From: Mark Beaton [mailto:markb@outram.school.nz] Subject

Transcription

Julie
Subject:
From:
Quality)
- Beaton
Family
Submission.
Mark Beaton [mailto:markb@outram.school.nz]
Sent:
To:
Allen
Thursday,
3 May 2012 9:03 a.m.
Sarah Valk
FW: Proposed
Plan Change 6A (Water
Sent:
To:
Wednesday,
2 May 2012
4:47
p.m.
Info
Subject:
Name
Proposed Plan Change 6A (Water Quality) - Beaton Family Submission.
of representative:
Organisational
Address:
Mark
name:
Beaton
1388 Berwick
Telephone:
Beaton.
Family.
Road, 1
OUTRAM
9073
03 486 1308
Date 2 May 2012.
l would
like to present
Our submission
Our farm
Lake Waipori
Flood
adjacent
on the eastern
the property.
Waipori.
in person
please.
is:
is located
through
my submission
Some
to Waipori
Lake on its north
boundary
of the farm
of our freehold
and the Meggat
land is in the delta
This land is low lying and is part of the Taieri
Control
fresh/flood
Scheme
should
be operative
and east shores
along
Plains
with
with
the upper
Waipori
River flowing
into
Burn also flows
of the upper
ponding
preferential
area.
flooding
Waipori
River as it flows
It is reasonable
that
into
the Taieri
Lake
Plains
areas to take the excess water
during
events.
It is reasonable that the Otago Regional Council should be looking at water quality BUT we have issues with the
proposed
pump
the Proposed
that
Schedule
water
Plan Change
off. Will
6A (Water
the Otago
Regional
Quality).
Council
The main
provide
issue is that
addition
our property
protection
floods
by allowing
and we have to
higher
stopbanks?
nitrate-nitrite
nitrogen,
15, 16 and maps.
The tables
are not all in the same
e
Waipori
0.006
units.
(presumed
mg/L
The issue we have here
river)
dissolved
and Taieri
reactive
is that:
have proposed
phosphorus,
limits
and 0.1mg/L
of 0.075
mg/L
ammoniacal
nitrogen
- Group
2 receiving
waters.
e
Group
1 receiving
reactive
total
The lower
phosphorus,
Lake Waihola,
•
Taieri
waters
set at 0.444
and 0.1 mg/Lammoniacal
as a Group
phosphorus,
have limits
3 receiving
water,
and 0.1mg/Lammoniacal
Plains have a farming
intensity
compatible
mg/L
nitrate-nitrite
nitrogen,
0.026
mg/L
dissolved
nitrogen.
has limits
set at 0.725
mg/L
total
nitrogen,
0.043
mg/L
nitrogen.
with
areas of the Lower
Clutha
but have a different
type
of classification. The flat areas around Benhar are also designated different from the areas across the river.
Shouldn't areas of similar farming use have the same standards proposed? Which of these standards must we
comply with?
Flood
water
The West Taieri Drainage area and us have very similar farming and hydrology except that the West Taieri system
draws
its normal
water
level
much
lower.
A flood
may take a long time
to drain.
Once
the first
creating
and power
normal
days, fermenting
at the pump
shortages
within
Taieri
don't
twelve
waters
can become
allow
with
the pumping
waters
fresh
water
of flood
within
over
Channel
through
"Flood"
events
waters
land to dilute
the West
can occur
with
rain -certainly
a good
a restricted
Will
natural
Taieri
How is a flood
urban
wind-
event
don't
take
hours.
need
with
pumping
Certainly
It might
than twelve
they
perhaps
start
defined.
concept!
more
waters,
we can even
an odour,
if high water
the water
a couple
levels
is not back to
of weeks
Lakes Waipori
for the
and Waihola
to have a fresh/flood
event.
The
load at all times.
become
time?
oils into the flood
days before
and concrete
with
sediment
a specified
to work.
clear after
sediment
to release
be several
is an asphalt
reasonably
muddy
It might
the pumps
That
River has a considerable
flood
grass is going
outlets.
hours.
River to become
Waipori
Will
few
a foam
this time
waters
Drainage
within
Area
sustained
or prohibited
wet
activity?
be achievable
a flood-banked
before
weather
Do we have to be able to pump
in practice?
pumping
Will
area before
back into
- the water
it become
pumping
necessary
i.e. diverting
off
to divert
the Contour
Lake Waipori.
does not need
to have overtopped
the
floodbanks.
Capillary
action
pumped
low.
in the fine soils of our property
become
an automatic
Additional
rain can produce
revenue
source
can hold
surface
a high water
flooding.
for the Otago
Would
Regional
level
in the paddocks
this be a flood
Council.
event
An additional
even when
in local terms
expense,
of dealing with the climatic event. It is likely that this water would contain grass fermenting
Water
of ducks
and swans
go directly
from
farm
land to the lakes. They feed
Taieri Plains at night and return to Lakes Waipori and Waihola during the day -big
year.
What
fowl
-instead
effect
does this have?
of bludging
I think
Fish and Game
on the farmers
with
to put up with permanent/semi-permanent
It is extremely
do minimal
difficult
damage
side. This part
The 10 hour
limit
Yours sincerely,
Mark
are
it
to the expense
products.
fowl
Large numbers
either
a fine,
the drains
or does
Beaton.
to have livestock
to a rougher
of Rule
to do a quick
should
a haw haw!
be made
I don't
to account
see any reason
on the pasture
lands
of the
flights of them at times of the
for the effects
why
of game
the community
water
should
have
mai mai's. Why should our visual amenity values be so polluted?
in an area without
area i.e. wetland;
seems
fix adjacent
very
or within
then
them
they
exposing
are going
soil on tracks.
to walk
on tracks
prohibiting.
a waterway
is a bit tight.
Rule 13.5.1
If the livestock
and graze within
is going
reach
to
on
SUBMISSION
tago
it
&
FORM
(Print clearly on both sides)
a Regional
Council
Proposed
Plan Change
6A (Water
Form 5, Clause 6 of the First Schedule,
Quality)
Resource
to the Regional
Management
Act
Plan: Water
for
OTAGO REGIONALCOUNCIL l
RECENED DUNEDIN
Otago
1991.
I
Rt.E No. „„„„
DIR TO
Name
of submitter:
Office use only
02 MAY 2012
l wish
/ de-net-wish
I
!
(circle preference)
to be heard
in support
of my submission.
Organisation
If others
(if applicable):
make a similar
presenting
Postal
jointly
with
submission;J-w-,il.Uwill
them
at a hearing
not
consider
(circle preference).
address:
~O
Signature:
5
(of submitter,
making
Date:OXI~O~/~::;il
or person
authorised
to sign on behalf
of person
submission).
Postcode:
Trade
competitor's
I could gain through
Telephone:
my submission
declaration
(if applicable)
trade competition
is limited
to addressing
from a submission,
environmental
but
effects
directly impacting my business
Fax:
Email:
Signature:
Note that all submissions
SUBMISSIONS
WEDNESDAY
are made available
for public
MUST BE RECEIVED BY S.00 PM,
2 MAY
2012.
inspection.
Send
Free
@
to:
Freepost ORC 1722
Otago Regional Council
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin
9054
Pleasetum over
State
what
submission
if you
want
your
2
relates
support,
to and
oppose
Staterulewhat
decision
E.g.
'y' should
Otago
Regional
you
Council
want
the
to make
3
Give
reasons
for
the
decision
you
E.g. I want rule 'y' changed
want
made
BEECEE)
-t -
or
it amended
E.g. amend rule 'y'
E.g. I want rule 'y' changed because..
Please add pages as required
!
• ~!i~ ~• •••-~
i¸¸~!•
~!:
•!•i:ii
•~
i!¸ii¸•~II:~•I:!
••!
i •••
~• ••
•
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin 9054
Submission Form:
Form Name: Plan Change 6A
(Water Quality)
Application
Application
Applicant
Application
ID: ORCNDFCH2/66
Date: May 2, 2012
Name:
Status:
Tony Pearse,
Producer Manager,
Deer Industry New
Zealand
New
ORCNDFCH2
Submission
Form:
Plan Change
6A (Water
Quality)
to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago
Form 5, Clause 6 of the First Schedule, Resource Management
SUBMITTER
DETAILS
1A
details:
Contact
Act 1991.
*
Name:
Tony Pearse, Producer
Address:
Level 5 Wellington
City:
Phone:
Wellington
Email:
tony.pearse@deernz.org
Manager,
Chambers
Deer Industry
New Zealand
154 Featherston
Street,
Wellington
6143
6143
04 471 6118 021 719038
1B
1C
Organisation name (if
applicable) :
(Deer Industry
Association )
Postcode :
(6143)
Fax no:
(04 472 5549)
I wish to be heard in support
New Zealand
and New Zealand
Deer Farrners
of my submission:*
Yes
1D
If others made a similar
hearing: *
submission,
I will consider
presenting
a joint
case with them at a
No
Please note that all submissions
Trade competitor's
(if applicable)
1E
NO (not
checked)
ORCNDFCH2
are made available
for public
inspection.
declaration
I could gain through trade competition
from a submission,
but my submission is
limited to addressing adverse environmental
effects directly impacting my business.
Form:
2A
Plan Change
6A (Water
Quality)
The parts of the proposed plan change that my submission
relates to are:
(Give clear references if possible e.g. reference number, policy x, rule y)
7b Policies general
1
2B
I seek the following
decision from the local authority:
(Give precise details of the changes you would like made e.g. retain rule 'y')
2C
My submission
is:
(Give reasons for the changes you would like made, and include whether you support,
Please
wish to upload
have amended
any documents
the parts inidentified
support above
of youre.g.
submission:
I support rule 'y' because
2D
For DINZ and NZDFA ORCWater Quality
Click on Finish to send your submission
2E
Office use only
Submission redirected
6A.doc
to the Council.
to:
Developed by Ubiquity Software
oppose or
New Zealand
of Deer Industry
Deer Farmers'
New Zealand
and
Association
jointly
the Otago
Branch
of the
DEER
JINDUSTRY
NZDFA
NEW ZEALAND
NewZealandDeerFarmers'Association
SUBMISSION
OTAGO
REGIONAL
IN RELATION
COUNCIL
PLAN
Producer
CHANGE
Manager,
TO
6A
Name:
A J Pearse,
Location:
Wellington
Address:
Level 5, Wellington
Chambers
154 Featherston
Street, WELLINGTON
WATER
QUALITY
DINZ
6143
Attention:
Tony Pearse
tonv.pearse@deernz.orq
(04) 471 6118
Email:
Phone:
(021)
l wish to be heard
719 038
on behalf
of these
organisations
two deer farmer/industry
in support
of this
representative
submission:
Background:
1) The Deer Industry recognises
the intent and reality of improvement
of water
quality requirements
as now intended
under the Proposed
Plan Change 6A
(Water Quality) to give effect to the water quality provisions
of the National
Policy
Statement
for
Freshwater
Management
purpose of the Resource
Management
2) The Deer industry also acknowledges
2011,
and promote
Act 1991 (RMA).
the role and responsibility
the
of Regional
Councils
in developing
regulations
and rules to constructively
direct mitigation
and remedial activity related to land, nutrient management
to achieve these
objectives.
3) The Deer industry
and have instilled
Quality Assurance
Deer Industry
itself recognises
their own responsibilities
under the RMA
these responsibilities
within the long established
Industry's
programme
that developed
as part of the Cervena®
farm
New Zealand, Level 5, Wellington Chambers, 154 Featherston
PO Box 10702 Wellington 6143: www.deernz.org
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
venison
programme
that now underpins
the individual venison
processing
and exporting
company's
own in house QA programmes
that are a
part of farmer supply arrangements.
Meeting
environmental
minimum
standards
related to nutrient budgeting
water quality and minimizing
nutrient
runoff, soil loss and erosion is important
to both international
customer
expectations
and to company
and industry expectations
of modern deer
farming.
4) The deer industry is also investigating,
through
request of the DINZ board
opportunity
to re introduce
approach
to Environmental
requirements
underpinned
deer) and further aspects
credibility
5) To that end the industry
May 2012 present
farming Landcare
an Industry Agreed Standards
( IAS) common
sustainability
management,
deer welfare
by the legal status
of Quality assurance
has produced
of the 2007 Code of Welfare
supporting
exported
product
a Landcare
Manual
(2004)
(
and will in
to industry and its farmers a revised and updated
manual that, through the example
of Case studies
Deer
of
significant
deer farms throughout
NZ demonstrates
the Land and
Environmental
Planning
Principles
(LEP Risk Management
Planning
Courtesy
of Beef and Lamb NZ. It is intended that through focus farms, environmental
awards examples
and fielddays
that the newer approach
to preserving
environmental
values
and encouraging
practice change as shown in the
industry manual becomes
an increasing
part of day to day management,
and
encourage
a positive approach
to Regional council regulations
and the
principles
as demanded
through such regulation
as this current proposal
Water plan change 6A
6) Under that initiative the responsibilities
for deer farmers under the Resource
Management
Act ( 1991) (RMA or The Act) have been understood
as:
"Under the Act, sustainable
management
means:
Managing
resources
the use, development,
in a
way,
or at a rate,
provide for their social,
safety while °
•
°
Sustaining
minerals)
generations;
economic,
and protection
which
of natural
enables
and cultural
people
and physical
and
well being
communities
to
and for their
health
the potential
of natural
and physical
resources
to meet
the
reasonably
foreseeable
needs
and
Safeguarding
the
ecosystems;
and
A voiding,
remedying
life-supporting
or mitigating
capacity
any adverse
of
air,
effects
water,
and
(excluding
of
future
soil,
of activities
and
on the
en vironment.
7) Under
authority
Councils
the RMA, Regional Councils
have the responsibility
and statutory
to implement
the objectives
of the Act though various roles of Regional
including soil conservation,
the maintenance
and enhancement
of water
Deer Industry New Zealand, Level 5, Wellington Chambers, 154 Featherston
PO Box 10702 Wellington 6143: www.deernz.orq
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
2
the control
control
of weeds
The policies
of contaminant
and
pests
on
and regulations
discharges
private
to land, air or water,
and the
land.
set by both
Regional
and District
Councils
in
compliance
with the Act are documented
in Regional
and District Plans, and
include air quality, water quality and land management
plans. The Deer industry
believes that a key intention of the act is that every person has a duty to avoid,
remedy,
activity
or mitigate
carried
any adverse
on by or behalf
The RMA has implications
natural
resources.
themselves,
on the environment
for any activity
It focuses
but does
effect
arising
from an
of that person.
on the
not provide
that uses
effects
ways
or impacts
of activities
of actually
rather
in some
than
measuring
way on
the
activities
or assessing
sustainability.
Submission:
Introduction:
Deer farmers face some challenging
environmental
management
through their natural behaviour
which includes the habit (common
ages and seasonal
~98% of all farmed
•
They
have
stream
banks
wallowing
swales,
or on
is almost
behaviour,
springs,
pastures
and
impossible
of welfare
as
leaking
not in flowing
troughs
fencelines
in wet
to prevent,
required
under
water
weather
and is preserved
the
but in
and occasionally
Welfare
Code
near
That
natural
as one of the
for
Deer
2007.
However
the majority deer farmers have become skilled
at minimising
the
soil loss, nitrate movements
and sediment
and faecal contamination
from
this behaviour
and also including
detrimental
impacts
of soil movement
down slope from fence line pacing created through overstocking
or on the
rare occasion
deer are under management
stress in time of challenging
weather
•
a natural
edges,
behaviour
•
changes in behaviour
of Red deer, Elk and their crossbreds
deer). Deer exhibit this behaviour
on all classes on land.
swamp
5 freedoms
issues for deer
to all sexes
events
It is this prevention,
remedial
and mitigating
activity
as required
under
the
Act, that forms the basis of the Deer industry Landcare
management
standards
and along with Regional
council rules and regulations.
•
For water quality there is a heavy emphasis
on remedial action mitigation
of any adverse sedimentation
loading or nutrient loss before the water
leaves the property if other management
impacts at the point source of
risk is not possible or entirely effective.
•
It is the DFA's
concern
that the principles
outlined
in the water
change
plan 6A places a huge emphasis
of quality at the point sources of
especially
contaminationin theand
increasingly
risk, that indominant
many common
extensivedeerlowfarming
stock natural
situations farming
environments
of Otago hill and high country is almost impossible
to
effectively
manage at that point source, but can be remedied
effectively
downstream
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
3
in principle:
Policy
A)
7.B
Policies
Support
Oppose
7.B.1
general
in part
in part
Ensure
water
is of good
quality
by the
target
dates
described
Schedule
15, to support
natural and human use values,
Submission:
Support
but believe
that the definition
by:
of good
be more objective
as there is considerable
in catchments
around
the region and quite
in proposed
interpretations
quality
and
variation
different
quality
should
standards
of
use
(a) Avoiding
discharges
of contaminants
natural and human use values; and
with noticeable
effects
on
(b) Allowing
discharges
of contaminants
that cumulatively
have
minor effects, or are short-term;
and
(c) Minimising
disturbance
of the beds of rivers and lakes.
7. B.2 [Moved from 7.7.1] To promote discharges
of contaminants
preference
in
to land in
to water,
Support
in part but believe
the term where appropriate
needs
reinstatement
to give greater
scope to all available
options
for mitigation
remedial
action.
It stills gives clear direction
for preference
of discharge
but allows
the possibility
for existing
mitigation
and post point source
treatment
of
or
contaminants
7. B.3 [Moved
from 7.7.2]
When
considering
the discharge
of any
contaminant
to land, to have regard to:
(a) The ability of the land to assimilate
the discharge
contaminant;
(b) Any potential
for soil contamination;
and
(c) Any potential for land instability
Actual or potential effects on
water
bodies,
7. B.4 Encourage
discharge
Support:
This principle
adaptive
management
and impact
is an inherent
and innovation
of contaminants
part
on water
of the deer
to reduce
the
quality.
industry's
philosophy
quality
and commitments
under the ACT and is a basic tenant of
encouragement
for innovation
in the industry's
Landcare
Manual
and
QA
re water
approach
systems
7. B.5 Recognise
Catchment
the values
of Iwi when
water
is discharged
from one
to another.
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
4
believe
that policy
rules contained
within
Section
7 are too broad in
description
and the policy should
reflect greater
diversity
in values
and use
to accommodate
the wider descriptions
and intentions
under the ACT and
the recently
released
2011 National
Water Management
Policy
B)
SECTION
12C
"The
Rule discharge
(i)
After
of sediment
the cessation
to water
of rainfall
is a permitted
activity,
providing:
on the site, the discharge
does
not cause
sedimentation.
(ii)
From
(a)
31
March
2017:
More than one hour after rain ceases on the site the discharge
shall
not exceed water clarity of 40 nephelometric
turbidity units, where
the discharge
(b)
is about
to enter
water.
More than twelve hours after rains ceases on the site the discharge
shall not exceed water clarity of 5 nephelometric
turbidity units,
where
Part Support
Part
the discharges
is about
to enter
water."
Oppose
This rule seem overly complex
understanding
and consistency
exists from location to location
in relation to definition
and clarity of
across the catchments
given the variability
that
and how accurately
the point source of run off can
be determined
and attributed
to that rainfall. The ability of farmers to monitor to
this level of precision
and timing is questionable
where properties
are of scale.
The DFA submits that a management
system that also operates to trap
sedimentation
and
climatic challenge
that water system
provide
well
engineered
remedial
actions
in the
event
of
prior to the water leaving the property of on large farms
rather than at an entry point for the discharge
is more
within
appropriate.
Decision
Sought:
Rule
be
standard
applying
remedial
action
amended
so
it is easy
after discharge
or mitigation
to determine
with provision
prior to the water
made
leaving
compliance
and
for reasonable
the property
the
mixing
and
or local
catchment.
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
5
Rule
"The disturbance
Wetland,
of the bed of any lake or river,
by livestock
is a permitted
(a)
Cause
or induce
(b)
Expose
soil; or
(c)
Involve
feeding
(d)
Increase
(e)
Damage
fauna, or New Zealand
Significant
Wetland. ".
Support
slumping,
activity,
pugging
or any Regionally
providing
it does
or erosion;
Significant
not:
or
out; or
the colour
or reduce
the visual
native
clarity
flora,
of water;
or
in or on any Regionally
In part
The NZDFA acknowledges
this rule as a strong principle but suggests
that
compliance
in the extensive
farming of deer in the hill and high country will be
challenging
at some periods in the seasonal
calendar of deer farming.
The
practicalities
of fencing to protect rivers and Significant
Wetlands
are impossible
to be cost for deer at $12-14/m
minimum.>
we recognise
that the Water plan
regulations
does not require that directly asa means of restricting
access
but
making the effort is a major part of Risk Management
planning and good deer
farming. There will be times when compliance
to this rule is severely
tested
outside the scope of usual farm management.
It is this area that the ability to
apply remedial
measures
and repairs is important
and should be tolerated
as a
wider part of water quality management
via innovation
and employing
new
management
techniques.,
Rule
"The disturbance
Wetland,
does
Deer
by livestock
not cause
NZDFA
way
of the bed of any lake or river,
due to seasonal
or induce
supports
slumping,
muster,
is a permitted
pugging
In part but has some
or Regionally
or erosion.
difficulty
Significant
activity,
providing
with the term seasonal
muster
of definition.
are
Breeding
often
moved
season
Deer Industry
from
parts
requirements
of the
farm
and biology
to others
to accommodate
of reproduction,
4500
the
for management
Ph 04 473
it
"
Street
by
adverse
Better
Rule
(Tb testing)
for production
events
without
often
definition
(Year
a seasonal
of Seasonal
round
venison)
or in response
to
qualifier
muster
required
13.5A.0
"Prohibited
13.5A
activities:
No
0.1 The entering
Regionally
fivestock
resource
consent
onto or passing
Significant
from
one
across
Wetland
location
will
be
granted
the bed of any lake or river,
by livestock,
for the purpose
or any
of moving
to another:
the use of any authorised
structure over water and the
(a) Excluding
bed of any lake or river, or any Regionally
Significant
Wetland; and
(b) Excluding
seasonal
Is a prohibited
muster,
activity."
Submission
NZDFA
Opposes:
concerned
particularly
The Chairman
of the Otago
for his members
ability
and cites the following
Branch
NZDFA
to farm deer effectively
rationale:
is greatly
in the high country
The prohibited
activity status removes
all ability for a resource
consent to
be granted and a scope for a case by case assessment
to be completed.
This would allow the effects of a discharge
to be considered
and weighed
against
other
relevant
factors.
The Rule has the effect of prohibiting
any crossing
during a seasonal
muster). There does not appear
environmental
Council
must
making
a rule.
actual
basis
for
consider
or potential
such
the actual
Prohibited
effects
a broad
activity
on the
prohibition.
and potential
status
of stock (other
to be any
Under
effects
is not justified
section
than
68
the
of an activity
before
by any analysis
The rule does not provide for emergencies,
exceptional
circumstances
constraints
and management
differences
in working with deer
5.
There
Decision
is some
ambiguity
around
of
environment.
what
a 'seasonal
muster'
or
is.
Soug ht
Deer Industry
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
7
Rule
to allow
stock
movement
where
it does
not
have
adverse
effects
on
water quality, provide for crossing
in emergencies
or exceptional
circumstances
and change activity status to discretionary
to allow consent to be applied for,
considered
on a case by case basis.
The Otago branch NZDFA will meet with Nicola McGrouther
ORC on May 3rd at
their AGM on 3rd May to further gain understanding
of the Plane changes 6A and
receive further views and commentary
from their membership
that may aid better
definition
of these Rules proposals
of concern or any others and respectfully
requests that these views can be incorporated
commentary
in any subsequent
hearings
For
AJ
DINZ
and
as supplementary
submissions
or
NZDFA
Pearse
Producer
Deer
manager
Industry
New Zealand
DINZ
(2004)(
formerly
the
Authority
body representing
NZ Game
Industry
Board
the interests
of all sectors
is a formal
Statutory
of the deer industry and
charged
with the responsibility
of orderly
industry
development
and industry
good activity
including
all aspects
of deer farming.
statutory
The
of
levy
NZ
all
and marketing
It is funded by
Deer
deer
Farmers
farmers
voluntary
subscription.
and 23 regional
based
Association
(estimated
represents
at
2800
the
farmers
practical
and
nationally)
political
funded
interests
through
It is represented
through a national
Executive
committee
branches
and breed societies.
The Otago Branch is the
3rd largest region for deer farming
in NZ representing
-380 active farmers and
15%of the deer. The Otago region is known as a founding
area for modem
deer
farming
and is considered
environmentally
and climatically
and in farming
diversification
one of the most divers and contrasting
areas in NZ. The industry
has prided
itself
on being
pro
active
in its Landcare
and water
quality
responsibility
with the branch in association
Farming
Fund being the first Deer industry
with The ORC and MAF Sustainable
Focus Farm. Many of the principals
and water management
techniques
alluded to in this submission
were suggested
and tested
during
the tenure
of that project
and have subsequently
been
incorporated
into industry best practice
and standards.
DINZ provides
executive
and administrative
services
to the NZDFA national body
and
local
regional
branches.
Ph 04 473
4500
Street
8
17: 47
034313703
MIKE
SMITH
PAGE
02
17: 47
034313703
MIKE
SMITH
PAGE
NL
~,N'~.Olv)
,0N.
c+ng
01
t,t
64-3-4862140
17: 26
IJ
CF BATHGATE
PAGE
OTAGo REGIoNE COUNCIL
RECEIVEDDUN,ED,N
|
0 2 MAY 2012
l
ISION
ON
OTAGO
REGIO
|AL WATERPLAN- PROPOSED
|~LAN
To:
CHANGE
R ;gional
Otago
6A
Council
Submitter:
Name:
C \
-
--t"
Address:
4
\.9.
Tel:
t,
Q
Mob:
Email:
ol
Date:
la.
l wish th
submisti
be
heard
in
support
on then I will consider
of
my
submission
presenting
a joint
nd
if others
ubmission
present
with
them
a similar
01
64-3-4862140
ramming
phase
17: 34
IJ How
CF BATHGATE
of development.
PAGE
!-
Introdtietion
My narne
is
Submi a tion:
sions
a for
on the whole
reason
rns
ven
en with
i
where,
farms
ed thi
d that
ss or
or
outcom
best
this
intent
zones
Not
lead
are
knowing
whe
whether
little
how
fail
change,
or
with
of
lead
will
will
tirr1 e there
~hould
softw
~re
compll
t,
are
situations
on their
suspicion
E~specially
in
Overseer
there
requirements
"ear and
a modification
practices
the
I consic1 er this
in Otago,
no
kt I believe
to I ,neet
environment
such
current
is the'
will
of farming
familiar
their
farmers
plan
viability
with
submission
to an
of the
to know
f armers
rme
all
my
practice
and
orr even
ev
for
will
n the future
effects
sensiti
the
zon
farming
change
Submission
erns and
My con
plan
and
have
far
in those
not
the
reaching
areas
is no time
in the
to modify
occur.
and
thus
have
no
way
of
I
~ how the ORC
can propose
will
Iw°nde
im
)how
ctor
ct on a whole
prospe
sector
a change
with which
wit pout knowing
we rely €~n for
continued
econornic
t y.
y.
s<
Iss sought
Decisi
I
fullyask that councilrevisitthe proposed|
Iwater
l respeully
that wt1iwe
ewe
continue
water
tut~t the
thaplan
who
our
how the change
live
in Otago
O
in
15 and
i
schedu
to achieve
change
will not result
and that council
16 and
ensure
ilar my
In particlar
r
concerns
in part Rule
Ioppoinp
the
icant
are
the
economic
the Ie ad in times
standard,,
in
realistic
state
impacts
of
our
on all
for the adoption
and
of
achievable.
rule changes:
are around the following l proposed
The discharge
of fe'
rtiiiser onto production
land, in
ances
where
it may enter
circurne
nce
(d) it m'ai=ats
ts
tt subrnission
forthe
provisions
of Rule
water
is a pem
'itted
,owledge
activity
Version
providing.
6.0 is still in
for
Overse
is not
r
r is
used
the
ramr
prc
in signi
increase
that
imj brovement
to ensure
iion
ion
Submis
Reaso
continued
plan changes
by all farmers
and to my kr
ill farmers
who
aren't
familiar
01
17:34
64-3-4862140
with
0i
rseer
they nek
know
i to do
whether
to become
ablunt
tr strument
andwohing
IJ
they
It would
se
;m
with farmers
acl lieve
would
will they
enforcement
and that a long er lead
change
collaboratively
PAGE
and how
are compliant
compliant?
to effect
CF BATHGATE
know
what
of this
in time
a better
with
rule
is
education
result.
i sought
Decisi~i
I would|
|ike
and
record.€
water
to see
q
Submi~
a longer
more
work
lead
done
in time
on
the
;quirements
for the
npacts
expected
12.
s for
both
in
C.0,4
Any
measure
of sec iment
discharge
has
been
taken
to
from
avoid
disturbed
land
to
sediment
runoff,
is
a
submission
Reasoh
y oppose
this
I stron~
hasthp potential
rule
change
to affect
>se mitigation
andw~q
every
attempts
the timing
especially
farmer
in Otagt
fail to comply
who
with ORC's
ien
a mea~ure
i result
farmer~
to
avoid
feed
s~ortages
sediment
runoff
which
coul
situations
of prolonged
are
uarantees
that
some
heavy
ately with
imme~i
loss rhil tigation
but with
like
a longer
for winter
longer
in
a winter
crop
a fence
then
expectations.
the
crop
nt calls
and
on what
in
will
a financial
e, en if a buffer
rainfall,
sediment
runoff
will
m Sought
Decisl~
I would
put
as it
constitute
loss
and
of the crop is left u leaten.
if a proportion
in sorb
1~ C.0.5
of its introduction
has
where there is no buffer strip betw<
Insitu'ions
will be forced to make their own judgeme
for thi
region,
3!on
water,pthere no
ed activity.
prohibg!
For
to the
overseer
ality and economic.
& Rule
I oppo~
nd
to keep
to
lead
crops.
see
the
in time
I support
lead in times
propose
to work
not
zone
is left, there
occur.
d rule
change
through
the per mitted
not
appropriate
activity
take
effect
sedirnent
rule that provides
02
17:34
64-3-4862140
IJ
CF BATHGATE
PAGE
03
I
I
\
\
t
17:34
64-3-4862140
L
I
4
I
I
t
IJ
CF BATHGATE
PAGE
04
Regional
SUBMISSION
FORM
(Print
clearly
onboth
sides)
i~OTAGO
Rñggä(E~
Council
Form
Proposed
5,Clause
Plan
6of
Change
theFirst
Schedule,
6A(Water
Resource
Quality)
Management
totheRegional
Act1991.
Plan:
Water
forOtag~
! ~ 2 MAYNE
q:F
/!
Officeuseonly
iRLE No ----- ---".
Name of submitter:
I wish-F~
(circle preference) to be heard in support
of my submission.
Organisation
(if applicable):
/
If others make a similar submission, I will4will-net
consider
presenting jointly with them at a hearing (circle preference).
Signature:
?~ ~ Date:L~
[Z~'
Postal address:
(ZZj
(of submitter, or person authorised to sign on behalf of person
making submission).
Postcode:
Te,ephone:
e ~/~)
Trade competitor's
dedaration
(if applicable)
from a submission, but
my submission is limited to addressing environmental
effects
Fax:
Email:
Signature:
Note that all submissions are made available for public inspection.
Send to:
Freepost ORC 1722
SUBMISSIONS
WEDNESDAY
MUST
BE RECEIVED
2 MAY 2012.
BY 5.00 PM,
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin
9054
Pleaseturn over
IN RESPECT
OF OTAGO
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
PLAN
interests
within
CHANGE
6A
Introduction
1.
The submitter
impacted
has farming
on
financially
by proposed
on
competition
these
through
General
2.
2.1 Provision
and other
Plan
interests,
business
Change
the
this submission.
6A.
While
the
submitter
could
All farmers
would
the Otago
proposed
not
gain
changes
an
be subject
Region that
will
advantage
are
impact
in trade
to the same controls.
Submission
- Plan Change as a whole.
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
The submitter
managed
agrees that water
carefully.
However,
quality
is important
the Otago
Regional
to the community
Council
hand to this issue. Time and time again dairy farmers
supposed
types
infractions
have
exceeding
dairy
been
of the
ignored.
their waste water
farmers
ORC water
The same
are relatively
plan while
("ORC")
consents.
compliant
with
be
an even
have been singled out by the ORC for
similar
infractions
can be said regarding
discharge
and that it should
has not applied
local
from
other
authorities
And this has occurred
despite
the
existing
water
quality
a Plan Change that
appears
to place water
farming
repeatedly
the fact that
controls
(See ORC
media release Friday, 27 April 2012).
Now farmers
are faced with
above all else. There appears
required
to address under the Act, in particular
and communities.
Act.
Management
The narrow
inconsistent
focus of Plan Changes policy
present
with
other
a significant
No allowance
has been
are
the
Policy
They
to know
made
for
in the plan have been removed.
based on their
effects
establish
a framework
reasonable
Overall there
by the fact that the
are uncertain
under
whether
mixing
of the
Freshwater
(RPS).
Many of them
at any given time
one is
of people
the purpose
Statement:
compounded
challenge.
objectives
matters
and social wellbeing
National
suite is further
compliance
provisions.
for farmers
assess discharges
rules
with
quality
the wider
the Pan Change does not achieve
inconsistent
impossible
contained
the economic
2011 (NPS) and the Otago Regional Policy Station
rules proposed
not.
As a consequence
It is also considered
virtually
to be very little scope for considering
they
and the
which
it will
be
are compliant
or
qualifiers
currently
does not appear to be any ability
on the environment.
As a result,
and
many
to
of these
unlawful.
Hence the Plan Change as a whole
32 report
Submission
has failed
to:
on Plan Change 6A
does not comply
with
Section
32 of the Act. The section
(a)
Adequately
way
(b)
evaluate
to achieve
Establish
the
whether
each objective
purpose
and consider
of the
whether
it is the most appropriate
Act;
the Policies and Rules are the most efficient
and effective
way to
achieve the Objectives.
Decision
Sought
That the Plan Change in its entirety
sought
on the following
3.
Objectives
3.1 Provision
specific
is withdrawn
provisions
and the status
quo remains
OR the relief
is provided.
and Policies
- Objectives
Submission
Oppose
in part
Reasons
The objectives
are too narrowly
be considered
under
must
be considered
water'
quality
account
Decision
Amend
when
addressing
to present
water
quality
and do not provide
and human
water
difficulties
for the other
use values
quality
matters
are not the only values
issues. Furthermore
in assessing
that must
the phrase
applications.
that
'good
It fails to take
into
that exists in the region now.
Sought
the existing
and give effect
objectives
or add further
objectives
to the NPS and RPS. In particular,
some discharges
3.2
the Act. Natural
is likely
the variable
focused
to water
Provision
support
that achieve the purpose
the objectives
the community's
must
social and economic
of the Act
acknowledge
that
wellbeing.
- Policy 7.B.1
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
Again this policy does not enable the appropriate
management
values.
Act.
of water
The
The
"avoidance"
Act
does
uncertainty.
As
noticeable
positive
the
purpose
Submission
it
of the
not
stands,
effect
quality.
of
It places
'natural
"noticeable
refer
to
effects"
"noticeable
a noticeable
on Plan Change 6A
of other
and human
does
effects"
adverse
must be avoided.
Act.
balancing
effect
not
and
that
use values'
reflect
its
values and uses in the
use
is less
the
above
all other
requirements
here
than
creates
minor
This does not assist the community
of
the
significant
or
even
in achieving
a
Decision
Sought
Amend
Policy
reference
to
wording
7.B.1
so that
remediation
it takes
and
into
account
mitigation
the
methods;
full
and
spectrum
uses
of values;
terms
consistent
include
with
the
of the Act, the NPS and the RPS.
3.3
Provision
- Policy 7.D.1
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
This policy is confusing
a consequence
establishing
as it appears
it implies
a reasonable
Decision
Sought
3.4
Delete
Policy
Provision
to apply before
that the usual approach
the discharge
has actually
(and one that is anticipated
occurred.
As
by the Act) of
mixing zone will no longer occur.
- Policy 7.D.2
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
This policy
appears
resource
consents
This
to
fails
to suggest
will
recognise
not complying
that
on its merits
under
II.
human
March
Decision
after
may
take
into
it is not
or what
the 'limited
the scientific
identified
that
be circumstances
the benefits.
account
clear
period'
for discharges
well
16 outweigh
and
Furthermore
use values
that
be obtainable
there
with Schedule
application
Part
longer
how
where
Council
the
full
range
the
limits
in Schedule
may breach
the
costs
is required
of factors
in Schedule
basis for differentiating
that
or
may
16.
effects
to consider
16 relate
between
16 no
Schedule
of
each
be relevant
to
natural
or
pre and post 31
2012 discharges.
Sought
(a) Amend
Policy 7.D.2 to enable the consenting
practices
or infrastructure
practicable
discharge
(b) Identify
human
Submission
option
to achieve
is consistent
the
and
minimise
relationship
use values.
on Plan Change 6A
the
Schedule
with the purpose
between
the
of discharges
effects
of the
where
discharge;
16 is being utilised;
where
land management
where
the
best
the granting
the
of the Act.
limits
in Schedule
16 (if retained)
and the
3.5 Provision
- Policy 7.D.3
Submission
Support
in part.
Reasons
Technological
developments
consents
to be sought.
16 limits
should
Decision
Sought
not
and innovations
However
be limited
the ability
to these
should
to grant resource
Submission
Provision
4.1
consents
resource
that exceed schedule
of discharges
that exceed
Schedule
16 to
of this policy. See 3.4 above.
RULES AND
4.
by allowing
circumstances.
Ensure policy suite does not limit the consenting
the circumstances
be encouraged
SCHEDULES
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
to apply for resource
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
Section 32 Report does not adequately
need for it. It is simply
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
assess this approach
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
The rule no longer
objectionable
rule
no provision
is therefore
A further
problem
circumstances,
with
with
the
that
It also applies
the
with
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
the
Act,
prior
the
it does
of section
no longer
to the
mixing
not
the
provide
associated
107 of the
point
within
NPS and
or discharges
has to be offensive,
of discharge
the receiving
and as a
environment.
RPS.
for
emergencies,
with
maintenance
exceptional
work.
This
Act.
Sought
Delete the Rule or amend
it to discretionary
the
and
level
a discharge
is made for reasonable
inconsistent
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
the qualifier
or conspicuous.
consequence
The
contains
of contamination
4.2 Provision
Submission
Submission
- Rule
on Plan Change 6A
which
provides
activity
for
status that includes
reasonable
mixing.
the qualifiers
as to
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
activity
No justification
not justified
The degree
is still prohibited
The rule no longer
inappropriate
of conflict
by any analysis
with
criteria
as it completely
is found
environment.
consent.
totally
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
(i) to (iv) may potentially
the
and Policies
or establish
a
effects
on the
be minor
but the
by this rule.
contains
the qualifier
objectionable
or conspicuous.
the receiving
environment.
that
a discharge
no longer
Nor does it make any allowance
The rule is therefore
inconsistent
for reasonable
mixing within
with the Act, the NPS and the
RPS.
A further
problem
circumstances,
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
not
or discharges
of section
provide
for
associated
107 of the
emergencies,
with
exceptional
maintenance
work.
This
Act.
Sought
it to discretionary
the
and
level
of contamination
4.3
Submission
Provision
which
activity
provides
for
reasonable
the qualifiers
as to
mixing.
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
A further
problem
circumstances,
Delete
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
or discharges
of section
not
provide
associated
107 of the
for
emergencies,
with
maintenance
Act.
Sought
Rule or amend to discretionary
exceptional
circumstances,
maintenance
as permitted
Submission
temporary
activities.
on Plan Change 6A
activity
status and provide
discharges
or discharges
for emergencies,
associated
with
exceptional
work.
This
4.4
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
of this issue, the rule is completely
discharges
that
circumstances.
is also
are
There
uncertain
Decision
temporary
are
what
or
numerous
steps
need
result
impractical.
from
situations
where
to be taken
Again there
maintenance
sediment
to 'avoid'
is no provision
works
runoff
and
cannot
for
exceptional
be avoided.
It
sedimentation.
Sought
4.5
Submission
Delete
Provision
Rule
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
discharges
that
circumstances.
in respect
There
are
How
to minor
are
also
inconsistency
is the
traces
a
results
Uncertainties
revolve
to
'water'
absolute
from
of
the
result
nature
impractical.
from
of the
Again there
maintenance
rule
entering
going
water
inconsistencies
and
fact
is provision
that
there
to
from
is no provision
works
be monitored
and
for
exceptional
and
enforced
land?
uncertainties
in
for some
the
rule.
The
discharges
main
that
are
16. How does this rule relate to that schedule?
around
the definition
in different
context
of the
surface
area need to be before
Submission
or
of contaminants
number
subject to Schedule
references
temporary
environmental
on Plan Change 6A
contexts.
effects
being
of 'ponding',
These
must
addressed.
it can be determined
'conduit
be
to water'
defined
For example,
that there
and
how
is ponding?
and the various
explained
large
in the
does the
How long must
water
sit before
contain
water?
Decision
That
it becomes
a pond?
Is there
a discharge
to water
if the conduit
does not
Sought
this
around
rule
the
be amended
various
terms
exceptional
circumstances,
maintenance
work.
4.6
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
to
used
discretionary
within
it.
activity
Provision
status
must
discharges,
temporary
with
also
be
clarification/definition
made
for
associated
discharges
or
emergencies,
with
in part.
Reasons
This rule
is completely
when
the rainfall
point
source
or not
that
before
Decision
measurement
farm
complies
The farmer
first
need
this
to determine
measure
(i.e. again no reasonable
be in nephelometric
turbidity
a non-
mixing
units.
zone).
How
or time to carry out such work to determine
many
whether
rule?
Sought
for
reasonable
4.7
Submission
Provision
Oppose
the water
must
ability
with
Delete this rule or amend
made
it enters
will have the technical
their
and unworkable.
has ceased (not is clear as it may seem) and then
discharge
Furthermore,
farmers
impractical
event
it so that that the standard
mixing
and
that
compliance
applies after discharge
is easy
with
provision
to determine.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
Again this rule does not make provision
discharge
How
is to be measured.
does
Clarification
this
relate
to
for reasonable
Clarification
the
is also required
is required
characteristics
around
the
of
rules
any
mixing
and it is not clear where
for the 12 hour timeframe
given
relationship
catchment
with
other
or
rainfall
rules that
the
selected.
event
prohibit
discharges.
Decision
Amend
Sought
rule to provide
address variability
Submission
for reasonable
between
catchments
on Plan Change 6A
mixing
and revisit
and events.
science
behind
the timeframe
to
4.8
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
This approach
individual
does not provide
properties.
catchment
basis.
perspective
This
Nitrogen
would
while ensuring
required
should
the
with
by this approach
be tested
Councils
Decision
Amend
the Rule.
loading
either
at a catchment
levels should
allow
individuals
adverse
effects
We also have some concerns
compliance
any flexibility
based level or within
be determined
to better
manage
are avoided,
their
remedied
and managed
land
from
or mitigated.
over the use of OVERSEER as the mechanism
It is likely that
most farmers
will
and no guidance
is provided
within
on the ground
rather
than
modelled.
on a
an economic
for determining
not be familiar
the Rule itself.
with
what
is
Compliance
This may have legal implication
for
approach.
Sought
rule
so that
a more legally correct
4.9
Submission
Provision
it addresses
compliance
the
issue
from
catchment
perspective
and
provides
test.
- Rule
Support.
Reasons
The proposed
This
needs
Decision
rule is supported
but parts of other
activity.
Sought
Clarify what rules apply to this activity
4.10 Provision
Submission
Oppose
rules may make this a prohibited
clarified.
and the status of the activity.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
It is not
Decision
clear
how
the
limits
chosen
Sought
Submission
on Plan Change 6A
in Schedule
16 are
related
to environmental
effects.
Provide
sound
scientific
4.11
Submission
Provision
Oppose
reasoning
for
limits
in Schedule
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
It is not
clear
Decision
how
the
limits
chosen
in Schedule
16 are related
to environmental
effects.
Sought
Provide sound scientific
4.12
Submission
Provision
Oppose
reasoning
for limits in Schedule
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
There is an assumption
that the Schedule
16 limits are appropriate
can be met in all cases. This is not necessarily
the Act such as social and economic
considered
when
Decision
rule by deleting
assessing
4.13
wellbeing
with
the
and the efficient
limits
in all cases and that they
other
relevant
factors
use of resources
under
must
be
is assessed.
Sought
Amend
when
non-compliance
so and therefore
Provision
(b) and adding
an application,
- Rule
a wider
in particular
social
range of factors
and
economic
that
Council
can consider
factors.
13.SA
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Furthermore
the
Act
the rule is completely
includes
restriction
Submission
on this.
an intermittently
Hence
any
on Plan Change 6A
flow
impractical
flowing
channels
and unworkable.
body
of fresh
of a small
stream
The definition
water
of river
and
that
of river
contains
may
carry
in
no size
water
10-
under heavy rain fall events
crossing
such
land
environmental
Decision
(or perhaps
is totally
even Thalwegs)
impractical
and does
relate
as a river. To stop stock
to any significant
adverse
effect.
Sought
That this rule be amended
to discretionary
and
from
small
4.14
are defined
not
streams
Provision
excluded
- Schedule
the
activity
status
with
ephemeral
beds, thalwegs
rule.
15
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
These water
that
would
reflect
quality
targets
be found
across
scientific
Furthermore
for
catchment.
'state
of
and do not reflect
As a consequence
the
environment'
were selected
the
this
natural
approach
monitoring
of
on why the limits
variation
does
this
not
nature.
and target
dates
or why they are even required.
Sought
Delete schedule
4.15
a river
practice
restrictive
the policy suite does not give any guidance
for compliance
Decision
are overly
Provision
or identify
- Schedule
more practical
and justifiable
limits.
16
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
Again, the discharge
limits
there
is no policy
noted
in this submission,
discharge'
not
that
mixing
consider
approach.
uncertain
with.
It would
while
steps
of allowing
are
other
are
appear
limits
restrictive
are applied.
to apply
mixing
'prior
and
As previously
to the
as a mitigation
point
of
method.
for in the Act (and in the both NPS and RPS). We
necessary.
No justification
as to what
the
to
reach
effects
or impacts
on Plan Change 6A
and how they
for the
that
the discharge.
to be unnecessarily
for reasonable
taken
Sought
Submission
provided
we
complied
where
provide
the provision
or
Furthermore
circumstances
rules
the limits
appropriate
consents
Decision
the
is specifically
this
16 are considered
supports
and have removed
Reasonable
do
suite
in Schedule
proposed
the
the
has
process
regime
standards.
might outweigh
been
is if the
only
There
provided
for
this
Schedules
are
not
provides
is
no
for temporary
recognition
the actual or potential
of
effects
11 -
Delete schedule
Submission
or identify
more practical
on Plan Change 6A
and justifiable
limits.
COUNCIL1
SUBMISSION
FORM
REGIONAL
RECEIVEDDUNEDIN
Regional
Proposed Plan Change 6A (Water Quality)
Council
to the Regional
Form 5, Clause 6 of the First Schedule, Resource Management
Name of submitter:
Plan: Water for Otago
Act 1991.
IOTAGO
0 2 MAY 2012
|!
Officeuseonly
FILENo. „„„.
l wish AfDTrottish
of my submission.
tf others make a similar submission, I will4withtoTconsider
Organisation
~/~II Date:
Postal address:
Signature:
Date:
making submission).
Trade competitor's
Telephone:
declaration
(if appficable)
Icould
gain
through
trade
competiti~om
asubmission,
but
y )~,\
my submission is limited to addr y Iing environmental
effects
directly impacting my busine
Email:
Fax:
£i{[ (jég
Signature:
y
Send to:
Freepost
Otago
SUBMISSIONS
WEDNESDAY
MUST
BE RECEIVED
2 MAY 2012.
BY 5.00 PM,
ORC 1722
Regional
Council
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin
9054
Pleaseturn over
IN RESPECT
OF OTAGO
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
PLAN
CHANGE
6A
Introduction
1.
The submitter
impacted
has farming
on
financially
on
competition
these
through
General
2.
2.1 Provision
and other
by proposed
Plan
interests,
business
Change
the
this submission.
interests
6A.
While
within
the
submitter
could
All farmers
would
the Otago
proposed
not
gain
an
be subject
Region that
changes
will
advantage
are
impact
in
trade
Submission
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
The submitter
managed
agrees that water
carefully.
However,
quality
is important
the Otago
Regional
to the community
Council
supposed
types
infractions
have
exceeding
dairy
been
their
farmers
of the
ORC water
ignored.
The same
waste water
discharge
are relatively
plan while
consents.
with
has not applied
be
an even
have been singled out by the ORC for
similar
can be said
compliant
("ORC")
and that it should
infractions
regarding
local
from
other
authorities
despite
the
existing
water
quality
a Plan Change that
appears
to place water
farming
repeatedly
the fact that
controls
(See ORC
Now farmers
are faced with
required
to address
and communities.
Act.
It is also
Management
The narrow
virtually
not.
considered
present
with
No allowance
are
with
other
a significant
policy
for farmers
has been
They
to know
made
based on their
suite
compliance
provisions.
for
assess discharges
rules
the economic
the wider
the
effects
National
Policy
Policy Station
is further
reasonable
Freshwater
by the fact that
Many of them
are uncertain
under
whether
mixing
Overall there
of the
(RPS).
a framework
at any given time
one is
of people
the purpose
Statement:
compounded
challenge.
establish
objectives
matters
inconsistent
focus of Plan Changes
impossible
contained
under the Act, in particular
As a consequence
2011 (NPS) and the Otago Regional
rules proposed
inconsistent
quality
and
be
they are compliant
or
qualifiers
currently
on the environment.
and
it will
the
which
the
As a result,
to
many of these
unlawful.
32 report
Submission
has failed
to:
on Plan Change 6A
does not comply
with
Section
Adequately
(a)
way
Establish
(b)
evaluate
to achieve
the
whether
each objective
purpose
the
of the
Policies
and consider
whether
Act;
and
Rules
are the
most
efficient
and
effective
way
to
Decision
Sought
sought
on the following
3.
Objectives
3.1 Provision
specific
is withdrawn
provisions
and the status
quo remains
OR the relief
is provided.
and Policies
- Objectives
Submission
Oppose
in part
Reasons
The objectives
are too narrowly
be considered
under
must
be considered
water'
quality
account
Decision
Amend
addressing
to present
water
quality
and do not provide
and human
water
difficulties
for the other
use values
quality
matters
are not the only values that
issues. Furthermore
in assessing
that exists in the region
that must
the phrase
applications.
'good
It fails to take
into
now.
Sought
the existing
and give effect
objectives
to the
some discharges
3.2
the Act. Natural
when
is likely
the variable
focused
to water
Provision
or add further
NPS and RPS.
support
objectives
In particular,
that achieve the purpose
the objectives
the community's
must
social and economic
of the Act
acknowledge
that
wellbeing.
- Policy 7.B.1
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
management
values.
Act.
of water
The
The
"avoidance"
Act
does
not
uncertainty.
As
it
stands,
noticeable
positive
effect
the
purpose
Submission
of the
quality.
of
It places
'natural
"noticeable
refer
to
effects"
"noticeable
a noticeable
Act.
on Plan Change 6A
of other
and human
does
effects"
adverse
must be avoided.
balancing
effect
not
and
that
use values'
reflect
its
values
use
is less
the
and uses in the
above
all other
requirements
here
than
creates
minor
of the
significant
or
even
in achieving
a
Decision
Sought
Amend
Policy
reference
to
wording
7.B.1
so that
remediation
it takes
and
into
account
mitigation
the
methods;
full
spectrum
of values;
and uses terms
consistent
include
with
the
3.3
Provision
- Policy 7.D.1
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
a consequence
establishing
Decision
as it appears
it implies
to apply before
a reasonable
the discharge
has actually
occurred.
As
by the Act) of
Sought
3.4
Delete Policy
Provision
- Policy 7.D.2
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
This policy
appears
resource
consents
This
to
fails
to suggest
will
recognise
not complying
with
on its merits
under
II.
human
March
Decision
and
may
take
into
it is not
or what
the 'limited
well
for discharges
the benefits.
account
clear
the scientific
period'
identified
that
be circumstances
16 outweigh
Furthermore
use values
after
be obtainable
there
Schedule
application
Part
longer
that
that
how
the
full
the
limits
may breach
where
Council
range
in Schedule
the
costs
is required
of factors
in Schedule
that
Schedule
or
may
16.
effects
to consider
16 relate
between
16 no
of
each
be relevant
to
natural
or
pre and post 31
2012 discharges.
Sought
(a) Amend
practices
or infrastructure
practicable
discharge
(b) Identify
human
Submission
option
is consistent
the
and
minimise
to achieve
relationship
use values.
on Plan Change 6A
the
Schedule
with the purpose
between
the
of discharges
effects
of the
where
discharge;
where
land management
the
best
the granting
where
the
of the Act.
limits
in Schedule
16 (if retained)
and the
3.5 Provision
- Policy 7.D.3
Submission
Support
in part.
Reasons
Technological
developments
consents
to be sought.
16 limits
should
Decision
Sought
not
Ensure policy
However
be limited
the ability
to these
should
RULES
to grant resource
by allowing
consents
resource
of discharges
that
exceed Schedule
16 to
AND
Submission
Provision
4.1
be encouraged
circumstances.
suite does not limit the consenting
the circumstances
4.
and innovations
SCHEDULES
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
The rule no longer
objectionable
rule
no provision
is therefore
A further
problem
circumstances,
with
with
the
that
a discharge
It also applies
prior
is made for reasonable
inconsistent
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
the qualifier
or conspicuous.
consequence
The
contains
with
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
the
Act,
the
it does
of section
to the
mixing
not
the
provide
associated
107 of the
point
within
NPS and
or discharges
no longer
of discharge
the receiving
and as a
environment.
RPS.
for
emergencies,
with
maintenance
exceptional
work.
This
Act.
Sought
it to discretionary
the level of contamination
and which
4.2
Submission
Provision
Submission
- Rule
on Plan Change 6A
provides
activity
for reasonable
mixing.
the qualifiers
as to
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
such an approach.
environment.
activity
consent.
The degree of conflict
objectionable
is found
by any analysis
with criteria
as it completely
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
a
effects
on the
be minor
but the
by this rule.
contains
the qualifier
or conspicuous.
receiving
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
is still prohibited
The rule no longer
totally
the
is considered
environment.
that
a discharge
no longer
The
rule
is therefore
inconsistent
for reasonable
with
the
Act,
mixing within
the
NPS and
the
RPS.
A further
problem
circumstances,
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
not
or discharges
of section
provide
for
associated
107 of the
emergencies,
with
exceptional
maintenance
work.
This
Act.
Sought
it to discretionary
the
and
level
of contamination
4.3
Submission
Provision
which
activity
provides
for
status that
reasonable
includes
the qualifiers
as to
mixing.
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
A further
problem
circumstances,
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
or discharges
of section
not
provide
associated
107 of the
for
emergencies,
with
maintenance
Act.
Sought
Delete Rule or amend to discretionary
activity
exceptional
circumstances,
discharges
maintenance
as permitted
Submission
temporary
activities.
on Plan Change 6A
status and provide
or discharges
for emergencies,
associated
with
exceptional
work.
This
4.4
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
discharges
that
circumstances.
is also
are
There
uncertain
Decision
temporary
are
what
or
numerous
steps
need
result
impractical.
from
situations
maintenance
where
to be taken
Again there
works
sediment
to 'avoid'
is no provision
runoff
and
cannot
for
exceptional
be avoided.
It
sedimentation.
Sought
4.5
Submission
Delete
Provision
Rule
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
discharges
that
circumstances.
are
How
temporary
is the
or
absolute
result
nature
in respect to minor traces of contaminants
There
are
also
inconsistency
subject
a
number
results
to Schedule
Uncertainties
references
revolve
to
'water'
from
of
from
of the
that
and
there
Again there
maintenance
rule
entering
inconsistencies
the fact
going
works
to
water from
and
be monitored
for
exceptional
and
enforced
land?
uncertainties
is provision
is no provision
in
for
some
the
rule.
The
discharges
main
that
are
around
the definition
in different
context
of the
surface
Submission
impractical.
environmental
on Plan Change 6A
contexts.
effects
being
of 'ponding',
These
must
addressed.
'conduit
be
to water'
defined
For example,
that there
and
how
is ponding?
and the various
explained
large
in the
does the
How long must
water
sit before
contain
water?
it becomes
a pond?
Is there
a discharge
to water
if the conduit
does not
Decision Soug ht
That
this
around
rule
the
be amended
various
terms
exceptional
circumstances,
maintenance
work.
4.6
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
to
used
discretionary
within
it.
activity
Provision
temporary
status
must
discharges,
with
also
or
be
made
for
discharges
emergencies,
associated
with
in part.
Reasons
This rule
is completely
when
the rainfall
point
source
or not
event
that
before
Decision
farm
complies
The farmer
first
need
with
the water
must
ability
this
to determine
measure
be in nephelometric
turbidity
a non-
mixing
units.
zone).
How
many
whether
rule?
Sought
made for reasonable
4.7 Provision
Submission
Oppose
it enters
measurement
their
and unworkable.
discharge
Furthermore,
farmers
impractical
mixing and that compliance
with provision
is easy to determine.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
Again
this
rule
discharge
How
does
not
make
is to be measured.
does
Clarification
this
relate
to
provision
for
Clarification
the
is also required
reasonable
is required
characteristics
around
the
of
rules
any
mixing
and
it is not
clear
where
given
relationship
catchment
with
other
or
rainfall
rules that
the
selected.
event
prohibit
discharges.
Decision
Amend
Sought
rule to provide
address variability
Submission
for reasonable
between
catchments
on Plan Change 6A
mixing
and revisit
and events.
science
behind
the timeframe
to
4.8
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
This approach
individual
does not provide
properties.
catchment
basis.
perspective
This
Nitrogen
would
while ensuring
required
should
the
with
be tested
Councils
Decision
Amend
the Rule.
by this approach
loading
either
at a catchment
levels should
allow
individuals
adverse
effects
compliance
any flexibility
to better
are avoided,
be determined
manage
their
remedied
and managed
land
from
It is likely that
most farmers
will
is provided
within
on the ground
rather
than
modelled.
an economic
or mitigated.
and no guidance
on a
for determining
not be familiar
the Rule itself.
with
what
is
Compliance
for
approach.
Sought
rule
so that
4.9
Submission
Provision
it addresses
compliance
the
issue
from
catchment
perspective
and
provides
test.
- Rule
Support.
Reasons
The proposed
This
needs
Decision
rule is supported
but parts of other
rules may make this a prohibited
activity.
clarified.
Sought
Clarify what rules apply to this activity
4.10 Provision
Submission
- Rule
Oppose in part.
Reasons
It is not
Decision
clear
how
the
limits
chosen
Sought
Submission
on Plan Change 6A
in Schedule
16 are related
to environmental
effects.
4.11
Submission
Provision
Oppose
reasoning
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
It is not
clear
Decision
how
the
limits
chosen
in Schedule
16 are related
to environmental
effects.
Sought
Provide
sound
scientific
4.12 Provision
Submission
Oppose
reasoning
for
limits
in Schedule
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
that the Schedule
considered
when
Decision
non-compliance
wellbeing
with
the
and the efficient
limits
other
relevant
factors
use of resources
under
must be
is assessed.
Sought
Amend
rule by deleting
(b) and adding
when assessing an application,
4.13
so and therefore
Provision
- Rule
a wider
in particular
range of factors
social and economic
that
Council
can consider
factors.
13.5A
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Furthermore
the
Act
includes
restriction
Submission
on this.
an intermittently
Hence
any
on Plan Change 6A
flow
impractical
flowing
channels
and unworkable.
body
of
of a small
fresh
stream
The definition
water
of river
and
that
of river
contains
may
carry
in
no size
water
10 -
under
heavy rain fall events (or perhaps
crossing
such
land
environmental
Decision
is totally
even Thalwegs)
impractical
and does
relate
to
any significant
adverse
effect.
Soug ht
to discretionary
and
from
small
4.14
are defined
not
streams
Provision
excluded
- Schedule
the
activity
status
with
ephemeral
beds, thalwegs
rule.
15
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
These water
that
would
reflect
quality
targets
be found
across
scientific
Furthermore
practice
for
were selected
catchment.
'state
of
and do not reflect
As a consequence
the
environment'
the
this
natural
approach
monitoring
of
variation
does
this
not
nature.
on why the limits and target
dates
Sought
Delete schedule
4.15
a river
restrictive
for compliance
Decision
are overly
Provision
or identify
- Schedule
more practical
and justifiable
limits.
16
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
there
is no policy
noted
in this
discharge'
limits
suite
submission,
mixing
do not consider
approach.
the
we
with.
It would
consents
while
steps
of allowing
where
are
other
are
provide
provided
for reasonable
to apply
mixing
No justification
as to what
the
taken
to
reach
effects
or impacts
on Plan Change 6A
limits
are applied.
'prior
restrictive
and
As previously
to the
as a mitigation
point
of
method.
that
the discharge.
to be unnecessarily
and how they
for the
or necessary.
uncertain
appear
Sought
Submission
the limits
the provision
this appropriate
complied
circumstances
rules
is specifically
Furthermore
16 are considered
supports
and have removed
Reasonable
Decision
in Schedule
that
proposed
the
the
has been provided
process
regime
standards.
might outweigh
is if the
only
There
Schedules
provides
is
no
for this
are
not
for temporary
recognition
of
effects
schedule
Submission
or identify
more practical
on Plan Change 6A
and justifiable
limits.
SUBMISSION
FORM
kOTAGO REGIONALCOUNCIL
Regional
Proposed
Council
Plan Change 6A (Water Quality)
to the Regional
Plan: Water for Otago li
Form5, Clause
6 of theFirstSchedule,
Resource
Management
Act 1991.
Name of submitter:
~(~ 8 ') NE
l wish4&rnot<sh
aqq
E
ÉÛ
Office useonly
of my submission.
Organisation
(ifapplicable):
If others make a similar submission, I will /wi&not
consider
Postal address:
Signature:
making submission).
Postcode:
Trade competitor's declaration ~if'applicable)
Telephone:
i couldgainthroughtrad~;ompetitionfroma submission,
but
my submission is lim/ t ~ to addressing environmental
effects
directly impactinJdny business
Fax:
Ernail:
Siggature:
//
Send to:
Freepost
Otago
SUBMISSIONS
WEDNESDAY
MUST
BE RECEIVED
2 MAY 2012.
BY 5.00 PM,
ORC 1722
Regional
Council
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin
9054
Pleaseturn over
IN RESPECT
OF OTAGO
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
PLAN
interests
within
CHANGE
6A
Introduction
1.
The submitter
has farming
impacted
by proposed
on
financially
on
competition
these
through
General
2.
2.1 Provision
and other
Plan
interests,
business
Change
the
this submission.
6A. While
the
submitter
could
All farmers
would
the Otago
proposed
not
gain
changes
an
be subject
Region that
will
advantage
are
impact
in trade
Submission
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
The submitter
managed
agrees that water
carefully.
However,
quality
is important
the Otago
Regional
to the community
Council
supposed
types
infractions
have
exceeding
dairy
been
their
farmers
of the ORC water
ignored.
The same
waste water
discharge
are relatively
plan while
("ORC")
consents.
with
has not applied
have been singled
similar
infractions
can be said regarding
compliant
and that it should
local
water
an even
out by the ORC for
from
other
authorities
the existing
be
despite
quality
farming
repeatedly
the fact that
controls
(See ORC
Now farmers
are faced with
a Plan Change that
required
Act.
Management
The narrow
virtually
present
with
No allowance
are
with
other
a significant
policy
the
for farmers
has been
They
Policy
to know
made
for
based on their
effects
reasonable
of the
Freshwater
by the fact that
and
are uncertain
under
whether
mixing
of people
the purpose
Many of them
at any given time
one is
(RPS).
a framework
Overall there
matters
Statement:
compounded
challenge.
establish
objectives
National
suite is further
compliance
provisions.
assess discharges
rules
inconsistent
focus of Plan Changes
impossible
contained
the economic
quality
the wider
2011 (NPS) and the Otago Regional Policy Station
rules proposed
inconsistent
not.
As a consequence
It is also considered
to place water
to address under the Act, in particular
and communities.
appears
they
the
which
be
are compliant
or
qualifiers
As a result,
and
it will
currently
on the environment.
the
many
to
of these
unlawful.
32 report
Submission
has failed
to:
on Plan Change 6A
does not comply
with
Section
(a)
Adequately
way
Establish
(b)
evaluate
to achieve
the
whether
each objective
purpose
the
and consider
of the
Policies
whether
Act;
and
Rules
are
the
most
efficient
and
effective
way
to
Decision
Sought
sought
on the following
3.
Objectives
3.1 Provision
specific
is withdrawn
provisions
and the status
quo remains
OR the relief
is provided.
and Policies
- Objectives
Submission
Oppose
in part
Reasons
The objectives
are too narrowly
be considered
under
must
be considered
water'
quality
account
Decision
Amend
addressing
to present
water
quality
and do not provide
and human
water
difficulties
for the other
use values
quality
matters
issues. Furthermore
in assessing
that must
are not the only values
the phrase
applications.
that
'good
It fails to take
into
that exists in the region now.
Sought
the existing
and give effect
objectives
or add further
objectives
to the NPS and RPS. In particular,
some discharges
3.2
when
is likely
the variable
focused
the Act. Natural
to water
Provision
support
that achieve
the objectives
the community's
the purpose
must
social and economic
of the Act
acknowledge
that
wellbeing.
- Policy 7.B.1
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
management
values.
Act.
The
uncertainty.
noticeable
the
of water
The
purpose
Submission
quality.
"avoidance"
Act
does
not
of
refer
As it stands,
positive
of the
effect
It places
'natural
"noticeable
to
effects"
"noticeable
a noticeable
Act.
on Plan Change 6A
of other
and human
does
effects"
adverse
must be avoided.
balancing
effect
not
and
that
use values'
reflect
its
values and uses in the
use
the
above
requirements
here
is less than
creates
minor
all other
of
the
significant
or even
in achieving
a
Decision
Sought
Amend
Policy
reference
to
wording
7.B.1
so that
remediation
it takes
and
into
account
mitigation
the
methods;
full
and
spectrum
of values;
uses terms
consistent
include
with
the
3.3
Provision
- Policy 7.D.1
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
a consequence
establishing
Decision
as it appears
it implies
to apply before
a reasonable
the discharge
has actually
occurred.
As
by the Act) of
Sought
3.4
Delete Policy
Provision
- Policy 7.D.2
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
This policy
appears
resource
consents
This
to
fails
to suggest
will
recognise
not complying
that
on its merits
under
II.
human
March
Decision
that
after
may
take
Furthermore
into
it is not
the scientific
identified
that
be circumstances
the benefits.
account
clear
period'
for discharges
well
16 outweigh
and
use values or what
the 'limited
be obtainable
there
with Schedule
application
Part
longer
how
where
Council
the
full
range
the
limits
in Schedule
may breach
the
costs
is required
of factors
in Schedule
that
or
may
16.
effects
to consider
16 relate
between
16 no
Schedule
of
each
be relevant
to
natural
or
pre and post 31
2012 discharges.
Sought
(a) Amend
practices
or infrastructure
practicable
discharge
(b) Identify
human
Submission
option
to achieve
is consistent
the
and
minimise
relationship
use values.
on Plan Change 6A
the
Schedule
with the purpose
between
the
of discharges
effects
of the
where
discharge;
where
land management
where
the
best
the granting
the
of the Act.
limits
in Schedule
16 (if retained)
and the
3.5 Provision
- Policy 7.D.3
Submission
Support
in part.
Reasons
Technological
developments
consents
to be sought.
16 limits
should
Decision
Sought
not
and innovations
However
be limited
the ability
to these
should
to grant resource
SubmissionProvision
4.1
consents
resource
of discharges
that
exceed Schedule
16 to
RULES AND
4.
by allowing
circumstances.
Ensure policy suite does not limit the consenting
the circumstances
be encouraged
SCHEDULES
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
The rule no longer
objectionable
rule
no provision
is therefore
A further
problem
circumstances,
inconsistent
with
the
with
the
that
a discharge
It also applies
is made
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
the qualifier
or conspicuous.
consequence
The
contains
for
with
rule
provisions
the
is that
discharges
prior
reasonable
Act,
the
it does
of section
to the
mixing
not
the
the
RPS.
provide
associated
107 of the
point
within
NPS and
or discharges
no longer
for
of discharge
receiving
emergencies,
with
maintenance
and as a
environment.
exceptional
work.
This
Act.
Sought
it to discretionary
and which
4.2 Provision
Submission
Submission
- Rule
on Plan Change 6A
provides
activity
for reasonable
mixing.
the qualifiers
as to
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
such an approach.
environment.
activity
consent.
is still prohibited
objectionable
is found
by any analysis
with criteria
as it completely
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
a
effects
on the
be minor
but the
by this rule.
contains
the qualifier
or conspicuous.
receiving
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
The degree of conflict
The rule no longer
totally
the
is considered
environment.
that
a discharge
no longer
The
rule
is therefore
inconsistent
for reasonable
with
the
Act,
mixing
the
within
NPS and
the
RPS.
A further
problem
circumstances,
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
not
or discharges
of section
provide
for
associated
107 of the
emergencies,
with
exceptional
maintenance
work.
This
Act.
Sought
it to discretionary
and which
4.3
Submission
Provision
activity
provides
status that
for reasonable
includes
the qualifiers
as to
mixing.
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
A further
problem
circumstances,
Delete
the
temporary
is inconsistent
Decision
with
with
the
rule
is that
discharges
provisions
it does
or discharges
of section
not
provide
associated
107 of the
for
emergencies,
with
maintenance
Act.
Sought
Rule or amend to discretionary
exceptional
circumstances,
maintenance
as permitted
Submission
temporary
activities.
on Plan Change 6A
activity
status and provide
discharges
or discharges
for emergencies,
associated
with
exceptional
work.
This
4.4
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
discharges
that
circumstances.
is also
are
There
uncertain
Decision
temporary
are
what
or
numerous
steps
need
result
impractical.
from
situations
where
to be taken
Again there
maintenance
sediment
to 'avoid'
is no provision
works
runoff
and
cannot
for
exceptional
be avoided.
It
sedimentation.
Sought
4.5
Submission
Delete
Provision
Rule
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
is found
not justified
as it completely
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Irrespective
discharges
that
circumstances.
are
How
temporary
is the
or
absolute
result
nature
in respect to minor traces of contaminants
There
are
also
inconsistency
subject
a
number
results
to Schedule
Uncertainties
references
revolve
to
'water'
from
of
of the
that
rule
and
there
Again there
maintenance
entering
inconsistencies
the fact
going
water
to
from
and
be monitored
for
exceptional
and
enforced
land?
uncertainties
is provision
is no provision
works
in
for
some
the
rule.
The
discharges
main
that
are
around
the definition
in different
context
of the environmental
surface
Submission
impractical.
from
on Plan Change 6A
contexts.
effects
being
of 'ponding',
These
must
addressed.
'conduit
be
to water'
defined
For example,
that there
and
how
is ponding?
and the various
explained
large
in the
does the
How long must
water
sit before
contain
it becomes
a pond?
Is there
a discharge
to water
if the conduit
does not
water?
Decision Sought
That
this
around
rule
the
be amended
various
terms
exceptional
circumstances,
maintenance
work.
4.6
Submission
Provision
- Rule
Oppose
to
used
discretionary
within
it.
activity
Provision
temporary
status
must
discharges,
with
also
or
be
made
for
discharges
emergencies,
associated
with
in part.
Reasons
This rule
is completely
when
the rainfall
point
source
that
before
it enters
measurement
or not
their
farm
and unworkable.
The farmer
first
need
discharge
Furthermore,
farmers
impractical
event
complies
must
ability
with
the water
this
to determine
measure
be in nephelometric
turbidity
a non-
mixing
units.
zone).
How
many
whether
rule?
Decision Sought
made
for
reasonable
4.7 Provision
Submission
Oppose
mixing
and
that
compliance
provision
for
is easy
with provision
to determine.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
Again
this
rule
discharge
How
does
not
make
is to be measured.
does
Clarification
this
relate
to
is also required
Clarification
the
reasonable
is required
characteristics
around
the
of
rules
any
mixing
and
it is not
clear
where
given
relationship
catchment
with
other
or
rainfall
rules
that
the
selected.
event
prohibit
discharges.
Decision
Amend
Sought
rule to provide
address variability
Submission
for reasonable
between
catchments
on Plan Change 6A
mixing
and revisit
and events.
science
behind
the timeframe
to
4.8 Provision
Submission
- Rule
Oppose.
Reasons
This approach
individual
does not provide
properties.
catchment
basis.
perspective
This
Nitrogen
would
while ensuring
required
should
the
with
be tested
Councils
Decision
Amend
either
at a catchment
levels should
individuals
adverse
effects
the Rule.
by this approach
loading
allow
compliance
any flexibility
to better
are avoided,
be determined
manage
their
remedied
and managed
land
from
or mitigated.
It is likely that
most farmers
will
and no guidance
is provided
within
on the ground
rather
than
modelled.
on a
an economic
for determining
not be familiar
with
the Rule itself.
what
is
Compliance
for
approach.
Sought
rule
so that
4.9
Submission
Provision
it addresses
compliance
the
issue
from
catchment
perspective
rules
may
this
and
provides
test.
- Rule
Support.
Reasons
The
proposed
This
needs
Decision
rule
but
parts
of other
make
a prohibited
activity.
Sought
Clarify what
rules apply to this activity
4.10 Provision
Submission
Oppose
is supported
clarified.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
It is not
Decision
clear
how
the
limits
chosen
Sought
Submission
on Plan Change 6A
in Schedule
16 are related
to environmental
effects.
Provide
sound scientific
4.11
Submission
Provision
Oppose
reasoning
for limits
in Schedule
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
It is not
clear
how
the
limits
chosen
in Schedule
16 are related
to environmental
effects.
Decision Sought
4.12
Submission
Provision
Oppose
reasoning
16.
- Rule
in part.
Reasons
that the Schedule
considered
when
Decision
non-compliance
wellbeing
with
the
other
and the efficient
limits
relevant
factors
use of resources
under
must be
is assessed.
Sought
Amend
rule by deleting
(b) and adding
when assessing an application,
4.13
so and therefore
Provision
- Rule
a wider
in particular
range of factors
social and economic
that
Council
can consider
factors.
13.5A
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
Prohibited
ability
activity
status
is considered
such an approach.
consent.
totally
inappropriate
No justification
not justified
as it completely
is found
by any analysis
removes
in the Objectives
of actual
or potential
the
and Policies
or establish
effects
a
on the
environment.
Furthermore
the
Act
includes
restriction
Submission
on this.
an intermittently
Hence
any
on Plan Change 6A
flow
impractical
flowing
channels
and unworkable.
body
of fresh
of a small
stream
The definition
water
of river
and
that
of river
contains
may
carry
in
no size
water
10 -
under
heavy rain fall events
crossing
such
land
environmental
Decision
(or perhaps
is totally
even Thalwegs)
impractical
and does
relate
to
any significant
adverse
effect.
Sought
to discretionary
and
from
small
4.14
are defined
not
streams
Provision
excluded
- Schedule
the
activity
status
with
ephemeral
beds, thalwegs
rule.
15
Submission
Oppose.
Reasons
These water
that
would
reflect
quality
targets
be found
across
scientific
Furthermore
for
catchment.
'state
of
and do not reflect
As a consequence
the
environment'
were selected
the
this
natural
approach
monitoring
of
on why the limits
variation
does
this
not
nature.
and target
dates
Sought
Delete schedule
4.15
a river
practice
restrictive
for compliance
Decision
are overly
Provision
or identify
- Schedule
more practical
and justifiable
limits.
16
Submission
Oppose
Reasons
limits
there
is no policy
noted
in this submission,
discharge'
not
mixing
consider
approach.
this
the
or
with.
It would
steps
are
other
are
appear
for the
necessary.
to apply
mixing
No justification
as to what
the
to
reach
effects
or impacts
on Plan Change 6A
limits
restrictive
are applied.
'prior
and
As previously
to the
as a mitigation
point
of
method.
that
the discharge.
to be unnecessarily
and how they
for reasonable
taken
Sought
Submission
provided
uncertain
while
where
provide
the provision
we
complied
of allowing
rules
the limits
appropriate
Furthermore
circumstances
16 are considered
supports
is specifically
consents
Decision
in Schedule
that
and have removed
Reasonable
do
suite
proposed
the
the
has
process
regime
standards.
might outweigh
been
is if the
only
There
provided
for
this
Schedules
are
not
provides
is
no
for temporary
recognition
of
effects
schedule
Submission
or identify
more practical
on Plan Change 6A
and justifiable
limits.
6)
w
SUBMISSION
Otago
O.
FORM
(Printdearly
on both sides}
Proposed Plan Change 6A (Water Quality) to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago
Council
I
Form 5, Clause 6 of the First Schedule, Resource Management Act 199 f
Name of submitter:
wish
do noott wish (circle preference) to be heard in support
of my submission.
Organisation
If others make a similar submission,
(if applicable):
will /
'll not consider
presenting jointly with them at a hearin) (arcle preference).
I-I--I
u1
W
v
1-1
Postal address:
(of
Signature:
submitter,
~or personauthotised
--~~__ to signon
_ behalf
Date:
of-'
~_--/I~--@--~I"person
making submission).
Postcode:
Trade competítor's
(if applicable}
Telephone:
from a submission, but
my submission is limited to addressing environmental
CO
03
e-4
dedaration
effects
Fax:
_gZ
f3 ve 7
~r
O
Signature:
co
Co
C~
e-i
Q
N
LD
Send to:
Freepost ORC 1722
SUBMISSIONS
WEDNESDAY
MUST BE RECEIVED
2 MAY 2012.
BY 5.00 PM,
Private Bag 1954
Dunedin
9054
Phasetum aver
i
l
2
State what your
<I
[L
submission
relates to arid
if you support, oppose
want it amended
E.g. amend rule y
_
State
what decision
you.want the
amendrufe
'y' to
Otago
3
Give reasons for the decision you want
made
Regional Council to make
or
E.g. I want wfe 'y' amendedbecause„.
/
_lrroene(
Rstpq:eseet
~.~
wse6ah
.n. M
»6«
U1meM9
w?h
?«>~
zgech.AMot
]Sa4
~ oe~h
~
e AlothetgymcA
~cemditdam<a
o~~ ~.~_.
~,:.
: : ANfcockh3
whek.~eså
"-i-i
w
m
6)
.._omí Àh angmeload eeetalLiya sfamepyd.mank
W
ID
**na
~J--h
4&n
r~e,,~s
somm
/~ ~om>L
,L-=~,,~,c~
!heé-M zgod/
/
6
M
377
N
r-i
N
LO
Q
N
Q
3q-¢

From: Mark Beaton [mailto:markb@outram.school.nz] Subject

Transcription

Similar documents

Submissions on the - Have Your Say

Tree

are factory farms hog-tying people`s

International Conference on Research Innovation in

Guidelines for Submission of YSD Online Scholarship Application

International Conference on Computational Intelligence and

Claim Form

English - JOHN DEER BAND

Development of Building Submission Checklist System

WSFR Art Contest Certification - Association of Fish and Wildlife