2. AEE – Assessment of Environmental Effects

Q Invest Company Limited

Waiau Pa Proposed Development Application to Auckland Council for Water Take

74 Seagrove Road, Waiau Pa

February 2019

Planz Consultants Quality Assurance Statement:

Application Prepared By: Planz Consultants Ltd, Auckland www.planzconsultants.co.nz

Jane Douglas DDI: 09 428 2101 E: [email protected]

Reviewed By: Mike Foster E:[email protected]

DDI: 0274 722 798

Project Number: 15045 Document Status: Final Date: February 2019

The information contained in this document produced by Planz Consultants Ltd is solely for the use of the Client for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Planz Consultants Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Planz Consultants Ltd.

T: 09 414 6186 E: [email protected] W: planzconsultants.co.nz A: 507 Lake Road Takapuna PO Box 331 475 Takapuna Auckland 0740 New Zealand

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ------1

1.1 OVERVIEW ------1 1.2 BACKGROUND ------1 1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE ------2 1.4 CONSENT TERM ------2 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ------3

2.1 APPLICATION SITE ------3 2.2 SURROUNDING AREA ------4 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ------7

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGE------7 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WATER TAKE ------7 4 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN ASSESSMENT ------9

4.1 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN - REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT (RPS) ------9 4.2 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN - REGIONAL PLAN ------10 4.3 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN – DISTRICT PLAN ------14 4.3.1 ZONING ------14 4.3.2 RELEVANT RULES ------14 4.3.3 ACTIVITY STATUS AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ------15 5 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ------19

5.1 SECTION 104 ------19 5.2 PART 2 OF THE RMA ------19 6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT------21

6.1 ZONE PROVISIONS ------21 6.2 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ------21 6.3 POSITIVE EFFECTS ------21 6.4 EFFECTS ON AQUIFER ------21 6.5 EFFECTS ON NEIGHBOURING BORES ------22 6.6 CONDITIONS OF CONSENT ------22 7 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION ------25

7.1 CONSULTATION ------25 7.2 NOTIFICATION ------25 8 CONCLUSION ------27

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Seagrove Road Water Take, Groundwater Effects Assessment, Pattle Delamore Partners Limited, Auckland, February 2019. Attachment 2: Copy of Certificates of Title.

APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT UNDER SECTION 88 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Applicant: Q Invest Company Limited Application: Consent to take and use groundwater for the use of establishing and operating a kiwifruit orchard. Location: 74 Seagrove Road, Waiau Pa, Auckland. Legal Description: Lot 3 DP 209401, Lot 2 DP 455646. Site Size: 104.9 hectares. Auckland Unitary Plan Zone: Rural – Mixed Rural Zone Auckland Unitary Plan Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Rural, Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Exotic

Address for Service: Address for Billing:

Planz Consultants Ltd Q Invest Company Ltd P O Box 103 95 Hingaia Road, Whangaparaoa Karaka AUCKLAND 0943 AUCKLAND

Attention: Jane Douglas Attention: Garry Ji

DDI : 09 428 2101 DDI: 027 801 9176 Mobile : 0274 495 675 Mobile : 027 801 9176 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected]

* Planz Consultants Limited accepts no liability for any Council costs or charges. Invoices for all such work are to be sent to the Applicants address above for billing.

Resource Management Act 1991

Fourth Schedule

Assessment of Effects on the Environment

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview Q Invest Company Limited (QIL) is seeking a resource consent under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The application is to take groundwater for the purposes of establishing and operating a kiwifruit orchard within the 105 hectare property located at 74 Seagrove Road, Waiau Pa (site).

For the purpose of clarity, this application does not seek to drill the necessary bores to take the water, a future application for such will be made following the outcome of the planning processes to take water and change the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part (AUP-OIP) in the manner described below.

1.2 Background QIL own the site which is currently leased to a dairy farmer. The farm is not viable on its own for this purpose over the long-term and QIL intend to develop it as a kiwifruit orchard to maximise the land’s capability, thereby creating a more efficient land use into the future. The land is zoned Rural – Mixed Rural under the AUP-OIP and the establishment of orchards is a permitted activity.

The proposal is to develop up to 75 hectares of the site with the Gold 3 variety of kiwifruit providing approximately 50 hectares canopy cover. Advice received from a number of experts has confirmed the suitability of the soils and areal extent of the site for this purpose1.

In order to achieve QIL’s development intentions, the remainder of the site will be developed for rural/residential purposes, similar to the countryside living arrangements currently developed in close proximity to the site and subdivided for this purpose. QIL intend to develop each of the sites and homes with the sale of these funding the kiwifruit orchard development.

As part of this overall approach a Private Plan Change request will be made to create a Precinct Overlay across the rural zoned site to give effect to the rural/residential part of the development and to manage potential reverse sensitivity effects. This application is being

1 These matters will be outlined in detail in the expert assessments that are submitted in support of the QIL’s application to change the AUP-OIP.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 2

made as the first stage to ensure that the irrigation water required to develop the kiwifruit orchard is available and able to be utilised.

1.3 Report Structure This AEE is structured in eight sections as follows:

Section1: provides an introduction to the proposal, background information and property details.

Section 2: describes the site and its context in the location.

Section 3: provides a detailed description of the proposal.

Section 4: considers the provisions of the AUP-OIP and assesses the proposal against the relevant provisions.

Section 5: describes the legislative framework within which the application must be considered.

Section 6: assesses the effects of the proposal on neighbouring bores, the aquifer and the environment.

Section 7: considers notification matters.

Section 8: provides a conclusion.

1.4 Consent Term A term of 24 years (2043) is sought in line with the Council’s common expiry approach. The year 2013 was the last common expiry date. Council have advised that a nominal 15 year term would set the next common expiry date as 2028, providing less than 10 years for this consent if granted. A further 15 years has been added for consents issued post 2013 with a common expiry date of 2043.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 3

2 Site Description

2.1 Application Site The site is located at 74 Seagrove Road, Waiau Pa. It has road frontage to both Seagrove and McKenzie Roads as shown on Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Property Location (source: Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd groundwater take assessment – Appendix 1 in this AEE).

The site is also described in the Pattle Delamore Partners report attached as Appendix 1, which notes that the contour is relatively flat around the perimeter (20-25 mRL) grading down into a watercourse which runs centrally SW-NE through the property. This watercourse appears to be ephemeral in part, particularly in the upper reaches, as noted during a site visit in October 2018. There is variable vegetation along the banks of the watercourse ranging from wet feet species such as reeds and including some flax and weed species. There are a number of larger trees located within the site as shown in Figure 2 below. In the main these are located on the upper parts of the site and adjacent to the watercourse.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 4

Figure 2: Vegetation on the site (source: photograph taken by Jane Douglas, during a site visit in October 2018).

The property is extensively tracked and fenced for dairy operations and has a number of bores providing water for stock drinking purposes.

Soil scientist, Douglas Hicks2, advises that almost 85% of the site (80ha) is classified as Elite (LUC 1) and Prime (LUC 2 and 3), though this land is not contiguous.

The site contains three dwellings and numerous sheds and outbuildings including a milking shed, three-bay storage/hay shed, silo and stockyards. The majority of the built infrastructure is located towards the front of the site along Seagrove Road, readily accessible to the entrance. There are currently two access points to the property, both located along Seagrove Road.

2.2 Surrounding Area The surrounding land to the east and north is rural in character with a variety of land uses evident, including an avocado orchard immediately adjoining the site to the east. A property immediately adjacent fronting Seagrove Road and bordering the site on its western edge is occupied by a storage business exhibiting a semi-industrial character. Land further to the

2 Dr Hicks’ report will be included in QIL’s application to change the AUP-OIP.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 5

west on the opposite side of Seagrove Road is also rural in character and located within the rural coastal zone. Much of this area appears to be relatively small holdings and there is some evidence of orchard development.

The land at the intersection of Seagrove Road and McKenzie Road immediately adjoining the site to the south is occupied by a church and a number of smaller properties of a rural / residential nature. On the western side of this intersection and across the road from the site is the coastal settlement of Waiau Pa. Recent subdivision development and housing construction is evident on this land.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 6

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 7

3 Proposal Description

3.1 Description of Proposed Change For context purposes the private plan change request is described briefly to enable an understanding of the approach adopted for the development. This plan change has not been lodged to date but will follow this application for a water take to enable the orchard aspirations to be satisfied.

QIL do not wish to rezone the land because it is appropriately zoned for the primary activity proposed on the site. The orchard development has been determined to be the most viable and efficient productive use of the capability of the site soils. The plan change will therefore seek to adopt a ‘precinct’ overlay across the site which will provide for large lot residential occupation, development and subdivision of up to five clusters of housing within the parts of the site unsuited to productive orchard purposes. That precinct will control how the development integrates with the orchard development, will ensure that reverse sensitivity matters are addressed, provide for all joint access and servicing, create easements for vegetation management and covenants for the protection of landscaped areas.

3.2 Description of Proposed Water Take There are a number of bores on the property sufficient for stock drinking purposes but bores to supply irrigation water for the proposed orchard have not been established to date. The scale of the proposed orchard (up to 50 hectares canopy cover), and nature of the underlying aquifer, mean it will likely require three new bores. As this will require significant capital expenditure by QIL sufficient certainty over access to water is therefore sought before starting the drilling programme.

For that reason, this application seeks consent only to the water take, the necessary application/s for the construction of bores will follow at a later date.

Establishing an orchard also requires significant capital, especially the licencing for the Gold3 variety of kiwifruit which is proposed. This lends itself to the orchard being developed in three-stages, with a bore supply for each as part of a plan for a comprehensive design for the long-term use of the site (as identified in section 3.1 above and subject to a Plan Change).

The serious financial commitment required of QIL reinforces the importance of securing a viable water supply for the orchard venture at an early stage of the development process.

In total the volume of water required for the orchard is estimated to be a peak of up to 2,000m3/day, an average of 1,800m3/day and an annual volume of 162,500m3/year. This application seeks consent to take groundwater from the Franklin Waitemata aquifer underlying the site up to those volumes. It is likely that this will require three 150 mm bores which are anticipated to be established in three stages over 3-5 years as the orchard development progresses. While the location of the bores is not known at this time there are sufficient records from existing bores in the vicinity of the property to allow an appropriate

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 8

assessment to demonstrate the ability of the site to yield the volume required and assess the effects the new bores may have, as advised by Pattle Delamore in Appendix 1.

To the extent that water is not available, the size and / or nature of the kiwifruit orchard will need to be reduced, accordingly it is essential that the application to take water is assessed and determined, prior to the Plan Change or any other aspect of the development proceeding.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 9

4 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN ASSESSMENT

4.1 Auckland Unitary Plan - Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Chapter B7 of the AUP-OIP sets out the issues, objectives and policies relating to natural resources for the Auckland Region, identifying that pressures on these resources require management for environmental, social, economic and cultural well-being.

Chapter B7.4 addresses coastal water, freshwater and geothermal water with the objectives to use these resources within identified limits while safeguarding the life-supporting capacity and the natural, social and cultural values of the waters; maintain the quality of freshwater where it is excellent or good and progressively improve it over time where it is not; allocate water efficiently to provide for social, economic and cultural purposes; and to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects from changes in or intensification of land use on freshwater.

The policies from Chapter B7.4 relevant to this application are:

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

(2) Give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 by establishing all of the following:

(a) freshwater objectives; (b) freshwater management units and for each unit: i. Values; ii. Water quality limits; iii. Environmental flows and/or levels. (c) targets and implementation methods where freshwater units do not meet freshwater objectives.

(3) Integrate Mana Whenua values, matauranga and tikanga when giving effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 in establishing all of the following:

(a) water quality limits for freshwater, including groundwater; (b) the allocation and use of freshwater resources, including groundwater; and (c) measures to improve the integrated management of the effects of the use and development of land and freshwater on coastal water and the coastal environment.

Freshwater and geothermal water quantity, allocation and use

(11) Promote the efficient allocation of freshwater and geothermal water by all of the following:

(a) establishing clear limits for water allocation;

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 10

(b) avoiding over-allocation of water, including phasing out any existing over- allocation; (c) safeguarding spring flows, surface waterbody base flows, ecosystem processes, life-supporting capacity, the recharge of adjacent aquifers, and geothermal temperature and amenity; and (d) providing for the reasonable requirements of domestic and municipal water supplies.

(12) Promote the efficient use of freshwater and geothermal water.

(13) Promote the taking of groundwater rather than the taking of water from rivers and streams in areas where groundwater is available for allocation.

(14) Enable the harvesting and storage of freshwater and rainwater to meet increasing demand for water and to manage water scarcity conditions, including those made worse by climate change.

It is accepted that the RPS has largely given effect to the provisions of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, principally by managing water quality and allocation limits, maintaining values and developing a set of objectives for the long-term use and management of this resource, through the development of the objectives and policies of the regional plan (considered below). It is acknowledged that the National Policy Statement requires the inclusion of interim policies in the Plan to guide fresh water allocation until such time as the Plan’s provisions give full effect to the National Policy Statement. This is addressed in Chapter E2 of the AUP-OP.

The proposed groundwater take is consistent with the provisions of the RPS.

4.2 Auckland Unitary Plan - Regional Plan This section considers the regional plan provisions of the AUP-OIP in relation to water quantity, allocation and use. The relevant objectives and policies with respect to QIL’s present application are:

E2.2 Objectives [rp]

(1) Water in surface rivers and groundwater aquifers is available for use provided the natural values of water are maintained and established limits are not exceeded. (2) Water resources are managed within limits to meet current and future water needs for social, cultural and economic purposes. (3) Freshwater resources available for use are managed and allocated in order of priority to provide for domestic and municipal water supplies, animals, and economic development. (4) Water resources are managed to maximise the efficient allocation and efficient use of available water. (5) Mana Whenua values including the mauri of water, are acknowledged in the allocation and use of water.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 11

E2.3 Policies [rp]

Priority of water use

(1) Manage the allocation of freshwater within the guidelines provided by Appendix 2 river and stream minimum flow and availability and Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels and give priority to making freshwater available for the following uses (in descending order of priority): (a) existing and reasonably foreseeable domestic and municipal water supply and animal drinking water requirements; (b) existing lawfully established water users; (c) uses of water for which alternative water sources are unavailable or unsuitable; and (d) all other uses. (2) Ensure allocations support the outcomes sought by relevant objectives and policies in B7.3 Freshwater systems.

Efficient allocation and use

(4) Promote the efficient allocation and use of freshwater and geothermal water by: (a) requiring the amount of water taken and used to be reasonable and justifiable with regard to the intended use, and where appropriate: (i) municipal water supplies are supported by a water management plan; (ii) industrial and irrigation supplies implement best practice, in respect of the efficient use of water for that particular activity or industry; or (iii) all takes are limited to a maximum annual allocation based on estimated water requirements (other than municipal water supplies from a dam);

Water allocation and availability guidelines

(5) Manage the taking and use of surface water from rivers, streams and springs and taking and use of groundwater from aquifers to meet all of the following except where water allocation exceeds or is close to exceeding the guidelines (refer to Policy E2.3(11)): (a) [not relevant] (b) the aquifer availability and groundwater levels in Table 1 Aquifer water availabilities and Table 2 Interim aquifer groundwater levels in Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels are not exceeded.

Take and use of water

(7) Require all proposals to take and use groundwater from any aquifer to demonstrate that: (a) the taking is within the water availabilities and levels for the aquifer in Table 1 Aquifer water availabilities and Table 2 Interim aquifer groundwater levels in Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels, except in accordance with Policy E2.3(11) and meet all of the following:

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 12

(i) recharge to other aquifers is maintained; and (ii) aquifer consolidation and surface subsidence is avoided. (b) the taking will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on surface water flows, including the following: (i) base flows of rivers, stream and springs; and (ii) any river or stream flow requirements and in particular the minimum stream flow and availability in Appendix 2 River and stream minimum flow and availability. (c) the taking will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem habitat; (d) the taking will not cause salt water intrusion or any other contamination; (e) the taking will not cause adverse interference effects on neighbouring bores to the extent that their owners are prevented from exercising their lawfully established water takes; (f) Policy E2.3(7) will not apply in the following circumstances: (i) where it is practicably possible to locate the pump intake at a greater depth within the affected bore; or (ii) where it can be demonstrated that the affected bore accesses, or could access, groundwater at a deeper level within the same aquifer, if drilled or cased to a greater depth. (g) the proposed bore is capable of extracting the quantity of groundwater applied for; and (h) [not relevant].

(9) Require proposals to take and use surface water and groundwater to monitor the effects of the take on the quality and quantity of the water resource and to: (a) measure and record water use and rate of take; (b) measure and record water flows and levels; (c) sample and assess water quality and freshwater ecology; (d) measure and record the movement of ground, buildings and other structures; and (e) monitoring should be of a type and scale appropriate for the activity.

Comprehensive reviews of consents

(17) Require resource consents granted to take, use or dam water and to discharge contaminants to land or freshwater to be for a duration and to include a condition setting the review date(s) of the consent, that will enable the concurrent processing or review of all consents/replacement applications, as a basis for a comprehensive and integrated assessment of water quality and water quantity issues in a specific catchment and/or aquifer system.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 13

Assessment of Regional Policy Framework

As noted above it is considered that the regional provisions give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater.

Policy E2.3(1) identifies the Council’s priorities for the management of water allocation and use. This proposal falls under (d) which lists “all other uses” as the lowest priority. As noted below, Appendix 3 Table 1 of the AUP-OIP does not list the aquifer specifically. The proposed water take will not affect the ability of the Council to continue to manage water allocation based on these priorities.

The proposal clearly identifies that the amount of groundwater sought is directly related to the level of production orchard being proposed and the application seeks a maximum annual allocation based on these estimated water requirements. The orchard development will be undertaken by a well-established and experienced company (Punchbowl, as outlined in detail in Appendix 1) utilising industry best practice to ensure the most efficient use of water [policy E2.3(4)].

Under Appendix 3 Table 1: Aquifer water availabilities and levels the aquifer is not specifically identified and falls within the “all other aquifers not separately listed without a connection to a surface water body” parameter. As such water availability is 65% of average annual recharge as determined by the Council. Pattle Delamore in their assessment has considered this [page 4, Appendix 1] and determined that water availability for allocation from the Waiau Pa Waitemata Aquifer management area is 817,700m3/year, water demand is currently 532,625m3/year and the remaining availability is 285,075m3/year. The proposed water take of 162,500m3/year is therefore able to be provided by the aquifer and satisfies policy E2.3(5).

In terms of Policy E2.3(7) the proposal can take water while maintaining recharge to other aquifers and avoiding aquifer consolidation and surface subsidence based on the information provided by Pattle Delamore. The aquifer has been assessed as having no direct connection to surface water and therefore the potential for the water abstraction to affect surface water flows or result in effects on freshwater ecosystem habitat is unlikely. Also, it is not proposed to take water during winter, when re-charge happens.

Pattle Delamore have assessed the availability estimate and advise it “provides for a significant reserve of groundwater to discharge to the coast (35% of recharge) to limit the likelihood of saline intrusion and the nature of the aquifer horizontal bedding and faulting is also considered to lower the saline intrusion risk”. They note further that this 35% is a conservative proportion of aquifer recharge but there remains potential for localised adverse effects where large takes are in proximity to the coast. The proposed bore locations are an average of 1,200 m from the southern margin of the Manukau Harbour, as shown in Figure 3 in the Pattle Delamore report.

The report concludes with respect to saline intrusion (section 6.1 of the report) having carried out an assessment that “the risk of saline intrusion from this proposal is therefore considered to be low. Any residual risk can be adequately mitigated by annual monitoring for chloride,

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 14

with appropriate contingency measures incorporated into consent conditions.” In terms of aquifer consolidation, they consider “the lithology of the aquifer (sediments of low compressibility) is such that consolidation as a consequence of water being abstracted is not considered likely. This is consistent with how other similar proposals have been considered by AC (Whinlands Farms Ltd NRSI 43886).”

Pattle Delamore (Appendix 1) have assessed the potential effect of the proposed water take on neighbouring bores and conclude that it will potentially result in the water level in the six bores identified in Table 3 of their report being drawn down to at or below the assumed level of their pumps toward the end of an irrigation season. The assumptions (bore existence/ use, pump depth, pumping rate, actual drawdown during operation) will be verified in the field. They identify that some of the bores were drilled in the 1960’s and may no longer be in operation. Importantly, the policy is clear that for an effect on neighbouring bores to be adverse it must be such that the owners of those bores are “prevented from exercising their lawfully established water takes.” The policy will not apply where it is practically possible to locate the pump intake at a greater depth within the affected bore or where it can be demonstrated that the affected bore accesses, or could access, groundwater at a deeper level within the same aquifer if drilled or cased to a greater depth.

If the potential interference effects on the bores are verified through further field investigations, QIL will actively explore how such effects can be addressed through direct discussions with the relevant landowners. Pattle Delamore have advised that for the six potentially affected bores, there are a number of mitigation options which could be explored including additional or deeper drilling and alternative temporary water supplies.

Policies E2.3(9) and (17) require the Council to undertake assessments and management of the groundwater resources, and stipulate the matters the Council must address in consent conditions when granting any application for the use of groundwater. These policies can readily be met in the current application, for example, by including conditions for monitoring the groundwater take, including water quality. The issue of the appropriate term for the consent has been addressed in Section 1.4 of this AEE.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed water take can satisfy the regional objective and policy framework and is therefore consistent with these matters.

4.3 Auckland Unitary Plan – District Plan

4.3.1 Zoning As noted in Section 1 of this AEE the site is zoned Rural – Mixed Rural. This zoning supports the use of the land for food production purposes and orchards are a permitted activity in the zone.

4.3.2 Relevant Rules The relevant rules are contained in Chapter E7 Taking, using, damming and diversion of water and drilling”. Table E7.4.1 sets out the activity status in relation to such. Rule E7.4.1(A15)

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 15

allows for the taking and use of groundwater up to 20m3/day, when averaged over any consecutive five day period, and no more than 5,000m3/year as a permitted activity and providing compliance is achieved with the permitted activity standards. The application requires the taking and use of up to 162,500m3/year and therefore exceeds the volume in this rule. Rule (A26) in the same activity table makes “the taking and use of groundwater not meeting the permitted activity or restricted discretionary activity standards or not otherwise provided for” a Discretionary activity.

4.3.3 Activity Status and Assessment Criteria This water take application requires consent as a Discretionary activity.

Rule E7.8.2 identifies that the Council will restrict its discretion to certain matters when considering restricted discretionary activities. While these matters, identified below, are not strictly relevant to this application because it is fully discretionary, they do provide clear criteria which it is anticipated will inform any assessment of the effects of an application to take and use groundwater. The relevant criteria are:

(1) all restricted discretionary activities:

a) the extent to which any effects on Mana Whenua values are avoided, remedied or mitigated; b) the extent to which the proposal will be consistent with the management of allocation of freshwater within the guidelines provided by Appendix 2 River and stream minimum flow and availability and Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels, and give priority to making fresh water available for the following uses (in descending order of priority): i. existing and reasonably foreseeable domestic and municipal water supply and animal drinking water requirements; ii. existing lawfully established water users; iii. uses of water for which alternative water sources are unavailable or unsuitable; iv. all other uses. (2) whether the proposal promotes the efficient use of freshwater and geothermal water by: a) ensuring the amount of water taken and used is reasonable and justifiable with regard to the intended use, and where appropriate: i. municipal water supplies are supported by a water management plan ii. an industrial and irrigation supply implements best practice in respect of the efficient use of water for that particular activity or industry iii. all takes (other than for municipal water supply from dams) are limited to a maximum annual allocation based on estimated water requirements. b) considers water conservation and thermal efficiency methods.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 16

c) encourages the shared use and management of water within a water user groups or other arrangement where it will result in an increased efficiency in the use and allocation of water. (3) [not relevant as it relates to water from lakes, rivers, streams, springs and wetlands]. (4) whether the proposal to take and use groundwater from any aquifer demonstrates that: a) the taking is within the water availabilities and levels for the aquifer in Table 1 Aquifer water availabilities and Table 2 Interim aquifer groundwater levels, in Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels and: i. recharge to other aquifers is maintained; and ii.) aquifer consolidation and surface subsidence is avoided.

(b) the taking will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on surface water flows, including the following: i. base flows of rivers, stream and springs; ii. any river or stream flow requirements;

(c) the taking will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem habitat; (d) the taking will not cause salt water intrusion or any other contamination; (e) the taking will not cause adverse interference effects on neighbouring bores to the extent that their owners are prevented from exercising their lawfully established water takes; (f) E7.8.2(5)(e) above will not apply in the following circumstances: i. where it is practicably possible to locate the pump intake at a greater depth within the affected bore; or ii. where it can be demonstrated that the affected bore accesses, or could access, groundwater at a deeper level within the same aquifer, if drilled or cased to a greater depth. (g) the proposed bore is capable of extracting the quantity of groundwater applied for; (h) the proposal avoids, remedies or mitigates any ground settlement that may cause distress, including reducing the ability of an existing building or structure to meet the relevant requirements of the Building Act 2004 or the New Zealand Building Code, to existing: i. buildings; ii. structures; and iii. services including roads, pavements, power, gas, electricity, water supply and wastewater networks and fibre optic cables. (5) Whether the proposal provides mitigation options where there are significant adverse effects on the matters identified in E7.8.2(3) and (4) above, including the following: (a) consideration of alternative locations, rates and timing of takes for both surface water and groundwater; (b) use of alternative water supplies;

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 17

(c) use of water conservation methods when water shortage conditions apply; (d) [not relevant as it relates to fish passage in rivers and streams] (e) [not relevant as it relates to wetlands] (f) riparian planting; and (g) [not relevant as it relates to dewatering proposals]. (6) Whether the proposal to take and use surface water and groundwater will monitor the effects of the take on the quality and quantity of the freshwater resource to: (a) measure and record water use and rate of take; (b) measure and record water flows and levels; (c) sample and assess water quality and freshwater ecology; and (d) measure and record the movement of ground, buildings and other structures. Of note with these assessment criteria is that they not only reflect the policy framework of Chapter E2.3 but generally restate those policies as assessment matters. As noted in the assessment in Section 4.2 of this AEE the proposal is consistent with those policies. The proposal satisfies the assessment criteria above in the following manner:  Mana Whenua values are unlikely to be impacted by the proposal as the proposed take will not lead to mixing of waters, reduction in water quality or impacts on freshwater habitat and ecology;  It is consistent with the management of allocation of freshwater as identified in Appendix 3 Aquifer water availabilities and levels;  It will promote the efficient use of freshwater as the proposal has demonstrated the need for the quantity of water being sought based on an improved productive use of the land resource;  It has demonstrated that there is adequate water available from the aquifer for this purpose;  Best practice methodologies will be employed by the operators of the kiwifruit orchard to ensure that the application of irrigation water is actively managed and monitored thereby maximising efficiency and adopting water conservation approaches;  It has been demonstrated that the water is available for allocation without adverse effects on other aquifers or recharge of the aquifer;  Likewise, aquifer consolidation and surface subsidence are unlikely to occur as a result of the take;  It has been demonstrated that the risk of saltwater intrusion or other contamination is highly unlikely;  While the potential for effects on a number of neighbouring bores has been identified as likely, it is considered that these effects will not result in neighbours being unable to exercise their lawfully established water takes and the effects can be appropriately addressed through a range of mitigation measures;

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 18

 The proposal does not involve bore drilling at this stage (separate consent/s will be sought on a staged basis) however it has been demonstrated that the quantity of groundwater applied for is available; and  The proposal involves: the installation and use of a water meter; monitoring of water to analyse actual use against prevailing conditions, to enable the reconciliation of any disparity between the allocation and actual use; regular sampling and assessment of water quality; and regular chloride sampling to avoid saline intrusion. Overall, and based on the level of investigations to date, it is considered that the proposed water take can satisfy all the above assessment criteria.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 19

5 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

5.1 Section 104 Section 104 of the RMA sets out the matters consent authorities are to have regard to when considering an application for resource consent. Section 104(1) states: “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 or 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 (iv) a New Zealand Coastal policy statement; (v)) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

In assessing the proposal’s potential effects on the ‘environment’, it is important to consider the environmental outcomes provided for under the AUP-OIP; the steps necessary to attain those outcomes; and the resultant development and activities. For example, the AUP-OIP provides for farming (which includes all types of horticulture and orcharding) as a permitted activity on the site. Enabling that activity to establish and operate on the site will necessitate water for irrigation purposes. Section 104(2) codifies the “permitted baseline” concept for the purpose of assessing effects: “(2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent authority may disregard any adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect.”

This is relevant when considering the proposed water take. The AUP-OIP permits up to 5,000m3/year to be taken and used in total, without the need for a resource consent application. Section 104(2) therefore allows the Council when forming an opinion in relation to any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity to disregard any adverse effects from the taking of this volume of water.

5.2 Part 2 of the RMA Section 5 of the RMA sets out the Act’s purpose as “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. The term ‘sustainable management’ is then defined as:

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 20

“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

The assessment under section 104 is “subject to Part 2” of the RMA. The recent Court of Appeal decision on R J Davidson confirmed that if it is clear that a plan has been prepared having regard to Part 2 and with a coherent set of policies designed to achieve clear environmental outcomes, the result of a genuine process that has regard to those policies in accordance with s104(1) should be to implement those policies in evaluating a resource consent application, and in this respect records:

“Reference to Pt 2 in such a case would likely not add anything. It could not justify an outcome contrary to the thrust of the policies. Equally, if it appears the plan has not been prepared in a manner that appropriately reflects the provisions of Pt 2, that will be a case where the consent authority will be required to give emphasis to Pt 2; and

….it would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act to allow regional or district plans to be rendered ineffective by general recourse to Pt 2 in deciding resource consent applications, providing the plans have been properly prepared in accordance with Pt 2. We do not consider however that King Salmon prevents recourse to Pt 2 in the case of applications for resource consent. Its implications in this context are rather that genuine consideration and application of relevant plan considerations may leave little room for Pt 2 to influence the outcome.”

In this case there is no question that the status of the application is Discretionary. The relevant provisions of the AUP-OIP as they relate to the site and the proposed activity are clear and unambiguous. These provisions have been through an extensive planning process in the recent past and have been the subject of detailed submission and examination. The objectives and policies have been developed in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act (Part 2) and stated environmental outcomes and therefore Part 2 matters are appropriately addressed.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 21

6 Assessment of Effects on the Environment

6.1 Zone Provisions The Rural – Mixed Rural Zone provisions allow farming as a permitted activity. The expectation is that the land will be used productively for a range of rural based activities.

In order to realise the site’s full potential in terms of the quality of the soils, QIL wish to maximise the development opportunity by establishing and operating a kiwifruit orchard of up to 50 hectares canopy cover in size. This will require water for irrigation purposes, particularly during January and February.

6.2 Objectives and Policies The relevant objectives and policies relating to all water takes have been considered in Section 4 above and the proposal assessed as being consistent with that framework.

Further, the proposal has been considered against the assessment criteria relating to restricted discretionary activities and, based on the investigations to date, found to be able to satisfy these criteria.

6.3 Positive Effects The proposal will result in positive effects by enabling a more efficient utilisation of the soil resource for food productive purposes. Gold3 variety of kiwifruit is in high demand and QIL is committed to maximising the area of land able to be developed for this purpose. This will require a significant up-front capital expenditure. The proposed development will promote the efficient use of the land and the water resource.

6.4 Effects on Aquifer Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd have carried out an assessment of the potential effects of the water take on the aquifer (Appendix 1) and concluded that, on the basis of investigations to date, the aquifer has available water and this water can be abstracted without adverse effects on the aquifer.

Specific consideration has been given to saline intrusion and aquifer consolidation. Pattle Delamore advise that the risk of saline intrusion is driven by a combination of the (unknown) location of the saline / freshwater interface in the aquifer and potential for shallow saline water being drawn down into the aquifer from the surface tidal margin. It is considered that the saline / freshwater interface is likely to be located a significant distance offshore and the hydrology of the aquifer environment is such that low permeability sequences of weathered and/or mudstone material will attenuate any drawdown before it leads to downward migration of salinity. They note that experience in the Waitemata Aquifer in the Karaka management zone from a year round water take on the peninsula has not demonstrated saline intrusion to occur when abstraction is from the deep aquifer. They accordingly conclude that the risk of saline intrusion from this proposal is low, but any potential residual risk can be

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 22

mitigated by annual monitoring for chloride, with appropriate contingency measures put in place should the monitoring demonstrate those are necessary.

Regarding the risks of aquifer consolidation, they note that the lithology of the aquifer with sediments of low compressibility is such that consolidation as a result of the water take is not considered likely.

6.5 Effects on Neighbouring Bores As noted in this AEE, the actual location of the proposed bores has not been determined at this stage and the construction of these will require future resource consent application/s. A practical assumption has however been made of the likely locations of new production bores and the effects assessment (on neighbouring bores) made on the basis of these locations.

Potential bore interference effects were assessed by Pattle Delamore having analysed bore records in the vicinity of the site including location, construction, static water levels, some separate testing results and recommended pumping depths and rates. They note that the records may not be complete and verification may be necessary by site inspection and potentially interviewing neighbouring land owners. The methodology for determining interference drawdown is explained in Section 5.2 of the report using two scenarios employing different Storativity values and production bore pumping rates.

The results indicate that the proposed water take in a reasonable worst-case scenario will potentially result in the water level in six bores being drawn down to at or below the assumed pump level in these bores towards the end of the irrigation season. It is anticipated that the assumptions used will be verified in the field and they note that some of the bores may no longer be in use. It is also noted that in most cases the operating pumping rates will be less than commissioning rates of the bores in which case the in-well drawdown effects estimates will be conservative. Pattle Delamore further note that three of these bores were drilled in the 1960’s and may well not be currently in operation.

In the event that potential interference effects on these bores are confirmed, QIL will investigate how to address such effects through direct discussion with the affected bore owners. A number of mitigation measures have been identified as being available for consideration, including lowering the pumps, providing alternative water supplies if / when bore supply is temporarily disrupted and increasing the depth of bores.

6.6 Conditions of Consent Given the potential uncertainties associated with the proposed water take, particularly in terms of the potential interference effects on neighbouring bores, a conservative approach to this application has been adopted. It is appropriate that normal conditions of consent for applications of this nature are included, such as those required to satisfy the policy framework which would require a water meter to be installed, commissioned and records of water use recorded and provided to the Council. The conditions should also address a number of specific matters as follows:

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 23

1. Prior to exercise of the consent a water sample should be taken to test for chloride to establish a baseline result which, if exceeded by a specified level, would trigger the need for intervention. 2. A requirement for taking chloride samples twice annually at the beginning and end of the irrigation season for comparison against the established baseline. 3. Preparation of a contingency plan to be actioned in the event that chloride sampling exceeds the established baseline. 4. Preparation and submission of a water use efficiency report to be provided to the Council at regular intervals, initially for the first three years of the resource consent being activated. 5. Require drilling and testing of the first production bore within one year of this resource consent being granted and the preparation of a suitable report confirming the rates and pumping results of the bore and the submission of this report to the Council. 6. The consent is for a 24 year term, in line with the Council’s common expiry date approach.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 24

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 25

7 Consultation and Notification

7.1 Consultation The Applicant has carried out initial consultation with adjoining neighbours in Seagrove Road, Wright Road and McKenzie Road about a potential rezoning of the site. This consisted of a letter to advise neighbours about the prospect inviting them to comment on any concerns or interest they have, and to meet directly with QIL to discuss these. A number of on-site meetings then took place with some neighbours in June 2018. None of the discussions focused on a water take application.

Consultation with the Council has been ongoing, with an initial meeting between the applicants’ water specialist and planner and the Council’s water allocation specialist and planner, held on 11 December 2018. That meeting addressed the nature of the application being sought, QIL’s intentions for additional development on the land to support the orchard proposal, water allocation matters, the nature of the assessment to support this application and the matters to be covered in the application. The latter included the bores in the vicinity of the site and potential effects on those, saline intrusion, groundwater flow, feasibility of water abstraction and potential staging of the bore construction.

Subsequent discussions and information exchange between the Council and the applicants’ water specialist also took place. This information exchange has informed the groundwater effects assessment carried out by Pattle Delamore (Appendix 1).

7.2 Notification There is no requirement to publicly notify this application as the proposal does not trigger the provisions in Step 1 (s95A (2) & (3)) of the RMA. For completeness, it is recorded that the applicant has not requested public notification and there are no outstanding or refused requested for further information stemming from the pre-application meeting.

Public notification is not precluded under s95A(4) as neither of the criteria in s95A(5) are met. Under s95A(7) the application also does not meet the criteria in s95A(8) as it is not for an activity requiring public notification under a rule or national environmental standard and the activity has been assessed as having less than minor effects on the environment. In determining whether effects are likely to be more than minor, the effects on persons who own or occupy the application site or land adjacent to the site must be disregarded (s95D(a)) and an adverse effect of the activity may be disregarded if a rule permits an activity with that effect (s95D(b)). This is relevant in terms of the policy in Chapter E2.3.7 and the assessment criteria in Chapter E7.8.2(5) of the AUP, where adverse effects on bores (to the extent that owners are prevented from exercising their lawfully established water takes) will not be applicable where it is practically possible to locate the pump intake at a greater depth in the affected bore or it can be demonstrated that the affected bore accesses, or could access, groundwater at a deeper level in the aquifer if drilled or cased deeper.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 26

If an application has not been, or does not need to be, publicly notified the Council is required to determine whether special circumstances exist that warrant it being publicly notified (s95A(9)).

Special circumstances are those that are:

 exceptional or unusual, but something less than extraordinary;  outside of the common run of applications of this nature; or  circumstances which make notification desirable.

In this instance there is nothing exceptional or unusual about the application and the proposal has nothing out of the ordinary to suggest that public notification should occur. It is therefore concluded that public notification of the application is not required.

If the application is not publicly notified under s95A, the steps set out in s95B are followed to determine whether to limited notify the application. There are no protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups affected by the proposed activity (s95B(2)) and the proposal is not on or adjacent to land subject to a statutory acknowledgement under Schedule 11. For completeness it is recorded that limited notification is not precluded as the proposal is not subject to a rule or national environmental standard precluding limited notification and it is not a controlled, prescribed or boundary activity. Under s95B(8), consideration must be given to whether there are affected persons in accordance with s95E of the RMA. For a person to be affected under that section the activity must adversely affect that person to a minor or more than minor degree, but not less than minor.

In this case the groundwater effects assessment has identified that six neighbouring bores may be affected by the proposed water take, noting that three of those bores may not be in operation. From a pragmatic perspective it would be difficult to logically conclude that the “effects on bores” is different to an assessment of “affected persons” given that those bores belong to land owners and occupiers. However, if it can reasonably be determined that the potentially affected bores can be altered, either by locating the intake pump/s deeper or drilling or casing deeper, in compliance with the policy and criteria provisions of the AUP, then limited notification of the application is not required as these persons would not be adversely affected.

At this stage the investigations concerning neighbouring bores have not been completed and therefore the assumptions regarding potential bore interference effects have not been confirmed. Based on present knowledge, it is appropriate to notify those potentially affected neighbouring bore owners, even though the effects on their bores may be able to be mitigated. The applicant is continuing to investigate these issues and if further information comes to light (or the applicant reaches agreement with some or all of these owners as to how any effects on their bores are to be mitigated), then limited notification may not be required.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects 27

8 Conclusion The assessment of effects undertaken in this AEE concludes that the effects of the proposed water take are less than minor and can likely be addressed by works associated with the potentially affected bores. The capability of the aquifer to provide the amount of water required for the proposed kiwifruit orchard has been confirmed and this amount of water has been justified thereby ensuring that the application does not over allocate the resource. The risk of aquifer consolidation or surface subsidence is considered to be low and the risk of saline intrusion has also been assessed as low, thereby having effects that are anticipated to be less than minor.

Consideration of the statutory framework has confirmed that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the AUP-OIP and appropriately addresses the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater. The proposal also satisfies the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and provides for a more efficient use of the soils on the site enabling greater productive potential to be realised.

Overall, it is concluded that with the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent addressing the matters identified in Section 6.6 of this AEE, the water take application can be consented.

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects

Attachment 1 Groundwater Effects Assessment Pattle Delamore Partners Limited

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects

Attachment 2 Certificates of Title

Q Invest Company Ltd February 2019 Water Take Resource Consent Application Assessment of Environmental Effects