DOCDM- 7 December Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSED GISBORNE FRESHWATER PLAN. Proposed Plan. Yours sincerely

Transcription

1 DOCDM- 7 December 2015 Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSED GISBORNE FRESHWATER PLAN SUBMISSIONS Proposed Plan. If you have any questions or would like to arrange a time to meet and discuss this submission, please contact me at (07) or at jwitham@doc.govt.nz. Yours sincerely James R Witham Resource Management Act Planner Address for Service: Director General of Conservation C/ Hamilton Service Centre Department of Conservation Private Bag 3072 HAMILTON 3240 Attn: James Witham

2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 FORM 5: SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN FOR THE WELLINGTON REGION TO: SUBMISSION ON: NAME: ADDRESS: Gisborne District Council Proposed Gisborne Freshwater Plan Director General of Conservation Address for service: TRADE COMPETITION: RMA Shared Services Department of Conservation Private Bag 3072 Hamilton 3240 Attn: James Witham Telephone: I could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. SUBMISSION BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION: Please refer to Attachment A. ATTENDANCE AND WISH TO BE HEARD AT HEARING(S) I do wish to be heard in support of my submission. SIGNATURE pp Reg Kemper Director - Operations Date 2

3 Attachment A Submission on the Proposed Gisborne Freshwater Plan and the decision sought with respect to the Freshwater Plan. The general reasons for the submission are that the decisions sought are necessary for the Proposed Natural Resources Plan to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and to give effect to the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) 2010 and the National Policy Statement of Freshwater Management Further specific reasons and decisions sought are given in the table below. The specific parts of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan to which this submission relates, along with the submission (with reasons) and the decision sought, are set out in the table below. Where any decision sought in the table below seeks specific wording inserted in a specific place, the decision sought includes the following words: ocations in the Proposed Freshwater Regional Abbreviations CMP DOC Catchment Management Plan Department of Conservation HASNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 MCI Macroinvertebrate Community Index NOF National Objectives Framework in Policy CA of the NPS FM NPS FM National Policy Statement For Freshwater Management 2014 NZCPS National Coastal Policy Statement 2010 PCL PGFP Public Conservation Land Proposed Gisborne Freshwater Plan RMA Resource Management Act 1991 Deletions are shown in Strikethrough, additions are Underlined. 1

4 (1) The specific provisions of the Proposed Plan and Plan Changes that my Submission relates to are: (2) My submission is that: (3) I seek the following relief and any consequential amendments arising from this relief: PLAN SECTION SUBSECTION /POINT SUPPORT/ OPPOSE (In full or part) REASONS PART A - INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS Whole of Plan NPSFM Policies Oppose in part The compulsory direction in Policy A4 and B7 are required to be included in the Plan framework as the process pursuant to Policy CA of the NPS FM. RELIEF SOUGHT Include Policy A4 and B7 in the PGFP for Areas that have not been through the NOF process in Policy CA of the NPS FM. Section 2. Definitions Over allocation /limits Biodiversity Offsetting Oppose It is unclear as to why the definitions of over allocation and limits in the plan differs from that the in NPS FM. It would be appropriate to use the same language as that in the higher policy document in order to more appropriately give effect to it. Oppose - there is no clear policy framework or methodology outlining how this is to be implemented. Biodiversity Offsetting is one methodology that can be used for offsetting and environmental compensation. As it is a distinct concept it requires definition. Use the definition of over allocation and limits within the NPS FM. Add new definition as follows: Biodiversity Offsets: Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably 2

5 Freshes and Floods Oppose The provision of freshes and floods are fundamental to managing flow regimes and to safeguard the life supporting capacity of freshwater. These should be defined. Fresh flows 1.5 and 3 times median flow as measured, Flood, highest 1% of recorded flows a net gain of biodiversity on the ground. The principles to be applied when proposing and considering Biodiversity Offsets are located in Schedule x. Define Fresh as follows: Flows between 1.5 and 3 times the median flow of a surface waterbody Define Floods as follows: Integrated Catchment Plan Indigenous vegetation Oppose Support in part The definition inappropriately includes policy direction regarding the use of BPO rather than describing a tool or method used in the PGFP. While BPO might be the management requirement for a particular issue, this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis or directed by policy, not driven by a definition. While the definition is generally supported, some indigenous flora where not native to the region can become pest plants. The definition could be improved by identifying flora indigenous to the region and not New Zealand as a whole. The highest 1% of flows in a surface waterbody Amend the definition of Integrated Catchment Plan to Amend the definition of indigenous vegetation as follows: Flora naturally occurring in New Zealand or belonging naturally to New Zealand and includes manuka and kanuka. Indigenous vegetation does not include flora that has been introduced by people and only exists in New Zealand because it was 3

6 Limit Oppose The definition proposed is narrow, other indicators can and should be used here. As the term is defined in the NPS FM there is no need to confuse definitions with a differing one in the Plan. Mean annual low flow (MALF) Support in part The definition should articulate whether this is intended to be as a result of naturalised flows (i.e. the calculation of effective MALF where takes/losses are included) or the current state. Where possible, naturalised MALF should be used. Agrichemical Support in part The definition would benefit from some minor clarifications and additions to address the purpose of agrichemicals and reflect practice. introduced by people and plants not native to the Gisborne region that are or have the potential to become pest species. Delete proposed definition and use the NPS FM definition of limit. Amend the definition of Mean annual low flows (MALF) to recognise the difference between naturalised MALF and not. Amend the definition of agrichemical as follows: Any substance or combination of substances including adjuvants or dyes, whether inorganic or organic, human-made or naturally occurring, modified or in its natural state, that is used in agriculture, horticulture or related activity including environmental pest management to eradicate, modify or control flora and fauna or ecological processes. (Note: this definition excludes fertilisers and vertebrate poisons but includes animal remedies). 4

7 Part B PLAN SECTION Section 3 Regional Policy Statement Vertebrate Toxic Agents (VTA) Oppose Regional Policy Statement (RPS) SUB-SECTION/ POINT Issue 2 Water Quality SUPPORT/ OPPOSE (In full or part) Support in part 3.3 Objectives Support in part agrichemicals but there is no definition of what they are. In addition, the management of VTA discharges is absent from the PGFP and the Gisborne Air Quality Plan. REASONS In reviewing the Plan and Section 32 assessment, a key factor regarding the quality of freshwater, and potentially coastal water is the discharge of sewage reflected in the issue statement. Objectives are to be read together in the RPS, the NPS FM 2014 sets specific outcomes that must be met for managing both quantity and quality. Include a definition for Vertebrate Toxic as follows: Vertebrate toxic agents Any substance, whether inorganic, human-made or naturally occurring, modified or in its original state, that is used to eradicate, modify or control vertebrate animals, including possums, rats and mustelids, as identified and regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act It includes the application of vertebrate pest control products. RELIEF SOUGHT Include in Issue 2 a statement outlining the impact that reticulated services has on water quality and coastal water. Ensure that the RPS Objectives 5

8 Objective RPS and Regional Plan Support in part Objectives have been set out in the RPS but not specifically in the PGFP. While this might be the intent, this is not clear. For the purposes of this plan it would be appropriate to deem the Objectives both RPS and Regional Plan level objectives. Objective 1 Support in part The Objective would benefit from re-wording for clarity and closer alignment with the language and direction from the NPS FM Objective 2 Support in part The Objective would benefit from some rewording to include direction from the NPS FM in Objective A2 and requiring degraded freshwater to be improved over time. Deem the RPS Objectives Regional Plan Objectives also. Amend Objective 1 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: The overall quality and quantity of freshwater bodies and their catchments is managed so that ecosystems are able to continue to function, including supporting habitat and feeding, breeding, migratory and other requirements of indigenous species, and that the life supporting capacity of freshwater is maintained. to safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes, and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems of the region. Amend Objective 2 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: The water quality of the regions freshwater bodies is maintained and is improved in degraded waterbodies over time or where freshwater values are to be protected. 6

9 Objective 3 Support in part The focus of the Objective is managing the natural character, amenity and recreational values of waterbodies and their margins. However, the Objective of the RMA seeks to manage inappropriate subdivision, uses and development. This recognises that some uses will be more appropriate than others along with their associated effects. Objective 4 Support in part It is unclear why only regionally significant wetlands have their values protected where the NPS FM applies to all wetlands. Objective 5 Support in part Support that water availability is required, but needs to be subject to limits in order to give effect to Objective B1, B2, and Policy B5 of the NPS FM. Objective 6 Support in part The Objective should also refer to priorities for takes and use of freshwater set out later in the PGFP. Amend Objective 3 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: The natural character of lakes, rivers, wetlands and their margins are protected are preserved, and protected from the inappropriate effects uses of land and water use, and their recreational and visual amenity values are maintained and or enhanced. Amend Objective 4 to give effect to the NPS FM and apply to all wetlands. Amend Objective 5 to give effect to the NPS FM by making the objective subject to limits Amend Objective 6 as follows: Water is available for abstraction and use to support the social and economic wellbeing of the region, within the allocation limits, priorities or management regimes set within this plan. 7

10 Objective 7 Support in part Water allocation needs to protect the values in accordance with the Objectives and limits set for those values within the Plan, including all the significant values of wetlands and Outstanding Waterbodies Objective 8 Support The Objective should be retained to ensure efficient allocation of allocatable water Objective 9 Support in part The Objective in part gives effect to Part C of the NPS FM, and also Policy 21 of the NZCPS 2014 in part. However, the Objective should explicitly require enhancement/improvement where coastal water is degraded. The Objective also needs to refer to land uses, not just the interactions with land to meet the requirement for integrated management. Over allocation and timeframes Oppose To give effect to Objective B2 of the NPS FM, the RPS requires an objective stating that no further over allocation shall occur and that over allocation shall be phased out over time. Amend Objective 7 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: Water allocated from surface and groundwater resources recognises the significant values of wetlands and identified outstanding waterbodies and provides for the maintenance protects and or enhancement enhances of those values. Retain as proposed Amend Objective 7 to give effect to the NZCPS and NPS FM as follows: water and the use and development of land in whole catchments is managed in an integrated way, including the interactions between freshwater, land and land uses, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment to ensure that freshwater values are maintained or improved., and coastal water quality improved where degraded. Give effect to the NPS FM by including an objective preventing further degradation and over allocation of water quality and quantity by 8

11 Human health, contact recreation and water Oppose The NPS FM recognises that water quality and quantity objectives may be aspirational, or waterbodies may be below National Bottom Lines, but does not require specific timeframes to achieve targets. Timeframes should consider potential effects on life supporting capacity and ecosystem health of freshwater over that timeframe, the financial, cultural and community costs over time, and the sensitivity of the values which are degraded. The RPS section does not address any of Objective A1(b) of the NPS FM in that human health as a result of secondary contact recreation is not safeguarded. Land administered by the Department adjoins a number of waterways. These should be managed to ensure that they are suitable for at least secondary contact recreation as they are used recreationally by a wide range of people. In addition, the PGFP manages matters including riparian vegetation management. These areas are often set aside for esplanade reserves or strips to provide for a range of values, including recreational and conservation purposes. Direction should be provided at RPS level regarding the management of water and riparian margins for recreation. Wetlands Oppose The RPS section of the PGFP does not give effect to Objective A2(b) of NPS FM regarding the protection of the significant values of wetlands. While Objective 1 and some natural values, there are a number of other values for wetlands that are not covered by this objective, and how wetlands fall within this Objective is unclear. Similarly, Objective 3 of RPS Objective 3 only addresses natural character, amenity and recreational values. progressively reducing current degradation. In addition, an objective and policy is required to set out that timeframes need to be considered when targets are set, and the matters which should be taken into account when setting those timeframes. Include a new Objective to give effect to Objective A1 and A2 of the NPS FM as follows: Recreational access to waterbodies and their margins is enhanced where compatible with ecological values and the health of people and communities is safeguarded with secondary contact with water. Add a new wetland Objective to the RPS as follows: x. The extent of wetlands is maintained or increased and their significant values are maintained or restored. Add a new policy to the RPS as 9

12 The RPS section should also provide direction as to how activities should be managed in relation to their significant values. An additional policy is required that outlines what these values are and how they are to be managed. RPS Policies Oppose in part While the objectives as amended by this submission appropriately set a resource state, the RPS policies generally do not provide sufficient guidance on what or how to manage effects on the quality and quantity of freshwater, coastal water, wetlands or natural character. Rather, they largely focus on administrative matters or tools/methods rather than achieving the matters set out in the objectives. follows: x. Activities in and adjacent to natural wetlands shall be managed to maintain or enhance their values including: (a) As habitat for indigenous flora and fauna. and (b) For their significance to mana whenua, and (c) For their role in the hydrological cycle including flood protection, and (d) For nutrient attenuation, and (e) As a fisheries resource, and (f) For recreation, and (g) For education and scientific research, and (h) For their amenity and natural character. Re-word existing RPS policies or add new policies that more clearly provide direction in managing the resource states sought in the RPS objectives as amended by this submission. Policies should clearly relate to the objectives and 10

13 clearly state the resource management approach to be taken to an activity or use or to a resource or value. Where a policy relates to a resource or value it should also say how to identify a resource or value, set criteria or thresholds for the quality of the resource or value which is to be attained or protected, or say how to deal with a resource or value in terms of the threshold. Terms like minimise, avoid, remedy, mitigate help set the management direction in managing resources. Policies - Biodiversity Offsetting Oppose This is particularly important given the requirements in s.65(6) and s.65(3) to give effect to Regional Policy Statements. The PGFP includes a reference to offsetting in the Regional Plan section. Biodiversity Offsetting is a concept that allows losses and gains of biodiversity to be quantified. It is not the only tool that provides for offsetting or environmental compensation, but guidance has been developed on how to implement offsetting into a resource management decision making framework. However, this requires a range of matters included into a plan framework including a definition, a range of principles and best practice guidance. More importantly, the RPS should direct when this should be considered. It is therefore appropriate that a policy should be included to achieve this. Include a new Policy in the RPS Section of the RPS as follows: Policy X 1. Consider the use of Biodiversity Offsetting, other offsetting methodologies or environmental compensation where this will: i. ensure the protection, maintenance or enhancement of the values of freshwater, freshwater bodies and their margins; and, be undertaken subject to the provisions in Schedule x; and 11

14 Policy 3.8 Support in part Setting out limits for individual discharges is an essential part of ensuring that no degradation of water quality will occur. However, this relies on future financial commitment from Council which is uncertain. The timeframe for this is also unknown. Policy 3.10 Support in part Policy 3.10e. should include the identification of the values of both outstanding waterbodies and wetlands in order to give effect to the NPS FM. ii. only occur after measures for the avoidance, remediation and mitigation have been undertaken; and, iii. only be considered for the remaining minor residual adverse effects of a proposal after iii above has been undertaken. Amend Policy 3.8 to require that it be given effect to no more than 3 years after Council decisions are released. Amend Policy 3.10e. to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: e. Any wetlands, significant and outstanding waterbodies and their values to be included in the Freshwater Plan Schedules Policy 3.12 Support Gives effect to the NPS FM Retain as notified Policy 3.13 Support in part The relationship between Policy 3.13 and 3.12 is unclear. Policy 3.12 appears to be a more general policy referring to both quality and quantity and provides for limits and rules. Policy 3.13 applies to quantity only and does not provide for limits and rules. If read together Policy 3.12 implies that rules (methods) may be provided for, but this should be clarified. Amend the chapeau of 3.13 to include the provision for rules. Policy 3.14 Support The policy gives effect to NPS FM. Retain as notified Policy 3.15 Support in part Clarity is sought regarding the use of the term flow Amend Policy 3.15 as follows: variability. If it is referring to both the changes in flow 12

15 rates as a result of climate change AND managing natural flow variability for ecosystem health then this is appropriate when setting environmental flows. Freshes and floods are important for ecological functioning of freshwater systems. Policy 3.16 Support in part For policies setting quantity limits it is useful to provide guidance as to the limitations that should be considered. This is particularly helpful where there are no clear priorities within the policy framework. A high level of confidence is appropriate in allocating water, but this goal should not subsume the key policy direction in Objective B1 of the NPS FM. Policy 3.20 Support in part The policy should refer to surface water features generically rather than just rivers as this would include wetlands, and also connection to coastal water in order to manage salt water intrusion. Policy 3.22 Support Support the default in that it is similar to what was in the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Recognise the potential effects of climate change in changes to on minimum flows and to the natural flow variability of river freshwater systems when setting water quality and quantity limits, and the need to maintain flow variability. Amend Policy 3.16 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: While safeguarding ecosystem health and the life supporting capacity of freshwater, Wwhen setting water quantity limits, recognise that many economic uses such as agriculture and horticulture uses require good security of supply. Limits will aim for 95% reliability based on a historical flow and aquifer water level data. Limits will reflect annual, seasonal and monthly reliability scenarios. Amend Policy 3.20 as follows: Ensure that limit setting and water management of groundwater considers the effects on the flow of connected river surface water systems and coastal water. Retain as notified. 13

16 Ecological Flows and Water Levels. Ecological flows for rivers and streams should ideally be set by way of naturalised MALF, rather than using information where flows are already over allocated. It is understood that sections of some rivers in the Gisborne Region almost dry up in dry conditions as a result of over allocation. Policy 3.25 Support in part The policy should also recognise the link between land use and the quality of fresh and coastal water, to give effect to Objective C1 and Policy C1 and C2 of the NPS FM Policy 3.26 Support This policy is appropriate and would give effect to Objective 2 of the Proposed RPS where modified by this submission. Policy 3.29 Support in part It is somewhat unclear as to what is intended by this provides no clear management direction. The NPS FM requires that the significant values of wetlands are protected, which may extend beyond its physical extent. In addition, Section 6(a) of the RMA requires council to recognise and provide for (as a matter of national importance) the preservation of the natural character or, amongst other things, wetlands and their margins from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Policy 3.30 Support in part The intent of the policy is supported, but the policy should include consideration of a range of regulatory and non-regulatory methods. Amend Policy 3.25 to give effect to the NPS FM by including in the policy a reference to the linkage between the use of land and fresh and coastal water quality and ecosystems. Retain as notified. Amend Policy 3.29 to give effect to the NPS FM and Part II of the RMA as follows: Actively mmanage the impacts of intensification of land use on to maintain water quality, or enhance it where it is degraded, and protect the values of the physical structure of the beds of rivers, lakes and wetlands and their margins. Amend Policy 3.30 to recognise a mix of regulatory and nonregulatory tool and methods are required. 14

17 Policy 3.31 Support in part The Department has cause to use hazardous substances on occasion, including Vertebrate Toxic and agrichemicals which are also supported by both regulatory and non-regulatory best practice which should be recognised in a. In addition, stock exclusion in c. needs to be supported by appropriate regulatory measures in the Regional Plan. Policy 3.32 Support in part The general intent of the policy is supported. However, the S.32 and PGFP identify groundwater that is being managed downwards where there is uncertainty of where or even if the waterbody has recharge. This does not give effect to Objective B2, Policy B5 and Policy B6 of the NPS FM. Where continuing use is provided for the investigation of storage and recharge should be required. Paper over allocation should not provided for and no further allocation provided for until such time as effective and ecologically sound recharge or storage methods are put in place to address aquifer decline. Part C Regional Freshwater Plan PLAN SECTION SUBSECTION /POINT SUPPORT/ OPPOSE (In full or part) REASONS Amend Policy 3.31a. as follows: a. Good practice application methods for fertilisers, and agrichemicals. Amend Policy 3.32 to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: Promote and help investigate where possible water storage and aquifer recharge opportunities that provide for the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of communities, except where there is no certainty in the ability of natural recharge to meet abstraction demand, in which case investigations shall be required prior to renewing existing takes or issuing new takes, or failing that, over allocation phased out. RELIEF SOUGHT 15

18 Section 4 Water Quantity and Allocation Policy Oppose in part Municipal water takes serve a number of types of users. This includes both domestic and industrial/commercial. Water for these uses is essential and fundamental to the health and well-being of communities. However, it is not clear how the policy ensures that on-going over allocation is to be phased out over time, or ensures that no decision arising from this policy avoids future over allocation as required by Objectives B2 and Policy B5 of the NPS FM. With a significant increase in demand forecasted and projected as noted on pages 24, of the s.32 assessment, it is unclear how the Plan as a whole will avoid over allocation in the catchments municipal water is sourced from. On its face efficiency alone will not eliminate over allocation where takes are permitted below minimum flows. Where minimum flows have been established, takes for municipal water will ultimately be required to fall within these flows. Given the fundamental need for municipal water and the requirements to avoid and eliminate over allocation over time in the NPS FM the policy will require a timeframe for which the exemption from complying with minimum flows will expire and additional requirements for research and investigations required to secure alternative sources of water. Amend Policy to establish a date at which the exemption from minimum flows expires and articulate a policy direction at how and when this should occur. 16

19 Policy Support Support as an efficient and integrated method of allocation. The policy could benefit from guidance as to when common expiry might be desirable to use as a tool including where there is existing over allocation, competing priorities for water, or where there is evidence of significant degradation on a catchment wide basis contributed to by water allocation. Amend Policy as follows: Common expiry dates will be used wherever possible to enable water permits in the same water quantity zone to be assessed at the same time. This shall be particularly considered for water quantity zones that: Policy 4.14 Support Support the management regime in providing suitable default low flows and precautionary approach, subject to the amendment to the reference to Policy being amended to In addition, the policy should seek to limit how long flows are kept at the low flow. a. Are over allocated, to address reasonable use b. Have competing priorities for uses that could result in over allocation c. Have existing or emerging significant adverse effects on the values identified for the zone on a catchment wide basis Amend the reference to in Policy from to Amend Policy to add a new criteria as follows: x. manage allocations in order to minimise the length of time waterbodies are kept at these identified low flows. 17

20 Policy Support Support the intent of the provision. However, the policy could benefit from the addition of the purpose for which takes are to be avoided with reference to Objective B4 of the NPS FM. Policy Support Support as appropriate to maintain high quality ecosystem health. Policy and Oppose Both Policy and address the management of over allocated waterbodies. Each establishes constraints on how renewals and new applications are treated, but does not provide direction in how over allocation is to be reduced over time in accordance with Objective B2, and also provides for continuing over allocation, therefore not giving effect to Policy B5 of the NPS FM. Amend Policy to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: The take and use of water from Wetlands and Outstanding Waterbodies should be avoided wherever possible where this adversely affects their values. Retain as notified. Amend Policy and c as follows: Policy Where an allocation cap has been reached or exceeded:... x. No new water is allocated until water becomes available under the level set by the cap, xx. Renewals shall consider reductions in takes where this exceeds the reasonable needs of the associated land use, or the allocation has not been used in the past five years, excluding occasional takes, including for frost protection, where the waterbody is likely to be above minimum flows. 18

21 Policy 4.10 Support The priorities set out are appropriate. However human health and safety should include water required for fire fighting. The Department has responsibilities for rural fires under the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 that should be considered when determining appropriate allocations subject to a direction pursuant to s.329. Policy 4.11 Support in part The provision of survival water specifically for stock water and for the protection of rootstock is generally supported. While stock water is provided for in s.14(3)(b) for takes and use that will not have an adverse effect on the environment, horticultural crops are not included. Allocation caps should include provision for crop survival in the last available step in water. Providing for allocation below minimum flows designed to ensure ecological health and the safeguarding of the life-supporting capacity of water does not give effect to Objectives B1, B2, and Policies B5 and B6. By providing for water in this way land uses and changes in land use are encouraged that require water below minimum flows. Policy Support in part The transfer of water within the qualifiers in a to d is supported. However, there needs to be some consideration of reducing allocation in over allocated zones. Any surplus water should first address that over Policy 4.1.8c a. Where a) or b) apply permits may be issued for up to 20 years only where there is evidence that over allocation of the waterbody is progressively reduced over time. Retain as notified, but ensure that fire fighting is included in the matters covered by a. flows only. Amend Policy c to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: c. For over-allocated water 19

22 allocation at least in part before essentially being reallocated to another party. Policy Support in part The assessment criteria are generally considered appropriate but should include a new criterion with reference to the need to maintain the waterbodies hydrological regime, including floods and freshes for surface water. This is critical for safeguarding the ecological health of rivers and streams, particularly in supporting the migration and spawning habits of indigenous fish species. In addition, l. should be amended to refer to the habitats of significant species as classified by the New Zealand Threat Classification System. fish from migrating, the intake velocity also needs to be slow enough so that fish do not get impinged on the screen surface. Fish larvae and fry are particularly susceptible. quantity zones, there is no increase in water use and no more than 90% of the remaining water available from the permit holder is transferred ; and Amend Policy as follows: l. Any actual or potential effects on the habitats of significant indigenous biodiversity, and or aquatic ecosystems values identified in Schedule 1; Amend criterion j as follows: j. whether and how fish are prevented from entering the water intake at various life stages including at larval and fry stage, and by structures, flow velocity, or any other means. Add criterion x as follows: x. The need to maintain the hydrological regime of surface water, particularly floods and freshes. Rule Support Retain as notified permitted activities. Rules 4.1.6, Support in part The criteria in a. to p. for assessment of takes under Amend Rules 4.1.6, 4.1.7, and

23 4.1.7, and these rules are generally appropriate. However, consideration should also be given to maintaining the hydrological regime of that water body in order to safeguard the life supporting capacity of water. In particular, where they have not been set in catchment plans, harvesting takes or other takes are undertaken in a manner that maintains the functions supported by floods and freshes. In addition, the rules and policies need to reflect and give effect to the default allocations for where this is no catchment plan. migrating, the intake velocity also needs to be slow enough so that fish do not get impinged on the screen surface. Fish larvae and fry are particularly susceptible. Rule Support in part The rule should reflect the changes proposed for Policy c. by this submission and only provide for the reallocation of 90% of the water available in over allocated catchments. to amend the following criterion: h. for surface water, a minimum flow at which abstraction ceases in accordance with the relevant catchment limits, or, where there are no catchment plans, the default limits set out in Policy a. and b. Amend criterion n as follows; n. the prevention of fish entering any intake at various life stages and appropriate flows or prevention of other barriers to fish passage. Amend Rules 4.1.6, 4.1.7, and to add the following criterion: x. The need to maintain the hydrological functioning of surface and groundwater, including freshes and floods. Amend Rule 4.1.8c as follows: c. For over allocated water quality zones there is no increase in water use no more than 90% of the available water from the transferee is transferred. 21

24 Rule Oppose in part It is not clear what efficiency targets are required in the municipal system to reduce and avoid over allocation in some waterbodies and what happens if over allocation is maintained or possibly increased through the predicted significant increase in municipal water use from new agricultural processing industries establishing in the Gisborne City area. Where new or additional takes are from over allocated waterbodies the activity status should be noncomplying for new takes. Amend Rule 4.1.9, to amend the following criterion: h. for surface water, a minimum flow at which abstraction ceases in accordance with the relevant catchment limits, or, where there are no catchment plans, the default limits set out in Policy a. and b. Takes for fire fighting purposes Oppose The plan would benefit from a clearer articulation of how the current municipal takes will be managed to reduce over allocation over time and avoid future over allocation with predicted levels of growth. The criteria in a. to p. for assessment for takes under these rules are generally appropriate. However, consideration should also be given to maintaining the hydrological regime of that water body in order to safeguard the life supporting capacity of water. In particular, where they have not been set in catchment plans, harvesting takes or other takes are undertaken in a manner that maintains the functions supported by floods and freshes. The plan does not provide for takes of water for emergency rural fire fighting as anticipated by Policy Amend Rules 4.1.9to add the following criterion: x. The need to maintain the hydrological functioning of surface and groundwater, including freshes and floods. Include a new rule that requires new or additional takes of municipal water in over allocated waterbodies to be considered as non-complying activities. Give effect to Policy 4.10 by providing for takes of emergency rural fire fighting water as a permitted activity. 22

25 Section 5 Water Quality and Discharges to Water and Land Provide for survival water Salt water intrusion Oppose in part Oppose in part While provided for in the Policy framework, it is unclear how survival water for root stock and crop protection is provided for in the PGFP. Providing for survival water at flows below the minimum ecological flows results in over allocation and would not give effect to Objective B1, B2, and Policy B5 of the NPS FM. Where a Catchment Plan has been approved through the Schedule 1 process this should include specific allocation at the bottom end of the most reliable allocation. The plan does not appear to address the potential for saltwater intrusion arising from inappropriate takes. This is a particularly appropriate consideration in the Waipaoa Catchment where aquifers may interact with saline water and significant takes are removed from both ground and surface water systems. Given the potential risks associated with saline intrusion, particularly regarding the suitability of extracted water for drinking water, processing, and irrigation, a policy is required seeking to avoid an increase in the natural landward extent of groundwater with saline content. In addition, consents for water extraction should be required to consider the potential for and actions to prevent additional saline intrusion. Amend the PGFP to provide specific allocations of survival water above minimum ecological flows. Include a policy seeking to avoid increasing the landward extent of saline intrusion and include assessment criteria providing for actions to avoid saline intrusion in instances where this could occur as a result of a take. 23

26 5.1 Point Source Discharges Policy Support in part In combination with Policy A1 of the NPS FM which requires Council to have regard to the link between freshwater bodies and coastal water with regard to water quality, Policy 23 of the NZCPS requires that untreated sewage is not discharged directly to water in the coastal environment without treatment, and that in managing discharges of stormwater cross contamination of sewage should be avoided where practicable, or otherwise remedied. While there is an existing problem with discharges of untreated effluent into coastal water in the Gisborne Region as a result of extreme weather events that currently cannot be practically avoided, this should be remedied over time. Policy Support in part The policy is supported generally, but requires an addition to give effect to Objective A2(c) of the NPS FM that provides for managing point source discharges to improve water quality where it is degraded. Policy Support The policy is generally supported, but should explicitly manage discharges to water where it results in or connects with degraded coastal water. Amend Policy 5.1.1a to give effect to the NPS FM and the NZCPS as follows: a. Untreated sewage, wastewater (except as a result of extreme weather related overflows or system failures where this is being remedied over time); or Amend Policy to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: Manage point source discharges to land and water so that existing ecosystem functions within the regions are maintained, or enhanced where degraded and that:... Amend Policy 5.1.2b. as follows: b. To ensure water quality objectives, targets and limits for receiving waterbodies will not be compromised by stormwater discharges including coastal 24

27 Policy Support The policy appropriately addresses circumstances where discharges to ground may be desirable. However, the policy needs to reflect the connection between discharges to land and both ground and surface water. In particular, discharges to land should not occur in a manner that results in limits being exceeded in surface water either by overland flow, or via groundwater. waterbodies where degraded or likely to be degraded: Amend Policy in order to provide for the link between discharges to land and both ground and surface water. Policy Support The policy gives effect to the NPS FM. Retain as notified Policy Support in part The policy is generally supported, but requires a reference to degraded coastal water. Policy In addition, s.128 is an appropriate tool to consider the continuing appropriateness of conditions of consent. While requiring reviews of consent conditions after the establishment of limits that are not being met may be unfair or unreasonable, where water quality is degraded and this degradation will continue or worsen its use should be considered in order to improve quality over time. This policy is generally supported. However, the use of the best practicable option as a management tool is generally not appropriate. Policy A3 requires that conditions on discharge permits should result in limits being met. This is not consistent with using BPO in all instances, but particularly inappropriate where water quality is degraded. This tool should only be considered where the risk of exceeding a limit is low or Amend the chapeau of policy to reference coastal water and to include the following: x. Where a review of conditions of a consent is undertaken pursuant to s128 of the RMA for point source and non-point source discharges, the appropriateness and need for conditions relating to the degradation of the relevant water body should be included in that review. Amend policy 5.1.8b. as follows: The proposed treatment methods and the likelihood of this being the Best Practicable Option for the contaminants for discharges that are of low risk of exceeding a limit or where targets are likely to 25

28 Policy Discharges of untreated wastewater Oppose where targets are in all probability to be met over time. In addition, discharges should be assessing the limits and targets for any waterbody affected by the discharge, including the need to improve quality where it is degraded. While it is recognised that a considerable amount of money has been set aside to manage overflows of untreated wastewater there is no clear management direction, outcome or timeframes associated with this. The PGFP requires that discharges are to be consented after 1 July 2020, the outcomes sought are not clear or measurable. Specific policies are required to outline what is intended to be achieved. be met within the timeframes set in the plan for water bodies are already degraded; Include additional policies outlining the intended outcome and management regime for weather related wastewater overflows. Any policy direction should give effect to the NZCPS and NPS FM and identify freshwater objectives, and targets/limits for relevant attributes. This should include the reduction in incidence and measurable severity of environmental impact over an appropriate timeframe. Rule Support This submission proposes amendments to the activity status of some aspects of discharges. This includes discharges of untreated sewerage to freshwater and potentially in a manner that may contribute to degraded coastal water. This is a significant issue for the community who carry the financial, cultural, and environmental cost of continuing these discharges. It is therefore inappropriate for these discharges to exclude public notification. Rule Support in part This provision is supported only insofar as management of these discharges results in improvement in water quality to meet targets and Amend Rule to ensure that discharges of untreated sewage to water and where this contributes to degraded coastal water are not excluded from public notification. Retain as notified. 26

29 within limits over time. Rule Support The rule adequately addresses the potential effects of road construction/ maintenance, particularly where requires the development and execution of a sediment control plan. Rule Oppose The discharge of untreated sewage to water, particularly in a manner that reaches and/or degrades coastal water is not appropriate and does not give effect to Policy 21 of the NZCPS. While it is acknowledged that Council has at this point allocated funding for works to improve stormwater systems, this needs to clearly result in a reduction of sewage discharges over time and the improvement of coastal water quality. The intended outcomes are not clearly articulated. Retain as notified. Amend the activity status for Rule to Discretionary and provide for public notification. In addition, while a range of matters are required to be addressed in Schedule 18 these are matters to be addressed without clear performance targets. Regardless, the potential for significant on-going environmental effects requires broad reaching assessment including the development of appropriate options, alternatives, affordability and clear accountability in relation to targets and limits. Given the potential for significant adverse effects on a wide range of fresh and coastal water values, including cost implications to the community, it is appropriate that suitable scrutiny is provided for by way of appropriate activity status and public notification, and where inappropriate should have the ability to be declined. 27

30 Rule Oppose in part The ability of the rule to address degraded coastal water in order to give effect to Policy 21 of the NZCPS is unclear. Where this is not achieved then granting of consent, as is required by a controlled activity, would be inappropriate. The provision is more appropriately considered as a restricted discretionary activity with additional criteria set out to determine the need to maintain water quality or enhance it where water, including coastal water, is degraded. Rules , , and Support The proposal gives effect to Objective A2, Policy A1, A2, and A3 of the NPS FM Discharges to Ground or bedrock Policy Support in part Groundwater quality can also affect surface water quality and associated life supporting capacity of surface water which should also be recognised in this policy. Policies 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, and Support The policies as notified recognise the potential link between waterbodies in Policy A1(a)ii of the NPS and protects the quality of both ground and surface water to maintain ecosystem health. Rule Support in part The Rule provides a range of appropriate criteria to manage takes of water close to wetlands. However, wetlands are sensitive to changes in hydrology and would benefit from an additional criterion requiring bores to maintain the hydrological functioning of wetlands in order to give effect to the NPS FM. Amend the activity status for Rule to Restricted Discretionary and add the following sub-point: x. The need to: i. maintain existing water quality within limits; or ii. enhance water quality, including coastal water, where degraded, over time xx. effects on in-stream habitat and indigenous species Retain as notified Amend Policy to recognise the link between groundwater quality and surface water quality and ecosystem values. Retain as notified except where modified elsewhere in this submission. Add an additional criterion to Rule as follows: x. the maintenance of the hydrological regime of wetlands. 28

31 5.3 - Diffuse Discharges from Stock Grazing, Horticulture, Agriculture and Forestry Policy and Rules 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, and Support in part Support in part Support the use of industry best practice in order to achieve limits and targets for freshwater quality. However, best practice should be considered to ensure that limits are not exceeded as well as a method to reduce over allocation over time. It is also unclear how best practice or any other action required to reduce over allocation over time is to be affected through regulatory mechanisms. Farm Environment Plans are not required to be formally approved by Council, nor be followed by the methods (rules) proposed. In addition, it is not clear how often these plans are required to be updated, particularly if there are changes in water quality. The rules for diffuse discharges from stock grazing, horticulture, agriculture and forestry are generally supported. However, it is unclear how the rule will address discharges for over allocated water quality, particularly for nutrient losses. It is unclear how the Farm Environment Plans will be affective as a method to implement this policy where approval of these plans are not required, and where compliance with the plans is also not required. The Farm Environment Plans should take into account the current and trending state of water quality, the Include additional policies in Section 5.3 providing for enforceable methods, particularly where diffuse discharges have or are over allocating water quality including requiring approval of Farm Environment Plans and managing agricultural uses in accordance with approved plans. Amend Rules to or include new rules to ensure that Farm Environment Plans are required to be approved by Council, that land use should be undertaken in accordance with these approved Plans, and require explicit objectives within these to work towards maintenance or enhancement of water quality and include regular reviews over time in accordance with water quality trends. This may include a consenting 29