Egon Guttke 15/2/2018 6 Glengavel Grove Porirua 5024 To: Hearing - PDF document

Egon Guttke 15/2/2018 6 Glengavel Grove Porirua 5024 To: Hearing Panel for the proposed Natural Resources Plan Subject: Hearing Stream 4 – for prehearing reading Commissioners I have submitted under submitter # 14 on the proposed Natural Resources Plan, and wish to present to the panel on the issues raised below. Introduction I am a resident of Porirua. Together with my wife, I own a 220 ha block of land within the Kapiti district, that is significantly affected by the provisions of the proposed plan. When we acquired the land in 1992, it was marginal farmland showing some signs of erosion, and had a very low biodiversity due to grazing activities and the impact of pests. We converted around 80 ha to plantation forest, and one of the results has been a much improved water quality in the streams on our property. Flooded creeks are now very rare, due to the forest retaining a large amount of water. In a nutshell, I believe that I have been a good custodian for the land and the natural environment. Objectives O24 The objectives reads: “Rivers… are suitable for contact recreation and Maori customary use”. I am concerned that this can be interpreted as to interfere with private property rights. The headwaters of streams are often entirely on private property. An example are the headwaters of the Waikanae River. Any contact recreation, Maori customary use or the taking of food would require t he property owner’s agreement. There is no public interest in Objective O24, where a water body is entirely on private land, and water quality objectives are already expressed elsewhere. The Section 42 report argues that water quality should be managed for an entire river system. I have no issue with managing water quality, but the S42 report ignores that I am concerned about the implications of the wording of O24, which go much wider than this. Neither does the S42 report address why a water body entirely on private land should be suitable for Maori customary use. The S42 report does reference the NPS – Fresh Water, to justify O24. In fact the NPS Fresh Water states in Objective 3: ” The quality of fresh water within a

freshwater management unit is improved so it is suitable for primary contact more often...”. The NPS has clearly a focus water quality, which is very different from the wording in O24. The plan as it stands uses the terms “water quality” and “suitable for contact recreation” synonym ously, when they are clearly not. Good water quality is a prerequisite for any contact recreation, but is not sufficient in itself. There are other criteria than must be met such as a sufficient volume of water. Relief sought: Objectives O24 should be altered to exclude water bodies and headwaters entirely on private land. Alternatively, the wording of O24 could be altered to just focus on water quality, Table 3.4 The table has a requirement for Mahinga kai and taonga species to be present in appropriate quantities. The objective is unclear, as the species are not listed. The relevant species should be identified. The S42 report states, that “further work will need to be conducted with whanau, hapū and iwi to determine what taonga are (or should be) present in each whaitua” and that “No further work has been undertaken by Council to identify taonga species specific to each whaitua.” If council has not seen fit to do the work required to identify the species, then reference to Mahinga Kai species should be removed from Schedule 3.4. Otherwise, we would end up with a requirement, that is wide open to interpretation, creates uncertainty for plan users, and in effect is meaningless. Should council through the Whaitua process identify affected species, then I suggest that the plan be updated at that time. There is a further issue in that such species should be available in “quantity quality and size that is appropriate for the area” Does it mean appropriate for the needs of a hapu or tribe, or appropriate for the sustainable management of a species? The term ”appropriate” is unclear and needs to be defined. Relief sought : List Mahinga Kai and taonga species or remove reference to Mahinga Kai species Objective O26 The Objective reads: “The availability of mahinga kai species to support Maori customary harvest is increased in quantity, quality and diversity” I not see that O26 is applicable, where a water body is surrounded entirely by private land. An example is the headwaters of the Waikanae River. Any Maori customary use or taking of food would require the property owner’s agreement. The S42 report does not at all address, why water bodies and headwater entirely

on private land should be included in O26. The section 42 attempts to show, that O26 meets the criteria of an objective: “ Does the objective clearly state the outcome intended? Yes, the outcome is to - increase availability of mahinga kai species”. This is clearly nonsensical if neither the species affected are known, nor what the current level of availability is. “Does the objective provide targets that policies seek to achieve and outcomes - that can be monitored? Yes, mahinga kai species can be monitored and the Council is working with iwi partners.....to design and implement monitoring programmes directed by their kaupapa”. In the absence of a definition of the species involved, there is nothing to be monitored, and O26 fails this test also. Even with such a definitive list of species, how would council monitor the effect of the objective on a water body entirely on private land? Relief sought: Objectives O26 should be altered to exclude water bodies and headwaters entirely on private land. Alternatively, O26 should be removed as it does not meet the criteria for an objective Rule R42 The rule is a major change to the status quo. Currently, sediment control measures are only required for bulk earthworks. Forestry requires earthworks which will at times generate some runoff including sediment. The rule implies that this will not be permitted if the suspended solids exceed 50 grams/m3. This is really only 50 parts/million, or 0.005%. It will be pretty much impossible to achieve, and even a car driving through a ford will have a greater impact. The S42 report ignores the arguments presented, and makes the requirement even more stringent, by deleting an exception for a situation” where the background total suspended solids concentration in the receiving water is greater than 100g/m3...”. The reasoning used for removing the exception is not logical: If the receiving water has a concentration of 200g/m3, and the discharged water contains 110g/m3, then the water downstream of the discharge point would actually have less sediment/m3 then upstream of the discharge point. My main concern revolves around forestry, and the issue of sediment control has been addressed in the NES Plantation Forestry. It states Permitted activity conditions: sediment Sediment originating from earthworks must be managed to ensure that after reasonable mixing, it does not give rise to any of the following effects on receiving waters:

(a) any conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity (b) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals: (c) any significant adverse effect on aquatic life. My original relief sought was to remove the 50gr and 100gr limit and just focus on water quality in the zone of reasonable mixing. This is exactly what the NES Plantation Forestry is doing for Forestry. As the NES provisions take precedence, the relief I seek is now: Relief sought: remove reference to 50grams/m3 and 100grams/cubic meter, and to include the provisions of the NES Plantation Forestry in the rule. Map 20 The schedule shows primary contact recreation rivers. The headwaters of the Waikanae above GPS reference 178 1550.60 / 547 5221.92 are entirely privately owned with no public access, so there is no opportunity for contact recreation by anyone other than the land-owners. Also, the Waikanae here is only a trickle and unsuitable for this purpose. The same applies to the land downstream from that point until it reaches the Mangaone Walkway, where it is joined by several tributaries. Upper head water of Waikanae River

Headwater of Waikanae river The S42 report argues, that according to Dr Greer’s opinion, managing the entire river system for primary contact recreation is appropriate to ensure swimming sites are safe. The S42 report ignores several important facts: a. The plan is not consistent with Dr Greer’s opinion, as it does not propose to manage the whole catchment of the Waikanae River for water quality (and neither is this necessary). For example many tributaries with higher water flows than the headwaters of the Waikanae River are excluded from the mapped area. b. A large part of the Waikanae River is designated as a Surface Water Supply Protection Area. The water quality standards for drinking water supply clearly exceed those for primary contact recreation. On Map 20 the Surface Water Supply Protection Area begins where the Waikanae River crosses the Mangaone Walkway, yet the river upstream from this point is included as a primary contact recreation river, when clearly the water volume rules out this activity. If water quality upstream is not required to be managed for drinking water purposes, then of course it does not need to be managed for contact recreation purposes