recession rate restrictions for the lower Patea River. The
Company provided adequate residual flows within the Patea River at all times.
The Company was required to coordinate a number of investigations and reports during this reporting
period that also included finalising a number of outstanding 2020-2021 compliance period reports and
investigations which had been delayed. The Mangamingi Bridge Report was finalised during this monitoring
period. Investigations are ongoing regarding the
5.2 Mr S Bowden, Stratford District Council, spoke to the report updating the committee
on transport activities within the Stratford District. It was noted:
• Mayor N Volzke stated that the Stratford District Council would endeavour to
present to the committee members at the next meeting with detail around the
proposed differential targeted rate for Forestry Owners, the current damage being
done, how they would determine whether or not a property is a forestry property
take and use water, two consents to discharge effluent and stormwater into the Waingongoro River, two
consents to discharge effluent and solids to land, two consents for structures in watercourses, and one
consent to discharge emissions into the air at the plant site.
Monitoring is carried out by both the Company and the Council. The Company monitors water abstraction
rate, effluent flow rate and composition, receiving water quality, odour at the plant boundaries, effluent
loadings and soil
Management Act 1991 expectations.
• A respectful and responsible regard for the Taranaki region’s environment and our
management of its natural resources. Reporting allows evaluation and
demonstration of the overall rate of compliance by sector and by consent holders as
a whole, and of trends in the improvement of our environment.
• The Council’s accountability and transparency. Reporting gives validity to
investment in monitoring and to assessments of effective intervention.
3. These
levels. This had been addressed through extension of the irrigation disposal
system in 2007-2008, and by more intensive wastewater and groundwater monitoring. During the year
under review, there was a higher nitrogen load applied to the paddocks than in the 2017-2020 years. The
nitrogen application rates increased by about 14% on Farm 1 and 20% on Farms 2 and 3 in the 2019-2020
year, with further increases of 10% on Farm 1, 4% on Farm 2, and 18% on Farm 3 during the year under
review. On Farm 3,
performance and compliance for 878 (87%) of a total of 1007 consents monitored through the Taranaki
tailored monitoring programmes, while for another 96 (10%) of the consents a good level of environmental
performance and compliance was achieved. A further 27 (3%) of consents monitored required improvement
in their performance, while the remaining one (<1%) achieved a rating of poor.
In terms of overall environmental and compliance performance by the consent holder over the last several
years,
Inspections 16
2.2.2 Discharge monitoring 17
2.2.2.1 Effluent volume 17
2.2.2.2 Nitrogen application rates 17
2.2.3 Soil and herbage monitoring 18
2.2.3.1 Spring 2022 soil and herbage survey 19
2.2.3.2 Autumn 2022 deep soil leaching profiles 19
2.2.4 Groundwater monitoring 19
2.2.4.1 Electromagnetic induction survey 19
2.2.4.2 Groundwater monitoring in relation to effluent irrigation 20
2.2.4.3 Groundwater monitoring in relation to the FECB ammonia plume 22
development of the
region’s resources.
Evaluation of environmental performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the consent holders,
this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and administrative performance during
the period under review. The rating categories are high, good, improvement required and poor for both
environmental and administrative performance. The interpretations for these ratings are found in
administrative compliance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the consent holders,
this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and administrative performance during
the period under review. The rating categories are high, good, improvement required and poor for both
environmental and administrative performance. The interpretations for these ratings are found in
Appendix II.
For reference, in the 2020-2021 year, consent