|
Ms Codlin introduced the item, which had
been the subject of presentations and discussions at a workshop.
In response to a query, Ms Codlin advised
that the water users in the lower Tukituki were being considered in relation
to providing water from storage via the river during low flow periods and
that a study into this had been commissioned.
It was noted that 1.6 was more of an
explanatory note rather than a key approach.
It was queried
whether frost risk had been examined as a limitation for some types of crops
in the Ruataniwha Plains area. Ms Codlin advised that frost risk had been
examined and informed the studies into appropriate land uses for the area.
Following discussion, the key approaches the
Committee endorses are:
1.
Setting water quality limits to maintain the mauri and life
supporting capacity of freshwater bodies and associated ecosystems.
2.
Setting water allocation limits as generally outlined in the
Tukituki choices discussion document.
3.
Setting minimum flow limits based on 90% habitat protection
for longfin eel for Waipawa River at SH 2 and Tukituki at Tapairu Rd,
transitioning from current over a 3-5 year period.
4.
Setting minimum flows for Tukituki at Red Bridge based on
90% habitat protection for trout, transitioning from current over a ten year
period.
5.
Allowing applications to be lodged to take water for community
irrigation schemes over and above the core allocation limits.
6.
Setting in stream phosphorus targets as a means of reducing
periphyton growth.
7.
Managing nitrogen for nitrate toxicity based on a 95% ANZECC
protection threshold for zone 1, and the 90% ANZECC protection threshold for
zones 2, 3 and 5. The 90% species protection level correspond to a very low
risk of a minor effect on trout and a negligible risk of insignificant effect
on native fish and invertebrate species and are thus considered environmentally
conservative.
8.
Setting nitrogen and phosphorus limits based on current
in-stream nitrate and phosphorus levels for Zone 4.
9.
Reviewing land management policies and practices and
regulatory approaches.
Explanatory note: Recognising that managing nitrogen for
controlling periphyton would at best deliver marginal additional
environmental benefit compared to those resulting from a reduction in
phosphorus and would require such a large reduction in existing nitrogen
leaching levels and that it would have an attendant unacceptable level of
economic impact on the landowners, and the district.
|
