RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

TO: CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL

NAME OF SUBMITTER: Alastair Morrison, Acting Director General

Department of Conservation

ADDRESS: C/o Community Relations Manager

Department of Conservation

Private Bag 4715

CHRISTCHURCH

SUBMISSION ON: Applications by Central Plains Water Trust and Ashburton Community Water Trust for resource consents to authorise the construction and operation of a proposed water enhancement scheme that will use water taken from the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers. The activities are proposed to take place at various locations within the Canterbury region.

The specific parts of the applications that the submissions relate to are all of the identified applications in their entirety.

CRC061863 CRC061822

CRC061873 CRCO61940 CRC061973

CRC061980 CRC061866

CRC061868 CRC061842

CRC061843 CRC061875

CRC061920

CRC061941 CRC061942

CRC061972 (CRC021091) CRC061981

CRC061982

CRC061767 CRC061769

CRC061817 CRC061845

CRC061870 CRC061927

CRC061930 CRC061939

CRC061948 CRC061953

CRC061974 CRC061975

CRC061976

CRC061814

CRC061922 CRC061932

CRC061945 CRC061949

CRC061983 CRC061820

CRC061846 CRC061846

CRC061925 CRC061871

CRC061768 CRC061924

CRC061977 CRC061978

CRC061928 CRC061847

CRC061950

CRC061951

STATEMENT OF SUBMISSION BY THE ACTING DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION

Pursuant to section 96(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, I, Cheryl Colley, Community Relations Manager (Canterbury Conservancy) of the Department of Conservation, acting under delegated authority from the Acting Director General of Conservation, make the following submission in respect of the above applications.

I oppose the applications in their entirety as they are currently presented.

MY SUBMISSION IS THAT:

General

1. The applications fail to promote the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the environment as required by Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991. The applications are contrary to sections 5, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(f), 7(c), 7(d), 7(f), 7(g) and 7(h) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The applications are deficient in their assessment of the effects on the environment and do not reflect the scale, significance or complexity of the proposed activities. In particular the applications contain a large number of uncertainties, gaps and lack of assessment of effects of the proposed activities on the environment. The failure to include the relevant technical reports is considered to be a major deficiency and raises serious doubts about the stated benefits of the proposal along with the ability to assess the accuracy of assertions made in the applications as to the effects or benefits of the proposed activity.

3. The AEE for the Ashburton Community Water Trust includes no assessment of effects of the take from the south side of the Rakaia river, how the intake is to be constructed, construction effects or water take or use. All of the relevant information, including the above, needs to be provided before the effects of the activity can be assessed.

4. No mitigation of any significance is offered by the applicant for the substantial effects on the environment. There is an over reliance on management plans as a means of controlling effects from the proposal. The details, outcomes and implementation of such plans has not been included in the applications and so it is not possible to assess what, if any, adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated through such plans.

5. The investigations presented in the Assessment of Environmental Effects have done little more than use limited existing knowledge. The physical area within which the scheme is proposed to occur, along with the area downstream contains some significant indigenous vegetation, significant habitats of indigenous fauna and important ecosystems and areas of high natural character.

Planning context

6. The operative Regional Policy Statement, the Transitional Regional Plan, the operative Waimakariri River Regional Plan, the proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan, the National Water (Rakaia) Conservation Order and the proposed Selwyn District Plan are the planning documents that affect these applications. The applications should not be granted if doing so would or could result in an outcome which is inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of these planning documents.

Relevant Planning Instruments –Objectives and Policies

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

The Application is inconsistent with policies in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement including Policy 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4. Estuarine environments provide extensive roosting and feeding habitat for river birds, for example Brooklands Lagoon.

Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

The application is contrary to provisions in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement in particular:

Chapter 8 Landscape, Ecology and Heritage:

Objective 1 (Protection or enhancement of wetlands) Policy 1

Objective 2 (Natural features and landscapes) Policy 3

Objective 3 (Indigenous biodiversity) Policy 4

Chapter 9 Water

Objective 1 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Policy 2 (a) (b)

Objective 2 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Policy 8

Objective 3 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Policy 9

Policy 11

Chapter 10: Beds of Rivers and Lakes their Margins

Objective 1 (a) (b) (c) (e) (h) (i)

Policy 1 (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) (vii)

Policy 1 (b) (c) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

Policy 2 (b) (i) (ii) (iii)

Policy 2 (c) (d)

Policy 3

Objective 2

Policy 4 (i)

Chapter 11: The Coastal Environment

Objective 1 (a) (i) (iii) (iv)

Policy 1 (b)

Proposed Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP)

The application is contrary objectives and policies in the NRRP including;

Chapter 4 Water quality, Chapter 5 Water quantity, Chapter 6 Beds and margins of lakes and rivers and Chapter 7 Wetlands

Waimakariri River Regional Plan

The application is inconsistent with objectives and policies of the Waimakariri River Regional Plan, in particular;

Section 5 Water Quantity

Objective 5.1 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Policy 5.1 (b) (i) (ii)

Section 6 Water Quality

Objective 6.1 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Section 7 Rivers and Lake Beds

Objective 7.1 (b) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (k)

Policy 7.1 (a) (b) (c) (d) (f)

Policy 7.1 (ii) (iii) (iv) 9v) (vi) (viii)

Policy 7.2

Rakaia Water Conservation Order

The Water Conservation Order recognises the river as having outstanding natural characteristics and outstanding fishery, recreation, angling and jet boating features. The application inadequately addresses the potential effects on these outstanding qualities.

Other planning documents

There are also other planning documents which need to be considered in relation to the proposed application, including:

Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy

Te Waihora Joint Management Plan

New Zealand Mudfish Recovery Plan 2003-2013

Background – Environmental values

7. As a habitat type the braided river systems of Canterbury are rare internationally. Canterbury contains 60% of all braided rivers in New Zealand which are defining features of the eastern side of the Southern Alps. The Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers are regionally and nationally significant braided river systems, both of which are recognised as being of “Outstanding” value to wildlife as Sites of Special Wildlife Interest (SSWI), the highest ranking available under this system. They provide a unique habitat for several of New Zealand's endangered wildlife species, including:

Waimakariri

1. Wrybill/ Ngutu-parore (Nationally vulnerable)
2. Banded dotterel (Gradual decline)
3. Black fronted Tern (Nationally endangered)
4. Black bill gull (Serious decline)
5. Red billed gulls (Gradual decline)
6. White fronted tern (Gradual decline)
7. Giant kokopu (Gradual decline)
8. Canterbury Mudfish (Nationally endangered)
9. Longfin eel/tuna (Gradual decline)
10. Lamprey/piharau (Sparse)
11. Dwarf woodrush (Luzula celata) (Serious decline)

Rakaia

12. Wrybill/Ngutu-parore (Nationally vulnerable)
13. Banded dotterel (Gradual decline)
14. Black fronted Tern (Nationally endangered)
15. Black bill gull (Serious decline)
16. White fronted tern (Gradual decline)
17. Longfin eel/tuna (Gradual decline)
18. Lamprey/piharau (Sparse)
19. Upland longjaw galaxies (Gradual decline)
20. Koura (Gradual decline)
21. Stokells smelt (Range restricted)

8. These two rivers also provide refugia for important indigenous plant communities that are now found in small isolated pockets on the Plains as a result of human activity. These small remnants are increasingly vulnerable due to intensification of landuse. It is this loss that increases the significance of the remnant indigenous ecosystems along the rivers.

9. Both rivers are highly valued for their natural character, biodiversity, recreational, freshwater fishery and amenity values. The application does not adequately address the potential effects of the proposal as a result of flow modification and the creation of structures in the beds and on the river terraces.

10. Given their values, the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers are significant habitat of indigenous fauna and contains significant areas of indigenous vegetation.

Selwyn Catchment

· The Selwyn River contains a number of species, including threatened indigenous and endemic species:

· Longfin eel/tuna (Gradual decline)

· Lamprey/piharau (Sparse)

· Canterbury mudfish (Nationally endangered)

· Koura (Gradual decline)

Waianiwaniwa catchment

11. The Waianiwaniwa river ,tributaries and wetlands contains a number of species, including threatened indigenous and endemic species and no records of any exotic fish species:

· Canterbury mudfish (Nationally endangered)

· Longfin eel (Gradual decline)

The river is a significant site for Canterbury mudfish and is identified as a key site for this species under the “New Zealand mudfish recovery plan 2003-2013” prepared by the Department of Conservation.

Te Waihora and tributaries

Te Waihora is a nationally significant wetland, rich in both abundance and numbers of fish and bird species. Many of the fish are migratory and spend only part of there life in Te Waihora and its tributaries and the rest at sea. The birdlife is one of the most distinctive natural features of Te Waihora, its lake and wetland habitat is possibly unrivalled in New Zealand for the numerous kinds of waterfowl. Threatened species recorded include;

Canterbury Mudfish (Nationally endangered)

Longfin eel (Gradual decline)

Koura/ Freshwater Crayfish (Gradual decline)

Lamprey (Sparse)

Fresh water mussel (Gradual decline in the Eastern and Southern South Island)

Australasian bittern (nationally endangered)

Banded dotterel (gradual decline)

Black shag (sparse)

Black stilt (nationally critical)

Black-billed gull (serious decline)

Black-fronted tern (serious decline)

Caspian tern (nationally vulnerable)

White heron (nationally critical)

Wrybill (nationally vulnerable)

Effects

12. The proposal will result in adverse effects which are more than minor.

Water takes and flow regimes – Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers

13. The proposed activities need to provide a suitable flow regime which does not significantly reduce the availability, quality and functionality of in stream and river bed habitat. In order to provide these elements an adequate minimum flow is required, along with a suitable proportion of flow above a minimum to be retained in stream to sustain invertebrate production as a food source and flushing flows to maintain the health and natural functioning of the river.

14. The current proposal will significantly increase the amount of water being abstracted from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers. The taking of waters during even moderate flows in both these rivers has the potential to hold flows at or close to the minimum flows specified in the Waimakariri River Regional Plan and Rakaia Water Conservation Order for significant periods of time. This could effectively “flat line” the river by suppressing flow variability and dry out side braids.

15. The abstractions have the potential to impact downstream on the Waimakariri River and its tributaries, including Brooklands Lagoon. The functioning and habitats the lagoon provides rely on adequate water flows and sediment transportation which will be effected by increased abstractions.

16. The effect of these takes could have major impacts on the way the rivers function and ability to sustain the rivers many amenity and intrinsic values.

17. There will also be adverse effects on the natural character of the rivers, including the introduction of structural elements that will reduce the drama, legibility and simplicity of the landscape.

18. The applicant has failed to provide detailed hydrological information, as part of both the description of the rivers and how the proposal will change the current pattern of flows.

19. The application also fails to show how at times of low flow the intakes will control the amount of water flowing into the scheme to prevent the minimum flow levels set on the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers being exceeded between the intake points and fish and sediment return channels.

20. The application fails to provide adequate information as to water efficiency. The proposal appears to be an inefficient use of water given the projected 20% loss. This is water which could be retained within the rivers if a more efficient system were to be used.

Flow regimes and water quality of other rivers within the scheme area and impacts on Te Waihora

21. The applications fail to provide detailed hydrological information on the impacts of the scheme on lowland waterways and Te Waihora and the effect on the changes in patterns of flow, nor any ecological assessment of the values of lowland waterways.

22. Lowland waterways are currently under stress as a result of climate change and landuse intensification. The proposal will add further stress due to ongoing impacts on water quality from sediment discharge, flushing diversions, bywashes, land use intensification and associated increasing nitrates and potentially phosphates in lowland waterways and Te Waihora. All these effects have the potential to adversely affect the life supporting capacity of the ecosystems involved.

23. The AEE acknowledges the increases in nutrients to groundwater and surface water which will occur from the intensification of land use associated with the application. Increases in nutrient loadings could have significant effects for lowland streams and Te Waihora in terms of water quality, periphyton, macrophyte growth and impacts on biota. Proposals in the application regarding dealing with these issues through management plans (Ritso Society Code of Practice) are vague and unclear as they provide no detail as to how such management plans will be enforced or what standards they might contain.

24. There is currently insufficient information available about the water quality, gradients in the lake nor the relationship between lake openings and biota to allow for accurate predictions on the effect on Te Waihora as a result of the proposal.

25. Lowland waterways contain Canterbury Mudfish. This species exists, albeit under stress, in highly modified streams and rivers but nevertheless protected to some degree by intermittent and/or low flows. Increased base flows as a result of the proposal could have a significant impact on this nationally endangered species by allowing predator species to inhabit these waterways.

26. The AEE states that there will be bywashes into constructed wetlands but the benefit of any spill is not defined. There is no expected flow regime or design information on how the bywash wetland structure is to be configured and operated. It is not possible to assess the effects of these.

27. Re- watering the ephemeral mid reach of the Selywn River may have negative effects. There is no information provided to justify the assumption that any bywash water discharged into ephemeral streams or wetlands at any time without consideration of specific locations, seasonal timing and the frequency and quality of by wash discharges. More design information is required to make any assessment of effects.

Fish passage, movement and screening

28. The Acting Director General has a specific role to protect fish passage where appropriate, ensure fish passage is not impeded and fish screens meet appropriate design standards. At this time the Acting Director General will be seeking to achieve these outcomes for this proposed scheme under the Resource Management Act.

29. The proposed design and operation of the scheme raises issues in relation to best practice, lack of design detail against which to assess effects, inconsistencies and introduction of aquatic species into catchments and waterways in which they do not currently exist.

30. Overall, the application provides insufficient detail on fish screen design. The detail which is provided is conflicting as both 3mm and 5mm slot design is mentioned, while no sweep or approach velocities are outlined, being the other key elements of fish screen design. In this respect the proposed scheme is inconsistent with the “Native Fish requirements for water intakes in Canterbury July 2006 Department of Conservation.” The current proposed design is also inconsistent with Standard and Terms (a) Rule 5.1 Waimakariri River Regional Plan.

31. The 5mm slot design mentioned in the proposed consent conditions will not prevent fish entering the irrigation canals or fish entering the Waianiwaniwa reservoir. Eels establishing populations in known Canterbury Mudfish “hot spots” such as the Waianiwaniwa catchment will have severe impacts on that species.

32. With the mixing of waters and inadequate fish passage and screen design there is the potential for fish species to enter into new waterways in which they do not currently exist. This has the potential for large significant impacts on these waterways.

33. The proposed siphons and culverts to allow the headrace and canals to pass over and under existing waterbodies all have the potential to impede fish passage. The applications do not assess these impacts nor outline how impacts will be addressed.

34. The diversion works associated with construction and intakes will also have large impacts on fish passage. The scale and detail of diversion works has not been addressed either during construction or as to the amount of braided riverbed which will be occupied and which could obstruct fish passage.

35. In order to effectively address the issue of fish passage all aspects of the scheme which involve damming, diversion or taking of water from one waterbody to another, including intakes, outflows from the proposed reservoir and bywash and emergency discharge points all need to have fish screen and passage issues addressed as part of the design.

River bed works/structures – habitat loss and disturbance

36. A major concern is the effects of physical works within stream and river beds, both during construction and those proposed for maintenance, which will destroy aquatic biota, important habitats and effects natural character and recreational access.

37. The full nature and extent of works and structures in the beds of the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers, including diversion works, protection works, spoil stores and management, sediment flushing channels, bywashes, emergency discharge channels and fish return channels have not been described, the values of the waterways affected surveyed nor the effects of the activities assessed.

38. From the limited information that has been supplied it would appear that the proposed construction works are large scale and will occur over long periods. These works have the potential to have severe impacts on water quality including physical disturbance, erosion, increased sediment loading, turbidity, sediment deposition, habitat destruction and removal of fish passage.

39. The lack of design detail for the sediment flushing canal and fish return is an issue. The return flow pathway for material flushed from the sediment trap is not shown and fish return channels design are inadequate to prevent fish stranding and predation while in the channels and appear to discharge to dry river bed.

40. The river bed and riparian areas where much of this work is proposed to occur is either important remnant habitat for various species or contains side channels or braids which are habitat for threatened indigenous aquatic species. These significant areas and habitats should be mapped.

41. These areas also have high natural character and the applications have failed to assess what impact the scheme will have on these values.

42. The full nature and extent of the works and structures within the beds and margins of the various other streams and rivers the scheme will cross, including diversion works, protection works, spoil stores and management, culverts, siphons, bywashes, emergency discharge channels and fish return channels have not been described, the values of the waterways affected surveyed nor the effects of the activities assessed.

43. From the limited information that has been supplied it would appear that the proposed construction works are large scale and will occur over long periods and will involve complete diversion of numerous lowland streams and waterways. These have the potential to have severe impacts on water quality including physical disturbance, erosion, increased sediment loading, turbidity, sediment deposition, habitat destruction and removal of fish passage.

Reservoir and Waianiwaniwa Valley/River impacts

44. The inundation and use of the Waianiwaniwa valley and river will cause the permanent loss of riverine, riparian and wetland habitat and species. It will also result in significant changes to the immediate environment and the loss of archaeological sites.

45. Canterbury mudfish are known from this area and the site is identified as a key Canterbury mudfish site within the “New Zealand mudfish recovery plan”. The AEE acknowledges Canterbury mudfish are widespread within the proposed reservoir area. At present they face little if any predation pressure and the catchment as a whole contains no exotic fish species. This area is a significant habitat of indigenous fauna.

46. The application acknowledges that eels will be introduced into the catchment, increasing predation pressure.

47. The application provides no specific mitigation measures nor technical assessment or survey of mudfish numbers, other aquatic ecosystem values or how impacts will be mitigated.

48. The application also contains no vegetation survey of the valley to assess what possible botanical values could be present and lost.

49. The flooding of the valley and design of the proposed scheme also raises water quality issues for irrigation water and the Waianiwaniwa River. The AEE raises the issues of weed growth, eutrophication, stratification and anoxia. The AEE shows no indication of any investigations into the effect or monitoring of these issues on downstream waterways beyond an estimated 3-4 years. Experience has shown these issues can take much longer than this to resolve.

50. The application also fails to address other water quality issues including;

· acid mine drainage;

· sedimentation and erosion from exposed water margins;

· poor water quality to provide flow to the Waianiwaniwa River and subsequent effects;

· ability to decant water from appropriate levels within the reservoir and ability for water quality to meet relevant standards.

Given the proposed large fluctuations and water quality issues it is difficult to see what recreational or ecological values the proposed reservoir could provide.

Heritage

51. Coal mines and ovens in the Waianiwaniwa valley will be flooded and important archaeological sites lost if the proposed activity proceeds. The assessment and mitigation offered to date is inadequate.

Biosecurity

52. The proposal has the potential to spread didymo and other water borne pests. Management of these issues has not been addressed. This is an important issue as it could have an impact on significant habitats and species both within and outside the proposed development area

Economic impact

53. The AEE provides some information on the proposed economic benefits of the scheme. No technical details are provided to be able to assess the accuracy of this information and whether any of the externalities, environmental costs or negative impacts on ecosystem services has been taken into account.

I seek the following decision from the Consent authority:

54. That the application be declined unless and until further information is provided in a manner and to the satisfaction of the Acting Director-General and the application is amended accordingly. Such information needs to be provided at least 6 months in advance of any hearing on these applications and include, but not be limited to:

· Ecological surveys of the areas where construction works will occur

· A full ecological survey of the Waianiwaniwa valley and river.

· Supplying hydrological modelling of the impacts of water abstractions on the Waimakariri, Rakaia and lowland waterways.

· Assessment of the impacts of water abstractions on sustained minimum flows within the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers.

· Assessment, including survey, of birds found in the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers and how this further abstraction will affect their habitat.

· Plan showing the percentage and actual area of riverbed within and adjacent to the intake structures of the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers that will be occupied by diversion structures.

· Survey of lowland waterways for ecological values and assessment of impacts of the proposal in light of those values.

· Assessment of effect and full management regime of the Wainiwaniwa reservoir in terms of water quality and downstream effects.

· A Canterbury mudfish management plan for the scheme area

· Provision of all the technical information that supports the conclusions drawn in the Assessment of Environmental effects

· Fish screen and fish passage design details including water flow rates through fish by passes and detailed design of fish screens, fish return structures, culverts and design details to ensure fish passage during construction and diversion works.

· Details of the “Ritso Society Code of Practice” development work.

55. In that instance there is the potential for this submission in opposition to be withdrawn and for the Acting Director-General to support the amended application, with appropriate conditions.

I do wish to be heard in support of this submission and would be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with any other submitter at the hearing.

Dated at Christchurch this 18th day of August 2006

Cheryl Colley Community Relations Manager Pursuant to a delegation from Acting Director General of Conservation

Address for service: Community Relations Manager Canterbury Conservancy Department of Conservation