(1) The specific provisions of the
Proposed Plan that my submission
relates to are:
(2) My submission is that: (include whether you support or oppose the specific
provisions or wish to have them amended and the reasons for your views.)
Section & Page
Number
2.10 Definitions,
Translations and
Abbreviations
Page 2.-4
Sub-section/
Point
Definitions
Oppose/support
(in part or full)
Page 2-5
Changed (in
terms of Rules
5.42 to 5.45)
Oppose
Reasons
(3) I seek the following decisions from Environment
Canterbury: (Please give precise details for each provision.
The more specific you can be the easier it will be for the
Council to understand your concerns.)
A definition for animal effluent needs to be included into the plan
as it provides clarity for sections which differentiate between
liquid and solid manures.
Insert the following definition:
Animal
Animal effluent means faeces and urine
effluent
from animals other than humans,
including associated process water,
washdown water, contaminants and
sludge excluding solid animal waste
The current definition of ‘changed’ as it is too restrictive and
removes the flexibility of activities within the rural environment
that traditionally revolve around properties such as
pig/crop/pasture rotation systems. Rotations can occur within a
defined property or over a number of properties and land can
often be leased for the pig phase and then returned to the land
owner for the cropping phase. Rotations can last anywhere from
2-10years.
Amend definition of ‘Changed’. Definition needs to be
established after careful consultation with primary industry
groups and with the appropriate consideration of
economic and social impacts to the region.
As a result, NZPork strongly opposes the current definition of
‘changed’ for the following reasons;
1)
The scope of the rule being tied to a property is too
limited to allow for good practice rotational systems and
leasehold farming. It seems more appropriate to allow for
movements of activities within a catchment scale without
triggering the definition of ‘changed’.
2)
Time frame - the period between 1 July 2011 and 30
June 2013 does not allow for consideration of rotations which
can be anywhere from between 2-10 years depending on the
length of time of pig phase and cropping.
3)
10% increase does not allow for reasonable fluxes in
animal numbers or practices for low nutrient leaching farms.
Additionally the rate, being a percentage of existing leaching
Changed (in
terms
of Rules
5.42 to
5.45)
means a change in land use, calculated
on a per property basis that arises from
either:
1. a resource consent to use, or increase
the volume of, water for irrigation on a
property; or
2. an increase of more than 10% in the
loss of nitrogen from land used for a
farming activity above the average
nitrogen loss from the same land for the
period between 1 July 2011 and 30 June
2013. The amount of nitrogen loss shall
be calculated using the OverseerTM
nutrient
rates, currently favours properties that are leaching high rates of
N. A flat rate of N change may be a more appropriate control
method.
4)
The use of Overseer in systems where the model
currently has no capacity to predict leaching rates e.g. Outdoor
pigs. Refer to other submissions on the use of Overseer on
outdoor pig farms (e.g. definition for nutrient discharge).
5)
No analysis has been undertaken about how this
definition will affect the economic and social sustainability of the
region.
Page 2-11
Nutrient
Discharge
Oppose in Full
The current use of Overseer as the sole method in establishing
nutrient discharges is opposed. Outdoor pig production cannot
be modelled using this programme. As a result we request an
alternative method of nitrogen recording (agreed on between
ECan and NZPork) be applied to the industry until pig production
can be modelled using Overseer.
We believe that this would meet the requirements of Policy 4.28
outlined in the plan which seeks to raise awareness of N loss
from farms.
2-14
Stock holding
area
Oppose in full
The current definition will trigger some outdoor pig production
during periods where ground cover cannot be maintained (e.g.
some winter months). Stocking rates of outdoor pigs is low in
comparison to milking platforms, feedpads, wintering pads, and
farm raceways used for stock holding purposes during milking
and therefore their effects will also be minimal. NZPork request
the amendment to the definition so that outdoor pigs are
excluded as we don’t believe this is the intent of the definition
given that all examples clearly pertain to the dairy industry.
Amend definition of ‘Nutrient Discharge’
Nutrient
Discharge
Means the modelled discharge of
nutrients using OverseerTM. Where
OverseerTM cannot model farming
practices (e.g. outdoor pig farming)
nutrient loading rates to soils will be
reported
Amend definition of ‘Stock holding area’
Stock
Means an area of land in which the
holding area construction of the holding area or
stocking density precludes maintenance
of pasture or vegetative groundcover,
and is used for confining livestock for
more than 30 days in any 12 month
period or for more than 10 consecutive
days at any time. For the avoidance of
doubt, this definition includes; milking
platforms, feedpads, wintering pads,
and farm raceways used for stock
holding purposes during milking.
(Excludes outdoor piggeries)
Section 4 – Policies
Table 1a
Outcomes for
Canterbury
Rivers
Oppose in full
The inclusion of these values should not be used until accurate
economic and social impacts on the region can be ascertained.
Review Table 1a
The limits set within this plan are based on ‘aspirational but
achievable’ values from the NNRP. While this may have been
appropriate for the goals of the NNRP they are not appropriate to
be used in the regulatory framework proposed in this plan
We note that neither the economic or social implications on
applying these values within the LWRP have been considered in
any adequate detail to date. We are aware that ECan has
commissioned NZIER to do an analysis of the economic impacts
of the nutrient discharge provisions of the LWRP. It is our view
that this should have formed part of the section 32 report in
which submissions may have had an opportunity to comment.
As a result, Table 1a is opposed in full.
Section 4 – Policies
Table 1b
Outcomes for
Canterbury
Lakes
Oppose in full
The inclusion of these values should not be used until accurate
economic and social impacts on the region can be ascertained.
The limits set within this plan are based on ‘aspirational but
achievable’ values from the NNRP. While this may have been
appropriate for the goals of the NNRP they are not appropriate to
be used in the regulatory framework proposed in this plan.
We note that neither the economic or social implications on
applying these values within the LWRP have been considered in
any adequate detail to date. We are aware that ECan has
commissioned NZIER to do an analysis of the economic impacts
of the nutrient discharge provisions of the LWRP. It is our view
that this should have formed part of the section 32 report in
which submissions may have had an opportunity to comment.
As a result Table 1b is opposed in full.
Review Table 1b
Section 4 – Policies
Table 1c
Outcomes for
Canterbury
aquifers
Oppose in full
The inclusion of these values should not be used until accurate
economic and social impacts on the region can be ascertained.
Review Table 1c
The limits set within this plan are based on ‘aspirational but
achievable’ values from the NNRP. While this may have been
appropriate for the goals of the NNRP they are not appropriate to
be used in the regulatory framework proposed in this plan
We note that neither the economic or social implications on
applying these values within the LWRP have been considered in
any adequate detail to date. We are aware that ECan has
commissioned NZIER to do an analysis of the economic impacts
of the nutrient discharge provisions of the LWRP. It is our view
that this should have formed part of the section 32 report in
which submissions may have had an opportunity to comment.
Activities and
Resource Policies
Page 4-8
Nutrient Zones
Oppose in full
As a result Table 1c is opposed in full.
The zones have been established based on ‘expert opinion’ as
outlined in the Section 32 report, through judgment calls
undertaken by ECan staff. Currently the method used to establish
these values is not transparent within the report; as a result
there is not have adequate information to review these values.
Oppose as stands until a robust review has been
undertaken that determines if the zones’ colour values are
appropriate to meet environmental objectives as well as
reflect the social and environmental impacts on the region.
Currently there is no confidence in whether the zones,
particularly the red zone areas, have been adequately assessed
regarding environmental, economic and social impacts.
Section 5 – Region
–wide Rules
5.29
Page 5-9
Offal and Farm
Rubbish
5.29 (3)
Oppose in Part
Request that the rule be amended so that the activity relates
back to the area (ha) rather than on a per site basis. This better
reflects the RMA which seeks to control the effects of an activity
rather than the activity itself. The current rule is not based on
effects as it makes no allowances for property size and therefore
the dilution effect of larger properties.
Action Requested – Amend as follows
3. No more than one pit is constructed or used per site ha
per annum;
The NNRP WQL22 better reflect this requirement by linking the
number of pits on a hectare basis e.g.
‘There shall be no more than two pits per hectare of land within a
period of two consecutive years on any property that overlies an
unconfined or semi-confined aquifer’.
5.30
Page 5-9
Offal and Farm
Rubbish
5.29 (3)
Oppose
Given the restricted discretions status of the rule, Condition 2 is
seen as being too broad. Further detail within the rule needs to
be provided in order to aid the application process.
5-33
Page 5-10
Animal and
Vegetable
Waste
5.33
Oppose in Part
This rule is intended to allow for the discharge of ‘solid animal
waste, or vegetative material containing animal excrement or
vegetative material’ from primary industries including intensive
farming process. However, all manures under the current
definition will be regarded as ‘hazardous waste’ as they contain
pathogens. As a result all manures (for example spent pig litter)
will not meet the requirements of Section 5.32.1 of the rule.
The term ‘Hazardous Waste’ needs to be removed from this rule
in order for this rule to be workable within a rural environment.
We accept, however, that the inclusion of the term may be
appropriate for waste from industrial or trade processes,
therefore we propose the separation of intensive farming
processes from industrial and trade processes though the
creation of a new rule.
Action Requested
Delete Condition 2 and amend with conditions which
specifically relate to the areas of discretion
2. The extent to which the proposed activity will prevent or
compromise the attainment of the environmental
outcomes sought by, or is inconsistent with, the objectives
and policies of this Plan relating to human and animal
drinking water quality.
Action Requested – Amend as follows
5.33a) The discharge of solid animal waste, or vegetative
material containing animal excrement or vegetative
material, including from intensive farming process or
industrial or trade processes, into or onto land in
circumstances where a contaminant may enter water is a
permitted activity provided the following conditions are
met:
1. The material does not contain any hazardous substance
or hazardous waste;
2. The material does not include any waste from a human
effluent treatment process; and
3. The material is not discharged:
(a) onto the same area of land more frequently than once
every two months;
(b) onto land when the soil moisture exceeds field capacity;
(c) within 20 m of a bore used for water abstraction, a
surface water body or the Coastal Marine Area; or
(d) within a group or community drinking water supply
protection area as set out in Schedule 1.
5.33b) The discharge of solid animal waste, or vegetative
material containing animal excrement or vegetative
material, including from intensive farming process or
industrial or trade process, into or onto land in
circumstances where a contaminant may enter water is a
permitted activity provided the following conditions are
met:
1. The material does not contain any hazardous substance
or hazardous waste;
2. The material does not include any waste from a human
effluent treatment process; and
3. The material is not discharged:
(a) onto the same area of land more frequently than once
every two months;
(b) onto land when the soil moisture exceeds field capacity;
c) within 20 m of a bore used for water abstraction, a
surface water body or the Coastal Marine Area; or
(d) within a group or community drinking water supply
protection area as set out in Schedule 1.
5-35
Page 5-10
5-39
Page 5-11
Stock handling
areas and
animal effluent
Farming
5.39
Oppose
Amended definition for ‘stock handling areas’
Amended definition for ‘stock handling areas’
Oppose in part
For consistency with other rules and definitions within the plan
e.g. Rule 5.7 and proposed definition for ‘changed’ we request
that the date used to establish the existing farm activities be
amended to the 1 of November 2013.
Prior to 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity
existing at 11 August 2012 1 of November 2013 and
outside of the Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps, is a
permitted activity if the following condition is met:
Opposes, the use of Overseer within the rule as the sole method
of reporting on nutrient management.
5.40
Page 5-12
5.41
5.40
Oppose in part
Oppose in Part
For consistency with other rules and definition within the plan
e.g. Rule 5.7 and proposed definition for ‘changed’ we request
that the date used to establish the existing farm activities be
amended to the 1 of November 2013.
Opposes, the use of Overseer within the rule as the sole method
of reporting on nutrient management.
Point 4 under the ‘matters for ECan discretion’ is unnecessary as
1. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen nutrient
discharge, for the period from 1 July in one year to 30 June
in the following year, calculated using the OVERSEERTM
nutrient model, is kept and is provided to the CRC upon
request.
Prior to 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity
existing at 11 August 2012 1 of November 2013
1. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen Nutrient
discharge loss from the land, for the period from 1 July in
one year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using
the OVERSEERTM nutrient model;
Delete Point 4
Page 5.12
5.42,
Page 5-12
they are covered in point 1-3.
Oppose in part
Oppose the rule is when combined with the definition for
‘Changed’ within the document.
Oppose he use of Overseer under subsection 3 of the rule as the
sole method for establishing nitrogen loss.
5.43
Page 5-12
Oppose in full
Oppose the current rule status and request amendment from
‘restricted discretionary’ a to ‘controlled’
4. The extent to which the proposed activity will prevent or
compromise the attainment of the environmental
outcomes sought by, or is inconsistent with, the objectives
and policies of this Plan relating to nutrient management
and water quality.
Amend definition of ‘changed’ in document
3. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen loss nutrient
discharge from the land, for the period from 1 July in one
year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using the
OVERSEERTM nutrient model;
Amend as follows;
status ‘restricted discretionary’ amended to ‘controlled’
Point 4 under the ‘matters for ECan discretion’ is unnecessary as
it is covered in point 1-3.
5.44
Page 5-13
Oppose in full
Oppose the current rule status and request amendment from
‘discretionary’ status to ‘restricted discretionary ‘
delete following;
….
4. The extent to which the proposed activity will prevent or
compromise the attainment of the environmental
outcomes sought by, or is inconsistent with, the objectives
and policies of this Plan relating to nutrient management
and water quality.
Amend as follows;
‘discretionary’ status amended to ‘restricted discretionary’
Areas of ‘restricted discretion should be points 1-3 from rule
5.43
Add following;
The CRC will restrict the exercise of discretion to the
following matters:
1. The proposed management practices to avoid or
minimise the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment
and microbiological contaminants to water from the use of
land;
2. The potential effects of the land use on surface and
groundwater quality, and sources of drinking water;
5.45
Page 5-13
Oppose in full
Oppose the current rule status and request amendment from
‘non-complying’ status amended to ‘discretionary’
5.46
Page 5-13
Oppose in full
We recognise that Overseer is an effective tool that can be used
to drive improvements in farming practices by showing nutrient
trends over time. However, we question its appropriateness
when being used as a limit-setting process.
3. The contribution of nutrients from the proposed activity
to the nutrient allocation status of the management zone.
Amend as follows :
‘non-complying’ status amended to discretionary
The Overseer programme currently has 20-30% uncertainty
within its prediction of nutrient leaching rates. While this will not
affect the tool’s ability to drive improvement in establishing
effects of different management options on a farm (as the
baseline assumptions are the same) it can have serious
limitations when leaching values are the point of compliance as
in the limits such as the proposed Look up Tables in Schedule 8.
We note that the 20kg N /ha limit used in condition 3 and 4 was
established using threshold values prior to the release of
Overseer 6 we question, given the change in model if this rate is
now an appropriate trigger value.
We also not that Overseer is not appropriate to be used for short
term values as the program is designed to provide long term
averages on N leaching. We also question the frequency in which
model is being required within the plan particularly on farms
where fertilizer requirements are low and models are not being
undertaken through contracts with fertilizer providers. The cost
in providing these assessments on a yearly basis needs to be
considered.
However, it may take longer than 5 years (possibly 7-10 years)
from plan notification to develop and implement Farm
Environmental plans on the scale required. Given that there is
1)
2)
3)
Amend Condition 2, Conditions 3 and 4, to specify
that the average loss of N must be averaged over at
least 5 years, reflecting the fact that OVERSEER is
designed to provide average long-term estimates of
nutrient flows.
Review condition 3 and 4 and review the 20kg/ha
limit to determine if still appropriate with the release
of Overseer 6.
Review condition 4 to reflect the capacity of the
rural sector to be able to meet the conditions by
2017.
very little capacity currently. It would help to reduce the
numbers substantially by excluding those with minor discharges
on an input basis.
5.47
Page 5.13
Oppose
Uncertainty over a robust process in establishing zone colours
from an environmentally sustainable provision as well as a lack of
analysis of the on the economic and social sustainability of the
rule (see submission on Nutrient Zones).
Change activity status from ‘restricted discretionary’ to
‘controlled’, which is appropriate for low risk zones where water
quality outcomes are being met.
5.48
Page 5.13
Oppose
Uncertainty over a robust process in establishing zone colours
from an environmentally sustainable provision as well as a lack of
analysis of the on the economic and social sustainability of the
rule (see submission on Nutrient Zones)
The activity status should be amended from ‘discretionary’ to
‘restricted discretionary’ because the nature of effects is known
so discretion should be limited.
5.49
Page 5.13
Opposed in full
Uncertainty over a robust process in establishing zone colours
from an environmentally-sustainable provision as well as a lack of
analysis of the on the economic and social sustainability of the
rule (see submission on Nutrient Zones).
Amend activity
‘discretionary’.
Schedule 7
Page
Schedule 8
Farm
environment
Plans
Opposed in full
status
from
‘non-complying’
activity
Amend as follows;
Review the colour zoning using a robust process
status from ‘restricted discretionary’ amended to
‘controlled’
Amend as follows
Review the colour zoning using a robust process
the activity status from ‘discretionary’ to ‘restricted
discretionary’
Amend as follows;
Review the colour zoning using a robust process.
Amend ‘non-complying’ activity to ‘discretionary’.
to
Ensure that proposed plans reflect industry initiatives
Ensure that proposed plans reflect industry initiatives.
Given the significance of the proposed rules within the plan
further certainty as to the process of establishing the Industry
Derived Nitrogen Discharges is required i.e. role of primary
industries , ECan etc.
Amend to provide further details as to the proposed
process.
Schedule 8 should also provide details as to :
Schedule 8 should also provide details as to :
1)
Good management practice targets.
2)
Explicitly state the goal is to allow for 90% of farms to be a
permitted activity post-2017.
3)
Give flexibility to allow for the adjustment of farming
systems.
4)
allow for focus on critical environmental factors (present
focus solely on N will not work in catchments where some
other factor, such as P, is having most influence on
environmental indicators).
5)
6)
7)
8)
Good management practice targets.
Explicitly state the goal is to allow for 90% of farms
to be a permitted activity post-2017.
Give flexibility to allow for the adjustment of farming
systems.
allow for focus on critical environmental factors
(present focus solely on N will not work in
catchments where some other factor, such as P, is
having most influence on environmental indicators).