IN the MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

Home , Kepler Mire, Waiau River (Southland), Waimatuku

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of Applications for Resource Consent to Discharge Treated Wastewater to land and Air – APP-302625-01

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Notice of Requirement to Designate Land for the Te Anau Manapouri Wastewater Discharge Area

BY SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

DECISION ON RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT

Hearing Panel

Mr Denis Nugent, Chair

Ms Yvette Couch-Lewis

Mr Rob Potts

The hearing panel has been delegated full decision-making powers by Environment Southland in respect of the application APP-302625-01 and is to make a recommendation to Southland District Council on the Notice of Requirement (“NoR”).

Summary of Decisions & Recommendations

Decision on Resource Consent Applications

A. Consent is granted to Southland District Council as follows:

(a) Discharge Permit No. 302625: To discharge treated wastewater onto land from the Te Anau wastewater treatment plant, via a spray irrigation system, onto land known as the Kepler Block legally

described as Lot 2 DP 410687 subject to the conditions set out in Part A of Appendix 4; and

(b) Discharge Permit to Air No. 302625A: To discharge contaminants to air, namely odour and spray drift, arising from the irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by Discharge Permit 302625, subject to the conditions set out in Part B of Appendix 4.

Recommendations to Southland District Council on Notice of Requirement

B. We recommend that the Southland District Council confirm the Notice of Requirement for Designation D80 by the Water and Waste Services Division of the Council to designate land for public utility purposes on Lot 2 DP 410687, subject to the modifications and conditions set out below and as shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 5.

C. Recommended conditions and modifications:

(a) The designation incorporate a buffer area within which residential buildings or buildings primarily occupied by people for whatever purpose may not be established;

(b) The buffer area required by condition (a) shall be a minimum width of 150 m as measured from the area that will be subject to discharge of treated wastewater;

(c) The buffer area required by Condition (a) need not be provided over land used for airport purposes nor over land held as reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 or a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987;

(d) That a Southern Boundary Buffer planting plan be prepared and implemented such that prior to any discharge occurring on the South Block a planting strip comprising species at least 5 m high is established to the west and south of the discharge area within the South Block; iii

(e) To the extent practicable, the plant species used in achieving Condition (d) shall be native species indigenous to the Te Anau Basin;

(f) That the wetland area in the eastern part of the North Block (north of the airport) be retained and enhanced by planting with appropriate native species.

D. We recommend the Southland District Council make decisions on individual submissions under clause 10 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 in the manner set out in Appendix 5.

Table of Contents

Hearing Panel ...... i

Summary of Decisions & Recommendations ...... i

Decision on Resource Consent Applications ...... i

Recommendations to Southland District Council on Notice of Requirement ...... ii

The Hearing and Site Visit ...... 1

The Notice of Requirement ...... 1

The Resource Consent Application ...... 2

Reasons Consent Required ...... 4

Relevant Statutory Provisions ...... 5

Resource Consent Application ...... 5

Notice of Requirement ...... 8

Relevant Statutory Documents ...... 9

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ...... 9

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 ...... 9

Regional Policy Statement for Southland (“RPS”) ...... 10

Proposed Southland Regional Policy Statement 2012 (“PSRPS”) ...... 10

Regional Effluent Land Application Plan (“RELAP”) ...... 11

Regional Water Plan for Southland (“RWP”) ...... 11

Regional Air Quality Plan for Southland (“RAQP”) ...... 11

Southland Proposed District Plan ...... 11

Statutory Acknowledgements ...... 12

Te Tangi a Tauira ...... 13

Jurisdictional and Process Matters ...... 13

Late Submission ...... 13

Request for Further Information ...... 13

Environment ...... 15 v

The Site – Proposed Irrigation Area ...... 15

The Site – Area Subject to Notice of Requirement ...... 16

Surrounding Environment ...... 16

Major Issues in Contention ...... 18

Findings on Major Issues ...... 19

Nitrogen Loading ...... 19

Groundwater ...... 21

Water Quality Effects ...... 30

Wastewater Storage ...... 31

Airborne Contaminants and Spray Drift ...... 37

Odour ...... 43

Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment ...... 45

Positive Effects ...... 45

Water Quality ...... 45

Odour and Spray Drift ...... 46

Bird Strike ...... 46

Soil and Pasture Health ...... 47

Public Health Effects ...... 51

Other Effects on the Community ...... 51

Provisions of National Policy Statements, Regional Policy Statements and Plans ...... 54

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ...... 54

Southland Regional Policy Statement ...... 56

Proposed Regional Policy Statement ...... 57

Regional Effluent Land Application Plan ...... 57

Regional Water Plan ...... 58

Regional Air Quality Plan ...... 58

Proposed District Plan ...... 59

District Plan ...... 60 vi

Te Tangi a Tauira ...... 61

Section 105 ...... 62

Section 107 ...... 63

Section 168A(3) Assessment ...... 64

Discussion ...... 67

Part 2 of the Act ...... 67

Overall Consideration ...... 69

Conditions ...... 69

Duration of Consent...... 82

Notice of Requirement ...... 84

Decision on Resource Consent Applications...... 86

Recommendations to Southland District Council on Notice of Requirement ...... 87

Appendix 1: Appearances ...... 89

Appearances – Initial Hearing 14 July – 18 July 2014 ...... 89

Appearances – Reconvened Hearing 17 November – 19 November 2014...... 91

Appendix 2: Summary of Legal Submissions and Evidence ...... 94

Presented 14-18 July 2014 ...... 94

Presented 17-19 November 2014 ...... 130

Appendix 3: Suggested Conditions with Our Amendments ...... 153

Discharge Permit No 302625 ...... 153

Discharge Permit to Air No 302625A ...... 165

Appendix 4: Consent Conditions ...... 170

A Discharge Permit No 302625 ...... 170

B Discharge Permit to Air No 302625A ...... 183

Appendix 5: Notice of Requirement - Recommendations on Individual Submissions ...... 189

The Hearing and Site Visit

1. The first part of the hearing was held in Te Anau commencing at 1pm on Monday 14 July 2014, thence daily commencing at 9am and concluding at 11.36 am on Friday 18 July 2014.

2. A site visit was undertaken on the afternoon of Tuesday 15 July 2014. We were accompanied to the Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant, the proposed discharge area and the township of Manapouri by Messrs Hammond and Moran. We also accepted the offer of a helicopter overview of the site and surrounding area made by Mr M Hagan.

3. We reconvened the hearing at 10 am on Monday 17 November 2014 and continued daily concluding at 5.40 pm on Wednesday 19 November 2014. At that point we adjourned the hearing to await a redraft of proposed conditions from the applicant. These were received on 27 November 2014 and the hearing was formally closed on 11 December 2014.

4. In Appendix 1 we list the people heard at each hearing. In Appendix 2 we provide a summary of the submissions and evidence heard.

The Notice of Requirement

5. The Water and Waste Services Division of the Southland District Council (“SDC” or “the Requiring Authority”) lodged a Notice of Requirement on 23 October 2012 to designate for “public utility services” some 375 ha of land on Lot 2 DP 410687 at 1701 Te Anau Manapouri Highway, Manapouri. The documentation described the proposed use of the land as follows:

Council intend to utilise this site in the future for the discharge wastewater from [sic] to land. The wastewater will be pumped from Te Anau and Manapouri oxidation ponds and discharged to the site.

6. The site plan included with the NoR showed a designation covering land to the north and south of Te Anau Airport with a narrow designated link 2

between the two areas around the eastern end of the airport designation1.

7. The NoR was included in the proposed District Plan under clause 4(6) of the First Schedule to the Act. The District Plan was publicly notified in late 2012 and further submissions were received in early 2013. Thirty-eight submissions were received and two further submissions.

8. In the course of the hearing SDC reduced the area south of the airport that would be subject to the designation. The total area of the reduced designation would be 285 ha. The reduced area is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 5.

The Resource Consent Application

9. In September 2013 the Southland District Council (District Assets) applied for the following resource consents:

 A discharge permit to discharge of [sic] treated wastewater onto land (up to a maximum rate of 4,500 m3 per day) from the Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant, in accordance with Rule 5.2.1 of the Regional Effluent Land Application Plan;

 A discharge permit to discharge odour to air associated with the discharge of treated wastewater to land in accordance with Rule 5.5.3 of the Regional Air Quality Plan;

10. The site was within the area subject to the NoR discussed above.

11. The description of the activities was provided as follows on the application form:

Discharge of treated wastewater onto land by spray irrigation using centre pivot irrigators. For the period 1 September to 30 April the average rate of discharge will be 3,000 m3 per day and the maximum rate 4,500 m3 per day. For the period 1 May to 30 August the average rate of discharge will be 1,350 m3 per day with a maximum rate 2,000 m3 per day.

1 Designation D105 in proposed District Plan. 3

12. The detailed description of the application identified the area to be irrigated as a 125 ha area within the part of the designation to be applied north of the airport. This is referred to as the North Block. Figures 3.2 and 3.32 showed two 345 m radius centre pivot irrigators located in the North Block along with the establishment of a new shelterbelt along the northern boundary. The irrigated area boundary is shown on these Figures as set some 30m inside the northern, southern and eastern NoR boundaries and some 10m inside the western NoR boundary. We note that measurement of the areas shown on these plans has identified that the area to be irrigated is some 115 ha, once the buffers shown on Figures 3.2 and 3.3 are removed. We have therefore made our decision on the basis of this revised area.

13. The following aspects further delineate the scope of the application:

(a) End guns would not be used on the centre pivots3;

(b) The peat bog in the area irrigated by the eastern pivot would be bridged with wooden pile structures to facilitate passage of the irrigator across it4;

(d) The oxidation ponds at the Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant would provide buffering enabling the impact of high inflows to be moderated, ensuring the discharge within the irrigation area remains within the flow limits specified above6;

2 MWH, Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge onto Land and to Air Resource Consent Application, pp 13-14

3 ibid, Section 3.2, p.15

4 ibid, Section 3.3, p.15

5 ibid

6 ibid, Section 3.4, p.16 4

(e) High quality ryegrass pasture would be established under the irrigators and this pasture would be managed as a “cut and carry” operation with the harvested pasture sold as baleage7;

(f) The 30m buffer zone between the irrigated area and the airport would be mown on a regular basis to maintain a short sward to discourage nesting and feeding by seed-eating birds8;

(g) The addition of new aerators in the oxidation ponds9;

(h) The use of a trickling filter between the pipeline and the irrigators to strip hydrogen sulphide from the wastewater10;

(i) The irrigators would have large droplet sizes and be discharged low to the ground to reduce the prospect of small droplets being carried offsite by the wind11.

Reasons Consent Required

14. Rule 5.2.1 of the Regional Effluent Land Application Plan states:

The discharge of effluent onto or into land from a community sewage scheme is a discretionary activity.

15. Rule 5.5.2 of the Regional Air Quality Plan states:

Discharges of contaminants into air from the following activities are discretionary activities:

…

(16) foulwater treatment processes with a design capacity

population equivalent for BOD5 of 10,000 people or more.

7 ibid, p.17

8 ibid

9 Mr Garbett, Opening Legal Submissions for Applicant, para 24(a), p.7

10 ibid, para 24(c), p.7

11 ibid, para 24(d), p.8 5

16. Foulwater is defined in that Plan as “liquid effluent from any industrial or trade process or municipal source”.

17. Thus, in terms of the regional plan provisions, consent is required for a discretionary activity.

18. If the NoR is confirmed, modified or conditioned, and the works conform with the provisions of the ensuing designation, then no consents will be required under the District Plans.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

Resource Consent Application

19. The relevant provisions of section 104 are:

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to–

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

…

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national 6

environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect.

…

(3) A consent authority must not,—

(a) when considering an application, have regard to—

…

(ii) any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application:

…

(5) A consent authority may grant a resource consent on the basis that the activity is a controlled activity, a restricted discretionary activity, a discretionary activity, or a non- complying activity, regardless of what type of activity the application was expressed to be for.

(6) A consent authority may decline an application for a resource consent on the grounds that it has inadequate information to determine the application.

(7) In making an assessment on the adequacy of the information, the consent authority must have regard to whether any request made of the applicant for further information or reports resulted in further information or any report being available.

20. The following relevant provisions of sections 105 and 107 also apply:

105 Matters relevant to certain applications

(1) If an application is for a discharge permit or coastal permit to do something that would contravene section 15 or section 15B, the consent authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to—

(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and

(b) the applicant's reasons for the proposed choice; and 7

(2) … .

107 Restriction on grant of certain discharge permits

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 or section 15A allowing—

(a) the discharge of a contaminant or water into water; or

(b) a discharge of a contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or

…

if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by itself or in combination with the same, similar, or other contaminants or water), is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

(d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity:

(e) any emission of objectionable odour:

(f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals:

(g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

(2) A consent authority may grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 or section 15A that may allow any of the effects described in subsection (1) if it is satisfied— 8

(a) that exceptional circumstances justify the granting of the permit; or

(b) that the discharge is of a temporary nature; or

and that it is consistent with the purpose of this Act to do so.

(3) In addition to any other conditions imposed under this Act, a discharge permit or coastal permit may include conditions requiring the holder of the permit to undertake such works in such stages throughout the term of the permit as will ensure that upon the expiry of the permit the holder can meet the requirements of subsection (1) and of any relevant regional rules.

21. Under s.104B we may grant or refuse consent, and if we grant consent then we may impose conditions under s.108 of the Act.

Notice of Requirement

22. As the NoR has been included in the proposed District Plan under clause 4(6)(a) of the First Schedule to the Act, the Southland District Council is to make its decision on the NoR in accordance with s.168A(3). We are to make a recommendation on the NoR to the District Council. Our recommendation should be based on an assessment under s.168A(3).

23. Section 168A(3) states:

When considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial authority must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to—

(a) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national policy statement:

(ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and 9

(b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work if—

(i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or

(ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and

(c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought; and

(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a decision on the requirement.

24. Under s.168A(4) we can recommend the District Council –

(a) confirm the requirement:

(b) modify the requirement:

(d) withdraw the requirement.

Relevant Statutory Documents

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014

25. This national policy statement (“NPS”) sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way. The objectives and policies related to water quality (Section A), integrated management (Section C) and Tangata Whenua roles and interests (section D) are relevant to the discharge to land.

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007

26. We list these to indicate we have given consideration to whether the discharge to land would have an effect only any source of drinking water 10

covered by the Regulations. We have concluded no such source would be affected.

Regional Policy Statement for Southland (“RPS”)

27. The RPS was made operative in December 1997. We were referred to objectives and policies in the following sections:

(a) Section 5.1 - Takata Whenua

(b) Section 5.2 - Biodiversity

(d) Section 5.6 - Lakes, Rivers and Wetlands

(e) Section 5.8 – Soils

(f) Section 5.12 – Air Quality.

Proposed Southland Regional Policy Statement 2012 (“PSRPS”)

28. The PSRPS was notified in mid-2012. Hearing of submissions commenced in October 2014 and is due to finish in early 2015. The early stage of the process means that we cannot afford the PSRPS too much weight, but we must consider it. We were referred to objectives and policies from the following sections:

(a) Chapter 3: Tangata Whenua

(b) Chapter 4 Part A: Water Quality

(d) Chapter 6: Biodiversity

(e) Chapter 9: Air Quality

(f) Chapter 16: Infrastructure/Transport 11

Regional Effluent Land Application Plan (“RELAP”)

29. Rule 5.2.1 of this Plan requires a discretionary activity consent for the discharge onto or into land from a community sewage scheme. We were referred to several objectives and policies in this Plan and note that it also contains further guidance in the explanations of those and the information to be provided with applications.

Regional Water Plan for Southland (“RWP”)

30. There are no rules in this Plan applying to the application. However, we were referred to objectives and policies from this Plan that were pertinent.

Regional Air Quality Plan for Southland (“RAQP”)

31. Rule 6.5.2 of the RAQP requires a discretionary activity consent for the discharge of contaminants into air from –

(4) Foulwater treatment processes with a design capacity

population equivalent for BOD5 of 10,000 people or more.

32. We understood from the applicant’s evidence that the design population of Te Anau used in calculating the potential discharge flows through the life of the proposal exceeded 10,000.

33. We note that the application referred to Rule 5.5.3. However, Rules 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 apply to discharges to land from industrial and trade premises, the definition of which excludes production land. As the discharge is onto land from which baleage will be produced, this proposal is on production land. Rule 6.5.2 applies to the discharge to air from any place other than industrial and trade premises and is therefore the relevant rule. Nothing turns on the distinction between these two rules.

34. There are relevant objectives and policies in Chapter 6, and in Chapter 7 relating to Odour.

Southland Proposed District Plan

35. This Plan was notified in 2012 and decisions on submissions notified on 15 October 2014. It has therefore reached the stage that any rule not 12

subject to appeal should be treated as operative (s.86F of the Act). We have been provided with a copy of the proposed District Plan with those portions subject to appeal highlighted. Our examination of this discloses that none of the provisions relevant to the consideration of the NoR or resource consent application have been appealed. Relying on the provisions of s.86F of the Act we can therefore consider the relevant rules in this plan as operative and disregard those in the Operative District Plan. Consequently, although we have considered them, we give no weight to the objectives and policies in the Operative Plan as they have clearly been superseded by the proposed Plan.

36. The site is zoned Rural and it adjoins Designation D105 Manapouri Airport and is subject in part to Designation D106 Manapouri Airport Flight Paths. A Visual Amenity Landscape overlays all of the irrigation area and most of the land subject to the NoR. Part of the area subject to the NoR is identified as a Noise Sensitive Activity Exclusion zone around the airport, within which dwellings and other noise sensitive activities are prohibited.

37. If it were not for the proposed designation, the land use activity would be a discretionary activity under Rule INF.4.5 subject to the wastewater treatment facility being at least 150m from any dwelling, approved residential building platform or other residential accommodation.

38. Relevant objectives and policies are found in Sections 2.3, 2.9, 2.13 and 3.1.

Statutory Acknowledgements

39. We are required to have regard to relevant Statutory Acknowledgements as part of our decision-making process. The relevant areas subject to Statutory Acknowledgements are:

 Motorau/Lake Manapouri

 Te Ana-au (Lake Te Anau)

 The Waiau River. 13

Te Tangi a Tauira

40. We consider this Iwi Management Plan is relevant to our determinations and will consider it under s.104(1)(c) of the Act.

Jurisdictional and Process Matters

Late Submission

41. At the commencement of the hearing we needed to deal with a late submission lodged by Ms Marlys Hardcastle. In early July Council officers became aware of a submission lodged by email with Environment Southland on 14 February 2014 at 6.21 pm. This email had been diverted out of the normal mailboxes by Mail Marshall (an email filtering program) due to some of the language content. As the closing date for submissions was 5 pm on 14 February this submission was some 1 hour 21 minutes late. It was not clear whether it had been served on the applicant as required by the regulations.

42. The submission had come to light as the submitters had filed evidence/submissions on 4 July 2014 as required by our directions concerning evidence lodgement on 30 May 2014.

43. We received an explanation of the circumstances from Mr Hammond and confirmation of those from Mr Hardcastle.

44. We were satisfied, having considered the matters contained in s.37A of the Act, that the time period for lodging the Hardcastle submission should be waived. In addition, as Ms Hardcastle had not received any formal notices of the hearing nor our directions on evidence lodgement, but was fully aware of them, we waived the requirements for those to be served on the submitter. We provided for their submission to be heard at the end of the list of submitters.

Request for Further Information

45. On Friday 18 July 2014, after hearing all those submitters who wished to be heard, we advised Mr Garbett that we were not satisfied the applicant’s evidence was adequate to enable us to make a decision, and therefore 14

requested the applicant provide the following further information under s.41C(3) of the Act:

1. Provide further information on the groundwater hydrogeology, to provide increased certainty with respect to:

 The direction of flows and eventual discharge to surface water;  The thickness of the aquifer; and  The hydraulic conductivity. This information should include those parts of the Southern Block that Dr Davoren considers suitable for irrigation.

2. A survey of unconsented wells in the area, including location, depth and use.

3. Future nitrogen concentrations from the ponds in 15, 25 and 35 years’ time based on projected population and load increase and reduction in hydraulic retention time.

4. An explanation of how the additional 50 ha of the Northern Block is to be irrigated. This is to include the type of sprinkler, droplet size and likelihood of spray drift.

5. A more complete analysis of climate and soils to allow a determination of how much storage is required.

6. Form of nitrogen and nitrogen content following the trickling filter and oxidant dosing.

7. At what wind speed will irrigation cease and will it depend on wind direction and/or where the irrigator is located.

46. We noted that points 1 – 6 were critical to our decision-making, and suggested there could be value in having information for points 1 – 6 peer reviewed before being presented to us.

47. After taking instructions Mr Garbett suggested it would be appropriate to adjourn the hearing to enable collation of this additional information. He 15

proposed to advise Environment Southland of the likely time required, at which time he would expect we would provide directions to enable submitters to respond to this before reconvening the hearing. We agreed with the course of action and adjourned the hearing until the information was received, at which time we would issue directions as to how to proceed.

48. By letter of 11 September 2014 Mr Garbett advised Environment Southland that the applicant expected to have the further information requested, and peer reviewed, by 10 October. He suggested an appropriate timetable for evidence circulation.

49. We responded with a Memorandum dated 19 September 2014 setting out directions for the pre-lodgement and circulation of expert evidence and directions as to the evidence and submissions that could be presented at the reconvened hearing. In particular, we directed under s.41C of the Act:

 All submissions, evidence or other material presented by submitters at the reconvened hearing is to be limited to dealing with the further information provided by the applicant.

50. When we examined the expert evidence pre-lodged by submitters we concluded that much of the material contained in a statement of Dr E McGowan supporting the submission of Mr and Ms Hardcastle strayed well beyond the further information provided by the applicant. We asked Mr Hammond to advise the Hardcastles that only Dr McGowan’s credentials and his evidence relating to the drift of spray droplets in terms of droplet size and distance of drift was within the directions and that the remainder of his evidence would not be heard. We reinforced this at the hearing.

Environment

The Site – Proposed Irrigation Area

51. The proposed irrigation area is a roughly rectangular block of pastoral land, presently managed as part of the Landcorp-owned Kepler Farm, lying north of the sealed runway at the airport and east of the northern portion of the cross runway. It is bounded to east and west by pine-based shelter belts. Two lines of shelter belts cross the land from west to east in a 16

semi-diagonal fashion. These two shelter belts would be removed to accommodate the centre pivot irrigators.

52. The land is flattish with a gentle east to west down-gradient. Undulations are apparent in the pasture and slightly north of the centre of the eastern half is a wet area referred to by the applicant’s advisers as a peat bog.

The Site – Area Subject to Notice of Requirement

53. This land incorporates the above site. It extends some 10-30 m around the land to be irrigated, includes a narrow strip of land around the eastern end of the airport designation, and contains two blocks of pastoral land south of the airport. The land north of the runway was referred to as the North Block and we took that reference to include the area to be irrigated plus the additional land to be designated excluding the narrow strip connecting the NoR land either side of the airport.

54. The land to the south of the airport was referred to as the South Block. However, during the course of the hearing the applicant reduced the area of the NoR turning this land into a “Southeast Block” and a “Southwest Block”. The Southeast Block is east of the cross-runway and runs some 1800 m east-west and some 700-800 m north-south, although it is more of a parallelogram than a rectangle. It is in pasture and a shelter belt runs east-west through this block some 500 m north of the southern boundary. This shelter belt continues on the western side of the cross- runway for some 400 m.

55. The Southwest Block is separated from the Southeast Block by the cross- runway and the airport designation. This is a smaller irregularly shaped block with longest east-west dimension of some 1,000 m and maximum north-south dimension of some 700 m. It is also in pasture and contains the stub of shelter belt referred to above and a north-south shelter belt adjoining and perpendicular to the stub running for some 600 m to the north and south boundaries of the NoR area.

Surrounding Environment

56. North of the site the Kepler Farm extends some two kilometres to the Upper Waiau River. Some 400 - 600 m to the east is Kepler Mire, a large 17

wetland area. Home Creek flows through and from this Mire southeast of the site and runs through the Freestone Mire thence southwest to the Waiau River arm of Lake Manapouri. The Freestone Mire/Home Creek wet area is some 300 m south of the Southeast Block. Between the subject site and the Mires/Home Creek is a drain running roughly north-south through the pasture land. It is closest to the Southeast Block at the southeast corner of that block, being within 50 m at that point. This drain runs into Home Creek some 350 m south of the nearest part of the Southeast Block.

57. The Manapouri-Te Anau Highway (SH95) runs to the west of the site, and the Southwest Block adjoins this highway. Some 120 - 150 m south of the Southwest Block is the nearest house on a rural residential block. Some 550 m southwest of the Southwest Block, on the opposite side of SH95, is recent large lot subdivision. A little over 2.5 km south of the site is the Manapouri township. Hillside-Manapouri Road runs east from Manapouri at approximately 2 km from the southern boundary of the site.

58. Te Anau is some 11.5 km in a straight line north of the site. The Te Anau oxidation ponds are on the north side of Te Anau adjacent to the Upukerora River and we were told a 19 km pipeline would be needed to connect these ponds to the discharge area. The present discharge from the Te Anau ponds is via an artificial wetland to an outfall by the Upukerora River.

59. Lake Te Anau lies some 10km to the north of the proposed site, and Lake Manapouri to the west, some 1600 m away at the closest (from the Southwest Block). The Upper Waiau River12, which drains Lake Te Anau into Lake Manapouri, is mainly northwest of the site, some 1700 m from the northwest corner of the North Block. Fiordland National Park is generally west of the Upper Waiau River and the two lakes, but there is a portion which is east and south of the river which brings the National Park to within 1 km of the proposed site (NoR area).

12 We use the term “Upper Waiau River” to refer to the stretch of the Waiau River that flows from Lake Te Anau to Lake Manapouri. Maps we have referred to do not make such a distinction, but it was a term used by several submitters and its use in this report will, we hope, create certainty as where we are referring. 18

60. The edge of the bay on Lake Manapouri which adjoins the town is known as Frasers Beach. This beach runs north roughly parallel to the Manapouri- Te Anau Highway to a point some 1800 m south of the Southwest Block. The Manapouri town water supply is taken from an intake some 200 m off this beach.

61. The Manapouri wastewater treatment ponds are located adjacent to Home Creek a short distance upstream from the creek’s confluence with the Waiau River (the lower section of the Waiau River that flows from Lake Manapouri to the control weir). The treated wastewater from these ponds is discharged into Home Creek.

Major Issues in Contention

62. There are six major issues we must deal with to enable determination of whether we should grant consent or not. These are:

(a) Nitrogen loading on the land, including the use of the OVERSEER model and the cut and carry regime proposed;

(b) Groundwater flows, including direction of flows and mounding effects;

(d) Whether adequate storage is available to cope with expected weather events;

(e) Airborne contaminants, including spray drift; and

(f) odour.

63. If we determine that consent can be granted, then we need also to deal with the following two issues:

(a) Monitoring and the adequacy of conditions, including community access to results; and

(b) The term consent should be granted for. 19

64. The submitters raised a number of other issues. We will deal with these when assessing the effects of the proposal.

Findings on Major Issues

Nitrogen Loading

Nitrogen Concentration and Form

65. We accept the information provided by Mr Lockyer in his Further Statement of Evidence in response to Question 3. The nitrogen (N) concentration in the effluent from the pond system will slowly increase from the current summer average of about 20 mg/L to 25 mg/L in 2038 and 27 mg/L in 2048, and from a winter average of about 29 currently to 31 mg/L in 2048.

66. The nitrogen mass loading modelling in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) was based on an annual average of 27.1 mg/L and maximum average discharge volumes, of 1,350 m3/d in winter and 3,000 m3/day in summer, consistent with the volumes for which consent was sought.

67. Using dry weather flows and the modelled N values provided by Mr Lockyer results in annual mass loading to the land application area of about 20% less than that originally modelled in the AEE. We accept the use of more realistic flow figures for assessing the effects of nitrogen loading rather than using consented maximums.

68. Mr Lockyer also provided further evidence to us on the form of nitrogen in the treated wastewater after the trickling filter in response to our Question 6. He used industry standard modelling packages: Biowin and Toxchem. These models predict that the nitrogen will almost totally be in the oxidised form of nitrate nitrogen, with ammonia less than 1 mg/L. Therefore the nitrogen in the effluent to be sprayed on the pasture will be basically all inorganic. We note that this contradicts the primary evidence given by Mr East on vadose zone nutrient attenuation, where he gives the Te Anau effluent as 34% organic, 66% ammonium and only 2% nitrate. The form of nitrogen is important to understand as nitrate is highly leachable whereas organic nitrogen and ammonium are not readily leachable until 20

transformations in the soil take place and these changes require warmer temperatures; hence the reason for our question.

69. However, Mr East used OVERSEER to remodel the attenuation in his further evidence that supersedes the earlier modelling, as we discuss in the next section.

Nitrogen Areal Loading and Leaching

70. Mr East provided further information on nitrogen leaching at the resumed hearing. As we noted above, earlier leaching modelling using the industry accepted model, OVERSEER, had used the maximum consented discharge rates and this resulted in the predicted mass leached of 180 kg N/ha/yr below the pivot blocks, with an average over the whole farm unit of 118 kg N/ha/yr. We accept that it is normal to assess the leaching averaged over the whole farm rather than individual blocks.

71. The revised OVERSEER modelling used winter discharge flows in 2038 of 879 m3/d compared with 1,350 used in earlier modelling and a range from 1,134 – 1,516 m3/d in summer compared with 3,000 m3/d in earlier modelling. As above, we accept the use of average rather than maximum flows for nitrogen modelling purposes.

72. Mr East did not provide a revised mass areal loading figure. Earlier evidence had provided both 290 kg N/ha/yr and 345 kg N/ha/yr and the offered condition is a maximum of 290 kg N/ha/yr. We infer from this that the applicant is confident that it will not exceed a mass areal loading of 290 kg N/ha/yr.

73. Mr East made a comparison of the original OVERSEER modelling at Te Anau with Taupo, which shows that the Te Anau model would give similar results if rainfall, irrigation application and soils were changed – this shows the Te Anau model is set-up with reasonable parameters. The Taupo modelling has been calibrated against monitored leaching (using lysimeters), therefore this gives us comfort that the predicted leaching now modelled is realistic.

74. The new OVERSEER modelling predicts leaching of 46 kg N/ha/yr under the irrigation areas and total farm of 32 kg N/ha/yr, at a concentration of 21

4.5 mg/L in 2038. We accept the new figures as they are comparable with similar calibrated schemes around New Zealand.

75. We consider that on-going OVERSEER modelling is required to verify the previous seasons’ nitrogen leaching. We also consider that based on the variability from season to season (as outlined by Dr Davoren), that a condition requiring a rolling average leaching limit is required, as we discuss later when considering conditions.

Additional Nitrogenous Fertiliser

76. Originally the applicant had proposed a condition allowing an additional 100 kg of nitrogenous fertiliser per month during summer to make up any deficits to optimise plant growth. Based on the earlier modelling this appeared extreme. However, with the revised modelling and the change in the offered condition wording to combine wastewater nitrogen into the 100 kg N/ha/month limit we now consider this to be acceptable.

Findings on Nitrogen Loading

77. We find that the applicant has satisfactorily calculated the maximum mass loading of nitrogen and the nitrogen leaching rates. We also find those are comparable to similar schemes around New Zealand. We accept that the addition of nitrogenous fertiliser may be required but agree that this should not be additional to the maximum monthly loading limit of nitrogen.

Groundwater

Flow Direction North Block

78. In the application, and at the July hearing, the applicant presented information on flow direction based on bores and piezometers they had installed. The piezometric surveys presented showed the groundwater flow direction for the North Block to be to the west and northwest.

79. Several submitters challenged this on the basis that the ground surface slopes in a different direction to that presented by the applicant on groundwater direction. 22

80. The original groundwater flow information appeared to lack certainty as it was based on one piezometer with lower water levels, and, as the original nitrogen modelling suggested potentially alarming groundwater concentrations, further information was requested to confirm groundwater flow direction from both blocks.

81. We accept the applicant’s further evidence regarding the flow direction of groundwater from beneath the North Block, based on further drilling and surveys. We also accept the applicant’s conclusion that the only viable pathway from the North Block is towards the Upper Waiau River. The wording “will most likely discharge diffusely into the Waiau River…” created some confusion with submitters, as it still raised an element of doubt. However, we accept the further information as being scientifically plausible and that the plume pathway is Pathway 2. We understand the wording that has created confusion is over whether the discharge will be diffusely or as concentrated flows, i.e. over a large area or channelled in higher permeable zones that would appear as either above or below river level springs.

82. A number of submitters raised concerns over the presence of a groundwater divide. We understand that there is no actual physical barrier or divide but merely a slight hump in groundwater south of the North Block, where water on the north side will flow towards the Upper Waiau River and that on the south to Lake Manapouri. We accept the evidence from Mr Hughes13 that this is most likely caused by the large Diorite intrusive (low permeability bedrock) at the northern end of Supply Bay making the groundwater split either north or south.

Mounding

83. Mounding modelling in the application and original hearing was also based on maximum flows being discharged, rather than realistic flows. The evidence of Mr East gave this at between 0.24 and 1.44 m.

84. Further modelling using the revised flow figures and the aquifer parameters established from pump tests were presented by Mr East at the resumed hearing. This showed a maximum mounding height of up to 0.5

13 Environment Southland’s Groundwater Expert 23

m immediately under the site and a localised change in flow direction under the centre of the site but no overall change to the broader flow direction. That is, beyond the site the groundwater flow was back to the regional direction.

85. All experts questioned (Mr East for applicant, Ms Wilson for Mr & Ms Hampton and Mr Hughes for Environment Southland) confirmed that the 0.5 m mounding is likely to be conservative and because of the relatively steep groundwater contours, would not result in a change in direction from the northwest.

86. We accept the responses from the experts. However, due to uncertainties in modelling, we consider monitoring of the plume direction needs to be ongoing. This is discussed further below and in the section on conditions.

Nitrogen Plume Modelling

87. Although the applicant at the original hearing was reasonably confident that groundwater parameters were adequately assessed, via a range of parameters used, to be able to model the plume from the land treatment area, there was enough doubt in their presentations for us to require further investigations to confirm the parameters were within the range modelled. They were required to provide further information on flow direction (covered above), aquifer thickness and aquifer conductivity.

88. The further information presented by Mr East answered our questions. Although the peer reviewers considered that there were some flaws in the field work undertaken, we consider that this is not unusual in undertaking aquifer tests and there was sufficient testing of the parameters using varying techniques to show that the parameters used in the modelling were within the range previously used.

89. We therefore accept that an aquifer thickness of about 20 - 25 m (20 – 40 m used in AEE modelling) and hydraulic conductivities in the order of 29 – 42 m/day (10 – 50 m/day used in AEE modelling) can be used to accurately model plume migration.

90. Revised modelling of the plume movement though the aquifer using the more realistic aquifer parameters and assuming vertical dispersion only 24

gives nitrate-nitrogen concentrations down gradient of the land discharge area of 3.7 – 4.6 mg/L, depending on the extent of mixing, by 2038. Mr East has also assessed a bulk hydraulic conductivity of 10 m/day rather than 30 m/day due to lower values nearer the Upper Waiau River and the concentrations depending on mixing are 4.5 – 4.9 mg/L.

91. The above concentrations immediately down gradient of the application area are all less than one-half the maximum allowable values in the NZ Drinking Water Standards (NZDWS).

92. However, the values do not allow for up gradient (background) concentrations, which Mr East stated in his original evidence can be as high as 6 mg/L. Thus, there is potential for groundwater immediately down gradient of the site to be near to the NZDWS. We do note that the average concentration measured around the site was 2.3 mg/L and the airport well averages 0.4 mg/L. There is considerable variation in these background results. Consequently we consider it appropriate to monitor both up-gradient and down-gradient wells for the life of the consent.

Microbial Plume

93. Dr Davoren provided information on infiltration rates of the soils at varying potentials, with the infiltration rate appropriate to mesoposority (k-40 mm) that is likely to result in matrix flow rather than bypass flow of 9 mm/hr. He recommends a sprinkler package that will mostly meet this application rate apart from towards the outer spans where boom-backs will be required to keep the application rate to 20 mm/hr. Dr Davoren also presented evidence that most of the application will take place at less than saturated conditions, meaning the soil has ability to absorb and/or infiltrate at between 10 – 90 mm/hr. He recommended an application depth per application of 5 mm/pass.

94. Matching application rates to soil infiltration rates is important for microbial attenuation in the soils, i.e. wastewater containing pathogens is filtered through the soil matrix rather than bypassing the soil and going down root and worm holes and soil cracks. 25

95. We accept that the design of the centre-pivot and solid set irrigators can be within the suggested design parameters of Dr Davoren. Further comment on saturated soils is provided in the discussion on storage.

96. Mr East provided information at the original hearing on microbial attenuation through the soil and passage within the aquifer. His evidence showed microbial reduction through the soil and subsoil resulting in 0 – 40 cfu/100 mL in the drainage water leaving the site.

97. Mr East commented in his evidence on passage of microbial contaminants through groundwater that attenuation occurs through die- off, dilution and dispersion. His calculations show that using the upper figure of 40 cfu/100 mL in leachate, that groundwater is < 1 cfu/100 mL within 50 - 200 m from the site.

98. No further information was provided at the resumed hearing on microbial attenuation based on the more certain aquifer parameters. However, considering the more certain parameters are within the range modelled earlier, we are satisfied that the earlier microbial modelling covers the likely scenario.

99. There are no down-gradient bores within 200 m of the application area, with the nearest being the Landcorp Kepler Farm bores that are in excess of 500 m down-gradient. We understand these have UV disinfection installed. We are satisfied that the assessments provided by the applicant show microbial risk is minimal.

100. Ms Hardcastle presented material from Dr McGowan (much of it to do with sludge that we did not allow to be presented) commenting that E.coli tests do not document the presence of antibiotic resistance organisms. He noted that sewer (his word not ours) plant discharges are a principal cause of resistant bacteria being added to the aquatic environment. However, Dr McGowan was not available for us to question as to the fate of the bacteria in soils rather than the aquatic environment.

101. Dr McGowan is correct that E.coli tests do not cover all pathogenic contaminants. However, they are a universally adopted indicator organism. That is, high levels in monitoring show that the treatment 26

mechanisms are not working as predicted and potential pathogens may be entering the environment. We do not consider it fair or necessary to require the applicant to undertake very expensive gene and viral monitoring of the wastewater when there is no evidence that these potential pathogens will go beyond the soil system.

102. Mr Hardcastle commented on accidental chemical spills and automotive fluids spilt on roads that end up in sewers and will add to the mix making it toxic. However, this application relates to municipal wastewater (sewage) that is in sewage sewers (sewerage) and not stormwater that is in stormwater sewers. Nonetheless, some stormwater can end up in the sewerage system during large storms. This is usually associated with roof downpipes being directed to the wrong sewer but can also include road water flooding entering sewerage manholes. Very little information was provided to the hearing on wet weather flows (Mr Oakley provided flows but not specifically in relation to wet weather). Appendix F of the application shows wet weather flow to be 1.2 times peak dry weather flow. This is a low figure for sewerage reticulation systems suggesting the Te Anau system has very little contribution from stormwater. We therefore do not consider that stormwater contaminants need to be considered further.

Down-Gradient Bores

103. The applicant originally undertook a bore search on Environment Southland’s database and identified three bores within a 5 km radius. These were:

 the airport well (D43/0067), 12 m deep and used for potable supply;

 another domestic well, 13 m deep and 1.6 km to the west and used for potable supply; and,

 an irrigation well, 9 m deep and 4 km to the southeast.

104. Following our request for further information the applicant undertook a well survey. Mr Evans presented the results of this survey. Seven properties were surveyed and the survey identified a further four bores not on Environment Southland’s database. Mr Evans provided a plan showing the location of the properties. We are satisfied that the plan shows all likely down gradient properties for both the North and South Blocks. Of 27

the four additional bores, the applicant identified only one bore (Meridian Bore 1.2 km to the southwest) as being used for potable supply.

105. Mr Kraak submitted that although a number of people collect roof water as their primary water supply, bore water is used occasionally to top-up their tanks and thus it is important for it to be to potable standards.

106. A number of properties also rely on the Ramparts Rural Water Supply Scheme for stock water and topping-up potable tanks. This scheme has its source 14 km northwest of the application area.

107. The only bores considered down-gradient of the North Block application area are the Landcorp Kepler Farm bores. The survey shows they are used primarily to back-up roof water collection and the Rural Water Supply Scheme.

108. However, the airport bore, which is considered cross-gradient is very close to the North Block application area. The evidence of Mr Marshall described this bore as being filtered and disinfected. However, should mounding be greater than predicted, or there is a slight shift in the “groundwater divide”, then there is potential for this bore to become down-gradient. It is therefore important that this bore is monitored and that a “sentinel” or trigger well is installed and monitored for early detection of any wayward plume.

South Block

109. There is currently no application for a discharge permit on the South Block. However, the NoR will make the South Block available for potential wastewater application use in the future.

110. In his further evidence Mr East assessed groundwater flow directions for this block. He determined from piezometric surveys that flow direction is west to south-west and groundwater from this block is likely to discharge diffusely into Lake Manapouri.

111. The plan of the September 2014 piezometric contours provided by Mr East is his further evidence (Figure 6.2) show the revised smaller South Block area. Mr East considers that east of the South Block groundwater may 28

discharge to Home Creek and we agree that the levels support this. We consider that there is no likelihood of groundwater from beneath the South Block discharging to Home Creek in this vicinity due to this area being sufficiently up-gradient combined with the relatively steep groundwater gradient.

112. Mr East also considers that adjacent to the south eastern boundary of the South Block, groundwater interaction with Home Creek may occur. This is the closest point of potential land discharge to Home Creek (approximately 200 m). Mr East stated that the degree of interaction depends on the degree of clogging of the Home Creek Bed. Mr Shaw and others provided us with photographic evidence of a very clean Home Creek substrate, hence it is unlikely that clogging will restrict groundwater and surface interaction in this area.

113. We agree with Mr East’s evidence that further to the west, groundwater is unlikely to discharge towards Home Creek, however, we do consider his most southern flow-line to be slightly misleading where it crosses the 202 m contour – it should be pointing further south, possibly indicating further interaction from groundwater from the south east corner of the site with Home Creek.

114. Ms Wilson agrees with Mr East’s groundwater direction for the South Block. Mr Hughes also agrees with the flow directions and interaction with Home Creek but suggests that any future wastewater discharge application would need more detailed evaluation of hydrogeological conditions and contaminant fate and transport.

115. Mr Pilcher, a water diviner, produced evidence on water flows and depths in the South Block area. His flow direction does not appear to be at odds with the applicant’s evidence but the depth information is significantly different. Upon questioning, Mr Pilcher clarified that his depth information is to the bottom of the water bearing material, not the water level. This still leaves the information very different to that of the applicant and knowing the bottom of the layer does not assist in water flow direction. We agree with the scientific evidence of Mr East in this matter. 29

116. We do not consider from the evidence before us that there is likely to be a large interaction of groundwater from beneath the South Block with Home Creek. However, it is likely that if the south-east area of the South Block is irrigated, then some interaction will likely occur. This does not necessarily mean that Home Creek will get contaminated, as the evidence before us on the attenuation of pathogens and nutrients through the soil and dispersion in groundwater at the North Block may also be applicable to the South Block. However, that information has not been presented and a lot of investigation is required before a discharge permit for this area could be considered.

117. Just as important as the groundwater interaction, is surface runoff. We were provided photographic evidence by a number of submitters (Messrs Smith, Shaw, Youlden and McDonald) regarding ponding and runoff in the Home Creek vicinity. We consider that with the evidence of low permeability subsoil pans in the lower South Block area and thus the potential for ponding, that any discharge permit application will also need to demonstrate that this will not be a source of direct contamination of Home Creek.

Findings on Groundwater Flows

118. We find that groundwater from under the North Block flows northwest and enters the Upper Waiau River. We also find that the nitrogen plume, on leaving the site, will not exceed the NZDWS, subject to background up- gradient nitrogen levels.

119. We find that the down-gradient nitrogen and microbial plumes would be unlikely to adversely affect the existing Kepler Farm bore, the nearest down-gradient bore. While we are satisfied the evidence is that the airport bore will not be affected, it not being down-gradient, we considering monitoring is required via a sentinel bore in case the discharge alters groundwater flows.

120. While we heard evidence on groundwater flows from the South Block we make no findings on those flows but note that further data collection and analysis would be required before any application to discharge in the South Block was made. 30

Water Quality Effects

Effects on Kepler Mire and Home Creek

121. From the discussion above on the groundwater gradient, the difference in surface and groundwater elevations, and the distance from the irrigation area, we consider that groundwater from beneath the North Block will not have any effect on either the Kepler Mire or Home Creek.

Effects on Frasers Beach, Lake Manapouri

122. From the discussion above regarding flow direction, we consider that groundwater from beneath the North Block will not have any effect on Frasers Beach and therefore no effect on the Manapouri Township water supply.

123. Lake Manapouri is the ultimate receiving environment of the groundwater from under the North Block as the Upper Waiau River flows into it. Ms Bennett looked at potential effects on Lake Manapouri assuming the groundwater flow path was towards Frasers Beach. Her analysis, using the higher modelled nitrogen figures originally used by Mr East, showed that the lake’s trophic state would not be altered from Oligotrophic. Ms Bennett did not consider it necessary to recalculate concentrations following the provision of further evidence as the effects would be less than what was previously modelled. We concur with this.

124. As the effects on the Upper Waiau River are considered to be less than minor (see below), then it follows that the effect on Lake Manapouri will also be less than minor.

Effects on Upper Waiau River

125. Ms Bennett calculated in her original evidence that the predicted increase in nitrogen in the Upper Waiau River to be less than 0.005 mg/L, which she stated as being undetectable above the background of <0.11 mg/L. Subsequent nitrogen modelling by Mr East has resulted in the nitrogen plume in groundwater significantly reducing.

126. Although we did not agree with Ms Bennett comparing the nitrogen concentrations with the ANZECC 2000 water quality guidelines for 99% protection of aquatic organisms of 4.9 mg/L and believed she should 31

have used the more conservative protection of ecosystems of 0.7 mg/L, the result is the same, i.e. the levels are significantly lower than the triggers.

127. Ms Bennett in her further evidence stated that the discharge is not expected to result in the failure of the Upper Waiau River to comply with the standards for its water class. Whilst the discharge is expected to result in elevated nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater underlying the site and in a plume moving away from the site as described by Mr East, this is not expected to result in adverse ecological effects.

Findings on Water Quality Effects

128. The adverse effects of the discharge on the waters of the Upper Waiau River and Lake Manapouri will be so minor as to be undetectable. We find these effects to be negligible. We find there will be no effect on the water quality of Kepler Mire or Home Creek.

Wastewater Storage

129. The application provided an analysis of storage within the ponds for periods of wet weather14. In this report Dr Davoren considered that the ponds could be lowered if forecasting of rainfall up to three days ahead predicted events that may result in temporary ceasing of irrigation. He calculated that the storage volume for 100 mm of pond lowering would be 4,600 m3, which corresponds to between 1 day and 6.8 days of storage depending on whether current flows, future flows, or summer or winter peaks are used.

130. Dr Davoren was questioned regarding the storage calculations, size and timing of storms, wet weather flows and the soils ability to accept the irrigation in wet weather, snow and permafrost conditions.

131. He did comment on the September 2012 storm. He considered they would have needed about 3 - 4 days’ worth of storage to deal with the flows that came in over that time and not irrigate at the site. He considered the 100 mm change in pond volume would give them

14 AEE, Appendix D, Kepler Farm Waste Water Irrigation: Site and Irrigation Assessment, Dr A Davoren, 2013, pp 56-57 32

sufficient storage for that length of time. He said that there is about 20 mm of soil storage above field capacity to saturation and the drainage is rapid, i.e. the soil would return to field capacity rapidly, thus storms < 20 mm were no issue and he considered 50 mm to be an extreme event. He considered that 3 - 4 days storage was the requirement to cover rainfall.

132. However, Dr Davoren was unable to answer all the questions, particularly regarding snow and frost conditions and frequency of rainfall events, which left us in some doubt over the extent of storage that is required to cover annual and extreme conditions. Thus our request for further information regarding what storage could be required for various weather conditions.

Daily Model

133. The further evidence from Dr Davoren provided a daily water balance model using data from 1972 to 2012. The data was made up of two records, one from the Manapouri township climate station that ran until 1991 and then the data from the Manapouri Airport site was added to that and used to fill in gaps that existed in the initial record. Dr Davoren commented they are 4.6 km apart so he assumed there was not too much difference between the two sites.

134. Dr Davoren selected a 35 mm rainfall event, (he stated in questioning that it was an arbitrary number), or snow lie with duration of more than 2 days and depth greater than 10 cm, for modelling, to determine whether or not the applicant would want to draw down the ponds in advance or whether they could continue irrigating. The model involved checking the record three days in advance to see if a rainfall occurred that was greater than 35 mm. If there wasn’t a rainfall record that was greater than 35 mm, then it was assumed that the three day forecast stated there would not be a significant rainfall and so the effluent continued to be irrigated on 1 or 2 pivots. If there was rainfall event within 72 hours, then it was assumed that it was forecast. The model provided for drawing the ponds down at a rate that didn’t exceed 4.5 mm per day until 4,800 m3 in storage was reached. The next step of the model was to check again on the second day if there was going to be a 35 mm rainfall event again in 72 hours and if yes then irrigation would continue at 4.5 mm per day until that rainfall either occurred or didn’t occur. The storage would be lowered until it 33

reached 4,800 m3 volume. Irrigation would not start again until the soils got back to field capacity or just below field capacity. Dr Davoren explained that would mean there would be around 9,600 m3 of storage (100 mm from pond lowering and another 100 mm if the pond was allowed to use some of its freeboard) that could accommodate any rainfall and the influent that was coming in, and there would be no irrigation within that rainfall period.

135. The modelling showed the maximum storage required was 6,998 m3, i.e. 2,602 m3 less than the total storage of 9,600 m3 available in the oxidation ponds. The maximum storage comprised drawdown of 2,668 m3 prior to, and storage of 4,330 m3 during and following, the rainfall event on 28/1/1984 of 147.7 mm. Dr Davoren’s further evidence stated that snowfall records showed this was not an issue. Anecdotal evidence from a local was that snowfall lie occurred about once per year and one event lasted 5 days. As there were no long-term snow lie records, snow as an extreme event was not modelled.

136. Dr Davoren was asked what happened in winter, as the 4.5 mm/day modelled is their peak summer rate. He responded that influent rates are a lot lower in winter (about half) but they would have to be operating at “full noise” to get the ponds lowered.

137. The modelling was stated by Dr Davoren to take account of rainfall landing on the ponds as well as rainfall landing on the irrigation area.

138. The daily water balance model was peer reviewed by Dr Painter. He raised a concern over forecasting which we discuss below.

139. Dr Davoren was questioned regarding the ability of the ponds to be drawn down. We have not had the model supplied to us, so can only go on the information presented and the review of Dr Painter, however, we still have serious concerns regarding the daily model. For instance, Dr Davoren under questioning said that the model accounted for rainfall landing on the ponds but did not account for the lower winter irrigation rate. Taking the January 1984 storm as an example (using rainfall information from the Meteorological Service provided by Mr Regan Smith) 34

and using this with peak 2041 summer inflows, coinciding with wet weather, then the following is reached:

 Day 1 (21.01.2014) - start with normal peak inflows and outflow, i.e. inflow of 3,200 m3/d (medium projection) and up to 4,500 m3/d irrigation. Forecast is for heavy rain, so full 4,500 m3/d is irrigated. Ponds drop by 1,300 m3 (27 mm).

 Day 2 is the same, i.e. ponds drop by 27 mm (total fall of 54 mm).

 Day 3 is the same, i.e. ponds drop by 27 mm (total fall of 81 mm).

 Day 4 (24 January) – Day 4 is a 30.8 mm rainfall event, so no irrigation, inflows are 3,200 x 1.2 (wet weather flow) = 3,840 m3/d, therefore ponds level rise by 80 mm. In addition 31 mm of rainfall lands on the ponds. Day 4 pond level is therefore:

Starting Point – 81 + 80 + 31 = Starting Point + 30 mm

 Day 5 is the same as Day 1 (no rain), i.e. ponds drop by 27 mm. Pond is now Starting Point + 3 mm.

 Day 6 (26 January) – Day 6 is a 17 mm rainfall event, so irrigation may possibly occur, inflows are 3,200 x 1.2 (wet weather flow) = 3,840 m3/d, therefore ponds level fall by 14 mm. In addition 17 mm of rainfall lands on the ponds, giving a water level rise of 3 mm and a total rise of 6 mm since Day 1 Starting Point.

 Day 7 (27 January) – This is the major 147.7 rainfall event, so no irrigation, inflows are 3,200 x 1.2 (wet weather flow) = 3,840 m3/d, therefore ponds level rise by 80 mm. In addition 148 mm of rainfall lands on the ponds, giving a rise of 222 mm and a total since Day 1 of 228 mm.

140. The pond storage of 9,600 m3 relies on 100 mm pump down and 100 mm rise into the freeboard and total freeboard is 300 mm. The calculation 35

above shows that even with the forecasting, the ponds end up with an additional 228 mm in them and this is getting dangerously close to overflow.

141. Submitters also raised concern that large rainfall events are often preceded by strong winds that may either require the irrigation system to be shut down or not allow full irrigation of the entire area. We did not see any actual evidence on this but we consider that it could be a possibility and it has not been taken into account in the daily water balance model.

142. Mr Regan Smith gave evidence that snow lie was 2 to 3 and perhaps 3 – 4 times per year and this was reiterated by many at the hearing. This is also not accounted for in modelling.

143. The above, very simple calculations assumes irrigation can occur at full rates on rainfall days less than 30 mm. It raises a concern with us over the method and quantity of storage proposed.

Forecasting

144. Dr Painter raised issues regarding rainfall events not forecast. We posed a question to Dr Davoren “How easy will this be for the operators to control?” and Dr Davoren responded:

“It will not be for the faint-hearted. An operator will have to be looking forward at the weather and if you look at other treatment operations, e.g. Rolleston, weather is also taken into account there. They do not have the ability to store and manipulate as we do here but they have to be taken into account and if a large rainfall is forecast we will simply have to irrigate to bring the storage ponds down and then store that rainfall over that time, that is part of the way in which the system will have to be operated.”

145. A number of submitters raised concerns over the rainfall figures used, assumptions on snow lie and the ability of the applicant to use forecasting.

146. We agree with the submitters and Dr Painter that relying on forecasting will make management of the pond and irrigation system very difficult for the operators and will occasionally result in a situation where a large rainfall event has occurred and has not been forecast 3-days out. 36

Effects of Climate Change

147. The application documentation included an assessment of the effects of climate change.15 The conclusions reached in this section were that rainfall in winter and spring can be expected to increase with an associated increase in the frequency of extreme daily rainfalls and strong winds in the long term. The AEE noted that these factors could have an influence on how the pivot irrigators are operated, especially on a seasonal basis. It also noted that warmer winters could be a positive change since higher temperatures would enhance pasture growth and, therefore, nitrogen uptake.

148. The long term trend can be expected to have an influence on the amount of storage required. Dr Davoren’s evidence did not address this.

Pond Water Level Management

149. We heard from Mr Paton-McDonald that the maturation pond alone will not provide the 4,800 m3 of storage per 100 mm of water level and that this requires all three ponds. Concern was raised by submitters that this may result in wastewater from Ponds 1 and 2 that has been subject to less treatment, being irrigated.

150. We accept that the ponds could be configured so that the water level in all three ponds is lowered at once by pumping from Pond 3 only. This may require the lowering of the connecting pipes/weirs between ponds. This would be an operational matter for the applicant.

Findings on Storage Requirements

151. We accept the evidence of Dr Davoren that the soils are likely to drain from saturation to field capacity relatively rapidly; in the order of 12 hours. Thus, it is possible to irrigate the North Block using low application rate irrigation equipment when other areas in the vicinity are likely to have ponded water. Although irrigating above field capacity is not ideal, we understand this to be the case in all but a few municipal wastewater irrigation systems.

15 AEE Section 7.11, p.62 37

152. We requested further information on soils and climate and an analysis of what volume of storage may be required. This was because we were not satisfied with the analysis provided in the application and at the initial hearing. However, the further information provided at the reconvened hearing has not provided us with any further certainty. The modelling, although peer reviewed, seems flawed when compared to a simple inflow-outflow balance, does not take into account snow lie and relies on forecasting being accurate.

153. We are not convinced that using the ponds as proposed will be able to provide the storage required for both normal operation and for contingencies. Although we do not agree with the submitters that 3 months of storage is required as it is for dairy farms, we consider that a volume should be always set aside for extreme events. This means that reliance is not solely on forecasting and in the lead up to a rainfall event the irrigation system does not need to be run at its capacity, which is not generally good practice.

154. We have not been provided sufficient evidence to confirm the storage volume required to cover extreme events. We have concluded sufficient volume must be maintained for extreme events and set an arbitrary level of 10,000 m3. We also consider that the applicant needs to demonstrate in their Environmental Management Plan (“EMP”) how up to 15,000 m3 can be achieved by optimising their pond operation. How the applicant achieves storage is over to them – whether this be the use of the wetlands or by permanently operating the ponds 100 mm lower, or providing further freeboard by building up the embankments, or a lined pond at the irrigation area. Some of these may require further consenting.

155. In addition, given the potential for climate change to affect the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, we consider the storage volume should be reviewed on a regular basis solely to increase capacity if it is considered increased capacity is likely to be required.

Airborne Contaminants and Spray Drift

156. There are two components to this issue: 38

(a) The distance that spray will drift from the irrigators, including the quantity of spray drifting; and

(b) The extent to which spray drifting from the irrigators will contain contaminants, including pathogens, which could have an adverse effect on the receiving environment.

157. Dr Davoren provided evidence on the propensity of spray to drift, and the likely range of droplet sizes emitted by the centre pivot irrigators and the fixed sprinklers. He told us16 of research by the Spray Drift Task Force which concluded the key measure to evaluate the potential for spray drift is the volume of droplets produced by a sprinkler that are less than 141 microns (rounded to 150 microns for ease of sampling).

158. The Task force results showed that for low pressure spinner sprinklers, the median droplet size was greater than 1700 microns (1.7mm) and less than 1% of all droplets were less than 150 microns. He told us that the sprinklers he was recommending be used at Te Anau (Nelson R3000 or similar) generate larger droplets (1.7mm to 10mm) and the percentage of droplets less than 150 microns would be less than for spinner sprinklers tested by the Task Force.17 He also noted that not fitting end guns to the irrigators would further reduce the potential for spray drift.

159. In his Further Statement of Evidence Dr Davoren provided results from two further studies. Of particular relevance is the research by Edling18 which he reported. The graph from this research that Dr Davoren produced19 showed that droplets of 600 microns would travel 20m in a 9m/s (17.5 knots or 32.4 kph) wind, and that droplets of 300 microns diameter would travel up to 60m in the same wind.

16 Dr A Davoren, SoE, para 61, p.36

17 ibid, para 62, p.36

18 Edling, RJ. 1985. Kinetic energy, evaporation and wind drift of droplets from low pressure irrigation nozzles. Volume 28(5), American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

19 Dr A Davoren, Further SoE, para 37, p.14 39

160. Dr Davoren noted that on the east, north and west boundaries densely planted shelter belts would “minimise or eliminate the potential for drift”.20 Dr Davoren provided a wind rose derived from data from the Manapouri Airport weather station from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2008.21 This shows that the dominant wind direction with the strongest winds is west- northwest, followed by north-northeast. As a result of this he determined the critical arc for centre pivot use was approximately between south and southwest22. It was his view that when the centre pivots were within this arc and the wind was from NNE and exceeded 8 m/s (15.5 knots), the sprinklers in the last span of the centre pivots should be shut off. We understood his evidence to be that this action would minimise the risk of small droplets, forming 1% or less of the total, drifting beyond the irrigated area and 30m buffer area. We also understood that it was his recommendation that in those circumstances any fixed sprinklers within 75 of the southern boundary would also be shut off.

161. Mr Regan Smith noted that the wind rose Dr Davoren had supplied was based on a 10 minute average wind speed. He provided us with a wind rose calculated by the Meteorological Service for wind gusts at Manapouri Airport derived from the highest 3-second wind gust occurring in an hour for all hours between 1 October 2004 and 1 October 2014. This showed a similar propensity as that produced by Dr Davoren, in that the strongest and most frequent gusts are from the west (16% between 270o and 300o with a tenth of those exceeding 33 knots, 61 kph or 17 m/s). However, many of the gusts come from the north-northeast sector between 0o and 40o (19.4%).

162. The frequency table provided with Mr Smith’s wind rose shows that around 4.5% of all the highest wind gusts recorded were over 16 knots (8.2 m/s) and from the north to northeast segment. This is the direction and speed at which Dr Davoren recommended the last span of the centre pivots would be shut down. We understood Mr Smith’s point to be that the last span would not be shut down for gusts, rather for a 10-minute average

20 Dr A Davoren, SoE, para 55, p.31

21 Dr A Davoren, Further SoE, Figure 6, p.12

22 ibid, Figure 7, p.17 40

speed exceeding 8 m/s. While we accept that Mr Smith has a valid point, it must be put into the context of the frequency of such wind gusts (4.5%) along with the possibility of the centre pivot being oriented toward the southwest.23

163. On the other hand, we consider that Dr Davoren has not carefully considered the location of the centre pivot in relation to wind direction. While his arc defines a critical area, once the end of the centre pivot reaches approximately 170o from north the distance of the last span to the boundary at a point downwind in a north-easterly is at least as critical as at the end point of his arc (around 230o).

164. The applicant proposed a number of conditions to manage spray drift. For the discharge to air application the applicant proposed the following conditions:

5. (g) all sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns.

6. (c) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. Precipitation sensors on the Southern Boundary of the North Block are to be monitored. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors.

8. No irrigation of treated wastewater onto land shall occur within 30 metres of the boundary between the Northern Block and the airport (as shown on figure 3.2 of the application).

23 We note that in the applicant’s suggested conditions, it has used 6 m/s as the speed at which irrigation within 75 m of the boundary would cease. We take it that the lower number has been chosen to allow for gusts. 41

9. Any fixed sprinklers will not operate within 75 metres of the southern boundary of the Northern Block when the wind is from the northeast sector and exceeds 6 m/s.

10. Prior to irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by the consent commencing, the consent holder shall plant and maintain a shelter belt along the consent holder’s northern, western and eastern boundary which shall comprise three staggered rows of radiate pine and/or Douglas fir.

165. Conditions 5(g) and 6(c) are repeated in the conditions the applicant has recommended for the discharge to air application. The essence of these conditions has been included as Section 5.1.4 of the draft Environmental Management Plan (“EMP”) provided by the applicant.

166. We note that Dr Davoren’s recommendation that the last section of the centre pivot irrigator be shut down when in the critical southwest area and winds from the northeast exceed 8 m/s has not been carried through into either the recommended conditions or the draft EMP provided by the applicant. This can be remedied by amending condition 9 to refer to all sprinklers, including those on the centre pivot irrigators, within 75 m of the southern boundary.

167. We consider the critical condition is that no spray be observable at or beyond the boundaries of the buffer areas around the irrigation area. Observable needs to be defined to include observation by all senses not just visual. The land subject to the NoR is larger than the irrigation area to contain the buffers. The boundary of the designated land would be the appropriate place to monitor and apply the condition.

168. At the first hearing Mr Hardcastle presented a table showing particle size, settling time and settling distance at 5 mph (8 kph). The largest particle size on the table is 100 µm and the smallest <3 µm. The 100 µm particle is listed as settling within 44 feet (13.4 m) while the smallest particles are listed as essentially not settling. We understood Mr Hardcastle’s submission to be that the smallest particles and those close to that size (10 µm and 5 µm which would take 2.3 and 8 km respectively to settle at 8 kph) emanating from this proposal would create a health risk by dispersing pathogens over Te Anau and Manapouri, depending upon wind direction. 42

169. Dr McGowan’s evidence presented at the resumed hearing did not add anything to that covered by Mr Hardcastle at the initial hearing.

170. In his Summary of Further Evidence Dr Davoren discussed this table. He noted that the volume median diameter (“VMD”) of droplets from the sprinklers he was recommending was in excess of 2000 µm and that droplets less than 300 µm would likely comprise no more than 1% of all droplets. This final figure appears to differ from the statement in his Further Statement of Evidence that “the proportion less than 141 microns [would be] less than the spinner proportion of 1.3%.”24 The statements are not inconsistent, but if both are correct then the proportion of droplets less than 141 µm, less than half the size of a 300 µm droplet, should be significantly less than 1.3%. From this we can conclude that the proportion of droplets of the size Mr Hardcastle was expressed particular concern about, being smaller than one-tenth the 141 µm droplet, must be an extremely small proportion of all droplets.

171. In assessing this issue we have noted that neither Dr McGowan nor Mr Hardcastle claimed any expertise in the characteristics of spray produced by irrigators or the extent to which that spray can drift. On the other hand, Dr Davoren is an expert in irrigation using systems similar to that proposed, and has experience in the irrigation of wastewater at other plants around New Zealand.

172. Mr Hardcastle raised the public health issues arising from the contaminants, including pathogenic bacteria and viruses, being transported outside of the site in spray drift and aerosols. The applicant did not suggest that the wastewater would not contain such contaminants, but relied on Dr Davoren’s evidence regarding the management of spray drift.

173. Public Health South on behalf of the Southern District Health Board lodged a neutral submission25, neither supporting nor opposing the application. In this submission, the submitter identified the potential issue of spray drift,

24 Dr A Davoren, Further Statement of Evidence, para 33, p.13

25 Submission 115 to Environment Southland dated 14 February 2014 43

including aerosols, beyond the site boundary. The submission goes on to state:

Public Health South also commends the council’s management approach to mitigate odour emissions and spray drift such as, limiting the concentration of hydrogen sulphide in the treated wastewater prior to irrigation, design of the spray system to minimise the risk of aerosol formation, and adherence to standard odour compliance procedures.

The proposal appears to be well thought out. The application states that a staged approach to the wastewater irrigation is proposed to enable early identification of any potential environmental effects and if required, changes to the operating system. Public Health South would like to be informed of any issues and subsequent changes to the operating regime during this staged approach.

174. The submission goes on to note that the Southern District Health Board has a statutory duty to reduce potential health risks and to ensure the public health significance of potential adverse effects are adequately considered by consent authorities. The submission was lodged before the more detailed evidence of Dr Davoren was available.

Findings on Airborne Contaminants and Spray Drift

175. On the basis of the evidence we heard and the submission from Public Health South, we are satisfied that the irrigation system can be managed in such a way as to avoid observable spray drifting beyond the boundaries of the designated area north of the airport. If there is spray below the size and density that can be observed or detected we accept that it will be such a small amount as to not cause a public health risk.

Odour

176. Mr Lockyer presented evidence to us on odour, with his focus on

hydrogen sulphide (H2S). He modelled that the wastewater would go anaerobic within the first few kilometres of pipeline, resulting in the reduction of sulphate to sulphide and thus mitigation measures would be needed to reduce the release of these into the air upon irrigation.

177. The main option to reduce sulphides at the irrigation site is the inclusion of a recirculating trickling filter (TF). Wastewater from the pipeline mixes with the trickling filter effluent in a pump station and the combined mixture is 44

pumped through the TF. Final treated effluent is further chemically dosed with sodium hypochlorite prior to irrigation.

178. The system is described in sufficient detail and the system modelled using ToxchemTM for both summer and winter conditions. The modelling shows

65 – 85% removal of H2S in the TF, 13 – 28% removal in the biofilter (see below), with 2.5 – 6% remaining in the treated wastewater.

179. Air is drawn upward through the TF by extraction fans and is to be forced through a soil biofilter prior to being discharged into the atmosphere. Biofilters are a well proven method for odour removal in New Zealand.

180. Mr Lockyer described some of the issues in operating the biofilter; provision of food and maintaining appropriate moisture levels. An irrigation system is to be provided for the biofilter to prevent it drying out and it will be built above ground to prevent it being flooded. He also said it would be constructed in a number of sectors to allow maintenance of sections as required.

181. The residual H2S in the effluent from the TF (2.5 – 6%) will be further reduced by way of chemical dosing using sodium hypochlorite. The dosing rate can be altered as required depending on load. Mr Lockyer considers that this final polishing stage will not need to be utilised all the time.

182. We do note that there is no mention of the TF recirculating pump station air discharges being connected to the biofilter. This pump station, if open to the atmosphere, will be a potential source of odour. We consider this should be addressed in the odour management plan (OMP).

183. We also note that the AEE made mention of a tank of freshwater held on- site for flushing of the irrigation lines and this did not get mentioned by Mr Lockyer. However, he did mention that as the treatment system has removed the sulphides that the treated effluent could remain in the pipeline for a period of time without developing odours (in excess of 5 days). 45

Findings on Odour

184. The information provided by Mr Lockyer appears comprehensive and well thought through. There appears to be sufficient contingency built into the treatment train to allow odour to be treatment by more than one process and that it will be of more than sufficient size for its duty. We are therefore satisfied that the system proposed should mitigate the potential odour in order to satisfy the condition that there will be no offensive odour beyond the boundary.

Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Positive Effects

185. The major benefit of this proposal is that it will remove an existing discharge of treated wastewater to the Upukerora River and thence Lake Te Anau. Although there is a substantial dilution factor provided by the waters of Lake Te Anau, the existing discharge involves no reduction in contaminants, particularly nitrogen, phosphorus and pathogens, below the levels that would enter the pipe for transmission to the Kepler Block.

186. The proposed discharge, on the other hand, will:

 Reduce nitrogen levels reaching surface water (Upper Waiau River) by utilisation by pasture and gaseous losses within the soil;

 Reduce phosphorus before it reaches surface water by plant uptake and absorption in the soil profile; and

 Effectively eliminate pathogens reaching surface waters by die off in the soil profile.

Water Quality

187. We have concluded above that adverse effects on surface water quality from the discharge will be negligible. The removal of the existing discharge will mean the net overall effect will be beneficial to surface water quality. 46

188. There will be some changes to quality of groundwater beneath the discharge area. However, as we discussed above, the expert advice is that by the time the groundwater flows reach any down-gradient bores, the groundwater will be well within the NZ Drinking Water Standard. There is a chance that the well at the airport could be adversely affected depending upon groundwater flows. A sentinel well is proposed to monitor for that eventuality.

189. As we noted above, we are concerned that as put to us, the applicant had not made sufficient provision for the storage of wastewater at those times when climatic conditions prohibit irrigation, or limit the amount that could be irrigated. A failure to provide adequate storage could lead to wastewater flows escaping to surface water with the consequent adverse effects on surface water quality. We are satisfied that the provision of 10,000m3 of storage will be adequate at least initially. We would expect this is a matter that could be kept in review with the storage being increased if this amount was frequently proving inadequate.

Odour and Spray Drift

190. We have discussed both of these above and concluded that, provided conditions are imposed, any adverse effects on the environment would be minor.

Bird Strike

191. The applicant recognised in preparing the application that there was the potential for risks to aircraft operations at the airport arising from bird strike if the operation was not carefully managed. Mr Beale prepared an assessment of the bird strike risk for review by the Te Anau Airport Committee and the Civil Aviation Authority. We accept Mr Beale’s qualifications as a zoologist and his experience as expertise appropriate for this task.

192. The bird strike assessment recommended a range of passive deterrence measures within the irrigation area that Mr Beale considered the best practicable means of managing birds and minimising the level of risk posed to aircraft from the irrigation activity. The measures proposed were: 47

(a) Pasture management:

(i) Maintaining a minimum grass height of 50-70 mm during the growing season and 150-200 mm during winter beneath the pivot irrigators;

(ii) Maintenance of the grass sward within the irrigation area so as to avoid seed head development.

(b) Avoidance of prolonged ponding within the irrigation area;

(c) Absence of lighting within the irrigation area including absence of strobe lighting on the centre pivot irrigators; and

(d) Use of bird scaring devices such as percussion noise scarers.

193. These measures have been incorporated into the draft EMP we were provided with, but the applicant has not recommended any condition requiring management so as to minimise the risk of bird strike.

194. Several submitters raised concerns about the potential risk to aircraft using the airport as a result of bird strike, in particular the Fiordland Aero Club and Mr Hagen. Mr Hagen referred us to the comments of Mr Willans regarding the birds attracted to his farm after he began irrigating. Mr Hagen also noted that normal procedure at the airport is for bird scaring prior to an aircraft landing.

195. Having considered the matter, we conclude we must agree with Mr Beale that the management regime he proposes would exert a level of control on bird numbers in the vicinity of the airport that does not exist under current farming regime. However, we do consider there needs to be enforceable conditions requiring the ongoing application of appropriate bird control measures.

Soil and Pasture Health

Herbage Production

196. Dr Davoren in his main evidence modelled pasture production using the CSIRO AusFarm model. This gave a range of dry matter (DM) production 48

of 11,292 to 16,686 kg DM/ha/yr, with an average of 14,954 kg DM/ha/yr. Although the model used was not the generally accepted model used in NZ (OVERSEER), the predicted DM production appears appropriate for the area receiving water and nutrients. Cut and carry (harvesting) and export of dry matter results in some loss of utilisation, hence Dr Davoren has suggested an average export of 13,500 kg DM/ha/yr and we consider this value appropriate.

197. The removal of herbage will export nitrogen from the site. During questioning, Dr Davoren commented that the annual export would be variable based on climate, nitrogen uptake by the plant, etc. and setting a bottom line figure would be difficult but also agreed that annual modelling of the past season and setting a rolling average for leaching would be an acceptable way of dealing with the variability.

198. In theory, the export of herbage without grazing will result in a nitrogen deficit in some months. The applicant has suggested the addition of additional fertiliser which we have discussed above. However, it will also result in other imbalances in the soil and soil monitoring will be required to monitor the soil health. We will discuss this under monitoring/conditions.

199. Municipal wastewater application to land usually requires the following effects to be addressed:

(a) Nitrogen leaching – this has been addressed above;

(b) Phosphorus leaching and runoff;

(d) Heavy metals; and

(e) Pathogens – addressed above.

Phosphorus

200. The application gives annual average phosphorus (P) application of 100 kg P/ha/yr and annual average uptake by the herbage as 52 kg/ha/yr. This leaves approximately 50% of the P load to be stored in the soil. We 49

accept the comments by the Applicant that the soil is a good sink for P and that there is a reasonable unsaturated zone to attenuate P. However, the soil P retention is finite and at some time in the future, downward movement of P will start to occur.

201. We note that Mr Hammond does not raise any particular issue with the P loading.

202. We are requiring 5-yearly monitoring of P at lower soil depths to assess when the soil has reached P saturation and consider other mitigation measures, or assessment of P in the environment may be required. This is most likely to be beyond the life of this consent but as P-retention information was not provided, we have decided to take a cautious approach.

Organic Loading

203. We accept that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading from mainly domestically sourced sewage is very unlikely to result in oxygen issues within the soil. Dr Davoren, in responding to questions, confirmed that the early issues that occurred at Taupo due to anaerobic slimes would not be the case here as the soils would not be sitting at saturation for long periods and would aerate between applications. We accept that the soils are unlikely to have organic loading issues.

Heavy Metals and Emerging Contaminants

204. The application and evidence from the applicant was very light on heavy metals (also referred to as trace elements) and emerging contaminants.

205. Mr Hammond in the s42A report notes that there is both commercial and light industrial uses within the township which are connected to the sewerage system but that there is also a Trade Waste Bylaw that provides restriction on levels of chemicals and metals entering the system. He further comments that the main contributor to be domestic wastewater.

206. Mr Hammond concluded that due to the mainly domestic nature of the wastewater, that the potential for accumulation of contaminants with the potential to affect soil health should be no more than minor. 50

207. The applicant did not consider it necessary to monitor trace elements and chemicals in the soils but Mr Hughes suggested that as the application does not provide an assessment of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and organic chemicals that it is appropriate to monitor a number of trace elements in the wastewater influent, soils and groundwater. We tend to agree with Mr Hughes, but at a lesser frequency than other parameters.

208. Mr Hardcastle provided numerous abstracts and journal papers prepared by overseas scientists. Many of these were only relevant to sewage sludge, however, some raised concerns regarding plants taking up persistent chemicals from reuse of sewage effluent. We did not hear any scientific evidence on this matter from the applicant nor were we able to question the paper authors as to whether the issue is relevant to pastoral grasses.

209. There are contaminants of emerging concern whose fate in the environment is not yet fully understood. Numbers of pharmaceutical products, disinfectants, antibiotics, and other products are suspected, although not yet conclusively proven, to have residual and harmful effects after their release. There is the potential for land application of wastewater containing these materials to cause issues which may need further remediation at some time in the future. However, it is considered that confining a wastewater discharge to a specified land application site where effects can be monitored, offers far better future management options in respect of such contaminants than the current discharge to water, as reported cases of effects from these contaminants are due to discharges direct to water. We consider that these contaminants could be monitored in the soil, herbage or groundwater at some stage in the future when more is known about their fate in the environment, and at what concentrations they present a risk. We consider this can be addressed by way of the yearly review of the EMP by the Technical Working Group.

210. We understand that treated sewage effluent is not a significant source of heavy metals and that these are most likely to be associated with sludge. This application is not for the discharge of sludge. However we consider the periodic assessment (5-yearly) of metals in the soil would identify 51

whether accumulation in the soil was becoming an issue that could lead to future adverse effects.

Public Health Effects

211. Such effects are likely to arise from adverse effects on surface and groundwater, spray drift and odour. We are satisfied that all of these effects will be sufficiently minor and able to be managed such that any public health effects would be very minor.

Other Effects on the Community

212. The Fiordland Aero Club and Mr Hagen raised a concern that the contaminated spray drift from the irrigators would settle on aircraft parked in the open at the airport leading to corrosion of those aircraft. We have concluded above that the irrigation can only occur with no observable spray drift beyond the designated wastewater discharge area. We accept that particles too small to be observed may drift beyond that boundary but consider they which be such a small proportion of the total spray as to have minimal adverse effects of the type suggested by the submitters.

213. Te Anau and Manapouri are on the edge of Fiordland National Park and Te Waipounamu World Heritage Area. Both towns are destinations themselves or gateways to Fiordland. For the local people the tourism industry is of critical importance to the wellbeing and economic survival of both communities.

214. Each community has its own lake with the Upper Waiau River linking the two. Submitters living and working in Manapouri spoke passionately of the characteristics of the area, including the value of Lake Manapouri and Frasers Beach in particular, and their dependency on tourism to support the local economy.

215. Many submitters considered the concept of emitting wastewater to Kepler Farm in the manner proposed, which they felt would be in full view of tourists, to be unacceptable. They were concerned that this could have an adverse effect on the business community due to the discharge being 52

close to the main road leading into Manapouri and its proximity to the airport.

216. Submitters sought reassurance that the spray and odour would not impact on tourists’ social and visual enjoyment during their stay in the area. Neighbours to Kepler Farm also sought reassurance that their well-being, life style, social, and visual enjoyment of the area would not be reduced.

217. Submitters spoke of the high recreation amenity values of the Upper Waiau River and Fraser Beach and sought reassurance concerning the effects of nitrate levels and the interconnection between groundwater and surface water on the water quality in those areas.

218. As we have noted above, we are satisfied that the applicant’s evidence shows that groundwater from under the North Block, including the increase in nitrates within that groundwater as a result of the discharge, will reach surface waters in the Upper Waiau River, not Fraser’s Beach. We are satisfied that the quality of that groundwater before it reaches surface water will be acceptable, and that it will be further diluted by the flows of the Upper Waiau River so as to be undetectable.

219. Our findings above on spray drift and odour is that the approach taken by the applicant will minimise the potential for adverse effects to affect either the Manapouri community or tourists visiting the area, including the airport and the nearby State Highway.

220. Overall we are satisfied that, notwithstanding the concerns of most of the submitters, the adverse effects of the proposal on the surrounding community will be negligible.

221. We note that there will be a positive effect on the surrounding community arising from removing the existing discharge from the Upukerora River. That discharge enters the waters of the Lake Te Anau-Upper Waiau River- Lake Manapouri system with levels of nitrates, phosphorous, bacteria and viruses far in excess of the levels which would reach the Upper Waiau River after the discharge to land on the Kepler Block. 53

222. We do accept that there will be ongoing perception and concern by those submitters from the Manapouri area that operation of the discharge system will have adverse effects on them and their neighbours. We consider the best way for these perceptions and concerns to be alleviated, and perhaps dispelled, is by ongoing consultation and information transfer between the applicant and the community. The Manapouri CDA sought that a liaison group be established for a similar purpose. When questioned by the Panel, Mr Hammond stated that in an early draft of his conditions he had recommended the establishment of such a group and he remained of the view that in terms of public confidence and transparency, there is merit in such a group being established.

223. Mr Beale implied that the provision by the applicant of information on a regular basis to the Te Anau Community Board would suffice. In his closing Mr Garbett explained that the applicant did not support the formation of a liaison group. It was the applicant’s position that the provision of the monitoring information to Environment Southland, whence it would become public, was an adequate means to transfer the information to the community. The applicant also did not want the responsibility of managing such a group as part of the operation of its consent.

224. We do not consider that provision of monitoring data to Environment Southland and the Te Anau Community Board would ensure the residents of Manapouri were adequately informed of the ongoing effects of the proposal. We consider the advantage of a group containing representatives of a range of stakeholders is that it enables discussion and allows a consent holder to properly explain its operations, rather than leaving it to people to interpret a bald set of figures. We are satisfied that a multi-stakeholder group would be of value to both the consent-holder and the community and accordingly will impose a requirement that the consent holder form a Consultative Reference Group including representatives of the local community to facilitate such consultation and information transfer. So as to avoid the complications of constitution, elections and membership as referred to by Mr Garbett, we will define in the condition which stakeholders are able to provide representatives and when meetings are to occur. 54

Provisions of National Policy Statements, Regional Policy Statements and Plans

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014

225. This National Policy Statement (NPS) came into effect on 1 August 2014, superseding the 2011 NPS on that day. There are no transitional provisions, other than those in Policies A4 and B7, so we must apply the 2014 NPS to this application.

226. The following objectives and policies are relevant:

Objective A1

To safeguard:

a) the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems, of fresh water; and

b) the health of people and communities, at least as affected by secondary contacts with fresh water;

in sustainably managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants.

Objective A2

The overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or improved while:

a) protecting the significant values of outstanding freshwater bodies;

b) protecting the significant values of wetlands;

c) improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over- allocated.

227. Policy A4 requires that certain policies be included in regional plans to apply until changes are made to give effect to Policies A1 and A2. We consider it appropriate to consider the relevant parts of Policy A4 as part of our consideration of the NPS. The relevant parts are:

1. When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have regard to the following matters: 55

a. the extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water including on any ecosystem associated with fresh water and

b. the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effect on fresh water, and on any ecosystem associated with fresh water, resulting from the discharge would be avoided.

2. This does not apply as the application was lodged prior to the 2014 NPS taking effect (see Policy A4-5).

3. This policy applies to the following discharges (including a diffuse discharge by any person or animal):

a. a new discharge or

b. a change or increase in any discharge –

of any contaminant into fresh water, or onto or into land in circumstances that may result in that contaminant (or, as a result of any natural process from the discharge of that contaminant, any other contaminant) entering fresh water.

4. and 5. Provide for exclusion for applications lodged prior to the 2011 NPS and 2014 NPS respectively.

Objective D1

To provide for the involvement of iwi and hapu, and to ensure that tangata whenua values and interests are identified and reflected in the management of fresh water including associated ecosystems, and decision-making regarding freshwater planning, including on how all other objectives of this national policy statement are given effect to.

Policy D1

Local authorities shall take reasonable steps to: a) involve iwi and hapu in the management of fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region; b) work with iwi and hapu to identify tangata whenua values and interests in fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the regional; and 56

c) reflect tangata whenua values and interests in the management of, and decision-making regarding, fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region.

228. We are satisfied that the discharge of treated wastewater from Te Anau to land on the North Block in the manner proposed and subject to stringent conditions will avoid contamination that would have an adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water, including any ecosystem associated with fresh water. As will become apparent below when we consider the proposal in the context of the iwi management plan Te Tangi a Tauira, we also are satisfied that the proposal reflects tangata whenua values and interests by replacing the direct discharge of the wastewater to freshwater with a system that uses the cleansing powers of Papatuanuku, the earth.

Southland Regional Policy Statement

229. Mr Hammond and Mr Beale listed what each of them considered to be the relevant objectives and policies from the RPS. Between the two of them they considered all the objectives and policies we consider relevant.

230. The policy most directly applicable to this proposal is Policy 5.4 which states:

Utilise land treatment of liquid wastes where this can be undertaken in a sustainable manner and without significant adverse environmental effects.

231. This proposal gives effect to this policy by utilising land treatment in a sustainable manner. We are satisfied that any adverse effects arising from the proposal would be minor or less than minor, thus well within the “significant” threshold set by the policy.

232. The remainder of the relevant objectives and policies are framed in a general and high-level way. We conclude the proposal is consistent with them by avoiding adverse effects on areas of significance such as the Kepler Mire, minimising the effects on water quality of the lakes and Upper Waiau River, minimising the potential for odour and airborne spray effects outside of the site, and recognising and providing for Maori values. 57

Proposed Regional Policy Statement

233. Again Mr Hammond and Mr Beale set out what they considered to be the relevant objectives and policies. We generally concur with their assessments in respect of those provisions.

234. The proposed RPS also contains a policy preferring discharges to land and additionally has a policy of managing activities so as to reduce levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and microbiological contaminants entering surface waters and groundwater. This proposal gives effect to these by utilising a land disposal system that reduces the levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and microbiological contaminants entering groundwater, and subsequently surface waters, below the levels presently occurring.

235. Neither planner directed us to the objectives and policies in the natural hazards and infrastructure sections which suggest consideration needs to be made at an early stage of the potential effects of climate change, notwithstanding the uncertainties surrounding those effects. This is particularly relevant to consideration of the storage capacity in times of inclement weather. We have taken that into account in reaching our conclusion that adequate provision needs to be made for storage.

Regional Effluent Land Application Plan

The purpose of this Plan is to avoid where practicable, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on soil and water ecosystems from the discharge of effluent … onto or into land.26

236. The Plan contains a specific discussion of the issues associated with the discharge of effluent from community sewerage schemes. This notes that the quality of the effluent is influenced by a variety of factors, including design, management and the waste stream being received by the system.

237. Mr Hammond and Mr Beale referred us to all the relevant objectives and policies from this Plan. These support an effluent land application system of the type proposed by this application, subject to adequate controls to

26 Regional Effluent Land Application Plan for Southland, Section 1.3, p.6 58

ensure the purpose of the Plan is achieved, and additionally that adverse effects on human and animal health are avoided where practicable, or otherwise remedied or mitigated.

238. We are satisfied that the proposal, subject to the conditions we are imposing, will be consistent with these objectives and policies and achieve the purpose of the Plan.

Regional Water Plan

239. Mr Hammond and Mr Beale referred us to a number of objectives and policies from this Plan which, in general, are directed to the management of discharges so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of discharges on water and soil quality, and the ecosystems related to them. In addition, we note:

(a) Policy 25, which seeks to ensure there is no deterioration in groundwater after reasonable mixing resulting from point-source and non-point source discharges; and

(b) Policy 40, which encourages the maintenance and enhancement of existing wetlands.

240. We are satisfied that the proposal, as conditioned, would not lead to a deterioration of surface waters and accept the applicant’s evidence that, after reasonable mixing, the groundwater quality down-gradient from the application site will continue to meet NZ Drinking Water Standards and consequently not deteriorate in quality. The applicant proposes to restore and enhance an existing wetland within the application area, thereby giving effect to Policy 40.

Regional Air Quality Plan

241. Mr Hammond outlined the more general objectives and policies from this Plan related to ambient air quality and discharges from industrial or trade premises before moving on to discuss the provisions of Section 7 related to odour. Mr Beale focussed on the odour provisions. 59

242. The overall effect of these objectives and policies is to protect people and communities, as well as areas of cultural or amenity value, from the adverse effects of air discharges, whether those relate to, relevantly, spray drift or odour. As we noted above, we are satisfied that those matters are adequately dealt with in this application.

Proposed District Plan

243. Mr Moran outlined what he considered the relevant objectives and policies of this Plan. Now that the Plan has been amended to take account of decisions made on submissions we have re-appraised these.

244. The land to which the NoR relates is zoned Rural and most of it is shown as being within a Visual Amenity Landscape (VAL). The part that is not within the VAL is that part to the east of a line drawn at right-angles to the end of the airport runway. The NoR also overlays designation D106 being the Airport Approach Fans and side surfaces.

245. Objective NFL.2 and Policy NFL.2 relate to works within a VAL and seek to ensure such work maintains the amenity values and visual qualities of that landscape. The designation would provide for irrigation by centre pivot irrigator and fixed sprinklers of pasture in a manner consistent with what one would expect to see in a rural farming area.

246. Policy NHZ.6 proposes that a precautionary approach is adopted in managing the effects of climate change. This is similar to the provisions in the proposed RPS on the same topic. The issue for this proposal will be changes in weather patterns that may require enhanced storage. We are satisfied that can be dealt with through the conditions.

247. Objective INF.1 is to ensure infrastructure meets the current and foreseeable needs of the District whilst ensuring adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Policy INF.1 requires that the development, operation and relocation of infrastructure be recognised and provided for. Policy INF.2 requires recognition that infrastructure can have a functional, technical or operational requirement to be located at a particular location. Policy INF.4 requires siting of infrastructure so as to avoid or mitigate the effects of climate change. In 60

terms of these policies, wastewater networks and treatment plants are defined in the Plan as being infrastructure of regional significance.

248. This proposal is consistent with these provisions. It has been designed to cater for the next 35 years of growth in Te Anau with the ability to expand when the capacity of the North Block is reached. Policies INF.1 and INF.2 require us to take account of the matters outlined in making our decision.

249. We note that under Rule INF.4 new wastewater treatment facilities require consent as a discretionary activity provided they are located a minimum of 150 m from residential buildings and approved residential building platforms on adjacent properties. Although, through the use of the NoR process, the applicant does not need to comply with this rule, we can take into account how the Plan puts into effect the policies in respect of wastewater treatment facilities.

250. Objective WATER.1 and Policy WATER.1 relate to managing activities so as to ensure the overall quality of fresh water in the District is maintained or improved. This is consistent with the Regional Plan provisions as discussed above.

251. Objective RURAl.1 seeks to ensure development in the Rural Zone maintains the life-supporting capacity and productive value of the land resource. Objective RURAL.2 seeks to maintain amenity values, including rural character. Policy RURAL.2 gives effect to Objective RURAL.2 and Policy RURAL.4 gives effect to Objective RURAL.1. By utilising the nutrient content of the treated wastewater for pasture growth and the use of the pasture for stock feed the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies. The nature of the structures involved and the limitations to ensure adverse effects from spray drift and odour are minimised means the amenity values of the area, including rural character, will be maintained. The retention and planting of shelter belts will reinforce this.

District Plan

252. Mr Moran set out the relevant provisions in this Plan in his s.42A Report. We adopt his discussion of the provisions of this Plan, but in doing so note: 61

(a) It appears that all the relevant provisions in this Plan have been superseded by the provisions of the proposed District Plan; and

(b) As the NoR was notified as a provision in the proposed District Plan, and the decision on the NoR to be made by the Council will be a decision on the submissions on the proposed District Plan, we consider the provisions of the operative District Plan are of little relevance to the NoR.

Te Tangi a Tauira

253. This Iwi Management Plan contains a comprehensive set of policies in relation to managing resources in Murihiku. Relevant to these applications are policies relating to:

 Discharges to Air (Section 3.2.1);

 High Country and Foothills (Section 3.4);

 Wastewater Disposal (Section 3.5.2);

 General Water Policy (Section 3.5.10;

 Rivers (Waiau River Catchment) (Section 3.5.11);

 Discharge to Water (Section 3.5.12).

254. The overall policy direction is to avoid the discharge of wastewater direct to water and to use Papatuanuku to cleanse and filter contaminants from wastewater. In relation to discharges to air, the Management Plan is concerned to maintain amenity values and minimise the adverse effects of odour and spray drift.

255. Te Ao Marama Inc supported the application. Mr Skerrett appeared for Te Ao Marama and confirmed that the consultation process and the proposal, including the conditions suggested by the applicant, accorded with the policies in Te Tangi a Tauira. We have reviewed the relevant policies and agree with Mr Skerrett. 62

256. That the local submitters were content to continue with the discharge of the treated wastewater to water highlighted a major cultural difference between the local submitters and Te Ao Marama, as expressed in Te Tangi Tauira. When Mr Skerrett was asked whether Nga Tahu cultural values have changed over the years, he replied that the access to and availability of a lot of resources has changed, but the underlying values remain.27

257. We note also that the cultural preference of discharging treated wastewater to land rather than water is also a policy of the RPS and RELAP. In that sense, the policy expressed in Te Tangi a Tauira is consistent with the policies of the wider regional community.

258. The one area of difference between the applicant and Te Tangi a Tauira is in respect of the term of consent. Policy 3.5.2.18 suggests a consent duration not exceeding 25 years, whereas the applicant is seeking a maximum term of 35 years. We will discuss this matter later in the decision.

Section 105

259. The provisions of this section require us to consider, in respect of both the discharge to land and the discharge to air:

(a) The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment;

(b) The applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and

260. We have considered above the nature of the discharges and the sensitivity of the receiving environment and concluded that the discharges would not have adverse effects that were more than minor when considered in the context of the receiving environment.

27 Hearing Transcript, p.98 63

261. The applicant outlined the range of alternatives considered by it in arriving at the proposal before us. We note that the alternatives considered all involved land disposal. Thus, no consideration was given to continuing with the existing discharge to the Upukerora River or any other direct discharge to water. Several submitters suggested a direct discharge to water was a preferable alternative.

262. The policy direction set by the Regional Policy Statements and Regional Plans, supported by the policies in Te Tangi a Tauira, is that wastewater disposal should be to land wherever possible. We accept that given that policy direction, the applicant was correct to only consider land disposal options in circumstances where land disposal was a practicable method.

263. The applicant did consider alternative means of treatment. While treatment to a non-potable reuse standard was considered, this was discounted due to cost. Alternative farms considered for land application were discounted due to undesirable soils or the greater distance effluent would need to be conveyed in pipes prior to discharge.

264. We were shown various alternative locations by Mr Hagen, although he did not provide any details on the capability of such sites to receive the discharge.

265. As we are satisfied that the effects of the discharge of wastewater to the North Block can be achieved with few adverse effects, and those at very low magnitude, we consider the alternatives do not present such an improvement in terms of effects to justify the additional costs they would impose on the applicant. We also note that where longer pipelines would be needed, the longer duration of the effluent in the pipeline could lead to increased potential for adverse odour effects, potentially leading to additional treatment requirements.

Section 107

266. This section restricts our ability to grant a discharge permit where the discharge may cause certain effects in the receiving waters. We are satisfied that none of the effects listed would arise when the discharged wastewater, after mixing with groundwater, eventually entered the surface waters of the Upper Waiau River. 64

267. The only effect that may be relevant in this application is the potential for the discharge to render the groundwater unsuitable for consumption by farm animals. As the evidence is that the groundwater leaving the discharge site would meet the NZ Drinking Water Standards we are satisfied that the discharge would not render the groundwater unsuitable for farm animal consumption.

Section 168A(3) Assessment

268. The only matter under this section we have not already considered is –

whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought.

269. The NoR contains the following in respect of the objectives of the requiring authority28:

The work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Water and Waste Services Division because:

 The Council (the Water and Waste Services Division) wish to signal its intent to to [sic] use the site for wastewater disposal purposes.

 The designation sets a record in the District Plan for the community to understand the use and nature of the site.

 It enables the Council (the Water and Waste Services Division) to fulfil its duty to administer ‘urban wastewater schemes’, pursuant to the Southland District Council Wastewater Drainage Bylaw 2008.

 The designation allows some flexibility if future modifications occur, albeit with the need for Outline Plan approval (section 176A of the RMA).

270. Mr Garbett listed the objectives of the Requiring Authority as29:

28 Notice of Requirement for Designation, Opus Consultants Ltd, October 2012, Section 4.1.1

29 Opening Submissions, paragraph 54, p.14 65

a. To enable the ongoing administration of the wastewater facility.

b. To enable the discharge of treated wastewater from Te Anau and Manapouri (at a future date) to land.

c. To enable operation of all associated infrastructure including pumps, irrigators and access.

271. We did have a concern that the extent of the proposed designation in the South Block raised questions regarding whether the designation was reasonably necessary given the apparent low permeability of the soils in part. However, following Dr Davoren’s reappraisal of the appropriate soils on the South Block and the Requiring Authority’s reduction in area of the NoR to reflect that reappraisal, we are now satisfied that the nature and extent of the works and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the Requiring Authority’s objectives, subject to one minor change.

272. We noted above that the proposed District Plan requires that wastewater treatment facilities be located at least 150 m from residential buildings or identified residential building platforms on adjoining properties to be classified as a discretionary activity. We see no reason why this designation should not also provide such a 150 m buffer. It is our understanding that such a buffer can be provided on the Kepler Block, although in parts it may be beyond the land which the Council has control over. We will recommend that the NoR be amended to include a 150 m buffer around the wastewater application area, the purpose of which is to exclude dwellings. The inclusion of this buffer will ensure that the setback is appropriately imposed on the treatment facility, rather than adjoining landowners, and will assist in minimising the potential for future reverse sensitivity issues.

273. Submitters raised concerns with the suitability of the South Block to handle wastewater discharges. It is our view that it is appropriate for the Requiring Authority to designate this land to protect it from uses that may be incompatible with its future use as a wastewater discharge area while the Requiring Authority determines the extent to which it may be used for such purposes. We do not see the designation as predetermining any future applications for discharge permits on the South Block. We also note 66

that the applications for discharge permits on the North Block suggest that land will be capable of handling all of the Te Anau wastewater for at least 35 years.

274. In the Addendum to his s.42A Report Mr Moran recommended a condition be imposed requiring amenity planting along the southern boundary of the South Block and that a five yearly review consider the timing of such planting so as to ensure full establishment of such planting prior to discharge of wastewater onto the South Block. Although not directly related to the NoR, Mr Hammond recommended a 30 m buffer area between the edge of the designation and the discharge area.

275. Mr Garbett submitted that the provision of buffer areas on any but the southern boundary would be onerous and unnecessary.30

276. We note that Figures 3-2 and 3-3 in the Discharge Application show a buffer area within the North Block around the discharge area which appears to range from 10 - 30 m, and Figure 3-2 appears to show a buffer area of 150 m along part of the southern boundary of the South Block, with smaller buffers on other boundaries, other than that adjoining the Home Creek Wildlife Reserve. It appears that Figure 3-2 is incorrect in part in relation to the 150 m buffer as Appendix 1 to Mr Moran’s Addendum shows the original boundaries of the proposed designation in this area 150 m north of the boundary on Figure 3-2.

277. We do not accept Mr Garbett’s submission that to provide buffers would “leave a large area that would need to be mown, but not potentially available for irrigation.”31 In part the buffer areas will be used for shelter planting and there is no reason why the remainder cannot be grazed. We are firmly of the view that if the site is to be protected by way of designation for use as a wastewater discharge area such protection should extend to ensuring that future development does not impinge on the discharge area such as to hinder its effective operation.

30 Mr Garbett, Closing Submissions, paragraph 36, p.9

31 ibid 67

278. We agree with Mr Moran that provision should be made for planting along the southern boundary of the South Block in such a manner so as to ensure such planting is established and at a suitable height prior to any discharge occurring on the South Block. We also consider the time available provides an opportunity for native trees to be used for shelter and amenity planting along that southern boundary and recommend consideration be given to native species indigenous to the area.

Discussion

Part 2 of the Act

279. Section 5 states the purpose of the Act. Our decision-making should achieve that purpose as defined in section 5(2). In doing so, we need to recognise and provide for the following relevant matters of national importance under section 6:

(a) The preservation of the natural character of … wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development:

…

(e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

280. As Mr Beale noted32, the location of the proposal avoids adverse effects on the Kepler Mire and the Home Creek wetland area, which are the nearest areas of significant indigenous vegetation.

281. The replacement of the existing discharge into the Upukerora River provides for the matters in section 6(a) and (e). As well as protecting the natural character of the river and Lake Te Anau, it will also remove a

32 S H Beale, Statement of Evidence, paragraph 155, p.33 68

culturally offensive discharge in close proximity to a nohoanga kai at the mouth of the Upukerora River. The resulting effects on the Upper Waiau River and Lake Manapouri from this proposal will be so minor as to be undetectable, thus protecting the natural character of those waterbodies.

282. Section 7 requires us to have particular regard to a number of matters.

Kaitiakitanga

283. The statutory acknowledgements in respect of Lakes Te Anau and Manapouri and the Waiau River reflect the kaitiaki role of Oraka/Aparima Runanga and Te Ao Marama. Their submission in support of the proposal reflects recognition that cultural values have been appropriately considered by the applicant and that kaitiakitanga has been appropriately exercised.

The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

284. The treated wastewater is a resource in that it contains nutrients that can be utilised by soil and plants. The use of the wastewater to enhance the growth of pasture for stock feed is an efficient use of that resource, as well as the land that is used.

The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

285. We are satisfied that the effects of the proposal are such that, subject to the imposition of conditions, amenity values and the quality of the environment will be maintained in the vicinity of the Kepler Block, and enhanced in the Upukerora River and Lake Te Anau.

The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon

286. Although there are presently no indications the existing discharge adversely affects the habitat of trout and salmon, the removal of the discharge from the Upukerora River will remove the potential for the wastewater to adversely affect the habitat there, and the ultimate discharge to the Upper Waiau River from this proposal will not adversely affect the habitat of trout and salmon in that river or Lake Manapouri. 69

The effects of climate change

287. We have discussed this above when considering the storage issue. Changing weather patterns as a result of climate change may affect the rate and frequency at which the wastewater can be discharged. Conversely, warmer winters may enable more growth over that period thereby increasing the plant uptake of nitrogen and allowing greater rates of discharge.

288. We are satisfied that the proposal takes into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi under s.8 for the various reasons outlined above.

Overall Consideration

289. The proposal is consistent with, or gives effect to, relevant objectives and policies in the RPS, proposed RPS, regional plans and the proposed District Plan. We are satisfied that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the overall adverse effects of the proposal would be very minor, and inconsequential if balanced against the positive effect of removing the present discharge from the Upukerora River.

290. Subject to the adequacy of conditions, we conclude the proposal represents sustainable management of natural and physical resources and that consent should be granted to each of the resource consent applications. We discuss the conditions and duration of consent below.

291. We are also satisfied that the Notice of Requirement, as modified by the Requiring Authority during the hearing and subject to the conditions discussed above, should be confirmed although we note that achieving the conditions may require modification to the requirement. We will detail the conditions below and will recommend the requirement be modified and subject to conditions.

Conditions

292. Mr Hammond recommended conditions for each of the resource consents in his s.42A Report. Mr Beale provided an amended version of these in his evidence at the first hearing. Following the second hearing and our questioning of experts on the detail of the conditions, the applicant provided a further revised set of conditions after the hearing. In 70

addition, a draft Environmental Management Plan (“EMP”), incorporating a draft Odour Management Plan (“OMP”), was provided with the further revised conditions.

293. Several submitters also suggested conditions that should be imposed if we were minded to grant consent, particularly Mr Youldon for the Manapouri CDA.

294. There was little discussion of Mr Moran’s recommended conditions on the NoR. As noted above, we consider those need to be expanded slightly.

295. We discuss the conditions below in relation to each of the consents and the NoR. We have attached in Appendix 3 the final version of the consent conditions proposed by the applicant and show our changes to these with additions underlined and deletions struck through.

296. In discussing the effects of the proposal we have commented on matters we consider need to be included in conditions. We include these here without repeating all of our reasoning. We have also made changes to the conditions to improve clarity or grammar.

Discharge to Land

297. The applicant suggested amendments to Condition 2 to clarify more precisely the area the consent applies to and also increased the area to be irrigated from 75 to 125 ha. We accept those changes subject to the reduction in area from 125 to 115 ha. The application identified that some 115 ha was to be available for the discharge (see Figure 3.3 in the application). We heard evidence as to how the additional 40 ha will be irrigated and have taken account of that in our decision-making.

298. The applicant suggested deletion of the words “or treated wastewater from any other wastewater treatment system” from Condition 3. We were told that the applicant intends directing the treated wastewater from the Manapouri system to this site when the Manapouri discharge consent 71

expires in 2024.33 Consequently, the applicant sought the deletion of these words so that could occur without the need for further consent.

299. We do not consider we can delete the relevant words. We have no information before on the quantity or nature of the Manapouri wastewater flow and so are unable to assess the effects arising from adding that flow to the Te Anau flow. In addition, we noted the potential storage issues arising from wet weather events. We have no knowledge of the storage capacity at the Manapouri ponds and whether they are capable of handling discharge shutdowns. In essence, the applicant is asking us to grant consent to the discharge of the Manapouri effluent without making an application. We do not consider we have jurisdiction to do that, and even if we did, we do not have sufficient information before us to enable us to make such a decision.

300. The applicant has suggested amendments to the maximum depths of application listed in condition 5(b). We understood this change to more correctly reflect the projected maximum flow and area to be irrigated34 and accept that. However, we consider Condition 5(b)(ii) should be modified by deleting the words “when rate of flow of treated wastewater is 2,000 m3 per day”. The attachment of these words could be construed to imply that the limit only applied on the days when the flow reached 2,000 m3. The words are superfluous as the repeat Condition 5(a) and their removal removes potential ambiguity.

301. The applicant suggested replacement of the words “within the irrigation area” with “from” in condition 5(c). Dr Davoren suggested the original wording of this condition was ambiguous and suggested it should read “the annual nitrogen loading rate onto the irrigated area from wastewater shall not exceed 290 kgN/ha/yr”.35

33 I D Evans, SoE, paragraph 119, p25

34 A Davoren, SoE, paragraph86, p.45

35 A Davoren, SoE, paragraph 87, p.45 72

302. We consider the wording proposed by the applicant is more ambiguous as it deletes reference to the area to be used in deriving the N loading rate. We prefer the wording of Dr Davoren.

303. The applicant suggested amending Condition 5(d) so as to set a combined nitrogen loading rate for fertiliser and wastewater. We noted above that this is an improvement and accept this suggestion.

304. The applicant suggested deleting words from Condition 5(f) referring to the irrigation area. Although we heard no evidence on this change, we agree the words deleted are superfluous and their removal does not change the meaning of the condition.

305. The applicant proposed a new Condition 5(g) reading “all sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns”. This is a response to the issue of spray drift and we agree to its inclusion.

306. We also accept the applicant’s suggestion that “land” be replaced with “irrigated area” in Condition 6(a).

307. As a result of our conclusion that a minimum of 10,000 cubic metres of storage is required we have inserted that requirement in Condition 6 with a requirement for the EMP detail how it will be managed.

308. The applicant has suggested the inclusion of the following as Condition 6(c):

The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. Precipitation sensors on the Southern Boundary of the North Block are to be monitored. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors.

309. We agree with the purpose of this condition, which is to ensure spray drift does not leave the area controlled by the applicant. As we noted above in discussing this issue, we consider “observable” needs to be defined to include all senses rather than the commonly applied “visually observable”. We also note that the proposed wording creates the potential for 73

uncertainty as “North Block” is not referred to in the description of the area the consent applies to.

310. As we understand it, relying on Figures 3.2 and 3.3 of the application, the irrigated area will be located within the area subject to the NoR and set back from the boundaries of that area by some 30 m. If we took the area of the designation sought in the NoR north of the airport as the North Block then the irrigation area referred to in Condition 2 lies within that land. We note that the applicant suggests reference to the North Block and Northern Block in later conditions also (see Conditions 8, 9 and 11). We consider it appropriate to include in Condition 2 a definition of the North Block as being the irrigation area plus buffer areas around that area contained within the applicant’s designation.

311. The condition as proposed by the applicant is also rather unwieldy. We consider it is better broken into two, separating the avoidance from the monitoring by sensors. We have also made explicit the minimum number of sensors and how they are to be located. We conclude the following wording should be used:

312. Include in Condition 2 after “… Attachment 1.”: “The consented irrigation area is within the area designated by the Southland District Council for public utility purposes also shown on Attachment 1. That portion of the designated area located north of the Te Anau-Manapouri Airport, which includes the consented irrigation area, is referred to in these conditions as the North Block.”

6(c) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. For the purposes of this condition “observable” includes by sight, by taste, or by touch.

6(d) A minimum of two precipitation sensors are to be installed on the southern boundary of the North Block and continuously monitored, with the location to be determined by a suitably qualified air quality expert in agreement with Environment Southland. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, 74

reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors.

313. In addition, we have added a condition that end guns are not to be used on the centre pivots. This is consistent with the application as lodged.

314. Dr Davoren and Mr Beale considered Condition 7 should be deleted. During our questioning of the experts regarding conditions, Mr Hammond recommended a redrafted version which the applicant included in its final suggested set of conditions. We largely agree with the redrafted version but note that the “will” in 7(a) needs to be changed to “shall” or “must”. We also consider the results of modelling each year need to be compared with the 5-yearly rolling average when reporting results to Environment Southland.

315. The applicant suggested several changes to Condition 8. The removal of reference to spray drift is appropriate as that is now dealt with in Condition 7. Now that we have included a definition of the North Block in Condition 2, reference to Figure 3.2 in the application is probably unnecessary. Otherwise we accept the alterations make the condition clearer.

316. The applicant suggested deleting Mr Hammond’s Condition 9 and incorporating the requirement for shelter on the east and west boundaries into Condition 10, along with a change of species. We accept that change.

317. The applicant suggested inserting a new Condition 9 dealing with the operation of fixed sprinklers within 75 m of the southern boundary of the North Block in high winds. As we have noted above, we agree such a condition is required but it should also include sprinklers on the centre pivots as proposed by Dr Davoren.36 We have altered the condition accordingly.

318. The applicant suggests an amendment to the fencing condition 11(a). Given our change to Condition 2 to define the area encompassed by the

36 A Davoren, Further SoE, paragraph 40, p.15 75

North Block and our recommendation on the NoR recommending no- build buffer areas, we consider the requirement to fence the boundary of the North Block may be too onerous on the applicant. What is needed is fencing at an appropriate distance from the irrigated area to restrict access to it. We have amended the condition to provide for that.

319. The applicant opposed Mr Hammond’s recommendation that the Technical Working Group established by Condition 13 include a representative of Environment Southland. The applicant has suggested instead that the Technical Working Group meet with Environment Southland staff twice in the first year and annually thereafter. As we concluded above that a Consultative Reference Group should be established, we accept that change. We also agree with the changes to clauses (vi) and (vii) of Condition 13(a) suggested by the applicant.

320. We have added a number of other matters to Condition 13 to ensure the EMP deals with all necessary conditions. We have also added a requirement related to management of birds so as to avoid bird strike, as discussed by Mr Beale.

321. One additional matter we have included relates to emerging contaminants. These were raised by submitters and we recognise such contaminants could become a concern in the future. We consider the appropriate response is for the EMP to regularly review whether these should be monitored, including which contaminants and where they should be monitored, taking into account information about the fate and risk to the environment of them.

322. We have inserted as Condition 13A37 the requirement for a Consultative Reference Group to be established and for the applicant to hold a meeting of that group annually.

323. We consider that the monitoring conditions put forward by the Council Officers and further modified by the Applicant (Conditions’ 14 - 20) are generally sufficient but have further modified them, as outlined below:

37 In Appendix 3. In the final version of the conditions which our decision references we have renumbered the conditions to make them numerically consecutive. 76

(a) Rather than leaving it to be decided in a Groundwater Management Plan, we consider that due to the variability in background nitrate-nitrogen concentrations that a further up- gradient monitoring well be added so that there are two up-gradient wells;

(b) Ensuring that the two down-gradient wells are additional to the proposed sentinel well and the airport well (D43/0067), which from piezometric contours are both cross-gradient. The sentinel well should be located to give early warning of any groundwater direction changes due to mounding;

(c) We disagree that the baseline sampling (Condition 16(iii)) for wells near the airport should only be for water level. However, we agree that not all parameters need to be monitored and have limited it to a minimum of nitrate-N, E.coli and water level;

(d) Condition 17(b)(ii) should not have groundwater level as a parameter as this is treated effluent sampling. However, sulphide should be added to ensure the trickling filter and dosing system is working effectively;

(e) We consider the wells should continue to be sampled quarterly for the life of the consent as nitrogen and phosphorus breakthrough, if this occurs, may not occur for a number of years.

(f) As for Condition 16(iii), we consider the sentinel well and airport well should be sampled for nitrate-N and E.coli as well as water level.

(g) Condition 20 should apply to all wells outside the irrigation area, not just down-gradient, i.e. it needs to also include cross-gradient wells as well.

(h) We consider that the trigger level in Condition 20(b)(ii) for E.coli need to be further defined, i.e. for the sentinel well and airport bore, it should be ≥ 1 cfu/100 mls and not 10. 77

324. We accept the modified monitoring Condition 21 from Mr Beale but with the trace elements (heavy metals) reinstated as this is establishing the baseline in the soil prior to irrigation commencing. We also consider that the control area needs to be added to the baseline as this is monitored again after irrigation commences. A composite from five samples from within the control area should suffice.

325. Condition 22 needs to define how many samples are from within the irrigation area and how many from the control area. It should also have an extra sub-condition added to assess the metals every five years.

326. Condition 24 requires the applicant to undertake regular reviews of the operation of the system. The applicant has suggested changes to that which we consider acceptable. However, we consider the clause requiring consideration of “whether there is any significant adverse effect on the environment that can be “avoided, remedied or mitigated” …” should have the word “significant” deleted and the quotation marks removed from around avoided, remedied or mitigated. We have concluded the operation as presented to us has no significant adverse effects. If such effects were to occur they would be outside the terms of this consent in our view. What the applicant should be required to do is consider whether any adverse effect can be avoided, remedied or mitigated by changes to the treatment or operation systems. The condition also needs to be amended to require provision of the information to the Consultative Reference Group established by Condition 13A.

327. In condition 26 the applicant has suggested the provisions of reports to various bodies. We consider the Consultative Reference Group is the appropriate group to receive these reports and have amended the condition accordingly.

328. We accept the applicant’s suggested amendment to Condition 27.

329. The applicant proposed retention and enhancement of the existing wetland in the eastern part of the North Block. This provides a positive effect on the environment. We have included provision in the conditions to ensure this retention and enhancement is provided. 78

Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

330. We have taken the approach with the draft EMP provided by the applicant that the EMP demonstrates how the applicant proposes to give effect to the conditions. We do not consider it our role to alter the EMP, but will comment on it and note where we impose conditions to ensure particular matters are dealt with in the EMP.

331. The EMP is proposed to be adaptive, i.e. manage, monitor, assess, modify, and manage. We accept this approach, providing that the paramount aspects of the operation to prevent effects are covered as consent conditions. The Odour Management Plan (OMP) is an appendix to the EMP.

332. There is nothing at all in the EMP regarding the set-up, or operation of the fixed sprinkler system on the remaining 50 ha. We have dealt with this in the conditions requiring the EMP to cover the management of the fixed sprinkler system.

333. Soil moisture monitoring is to be continuous real time measurement at various soil depths, with the management action to adjust the depth and area of irrigation depending on soil moisture. Irrigation is to be reduced or halted when ponding is occurring and irrigation will be minimised when the soils are above field capacity. The irrigators can be monitored and operated remotely.

334. We have some concern over how the system will be operated during wet weather. The soil moisture sensors will indicate when the soil is above field capacity (this could be for much of the year when rainfall and irrigation are greater than evapotranspiration) but the irrigation still needs to occur. Ponding is a visual observation. Sensors may be able to indicate when the soil is at saturation but sensors are only in specific spots and cannot identify ponding a few metres away. We therefore consider that an operator needs to be visiting the site during rainfall events to determine whether parts or all of the irrigation system needs to be turned off.

335. In the Operations Management Section 5.1.3, the EMP states that “SDC will endeavour to ensure that at least two days of storage is provided in 79

the oxidation ponds at all times in the event that irrigation operations are temporarily halted.”

336. In Section 7.3, Management Measures it is stated; “Normal operating procedures will be to maintain the level of the oxidation ponds at their lower operating level. This provides buffer storage in the ponds in the order of 3 days storage at 2014 peak summer inflows to cope with any emergency such as an earthquake or extreme climatic event. The normal operating level is still to allow a further draw down and raising of the levels by an additional 100 mm to allow for extra storage capacity in anticipation of a rainfall event in accordance with clause 5.1.3.”

337. As covered above in our discussion on storage, it is not clear whether SDC are going to always maintain a minimum of 2 – 3 days storage, or draw down the ponds only when required due to forecasted rainfall. Condition 6(c) which we have added will provide more certainty.

338. In Section 5.2.2, it is stated that SDC will monitor nutrient levels in the soils on a 6-monthly basis. This is different from the offered consent condition to monitor soils annually in June. However, we are comfortable with the difference, as operational monitoring does not need to be the same as compliance monitoring.

339. In Section 5.2.3, it is stated that fertiliser will be applied sparingly and only when the sampling of the herbage from the previous cut and/or a soil test shows nitrogen deficiency for pasture growth. We consider that these words need to be incorporated into the condition setting the maximum monthly application rate and have modified the condition accordingly.

340. There are a number of Management Actions in Section 6.4. One is the provision of alternative potable water supplies where trigger values continue to be exceeded at the sentinel well up gradient of the airport well. We believe that this should also be in the EMP and have inserted a requirement to assess this in Condition 13(a)(ix) as part of Condition 15 requirements. 80

Discharge to Air

341. Conditions 1 and 2 have been amended by us to be consistent with the same conditions in the Discharge to Land conditions.

342. Condition 3 requires that no odour that is noxious, offensive or objectionable emanates from the site. There was disagreement between Mr Hammond and the applicant as to where this should be measured. The applicant’s suggested wording would allow such odour to affect surrounding land including the State Highway. We are of the view any odour arising from the operation of the discharge should not be noxious, offensive or objectionable beyond the North Block and have worded the condition consistent with that.

343. The applicant suggested deleting Condition 4 as the requirements were better dealt with in the OMP. We note below that we do not consider the aerators necessary and agree with the applicant that the details as to how the wastewater will be managed to avoid odour problems can largely be dealt with in the OMP.

344. The alterations suggested by the applicant in respect of Conditions 4, 6 and 7 (revised numbering) are cosmetic or provide clarity and we accept them. The applicant’s suggested amendment to Condition 8 makes it consistent with Condition 13 of the Land Discharge consent. We have included as Condition 8A the same requirement for a Consultative Reference Group as was included as condition 13A in the Land Discharge consent.

345. The applicant has suggested Conditions 9 and 10 to control spray drift. Condition 9 is the same as condition 5(g) in the Land Discharge consent. We have altered condition 10 to make it consistent with Conditions 6(c) and 6(d) of the Land Discharge consent.

346. Condition 11 as suggested by the applicant has the same purpose as Condition 24 of the Land Discharge Consent and we have amended it to be consistent. 81

347. The applicant suggested Condition 14 similar to Condition 26 in the Land Discharge consent. We have amended it in the same way we amended Condition 26.

348. We have amended Conditions 5 and 8 to include reference to spray drift.

Odour Management Plan (OMP) (27.11.2014)

349. The applicant has considered adding aerators to Ponds 2 and 3 to further reduce organic load prior to the pipeline as part of adaptive management process, if required. As discussed at the hearing, the mitigation measures proposed to remove sulphides at the end of the pipeline are required regardless of the dissolved oxygen content of the wastewater at the start of the pipeline and therefore, this adaption is unlikely to be required and can therefore remain in the OMP but does not need to be a consent condition.

350. The OMP states that changes to the flow to the trickling filter need to be as gradual as possible to maintain biofilm population. This will be difficult if the system is to be ramped up to lower the ponds or shut down for a period due to extreme weather. This will be mitigated to some extent by the recycling through the trickling filter but may require further adaption by the consent holder. A condition has been added for this operation to be included in the OMP.

351. The OMP states that a number of chemical oxidants could be used but the preliminary design was based on sodium hypochlorite. Mr Lockyer provided a chemical reaction for the NaOCl which showed no production of residual chlorine compounds. These are considered undesirable in wastewater due to the potential to form chlorinated organic compounds that are persistent in the environment. We therefore consider that the selected dosing chemical must be shown to not form these compounds and have required a condition for this.

352. The OMP says that the irrigators can operate in wind speeds up to 50 kph. This is 13.8 m/s and is at odds with evidence provided by Dr Davoren. We accept the evidence given by Dr Davoren regarding wind speeds likely to cause damage and spray drift over the boundary. The OMP therefore needs to be updated to reflect the wind speeds given by Dr Davoren for 82

shutting down completely and for shutting off the perimeter sprinklers. We have added a further requirement for this operation to be included in the EMP.

353. Section 6.1 of the OMP states that if more than 2 odour complaints are made directly to SDC, then an odour incident is said to have occurred and if attributed to SDC operations then Environment Southland will be informed. We do not agree with this and consider it contrary to Condition 3 of the Air Discharge Consent. An odour complaint received by SDC should be reported through to Environment Southland so that compliance with Condition 3 can be assessed.

Duration of Consent

354. This was a matter of contention between the applicant, Environment Southland and several submitters. The applicant sought a 35 year term, while Environment Southland and some submitters suggested 25 years. Other submitters suggested shorter periods.

355. We recognise the level of investment required by the applicant and the commitment it needs to make to the overall management of the Te Anau sewerage system and we agree a moderate to long term consent is appropriate. We would not contemplate a term less than 25 years given those factors.

356. We were not referred to any relevant provisions in the RPS or regional plans that provide guidance on appropriate duration, but we note that the RWP contains such policies in respect of water permits and the discharge of farm dairy effluent. In determining this matter we have had regard to the principles set out in PVL Proteins Ltd v Auckland RC38.

357. From PVL Proteins we take the following factors as relevant:

(a) review of conditions may be more effective than a shorter term to ensure conditions do not become outdated, irrelevant or inadequate;

38 Environment Court, A61/2001 83

(b) expected future change in the vicinity indicates a shorter term;

(d) where an activity has given rise to considerable public disquiet, review of conditions may not be adequate as it cannot be initiated by affected residents;

(e) an activity that generates known and minor effects on the environment on a constant basis indicates a longer term;

(f) an activity that generates fluctuating or variable effects, or which depends on human intervention or management for maintaining satisfactory performance indicates a shorter term;

(g) review conditions may be used in conjunction with longer terms where review is capable of addressing all issues of concern, but not where a consent-holder’s financial viability might constrain controls intended to avoid, remedy or mitigate significant adverse effects on the environment.

358. We have concluded that the proposed activities will have minor effects on the environment, but that conclusion is based on the application of conditions requiring ongoing management and monitoring. There has been public disquiet but not based on the actual effects of the activities as they have not yet been established. Thus, while concern has been raised regarding odour and spray drift, these concerns do not have the same basis as those expressed on a reconsenting where the activity has caused prior adverse effects.

359. The activity is located in an area which is not subject to a high degree of change, although the longer the duration the greater likelihood of land use changes and climate change occurring in the vicinity.

360. The applicant is a public body undertaking a public service. It therefore is in a different category from a private venture that may have limited resources to ensure all conditions are met and effects minimised. It is also 84

is likely to be more responsive to community concerns than a private operation.

361. As noted in PVL Proteins, we need to carefully identify the risk, then select a safeguard that is tailored to respond to the nature of the risk identified39.

362. There are a number of risks we must take account of:

(a) the discharge may cause the groundwater flows to change direction, potentially adversely affecting the airport well;

(b) the operators may not be able to respond quickly to changes in wind patterns leading to odour and spray drift leaving the site;

(c) weather patterns, including changes as a result of climate change, may result in an inability to discharge for periods as long as expected, leading to storage capacity being exceeded.

363. The conditions and review conditions are designed to deal with these risks. In addition, the requirement that a reference group including local representatives be established enables feedback of community experiences direct to the consent-holder and operator. On balance, however, we consider it is expecting too much for conditions imposed in 2015 to still be the best approach in 2050. We conclude that a 25 year term is the most appropriate for each consent.

Notice of Requirement

364. We have discussed Mr Moran’s suggested condition above and commented on the need for a buffer area around the site. We envisage the 150 m buffer area to be an area where dwellings and other activities involving residential occupation should be excluded. Thus, it need not be in the ownership of the applicant and could operate in a similar way to the height limitations imposed by designation around the Te Anau- Manapouri Airport.

39 Ibid, paragraph 34, p.11 85

365. We are aware that to include a 150 m set back requirement within the designation would require extension of the extent of the designation beyond that shown in the NoR as modified at the hearing. However, in our view, s.181(3) is available for use by the Council and the Requiring Authority. We understand that some of the land affected is in the Requiring Authority’s ownership and the remainder forms part of Landcorp’s Kepler Farm. As there is no reasonable expectation that dwellings would be erected in that land in the foreseeable future, we consider it reasonable to recommend the Requiring Authority seek to make the modification we recommend.

366. We agree with Mr Moran’s recommendation that shelter planting be undertaken along the southern boundaries of the South Block timed in such a way that such plantings form adequate shelter and screening prior to any discharge occurring on the South Block.

367. Several submitters suggested that native trees such as beech would be preferable to pinus species for shelter belts given the proximity to the National Park. We asked Mr Beale as to his view on planting beech. It was his view that while silver beech could be an appropriate species, it would take 70-80 years to get a shelter of sufficient stature and porosity, whereas pine would take 15-20 years40. Mr Beale identified other native species which grow faster but reach lesser heights. Given that the evidence is that the North Block will provide adequate area for discharge for some 35 years at least, we consider that gives the Requiring Authority sufficient time to plant and grow appropriate native species along the southern boundary. Such planting would have the effect of enhancing the amenity values along that boundary as well as potentially providing future screening of spray drift.

368. As with the discharge consents, we consider the NoR needs to be conditioned to ensure the proposed retention and enhancement of the wetland in the eastern part of the North Block is achieved.

369. We recommend that the following conditions apply to the NoR:

40 Hearing Transcript, p.54 86

(a) The designation incorporate a buffer area within which residential buildings or buildings primarily occupied by people for whatever purpose may not be established;

(b) The buffer area required by condition (a) shall be a minimum width of 150 m as measured from the area that will be subject to discharge of treated wastewater;

(e) To the extent practicable, the plant species used in achieving Condition (d) shall be native species indigenous to the Te Anau Basin;

(f) That the wetland area in the eastern part of the North Block (north of the airport) be retained and enhanced by planting with appropriate native species.

Decision on Resource Consent Applications

370. For the reasons set out above and pursuant to sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, we grant consent to Southland District Council as follows:

(a) Discharge Permit No. 302625: To discharge treated wastewater onto land from the Te Anau wastewater treatment plant, via a spray irrigation system, onto land known as the Kepler Block legally described as Lot 2 DP 410687 subject to the conditions set out in Part A of Appendix 4; and 87

Recommendations to Southland District Council on Notice of Requirement

371. For the reasons set out above we recommend that the Southland District Council, pursuant to clause 9(2) of the First Schedule and section 168A of the Resource Management Act 1991, confirm the Notice of Requirement for Designation D80 by the Water and Waste Services Division of the Council to designate land for public utility purposes on Lot 2 DP 410687, subject to the modifications and conditions set out below and as shown on Figure 1 in Appendix 5.

372. Recommended conditions and modifications:

(a) The designation incorporate a buffer area within which residential buildings or buildings primarily occupied by people for whatever purpose may not be established;

(b) The buffer area required by condition (a) shall be a minimum width of 150 m as measured from the area that will be subject to discharge of treated wastewater;

(e) To the extent practicable, the plant species used in achieving Condition (d) shall be native species indigenous to the Te Anau Basin;

(f) That the wetland area in the eastern part of the North Block (north of the airport) be retained and enhanced by planting with appropriate native species.

373. We recommend the Southland District Council make decisions on individual submissions under clause 10 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 in the manner set out in Appendix 5.

Dated 22 January 2015

Denis Nugent Rob Potts Yvette Couch-Lewis Chair

Appendix 1: Appearances

Appearances – Initial Hearing 14 July – 18 July 2014

Applicant – Southland District Council (in the order evidence was presented) Mr Michael Garbett, Legal Counsel

Mr Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets, Southland District Council

Mr Ian Evans, Strategic Water and Waste Manager, Southland District Council

Mr Roger Oakley, Water and Waste Engineer

Dr Anthony Davoren, Soil Moisture and Irrigation Expert

Ms Susan Bennett, Environmental Scientist (by telephone)

Mr Simon East, Hydrogeologist

Mr Kevyn Lockyer, Air Quality Specialist

Mr Simon Beale, Ecologist and Planner

Submitters in support (in order heard)1 Ms Diane Ridley

Southland Conservation Board, represented by Ms Fiona Black

Te Anau Community Board, represented by Ms Rachel Cockburn and Mr Alistair Duke

Guardians of the Lakes represented by Mr Bill Jarvie

Te Ao Marama represented by Mr Michael Skerrett

Fish & Game Southland (tabled)

Submitters in opposition (in order heard) Mr Peter Hampton

Ms Colleen Hampton

1 Note that due to the logistics of hearing such a large number of submitters, submitters were heard at a time that suited them. This meant that we did not hear the submitters in support as a group or in sequence; rather they were heard at various times among those submitters in opposition.

Mr Cam & Ms W McDonald

Mr Mark Deaker

Mr Regan Smith

Mr Allan Youldon for Manapouri CDA and himself

Mr Russell & Ms Shirley Smith

Ms Vicky Burch

Mr Murray Hagen for himself, Ms Bev Hagen and Fiordland Aero Club

Ms Bev Hagen on behalf of Mr Paul and Ms Bev Hicks (read email from submitter)

Ms Ruth and Mr Lance Shaw for themselves and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

Ms Glenda Bell

Mr Lex Mouat

Ms Shirley Mouat

P & J Ridder

Mr Jack Murrell

Mr Ray Willett

Mr Ted Loose

Ms Janice Duncan

Mr Phillip Smith

Mr Hunter Shaw

Mr Alistair Paton-McDonald

Mr J Kraak and Ms L Wicks

Mr Chris Cody for himself and his wife

Mr David Kelly 91

Home Creek Nursery represented by Mr Aaron Taylor2

Mr John Hardcastle

Ms Marlys Hardcastle

Ms Christine Pounsford

Council Officers Present Mr Steve West, Consents Manager, Environment Southland

Mr Roy Hammond, Senior Consents Officer, Environment Southland

Mr Simon Moran, Manager – Resource Management, Southland District Council

Ms Courtney Ellison, Planner, Southland District Council

Ms Liz Ryley, Committee Secretary, Environment Southland

Appearances – Reconvened Hearing 17 November – 19 November 2014

Applicant – Southland District Council (in the order evidence was presented) Mr Michael Garbett, Legal Counsel

Mr Ian Evans, Strategic Water and Waste Manager, Southland District Council

Mr Simon East, Hydrogeologist

Mr Julian Weir, Senior Engineer, Aqualinc Research Ltd – peer reviewer (tabled)

Dr Anthony Davoren, Soil Moisture and Irrigation Expert

Dr David Painter, David Painter Consulting Ltd – peer reviewer (tabled)

Mr Kevyn Lockyer, Air Quality Specialist (by telephone)

Ms Susan Bennett, Environmental Scientist (tabled)

Mr Simon Beale, Ecologist and Planner

2 This submission was only in respect of the Notice of Requirement 92

Submitter in support Te Anau Community Board, represented by Ms Rachel Cockburn

Submitters in opposition (in order heard) Home Creek Nursery, represented by Ms Kate Marshall

Manapouri CDA, represented by Mr Allan Youldon

Mr Ray Willett

Mr Hunter Shaw

Ms Janice Duncan, represented by Ms Angela Bedner

Mr Murray Willans

Mr Allan Youldon

Ms Karen Wilson, Senior Environment Scientist (by telephone) called by Mr & Ms Hampton

Mr Peter Hampton

Ms Collen Hampton

Mr David Kelly

Manapouri Aeroclub, represented by Mr Murray Hagen

Mr Ron Pilcher, water diviner called by Mr Hagen

Mr Murray Hagen

Ms Christine Pounsford

Ms Shirley Mouat on behalf of herself and her husband

Ms Vicki Birch

Mr Regan Smith

Mr Cam McDonald

Mr Ted Loose

Mr Paul Ridder, represented by Ms Sallie Allan

Mr Phillip Smith

Mr Russell Smith 93

Ms Glenda Bell

Mr Chris Cody

Mr Lawton Webber

Mr Hans Kraak

Mr Alistair Paton McDonald

Mr Jack Murrell

Mr John Hardcastle

Ms Ruth Shaw on her own behalf and also for her husband and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc

Council Officers Present Mr Roy Hammond, Senior Consents Officer, Environment Southland

Mr Steve West, Environment Southland (in part)

Mr Simon Moran, Manager – Resource Management, Southland District Council

Ms Liz Ryley, Committee Secretary, Environment Southland

Appendix 2: Summary of Legal Submissions and Evidence

Presented 14-18 July 2014

Mr Garbett

1. Mr Garbett outlined the background reasons for the applications and Notice of Requirement (NoR). He advised that the Southland District Council (“the council” or “the applicant”) had been planning the move away from discharging the Te Anau treated wastewater effluent to water since submitters on the 1995 discharge consent requested investigations into land disposal.

2. Mr Garbett outlined the application and the consents applied for. He referred us to Rule 5.2.1 of the Regional Effluent Land Application Plan and Rule 5.5.2(16) of the Regional Air Quality Plan as being applicable. He noted that although the NoR related to the Northern and Southern Kepler Blocks, the resource consents only applied to the Northern Block.

3. In outlining the applicable statutory provisions, Mr Garbett noted that as the council had purchased the Kepler Block, it was not necessary for us to consider whether adequate consideration had been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work under s.168A.

4. Mr Garbett brought to our attention the recent King Salmon decision of the Supreme Court3 which concluded that the overall broad judgement approach to Part 2 matters consistently taken by the Environment Court was not applicable in the circumstances of that case. It was his submission that the findings of this decision were not directly binding on us, but that there was an element of legal uncertainty as to how this should be approached on resource consent applications. It was his submission that we should decide that applications under the Plans (consistent with the Supreme Court judgment), and also as an overall broad judgement under Part 2.

5. Mr Garbett submitted that the council’s high level strategic approach of disposing of Te Anau’s treated wastewater to land has been adopted in

3 Environmental Defence Society Inc v New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38 95

line with the relevant planning documents, and that should be recognised in our decision. He submitted the key issues for us to decide were:

(a) Environmental effects (s.104(1)(a) and s.168A)

(b) Relevant planning documents (s.104(1)(b) and s.168A)

(c) The nature of the discharge, the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the reasons for the proposed choice and alternative methods of discharge (s.105)

(d) The Requiring Authority’s objectives for the NoR (s.168A); and

(e) That there is a set of suitable conditions to ensure the scheme is managed appropriately in the long term.

6. In terms of the actual and potential effects of the activity on the environment, Mr Garbett submitted that the key positive effect on the environment is to enable the council to cease the discharge of treated wastewater into the Upukerora River, and that additionally, this will better meet cultural and community expectations. He also submitted that in the longer term, this site could be used to dispose of the treated wastewater from Manapouri. Mr Garbett outlined the evidence to be given in support of the proposal.

7. Turning to the Notice of Requirement, Mr Garbett set out the objectives of the Requiring Authority as being:

a) To enable the ongoing administration of the wastewater facility.

b) To enable the discharge of treated wastewater from Te Anau and Manapouri (at a later date) to land.

c) To enable operation of all associated infrastructure including pumps, irrigators and access.

8. It was Mr Garbett’s submission that the designation was required to enable, in conjunction with the resource consents applied for, the continued discharge of the treated wastewater from Te Anau, and that it 96

would signal that there may be use of the land south of the airport for such use in the future.

9. Mr Garbett discussed the proposed environmental Management Plan and conditions before setting out the law on adaptive management. He noted that the four principles adopted by the Court, as summarised by the Board of Inquiry in the King Salmon4 applications, are:

a) There will be good baseline information about the receiving environment;

b) The conditions provide for effective monitoring of adverse effects using appropriate indicators;

c) Thresholds are set to trigger remedial action before effects become overly damaging; and

d) Effects that might arise can be remedied before they become irreversible.5

10. It was his submission that those principles were appropriate and applicable to this application.

11. In discussing the concerns of submitters, Mr Garbett submitted that the perception of an effect is not the same as an effect and should be distinguished. He submitted we should not be concerned with perceptions, but should focus on actual effects.

12. Mr Garbett submitted that the recommendation by Environment Southland officers that the discharge consents only be granted for 25 years was not supported by the case law. He submitted that a 35 year consent was appropriate as all issues of concern would be capable of being addressed via a review of consent conditions.

13. Mr Garbett also submitted the recommendation that Environment Southland be represented on the Technical Working Group risked blurring

4 Final Decision and Report of the Board of Inquiry, New Zealand King Salmon Requests for Plan Changes and Applications for Resource Consents, 22 February 2013

5 Ibid, at para 181. 97

the operational role of the consent holder and the regulatory role of Environment Southland.

14. Mr Garbett referred us to the set of conditions attached to Mr Beale’s evidence and explained changes sought by the applicant. From that explanation and the answers to questions from the panel, the following points arose:

(a) The applicant does not want the conditions on the discharge consents to exclude the future possibility of discharging the treated wastewater from Manapouri on the same site and through the same infrastructure;

(b) Gound-truthing of groundwater gradients will be needed to ensure the models are producing real results, and the location of the sentinel well should follow after ground-truthing has occurred;

(d) The applicant does not see it as appropriate for Environment Southland to approve or certify the Environmental Management Plan or the Odour Management Plan other than to the extent that the respective plan covers a certain range of operational expectations;

(e) If community attitudes to effects on the environment change over the years, such change should be reflected in the Regional Plans and thus enable review of the consents, provided any change to condition did not frustrate the consent;

(f) The requirement of s.104(2)(a) on any application to renew the consents does not give the applicant any comfort that the renewal consent would be granted;

(g) The proposed Regional Policy Statement and the proposed District Plan are both relevant, but little weight is to be given to them. 98

Mr Marshall

15. Mr Marshall is the Group Manager Services and Assets at Southland District Council. He outlined the Council’s Vision, Mission and Outcomes document, the philosophical basis for the Council’s 2012-22 Long Term Plan and the Council’s relationship with local iwi.

16. It was his evidence that foregoing provide the basis upon which the discharge consent application was based, and he listed the ways in which he considered the application process demonstrated the Council’s commitment to the principles outlined above.

17. Mr Marshall considered the Council’s commitment to improving the environmental impact of sewage discharges across the District was demonstrated by improvements made in the past and the commitment in the Long Term Plan to further improvements. He noted also that the Council strove to achieve 100% compliance level with its sewage consents.

18. Overall, he considered the Te Anau proposal a continuation of the Council’s programme to minimise the environmental impact of sewage disposal.

19. Mr Marshall confirmed that in terms of achieving the cultural values of local iwi, the primary focus of the Council in this application was to avoid a direct discharge of human sewage effluent to water.

20. In answer to questions about the airport water supply, Mr Marshall provided a Memorandum outlining the population served by the existing bore and the water treatment and testing regime to ensure the water meets the drinking water standards.

Mr Evans

21. Mr Evans is the Strategic Water and Waste Manager at Southland District Council. He has been responsible for developing this proposal.

22. Mr Evans’ evidence included: 99

(a) An overview of the existing scheme, including how it performs in relation to its current consent;

(b) An overview of how the proposal had been developed including options considered and key decisions taken; and

23. Mr Evans also discussed alternative treatment options. It was his view that none of the technologies suggested by submitters would achieve treatment to a high enough quality to allow discharge to the waters of Lake Te Anau. He noted that reuse quality of water could be achieved, but that would require additional levels of complexity as well as cost.

24. Turning to the NoR, Mr Evans summarised the evidence in relation to the relevant matters under s.168A. He discussed Rule INF.3 in the proposed District Plan which requires a separation distance of 150 m from oxidation ponds, sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities. He advised that as a result of that rule the Council proposed to move the designation boundary to 150 m inside the site boundary so as not to restrict use of adjacent private property.

25. Mr Evans outlined the consultation undertaken by the Council in respect of this proposal. This included a working party of key stakeholders including representatives from the Te Anau Community Board, Southland District Council and Council staff, the Guardians of the Lakes, Iwi, Department of Conservation and Fish and Game Southland.

26. Mr Evans raised issues with the conditions as proposed by Mr Hammond in relation to:

(a) The term;

(b) The exclusion of wastewater from any other treatment facility;

(d) The specification of a particular brand of floating mechanical aerators.

Mr Oakley

27. Mr Oakley is a Chartered Engineer employed by MWH (NZ) Ltd as the Waste and Water Team Leader in Dunedin. He prepared the estimates of future wastewater flows based on population and growth projections which form the basis of the discharge applications. These projections were somewhat lower than earlier forecasts and resulted from revision work he oversaw when he became involved in the project in 2012.

28. The analysis work he undertook established estimates of wastewater volumes generated measured in litres per head per day (L/h/day) for each of the three categories of permanent residents, holiday makers (staying in holiday homes and cribs) and tourists (staying in commercial accommodation). The work concluded those values would be 270L/h/day for permanent residents and holiday makers, and 154L/h/day for tourists.

29. Mr Oakley relied on Statistics NZ growth projections for Te Anau starting from the 2006 results which showed a permanent resident population of 1,899. The projections to 2048 gave a range of 2,010 to 2,652. The same range of growth rates was applied to the visitor accommodation, subject to a sensitivity check.

30. Using the above projections, in the winter of 2048 estimated peak flows range from 892 to 1,178m3/day and up to 1,788m3/day if a higher visitor growth rate of 3% is applied. Mr Oakley considered those projections appropriate and compare to the average rate applied for of 1,350m3/day, with an allowance of a maximum rate of 2,000m3/day.

31. On the same basis Mr Oakley concluded the quantities applied for in summer of an average rate of 3,000m3/day with a maximum rate of 4,500m3/day was consistent with the projected range in 2048 summer of 1,897 to 2,503m3/day with up to 4,131m3/day if visitor growth occurred at 3% per annum. 101

32. From these estimates Mr Oakley was satisfied that the North Kepler Block was an appropriate size for the 35 year consent sought. He also considered it useful to set aside the South Kepler Block for future growth and also as an option for discharge if growth exceeded the anticipated rates.

33. Mr Oakley provided an analysis of likely causes and consequences of outages. As part of this analysis he calculated that the existing ponds have a storage capacity of 4,800m3. He noted that the present peak/base flows from the existing plant are 1,880/1,000m3/ day in summer, and 850/600m3/day in winter. In his estimate this gives total storage times of 2.6 to 4.8 days in summer and 5.6 to 8 days in winter. From this he concluded that any outage would need to be dealt with in the time available before storage was exceeded. In answer to questions by the Panel, Mr Oakley confirmed that he was comfortable that any outages in the civil infrastructure could be dealt with within those time periods.

34. Finally, Mr Oakley summarised and commented on work undertaken on the cost of nitrogen removal. This work had been undertaken prior to him being involved in the project. His summation was that the net present value of significantly reducing nitrogen in the treated wastewater proposed to be discharged to the Kepler Block ranges from $8.2 M for a low technology approach with unconfirmed certainty of performance and retention of the ponds, through to $20.8 M for a conventional activated sludge process.

Dr Davoren

35. Dr Davoren is managing director of HydroServices Ltd, a company specialising in soil moisture measurement and irrigation management. His evidence related to the site selection process, the soil physical and hydraulic properties in the Kepler Block, and the proposed irrigation and pasture management.

36. Dr Davoren, based on his experience and the latitudinal location of Te Anau, assumed that the average hydraulic loading from the irrigated effluent should not exceed 2mm/day. When he undertook the initial work, that parameter focused site investigations on locating land of sufficient size (300 ha) for irrigation of 6,000 m3/day. When the population and flow 102

was revised downward, the site selection process and technical investigations had been completed or were being carried out. Notwithstanding that downward revision, Dr Davoren remained of the view that the Kepler Block was the best site in the area.

37. Dr Davoren described in detail the criteria used to assess the various sites. The site selection process considered 5 broad areas and determined the Manapouri Plains zone as the most suitable because:

(a) The topography is flat or gently sloping and there are no physical impediments to irrigation of wastewater;

(b) The soils are free draining and have sufficient depth of A and B horizons to support a healthy pasture sward that will provide some storage of water within the soil profile;

(c) The was sufficient area with the above features to meet the (then) projected population and wastewater flow requirements;

(d) Very low potential for surface run-off;

(e) Relatively uniform sub-strata material, although there were some pits where iron pan was found; and

(f) Groundwater was either not intersected or was deeper than 3.5-4 m below ground level (“bgl”).

38. Within the Manapouri Plains zone, Dr Davoren considered four sites: Kepler Farm North (North Block), Kepler Farm South (South Block), Freestone Farm and Deer Unit. Of these, the North Block and part of the South Block were identified as the most suitable for wastewater irrigation.

39. Within the North Block the only unsuitable area was an area of peat bog or wetland area and an area of ponded water adjacent to the wetland. Only part of the South Block was considered suitable. The Panel requested further clarification of the actual area he was referring to in the South Block and received a plan showing the test pits coded as to whether an iron pan was present or not and an aerial photograph 103

showing “Total Area suitable for Irrigation”. Also this latter area was somewhat larger than the colour-coded test pits might suggest, it was still a smaller area than that covered by the NoR.

40. Dr Davoren revised the area requirements in light of the revised population and flow estimates and concluded that 100 ha would be adequate until the population exceeded 15,000 person equivalents.

41. Dr Daveron provided results of infiltration experiments designed to simulate waste water irrigation. These suggested the effect of applying water is confined to the zone below the point of the area of application, with little lateral movement.

42. Dr Davoren set out the minimum performance standards sustainable irrigation of wastewater would need to meet. In summary these are:

(a) Irrigation application must be uniform;

(b) Irrigation will need to occur in most weather conditions;

(d) The irrigation system must apply the wastewater over as large an area as possible as quickly as possible;

(e) The irrigation system must be capable of applying relatively small depths (<5 mm) over the irrigated area;

(f) The irrigation system must be suited to remote and automatic control, must operate with a high degree of reliability and with minimal operator involvement;

(g) The sprinklers must not be prone to wind drift.

43. Applying these requirements, Dr Davoren recommended two centre-pivot irrigators, each of 345 m radius and each irrigating an area of 37.4 ha. He foresaw that additional future irrigation could be provided in the corners of the North Block with fixed sprinklers or multiple spray lines. Figure 14 of 104

his evidence showed a conceptual design of the location and coverage of the centre pivot irrigators.

44. Dr Davoren explained that to ensure an even application rate along the length of the irrigators, fitting boom backs to the spans beyond 100 m would increase the wetted footprint and reduce the application rate which would minimise the risk of ponding.

45. To reduce the potential for spray drift, sprinklers that generated large droplets would be specified. Dr Davoren told us of research that concluded that a key measure to evaluate the potential of spray drift is the volume of droplets produced by a sprinkler that are less than 141 microns (rounded to 150 microns for ease of sampling). Dr Davoren was satisfied that even in high winds, the combination of droplet size and shelter trees would minimise spray drift.

46. Dr Davoren described the peat bog and recommended that it be retained and enhanced with planting. He concluded bridges could be built over the peat bog to keep the pivot wheels from travelling through it, and that it would not require irrigation unless it became very dry. He noted there were some adjacent areas that needed to also be excluded from irrigation meaning some 4.7ha would be excluded from irrigation.

47. Dr Davoren modelled the pasture production from the irrigated area. From this he concluded that cut and carry of the pasture would export about 13,500 kgDM/ha/yr. This would remove approximately 420 kg/ha/yr of nitrogen, which he considered a conservative estimate. He noted this exceeded the total N applied by the waste water irrigation (290 kgN/ha/yr) and suggested some fertiliser application would be required in spring and early summer to maintain optimum pasture growth. He also concluded nitrogen would be stored in the soil or leached in the winter months as more nitrogen would be applied than stored in the dry matter when growth rates were very low.

48. In discussing the irrigation management regime, Dr Davoren noted that the effluent flows from the Te Anau treatment plant have advantages for irrigation: 105

(a) In summer months when evapotranspiration could be as high as 5- 5.5 mm/day, there is insufficient flow to meet this peak demand;

(b) In the winter months when evapotranspiration is least, the effluent flow is also lowest and application depths on just one centre pivot area would be as low as 1.5mm/day and if spread over two centre pivots less than 1mm/day;

49. Dr Davoren explained that the winter flow determines the area required for irrigation as having application depths of between 1mm and less than 1.5mm per day in the winter months is ideal. He considered the current flow and that for the next 4-5 years is likely to be insufficient to operate both centre pivots, and possibly all of the spans of the irrigators all of the time, as the area required to irrigate with a daily application depths of 4.5mm or 2mm are less than the total centre pivot area available.

50. When asked how the proposed system could respond to a change of flow patterns resulting from increased tourism in winter, Dr Davoren was confident that by increasing the area of irrigation, either by utilising the corners or irrigating the South Block, or a combination thereof, application depths of 1-1.5mm could be maintained in the winter period while accommodating greater flows.

51. Dr Davoren commented on details of the conditions recommended by Mr Hammond with a view to correcting what he considered misinterpretations of the data.

52. In answering questions from the Panel, Dr Davoren clarified the range of permanent sensors he considered necessary to measure soil moisture and check for spray drift. In terms of spray drift, he considered sensors were only needed on the boundary between the North Block and the airport, and that if spray drift was detected there, the irrigators would need to be shut off.

53. Dr Davoren considered that Overseer modelling in conjunction with the monitoring of soil moisture would provide an estimate of how much nitrogen was being leached from the site. He considered such modelling could be a replacement for specifying in the conditions the minimum 106

quantity of dry matter to be removed off-site each year, as that would be weather dependant.

54. Dr Davoren was satisfied that the soils of the site had the capacity to take the irrigation proposed for the 35 years sought. He considered that improvement in soil structure and increase in organic matter in the soil would enhance the ability of the soil to absorb the effluent flows.

Ms Bennett (by telephone)

55. Ms Bennett is a Senior Environmental Scientist with MWH NZ Ltd in Dunedin specialising in the environmental effects of wastewater discharges. Her evidence focused on the effects of the proposal on surface water and aquatic ecosystems.

56. Ms Bennett relied on the evidence of Mr East which set out the likely pathways groundwater from under the North Block would take to reach surface water. In summary, this suggested the groundwater containing residual contaminants from the wastewater would discharge to either or both of the following surface water bodies, in order of probability:

(a) Upper Waiau River, either through a diffuse discharge along its southwest flowing reach (Flowpath 2) or along a more confined area of the Upper Waiau River from a possible paleo-channel (Flowpath 1);

(b) Lake Manapouri, via a significantly less probable groundwater flow scenario (Flowpaths 4 or 5).

57. Ms Bennett, again relying on Mr East’s evidence, identified the primary residual contaminant entering the surface waters would be nitrogen. She provided tables showing the likely changes in nitrogen concentrations for each of the four flowpaths for a hydraulic conductivity of 10 m/day and for a hydraulic conductivity of 50 m/day.

58. For the discharges to the Upper Waiau River, Ms Bennett noted that the predicted increases in nitrogen concentrations in the Upper Waiau River, ranging from 0.0042 to 0.0048 mg/L, would not be detectable given the inherent accuracy of the analysis and natural variability. She was satisfied 107

that when added to the assumed upstream concentration of 0.11 mg/L (the detection limit)6 they would be highly unlikely to result in algal blooms and the potential toxicity to aquatic organisms, assuming all nitrogen was in the form of nitrate-N, would also be low, being significantly less than the ANZECC 2000 water quality guideline for 99% protection, which is 4.9 mg/L.

59. Ms Bennett also noted that the cessation of the existing wastewater flow into the Upukerora River will reduce the overall quantity of nitrogen entering the surface water system. The values she used for the nitrogen concentrations upstream of the potential discharge had not been reduced to provide for that cessation.

60. For calculating the nitrogen concentration changes in Lake Manapouri, Ms Bennett again used the detection limit of 0.11 mg/L as the monitoring data indicated an existing level at Frasers Beach of <0.11 mg/L. For her calculations, Ms Bennett assumed that all the groundwater flow would discharge through each of the entry points. The assumed width of the entry point for Flowpath 4 was 1350 m, and that for Flowpath 5 (Frasers Beach) was 900 m.

61. At 5m from shore, significant increases in concentration of nitrogen were estimated – ranging from 0.41 mg/L to 0.59 mg/L. By 50m from shore these figures were 0.14 to 0.16 mg/L.

62. Ms Bennett was satisfied that these concentrations of nitrogen would not result in a change to the trophic state (due to nitrogen concentration) of the inshore waters of Lake Manapouri at Frasers Beach. She noted also that the estimated concentrations were all well below the ANZEEC 2000 water quality guidelines for 99% protection as discussed above.

63. Based on Mr East’s opinion that it was highly unlikely that the groundwater plume would discharge direct to Lake Manapouri, Ms Bennett considered the risk of the groundwater discharge having any potential adverse effects on Lake Manapouri as negligible.

6 The State of the Environment monitoring data for Lake Te Anau at Blue Gum Point had a value of <0.11 mg/L. 108

64. Ms Bennett set out a comprehensive list of conditions particularly directed to groundwater monitoring she considered should be attached to the discharge to land consent.

Mr East

65. Mr East is a hydrogeologist with his own company. He also works for Otago Regional Council as a groundwater scientist.

66. Mr East’s evidence covered the following:

(a) Reviewing the geology and hydrogeology of the site;

(b) Evaluating the potential environmental effects of the proposal, including:

(i) Identifying groundwater exposure pathways and receptors;

(ii) Estimating nutrient leaching and groundwater contaminant concentrations at the identified receptors; and

(iii) Estimating groundwater mounding.

67. Seven test wells on the Northern Block have reached groundwater. The groundwater levels in these were measured three times in February and March 2013. Applying a similar seasonal fluctuation in groundwater levels as had been observed in the South Block, Mr East concluded winter groundwater levels may rise to within 2.7 to 3.7 m of the surface in the southeast corner. Toward the west he expected the seasonal minimum thickness of the unsaturated zone to be around 10 to 12 m.

68. Based on groundwater levels collected from monitoring wells in the Northern and Southern Blocks on a single day, Mr East concluded the groundwater in the Northern Block is directed to the northwest, and that in the Southern Block to the west. 109

69. For the purposes of assessing the contaminant transport from the site, Mr East defined the ‘safe’ distance as the distance from the discharge where the groundwater quality is expected to comply with relevant standards or guidelines. The guidelines Mr East used for defining compliance standards were:

(a) New Zealand Drinking Water Standards (NZDWS 2005);

(b) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000); and

70. Mr East described the background concentrations of contaminants based on monitoring of the existing airport water supply well and the 7 monitoring wells in the North Block. The only detectable contaminant in the airport water supply well was nitrate at 0.4 mg/L.

71. The nitrate concentrations in the North Block wells averaged 2.3 mg/L, with the highest concentrations observed in wells 1 and 7 which are located at the down gradient extent of the site. The average value for these wells was 4.3 mg/L.

72. Mr East described the likely exposure pathways and receptors for contaminants leaving the irrigated area based on his understanding of the geology and hydrogeology of the site. He was satisfied that a groundwater discharge to the Kepler Mire was an impossibility, and a discharge to Home Creek would be very unlikely in his opinion. He concluded that the most likely scenario was that groundwater at the site flows toward the northwest and discharges diffusely along the Upper Waiau River’s southwest flowing reach. He added that there was a low risk that groundwater may discharge at a point source to the Upper Waiau River or as a diffuse discharge to Lake Manapouri.

73. Mr East considered that by the time the wastewater infiltrates through the unsaturated soil zones, there will not be any significant microbiological concentration remaining. With additional attenuation in the 110

groundwater, microbiological contamination will reduce to <1 cfu/100mL at a distance of 50 to 200 m from the irrigation area.

74. In terms of nutrient attenuation in groundwater, Mr East relied on Overseer modelling to determine the quantities of nutrients leaving the irrigation area. This showed that phosphorus would be almost totally adsorbed in the soil profile. He took the nitrogen concentrations and modelled the dispersion of it within the groundwater flow based on assumptions of groundwater depth and hydraulic conductivity. From these he concluded the groundwater nitrogen concentration at the point where discharge to surface water occurs may be between 4.6 and 9.4 mg/L. He considered this range a worst case scenario.

75. Mr East calculated the potential for groundwater mounding as a result of the irrigation flows and concluded the amount of between 0.24 and 1.44 m would be unlikely to result in any significant change to the groundwater flow. He noted the unsaturated zone would be decreased by the same amount.

76. In summarising the effects on identified receptors, Mr East identified that there is legitimate reason for concern about the nitrogen levels in the down gradient aquifer if groundwater abstraction for drinking water occurs.

77. Mr East outlined the proposed groundwater monitoring regime proposed.

78. Mr East helpfully provided calculations of the range of flows in the Upper Waiau River relative to the quantity of wastewater he expected to discharge diffusely into the Upper Waiau7. With a controlled flow ranging from 100 to 700 cumecs8, the flow in the Upper Waiau would be some 3,000 to 20,000 times the volume of wastewater discharged. He also calculated that on the concentrations of nitrogen measured in the Upper Waiau referred to by Ms Bennett, some 260 to 1,800 kg of nitrogen moves down the Upper Waiau each day. The worst case estimate he had made

7 Mr S East, Transcript of Hearing, p.43

8 Cubic metres per second 111

of nitrogen content in the discharge would amount to some 30 kg of nitrogen per day. He opined that with the flow rates as calculated, the additional amount of nitrogen added to the Upper Waiau River from the treated wastewater would be so small as to be below the detection limits of standard analytical procedures. He went on to add that he considered the expected increase would be less than the natural variation that could be expected due to variations in flow and other related factors. We note that Mr East did not make a deduction from the nitrogen discharge from Lake Te Anau to allow for the cessation of the existing wastewater discharge.

79. Mr East also noted that, with reference to monitoring of wells, his advice was that monitoring should be monthly rather than quarterly as proposed in the conditions.9

Mr Lockyer

80. Mr Lockyer is a chemical engineer specialising in odour and air pollution control with MWH in Sydney. He described the potential odour issues with the proposed discharge method, the available treatment options, and the option he designed for this plant.

81. Mr Lockyer assessed the potential for the wastewater discharge to create an odour problem if not treated. His assessment was that if untreated, the

level of H2S10 released would represent a risk, under certain conditions, of an unacceptable level of odour at the site boundary or nearest receptor.

82. The treatment option recommended by Mr Lockyer, which has been incorporated into the application, comprised:

(a) Biological treatment of the liquid stream in a trickling filter;

(b) Treating the air stream from the trickling filter in a soil-bed biofilter prior to discharge to the atmosphere; and

9 Mr S East, Transcript of Hearing, p.45

10 Hydrogen sulphide 112

(c) Chemical dosing of the liquid stream after the trickling filter and before conveyance to the irrigators if necessary.

83. Modelling work undertaken by Mr Lockyer predicted more than 90% of the

H2S in the wastewater stream would be removed. It was his conclusion that the use of this odour control system would ensure that odour does not become a problem at the Kepler Farm.

Mr Beale

84. Mr Beale is a planner and terrestrial ecologist working for MWH NZ Ltd in Queenstown. His evidence traversed the relevant statutory provisions, the effects of the proposed discharge on visual amenity values, cultural values and terrestrial ecology values, a bird strike assessment prepared for Te Anau airport and the proposed conditions.

85. Mr Beale considered the structures associated with the proposed discharges would have no more than a minor effect on the visual amenity values of the area. He considered the irrigators to be no more than structures one could expect to see in a rural area such as the North Block.

86. Mr Beale’s opinion was that the effects of the discharge on cultural values would be less than minor. This was based on his consideration of:

(a) The statutory acknowledgement covering Lakes Te Anau and Manapouri and the Waiau River11;

(b) The objectives and policies concerning wastewater discharges contained in Te Tangi a Tauira and those concerning Mauri and Mahinga Kai in Nga Tahu’s fresh water policy statement;12

11 Mr S Beale, Transcript of Hearing, p.51

12 Mr S Beale, Statement of Evidence, p.4

13 Mr S Beale, Transcript of Hearing, p.51 113

(d) Ms Bennett’s opinion there would be minimal potential adverse effects on aquatic ecology.14

87. Based on the evidence of Mr East and Dr Davoren, Mr Beale concluded that the effects of the proposal on the Kepler Mire and Home Creek would be de minimis.

88. Mr Beale prepared the bird strike assessment in relation to Te Anau airport. The assessment recommends a range of passive deterrence measures within the irrigation area which Mr Beale considers the best practicable means of managing birds and minimising the level of risk posed to aircraft from the proposed irrigation activity. The measures proposed are:

(a) Pasture management:

(i)Maintaining a minimum grass height of 50-70 mm during the growing season and 150-200 mm during the winter beneath the pivot irrigators – a length birds find undesirable for feeding and nesting; and

(ii)Maintenance of the grass sward within the irrigation area to avoid seed head development.

(b) Avoidance of prolonged ponding within the irrigation area through precision irrigation afforded by the centre pivot irrigators;

(d) Use of bird scaring devices such as percussion noise scarers.

89. In answering questions from the Panel, Mr Beale noted that the airport has its own bird management plan and utilises bird scarers.

90. Mr Beale’s evidence contained a section where he identified the main points made in the submissions and then provided a summary of how that

14 Mr S Beale, Statement of Evidence, p.4 and Transcript of Hearing p.51 114

issue was addressed. In large part this directed us to the evidence provided by other witnesses for the applicant or the Assessment of Environmental Effects lodged with the application. This summary also pointed to how matters would be dealt with in the proposed Environmental Management Plan.

91. Referring to the National Environmental Standard for Source of Human Drinking Water Mr Beale considered the proposed conditions ensured compliance. He considered that monitoring of nitrate levels in the groundwater would enable the District Council to take remedial action if trigger levels were breached.

92. Mr Beale referred us to Objectives A1, A2 and D1 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 and provided his opinion that the proposal was consistent with those.

93. Mr Beale considered a wide range of objectives and policies in the Regional Policy Statement, Proposed Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Effluent Land Application Plan, the Regional Water Plan, including proposed Plan Change 15, the Regional Air Quality Plan, Te Tangi a Tauira, and the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Freshwater Policy Statement. He was satisfied that the application, taking into account the proposed conditions, was consistent with these.

94. In discussing the NoR, Mr Beale was of the view that the designation would reduce the potential for future reverse sensitivity issues to arise, and that the designation of the South Block is necessary to accommodate increases in wastewater flows beyond the term of the current discharge consents being sought, i.e. beyond 35 years.

95. When questioned by the Panel about the necessity of the extent of the NoR on the South Block given Dr Davoren’s evidence that only some of it was suitable for irrigation, Mr Beale remained of the view that all the area subject to the NoR was required, but that the area not needed for irrigation could be an effective buffer area.15

15 Mr S Beale, Transcript of Hearing, p.55 115

96. Mr Beale took us through the statutory requirements of sections 105 and 107 of the Act and concluded they did not raise any barriers to this application. Mr Beale referred us to section 6(a), (c) and (e), section 7(a), (aa), (b), (d), (g) and (h), and section 8 of the Act. In each case he considered the proposal would either: not disrupt; be consistent with; or enhance; the values set out in those sections.

97. Taking an overall broad view of section 5, Mr Beale considered the proposal represented sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

98. Mr Beale provided an updated version of the proposed conditions and proposed Environmental Management Plan at the hearing and explained the changes made as a result of questioning of previous witnesses by the Panel. These changes and Mr Beale’s comments on them supplemented the evidence he circulated prior to the hearing.

Mr P Hampton – RC Submission 111, NoR Submission 186

99. Mr Hampton was concerned with the potential loss of amenity values on his property if the proposal proceeded. He also expressed concern with the consultation process, the distance of the disposal site from Te Anau and the potential for groundwater flows to travel to Frasers Beach on Lake Manapouri.

100. In terms of the amenity effects, odour was Mr Hampton’s main concern. He expressed concern that the applicant’s record of compliance with consents did not give him reassurance that compliance with the odour treatment conditions could be met.

101. Mr Hampton provided a copy of parts of Environment Southland’s Environmental Compliance Monitoring Reports for 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Ms C Hampton – RC Submission 22, No R Submission 189

102. Ms Hampton’s main concern was the potential for adverse odour effects from the discharge, both on her property as well as the effects on users of the airport and the State Highway. She was concerned that if adverse 116

odour from the discharge affected tourists, there would be the potential for adverse comments to impact the attractiveness of the area for tourists.

103. Ms Hampton also raised concerns about:

(a) Groundwater flows being potentially to Lake Manapouri;

(b) The safety of drinking water collected by residents from bores and roofs;

(d) The consumption of the baleage by animals;

(e) The lack of consultation; and

(f) The length of the term sought.

Mr C McDonald – RC Submission 16, NoR Submission 136

104. Mr McDonald has farmed land adjacent to the Kepler Block for 30 years. He suggested there was a hard pan under the entire block which would lead to the discharged wastewater flowing on or near the surface and contaminating the Kepler Mire and Home Creek. He produced a photograph taken from the air of extensive flooding south of the airport.

105. Mr McDonald raised concerns about:

(a) The potential for drinking water supplies to be polluted; and

(b) The effect of feeding the baleage to stock.

Ms D Ridley – RC Submission 32

106. Ms Ridley supported the resource consent applications. She was a member of the working group set up to look at effluent disposal options for Te Anau as Te Anau Ward Councillor on the District Council. She outlined the effort put into considering alternatives. 117

107. Ms Ridley concurred with Mr Hammond’s views on issues raised in submissions and generally supported the proposed conditions.

Mr M Deaker – RC Submission 95

108. While Mr Deaker is an elected member of the Te Anau Community Board, he made it clear this submission was his own and did not represent the views of the Board.

109. Mr Deaker did not consider there was any environmental reason to halt the discharge to the Upukerora River in the short-term and so considered the potential effects of this proposal unjustified.

Southland Conservation Board – RC Submission 141

110. Ms F Black, a member of the Conservation Board for three years, represented the Board.

111. The Board generally supported the discharge application, subject to the following:

(a) Robust monitoring to ensure no detectable contaminants and elevated levels of nutrients leach into areas outside the irrigation field;

(b) Provision for adequate storage to be in place to contain the wastewater when soil conditions are unsuitable for irrigation for prolonged periods;

(c) That provision is made for increasing the size of the irrigation area if it is found that the present area is found incapable of handling the volumes of effluent; and

(d) Within the lifetime of the consent the oxidation ponds at Te Anau be relocated to where they are not subject to the possibility of catastrophic flooding.

Mr R Smith – RC Submission 120, NoR Submission 193

112. Mr Smith owns a property adjacent to the Te Anau Airport and the South Block. He opposes the applications and the NoR. 118

113. Mr Smith raised issues of odour and spray drift, particularly as they could affect the airport. He was also concerned that the proposal would destroy the amenity values of the property he owns and proposes building on. He was concerned about the potential effects on Frasers Beach and provided five photographs of groundwater seeps at the beach.

114. Mr Smith provided us with a copy of the Southland District Council’s Vision, Mission and Outcomes Statement and stated that it contained many of his morals and values, he did not think this proposal adhered to it.

Manapouri Community Development Area Committee – RC Submission 91, NoR Submission 262; Mr R A Youldon – RC Submission 125, NoR Submission 187

115. Mr Youldon, Chairman of the Manapouri CDAC (“CDA”), made one presentation in opposition to the proposal on behalf of the Committee and himself.

116. Mr Youldon suggested that the NoR, in allowing central pivot irrigators, was contrary to the policy direction generally adopted in the proposed District Plan around Manapouri to protect the scenic values of the area.

117. Mr Youldon questioned the appropriateness of the Kepler Block given that with the revision downward of population projections, a smaller area of land closer to Te Anau may now be suitable. He also stated that the CDA favours the discharge of Manapouri effluent to land closer to Manapouri than the Kepler Block.

118. Mr Youldon provided monthly rainfall figures from November 1982 to January 1983 which, he said, contradicted the applicant’s assertion that summer months are drier.

119. Mr Youldon contended that the threat of the discharge proposal contributed to the 25% decline in the Manapouri population at the 2013 Census, and suggested approval would make the situation worse.

120. Mr Youldon considered the various Management Plans proposed by the applicant should form an integral part of the conditions. He also noted the lack of information on the proposed discharge to the 50ha within the 119

irrigation area that would not be covered by the centre pivot irrigators. He noted the lack of baseline monitoring of the soil or peat bog ecology and stated the CDA strongly disagreed with a 35 year consent. They consider there is the potential for sewage treatment technology to improve so as to make this proposal obsolete within that time frame, and that the discharge area would have a limited life.

121. Mr Youldon suggested a condition should be imposed requiring the rehabilitation of the land after the cessation of discharge with extended environmental monitoring after the consent expires.

122. Other matters raised by Mr Youldon were:

(a) Adequacy of storage when irrigation cannot occur;

(b) Whether earthquakes would affect groundwater flows;

(d) The noise effect of bird scarers; and

(e) The low concentration of contaminants discharged into Lake Te Anau when compared to the size of the lake and flow rate of the Upper Waiau River and when compared to other pollutants entering the lake.

Mr R Smith – RC Submission 132, NoR Submission 162

123. Mr Smith’s submission in opposition covered:

(a) The potential for odour and spray drift effects;

(b) Potential effects on people using bores and roof-water for drinking water;

(d) The lack of baseline data; 120

(e) The substance of the proposed Management Plans;

(f) The term of the consent; and

(g) The potential for the pipeline to rupture and the potential effects if it did.

Ms V Burch – RC Submission 150, NoR Submission 192

124. Ms Burch owns land adjacent to the airport and the South Block. Her concerns were as follows:

(a) The amenity values of her property will be reduced;

(b) The quality of the groundwater will be adversely affected;

(d) The prevailing winds will bring air-borne pathogens to her property;

(e) Monitoring should include pharmaceutical products and other organic compounds;

(f) The methods proposed to minimise the bird strike issue have other adverse effects;

(g) Spreading out the infrastructure increases the risk of disruption; and

(h) Alternatives have not been adequately considered.

125. Ms Burch also told us of a petition she has collected signatures on opposed to the discharge.

Mr M Hagen – RC Submission 103, NoR Submission 289 Fiordland Aero Club – RC Submission 39, NoR Submission 164

126. Mr Hagen farms about 12 km south of Manapouri and is chief flying instructor at the Aero Club. His presentation covered his and his wife’s submissions and those of the Aero Club. 121

127. Mr Hagen raised the following concerns:

(a) Consultation with local people was inadequate;

(b) The effect of the additional nitrates and chemicals from the odour dosing going into the groundwater and into the herbage harvested in the cut and carry operation;

(c) When the irrigator was operating in high temperatures pathogens would get airborne and be blown toward nearby houses and Manapouri;

(d) The potential for there to be hard pans under the proposed site;

(e) The loss of shelter trees would affect the aesthetics of the area;

(f) The potential for bird strike;

(g) The applicant’s proposal to not monitor for heavy metals;

(h) The potential for spray drift to cause a corrosion problem for aircraft.

128. In relation to the bird strike issue, Mr Hagen told us that in spring he is regularly having to avoid birds when training pilots. He advised that the major troublesome species were plovers and black-backed gulls. It was his experience that the present bird control methods were not applied evenly to all flights from the airport, but focused on the infrequent charter flights.

129. Mr Hagen considered growing lucerne instead of grass would assist in minimising bird numbers, but considered there would still be an issue when it was harvested. He considered it would be difficult to maintain grass at 4 inches height as proposed by the applicant.

130. Mr Hagen also outlined the level of use of the airport. In his experience about 120 to 150 tourists would pass through the airport each week at peak. There are also a number of private flights and some use of the airport for training by an Invercargill flying school. 122

Mr P and Ms G Hicks – RC Submission 108, NoR Submission 247

131. Ms B Hagen read out an email sent by Mr & Ms Hicks which set out their opposition to the proposal. This did not specify any resource management concerns the submitters may have had.

Ms R & Mr L Shaw – RC Submission 133, NoR Submission 118 Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society Inc – RC Submission 130

132. Ms Shaw presented written submissions on behalf of these submitters.

133. Ms Shaw questioned whether the health effects could be truly avoided, noting in particular that the applicant did not propose to monitor for viruses.

134. The potential impact on water quality was the main focus of Ms Shaw’s submissions. She was concerned with the potential nutrient enrichment of the waterways as a result of the nitrate flows from the proposal and noted the uncertainties in the applicant’s evidence. She referred us to Objective C1 and Policy C1 of the NPS for Freshwater Management 2011. Ms Shaw was asked about whether she had any information as to whether the nutrient enrichment changes in Lake Taupo could be repeated in Lake Manapouri. She advised she had made this enquiry of Dr M Joy, who she had hoped to call as a witness at the hearing. His advice to her was that the continual flushing of the waters of Lake Manapouri by the hydro- electric scheme mans that there is little chance of the same effect occurring. We accept this is hearsay evidence but note that it was readily provided by Ms Shaw notwithstanding that it is not strictly in support of her submissions.

135. Ms Shaw raised questions regarding the proposed odour management system and suggested monitoring results should be reported more frequently than proposed at least at the outset. She also raised questions about the bird control methods.

136. Ms Shaw questioned the proposal to irrigate the peat bog given the lack of baseline data and understanding of the existing ecological health of the system. 123

137. Ms Shaw proposed to present to us a detailed proposal, including a video, by a firm based in the United States to alter the treatment processes at the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant. We did not allow this material to be introduced as we considered it was outside the scope of matters we could consider in both the resource consent application and the NoR.

Ms G Bell – RC submission 44, NoR Submission 19

138. Ms Bell presented written submissions which covered much the same ground as previous submitters. She additionally noted the lack of evidence from an agronomist or soil scientist, and the lack of baseline information on soil moisture levels. She also raised questions about the practicality of harvesting the grass without completely shutting down the irrigators, noting that without doing so the harvesters would be exposed to spray drift.

Mr L Mouat – RC Submission 84, NoR Submission 147

139. Mr Mouat lives in Manapouri and runs a tourist operation on the Upper Waiau River and Lake Manapouri. Mr Mouat main concerns were:

(a) The potential odour problems at the airport terminal; and

(b) The discharge to land leading to nitrates entering the Upper Waiau River and Lake Manapouri.

140. He considered the applicant should treat the effluent at Te Anau so as to remove nitrates, phosphorus and other contaminants so that no matter where it is disposed it would not harm the environment.

Ms S Mouat – RC Submission 140, NoR Submission 147

141. Ms Mouat lives in Manapouri and is an elected member of the Manapouri Development Area Community Board. Ms Mouat outlined alternative treatment technologies she was aware of. She was concerned about the uncertainty of where groundwater would discharge and the effects such discharge may have on receiving waters.

142. Ms Mouat was able to advise us that the Manapouri drinking water source was within Lake Manapouri some 20m (on average) off-shore from Frasers Beach. 124

Mr P Ridder – RC Submission 109, NoR Submission 129

143. Mr Ridder lives due south of the airport and runs a small accommodation business there. His primary concern was the potential for odour effects to disrupt the tourist potential of Manapouri.

Mr M Willans – RC Submission 104

144. Mr Willans lives in the Te Anau Basin northeast of Te Anau. He was primarily concerned with the amount of nitrogen leaching to groundwater. He provided information on his ability to irrigate his property over the 2013-14 summer, suggesting that it is not possible in summer to continually irrigate.

145. He considered greater storage would be needed to ensure irrigation did not lead to excessive leaching.

Mr J Murrell – RC Submission 67, NoR Submission 132 & Further Submission 32

146. Mr Murrell lives in Manapouri. He spoke to his written submission about his concerns. These reflected those of other submitters in opposition.

147. Additionally, from his long residence in the area he was able to tell us his experience of local climate and other natural phenomena. Mr Murrell advised that he has regularly run or walked along Frasers Beach and noted the springs in the foreshore. He advised that from his observations these dry up after 4 to 5 weeks of dry weather and start up immediately after rain. He considered the fact it was not a continuous flow meant these springs were not connected to the groundwater flows from the Kepler Mire.

Mr R Willett – RC Submission 118

148. Mr Willett is a Te Anau resident opposed to the proposal. He considered the 35 year term sought by the applicant was too long as other better options may arise in the interim.

Mr T Loose – RC Submission 148, NoR Submission 133, Further Submission 3

149. Mr Loose was opposed to the proposal. In essence his submission was that the present discharge to the Upukerora River should be upgraded to create a cleaner discharge. He did not consider the applicant had adequately considered alternatives, nor had it properly assessed the risk of bird strike at the airport. 125

Ms J Duncan – RC Submission 59

150. Ms Duncan owns a small Bed and Breakfast operation in Manapouri. She was concerned that odour effects could adversely affect the tourism industry that Manapouri is dependent on.

Mr P J Smith – RC Submission 113

151. Mr Smith has farmed in the Te Anau Basin for 32 years. He told us that his farm was similar in soil type and topography to the North Block, albeit northeast of Te Anau. The circulation of the draft EMP prior to the hearing had in part answered his concerns. He noted the following additional points:

(a) While he agrees the wastewater discharge should not go directly into the lake, he considers this proposal just moves the problem from one area to another;

(b) Even if the groundwater at adjacent wells remain of drinking water standard, there will remain a perception that the water is contaminated;

(c) If a nitrogen cap were to be applied to the Te Anau Basin, this proposal is likely to be higher than the average allowed, meaning it should be able to be scaled back;

(d) Based on his experience of farming on Monowai soils he considered the proposed storage does not adequately take account of the time soil moisture levels will take to return to below field capacity after a significant rainfall event.

Mr H Shaw – RC Submission 53

152. Mr Shaw has lived in the Te Anau Basin for some 64 years. He presently resides In Hillside Road, Manapouri where he operates a holiday cottage rental business. He takes water directly from Home Creek for domestic and stock supply.

153. Mr Shaw’s concerns were:

(a) Potential contamination of Home Creek and groundwater; 126

(b) Spray drift;

(d) The potential for build-up of chemicals and other pollutants in the peat bog.

Te Anau Community Board – RC Submission 146

154. The Board’s submission was presented by Ms R Cockburn, Deputy Chairman. She was accompanied by Mr A Jukes. Ms Cockburn clarified that the Board is elected by all residents of the Te Anau Basin, including Manapouri, but the Board does not make decisions on behalf of Manapouri.

155. The Board supported the applications and reinforced the need for strict monitoring. Ms Cockburn re-iterated two points:

(a) The proposed amount of storage appears inadequate; and

(b) The high rate of nitrogen leaching proposed may create a precedent as well as have implication for the farming industry in the Basin if a nitrogen cap was introduced.

Mr A Paton-McDonald – RC Submission 7

156. Mr Paton-McDonald constructed the primary pond at the existing treatment plant in 1984.

157. Mr Paton-McDonald saw this proposal as transferring the discharge from Lake Te Anau, where he considered it was not a problem, to Manapouri where he considered it would be a problem.

158. He considered the concerns regarding bore contamination and spray drift could be dealt with by the extension of Manapouri’s potable water supply to take in all properties north of Manapouri including the Moturau subdivision and the properties surrounding the airport.

159. Mr Paton-McDonald also considered that linear irrigators running between the existing tree lines would have several advantages over rotary irrigators. 127

Based on his experience with his own cut and carry operation, he expected there to be a greater bird problem than the applicant envisages.

Guardians of Lakes Manapouri, Monowai and Te Anau – RC Submission 48

160. The Guardians were represented by Mr W Jarvie. The Guardians were generally supportive of the application but considered an accurate understanding of groundwater movement and quality up and down gradient of the discharge is essential prior to the discharge commencing. The Guardians also considered detailed contingency plans needed to be in place to deal with unforeseen failures.

161. Given the untested ability of the receiving environment to assimilate the treated wastewater, uncertainties of groundwater pathways and travel times, the Guardians considered the duration of the consent should be far less than the 35 years sought by the applicant.

Te Ao Marama Inc on behalf of Oraka/Aparima Runaka – RC Submission 147

162. Mr W Skerrett presented the submission of Te Ao Marama.

163. Oraka/Aparima Runaka is based in Riverton and takes the lead in kaitiaki responsibilities to the areas west of the Waimatuku River, including Lake Te Anau, Lake Manapouri and the Waiau River. We were told that the Upukerora River is misnamed and that its real name is Marakura. A traditional nohoanga was situated at the mouth of the river, close to the existing treatment ponds.

164. Mr Skerrett reminded us of the three statutory acknowledgement areas under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1988 affected by this application: Lake Te Anau, Lake Manapouri and the Waiau River.

165. Mr Skerrett noted that the s.42A Report had made a concise and accurate review of the Iwi Management Plan and listed the relevant sections. The most important issues were:

(a) Discharge to water – direct discharge of sewage to water, no matter how well treated, is considered unacceptable; 128

(b) Water Quality – the runaka support the opinion that the proposed discharge to land would have a better environmental and cultural outcome than the present practice, and note the proposal is consistent with the NPS for Freshwater Management 2011;

(c) Ki uta ki tai – the improvement to water quality resulting from the discharge to land is an improvement to the entire catchment;

(d) Human Health and Wellbeing – the removal of effluent from the Upukerora and Lake Te Anau improves the ability to swim and catch food in that part of the catchment and thus supports overall wellbeing.

166. Mr Skerrett noted that in general Ngai Tahu do not support consent durations longer than 25 years as that represents one generation. When asked whether removal of the discharge from Te Anau to Manapouri represented a removal from one takiwai to another, Mr Skerrett reminded us that what goes into Lake Te Anau goes down the Upper Waiau into Lake Manapouri, so it is affecting all that area in any event.

Mr J Kraak and Ms L Wicks – RC Submission 57, NoR Submission 13

167. Mr Kraak and Ms Wicks live on a lifestyle block adjoining the South Block, some 1,000m from the airport runway. Their concerns were:

(a) The ability of the applicant to use the South Block;

(b) The potential effects on groundwater quality, noting they have a shallow bore they draw groundwater from;

(d) The lack of shelterbelts on the southern side of the discharge will expose them to spray drift and odour;

(e) The potential for spray drift to contaminate their roof water supply;

(f) The potential adverse effects on tourists using the airport. 129

Mr C Cody – RC submission 19

168. Mr Cody highlighted the imprecision and uncertainty in the application. He was concerned about the potential for groundwater flows to exit at Frasers Beach as his children swim there.

Mr D Kelly – RC Submission 28

169. Mr Kelly and his partner live in Manapouri and lease a motel there. Mr Kelly was concerned about odour and the pollution of water and the potential effects on the airport, the Southern Scenic Route, Manapouri Township and land values.

Home Creek Nursery – NoR Submission 281

170. Mr A Taylor operates the Home Creek Nursery. He was concerned with the potential for pollution of Home Creek by the proposed discharge, and was concerned if the nutrient levels were elevated the effects that would have on the plants in the nursery.

Mr J and Ms M Hardcastle – RC Submission 151

171. Mr and Ms Hardcastle live some 8km north of the North Block. Each presented their own written submissions in opposition to the proposal.

172. Ms Hardcastle’s submission and the additional material provided related primarily to the effects of disposal of sludge as distinct from treated wastewater. The Panel explained the distinction to Ms Hardcastle and requested she focus her submissions on the discharge of treated wastewater rather than sludge. When it was apparent that Ms Hardcastle was not so limiting her submissions the Panel Chairman restricted the portions that could read into the record. They were three introductory paragraphs on page 1 and six paragraphs on page 5 that related to the potential for spray drift.

173. Mr Hardcastle’s submission also alluded to sludge disposal, but was rather more focused on the potential for pathogens to become airborne in spray drift and the potential for a cut and carry operation to contaminate the food chain. Much of his submission relied on comments from a Dr McGowan in the United States who we did not have the opportunity to hear in person or question. 130

Ms C Pounsford – RC Submission 18

174. Ms Pounsford was opposed to the proposal. She was concerned that there could be an actual health risk and potential harm to the environment, although she stated she had been reassured by the evidence of the scientists concerning contaminants entering waterways.

175. She considered this proposal undesirable, but accepted that it was not appropriate to continue discharging to the river. She saw this as the lesser of two evils, but not the best option.

Fish and Game NZ – Southland Region – RC Submission 40 (tabled)

176. Fish and Game support the application and written submissions were tabled. The submissions made it clear that support was conditional on the imposition of conditions to minimise the potential for adverse effects on the quality of water in the lakes and rivers.

Presented 17-19 November 2014

Mr Garbett

177. Mr Garbett identified which experts would be providing evidence in respect of the seven questions posed by the Panel. He also advised that, in the light of the evidence of Dr Davoren, the applicant has modified the boundaries of the Notice of Requirement along the southern boundary of the South Block by moving that boundary further north. A plan showing the modified boundaries was pre-circulated with the expert evidence.

178. Mr Garbett noted the following:

(a) The applicant formally reduced the scope of the South Block designation;

(b) The applicant was not seeking to discharge to the South Block; and

(c) In terms of effects on Landcorp, we are required to consider effects of the proposal on them, but note that they do support the proposal. 131

Mr Evans

179. Mr Evans outlined the survey undertaken of unconsented bores on surrounding land, both cross and down gradient of the proposed irrigation site. Eight properties were identified as potentially down gradient. These were visited by the applicant’s Area Engineer where a questionnaire developed for the purpose was completed, generally with the input of the land-owner.

180. The survey identified a further four previously unaccounted for bores. Of these only one, some 1.2 km to the southwest of the irrigation site, was identified as the primary source of drinking water. Mr Evans also noted that the other three bores were primarily used for stock with the primary source of drinking water being from roof collection. We took from Mr Evan’s evidence that these bores may supplement drinking water supplies on occasion.

Mr East

181. Mr East’s pre-lodged evidence16 outlined the further groundwater studies undertaken and had appended to it a factual report from MWH17 detailing the bore drilling and testing activities undertaken in August and September 2014. As a result of this additional work Mr East was able to conclude18:

Groundwater from beneath the North Block has been confirmed to flow towards the north-west and will most likely discharge diffusely in the Waiau River. Direct discharge to Lake Manapouri, Home Creek or the Kepler Mire will not occur.

Groundwater from beneath the South Block will flow in a west to south-west direction and may discharge diffusely to Lake Manapouri.

Groundwater from beneath the North Block will discharge along the north-east to south-west flowing reach of the Waiau River … [That is] now considered the only open surface water exposure pathway.

16 S S East, Further Statement of Evidence

17 October to September 2014 Groundwater Investigation – Manapouri, MWH, September 2014

18 S S East, op cit, pp2-3 132

The saturated thickness of the aquifer between the North Block and the Waiau River is between 20 and at least 25 m. At the east side of the North Block the saturated thickness is at least 20 m.

The saturated thickness of the aquifer in the South Block is approximately 20 m.

The bulk hydraulic conductivity of the sediments beneath the western boundary of the North Block is between 29 to 37 m/day. The shallower sandy gravels beneath the North Block are likely to have a higher hydraulic conductivity of up to 42 m/day.

The deeper medium sands reveal a hydraulic conductivity range between 3 and 25 m/day and for the deeper fine to medium sand between 1 and 7 m/day. The bulk hydraulic conductivity of these materials is likely to be lower than that determined for the shallow materials.

The aquifer saturated thickness and hydraulic conductivity values are within the range adopted for the contaminant attenuation assessment in the AEE and my evidence.

182. Mr East also noted that there may be some minor exchange of groundwater with Home Creek in a very small area on the east of the South Block.19 He noted that additional hydrogeological investigations would need to be made of the South Block prior to an application to irrigate on that land being lodged.

183. Mr East considered the effects of groundwater mounding beneath the irrigation area in the context of the groundwater flow direction determined by the further work. It was his view that, while there would be some minor change in groundwater flow immediately around the irrigation area, there would be little effect in changing the broader pattern of groundwater flow.

184. Mr East revised the OVERSEER model using updated predictions of monthly effluent flows prepared by Mr Lockyer rather than using the maximum daily flows used previously. This revision substantially reduced the

19 We note that Mr East appears to be referring to the South Block in the form it was prior to the applicant reducing the area of the NoR. This reduced area is some 400m clear of Home Creek at the point Mr East refers to. 133

modelled resulting N leaching rates from 176 kg N/ha/yr to a maximum of 55 kg N/ha/yr in 204820. He provided a table showing the predicted monthly average wastewater flows21 compared to the values used in the original modelling. From this Table it is clear that the predicted monthly flows to 2048 are substantially less than the values previously used.

185. Mr East also provided the modelled nitrogen leaching from other wastewater irrigation schemes in New Zealand for comparison.22 He considered the differences between the modelled results for the proposed site and that at Taupo were the result of different soil and climatic conditions. He advised that the default soil data within the OVERSEER model for the Te Anau soils did not match the measured soil properties collected during investigations. However, he was unable to change those parameters due to a bug in the OVERSEER model. In his opinion if the measured soil profile available water properties could be used the nitrogen leaching would be lower.

186. Mr East revaluated the contaminant attenuation modelling using the revised hydraulic parameters and leachate concentration results. His conclusion was that the predicted concentrations of nitrogen down gradient from the irrigation area would be below 50% of the New Zealand Standard Drinking Water Standard for nitrate nitrogen.23 He also considered it likely that that Standard would be met beneath the irrigation area.24

187. Overall, he considered that, on balance, the quality of the water entering the Upper Waiau River would be quite good and a significant improvement on the current situation.

20 S S East Summary of Evidence, Table 5

21 ibid, Table 1

22 ibid, Table 2

23 ibid, para 61

24 ibid, para 28 134

Mr Weir

188. Mr Weir peer reviewed the work to increase knowledge of groundwater flows. Mr Weir was not available for questioning. His peer review report was tabled.

189. In his report, although he noted some flaws in the aquifer testing and other field work, he considered the additional work adequate to describe the local hydrogeology of the proposed discharge area and receiving environment for the purpose of assessing the likely effects of the proposed discharge.

190. Mr Weir noted that if just the North Block is irrigated the groundwater flow divide could alter due to mounding with consequent effects on the airport well. He agreed with Mr East that ongoing water quality monitoring be continued to ensure the safety of that well.

Dr Davoren

191. Dr Davoren identified the area of the South Block he considered suitable for irrigation. This matched the revised area of the NoR. He also outlined the type of fixed sprinkler type irrigation that could be installed in additional areas of up to 50 ha within the irrigation application site when required. He considered the factors to create demand for additional area would be:

(a) Population increase; and/or

(b) To manage wet or adverse weather events.

192. Dr Davoren recommended using sprinklers with proven rotator technology on the fixed irrigation to deliver spray with droplet characteristics similar to that produced by the sprinklers on the centre pivots. He expected the volume median diameter (VMD) for the rotators recommended would be greater than 1690 microns and more likely greater than 2000 microns.

193. Dr Davoren understood our Question 5 (a more complete analysis of climate and soils to assist determining storage requirements) to be seeking a more detailed explanation of the methodology he had suggested in his 135

substantive evidence25 to lower oxidation pond levels so as to create storage. He concluded that the maximum storage required was 6,998m3. He proposed that this be accommodated by drawdown of 4,800m3 from the ponds prior to a rainfall event, providing storage of 9,600m3 during and following the event.26 For the purposes of modelling Dr Davoren defined an extreme rainfall event as any rainfall greater than 35mm in 24 hours and snowfall accumulating and lying was also considered an extreme event.

194. Dr Davoren’s storage management model involved historical rainfall records and checking that if on Day 1, rain exceeding 35 mm occurred in 3 days’ time.27 If it did, then irrigation would be increased to create storage until 4,800m3 was available in the ponds. Then store influent and rainfall until able to irrigate again.

195. Dr Davoren applied this model using the rainfall records from 1 January 1972 to 31 December 2012. His modelling showed that the largest 24-hr recorded rainfall event in the series (147.7 mm on 27 January 1984) could be accommodated using this storage method. In addition, the 48 and 72- hr events of 164 and 171 mm respectively could also be accommodated within the ponds.

196. Dr Davoren analysed the wind rose from data for the Manapouri Airport from 1993 to 2008 to assess the effects of wind on the structural integrity of the centre pivots and on spray drift. He mistakenly reported wind speeds in one section as “kph” when they should have been “knots” but correctly reported the equivalent m/s speeds. While this caused some confusion to readers it does not appear to alter his conclusion that the critical area sensitive to spray drift is the southwest quadrant and that when the centre pivot is operating in that quadrant28 at wind speeds in excess of 8m/s (15.5 knots) the last span should be shut off to minimise the potential for drift offsite.

25 Dr A Davoren, SoE, para 82

26 Dr A Davoren, Further SoE, para 12

27 We have simplified the explanation for the purposes of this summary.

28 Dr A Davoren, Further SoE, Figure 7 136

197. He considered that with the sprinklers producing droplets with a VMD29 greater than 2000 microns, winds gusting up to 10 – 12 m/s (19-23 knots) over 10 minute periods, those droplets would be unlikely to drift more than 15-20 m downwind. Winds forecast to exceed 120 kph (35 m/s) would initiate movement of the centre pivot(s) to an upwind or downwind position to avoid damage to the irrigator.

198. In his Summary Dr Davoren discussed the assessment of droplet size and spray drift in Dr McGowan’s evidence. He noted that droplets less than 300 microns would likely comprise less than 1% of all droplets. He noted the droplet sizes he had discussed are significantly greater than the particle diameters presented in table referred to by Dr McGowan.

199. He also noted that fixed sprinklers could be used to irrigate in the area between 30m and 75m from the southern boundary. We understood his evidence to be that those sprinklers would need to be turned off when the wind speed exceeded 9m/s and was from the NE quarter.

Dr Painter

200. Dr Painter peer reviewed Dr Davoren’s modelling for storage in extreme weather events. His report was tabled but he was not available for questioning.

201. In his report he stated he was satisfied that the daily water balance modelling Dr Davoren carried out, and the input data used, were appropriate to provide further information on the relationship between storage volume and the main inflows: influent and rainfall.

202. Dr Painter noted that a large rainfall event not forecast but occurring 1 - 3 days after a decision not to create storage could lead to insufficient storage being available. He noted that the model used full knowledge of rainfall 1, 2 and 3 days ahead whereas in reality a decision-maker would be reliant on 3 day forecasts.

29 Volume Median Diameter 137

Mr Lockyer

203. Mr Lockyer modelled the total nitrogen in the pond effluent over time using the 1985 Reed model. The modelling results showed that TN winter concentrations in the pond outflow increase from 29 mg/l current to 31 mg/l in 2048. He noted this was higher than the figure of 27.1 mg/l used in the AEE as that was based on an annual average.

204. When considered in the context of the TN mass loadings on the irrigated land, the Reed model predicted mass loading is 20% less than that predicted in the AEE due to the Reed model using average dry weather flows, whereas the AEE calculations used the maximum consented flow.

205. Mr Lockyer also assessed the form of nitrogen following the trickling filter. He concluded that the predominant form would be nitrate with ammonia reduction below 3 - 5 mg/l consistently achieved and that the TN loading would be unchanged by the trickling filter or oxidant dosing.

206. Mr Lockyer was available for questioning by telephone.

Ms Bennett

207. Ms Bennett reassessed her conclusions reached in her substantive evidence after reviewing the further evidence of Mr East and Mr Lockyer. She concluded that the answers to the questions we posed had not altered her previous conclusions.

208. We had no questions of Ms Bennett and she did not attend the hearing.

Ms Marshall for Home Creek Nursery

209. Ms Marshall did not accept the evidence on groundwater flows, nor that relating to sprinklers and spray drift. She remained opposed to the proposal.

Mr Youldon for Manapouri CDA

210. On behalf of the Manapouri CDA Mr Youldon raised a concern that changes to the application and another application to extend the existing consent meant that submitters should be able to address the substantive application and that an adjournment should be provided to allow the submitters to prepare for a full consideration of the issues. 138

211. The Chair clarified that the application to extend the existing consent was not before us and had Mr Hammond explain the statutory process that was following. The Chair additionally explained that other alterations made to the application, such as the trickling filter and the reduction in the area of the NoR, were made to reduce effects on the environment and were within the scope of the original notified application. The application for adjournment was refused.

212. Mr Youldon was critical of the technical nature of Mr East’s evidence and considered it had been written to confuse. He did not agree that the evidence from the drilling programme supported Mr East’s conclusions as to groundwater flows.

213. In terms of Mr Lockyer’s evidence, Mr Youldon suggested it was theoretical, not entirely logical and did not answer fully the question we had asked.

214. Mr Youldon noted that Dr Davoren’s evidence did not address the drift effect of droplets less than 300 microns or in wind over 9m/s. He noted inconsistencies in the wind speeds referred to in Dr Davoren’s evidence and questioned whether spray would drift further than the distances stated. He also suggested that finer droplets may evaporate in certain wind conditions leaving pathogens and other contaminants wind borne.

215. Referring to Dr Davoren’s proposed method of creating storage in the ponds in readiness for extreme rainfall events, Mr Youldon queried whether the maximum discharge rates applied for would need to be exceeded. He also noted that methodology would lead to soil moisture taking longer to return to a level where irrigation can resume, increasing the need for storage capacity.

216. The Manapouri CDA continued to ask for consent to be refused, but that if consent were to be granted the following conditions (in summary) be imposed:

(a) Consent be limited to 15 years;

(b) Monitoring for airborne pathogens be required; 139

(d) The quality of discharge effluent should be controlled;

(e) No spray drift within 30m of the boundary of the irrigation area;

(f) Restriction on maximum pressure used on sprays;

(g) Monitor irrigated area as to condition of soil and invertebrate animals;

(h) Repeat breaches of conditions result in discharge being stopped until problem remedied;

(i) All conditions along with Management Plan be binding on applicant and made public;

(j) Monitoring results and complaints be made public;

(k) A liaison group be formed and meet regularly to assess conditions of consent;

(l) Expenses be borne by the consent holder.

Mr Willett

217. Mr Willett’s prime concern was that the technical evidence was unable to be understood by lay people such as himself.

Mr H Shaw

218. Mr Shaw presented a video he had made showing water flowing through a drain exiting the South Block (as originally in the NoR) and flowing into Home Creek. He also presented a series of photographs showing drainage into Home Creek.

219. Mr Shaw lives adjacent to the eastern boundary of Home Creek and his concern was the surface water flowing off the South Block into Home 140

Creek. He considered rigorous monitoring of Home Creek would be required.

Ms Bedner for Janice Duncan

220. Ms Bedner noted that Frasers Beach was one of the few places available for swimming in the area and was concerned about the impact on the quality of the water there given Mr East’s conclusion that groundwater from the South Block discharges potentially at Frasers Beach.

Mr Willans

221. Mr Willans was concerned the level of nitrogen leaching proposed. He considered the nitrogen leaching rate from this proposal should be consistent with the rate allowed for dairy farms by Environment Southland.

222. He suggested that as Mr East identified the main drivers causing the level of leaching was due to soil type, climate and rate of irrigation then:

(a) the area of irrigation should be increased significantly; and

(b) a more suitable site with appropriate soil types should be selected.

223. Mr Willans asked that if we to grant consent, conditions covering the following be imposed:

(a) Irrigate over a much larger area;

(b) Implement some form of additional treatment to reduce the nitrogen concentrations;

(c) Construct additional storage capacity to reduce the requirement to irrigate during periods of soil saturation and poor pasture growth;

(d) Irrigation cease when soil moisture levels are at capacity; and

(e) Choose a more suitable location with appropriate soil types.

224. The Panel members clarified for Mr Willans that the revised OVERSEER modelling provided by Mr East showed a lower rate of nitrogen leaching 141

than his submission was based on. Mr Willans considered that even at 55 kg/ha/yr the leaching rate would be significantly higher than what anyone else would be allowed to operate at.

Mr Youldon

225. Mr Youldon listed what he considered inconsistencies and gaps in Dr Davoren’s evidence. He also presented calculations to suggest that Dr Davoren’s method of providing storage in the ponds would lead to effluent spills.

226. Mr Youldon asked that, if we were minded to grant consent, conditions be imposed additional to those he suggested on behalf of the Manapouri CDA. In particular, he sought that there be no spraying to land showing surface flooding, and that a domestic water supply be provided to all households where their water could be affected by the proposal.

Ms Wilson

227. Ms Wilson was unable to attend in person. Her summary was read out by Ms Hampton and we questioned Ms Wilson by telephone.

228. Ms Wilson is a Senior Environment Scientist with LandPro. Her previous experience with Environment Southland makes her very familiar with the hydrogeology and water quality issues in Southland.

229. Ms Wilson reviewed the work of Mr East and the accompanying report by MWH. She considered the hydrogeological analysis prepared by Mr East to be a reasonable and comprehensive assessment. She agreed with his assessment that the groundwater from the North Block flows north-west toward the Upper Waiau River, and that under the South Block flows west toward Lake Manapouri and is in hydraulic connection with Home Creek. In her view, although consent is not being sought to discharge wastewater on the South Block, that discharge to that block represents the greatest risk to surface water.

230. Ms Wilson noted comments in Mr Weir’s peer review regarding the potential for effect on the groundwater divide due to mounding and in her evidence suggested this could conceivably result in some groundwater from the North Block flowing towards the South Block. When 142

we questioned her on the probability of this occurring she advised that she considered Mr East’s estimate as conservative and that any change in groundwater contours from mounding would be very localised.

Mr Hampton

231. Mr Hampton took issue with much of Mr East’s evidence and referred us to Ms Wilson’s evidence. Mr Hampton also noted that the maps of the South Block used by Mr East did not match the reduced area of the NoR.

232. Mr Hampton remained opposed to the NoR and the consent application.

Ms Hampton

233. Ms Hampton commented that she had difficulty understanding the technical evidence provided by the applicant. She was concerned about the potential for any discharge on the South Block to be discharged into Lake Manapouri and noted that from her point of view, Frasers Beach was the most important part of Manapouri.

234. Ms Hampton raised a concern about Dr Davoren’s method of providing storage for adverse weather events. She was concerned that there was no back-up plan if the assumptions Dr Davoren relied on were exceeded.

Mr Kelly

235. Mr Kelly was concerned about the effects of the proposal on the water quality of the airport bore and the Manapouri water supply taken at Frasers Beach. He also provided photographs he had taken of water seeping into a pit dug in the South Block south of the cross-runway and noted it was only 2.7m below ground level.

Mr Hagen

236. Mr Hagen appeared on behalf of the Fiordland Aero Club and on his own behalf. On behalf of the Aero Club he raised concerns about spray drift causing heath risks and corrosion of aircraft. He also noted that the shelterbelts to be removed mitigate wind speed and considered their removal would increase wind speeds at the airport. 143

237. In presenting his own submission, Mr Hagen relied on the evidence of Mr Pilcher in disagreeing with the information and conclusions in Mr East’s evidence.

Mr Pilcher

238. Mr Pilcher is an experienced well driller and water diviner. He concluded, based on divining, that the water moved under the airport, travelled through Mr C McDonald’s property and thence to Lake Manapouri. He estimated the bottom of the aquifer was at 12 m. In answer to our questions he advised that he concentrated his examination on the South Block and did not make a detailed examination of the North Block.

Ms Pounsford

239. Ms Pounsford remained opposed to the proposal. She noted that relying on modelling can lead to variations in results if parameters change. She also queried the failure of Dr Davoren to consider snow events.

Ms Mouat

240. Ms Mouat suggested the use of assumptions and the terms “may” and other qualifiers by Mr East created an imprecision that made his evidence unreliable. She remained opposed to the application.

Mr Mouat

241. Mr Mouat also challenged the reliability of Mr East’s evidence based on the use of qualifiers and also his knowledge of seepages on the banks of the Upper Waiau River. He also raised a concern about odour effects at low wind speeds.

Ms Birch

242. Ms Birch stated that when she bought her property she had the intention of building a house and putting in a bore for domestic supply. She is concerned that this proposal would lead to contamination of such a well and has put the project on hold. She sought the application be refused consent. 144

Mr Regan Smith

243. Mr Smith analysed the applicant’s responses to 5 of the 7 questions we had asked. For each he highlighted what he saw as inconsistencies and deficiencies in the responses. In summary, in his view:

(a) The applicant had not adequately described the fixed irrigation system proposed, including location, type of sprinklers to be used and how spraying to the edge of the irrigation area would be achieved;

(b) While the applicant had indicated parts of the centre pivots would be shut off in certain wind speeds and directions, no mention had been made of whether the fixed sprinklers would also be shut off in the same circumstances;

(c) The assessment of winds focused on 10 minute wind average, which is the appropriate measure for considering damage to a centre pivot, but gusts which are not picked up by the average are relevant to considering spray drift;

(d) The drawdown of the ponds to provide Dr Davoren’s storage will have the effect of reducing retention times in all three ponds, thereby reducing the quality of the effluent;

(e) The weather forecasting, particularly for the Te Anau basin, is not an exact science and the reliance on forecast rain events in Dr Davoren’s model to create storage will lead to capacity issues and potential overflows;

(f) Snowfalls occur more frequently in the Te Anau Basin than Dr Davoren assumed;

(g) Rainfall events are often preceded by high winds, but Dr Davoren’s model did not allow for the possibility that high winds may stop irrigation in the time when pond drawdown would be needed;

(h) The evidence on groundwater flows is inconclusive with respect to the South Block; 145

(i) The calculations of irrigation in the North Block fail to account for tracks for the centre pivot wheels and the fixed plant such as the trickling filter;

(j) Dr Davoren has not taken account of the time needed for the ground to return to field capacity when calculating storage requirements;

(k) No emergency plan exists for weather events that require more storage than Dr Davoren calculated was required.

244. Mr Smith also described to us the pebbly nature of the bed of Home Creek and the muddy nature of the bed of the drain running through the area east of the NoR. He provided us with several sets of rainfall figures from the airport weather station and two sets of photographs. The first showed the Te Anau Manapouri Highway covered by flood waters in August 1991. The second set, taken from the air on 3 August 2014, showed the area following 6 days of rain. He also provided a wind rose showing hourly wind gusts derived from the records from 1 October 2004 to 1 October 2014.

Mr McDonald

245. It was Mr McDonald’s view that much of what is contained in the South Block was formerly part of the mire extending from the Kepler Mire along Home Creek. He presented a video showing the water flowing through a drain south of the reduced South Block. He noted that during times of heavy rain water spills out from Home Creek and the mire to cover a large part of his farm with up to 800 mm of water.

246. Mr McDonald told us he accompanied Mr Pilcher on his assessment of the groundwater flows and described what he contended was an alternative groundwater flow regime to that derived by Mr East.

247. He advised us of the nitrate leaching values that have been calculated using OVERSEER for his farm and contended that the rates proposed by the applicant were excessive given the soil types. 146

Mr Loose

248. Mr Loose considered inadequate provisions was being made for storage in inclement weather; that contaminants reaching Home Creek would affect the water supply to 10 houses plus a guest house and plant nursery; the wells used for stock water would likely be used for domestic supply in the future. If we were to grant consent, Mr Loose sought conditions requiring more storage, monitoring of all wells, and limiting the term to 15 years.

Ms Allan

249. Ms Allan read out a submission that Mr Ridder had prepared. Mr Ridder took issue with Mr East’s and Dr Davoren’s evidence. In his view only Question 2 had been adequately answered.

Mr P Smith

250. Mr Smith questioned the rainfall analysis of Dr Davoren and, based on his experience, disputed the saturated soil infiltration rate assumed by Dr Davoren. He asserted that Dr Davoren had not factored in the need to wait after rain for the soil moisture to return to a state that irrigation can recommence.

Mr Russell Smith

251. Mr Smith did not accept Mr East’s conclusion that water from the North Block would flow northwest.

Ms Bell

252. Ms Bell did not consider the applicant had provided adequate information on either climate or soils. She was of the view that Environment Southland’s guidelines for dairying should apply to this applicant also. She considered granting consent to this application for a level of nitrogen leaching outside the rates generally applied to dairy farms, dairy farmers would not take the regulatory controls imposed on them seriously.

253. Ms Bell also raised concerns about the future use of wells for domestic supply, including increased wells. Overall Ms Bell thought consent should be refused as the proposal was not sustainable. 147

Ms Cockburn

254. Ms Cockburn stated that the Te Anau Community Board considered there was need for monitoring to ensure mounding does not affect water quality on the south side of the water divide. She considered monitoring results should be made public.

255. Ms Cockburn suggested further work was needed to ensure the Emergency Management Section of the Environmental Management Plan comprehensively dealt with climatic events and spill contingencies. She noted that the Board still had concerns over the amount of nitrogen leaching that would occur and considered more analysis is required.

Mr Cody

256. Mr Cody considered the applicant’s technical evidence was too complicated and technical to enable him to make an informed submission.

Mr Webber

257. Mr Webber’s submission was concerned with what he described as ambiguities and imprecision in the applicant’s evidence. He detailed these for us.

Mr Kraak

258. Mr Kraak advised us that he uses the bore on his land to supplement the domestic supply on his property. He therefore was opposed to irrigation on the South Block as it could lead to contamination of that supply. He provided the results of a water quality test of his well which he said showed the water quality was pristine. He considered this high quality groundwater should remain available for future use.

259. Mr Kraak also suggested that the weather patterns at the time of the hearing indicated it was likely effluent would be sitting in the pipeline for 16 days or more thereby requiring further treatment prior to irrigation.

Mr Paton-McDonald

260. Mr Paton-McDonald referred us to Mr East’s Figure 3.5 which delineated the groundwater divide. He pointed out that the airport bore, runway and part of the South Block were north of this divide and noted that the 148

location of the bore was contrary to references in several instances of the bore being south of the divide. He also suggested there had been insufficient bores drilled and that groundwater dyes could have been used to verify flow directs.

261. Mr Paton-McDonald referred us to the objectives of the Regional Water Plan for Southland, stating they include the statement that “groundwater is to be managed so that groundwater quality is enhanced or maintained to potable standards”. He considered that required maintenance of the existing high quality of the groundwater for future users. He also raised issues about the layout and operation of the fixed irrigation system.

262. Mr Paton-McDonald discussed the storage mechanism put forward by Dr Davoren. He noted that to achieve 4800 m3 of storage in the ponds by lowering them 100 mm required lowering all three ponds. In his view this would lead to untreated wastewater from No 1 pond and barely treated wastewater from No 2 pond being pumped to the irrigation area, thereby lowering the quality of the irrigated effluent. He also suggested that to achieve the objective of providing adequate storage the applicant would need to discharge at a rate in excess of that applied for. His view was this demonstrated the North Block did not have the capacity to take wastewater that will need to be discharged. He also considered that the question regarding wind speed and irrigation cessation had not been answered.

263. Mr Paton-McDonald requested the application be refused, but that if we were to grant consent we should impose conditions covering:

(a) Independent monitoring of all conditions;

(b) The Manapouri town water supply be provided to all properties to the north and east of the present Manapouri boundary;

(d) The consent term be limited to 15 years. 149

Mr Murrell

264. Mr Murrell considered further information presented, when considered with the original application material, showed the application was fundamentally deficient and should therefore be refused consent. He highlighted what he saw as inconsistencies and deficiencies in the applicant’s statements of evidence.

Mr Hardcastle

265. Mr Hardcastle advised that Dr McGowan was unable to present his evidence remotely as had been planned. He therefore read out Dr McGowan’s credentials and the page of his evidence that related to the further information requested. Mr Hardcastle suggested the applicant had failed to consider the implications of aerosols being created by the irrigators and considered that consent should be refused because of the health risk those aerosols represent.

Ms Shaw

266. Ms Shaw appeared on behalf of herself and husband and for the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Southland Branch. She quoted relevant parts of Part 2 of the Act and set out why she considered the proposal failed to meet the purpose of the Act.

267. Ms Shaw highlighted Mr East’s evidence that there was hydraulic connection between groundwater on the South Block and Home Creek and suggested the application would therefore lead to contamination of the Kepler Mire and Home Creek, with resultant downstream effects on water users. She also questioned Mr East’s revised OVERSEER modelling results.

268. Ms Shaw highlighted what she saw as deficiencies in each of the applicant’s witnesses’ evidence and quoted objectives and policies from the Regional Policy Statement and relevant regional plans.

269. Turning to Dr Davoren’s evidence, Ms Shaw provided rainfall figures within which she highlighted significant rainfall periods. She believed these showed that the required storage will exceed the 72 hours modelled by Dr Davoren. She also referred us to earlier statements in the application that between 1.6 and 8 days of storage would be available in the ponds, and 150

that the ponds would be managed to ensure at least two days of storage would be available at all times.

270. Ms Shaw considered the application deserved to be refused consent.

Mr Moran

271. Mr Moran confirmed his recommendation including the conditions proposed in his supplementary s.42A Report. He explained with reference to his recommended condition 2 that during the life of any discharge consent, the designation would be reviewed when the district plan was reviewed each 10 years. Thus consideration can be given on such reviews as to whether the likelihood of the applicant needing to irrigate on the South Block would require the southern shelter belt to be planted.

Mr Hammond

272. Mr Hammond confirmed that his recommendation had not changed, but noted he had several comments on the conditions proposed by the applicants.

Experts on Conditions

273. Rather than have a serial discussion of conditions with several witnesses we asked Mr Garbett if the applicant was agreeable to Mr Beale presenting the latest draft of suggested conditions to us, then we question all the experts present at one time on the suggested conditions and take their comments on the conditions as part of that. The applicant was agreeable. We will not outline the details of that questioning here but will incorporate it into our discussion of the various issues and effects as appropriate. The experts we heard from in this process were:

(a) Mr Hammond;

(b) Mr Beale;

(d) Mr Owen West;

(e) Mr Steve West. 151

Mr Garbett – Closing Submissions

274. Mr Garbett reminded us that the existing consent to discharge the Te Anau wastewater to the Upukerora River has expired and that the clear message from the community and iwi, as reflected in the Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Water Plan and the Iwi Management Plan, is that land application of treated wastewater is most appropriate. He submitted that the Kepler Block represents the best available and most suitable site for the proposed land based discharge of Te Anau’s treated wastewater.

275. Referring to the South Block, Mr Garbett noted that a discharge consent was not being sought for that block. However, the designation is necessary to ensure the long term availability of the land and to signal in the District Plan that area is need in the future for irrigation. He submitted that with the reduced area of the NoR we should be satisfied that it is limited to land suitable for irrigation.

276. Mr Garbett submitted that the applicant understood the risk of bird strike at the airport, took it seriously, and by the proposed management practices to mitigate that risk.

277. Mr Garbett outlined the nature of the consultation undertaken and submitted that the applicant had widely consulted. He also noted the changes made to the application in relation to odour control and designation boundaries and submitted these and other refinements were made in response to feedback received during the consultation process.

278. It was Mr Garbett’s submission that Mr East’s evidence on groundwater flows was not credibly challenged by any submitter. In terms of overland flows, he pointed to paragraph 7.5.1 of the application which specified that overland flow of treated wastewater shall not occur. He also noted that the present discharge of the Manapouri wastewater treatment plant is to Home Creek thence to Lake Manapouri and that the submitters had not suggested the water quality at Frasers Beach was affected by that discharge. He referred us to Ms Bennett’s evidence that the effects of the diffuse discharge into the Upper Waiau River would be less than minor and not result in ecological effects. 152

279. The applicant was not proposing to monitor the water quality in the Upper Waiau River, but would monitor water quality in monitoring wells before the groundwater reaches the river.

280. Mr Garbett submitted that it was not appropriate to compare the nitrogen loading of this scheme with that of a dairy farm. He noted that the application is to discharge community effluent and the discharge is not optional. It was his submission that the purpose of the Act was best achieved by approving the discharge while ensuring effects of it are appropriately mitigated. He submitted the applicant had demonstrated that would be achieved.

281. Mr Garbett addressed the submitters’ concerns. He submitted there was no evidential basis to conclude that any residents will actually be affected by spray drift, or detect any odour from the site. He noted that Ms Wilson’s expert evidence on groundwater confirmed without criticism the evidence of Mr East in relation to the North Block.

282. The applicant maintains that a term of 35 years is appropriate and Mr Garbett listed the reasons he submitted supported that term. He submitted a revised form of Mr Moran’s conditions on the designation which he said would tighten up on Mr Moran’s proposal and ensure compliance. He submitted that Mr Hammond’s recommendation of a clear 30 m buffer on all boundaries is only required on the southern boundary.

283. Mr Garbett advised that the applicant would lodge a set of revised conditions taking into account matters raised in the Hearing Panel’s questioning of the experts. He did note that the applicant was opposed to the establishment of a consultative committee. He submitted monitoring results would be provided to Environment Southland and they would be public, and that such committees raised difficulties in terms of constitution and membership. Appendix 3: Suggested Conditions with Our Amendments

Discharge Permit No 302625

Consent Period and Lapse

1. This resource consent: (a) shall expire on ** August 2049January 2040; but (b) shall lapse if not given effect by to within five years of it commencing. (Note: Pursuant to Sections 123 and 124 of the Resource Management Act 1991, a new consent will be required at the expiration of this consent. The application will be considered in accordance with the plans in effect at that time, and the adverse effects of the proposed activity.)

Purpose

2. (a) This consent authorises the discharge of treated wastewater onto land from the Te Anau wastewater treatment plant, via a spray irrigation system, as described in the application to the north of the airport runway, onto land known as the Kepler Block and legally described as Lot 2 DP 410687 at or about map reference NZTM 2000 co-ordinates E1182670 N4944369 ("irrigation area"). (b) The consented irrigation area is identified as 125 115 hectares north of the airport runway as shown on Attachment 1. (c) The consented irrigation area is within an area designated by the Southland District Council for public utility purposes, also shown on Attachment 1. All of the designated area located north of the Te Anau- Manapouri Airport, which includes the consented irrigation area, is referred to in these conditions as the North Block. 3. This consent does not authorise the discharge disposal of sludges or untreated sewage or treated wastewater from any other wastewater treatment system.

Accidental or Emergency Discharges

4. In the event of an emergency or accidental discharge of sewage or partially treated wastewater onto land, including outside of the irrigation area, or over application of chemical treatments, the consent holder (or the consent holder’s agent) shall without undue delay, notify:  the Medical Officer, or Health Protection Officer (ph (03) 211 0900);  Te Ao Marama Inc (ph (03) 929 6032931 1242); and  Council’sEnvironment Southland’s Pollution Response Hotline (ph 0800 76 88 45).

Irrigation/Effluent Limits and Nutrient Loading

5. The land disposal discharge operation is restricted to the following parameters: (a) the discharge onto land shall not exceed a maximum application rate of 4,500 m3 per day between 1 September and 30 April and 2,000 m3 per day between 1 May and 31 August;

154

(b) the depth of application shall not exceed: (i) 6.5 mm across the irrigation area over any 24 hour period between 1 September and 30 April; (ii) 2.9 mm across the irrigation area over any 24 hour period between 1 May and 31 August, when rate of flow of treated wastewater is 2,000 m³ per day; (c) the annual nitrogen loading rate onto land the irrigated area from wastewater shall not exceed 290 kg/N/ha/yr (kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year); (d) the combined nitrogen loading rate (for fertiliser and wastewater) applied to the irrigation area during the growing season shall not exceed 100 kg/N/ha/month. Additional nitrogenous fertiliser shall only be applied if herbage or soil monitoring shows that it is required for optimal plant growth; (e) the annual phosphorous loading rate shall not exceed 100 kgP/ha/year; and (f) the application of wastewater onto land shall be so arranged that the total annual loading is spread as evenly as practicable over the irrigation area; (g) all sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns.

6. (a) There shall be no surface run-off, prolonged ponding, or contamination of surface water, resulting from the application of treated wastewater onto the irrigated area. For the purpose of this consent, prolonged ponding is deemed to occur if wastewater remains on an area for more than three consecutive hours. (b) In the event of prolonged ponding the consent holder shall cease irrigation of the area of ponding until the ponding has dissipated. (c) Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block, a minimum of 10,000 cubic metres of storage shall be provided as a contingency measure for extreme weather events and/or equipment breakdown; (d) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. For the purposes of the condition “observable” includes by sight, by taste or by touch. (e) A minimum of two pPrecipitation sensors are to be installed on the Ssouthern Bboundary of the North Block are to be and continuously monitored, with the location to be determined by a suitably qualified air quality expert in agreement with Environment Southland. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors. (f) End guns shall not be used on the centre pivots. 155

7. (a) The consent holder will shall operate a cut and carry operation in accordance with the application. (b) The consent holder is to record the amount of dry matter removed per cut and per year. (c) The consent holder is to sample the baleage dry matter to determine the N content per kg for each cut event. (d) The consent holder is to calculate the N applied and removed from the irrigation area per annum. (e) The consent holder shall undertake OVERSEER modelling of the previous year’s operation using the monitoring information obtained for that year. The OVERSEER modelled leaching of nitrogen from the North Block shall not exceed 32 kg N/ha/yr based on a 5-yearly rolling average. (f) The consent holder is to provide results to Environment Southland annually, and shall include comparison against the 5-yearly rolling average specified in Condition 7(e).

Buffer for Discharge and Shelter Belt Retention and Planting

8. (a) No irrigation of treated wastewater onto land shall occur within 30 metres of the boundary between the Northern Block and the Te Anau-Manapouri Aairport (Lots 2 & 3 DP 364549 and Section 7 Blk IV Manapouri SD)(as shown on figure 3.2 of the application); (b) No irrigation of treated wastewater onto land shall occur within 10 metres of any other boundary within the North Block.

9. (a) Wind speed at Manapouri Airport shall be monitored continuously. (b) When the wind is from the northeast sector and exceeds 6 m/s (10 minute average), Any no fixed sprinklers, will not operate or any section of the centre pivot shall operate within 75 metres of the southern boundary of the Northern Block when the wind is from the northeast sector and exceeds 6 m/s. 10. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commencing, the consent holder shall plant and maintain a shelter belt along the consent holder’s northern, western and eastern boundaryies of the North Block. which The shelter belts shall comprise three staggered rows of radiata pine and / or Douglas fir.

System Requirements

11. The consent holder shall erect and maintain: (a) fencing around the boundary of the North Block consented irrigation area at an appropriate distance to restrict access to the irrigation area; and (b) signage at the irrigation area warning the public that the area is used for the irrigation of treated wastewater. 12. The consent holder shall maintain a log of inspections, maintenance and works carried out on the trickling filter, bio-filter and irrigators and make the log 156

available, upon request, to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. 13. The consent holder shall: (a) prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Kepler Block Irrigation System. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commencing, the consent holder shall forward a copy of the EMP to Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. The EMP shall include: (i) the appointment of a suitably qualified person responsible for the day-to-day operation of the irrigation system, including the trickling filter and bio-filter and as a point of contact for Environment Southland in respect of complaints; (ii) the arrangements for the establishment, membership and functions of a Technical Working Group which shall comprise, as a minimum, Southland District Council’s Strategic Manager – Water and Waste, the farm manager, an odour specialist, a groundwater specialist and a soil specialist. The Working group will meet with Environment Southland staff twice in the first year of operation and annually thereafter to present information relating to the operation of the Te Anau scheme system. (iii) how the trickling filter, bio-filter, chemical dosing and irrigation system are to be operated to ensure that the discharge is optimised at all times, particularly during ramping up of the discharge in order to lower pond levels and again after prolonged shut-down; (iv) how the fixed sprinkler system is to be operated in conjunction with the centre pivot irrigators to optimise the even spread of treated wastewater; (v) the adaptive management responses to be adopted in response to groundwater and soil monitoring results; (vi) an Odour Management Plan; (vii) an assessment of risk and potential emergency events that could disrupt operation. The EMP is to identify options to manage and plan for that risk, including provision for any redundant capacity. The EMP is to provide for a review of the EMP by the consent holder following any significant event or disruption to determine if any changes should be made to incorporate any improvements learned from the experience of such an event; (viii) how the storage facility required by Condition 6(c) shall be managed for extreme weather events and/or equipment breakdown and how the treatment ponds, wetland system and irrigation will be operated to provide an additional 5,000 cubic metres of storage capacity in anticipation of forecast rainfall events. This is to be reviewed annually; 157

(ix) actions to be taken, including listing of possible mitigation measures such as provision of potable water supply to well-users, as required by Condition 15; (x) ensuring that the oxidant used for sulphide removal does not lead to the creation of residual chlorinated organic compounds; (xi) procedures for shutting down, parking and securing the irrigators in very strong winds (> 35 m/s); (xii) controlling birds in the vicinity of the airport so as to minimise the risk of bird strike by planes using the airport; (xiii) an assessment of emerging contaminants and whether a number of these should be monitored in the soil, herbage or groundwater, taking into account the degree of certainty about the fate and risk to the environment from these contaminants, and which contaminants should be monitored. (b) review the EMP annually, or undertake a review when and whenever there are significant changes to the Te Anau WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) and Kepler Block irrigation system or their operation; and (c) operate and maintain the Te Anau WWTP and Kepler Block Irrigation System in accordance with the EMP.

13A (a) Within three months of the first exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall invite the following bodies to provide one representative each to form a Consultative Reference Group:  Te Anau Community Board;  Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee;  Te Ao Marama Inc  Public Health South.

The purpose of the Consultative Reference Group shall be to facilitate consultation between the consent holder and above groups during the term of the consent. (b) The Reference Group shall have the following functions:  To receive and review the monitoring data and reports from the physical and biological monitoring. If necessary, a reasonable level of technical expertise shall be made available by the consent holder to interpret the monitoring data.  To receive and review the reports these conditions require be provided to Environment Southland.  To make recommendations to the consent holder on management actions to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the treatment and disposal system. (c) The consent holder shall, at least annually, invite the Consultative Reference Group to a meeting to discuss any matter relating to the exercise and monitoring of this consent. 158

i. The consent holder shall meet reasonable costs of attending meetings of the Consultative Reference Group. ii. The consent holder shall keep minutes of any meeting of the Consultative Reference Group.

Monitoring

14. As part of the EMP, and at least one year prior to commissioning of the irrigation scheme, the consent holder shall develop a detailed groundwater monitoring programme (GMP), giving effect to Conditions 15-20. Prior to the GMP being implemented tThe consent holder shall forward a copy of the GMP to Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager for it to be approved that it covers the following matters. As a minimum, the GMP shall: (a) include wells designed for the following purposes: (i) at least one two monitoring wells sited up gradient of the irrigation area to determine background groundwater quality, unaffected by the waste water irrigation; (ii) at least two monitoring wells to determine groundwater quality down gradient of the waste water irrigation area; (iii) an additional monitoring well between the airport water supply well and the irrigation area to act as a sentinel well for protection of the airport water supply; (b) determine the frequency of sampling; (c) identify whether there is a need for the installation of additional monitoring wells to adequately determine the effects of the irrigation on groundwater quality and to ensure that any deterioration in down-gradient groundwater quality exceeding that exceeds the trigger levels in condition 20(b) is identified before it has the potential to impact on groundwater users, particularly drinking water supplies, in the surrounding area; (d) review data from selected existing monitoring wells to monitor any changes in groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the airport. Wells used or established for this purpose shall be referred to as “local gradient wells” in these conditions; (e) determine the location of the new wells if required, based on review of the above data; (f) determine the design (depth and internal diameter) of new wells to ensure they are fit for purpose; and (g) provide for reporting of the groundwater monitoring programme to be made annually to Environment Southland. The TWG will be responsible for assessing the monitoring results and determining any changes to the management of the irrigation system in light of the results. 15. If the monitoring of wells identified in the GMP required by condition 14 down gradient of the irrigation area exceed the trigger values for the parameters specified in condition 20, the consent holder shall undertake one or more of the following: 159

(a) check for anomalous results; (b) assess monitoring results from the up-gradient well to determine whether the exceedance of the trigger value is the result of other land uses; (c) identify any mitigation measures that are considered necessary to ensure that groundwater quality is consistent with the predictions of the application document; (d) determine any mounding effect in the groundwater levels, and whether there is any change in groundwater flow direction from that predicted; and (e) submit a report of the actions undertaken to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager which identifies any mitigation measures that have been identified and a programme for implementing these measures. 16. The consent holder shall undertake sampling of groundwater from the wells identified in the GMP required byand condition 14(a) for the purposes of establishing “baseline” groundwater quality and levels as follows: (i) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for at least one year prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge to the North Blockthe irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent first commencing. (ii) each sample shall be analysed for:  groundwater level;  pH;  Electrical conductivity;

 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5);  Total ammoniacal nitrogen concentration;  Total nitrogen concentration;  Nitrate nitrogen concentration;  Total phosphorus concentration;  Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  E-coli; and  Chloride. (iii) in addition, each sample shall also be analysed for the following heavy metals and trace elements:  Copper;  Zinc;  Chromium;  Cadmium;  Arsenic;  Nickel;  Lead. 160

(iv) In addition, despite (ii) and (iii) above in the vicinity of the airport monitoring the local gradient wells needed solely to detect any change in groundwater flow direction from groundwater mounding need onlyshall be monitored for groundwater levels, nitrate-nitrogen and E.coli and but not the other parameters in (ii) and (iii). 17. The consent holder shall monitor: (a) the daily volume of treated wastewater discharged onto land at the Kepler Block; (b) the quality of treated wastewater by taking a representative sample of the discharge from the feed main immediately prior to the irrigators at the Kepler Block as follows: (i) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for the first three years and twice per year thereafter; (ii) each sample shall be analysed for:  groundwater level;  pH;  Electrical conductivity;  Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5);  Total ammoniacal nitrogen concentration;  Total nitrogen concentration;  Nitrate nitrogen concentration;  Total phosphorus concentration  Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  Sulphide;  E-coli; and  Chloride. 18. The consent holder shall undertake sampling of groundwater from the wells identified in the GMP for the purposes of monitoring the effects of the discharge of treated wastewater onto land at the Kepler Block on groundwater quality and levels as follows: (i) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for at least three years from the commencement of the irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent and twice per year thereafter for the duration of the consent; (ii) groundwater level shall be recorded at each well and each sample shall be analysed for:  groundwater level;  pH;  Electrical conductivity;

 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5); 161

 Total ammoniacal nitrogen concentration;  Total nitrogen concentration;  Nitrate nitrogen concentration;  Total phosphorus concentration;  Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  E-coli; and  Chloride. (iii) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, samples shall be taken and analysed for the heavy metal parameters listed in Condition 16(iii). (iv) despite (ii) above in the vicinity of the airport monitoring wells needed solely to detect any change in groundwater flow direction from groundwater mounding need only In addition, the local gradient wells shall be monitored for groundwater levels, nitrate-N and E.coli and but not the other parameters in (ii).; (iv) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, samples shall be taken and analysed for the heavy metal parameters listed in Condition 16(iii).

19. (a) Sample collection, preservation and analysis, as required by conditions 16, 17 and 18, shall be carried out in accordance with the most recent edition of APHA “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”. (b) The monitoring and analyses are to be carried out by a laboratory with IANZ registration or equivalent. (c) The sample results and results of analysis, carried out in accordance with conditions 16, 17 and 18, shall be supplied to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder. The methods of the analysis are to be specified with the results.

20. (a) The wastewater discharge shall not cause the groundwater quality down-gradient and outside of the irrigation area (as measured in wells identified for this purpose in the GMP in condition 14) to exceed the following standards: (i) the nitrate nitrogen concentration shall be below 11.3 mg/l; and (ii) E-coli shall be below 10 cfu/100 ml. (b) The groundwater quality trigger levels which will result in the actions required by condition 15 are: (i) the nitrate nitrogen concentration exceeding 5.5 mg/l in any individual sample; (ii) in respect of the airport bore and monitoring wells in the vicinity of the airport needed to detect any change in groundwater flow 162

direction from groundwater moundinglocal gradient wells, E.coli exceeding or equal to 1cfu/100 mls in any individual sample; and (iii) E-coli exceeding 10 cfu/100 ml in any individual sample or >1 cfu/100ml in consecutive samples in respect of other wells. 21. For the purposes of establishing “baseline” soil quality within the proposed irrigation area, the consent holder shall, in the month of June preceding the commencement of irrigation of treated wastewater: (a) carry out sampling within the proposed irrigation area. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0–7.5 cm from 10 locations in the irrigation area. The soil sample shall be analysed for:  pH;  phosphorous;  potassium;  calcium;  magnesium;  chloride;  sodium;  sulphur or sulphate sulphur;  total organic carbon;  total nitrogen;  nitrate N;  oOlsen P;  base saturation %;  cation exchange capacity (CEC); (b) have the samples taken in accordance with (a) analysed for th following heavy metals:  Copper;  Zinc;  Chromium;  Cadmium;  Arsenic;  Nickel;  Lead. (c) supply the sample results to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder. 22. For the purpose of monitoring the effects of the irrigation of treated wastewater on soils, the consent holder shall: 163

(a) carry out sampling in June each year. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0 – 7.5 cm from 10 locations within the irrigation area. The soil samples are to be analysed for:  pH;  phosphorous;  potassium;  calcium;  magnesium;  chloride;  sodium;  sulphur or sulphate sulphur;  total organic carbon;  total nitrogen;  nitrate N;  oOlsen P;  base saturation %;  cation exchange capacity (CEC); (b) carry out sampling in June each year within a control area, outside the irrigation area. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0 – 7.5 cm from 5 locations in the control area. The soil samples shall be analysed for the same parameters as (a). (c) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, the composite samples and analysed for the heavy metal parameters listed in Condition 21(b); (d) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, have composite samples taken at depths of 10 – 20 cm and 30 – 50 cm from 10 locations within the irrigation area and analysed for total P and Olsen P; (e) ensure that at least one sample is from a nearby non-irrigated area for the purposes of control; (f) collect soil samples from the control and irrigation areas; the composites being samples from a soil depth of 0–7.5 cm from 10 locations throughout the control and irrigation areas; (g) supply the sample results to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder.

Complaints

23. The consent holder shall maintain a register of complaints received about the wastewater disposal system. The register shall record the response and actions taken to each complaint. A copy of the complaints register shall be forwarded to Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager annually, within three months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent or on request. 164

Environmental Effects Review and Reporting

24. Three years after commencement of operation of the irrigation system and thereafter every five years, the consent holder shall undertake a review of the Te Anau WWTP system and Kepler Block Irrigation System. Each review shall assess, but not be limited to the following:  the operation and performance of the treatment and irrigation systems;  the results of all monitoring undertaken in association with this resource consent;  any other relevant data that is available and of relevance to the discharge;  whether there is any significant adverse effect on the environment that can be “avoided, remedied or mitigated” by changes to the treatment and/or irrigation system;  the nature of any improvements, if considered necessary (including the viability and proven track record of any technology improvements that might be required to achieve compliance with the consent that is not addressed by adaptive management); and  impacts of any changes on the resource consent conditions. 25. In association with condition 24, the consent holder shall prepare an “Environmental Effects Review” report that is to be submitted to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager within three months of each review being completed. The report shall outline all relevant outcomes of the review process. 26. The reports the consent holder are required to submit to Environment Southland under this consent will also be provided to the Te Anau Community Board, Manapouri CDA Consultative Reference Group required by Condition 13A and posted on the consent holder's website.

Annual Charges

27. The consent holder shall pay an annual administration charge to the Southland Regional Council, collected in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, payable in advance on the first day of July each year.

Review

28. The Southland Regional Council may serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent, in accordance with the conditions of this resource consent and Sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, during the period March to September each year, for the purposes of: (a) requiring review of monitoring of the discharge or its effects; (b) dealing with any adverse or cumulative effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent that is not addressed by adaptive management (including any viable and proven technology that might be required to achieve compliance with the conditions of this consent); or (c) complying with the requirements of a regional plan. 165

Discharge Permit to Air No 302625A

Consent Period and Lapse

1. This resource consent: (a) shall expire on ** August 2049January 2040; but (b) shall lapse if not given effect by to within five years of it commencing.

Purpose

2. (a) This consent authorises the discharge of contaminants to air, namely odour and spray drift, arising from treated wastewater irrigation as described in the application onto land known as the Kepler Block at about map reference NZTM 2000 co-ordinates E1182670 N4944369 ("irrigation area"). (b) The consented irrigation area is identified as 115 hectares north of the airport runway as shown on Attachment 1. (c) The consented irrigation area is within an area designated by the Southland District Council for public utility purposes, also shown on Attachment 1. All of the designated area located north of the Te Anau- Manapouri Airport, which includes the consented irrigation area, is referred to in these conditions as the North Block.

Odour

3. The consent holder shall not cause discharge of odour beyond the boundaries of the consent holder’s property North Block that is noxious, offensive or objectionable at any odour sensitive place. For the purposes of this condition an odour sensitive place means any dwelling or curtilage, DOC administered land, offices, the airport terminal, carpark and other airport buildings.

Actions

4. The consent holder shall: (a) carry out the following actions: (i) a fortnightly inspection of the trickling filter, bio-filter and centre pivot irrigators’ operation identifying any potential adverse events; and (ii) a monthly inspection by suitably experienced personnel of the irrigation area and property boundary identifying any potential adverse odour or spray drift effects; (b) record the above information in an odour monitoring diary.

5. The consent holder shall maintain an odour complaints diary. The diary shall record, as a minimum:  the date and time of each complaint; 166

 weather conditions at the time of the complaint (wind direction, wind speed and ambient temperature);  nature of the complaint;  location of the complaint;  nature and intensity of the odour and/or spray drift;  operating conditions at the time of the complaint, including any malfunctioning or breakdown of control equipment; and  corrective action taken (or not taken) by the consent holder to minimise the risk and extent of the recurrence of the causes of the complaint.

6. The consent holder shall prepare an annual operation review. This shall include the maintenance activities undertaken of on the odour mitigation plant during the previous 12 months, including:  monitoring and maintenance of the trickling filter;  monitoring and maintenance of the bio-filters; and  any spare parts purchased.

7. (a) Before irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commences the consent holder shall prepare a final design for the trickling filter, oxidant dosing system and bio-filter which shall be submitted to Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. (b) The trickling filter, bio-filter and oxidant dosing system shall be installed prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Blockbefore irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commences.

8. The consent holder shall prepare an Odour Management Plan (OMP) for the Kepler Block Irrigation System, to be incorporated into an Environmental Management Plan. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Blockirrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commences, the consent holder shall forward a copy of the OMP to Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. The OMP shall include: (a) the appointment of a suitably qualified person responsible for the day-to- day operation of the irrigation system, including the trickling filter, bio-filter and oxidant dosing system; (b) the arrangements for the establishment, membership and functions of a Technical Working Group which shall comprise, as a minimum, Southland District Council’s Strategic Manager – Water and Waste, the farm manager, an odour specialist, a groundwater specialist and a soil specialist. The Working group will meet with Environment Southland staff twice in the first year of operation and annually thereafter to present information relating to the operation of the Te Anau systemscheme.; (c) how the trickling filter, bio-filter, oxidant dosing system and irrigation system is to be operated to ensure that the discharge and avoidance and mitigation of odour and spray drift is optimised at all times; (d) the adaptive management responses to be adopted in response to odour monitoring and odour and/or spray drift complaints; 167

(e) as a minimum, review the OMP annually, and undertake a review when there are significant changes to the Te Anau WWTP and Kepler Block irrigation system or their operation; and (f) operate and maintain the Te Anau WWTP and Kepler Block Irrigation System in accordance with the OMP.

8A (a) Within three months of the first exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall invite the following bodies to provide one representative each to form a Consultative Reference Group:  Te Anau Community Board;  Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee;  Te Ao Marama Inc  Public Health South.

The purpose of the Consultative Reference Group shall be to facilitate consultation between the consent holder and above groups during the term of the consent. (d) The Reference Group shall have the following functions:  To receive and review the monitoring data and reports from the physical and biological monitoring. If necessary, a reasonable level of technical expertise shall be made available by the consent holder to interpret the monitoring data.  To receive and review the reports these conditions require be provided to Environment Southland.  To make recommendations to the consent holder on management actions to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the treatment and disposal system. (e) The consent holder shall, at least annually, invite the Consultative Reference Group to a meeting to discuss any matter relating to the exercise and monitoring of this consent. i. The consent holder shall meet reasonable costs of attending meetings of the Consultative Reference Group. ii. The consent holder shall keep minutes of any meeting of the Consultative Reference Group.

9. All sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns.

10. (a) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. For the purposes of this condition “observable” includes by sight, by taste or by touch. (b) A minimum of two pPrecipitation sensors are to be installed on the Ssouthern Bboundary of the North Block are to be and continuously monitored, with the location to be determined by a suitably qualified air quality expert in agreement with Environment Southland. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced 168

or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors. (c) End guns shall not be used on the centre pivots.

11. Three years after commencement of operation of the irrigation system and thereafter every five years, the consent holder shall undertake a review of the Te Anau WWTP system and Kepler Block Irrigation System. Each review shall assess, but not be limited to the following:  the operation and performance of the treatment and irrigation systems;  the results of all monitoring undertaken in association with this resource consent;  any other relevant data that is available and of relevance to the discharge  whether there is any significant adverse effect on the environment that can be “avoided, remedied or mitigated” by changes to the treatment and/or irrigation system;  the nature of any improvements, if considered necessary (including the viability and proven track record of any technology improvements that might be required to achieve compliance with the consent that is not addressed by adaptive management); and  impacts of any changes on the resource consent conditions.

12. In association with Condition 11, the consent holder shall prepare an “Environmental Effects Review” report that is to be submitted to the Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager within three months of each review being completed. The report shall outline all relevant outcomes of the review process.

Reporting

13. By the last working day of July each year, the consent holder is to provide Council’s Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager with an Annual Odour Monitoring Report, which shall include: (i) the odour monitoring diary specified in condition 4; (ii) the odour complaints diary specified in condition 5; and (iii) the annual operation review specified in condition 6.

14. The reports the consent holder are required to submit to Environment Southland under this consent will also be provided to the Te Anau Community Board, Manapouri CDA Consultative Reference Group required by Condition 8A and posted on the consent holder's website.

Annual Charges

15. The consent holder shall pay an annual administration charge to the Southland Regional Council, collected in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, payable in advance on the first day of July each year. 169

Review

16. The Southland Regional Council may serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent, in accordance with the conditions of this resource consent and Sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, during the period March to September each year, for the purposes of: (a) requiring or amending monitoring of the discharge and/or its effects on the environment; (b) dealing with any adverse or cumulative effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent that is not addressed by adaptive management (including any viable and proven technology that might be required to achieve compliance with the conditions of this consent); or (c) complying with the requirements of a regional plan. Appendix 4: Consent Conditions

A Discharge Permit No 302625

Consent Period and Lapse

1. This resource consent: (a) shall expire on 22 January 2040; but (b) shall lapse if not given effect by to within five years of it commencing.

Purpose

2. (a) This consent authorises the discharge of treated wastewater onto land from the Te Anau wastewater treatment plant, via a spray irrigation system, as described in the application to the north of the airport runway, onto land known as the Kepler Block and legally described as Lot 2 DP 410687 at or about map reference NZTM 2000 co-ordinates E1182670 N4944369 ("irrigation area"). (b) The consented irrigation area is identified as 115 hectares north of the airport runway as shown on Attachment 1. (c) The consented irrigation area is within an area designated by the Southland District Council for public utility purposes, also shown on Attachment 1. All of the designated area located north of the Te Anau- Manapouri Airport, which includes the consented irrigation area, is referred to in these conditions as the North Block. 3. This consent does not authorise the disposal of sludges or untreated sewage or treated wastewater from any other wastewater treatment system.

Accidental or Emergency Discharges

4. In the event of an emergency or accidental discharge of sewage or partially treated wastewater onto land, including outside of the irrigation area, or over application of chemical treatments, the consent holder (or the consent holder’s agent) shall without undue delay, notify:  the Medical Officer, or Health Protection Officer (ph (03) 211 0900);  Te Ao Marama Inc (ph (03) 931 1242); and  Environment Southland’s Pollution Response Hotline (ph 0800 76 88 45).

Irrigation/Effluent Limits and Nutrient Loading

5. The land discharge operation is restricted to the following parameters: (a) the discharge onto land shall not exceed a maximum application rate of 4,500 m3 per day between 1 September and 30 April and 2,000 m3 per day between 1 May and 31 August; (b) the depth of application shall not exceed: (i) 6.5 mm across the irrigation area over any 24 hour period between 1 September and 30 April; (ii) 2.9 mm across the irrigation area over any 24 hour period between 1 May and 31 August;

171

(c) the annual nitrogen loading rate onto the irrigated area from wastewater shall not exceed 290 kg N/ha/yr (kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year); (d) the combined nitrogen loading rate (for fertiliser and wastewater) applied to the irrigation area during the growing season shall not exceed 100 kg N/ha/month. Additional nitrogenous fertiliser shall only be applied if herbage or soil monitoring shows that it is required for optimal plant growth; (e) the annual phosphorous loading rate shall not exceed 100 kg P/ha/year; and (f) the application of wastewater onto land shall be so arranged that the total annual loading is spread as evenly as practicable over the irrigation area; (g) all sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns.

6. (a) There shall be no surface run-off, prolonged ponding, or contamination of surface water, resulting from the application of treated wastewater onto the irrigated area. For the purpose of this consent, prolonged ponding is deemed to occur if wastewater remains on an area for more than three consecutive hours. (b) In the event of prolonged ponding the consent holder shall cease irrigation of the area of ponding until the ponding has dissipated. (c) Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block, a minimum of 10,000 cubic metres of storage shall be provided as a contingency measure for extreme weather events and/or equipment breakdown; (d) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. For the purposes of the condition “observable” includes by sight, by taste or by touch. (e) A minimum of two precipitation sensors are to be installed on the southern boundary of the North Block and continuously monitored, with the location to be determined by a suitably qualified air quality expert in agreement with Environment Southland. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors. (f) End guns shall not be used on the centre pivots.

7. (a) The consent holder shall operate a cut and carry operation in accordance with the application. (b) The consent holder is to record the amount of dry matter removed per cut and per year. (c) The consent holder is to sample the dry matter to determine the N content for each cut event. (d) The consent holder is to calculate the N applied and removed from the irrigation area per annum. 172

(e) The consent holder shall undertake OVERSEER modelling of the previous year’s operation using the monitoring information obtained for that year. The OVERSEER modelled leaching of nitrogen from the North Block shall not exceed 32 kg N/ha/yr based on a 5-yearly rolling average. (f) The consent holder is to provide results to Environment Southland annually and shall include a comparison against the 5-yearly rolling average specified in Condition 7(e).

Buffer for Discharge and Shelter Belt Retention and Planting

8. (a) No irrigation of treated wastewater onto land shall occur within 30 metres of the boundary between the North Block and the Te Anau-Manapouri Airport (Lots 2 & 3 DP 364549 and Section 7 Blk IV Manapouri SD); (b) No irrigation of treated wastewater onto land shall occur within 10 metres of any other boundary within the North Block. 9. (a) Wind speed at Manapouri Airport shall be monitored continuously. (b) When the wind is from the northeast sector and exceeds 6 m/s (10 minute average), no fixed sprinklers or section of the centre pivot shall operate within 75 metres of the southern boundary of the North Block. 10. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North, the consent holder shall plant and maintain a shelter belt along the northern, western and eastern boundaries of the North Block. The shelter belts shall comprise three staggered rows of radiata pine and / or Douglas fir.

System Requirements

11. The consent holder shall erect and maintain: (a) fencing around the consented irrigation area at an appropriate distance to restrict access to the irrigation area; and (b) signage at the irrigation area warning the public that the area is used for the irrigation of treated wastewater. 12. The consent holder shall maintain a log of inspections, maintenance and works carried out on the trickling filter, bio-filter and irrigators and make the log available, upon request, to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. 13. The consent holder shall: (a) prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Kepler Block Irrigation System. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block, the consent holder shall forward a copy of the EMP to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. The EMP shall include: (i) the appointment of a suitably qualified person responsible for the day-to-day operation of the irrigation system, including the trickling filter and bio-filter and as a point of contact for Environment Southland in respect of complaints; (ii) the arrangements for the establishment, membership and functions of a Technical Working Group which shall comprise, as a minimum, Southland District Council’s Strategic Manager – Water and Waste, 173

the farm manager, an odour specialist, a groundwater specialist and a soil specialist. The Working group will meet with Environment Southland staff twice in the first year of operation and annually thereafter to present information relating to the operation of the Te Anau system. (iii) how the trickling filter, bio-filter, chemical dosing and irrigation system are to be operated to ensure that the discharge is optimised at all times, particularly during ramping up of the discharge in order to lower pond levels and again after prolonged shut-down; (iv) how the fixed sprinkler system is to be operated in conjunction with the centre pivot irrigators to optimise the even spread of treated wastewater; (v) the adaptive management responses to be adopted in response to groundwater and soil monitoring results; (vi) an Odour Management Plan; (vii) an assessment of risk and potential emergency events that could disrupt operation. The EMP is to identify options to manage and plan for that risk, including provision for any redundant capacity. The EMP is to provide for a review of the EMP by the consent holder following any significant event or disruption to determine if any changes should be made to incorporate any improvements learned from the experience of such an event; (viii) how the 10,000 cubic metres storage facility required by Condition 6(c) shall be managed for extreme weather events and/or equipment breakdown and how the treatment ponds, wetland system and irrigation will be operated to provide an additional 5,000 cubic metres of storage capacity in anticipation of forecast rainfall events. This is to be reviewed annually; (ix) actions to be taken, including listing of possible mitigation measures such as provision of potable water supply to well-users, as required by Condition 15; (x) ensuring that the oxidant used for sulphide removal does not lead to the creation of residual chlorinated organic compounds; (xi) procedures for shutting down, parking and securing the irrigators in very strong winds (> 35 m/s); (xii) controlling birds in the vicinity of the airport so as to minimise the risk of bird strike by planes using the airport; (xiii) an assessment of emerging contaminants and whether a number of these should be monitored in the soil, herbage or groundwater, taking into account the degree of certainty about the fate and risk to the environment from these contaminants and which contaminants should be monitored. (b) review the EMP annually and whenever there are significant changes to the Te Anau WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) and Kepler Block irrigation system or their operation; and 174

14. (a) Within three months of the first exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall invite the following bodies to provide one representative each to form a Consultative Reference Group:  Te Anau Community Board;  Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee;  Te Ao Marama Inc  Public Health South.

Monitoring

15. As part of the EMP, and at least one year prior to commissioning of the irrigation scheme, the consent holder shall develop a detailed groundwater monitoring programme (GMP), giving effect to Conditions 16 - 21. Prior to the GMP being implemented the consent holder shall forward a copy of the GMP to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager for it to be approved that it covers the following matters. As a minimum, the GMP shall: (a) include wells designed for the following purposes: (i) at least two monitoring wells sited up gradient of the irrigation area to determine background groundwater quality, unaffected by the waste water irrigation; (ii) at least two monitoring wells to determine groundwater quality down gradient of the waste water irrigation area; 175

(iii) an additional monitoring well between the airport water supply well and the irrigation area to act as a sentinel well for protection of the airport water supply; (b) identify whether there is a need for the installation of additional monitoring wells to adequately determine the effects of the irrigation on groundwater quality and to ensure that any deterioration in down gradient groundwater quality that exceeds the trigger levels in Condition 21(b) is identified before it has the potential to impact on groundwater users, particularly drinking water supplies, in the surrounding area; (c) review data from selected existing monitoring wells to monitor any changes in groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the airport. Wells used or established for this purpose shall be referred to as “local gradient wells” in these conditions; (d) determine the location of new wells if required, based on review of the above data; (e) determine the design (depth and internal diameter) of new wells to ensure they are fit for purpose; and (f) provide for reporting of the groundwater monitoring programme to be made annually to Environment Southland. The TWG will be responsible for assessing the monitoring results and determining any changes to the management of the irrigation system in light of the results. 16. If the monitoring of wells identified in the GMP required by condition 15 down gradient of the irrigation area exceed the trigger values for the parameters specified in condition 21, the consent holder shall undertake one or more of the following: (a) check for anomalous results; (b) assess monitoring results from the up-gradient well to determine whether the exceedance of the trigger value is the result of other land uses; (c) identify any mitigation measures that are considered necessary to ensure that groundwater quality is consistent with the predictions of the application document; (d) determine any mounding effect in the groundwater levels, and whether there is any change in groundwater flow direction from that predicted; and (e) submit a report of the actions undertaken to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager which identifies any mitigation measures that have been identified and a programme for implementing these measures. 17. The consent holder shall undertake sampling of groundwater from the wells identified in the GMP and Condition 15 for the purposes of establishing “baseline” groundwater quality and levels as follows: (a) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for at least one year prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block; (b) groundwater level shall be recorded at each well and each sample shall be analysed for: 176

 pH;  Electrical conductivity;

 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5);  Total ammoniacal nitrogen;  Total nitrogen;  Nitrate nitrogen;  Total phosphorus;  Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  E-coli; and  Chloride. (c) in addition, each sample shall also be analysed for the following heavy metals and trace elements:  Copper;  Zinc;  Chromium;  Cadmium;  Arsenic;  Nickel;  Lead. (d) In addition, the local gradient wells shall be monitored for groundwater levels, nitrate-nitrogen and E.coli but not the other parameters in (b) and (c). 18. The consent holder shall monitor: (a) the daily volume of treated wastewater discharged onto land at the Kepler Block; (b) the quality of treated wastewater by taking a representative sample of the discharge from the feed main immediately prior to the irrigators at the Kepler Block as follows: (i) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for the first three years and twice per year thereafter; (ii) each sample shall be analysed for:  pH;  Electrical conductivity;  Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5);  Total ammoniacal nitrogen;  Total nitrogen;  Nitrate nitrogen;  Total phosphorus 177

 Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  Sulphide;  E-coli; and  Chloride. 19. The consent holder shall undertake sampling of groundwater from the wells identified in the GMP for the purposes of monitoring the effects of the discharge of treated wastewater onto land at the Kepler Block on groundwater quality and levels as follows: (a) samples shall be taken on a three monthly basis for at least three years from the commencement of the irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent and twice per year for the duration of the consent; (b) groundwater level shall be recorded at each well and each sample shall be analysed for:  pH;  Electrical conductivity;

 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5);  Total ammoniacal nitrogen;  Total nitrogen;  Nitrate nitrogen;  Total phosphorus;  Dissolved reactive phosphorus;  E-coli; and  Chloride. (c) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, samples shall be taken and analysed for the heavy metal parameters listed in Condition 17(c); (d) In addition, the local gradient wells shall be monitored for groundwater levels, nitrate-nitrogen and E.coli but not the other parameters in (b) or (c);

20. (a) Sample collection, preservation and analysis, as required by conditions 17, 18 and 19, shall be carried out in accordance with the most recent edition of APHA “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”. (b) The monitoring and analyses are to be carried out by a laboratory with IANZ registration or equivalent. (c) The sample results and results of analysis, carried out in accordance with conditions 17, 18 and 19, shall be supplied to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder. The methods of the analysis are to be specified with the results. 178

21. (a) The wastewater discharge shall not cause the groundwater quality outside of the irrigation area (as measured in wells identified for this purpose in the GMP in condition 15) to exceed the following standards: (i) the nitrate nitrogen concentration shall be below 11.3 mg/l; and (ii) E-coli shall be below 10 cfu/100 ml. (b) The groundwater quality trigger levels which will result in the actions required by condition 16 are: (i) the nitrate nitrogen concentration exceeding 5.5 mg/l in any individual sample; (ii) in respect of the airport bore and local gradient wells, E.coli exceeding or equal to 1cfu/100 mls in any individual sample; and (iii) E-coli exceeding 10 cfu/100 ml in any individual sample or >1 cfu/100ml in consecutive samples in respect of other wells. 22. For the purposes of establishing “baseline” soil quality within the proposed irrigation area, the consent holder shall, in the month of June preceding the commencement of irrigation of treated wastewater: (a) carry out sampling within the proposed irrigation area. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0–7.5 cm from 10 locations in the irrigation area. The soil sample shall be analysed for:  pH;  phosphorous;  potassium;  calcium;  magnesium;  chloride;  sodium;  sulphur or sulphate sulphur;  total organic carbon;  total nitrogen;  nitrate N;  Olsen P;  base saturation %;  cation exchange capacity (CEC); (b) have the samples taken in accordance with (a) analysed for the following heavy metals:  Copper;  Zinc;  Chromium;  Cadmium; 179

 Arsenic;  Nickel;  Lead. (c) supply the sample results to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder. 23. For the purpose of monitoring the effects of the irrigation of treated wastewater on soils, the consent holder shall: (a) carry out sampling in June each year. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0 – 7.5 cm from 10 locations within the irrigation area. The soil samples are to be analysed for:  pH;  phosphorous;  potassium;  calcium;  magnesium;  chloride;  sodium;  sulphur or sulphate sulphur;  total organic carbon;  total nitrogen;  nitrate N;  Olsen P;  base saturation %;  cation exchange capacity (CEC); (b) carry out sampling in June each year within a control area, outside the irrigation area. The sample shall be a composite of samples from a soil depth of 0 – 7.5 cm from 5 locations in the control area. The soil samples shall be analysed for the same parameters as (a). (c) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, have the composite samples analysed for the heavy metal parameters listed in Condition 22(b); (d) once every five years, for the duration of the consent, have composite samples taken at depths of 10 – 20 cm and 30 – 50 cm from 10 locations within the irrigation area and analysed for total P and Olsen P; (e) supply the sample results to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager no later than 20 working days from receipt of the sample results by the consent holder. 180

Complaints

24. The consent holder shall maintain a register of complaints received about the wastewater disposal system. The register shall record the response and actions taken to each complaint. A copy of the complaints register shall be forwarded to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager annually, within three months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent or on request.

Environmental Effects Review and Reporting

25. Three years after commencement of operation of the irrigation system and thereafter every five years, the consent holder shall undertake a review of the Te Anau WWTP system and Kepler Block Irrigation System. Each review shall assess, but not be limited to the following:  the operation and performance of the treatment and irrigation systems;  the results of all monitoring undertaken in association with this resource consent;  any other relevant data that is available and of relevance to the discharge;  whether there is any adverse effect on the environment that can be “avoided, remedied or mitigated” by changes to the treatment and/or irrigation system;  the nature of any improvements, if considered necessary (including the viability and proven track record of any technology improvements that might be required to achieve compliance with the consent that is not addressed by adaptive management); and  impacts of any changes on the resource consent conditions. 26. In association with condition 25, the consent holder shall prepare an “Environmental Effects Review” report that is to be submitted to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager within three months of each review being completed. The report shall outline all relevant outcomes of the review process. 27. The reports the consent holder are required to submit to Environment Southland under this consent will also be provided to the Consultative Reference Group required by Condition 14 and posted on the consent holder's website.

Annual Charges

28. The consent holder shall pay an annual administration charge to the Southland Regional Council, collected in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, payable in advance on the first day of July each year.

Review

29. The Southland Regional Council may serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent, in accordance with the conditions of this resource consent and Sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, during the period March to September each year, for the purposes of: 181

(a) requiring review of monitoring of the discharge or its effects; (b) dealing with any adverse or cumulative effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent that is not addressed by adaptive management (including any viable and proven technology that might be required to achieve compliance with the conditions of this consent); or (c) complying with the requirements of a regional plan. 182

183

B Discharge Permit to Air No 302625A

Consent Period and Lapse

1. This resource consent: (c) shall expire on 22 January 2040; but (d) shall lapse if not given effect by to within five years of it commencing.

Purpose

Odour

3. The consent holder shall not cause discharge of odour beyond the boundaries of the North Block that is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

Actions

5. The consent holder shall maintain an odour complaints diary. The diary shall record, as a minimum:  the date and time of each complaint;  weather conditions at the time of the complaint (wind direction, wind speed and ambient temperature);  nature of the complaint;  location of the complaint; 184

 nature and intensity of the odour and/or spray drift;  operating conditions at the time of the complaint, including any malfunctioning or breakdown of control equipment; and  corrective action taken (or not taken) by the consent holder to minimise the risk and extent of the recurrence of the causes of the complaint.

6. The consent holder shall prepare an annual operation review. This shall include the maintenance activities undertaken on the odour mitigation plant during the previous 12 months, including:  monitoring and maintenance of the trickling filter;  monitoring and maintenance of the bio-filters; and  any spare parts purchased.

7. (a) Before irrigation of treated wastewater authorised by this consent commences the consent holder shall prepare a final design for the trickling filter, oxidant dosing system and bio-filter which shall be submitted to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. (b) The trickling filter, bio-filter and oxidant dosing system shall be installed prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block.

8. The consent holder shall prepare an Odour Management Plan (OMP) for the Kepler Block Irrigation System, to be incorporated into an Environmental Management Plan. Prior to commencement of the wastewater discharge on the North Block, the consent holder shall forward a copy of the OMP to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager. The OMP shall include: (a) the appointment of a suitably qualified person responsible for the day-to- day operation of the irrigation system, including the trickling filter, bio-filter and oxidant dosing system; (b) the arrangements for the establishment, membership and functions of a Technical Working Group which shall comprise, as a minimum, Southland District Council’s Strategic Manager – Water and Waste, the farm manager, an odour specialist, a groundwater specialist and a soil specialist. The Working group will meet with Environment Southland staff twice in the first year of operation and annually thereafter to present information relating to the operation of the Te Anau system; (c) how the trickling filter, bio-filter, oxidant dosing system and irrigation system is to be operated to ensure that the avoidance and mitigation of odour and spray drift is optimised at all times; (d) the adaptive management responses to be adopted in response to odour monitoring and odour and/or spray drift complaints; (e) as a minimum, review the OMP annually, and undertake a review when there are significant changes to the Te Anau WWTP and Kepler Block irrigation system or their operation; and (f) operate and maintain the Te Anau WWTP and Kepler Block Irrigation System in accordance with the OMP. 185

9. (a) Within three months of the first exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall invite the following bodies to provide one representative each to form a Consultative Reference Group:  Te Anau Community Board;  Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee;  Te Ao Marama Inc  Public Health South.

10. All sprinklers are to produce a droplet size exceeding a volume median diameter of 1,700 microns.

11. (a) The irrigation system is to be operated at all times to avoid observable spray drift beyond the boundary of the North Block. For the purposes of this condition “observable” includes by sight, by taste or by touch. (b) A minimum of two precipitation sensors are to be installed on the southern boundary of the North Block and continuously monitored, with the location to be determined by a suitably qualified air quality expert in agreement with Environment Southland. If those sensors detect droplets, the operation of the irrigators is to be adjusted, reduced or ceased to ensure water droplets are no longer detected by the precipitation sensors. (c) End guns shall not be used on the centre pivots.

12. Three years after commencement of operation of the irrigation system and thereafter every five years, the consent holder shall undertake a review of the 186

Te Anau WWTP system and Kepler Block Irrigation System. Each review shall assess, but not be limited to the following:  the operation and performance of the treatment and irrigation systems;  the results of all monitoring undertaken in association with this resource consent;  any other relevant data that is available and of relevance to the discharge  whether there is any adverse effect on the environment that can be “avoided, remedied or mitigated” by changes to the treatment and/or irrigation system;  the nature of any improvements, if considered necessary (including the viability and proven track record of any technology improvements that might be required to achieve compliance with the consent that is not addressed by adaptive management); and  impacts of any changes on the resource consent conditions.

13. In association with Condition 12, the consent holder shall prepare an “Environmental Effects Review” report that is to be submitted to Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager within three months of each review being completed. The report shall outline all relevant outcomes of the review process.

Reporting

14. By the last working day of July each year, the consent holder is to provide Environment Southland’s Compliance Manager with an Annual Odour Monitoring Report, which shall include: (i) the odour monitoring diary specified in condition 4; (ii) the odour complaints diary specified in condition 5; and (iii) the annual operation review specified in condition 6.

15. The reports the consent holder are required to submit to Environment Southland under this consent will also be provided to the Consultative Reference Group required by Condition 9 and posted on the consent holder's website.

Annual Charges

16. The consent holder shall pay an annual administration charge to the Southland Regional Council, collected in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, payable in advance on the first day of July each year.

Review

17. The Southland Regional Council may serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent, in accordance with the conditions of this resource consent and Sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, during the period March to September each year, for the purposes of: 187

(a) requiring or amending monitoring of the discharge and/or its effects on the environment; (b) dealing with any adverse or cumulative effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent that is not addressed by adaptive management (including any viable and proven technology that might be required to achieve compliance with the conditions of this consent); or (c) complying with the requirements of a regional plan.

188

Appendix 5: Notice of Requirement - Recommendations on Individual Submissions

Submitter5 / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further. Submitter 1

K W Fiordland Limited (L Oppose Reject Wicks and H Kraak) (13.1) Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be removed. E A Loose and Support submission 13.1 Reject Concerned Ratepayers, Doubtful Sound User Group (FS3.1)

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation on the basis of the costs of the project, the lack of information, the consideration of alternatives, and potential adverse effects including pollution, odour, bird strike, water quality and the impact on the airport and further developments in the area. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Donald Stewart Lawrence (18.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Remove Designation 80.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the costs associated with the project. This is a matter outside those that can be considered under s.168A of the Act.

190

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

G M Bell (19.4) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Remove Designation 80.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation and refers to concerns regarding the process and transparency as reasons for the opposition. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

N Robertson (20.4) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Remove Designation 80.

Reasons

The submitter considers that ratepayers need more time to consider the implications of the proposed wastewater treatment system. The submission process allowed the concerns of ratepayers to be heard. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Manapouri Doubtful Sound User Oppose Reject Group (101.16) Decision requested: Remove Designation 80 and upgrade existing treatment plant.

191

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation on the basis of a lack of information, further consideration of alternatives required, the ongoing costs of the system, the impact on the airport including both bird strike and future development potential, and the adverse effects on the environment and neighbouring properties. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

C Brockman (110.3) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Remove Designation 80.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation and considers that the costs should be borne locally rather than across the district as the upgrade is viewed as a result of the tourism activity around Te Anau. The cost of the project is outside those that can be considered under the Resource Management Act. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R Dalley and L Shaw (118.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be removed.

Reasons 192

The submitter considers that all options have not been adequately considered as the notice of requirement lacked information on hazardous substances, soil suitability, appropriate buffer sizes, etc. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

K Summers (121.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Disallow proposed project.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the project and considers that it should be a local cost. The cost of the project is outside of the matters that can be considered under the Resource Management Act. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

P & J Ridder (129.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Remove proposed designation and consider moving the project closer to Te Anau.

Reasons

The submitter raises concerns with the proposal with regard to the logistics, costs, safety/risk management and tourism impacts. As outlined above, the costs are not a matter to be considered under the Resource Management Act process. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the 193

requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

J Murrell (132.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Second or buy closest porous terrain down wind and dispose foul water there.

Reasons

The submitter is concerned about the cost of the pipes, the hazard created by the pipeline, the impacts on tourism and opposes the concept of shifting sewage from one town to another. As outlined above, the costs of the project are not within the scope of the designation. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

T Loose and concerned Te Oppose Reject Anau and Manapouri Ratepayers and Residents (133.1) Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requested the designation be deleted and the options for disposal be reviewed.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the lack of consultation and short timeframes for submissions, the increased risk of bird strike with the location adjacent to the airport, the impact on airport development, the potential risk of failure from earthquakes, the consideration of alternatives and the potential to upgrade existing scheme and the costs. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and 194

should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

C and W McDonald (136.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requested the designation be deleted and the options for disposal be reviewed. J Murrell (FS32.1) Support submission 136.1 Reject

Reasons

The submitter raises a number of points in relation to their objection to the designation. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

A and S Mouat (147.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter raises concerns regarding the environmental effects, effects on the airport, costs of the project and the consultation processes. As noted above, the cost of the project is not a matter for consideration under the Resource Management Act. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report. 195

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R Smith (162.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter raises concerns over the cost of the project however the costs are not within the scope of the designation. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

L Weber (163.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted and that Te Anau sewage be treated in Te Anau.

Reasons

The submitter raises concerns over the costs of the project, which as outlined above, is outside the Resource Management Act process. Concern is also raised regarding the risk to infrastructure, storage for wet weather, environmental effects and the risk to the airport with the potential for increased bird strikes. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Fiordland Aero Club (164.3) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Find another spot closer to Te Anau and save the rate payers millions.

196

Reasons

The submitter raises concerns over the cost of the project however the costs are not within the scope of the designation. The submitter also raises concerns regarding the consideration of alternatives and the risks to the airport. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R Pearce (165.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter did not provide any reasons for requesting the designation be deleted. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

S and S Shaw (177.1) Oppose Accept in part

Decision requested: Request the designation be removed from the District Plan and resubmitted at the same time as the discharge permit and any other required permit.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the value of land and potential impact on the Visual Amenity Landscape, the risk of bird strike, the impact on the airport and tourism, the engineering and reliance on technology, potential costs, lack of information, the need to consider alternatives and potential environmental 197

effects including noise and glare. The submitter also raised concerns regarding the effects on wetlands (Kepler Mire) and on water (including Home Creek).

The submitter also states that one application would simplify consideration of the activity. Having heard the designation along with the applications to Environment Southland for resource consent, this aspect of the submission has been accepted. In terms of the considerations of effects, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

A & P Pearce (178.1) Oppose Accept in part

Decision requested: Put this project on hold until such time as all concerns have been properly investigated.

Reasons

The submitters oppose the designation because of the lack of information, the costs to ratepayers, and the potential effect of the proposal on property values. The submitter also raises concerns regarding the suitability of the site, contingency planning, the effects on water and the potential odour. Hearing of the notice of requirement at the same time as the applications to Environment Southland for resource consent has enabled all the relevant matters under the Resource Management Act to be considered. To that extent, the submission has been accepted. As for the consideration of effects and site suitability, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R A & M J Youldon (187.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Delete the designation from the plan

Reasons 198

The submitter opposes the designation because of the potential effects on the airport and tourism, the amenity of township and the lack of information and consultation. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

V B Burch (192.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Delete the designation from the plan.

Reasons

The submitter requests the designation be deleted from the proposed plan because of the lack of consultation, the costs, potential noise effects, effects on landscape values and the limitation on the future development potential of the land. The submitter also raises concerns regarding potential spray drift and odour, the vicinity of the proposed disposal area to the Kepler Mire and the suitability of the land given the hard pan that is present in the area. Other than costs, which are not a relevant consideration under the Resource Management Act, all of these matters have been considered and for the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R Smith (193.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the potential noise effects and effects on airport safety, as well as the lack of consultation on the proposal and the potential costs. The submitter also raises concerns regarding the effects on water, and the associated effects on public health, the effects on the Kepler Mire. Other than costs, which are not a relevant consideration under the Resource Management Act, all of these matters have been considered and for the reasons set out in the 199

body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

C A Hampton (189.2) Oppose Allow in part

Decision requested: Application removed from proposed District Plan and resubmitted at the same time as the discharge permit and any other required permit application.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the lack of information and consultation on the proposal, the site limitations with regards to the hard pan and suitability for other uses, the visual amenity landscape, safety and risk of bird strike, effects on public health, effects on water, odour, noise, potential effects on the Kepler mire and the need to consider alternatives including technological and management practices.

Having heard the designation along with the applications to Environment Southland for resource consent, the joint consideration aspect of the submission has been accepted. In terms of the considerations of effects, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

P D Hampton (186.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the lack of information and consultation on the proposal, the visual amenity landscape overlay, the effects on public health, effects on water, odour, noise and effects on the Kepler Mire. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the 200

requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

R Bishop and G Wilson (182.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the areas visual amenity, the potential effects on the Kepler mire, noise, odour and the costs of the proposed disposal activity. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Motel Association of New Neutral Reject Zealand (Fiordland Branch) (204.2) Decision requested: Council consider all options for the sewage treatment.

Reasons

The submitter requests that consideration be given to alternatives for the disposal of the wastewater. The consideration of alternatives is not a matter required to be considered under s.168A of the Act. However, the report has examined the alternatives considered by the Requiring Authority.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation 201

Further Submitter

D M Hogeboom (220.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: A 2 year study prior to discharge on Home Creek, by location of discharge area, and on various levels of a 2m deep ditch. Provide a sound back up system in times of high rainfall, and consider valve replacement at intervals along the pipeline.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the potential effects on the airport, odour, effects on tourism, and potential effects on water. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

5.28 Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

P Hicks (247.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Council “cease and desist” on proposed sewage disposal plan in Manapouri area.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the designation because of the potential costs and the lack of information or details provided regarding the proposal. As outlined above, the costs are not a matter to be considered under the Resource Management Act. As regards the details of the proposal, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

J Macpherson & H Leary (251.1) Oppose Accept in part

Decision requested: A 400-500 m buffer from the highway and adjoining landowner or alternatively, remove the designation of the land to the south of the airport and an alternative locations considered at a distance from built up areas.

202

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the proximity to subdivisions, the discharges to air, odour, spray drift, and potential groundwater contamination. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report. The conditions and modifications recommended include a 150 m buffer area.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

N Lamb (258.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Review decision and lead by example by recycling the treated water.

Reasons

The submitter has requested that alternatives be considered including technology and disposal on farmers land closer to Te Anau. Although not required by s.168A of the Act, alternatives considered by the Requiring Authority have been examined. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Manapouri Community Oppose Reject Development Area Subcommittee (262.1) Decision requested: Delete the designation from the plan.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the potential effects on the airport and tourism, odour, effects on quality of life and amenity and the lack of information and consultation. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report. 203

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

P Dolamore (261.2) Oppose Accept in part

Decision requested: Build another settling pond and irrigate closer to Te Anau.

Reasons

The submitter has requested co-ordination with the Environment Southland decision. Hearing the notice of requirement along with the applications to Environment Southland for resource consent have allowed that part of the submission. Although the other two matters are not directly relevant to the designation, the report considers storage options and examined the alternative locations considered by the Requiring Authority. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

J and D Taylor (276.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Responses to the questions raised in the submission and how many people support the change in designation and how many oppose it.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the presence of a hard pan in the area which might affect the suitability of the land, the potential impacts on Home Creek, plant life and fish life, earthquake risk, impacts on the airport and the consultation process. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation 204

Further Submitter

J Carter (280.3) Support Accept in part

Decision requested: Retain as stated.

Reasons

The submitters support is noted however the funding structure which the submitter refers to in the submission is not a matter to be considered through the designation process. Therefore it is recommended the submission point be accepted in part.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

S Robertson (283.2) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted.

Reasons

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

M & B Hagen (289.3) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Find an alternative spot closer to Te Anau for the disposal of the wastewater.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the costs, consideration required of the alternatives, spray drift, the potential impact on the airport and risk of bird strike. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report. 205

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

Home Creek Nursery (281.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: Further information to be provided on:  The research/qualification of the people involved that resulted in any land bordering Home Creek being considered.

 The treatment process and application process and monitoring of those processes.

 Monitoring of effects during heavy rain.

 The consequences when Home Creek is contaminated.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation because of the potential contamination of Home Creek. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

Submitter / Support/oppose/neutral Recommendation

Further Submitter

P & M Denny (252.1) Oppose Reject

Decision requested: It is considered the submitter requests the designation be deleted and further investigation into alternatives is undertaken.

Reasons

The submitter opposes the proposed designation and requests that further consideration be given to alternatives and raises concerns regarding the potential impact on Home Creek. For the reasons set out in the body of the report, it is considered the proposal meets the requirements of s.168A of the Act and should be confirmed subject to the conditions and modifications set out in the report.

206