To: Environment Canterbury
PO Box 345
Christchurch
Name of Submitter: New Zealand Fish and Game Council and North
Canterbury Fish and Game Council ("Fish and Game")
Name of Applicant: Central Plains Water Trust and jointly Central
Plains Water Trust and Ashburton Community Water Trust (together,
"CPW")
Application: for resource consents to authorise the construction
and operation of the proposed Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme. The consent application numbers are
identified on the attached cover sheet, which forms part of this
submission. The submission by Fish and
Game relates to the identified applications in their entirety.
Fish and Game's submission is:
Background
1.
Fish and Game is the statutory
manager of sports fish and game birds in the region, under the Conservation Act
1987, the Wildlife Act 1953 and associated regulations and notices. Fish and Game is obliged to ‘manage, maintain
and enhance sports fish and game birds in the recreational interests of anglers
and hunters’ (section 26Q(1) Conservation Act).
Fish and Game is enabled to participate in the planning process ‘to
represent the interests and aspirations of anglers and hunters in the statutory
planning process’ (section 26Q (1)(e)(i) Conservation Act).
2.
There are a number of Fish and
Game values that are relevant to, and affected by, the CPW proposal:
Sports Fishery
[add comment on the significance of the
Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers, citing any relevant reports etc., and include
comment on the Waianiwaiwa River, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, other rivers,
lowland streams etc. as relevant. Refer description of environment in June 2006
AEE in sections 6.5.5, 6.6.3, 6.6.4, 6.7.1, 6.7.2 and 6.7.3]
Natural
values
[refer description of in-stream habitats in
AEE section 6.6.2]
Wildlife
and game birds
[add
comment on extent of activities being carried out in/around the rivers, lowland
streams, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere etc. Refer description of terrestrial
ecology, in-stream habitats and water fowl/small game hunting activities in AEE
sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2, 6.7.3]
Public
access
[add comment on values important to Fish and Game. Refer also AEE
6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.7.3 etc.]
3.
[add comment on extent of consultation carried out by CPW and the
extent to which any concerns raised by Fish and Game have been addressed by
CPW. Refer AEE section 5, where it is
stated that Central Plains approached Fish and Game in 2000, which was followed by a
technical meeting in October 2005. It is
stated in the AEE that Fish and Game sent specific questions to the CPW
technical team for consideration, but has yet to receive a formal response.]
Effects
4.
Fish and Game considers that
the proposal will result in adverse effects that are more than minor. The key issues of concern to Fish and Game in
terms of the applications by CPW are outlined below:
Flow regime
5.
Fish and Game is interested in
maximising natural production, or at least ensuring that changes to river flows
do not reduce a river's existing productivity.
6.
The main issue with an application
of this nature is to provide a suitable flow regime which does not
significantly reduce production of catchable sized fish and wildlife or impede
recreational opportunities. Experience
elsewhere on braided rivers has shown that sustainable flow regimes and the
factors that limit fish populations depend upon three factors, in addition to
periodic flood flows. First, an adequate
minimum flow to sustain habitat and recreational fishing opportunities; second
a suitable proportion of the flow above the minimum retained in-stream to
sustain invertebrate production as the food source; and third, flushing flows
to maintain the health of the river during long periods of low flow.
7.
The proposal by CPW will
significantly increase the amount currently being abstracted from the
Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers.
8.
The taking of up to 40 cumecs
of water from the Waimakariri River at times of moderate flows has the
potential to significantly alter the distribution of flows in this important
braided river. CPW also seeks to use the
unallocated winter water not currently part of Waimakariri Irrigation Limited's
consent. If flows are held at or close
to the minimum flows specified in the Waimakariri River Regional Plan for
significant periods of time, this could effectively 'flat-line' the river by
suppressing flow variability.
9.
It is proposed to double the
current take from the Rakaia River, with the intake structure being located in
a meandering reach. This may impact on
the functioning and productivity of this important braided river.
10.
The potential for an altered
hydrological flow within the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers at key flows could
have major effects on the way these rivers function and ability to sustain or
enhance their many amenity and intrinsic values.
11.
Fish and Game is also concerned
about the implications for other rivers, such as the Waianiwaniwa, Hawkins and
Selwyn Rivers, as well as the various lowland streams that will be affected by
the CPW proposal. [add comment, including
if relevant the potential effect on Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere levels and
implications of more frequent outlet openings]
12.
The applicant has failed to
provide detailed hydrological information, as part of both its description of
the rivers and how the proposal will change the current pattern of flows, to
satisfy Fish and Game that the adverse effects of the proposed CPW scheme will
be minor.
Fish
passage, movement and screening
13.
A major concern of Fish and
Game is to ensure that salmonids (and native fish species) are still freely
able to move between different parts of the river system in response to
biological and other requirements (such as to avoid floods or natural low
flows). This improves the resilience of
the fishery and can significantly enhance productivity and hence the likelihood
of catching fish for the angler.
14.
Fish screens at the intakes are
proposed, as part of the CPW scheme, however the lack of sufficient detail
raises a potential concern about the adverse effects on the fishery. The substantial effects of large diversions
in attracting and affecting salmonid populations in Canterbury have been
recently documented, with few of these effective in ensuring fish are not
attracted in proportion to the flows diverted.
Had Central Plains been able to provide sufficient detail and certainty
that their scheme will not adversely impact fisheries in the system, Fish and
Game might have more confidence in the proposed fish screening methods.
Water Quality
15.
There is potential for
considerable deterioration in water quality resulting from sediment discharge,
flushing diversions, bywashes and extensive works that are proposed in the beds
of rivers and streams. There may be
significant adverse effects on river and stream hydrology as a result of
construction and operational activities.
The storage and use of hazardous substances also has the potential to
adversely affect water quality.
16.
The Applicant acknowledges that
the use of the water for irrigation within the scheme area will result in
leakage to the groundwater table. The
CPW scheme provides the opportunity for widescale conversion to dairy farming
with consequential increases in nitrate loading. The intensification will significantly
increase nitrate levels in receiving surface waters. Increased nitrate and phosphate loading to
groundwater will result in increased eutrophication in Te Waihora/Lake
Ellesmere and a number of lowland streams, with consequential effects on
instream ecology and existing restoration works. [refer
Ross Millichamp's evidence in the Lynton Dairy case]
17.
It is also noted that
eutrophication and weed growth in the Waianiwaniwa Dam, proposed as part of the
CPW scheme, will significantly limit the stated recreational and amenity value
of this reservoir.
Habitat
18.
The loss of instream habitat
and riparian and wetland vegetation along the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers is
of concern to Fish and Game.
19.
The dust and noise generated by
earthworks and other construction activities will also adversely affect amenity
values and enjoyment of these important braided rivers.
20.
The physical works in stream
beds will destroy aquatic biota.
Inundation and use of the Waianiwaniwa Valley for water storage will
cause permanent loss of riverine and riparian habitat [add further comment on Waianiwaniwa River/Valley, as relevant, as well
as Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in terms of hunting and game bird values etc.]
Water
Temperatures
21.
Water temperatures may be of
concern with this proposal. [add comment,
including any issues relating to turbidity]
Public access
22.
Fish and Game is concerned with
maintaining and enhancing public access to the rivers and streams that will be
affected by the CPW proposal.
23.
Insufficient information has
been provided by the Applicant, to satisfy Fish and Game that all existing angler access points will be
safeguarded or that public access will be generally maintained or
enhanced.
24.
It is considered that the
recreational benefits of this proposal have been overstated. In any event, this cannot be considered as
'compensation' for potential loss or restriction of access to the rivers and
streams, and the risks to public safety in the vicinity of intake and discharge
structures.
Privatisation of fishery and wildlife habitat
25.
Fish and Game does not support
the development of private fishing water as a matter of principle.
Failure to
mitigate effects
26.
No mitigation of any
consequence is offered by the applicant for the substantial effects on Fish and
Game interests. There is an
over-reliance on management plans as a means for controlling the effects of
this proposal. Fish and Game values the
Waimakariri and Rakaia fisheries highly and does not consider the effects of
the proposed scheme would only be minor.
Fish and Game is also concerned about the potential adverse impact on Te
Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, the various lowland streams, rivers and other
tributaries that will be affected by the Central Plains scheme. The proposal has little merit over the status
quo from Fish and Game’s perspective, and on the basis of a failure to mitigate
effects, Fish and Game opposes the proposal completely.
27.
In summary, the adverse effects
of the proposal that are unacceptable and must be avoided for the proposal to be in accordance with the purpose of
the RMA are:
- Suppression
of flow variability that will effectively 'flat-line' two important
braided rivers for a substantial period of time each year
- Sediment
discharge resulting in a substantial change in colour and clarity during
construction, instream works and operational activities
- Reduction in public access including for fishing
and hunting, both at points on the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers, and
other fishery habitats
- The discharge of hazardous substances in
circumstances where they may enter water resources
- The effects of land use intensification on surface
water and groundwater quality
- Reduction
in angling and other recreational amenity and opportunities due to flow
changes in the affected areas
- Reduction
in public safety in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures
- Significant
threat to fish passage from the sea, lower river and to tributaries,
affecting fish migrations and resilience of the whole salmonid and other
fisheries
- Habitat
losses for invertebrate production as a food source
- Substantial
habitat losses for a range of species, especially salmonids
- Periphyton
proliferation due to unnatural low flows for extended periods
- Fish
entrapment into the system and entrainment to the outflow if screens and
barriers prove ineffective, with loss of mainstem productivity
- Temperature
increases in the affected reach that may reduce habitat quality, fish
survival and affect fish migrations
- River
training activities that may affect the functioning and productivity of
two important braided rivers
28.
In conclusion, according to the
information currently available there are numerous adverse effects of the
proposal that are more than minor.
Insufficient information,
uncertainties and discrepancies
29.
The applications by CPW also
contain a large number of uncertainties and contradictions, as well as matters
which have not been properly assessed.
In particular, the failure to include the relevant supporting technical
reports is considered by CPW to be a major deficiency and raises serious doubts
about the environmental benefits of this proposal.
30.
The key areas in which there is
insufficient information are detailed in Appendix 1 attached, which forms part
of this submission.
Planning Context
31.
The operative Waimakariri River
Regional Plan, the proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan, the operative Canterbury
Regional Policy Statement, the National Water (Rakaia) Conservation Order and
the proposed Selwyn District Plan are the planning documents that affect these
applications. [tactical consideration whether to add comment on Fish and Game
intending to apply for a plan change in the Waimakariri River Regional Plan
that will address the minimum flow regime, and participating in the NRRP etc.] The applications should not be granted if
doing so would or could result in an outcome which is contrary to or inconsistent
with the provisions of these planning documents.
32.
There are also a number of
other plans that are relevant to a consideration of the CPW proposal and should
be taken into account when assessing the effects of the scheme. These include the Canterbury Conservation
Management Strategy, North Canterbury Fish and Game Management Plan, Ngai Tahu
Freshwater Policy, Te Taumutu Runanga Natural Resources Plan and Te Waihora
Joint Management Plan.
Part II
33.
Fish and Game is seeking that
the habitats of the species of interest are maintained to provide sufficient
production of fish and birds to enable sustainable harvest and ensure there is
opportunity for physical and legal access to enable the recreations of hunting
and angling to occur. It is therefore
considered critical to sustain the resources of the Waimakariri and Rakaia
Rivers, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, lowland streams, rivers and other
tributaries that may be affected by the CPW scheme.
34.
In particular, the proposal
fails to recognise and provide for sections 6(a) and (d) and fails to give
adequate regard to sections 7(c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of the Act:
6 Matters of national importance
In achieving the purpose of
this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to
managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical
resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national
importance:
(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal
environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers
and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision,
use, and development:
…
(d)
The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the
coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:
7 Other matters
In achieving the purpose of
this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to
managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical
resources, shall have particular regard to—
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(d) Intrinsic
values of ecosystems:
…
(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the
quality of the environment:
(g) Any finite characteristics of natural
and physical resources:
(h) The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:
35.
Fish and Game also considers
that the proposal does not promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources, as expressed in section 5 of the Act.
36.
In conclusion, in light of the
concerns expressed in this submission, Fish and Game is strongly opposed to the
CPW scheme.
Relief sought by Fish and Game:
37.
The application is put on hold,
and a further information request made addressing the deficiencies identified
above; or
38.
In the alternative, if the
applications are considered only on the basis of the information contained in
the AEE, then the applications should be declined; and
39.
On the basis of the above
conclusions that:
a.
The proposal is inconsistent
with key objectives and policies of the relevant planning instruments;
b.
The effects of the proposal are
more than minor; and
c.
The proposal is contrary to the
purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991;
the applications must be declined in
their entirety.
Fish and Game wish to be heard in support of its submission and would
be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with any other submitter at the
hearing.
Dated this 18th day of August
2006
___________________________________
Stephen Christensen/Jen Crawford
Counsel for New Zealand and North
Canterbury
Fish and Game Councils
Address for Service:
Anderson Lloyd Caudwell
PO Box 13831
Christchurch
Ph (03) 379 0037
Fx (03) 379 0039
Appendix 2 Summary
of the Effects of the Scheme as suggested by CPW, highlighting discrepancies
and areas with insufficient information (page numbers refer to relevant
volumes of the AEEs)
|
No
|
Page
|
Issue
|
Comment
|
Relief Sought
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|