Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited - Tirau · PDF fileFonterra Co-operative Group Limited - Tirau (Renewal of consents for existing activities related to the operation of the dairy

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited - Tirau

(Renewal of consents for existing activities related to the operation of the dairy facility at

Tirau)

Hearing: Thursday 28 January commencing at 09:00am and will continue on Friday 29 January 2016 only as and if required to complete the hearing, at the Kingsgate Hotel, 100 Garnett Ave, Te Rapa Hamilton

Waikato Regional Council Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

January 2016

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

Resource Management Act 1991

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

File: 60 39 12A

Applicant: Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Att: Dave Wright Private Bag 1 Edgecumbe

Neutral submission: Te Kupenga O Ngati Hako Inc PO Box 114 Paeroa

Submissions in opposition: Fish and Game New Zealand Att: Ben Wilson 156 Brymer Rd RD9 Hamilton

Department of Conservation Att: John Gumbley PO Box 3072 Hamilton 3240

INDEX Page

Report on Applications 1

Hearing Format and Procedure 2-3

Waikato Regional Council Technical Report and Appendices 4-84

Submissions received by Waikato Regional Council 85-89

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

To: Waikato Regional Council Hearing Committee (Independent Commissioners R van Voorthuysen and Dr Ngaire Phillips)

1 CONSTITUTION

The hearing has been established in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2 APPLICATIONS

Lodged with Waikato Regional Council to:

122870 To take up to 20,000 cubic metres of water per day from the Oraka Stream

122871 Discharge up to 8000 cubic metres of treated dairy wastewater per day to the Oraka Stream

122872 Discharge up to 12,000 cubic metres of cooling water per day to the Oraka Stream

3 NOTIFICATION

The applications lodged with Waikato Regional Council were publicly notified in the Waikato Times on 17 October 2011 with the closing date for receipt of submissions being 15 November 2011.

4 SUBMISSIONS

Within the prescribed submission period:

Three (3) submissions were received by Waikato Regional Council from The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game New Zealand and Te Kupenga O Ngati Hako Inc.

1

HEARING WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

1 Hearing Format 1 The Chairperson will declare the hearing open. 2 The Chairperson will request the Hearing Administrator to call the application/s. 3 All parties present will be requested to identify themselves, stating their interest in the

case. Appearances - names of applicant, submitter(s) (for and/or against) and respective Counsel will be recorded.

4 The Chairperson will address any particular procedural and other matters that require

clarification. 5 Applicant(s) (or their representative/s) to present the application/s and call witnesses. 6 Submitter(s) (or their representative/s) in support of the application/s to present their

submission and call witnesses. 7 Submitter(s) (or their representative/s) in opposition to the application/s to present their

submission and call witnesses. 8 Waikato Regional Council Staff Technical Report 9 Applicant's right of reply 10 Closure (or in some circumstances adjournment) of the hearing.

2 Rules of Procedure 1 The Chairperson may require a witness to give his/her evidence (or a particular part of

his/her evidence) on oath. 2 The applicant and parties making submissions may be represented by legal counsel or

other authorised representative/s. 3 If any person intends to give written or spoken evidence in Maori during the hearing, the

Hearing Administrator must be informed of this at least five (5) working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided. Alternatively, an interpretation may be provided with the evidence by the person giving the evidence.

4 The Chairperson or any member of the hearing body may address questions to any of

the parties (staff, applicant, submitter(s), or their respective witnesses or representative/s) at any stage of the hearing.

2

5 Cross-examination of witnesses is not permitted. At the conclusion of the evidence of a witness, other parties may seek clarification of particular points in that evidence. But it is at the Chairperson's discretion as to whether or not a question is put to the witness. The Chairperson may require a person seeking clarification to submit a proposed question in writing.

6 Any person giving evidence may be recalled as and when considered necessary and/or appropriate by the Chairperson.

7 The Chairperson may, if it is considered that there is likely to be excessive repetition, limit the circumstances in which parties who have the same interest or stance on an issue may speak or call evidence in support.

8 The applicant's right of reply must be confined to matters arising out of the evidence or any legal points which require clarification. No new evidence may be introduced at this stage.

9 If new or further information or technical evidence is introduced for the first time at the hearing, then the Chairperson may adjourn the hearing to allow circulation of the new material to all parties. Time will be allowed for the parties to access the new or further information or technical evidence prior to the hearing being reconvened.

10 If the hearing members decide that there is insufficient information available for them to reach a decision on the application, then the Chairperson may adjourn the hearing pending receipt of the further information required. Once received, this additional information will be precirculated to all of the parties involved in the hearing prior to the hearing being reconvened.

11 The Chairperson declares the hearing closed once all parties have presented their evidence and the hearing panel has no further questions, and taking into account numbers 9 and 10 above if applicable. The panel then decides whether to deliberate in public or private.

12 Copies of all technical evidence and written statements to be presented at the hearing by the parties are to be precirculated to: - the consent authority, Waikato Regional Council, and- the other partiesin accordance with the instructions set out in the Notice of Hearing letter.

This is essential to ensure that the parties involved in the hearing have all the evidence necessary to be fully informed about the proposal and the relevant issues/concerns. This will greatly assist the Hearing Committee in its task and prevent unnecessary delays in the process.

13 All hearings will be held in public except where the hearing body determines that the public should be excluded pursuant to Section 42 of the Resource Management Act which relates to the protection of sensitive information.

14 Should any party wish to use equipment such as overhead projectors, slide projectors or video replay facilities to present evidence, please contact the Hearing Administrator (at least five (5) working days before the hearing) who may be able to assist in co-ordinating the availability of and/or access to such equipment.

3

Page 1 WRC Doc 3672091: WRC Hearing Report for Fonterra Tirau Wastewater and Stormwater/Cooling Water consent renewals

Hearing Report Applicant: Fonterra Limited File No.: 60 39 12A

Address of Site: Okororie Rd - Tirau Project Code: RC9647

Application Numbers:

APP122862.04.01 and APP122862.05.01

________________________________________________________________________

Table of contents

Subject Page

1 Introduction 4

2 Background and description of activity 5

3 Status of activities 14

3.1 Wastewater discharge to Oraka Stream 14

3.2 Stormwater and cooling water discharge to Oraka Stream 14

4 Consultation 14

4.1 Iwi 14

4.2 Other parties 14

4.3 Submissions Received 14

5 Process matters 15

6 Statutory Considerations 15

6.1 Section 104 Consideration of Applications 16

6.2 Assessment of Environmental Effects 17

6.2.1 Receiving Environment 17

6.2.2 Effect of the discharge on surface water quality and aquatic biota 24

6.3 Policy Statements and Plans 33

6.3.1 National Environmental Standards 33

6.3.2 Other Regulations 34

6.3.3 National policy statements (including NZ Coastal Policy Statement)

34

6.3.4 Section 104(1)(b)(v) Regional Policy Statements 36

6.3.5 Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Regional Plan 37

6.4 Other matters 38

6.4.1 Hauraki Gulf marine Park Act (2000) (HGMPA) 38

6.4.1.1 Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf 38

6.4.1.2 Management of Hauraki Gulf 39

6.4.2 Hauraki Iwi Management Plan 2004 40

6.4.3 Raukawa Iwi Management Plan 40

6.5 Relevant Part 2 Considerations 41

6.6 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Waikato River) Settlement Claims Act 2010/Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010

42

7 Duration 42

8 Discussion and Conclusion 51

9 Monitoring 52

9.1 Stormwater 52

9.2 Wastewater 52

10 Recommended Decision 53

Proposed consent conditions 54

4


Appendices

1 Interim Technical Review by WRC Scientist Bill Vant 73

2 Comments from Bill Vant following provision of addendum information 77

3 Letter from Department of Conservation re final report and proposed conditions

79

Report author

Mark Row: I am a senior resource officer at Waikato Regional Council, where I have been employed for the last 9 years. I have a Bachelor of Social Science in geography and resource and environmental planning from Waikato University and a National Diploma in Surveying from Unitec. I have 10 years experience in consent processing under the Resource Management Act 1991. Relevant Hearing reports which I have prepared in recent years include AFFCO (2013), AFFCO change to discharge to air (2008), Max Birt Sawmills Ltd, discharge to land and water (2007), 75 lot rural residential subdivision - Pirongia (2006)

Documentation

Key documents provided by the applicant, including the AEE and s92 responses, are set out below for

reference. Also included are technical reports provided by the applicant or WRC scientists.

Document WRC doc#

“Fonterra Tirau – Application for Replacement of Resource Consents and Assessment of Environmental Effects” prepared by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Limited, dated May 2011,

1983853

Fonterra Tirau Consent Renewals: Addendum lnformation prepared by Beca, dated May 2015

3402862

Tirau Stormwater Management Options (Draft for Council - September 2015) 3540159

Enforcement Recommendation: Fonterra Tirau - Various Breaches prepared by Mark Row March 2015 (Internal WRC File Note)

3267668

Oraka Stream Ecological Monitoring 2013 Report prepared by Freshwater Solutions May 2014

3213782

Report on Nitrogen Issues for 2012/13 prepared by Ron Hamilton of Fonterra, July 2014

3111514

Interim Technical Review by WRC Scientist Bill Vant 1997663

Comments from Bill Vant following provision of addendum information 3672049

Letter from Department of Conservation re final report and proposed conditions 3672008

Explanation of Hearing Report structure:

The original consent applications have been assessed by several Council staff: Cameron King provided a technical review of the surface water take application, Jonathan Caldwell processed the air discharge application, and Mark Row processed the cooling water, stormwater and wastewater discharge to the Oraka Stream and the water take application. As explained in the introduction the air discharge and water take consents have been processed separately.

Technical comment was also provided by Council scientists Bill Vant, Kevin Collier and Bruno David. Bill Vant reviewed the water quality and impacts on the wider river and Firth of Thames. Kevin Collier and Bruno David’s assessment was largely confined to the effects of the surface water take.

The issue in contention for the hearing is that of duration. All parties have reached agreement on conditions for the discharge to water consents. The original s42a report covered the discharge to stream consents and the surface water take consent and was circulated to the applicant and the

5


submitters who had originally been opposed to the granting of the consents. That report has been modified for this hearing. The sections and comment related to the surface water take has been removed. The report contains the background to the consent applications and the assessment of the discharges to the Oraka Stream as they are an integral part of the recommendation for the term of the consent. Section 7 of the report is focussed on the duration recommendation and draws on the other aspects of the report as well as looking at some of the case law and other considerations around this issue. I would make the point that duration is not something that is considered in isolation, rather it is arrived at having looked at the various issues such as the assessment of effects, comment from submitters and community expectations and also takes into account other consent terms – not as an absolute determinant of what the term should be but to give context to the recommendation arrived at.

6


1. Introduction

The Fonterra Co-operative group have applied to renew the consents required for the operation of their Tirau Dairy factory. An application was lodged by their consultant - Richard Douch of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd - for discharges to air and water resulting from the operation of the factory and a surface water take. At the time of application all water take consents required a water use consent so this was added to the application. The application has been logged into the Waikato Regional Council electronic database as Docs # 1983853.

Table 1 below identifies the resource consent applications that have been made by the applicant:

Table 1

Original

application

number

New IRIS consent

number

Consent Purpose Current Status Consent to be

Replaced

122862 APP122862.01.01 Water Use

Consent no longer

required following the

Variation 6 change to

the WRP

N/A

122863 APP122862.02.01 Discharge stormwater to the

Oraka stream

Withdrawn and included

as part of the cooling

water discharge consent

N/A

122870 APP122862.03.01

To take up to 20,000 cubic

metres of water per day from

the Oraka Stream

Consent was unbundled

in December 2015 and

is being processed

separately

940465

122871 APP122862.04.01

Discharge up to 8000 cubic

metres of treated dairy

wastewater per day to the

Oraka Stream

Current application

940463

122872 APP122862.05.01

Discharge up to 12,000 cubic

metres of cooling water per

day to the Oraka Stream

Current application

940464

122873 AUTH122873.03.01

Discharge contaminants to air

from operations related to the

processing of dairy products,

etc

Consent was unbundled

and processed

separately and was

granted in 2012

940462

Following variation 6 of the Waikato Regional Plan becoming operative, a use consent is no longer required for the water take. The stormwater application has been combined with the cooling water discharge consent application. The air discharge application was unbundled and processed separately and has now been granted.

The report and application is for the following consents:

APP122862.04.01 Discharge up to 8000 cubic metres of treated dairy wastewater per day to the Oraka Stream

APP122862.05.01 Discharge stormwater and cooling water per day to the Oraka Stream

A term of 31 years has been requested. The applicant has subsequently confirmed that the 31 years would be from the date of the application and thus 27 years from the date of this report.

A response to a s92 request and an addendum that included updated technical reports, a revised suite of conditions and response to questions regarding seepage from the treatment ponds was received on

7


5 May 2015 (WRC Docs# 3402862). A report into options for treatment and monitoring of the stormwater and cooling water was lodged with Council on 8 September 2015 (WRC Docs# 3504619) The updated application combines the cooling and stormwater consents into one as they have the same discharge point.

2 Background and Description of Proposal

Fonterra Tirau is part of the Fonterra Co-operative Group. The site manufactures casein, lactalbumin and ethanol. Fonterra Tirau discharges stormwater and treated wastewater to the Oraka Stream and contaminants to air from the casein driers and gas fired boilers. The site operates an anaerobic / aerobic pond treatment system, which also received and treated effluent from other offsite sources. These have included Fonterra Te Awamutu Biomass, Fonterra Te Awamutu Stockfood, Fonterra Hautapu Salt Whey and Fonterra Lichfield Salt Whey and Brine.

Fig 1: Fonterra Tirau Site The Fonterra Tirau site received a High compliance rating for the 2013/14, 2012/13, 2011/12, 2010/11, 2009/10 & 2008/09 seasons and a Full compliance rating for the 2007/08 season. A number of exceedances and spills related to the wastewater and stormwater discharges during the 2014/15 season resulted in the issuing of infringements and a formal warning.

Season Milk Produced

2009/10 286,873,689 litres

2010/11 296,016,826 litres

2011/12 270,639,027 litres

2012/13 Figures not given

2013/14 303,000,000 litres approx

2014/15 342,639,064 litres

Anaerobic ponds

Water

Intake

Site 2: Stormwater

discharge

Site 3: Wastewater

discharge

8


Wastewater The Fonterra Tirau site operates a pond system to treat 2 distinct waste streams. Low strength waste such as CIP wash water, floor wash water and wastes from other sites (brine, salt whey etc) is treated through an aerobic pond and then to a clarifier before discharge to the Oraka Stream. High Strength waste, such as lactalbumin washwater, distillation slops and salt serum, are treated through an anaerobic pond and then the partially treated wastewater from this pond goes to the aerobic pond.

Figure 2: Schematic of the Fonterra Wastewater Treatment System The site is one of 7 major point source discharges to the Oraka Stream or Waihou River. The others are: South Waikato District Council:

Consented to discharge up to 900 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Oraka Stream from the Tirau municipal WWTP. The consent was granted in 2004 and expires on 1 December 2023.

Consented to discharge up to 2500 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Oraka Stream from the Tirau municipal WWTP. The consent expired on 31 March 2014 and the plant is operating under s124 protection.

Matamata-Piako District Council:

Consented to discharge up to 4000 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Waihou River via the Mangawhero Stream from the Matamata municipal WWTP. The consent was granted in 2009 and expires on 8 June 2024.

Consented to discharge up to 7000 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Waihou River from the Te Aroha municipal WWTP. The consent expired on 30 March 2010 and the plant is operating under s124 protection.

Silver Fern Farms Ltd

Consented to discharge up to 2000 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Waihou River from the Te Aroha Meat Plant WWTP. The consent has expired and the plant is operating under s124 protection.

Consented to discharge up to 1300 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater to the Waihou River via the Ohinemuri River from the Paeroa Meat Plant WWTP. The consent has expired and the plant is operating under s124 protection.

9


In terms of consented volume the Fonterra discharge is the largest point source discharge to the Waihou River catchment.

Fig 3: Location of wastewater treatment ponds. For the six seasons to 2013/14 the site achieved a high compliance rating during the previous six audits. This was despite some exceedances and minor spills. A formal warning was issued following the audit of 2012/13 for exceedances of the nitrogen limits. Overall discretion was applied to give a high compliance rating on the basis of the overall operation but Industry Team Leader David Stagg noted:

“The nitrogen non compliance was well over the limit and although corrected in the following season this non compliance should not be over looked. Nutrients are a significant issue for this council in terms of non point source discharges farming. Point sources also need to do their bit to address this issue. On this basis a formal warning should be issued to formally record this non compliance”.

At the start of 2015 and abatement notice and infringement notices were issued following a series of spills. The enforcement report is copied into the appendix. In December 2015 there was another incident of infiltration of wastewater to the stormwater and this is currently being investigated. As a result of a review of the wastewater plant operation and the various non-compliances, Fonterra has proposed an upgrade of the plant to enable a higher level of treatment and also address infiltration issues with the stormwater system. The upgrade is scheduled to be completed by 1 July 2018. The revised application proposes that the existing consent limits for the quality of the discharge will continue until 30 June 2019. From 1 July 2019, following completion of the upgrade, more restrictive limits will apply. Council has agreed to that approach and the proposed limits are set out below. The table also lists a comparison with the various limits for municipal discharges to the Waihou River System and other main river system in the Hauraki. The other main non-municipal wastewater discharges are the Fonterra Waitoa site and Wallace Corporation to the Waitoa River and Silver Fern Farms Ltd to the Waihou River. The Fonterra Waitoa consents were granted a year ago. Wallace Corporation and Silver Fern Farms are currently in the process of renewal of their consents and these have yet to be granted.

10


Parameter Units Fonterra Tirau SWDC Tirau

WW Discharge Consent Limits (90%ile)

SWDC Putaruru WW Discharge Consent Limits (90%ile)

MPDC Te Aroha WWTP MBR Discharge Consent Limits (95%ile)

MPDC Te Aroha WWTP Discharge Consent Limits (Max) from MBR & Ponds

MPDC Matamata WWTP (median)

MPDC Waihou WWTP Discharge Consent Limits (95%ile)

MPDC Mville WWTP Discharge (median)

Existing Limit

95 %ile Limit Post 1 July 2019

Maximum Limit Post 1 July 2019

BOD g/m3 90 6 12 15 (30 max) 30 (50 max) 10 35 10* 30 10

TP g/m3 25 1 2 5.3 10 (15 max) 6 6.71 8.4 6.78

DRP g/m3 1 2 5 6.75

TN g/m3 40 10 20 37 45.5 (55) 30 15* 21 20

Nitrate-N g/m3 7.5 15 14 2.26 15 10

Amm-N g/m3 4 8 5 (10 max) 35 (50 max) 4 25 5* 5 3

Sus Solids g/m3 180 50 100 20 (40 max) 30 (50 max) 10 140 10* 30 15

E.coli cfu/100ml 110 260 200 (1000 max)

1000 (5000 max)

126 100,000 10 1000 126

* 1 sample/yr max to exceed

2x median

BOD kg/day 720* 48* 96* 13.5 75 245 40 7.5 160

TP kg/day 200* 4.1 4.77 25 3 27 2.1 108

TP kg/yr 1500 1500 1741 9125 1095 9855 766.5 39420

TN kg/day 41

33.3 113.75 45.5 (summer) 75 (winter)

60 5.25 320

TN kg/yr 15000 15000 12154 41518 21991 21900 1816 116800

Amm-N kg/day 32* 64* 4 87.5 175 20 1.25 48

Sus Solids kg/day 1440* 300* 600* 18 75 980 200 7.5 240

Max Volume

m3/day

8000 8000 8000 900 2500 7000 7000 4000 250 16000**

denotes mean actual results for last recorded audit period as no consent limit

denotes values calculated from consent limits using maximum daily volumes denotes values calculated from proposed annual limits

denotes values calculated using mean actual results from last audit & maximum daily discharge volumes

Table 1: Comparison of Fonterra Tirau and Municipal Discharge Limits

* Denotes a calculated figure

11


Parameter Units Fonterra Tirau

SWDC Tirau WW Discharge Consent Limits (90%ile)

SWDC Putaruru WW Discharge Consent Limits (90%ile)

MPDC Te Aroha WWTP Discharge Consent Limits (95%ile) MBR


MPDC Matamata WWTP (median)

MPDC Waihou WWTP Discharge Consent Limits (95%ile)

MPDC Mville WWTP Discharge (median)

Existing Limit

95%ile Limit Post 1 July 2019


Max Volume

m3/day

8000 8000

8000*** 8000 900 2500 7000 7000

4000 250 16000**

Granted

2003 1999 2015 2015

2009 2011 2009

Consent Term

20 years 15 years 20 years 20 years 15 years 15 years

15 years

River Survey

every 5 years 1 after 11 yrs

2 yearly *

Mitigation

$15,000 pa

until new limits reached

$15,000 pa until new limits reached

200 metres of 5m wide riparian planting

riparian planting

Notes

Note: Mass load values apply from 1 Dec 2019

Note: Limits applied from 1 July 2011

* Ceases when 2 consecutive surveys show no dstream

effect

*** 8000 max daily discharge vol with a monthly mean of 6000

** Actual discharge

volumes for 2014/15 on

average were less than 1/3 of the limit

12


Cooling Water/Stormwater The cooling water and stormwater discharge at a common point between the location of the water take and the wastewater discharge. Stormwater from Tirau township also discharges at this point and is part of what is sampled and tested at the outlet. At the point of discharge the Oraka Stream is confined within a narrow gorge and is quite fast flowing.

Table 2: Recent Monitoring Results

Parameter 2014/15 Season 2013/14 Season 2012/13 Season 2011/12 Season

Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg

Vol m3/day 12.6 11087 2645 8 16262 2927 265 17734 5348

pH 5.21 8.74 7.42 6.63 10.7 7.4 3.3 11.58 8.1 4 10 7.5

BOD5 (g/m3) 0 9 5 0 9 3.4 0 9 4 0 10 4

Conductivity (μS/cm)

10 427 169 107 442 172 87 449 174 107 333 174

Sus Solids (g/m

3)

0 56 4 0 48 4.5 0 32 7 0 104 5

Note: Values in red are outside consent limits. The values in the table are from regular monitoring but results during 2014/15 from continuous probes and sampling as a result of spillages have given pH vales as low as 4.2 and as high as 10.4, suspended solids results up to 300 g/m3 and BOD of 60 g/m3. In general the majority of non-compliances with the cooling water/stormwater discharge has been pH. This has been considered to be largely the result of infiltration of caustic CIP into the stormwater lines. The site has replaced quite a few pipelines. There have been other instances of spills and in January 2015 an infringement was issued for the discharge of beer ethanol from one of the fermentation silos. As a result of the non-compliances the applicant undertook an investigation to look at options for addressing these.. The upgrade proposal had the following key objectives:

Compliance – a discharge that fully complies with all conditions of consent at all times.

Operability – a system that operates reliably having the minimum resource input to ensure compliance, low maintenance (on line monitoring, automated diversion systems, operational status on line).

Cost effective solution – lowest cost of ownership across the life of the asset.

A proposed upgrade to the stormwater (WRC Docs # 3504619) which will enable diversion and treatment of ‘out-of-spec’ water and also to be able to undertake separate monitoring of the town stormwater coming from offsite. The preferred option includes:

Separating first flush diversions from the western and eastern catchments, with the ability to detain noncompliant water and discharge to the WWTP. The western first flush tank is located in the gully below the factory, whilst the eastern first flush tank is located beside the treated water reservoir.

Treatment of stormwater runoff in the WWTP area in swales that discharge to the existing stormwater system, with the ability to detain spills in the system and pump to the eastern first flush tank

13


Figure 4: The stormwater and cooling water discharge point Plans of the stormwater catchment areas and preferred options are reproduced on the following pages.

14


15


16

3 Status of Activities under the Plans

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) became operational on 28/9/07. There were subsequent variations that became fully operative in 2014.

3.1 Wastewater Discharge to Oraka Stream

Under Rule 3.5.4.5 of the WRP the discharge of contaminant (treated organic waste) into water that is not specifically provided for by any other rule, is a discretionary activity, and requires a resource consent.

3.2 Stormwater and cooling water discharge to Oraka Stream

Originally the application was to have a stormwater discharge and a cooling water discharge consent. As both discharge through the same outlet and are effectively a combined discharge, the consent cannot does not meet the definition of stormwater (channelised intercepted rainwater). Under Rule 3.5.4.5 the application for a combined stormwater and cooling water discharge is thus assessed as a discretionary activity.

4 Consultation/Affected Party Approvals

4.1 Iwi

The only iwi specifically consulted with were Raukawa. A meeting was held with them in Tokoroa on 8 August 2011. Fonterra provided an overview of what they were proposing as well as generally having a discussion around the matters of interest to Raukawa. Other sites within the Raukawa rohe, such as Lichfield, were also discussed. The meeting did not identify any matters of specific concern. A follow up letter was issued to Raukawa, dated 31 August 2011, advising that Fonterra had requested that the application be notified and that Fonterra were open to further consultation and / or responding to any matters of concern if there was a desire to do so. No response was obtained by Raukawa. No submission was received from Raukawa. A neutral submission was received from Ngati Hako.

4.2 Other Parties

Ongoing consultation has been undertaken with Fish and Game, Waikato District Health Board and the Department of Conservation. The consent renewals were also presented at the site annual community meetings. Waikato District Health Board emailed the applicant to say that they had reviewed the AEE and considered that all major health issues had been addressed in the AEE and proposed conditions. Fish & Game and DOC both made submissions as part of the public notification process and these are outlined in section 4.3 of this report.

4.3 Submissions Received

A decision was made in October 2011 to publicly notify the applications, and iwi, neighbours and relevant organisations were sent notification letters. Submissions closed on 15th November 2011. The following submissions were received by Council: Table 2: Summary of Submissions Submitter Consent

application Opposed Support Neutral

Wish to be heard?

Concerns

Fish & Game NZ (Auckland -Waikato

Discharge of treated wastewater to the

Opposed Yes Detrimental to the trout fishery in the Oraka and lower Waihou River

17


Region). Oraka Stream

Department of Conservation

River discharge.

Opposed Yes Potential for significant adverse effects on the Firth of Thames and doesn’t meet the objectives of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Fails to address how nutrients will be addressed. Opposed to term Minimal mitigation proposed. Requested improved river monitoring. Concerns about ammonia concentrations in the river. Doesn’t promote sustainable management Wants the following matters conditioned:

Programmed nutrient reduction

Biodiversity Offset mitigation linked to the above

Consent term reduction to no more than 15 years in the absence of nutrient reduction

Increasing the frequency of monitoring during the peak production season with a requirement for more intensive receiving water monitoring in the event of any noncompliance.

Ngati Hako All applications, Neutral No Stated that they had no concerns and did not require further consultation.

5 Process Matters

The application was received complete on the 30th May 2011. As this was more than 6 months prior to the expiry of the existing consents, under s124 of the RMA, the consent holder is able to operate under the existing consents until the new consents are granted. A s92(1) request was issued on 20 June 2011 requesting further information and results of consultation with DOC and Fish and Game. Fonterra responded on 8 July 2011 to request more time to respond to the information request. They then asked for the application to be notified in order to see what the issues were (WRC Docs # 2038685). The notification decision is documented in WRC Docs # 2047127 and the application was notified on 17 October 2011. Ongoing negotiation has continued with Fish and Game and Department of Conservation. Fish and Game emailed confirmation of their agreement to accept the proposed conditions and withdraw their wish to be heard on 13 November 2015 (WRC Docs # 3612865). They stated that they supported Councils position regarding a duration of 20 years. The Department of Conservation reviewed the s42a report and proposed conditions and advised in writing on 18 December 2018 that they are satisfied that the proposed conditions will adequately manage the effects given the current operating environment (WRC Docs # 3612865). With regard to the issue of timeframes they suggested 25 years from the application date and the addition of a review condition. All s92(1) matters and agreements with the submitters were thus concluded on 18 December 2015.

6 Statutory Considerations

The consents sought are discretionary activities according to the Waikato Regional Plan. This application was made on 30/05/2011 and therefore must be assessed in terms of the principal RMA (1991) and all subsequent amendments up to and including the Resource Management Amendment Act 2009 (Simplifying and Streamlining).

18


According to section 104(1) Resource Management Act 1991, when considering an application of a resource consent and any submissions received, Waikato Regional Council must have regard to specified matters. With respect to the Fonterra discharges, relevant matters include –

Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

Any relevant provisions of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement; and

The Waikato Regional Plan.

Section 104(2) states that Waikato Regional Council “may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan permits an activity with that effect”. This matter is discussed further below.

Under section 104B, as the proposed wastewater and stormwater/cooling water discharges are Discretionary Activities, Waikato Regional Council may grant or refuse the application, and if it grants the application may impose conditions under section 108 RMA.

Under section 105, as the wastewater discharge is an activity which would contravene section 15 if a consent was not granted, Waikato Regional Council must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1) have regard to –

The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects;

The applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and

Any possible alternative methods of discharge.

As the proposed discharge is to surface water, under section 107 RMA the Council shall not grant a consent if the discharge causes significant adverse effects (as specified in s107). This matter is discussed further in section 6.1 of this evaluation report.

6.1 Section 104 Consideration of Applications

Section 104(1)(a) provides that when considering a consent application, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. Case law has determined that the "environment" must be read as the environment which exists at the time of the assessment and as the environment may be in the future as modified by the utilisation of permitted activities under the plan and by the exercise of resource consents which are being exercised, or which are likely to be exercised in the future. It does not include the effects of resource consents which might be sought in the future nor any past reversible effects arising from the consent being considered.

Section 104(2) provides that when forming an opinion about the actual or potential effects of the activity, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the regional plan permits an activity with that effect. This is often referred to as the "permitted baseline" and calls for a discretionary decision to be exercised by the consent authority as to whether or not to discount such permitted effects. This provision requires consideration of:

"the existing environment overlaid with such relevant activity (not being a fanciful activity) as is permitted by the plan. Thus, if the activity permitted by the plan will create some adverse effect on the environment, that adverse effect does not count in the s104 or s105 assessments…it is deemed to be already affecting the environment…The consequence is that only other or further adverse effects emanating from the proposal under consideration are brought to account." (Arrigato v ARC)

In this case there are no permitted baseline effects which have been discounted. The two discharges are discretionary activities and there are no rules in the plan that permit the discharge of contaminants to water. .

The applicant has provided information about the proposed discharge on the water quality and ecology of the Oraka Stream and on the Waikato River. The application and other information have

19


been reviewed by Waikato Regional Council Scientists Mr Bill Vant (water quality), Dr Kevin Collier (freshwater ecology) and Dr Bruno David (ecology).

Section 104 (2A) Value of Investment of Existing Consent Holder Section 104 (2A) states that: “When considering an application affected by section 124, the consent authority must have regard to the value of the investment of the existing consent holder.” In this instance the application is affected by section 124, as the applicant applied for resource consent more than six months prior to expiry of their existing consent. Therefore the provisions of s104 (2A) apply. In this case significant investment exists in the existing infrastructure at this location. The value of this existing infrastructure investment must therefore be given regard in considering the application. To clarify, I consider that this applies only to the existing infrastructure as existed at the time of the application and not to any proposed upgrades and site works. Section 105 Matters relevant to certain applications Furthermore, in relation to any discharge permits, Section 105(1) requires that the consent authority must have regard to a number of additional matters as follows:

“(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

(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

Section 107 Restriction on grant of certain resource consents Section 107(1) of the RMA restricts granting of certain discharge permits if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminants discharged are likely to give rise to any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

(c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended

materials:

(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.

Section 124 Exercise of resource consent while applying for new consent In this instance the applicant applied for replacement consents at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the existing consents and thus s124(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, allows the consent holder to continue to operate under the existing resource consents until new consents are granted and all appeals are determined.

6.2 Assessment of Environmental Effect

6.2.1 Receiving Environment The Fonterra Tirau site is located on the northern edge of the town. The Oraka Stream flows from the eastern boundary of the site along the north-eastern boundary before flowing northwards. The predominant land use to the northern end of the site (from south-east to north-west) is farming. Most of the land on the southern and western edges of the site is either urban or industrial. The Waihou River is the second largest river in the Waikato Region, with a catchment of around 2,500 km2. The river drains extensive areas of forest, scrublands and intensive agricultural land, and is the largest river flowing into the Firth of Thames

20


The nearest downstream Waikato Regional Council river monitoring site is on the Oraka Stream at Lake Road – approximately 10 km downstream from the Fonterra site. There is a monitoring station on the Waihou River downstream from the Oraka Stream confluence. This is located at the Okauia Springs Road Bridge (approx 44 km downstream of the Fonterra Tirau Site and 28 km downstream of the Oraka/Waihou confluence). There is one WRC flow recorder site on the Oraka Stream and this is located at the Pinedale Bridge, which is situated upstream from the Tirau site

Fig 5:The Oraka Stream alongside the Fonterra Tirau site The Oraka River is a tributary of the Waihou River. It flows northward from the site until the confluence with the Waihou River, approximately 10 km downstream. From this point the Waihou River flows northward until it discharges into the south-western end of the Firth of Thames.

21


The Waihou River is one of the five major rivers in the Waikato Region, traversing 150 kilometres from its headwaters in the Mamamku Ranges to the Firth of Thames at the south end of the Hauraki Gulf. The treated wastewater discharge enters the Waihou River approximately 55 km above its confluence with the Firth of Thames. The Waikato Regional Plan classifies the Waihou River as ‘Contact Recreation’, ‘Indigenous and Trout Fisheries and Spawning Habitat’ uses.

The graphs below show how well the water at the various monitoring sites met the standards for ecology and swimming.

Figure 6: Water quality indicators from the Waikato Regional Council website for the Oraka Stream and Waihou River

Oraka Stream at Lake Rd

22


Waihou River at Whites Rd

Waihou River at Okauia

23


How does the average score at this site compare with other sites in this zone?

24


All but three of the sections of watercourse monitored in the Hauraki have less than 25% of ecological indicators rated as unsatisfactory. There are only 2 sections of watercourses monitored in the catchment that have satisfactory ratings for swimming

Figure 6 The Oraka Stream looking upstream from the Pinedale Bridge (Note: The water recorder station can be seen part way up the bank to the right of the stream in the picture).

25


Figure 7 The Oraka Stream at the SH1 Bridge north of Putaruru

Figure 8 The Oraka Stream at the Langlands Road bridge – several kilometres downstream of the Fonterra Tirau site.

26


6.2.2 Effect of the discharge on surface water quality and aquatic biota Pond Seepage The issue of pond seepage was raised during the consenting process. Fonterra responded as follows:

“The ponds were constructed in approximately 1978, unfortunately with the age of the ponds we do have any knowledge of or documentation of the engineering design assessment undertaken for the ponds construction. A bore was installed in approximately 2006 between pond 2 and the river and found consolidated river sediment (fine silts and sands) no ignimbrites. No hydraulic assessment was undertaken. The Tirau site has an as-built drawing of the ponds which shows pond 2 has a depth of approximately 6 metres. At this depth the base of the pond is above the river level. During complete drainage of the pond no groundwater ingress has been observed.”1

With regard to soil type and susceptibility to leaking and piping the applicant had no further information but noted that no leakage had been observed at the rivers edge that would indicate pond seepage. Remedial works were undertaken in the river bank in 2006 and no leakage flows were observed during this work. They further note that there has been no indication through the stream monitoring that would account for leakage effects over and above what might be as a result of the main wastewater discharge. In reference to possible effects on pond stability the applicant notes:

“The anaerobic pond only is desludged using a cutter/suction dredge. The location of the dredge prevents it eating into the pond sides and pond covers also limit proximity to the concrete wave band which is approximately 4m wide going down approximately 3m below the water surface. The Dredge suction is limited in its depth therefore risk to the base is avoided. Desludging is undertaken annually.”

Figure 9: Clarifier – final stage before discharge to stream.

1 WRC Docs # 3402862

27


I accept the reasoning provided in the response and consider that there is no need for additional monitoring in relation to potential effects from seepage from the ponds but the authorisation for the wastewater consent should be amended to include ‘and associated discharge into land and into groundwater’. Proposed changes to the stormwater system The key issues with non-compliance of the stormwater have been pH breaches, impacts of stormwater and spills. Fonterra have proposed a system to address these. The preferred option is outlined in a report (Tirau Stormwater Management Options (Draft for Council - September 2015) WRC Docs # 3504619) provided to Council on 8 September 2015. The proposed system provides the means to intercept and contain spills within the Fonterra site. The means of compliance with consent performance criteria for the preferred option were outlined in Table 5 of that report and that is reproduced below:

The applicant considers that the preferred option is consistent with the project objectives relating to compliance, operability and cost effectiveness:

Separate first flush diversions from the western and eastern catchments, with the ability to detain noncompliant water and discharge to the WWTP. The western first flush tank is located in the gully below the factory, whilst the eastern first flush tank is located beside the treated water reservoir.

28


Treatment of stormwater runoff in the WWTP area in swales that discharge to the existing stormwater system, with the ability to detain spills in the system and pump to the eastern first flush tank

The advantages of the preferred option include:

Installation of contaminant detection equipment where the off-site stormwater enters the site. This can be diverted to a first flush tank and then options for treatment and return to the stormwater system or on to the WWTP.

Installation of contaminant detection equipment at the stormwater manhole to the north of the wastewater treatment pond.

A new first flush tank at the eastern side of the site

A deep sump near the stormwater discharge point that can pump out-of specification water to the eastern first flush tank

Connect the ethanol bund stormwater outlet to the eastern first flush tank

The eastern first flush tank has the option of pumping to the WWTP This means that the site can better detect contamination in the stormwater and has options to hold and treat the water if required. It also allows the site to have a better understanding of what is happening with the on-site stormwater and cooling water by monitoring the off-site stormwater. I have included a condition requiring that the site implements a system as per the preferred option or similar by 1 August 2017. Effect of the combined discharges The site is one of the major point source discharges to the Waihou River system – other of note being the SWDC municipal plants at Putaruru and Tirau, MPDC municipal plants at Matamata and Te Aroha, the Silver Fern Farms Ltd plant at Te Aroha and the Silver Fern Farms Ltd plant at Paeroa (via the Ohinemuri River). The Waihou River water quality has been monitored by Waikato Regional Council for some time at various points. Table 3: Comparison of sampling at Whites Road, Okauia (Waihou River) and Lake Road (Oraka Stream)

Parameter 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Dissolved Oxygen (% Saturation)

Whites Road

103.1 98.0 104.6 95.7 104.0 101.8 98.2 99.2 101.3

Okauia 94.2 91.8 97.3 91.3 96.1 95.6 92.7 93.2 94.5

Lake Road

91.1 90.8 94.8 90.0 93.4 94.8

Ammoniacal Nitrogen (g N m-3)

Whites Road

0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Okauia 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03

Lake Road

0.11 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.04

Turbidity NTU

Whites Road

0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.5

Okauia 4.6 4.1 4.9 6.3 5.1 4.8 10.3 4.8 8.2

Lake Road

5.4 5.0 9.1 10.6 6.8 7.7

Total Phosphorus (g/m3)

Whites Road

0.115 0.077 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.078 0.081 0.081 0.080

Okauia 0.084 0.073 0.090 0.088 0.086 0.093 0.107 0.092 0.102

29


Lake Road

0.144 0.113 0.159 0.134 0.152 0.185

Total Nitrogen (g/m3)

Whites Road

0.77 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.75 0.67

Okauia 1.34 1.28 1.46 1.46 1.39 1.39 1.46 1.30 1.45

Lake Road

2.38 2.48 2.70 2.54 2.58 2.50

E.Coli (n/100mL)

Whites Road

127 40 33 57 39 37 631 29 124

Okauia 523 190 180 425 538 320 410 290 655

Lake Road

409 264 193 383 450 6733*

Temperature (oC)

Whites Road

13.1 13.4 13.2 13.1 13.5 13.3 13.7 13.6 13.4

Okauia 13.6 14.4 13.4 14.5 14.7 14.0 14.4 14.3 14.1

Lake Road

13.3 14.1 14.0 13.8 14.3 13.7

* The median value was 385 cfu/100 ml. An unusually high maximum value appears to have skewed the mean. At the Lake Road monitoring site the water quality of the Oraka Stream is only moderate. Levels of total nutrients are elevated, however, the waters are well oxygenated and ammonia levels at this site are below that known to affect aquatic organisms. Faecal coliform bacteria are very high such that contact recreation should be avoided. The Oraka Stream is principally fed by springs which drain the western slopes of the Mamaku Ranges. Agriculture is a dominant landuse in the Oraka Stream catchment with approximately 45% in pasture. The water quality of the Oraka Stream is a little below that of the Waihou River at Whites Road. Whilst the quality of the Waihou deteriorates a little more downstream of the Oraka confluence it appears that the major deterioration in quality to the river system has taken place in the upper reaches above Okuia Road. The applicant has proposed an upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant and provided as an addendum to the application an assessment of the effect of the upgrade on water quality. In summary the applicant concludes: Based on the approach described, the estimated worst-case annual treated discharge loads of the proposed wastewater treatment plant are as follows

The BOD load (8,109 kg) is on average a 62% reduction (range = 31-86%) compared with the BOD loads for the period 2005-13.

The TP load (1,352 kg) is on average a 77% reduction (range = 45-82%) compared with the TP loads for the period 2005-14.

The TN load (13,515 kg) is on average a 56% reduction (range = 4-70%) compared with the TN loads for the period 2005-13.

Based on the production season remaining as at present (August to December) and the maximum monthly volumes discharged as shown in Table 2 the proposed upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant will see an estimated reduction in discharge loads for BOD, TP and TN of 62%,77% and 56% respectively. Given that this assessment uses the maximum monthly volumes that have occurred over the last 10 seasons and applies a 20%

30


contingency factor to these monthly discharge volumes, it is considered extremely unlikely that all months in any season would be at this level therefore the percentage reductions are considered conservative, that is the reduction in loads are expected to be greater than that calculated. Note: Fonterra have subsequently advised that “The assessment and reductions in BOD and nutrients TP and TN are not based on current production season of only 5 -6 months but are based on a full 10 months production season. The drop off in discharge volumes as shown in Attachment D (5 May 2015) reflect worst case over a full 10 season processing season that naturally follows the dairy season milk curve but does not represent only a 5 month processing season.”

The applicant undertook a river survey in 2013. The key findings from the 2013 aquatic and riparian habitat survey (Freshwater Solutions 2014) were:

The Oraka Stream is moderately wide and deep in the vicinity of the site. The incised nature of the channel and hydrology has resulted in the formation of uniform run habitat with moderately swift flow velocities.

Open to partially shaded channel due to wide channel widths. Riparian habitat comprising established mixed native and exotic trees, shrub and exotic grass/weeds.

Naturally mobile sand/gravel dominated streambed substrate with low abundance of woody debris, leaf litter and detritus. Rip-rap at Site D1 increased streambed substrate diversity and stability.

WRC habitat scores ranged between 123 and 149 (moderate-high habitat quality) The mean habitat scores for upstream and downstream sites were similar.

The key findings from the 2013 periphyton survey were:

Sparse periphyton cover recorded at all sites with communities dominated by thin film/mat algae (5-1 0%).

Sparse communities reflected the naturally mobile sand/gravel streambed and moderately swift flow velocities.

Filamentous algae cover was below the guideline of 30% cover recommended by Biggs (2000) at all sites in 2013.

WRC periphyton indices scores were low at all sites except Site D1 where habitat was more stable (rip rap). Results indicate site discharges were not resulting in nutrient enrichment and proliferation of algae to nuisance levels.

Periphyton lndex scores were similar in 2011 and 2013. The key findings from the 2013 macrophyte survey were:

Sparse (5-41% cover) macrophyte communities dominated by exotic species.

WRC macrophyte indices scores were low (<30) indicating low macrophyte cover.

No native species were recorded during the survey. The key findings from the 2013 macroinvertebrate survey were:

31


Communities recorded during the 2013 survey were characterised by high proportions of mayflies, caddisflies and water beetles.

The relative abundance of mayflies and caddisflies was greater at downstream sites than upstream sites whilst water beetles were more abundant at upstream sites. The mayfly and caddisfly faunas were diverse with six and nine taxa recorded in each group respectively and including highly pollution sensitive laxa (Deleatidium and Coloburiscus).

There was a decrease in the relative abundance of mayflies downstream of the Tirau Township treated municipal sewage discharge but no decrease downstream of the site discharges (i.e., cooling water, stormwater and wastewater discharges).

Taxa number was significantly higher at downstream sites compared to upstream sites in 2013.

MCI and QMCI scores were indicative of excellent water and habitat quality at all sites in 2013 and significantly higher across all sites in 2013 compared to 2011.

Highest EPT taxa number was recorded at the first two downstream Sites D1 and D2. There was no decline in EPT taxa number downstream of site discharges.

Percent EPT values were significantly higher at downstream sites compared to upstream sites in 2013.

The conclusion from the survey was:

Results of the 2011 and 2013 surveys indicate the Fonterra Tirau site discharges were not adversely affecting aquatic biological communities. The proposed upgrade to the wastewater treatment system will significantly improve water quality but because of the nature of the receiving environment and lack of effect from the existing treated wastewater discharge any improvements in the ecology of the Oraka Stream are expected to be minor and are unlikely to be quantifiable.

The effect of the discharge upon aquatic flora and fauna is not simple to quantify as there are other discharges in close proximity i.e. the Tirau and Putaruru municipal discharges. It can be expected that the wastewater discharge will add cumulatively to the impacts on the quality of the Waihou River system. Whilst those impacts may not be readily apparent in the vicinity site where there it is deeply incised and fast flowing it is a contributor to the overall nutrient load in the river. As noted earlier in the report, the major deterioration in water quality for the Waihou River appears to take place in the upper reaches – the Oraka Stream and the main river stem between Pinedale and the confluence with the Oraka. A table in the report outlined the Fonterra Tirau contributions to the Firth of Thames for 2005-14 and the estimated contributions post-treatment plant upgrades. Their assessment was:

Fonterra's combined discharge contributed an average of approximately 1.60% to the TN load of the Waihou River and 0.84% to the TN load of the Southern Firth of Thames in 2005-14. At the proposed consent limits and worst-case discharge volumes these loads will reduce to a maximum of approximately 0.70% and 0.37%, respectively. The combined discharge contributed approximately an average of 4.1% to the TP load of the Waihou River and 2.4% to the TP load of the Southern Firth of Thames in 2005-14. At the proposed consent limits and worst-case discharge volumes these loads will be a maximum of approximately 1.0% and 0.6%, respectively.

32


For the Firth of Thames, the contribution from Fonterra wastewater discharge is small. The Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2011/16 “Water Quality of the Hauraki Rivers and Southern Firth of Thames 2000 -2009” commented that “The water quality of the Southern Firth was thus reasonably good, with no obvious grounds for concern being apparent.” More recently, reports by NIWA2,3 warn of an imminent “tipping point” in the Firth of Thames if the build-up of nutrients is not curtailed. The very large proportion of N & P discharged into the Firth is from Hauraki plain rivers (Waihou, Piako & Waitakaruru). It is important to note that the large majority of these nutrients are from non-point sources in the Hauraki catchments, including dairying and cropping. Vant1 has recorded that the overall water quality of the downstream sites on the Hauraki rivers (and hence nutrient loads to the Firth) has remained broadly stable over the last 20 or so years, as the effects of more intensive farming has been offset by improved treatment of sewage and industrial wastewaters. As a result of some differing messages regarding the state of the Firth of Thames NIWA was commissioned to undertake a report that looked at monitoring results to date and assessed the current Firth of Thames water quality and ecosystem health. This report was completed in mid-2015 and has been released as Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2015/23 EWDOCS_n3316464_v13_Firth_of_Thames_water_quality_and_ecosystem_health.docx In terms of nutrients the report concludes that:

There are both oceanic and land sources of nitrogen to the Firth of Thames

For approximately 90 % of the time inputs from land are the dominant source of the total nutrient loading to the Firth of Thames

For the last at least 20 years nitrogen loads in the rivers that drain to the Firth have been stable or increasing slowly. Phosphorus loads have decreased during the same period

2 Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2013/50:” Visualising nutrients and phytoplankton in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park using

GIS”, prepared by NIWA (J Zeldis et al). 3 NZ Herald, 6/9/14, article quoting J Zeldis: “Water health may reach tipping point” referring to the Firth of Thames.

33

../../3316464/13/EWDOCS_n3316464_v13_Firth_of_Thames_water_quality_and_ecosystem_health.docx


There is an upward trend in nitrogen at the extended Firth monitoring site, for the last 15 years, which cannot be explained by the upward trend in nutrient runoff from the Waihou River. This would indicate a complex set of causes.

Further work is needed to determine the nature and causes of the change in nitrogen levels.

The water in the Firth of Thames is now mesotrophic whereas it was likely oligotrophic prior to deforestation and subsequent development in the catchment. Denitrification likely prevents further eutrophication. Dissolved oxygen levels are generally good but there are seasonal low oxygen levels (60-70% saturation) in the bottom waters of at the extended Firth monitoring site. These low oxygen events occasionally get into the upper water column. There are greater levels of phytoplankton in the Firth than the extended Firth and nitrogen from the land would be one contributor of this. WRC monitoring records show no overall change in nitrogen exports to the Firth for the last 25 years. The nitrogen load in the Waihou River is increasing by approximately 0.5% per year so nitrogen from other sources has decreased to compensate. Whilst nitrogen levels are stable at present they are 4 times greater than the background or pre-development loads. The 4 fold increase in nitrogen most likely occurred in the period from 1920 to 1990. During the last 25 years phosphorus levels have decreased and the significant reduction in point sources, such as Fonterra Waitoa (>100 kg/day to 2 kg/day), is likely a key reason for that. Phosphorus levels, whilst decreasing, are also higher than pre-development. Bill Vant delivered a report to the Environmental Performance Committee in July 2015 gives context to the sources and he referred to his study for the decade 2000 - 20094:

“Discharges from 22 point source discharges contributed about 8% of the nitrogen and 25% of the phosphorus that was carried by the rivers. Background sources were estimated to contribute about 23% of the combined load of nitrogen and 28% of the phosphorus. The remaining 70% of the combined mass flow of nitrogen and 46% of the phosphorus is likely to have come from diffuse agricultural sources in the rivers’ catchments”.5

This report also considered the water quality at different recording sites during the period 2010-2014 i.e. the 4 years following the earlier survey. Table 1 from the report to the Environmental Performance Committee is copied below: Median water quality at selected sites on the Hauraki Rivers, 2010–14. Guideline values for satisfactory water quality are also shown.* “DO%”, dissolved oxygen (% of saturation concentration); “Clarity”, horizontal water clarity (m); “NH4”, ammoniacal-nitrogen (mg/m3); “TP”, total phosphorus (mg/m3); “TN”, total nitrogen (mg/m3); “Ecoli”, E. coli (cfu/100 mL). Values in bold type do not meet the guideline values.

Site DO% Clarity NH4 TP TN Ecoli

Kauaeranga Kauaeranga at Smiths 100 3.0 5 4 100 120 Piako Piako at Paeroa-Tahuna Rd

86 0.8 34 270 1920 480

3 WRC technical report 2011/06

5 Report to Environmental Performance Committee August 2015 (WRC Docs # 3462961)

34

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/19426/TR2011-06.pdf


Waitoa Waitoa at Mellon Rd 78 1.0 40 110 2600 440 Waihou Ohinemuri at Karangahake 104 2.7 15 10 580 80 Waihou at Te Aroha 93 0.8 15 90 1240 290 Guideline for satisfactory water quality

>80 >1.6 <880 <40 <500 <126

*See WRC environmental indicators webpages

It appears that the Firth is operating as a large sink and denitrification processes are limiting potential impacts. The Firth seems to have adapted to a number of changes and been resilient to inputs such as increased sediments. The concern is that we don’t know if there is a ‘tipping point’ and that the present fourfold increase in nitrogen over background levels means that, in our consenting, Bill Vant considers that we should be at the very least taking a ‘hold the line’ approach and preferably reducing and seeking improvements in water quality. When considering a ‘hold the line’ approach that is in relation to existing ‘actual’ discharges rather than what is consented, which could be considerably more. Bill Vant undertook an initial review of the application and then reviewed the addendum information. His comments following this were:

Some of my previous concerns have been thoroughly addressed, and given the proposed improvements in the quality of the wastewater discharge in the future, those concerns have largely been allayed. Some specifics: 1. The proposed conditions for key contaminants in the wastewater are summarised on p. 4 of BECA’s letter of 5 May 2015, and in Table 1 of Attachment D. It is clear that these proposed conditions represent a marked improvement in the quality of the wastewater, not just when compared to the existing consent, but more importantly, when compared with recent practice. That is, the new consent will result in a real improvement in the quality of the wastewater, and thus an improvement in the water quality of the Oraka Stream. For example, the proposed mean concentrations for total N (10 g/m3) and total P (1 g/m3) are substantially lower than those I reported in WRC tech rep 2011/06 for the decade 2000-09, namely 40 g/m3 and 7 g/m3, respectively. 2. Attachment D contains worst case calculations of the increases in the concentrations of BOD, TN, TP and NH4 in the Oraka Stream, downstream of the wastewater discharge. This is good so far as it goes. But for completeness, I think we also need to know the likely concentrations of these contaminants upstream of the point of discharge. Only then can the effect of the discharge on the receiving water be fully understood. It’s the downstream concentrations themselves that will need to be compared with the various guidelines (e.g. as in Table 6 of Attachment D), not the increases. I suggest you ask for this information to be provided as well. 3. I have a minor niggle with the worst case calculations mentioned above: the mass balance predictions used the maximum monthly historic contaminant loads measured in the wastewater. Given that the proposed wastewater will be of better quality than the historic discharge, this is probably adequate. But it would have been useful to have seen the calculations done based on the proposed maximum flows and maximum concentrations (e.g. BOD_max = 12 g/m3, TP_max = 2 g/m3, TN_max = 20 g/m3).

35

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Environmental-information/Environmental-indicators/Freshwater/River-and-streams/


4. I think the new consent should include conditions for NH4-N (e.g. as in Table 1 of Attachment D) – as well as for BOD, TP and TN etc. 5. Attachment E is a letter of 14 April 2015 from consultants to the applicant. As noted above, it reports me as having advised that I “did not have significant concerns about the potential for BOD to cause dissolved oxygen depletion”. This is somewhat surprising, given my comments on p. 2 of my memo of June 2011 (“concentrations have been as low as 64% of saturation”). I have only the vaguest of recollections of any conversation with the consultant. Instead I consider my written conclusion that “there is a clear need for the dynamics of oxygen depletion downstream of the discharge to be modelled” is likely to be closer to my true opinion in 2011 (as indeed it is now). I think we should re-visit this matter with the applicant. 6. The calculations described above apply after complete mixing of the wastewater discharge with the receiving water. At this point I have little feeling for the likely dynamics of this mixing, in particular just how far downstream of the discharge point this will occur. I think we’ll need to know substantially more about this before being able to identify the size of a reasonable mixing zone for this discharge.

I consider that the applicant has addressed the majority of concerns but consider that ongoing river surveys should take place so that the ongoing impact of the discharges to the receiving water can be monitored. The applicant does not see value in these and has proposed that one is undertaken as a baseline prior to the upgrade and one more following. Bill Vant comments that:

“Part of the reason for the surveys is to demonstrate that any effects that do occur are minor. That is, science does its best to anticipate any adverse effects via the AEE process, but it doesn’t provide any guarantees. The surveys help give us all confidence that things are actually working as anticipated. Reducing the frequency of surveys at some point in the future could be an option. But I suggest it would be unwise to dispense with them altogether.”6

To conclude, the Fonterra river discharge adds cumulatively to the excessive nutrient loads found in the Waihou ecosystems, but in these far-field water bodies the effects of the Fonterra river discharge is relatively minor. The WRP and the NPS for Freshwater does, however, place an onus on all contributors to contribute to the improvement of water quality. Fonterra Tirau is the single biggest point source discharge in terms of volume to the Waihou River system so it is important that the quality of the discharge is high.

6.3 Policy Statements and Plans

6.3.1 National environmental standards

Currently there are five NESs that have come into effect - the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (where various standards have been in effect since October 2004); Sources of Human Drinking Water; Electricity Transmission Activities; Telecommunication Facilities and Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Of these five only the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water requires any consideration. National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water The National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water commenced on 20 June 2008. This standard is a regulation enacted by an Order in Council, under s43 of the Resource Management Act. The regulation requires that a regional council must not grant a water or discharge permit for an activity that will occur upstream of a drinking water abstraction point if specific criteria at the point of abstraction are exceeded. The matters to be considered as part of an assessment are dependent on the permit being sought and the level of effects on any drinking water supplier located downstream or down gradient of the activity.

6 WRC Docs # 3508134

36


Under this regulation a regional council may also impose a condition of consent on any resource consent application requiring the consent holder to notify, as soon as reasonably practical, the registered drinking-water supply operators and the regional council if the activity leads to an event that, or as a consequence of an event, results in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the abstraction point.

There are two water supplies that are located downstream of the discharge point from the Fonterra Tirau plant that require consideration. The Kerepehi water supply is located on the Waihou River downstream of the confluence with the Ohinemuri River and the Te Aroha municipal water supply has a contingency take just upstream of the Te Aroha bridge on the Waihou River. I have had regard to these water supplies and do not consider that this discharge will impact on the water quality at the intake point given the distance downstream and that the water supply systems are already coping with the present discharges.

6.3.2 Other regulations

There are no other regulations relevant to this application.

6.3.3 National policy statements (including NZ Coastal Policy Statement)

There are two relevant National Policy Statements (NPS). These are the NPS for Freshwater Management 2014 and the NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

The National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2014 came into effect on 1 August 2014, replacing the NPS for Freshwater Management 2011. The policy statement sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits.

The freshwater objectives seek to safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species, including their associated ecosystems of fresh water (Objective A1). This is to be achieved quantitatively through the sustainable management of taking, using, damming or diverting of fresh water, and qualitatively through the sustainable management of the use and development of land and of the discharges of contaminants.

The NPS requires regional councils to develop standards to safeguard the life supporting capacity of water bodies, with the objective that water quality will be maintained or improved (Objective A2). Through the Regional Plan this will involve protection of high quality water bodies and implementation of methods to improve degraded water bodies. It is possible that when these limits are set, some of the proposed conditions may need to be reviewed. In the interim, when considering consent applications regional councils must have regard for any effects (actual or cumulative) that contaminants contained in the discharge may have on freshwater and fresh water ecology. The principle of adopting best practicable options in order to minimise effects is included in the decision making process under this policy.

Of particular relevance to this application is Policy A4 which requires regional plans to include the following policy until the plans give effect to Policy A1 and Policy A2 (freshwater quality limits and targets). Within this policy paragraphs 1 & 2 is not applicable, and hence are not included, as this application was lodged prior to the NPSFM 2014 taking effect.

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

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

37


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.

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.

With regards to Policy A4(1)(a) the AEE states that the effects of the site operations on fresh water life supporting capacity and ecosystems are minor. With regards to Policy A4(1)(b) the applicant intends to avoid any more than minor adverse effects from the discharge by a reduction in the previously consented discharge limits, their monitoring regimes and the provision of numerous opportunities for review. Objectives and policies regarding integrated management (Objective C1 and Policy C1) and Tangata whenua roles and interests (Objective D1 and Policy D1 c)) are also relevant to this application.

Policy C1 By every regional council managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way, so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects.

This is provided for within the consent via specific review clauses which enable council to review the consent when quantitative water body limits and targets are set.

D1 c) reflect tāngata whenua values and interests in the management of, and decision-making regarding, fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region.

I have had regard to the relevant objectives and policies within the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2014. I consider that given the proposed reduction of nutrient load to the Oraka Stream following the upgrade and my assessment of minor effects of the activity should the consents be granted they would not be contrary to this National Policy Statement. This application is for a consent renewal and there is no change in terms of the contaminants discharged or an increase. There is in fact a decrease in what is being applied for. Regional Councils are required to develop ‘bottom lines’ for contaminant levels in waterways and once those are implemented then a review of the proposed consent limits may take place. I have had regard to the relevant objectives and policies within the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2014. I consider that given the proposed reduction of nutrient load to the river and the proposed mitigation measures, should the consents be granted they would not be contrary to this National Policy Statement. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

Policy 3 Precautionary approach (1) Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse

As noted elsewhere in this report, the long term effect on the coastal environment from the river discharges is not yet well understood. The applicant has however improved the quality of the wastewater discharge and existing limits for several parameters are being reduced.

38


6.3.4 Section 104(1)(b)(v) Regional Policy Statements

The Regional Policy Statement is a high-level broad-based document containing objectives and policies the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the resource management issues of the region and to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Region. The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) was publicly notified on 3 November 2010, submissions closed on 28 February 2011, the decisions version was released in November 2012 and appeals closed on the decisions on 14 December 2012. Therefore those provisions which are not subject to appeal are considered by the Court to be beyond challenge. I consider that given the recent release of consent orders for several significant issues (e.g. Fresh water), that the great majority of the PRPS is now beyond further challenge and shall be given full weight, and the previous RPS need not be considered. The key issues in the RPS relating to this proposal are the state of resources (Issue 1.1) and the relationship of tangata whenua with the environment (Issue 1.5). There are a number of overlapping objectives relevant to this proposal. These are listed as follows: Objectives

Integrated management (Objective 3.1);

Resource use and development (Objective 3.1A)

Decision making (Objective 3.2);

Health and wellbeing of the Waikato River (Objective 3.3);

Ecosystem services (Objective 3.7);

Relationship of tangata whenua with the environment (Objective 3.8);

Sustainable and efficient use of resources (Objective 3.9);

Air quality (Objective 3.10);

Mauri and values of fresh water bodies (Objective 3.13);

Ecological integrity and indigenous vegetation (Objective 3.18);

Amenity (Objective 3.20); Policies

Integrated management (4)

Built environment (6)

Approach to identifying fresh water body values and managing fresh water bodies (8.1)

All fresh water bodies (8.3)

Catchment-based intervention (8.4) Policies and methods – matters of significance to Maori Objective 3.8 seeks to recognise the relationship tangata whenua have with natural and physical resources. This is achieved by ensuring that the relationship tangata whenua have with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga is recognised and provided for in resource management decisions (Policy 4.3.2), and that particular regard is given to the role tangata whenua have as kaitiaki (Policy 4.3.3). Another objective (Objective 3.13) expects that tangata whenua concerns relating to the mauri and health of fresh water are recognised and provided for. This is achieved by ensuring decisions about the discharge of contaminants are made in a way that recognises and provides for the mauri of water. The applicant has undertaken consultation with Raukawa prior to the lodgement of the vconsent applications and this is detailed in section 4.1 of this report. No submission was received from Raukawa. A neutral submission was received from Ngati Hako. I am of the opinion that the relationship tangata whenua have with the Tirau site and surrounding environs has been recognised and that the applicant’s proposals to reduce the nutrient loads discharged is in line tangata whenua aspirations regarding water quality.

39


Policies and methods – Fresh water In accordance with direction from the NPSFM, the PRPS approaches the management of fresh water bodies (8.1) with a view to integrated catchment management, identification of fresh water body values, and establishment of fresh water body objectives, limits and targets, all via a collaborative approach. For all fresh water bodies (8.3) the RPS expects that the effects of activities will be managed to maintain or enhance the identified values by reducing microbial and nutrient contamination (8.3 a) iii). I consider that the proposed reduction in nutrient discharge, more stringent discharge standards and comprehensive site management, and monitoring plans as proposed by the applicant, will contribute towards the maintenance and enhancement of the values of the stream and the Tirau surrounds as required by Policy 8.3. In terms of point source discharges (8.3.1) the RPS notes that regional plans shall control point source discharges of contaminants onto or into land where the contaminant may reach water, in a way that seeks to achieve the relevant targets for the water body and provides for mitigation or offsetting of adverse effects where effects cannot be avoided or remedied. I consider that the proposal minimises adverse effects on water quality to an appropriate extent. The applicant is proposing upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant with reduced nutrient loads discharged and improved monitoring and upgrade of the stormwater and cooling water discharge system. Bill Vant has stated that nitrogen loads to the Firth are increasing by 0.5% per year but proposed reductions at this site and recent reductions for other sites that discharge to this catchment should assist in arresting this trend. Overall, I consider the proposal is consistent with the fresh water topics of the RPS.

6.3.5 Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Regional Plan

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) contains specific policies and implementation methods to achieve the purpose of the RMA and address the significant resource management issues for the region identified in the Regional Policy Statement. The WRP objectives and policies relevant to this proposal are outlined below.

3.1.2 – Objective (Management of water bodies) 3.2.3 – Policy 1: Management of Water Bodies 3.2.3 – Policy 2: Managing Degraded Water Bodies 3.2.3 – Policy 4: Waikato Region Surface Water Class 3.2.3 – Policy 6: Contact Recreation Water Class 3.2.3 – Policy 7: Fishery Class 3.2.4.1 – Water Management Classes 3.2.4.2 – Waikato Region Surface Water Class Standards 3.2.4.4 – Contact Recreation Water Class 3.2.4.5 – Fishery Class – a. Significant Indigenous Fisheries and Fish Habitat 3.5.2 – Discharges – objective 3.5.3 – Discharges – Policies Management of Water Bodies Objective 3.1.2 sets out the desired endpoint for management of water bodies in the Region, including net improvement of water quality across the region, the avoidance of significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, concentrations of contaminants leaching from land use activities to shallow groundwater and surface waters do not reach levels that present significant risks to human health or aquatic ecosystems, and that significant and cumulative adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have with water and their identified taonga. Relevant water management policies following on from Objective 3.1.2 seek to characterise the water body based on the characteristics for which they are valued and enhance or maintain those characteristics through a mixture of regulatory and non-regulatory means.

40


The Oraka Stream is classified as “Significant Indigenous Fisheries and Fish Habitat” water body in the Waikato Regional Plan.and as it feeds into the Waihou River the classifications for the Waihou River are relevant. The Waihou River is classified as a “Waikato Region Surface Water Class”, “Contact Recreation”, “Significant Indigenous Fisheries and Fish Habitat”, and “Significant Trout Fisheries and Trout Habitat”. The purpose of the classification system is to maintain or enhance existing flow regimes, water quality, and/or riparian and aquatic habitat based on the characteristics and values of the water body. As discussed in Section 6.3.2, I am of the opinion that the proposed discharge will not have more than minor adverse effects on water quality or aquatic ecosystems in the Oraka Stream and Waihou River. Section 3.5.3 of the WRP set out Council’s expectations regarding discharges to water and effects on Tangata Whenua. Relevant policies include:

Policy 2: Control, through resource consents, discharges to water that are likely to have more than minor adverse effects, so that the adverse effects are avoided as far as practicable and otherwise remedied or mitigated.

Policy 6: Ensure that the relationship of tangata whenua as Kaitiaki with water is recognised and provided for.

Sections 4.1 and 6.3.4 of this report have outlined how these have been met. Summary of WRP assessment: I consider that the activity will not be contrary to the above relevant provisions, provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions that I have proposed.

6.4 Other Matters

6.4.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (2000) (HGMPA) The HGMPA seeks to integrate the management of natural, physical and historic resources of the Gulf, its islands and catchments and deems the Hauraki Gulf to be a matter of national importance. Section 9 of the HGMPA requires that a consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for an activity located within the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. This application falls within the catchment of the Hauraki Gulf as defined by the HGMPA.

The HGMPA recognises the national significance of the Gulf (section 7) and outlines objectives of management of the Hauraki Gulf (section 8). Relevant parts of sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA to this application are listed and discussed as follows: 6.4.1.1 Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf

(1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.

(2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity—

(a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of

the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and (ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and

communities: (b) to use the resources of the Gulf by the people and communities of the Gulf and New

Zealand for economic activities and recreation: (c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

41


6.4.1.2 Management of Hauraki Gulf

To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are— (a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of

the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (b) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and

physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural, historic, and

physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship:

(d) the protection of the cultural and historic associations of people and communities in and around the Hauraki Gulf with its natural, historic, and physical resources:

(e) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments to the social and economic well-being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand:

(f) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, which contribute to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf for the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand.

To achieve the purpose of the HGMPA in the context of this application it will be important to ensure that:

The life supporting capacity of the Firth of Thames and its tributaries is safe guarded for future generations.

Ecosystems within the Firth of Thames and its tributaries are not adversely affected as to lose their life supporting capacities; and

The Firth of Thames and its tributaries are protected from any further impact. There has been a lot of speculation as to the effects of contaminant loads, in particular nitrogen and phosphorus, to the Firth of Thames. Bill Vant in an August 2015 presentation to the Environmental performance Committee of Council referred to his 2011 study of the Hauraki Rivers and some later work and stated that: Discharges from 22 point source discharges contributed about 8% of the nitrogen and 25% of the phosphorus that was carried by the rivers. Background sources were estimated to contribute about 23% of the combined load of nitrogen and 28% of the phosphorus. The remaining 70% of the combined mass flow of nitrogen and 46% of the phosphorus is likely to have come from diffuse agricultural sources in the rivers’ catchments. These results indicate that the combined loads of nitrogen and phosphorus carried by the rivers at present are roughly four times higher than the background or pre-development loads were. However, during 1993–2012 the combined load of nitrogen carried by the rivers was broadly stable, while the combined load of phosphorus decreased at a rate of about 4% per year. That is, most of the increase in the nutrient loads carried by the rivers—and it has been a substantial increase—occurred more than 20 years ago. At this stage no one is sure of the ‘tipping’ point. There is increasing evidence that availability of nitrogen rather than phosphorus may be the key factor in nuisance plant growth although Vant considers that reduction of phosphorus loads is likely to be beneficial to the Firth of Thames environment. The reduced nitrogen and phosphorus loads achieved by Fonterra have been a significant move to reduce the stress on the Firth of Thames. Previously there were no limits in the Fonterra consents

42


for phosphorus and total ammoniacal-N and I have recommended conditions that limit these nutrients and these have been agreed to by the applicant. I therefore consider that the HGMPA purposes above are achieved by the recommended conditions. Should further monitoring in the Hauraki Gulf identify effects contributed to by these discharges this consent should be able to be reviewed to address these.

Based on the information contained within the application documents and reviews by Waikato Regional Council technical staff, it is my view the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the HGMPA provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with. In particular, it is noted that the recent significant improvements to the treatment system have effectively reduced the levels of contaminants discharged at present. In assessing the proposal against sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives and policies within the Act.

6.4.2 Hauraki Iwi Management Plan 2004

The Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan is applicable to this application. It details a vision and central goals of value to the Iwi and provides principles and values to achieve the vision and goals. I have reviewed this document in light of these applications and given it due regard and overall I do not consider that the activities will be inconsistent with the matters addressed in this Iwi management plan and iwi have given their approval to the application.

Under the RMA, WRC must have regard to the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan 2004 (HIEP) in considering the Fonterra applications. Relevant objectives of the HIEP are:

Peatlands and wetlands are protected and restored as ecological, cultural and economicresources of Hauraki Whanui.

Riparian margins of rivers and streams in the Hauraki tribal region are protected andrestored.

The HIEP desires the following outcomes:

Increased diversity of native species, habitat and ecosystems through wetland, peatland,river and stream and duneland restoration activities.

Enhancement of the freshwater fisheries habitat.

Restoration of wetland, river and stream plant life.

Improved water quality.

Increased populations of fisheries, birds and plant resources.

6.4.3 Raukawa Iwi Management Plan 2015

The Raukawa Iwi Management Plan is also applicable to this application. Whilst they did not submit to the application, as noted elsewhere in this report, their management plan clearly states out their objectives in regard to water (wai). These are:

• The mana and mauri of water is safeguarded for present and future generations.• The Raukawa kaitiaki relationship with our waters is respected, enhanced, and supported.• The health and wellbeing of the Waikato, Te Waihou, and the Upper Waipā River and their

catchments are restored and protected.7

In their methods to achieve this they ask for local authorities to:

a. Restore and protect the mana and mauri of water bodies.b. Ensure the health and wellbeing of water bodies so they are safe to take food from and

swim in all year round.

7 Te Rautaki Taiao A Raukawa – Raukawa Environmental Management Plan 2015 (p 67)

43


c. Avoid further degradation of waterbodies. d. Ensure the natural functioning and ecological health of waterbodies are enhanced and

protected.

The water policy framework of the RIMP advocates a catchment based approach that considers and manages cumulative effects, the interconnectedness of the hydrological system and the land and manages this, encourages water conservation measures, promotes education and environmental best practice alongside a strong regulatory and enforcement regime. Comment: Fonterra is proposing to reduce contaminant loads to the river. Once the proposed

upgrades are undertaken the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the river will be reduced on present levels as well as reductions on BOD and suspended solids. The Oraka and upper reaches of the Waihou River are where a significant proportion of the deterioration of water quality occurs. Bill Vant has noted that nitrogen loads to the Firth of Thames from the Waihou River are increasing by 0.5% per annum. These reductions will assist in arresting this decline. I consider that proposal, with the proposed conditions, will contribute to achieving the objectives and outcomes desired by Hauraki iwi.

6.5 Relevant Part 2 Considerations

Section 5 Resource Management Act 1991 Section 5 states that the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. For Fonterra Tirau, relevant requirements of section 5 include safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the Waihou River and Oraka Stream and the Firth of Thames and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of the various discharges. Section 5 also requires Waikato Regional Council to protect natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their economic and cultural well being, and for their health and safety. Fonterra is a significant employer in the Tirau area and wider region. Part of balancing the requirements of Section 5 is that the benefits of this economic benefit to the community should not be at the expense of the life supporting capacity of the Oraka Stream, Waihou River and the wider environment. Fonterra have sought to address this by a proposed upgrade to the treatment plant that will reduce contaminant loads to the river. Given the environmental gains made during the term of the last consents and the continued improvements coupled with the proposed conditions, I consider that the requirements of section 5 in terms of sustainable management are being met. Section 6 Resource Management Act 1991 There are no matters of national importance such as protection of outstanding natural features, protection of significant habitats, or maintenance of public access, which are relevant to this consent application. The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga, has been recognised and has been discussed elsewhere in this report. Section 7 Resource Management Act 1991 Section 7 of the RMA requires that all persons exercising powers and functions under the Act, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to:

(a) kaitiakitanga: (aa) the ethic of stewardship: (b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:

44


(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy: (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems: (e) Repealed (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: (h) the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.

Kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship have been addressed by the applicant through consultation prior to and following notification of the proposal, and incorporation of iwi concerns. Amenity values are those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, cultural and recreational values. The ongoing operation of the WWTP is not expected to have adverse effects on amenity values of the river (colour, clarity, mixing). The applicant has considered the effects of the proposal on the maintenance of water quality in the Oraka Stream & Waihou River and Firth of Thames. The applicant will implement treatment plant and stormwater upgrades to ensure that nutrient inputs to the river system and the Firth are reduced from existing levels. Section 8 Resource Management Act 1991 Section 8 states that Waikato Regional Council shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a principle of the Treaty that decision-makers such as Waikato Regional Council must, in order to act in good faith, make informed decisions based on all the relevant information about the interests of Maori. This will usually, but not invariably, require consultation with iwi. Local iwi were provided an opportunity to make a submission and the applicant has carried out consultation with them. In a general sense, the interests of the wider iwi community have been taken into account by an assessment of the effect of the discharges on the Waihou River catchment and Hauraki Gulf.

6.6 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Waikato River) Settlement Claims Act 2010/Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010

All stormwater and wastewater discharges are to the catchment of the Waihou River and thus the vision and strategy (Schedule 2 of the Settlement Claims Act) do not apply to these consents.

7 Duration

The consent holder has requested a 31 year duration period. As the consent was lodged in 2011 and thus the consent holder has had 4 additional years being able to operate on the old conditions they have requested in 2015 that the term be for 27 years from the date of granting.. This report recommends a term of x years. The issues relevant to term, and the rationale for my recommendation, are discussed further below. There is no clear guidance in the RMA regarding duration apart from a maximum term of 35 years and a default minimum term of 5 years. In paragraph 27 of Curador Trust v Northland Regional Council A069 /2006 [2006] NZEnvC 176 the Court states that:

“Accordingly, the Act is clear that the presumptive period is five years and the maximum period for which consent can be granted is 35 years. We are unable to see any basis upon which this creates an assumption that consent should be granted for 35 years unless there is a

45


good reason to depart from that. On a full reading of the Brooke-Taylor decision, we are not able to conclude that this was the conclusion of the court”.

Fonterra have argued (WRC Docs #3499560) that the proposed improvements are significant and that, even with a worst case scenario, the reductions in nitrogen will be approximately 55% of that in the last ten years and phosphorus reductions around 75%. To achieve long term improvements of this kind there needs to be incentives for Fonterra and others to undertake the necessary investment and a longer term would constitute such an incentive. In this instance there is no intention or recommendation to decline the consent applications. The issue of incentivising is not an RMA one but it is acknowledged that in practical terms encouraging a consent holder to look to make significant changes rather than small incremental ones is preferable and may result in better environmental outcomes. Bal Matheson and David Alley make this point in a recent paper about consent duration whilst arguing the case for longer terms. They note that “The recent aquaculture amendment is parliamentary recognition that short-term consents represent a barrier to investment. This barrier applies more broadly than just in the aquaculture field, and shorter term consents are having a far wider detrimental impact than just discouraging investment.”8 S104(2A) of the RMA requires that when considering an application affected by s124 that the consent authority must have regard to the investment of the existing consent holder. To ‘have regard to’ means that the decision maker must give those matters genuine attention and thought but the decision maker is not necessarily required to accept them (Foodstuffs (South Island) Ltd v Christchurch City Council [1999] NZRMA 481). The Environment Court has held in Bright Wood NZ Ltd v Southland Regional Council that an applicant is entitled to as much security of term as is consistent with sustainable management. Fonterra have pointed to the fact that the site has capital assets in the region of $400 million and is a significant provider of employment locally and regionally. As part of Fonterra’s contention that they have “grown to be at the forefront of dairy innovation9” it would be expected that there would be ongoing investment and maintenance as part of the site’s continued operations. Recent non-compliances have shown that the present system requires upgrading to ensure ongoing compliance with existing consent conditions let alone the proposed new conditions. The applicant has not provided any evidence that a term lesser than 27 years would put the operation in jeopardy and there has never been a suggestion that consents would not be granted. The value of the investment is understood to be the book value10 of the existing investment i.e. not what future investment is planned but the financial investment that could be lost should the consents be declined. If the granting of consents is critical to the continued viability of the industry/operation, then the value of investment in that industry/operation, is what is relevant under s104(2A). 'Short' versus 'long' durations When considering term the use of terminology such as ‘short’, ‘medium’ and ‘long’ term is relative and subjective. Matheson and Alley believe that a strong case could be made for a minimum term of 20 years. Whilst not suggesting that this should be seen as a maximum they make the point that they believe that “a 20-year term is an appropriate mid-point, still enabling longer terms to be granted in appropriate cases, but long enough to be meaningful in respect of investment certainty.”

8 http://www.rmla.org.nz/upload/files/journals/rmj_april_2015_final.pdf

9 http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/About/Company+Overview

10

Marr v Bay of Plenty RC [2010] NZEnvC 357

46

http://www.rmla.org.nz/upload/files/journals/rmj_april_2015_final.pdf

http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/About/Company+Overview


In a counter argument Thomas Gibbons argues that 20 years should not be seen as a presumptive minimum. “Rather, the context and circumstances of the consent are what should be assessed, and consent authorities are well placed to do so”. The PVL Proteins Limited v Auckland Regional Council case is often cited as support for longer durations but this case is often extrapolated far beyond the actual judgement. There are also several differences to note between that case (and the Prime Range meats case) and the consents being considered here.

PVL Proteins and Prime Range Meats were both air discharge consents in respect of which the term was being contested. There were issues of reverse sensitivity and council zoning that had allowed urban development nearer the source of odour

The potential for adverse effects was due to emissions which may have had several contributing causes but in the PVL Proteins case the court considered were “also capable of being stopped quite quickly, so they are likely to be transitory” (para 71). The water quality effects are not transitory. We have a degraded water body that has an unsatisfactory rating with approximately two thirds of the water quality indicators. With a policy that requires a net improvement in water quality we have an environment that requires active management and control by Council.

The court in PVL Proteins? stated that previous decisions they were drawing from “reviewed the indications about the terms of resource consents for discharges of contaminants to air” (para 29)

In paragraph 89 of the PVL Proteins judgement the Court essentially makes the point that the determination of term for each consent still has to be made on its merits and that this judgement does not set an actual term for other consents: “However we do not know all the relevant circumstances of the other operation. It may be that the rendering plants cited are not located in urban areas at all. It may be that if we were deciding the term of those consents, we might have fixed shorter terms than they have been granted. We can only make a judgement on the case before us”.

What the PVL Proteins case does not clarify is the difference between a ‘short’ and a ‘long’ term. Given their statements about review clauses, new technology and referring to Bright Wood NZ Ltd v Southland Regional Council that an applicant is entitled to as much security of term as is consistent with sustainable management, the Court then states that they “have been persuaded that consistent with the statutory purpose of sustainable management, the consent can properly be granted for a longer term than ten years”. With that background they then state that the term of 35 years sought by the appellants would be too long and extend Council’s original 10 year term to 14 years. So in two key cases that relate to air discharge consents the Environment Court in one confirms the Council imposed term of 5 years rather than the appellant’s request for ten years and in the other extends the Council imposed term of 10 years to 14 years rather than the appellant’s requested 35 years. In Curador Trust v Northland Regional Council, in paragraph 33 the Court states: “We agree that the PVL Proteins decision recognised that activities with minor effects could generally be granted consent for a longer term. However, PVL Proteins must be seen in the context of the appeal to be determined. The appeal was in respect of resource consents to discharge contaminants to air from the operation of a slaughterhouse. Issues of commonality with identical consents were not raised in that case”. The Court also notes in paragraph34 that: “We particularly note that in the case of PVL Proteins the Court did not impose a term of 35 years but rather increases the term from ten years to 14 years”. Curador also indicated that Council should consider possible future changes in policy contexts and community expectations. In that case, which was to do with structures in the CMA, in paragraph 37 the Court states: “As has been clear with a number of physical resources in the CMA, community values, and in consequence the extent to which structures are acceptable do change over time.

47


There can be no assurance that the Plan will remain unchanged into the future. In particular, we conclude that the Regional Council, utilising a planned programme of review of grouped consents, has an appropriate mechanism to achieve sustainable management and good stewardship in terms of the Act”. The judgement was to confirm Council’s term of 8 years rather than the 35 years sought by the appellant.

It is important when considering the various cases that they are viewed in the wider context of the judgements and overall comments made by the Court. PVL Proteins Ltd and Prime Range Meats Ltd would appear to be reasonable sized industries that would presumably require a significant investment. Whilst upholding the Bright Wood NZ Ltd v Southland Regional Council statement that an applicant is entitled to as much security of term as is consistent with sustainable management, the only real steer we have to their thinking regarding this is in their final judgement. These are:

PVL Proteins Ltd v ARC: extended the term from 10 years to 14 years when the appellanthad requested 35 years

Prime Range Meats Ltd v SRC: Confirmed the Council term of 5 years when the appellanthad requested 10 years

Curador Trust v NRC: confirmed the Council term of 8 years when the appellant hadrequested 35 years

Bright Wood NZ Ltd v SRC: Council had imposed a term of 15 years for the discharge to airand the discharge to water. The Court increased the discharge to air to 25 years butconfirmed the Council term of 15 years for the discharge to water.

In terms of recommending an appropriate consent term factors such as community expectations, the drive towards better water quality. the continued improvements that technology advances bring and the need for sustainable management are considerations. Judge M Harland in a keynote address to the Environmental Law and Regulation Conference11 highlights the tension that exists between “supporting economic activity (which enables the social and economic wellbeing of society to be met) and restoring, protecting and enhancing the environment”.

The site contributes employment and economic benefit to the region as do a lot of other industries. It is also able to exist because it takes a public resource (water) and uses it for the consent holder’s economic benefit and then returns that water to the river in potentially a more degraded state than what was extracted. Essentially this is a cost to a community with potential effects on a multi-se resource, amenity and cultural values. Part of sustainable management is balancing these costs to the community with the economic benefits that are part of the equation. In this context I consider that it is reasonable for the community to have these tensions tested through the consent renewal process on a reasonably regular basis.

Fonterra rightly points to the improvements that it proposes to make in the quality of the wastewater discharge and I accept that this is the case. This approach is consistent with community expectations as expressed in Council policy documents. What was regarded as acceptable in the past is not necessarily the case now. The RPS has recently been “updated” but the regional plans which are required to give effect to the RPS, have not yet been reviewed to ensure they do so. There are several documents that outline policy and community expectations as to water quality. These include:

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014. The most relevant of these are:

A. Water quality

Objective A1

To safeguard:

11http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-

publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf

48

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf


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 contact 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; and

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

Policy A2 Where water bodies do not meet the freshwater objectives made pursuant to Policy A1, every regional council is to specify targets and implement methods (either or both regulatory and non-regulatory), in a way that considers the sources of relevant contaminants recorded under Policy CC1, to assist the improvement of water quality in the freshwater management units, to meet those targets, and within a defined timeframe. Policy A3 By regional councils:

a. imposing conditions on discharge permits to ensure the limits and targets specified

pursuant to Policy A1 and Policy A2 can be met and

b. where permissible, making rules requiring the adoption of the best practicable option to

prevent or minimise any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment of any discharge

of a 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.

The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement: Objective 3.13 sets out requirements regarding fresh water. The key ones that relate to this consent are: 3.13 Mauri and values of fresh water bodies Maintain or enhance the mauri and identified values of fresh water bodies including by:

a) maintaining or enhancing the overall quality of freshwater within the region; b) safeguarding ecosystem processes and indigenous species habitats; c) safeguarding and improving the life supporting capacity of freshwater bodies where they

have been degraded as a result of human activities, with demonstrable progress made by 2030;

d) establishing objectives, limits and targets, for freshwater bodies that will determine how they will be managed;

e) enabling people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety;

The Hauraki Environmental Iwi Management Plan 2004 (HEIMP) and Raukawa Iwi Management Plan 2015 (RIMP). The discussion on page 20 of the HEIMP identifies a desire for improved water quality and the enhancement of the freshwater fisheries habitat. The aspirations in this plan and that of the RIMP are outlined in sections 6.4.5 and 6.4.3 of this report. It is clear that iwi wish to be more involved in the process of freshwater management and have an expectation of improved water quality, meaningful improvements by those who discharge into waterways and that consenting authorities will ensure that the gains are realised through consent conditions.

49


Judge Harland noted that: “apart from economic and government interests, the involvement of iwi in resource management matters provides a dynamic set of values that is unique to the New Zealand context”. It has been noted by some that the region wide aspirations do not necessarily apply to each individual consent and while that is true, Fonterra is one of 7 major point source discharges to the Waihou River catchment and, in terms of volume, they are the largest single point source discharge. They are also one of only 3 point source discharges in the upper section of the catchment where the majority of the deterioration of water quality takes place. I acknowledge that Fonterra is proposing to greatly improve the quality of its discharge but, as the Oraka Stream and the upper reaches of the Waihou River below Pinedale is where a significant amount of the water quality deterioration of the Waihou catchment occurs, meeting the WRP target for a net improvement requires an ongoing reduction in contaminant loadings from point and non-point source discharges. The chief mechanism available to the Council for reduction of loadings for point source discharges is through the consenting process. Despite the opposing view from Fonterra, the fact remains that technological and scientific advances during the last 15-20 years are significant. When the consents were granted in the 1990s the focus was not on nutrients. To achieve some of the reductions in nutrient levels in wastewater discharges that are being achieved now would probably not have been possible. The applicant has requested a term of 31 years from the date of application. To give that context – 31 years prior to the date of this report was 1984. At that stage there were minimal limits in place and those generally only related to BOD and suspended solids. Nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, were not considered an issue and were not the subject of consent conditions. Potential impacts on the Firth of Thames were barely considered. In terms of science and technology 1984 saw the introduction of the Apple Mackintosh personal computer – the first successful PC to use a graphical user interface. PCs used DOS as an operating system and the internet was still 10 years away. The tile matching video game, Tetris, was launched in the same year. Cassette tapes were the latest form of recording. It was also the year of the first direct broadcast satellite service. The fax had just become available. There were no mobile phones. The wastewater technologies available were nothing like what is now available. As an example, in the last few years the use of membranes in landfills now allows treatment of leachate to nearly drinking water quality. South Waikato District Council’s Tirau municipal wastewater plant consisted of a screen to remove gross solids, a clarigester and drying beds. It now has a waste activated sludge and membrane system that has greatly improved the quality of the discharge. Another example is the Hamilton City Council Horotiu landfill. This has gone through six stages of development. Initially it was just lined with soil over sand. In 1984, as part of the third stage, it was consented with a clay liner only and this was seen as a significant advance over the then existing, largely unlined, landfills. Today that would be considered totally unacceptable. In 2003, nineteen years after its then ‘state of the art’ lining, the Horotiu landfill was fully lined as part of the sixth stage of development. The ability to make improvements in discharge quality as well as what is considered acceptable by the community has changed appreciably in that time. Fonterra states that further financially viable technological improvement is just conjecture but given the ever increasing technology changes that are seen in all walks of life and industries I consider this to be a reasonable and well-founded projection. This also aligns with Fonterra’s values of “being at the forefront of dairy innovation for generations to come” and “continuously lift standards, improve quality12”. The PVL Proteins judgement also refers to technology advances. In paragraph 87 it states: “It is our judgement that the possibility of new technology does not indicate a need for a term as short as ten years”. The judgement is not saying that it is not a consideration and the Court granted only an extra 4 years to the term.

12

http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/About/Our+ambition+and+values

50

http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/About/Our+ambition+and+values


Point source discharges and their impact on the overall water quality of the river have to be addressed on a case by case basis as the opportunity arises through consent renewal applications. Unduly lengthy terms limit the ability of the Regional Council to bring about the improvements in a reasonably timely way. Review conditions as defaults for long duration Review periods are often cited as a reason for having a longer duration period and Fonterra has raised this point. It considers that the lack of reviews undertaken (only 1.1% of available consent reviews in the MfE survey during 1998/99) by councils does not diminish this as a reason and the “ability to review the conditions of consent is entirely within the responsibility of Council in fulfilling its responsibilities under the RMA and any reluctance by Council to utilize this review process should not be used as a reason not to grant the Waitoa site consents a 25 year term”. Iwi would have a different view and do not see consent review clauses as being particularly effective and being narrower in their focus. The planning instruments and Hauraki Iwi Management Plan clearly show the Council and Iwi desire for improved water quality. In PVL Proteins Limited v Auckland Regional Council, EC Auckland, A61/2001, 3 July 2001 the court stated that a “review of conditions may be more effective than a shorter term to ensure conditions do not become outdated, irrelevant or inadequate” (para 30, emphasis added). The Court further states in para 82 that in their opinion “the existence of a review condition can properly influence a decision on the term of a discharge consent, but should not obscure the fundamental difference between the two”. So this is not an ‘either or’ situation. In the absence of review conditions I would have recommended a much shorter term. Having them there becomes one factor in weighing up the balance between security of term and sustainable management. The fundamental issue with s128 review is that it only allows modification of the existing conditions, not a fresh look at the acceptability of the discharge itself within that particular receiving environment and applying the policy context and public expectations of the day. The consent renewal process for these consents has been protracted over several years but it is fair to say that the process of consent renewal, the desire by the applicant to address submitter concerns and a response to non-compliances from the site, as was the case with the Fonterra Waitoa consents, has led to much better environmental outcomes than originally proposed and it is hard to see that this would have been achieved through a consent review process. In paragraph 17 of Prime Range Meats Ltd v Southland RC ENVC C127/98 the Environment Court states: “We have difficulty in accepting that review under section 128 would be adequate solution for a number of reasons ...........We cannot see that leaving the smell issue to be dealt with by reviewing condition 4 “at a later stage” is appropriate at all. Both sides should be back to square one at that stage”. Then in para 18 they further state: “We do not overlook that the Regional Council has specific power in relation to a discharge permit on a review to require PRM to “reduce any adverse effect on the environment”. However, that has less ameliorating power than a fresh application which may be declined. A discharge permit that expires in five years would concentrate PRM’s corporate mind”. The Court would appear to consider that the consent process is clearly more effective than a review. In this particular case, an air discharge consent, the Court confirmed the term of 5 years granted by Council rather than the term of 10 years sought by the applicant. When it comes to setting duration the issue of precedent is sometimes raised. It is important to note that each consent is evaluated on its merits and that what is granted at another site or at another time does not necessarily determine a recommendation or establish a precedent for future consents. So a recommendation for another Fonterra site consent could be more or less than

51


what is granted here. Previous decisions do however give context and signal if something is very out-of-step with what may have been applied elsewhere. In April 2000, all regional councils and unitary authorities were surveyed to provide base data on consent durations for a range of resource consents13. The results of the survey were tabulated and are reproduced below: Table 1: Overall typical consent durations

This data is now fourteen years old but the average term for discharges to water is in the range of 10-19 years with the average for discharges to fresh water being 11 years. In terms of more up-to-date data, most wastewater discharges to water in the Waikato Region that I am familiar with would have been granted for 15-20 years. Whilst this does not constrain future decisions and each case has to be assessed on its merits, a term in that region would be consistent with the general approach taken by Council. The municipal wastewater treatment discharges in the catchment have all been granted consent terms of 15 – 20 years. The latest consent granted by Council was for the Matamata-Piako District Council Te Aroha municipal plant. Table 1 of this report outlines comparisons between that consent and the existing and proposed conditions for Fonterra as well as other as other municipal plants in the catchment and the Hauraki area. In terms of the major ‘far-field effect nutrients’ – phosphorus and nitrogen – the municipal plant will discharge less phosphorus but potentially more nitrogen. Nitrate –N limits are similar. The concentration limits for the municipal discharge for BOD, ammonia and suspended solids are higher although I would note that this is into a significantly larger receiving environment with more assimilative capacity. Mean Waihou River flows at Te Aroha would be in the order of 8 times that of the Oraka Stream. Most of the maximum load values for the Te Aroha municipal discharge are worst case scenario i.e. the consent concentration limit multiplied by the maximum daily discharge. Both sites have had some issues with either management of the treatment system or non-compliances that helped drive the need for change. In addition both sites will be spending a significant amount to bring about these improvements. The MPDC Te Aroha plant was granted a consent for 20 years.

13

Resource consent durations and reviews, A study of regional council and unitary authority practice under the Resource

Management Act 1991, Ministry for the Environment, September 2000

52


All the other municipal plants in the comparison were granted consent terms of between 15-20 years. The 2 that have the least restrictive conditions are also the 2 oldest consents that were granted 15 year terms. One of these – the Putaruru municipal plant – was granted in 1999 and is up for renewal. The other – the MPDC Morrinsville Plant is 6 years old. It should be noted that this plant also takes wastewater from several other major industries such as Fonterra Morrinsville, Greenlea Meats and IXOM and thus is the only significant point source discharge to the main stem of the Piako River above the Waitoa confluence. The table below compares the proposed consent limits with the 2 most recently granted consents with discharges to the Firth of Thames.

Parameter Units Fonterra Tirau MPDC Te Aroha

WWTP Discharge Consent Limits (95%ile) MBR


Fonterra Waitoa Proposed

limit to 30 June 2019

95 %ile Limit Post 1 July 2019


BOD g/m3 90 6 12 10 35 50

TP g/m3 2 1 2 6

DRP g/m3 2 1 2 5

TN g/m3 20 10 20 30

Nitrate-N g/m3 15 7.5 15 14

Amm-N g/m3 8 4 8 4 25 -

Sus Solids g/m3 180 50 100 10 140 80

E.coli cfu/100ml 110 260 126 100,000 - BOD kg/day 360* 48* 96* 245* 50-300 TP kg/day 4.1 3 TP kg/yr 1500 1500 1500 1095* 2200 TN kg/day

41

45.5 (summer) 75 (winter)

TN kg/yr 15000 15000 15000

21991* 14600

(Nitrate-N) Amm-N kg/day 64* 32* 64* 175* Sus Solids kg/day 400* 300* 600* 980* 550 Max Volume m

3/day 8000 8000 8000 7000 7000 12,000

Granted 2015 2015 2015 Consent Term 20 years 20 years 20 years River Survey Proposed 1 prior to the upgrade and

a minimum of 2 post upgrade 3 yearly

Mitigation None

$15,000 pa until new limits

reached

$15,000 pa until new limits

reached

Yearly riparian planting &

maintenance

* denotes calculated values

The site also discharges cooling water and stormwater with nutrients that are in addition to the wastewater discharge. For 2014/15, using averages from the monitoring reports there would be an additional 78 kg DRP and 2385 kg of Nitrate-Nitrogen discharged to the stream per year over and above the wastewater discharge. There would also be an additional 17 kg suspended solids and 21 kg BOD discharged on average per day. Recommendation Too short a term does not recognise the improvements that are planned and the investment undertaken by the applicant but too long a term I consider to be at odds with increased community and iwi expectations and policy objectives around ongoing water quality improvement. With those matters in mind and the comments regarding the comparison of discharge, I do not consider that

53


the improvements and financial cost to be so far in advance of what is being undertaken at the Te Aroha plant to signal that a further 11 years ( a 55% increase) in term is justified. The proposed improvements are commended but it is fair to say, especially in light of several past non-compliances, that investment in upgrading would have been necessary and arguably in Fonterra’s interests to undertake a significant upgrade rather than adopt a piecemeal approach. As noted earlier in this discussion, the RMA doesn’t set out to incentivise improvements rather it is about sustainable management and meeting community expectations and the requirements of regional policy statements and plans and national environmental policy and standards. These all steer towards improved water quality and the onus is thus on those using the resource to make these improvements. Having said that I am mindful that industry plays an important role economically and socially within the region and improvements should be encouraged. I would also note that half of the municipal plants that were compared have other mitigation that they are undertaking. Fonterra have offered up the improvements as the sole mitigation for their discharges. I would encourage Fonterra to continue their interaction with the community and iwi and build on this. It is my recommendation that a term of 20 years for the river discharge consents would strike a balance between these competing tensions and be generally consistent with sustainable management principles and Council practice to date. It will allow the applicant to continue to utilise a public resource in a way that provides for the requirements of s5(2) of the RMA for sustainable management.

8 Discussion and conclusion

Fonterra Ltd. has applied for resource consents associated with the ongoing operation and upgrade of the Tirau Dairy Manufacturing Site. The applications include the discharge of treated factory wastewater and sewage and discharge of stormwater and cooling water to the Waihou River catchment via the Oraka Stream and the take of water from the Oraka Stream for use in the site operations. The overall proposal is a discretionary activity and accordingly has been considered under section 104B of the RMA. Section 104B states: “After considering an application for resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority –

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and (b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.”

During this assessment, I have considered the following:

Effects of the proposed activities;

Consistency of the activities with relevant policies and plans; and

Consistency of the activities with Part 2 of the RMA.

As discussed in section 6.1 of this report the actual and potential effects of the proposed activities are considered to be minor. If the activity is undertaken in accordance with the proposed conditions, the proposed activity will be consistent with Waikato Regional Council’s policies and plans, and with matters under Part 2 of the RMA. Waikato Regional Council technical staff have assessed the proposal in terms of actual and potential environmental effects. The conclusions of the technical reviews indicate that the discharge is likely to have an adverse effect on surface water quality that is not more than minor. The application has been assessed in the context of each of the matters of national importance set out in section 6 and I have considered the other matters set out in section 7 of the RMA. I consider that generally the application has had regard to the matters set out in each of these sections.

54


With regards to section 8 of the RMA, I have taken into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I acknowledge the process of consultation and evidence provided by the applicant and it is my opinion that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been adhered to. I have assessed the application against the objectives and policies within the Regional Policy Statement and the Waikato Regional Plan. I consider that the application, with the proposed conditions in this report, does not compromise the objectives and policies within this document. I have assessed the application against section 105(1) of the RMA. I am satisfied, from the advice received from Waikato Regional Council technical staff, that the discharge is unlikely to have any significant adverse effect on the water quality within the Oraka Stream or the Waihou River. I have assessed the application against section 107 of the RMA. After a review of the advice from Waikato Regional Council technical staff, I am satisfied that the grant of this consent is not precluded by section 107 of the RMA. I consider that the proposal provides for positive effects on the regional economy, and the overall wellbeing of the local community. It is my understanding that the application of section 5 of the RMA involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. That judgement allows for comparison of conflicting considerations and the scale or degree of them and their relative significance or proportion in the final outcome, but does not require every provision of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA or the RPS or WRP to be satisfied or adhered to absolutely without consideration of the overall context of the proposal. In weighing these considerations, it is my opinion that it would better achieve the purpose of the Act as defined in section 5 of the RMA, to grant consents to enable the operation of the current Tirau Dairy manufacturing facility. The applicant has proffered and I have proposed a number of conditions of consent to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of water and ecosystems, and to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects of the activities on the environment. The monitoring has been strengthened and the discharge limits, post 1 July 2019 following an upgrade, represent a significant improvement on present limits. The applicant has also requested a roll-over of the ‘pre-season’ limits which acknowledges the biological nature of the treatment plant and that full treatment performance may not be attained during the start-up period.

9 Monitoring

9.1 Stormwater

Monitoring had previously been required for a range of contaminants and this will continue.

9.2 Wastewater

Monitoring had previously been required for a range of contaminants and this will continue. There will also be limits for ammoniacal nitrogen both in the discharge and instream. The river survey monitoring has been proposed to take place only once, 18 months after the upgrade. The point of river surveys is to gauge cumulative effects and ensure that the ongoing operation of a wastewater treatment facility is not contributing to a ‘tipping point’. I am recommending that the river survey takes place every 5 years but may be discontinued if 2 consecutive river surveys following the upgrades demonstrate that there is less than minor impact on Oraka Stream.

55


10 Recommended Decision

I recommend that in accordance with s104B resource consent applications 122870, 122871, 122872 be granted in accordance with the duration and conditions prescribed in the attached Resource Consent Certificate for the following reasons:

The activity will have no more than minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment

The activity is not contrary to any relevant plans or policies

The activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991

Mark Row Date 15/01/2016 Senior Resource Officer, Industry

56


Resource Consent Certificate

Resource Consent: AUTH122862.04.01

File Number: 60 39 12A

Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council hereby grants consent to:

Fonterra Limited (Tirau Site) PO Box 33 Tirau 3442

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder)

Consent Type: Discharge permit

Consent Subtype: Discharge to water

Activity authorised: Discharge treated dairy manufacturing wastewater to the Oraka Stream and associated seepage into land and into groundwater

Location: Fonterra Tirau Dairy Manufacturing Site, Okoroire Road, Tirau

Spatial Reference: NZTM 1842155 E 5793959 N

Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification, unless otherwise stated in the consent’s conditions, and expire on 31 December 2035

Subject to the conditions overleaf:

57


CONDITIONS

Definitions

For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition

Certified (or Certification)

In relation to a Management Plan or Monitoring Plan: means that the Council has certified that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan contains all information specified in the relevant condition(s) and that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of the resource consent.

Council Waikato Regional Council

Monitoring Sites The location of monitoring sites shall be defined as the locations specified: Site 1: approximately 5 metres upstream of the point at which water is

abstracted by the consent holder Site 2: the stormwater and cooling water discharge Site 3: the treatment wastewater discharge Site 4: approximately 50 metres downstream of the treated wastewater

discharge Site 5: Langlands Road bridge Site 6: Lake Road bridge Site 7: point at which the Tirau township stormwater enters the Tirau

site stormwater system

These are shown on the attached figures 1 & 2.

Year, yearly, annual, annually, annum, dairy season

Shall all be the period of the dairy season being from 1 July of one year to 30 June inclusive of the following year

General

1. Except as specifically provided for by other conditions of this consent, all activities to which thisconsent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained inthe application for this consent including: “Fonterra Tirau – Application for Replacement ofResource Consents and Assessment of Environmental Effects” prepared by Beca CarterHollings and Ferner Limited, dated May 2011, WRC ref 1983853; and further documentationand correspondence submitted in support of the application.

Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation and resourceconsent conditions the resource consent conditions below shall prevail.

2. The consent holder may use sewage sludge for the express purpose of seeding bacterialactivity of the anaerobic pond at the start of each year or at other times with the writtenpermission from the Council.

Provision and Certification of Management and/or Monitoring Plans

3. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council a copy of all Management and MonitoringPlans required by this consent by the dates specified in conditions 11 and 12. Any revision of

58


those Management and/or Monitoring Plans shall be forwarded to the Council within 14 working days of the revision being made unless an alternative timeframe is specified.

Except where the Council provides notice in writing that it refuses to certify a Management and/or Monitoring Plan, then should certification not be provided within 20 working days, the consent holder shall regard the relevant Management and/or Monitoring Plans as being deemed to have been certified.

Subject to any other conditions of this consent all Management and/or Monitoring Plans shall be implemented and all activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest version of the Management and/or Monitoring Plan certified by the Council.

Any amendment to a certified Management and/or Monitoring Plan will require further certification from the Council.

Performance Standards

4. The treated wastewater discharge shall comply with the following performance standards.

A. Prior to 1 July 2019(i) The discharge flowrate shall not exceed 120 litres per second(ii) The discharge shall not exceed 8000 cubic metres per day(iii) The pH of the wastewater shall not fall outside the range of 6 to 9 pH units.(iv) The discharge shall not contain floatable fat and shall not produce conspicuous oil or

grease films, scums, foams or floatable materials in the Oraka Stream.(v) The 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5) concentration of the

discharge from a grab sample shall not exceed 90 grams per cubic metre.(vi) The suspended solids concentration of the discharge from a grab sample shall not

exceed 180 grams per cubic metre.(vii) The cBOD5 concentration limit stated in condition 4A(v) above and the suspended

solids concentration limit stated in condition 4A(vi) above shall not apply during thefirst six weeks of milk processing by the site. For any 15 days during the first sixweeks of the start of each dairy processing season, the rate of cBOD5 dischargeshall not exceed 8.3 grams per second, and the rate of suspended solids dischargeshall not exceed 16.7 grams per second, calculated from a minimum samplingperiod of 15 minutes.

(viii) The Total Phosphorus concentration shall not exceed an annual mean of 25 gramsper cubic metre as determined from the weekly monitoring undertaken inaccordance with condition 8.

(ix) The Total Nitrogen concentration shall not exceed an annual mean of 40 grams percubic metre as determined from the weekly monitoring undertaken in accordancewith condition 8.

(x) The turbidity of the waste water shall not:(a) raise the turbidity of the Oraka Stream by more than 10 NTU at monitoring site 4,

if the turbidity of the Oraka Stream, as measured at monitoring site 1 is less than10 NTU; or

(b) more than double the turbidity of the Oraka Stream at monitoring site 4, if theturbidity of the Oraka Stream, as measured at monitoring site 1 is greater than10 NTU.

B. After 1 July 2019(i) The discharge flow rate shall not exceed 120 litres per second(ii) The discharge shall not exceed 8000 cubic metres per day and a monthly average

discharge of 6000 cubic metres per day(iii) The discharge shall not exceed the limits for any of the parameters specified in the

table below (the mean and 95%ile values are calculated on an annual basis)

59


Parameter Units Limit (annual mean value unless otherwise stated)

Limit (maximum)

5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5)

g/m3 6 (95%ile) 12

Total nitrogen (TN) g/m3 10 20

Nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) g/m3 7.5 15

Ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4-N) g/m3 4 8

Total phosphorus (TP) g/m3 1 2

Dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)

g/m3 1 2

pH 6.0 – 9.0

Total suspended Solids (TSS) g/m3 50 (95%ile) 100

Bacteria (Ecoli) cfu/100mL 110 (95%ile) 260

(iv) The cBOD5 concentration limit stated in condition 4B(iii) above and the suspended

solids concentration limit stated in condition 4B(iii) above shall not apply during the first six weeks of milk processing by the site. For any 15 days during the first six weeks of the start of each dairy processing season, the rate of cBOD5 discharge shall not exceed 8.3 grams per second, and the rate of suspended solids discharge shall not exceed 16.7 grams per second, calculated from a minimum sampling period of 15 minutes.

(v) the annual mass load of nitrogen and phosphorus shall not exceed: Total nitrogen 15,000 kg

Total phosphorus 1,500 kg And the discharge shall not cause the water quality in the Oraka Stream to exceed any of the following: (vi) At monitoring site 4 the concentration of total ammoniacal nitrogen shall not exceed

0.88 g/m3 (vii) The discharge shall not contain floatable fat and shall not produce conspicuous oil or

grease films, scums, foams or floatable materials in the Oraka Stream. (viii) The turbidity of the discharge of treated wastewater shall not:

(a) raise the turbidity of the Oraka Stream by more than 10 NTU at monitoring site 4 if the turbidity of the Oraka Stream at monitoring site 1, is less than 10 NTU; or

(b) more than double the turbidity of the Oraka Stream at monitoring site 4 if the turbidity of the Oraka Stream at monitoring site 1 is greater than 10 NTU.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

5. The consent holder shall, by no later than 1 July 2018, upgrade and commission the wastewater treatment plant for the purpose of achieving the discharge performance standards specified in condition 4(B). The consent holder shall report every 3 months on progress to commission the plant and achieve the performance standards.

Monitoring 6. The consent holder shall monitor monthly on the same day as the weekly discharge sample

in Condition 8 is taken, the water quality of the Oraka Stream at monitoring site 1 and monitoring site 4 to verify the performance standards specified in condition 4. The river temperature and pH shall also be monitored when the sample is taken for total ammoniacal nitrogen. In the event that it is unsafe for sampling to occur, the applicant shall advise Council of this and, if appropriate, measures to be put in place to allow safe sampling in future. The

60


requirement to undertake the monthly sampling can be varied or waived, for safety reasons, with the written agreement of Council.

7. The consent holder shall maintain and operate a discharge flow measurement device, with an

accuracy of measurement of +/- 10%, to enable the rate of discharge (litres per second) and the daily discharge volume (cubic metres per day) from the wastewater treatment facility to the Oraka Stream to be determined.

8. The consent holder shall characterise the quality, quantity and variability of the treated

wastewater discharge. To this end, the consent holder shall, unless otherwise required in writing to do so by the Council following consultation with the consent holder, characterise the discharge at the discharge point of the flume for the following parameters: (All samples shall be on a 24 hour flow proportional basis unless otherwise stated)

Continuous: Turbidity (NTU) Flow rate (cubic metres per second)

Daily: Volume (cubic metres per day) Weekly: pH Conductivity Total suspended solids (g/m3) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (g/m3)

Nitrate- nitrogen (g/m3) Nitrite- nitrogen (g/m3) Ammonium-Nitrogen (g/m3) Total phosphorus (g/m3) Dissolved reactive phosphorus (g/m3), Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand cBOD5 (g/m3)

9. In the event of a non compliance against the performance standards specified in condition 4

the consent holder shall undertake upstream and downstream sampling of the Oraka Stream to assess the impact of the non compliance.

10. All sample methods of analysis shall be as detailed in the most recent edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water”, by APHA and AWWA and WCF or by some other method, approved in advance by the Council.

Management Plan 11. The consent holder shall prepare a Management and Operations Manual (MOM) for the

wastewater treatment facility. The MOM shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s). The objective of the MOM is to document how the wastewater treatment facility will be operated and managed and compliance will be achieved with the conditions of this consent and shall include at least the following matters:

i) the roles and responsibilities of those persons responsible for the operation, monitoring and

maintenance of the wastewater treatment facility and their contact details ii) standard operating procedures, maintenance procedures and contingency procedures to

be followed, including but not limited to, in the event of a breakdown, shut-down or emergency

ii) procedures for monitoring of sludge levels within the ponds, the optimal levels to achieve the performance standards and the procedures for desludging of the ponds

iii) procedures and precautions to prevent emission of objectionable odours and procedures to prevent objectionable odours if they occur.

iv) provisions for the identification and labelling of wastewater and clean water drains

61


v) measures to ensure that the permitted daily load of contaminants in the discharge arenot exceeded

The MOM shall be forwarded to the Council for its certification within 3 months of the consent being granted and within 3 months of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade being commissioned as noted in condition 5. The consent holder shall exercise this consent in accordance with the latest version of the MOM. The consent holder shall review (and update if necessary) the MOM at a frequency to reflect actual site management practices but at least once every two years.

Oraka Stream monitoring Plan

12. Within three months of the granting of this consent the consent holder shall retain a suitablyqualified and experienced person(s) to compile an Oraka Stream Monitoring Plan (OSMP) forthe purpose of:

(i) assessing and evaluating the effects of all discharges and water abstractions associatedwith its operations, on the water quality and aquatic biota of the Oraka Stream;

(ii) undertaking a survey to assess and evaluate the effects of the Tirau dairy manufacturingsite’s discharges and water abstraction on the Oraka Stream. The study shall beundertaken at a time of year to coincide with low river flows and following a period of atleast 2 weeks of typical discharge in order to predict the effects of all discharges andwater abstraction on the water quality and ecology of the Oraka Stream.

To define the water quality, the Monitoring Plan shall include at least the followingdeterminants:-

(a) dissolved oxygen.(b) plant nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus(c) cBOD5

(d) temperature(e) colour and clarity(f) suspended particulate, both organic and inorganic(g) pH(h) conductivity

Note: Water quality sampling shall be undertaken using ‘continuous’ monitoring devices for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and conductivity. Continuous dissolved oxygen sampling shall be undertaken for at least 1 week. Other parameters can be via grab sampling.

For the aquatic biota, the Monitoring Plan shall include at least studies of:-

(i) freshwater invertebrates (a plan should be developed for WRC approval andinclude taxonomic QC as outlined by MfE protocol QC2) and

(j) aquatic plants and algae, and the potential effects of the Tirau dairy manufacturingsites discharges on growth.

iii) The Oraka Stream survey undertaken to satisfy condition 12(ii) shall be repeated within18 months of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, as required by condition 5, beingcommissioned and the performance standards as specified in condition 4(B) applyingand every 5 years after that. The surveys can be discontinued following 2 consecutivesurveys that show a less than minor effect.

The OSMP shall be forwarded to the Council for its certification within 6 months of the consent being granted and thereafter implemented.

13. The consent holder shall within 3 months of completing the Oraka Stream surveys required bycondition 12 of this consent forward to the Council, Department of Conservation,

62


Auckland/Waikato Fish & Game Council and the Raukawa Charitable Trust a copy of the report(s) evaluating the effects of the Tirau dairy manufacturing sites discharges and water abstraction on the Oraka Stream

Non-Compliance and Complaints

14. The consent holder shall notify the Council as soon as practicable, and as a minimum requirement within 24 hours, of the consent holder becoming aware of the limits and performance standards specified in this resource consent being exceeded and/or of any plant breakdown or other circumstances which are likely to result in the limits and performance standards of this resource consent being exceeded. The consent holder shall, within 7 days of the incident occurring, provide a written report to the Council, identifying the exceedance, possible causes, steps undertaken to remedy the effects of the incident and measures that will be undertaken to ensure future compliance.

15. The consent holder shall maintain a log of all complaints (including those received via third

parties including the Council) regarding dust, odour or other contaminants. The consent holder shall notify the Council of each complaint as soon as practicable. The consent holder shall record the following details in a complaint log.

(a) time and type of complaint including details of the incident, e.g. duration, location and any

effects noted; (b) name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided); (c) where practicable, the weather conditions including wind direction at the time of the

incident; (d) the likely cause of the complaint and the response made by the consent holder including

any corrective action undertaken if applicable; (e) future actions proposed as a result of the complaint, if applicable; and (f) the response from the consent holder to the complainant

The complaint log shall be made available to the Council at all reasonable times and a summary of the complaints received shall be forwarded to the Council annually in accordance with Condition 18.

Community Liaison Meeting 16. The consent holder shall organise an annual community meeting for the purpose of reporting

on the previous years environmental performance and to facilitate ongoing consultation with potentially affected and other interested groups to ensure any reasonable concerns raised by the exercise of this consent are addressed. Invitations for the meeting shall be sent out at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting date.

Reporting 17. On a monthly basis the consent holder shall prepare and forward to Council a report on the

management and performance of the wastewater treatment facility including all monitoring results required under this consent (except for continuous monitoring of the discharge).

18. The consent holder shall compile an annual monitoring report for the activities authorised by this consent and forward that report to the Waikato Regional Council by 30 September each year. As a minimum the report shall:

(i) Summarise all the data collected as required under the conditions of this consent and

critically analyse the information in terms of compliance and environmental effects; (ii) Report and discuss any operational changes or improvements undertaken at the Tirau

63


Wastewater Treatment Facility which would result in a significant variation in the volume or characteristics of the discharge;

(iii) Highlight and discuss important environmental trends relevant to the discharge; (iv) Make recommendations on alterations/additions to the monitoring programme; (v) Report and discuss feedback received from community liaison activities; (vi) Compare the results obtained with those of previous years; (vii) Include a summary of the complaints received.

Review

19. The Council may during 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and within 3 months of receiving the report required by condition 7, serve notice on the consent holder under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent for the following purposes: (i) To review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding or

mitigating any adverse effects on the environment and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions; or

(ii) If necessary and appropriate, to require the holder of the consent to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce adverse effects on the surrounding environment; or

(iii) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent holder.

64

Figure 1: Monitoring Sites 1 – 4 & 7 65


Figure 2: Monitoring Sites 5 & 6 66

Resource Consent Certificate

Resource Consent: AUTH 122862.05.01 File Number: 60 39 12A Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council hereby grants consent to:

Fonterra Limited (Tirau Site) PO Box 33 Tirau 3442

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder) Consent Type: Discharge permit Consent Subtype: Discharge to water Activity authorised: Discharge cooling water associated with the dairy manufacturing

operations and stormwater from the Tirau township and the dairy manufacturing site to the Oraka Stream.

Location: Fonterra Tirau Dairy Manufacturing Site, Okoroire Road, Tirau Spatial Reference: NZTM 1842381 E 5793814 N Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification, unless

otherwise stated in the consent’s conditions, and expire on 31 December 2035

Subject to the conditions overleaf:

67


CONDITIONS

Definitions

For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition

After reasonable mixing

Shall be taken as a point not more than 50 metres downstream of the discharge

Certified (or Certification)

In relation to a Management Plan or Monitoring Plan: means that the Council has certified that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan contains all information specified in the relevant condition(s) and that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of the resource consent.

Continuous monitoring

Continuous monitoring shall be taken as meaning on-line monitoring of the discharge with values being monitored at 30 second intervals. The consent holder shall calculate and record the average of every 120 readings and shall monthly report the average, maximum and minimum statistics of these values.

Council Waikato Regional Council

Monitoring Sites The location of monitoring sites shall be defined as the locations specified: Site 1 - approximately 5 metres upstream of the point at which water is

abstracted by the consent holder Site 2 - the stormwater and cooling water discharge Site 3 - the treatment wastewater discharge Site 4 - approximately 50 metres downstream of the treated wastewater

discharge Site 5 - Langlands Road bridge Site 6 - Lake Road bridge Site 7 - point at which the Tirau township stormwater enters the Tirau

site stormwater system

These are shown on the attached figures 1 & 2. oC Degrees Celsius

Year, yearly, annual, annually, annum

Shall all be the period of the dairy season being from 1 July of one year to 30 June inclusive of the following year

General

1. Except as specifically provided for by other conditions of this consent, all activities to whichthis consent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the informationcontained in the application for this consent including: “Fonterra Tirau – Application forReplacement of Resource Consents and Assessment of Environmental Effects” prepared byBeca Carter Hollings and Ferner Limited, dated May 2011, WRC ref 1983853; and “TirauStormwater Management Options (Draft for Council) – September 2015” prepared by BecaLimited, WRC ref 3504619

Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation and resourceconsent conditions the resource consent conditions below shall prevail.

2. The consent holder shall not undertake any changes which would fundamentally alter thequantity or quality of the discharge without written approval of the Council.

68


Provision and Certification of Management and/or Monitoring Plans 3. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council a copy of the Stormwater and Cooling

Management and Operations Manual Plans required by this consent by the date specified in condition 15. Any revision of the Management and Operations Manual shall be forwarded to the Council within 14 working days of the revision being made unless an alternative timeframe is specified.

Except where the Council provides notice in writing that it refuses to certify the Management and Operations Manual, then should certification not be provided within 20 working days, the consent holder shall regard the relevant Management and Operations Manual as being deemed to have been certified. Subject to any other conditions of this consent the Management and Operations Manual shall be implemented and all activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest version of the Management and Operations Manual certified by the Council. Any amendment to a certified Management and/or Monitoring Plan will require further certification from the Council.

Performance Standards 4. The discharge of cooling water and stormwater shall comply with the following performance

standards,

(i) The cooling water discharge flow rate shall not exceed 180 litres per second (ii) The daily volume of cooling water discharged shall not exceed 12,000 cubic metres

per day (iii) The discharge shall not contain floatable fat and shall not produce conspicuous oil or

grease films, scums, foams or floatable materials in the Oraka Stream. (iv) The 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5) concentration of the

discharge from a grab sample shall not exceed 10 grams per cubic metre. (v) The suspended solids concentration of the discharge from a grab sample shall not

exceed 80 grams per cubic metre. (vi) The pH of the water discharged shall not fall outside the range of 6-9 units.

Note: Until the system upgrades required by condition 8 are in place, compliance with (vi) shall be assessed on the basis that the discharge shall not cause the pH of the Oraka Stream, at a point 50 metres or more downstream, to be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0 units. The consent holder shall monitor pH of the discharge for the term of the consent as a means of detection of any potential contamination of the stormwater and cooling water.

and, the combined cooling water and stormwater discharge shall, after reasonable mixing, comply with the following performance standards; (vii) The turbidity of the discharge shall not:

(a) raise the turbidity of the Oraka Stream by more than 10 NTU at any point greater than 50 metres below the point of discharge, if the turbidity of the Oraka Stream, as measured no less than 5 metres above the point of discharge, is less than 10 NTU; or

(b) more than double the turbidity of the Oraka Stream at any point greater than 50 metres below the point of discharge, if the turbidity of the Oraka Stream, as measured no less than 5 metres above the point of discharge, is greater than 10 NTU.

69


(viii) The discharge shall not raise the temperature of the Oraka Stream by more than 3oC and above a maximum of 25oC

5. The consent holder shall be responsible for monitoring of the Oraka Stream, at the location where the consent holder abstracts water from the Oraka Stream (site 1), and the stormwater, at the location where the Tirau township stormwater enters the site (site 7), if it has reason to believe the performance standards might be exceeded because of causes outside its direct control.

6. If it is verified, to the satisfaction of Council, as a result of the monitoring undertaken in accordance with condition 5, non compliance with the performance standards, specified in condition 4, is because the quality of the water abstracted from the Oraka Stream by the consent holder for cooling water purposes and/or the quality of the stormwater entering the site from the Tirau township, the consent holder shall not be deemed to be in non compliance. The consent holder shall, to the satisfaction of the Council, notify the Council in writing, upon receipt of any monitoring results, including a copy of the monitoring results, the date and time that such monitoring was undertaken and any other relevant information to confirm the likely cause of the performance standards being exceeded.

Stormwater/Cooling Water System Upgrade

7. The consent holder shall implement, by no later than 1 August 2017, or by such other dates agreed to with the Council, the stormwater upgrade recommendations in general accordance with the recommendations made in the Tirau Stormwater Management Options report (Beca Limited, dated 8 September 2015 - WRC ref 3504619) to minimise stormwater contamination.

8. The consent holder shall provide interim progress reports to the Council, by no later than 28 February and 01 September of each year, on progress to implement the recommended stormwater management option and to complete the stormwater upgrade as required by condition 7.

9. The consent holder shall retain an appropriately qualified and experienced person to prepare and sign as built plans of any new infrastructure, ponds, and treatment devices that are constructed as a result of the report prepared under condition 7 and any upgrades and changes to the sites stormwater and cooling water reticulation over the term of this consent.

Monitoring 10. The cooling water discharge flowrate and daily volume of discharge shall until 01 August 2017

be estimated from the combined stormwater and cooling water discharge flume continuous monitoring on days when there is no rainfall.

In the event that it is unsafe for sampling to occur, the applicant shall advise Council of this and, if appropriate, measures to be put in place to allow safe sampling in future. The requirement to undertake the weekly sampling can be varied or waived, for safety reasons, with the written agreement of Council.

11. The consent holder shall by 31 July 2017 install, maintain and operate a discharge flow

measuring device(s), with an accuracy of measurement of +/- 5% to enable the rate of the cooling water discharge (litres per second) and the daily discharge (cubic metres per day) to the Oraka Stream to be determined.

12. The consent holder shall monitor weekly on the same day as the weekly discharge sample in Condition 14 is taken, the water quality of the Oraka Stream at site 1 and at site 4 to verify the performance standards specified in condition 4.

In the event that it is unsafe for sampling to occur, the applicant shall advise Council of this and, if appropriate, measures to be put in place to allow safe sampling in future. The

70


requirement to undertake the weekly sampling can be varied or waived, for safety reasons, with the written agreement of Council.

13. The consent holder shall maintain and operate a discharge flow measurement device, with an

accuracy of measurement of +/- 10%, to enable the rate of the cooling water and stormwater discharge (litres per second) and the daily discharge volume (cubic metres per day) to the Oraka Stream to be determined

14. The consent holder shall characterise the quality, quantity and variability of the cooling water and stormwater discharge. To this end, the consent holder shall, unless otherwise required in writing to do so by the Council following consultation with the consent holder, characterise the discharge at the discharge point of the flume for the following parameters:

Continuous: pH

Conductivity (µS/cm) Turbidity (NTU) Temperature (oC)

Flow rate (L/s)

Daily: Volume (m3/day) Rainfall (mm) Weekly: (grab sample) Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand cBOD5 (g/m3) Suspended Solids (g/m3)

Advice Note: The consent holder shall retain for a period of at least 2 years the records of the 30 second continuous monitoring readings and these shall be made available to the Council upon request.

15. In the event of a spill that enters the stormwater system the consent holder shall undertake

upstream and downstream sampling of the Oraka Stream to assess the impact of the spill. Sampling shall be taken, as a minimum, at Sites 1, 4 & 5.

16. All sample methods of analysis shall be as detailed in the most recent edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water”, by APHA and AWWA and WCF or by some other method, approved in advance by the Council.

Management Plan 17. The consent holder shall prepare a Stormwater and Cooling Water Management and

Operations Manual (SCWMOM) for the management and operation of the sites stormwater and cooling water systems. This Manual shall take account of all operations potentially affecting the quality of the stormwater and cooling water discharged, and shall include at least the following matters:

(i) the roles and responsibilities of those persons responsible for the operation, monitoring

and maintenance of the stormwater and cooling water systems and their contact details (ii) standard operating procedures, maintenance procedures and contingency procedures to

be followed, including but not limited to, in the event of a breakdown, shut-down or spills and emergencies

(iii) the location of up-to-date stormwater underground piping drawing that identifies all manholes and cesspits, piping layouts and the direction of drainage towards these stormwater manholes and cesspits

(iv) provision for routine and regular inspection of the sites reticulated stormwater underground pipework to ensure its structure integrity and the process by which any identified defective pipework shall be rectified

71


(v) the provision for the identification and labelling of all wastewater and stormwater drains (vi) identification and quantification of all chemicals and hazardous substances, including

fuels and oils, held on the site (vii) the procedures by which activities, including but not limited to the following, that could if

not managed correctly impact on either compliance or the quality of the discharge to the Oraka Stream, shall be managed; chemical delivery and unloading, bund draining

The SCWMOM shall adequately address the relevant management issues and shall be forwarded to the Council for its certification within 3 months of the consent being granted and within 3 months of any upgrades being undertaken in accordance with condition 7. The consent holder shall exercise this consent in accordance with the latest version of the SCWMOM. The consent holder shall review (and update if necessary) the SCWMOM at a frequency to reflect actual site management practices but at least once every two years.

Non-Compliance and Complaints

19. The consent holder shall notify the Council as soon as practicable, and as a minimum requirement within 24 hours, of the consent holder becoming aware of the limits and performance standards specified in this resource consent being exceeded and/or of any plant breakdown or other circumstances which are likely to result in the limits and performance standards of this resource consent being exceeded. The consent holder shall, within 7 days of the incident occurring, provide a written report to the Council, identifying the exceedance, possible causes, steps undertaken to remedy the effects of the incident and measures that will be undertaken to ensure future compliance.

20. The consent holder shall maintain a log of all complaints (including those received via third parties including the Council) regarding dust, odour or other contaminants. The consent holder shall notify the Council of each complaint as soon as practicable. The consent holder shall record the following details in a complaint log.

(i time and type of complaint including details of the incident, e.g. duration, location and any

effects noted; (ii) name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided); (iii) where practicable, the weather conditions including wind direction at the time of the

incident; (iv) the likely cause of the complaint and the response made by the consent holder including

any corrective action undertaken if applicable; (v) future actions proposed as a result of the complaint, if applicable; and (vi) the response from the consent holder to the complainant

The complaint log shall be made available to the Council at all reasonable times and a summary of the complaints received shall be forwarded to the Council annually in accordance with Condition 23.

Community Liaison Meeting 21. The consent holder shall organise an annual community meeting for the purpose of reporting

on the previous year’s environmental performance and to facilitate ongoing consultation with potentially affected and other interested groups to ensure any reasonable concerns raised by the exercise of this consent are addressed. Invitations for the meeting shall be sent out at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting date.

Reporting 22. On a monthly basis the consent holder shall prepare and forward to Council a report on the

management and performance of the stormwater and cooling water systems including all monitoring results required under this consent.

72


23. The consent holder shall compile an annual monitoring report for the activities authorised by this consent and forward that report to the Council by 30 September each year. As a minimum the report shall:

(i) Summarise all the data collected as required under the conditions of this consent and

critically analyse the information in terms of compliance and environmental effects; (ii) Report and discuss any operational changes or improvements undertaken on the Tirau

dairy manufacturing site which could result in a significant variation in the volume or characteristics of the discharge;

(iii) Highlight and discuss important environmental trends relevant to the discharge; (iv) Make recommendations on alterations/additions to the monitoring programme; (v) Report and discuss feedback received from community liaison activities; (vi) Compare the results obtained with those of previous years; (vii) Include a summary of the complaints received.

Review

23. The Council may during 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 serve notice on the consent holder under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent for the following purposes: (i) To review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding or

mitigating any adverse effects on the environment and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions; or

(ii) If necessary and appropriate, to require the holder of the consent to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce adverse effects on the surrounding environment; or

(iii) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent holder.

73

Doc # WRC Doc 3672091: WRC Hearing Report for Fonterra Tirau Wastewater and Stormwater/Cooling Water consent renewals Page 71

Figure 1: Monitoring Sites 1 – 4 & 7

74


Figure 2: Monitoring Sites 5 & 6

75


Appendix 1 Interim Technical advice from WRC water scientist Bill Vant

76


Memo

File No: 47 03 10

Date: 23 June 2011

To: Mark Row

From: Bill Vant

Subject: Tirau dairy factory discharges: interim comments

You have asked for comment on the effects of the discharges from the Tirau dairy factory on the water quality and ecology of the Oraka Stream. I have begun reviewing the AEE1 provided as part of the consent renewal process for this site, and wish to advise you of my concerns with the level of completeness of some of the material (see below). Can I ask you please to consider what my concerns mean for the processing of the consent application (and I’d be happy to discuss them with you). In the meantime I plan to suspend my review and assessment.

What’s there The assessment of the effects of the wastewater and the cooling/stormwater discharges in the AEE has been based on (1) a comparison of consent monitoring information from recent years with the conditions of the existing consents, and (2) an analysis of the results of various surveys of the water quality and ecology of the receiving water at sites upstream and downstream of the existing discharges. And this is all useful information.

What’s not However, the AEE does not provide any assessment of the “worst case” effects that would be likely to occur if the maximum contaminant loads permitted by the proposed consent conditions were to occur at the time of low flows in the receiving water. This type of assessment is typically based on calculations of the loads of contaminants in the receiving water upstream of the discharge point plus the loads that could be discharged (i.e. “mass balance calculations”). Indeed, my quick look at Appendix C of the AEE suggests that this was the approach used there to predict and assess effects in the air quality assessment. I consider that a complete and robust assessment of the effects of the wastewater and cooling/stormwater discharges on the stream would also have included calculations (or “modelling”) like this, particularly given the size and nature of these discharges (which I regard as being moderate-to-large and reasonably “high strength”).

An example For example, consider the discharge of the toxic contaminant ammonia, a typical component of processing industry wastewaters (and reported at elevated concentrations downstream of the dairy factory discharges: AEE, p. 70). The type of “worst case” assessment that I consider is needed would calculate the ammoniacal-N concentrations downstream of the discharge point that would result from a discharge of a maximum permitted load of ammonia (e.g. 8000 m3/day of wastewater at a concentration of say 10 g N/m3, noting that no consent conditions exist or were proposed for this contaminant) into the stream at a low flow (Q5) of 3 m3/s with an ammoniacal-N concentration of say 0.005 g/m3 (the minimum value observed

1 Beca 2011: Fonterra Tirau. Application for replacement of resource consents and assessment of environmental effects.

BCHF, Hamilton.

77


upstream of the discharge point). My calculations give a fully-mixed downstream concentration of about 0.3 g N/m3.

Although this represents a major increase in the concentration of ammonia in the stream (from 0.005 g N/m3 upstream of the discharge to 0.3 g N/m3 downstream), in this particular case the downstream concentration does not actually exceed guideline values (e.g. 0.88 g N/m3 in the WRP). However, if all of the nitrogen in the discharge were to be present as ammonia, and using the proposed concentration of total N in the wastewater discharge (namely 40 g N/m3), then the downstream concentration of ammoniacal-N would be more like 1.2 g N/m3, which exceeds guideline values.

By contrast, the analysis of the effects of ammonia in the AEE appears to be limited to a description of certain measurements made in the stream downstream of the discharges (p.70). But in the absence of any information on (1) streams flows, and (2) discharge concentrations and flow rates at the time these in-stream observations were made, I am unable to determine their relevance—in particular, whether much higher concentrations, such as those described above, are also likely to occur from time to time.

Modelling the effects of heat and BOD “Worst case” calculations like this are particularly important in the assessment of the effects of the discharges to the stream of heat and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). It is clear from the AEE that large amounts of heat (Appendix F) and BOD (existing consent limit 8000 m3/day at up to 90 g/m3) are currently discharged, and that it is proposed that this continue under the new consents. Once again I consider it is not sufficient to simply refer to (1) the history of compliance with existing consent conditions, and (2) certain in-stream measurements downstream of the discharges at unspecified combinations of stream flow and discharge flow and concentration/temperature.

Heat loads and water temperatures I agree that the continuous monitoring of in-stream temperatures over a period of a fortnight or so last year (Appendix E, Fig. 21) indicates that the effect of the discharged heat on stream temperatures then was small. But this does not mean this will always be the case, particularly as no information was provided on the cooling water and stream flows and heat loads and that occurred at the time these measurements were made. When stream flow is low and the water is warmer, then the downstream temperatures are likely to be higher than those reported here (and only modelling of the heat dynamics can tell us how much higher).

I also note that as mentioned in the AEE (p. 46), the Oraka Stream is classified as trout habitat in the WRP. The water quality standards for such waterbodies require that in-stream water temperatures be below 20°C, and that dissolved oxygen concentrations exceed 80% of saturation. I therefore find it surprising that the existing consent for the cooling water discharge permits temperatures downstream of the discharge to be up to 25°C, and that the applicant has proposed that the new consent should have the same limit.

BOD loads and in-stream oxygen dynamics The effect of BOD on oxygen depletion at low stream flows and high wastewater loads also needs to be assessed by modelling the in-stream oxygen dynamics at this site. The methods for this are readily-available and widely-used (e.g. NIWA’s WAIORA model). I also note that Table 9 of Appendix E reports that dissolved oxygen concentrations substantially less than 80% have been observed upstream of the discharge; indeed, concentrations have been as low as 64% of saturation. The WRP water quality standards for the trout classes require that under these circumstances, discharges should not reduce concentrations any further (as noted on p.47 of the AEE). I therefore consider that there is a clear need for the dynamics of oxygen depletion downstream of the discharge to be modelled.

78


Two other matters 1. The AEE includes an overview of the wastewater treatment system at the dairy factory(pp. 16–17). But I didn’t see any information describing the water quality of the final effluentproduced by this system. AEEs often include a table listing the concentrations (mean,minimum and maximum) of the various contaminants in the wastewater, and thisinformation gives the reader a clearer idea of its nature and “strength”.2. The AEE describes the various boilers used at the factory, but I didn’t see any mentionof chemicals that may be associated with this (e.g. corrosion inhibitors). These chemicalsare often toxic to ecosystems, so I would have liked to have been told (1) whether suchchemicals are used at this site, and if so (2) whether they are ever discharged to the streamand what their effects are there.

79


Appendix 2 Updated comments from WRC water scientist Bill Vant following s92 response

From: Bill Vant

Sent: Monday, 29 June 2015 1:41 p.m.

To: Mark Row Subject: RE: Fonterra Tirau discharge consents

hello Mark I’ve now quickly reviewed the information in the addendum of May 2015. Some of my previous concerns have been thoroughly addressed, and given the proposed improvements in the quality of the wastewater discharge in the future, those concerns have largely been allayed.

However, I’m puzzled by the information on BOD and dissolved oxygen, where notwithstanding the clearly expressed concerns in my memo of June 2011, I’m now quoted by the consultants as apparently having told them in September 2011 that I did not have “significant concern about the potential for BOD to cause dissolved oxygen depletion”. This seems somewhat surprising, and I suspect the matter will need to be clarified.

Some specifics: 1. The proposed conditions for key contaminants in the wastewater are summarised on p. 4 ofBECA’s letter of 5 May 2015, and in Table 1 of Attachment D. It is clear that these proposedconditions represent a marked improvement in the quality of the wastewater, not just whencompared to the existing consent, but more importantly, when compared with recent practice.That is, the new consent will result in a real improvement in the quality of the wastewater, and thusan improvement in the water quality of the Oraka Stream. For example, the proposed meanconcentrations for total N (10 g/m3) and total P (1 g/m3) are substantially lower than those Ireported in WRC tech rep 2011/06 for the decade 2000-09, namely 40 g/m3 and 7 g/m3,respectively.

2. Attachment D contains worst case calculations of the increases in the concentrations of BOD,TN, TP and NH4 in the Oraka Stream, downstream of the wastewater discharge. This is good so faras it goes. But for completeness, I think we also need to know the likely concentrations of thesecontaminants upstream of the point of discharge. Only then can the effect of the discharge on thereceiving water be fully understood. It’s the downstream concentrations themselves that will needto be compared with the various guidelines (e.g. as in Table 6 of Attachment D), not the increases. Isuggest you ask for this information to be provided as well.

3. I have a minor niggle with the worst case calculations mentioned above: the mass balancepredictions used the maximum monthly historic contaminant loads measured in the wastewater.Given that the proposed wastewater will be of better quality than the historic discharge, this isprobably adequate. But it would have been useful to have seen the calculations done based on theproposed maximum flows and maximum concentrations (e.g. BOD_max = 12 g/m3, TP_max = 2g/m3, TN_max = 20 g/m3).

4. I think the new consent should include conditions for NH4-N (e.g. as in Table 1 of Attachment D)– as well as for BOD, TP and TN etc.

5. Attachment E is a letter of 14 April 2015 from consultants to the applicant. As noted above, itreports me as having advised that I “did not have significant concerns about the potential for BODto cause dissolved oxygen depletion”. This is somewhat surprising, given my comments on p. 2 ofmy memo of June 2011 (“concentrations have been as low as 64% of saturation”).

80


I have only the vaguest of recollections of any conversation with the consultant. Instead I consider my written conclusion that “there is a clear need for the dynamics of oxygen depletion downstream of the discharge to be modelled” is likely to be closer to my true opinion in 2011 (as indeed it is now). I think we should re-visit this matter with the applicant.

6. The calculations described above apply after complete mixing of the wastewater discharge withthe receiving water. At this point I have little feeling for the likely dynamics of this mixing, inparticular just how far downstream of the discharge point this will occur. I think we’ll need to knowsubstantially more about this before being able to identify the size of a reasonable mixing zone forthis discharge.

OK? Happy to discuss. thanks, Bill

81


Appendix 3

Letter from Department of Conservation

82

83

84

85

^ame N E W Z E A L A N D

Ref: 3/1/7/ (E)

11 November 2011

Chief Executive Waikato Regional Council Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre HAMILTON 3240

Submission in opposition to the resource consent application (122871) by the Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd to discharge up to 8000 cubic metres of treated dairy wastewater per day to the Oraka Stream

Fish and Game New Zealand, Auckland/Waikato Region opposes the consent application by Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd to discharge up to 8000 cubic metres of treated dairy wastewater per day to the Oraka Stream

Fish & Game considers that the granting of this consent will be detrimental to the trout fishery in the Oraka River and lower Waihou River.

Fish & Game requests that the consent authority not grant this consent.

Fish & Game wishes to be heard in respect of this submission.

Ben Wilson Fisheries Manager

Statutory managers of freshwater sports fish, game birds and their habitats

86

Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai

SAR-05-26-02

14th November 2011

Attention: Mark Row Waikato Regional Council PO Box 4010 Hamilton East Hamilton 3247

Dear Mark,

Fonterra Urau- Resource Consent .^plications

I refer to the application by Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd for water take from the Oraka Sream and the discharge of cooling water, stormwater and treated wastewaters from their dairy manufacturing facility located in the vicinity of Urau.

Please find enclosed a submission on behalf of the Director-General of Conservation in respect of this application. The submission identifies the Director-General's concerns. The Department considers that issues raised in this submission may be able to be resolved through a pre-hearing meeting with the Applicant and Regional Council.

Yours sincerely

John Gmnbley Programme Manager Biodiversity Assets 07 85030111 jgumbley(a)doc.govt.nz

Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai Waikato Area Office PO Box 20025, Hamilton 3241 www.doc.govt.nz

87

Resource Management Act 1991

To: Waikato Regional Council

Submission on: Applications 940465. 940464, 940463 and 940462. Consents sought by Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited (Tirau site) in relation to water take and discharges to and from the Oraka Stream.

Applicant: Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited

Name: Alastair Morrison, Director-General of Conservation

Address: C/- Waikato Area Manager Department of Conservation 5 Northway St HAMILTON

Statement of Submission by the Director-General of Conservation

Pursuant to section 96(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, I, Matt Cook, Waikato Area Manager, acting upon delegation from the Director-General of Conservation, make the following submission in respect of the above applications for water take and discharge to and from the Oraka Stream. Following a meeting held with the applicant on 20*'' October 2011,1 still have some concern regarding the proposed discharge consents and their likely adverse environmental effects. Given this and reasons outUned below I oppose the Applications in their entirety.

My submission is as follows:

1. The association of the Oraka Stream and the Waihou River system and theeffects on Firth of Thames RAMSAR site.The Oraka Stream is a tributary of the Waihou River which discharges directly to the Firth ofThames. The Firth of Thames is a site of an internationally significant wetlands listed underthe Rasmar convention. As a member country New Zealand is expected to protect andmonitor the site.

The nutrient enriched waters of the Waihou River have contributed to degradation ofaquatic values including the proliferation of pest species on both riverine and estuarineecosystems.

The Firth of Thames is a highly productive mud/sandflat providing habitat for rare andsignificant populations of both national and international shore and wading birds. Highnutrient inputs from freshwater sources, including the Waihou River and its tributariesthreaten the stability of this ecosystem. The potential for harmful algal blooms resultingfrom the cumulative effect of nutrient rich discharges is a threat to the healthy functioning ofthis unique ecosystem. Considering the significance of natural habitat, the continueddischarge of relatively high nutrient waste waters to the riverine and estuarine ecosystems isnot considered appropriate. Whilst the discharge from Tirau site constitutes only a smallproportion of the total nutrient load to the Waihou system, it is significant and moreovercontrolable. Objective 3.1.2 of the Waikato Regional Plan seeks a net improvement in waterquality across the region. The applicant has the opportunity to show leadership to the dairyindustry by demonstating incremental improvements in their nutrient footprint over time,but no such improvement is documented over the life of the proposed consent.

2. Consent term sought.The applications fail to determine actual methods by which the nutrient content of dischargewaters shall be reduced. The application makes reference to options for additional treatment

88

of waste waters but no definitive method or timeframes are specified, this is considered necessary given the sensitivity of the receiving environment and consent term sought (31 years).

In addition, scientific knowledge on the effects of discharges on receiving waters continues to evolve and thresholds above which an environmental effect is considered more than minor are reducing. To grant consent for this significant discharge for 31 years, without a significant commitment by the applicant to reduce their discharge footprint, would, in our view be irresponsible.

Water quality monitoring and frequency. The proposed annual assessment of water quality variables for the Waitoa River is not frequent enough to ascertain potential effects of the discharges. Monitoring should occur at times of varying flow so as to comprehensively record water quality trends and ensure that any deterioration is readily detected and to gauge the significance of any breaches in consent conditions. For example the applicant's AEE notes exceedances of ammoniacal nitrogen thresholds and potential toxicity effects on fish but vrith the current frequency of grab sampling it is impossible to gauge whether such exceedances constitute a significant threat to aquatic life.

Legislative requirements In summary the applications fail to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as required by Part II of the Resource Management Act (1991). The applications are contrary to Sections 5, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 7(c), 7(d), 7(0 and7(g) of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition the proposed activities are not considered to be in accordance with relevant Regional Plan provisions or the objectives of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

I seek the following from the Consent Authority The Director-General considers the applications as notified are lacking in detail and should be declined. This is unless conditions are included which address the matter raised in submission, including but not limited to the foUovong:

- Programmed nutrient reduction- Biodiversity Offset mitigation linked to the above

Consent term reduction to no more than 15 years in the absence of nutrient reductionIncreasing the frequency of monitoring during the peak production season with arequirement for more intensive receiving water monitoring in the event of any noncompliance .

I do wish to be heard in support of this submission.

Dated at Hamilton this ii"> day of November 2011.

Matt Cook Waikato Area Manager Acting pursuant to delegated authority

89

Documents

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited - Tirau · PDF fileFonterra Co-operative Group Limited - Tirau (Renewal of consents for existing activities related to the operation of the dairy