Annexure A (Forest & Bird version)
Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Resource Consent Conditions
June 2014
SCHEDULE THREE
GENERAL CONDITIONS – USE OF WATER FOR PRODUCTION LAND USE
Schedule Three General Conditions - Production Land Use
General Conditions attached to HBRC Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and LU120382L covering production land use utilising water from the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (the “Scheme”)
General
1. The production land use activities authorised by HBRC Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and LU120382L shall be undertaken in general accordance with application for resource consents “Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company limited, Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme” dated 6 May 2013. If there is any inconsistency between these conditions and the application documents referred to above, the conditions take precedence.
2. The use of production land utilising water from the Scheme shall be limited to the land shown on Plans 1, 8 and 9 together with the other properties identified on Plan 10 attached as Schedule Four to these conditions, but not including the Excluded Areas as shown on those plans.
3. Pursuant to Section 125(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, these consents will lapse if not given effect to within 10 years of the commencement of the consents.
4. The consent holder shall be responsible for compliance with these conditions.
The purpose of the conditions is both to set out the obligations of the consent holder and to describe the process by which the consent holder shall ensure that those obligations are met.
Water Quality Conditions
4A. The activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L shall be undertaken so as to ensure that the nitrogen leached from the land (either measured or modelled as a loss from the root zone using Overseer or an alternative model approved by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) shall not exceed Tukituki LUC Natural Capital Nitrogen Leaching Rates in Table 4A.
Table 4A
LUC Class I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Rate (KgN/ha/year) 30.1 27.1 24.8 20.7 20 17 11.6 3
Compliance with Condition 4A will be assessed by summing the total area of land within each LUC class within each farming property or farming enterprise that is serviced by the RWSS within each Surface Water Allocation Zone (as defined in Schedule XVI of the RRMP). The Table 4A LUC based leaching rates shall then be applied to those summed areas of land to derive an overall RWSS leaching entitlement for each Surface Water Allocation Zone. The sum of the individual leaching losses for all farming properties or farming
enterprises serviced by the RWSS within each Surface Water Allocation Zone shall not exceed the overall RWSS leaching entitlement for that Surface Water Allocation Zone.
Advisory Note:
Condition 4A is designed to allow for ‘unders’ and ‘overs’ whereby RWSS farms leaching greater than is allowed by the Table 4A leaching rates can be compensated for by RWSS farms leaching less than is allowed by the Table 4A leaching rates. The term ‘farming enterprise’ has the same meaning as in the RRMP.
Policy TT4 of the RRMP provides for the development of a procedural protocol, inter alia, to guide use of OVERSEER in establishing nutrient budgets, and this protocol should be applied where relevant to determine compliance with this condition.
5. In each sub-catchment, tThe activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L shall be undertaken so as to ensure that those
activities do not cause or contribute to exceedence of the following in- river nitrate–nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration limits as defined in Table 5 below to be exceeded or further exceeded at any of the monitoring locations defined in Condition 6 the nearest downstream HBRC monitoring site defined in Condition 6.
Table 5
Tukituki Water Management Zone (as defined in Proposed
Regional Plan Change 6)
Median13 (mg NO3-N/L)
95th Percentile14 (mg NO3-N/L)
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (mg N/L)
Zones 1 and 5 2.4 3.5 0.8
Zones 2 and 3 3.8 5.6 0.8
6. The Consent holder shall implement a water quality monitoring programme at the monitoring sites specified in Table 6 below and for the monitoring
parameters and frequency specified in Table 7 below. For those sites specified in Table 6 that are already monitored by HBRC for the monitoring parameters and frequency specified in Table 7, the Consent Holder may utilise monitoring data collected by HBRC for the purpose of complying with the monitoring requirements set in this condition. The monitoring shall commence at least 24 calendar months before the supply of irrigation water commences, and shall be carried out according to the following:
a) All sampling shall be carried out by a person who is suitably qualified and experienced in environmental monitoring and approved by HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management.
b) All quality analysis other than field measurements as required by the conditions of this consent shall be undertaken by an independent laboratory accredited to IANZ.
c) Sampling equipment used to undertake field measurements shall be regularly calibrated to minimise measurement errors. Calibration records shall be kept and provided to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management on request.
13 Maximum median concentration of nitrate-nitrogen (mg NO3-N/L): the median concentration of nitrate-nitrogen shall be calculated as the median of results obtained over a period of 1 year.
14 Maximum 95th percentile of nitrate-nitrogen (mg NO3-N/L): The 95th percentile concentration of nitrate- nitrogen shall be calculated as the 95th percentile of monitoring results obtained over a period of 1 year.
Table 6
Tukituki Water Management Zone
(as defined in Proposed Regional Plan Change 6)
Monitoring Site
Grid Reference (At or About) (E & N: NZTM)
Zones 1 and 5 Tukituki River at Tamumu Bridge 1914766/5570121 Tukituki River at Red Bridge 1936720/5596441 Papanui Stream at Middle Road 1917836/5581620 Papanui Stream at Pourerere
Road
1911285/5569830
Zone 2 Waipawa River at SH2 1906330/5571900
Waipawa River at SH50 1894737/5581847 Waipawa River below Irrigation
intake
1890992/5584215 Mangaonuku Stream at Tikokino
Rd
1901319/5576606
Zone 3 Tukituki River at SH50 1886319/5574049
Maharakeke at Limeworks Road 1894118/5563820 Mangatewai Stream at SH50
1884153/5568387 Makaretu River at SH50 1883623/5565238 Kahahakuri Stream at Springhill 1888901/5582700 Kahahakuri Stream at Scenic
Road
1899320/5569224 Tukituki River at SH2 1903805/5567336 Porangahau Stream at
Oruawhara Rd
1887680/5564125 Maharakeke Stream at SH2 1896836/5568262 Makaretu Stream at U/S
Maharakeke Confluence
1897019/5568824 Tukipo River at U/S Makaretu
Confluence
1897330/5569186 Tukipo River at SH50 1884777/5570703
Advisory Notes:
i. A suitable location for the Papanui Stream at Middle Road monitoring site is being investigated and it is possible that a location located downstream of Camp David will be selected.
ii. High flow conditions can prevent safe access to the Makaretu at U/S Maharakeke Monitoring site. Under such conditions, sampling shall be undertaken at the following location: Makaretu River at Speedy Road (1894421/5567602 – NZTM).
Table 715
Type Monitoring parameter Frequency
Laboratory Analysis Nitrate Nitrogen Monthly
Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen Total Nitrogen
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen Turbidity
DRP
Total Phosphorus
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus E. coli
MCI Annual
Periphyton biomass
Field Measurements Horizontal visibility (black disc) Monthly pH
Conductivity Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen concentration Periphyton cover, including the presence and relative abundance of Phormidium Spp (Visual)
Deposited sediment cover (visual)
15 Measurements and analysis shall be carried out in accordance with the same monitoring protocols and to the same detection limits as for the HBRC State of the Environment water quality monitoring programme.
6A. The consent holder shall maintain a catchment model, being the NIWA TRIM2 model used as detailed in NIWA (May 2013a) and NIWA (May 2013b) supplied with the applications, or an updated version of that model or an alternative model certified as being fit for purpose by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management, acting on the advice of a suitably qualified person. The model shall be updated every three years to incorporate the relevant monitoring and modelling data available at the time, including, but not limited to:
a) The soil, groundwater quality and surface water quality monitoring data and the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ modelling data for farm
properties receiving water from the Scheme obtained under Conditions 6, 13, 23, and 27 of this schedule; and
b) The soil, nutrient loss, groundwater quality and surface water quality monitoring data for the Tukituki catchment collected by HBRC as part of its ongoing land, surface and groundwater monitoring programmes.
7. At any locations where the annual monitoring report prepared under Condition 11 shows in-stream median and/or 95th percentile nitrate–nitrogen or
dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations are greater than 80% of the limits set out in Condition 5 above, the consent holder shall assess whether property owners contracted to use water from the Scheme (“Scheme Participants”) need to adapt their operations to ensure compliance with Condition 5 as follows:
a) The nitrogen outputs from the most recent nutrient budget updates prepared under Condition 23 for the actual land uses by Scheme participants in that part of the catchment above the sampling point, shall be compared to the Current Land Use Scenario and the Post Irrigation Land Use Scenario as at 6 May 2013 as presented with the resource consent applications for the Scheme in the TRIM2 Stream Modelling Reports submitted with the applications - NIWA (May 2013a) and NIWA (May 2013b);
b) The nitrogen outputs for the actual land use by Scheme participants in that part of the surface and groundwater catchment above the sampling point shall be modelled to predict the in-stream nitrate-nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration at the sampling point;
c) The modelling will use the NIWA TRIM2 model used as detailed in NIWA (May 2013a) and NIWA (May 2013b) supplied with the Applications or an updated version of that model or an alternative model certified as being fit for purpose by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource
Management, acting on the advice of a suitably qualified person. The modelling shall incorporate relevant monitoring and modelling data available at the time, including, but not limited to:
i. The soil, groundwater quality and surface water quality monitoring data and the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’
modelling data for farm properties receiving water from the Scheme obtained under Conditions 6, 13, 23 and 27 of this schedule;
ii. The soil, nutrient loss, groundwater quality and surface water quality monitoring data for the Tukituki catchment collected by HBRC as part of its ongoing land, surface and groundwater monitoring programmes.
d) Assess the likely causes, sources and trends of the exceedences;
e) A report detailing the modelling and assessment results shall be provided to HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management within 6 months of an annual monitoring report showing that any in-stream median and/or 95th percentile nitrate–nitrogen concentrations or dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations is greater than 80% of the limits set out in Condition 5 . The first report submitted in accordance with this condition shall also include details of the protocols that have been established to govern the use of the model.
8. In the event that modelling and/or the assessment undertaken for the purposes of Condition 7 above predicts that the continued use of production land utilising water from the Scheme is likely to cause measured nitrate-nitrogen or dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits in Condition 5 then the consent holder shall:
a) Require all landowners receiving water from the Scheme potentially affecting the in-stream concentrations measured as exceeding 80% of the limits in Condition 5 to immediately review their respective Farm Environmental Management Plans to identify and implement additional
on-farm nitrogen leaching mitigation measures sufficient to reduce modelled outputs to the extent necessary to ensure the combined nitrogen outputs from farming operations supplied with water from the Scheme do not cause in-stream nitrate-nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits in Condition 5; and
b) Re-run the model of production land use activities to demonstrate the effect of the steps taken in terms of in-stream nitrate-nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations. The consent holder shall re- run the model every 12 months thereafter, until such time as in-river median and 95th percentile nitrate–nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations measured by HBRC are less than 80% of the limits set out in Condition 5 above. Condition 7 c) shall apply to each re- run of the model.
9. In the event that modelling undertaken for the purposes of Condition 7 above predicts that the continued use of production land utilising water from the Scheme is not likely to cause measured nitrate-nitrogen or dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits in Condition 5 then the consent holder shall re-run the model every 12 months thereafter, until such time as in- river median and 95th percentile nitrate–nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations measured by HBRC are less than 80% of the limits set out in Condition 5 above. Condition 7 c) shall apply to each re- run of the model.
10. The consent holder will report to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management on steps taken pursuant to Condition 8 and the outcomes of Condition 9.
10A.Based on the sum of the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ for each ‘Approved Farm System’ under conditions 23 e) or g) of this Schedule the consent holder shall ensure that within each of the sub-catchments specified in Schedule Twelve there is no overall increase in phosphorus output from the land supplied by the Scheme compared with a 2013 baseline established by the sum of the
‘Pre-Scheme Farm Systems’ phosphorus outputs established under condition 23 c) i A of this Schedule.
11. Each year in the month of June, the consent holder shall submit to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management, a Scheme Operation Water Quality Monitoring Annual Report that:
a) Summarises the monitoring undertaken under Condition 6 of this Schedule for the previous 12 months, including results, and details of the sampling and laboratory methods used, including detection limits;
b) Comments on the E. coli data in comparison to the limits and targets set out in Table 5.9.1A of Proposed Plan Change 6 and the likely causes of any elevated levels relative to those standards; and
c) Reports on trends in the monitoring results from each monitoring site specified in Table 6, over the previous 12 months and from the commencement of monitoring. The report shall also comment on possible causes of any trends detected, and any potential adverse environmental effects that may result if the trends continue.
12. In the event that the assessment undertaken pursuant to Condition 11 above identifies that the activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and/or WP120375T, and/or by Resource Consent LU120382L are the cause of, or a material contributor to, any exceedence of Tables 5.9.1A E. coli limits, the consent holder shall identify specific actions required to be taken by land owners supplied by the Scheme upstream from the monitoring site(s) where the exceedences have been measured in order to ensure that the land ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and or WP120375T does not cause, or be a material contributor to, the exceedences and shall ensure that the required steps are taken as soon as practicable thereafter.
13. Prior to the exercise of Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and LU120382L, the consent holder shall engage an independent suitably professionally qualified and experienced person to prepare a Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP), in consultation with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management. The Plan shall address the following matters:
a) Identification of the location of existing bores utilised for the supply of human drinking water within the area serviced by the Scheme, prior to the exercise of these consents;
b) Sampling, on a best endeavours basis, of the bores identified in Condition 13 a) above for nitrate-nitrogen and E. coli concentrations;
c) The ongoing monitoring of the trends in nitrate-nitrogen and E. coli concentrations in groundwater influenced by the exercise of these consents in order to identify changes in groundwater quality in waters used for the supply of human drinking water;
d) Assessment of the risk to nitrate-nitrogen and E. coli concentrations in existing bores utilised for the supply of human drinking water based on the monitoring results obtained under Condition 13 c) above and taking into account groundwater catchments and groundwater age and transport times;
e) A draft of the GMP shall be provided to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board who will have 60 working days to provide written comments on the plan. A final version of the GMP, together with any written
comments provided by the HBDHB and a memo outlining how each of the points raised by the HBDHB has been addressed, or an explanation as to why it has not, shall be submitted to HBRC for certification; and f) The GMP shall be provided to HBRC Group Manager, Resource
Management for certification. Unless HBRC advises the consent holder within 20 working days that they refuse to certify the GMP, the consent holder shall ensure that the certified GMP is implemented and updated as required throughout the term of this consent. A copy of any updated GMP shall be provided to HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management for certification within 1 month of having been completed.
14. Should the monitoring results obtained under Condition 13 c) exceed 80% of the nitrate concentration standard in the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 200816 or subsequent revision), or the risk assessment undertaken under Condition 13 d) indicate there is potential for the nitrate concentration standard in the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (2008 or subsequent revision) to be exceeded, the consent holder shall, within 1 month, identify specific actions required to be taken by property owners supplied by the Scheme upstream from bores utilised for the supply of human drinking water to reduce the potential for such exceedences to be caused by the exercise of these
16 The Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008) set the following maximum allowable values: Escherichia coli: Less than one in 100 ml of sample; Nitrate: 11.3 mg/L (expressed as NO3-N)
consents. The consent holder shall ensure that the required steps are taken as soon as practicable thereafter.
15. Where the activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L may be contributing to nitrate-nitrogen or E. coli concentrations in groundwater utilised for supply of human drinking water exceeding those specified in the Drinking- Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008 or subsequent revision), the consent holder shall:
a) Notify the registered drinking water supply operator and the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management if the drinking water supply affected provides no fewer than 25 people with drinking water for not less than 60 days each calendar year.
b) Identify potential sources of groundwater nitrate-nitrogen and/or E. coli affecting a water supply bore and investigate the potential for modified land use practices by property owners supplied with water from the Scheme to improve downstream groundwater quality as a means to ensure drinking water from the water supply bore does not exceed nitrate-nitrogen or E. coli concentrations specified in the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008, or subsequent revision);
and
c) Provide treatment of human drinking water supplied from groundwater sources to ensure compliance with the standards for nitrate-nitrogen and E. coli in the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008, or subsequent revision) for so long as the groundwater in question fails to meet those standards; or
d) Provide a replacement source of human drinking water which is compliant with the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008, or subsequent revision) for so long as the groundwater in question fails to meet those standards.
Advisory Note:
If a replacement source of human drinking water is provided in accordance with Condition 15 (d) the consent holder should ensure that they are aware of, and comply with the requirements of all relevant legislation, which may include the Health Act 1956.
16. Within six months of the first exercise of Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and LU120382L, the consent holder shall engage a suitable professionally qualified and experienced person to prepare a Groundwater Mounding and Drainage Monitoring Plan (GMDP). The Plan shall be based on the recommendations contained in the Golder Associates report dated 23 April 2013 set out in Appendix D of the Flow Optimisation Report submitted with the applications -Aquanet (May 2013).
17. Within six months of engaging a suitably qualified and experienced person in accordance with Condition 16 above, the consent holder shall provide the GMDP to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management for certification that it provides an appropriate framework for identifying and managing the risk of the adverse effects of groundwater mounding in the areas identified in the Golder Associates report referenced in Condition 6 above. Unless HBRC notifies the consent holder within 20 working days that they refuse to certify the GMDP, it shall be implemented.
18. Once certified the consent holder shall implement the GMDP. If high
groundwater levels at shallow depths caused by irrigation drainage occurs which adversely affect existing land uses or in-ground infrastructure (including in- ground private waste water treatment systems), the consent holder shall implement a system of engineered ground drainage to maintain the effective serviceability of such land and in-ground infrastructure. The consent holder shall also notify the Duty Health Protection Officer of the HBDHB, and the
Environmental Health Officer of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council within 3 working days of any adverse effect becoming known.
Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP)
19. At least six calendar months prior to the first delivery of irrigation water from the Scheme the consent holder shall submit a revised Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP) to the HBRC Group Manager for certification that the IEMP provides an appropriate management framework to meet, or exceed, the consent conditions contained in this Schedule. Unless HBRC notifies the consent holder within 20 working days that they refuse to certify the IEMP, it shall be implemented. The revised IEMP shall be an update of the Draft IEMP (September 2013 version) to take into account the final form Change 6, the
consent conditions in this Schedule, and any proposed changes associated with the final design, construction, and operation of the Scheme.
20. Following commissioning of the Scheme, the consent holder shall review the IEMP at least once in every five years and update it, if necessary, to reflect current best practices. Each review will take into account the information gained from the monitoring required by the conditions of this Schedule.
21. Any subsequent revisions of the IEMP proposed by the consent holder shall be submitted to the HBRC Group Manager for re-certification.
22. Once certified the consent holder shall comply with the IEMP at all times.
Farm Environmental Management Plan Process
23. The consent holder shall ensure that, under its water supply contracts, it is a condition of any land owner receiving water from the Scheme that an up to date Farm Environmental Management Plan (FEMP) is prepared and implemented, covering the total farm property or farming enterprise, including areas of the farm not using water supplied by the scheme. Where a land owner receiving water from the Scheme has more than one property, and these are operated as separate units, a separate FEMP is required for each unit. The FEMP shall meet the following requirements:
a) Each FEMP shall have the following objectives:
i. To be consistent with the approved IEMP;
ii. To ensure any new irrigation infrastructure is designed and installed in accordance with Design Standards for Piped Irrigation Systems in New Zealand (Irrigation NZ, October 2012); Code of Practice for the Design of Piped Irrigation Systems in New Zealand (Irrigation NZ, October 2012); and Installation Code of Practice for Piped Irrigation Systems (Irrigation NZ, January 2012);
iii. To ensure the irrigation system is operated and maintained so that water is applied efficiently, minimising drainage, run-off, and soil erosion;
iv. To ensure soils and nutrients are managed to maximise nutrient use efficiency while minimising nutrient losses to water, limiting adverse impacts on soil quality and contributing to compliance with
Conditions 5 to 15 of this schedule;
v. To ensure surface water bodies, wetlands17 and their margins are managed to minimise stock damage, and direct and indirect input of nutrients, sediment and microbial pathogens; and
vi. To ensure collected effluent systems are managed to avoid adverse effects on surface and groundwater quality and meet existing consents held.
b) Each FEMP shall include:
i. A description of the property and its land uses, including soils, topography and water bodies;
ii. An environmental risk assessment that identifies risks to the local and on-farm receiving environments from farm activities including:
irrigation, stock, cultivation, fertilisers, collected effluent and construction activities for new irrigation;
iii. Identification of critical source areas for phosphorus loss. The identification of critical source areas for phosphorus loss shall be undertaken using farm scale phosphorus loss risk assessment method (such as a phosphorus risk matrix, or the MitAgatorTM) that recognises the following for each of the property’s Land
Management Units:
A. soil types characteristics including but not limited to, Olsen P, soil anion storage capacity, drainage class, and soil structural vulnerability;
B. Landforms, slope and connectivity to the surface hydrological network;
C. Climate, in particular rainfall;
D. farm management practices, including but not limited to, fertiliser type and timing of application, stock type.
The outputs of the phosphorus loss risk assessment method shall include, but not be limited to, phosphorus loss risk maps for each land management unit18.
17 As defined in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan as at May 2013.
18 For illustrative purposes, refer to Figure 1 of Exhibit NHH3 to Mr Nathan Heath’s statement of evidence to the Board of Inquiry dated September 2013 for examples of farm scale phosphorus loss risk maps.
iv. Farm policies, practices and time-bound actions to achieve the objectives set out in Condition 23 a), to comply with any recognised industry good practice, and to avoid or minimise the risks identified in ii and iii above. For the avoidance of doubt, such measures shall include exclusion of stock from all lakes, wetlands, permanently or intermittently flowing rivers19; and
v. A nutrient budget prepared by a person with experience and qualifications approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management for that purpose, to meet the requirements specified in 23 c) below.
c) The initial nutrient budget in the FEMP shall:
i. Include reports from OVERSEER20 farm nutrient budgets (or an alternative approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management21) covering nitrogen and phosphorus outputs for:
A. The ‘Pre-Scheme Farm System’ using inputs that fairly depict the actual farm system and practices over a representative period within the five years preceding 6 May 2013;
B. The ‘Proposed Farm System’ using inputs that fairly represent the proposed farm system and practices using Scheme water supply; and
C. The whole property, and each of its constituent land management units.
ii. Quantify the change in nitrogen and phosphorus outputs from the property comparing the ’Pre-Scheme Farm System’ and
‘Proposed Farm System’ models from Condition 23 c) i. above;
19 An intermittent flowing river does not flow continuously but has a bed that is predominantly un- vegetated and comprises sand, gravel, boulders or similar material.
20 Overseer is a nutrient budget model that calculates and estimates the nutrient flows in a productive farming system. It is owned and administered by the Ministry of Primary Industry, Fertiliser Association of New Zealand and AgResearch. The Overseer model is available at
http://www.overseer.org.nz/Home.aspx
21 Approved by HBRC on the basis that any alternative leaching loss model is fit for purpose for the land use, have a demonstrable repeatability of results, be field tested, and be validated to accepted scientific standards.
Advisory Note:
The 'Pre-Scheme Farm System' nutrient losses are measured or calculated using a specific set of inputs and a particular version of Overseer or other model. Should subsequent versions of Overseer, or another model, result in the 'Pre-Scheme Farm System' nutrient losses changing using the original inputs, then the consequential adjustments will need to be made and
reported to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management (see Condition 26 c) of this Schedule).
Farming enterprise for the purposes of this Condition has the same meaning as in the RRMP.
d) If the nutrient budget reports from Condition 23 c) i. above show a phosphorus output increase under the ‘Proposed Farm System’ relative to the ’Pre-Scheme Farm System’, the FEMP for the property shall identify what additional steps beyond those modelled the landowner will adopt to minimise the increases in phosphorus output.
e) Prior to the supply of water from the Scheme to a land owner the phosphorus and nitrogen outputs for each ‘Proposed Farm System’ shall be assessed by the consent holder to ensure that those outputs in combination with other approved ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’
collectively meet the requirements of Condition 4A at a Surface Water Allocation Zone level and Conditions 5 and 10A of this Schedule at a sub- catchment level.22 If the consent holder is satisfied on this basis then it shall notify the landowner that such phosphorus and nitrogen outputs are ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ and the ‘Proposed Farm System’
becomes the ‘Approved Farm System’. The ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ and the ‘Approved Farm System’ shall be included in the relevant contract for the supply of water;
f) The nutrient budget in the FEMP shall be updated annually by a person with experience and qualifications approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management, using the farming records for the preceding one year period ending either 30 April, 31 May, 30 June or 31 July to ensure that the nutrient budget reflects the current farm practice unless the landowner provides evidence to the consent holder’s
22 See Schedule Twelve of these conditions.
satisfaction (in the form of farming input information) that it is operating in accordance with the Approved Farm System23 for that property, in which case the review of the nutrient budget may be deferred for a maximum of one year to the following year. For each update, the preceding one year of records shall be used and a copy of the updated nutrient budget shall be supplied to the consent holder by 31 August every year. Each update shall:
i. Include a re-run of the OVERSEER24 farm nutrient budget (or an alternative approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management25 ) covering nitrogen and phosphorus outputs; and ii. Quantify the nitrogen and phosphorus outputs from the
property and compare these with the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’.
Farm input information provided by the landowner showing that its farming practices have not changed since the last nutrient budget review and therefore remain generally in accordance with the Approved Farm System will be considered to meet the above requirement in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In cases where the update to the nutrient budget has been deferred a year in accordance with this condition, the preceding two years of records shall be used and a copy of the updated nutrient budget shall be supplied to the consent holder by 31 August of the second year;
g) Reviews of the FEMP will be required:
i. If an update of the nutrient budget under Condition 23 f) above shows an exceedence of the nutrient leaching rates in Condition 4A , the FEMP (including an updated nutrient budget) for that property shall be reviewed against the objectives and
requirements in Condition 23 a) and b) above and existing
23 See definition of “Approved Farm System” in the glossary, abbreviation and definitions section at the front of these conditions
24 See footnote 19 above 25 See footnote 20 above
practices modified, as necessary, to manage and control the nitrogen outputs.
ii. If an update of the nutrient budget prepared under Condition 23 f) above shows an increase in phosphorus and/or nitrogen outputs compared to the ‘Approved Maximum Output’ for the
‘Approved Farm System’ as established by Condition 23 e), the FEMP (including an updated nutrient budget) for that property shall be reviewed against the objectives and requirements in 23 a)and b) above and existing practices modified, as necessary, to manage and control the phosphorus and/or nitrogen outputs.
iii. If an ‘Approved Farm System’ is changed the FEMP (including an updated nutrient budget) for that property shall be reviewed against the objectives and requirements in Condition 23 a) and b) above.
h) Following a review of an FEMP under Condition 23 g) and an assessment by the consent holder to ensure that such an amendment in outputs, in combination with other ‘Approved Farm Systems’ and ‘Approved Maximum Outputs‘, collectively meet the requirements of Condition 4A and Conditions 5 and 10A of this Schedule at a sub-catchment level, the consent holder may amend the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ for the land covered by that FEMP; and
i) Alternative FEMP programmes may be utilised, provided that the HBRC Group Manager Resource Management certifies that the alternative programme meets the requirements in Conditions 23 a) to h).
Farm Environmental Management Plan Audits
24. The consent holder shall arrange for an audit of each FEMP, including any alternative FEMPs prepared in accordance with Condition 23 i) above, as follows:
a) Each Plan shall be audited by a suitably qualified independent assessor appointed by the consent holder and approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management. Each audit shall assess and report on:
i. Performance against the objectives in Condition 23 a);
ii. Implementation of proposed works and farming practices set out in the FEMP;
iii. Overall robustness of the FEMP to manage identified risks;
iv. Level of confidence that the modelled nutrient budget accurately reflects the actual farming system; and
v. Overall compliance or non-compliance with FEMP requirements.
b) For the first three years of receiving and using scheme water, each FEMP will be audited annually;
c) After the first three years of a property receiving and using Scheme water, provided the audit report prepared in accordance with Condition 24 a) above confirms full compliance for those three years, the relevant FEMP shall be audited every three years thereafter as a minimum;
d) For each year ending June 30, at least 20% of all FEMPs shall be audited;
and
e) Following each audit, an audit report shall be supplied to the relevant land owner/s and manager, as applicable.
25. If an Audit Report provided under Condition 24 a) above indicates non- compliance with the conditions of water supply set out in Condition 23 above, then the consent holder shall give notice to the land owner that unless remedial actions are undertaken to ensure the conditions of water supply are met before commencement of the following irrigation season water will not be supplied to that property until the conditions of supply are met.
Reporting
26. The consent holder shall supply the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management with an Annual Scheme Operations Summary Report by 31 October each year:
a) Listing the names of landowners and location of properties receiving water from the Scheme, including any short term supply contracts for provision of water in the previous irrigation season;
b) Aggregating the ’Approved Maximum Outputs’ on a sub-catchment basis for all the properties supplied with water from the Scheme, and using that information to report against the requirements of Conditions 4A, 5 and 10A above at a Surface Water Allocation Zone level;
c) Reporting the results (each third year) of the three yearly updates of the catchment model described in condition 6A of this schedule. The modelling and reporting shall have particular regard to the detection of
trends in groundwater quality and their potential influence on the ongoing compliance with Condition 5 at the sites set out in Table 6 of this schedule. The report shall outline any additional management measures the consent holder will take to ensure compliance with Condition 5 of this schedule.
d) Reporting the results of the independent audits of FEMPs undertaken in the twelve month period ending 30 June of that year, including
identifying any issues of non-compliance with any specific Plans and detailing actions taken by the consent holder to address such non- compliance; and
e) Reporting on the analysis of monitoring data collected during the twelve month period ending 30 June of that year undertaken under the
conditions of this schedule in relation to the requirements of Conditions 4A to 15 above.
On-Farm Monitoring Plan
27. Prior to the exercise of these consents, the consent holder shall engage a suitable professionally qualified and experienced person to prepare and implement an On-Farm Monitoring Plan, in consultation with the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management. The Plan shall address the following matters:
a) Identification of appropriate locations for not less than five on-farm monitoring programmes covering a range of soil types, climatic
conditions and farming types within the areas supplied with water from the Scheme to provide information on actual soil-water drainage and nutrient leaching under Scheme operation;
b) Development of a network of 20 paired sites enabling comparison of farm practices affecting soil conservation on irrigated and non-irrigated land across a range of soil types and land uses within the Ruataniwha Basin to assess the effectiveness of the FEMPs required under Condition 23 above in achieving an appropriate level of soil quality;
c) The technical specifications for the monitoring programmes;
d) How the information obtained can be utilised for shaping wider Tukituki Catchment improvement initiatives including the Ruataniwha Plains
Spring-fed Stream Enhancement and Priority Sub-catchment Phosphorus Mitigation programme outlined in Project D in Schedule Six; and
e) An appropriate Annual reporting protocol including recommendations for future action to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management.
Scheme Operations Liaison Group (SOLG)
28. Following scheme commissioning and throughout the duration of these
consents, the consent holder shall convene a Scheme Operations Liaison Group (“SOLG” ) to provide an Annual Meeting forum for the dissemination and discussion of information gathered pursuant to these consents related to environmental performance matters. The consent holder shall invite the following representatives to attend the Annual Meetings:
a) A water user representative from each of the five Irrigations Zones (Zones A to D and M) chosen to provide an appropriate geographical spread and range of irrigated farming systems operating within the Scheme;
b) Three “third party” water users representing water take consent holders within the Tukituki Catchment who are not associated with the Scheme.
c) A Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea representative;
d) Two KR representatives;
e) A Department of Conservation representative;
f) A Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council representative;
g) A Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society representative;
h) A CHBDC Representative;
i) A HDC Representative;
j) A HBRC Representative.
29. The SOLG shall have the following broad objectives:
a) To facilitate information flow between the consent holder and the community regarding the operation and environmental effects of the activities authorised by these consents and the other related Scheme operation and maintenance consents (including new information, results of monitoring and studies relevant to such effects);
b) To identify and discuss any issues of concern that have arisen in the preceding year; and
c) To make recommendations for the consent holder to consider in relation to any issues identified in terms of 29 b) above and to the Consent Authorities regarding the potential exercise of Section 128 Resource Management Act 1991 powers of review.
Review
30. The Consent Authority may, during the March to June period within every year that these consents are current, serve notice on the consent holder under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of one of more of the consents for the following purposes:
a) To review the effectiveness of the conditions of the consents in avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of the consents and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions;
b) To ensure that the conditions are consistent with any policies or rules in a regional plan or National Environmental Standard or Regulation that becomes legally effective after grant of consent and in particular to align the conditions with any increased regulatory approach for phosphorus management notified in any review of Policy TT5(1) promulgated after the 2025 review of this policy required by Policy TT5(2) (c) of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan; or
c) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent holder.
Advisory Note:
In any condition review under Condition 30 b) associated with increased phosphorous control requirements, it is anticipated that the effectiveness of the flushing flows required under Conditions 13 to 15 of HBRC Consent WP120371M to control the build-up of periphyton downstream will be a consideration.
Administration
31. The Consent Holder shall pay to the Consent Authorities any administrative charge fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act
1991, or any charge prescribed in accordance with regulations made under section 360 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
