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
Ture Whenua, you do not need to list all people with interest
in the land. You may choose to list all trustees or the chairperson or
chief executive.
The name of the individual who
has prepared the plan
This may be yourself, a farm manager, a farm advisor, or even your
plan certifier.
The physical address of the farm Provide all addresses for the land covered by the same plan.
Legal land titles and parcels of
the farm
This can be easily found on your rates bill or any
and fish passes in the Manganui River, and to dam and divert
water in the Manganui River via an existing diversion weir and
intake structure', this application proposes to take and use up to
5.2 m3/s of water from the Manganui River for hydro-electricity
generation purposes by way of diversion to the Motukawa Race
and Lake Ratapiko. This rate of take aligns with the existing take
authorised by Consent 3369-2. Further details of the method of
water take are provided in the attached
at the date that the asset is derecognised. The depreciation
charge for each period is recognised through the Statement of Financial Performance.
The carrying value is depreiated on a straight-line basis over its useful life. The useful life and associated depreciation rate for
the IRIS software suite is 10 years and 10%.
Where software in this category is replaced, upgraded or determined by RSHL to be of no further operational benefit, a change in
value will be recognised through the
their performance, while the remaining one (<1%) achieved a rating of poor.
This report includes recommendations for the 2023-2024 monitoring period
page
Table of contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
Compliance monitoring programme reports and the Resource Management Act 1991 1
Introduction 1
Structure of this report 1
The Resource Management Act 1991 and monitoring 1
Investigations, interventions, and incidents 2
Evaluation of
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
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
of consent holders to resource management and, ultimately, through the refinement of methods
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 consent holders,
this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and administrative performance
such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, ammonia and
chlorophyll-a. The spatial water quality attribute models were variable in performance however, with the
exception of the ammonia criteria, those utilised for this assessment were rated to have satisfactory to very
good performance (Snelder et al. 2022). Caution is advised when interpreting absolute values estimated for
specific locations with spatial water quality models, due to the associated uncertainty. Models such as these