Telephone: (04) Facsimile: (04) PO Box: 117, Wellington

Transcription

1 Before Greater Wellington Regional Council Under In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region And In the matter of Submissions (S135) and Further Submissions (FS25) by Wellington Water Limited STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CAROLYN WRATT [PLANNING] 29 March 2018 M J Slyfield Barrister Stout Street Chambers Wellington Telephone: (04) Facsimile: (04) PO Box: 117, Wellington morgan.slyfield@stoutstreet.co.nz

2 INTRODUCTION 1. My full name is Carolyn Wratt. Qualifications and Experience 2. I am a Principal Policy Planner with the consultancy firm Wratt Resource Management Planning Ltd. 3. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Science (Geography and Resource Management) (1997) and Masters of Science (Hons) in Coastal Geomorphology and Resource Management (1999), both from the University of Auckland. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and an accredited Resource Management Commissioner under the Ministry for the Environment programme Making Good Decisions. 4. I have nineteen years experience in planning both regulatory and policy, including working primarily for local and regional authorities around New Zealand. In my capacity as both a consultant and council planner, I have provided policy advice to a number of clients, including assisting the Hearing Panel for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan. I have appeared as an expert planning witness numerous times. Code of Conduct 5. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I have complied with it when preparing this evidence. Other than when I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express. My involvement with the PNRP 6. I was contracted by Wellington Water Limited ( WWL ) over twelve months ago to provide planning assistance with the PNRP hearings. I had no involvement in preparing WWL s submission or further submission. 2

3 7. I attended one pre-hearing meeting on behalf of WWL with regards to the topics canvassed in Hearing 5. I attended the caucusing on 2 November 2017 regarding groundwater protection zones. I have been involved in the expert conferencing as directed by the Hearings Panel on the definition of Regionally Significant Infrastructure and Policy P4 which has broader relevance than just Hearing I have also given evidence on behalf of WWL in Hearings 1, 2, 3, and 4 including filing Statements of Evidence and Supplementary Statements. Scope of Evidence 9. I have been asked by WWL to prepare this evidence, covering those matters identified as being part of Hearing 5: (a) Discharges to land; (b) Beds of lakes and rivers; and (c) Wetlands and biodiversity. 10. Within the scope provided by the WWL submission and further submission, I will cover: (a) aspects of the PNRP relevant to these matters that I support; and (b) aspects of the PNRP relevant to these matters that I do not support. 11. In preparing this evidence, I have taken into account the following Section 42A reports and their attendant appendices: (a) Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe); (b) Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Beds of Lakes and Rivers (Pam Guest, Heidi Andrewartha, and Paul Denton); and 3

4 (c) Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Wetlands and Biodiversity (Pam Guest and Paul Denton). 12. I have also taken into account the evidence prepared on behalf of Wellington Regional Council: (a) Statement Of Primary Evidence Of Dr Philippa Noel Crisp, - Technical Wetlands and Biodiversity; (b) Statement of Primary Evidence of Michael Greer Technical In Regard to Provisions For Maintenance of Drains (Rule R121); (c) Statement of Primary Evidence of Adam Douglas Canning, Technical Important Trout Fishery Rivers and Spawning Rivers; and (d) Statement of Primary Evidence of Alton Perrie, Technical Wetlands and Biodiversity; 13. I have also taken into consideration relevant provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 ( RMA or the Act ), and higher level planning documents including: (a) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ( NZCPS ); (b) National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ( NPS-FM ); (c) the 2017 changes to the NPS-FM; (d) National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity 2016 ( NPS-UDC ); and (e) Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington region ( RPS ) 14. I have also reviewed a number of submissions where submitters were seeking amendments to provisions that WWL submitted upon. 4

5 Structure of Evidence 15. My evidence is structured in four sections. First, I provide an executive summary of the individual issues that the evidence addresses. Second, I address the relevant individual provisions relating to discharges to land. Third, I address the provisions covered by the Section 42A report regarding beds of lakes and rivers. The fourth section is focused on wetlands and biodiversity. Because the matters addressed in this hearing stream are such fundamental matters to WWL s responsibilities and functions, I have addressed most of the provisions on which WWL submitted, focussing on those aspects on which I disagree with the positions taken in the Section 42A reports. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16. In accordance with the topics addressed in this fifth hearing, my evidence is concerned with WWL s structures and activities. At a broad scale my evidence addresses the following: (a) Ensuring definitions are clear and add clarity to the PNRP (e.g. biosolids, wastewater, drain, highly modified river or stream, new definition for flood debris); (b) Revision of words to ensure the meaning is clear (e.g. Policy P103); (c) Recognition that discharge of wastewater to land will not be appropriate in all circumstances and is unlikely to be practical for the large municipal discharges in the WWL area (Objective O49); (d) Recognition of appropriate standards and guidance for the application of biosolids and treated wastewater to land (Policy P85); (e) Acknowledgment at a policy level of how the adverse effects of application of biosolids and treated wastewater to land will be minimised (Policy P85); 5

6 (f) Protection of community drinking water supplies from wastewater systems and discharges to land (Rule R71, Rule R79); (g) Recognising and providing for the efficient operation of regionally significant infrastructure (e.g. Policy P102); (h) Recognising the special circumstances of constructed artificial lakes, such as the Macaskill water storage lakes (Policy P106); (i) Enabling temporary restriction of fish passage due to maintenance or construction works for regionally significant infrastructure, particularly necessary for flood protection (5.5.4 Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions, Wetlands general conditions); (j) Enabling barriers to fish passage where this is necessary to protect indigenous fish species or is appropriate (Policy P34, Policy P105); (k) Recognition that there is no time during the year when there are less than four species migrating and the implications of maintenance and works in the beds of streams and rivers (Schedule F1a, Policy P33); (l) Enabling works in a stormwater network to clear damage and debris after a storm event during inanga and trout spawning periods (5.5.4 Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions; Wetlands general conditions); (m) Clear standards for diversion of water associated with structures and activities (5.5.2 Wetlands general conditions); (n) Enabling stormwater intake structures and recognising they require an exemption from standards because of their function (5.5.4 Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions); (o) Ensuring rule standards are clear, measurable and meaningful (Rule R112, R113, R117, R119, R120, R121); 6

7 (p) Recognising existing permitted structures in the beds of rivers and streams as a permitted activity, similar to Rule 8 of the Operative Regional Plan for Freshwater (Rule R112); (q) Recognition of temporary damming as an associated activity to permitted activities (Rule R112, R113, R114, R115, R117, R119); (r) Recognising the importance of erosion protection structures and debris arrestors (Rule R117); (s) Exclusions to enable maintenance, operation and upgrade of three waters regionally significant infrastructure in Scheduled areas (Rule R117, R119); (t) Recognition of the flood protection function of stormwater structures (Rule R119); (u) Enable effective and efficient operations to clear flood debris and beach recontouring (Rule R119); (v) Enable effective maintenance of streams and rivers while minimising the effect on indigenous fish species (Rule R121, R122); (w) Clarification of when specific rules will apply (Rule R121, R122); (x) Recognition of the benefits of regionally significant infrastructure by classifying reclamation in Schedule A (outstanding water bodies) or Schedule C (mana whenua) associated with regionally significant infrastructure to be a discretionary activity rather than non complying (Rule R127); (y) Promotion of discharges of wastewater to land as a controlled activity rather than a restricted discretionary activity status (Rule R79); (z) Consistency with the Guidance on Good Practice Biodiversity Offsetting in New Zealand, 2014 to focus on significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts (definition of biodiversity offsets, Policy P32, Policy P41, Schedule G); 7

8 (aa) Clarity of when and where offsetting is appropriate (Policy P41, Schedule G); (bb) Consistency with the RPS and focus on maintaining and improving rather than restoring (Objective O29, Policy P31, Policy P35, Policy P40); (cc) Recognition of the importance of water takes for community water supplies (Policy P33); (dd) Recognition of Supreme Court interpretation of the word avoid and consideration of appropriate language (e.g. Policy P34, Policy P39); (ee) Focusing on the adverse effects on the values of outstanding water bodies (Policy P39); (ff) Need for a finer level of mapping to identify those stretches of rivers (in particular) that contain values that qualify them as ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values (Schedule F1); and (gg) Need for accurate mapping (Map 1 Outstanding water bodies Schedule A1, A2, A3) INTRODUCTION 17. In the context of the RMA, all of WWL s activities enable communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety. The collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater is an essential service and enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. Without a public wastewater network these outcomes cannot be achieved. 18. As I have stated previously, while WWL s physical structures for water supply, wastewater and stormwater are included in the definition of regionally significant infrastructure, the benefit of the network is not 8

9 so much in the pipes or treatment plants themselves, but in the activity they enable. 19. Of particular relevance to this hearing are WWL s works in rivers and streams beds. DICHARGES TO LAND: OVERVIEW 20. As outlined in my evidence for Hearing 4, my understanding of the approach of the PNRP to discharges from the wastewater network or wastewater treatment plants is that discharges to land are preferred over discharges to water. This approach is supported by an objective (Objective O48), policy framework and a more enabling activity status of controlled, or restricted discretionary if one or more of the standards of the controlled activity cannot be complied with. 21. There are challenges with discharging wastewater to land, particularly in the urban areas of Wellington. This approach fails to recognise the constraints of the Wellington Region to accommodate discharges to land The basis of the policy direction for land discharge is undoubtedly RPS Policy 16. This Policy assists in achieving RPS Objective 12 which is concerned with the quantity and quality of freshwater, and RPS Objective 26 seeking to sustain mauri of coastal and fresh waters. RPS Policy 16 uses the word promote which means to support or actively encourage. 23. As WWL s experts noted in their evidence in Hearing 4, some wastewater discharges may simply not be appropriate for discharging to land. Wastewater overflow discharges are intermittent and cannot be scheduled as they are often due to an event such as a blockage or rainfall. It would be highly impractical to require discharges such as these to be discharged to land. 1 See, Statement of Evidence of Carolyn Wratt, 26 January 2018 at [39] - [45], [140] - [145]; Statement of Evidence of Stephen Hutchison, 26 January 2018 at [52] [6]; and Statement of Evidence of James Bradley, 26 January

10 24. Given that the PNRP encourages discharges of wastewater to land, it is appropriate that there are standards and activity status that manage the effects. While external guidance documents are referenced in the policies and rules, WWL s submission is that these should be appropriate ones. 25. A critical matter that WWL is concerned with is protection of the community drinking water supplies. WWL supports the retention of standards requiring the application of biosolids, the discharges of treated wastewater to land and other wastewater activities to avoid locating in a community drinking water supply protection area. 26. I attended a pre-hearing meeting on 2 November 2017 regarding groundwater protection zones and although these provisions are still identified on the Wellington Regional Council website as being part of Hearing Stream 5, Mr Loe s Section 42A report does not address these matters. I am unsure how discharges to land covered in Hearing Stream 5 can be addressed in isolation to the matter of groundwater protection. Nevertheless I have addressed each of the provisions WWL submitted on that were covered by Mr Loe s Section 42A report, and the following section is an evaluation of each of those provisions. I have only focused on those areas where the Section 42A report has not adopted the relief sought by WWL s submission. DISCHARGES TO LAND: DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONS Definition of Biosolids 27. As notified: Wastewater or wastewater sludge derived from a wastewater treatment plant that has been treated and/or stabilised to the extent that it is able to be safely and beneficially applied to land. 28. WWL s submission considered that the second half of the sentence reads like a rule rather than a description. The Section 42A report 10

11 recommends amendments 2 but I consider it could be further simplified. Given that it is biosolids, it is unlikely to be able to handled safely in all situations and this is an unnecessary qualifier that does not aid interpretation of the term. I note that the rules such as Rule R77 capture the quality aspect far more comprehensively, negating the need for the definition to address this aspect of biosolids. I therefore suggest the following amendments: Wastewater or Wastewater sludge or solids derived from a wastewater treatment plant that has been treated and/or stabilised to the extent that it is able to be safely and beneficially applied to land. Definition of wastewater 29. As notified: Liquid waste (and liquids containing waste solids) from domestic, industrial or commercial premises, including, but not limited to, human effluent, grey water, sullage and trade wastes, but excluding stormwater. 30. WWL s submission considered that all wastewater has varying proportions of stormwater, so it is unrealistic to define wastewater as not containing stormwater. The Section 42A report recommends rejecting this submission. 3 I consider that while there should indeed be separate definitions for wastewater and stormwater, the definition needs to be meaningful and recognise that an element of stormwater does infiltrate the wastewater network. This matter was canvassed by the evidence of Mr Hutchison for WWL in Hearing 4. I therefore suggest that the definition be amended as follows: Liquid waste (and liquids containing waste solids) from domestic, industrial or commercial premises, including, but not limited to, human effluent, grey water, sullage and trade wastes, but excluding stormwater and may include a component of stormwater that has infiltrated the wastewater network. 2 Paragraph 107, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe), Paragraph 191, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe),

12 Objective O49: Wastewater discharges to land 31. As notified: Discharges of wastewater to land are promoted over discharges to fresh water and coastal water. 32. WWL s submission considered that this objective does not distinguish the adverse effects of large scale disposal of wastewater to land which would be a direct consequence in the four metropolitan cities of this region. WWL considered the objective does not recognise that in the metropolitan cities, land disposal options have already been examined and found to be impracticable. This was a matter that was addressed in Hearing While I agree that there are challenges with discharging wastewater to land, particularly in the urban areas of Wellington as set out in my evidence in Hearing 4, I am mindful of the policy direction set by the RPS Policy 16. This Policy assists in achieving RPS Objective 12 which is concerned with the quantity and quality of freshwater, and RPS Objective 26 seeking to sustain mauri of coastal and fresh waters. RPS Policy 16 uses the word promote which means to support or actively encourage. In my evaluation of the PNRP provisions, I suggest that discharge to land not be pursued at all costs where it is not practical, such as on steep land with shallow soils in an urban environment, i.e. Wellington. 34. As Mr Bradley noted in his evidence for Hearing 4, some discharges may simply not be appropriate for discharging to land. Wastewater overflow discharges are intermittent and cannot be scheduled as they are often due to an event such as a blockage or rainfall. It would be highly impractical to require discharges such as these to be discharged to land. 35. Mr Loe observes in the Section 42A report that there have been many municipal, community and individual systems that discharge wastewater to land in New Zealand that have failed to perform to 4 See, Statement of Evidence of Carolyn Wratt, 26 January 2018 at [39] - [45], [140] - [145]; Statement of Evidence of Stephen Hutchison, 26 January 2018 at [52] [6]; and Statement of Evidence of James Bradley, 26 January

13 expectation due to a range of constraints that have not been able to be overcome, relating to adverse environmental effects, poor management, technical failure or costs. 5 I would add here that the constraints of the Wellington Region to accommodate discharge to land are significant as outlined in the reports Feasibility Study for Land-Based Effluent Disposal from the Western WWTP (MWH, 2014) and an assessment of the feasibility of land application for the Porirua wastewater treatment plant 6. These reports were attached to my evidence for Hearing Mr Loe considers in his Section 42A report that a regional plan should not pre-determine that one receiving environment for discharge of wastewater will be preferable in all cases. 7 I agree and therefore have suggested amendments to provisions to recognise that there are constraints and land discharge of wastewater may not be a feasible alternative. This approach is consistent with the amendments I sought in Hearing 4 to Policy P62: Promoting discharges to land. I support the inclusion of the concept of the best practicable option as follows: Discharges of wastewater to land are promoted over in preference to discharges to fresh water and or coastal water, where this is the best practicable option. Policy P85: Biosolids and treated wastewater to land 37. As notified: The adverse effects on fresh water, including groundwater and coastal water and on soil from the application of biosolids or treated wastewater to land shall be minimised. The application of biosolids shall be managed in accordance with Guidelines for the safe application of biosolids to land in New Zealand, WWL s submission supported having a specific policy for beneficial use of biosolids to land with appropriate controls, but considered the policy does not provide sufficient policy support and assessment 5 Paragraph 244, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe), Porirua WWTP High-level Land Application Assessment (Stantec, 2017) 7 Paragraph 246, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe),

14 criteria for implementing rules R77 to R80, which are very detailed. This submission point is supported by Mr Loe in his Section 42A report, although he does not recommend any amendments in this regard WWL s submission sought inclusion of references to "Best management practices for applying biosolids to forestry plantations in New Zealand" GN Magesan, Hailong Wang, Peter Climton, February 2010 NZ Forest Research Institute Ltd. However Mr Loe recommends replacement of the reference to the guidelines with the term good management practice. I expressed concern in my evidence for Hearing 4 this is not certain enough. I remain concerned about the use of this term but equally am aware that the guidelines referred to in WWL s submission only apply to forestry and that the Guidelines for Beneficial Use of Organic Materials on Productive Land 2003 are currently being reviewed and are expected to be published in mid I therefore support the inclusion of the methods for minimising adverse effects from the application of biosolids or treated wastewater to land. I have based these on the standards and assessment criteria in Rules R77-R80. The adverse effects on fresh water, including groundwater and coastal water and on soil from the application of biosolids or treated wastewater to land shall be minimised through: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) nitrogen levels; soil characteristics and health, including ph; ensuring the location of the discharge is away from a surface water body or coastal marine area; avoiding bores used for water abstraction for potable supply or a community drinking water supply protection area; and ensuring odour is not offensive or objectionable The application of biosolids shall be managed in accordance with appropriate Gguidelines including Best Management Practices for Applying Biosolids to Forestry Plantations in New Zealand, 2010 for the safe application of biosolids to land in New Zealand, Paragraph 265, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe),

15 Rule R71: Pit latrine - permitted activity and Rule R75: New or upgraded onsite wastewater systems - permitted activity 41. WWL s submission supported Clause (a)(ii) of Rule R71 and Clause (e)(iv) as they appropriately require these activities to avoid locating in a community drinking water supply protection area. I note the Section 42A report does not recommend any amendments to either of these clauses and I support the retention of both clauses as notified. This will assist in maintaining groundwater quality and reducing the likelihood of pathogens in community drinking water supplies. Rule R79: Discharge of treated wastewater - controlled activity 42. As notified: The discharge of treated wastewater onto or into land, and the associated discharge of odour is a controlled activity, provided the following conditions are met: (a) (b) (c) the discharge is not located within a community drinking water supply protection area as shown on Map 26, Map 27a, Map 27b, or Map 27c, and the discharge shall contain no more than 10% trade wastes based on daily dry weather flow, averaged over a calendar year, and the discharge shall meet the following criteria: (i) (ii) the concentration of soluble carbonaceous five day biochemical oxygen demand shall not exceed 30mg/L in more than eight out of 12 consecutive samples, or exceed 50mg/L in more than two out of 12 consecutive samples, and the concentration of total suspended solids shall not exceed 50mg/L for more than eight out of 12 consecutive samples, or exceed 80mg/L in more than two out of 12 consecutive samples, and (d) the pathogen concentration in wastewater shall have been reduced to a level commensurate with its having been treated to a tertiary level before discharge for surface application and secondary level for subsurface irrigation, and shall not exceed an Escherichia coli (E.coli) concentration of 2,000cfu/100mL, and (e) the application method is either a subsurface or surface drip irrigation or low pressure spray irrigation system less than or equal to 1.5m above ground surface, and (f) the hydraulic loading rate shall not exceed 5mm/hr or 15mm per application event and can only occur when soil moisture deficit is greater than the application event, and 15

16 (g) the distribution uniformity of the spray irrigation system shall be greater than or equal to 80%, with drip irrigation emitters at a minimum spacing of 0.6m x 1m, and (h) the application shall not result in significant ponding (areas of ponded effluent on the ground surface greater than 10m2 for a period greater than 12 hours) or runoff (visible overland flow); and (i) the nitrogen loading rate of the wastewater applied shall not exceed the following limits for the specified land uses: (i) (ii) 150kg N/ha/year if mown without grass (i) removal, or grazed, or 300kg N/ha/year if cut, harvested and removed, and (j) the phosphorus loading rate of the wastewater applied shall not exceed the following limits for the specified land uses: (i) (ii) 30kg P/ha/year if mown without grass removal, or grazed, or 50kg P/ha/year if cut, harvested and removed, and (k) (l) the application must be onto actively growing vegetation which is not dormant. Application shall not be onto fallow land or areas that have no vegetative growth, and for spray irrigation, the discharge is not located within: (i) (ii) 50m of a surface water body, coastal marine area or property boundary, or 150m of any marae, schools, shops, playgrounds, bore used for water abstraction for potable supply, places of work or residential dwellings not on the application property; and (m) for surface and subsurface drip irrigation, the discharge is not located within: (i) (ii) 5m of a surface water body, coastal marine (i) area or property boundary, or 150m of a bore used for water abstraction for potable supply, and (n) there shall be a minimum depth to groundwater of at least 1m below the point of application, and (o) a deficit irrigation regime is used for the application of treated wastewater to land, and (p) the application of wastewater to land by spray irritation shall have automated shut off controls so that there shall be no irrigation when the wind speed 10 minute average exceeds 6m/s, and (q) the normal droplet size delivered by wastewater irrigation shall not have a volume median diameter less than 1,700 m or an equivalent volume mean diameter, and (r) the discharge of odour is not offensive or objectionable beyond the boundary of the property. Matters of control 16

17 1. Provision of a Site Investigation and Design Report, which shall include as a minimum: (i) (ii) (iii) the suitability of the soil to receive treated wastewater how the discharge system is designed based on the soil characteristics to mitigate adverse effects on soils, ground and surface water soil saturated hydraulic conductivity is shown to be greater than 10mm/hr (iv) soil water holding capacity is shown to be greater than 30mm (v) a map showing soil unit boundaries, soil textural and structural changes, and high risk soils (vi) details of existing soil concentrations of nutrients and metals and an assessment of the potential cumulative effects of the proposed wastewater application including the addition of any other wastes or fertilisers 2. Provision of an Operation and Management Plan, which shall include as a minimum: a description of the discharge system, including (i) (ii) (iii) a site map indicating the location of discharge infrastructure and monitoring sites the intended operating and maintenance procedures, including how the system will be operated and maintained to meet the requirements of the conditions of the activity measures to ensure that the wastewater being discharged is not odorous (iv) on-site responsibilities, including operation of the discharge facility, operation of the soil moisture monitoring or balance system, operation during high winds (v) key operational matters, including daily, weekly and monthly maintenance checks and keeping of a maintenance register to record the details of all maintenance events or any systems malfunction (vi) details of signage warning of the public health risk of coming into contact with wastewater, particularly in publically accessible areas or where the application site borders a publically accessible area (vii) details of site induction procedures to warn any person that may come into contact with the wastewater about the potential risks of doing so (viii) a contingency plan in the event of system malfunctions or breakdowns showing how adverse environmental and public health effects will be avoided (ix) how changes in wastewater composition and volume are to be managed (x) procedures for recording and responding to any complaints 17

18 (xi) procedures for the annual review of the Operation and Management Plan to incorporate any proposed changes to the management of the activities 3. Provision of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which shall include as a minimum monitoring procedures covering all aspects of the activity to demonstrate compliance with the conditions, including: (i) (ii) monitoring of the discharged wastewater quality for biological oxygen demand (five day), total suspended solids, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and E. coli continuous flow monitoring of the discharged wastewater soil moisture monitoring (if used rather (iii) than a daily water balance) (iv) the intended programme for soil quality, chemical, hydraulic and structural monitoring, vegetation assessment, surface water quality monitoring, groundwater quality monitoring (v) details of surface and groundwater monitoring to be undertaken (vi) record keeping of the land application area used each day, application depth, managing a deficit irrigation system and climatic conditions (vii) records of land management, including grazing and harvesting frequency, including dry matter and nutrient removal where appropriate (viii) the location of monitoring sites detailed on site maps (ix) (x) details of the frequency of sampling and reporting measures to ensure reporting requirements are met (xi) a record of all complaints received (xii) a record of infrastructure modifications (xiii) details of who will undertake the monitoring and procedures to be used 4. Review of the conditions of consent, in accordance with Section 128 of the RMA, including for the purposes of assessing whether any emerging contaminants should be monitored in the soil, herbage or groundwater, taking into consideration the degree of certainty about the fate and risk to the environment from these contaminants. Notification In respect of Rule R79, applications are precluded from public notification (unless special circumstances exist). Note Permission may be required from the relevant city or district council in respect of the Building Act 1991 or other legislation or bylaws. 18

19 43. WWL s submission supported retention of Rule R79, although acknowledged that discharge to land is not practicable for the treatment plants currently under the management of Wellington Water the volumes are too large and soils are not suitable. The submission supported Clause (a) to protect the community drinking water supply. The submission considered soil and topography conditions in the urban metropolitan cities would suggest that discharge of treated wastewater to land would not be possible anywhere within their areas under this rule. 44. While this may be the case for the metropolitan areas, I realise that discharging wastewater to land may be practicable in other parts of the region. I note that Mr Loe has recommended deleting this rule in the Section 42A report. 9 He instead recommends a completely new Rule R79 to authorise the discharge of small scale processing wastewater from industrial or trade processes or premises onto land as a controlled activity, but excludes discharges to land wastewater or sludge from a wastewater network. Therefore Rule R79 will only apply to discharge of wastewater or sludge from an industrial or trade process. 45. The consequence of this is that the activity status for discharge of treated wastewater from a wastewater network starts at restricted discretionary. Given the directive from RPS Policy 16 to promote discharge of sewage to land rather than water, I consider that a more stringent starting point for discharges of treated wastewater to land is not an effective way to give effect to the RPS. It seems to me that potentially the only difference between a controlled and restricted discretionary activity is that a controlled activity must be granted resource consent and a restricted discretionary activity may be declined. The matters over which Council reserves its control and matters of discretion could be the same. I consider a controlled activity status to be appropriate and seek that Rule R79 be retained. Given that the RPS directive is to promote, it seems to me that a controlled activity status would be more encouraging than a restricted discretionary activity status. 9 Paragraphs , Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Discharges to Land (Barry Loe),

20 BEDS OF LAKES AND RIVERS: OVERVIEW 46. The multitude of terms and their attendant definitions makes this area of the PNRP very unclear for WWL structures and activities. While WWL are responsible for stormwater, the stormwater network uses a variety of structures, devices and forms. As an example, WWL s stormwater network includes waterbodies, which are covered by various defined terms in the PNRP: (a) Active bed; (b) Category 1 and 2 surface water bodies; (c) Drain; (d) Ephemeral flow path; (e) Highly modified river or stream; (f) Low energy receiving environments; (g) Natural wetland; (h) River class; (i) Significant natural wetland; (j) Significant contact recreation freshwater body; (k) Surface water body; and (l) Tributary. 47. The PNRP definition of stormwater network overarches all of this as follows: The network of devices designed to capture, detain, treat, transport and discharge stormwater, including but not limited to kerbs, intake structures, pipes, soak pits, sumps, swales and constructed ponds and wetlands, and that serves more than one property. 48. In addition to this is the definition in the RMA for river: means a continually or intermittently flowing body of fresh water; and includes a stream and modified watercourse; but does not include any artificial watercourse (including an irrigation canal, water supply 20

21 race, canal for the supply of water for electricity power generation, and farm drainage canal) 49. The difficulty of all these terms in the PNRP is that many are not sufficiently different from others to be able to distinguish which policies and rules apply in any particular location. While this is not a unique situation for infrastructure providers, it is unique to WWL because of the overarching definition of stormwater network and the complexity of the stormwater network. WWL is often required to undertake maintenance activities and remedy storm damage in and around the beds of rivers and streams. While these are part of the WWL stormwater network, they are not included in the PNRP definition of stormwater network and instead are managed through the objectives, policies and rules relating to the various terms for waterbodies outlined above. 50. Some of the definitions are quite uncertain with the inclusion of vague language, which introduces undesirable subjectivity when applying the definition. 51. There are not always practical nor reasonable alternative locations or methods available to regionally significant infrastructure. Other locations may be possible but will come at a significant cost to the community. The policies and rules need to strike a balance between avoiding a certain geographical location against the need to recognise and protect the benefits of regionally significant infrastructure. 52. The rules in this sections of the PNRP need to recognise and enable appropriate maintenance activities. There are rules such as removal of vegetation which will constrain the maintenance activities of Macaskill water storage lakes. While these are artificially created lakes, they still meet the definition of lake in the RMA. Critical structures such as erosion protection structures and debris arrestors (to stop woody debris, rocks and household debris from blocking pipes) are not included and there is no specific policy directing their appropriateness. 53. Other aspects of the PNRP may unnecessarily constrain WWL s activities. Removal of flood debris has a fundamental role in 21

22 ensuring the health and safety of people and property yet the rules do not fully enable this activity to be efficiently undertaken. While fish passage is to be maintained, maintenance work may mean that fish are temporarily inhibited from passage. The key is to define appropriate parameters that enable the works to be carried out while limiting the effect on indigenous fish species. In addition, there are circumstances where fish passage should not be provided to ensure the safety of indigenous fish species. 54. The Section 42A recommends existing dams require a resource consent to ensure dams meet appropriate dam safety requirements of the Building Act This is a matter more appropriately considered under the Building Act not the RMA. WWL have dams primarily for water supply but also stormwater retention dams such as Karori and dam retention structures including weirs. Water supply and stormwater are recognised by the RPS as essential services and have the effect of maintaining public health and safety. Requiring existing dams to go through a consent process is neither an efficient nor effective way to meet the PNRP objectives, nor gives effect to the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS. In addition there are Local Government Act requirements for water suppliers to be costeffective. 55. This matter has highlighted another issue, in that while the PNRP s rules address existing activities in river and stream beds as permitted activities, there is no equivalent recognition of the structures associated with those activities. WWL also sought inclusion of Rule 8 of the Operative Regional Plan for Freshwater enabled the damming and diversion of water by an authorised structure to be permitted. Considerable public funding has gone into the design and construction of these structures and I consider recognition of those existing structures is an effective and efficient means of giving effect to PNRP Objective O12 but also RPS Objective 10, and Policies 7 and The following section is an evaluation of each of the provisions WWL submitted on. I have only focused on those areas where the Section 42A report has not adopted the relief sought by WWL s submission. 22

23 BEDS OF LAKES AND RIVERS: DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONS Definition of Active bed (rivers and streams) 57. As notified: For the purpose of determining stream width of permanently or intermittently flowing rivers and streams in Category 2 surface water bodies, the active bed is the area that is subject to at least frequent flows and is predominately un-vegetated and made up of silt, sand, gravel, boulders or similar material. 58. WWL s submission considered that this definition is confusing and different to that in the RMA. The submission sought that the definition be amended to be consistent with the RMA and caselaw. The submission expressed particular concern with the term at least frequent flows and how this could be interpreted. 59. The Section 42A report acknowledged that this phrase could be open to interpretation leading to confusion for the interpretation of ephemeral flow path 10, but did not recommend any amendments to resolve this issue. I note that the RMA defines bed as: (a) (ii) the space of land which the waters of the river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its banks 60. It seems to me that the PNRP definition of active bed is intended to be a subset of the RMA term. I note that other definitions such as Category 2 surface water body depends on the definition of active bed so for this reason I recommend that the definition have more certainty than it currently does. Definition of Catchment based flood and erosion risk management activities 61. As notified: Structures built, controlled or maintained by a local authority and associated activities for the purpose of protecting the community from flood or erosion risk in accordance with a river management scheme or flood plain management plan. 10 Paragraph 545, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Beds of Lakes and Rivers (Pam Guest, Heidi Andrewartha, and Paul Denton),

24 62. WWL s submission questioned how this definition relates to stormwater networks and management. The submission sought inclusion of the relationship of these activities to stormwater management to remove any uncertainty about what is included or excluded. 63. The Section 42A report rejected the submission and considered that the definition was clear that it relates to flood protection activities only and not stormwater management and networks. 11 I disagree as stormwater and the management of flooding are intrinsically linked. I note that Hutt River Flood Management Plan 2001 attempts to distinguish between river-related and stormwater-related flooding. I consider the definition could be clearer by reorganising the structure of the definition, but also by inclusion of examples. Because I am uncertain of the structures this definition is intending to include, I am unable to suggest examples but recommend that the definition be amended as follows: Structures built, controlled or maintained by a local authority and associated activities for the purpose of protecting the community from flood or erosion risk in accordance with a river management scheme or flood plain management plan, for the purpose of protecting the community from flood or erosion risk. These may include Definition of Drain 64. As notified: Any artificial watercourse, open or piped, designed and constructed for the purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water. Channels designed and constructed to convey water only during rainfall events and which do not convey or retain water at other times are excluded from this definition. Only for the purpose of Rule R121 (drain clearance) a drain also includes a highly modified watercourse or river and is channelled to such an extent that it has the characteristics of a farm drainage canal. 65. WWL s submission considered the definition was inconsistent as the first part of the definition refers to drainage of sub-surface water, but the 11 Paragraph 318, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Beds of Lakes and Rivers (Pam Guest, Heidi Andrewartha, and Paul Denton),

25 second sentence refers to conveying water only during rainfall events. The submission noted that in an urban context, drains do not convey water only during rainfall events, they could convey ground water or from stored water upstream. The stormwater networks include large numbers of sections of natural watercourses. It is not clear whether natural watercourses are drains, and there is no definition of natural watercourse. 66. I understand a pre-hearing meeting was held on this matter and arising from this meeting was an amended definition. Despite the recommended amendments in the Section 42A report, I still remain unclear on the difference between a drain and a highly modified river or stream. If the fundamental difference is that one is artificially constructed, whilst the other has a natural origin then the definitions should be explicit about this distinction. 67. I have looked at how other plans have approached this matter and support the Auckland Unitary Plan approach as being a clear and definite distinction. Three terms are used: a) artificial watercourse b) naturally occurring watercourse c) modified watercourse 68. This approach reflects the definition of river in the RMA. The Auckland Unitary Plan has the following definition for artificial watercourse: Artificial watercourse Constructed watercourses that contain no natural portions from their confluence with a river or stream to their headwaters. Includes: canals that supply water to electricity power generation plants; farm drainage canals; irrigation canals; and water supply races. Excludes: 25

26 naturally occurring watercourses. 69. I do not consider that the amendments to the definition of drain as recommended in the Section 42A report make the distinctions any clearer. 70. I note that the Section 42A report recommends inclusion of a new Method M14A which requires Wellington Regional Council to develop a map layer that identifies drains and highly modified rivers or streams to assist with the implementation of Rules R121 and R122. I support this and consider it would assist in interpretation of the PNRP and clarifying the status of waterways. However I consider that exercise should be part of the PNRP process as the classification of waterways will have an impact on which policies and rules apply. If Wellington Regional Council is unable to undertake this work within the timeframes for this hearing, then it should be progressed as a variation to enable consideration and submissions from the community. 71. I would support a simple and clear definition and suggest the following: Any artificial constructed watercourse, which can be open or piped or enclosed that contains no natural portions from their confluence with a river or stream to their headwaters designed and constructed for the purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water. Channels designed and constructed to convey water only during rainfall events and which do not convey or retain water at other times are excluded from this definition. Only for the purpose of Rule R121 (drain clearance) a drain also includes a highly modified watercourse or river and is channelled to such an extent that it has the characteristics of a farm drainage canal. Includes: canals that supply water to electricity power generation plants; farm drainage canals; irrigation canals; and water supply races. 72. I realise this may have flow on consequences for other definitions, but I do question the need for so many potentially overlapping definitions and terms to refer to watercourses. 26

27 Definition of Ephemeral flow path 73. As notified: A river that: a) does not have an active bed, or b) has a bed that is predominantly vegetated, and c) only conveys water during or immediately following heavy rainfall events, and d) does not convey or retain water at other times. 74. WWL s submission sought amendments to be more consistent with other definitions and include more specificity around the size of a rainfall event. The Section 42A report did not consider it appropriate to put a figure for a significant rainfall event as this will limit what an ephemeral flow path is I have researched the approach of other plans to defining ephemeral flowpaths / streams but regional plans use a number of different defining matters: (a) A bed above the water table (b) Water only flowing during and shortly after rain events (c) Does not flow all year (d) Flows continuously for at least three months between March and September (e) Entrenched dry gully greater than 1 metre deep. (f) Clear evidence of a channel within the valley system where overland flow occurs from time to time. (g) Only exists or flows for a short period following heavy or persistent precipitation 76. I note that none of the regional plans specify the duration or size of a rainfall event for the definition of ephemeral flowpath. I support the 12 Paragraph 546, Section 42A Hearing Report on submissions and further submissions Beds of Lakes and Rivers (Pam Guest, Heidi Andrewartha, and Paul Denton),

28 amendments recommended in the Section 42A report and consider they clarify the definition as much as reasonably possible. I note that the Section 42A report recommends deletion of Clause a) having an active bed (although this is not reflected in the recommended tracked changes). I consider the most important clause is d) relating to not conveying or retaining water at other times and therefore do not have a view on the recommended deletion of Clause a). Definition of highly modified river or stream 77. As notified: For the purposes of Rule R121 only, means a river or stream that has been modified and channelled to the extent that it has the characteristics of (in form or function) an artificial farm drainage canal. For the purposes of this definition, the characteristics of a farm drainage canal are considered to include that; it has been channelled into a single flow, the channel is straight, with no natural curves, the channel is mechanically formed with straight or steeply angled banks, it is maintained to keep the water table at least 0.3m below the root zone of the surrounding pasture, and that it exhibits these characteristics for at least its entire length through the property in which the watercourse is being assessed. 78. WWL s submission expressed concern that the current definition is aimed at rural and farming situations and not the urban environment. The submission considered that the definition needs to be applicable to urban stormwater networks that include large numbers of watercourses and open drains. These typically are "straight channels with no natural curves", but it is clear from their urban, developed context and use that they are highly modified. These are fundamental components of the stormwater network, their function is the prevention of flooding. The submission sought intake structures are included in the definition. 79. As I outlined in paragraphs 46-49, the definitions for various waterbodies as notified and amended by the Section 42A do not clearly explain the difference between the terms. I would support a far simpler and streamlined approach that provides the clarity and certainty needed. 80. The Section 42A report acknowledges that the intent of Rule R121 and the attendant definitions are not intended to apply to stormwater 28