emergency Services are not involved on a regular basis with Territorial Authority emergency management planning and hazard ID/Risk analysis. Mutual assistance across the 4Rs is lacking in most cases. Integration with Health Authorities (District Health Boards) is lacking with there being limited knowledge of mutual planning needs or capabilities. This is improving with the advent of the CDEMG planning process, however there is room for improvement. Overall our planning focus is often still reactive rather than pre-emptive. We are lacking coordination and communication across different organisations. For example all organisations have plans to reduce the risk for their applicable output. We are all trying to do similar things with similar communities and competing for space.	The region is susceptible to a variety of hazards. Whilst these have been identified the require more in-depth analysis in terms of likelihood and consequence. This information is needed for the CDEMG as a whole, and a detailed version for each district. There is a lack of knowledge regarding "at risk" buildings (seismic activity) within several areas of the region. Better integration, communication, and coordination, is needed, CDEMG members within districts. Such integration needs to be formalised, occur regularly, and within a CDEMG framework. There is a need to clarify agency responsibilities so planning for particular events is better coordinated.
	Emergency Services / Health The New Zealand Fire Service have identified the most at risk communities be it whole towns or large suburbs in our region. Traditional planning is usually reactive based on a "after the incident has occurred" scenario Whanganui District Health Board has unit contingency plan and emergency response manuals in place. Further testing is scheduled. Liaison with local authorities occurs via Emergency Management Committee for Wanganui / Rangitikei, plus representation on the CEG. Links to Ruapehu District will be developed. MidCentral District Health Board has a Business Continuity Plan and Emergency Response Plan in place. Representation is also provided on the CEG for the CDEMG. Both MidCentral and Whanganui District Health Boards have Healthcare Accreditation status - meaning regular independent audit and review occurs.

The table above shows and extract from the Manawatu-Wanganui CDEM Group Plan. The table contains four columns which set out; functional criteria, what is being done, gaps and inconsistencies, and issues.

Back to guidance note