of the Board of Inquiry into the - EPA

Draft_Decision_Tukituki_Catchment_Proposal_as_at_18_March_2014_(Part_1_and_Part_2)_ Pt_1_updated_30_March_with_formatted_footnotes_3.docDraft Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the
Tukituki Catchment Proposal
Produced under Section 149Q of the Resource Management Act 1991
Published by the Board of Inquiry into the Tukituki Catchment Proposal
Dated: April 2014
Appendix 1: Appearances during the hearing
Appendix 2: Alphabetical listing of technical reports supporting Plan Change 6 and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme
Appendix 3: Board’s decisions on the matters raised in the submissions and further submissions concerning Plan Change 6
Appendix 4: Clean copy of Plan Change 6 as the end of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal Hearing dated 19 January 2014 (Exhibit 90)
Appendix 5: Plan Change 6 final (track changed version) as determined by the Board of Inquiry dated April 2014
Appendix 6: The matters applied for from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company
Appendix 1
Appearances during the hearing
Name of Representative Party Helen Codlin The applicants Iain Maxwell The applicants Graeme Hansen The applicants Benita Waina Wakefield The applicants Tim Sharp The applicants Husam Baalousha The applicants Robert Waldron The applicants Paul Barrett The applicants David Wheeler The applicants Richard McDowell The applicants David Wheeler The applicants Ian Millner The applicants John Hayes The applicants Anna Madarasz-Smith The applicants Chris Cornelisen The applicants Robert John Wilcock The applicants Vaughan Keesing The applicants Gerry Kessels The applicants Stuart Parsons The applicants John Craig The applicants Tim Fisher The applicants James Christopher (Kit) Rutherford
The applicants
Roger Young The applicants Gavin Lister The applicants Adam Uytendaal The applicants Olivier Ausseil The applicants Simon Harris The applicants Simon Bickler The applicants Rob van Voorthuysen The applicants Michelle Frey The applicants Mark Chrisp The applicants Stephen Daysh The applicants Andy Borland Mr Apple NZ Limited Richard Hill Mr Apple NZ Limited John Wilton Mr Apple NZ Limited John Bright Mr Apple NZ Limited Richard Peterson Mr Apple NZ Limited David Renouf Hawke’s Bay Environmental Water Group Lindsay Smith Ingleton Farms Ltd Ella Bacher Ingleton Farms Ltd and Bel Group Ltd John M Bostock JM Bostock Ltd Greg Sneath Fertiliser Association of New Zealand John Bright Ruataniwha Water Users Group and Mr Apple NZ Limited Julian Weir Ruataniwha Water Users Group
Name of Representative Party Ian McIndoe Mr Apple NZ Limited and Ruataniwha Water Users Group Andrew Bashford Ruataniwha Water Users Group Jeremy David Dunningham Jeremy David Dunningham Mike Peterson Beef and Lamb NZ Alec Mackay Beef and Lamb NZ
Sylvia Allan Central Hawke’s Bay District Council and Hastings District Council
Stephen Thrush Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
Mike Joy Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Hawke’s Bay Environmental Water Group and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi
Vaughan Cooper Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society — Hastings/Havelock North Branch
Dan Elderkamp Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society — Central Hawke’s Bay Branch
Stuart Ford Horticulture NZ and others Kelvin Lloyd Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environmental Forum John Cheyne Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environmental Forum Christopher Keenan Horticulture NZ and others Philip Jordan Horticulture NZ and others Tim Baker Horticulture NZ and others Kolt Johnson Horticulture NZ and others Hamish Peacock Horticulture NZ and others Peter Reaburn Environmental Defence Society Marie Brown Environmental Defence Society Kate McArthur Environmental Defence Society David Wansbrough Ministry for Primary Industries Hamish McHardy Arden Properties, Tukituki Ltd David Werrey David Werrey Brian Chambers Brian Chambers June Graham June Graham Nicholas Jones Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Xan Harding Harding Family Trust Xan Harding Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Association Tim Aitken Steyning Deer Farm Sharleen Baird Sharleen Baird Christie Grenville Christie Grenville Patrick Kane Patrick Kane Arthur Rowlands Katoa Farm Ltd Roger Maaka Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea Jonathon Abell Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Peter McIntosh Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Russell Death Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council
Dennis Page Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ Inc Gilbert Zemansky Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Anthony Rhodes Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Alison Dewes Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council
Name of Representative Party James Aitken James Aitken Richard and Helen Ellis Papawai Partnership Helen Marr Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Phillip Percy Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Gerard Pain Gerard Pain Adrienne Tully Adrienne Tully Quentin M Bennett Quentin M Bennett Daniel Stabler Daniel Stabler Phyliss Tichinin Phyllis Tichinin Lisa Poynton and Brent Oliver Brownrigg Agriculture Group Ltd
Andrew Curtis Irrigation NZ Corina Jordan Hawke’s Bay and Eastern Fish and Game Council Megan Rose Megan Rose Robert Buchanan Buchanan Trust No 2 (Robert Buchanan) William Buchanan William Buchanan Larry Dallimore Larry Dallimore Richard Lawson Hawke’s Bay Deer Farmers Association Tim Aitken Hawke’s Bay Deer Farmers Association Grant Charteris Hawke’s Bay Deer Farmers Association Duncan Holden Hawke’s Bay Deer Farmers Association Richard Hilson Hawke’s Bay Deer Farmers Association Paula Fern Paula Fern Angus Robson Angus Robson Craig Preston Craig Preston Trust Paul Bailey Paul Bailey Ngapuoterangi Hohepa Koro Te Whaiti Ngapuoterangi Hohepa Koro Te Whaiti
Amelia McQueen Amelia McQueen Christopher Perley Christopher Perley Garth Eyles Garth Eyles Ian McIntosh Ian McIntosh Sara Gerard Gerard Land Design Moana Jackson Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Tom Mulligan Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Bayden Barber Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Margie McGuire Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Te Kipa Kepa Morgan Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Hira Huata Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Ngatai Huata Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Shade Smith Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Maurice Black Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Marei Apatu Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Adele Whyte Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and others Rawiri Johnston Rawiri Johnston Christine Cheyne Christine Cheyne
Name of Representative Party Eugenie Sage Eugenie Sage Roy Boonen Roy Boonen Ann Redstone Walking on Water (WOW) Inc Mark Lawrence Mark Lawrence Alison Johnstone Silver Fern Farms Ltd Jeremy Absolom Silver Fern Farms Ltd Terry Kelly Sustaining Hawke's Bay Trust/Terry Kelly Warwick Catto Ballance Agri-Nutrients Thomas Belford Transparent Hawke’s Bay Pauline Elliot Pauline Elliot Adrian Mannering Mannering Family Trust Colin Riden Colin Riden
Appendix 2
Alphabetical listing of technical reports supporting Plan Change 6 and the Ruataniwha Water Storage
Scheme
Report name Folder No. Section
Baalousha, H. (2010). Ruataniwha Basin Transient Groundwater
— Surface Water Flow Model. Internal report prepared for
Hawke's Bay Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4234: 112 pp.
3 Surface and
Water Predictive Modelling. Internal report prepared for Hawke's
Bay Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4264. EMT 11/04. 27 pp.
3 Surface and
Hawke's Bay Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4411. EMT
12/21. 42 pp.
5 Surface and
Benson, M., L. Coubrough, I. Millner and R. van Voorthuysen
(2012). Nutrient Management Approaches for the Tukituki
Catchment. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional
Council. HBRC Plan no. 4344. WI 12/05. 40 pp.
5 Land
Hawke’s Bay, HBRC Plan no 4355.
5 Surface and
report prepared for HBRC.
EMT12/01. 50 pp.
Management Objectives. Internal Report Prepared for Hawke's
Bay Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4407. SD
2 Values
Council. HBRC Plan no. 4399. EMT12/14.
5 Groundwater
Catchments: Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro, Waipawa, Tukipo, Tukituki
and Maraetotara. MWH client report prepared for HBRC.
3 Surface and
Internal report prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.
HBRC Plan no. 4452.
Harris Consulting Ltd. (2012). Economic Impacts of Future
Scenarios for the Tukituki River. Report prepared for HBRC
5 Economic
Economic Impact of Minimum flow on existing Irrigators
5 Economic
to Tukituki Choices: Economic Impact of Future Scenarios for
the Tukituki River. Contract report prepared for Hawke's Bay
Regional Council. February 2013
Assessments
Hayes, J. (2012). Review of water allocation limits in the Tukituki
River: hydrological and ecological concepts. Cawthron client
letter report prepared for HBRC.
5 Surface and
Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council,
HBRC Plan no.4453.
1 Plan Documents
Hickey, C. W. (2013). Site-specific nitrate guidelines for Hawke’s
Bay. NIWA client report prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council for project HBR12235. HAM2012-127. 21pp.
4 Surface Water
proposed nutrient management strategy on growth of
Phormidium spp. Summary of Technical Workshop held 20
December 2012. Prepared by Aquanet Consulting Ltd for HBRC.
HBRC Plan no. 4461. EMT 13/03. 33 pp.
4 Surface water Quality
Growth Using Nutrient Limits. Summary of Technical Workshop
held 19 December 2012. Prepared by Aquanet Consulting Ltd
for HBRC. HBRC plan No. 4460. EMT 13/02. 33 pp.
4 Surface water Quality
Assessment. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional
Council. HBRC Plan no. 4248. EMT 10/36. 68 pp.
3 Surface and
characterisation. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay
Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4372. EMT 12/11. 60 pp.
5 Land
HBRC Plan no. 4406. EMT12/19. 25 pp.
5 Land
Page Bloomer Associates (2012). Hawke’s Bay Water Demand
2050. Client report prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.
5 Surface and
alignment with LAWF3 recommendations, Internal
Memorandum.
and Periphyton Biomass – Model Development, Calibration and
Testing in the Tukituki River. NIWA Client report prepared for
HBRC and CHBDC.
4 Surface Water
assessment. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional
Council. HBRC Plan no. 4327. SD12/03.
2 Values
client report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
2 Values
Plan Change 6. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay
Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4463. EMT13/04.
4 Surface Water
Quality
Wakefield, B., M. Hape, J. Maaka, B. Wakefield, H. Maaka, M.
Apatu, D. Moffatt and D. Whitiwhiti (2012). Tukituki River
Catchment Values and Uses. Client report prepared by Te
Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga for
Hawke's Bay Regional Council. 92 pp.
2 Values
Regional Council. HBRC Plan no. 4258. EMT 11/02. 119 pp.
3 Surface and
Modelling. Internal memo prepared for HBRC.
5 Surface and
Internal Addendum Report prepared for HBRC. HBRC Plan no.
4363. EMT 12/10. 14pp.
3 Surface and
Internal report prepared for HBRC. HBRC Plan no. 4410.
EMT12/20. 58 pp.
flows and minimum flows. Internal memo prepared for Hawke's
Bay Regional Council. 10 pp.
3 Surface and
Wilding, T. and R. Waldron (2012). Hydrology of the Tukituki
Catchment. Internal report prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional
Council. HBRC Plan no. 4405. EMT 12/18. 77pp
3 Surface and
Report Name Folder No. Section
Ausseil, O., Hansford, J., Waldron, R., and Young, R. (2013).
Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Environmental Flow
Optimisation. Report prepared for HBRIC Ltd.
3 K4 — Environmental
Modelling. Report prepared by Resource Management Group for
HBRIC Ltd.
for HBRIC Ltd.
Scheme: Archaeological Assessment. Report prepared for
HBRIC Ltd.
Water Storage Scheme. Prepared for HBRIC Ltd.
6 A7 — Regional
Approach (Final). Report prepared for HBRIC Ltd.
3 K6 — Integrated
Primary Distribution Concept. Report prepared for HBRIC Ltd.
3 K2 — Zone M
Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Planning Assessment
5 A1 — Planning
(Final). Report prepared for HBRIC Ltd. Assessment
Gibbs, M. (2013). Characterisation of Makaroro reservoir water
quality. Report prepared by NIWA for HBRIC Ltd.
5 A2 — Reservoir
Break Analysis. Report prepared by HBRC for HBRIC Ltd.
7 A13 — Dam Break
for HBRIC.
Assessment of Environmental Effects.
2 C — Assessment of
Proposed Conditions.
(Draft).
Riddell, D., Clark, R., and Brandes, U. (2013). Terrestrial
Ecology Study — Assessment of Ecological Effects. Prepared
by Kessels & Associates for HBRIC Ltd.
6 A4 — Terrestrial
Infrastructure & Traffic Assessment. Report prepared by Opus
International Consultants for HBRIC Ltd.
7 A10 — Road &
Report prepared by Isthmus for HBRIC Ltd.
7 A12 — Landscape &
Scheme Recreation Assessment. Report prepared by Opus
International Consultants Ltd for HBRIC Ltd.
6 A9 — Recreation
Renwick, A. (2013). Climate Change and its implications for the
Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme. Report prepared for HBRIC
Ltd.
Change Review
Rutherford, K. (2013). Effects of land use on nutrients: Phase 2
studies in the Tukituki River, Hawke’s Bay. Report prepared by
NIWA for HBRIC Ltd.
Report Name Folder No. Section
Rutherford, K. (2013). Effects of land use on streams – Phase 2
modelling studies in the Tukituki River, Hawke’s Bay. Report
prepared by NIWA for HBRIC Ltd.
4 M4 — Stream
Modelling (TRIM 2
3 K1 — Project
Sedimentation Assessment. Report prepared for HBRIC Ltd.
7 A14 —
Wakefield, B., Hape, M., Maaka, J., Wakefield, B., Maaka, H.,
Apatu, M., Moffatt, D., and Whitiwhiti, D. (2013). Tukituki River
Catchment Cultural Values and Uses. Report prepared by Te
Taiwhenua O Tamatea, in partnership with Te Taiwhenua O
Heretaunga for HBRIC Ltd.
prepared Resource Management Group for HBRIC Ltd.
4 M1 — Ground &
Surface Water Flow
Wheeler, D., Benson, M., Millner, I., and Watkins, N. (2013).
Overseer Nutrient budgets modelling for the Tukituki catchment.
Report prepared by AgResearch for HBRIC Ltd.
4 M2 — Overseer
Young, R., Allen, C., Shearer, K., Doehring, K., Berkett, N.,
Holmes, R., and Hay, J. (2013). Aquatic Ecology Assessment of
Effects. Report prepared by the Cawthron Institute for HBRIC
Ltd.
Ecology Assessment
Appendix 3
Board’s decisions on the matters raised in the submissions and further submissions concerning Plan
Change 6
The appendix contains two tables (Table A and B).
Table A shows the decisions requested by each Submitter (sorted alphabetically). Within each
submitter the decision requested is sorted by ‘statement’ number and ’topic’ reference. The
decision requested and the Boards corresponding decision and reasons are then provided. The
corresponding decision on any further submissions that were made on the original submission
is then outlined.
Table B shows decisions on further submissions that do not directly reference a particular
decision requested in an original submission (as detailed in the Summary of Submissions). A
table outlining those parties who made a further submission and their submitter number is
detailed below.
Notes:
The summary of the decision requested is from the ‘Summary of Submissions — Plan Change
6: Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan’ August 2013, prepared for the Tukituki
Catchment Proposal Board of Inquiry.
As noted in the ‘Summary of Submissions — Plan Change 6: Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource
Management Plan’ August 2013 due to database software limitations, conventional styles for
depicting text requested to be added or deleted cannot be used in this appendix. Instead, in this
appendix, text requested to be inserted is underlined and text requested to be deleted is
represented as [italics in square brackets].
Further submission numbers
FS001 Hawke's Bay Environmental Water Group
FS002 Waimarama Marae on behalf of Nga Hapu o Waimarama
FS003 Ngati Kahungunu iwi Incorporated FS004 Environmental Defence Society Inc FS005 Mills, Judith FS006 Ingleton Farms Ltd FS007 Sustaining Hawke's Bay Trust FS008 Gifford, Andrew FS009 Te Taiao HB Environment Forum
FS010 Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited
FS011 TrustPower Limited FS012 Silver Fern Farms Limited FS013 Mr Apple New Zealand Limited FS014 BEL Group Limited FS015 Ruataniwha Water Users Group FS016 Rose, Megan FS017 Mangaroa Marae
FS018 Royal NZ Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc, Hastings/Havelock North Branch
FS019 Hastings District Council FS020 DairyNZ FS021 Horticulture NZ and others FS022 Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Sub# Submitter Sub Stat# Topic Decision requested
Decision Reasons Further
response
1 C6 General Reject Plan Change, or make changes as specified elsewhere in submission. Reject
2 C6 POL TT9 No specific decision requested, but seeks the pro rata seasonal allocation on water take consents is removed and retain the current weekly allowance, or if the weekly allowance is not retained adopt a model that takes the 1 in 10 year drought event into account and the more specific requirements of each site based upon crops, soil types and climate. Accept
3 C6 POL TT14
No specific decision requested, but seeks the five year restriction on irrigation consents is removed. Accept in part
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
No specific decision requested, but seeks the pro rata seasonal allocation on water take consents is removed and retain the current weekly allowance, or if the weekly allowance is not retained adopt a model that takes the 1 in ten year drought event into account and the more specific requirements of each site based upon crops, soil types and climate. Accept in part
PC6 has been amended to reflect the Boards findings. New Schedule XVIII provided. FS006/46 FS014/47
5 C6 Misc No specific decision requested, but seeks a system of subsidies for fencing along waterways to relieve some of the costs to land owners. Reject
No response required - Outside Scope.
6 C6 General No specific decision requested, but seeks clarification of the status of existing water take consents for on-site dams in light of Plan Change. Reject
Decision on request is for the reasons as set out in the body of the Report and the identified reasons reached in each of the main findings on the principal issues in contention.
1 C6 POL TT9 No specific decision requested, but objects to way POL TT9 and Schedule XVII Table 1 will affect existing irrigation. Accept
PC6 as amended contains appropriate provisions.
2 C6 Rule TT1 No specific decision requested, but refers to amending waterway fencing requirements. Accept in part
3 C6 Gen Process
Requests that the Plan Change be taken to the community for full and proper consultation. Reject
FS002/1 FS003/1
4 C6 General No specific decision requested, but refers to private and community water consents being treated equally and fairly. Accept in part
PC6 as amended achieves fairness.
5 C6 General No specific decision requested, but refers to farming not requiring resource consent. Accept in part
Rules allow for permited activities where appropriate.
339 Allison, Sally 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
118 Arden Properties Ltd, Tukituki Ltd
1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
PC6 as amended has been approved.
247 Armitage, Rebecca 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
1 C6 POL TT1 Amend POL TT1, to set stricter limits for phosphate P (e.g. 0.004mg/l) and nitrate N (e.g.0.14-0.3 mg/l) concentrations. Accept in part
FS002/2 FS003/2
3 C6 POL TT5 Amend POL TT5, to set stricter limits for phosphate P (e.g. 0.004mg/l) and nitrate N (e.g.0.14-0.3 mg/l) concentrations. Reject
4 C6 POL TT6 Amend POL TT6, to set stricter limits for phosphate P (e.g. 0.004 mg/l) and nitrate N (e.g.0.14-0.3 mg/l) concentrations. Reject
5 C6 New No specific decision requested, but suggests a condition that additional limitations must be placed on sedimentation and nutrient loading in these sediments. Accept in part
PC6 has been amended to reflect the Boards findings.
6 C6 Rule TT1 No specific decision requested, but refers to adding a condition "that farming practices focus on reducing external harmful and non- renewable inputs with more targeted use of the remaining inputs. For example less than 60 units of N and P per year/Ha applied in conjunction to the use of biological foods, either through management changes or inputs" Reject
FS002/3 FS003/3
7 C6 Rule TT2 No specific decision requested, but refers to adding a condition "that farming practices focus on reducing external harmful and non- renewable inputs with more targeted use of the remaining inputs. For example less than 60 units of N and P per year/Ha applied in conjunction to the use of biological foods, either through management changes or inputs" Accept in part
160 Astill, Rachel 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
183 Atkinson, Nicola 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
1 C6 Gen Process
Requests that more time be allowed to review Plan Change and its impacts on business and community. Reject
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
No specific decision requested, but seeks total review of the schedule.
Accept in part
PC6 has been amended to reflect the Boards findings. New Schedule XVIII provided.
3 C6 Schedule XX
No specific decision requested, but seeks more detail and time to get accurate impact of this schedule.
Reject
89 Bailey, Paul 1 C6 General Approve Plan Change with changes. No specific changes requested, but states that the objectives of Plan Change should be to enhance water quality in the Tukituki catchment over time, rather than increase in the levels of Nitrogen or Phosphorus in the Tukituki catchment.
Accept in part
1 C6 Rule TT1 No specific decision requested, but refers to opposing Rule TT1 as it is not inclusive or specific enough. Reject
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Addavale Produce Ltd
Baird, Sharleen
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
FS002/2 FS003/2
FS002/3 FS003/3
1 C6 Gen Process
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
Accept in part
3 C6 Schedule XX
Reject
Accept in part
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Baird, Sharleen
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
FS002/2 FS003/2
FS002/3 FS003/3
1 C6 Gen Process
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
Accept in part
3 C6 Schedule XX
Reject
Accept in part
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Baird, Sharleen
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
FS002/2 FS003/2
FS002/3 FS003/3
1 C6 Gen Process
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
Accept in part
3 C6 Schedule XX
Reject
Accept in part
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Baird, Sharleen
Page 1 of 105
4 C6 Rule TT2 No specific decision requested, but states that the timeframes and lead-in time for compliance with environmental management plans is too generous. ‘Good practice’ is not sufficient to combat environmental degradation so specific timelines are required. Reject
5 C6 General No specific decision requested but suggests that HBRC include in the Plan what measures and actions they will take to change the Contract terms and conditions if the agreed environmental limits or actions are not sufficient to prevent serious adverse effects on the environment including Cadmium levels, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sediment, aquifer contamination. Reject
6 C6 General No specific decision requested, but asks that HBRC is held liable to prosecution if they fail to monitor, add or change the contract terms and conditions; if there are insufficient responses to identified problems and other environmental problems known as having potential or actual detrimental effect.
Reject
Not practicable to be heard consecutively.
2 C6 Gen Process
Requests that Plan Change 6 is heard independently of RWSS resource consent applications. Reject
1 C6 General Approve Plan Change with changes. Accept
2 C6 New Add two new objectives: "OBJ TT6 Subject to Objective TT1 to TT3, to provide for the use of freshwater for viable primary production and processing of beverages, food and fibre. OBJ TT7 To recognise the benefits of industry good practice to land and water management"
Accept in part
FS019/46
3 C6 POL TT1 No specific decision requested, but seeks a collaborative process to agree the correct balance between economic growth and safeguarding of resources. Require management of nitrogen loss to surface water to meet risk based protection levels for toxicity to native aquatic fauna with limits suitable to each catchment and sub catchment. Require management of phosphorus and sediment loss to surface water to control periphyton growth with limits appropriate to each catchment and sub catchment.
Accept in part
4 C6 POL TT2 No specific decision requested, but seeks a collaborative process to agree the correct balance between economic growth and development and environmental protection, and appropriate timeframes to achieve and agree limits and targets. Accept in part
5 C6 POL TT4 No specific decision requested, but states practical application of detail within POL TT4 requires further consideration. 1. For example, certified advisor capability needs to be matched with delivery requirements and timeframes of Nutrient Management and Farm Environmental Management Plans 2. Recommend 10ha of land (rather than 4ha) provides a threshold area for requirement to keep property records as specified in Schedule XXI 3. Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency (NCE, as estimated by Overseer) should not be used to manage nitrogen loss to waterways. 4. Agree Nutrient Budgets should be updated every three years 5. Overseer model in regulation should be consistent nationally 6. Submission contains evidence on Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, defining material change in N loss by Overseer and an alternative 7. Overseer protocols should include determination of average leaching rates using average input data from a minimum of three years (not as proposed for two years).
Accept in part
6 C6 POL TT5 No specific decision requested, but seeks the threshold limit for providing a Phosphorus Management Plan (POL TT5(1)(d)(iv) applies to properties exceeding 10ha (not 4ha as proposed) and that realistic timeframes for monitoring the effectiveness of POL TT5(1) are allowed for.
Accept in part
7 C6 POL TT6 No specific decision requested, but refers to the following matters: 1. Require a Nutrient Management Plan and not a Fertiliser Management Plan, and define the term 2. Long-term consents are supported, to enable confidence in business growth and investment 3. Where nutrient loss to water bodies is managed through Farm Environmental Plans, Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency targets should not be required by regulation, delete them from the Policy 4. Nutrient budgets and nutrient management plans should be valid for three years 5. Consider mechanisms which enable a land owner to comply with land use regulations where owner and land user are different.
Accept in part
8 C6 Rule TT1 Amend Rule TT1 so that: 1. Nitrogen loss of 10% is increased to 30% in Rule TT1 condition(a) 2. Amend farm size thresholds in Rule TT1 (b), ( c) and (e) 3. Delete condition (k) or alternatively provide a mechanism to allow for assessing the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities 4. Delete condition (l) or alternatively provide a mechanism to allow for assessing the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities Also refers to providing national consistency for Overseer Nutrient Budget model.
Reject
9 C6 Rule TT2 No specific decision requested, but seeks for production land uses which do not meet the permitted activity conditions, the restricted discretionary activity matters of discretion should provide a mechanism to assess the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities, or there is no basis to make them restricted or fully discretionary activities. Accept in part
172 Barrow, John 1 C6 Form 'Not Stated'
No decision/position stated for Plan Change 6. Reject
No response required.
1 C6 General No specific decision requested, but expresses concern about the negative social, economic and ecological impact of intensification of dairying and the loss of sustainability for the region and the widespread destruction of natural eco systems. Accept in part
PC6 as amended reflects this.100 Bayliss, Ian and Liz
216
140
289 Decision on request is for the reasons as set out in the body of the Report and the identified reasons reached in each of the main findings on the principal issues in contention.
Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
FS002/2 FS003/2
FS002/3 FS003/3
1 C6 Gen Process
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
Accept in part
3 C6 Schedule XX
Reject
Accept in part
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Baird, Sharleen
Page 1 of 105
4 C6 Rule TT2 No specific decision requested, but states that the timeframes and lead-in time for compliance with environmental management plans is too generous. ‘Good practice’ is not sufficient to combat environmental degradation so specific timelines are required. Reject
5 C6 General No specific decision requested but suggests that HBRC include in the Plan what measures and actions they will take to change the Contract terms and conditions if the agreed environmental limits or actions are not sufficient to prevent serious adverse effects on the environment including Cadmium levels, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sediment, aquifer contamination. Reject
6 C6 General No specific decision requested, but asks that HBRC is held liable to prosecution if they fail to monitor, add or change the contract terms and conditions; if there are insufficient responses to identified problems and other environmental problems known as having potential or actual detrimental effect.
Reject
Not practicable to be heard consecutively.
2 C6 Gen Process
Requests that Plan Change 6 is heard independently of RWSS resource consent applications. Reject
2 C6 New Add two new objectives: "OBJ TT6 Subject to Objective TT1 to TT3, to provide for the use of freshwater for viable primary production and processing of beverages, food and fibre. OBJ TT7 To recognise the benefits of industry good practice to land and water management"
Accept in part
FS019/46
3 C6 POL TT1 No specific decision requested, but seeks a collaborative process to agree the correct balance between economic growth and safeguarding of resources. Require management of nitrogen loss to surface water to meet risk based protection levels for toxicity to native aquatic fauna with limits suitable to each catchment and sub catchment. Require management of phosphorus and sediment loss to surface water to control periphyton growth with limits appropriate to each catchment and sub catchment.
Accept in part
4 C6 POL TT2 No specific decision requested, but seeks a collaborative process to agree the correct balance between economic growth and development and environmental protection, and appropriate timeframes to achieve and agree limits and targets. Accept in part
5 C6 POL TT4 No specific decision requested, but states practical application of detail within POL TT4 requires further consideration. 1. For example, certified advisor capability needs to be matched with delivery requirements and timeframes of Nutrient Management and Farm Environmental Management Plans 2. Recommend 10ha of land (rather than 4ha) provides a threshold area for requirement to keep property records as specified in Schedule XXI 3. Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency (NCE, as estimated by Overseer) should not be used to manage nitrogen loss to waterways. 4. Agree Nutrient Budgets should be updated every three years 5. Overseer model in regulation should be consistent nationally 6. Submission contains evidence on Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, defining material change in N loss by Overseer and an alternative 7. Overseer protocols should include determination of average leaching rates using average input data from a minimum of three years (not as proposed for two years).
Accept in part
6 C6 POL TT5 No specific decision requested, but seeks the threshold limit for providing a Phosphorus Management Plan (POL TT5(1)(d)(iv) applies to properties exceeding 10ha (not 4ha as proposed) and that realistic timeframes for monitoring the effectiveness of POL TT5(1) are allowed for.
Accept in part
7 C6 POL TT6 No specific decision requested, but refers to the following matters: 1. Require a Nutrient Management Plan and not a Fertiliser Management Plan, and define the term 2. Long-term consents are supported, to enable confidence in business growth and investment 3. Where nutrient loss to water bodies is managed through Farm Environmental Plans, Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency targets should not be required by regulation, delete them from the Policy 4. Nutrient budgets and nutrient management plans should be valid for three years 5. Consider mechanisms which enable a land owner to comply with land use regulations where owner and land user are different.
Accept in part
8 C6 Rule TT1 Amend Rule TT1 so that: 1. Nitrogen loss of 10% is increased to 30% in Rule TT1 condition(a) 2. Amend farm size thresholds in Rule TT1 (b), ( c) and (e) 3. Delete condition (k) or alternatively provide a mechanism to allow for assessing the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities 4. Delete condition (l) or alternatively provide a mechanism to allow for assessing the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities Also refers to providing national consistency for Overseer Nutrient Budget model.
Reject
9 C6 Rule TT2 No specific decision requested, but seeks for production land uses which do not meet the permitted activity conditions, the restricted discretionary activity matters of discretion should provide a mechanism to assess the impact of a farm's activity in combination with all other activities, or there is no basis to make them restricted or fully discretionary activities. Accept in part
172 Barrow, John 1 C6 Form 'Not Stated'
No decision/position stated for Plan Change 6. Reject
No response required.
1 C6 General No specific decision requested, but expresses concern about the negative social, economic and ecological impact of intensification of dairying and the loss of sustainability for the region and the widespread destruction of natural eco systems. Accept in part
PC6 as amended reflects this.100 Bayliss, Ian and Liz
216
140
289 Decision on request is for the reasons as set out in the body of the Report and the identified reasons reached in each of the main findings on the principal issues in contention.
Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
FS002/2 FS003/2
FS002/3 FS003/3
1 C6 Gen Process
2 C6 Schedule XVIII
Accept in part
3 C6 Schedule XX
Reject
Accept in part
Table A
140
267
1
2
3
Baird, Sharleen
2 C6 Section 32 Report
No specific decision requested, but refers to concerns with the lack of consideration given to alternative economic options. Reject
3 C6 Gen Process
Concerned with the objectivity and rigour of the information supplied to the public and the short time frames for information sharing and submission writing. Reject
4 C6 General No specific decision requested, but refers to concerns over the questionable validity of current measurement systems of water pollutants and the lack of acknowledgement of the importance of both phosphate and nitrate levels. Accept in part
PC6 as amended it contains appropriate provisions.
5 C6 POL TT5 No specific decision requested, but concerned with the extended timeframes for fencing off waterways. Reject
6 C6 General No specific decision requested, but refers to the lack of consideration given to reduction of cow numbers and how profitable dairying could be achieved without degradation of the natural environment. Accept in part
86 Bayliss, Kathryn 1 C6 Form 'Other'
Other' decision requested. Refer to Submission #4 (EPA #103323) for original decisions requested. No further decisions requested included within Submission #86, but refers to it being impossible to know if she wants to have Plan Change 6 approved without seeing all the changes made.
Accept in part
1 C6 POL TT3 No specific decision requested, but seeks that discharge of contaminants into all our rivers be prohibited OR if not possible all rivers should have the same highest standard possible. Accept in part
FS015/1
2 C6 Rule 47 No specific decision requested, but seeks that discharge of contaminants into all our rivers be prohibited OR if not possible all rivers should have the same highest standard possible. Reject
PC6 has been amended to reflect the Boards findings. FS015/2
3 C6 General No specific decision requested, but seeks that provisions that refer to nitrate-nitrogen being in a state of under-allocation be deleted. Accept in part
Policy TT4 has been amended. FS002/4 FS003/4
4 C6 OBJ TT4 No specific decision requested, but refers to nitrate-nitrogen not being allowed to increase from current levels AND should be targeted as proposed in Tukituki Choices document Choice B pages 77-78. Accept in part
5 C6 Table 5.9.1A
No specific decision requested, but refers to all toxicants including nitrate-nitrogen and total ammoniacal nitrogen be targeted for 100% species protection levels. Reject
6 C6 Table 5.9.1B
No specific decision requested, but seeks that all zones should have highest surface water quality targets and a 99% management classification (ANZECC protection threshold) should be the aim for all rivers. Accept in part
No response required
7 C6 POL TT5 No specific decision requested, but seeks that all rivers should have livestock excluded. Accept in part
8 C6 POL TT5 No specific decision requested, but seeks that all rivers should be fenced (have livestock excluded). Accept in part
9 C6 POL TT13
No specific decision requested, but seeks that a clause be added that any community irrigation scheme will be prohibited if it destroys or disturbs existing native habitats for flora and fauna. Reject
FS002/5 FS003/5
10 C6 New Add new provision to Section 6.2 Rule 67 (in existing Regional Plan), that dams or barrier structures would be prohibited if they prevent fish passage upstream and downstream, if they would destroy or disturb existing native habitats for flora and fauna. Reject
11 C6 New Add new rule to prohibit any bore drilling for oil and gas. Reject Part of submission is not on PC6 - Outside scope
13 C6 Misc - RWSS
No specific decision requested, but refers to the HBRC to stop promoting and investing in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme and should not provide finance to HBRIC to invest in it. Reject
No response required - Outside Scope. FS002/6 FS003/6
14 C6 Misc No specific decision requested, but refers to water allocations from rivers to be reduced. Accept in part
FS002/7 FS003/7
15 C6 Misc No specific decision requested, but seeks that pollutants and contaminants into air should be prohibited. Reject No response required - Outside Scope.
16 C6 Misc No specific decision requested, but seeks that pollutants and contaminants onto land should be controlled. Accept in part
FS002/8 FS003/8
No specific decision requested, but seeks lower phosphorus targets. Reject
18 C6 Ch 5.9.2 POLs Gen
No specific decision requested, but seeks that DRP limits and targets, nitrate-nitrogen limits and targets and water clarity have the same highest target for mainstream and tributary rivers. Accept in part
19 C6 Ch 6.9 Rules New
No specific decision requested, but seeks a new rule to prohibit genetically engineered/modified organisms (GMO's) in the Tukituki River catchment. Reject
218 Beckett, Jamie 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change.
Reject
219 Beckett, Lara 1 C6 General Reject Plan Change. Reject
2 C6 OBJ TT1 Amend OBJ TT1 by adding a new point (f) to provide for the economic and social needs of the community to be considered. Accept in part
FS012/9 FS019/47
3 C6 OBJ TT3 Amend OBJ TT3 (a) to read: "...discharges to land do not cause surface water or ground water..." Accept in part
FS002/255 FS003/255
4 C6 OBJ TT4 No specific decision requested, but refers to OBJ TT4 being reworded to clarify that the meaning of individual consented abstractor is not limited to individual persons, but includes collective entities so as to not prioritise one over the other. Accept in part
5 C6 POL TT2 Amend OBJ TT3 (a) to read: "...discharges to land do not cause surface water or ground water..."
Reject
FS002/256 FS003/256 FS019/49 FS021/224
6 C6 POL TT4 No specific decision requested, but refers to deleting all references to or requirement for NCE or nitrogen conversion efficiency. Accept in part
385 Beef and Lamb New Zealand Decision on request is for the reasons as set out in the body of the Report and the identified reasons reached in each of the main findings on the principal issues in contention.
100 Bayliss, Ian and Liz
Bayliss, Kathryn Anne4
Page 3 of 105
response
3 C6 POL TT14
FS019/69
4 C6 Schedule XVIII
3 C6 Gen Process
FS002/1 FS003/1
Decision on request is for the reasons as set out in the body of t

of the Board of Inquiry into the - EPA

Documents

Transcript of of the Board of Inquiry into the - EPA