Before the Gisborne District Council In Gisborne. Statement of Evidence of Claire Ursula Kelly for Fertiliser Association of New Zealand

Transcription

1 Before the Gisborne District Council In Gisborne Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of the Proposed Gisborne Regional Freshwater Plan Between Gisborne District Council Unitary Council And Fertiliser Association of New Zealand Submitter Statement of Evidence of Claire Ursula Kelly for Fertiliser Association of New Zealand Dated: 25 th October 2016

2 Qualifications and Experience 1 My full name is Claire Ursula Kelly. I am a Senior Planner at Boffa Miskell Limited, a national firm of consulting planners, ecologists and landscape architects. I hold the qualification of Master of Environmental Management (Hons). I am a Full Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, and have over 10 years experience as a resource management planner. 2 I have been a planning consultant based in Christchurch for the past 10 years, providing consultancy services to a wide range of clients around New Zealand, including local authorities, primary producers, land developers, and the infrastructure sector. My experience includes: i. Work on the preparation of a second generation District Plan for Ashburton District Council; including preparing s42a reports and attending hearings of submissions; ii. Preparing submissions and further submissions on a number of district plan changes on behalf of clients; and iii. Preparing resource consent applications for a wide range of development projects. 3 Specific to The Fertiliser Association of New Zealand ( FANZ ), I have been involved with the preparation of submissions on the Proposed Wellington Natural Resources Plan, the Proposed Gisborne Regional Freshwater Plan and the Proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement (RPS), the Marlborough Environment Plan and the Southland Water and Land Plan. 4 My evidence is given in support of FANZ s submission on Part A (Definitions) and Part C (Regional Freshwater Plan (RFP)) of the Proposed Gisborne Regional Freshwater Plan (Proposed GRFP). 5 In this matter, I was engaged by FANZ to prepare a submission on the Proposed GRFP in December 2015, a further submission in February 2016 and evidence on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement and associated definitions in July While this matter is not before the Environment Court, I have read the Environment Court s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, and I agree to comply with it. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have 1

3 not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed Scope of Evidence 7 I have read the Section 42A Report which provides a summary of the submissions and points raised. In addition, it provides an excellent and useful overall discussion of the matters raised in submissions and the relevant provisions. 8 My evidence has focussed on the matters of most importance to FANZ, being the definitions, objectives, policies and methods of the Proposed GFWP that provide for the application of nitrogen and fertiliser, the status of this activity, nutrient efficiency and the preparation of nutrient budgets. 9 Appendix A to my evidence sets out FANZ s submission points and the Officer s recommendations. I have provided comment on the Officer s recommendations, where necessary, and identified where submissions are addressed more fully in this evidence. Summary of Evidence 10 FANZ is a trade association representing the New Zealand manufacturers of superphosphate and nitrogen fertilisers. FANZ member companies are Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd and Ravensdown Limited. 11 To promote good management practices, FANZ develops training programmes, codes of practice and industry information fact sheets. FANZ also funds research, partners with government on research and development projects and works closely with other organisations in the agricultural sector on industry-good issues. This includes funding for OVERSEER as a one third owner, along with AgResearch and Ministry for Primary Industries. 12 FANZ supports and encourages an environmentally responsible science-based approach to nutrient management and its regulation. FANZ member companies provide product that is critical to New Zealand farming systems along with research that supports both environmentally sustainable farming practices and government s export growth agenda. FANZ also supports responsible nutrient management with interests and responsibility across all agricultural sectors, including dairy, sheep, beef, arable and horticulture. 2

4 13 The RMA requires Gisborne District Council to give effect to the Objectives and Policies of the NPS-FM in the Proposed RPS. This is a strong direction and requires the provisions of the RPS to reflect the direction and intent of the NPS- FM. 14 Of particular importance are Objectives A1 and A2. Objective A1 requires the lifesupporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems, of fresh water to be safeguarded and the protection of the health of people and communities, at least as affected by secondary contact with fresh water. Objective A2 requires that the overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or improved while: protecting the significant values of outstanding freshwater bodies; protecting the significant values of wetlands; and improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated. 15 In my opinion, the Proposed GRFP essentially gives effect to the NPS-FM but some further refinements are required to the policy framework to give full effect to the NPS-FM and the RMA, namely: i. Amend Policy and Schedule 11 to remove the reference to maximise nutrient use efficiency. ii. Apply a restricted discretionary rather than a discretionary activity status under Rule and apply the assessment matters under Policy iii. Require that OVERSEER nutrient budgets are prepared by a Certified Nutrient Management Advisor. 16 I also discuss the nitrogen application rates in Rules (b) and (d) (i) and (ii) and the inefficiency of such a control in terms of managing nutrient losses and water quality but recognising the challenges of using OVERSEER for complex arable and vegetable cropping cycles, do not seek immediate changes to the plan provisions. 17 The approach sought by FANZ in my opinion appropriately gives effect to the NPS-FM in that it seeks to maintain or improve existing water quality. 18 In my opinion, the provisions proposed by FANZ accord with Part 2 of the RMA, and are the most appropriate mechanism (having regard to their relative efficiency and effectiveness) to achieve the purpose of the RMA. 3

5 19 In assisting FANZ with its submission and further submission on the Proposed RPS, and in preparing this evidence, I have considered the evaluation requirements under Section 32. In my opinion, the benefits of the amendments sought outweigh the costs as they will ensure the objectives and policies are more enabling, relatively simple to interpret and provide an efficient and effective planning framework for the maintenance and enhancement of water quality. Higher level planning policy documents National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM) 20 National policy statements are at the top of the hierarchy of planning instruments under the Resource Management Act. In regard to FANZ s submission and evidence on the RPS, the NPS-FM is a primary consideration. 21 I have previously set out in paragraphs of my evidence on the RPS dated 29 th July, the relevant provisions of the NPS-FM and do not repeat that information in this evidence. Discussion of FANZ s Submission Points Provision number Provision as amended by Officer s recommendations Further amendments sought to Officer s recommendations shown in red Policy Policy Where intensive land use occurs, or where water quality limits are exceeded, require the implementation of industry good best practice measures in order to maximise nutrient use efficiency and minimise nutrient run-off, faecal contamination and sedimentation. When considering applications to discharge solid or fertiliser contaminants to land or water, assessment criteria are: a. The nature of the materials to be discharged; b. The potential for any long-term contamination or other long term or cumulative effects arising from the operation; c. Any actions planned or required in order to manage any actual or potential adverse effects of the site when it is no longer used for a solid disposal or discharge; d. Any effects of leachate and stormwater on groundwater, surface water and coastal water and whether it is maintained within the limits for the receiving waterbody; e. Any actual or potential effects of any discharges on human health or amenity and on the health and functioning of plants, animals or ecosystems; 4

6 f. The mauri of the waterbody and any values placed on the site by tangata whenua; g. The values identified in a catchment plan for the receiving waterbody and any other values identified in a schedule of this Plan; h. The need for, and adequacy of, discharge monitoring systems, including: 1. Upstream and downstream monitoring of contaminants from any discharge and their effects on aquatic ecosystem indicator species within any freshwater body; 2. Landfill leachate monitoring in relation to both groundwater and surface water; 3. Landfill gas monitoring; 4. Proposed measurement of the quantity and types of waste i. Any adverse effect on values contained in areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna; j. Any relevant industry codes of practice, the implementation of which would assist in the avoiding, remedying or mitigating of adverse effects on the environment; k. The need to avoid exacerbation of any flooding risk. l. The need for contingency plans to manage accidental or emergency discharges. Rule (b): Rule a. The management is in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Management of Greenhouse Nutrient Discharges (2007); and b. The application rate of nitrogen does not exceed: i. 150kgN/year and 30kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by sandy and pumice soils; ii. 200kg/N/year and 50kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by soils other than those listed iii. above; Exceed the reasonable nitrogen requirements of the crop or vegetation being grown on ground other than grazed pasture. c. The application rate of phosphate does not exceed 100 kgp/ha/31 days. Restricted Discretionary Activity The discharge of any waste materials or contaminants onto land and the discharge of any solid material containing contaminants into or onto land; or into water not provided for in another rule in this Plan. Activities that do not comply with the permitted activity standards or any other solid or fertiliser discharges not provided for in another rule in this plan. 5

7 The Council has restricted its discretion to the matters in Policy Rule 5.4.5(d) (i) and (ii) Schedule 11 d. The application rate of nitrogen does not: i. Exceed 150kgN/ha/year and 30kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by sandy and pumice soils; ii. Exceed 200kgN/ha/year and 50kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by soils other than those listed above; iii. Exceed the reasonable nitrogen requirements of the crop being grown on ground other than grazed pasture. Nutrient Budget a. A description of how nitrogen and phosphorus applications will match the plant requirements for each stage of growth and the good management practices to be applied which minimise nutrient loss. basic nutrient budget for nitrogen and phosphorus which indicates how nitrogen and phosphorus are coming onto the farm, where they are going and the levels that may be lost by leaching or run-off except for Schedule 11 b. Dairy farms, properties that operate feedlots, grazed forage crops, and properties that collect effluent, the a nutrient budgets shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person Certified Nutrient Management Adviser, using the OVERSEER TM nutrient budget model following the OVERSEER TM Best Practice Data Input Standards, or equivalent model approved by the Shared Services Science Manager Chief Executive of the Gisborne District Council., for each of the identified land management units and the overall farm or farm enterprise a. Nutrient management: to maximise nutrient efficiency while minimiseing nutrient losses to water in order to maintain and enhance water quality e.g. phosphorus loss, nitrogen leaching and weed control. Nutrient Efficiency 22 FANZ s philosophy on managing water quality is relatively simple manage the outputs to land and water and not the inputs. An input based system i.e. a nitrogen limit of 150kg/ha/yr or rules based on nutrient use efficiency is not an effects based measure. Furthermore, there is no incentive with an input control to reduce the input as long as the applicable standard is being met. 23 The efficient use of nutrients may still enable output losses to increase while still meeting or improving on the efficiency ratio. It is for this reason that FANZ supports the use of OVERSEER and the management of discharges by way of managing annual average output of nitrogen per hectare per year. 24 I agree with the Officer that the principal of the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources is enshrined in the RMA, but this should not be interpreted to apply to farm inputs such as nutrients in imported feed supplements 6

8 or fertiliser. I am concerned with the requirement to maximise nutrient use efficiency in the Proposed GRFP. 25 My understanding is that nutrient efficiency relates to outputs per unit of input (usually measured as a ratio), and because the efficiency measure is a ratio, input and outputs can both be increased, thereby maintaining or improving the efficiency, while still increasing overall nutrient losses. While the fertiliser industry supports the benefits of the efficient use of nutrients, it is not an effects based measure. 26 To expand on this point, the efficient use of nutrients in cropping may be achieved by: 1. applying split applications of nitrogen as a pre-emergent application, followed by two or more applications at strategic growth stages of the crop. Rates and timing of nitrogen application are determined to meet the crop s need without undue N loss through leaching. 2. applying a coated, controlled release fertiliser product which is demonstrated to release nutrients more slowly, providing for a small reduction in the total nitrogen applied to achieve the same yield in saleable produce. 3. applying very frequent, very low rates of application including foliar absorption. 27 All three options will provide different levels of nutrient efficiency and also have very different cost and management implications. Therefore, a producer/farmer should not be forced into the most efficient application method when this may not be the most economically viable nor guarantee a better environmental outcome. Given this, I suggest that the Plan provisions should focus on requiring activities to be managed to ensure acceptable N loss is achieved and adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. In my opinion, maximising the efficiency of farm inputs should not be a requirement in the Proposed GRFP. Farm Environment Plans and Use of OVERSEER 28 I note that the wording of Rules and require that applicants have prepared and submitted to the Consent Authority, a Farm Environment Plan which has been certified by the Consent Authority as meeting the requirements outlined in Schedule 11. In my opinion, the wording of both rules should be amended for clarity to state: 7

9 a Farm Environment Plan shall be prepared in accordance with Schedule 11 and submitted to the Consent Authority for approval. 29 The Farm Environment Plan (FEP) requires that new and existing farms, other than dairy farms, properties that operate feedlots and properties that collect effluent, prepare a basic nutrient budget. The basic nutrient budget shall indicate how nitrogen and phosphorus are coming onto the farm, where they are going and the levels that may be lost by leaching or run-off. Whereas dairy farms, properties that operate feedlots and properties that collect effluent must prepare nutrient budgets using OVERSEER. 30 I recognise that the application of OVERSEER presents additional complexity and challenges when representing the long term annual average nutrient loss for complex crop rotations in arable and vegetable cropping but I am opposed to two versions of nutrient budgets. 31 I acknowledge that the reduction or maintenance of nutrient loss rates in cropping systems may be achieved by working with documented farm plans providing robust and auditable descriptions of crop nutrient production requirements and mitigation measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. 32 Traditionally cropping nutrient requirements are based on nutrient inputs and crop removal. A nutrient budget provides for a range of nutrient inputs and a range of outputs, for example including inputs from mineralisation, plus fertiliser, plus atmospheric sources (from soil rhizobia in legumes) etc. and a range of losses including nutrient harvested in produce, surface runoff and leaching and atmospheric loss etc. However, the Proposed GRFP is not clear in what a basic nutrient budget will provide for, or how scientifically robust it must be. If nutrient requirements based on traditional crop removal and nutrient loss mitigations are included in the approach being adopted, there is no need to refer to a basic nutrient budget. The term nutrient budget provides for a budget prepared using OVERSEER. The Farm Environment Plan with auditable good management practices and mitigations can be used to describe the way crop nutrient requirements are provided for. 33 I therefore conclude that in the short term, the rules as proposed will suffice, albeit with the removal of basic nutrient budget. However, in the longer term a plan change will be needed to introduce the use of OVERSEER for horticultural and other primary production activities and rules that provide for nitrogen output limits. This will ensure the availability of measurable and quantifiable data that can be analysed and linked statistically to water quality, enabling contributions to 8

10 decreasing water quality to be identifiable. It will also more readily provide for catchment accounting requirements. 34 Where the application of OVERSEER is required, FANZ sought the requirement that nutrient budgets are prepared by Certified Nutrient Management Advisers, (certified under the Nutrient Management Adviser Certification Programme Ltd) as the model when used for regulatory purposes requires expert users, and this certification scheme is the only qualification requiring certificates in both the Intermediate and Advance Sustainable Nutrient Management Courses, plus demonstration of currency with continuing professional development. OVERSEER should be applied by expert users following the OVERSEER Best Practice Data Input Standards. I therefore seek that these requirements are included in Schedule 11 for the consistency and quality assurance they provide. Activity status of application of fertiliser 35 With regard to the status of activities that do not meet the permitted standards, the Officer notes that the Plan is silent on this matter, which means an activity defaults to a discretionary activity status. 36 The Officer then goes on to note that the Plan has a generally permissive approach, where individual activities that have a less than minor impact on the environment are permitted. This relies on a degree of trust on the farming and grower community. Standards are not met, generally because good management practices are not being observed. A discretionary activity status sends a clear signal that the permitted activity standards should be adhered to and noncompliances should be infrequent. 37 In my opinion, a discretionary activity status does not send a signal that the permitted activity standards should be adhered to. It sends a signal that the activity is anticipated but not on every site and needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. A discretionary activity status is often used in circumstances where the effects are so variable that it is not possible to prescribe appropriate standards and terms to cover all circumstances, as noted by the Officer. 38 The Officer has rejected applying a restricted discretionary activity status to activities that cannot meet the permitted activity standards. I therefore question the purpose of Policy which sets out the assessment criteria when considering applications to discharge solid or fertiliser contaminants to land or water. In my opinion, the effects of fertiliser use are well known and documented including the impacts on different soil types and water quality. I suggest therefore 9

11 that a restricted discretionary activity status can be applied and discretion limited to the matters in Policy Ravensdown (35.53) supported by a further submission from FANZ (FS22.29) sought to amend Policy to include additional assessment criteria specific to fertiliser use. The Officer noted that the assessment matters are focussed on solid waste and landfills and do not mention fertiliser application. They state that the criteria could be applied to an assessment of fertiliser use but considered it useful to make some minor wording amendments to clarify this. The minor amendments include referring to fertiliser in the first line of the Policy and including a matter on the need for contingency plans to manage accidental or emergency discharges. 40 In my opinion, the latter is more appropriately dealt with under HSNO or the hazardous substances section as it more generally relates to storage not application. I therefore consider that Rule should be amended as detailed in the table above. Section Section 32 of the RMA, requires that any proposed plan change must be accompanied by an evaluation that assesses both: i. The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and ii. Whether the proposed policies and methods are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness, taking into account the benefits and costs. Policies and methods 42 In assessing the policies and methods in accordance with the requirements under section 32, it is necessary to have regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, taking into account their costs and benefits, and whether they are the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives. 43 With its submissions, FANZ sought amendment to existing policies and methods, specifically to: i. Amend Policy and Schedule 11 to remove the reference to maximise nutrient use efficiency 10

12 ii. Apply a restricted discretionary rather than a discretionary activity status under Rule and apply the assessment matters in Policy iii. Require that OVERSEER TM nutrient budgets are prepared by a Certified Nutrient Management Advisor. 44 I consider that the policy and method changes outlined within this evidence would still enable the objectives of the Proposed GRFP to be achieved, and would not undermine their effectiveness. The purpose of Policy would be clarified by removing the reference to maximum nutrient use efficiency, which is not an effects based measure, and would enable farmers to make practical management decisions without the imposition of requirements in the Proposed GRFP. 45 Clear and certain policies would minimise implementation costs and provide a greater level of confidence that the outcomes in the objectives would be achieved. 46 Overall, I consider that the amendments sought would still enable the maintenance and improvement of the quality of freshwater bodies as required under the NPS-FM. Costs and Benefits 47 In considering the provisions sought by FANZ, it is also important to consider the costs and benefits. 48 In terms of benefits, there are numerous benefits to the district, regional and national economies in maintaining and improving the quality of freshwater. There is no direct economic benefit to FANZ but benefits to landowners and consumers include the potential for: i. recreational activities on and in freshwater bodies without undue risk to human health. ii. water available for stock and domestic purposes that requires little or no treatment. iii. increased biodiversity and fish stocks in waterbodies due to improving water quality. 49 I consider the amendments outlined in FANZ s submission have specific benefits in that: 11

13 i. Efficient nutrient use that has cost and farm management implications would be left to the discretion of the farmer/producer. ii. The Proposed GRFP would be effects based and outcome focussed. iii. Application of appropriate status for those activities that would not meet the permitted activity standard, making a potentially less onerous consent pathway but still achieving the policies of the Plan and giving effect to the NPS-FM. iv. Nutrient budgets would be robust and OVERSEER would be used appropriately ensuring consistency in its application. 50 I consider the above benefits would be achieved by the amended provisions sought by FANZ. 51 Costs arise in any planning regime; however, the policies and methods sought by FANZ are, in my opinion, relatively simple to interpret and apply and, therefore provide an effective and efficient guiding document for the Gisborne Region. 52 Overall I consider that as amended by FANZ, the policies and methods will provide for the maintenance and enhancement of water quality. Conclusions 53 Section 62(3) of the RMA obliges the Council to give effect to the NPS-FM in its Proposed GRFP. This requirement to give effect is a strong direction to councils and requires positive implementation. As outlined in my previous evidence, there are clear requirements in the NPS-FM to manage freshwater quality for biodiversity, human consumption and recreation. 54 For the reasons outlined in my evidence, I support refinement of the policies and methods managing freshwater quality, which will maintain and enhance water quality in freshwater bodies. I have also suggested future changes that may be required to ensure water quality is improved and maintained, particularly if primary production increases. Claire Kelly 25 th October

14 Appendix A FANZ Submissions Not Discussed in Main Body of Evidence. 13

15 Repo Plan topic rt Secti 2.5 Point source discharges Plan section Plan provision Submitter 5.1 Policy Department of Conservation Submission point Decision requested Further submissions Officer recommendation 5.64 Amend Policy in order to provide for the link between discharges to land and both ground and surface water. FS22.4- Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose Changes recommended to FWP FANZ Comments Accept Yes I accept the Officer's amendments as appropriate. 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Department of Conservation 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rules Department of Conservation 5.78 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 inaccordance 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 requirement, particularly if water quality in a particular catchment is degraded, or water over allocated to the point where the life supporting capacity of freshwater is being degraded. FS22.5- Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose FS22.6- Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose Accept Accept in part Yes Yes I note that one polivcy has been added that states 'Require Farm Management Plans (FMPS) where intensively farmed stock, commecial vegetable growing and cropping activities are undertaken and encourage their development for all farms and horticultural landuses. I accept this new policy as setting a framework for FMPs. I also agree with the Officer's reasoning that whilst FMPs have an important part to play in relation to water quality limits and allocation, they hould not have to address the individual farm contribution to them. Definition 5.3 Fertiliser Definition 5.3 Fertiliser 10.1 Delete the definition of leachate or amend to encompass leachate from other activities. Accept Yes I accept as appropriate the new definition of 'leachate': 'Any liquid that, in the course of passing through matter, extracts soluble or suspended solids, or any other component of the material through which it has passed' The wording of the definition is concise and is probably clearer than saying non-point source discharge as diffuse means dispersed and spread which reflects the nature of most discharges from agricultural land. Retain the definition of diffuse discharge as notified. Accept Yes I accept the Officer's recommendation that as the term 'diffuse discharges' is used throughout the Plan, the term 'non-point source' can be deleted. 2.4 Stormwater quality 5.1 Policy Fertiliser 2.6 Discharge to Groundwater and Bedrock 5.2 Policy Fertiliser Amend Policy as follows: Manage the impacts of stormwater discharges through: b. To ensure water quality objectives, targets and limits for the receiving waterbodies will not be compromised by stormwater discharges:.. iii. Require industrial or trade premises to manage stormwater discharges in accordance with a stormwater management plan detailing best practicable stormwater management, to be provided at the time of applying for a new or renewal of an existing discharge consent Amend Policy as follows: Protect groundwater quality within aquifers recognising that these provide a substantial basis for food primary production and potable supply. irrigation values. None Accept in part Yes The Officer has stated that it is Important to have a common date for implementation of stormwater management plans for existing activities. Renewal dates vary and could lead to inconsistent requirements on businesses who may be discharging into the same waterbody. There are also many industrial and business activities that do not require consent. A 2020 timeframe is considered appropriate to allow existing activities to meet the requirements and is consistent with other timeframes in the PFWP. I accept the Officer's recommendations FS Hort NZ- Oppose FS LeaderBrand- Oppose FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Reject No The Officer notes that the terminology used in the Plan is consistent with and reflects that used in Appendix 1 of the NPS-FM. I therefore accept the Officer's recommendation. 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Policy Fertiliser Amend Policy as follows: Work with industry and landowners to develop best good management practices for the management of diffuse discharges and progressively implement these through the use of Farm Environment Plans. FS Hort NZ- Support in part FS LeaderBrand- Support in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Accept Yes I accept the Officer's recommendation. 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Policy Fertiliser Amend Policy as follows:where intensive land use occurs, or where water quality limits are exceeded, require Support the implementation of industry best agreed good management practice to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of land use activities on waterbodies from measures in order to maximise nutrient use efficiency and minimise nutrient run-off, faecal contamination and sedimentation. FS Hort NZ- Support in part FS LeaderBrand- Support in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Reject No Refer to Para 23 of my evidence.

16 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rule Fertiliser 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rule and Fertiliser 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rule 5.3.6(b) Fertiliser 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Method Fertiliser 2.8 Solid discharges 2 Definition Fertiliser Amend Rule to include guidance on practical implementation. FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Amend Rule and Rule to include guidance on practical implementation. FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Amend Rule (b) as follows: b. The application rate of nitrogen does not exceed: i. 150kgN/year and 30 kgn/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by sandy and pumice soils; ii. 200kg/N/year and 50kgN/31 day onto grazed pasture underlain by soils other than those listed above; i) iii. Exceed the reasonable nitrogen requirements of the crop, or vegetation or pasture being grown on ground other than grazed pasture; Add new rule as follows: Rule Any discharge that does not meet the permitted activity standards under Rules to is a Controlled Activity Amend Method as follows: Council will work with industry organisations such as HortNZ, Dairy NZ, Foundation forarable Research, Dairy New Zealand, and Beef and Lamb New Zealand and the Fertiliser Association of New Zealand to ensure that Good Practice Guidelines for different types of intensive farming in Gisborne conditions are available Use the definition provided in the ACVM regulations, or in the alternative amend the definition of fertiliser as follows: Fertiliser: A solid or fluid substance or biological compound, or mix of substances or biological compounds that is described as, or held out to be for, or suitable for, sustaining or increasing the growth, productivity, or quality of plants or, indirectly, animals through the application to plants or soil of any of the following: 1. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, magnesium, calcium, chlorine, or sodium as major nutrients; or 2. Manganese, iron, zinc, copper, boron, cobalt, molybdenum, iodine, or selenium as minor nutrients; or 3. Fertiliser additives to facilitate the uptake and use of nutrients; or 4. Soil conditioners to alter the physical characteristics of soil; and includes non-nutrient attributes of the materials used in fertiliser; but does not include; 1. Substances that are plant growth regulators that modify the physiological functions of plants; or 2. Any raw or composted biological waste product that is not able to be registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act FS Hort NZ- Support in part FS LeaderBrand- Support in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere FS Hort NZ- Oppose in part FS LeaderBrand- Oppose in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere Accept Yes The Officer states that the definition of 'drain' is too broad for the purposes of the rule and recommends that the rule needs to be clarified, so that it is clear that rule applies to surface water drains. I accept the Officer's recommendation. Accept Yes The Officer has recommended that it may be appropriate to provide some additional clarification of the implementation of the rules in an advisory note. There is a common misconception in the grower community that many of the intermittent streams and modified watercourses are drains. Whilst I accept the Officer's recommendation, I note that the advisory note has only been included under Rule Suggest that it should also be included under Rule 524 Reject No Refer to Para 28 of my evidence. Accept Yes I accept the Officer's recommendation. Reject No The Officer has recommended that the reference to soil conditioners is retained as it includes lime, which can have an adverse effect on water quality. They also note that sand is unlikely to have an adverse effect and will therefore not trigger any rules. Officer's recommendation. I accept the 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Policy Fertiliser 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Fertiliser Amend Policy as follows: Discharges of solids and fertilisers to land should be managed so water quality is maintained within the limits for that waterbody Add a new rule as follows: Rule Any discharge that does not meet the permitted activity standards under Rules to Restricted Discretionary Activity. The assessment matters under Policy apply. FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere FS9.13- First Fresh NZ Ltd- Support FS Hort NZ- Support FS LeaderBrand- Support FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere FS Fed Farmers- Support Accept Yes The Officer has acknowledged that fertilisers are not all solid and their use may not always be a diffuse discharge. They have also added the word 'or improved where degraded' to the end of the Policy. I accept the Officer's recommendations, noting that the additional wording reflects the intent of the NPS-FM Reject No Refer to Para 35 of my evidence.

17 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Rule Fertiliser 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Rule Fertiliser Amend Section 5.4 Solid Discharges Solid Discharges Discharge of solids to land or water Amend Rule as follows: Discharges from application of fertiliser and fertiliser storage. Standards a. Fertiliser must be applied in accordance with Good management practices for fertiliser handling, fertiliser use and fertiliser application as identified in the Fertiliser Association of New Zealand's Code of Practice for Nutrient Management ( ); b. Fertiliser storage and loading sites are at least metres from any surface waterbody on areas that are not susceptible to flooding; c. Where nitrogen application rates are in excess of 200kg N/ha/year, nitrogen fertiliser application is in split dressings of 50kg N/ha; d. Where soluble phosphate fertiliser application rates are in excess of 100kg P/ha, phosphate fertiliser application is in split dressings; e. Non-target application of fertiliser is minimised; f. Ffertiliser or contaminants must not be discharged to land within 5 metres of an Outstanding Waterbody as identified in Schedule 4; except Amend Rule 5.4.5(d) (i) and (ii) as follows; d. The application rate of nitrogen does not: i. Exceed 150kgN/ha/year and 30kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by sandy and pumice soils; ii. Exceed 200kgN/ha/year and 50kgN/ha/31 days onto grazed pasture underlain by soils other than those listed above Exceed the reasonable nitrogen requirements of the crop, or vegetation or pasture being grown. FS Hort NZ- Oppose in Accept in part (also Yes part/support in part reject in part) FS LeaderBrand- Oppose in part/support in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere The Officer has recommended that the reference to the Code of Practice for Nutrient Management is amended to refer to the 2013 version. The Officer has also recommended that fertiliser storage is referred to in the introduction as it is covered by standard b. However, the Officer has rejected the reduction of the setback from surface waterbodies as the Code recommends 50m and no rationale is provided as to why the smaller setback is appropriate. I accept the Officer's recommendations. FS1.19- Beef and Lamb NZ- Support Reject No Refer to Para 28 of my evidence. in part FS Mangatu Blocks- Support FS Mangatu and Wi Pere 2.7 Nutrient Budgets Schedule 11 FMPs Fertiliser Amend Part A Farm Environment Plan Requirements as follows; Nutrient Budget a. A basic nutrient budget for nitrogen and phosphorus which indicates how nitrogen and phosphorus are coming onto the farm, where they are going and the levels that may be lost by leaching or run-off; except for b. Dairy Farms, properties that operate feedlots and properties that collect effluent, the nutrient budgets shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person Certified Nutrient Management Advisor, using the OVERSEER nutrient budget model following the OVERSEER Data Input Standards, or equivalent model approved by the Shared Services Science Manager Chief Executive of the Gisborne District Council, for each of the identified land management units and the overall farm or farm enterprise. Reject No The Officer notes that whilst Overseer is a useful tool, it was developed for dairy farming and s still under development in terms of cropping. The Officer concludes that it is not fit for purpose for the issues in Gisborne. It is best used as a voluntary tool. FMPs should be prepared and owned by the farmer and that this is key to their effective implementation. I accept the recommendations of the Officer, recognising that Overseer is still under development in terms of managing nutrient budgets for commercial cropping and horticulture. 2.7 Nutrient Budgets Schedule 11 FMPs Fertiliser Delete Part A Farm Environment Plan Requirements Section 4 bullet 5 as follows: Reject No Refer to Para 23 of my evidence. For the following objectives provide an assessment of the adverse environmental effects and risks associated with the farming activities and how the identified effects and risks will be managed: a. Nutrient management: to manage the farm system nutrient losses to maximise nutrient use efficiency while minimise ing nutrient losses to water e.g. phosphorus loss, nitrogen leaching and weed control. Nutrient Budgets Schedule 11 FMPs Fertiliser Amend Part A Farm Environment Plan Requirements Section 6 as follows: Reject No Refer to Para 23 of my evidence. 6. Monitoring and review of the implementation and Aachievements of the Farm Environmental Plan shall be recorded yearly, and changes in freshwater quality, soil condition, and natural biodiversity (if relevant) are to be monitored every five years. A Nutrient Budget is to be valid for three years unless there is a significant farm system change.

18 2.5 Point source discharges 2.5 Point source discharges 5.1 Policy Forest and Bird Amend Policy to give effect to the NPS FM as follows: Where a water quality limit has been exceeded for a waterbody: a. Values, policies, objectives, limits, targets, methods and timeframes for improvements in water quality will be identified through the catchment management planning process; b. Consideration will be given to requirement of a land use change The aforementioned relief / amendment as worded in a. above should apply to all other policies, methods and rules in this section as well. FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose 5.1 Policy 5.1.8b Forest and Bird 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 be met within the timeframes set in the plan for water bodies are already degraded; 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Rule Forest and Bird Rule Forest & Bird ask that the council provide an understanding of the process followed to determine these figures. a. Where nitrogen application rates are in excess of 200kg N/ha/year, nitrogen fertiliser application is in split dressings of 50kg N/ha; b. Where soluble phosphate fertiliser application rates are in excess of 100kg P/ha, phosphate fertiliser application is in split dressings; Fertiliser or contaminants must not be discharged to land within 5 metres of all water bodies, including Outstanding Waterbodies as identified in Schedule 4 ( Schedule 4: Outstanding Waterbodies In the first instance Forest & Bird would like to discuss this matter further with council staff. 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rule Manu Caddie Rule Include advisory note: Farm Environment Plans are required for all commercial farming practices, including horticulture greater than 1 hectare. The scope of their requirements shall be relevant to the scale of the activity, as set out in Schedule 11. FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose Reject Reject No No The Officer considers that the submission relates to the process of developing catchment plans, rather than the management of resource consent point source discharges. The Officer states that this will be addressed under the catchment plan process. Consideration of land use change as part of the policy framework is inappropriate: direction around appropriate land uses needs to be part of the catchment planning process and will also be managed through the District Plan. The Policy already provides that new discharges and renewals will be managed to bring the waterbody back within the water quality limit set for that waterbody. I accept the recommendation of the Officer The Officer notes that Policy A3 of the NPSFM anticipates the use of the Best Practical Option (BPO) to prevent or minimise actual or likely adverse effects on the environment. Additional stipulation is not necessary. BPO is not proposed to be used in all circumstances -it is one of a number of criteria. There is also clear policy direction, which outlines how resource consents for degraded waterbodies will be managed and the assessment criteria in Policy provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the matters which need to be considered in relation to discharges. I accept the Officer's Reject No The Officer d notes i that there does not appear to be an issue with nutrient enhancement in the vast majority of Gisborne rivers. Therefore they do not consider that it is appropriate to extend the application of the buffer to every waterway without a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of doing so. However, the Officer does consider it is appropriate to extend the scope of the rule to include Regionally Significant Wetlands identified in Schedule 3 of the Plan. Both Outstanding Waterbodies and Regionally Significant Wetlands have been identified for their significant values to give effect to the NPSFM. There are currently no water quality monitoring sites associated with wetlands so the current state of water quality within the regions wetlands is uncertain. Avoiding direct contaminant input from fertiliser application is considered a precautionary approach and appropriate given the scarcity of the wetland resource. Given there are only 20 identified regionally significant wetlands, this is not considered a significant cost to fertiliser users or the wider economy. This setback is also not likely to be difficult to implement as it is recognised in the Code of Practice for Nutrient Management. I therefore accept the Officer's findings and recommendation. Reject No The Officer states that FMPs are not required for all commercial farming activities, only those which meet the thresholds of the Plan. I accept the Officer's findings and recommendation. 2.7 Diffuse discharges 5.3 Rule b Matawai Farmers Group 25.6 Maintain rule as notified with a modification to increase the area to 10ha FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Support Reject No The Officer considers the 5 hectare threshold to be appropriate. The Officer discusses the general size and type of farm in the District but does not really state why 5ha is appropriate. I could assume it is because of the potential effects on waterways but cannot be sure. Suggest that clearer reasoning is required for the retention of the 5ha threshold

19 2.8 Solid discharges 5.4 Policy Ravensdown Ravensdown seeks for Council to retain the intent of Policy while adding additional assessment criteria specific to fertiliser use. 2.5 Point source 5.1 Policy TROTAK, Horouta 41.5 To discharge contaminants directly to land or water...assessment criteria (p5.1.8) discharges Iwi Collective - INSERT 'prohibit discharge of contaminants' (to be in accord with tikanga - we know it has negative impact on mauri) FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Support FS Fertiliser Association NZ- Oppose Accept in part Yes Refer to Para 39 of my evidence. Reject No The Officer states that discharges to land and water are anticipated by the RMA and the NPSFM (Policy A3). The focus of Policy is on managing discharges within limits and the avoidance, remedying or mitigating of adverse environmental effects that can arise from point source discharges. The Officer can find no basis for prohibiting all direct discharges and this would have significant implications for resources users throughout the region. I agree with the Officer and accept their findings and recommendation.