To:
Consents Administration
Section
Selwyn District Council
Private Bag 1
LEESTON
Name of submitter: New Zealand Fish and Game Council and North
Canterbury Fish and Game Council (“Fish & Game”)
Name of applicant: Central Plains Water Trust (“CPW”)
Application: for land use consents to authorise the
construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed Central Plains Water
Enhancement Scheme. The consent application numbers are RO65214, RO65215, RO65216, RO65217, RO65218 and
RO65219. The submission by Fish & Game relates to these applications in
their entirety.
This submission is to be read
in conjunction with:
- The submission made by Fish & Game
on a notice of requirement for a designation from Selwyn District Council
(attached as Appendix 1 to this submission); and also:
- The submission made by Fish & Game
on applications by CPW to Environment Canterbury (attached as Appendix 2).
Fish and Game's submission is:
Background
1.
Fish
and Game is the statutory manager of sports fish and game birds in the district,
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’.
Fish & Game is also obliged to ‘maintain and improve the sports fish
and game resource by maintaining and improving access’ (section 26Q(1) &
(1)(b)(i) 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’ and ‘to advocate the interests of the Council, including its interests in
habitats’ (section 26Q
(1)(e)(i) & (1)(e)(vii) Conservation Act).
2.
Key
elements of the angling and hunting experience at risk from the CPW proposal
include:
·
Quality
and quantity of fishing (or hunting) available (e.g. catch rate, fish size, and
area fishable).
·
Travel-related
values (e.g. ability to gain access).
·
Aesthetic
values (e.g. lack of ‘city noise’, scenic beauty, landscape value).[1]
3.
The
quality and quantity of fishing and hunting is obviously habitat-related. For
example, the area of salmon fishable water is related to flow, velocity and
riverbed morphology. Similarly the
availability of fish passage to a river reach will influence trout catch rate
in that reach.
4.
Many
aspects of the CPW proposal will affect instream habitat parameters that
influence the quality and quantity of fishing or hunting.
5.
The
aesthetic values obtained from any given environment by an angler or hunter
relate broadly to an appreciation of the surrounding aquatic, riparian and land
environment. The aesthetic value for
anglers and hunters of any given environment will depend on consideration of a
variety of factors, including (but not necessarily restricted to) unnatural or
man-made intrusions in the landscape (may be visual, noise or smell), the
presence of nuisance plants, and even poor water quality and water quantity.
6.
Many
aspects of the CPW proposal will affect aesthetic values and therefore the
amenity of the affected environment for anglers and hunters.
7.
The
ability to access sportsfish and gamebird habitat is a critical part of the
hunting and fishing experience. Any loss
of access will therefore diminish that experience, potentially leading to the
complete loss of amenity if an angler or hunter cannot access their chosen
environment.
8.
Many
aspects of the CPW proposal will affect access to and along valued freshwater
environments, and therefore angler and hunter amenity for the affected
environment will be significantly diminished.
Affected environments
9.
The
environments affected by the CPW proposal are described briefly in this
submission relation to their sports fishery and game bird habitat values.
Amenity values (e.g. availability of public access) and/including aesthetic
values (e.g. landscape values), and the effects of the CPW proposal on these
values, are also relevant concerns for Fish & Game as outlined in paragraph
5 above. While this part of the submission does not attempt to describe the
amenity or aesthetic values of listed waterways, effects on these values are
described under the heading “Effects”.
10.
Many
of the waterbodies covered in this submission fall within the areas affected by
the proposed land use consents. However a number of potentially affected
environments described herein lie outside the areas covered by the land use
consent applications, for example Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. Further, some
waters (such as the Rangitata, Ashburton, Ashley and Waimakariri tributaries on
the north side) lie outside the Selwyn District have also been included in this
submission.
11.
By way
of explanation, the inclusion of these environments is intended for
completeness and also to reflect the overlapping functions of territorial and
regional authorities. Some of these overlaps include:
·
Biodiversity
management (which, for example, could be adversely affected by the spread of
unwanted or pest organisms courtesy of the CPW scheme):
·
The
effects of land use on water quality, and
·
The
effects of construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed scheme on
amenity values.
Sports Fisheries
Rakaia
River
12.
The
Rakaia River mainstem and upper tributaries supports an internationally and
nationally significant sport fishery for Chinook salmon, as well as a
regionally significant trout (brown and rainbow) fishery. Brown trout, Chinook
salmon and rainbow trout spawn mainly in the headwater tributaries although
salmon and brown trout spawning is also known to occur in the mainstem and in
lower tributaries. The outstanding
natural characteristics of the Rakaia River are recognised in the National
Water (Rakaia River) Conservation Order 1988.
13.
During
the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler's Surveys, the Rakaia River mainstem
received an estimated 34650 ± 3850 (1994-5) and 21460 (2001-2) ± 2040 resident
angler days respectively.[2] Use of the river by non-resident anglers is
unknown, but is likely to be high given the Rakaia River fishery’s acknowledged
status as being of national importance for tourism.[3]
14.
In a
qualitative assessment undertaken during the 1978/79 National Angler’s Survey,
salmon anglers rated the Rakaia River mainstem 5, on a scale of 1 (not highly
valued) to 5 (very highly valued).[4] Trout anglers rated the Rakaia River mainstem
4, on the same scale. Also using the same scale, trout anglers rated the Rakaia
River mainstem 4 for ‘area fishable’, ‘scenic beauty’ and ‘solitude’, 3 for
‘size of fish’, and ‘access’, and 2 for ‘distance from home’ and ‘catch rate’
(Salmon anglers were not polled for this part of the survey).
15.
Waters
south of the Rakaia River catchment that may be affected by this proposal
include:
·
The
Ashburton River mainstem and tributaries, which comprise a sports fishery of
regional significance for brown trout and Chinook salmon. The Ashburton River
mainstem exceeded 4,000 angler days in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National
Angler’s Survey.
·
The
Rangitata River mainstem and tributaries, which comprise a sports fishery of
national significance for Chinook salmon and of regional significance for brown
trout and rainbow trout. Its outstanding
nature as a sports fishery has been confirmed via the National Water (Rangitata
River) Conservation Order 2006. The Rangitata River exceeded 10,000 angler days
in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey, recording 35960 ± 2550
in 1994-5.
Waimakariri River
16.
The
Waimakariri River mainstem and tributaries supports an internationally and
nationally significant sport fishery for Chinook salmon, and a regionally significant
trout (brown and rainbow) fishery. Brown
trout, Chinook salmon and rainbow trout spawn mainly in the headwater
tributaries although salmon and brown trout spawning is also known to occur in
the mainstem and in lower tributaries.
The natural and outstanding features of the Waimakariri River are
recognised in the operative Waimakariri River Regional Plan ("WRRP").
17.
During
the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Surveys, the Waimakariri River mainstem
received an estimated 58360 ± 7100 and 48950 ± 4260 resident angler days
respectively.[5] Use of the river by non-resident anglers is
unknown, but is also likely to be high given the number of angler guiding
operations operating on the river.
18.
In a
qualitative assessment undertaken during the 1978/79 National Angler’s Survey,
salmon anglers rated the Waimakariri River mainstem 5, on a scale of 1 (not
highly valued) to 5 (very highly valued).
Trout anglers rated the Waimakariri River mainstem 4 on the same scale. Also using the same scale, trout anglers rated
the Waimakariri River mainstem 5 for ‘distance from home’, ‘access’ and ‘area
fishable’, 3 for ‘scenic beauty’, ‘solitude’, and ‘size of fish’, and 2 for
‘catch rate’ (Salmon anglers were not polled for this part of the survey).
19.
Both
the Waimakariri River and the Rakaia River are listed as sports fisheries of
national importance in:
·
Grindell
D.S. (1984). A National Inventory of Wild
and Scenic Rivers. Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication No. 68, NWASCA,
Wellington.
·
Grindell
D.S. and Guest P.A. (1986) “A List of Rivers and Lakes Deserving Inclusion in a
Schedule of Protected Waters.” In Report
of the Protected Waters Assessment Committee, Water and Soil Miscellaneous
Publication No. 97, NWASCA. Wellington: Egarr.
·
MfE
(2004) Water Bodies of National Importance: Potential Water Bodies of National
Importance for Recreation Value. Wellington: MfE.
20.
Upper
Waimakariri River tributaries known to be affected by this proposal include:
·
The
Kowai River (tributary of the Waimakariri), which has sports fishery values but
is perhaps better known for supporting trout and salmon spawning. The Kowai River was recorded in both the
1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey.
·
Hacketts
Creek, which is a key salmon spawning stream for the Waimakariri River sports
fishery. In 2006, a foot count of
spawning fish in Hacketts Creek recorded 60 spawning adults compared with a
total of 696 spawning fish recorded across all main Waimakariri River spawning
waters. Hacketts Creek therefore
supported almost 10% of all salmon spawning in the Waimakariri River catchment
in 2006.
21.
Mid-lower
Waimakariri River tributaries likely to be affected by this proposal include:
·
The
Otukaikino River (including Waimakariri South Branch and ‘The Groynes’) and
Styx River, which are significant sports fisheries that also support spawning
(particularly for brown trout). Both
waters were recorded in the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey. The Otukaikino River exceeded 2,000 angler
days in 1994-5.
·
The
Kaiapoi/Cust/Cam River system (including tributaries), which are significant
sports fisheries that also support spawning (particularly for brown
trout). The Kaiapoi, Cust and Cam Rivers
are each recorded in the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey. The Kaiapoi River recorded over 1,000 angler
days for both surveys (including over 5,000 angler days in 1994-5), while the
Cam River exceeded 1,000 angler days in 1994-5.
·
Silverstream,
which is a significant sports fishery and a spawning water for brown trout and
Chinook salmon. Silverstream was recorded
in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey, exceeding 1,000 angler
days in 1994-5.
·
The
Eyre River, which has limited sports fishery and spawning values. The Eyre
River was recorded in the 1994-5 but not the 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey.
22.
Sports
fisheries and spawning values north of the Waimakariri River catchment that may
be affected by this proposal include:
·
The
Ashley River and tributaries, which comprise a significant sports fishery with
both brown trout and Chinook salmon spawning in its mainstem, headwaters and
tributaries. The Ashley River was recorded in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2
National Angler’s Survey, with over 3,000 angler days recorded for each survey.
Selwyn River
23. The entire Selwyn River system once comprised a brown trout fishery of international and national significance. As noted in the Te Waihora Joint Management Plan (page 68), “Brown trout were introduced to the catchment in the 1870s by the North Canterbury Acclimatisation Society as a sport fish. The fishery quickly flourished in the Selwyn River/Waikirikiri to become one of the finest trout fisheries in New Zealand.”
24.
Trout
habitat in the Selwyn River has been significantly degraded particularly since
the late 1990s. However, the Selwyn
River mainstem remains a sports fishery of regional significance with
significant spawning water for brown trout. During the 1994-5 and 2001-2
National Angler’s Surveys, the Selwyn River mainstem received an estimated 6700
± 1370 and 2130 ± 540 resident angler days respectively.
25.
Selwyn
River tributaries known to be affected by this proposal include:
·
The
Hororata River and Hawkins River, which were valued brown trout fisheries with
considerable values as spawning waters for the wider Selwyn River/Ellesmere
system. Both waters were recorded in the
1994-5 National Angler Survey, however the Hororata was not recorded in the
2001-2 Survey. Trout habitats in these
waters have been significantly degraded particularly since the late 1990s. These waters are presently of local significance
as sports fisheries with some spawning value.
·
Silverstream,
which is a locally significant trout fishery with greater value as spawning
water for brown trout.
·
Less
is known about the sports fishery values of the Waianiwaniwa River, however it
is probably of local significance and it may support some brown trout spawning
in its upper reaches.
Lowland Rivers and estuarine environments
26.
Sports
fishery values of a large number of lowland rivers which flow into the sea,
coastal lakes or lagoons, or estuarine environments between the Waimakariri
River and the Rakaia River may be affected by this proposal. These include:
·
Harts
Creek (including Birdling Brook), the LII River and the Halswell River, which
are significant sports fisheries for brown trout (and the latter also for
coarse fish) with associated spawning values.
All three waters are recorded in the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s
Survey, with each recording over 1,000 resident angler days in the 1994-5 survey.
·
Lake
Forsyth/Wairewa and tributaries including the Okuti River (aka Little River)
and Okana Rivers, which comprise a significant brown trout and perch fishery
with associated spawning values in the latter tributaries. Lake Forsyth was recorded in the 1994-5 and
2001-2 National Angler’s Survey; the Okuti River was recorded in the 1994-5
survey only, while the Okana River was recorded in the 2001-2 survey only.
·
Lake
Ellesmere/Te Waihora, which is a sports fishery of local significance, being
recorded in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National Angler’s Survey. However its
main significance lies in its role in the life cycle of brown trout (and perch)
in other waters of the Ellesmere catchment.
·
The
Kaituna River, which is a locally significant sports fishery for brown trout
with associated spawning values. It was
recorded in the 1994-5 National Angler Survey only.
·
Boggy
Creek, Hanmer Road Drain and Doyleston Drain, which are locally significant
brown trout fisheries. These waters have
greater value as brown trout spawning habitat.
·
The
Irwell River, which was a significant brown trout fishery with spawning values
for brown trout. While the Irwell was recorded in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2
National Angler’s Survey, it is now of low significance due to habitat
degradation.
·
Coopers
Lagoon, Lee River, Tentburn and Jollies Brook, which are locally significant
brown trout fisheries. Perhaps with the exception of Coopers Lagoon, these
waters also support brown trout spawning.
·
The
Avon River and Heathcote River, which are locally significant brown trout fisheries
with particular value for junior anglers.
Both waters were recorded in both the 1994-5 and 2001-2 National
Angler’s Survey, with the Avon River recording over 1,000 resident angler days
in 1994-5. Both rivers support brown
trout (and to a lesser extent Chinook salmon) spawning in their middle-upper
reaches.
27.
The
sports fishery values of other fresh water environments not listed above may
also be affected by this proposal.
28.
The
coastal marine area ("CMA") also supports sports fishery values, with
the highest concentrations of anglers often being found at river mouths and
adjacent areas within the CMA. Chinook
salmon and sea-run brown trout also enter the CMA as juveniles, using that
environment to mature before later returning to freshwater to spawn. These sports fishery values may also be
affected by the CPW proposal.
Game birds
29.
A
number of coastal lakes, lagoons and estuarine areas between the Rakaia River
and Waimakariri River support gamebird habitat and hunting values that are
likely to be affected by this proposal.
In particular:
·
Lake
Ellesmere/Te Waihora, which is the most popular North Canterbury hunting area.
Huge numbers of ducks, geese and swan are present on the lake, on adjacent
lands and on inflowing tributaries (and associated lands, private ponds and
wetlands). The gamebird habitat and hunting values of Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora
are recognised as being of national significance. It is also protected by a Water Conservation
Order.
·
Lake
Forsyth/Wairewa, inflowing tributaries and associated lands, private ponds and
wetland, which support significant gamebird habitat and hunting values.
·
Coopers
Lagoon, Brooklands Lagoon, the Rakaia River mouth lagoon and the Avon-Heathcote
Estuary (and inflowing tributaries, associated lands, private ponds and
wetlands), each supporting significant gamebird habitat and hunting values.
30.
A
number of freshwater environments between (and including) the Rakaia River and
Waimakariri River support gamebird habitat and hunting values that are likely
to be affected by this proposal, such as:
·
The
Rakaia River - including the braided mainstem, backwaters, side braids, creeks,
riparian wetlands, and associated lands and private ponds, supports significant
waterfowl and upland gamebird habitat and gamebird hunting values.
·
The
Selwyn River - including riparian wetlands, ephemeral and perennial reaches of
the mainstem and tributaries (including but not necessarily restricted to the
Hororata River, Hawkins River and Waianiwaniwa River), and associated lands and
private ponds, supports significant waterfowl and upland gamebird habitat and
gamebird hunting values.
·
The
Waimakariri River - including the braided mainstem, backwaters, side braids,
creeks, riparian wetlands, and associated lands and private ponds support
significant waterfowl and upland gamebird habitat and gamebird hunting values.
31.
Gamebird
habitat and hunting values of other freshwater and coastal environments,
including between the Rakaia River and the Waimakariri River, and in catchments
to the north of the Waimakariri, and to the south of the Rakaia, may also be
affected by this proposal.
Consultation and information
deficiencies
32.
Fish
and Game consider that a good consultation process requires that the party
consulted will be (or will be made) adequately informed so as to be able to
make intelligent and useful responses.
33.
While
several meetings between Fish and Game and CPW representatives have occurred,
no progress has been made to resolve any concerns. The last meeting was held in
October 2005.
34.
Fish
and Game have analysed the land use consent applications, associated technical
reports, and replies to further information requests, and consider that they
lack sufficient detail to progress any further without a considerable volume of
further information being sought about the scheme, its effects, and proposed
measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate those effects.
Effects
35.
Fish
and Game considers that the proposal will result in adverse effects on
sportsfish and gamebird habitat, and angler and hunter amenity that are
significant and certainly more than minor.
36.
Fish
& Game notes the applicant’s repeated assertion that many of these effects
are temporary, which in the applicants view means they are of a less than minor
or minor nature. Fish & Game do not concur with this assessment and
consider that the individual and cumulative effects of these activities will
certainly be more than minor.
37.
The
applicant notes some effects are permanent and unavoidable.
38.
The
lack of any measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects appears to be
justified with reference to supposed economic benefits and alleged offset
benefits to recreational users in the form of artificial waterbodies. Fish
& Game do not consider the reservoir and canal system can or will provide any
useful offset mitigation to anglers or gamebird hunters for the loss or
reduction in quality of natural habitats. Moreover, it is not accepted that
supposed economic benefits can be used to justify not appropriately avoiding,
remedying or mitigating effects which individually and cumulatively are more
than minor.
39.
The
acceptability of proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects is
impossible to assess particularly given the over reliance by the applicant on
management plans. This is inappropriate given that none of these management
plans has been provided for public scrutiny. Fish & Game consider that
Council should require these management plans be completed to a suitable
standard and made available to submitters well in advance of any future hearing
of these and other applications.
40.
The
applicant has included off-set mitigation measures which appear to sit outside
the consent and designation process. This introduces further confusion to an
already complicated decision-making process and prevents proper public scrutiny
of the merits or otherwise of such proposals. Fish & Game expect further
clarification and explanation will be sought from the applicant on these
issues.
41.
Some
key areas of concern to Fish and Game in terms of the land use consent applications
by CPW include, but are not restricted to, those listed below. Other effects of
concern to Fish & Game are listed in Fish & Game’s submission to
consent applications lodged by CPW to Environment Canterbury, and in Fish &
Game’s submission to CPW’s notice of requirement for a designation from the
Selwyn District Council. This submission should be read in conjunction with
those submissions.
Water
Quality
42.
There
is potential for considerable deterioration in water quality including
associated amenity values resulting from the construction, operation and
maintenance which these applications seek resource consent to undertake.
43.
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 or other intensive agricultural
activities with consequential increases in nitrate loading.
44.
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.
45.
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.
46.
The
non-specific nature of the consent applications and replies to further
information requests make it difficult to state or quantify specific effects on
water quality. Some effects on water quality which are likely to be more than
minor include, but are not restricted to:
· Increased sedimentation
·
Introduction
of toxic contaminants and/or pathogens
·
Increased
nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) levels
·
As a
result of these and other effects, more than minor adverse effects on gamebird,
fish, aquatic and riparian invertebrates and plants, and periphyton
communities.
·
As a
result of these and other effects, more than minor adverse effects on gamebird
hunter and/or angler amenity values.
47.
Little
effort has been made by the applicant to quantify the baseline water quality
conditions in affected waterbodies, nor to forecast the duration and extent of
the effects of construction, use and maintenance of the scheme on key water
quality parameters for affected water bodies. Fish & Game do not accept
this cursory approach to effects management and request that more information
is sought from the applicant on these matters.
48.
Overall
Fish & Game consider that the applications, associated technical documents,
and replies to further information requests are deficient in a number of areas
and cannot be properly assessed by Fish & Game until further information is
received.
Safety risks
49.
Fish
& Game’s interest in safety matters is to protect the wellbeing of
recreational users being anglers and gamebird hunters. It is considered that
there is potential for serious risk to the health of anglers and gamebird
hunters resulting from the construction, operation and maintenance which these
applications seek resource consent to undertake.
50.
Potential
risks may arise from
·
Sluicing/emergency
discharges
·
Structures
or operations in or adjacent to water bodies
·
Structures
or operations in or adjacent to existing public access routes to and along
rivers
·
The
storage and use of materials including hazardous substances.
51.
Proposed
measures to avoid adverse effects on the safety of anglers and/or gamebird
hunters are insufficient to give Fish & Game any confidence that their
stakeholders will be suitably protected from harm.
Amenity values
52.
Fish
& Game holds serious concerns about the effects of the construction,
operation and maintenance of the scheme on angler and gamebird hunter amenity
values.
53.
Effects
on amenity values that will be more than minor include, but are not restricted
to:
·
Direct
loss or degradation of recreational opportunities caused by habitat destruction
or modification.
·
Loss
or degradation of visual landscape values particularly in, adjacent to and
viewable from riverbeds.
·
Increased
noise, dust or odour disrupting the fishing and/or hunting ‘experience’ for
anglers and gamebird hunters
·
Degradation
of water quality in waterbodies used by anglers and gamebird hunters.
54.
Effects
on public access are a major subset of amenity values which is addressed below.
Public
access
55.
Fish
and Game is concerned with maintaining and enhancing public access to the
rivers and streams that will be affected by the CPW proposal.
56.
Insufficient
information has been provided by the Applicant, to satisfy Fish and Game that
all existing angler access points to and along affected freshwater environments
will be safeguarded or that public access will be generally maintained or
enhanced.
57.
Fish
& Game are not persuaded that loss of existing access, whether “temporary”
or permanent, is unavoidable or acceptable and seek that any such effects are
appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
58.
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.
Inefficiency
59.
Fish
and Game do not consider that the CPW irrigation scheme represents an efficient
use of a scarce resource.
60.
Water
wastage will occur through canal leakage/seepage and evapotranspiration of water
transported via an open canal network.
For example, it is acknowledged in the applications that some 7m3/s
will be lost within the headrace/distribution system alone. This represents lost opportunities for other
users and lost flow from the rivers for fish and bird habitat.
61.
There
is also insufficient information on the way in which water will be used, which
raises serious concerns about the overall efficiency of the scheme.
Failure to mitigate effects
62.
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.
63.
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 and waterbodies that will be affected by
the CPW 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.
64.
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 include:
- Reduced
water quality during and after construction, operation and maintenance
activities
- Increased
risk of spread of unwanted or pest organisms.
- The effects of land use intensification on surface
water and groundwater quality, particularly in terms of increased nitrate
and phosphorus contamination
- Reduced safety for anglers and gamebird hunters
both at, and travelling to, habitats suitable for angling and hunting.
- Reduced angler and gamebird hunter amenity values
including landscape and aesthetic values.
- Reduced
public access to and along habitats of value to anglers and gamebird
hunters.
- Inefficient
use of resources.
65.
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
66.
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 all the
relevant supporting technical reports is considered by Fish & Game to be a
major deficiency and raises serious doubts about the environmental benefits of
this proposal.
67.
This
is a very large scale complex project that interacts with complex physical and
ecological systems, including dynamic gravel bed rivers, vulnerable lowland
streams and lakes, cultural values and indigenous fish, trout, salmon and
birds. The scale and complexity of the
project has not been matched by the amount of effort to understand the natural
resources and provide sufficient specific design detail to allow effects to be
fully identified and understood. It is
unfortunate that the investigations presented in the AEEs do little more than
use limited existing knowledge. The
applications acknowledge that investigations are not complete but is not clear
what investigations are under way, and when results and analyses might be
expected. The material presented to date
is generally sparse and often vague. It
is therefore difficult to identify and list all potential effects on the basis
of this material and it is virtually impossible to comprehensively assess the
nature of each of these effects.
Planning Context
68.
The
primary plan under which these consent applications will be considered is the
proposed Selwyn District Plan. The applications are potentially contrary to or
inconsistent with the provisions of this planning document.
69.
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 regional planning
documents, 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
70.
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.
71.
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:
72.
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.
73.
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:
74.
The
application is put on hold, and a further information request made addressing
the deficiencies identified above; or
75.
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
76.
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. Fish and Game also request a
joint hearing of Environment Canterbury and Selwyn District Council, given that
the applications/notice of requirement are sufficiently related.
Dated this 29th day of January
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 8141
Ph (03) 379 0037
Fx (03) 379 0039
Appendix 1 –
Fish & Game submission to an application by CPW for Notice of Requirement
to the Selwyn District Council
Appendix 2:
Fish & Game submission to applications by CPW for resource consents to
Environment Canterbury