on the stream for the continuous measurement of flow rate and temperature.
Silver Fern Farms Ltd (meat processing plant) demonstrated an overall high level of environmental
performance.
Silver Fern Farms Ltd holds six resource consents, to allow it to maintain a dam in and to take water from
the Tawhiti Stream; to discharge to the stream and to land; and to discharge emissions into the air.
During the period under review, there were no incidents reported in relation to activities
Operations and Regulatory Committee Agenda February 23 Part 1
Marine ecological monitoring reports
Appendix V PM10 monitoring report
page
iii
Appendix VI NOx monitoring report
List of tables
Table 1 Product manufactured at Fonterra annually 3
Table 2 Summary of abstraction rate data for 2017-2018 22
Table 3 Limits for stormwater composition for each parameter 2017-2018 (consents 3902, 3907,
4133) 29
Table 4 Sample results for the stormwater discharge to an unnamed tributary of the Tawhiti Stream 29
machinery had scared them off.
This same scenario will play out at Ahu Ahu and Weld Road. Driving off
nesting shags who have recently increased in no. and the pairs of grey
herons.
Please consider shelving this project in a show of actual conservation, and
respect for the environment.
Y
page
20
I ask for what minority public funds are being spent? While rates
rise and pot holes bloom, so my first reason for opposing resource
consent is the spending of public
and considered responsible resource utilisation, to move closer to achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental and administrative performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the Company, this
report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and administrative performance during the period
under review.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on
Charges Page 3 Document 3155430
Resource Management Act charging policy
Schedule of charges pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991
SCHEDULE 1: SCALE OF CHARGES FOR STAFF TIME
Rate for processing resource consents
and responding to pollution incidents.
Rate for all other Council work.
Professional staff $111/hr $106/hr
Professional/supervisory staff $141/hr $132/hr
Team Leaders $173/hr $161/hr
Managers $204/hr $190/hr
Support staff $111/hr
Duration of consent
b) Imposition of limits on or relating to discharge or
ambient concentrations, or on or relating to
mass discharge rates
c) Best practicable option to prevent or minimise
any adverse effects on the environment
d) Location of any facilities or equipment
discharging to air in relation to surrounding land
uses
e) Visual effects, loss of amenity value of air,
chronic or acute human health effects, soiling or
damage to property, odour, annoyance and
TDF is not operational during maintenance or breakdown;
the sludge volume exceeds the operational capacity of the TDF; and
the TDF is being upgraded.
8. The land proposed for the discharge in this application was approximately 4.2 ha. The
application states that it would therefore likely provide sufficient capacity for disposal
of 10,000 wet tonnes of sludge. However, recognising the maximum proposed
discharge rate of 2000 tonnes/ha, and taking account of buffer distances, NPDC
achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental and administrative performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the Company, this
report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and administrative performance during the period
under review.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the receiving environment from the
activities during the monitoring
supported at levels of 50% to 75% by central government with maintenance and
operating costs at rates of around 33%. A review of documents from the time suggests this national support
typically amounted to over $114m per annum in today’s dollars.
In the three decades since the central government stopped funding flood protection works, the Crown’s
assets have received flood protection at a cost to regional and targeted local ratepayers, with no
contribution from the Crown1. These