Assessment of Hurunui Waiau options against CWMS...

1

Preliminary assessment of Selwyn-Waihora potential water storage areas

against CWMS and other key targets

October 2013

Prepared by Environment Canterbury (B. Painter) and the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee Water Supply Working Group. The Kaitiakitanga section was completed by Wītaskēwin/Dyanna Jolly Consulting with representatives of Te Taumutu Rūnanga and Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga.

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

1. Ecosystem health/biodiversity ........................................................................................................ 9

2. Natural character of braided rivers............................................................................................... 26

3. Kaitiakitanga .................................................................................................................................. 31

4. Quality Drinking Water ................................................................................................................. 42

5. Recreational and Amenity Opportunities ..................................................................................... 44

6. Water use efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 47

7. Irrigated land area ......................................................................................................................... 49

8. Energy security and efficiency ...................................................................................................... 51

9 Regional and national economies ................................................................................................. 53

10. Local Communities .................................................................................................................... 55

11. Multiple uses ............................................................................................................................. 59

12 Economic viability ..................................................................................................................... 61

References ............................................................................................................................................ 62

3

Executive Summary

The objective of a Strategic Assessment is to compare the expected outcomes of potential water management options against the Principles and Targets of the CWMS. This report provides the results of an assessment of two potential storage areas for the Selwyn-Waihora Zone:

1. Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains and foothills 2. Waiāniwaniwa River

As there were no specific storage concepts available at the time of this assessment, the key outputs were the identification of “red flags”. “Red flags” are categories assigned a -2 grade as the option shows the potential to be significantly at odds with the achievement of relevant CWMS Targets. These categories are noted below. Potential developers of storage in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone are requested to take particular regard to the “red flags”, either through the avoidance of the specified areas or where this is not possible, through the development of appropriate mitigations. Regulatory planning processes shall provide direction that in the first instance impacts on the “red flags” are to be avoided, or where this is not possible appropriate mitigations will need to have been developed, while noting that this strategic assessment process is still at an early stage. A more detailed assessment will be undertaken on any detailed storage concepts as they are made available. The following “red flags” were identified for area 1 (Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains and foothills):

• Inundation of an existing wetland (see Figure 7) • Inundation of Wairiri intermontane basin ecosystem • Inundation affecting known trout and salmon spawning areas on the mainstem of the

Selwyn, Hororata, Wairiri and Hawkins Rivers • Impacts on upland river health due to inundation of the mainstem of the Selwyn, Hororata,

Wairiri and Hawkins Rivers • Inundation affecting river reaches noted for native fish in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish

Database (see Figure 5) • Short term (<5yr) impacts of development on the local community • Environmental flows that protect instream values and deliver cultural outcomes • Ohinekakaraiti pā (and surrounding area near confluence of Waimakariri River and Kōwai

River). • Mixing of waters • Wāhi taonga • Cultural landscape values • Water quality: direct & non-point source pollution (storage + use) • Marae drinking water (storage + use) • Increase the abundance, access, use mahinga kai (storage + use)

4

The following “red flags” were identified for area 2 (Waiāniwaniwa River): • Inundation of an existing wetland (see Figures 7&10) • Inundation of Waiāniwaniwa intermontane basin ecosystem • Impacts on upland river health due to inundation of the Waiāniwaniwa River • Inundation affecting river reaches noted for native fish in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish

Database (see Figure 5) • Short term (<5yr) impacts of development on the local community • Environmental flows that protect instream values and deliver cultural outcomes • Mixing of waters • Wāhi taonga • Cultural landscape values • Water quality: direct & non-point source pollution (storage + use) • Marae drinking water (storage + use) • Increase the abundance, access, use mahinga kai (storage + use)

Introduction In 2010 Environment Canterbury commissioned six teams of consultants to develop and undertake preliminary Strategic Assessment of six sets of water management options. Following feedback on the preliminary Strategic Assessment reports from CWMS regional and zone committees, the approach presented in Golder (2010) was confirmed as the framework for future CWMS Strategic Assessments. Flexibility within this framework is still expected, depending on project specific requirements.

The CWMS is being implemented through zone and region-specific programmes. CWMS water infrastructure planning is guided by these programmes. For Selwyn-Waihora, the Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) states:

“The development of water storage is seen as essential to be able to deliver on aspirations for returning flows in lowland streams, improving the Waikirikiri / Selwyn River flows, reducing energy demand, ensuring thriving communities who are resilient to climate change, and for sustainably increasing food production and irrigated land area as enabled by the envelope of nutrient limits. By staging development and accelerating actions to address ecosystem health and on-farm management, sustainable growth can be accommodated. The Zone Committee considers that water storage is a vital component to be able to deliver on their priority outcomes in the Zone, and working with parties on water storage options will be a major strand of work for the Committee in 2012. The Zone Committee encourages innovative water storage proposals and encourages parties to work together to share ideas and solutions that can deliver on the CWMS in the Zone and across the region.”

To address this recommendation, the CWMS infrastructure team have facilitated meetings with and between potential development interests. These meetings confirmed that the medium sized storage concepts in the upper Selwyn-Waihora Zone identified during Central Plains Water investigations

5

between 2000 and 2011 could still be considered for further investigation, though none of these ideas were being actively progressed at the time. Additional concepts were offered by other development interests, though progression of these concepts required water supply point confirmation, which was dependent on the outcome of the unfinished Rakaia Water Conservation Order hearing process.

The following areas (in alphabetical order) were chosen for a gaps analysis exercise and initial consideration.

• Lake Coleridge (Whakamätau) and environs • Upper Selwyn River (Waikirikiri) above Flagpole Hill • Selwyn River (Waikirikiri) near Flagpole Hill • Selwyn River (Waikirikiri) near Whitecliffs • Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains and foothills • Waiāniwaniwa River • Wairiri River At their meeting of 3 July 2012, the Selwyn-Waihora Water Supply Working Group were presented with available information on the above areas. They chose the Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains/foothills and Waiāniwaniwa River areas to progress to preliminary Strategic Assessment. They also chose to keep Lake Coleridge (Whakamätau) on the table for future consideration, particularly the potential of increasing short term drought storage capability as an alternative to significant storage elsewhere.

The Strategic Assessment of these areas follows a similar process to that carried out in 2011/12 for Hurunui Waiau Zone and Lees Valley options using the following methodology:

• Option description; • Information collection; • Development of assessment categories and scales; • Key assumption confirmation; • CWMS Target Evaluation; • Additional Target areas Evaluation. The key difference from the above Hurunui Waiau Zone and Lees Valley assessments is that we do not have specific storage options in the Selwyn Waihora Zone at this time. The focus of this assessment is therefore on identifying key challenges to meeting CWMS targets within the assessed area.

This Strategic Assessment is based on information made available to the CPW consent hearings, Rakaia WCO hearing, and CWMS Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee meetings, with additional clarification from relevant experts or potential developers where required. Some of this information was not able to be released to the general public due to intellectual property restrictions and landowner considerations.

6

Purpose The primary purpose of this report is to inform discussion on two potential areas for water storage in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone. This report enables comparison of the options to be made across the very wide range of impacts covered by the ten CWMS target areas and three additional target areas. The assessments in this report are based on a high-level, desk-top consideration of the impacts of the options and should not be considered to be the definitive assessment of the scope, scale or significance of the impacts. The lack of specific storage proposals also results in a more generalised assessment than the recent Hurunui/Waiau and Lees Valley assessments. This report brings together much of the information and discussion that forms the basis for the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee’s Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP). Recommendations 2.5 & 2.6 state that any water storage development will have the following characteristics:

o Enhances Te Waihora, the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River, lowland streams, hapua and braided rivers in accordance with the CWMS principles; o Native biodiversity corridors and new wetland creation are conditions of development; o The natural character, ecosystems, habitats and recreational opportunities of braided rivers are protected or enhanced; o Any mixing of waters is addressed with Te Taumutu and Ngai Tuahuriri; o Infrastructure is considered as part of an integrated catchment management approach with infrastructure for Kaitiakitanga and Te Waihora; o Infrastructure is future proofed, including the ability to harness the effects of climate change projections; o Water is provided first to Selwyn Waihora Zone; o The reliability of supply is high enough to incentivise surface water to replace ground water, and meet the target of 95% reliability; o The cost of development is economic for developers and water users.

Key assumptions A key assumption of proceeding with infrastructure investigations is that the use of any water made available from such infrastructure is bounded by ZIP Section 4.1 recommendations “Nutrient and Water Management”. Options assessed

We have assessed two potential storage areas known as the Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains/foothills, and Waiāniwaniwa River. Key elements of these options are described in Table 1, with the “red flagged” areas and assessment area presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 includes the initial area assessed prior to July 2013, and the extended assessment area (Sheffield to Springfield and environs) agreed at the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee meeting of 6 August 2013. The primary reason for extending the assessment area was to more fully inform sub-regional planning processes.

7

Table 1: Selwyn-Waihora Areas Assessed

Option Location Total storage volume 106 m3

Generation Potential Affected waterways Area irrigated Cost estimates

1. Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains/ foothills

a. Variety of options, focussing on the foothills/plains interface that could be supplied by the proposed canal from Lake Coleridge (~400m contour).

a. <=25 per option

a. Unknown but connected to new generation along proposed canal from Lake Coleridge.

a. Rakaia River as supply source.

a. Primarily a reliability top-up for Selwyn-Waihora and/or Ashburton Zones.

a. Unknown

b. Variety of options in the vicinity of the proposed CPW headrace canal (~240m contour).

b. 5-30 per option

b. Unknown but could be connected to new generation along proposed canal from Lake Coleridge.

b. Rakaia and/or Waimakariri Rivers as supply source.

b. Reliability top-up for CPW Scheme.

b. Unknown

2. Waiāniwaniwa River

Waiāniwaniwa Valley (dam site/s further up valley than original proposal)

20-60+ Unlikely to have net gain as most likely option would involve pumping from proposed CPW headrace canal.

Waimakariri and possibly Rakaia Rivers as supply source. Impoundment of Waiāniwaniwa River above dam site. Managed releases below dam site.

Reliability top-up for CPW Scheme.

Unknown

Figure 1. “Red flagged” areas within water storage assessment areas (#1 within black polygon, #2 within blue oval).

8

Information available for Strategic Assessment

Option 1 covers a large area that has only been considered at a concept level. Option 2 covers a reduced area to that previously proposed by CPW as part of their consent process. For each assessment of an option in relation to specific targets we have included our assessment of the quantity and quality of information that was available to us. We have used the scale below.

Table 2: Scale for quality and quantity of information available for Strategic Assessments.

Scale 5 4 3 2 1

Meaning Excellent information

Very good information

Good information Limited information

Very limited information

Table 3 below shows an overall assessment of the quality and quantity of information for each of the options.

Table 3: Assessment of information quality and quantity for each option

Option Information quality & quantity

Comment


1 Concept level only. No landowner contact.


2 Good information on earlier option, but limited analysis of the changed effects for current concept.

Targets for Strategic Assessment

Of the original set of CWMS Targets, only the environmental limits setting process is not considered relevant for this particular Strategic Assessment (as it is being addressed in parallel to water infrastructure investigations).

The 2011/12 Strategic Assessment processes for the Hurunui-Waiau Zone and Lees Valley considered that current CWMS Target areas do not cover the full range of aspects necessary for a Strategic Assessment of major water infrastructure options. In particular the CWMS targets do not cover the economic viability of the option, local community impacts and whether the option results in multiple water uses. They developed assessment scales for these target areas which we have included in this Strategic Assessment.

9

1. Ecosystem health/biodiversity

1.1. Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme and Regional Implementation Programme – Issues and Recommendations

1.1.1. ZIP Priority outcomes o Best practice nutrient and water management

Land managers use optimal water and nutrient practices for their land class, soil type and farm system

Management is based on clear and agreed science including mātauranga Innovative nutrient and water management is adopted rapidly

o Kaitiakitanga is integrated into water management in the Zone Rūnanga are actively involved in resource management decision making Wāhi tapu and mahinga kai are protected and enhanced

o Healthy lowland streams Water quality, flows and habitat supports increased abundance and diversity of

aquatic life Safe and plentiful food gathering is available Nutrient inflows decline over time to acceptable levels

o Hill-fed waterways support aquatic life and recreation Popular swimming places meet contact recreation standards Flows are sufficient to provide for swimming at popular swimming places Flows support aquatic life and fish passage

o Alpine rivers and high country values are protected Threatened bird populations trends improve The natural braided character of alpine rivers is preserved High water quality and quantity in high country lakes and streams is maintained Populations of native and sports fish flourishing River mouths and hapua are healthy and functioning High quality recreation opportunities are maintained

o Enhanced Indigenous Biodiversity across the Zone No further loss of indigenous biodiversity habitat and ecosystems Indigenous biodiversity corridors are created across the plains including

waterway corridors Significant high country wetlands are protected Wetlands associated with hill fed river flows are protected and restored Wetlands on the plains are restored The wetlands of Te Waihora are enhanced

1.1.2. ZIP Recommendations 2.3 The upper central plains are supplied with surface water for irrigation to replace existing deep groundwater supply.

2.4 New surface water applied, is first made available to the existing irrigated land area and:

10

• Is used in conjunction with audited self-management and extension programmes. • Users supplied with new surface water are not able to transfer their existing

groundwater consent.

2.6 Any water storage development will have the following characteristics: • Is able to enhance Te Waihora, the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River, lowland streams, hapua and

braided rivers in accordance with the CWMS principles; • Native biodiversity corridors and new wetland creation are conditions of development;

4.13 Protect significant wetlands associated with the sources of the hill-fed rivers in the Zone.

4.14 Work with landowners to identify opportunities to build on existing projects to protect and connect biodiversity and fish passage along the Hororata River

5.3 Identifying options for an aquatic corridor based on a stockwater race or the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River and tributaries

5.6 a) Identify remaining wetlands in the Zone

b) Work towards protecting remaining wetlands

5.11 Integrate biodiversity into irrigation schemes: • Significant biodiversity values are identified and protected during infrastructure

design and development • Provision is made for biodiversity offsets • Schemes administer environmental enhancement funds, funded by annual levies

from scheme members

5.14 Provide advice to the committee on the protection of remnant dryland biodiversity on the plains, in particular Bankside Reserve

1.1.3. RIP Recommendations EB.8.2 Facilitate infrastructure projects that ensure environmental wins and constraints are addressed as an integral design element of any constructed component of regionally significant infrastructure.

RI.2.4 Investigate and consider the potential for ‘environmental infrastructure’ including constructed wetlands and opportunities for aquaculture/enhanced native fisheries during infrastructure design and development.

RI.6.1 Regional infrastructure provides for relevant environmental flows and water quality improvements.

RI.6.2 Environmental enhancement funds are developed that improve trends in ecosystem health and biodiversity.

11

1.2. Assessment scales for Ecosystem Health/Biodiversity target area Based on the priority outcomes and recommendations above we have divided the target area into nine categories to better show the particular impacts of different options (Table 4). As the Golder Associates (2010) Preliminary Strategic Assessment of Waitaki – South Canterbury Options notes, any evaluation must recognise that biodiversity and ecosystem health is currently on the decline in Canterbury.

The assessment scale is used to evaluate the performance of each option against the nine categories in this target area. Because the current state of the environment is one of declining biodiversity and ecosystem health, the status quo situation receives a negative score as it would not meet the CWMS target of improved environmental state. Therefore a score of zero actually represents an improvement on the current situation because it means a halt in the current decline of ecosystem health and biodiversity.

Table 4: Assessment scale for the Ecosystem Health/Biodiversity Target

Assessment categories

Assessment Scale -2 -1 0 1 2

Lowland stream health

Greater rate of decline

Ongoing decline (status quo)

Halted decline (improvement on status quo)

Slight improvement

Substantial improvement

River mouths & hapua health




Slight improvement


Wetlands Greater rate of decline



Slight improvement


Intermontane basins & plains ecosystems




Slight improvement


Trout & salmon spawning




Slight improvement


Upland river health




Slight improvement


Native fish Greater rate of decline



Slight improvement


1.3. Assessment of options in relation to Ecosystem Health/Biodiversity target Water systems

ZIP and RIP recommendations focus on protection of alpine river and high country values, and enhancement of water systems in accordance with the CWMS principles. Braided river aspects are covered in the following section. Both options time-shift braided river water via storage and therefore can potentially release some of this water to benefit Te Waihora, the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River, lowland streams, and hapua. However, it is not clear at this point whether upper plains water releases are the best way of targeting lower plains ecosystem enhancement. It may be preferable to utilise lower plains recharge through water races and connected soak holes, for example. All upper

12

plains and foothill storages will leak some water, which will most likely benefit groundwater levels and their connected surface water systems. The stored water will also enable irrigators currently utilising pumped groundwater to switch to surface water, which will also enable the groundwater system to behave in a more natural fashion.

Dryland ecosystems

ZIP and RIP recommendations include biodiversity protection plus biodiversity offsets and enhancement funds associated with new infrastructure. Upper plains land environments are classified as ‘Acutely Threatened’ (< 10% indigenous cover remaining). The foothills have multiple classifications: Chronically Threatened (10-20% indigenous cover remaining), ‘At Risk’ (20-30% indigenous cover remaining) and ‘Critically Underprotected’ (>30% left and <10% protected) land environments. Effects on these values would need to be investigated on a site specific basis for any new development ideas, avoiding remnant biodiversity and enhancing where possible. Figure 10 includes dryland ecosystems considered particularly significant by the Hearing Panel for the revised (2010) CPW hearing1. The green dots in Figure 10 refer to Melicytus flexuosus, a shrub species in gradual decline, which has been identified from fertile alluvial habitats near Springfield and Hororata (DoC Threaten Species Database, 20052). Nearby, on the corner of Domain and West Coast Road is the Kōwai Bush reserve, a private reserve containing remnant Lowland Beech forest remains. Figure 10 also notes shrubland next to the Waimakariri Gorge Bridge as a significant site.

The Waiāniwaniwa Valley was proposed as the site of a large storage reservoir, as part of the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme (CPWES). The CPWES evidence of Di Lucas states “24. Within the highly modified agricultural landscape of the Waiāniwaniwa Valley there are small remnants and vestiges of native vegetation including forest, shrubland, grassland, rock outcrop and wetland communities that have been recognised as important ecological sites3”. “Protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation in the Valley4” was one of the CPWES commissioners’ reasons for stating that CPWES without the Waiāniwaniwa reservoir would have “less adverse effects”. Any smaller reservoir option would need to avoid these areas. Figure 2 presents Attachment 70 from the CPWES submission of Di Lucas5. The green shaded areas of “outstanding landscape” are difficult to see at this resolution, but occur throughout the valley floor and margins. A smaller reservoir situated above the first line of heritage trees would avoid many of these features, but may still impinge on values at Auchendale, the inundated margins of the Waiāniwaniwa River, Tara Farm and the entrance to Bush Gully.

Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand (FENZ) rankings As part of the Sustainable Development Programme of Action for Freshwater the Department of Conservation (DoC) was given the task of identifying a candidate list of Waters of National Importance (WONI) for freshwater national heritage. For this process the Selwyn River (Waikirikiri) catchment was identified as a Type II catchment of national importance for freshwater biodiversity. 1 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-appendix-1-280510.pdf 2 http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sap236.pdf 3 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceDiLucas.pdf 4 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/Minute7FullMinute.pdf 5 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/Lucas_HillsandPlainsAttachments7081.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-appendix-1-280510.pdf

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sap236.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceDiLucas.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/Minute7FullMinute.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/Lucas_HillsandPlainsAttachments7081.pdf

13

Type II catchments were defined as “containing sections of river, special features, or populations of threatened species that were also of national importance.” The special features were noted as “the presence of nationally important populations of Canterbury Mudfish in its upper reaches, as well as the connectivity and buffer function the river provides to Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere).” Follow up conversations with DoC staff highlighted the strong provisos in the report’s disclaimer and the importance of focussing on the most recent Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand (FENZ) rankings6. These rankings are shown in Figure 3 (regional rankings) and Figure 4 (national rankings). These figures show that the most significant area (near but not in the study area) is the Korowai Torlesse Tussocklands Park in the headwaters of the Selwyn/Waikirikiri North Branch. The upper Waimakariri River terraces are also rated as of moderate significance.

Freshwater fish distribution

ZIP Priority Outcomes for “Hill-fed waterways support aquatic life and recreation” include “flows support aquatic life and fish passage” and ZIP Priority Outcomes for “Alpine rivers and high country values are protected” include “populations of native and sports fish flourishing”. Figure 5 presents the current information on freshwater fish distribution for the Selwyn Catchment. Key native populations of interest (especially Canterbury Mudfish) occur in the Hororata and Waiāniwaniwa catchments, though other native and introduced species have been found in most waterways in the study area. Additional detail on fish distribution in the Waiāniwaniwa Valley is presented in Figures 2 and 6 with the large Waiāniwaniwa reservoir proposed as part of the original CPWES hearings as an overlay for reference. Significant overlap with Canterbury Mudfish and Upland Bully are noted. Some of this overlap could be removed with a smaller reservoir starting a couple of kilometres further up the valley.

Canterbury mudfish (currently given the highest threat ranking of Nationally Critical) are not necessarily picked up in FENZ rankings (Figures 3 & 4), as the predicted distribution of this species is not included in this geodatabase. Instead it is given as one of the special features on page 59 of the WONI report (Chadderton et al., 2004). “Protection of significant habitats of indigenous fauna (in particular mud fish habitat)7” was one of the CPWES commissioners’ reasons for stating that CPWES without the large Waiāniwaniwa reservoir would have “less adverse effects”.

With respect to the Selwyn/Waikirikiri, access to the upper catchment is considered crucial for the longfin eel and brown trout. The longfin eel population is considered to have declined over recent decades, but the size of the current population is not known8. The brown trout population in the upper catchment is also considered to have declined to unknown current levels, with the recreational fishery in the Hororata and upper Selwyn/ Waikirikiri now considered to be only locally significant9. The significance of the upper Hawkins Rivers and its tributaries to recreational and native fisheries is not currently well understood. Fish and Game and DoC are expecting to undertake

6 28/5/12 Pers. Comm. with David West and Nicholas Dunn (DoC). 7 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/Minute7FullMinute.pdf 8 29/5/2012 Pers. Comm. with Don Jellyman (NIWA). 9 17/4/2012 Pers. Comm. with Tony Hawker (Fish and Game)


14

fish surveys in the Hawkins River and its tributaries during November 2013 to assess their current significance10.

Wetlands

Selwyn-Waihora ZIP recommendations 4.13 and 5.6 focus on identification and protection of existing wetlands. Figure 7 shows a number of wetlands (>=0.5 ha) across the upper plains and edge of the foothills. Particular sites of interest are numbered on Figure 7 as follows:

1. This wetland is upstream from the CPW Rakaia River intake but is still in an area with potential for off-line storage.

2. A significant wetland complex is shown just down-catchment from State Highway 77. This area is unlikely to be of interest for water storage as it does not contain significant natural storage features, nor is it close to the proposed CPW headrace.

3. These wetlands are in the Hororata River Priority Area shown in Figure 8. A number of Immediate Steps Biodiversity Projects have been approved in this catchment. Project areas and wetlands would need to be avoided.

4. These wetlands are in the Wairiri Valley, which was the area initially proposed for a storage reservoir by the CPWES. Assessment of similar large options is not part of this assessment, but a smaller option could be considered.

5. This wetland is in the Waiāniwaniwa Valley. Additional investigations on wetlands in this valley were undertaken for the CPWES hearing. Much of this was summarised and discussed in the evidence of Di Lucas11. For example:

26. “In the Canterbury foothills, wetlands would have been common in valley floors where drainage was impeded and/or cold air ponded thus restricting forest growth (e.g., Waiāniwaniwa River and Wairiri Stream) prior to human settlement. These wetlands have been largely lost through drainage and agricultural development with only small areas remaining. Where wetlands have persisted, they are of considerable ecological significance” (SPBL, p 1)

27. “Wetlands are located in the floors of two streams in Coalgate forest, Bush Gully and ‘Tara’ Stream. Wetland vegetation is also present in Oyster Gully in the southern part of Coalgate forest” (SPBL, p 3). The Selwyn Plantation Board Ltd (SPBL) identified these remnants (and their associated fauna) as having “considerable ecological value” and “represent the main area of native biodiversity within the lands owned by SPBL”. They are currently being managed by SPBL as Ecological Management Areas. There are other wetlands not on SPB land, including a spring bog in Bush Gully, a very uncommon habitat in Canterbury.

Relevant wetlands considered particularly significant by the hearing panel for the revised (2010) CPW hearing are also presented in Figure 10.

10 28/8/13 Pers. Comm. With Tony Hawker (Fish and Game). 29/8/13 Pers. Comm. With John Benn (DoC).

11 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceDiLucas.pdf


15

QEII Covenants

Figure 9 presents QEII covenants in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone. A QEII open space covenant is a legal agreement between a landowner and the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. The agreement is entered into voluntarily and binds current and all subsequent landowners in perpetuity. The covenant is registered on the title to the land. One covenant at the head of the Wairiri Valley is present in the study area.

16

Figure 2. Waiāniwaniwa Valley features

17

Figure 3. Regional FENZ Rankings

18

Figure 4. National FENZ Rankings

19

Figure 5. Freshwater Fish Distribution (NZ Freshwater Fish Database and DoC)

20

Figure 6. Freshwater Fish Distribution – Waiāniwaniwa Valley (DoC)

21

Figure 7. Wetland (>=0.5 ha) location and extent – ECan wetland database.

Rakaia River

Selwyn River

Waimakariri River

1 2

3 4

5

22

Figure 8. Immediate Steps Approved Projects – Hororata River Priority Area.

23

Figure 9. QEII Trust Covenants (reproduced with permission of QEII Trust).

24

Figure 10. CPW Hearing Decision Appendix 1 – Significant Sites

25

Table 5: Assessment in relation to Ecosystems Health/Biodiversity Target Option

Lowland

stream health

River mouths

& hapua

health

Wetlands

Intermontane

basin ecosystem

s

Trout &

salmon

spawning

Upland river

health

Native fish

Dryland Ecosystem

s

Information

quality

Comment


Alpine -1

Up-gradient 1

Wairiri -2

Mainstem Selwyn, Hororata, Hawkins, Wairiri -2

Mainstem Selwyn, Hororata, Hawkins, Wairiri -2

Fig. 5 sites -2

See comment 5

2 1. Concern regarding unknown cumulative effects 2. John Sunckell graded upland river health as -1 3. QEII covenant included in Wairiri intermontane

basin ecosystem 4. Potential fish survey of upper Hawkins River in

November 2013 5. Dryland ecosystem survey required for

development options, particularly areas noted as green dots in Figure 10

Lowland 0

On -2

Others ?

Others -1

Others -1

Others -1


Alpine -1

Up-gradient 1

-2 N/A (No salmonids identified)

-2 -2 See comment 2

3 1. John Sunckell graded upland river health as -1 2. Dryland ecosystem survey required for

development options, particularly areas noted as green dots in Figure 10 Lowland

0 On -2

Scale: Assessment categories


All categories Greater rate of decline



Slight improvement

In between slight and substantial improvement


1 to 2

1 to 2

26

2. Natural character of braided rivers

2.1. Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme – Issues and Recommendations

2.1.1. Priority outcomes

o Alpine rivers and high country values are protected

• Threatened bird populations trends improve • The natural braided character of alpine rivers is preserved • High water quality and quantity in high country lakes and streams is maintained • Populations of native and sports fish flourishing • River mouths and hapua are healthy and functioning • High quality recreation opportunities are maintained

2.1.2. Recommendations 2.6 Any water storage development will have the following characteristics:

• The natural character, ecosystems, habitats, and recreational opportunities of braided rivers are protected or enhanced; • Is able to enhance Te Waihora, the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River, lowland streams, hapua and braided rivers in accordance with the CWMS principles;

4.2 Protect spawning areas and habitat of native and sports fish particularly those associated with mahinga kai and threatened species.

4.10 Investigate the impact of river flow on river mouth / hapua health.

2.2. Assessment scale for Natural Character of Braided Rivers target area The first goal of this target area is about maintaining the braided character of all Canterbury’s braided rivers and has four parts:

(i) maintaining the upper catchments of alpine braided rivers as largely natural ecosystems and landscapes, (ii) no dams on the mainstem of major alpine braided rivers, (iii) maintaining the extent of active floodplains, flow variability and sediment flow processes, (iv) supporting the dynamics of river mouths and coastal processes.

In our assessment we have evaluated options in relation to three categories that reflect the first two parts and the third and fourth combined (Table 6).

This CWMS target area also includes goals relating to braided river birds and we have assessed options in relation to this. The assessment scale relating to braided bird habitat has the status quo as “0” rather than “-1” as in the Ecosystem Health/Biodiversity target area.

The 2012 Rakaia Water Conservation Order hearings are a significant source of further information for this assessment.

27

Table 6: Assessment scale for the Natural Character of Braided Rivers Target



Largely natural upper catchments of alpine braided rivers

Significant reduction in natural ecosystems & landscapes in upper catchments

Small reduction in natural ecosystems & landscapes in upper catchments

Neutral Slight improvement


No dams on mainstem

Dam on mainstem of major alpine river

- No dam on mainstem

- -

Braided river dynamics

Significant reduction in channel forming flows and/or reduction in sediment supply

Small reduction in channel forming flows and/or reduction in sediment supply

No change Slight improvement


Braided river-bird habitat

Significant reduction in braided river bird habitat

Small reduction in habitat

No change Slight improvement

Substantial improvement in braided river bird habitat

2.3. Assessment of options in relation to Natural Character of Braided Rivers target

The most likely source of water supply for Selwyn-Waihora water storage is already consented water from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers. The effect on the natural character of the braided rivers has already been assessed as part of the CPW consent hearings and the RWCO hearing process.

Most water taken to storage direct from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers is expected to be taken out of the irrigation season due to the maximisation of run-of-river supply for irrigation demand during the irrigation season. NIWA have projected climate and river flow for the 2040s and 2090s for both the Rangitata and Waimakariri catchments (NIWA, 2008 & 2011). A more recent study has considered uncertainty in Waimakariri catchment projections by running a wider combination of future emission and global climate model scenarios (NIWA, 2012). Future climate analysis has not yet been undertaken for the Rakaia catchment, but projected changes are expected to be similar to the Rangitata catchment (pers. comm. Ross Woods, NIWA).

NIWA (2008) states that the mean Rangitata River flow at the Klondyke gauging station for the 2040 climate scenario is projected to be about 8% larger than current (1980-99) climate. The greatest increases are expected to be in the months August-October (~15-28%). Application of these percentage increases to 1980-99 Rakaia River flows at Fighting Hill results in August-October increases of ~41-44 m3/s.

NIWA (2011) states that the mean Waimakariri River flow at the Otarama gauging station for the 2040 climate scenario is projected to be about 7% larger than current (1980-99) climate. The greatest increases are expected to be in the months June-September (~15-32% or ~15-36 m3/s). NIWA (2012) states that every modelled combination of emission scenario and global climate model

28

produced increased Waimakariri River flows at the Otarama gauging station in the months June-September. Variation around the flow changes presented in NIWA (2011) increased as the flow changes increased.

If flow taken to storage focussed on months of increased river flow, then effects on current natural character of the braided rivers would be minimised. Flow taken to storage in other months would still be subject to all relevant regulatory measures, but would have a greater effect on natural character of the braided rivers compared with a 'no storage' alternative.

The CPW and Rakaia River WCO hearings have addressed relevant effects on braided river natural character and habitat. Potential future flow changes were not considered. With respect to Rakaia River habitat, paragraph 161 of the RWCO Hearing Committee’s Recommendation dated 14 October 2012 states:

“As to the second characteristic and feature, that is to say “outstanding wildlife habitat above and below the Rakaia River Gorge, outstanding fisheries, and outstanding recreational, angling and jet boating features of the river and its tributaries” … We … find that the evidence called on behalf of the applicant is compelling in its assessment that the changes in flow will be minor, as will the effects on the bird, fish and plant life.”

With respect to Rakaia River takes by CPW outside the irrigation season, paragraph 2.58 of the CPW Joint Decision and Recommendation of Independent Commissioners, Part 6, dated 28 MAY 201012 states:

“During the B months the only take by CPW, based on its revised proposal without storage, would be for maintenance flows in the headrace and distribution canals, apart from provision for filling up to 45MCM of on-farm storage.”

If additional storage of CPW Rakaia River water is considered, this condition may need to be addressed further.

With respect to Rakaia River habitat, paragraph 2.63 of the same CPW decision report states:

“We accept evidence from Dr Hughey on effects of the flow reduction on birds (particularly of black-fronted terns and wrybills), from Dr Olsen on flow effects on aquatic invertebrates, and from Dr Hayes on the 15 native fish species recorded in the Rakaia. All suggested only minor impact of the proposed take under the WCO rules.”

In conclusion, paragraph 2.120 states:

“We are satisfied that the proposed taking of water from the Rakaia river will be sustainable and in accordance with the principles set out in Part 2 of the RMA. We are also satisfied that the requirements of the Rakaia River Water Conservation Order will be achieved. These provisions afford a high degree of protection to instream values. The conditions which are required to reflect the WCO will similarly ensure that the outstanding characteristics of the river are protected and will also ensure that other characteristics not recognised by the order are sustained.” 12 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-part-06-280510.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-part-06-280510.pdf

29

With respect to Waimakariri River habitat, paragraph 1.27 of the same CPW decision report states:

“The objective of protecting river birdlife during the critical September to December nesting period depends primarily on maintaining islands to discourage predation within the braided river system. With the mitigation proposed, the CPW proposal will not significantly affect that.”

With respect to Waimakariri River natural character, paragraph 1.49 states:

“We are satisfied that the proposed take will not of itself compromise the natural character of the river in any more than a minor way… We accept that the associated infrastructure will compromise the natural character of the river to a limited degree, but on balance we do not consider this to require that the take be declined.”

Paragraph 1.74 addresses takes outside the irrigation season, stating:

“There will be very little take outside of the irrigation season because CPW will be limited to only so much as is required to top up on farm storage.”

If significant storage of Waimakariri River water is considered, this condition may need to be addressed further.

30

Table 7: Assessment in relation to Natural Character of Braided Rivers Target

Option

Larg

ely

natu

ral

uppe

r cat

chm

ents

of

alp

ine

brai

ded

river

s

No

dam

s on

mai

nste

m

Brai

ded

river

dy

nam

ics

Brai

ded-

river

bird

ha

bita

t

Info

qua

lity

Comment


-1 0 -1 -1 3 1. Terrianna Smith concerned that potential effects of climate change were not considered in statutory hearings.

2. Terrianna Smith graded ‘Braided river dynamics’ and ‘Braided river bird habitat’ as -1 to -2.


-1 0 -1 -1 3 1. Terrianna Smith graded ‘Braided river dynamics’ and ‘Braided river bird habitat’ as -1 to -2.

31

3. Kaitiakitanga


3.1.1. Zone specific issues of concern o Water quality is suitable for food gathering and returning mahinga kai resources to Te

Waihora, Muriwai Lagoon and the lowland streams; nitrates in groundwater of these areas is of particular concern.

o All waterways are able to be used and include places where families can go to swim and fish, in particular on the Waikirikiri / Selwyn River where water quantity and quality is of particular concern.

o Springs and wetlands are protected from inappropriate use and degradation. o Alpine rivers, lakes and wetlands are protected. o Remnant indigenous vegetation is maintained and enhanced. o Fish passage is enhanced.

3.1.2. Priority Outcomes o Customary and commercial fisheries are improved o High quality and secure supplies of drinking water

All domestic drinking water meets national standards preferably without treatment within 10 years

o Kaitiakitanga is integrated into water management in the Zone Rūnanga are actively involved in resource management decision making Wāhi tapu and mahinga kai are protected and enhanced

o Healthy lowland streams Water quality, flows and habitat supports increased abundance and diversity of

aquatic life Safe and plentiful food gathering is available Nutrient inflows decline over time to acceptable levels

o Thriving communities and sustainable economies Sustainable and productive land use Energy security is increased Customary and commercial fisheries are improved Secure water supply to provide a target of 95% reliability for irrigation

o Alpine rivers and high country values are protected Threatened bird populations trends improve The natural braided character of alpine rivers is preserved High water quality and quantity in high country lakes and streams is maintained Populations of native and sports fish flourishing River mouths and hapua are healthy and functioning High quality recreation opportunities are maintained

o Enhanced Indigenous Biodiversity across the Zone No further loss of indigenous biodiversity habitat and ecosystems Indigenous biodiversity corridors are created across the plains including

waterway corridors

32

Significant high country wetlands are protected Wetlands associated with hill fed river flows are protected and restored Wetlands on the plains are restored The wetlands of Te Waihora are enhanced

o Ultimately, Ngāi Tahu seeks outcomes from water that: • Sustain the physical and metaphysical health and well-being of waterways as a

matter of first principle; • Ensure the continuation of customary in-stream values and uses; and • Satisfy development aspirations.

o Kaitiaki Synthesis Document • Tangata whenua stated a preference for options for storage in tributaries to be

explored rather than the focusing on mainstem storage options. However, storage still had to be accompanied by benefits to the river environment. Restoring flows in stressed tributaries was given as an option where storage could be viewed more positively by Tangata whenua.

3.1.3. Recommendations 2.6 Any water storage development will have the following characteristics:

o Any mixing of waters is addressed with Te Taumutu and Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. o Infrastructure for water storage and distribution in the upper Zone is considered as a part of an integrated catchment management approach with infrastructure for Kaitiakitanga and Te Waihora

5.1 Improve ecological health of sites important for mahinga kai species through: Identifying waterways / sites for restoration and rehabilitation of each of longfin eel,

lamprey / kanakana and koura populations. Considering these sites for Year 2-5 Immediate Steps funding Implementing a monitoring programme to show the health of mahinga kai species

3.2. Assessment scales for Kaitiakitanga target area The CWMS Kaitiakitanga Target area contains 27 targets covering a range of issues. These are both policy/process and outcome focused. Following the approach used in Tipa’s Strategic Assessment Kaitiaki Targets Synthesis Report (2011) and Environment Canterbury’s Assessment of Lees Valley water infrastructure options against CWMS and other key targets (2012)13, this assessment is based on the outcome-focused targets, as these are the target areas that are likely to be impacted by storage proposals. The assessment recognises the key values that Ngāi Tahu associate with water, and the uses of water that Ngāi Tahu seek to maintain, enhance and restore.

We have divided the outcome focused Kaitiakitanga target areas into 7 categories (noting that these are inter-related):

(1) Environmental flows - protection of instream values; ability to deliver cultural outcomes

(2) Unnatural mixing of waters from different waterbodies 13 The Kaitiakitanga Target section of this report was prepared by R. Puentener (Environment Canterbury), C. Williams (Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga) and T. Smith (Te Taumutu Rūnanga).

33

(3) Water quality – addressing direct discharges and non-point source pollution

(4) Mahinga kai – increase abundance of, access to and use of mahinga kai

(5) All marae have access to high quality (untreated) drinking water

(6) Wāhi taonga – as a general category that includes wetlands, waipuna (springs), riparian areas, waterways, hāpua and river mouth environments as valued ecosystems and habitats.

(7) Cultural landscape values – including wāhi tapu such as urupā, and also culturally important sites and features that relate to Ngāi Tahu use and occupancy of, and relationship to, an area (e.g. trails, food gathering sites, natural landforms and features, archaeological sites).

As there are no specific storage concepts available at the time of this assessment, the key outputs of this assessment are the identification of “red flags”. “Red flags” are categories assigned a -2 grade, as the option shows the potential to be significantly at odds with the achievement of Kaitiakitanga Targets.

A number of challenges to this assessment should be noted:

• It is a difficult exercise for Tāngata Whenua to assess storage options in isolation from the use of stored water. The use of water, and the land management practices that are associated with the use of water, are critical to assessing the potential effects of storage on Ngāi Tahu values.14 For this reason, we have assessed the two storage options considering storage only, as per assessments of the other targets (Table 10), and then storage + use (Table 11).

• The potential cumulative effects from storage options is an outstanding matter. This includes multiple storage options as opposed to one, and also the cumulative effects of multiple minor effects that are considered in isolation.

Relationship to other target areas

While there is a distinct set of targets in the CWMS specific to the interests of Tāngata Whenua, these feed back into many of the other target areas, including Ecosystem health/biodiversity, Braided Rivers, and Quality Drinking Water. “Red flags” identified in other target areas are therefore relevant to this assessment. We have limited the Kaitiakitanga assessment to those cultural matters that are not covered by other target areas.

Table 8: Assessment scale for the Kaitiakitanga Target

The assessment scale follows the scoring system established in Tipa’s Strategic Assessment Kaitiaki Targets Synthesis Report (2011). The two general storage areas are assessed with regard to the level of concern or support or the ability of the option to meet the Kaitiakitanga Targets. All categories except Unnatural Mixing of Waters are assessed using a scale ranging from “Grave Concerns –serious risk of not achieving target” to “High level of support – target likely to be achieved”.

14 Recognising the Key Assumption noted on Page 6 of this report that “the use of any water made available from such infrastructure will be bound by ZIP Section 4.1 recommendations Nutrient and Water Management”.

34

Assessment categories Assessment Scale -2 -1 0 1 2

Environmental flows that provide for instream values

Grave concerns - target at serious risk of not being achieved

Some concern - target at risk of not being achieved

Neutral – no effect

Some support - target likely to being achieved

High level of support -– target highly likely to being achieved

Water quality – direct discharge and non-points source pollution






Marae have access to quality (untreated) drinking water supply






Wāhi taonga – wetlands, waipuna (springs), riparian areas, etc.






Increase access, abundance and use of mahinga kai






Cultural landscape values






Table 9: Assessment scale for the Kaitiakitanga Target - Unnatural mixing of water from different waterbodies. ‘No mixing’ rates the same as ‘high level of support’ in order to provide a useful scale for comparison across the two options.

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Unnatural mixing of waters

Grave concerns with mixing

Some concern with mixing

Neutral – not opposed to mixing

Some support for mixing

Mixing not required/ High level of support for mixing

35

3.3. Assessment of options in relation to Kaitiakitanga targets

Environmental flows that protect instream values and deliver cultural outcomes

Environmental flows that protect instream values are critical to delivering cultural outcomes and meeting Kaitiakitanga targets. Cultural outcomes include the protection of mauri, or the life supporting capacity of a waterway, the ability of a waterway to sustain cultural and customary use, the restoration of springs and wetlands associated with waterways, and the protection of river mouth dynamics.15

The COMAR work undertaken in the Selwyn Waihora catchment identified cultural flow preferences for particular waterways.16 This information provides the basis for Ngāi Tahu representatives to assess storage options against desired environmental flow outcomes.

The storage of water has the potential to increase flows in rivers such as the Selwyn-Waikirikiri and lowland streams, through reducing pressure on groundwater resources and the direct provision of water. Storage may also result in the loss of environmental flows in particular waterways in the upper catchment, through damming or inundation. The loss of flow in a mainstem, such as damming the main stem of the Waikirikiri, is identified as a show-stopper for Ngāi Tahu. Potential impacts on the environmental flows of the Pauri/Hawkins River are also of interest to Ngāi Tahu, given the mahinga kai associations of the river and its tributaries.

The Kōwai River is identified as a ‘no-go’ area (i.e., beyond -2 red flag), reflecting significant concerns about environmental flows and water allocation. Papatipu Rūnanga continue to oppose the “100% allocation” of this waterway to stockwater. The Kōwai is identified as culturally important for its provision of good quality water to the Waimakariri, habitat for mahinga kai, and its relationship with Ohinekakaraiti pā. A Cultural Impact Assessment completed in 2005 for Central Plains Water Ltd. included a recommendation that:

“If the Scheme progresses and water is abstracted from the upper Waimakariri intake location to enable water to the Springfield – Russell’s Flat region, then an agreement must be reached with Selwyn District Council to cease existing consents for the Stockwater Scheme on the Kōwai River. If Waimakariri water is going to the Springfield area, then the full flows of the Kōwai (currently fully allocated to the stockwater scheme) can return to the Waimakariri.”17

While outside the extended assessment area, concerns relating to the Kōwai River are relevant if storage options involve the taking of water from this waterway.

While environmental flows need be increased in many lowland waterways in the catchment, it should be noted that increased flow (water quantity) may not alone achieve goals set out in the Kaitiakitanga target area. As noted in Tipa (2011, p.50) increasing stream flows needs to be

15 Further examples of outcomes sought by Tangata Whenua with regard to environmental flows can be found in Appendix 4 of Tipa’s 2011 Kaitiaki Synthesis Report (pp.104-105) ; and the Mahaanui IMP 2013 under Policy WM8.2 16 Cultural Values, Flows & Water Management Issues for the Waikirikiri/Selwyn-Te Waihora Catchments, prepared by Tipa and Associates, February 2013.

17 Jolly, D. 2005. Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme: An assessment of impacts on Ngāi Tahu values (page 16).

36

complemented by the restoration of stream function and riparian biodiversity (which are addressed in other targets of the CWMS).

Water quality – direct discharges and non-point source pollution

Water quality is key to the mauri of the water, and so improved water quality is essential for Tāngata Whenua and their role as Kaitiaki. This Kaitiakitanga target area is about working towards resolving issues related to Ngāi Tahu policies on the direct discharge of contaminants to water and non-point source pollution.

Ngāi Tahu have consistently opposed the direct discharge of contaminants to water, and advocated for effective solutions to non-point source pollution of groundwater and surface water from irrigated and intensive land use.18 However, because these goals relate to the use of water, they are not applicable to this assessment. Despite this, it is imperative that any assessment of Kaitiakitanga targets recognise that the provision of stored water to the Canterbury Plains has the potential to exacerbate or improve water quality (see Table 11). As articulated in the Iwi Management Plans and in CIA reports prepared for Central Plains Water (CPW), assurance that land will be effectively managed to improve current water quality (ground and surface) is the prerequisite to Ngāi Tahu support for the development of storage proposals.

Unnatural mixing of waters from different waterbodies

There can be significant cultural issues associated with the unnatural mixing of water from different waterbodies. Kaitiakitanga Targets identify the need to work towards resolving issues related to the unnatural mixing of waters.

As stated in both Tipa’s 2011 report and the Mahaanui IMP 2001, the cultural issues around mixing of waters are complex, and can vary between (and within) Papatipu Rūnanga. Policies WM10.2 and WM10.3 of the Mahaanui IMP 2013 provide a framework for how Rūnanga will assess the cultural acceptability of water infrastructure proposals that will result in the unnatural mixing of waters. A key message is that proposals will be assessed on a case by case basis, based on the nature of mixing, where it occurs and what options are available for avoiding or mitigating cultural concerns. The mixing of waters is less of concern in the extended assessment area (Springfield/Sheffield).

Wāhi taonga are protected and restored

Wāhi taonga is a general category used in this assessment to cover treasured and culturally important ecosystems and environments. Wetlands, waipuna, riparian areas, lowland streams, hāpua and river mouth environments are examples of wāhi taonga that may be affected by water storage proposals. These ecosystems and environments provide important cultural and ecological benefits/services, including mahinga kai habitat, resources for cultural use, cultural well-being, protection of water quality and natural flood protection.19

18 See Issue WM6 of the Mahaanui IMP 2013, and the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Freshwater Policy. 19 See Policy WM13.1 of the Mahaanui IMP 2013.

37

There is a high likelihood with both storage areas considered in this assessment that wāhi taonga sites will be affected. For example, the Selwyn Waihora Upper Plains and foothills contain numerous springs, wetlands and streams that feed into rivers such as the Hororata and Waikirikiri,20 and the Waiāniwaniwa River is valued as mudfish habitat (mudfish are a Taonga Species under the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998).21 However, the nature and extent of on-site effects cannot be assessed without site specific information.

Wāhi taonga downstream (off site) may also be affected by storage. For example, if stored water results in higher groundwater levels in the lower catchment then lowland streams, wetlands and waipuna may be enhanced.

Mahinga kai / customary use

Ngāi Tahu maintain a continuous relationship with mahinga kai, and the restoration of mahinga kai is a priority focus for Ngāi Tahu as an iwi. Mahinga kai refers to the resources, the places where those resources are (were) gathered and the customary use traditions and practices associate with the resource. Mahinga kai outcomes are closely related to those associated with environmental flows and water quality, as mahinga kai is a key indicator of waterway health.

Storage options may impact on mahinga kai and customary use in the Selwyn Waihora catchment in the following ways:

• Historical associations could be further lost if mahinga kai sites are destroyed/inundated;

• Storage design proposals can include provisions to enhance mahinga kai species, to facilitate customary use;

• The provision of more water, directly or indirectly, can affect the quality and quantity of mahinga kai resources, and therefore customary use.

The Pauri/Hawkins River is noted for mahinga kai values. Two of the river’s tributaries are recorded as traditional mahinga kai sites.22 Small and medium scale storage are considered less likely or able to incorporate mahinga kai outcomes into design, as compared to large scale storage options.

Cultural Landscape values

Cultural landscape values are included as a category in this assessment to address the relationship of Ngāi Tahu to specific places and landscapes.23 Cultural landscapes are landscapes of particular importance to Ngāi Tahu due to important historical, traditional, cultural or spiritual associations. 20 See page 16 of the COMAR report for the Selwyn Waihora catchment - Cultural Values, Flows & Water Management Issues for the Waikirikiri/Selwyn-Te Waihora Catchments, prepared by Tipa and Associates, February 2013. 21 Jolly, D. 2005. Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme: An assessment of impacts on Ngāi Tahu values. 58p. 22 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cultural-impact-report-phase2-central-plains-water-enhancement.pdf

23 Consistent with the Kaitiakitanga Targets assessment categories used in the Lees Valley water infrastructure options assessment report (June 2012).

38

Cultural landscape values are the sites and places within that landscape that make it significant. An identified cultural landscape will often have a high density of wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga sites or values.

The Mahaanui IMP 2013 identifies the upper catchment of the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River as a Ngāi Tahu cultural landscape of particular importance. Kākāpōtahi (Malvern Hills) was occupied by Māori for many generations. Whakaepa was a permanent pā on the banks of the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River near Coalgate. A CIA report prepared for CPWL in 2001 identifies a number of cultural landscape values in the upper catchment, including umu (ovens), urupā (burial sites), tūāhu (scared alters), pā and wāhi pakanga (battle sites).24 A second CIA report in 2005 identified specific cultural landscape values associated with the Waiāniwaniwa river area.25 An issue raised in both CIA prepared for CPW is the need for comprehensive archaeological surveys in the upper catchment to fully assess the risk of developing storage options in the upper catchment.

The historic Ohinekakaraiti pā, at the junction of the Kōwai and Waimakariri rivers, is identified as a ‘no-go area’. While the pā/settlement itself is highly likely located on the north bank of the Kōwai River, and therefore outside of this assessment area, the south bank and adjacent river terraces are identified as part of the pā complex (see Figure 1). The site is recorded as a settlement of reasonable size and population, with associated food production areas, urupā (burial sites) and tūāhu (alters).26 Four registered archaeological sites in the area support existing knowledge of the pā.

The risk to cultural landscape values is an important consideration for any storage option, as development infrastructure can irreversibly affect specific cultural landscape values and Ngāi Tahu associations with these.

24 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cultural-impact-report-phase2-central-plains-water-enhancement.pdf 25Jolly, D. 2005. Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme: An assessment of impacts on Ngāi Tahu values. 26 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cultural-impact-report-phase2-central-plains-water-enhancement.pdf

39

Table 10: Assessment in relation to Kaitiakitanga targets and criteria – Storage only

Option

Envi

ronm

enta

l flo

ws

that

pr

otec

t cul

tura

l val

ues

Mix

ing

of w

ater

s

Wat

er q

ualit

y: d

irect

&

non-

poin

t sou

rce

pollu

tion

Mar

ae d

rinki

ng w

ater

Wāh

i tao

nga

Incr

ease

the

abun

danc

e,

acce

ss, u

se m

ahin

ga k

ai

Cultu

ral l

ands

cape

val

ues

Info

qua

lity

Comment

Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains and foothills

Lowland 1 -2

N/A N/A On site -2 -1 to 1

Extended area -2 to 1

-2 2

1. Good information on cultural & environmental flows from COMAR.

2. Waikirikiri/Selwyn identified as no-go area.

3. Ohinekakaraiti pā (and surrounding area) and Kōwai River identified as no-go areas.

Upland -2

Extended area -1

Off site 1

Waiāniwaniwa River

Lowland 1 -2 N/A N/A On site -2

-1 to 1 -2 3

Upland -2

Off site 1

Extended area -2 to 1

-1 to 1

-1 to 1

40

Table 11: Assessment in relation to Kaitiakitanga Target [STORAGE + Use]

27 Noting that quantity (flow) is not separate from quality when assessing whether Environmental Flows can deliver cultural outcomes.

28 Noting that a dam on the main stem of the Selwyn/Waikirikiri is highly likely to be a showstopper.

Option

Envi

ronm

enta

l flo

ws

that

pr

otec

t ins

trea

m v

alue

s27,2

8

Mix

ing

of w

ater

s

Wat

er q

ualit

y: d

irect

&

non-

poin

t sou

rce

pollu

tion

Mar

ae d

rinki

ng w

ater

Wāh

i tao

nga

Incr

ease

the

abun

danc

e,

acce

ss, u

se m

ahin

ga k

ai

Cultu

ral l

ands

cape

val

ues

Comment

Upper Selwyn-Waihora plains and foothills

Lowland 1 -2 -2 to -1

-2

On site -2

-2 Good information on cultural & environmental flows from COMAR

Upland -2

Waiāniwaniwa River

Lowland 1 -2 -

-2

On site -2 -2

Upland -2

-2 to 1

-2 to 1

-2 to 1

-2 to 1

Off site -1 to 1

Off site -1 to 1

41

3.4. Summary – key messages There are number of key messages that come out of the Kaitiakitanga Assessment:

• The ability of a storage option to deliver on specific Kaitiakitanga Target areas will largely depend on the location, capacity and design parameters of the storage proposal. Assessing general areas rather than specific concepts makes assessing some of target areas difficult.

• It is expected that comprehensive Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA) will be completed once specific storage concepts are available. Policy WM9.1 of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013 identifies support in principle for the regional storage of water, and sets out a framework for assessing the potential cultural impacts and benefits of storage proposals.

• It is expected that the Selwyn Waihora Sub Regional Plan will contain provisions requiring CIA. It is also expected that CIA will be completed alongside other technical reports, and given the same value as these reports in providing an information base for decision-making.

• Tāngata whenua do not separate the location of storage infrastructure from the use of the stored water. While storage infrastructure may have site specific impacts on cultural values (e.g. inundation of a waterway or sites of significance), a number of issues of importance to tangata whenua assessments of storage proposals relate to the use of the water, and the downstream flow on effects.29 This approach is consistent with Ngāi Tahu policies on Ki Uta Ki Tai (mountains to the sea) and integrated management.

• While potential developers of storage and regulatory planning processes in the Selwyn Waihora Zone are requested to take particular regard to the ‘red flags’, the RMA 1991 requires that some matters are given increased recognition. The relationship of Ngāi Tahu to ancestral land, waters and sites, and the protection of historic heritage, must be recognised and provided for as matters of national importance (s.6 (e) and (f)).

29 Recognising the Key Assumption noted on Page 6 of this report that “the use of any water made available from such infrastructure will be bound by ZIP Section 4.1 recommendations “Nutrient and Water Management”.

42

4. Quality Drinking Water


4.1.1. Priority outcomes o High quality and secure supplies of drinking water

All domestic drinking water meets national standards preferably without treatment within 10 years

o Best practice nutrient and water management Land managers use optimal water and nutrient practices for their land class, soil

type and farm system Management is based on clear and agreed science including mātauranga Innovative nutrient and water management is adopted rapidly

4.1.2. Recommendations 2.2 All new water storage developed in the Zone identifies and reports on alternatives for supply of quality drinking water to communities with low quality supplies. Priority should be given to communities with poor quality supplies.

4.2 Assessment scale for Quality Drinking Water Access to appropriate quantities of suitable quality drinking water is essential for the well-being of society. Protection of the region’s high quality sources of drinking water and identification of alternative options for low quality supplies are priority outcomes of the CWMS. Stored water can improve water quality outcomes from integrated best practice nutrient and water management. However, it can also support an increase in irrigated area, which is likely to add to cumulative water quality impacts in the affected catchment. At this early stage of investigation, the relative balance of catchment-wide effects cannot be assessed. However, the potential for storage area to contribute to low quality community water supply can be assessed with reference to relative proximity and connecting infrastructure. This will be the focus of the current assessment.

Table 12: Assessment scale for the Quality Drinking Water Target



Community water supply

Significant reduction in quantity and/or quality of local community water supplies

Small reduction in quantity and/or quality of local community water supplies

Neutral Slight improvement in quantity and/or quality of local community water supplies

Substantial improvement in quantity and/or quality of local community water supplies

43

4.3 Assessment of options in relation to Quality Drinking Water target CPW have started discussions with Selwyn District Council regarding the integration of the stockwater system into CPW pipes and have stated that they could add rural water supply or domestic supply. No upper catchment communities supplied by groundwater have been identified as having poor water quality (pers. comm. Derek Crombie, CPW). Water and nutrient management conditions (e.g., Condition 6) on water use in the CPW scheme are designed to reduce the negative effects of the scheme on hydraulically linked drinking water takes. Paragraph 1.46 of the CPW Joint Decision and Recommendation of Independent Commissioners, Part 6, dated 28 MAY 201030 states:

“The plan and existing consents provide for an allocation for these purposes. We are satisfied that the proposed take will not compromise the availability of ground water for drinking supply purposes in Christchurch or on the north side of the river.”

Management, monitoring and mitigation of potential nitrate increases that could reach drinking water supplies are addressed in paragraphs 1.226 to 1.240. A high reliability water supply is a key component of integrated water and nutrient management. The run-of-river reliability for the CPW scheme is not sufficient for this purpose; high reliability stored water or groundwater is therefore of benefit to addressing the Quality Drinking Water target.

Table 13: Assessment in relation to the Quality Drinking Water Target

Option

Com

mun

ity w

ater

su

pply

Info

qua

lity

Comment


1 1 1. Need to check drinking water supply opportunity for Dalethorpe community


1 1

30 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-part-06-280510.pdf


44

5. Recreational and Amenity Opportunities


5.1.1. Priority outcomes o Healthy lowland streams

• Water quality, flows and habitat supports increased abundance and diversity of aquatic life

• Safe and plentiful food gathering is available • Nutrient inflows decline over time to acceptable levels

o Hill-fed waterways support aquatic life and recreation • Popular swimming places meet contact recreation standards • Flows are sufficient to provide for swimming at popular swimming places • Flows support aquatic life and fish passage

o Alpine rivers and high country values are protected • Threatened bird populations trends improve • The natural braided character of alpine rivers is preserved • High water quality and quantity in high country lakes and streams is maintained • Populations of native and sports fish flourishing • River mouths and hapua are healthy and functioning High quality recreation opportunities are maintained

5.1.2. Recommendations 2.6 The natural character, ecosystems, habitats, and recreational opportunities of braided rivers are protected or enhanced.

4.9 Support existing work of Fish and Game on habitat and fisheries enhancement

4.11 Protocols and consents are developed to open and/ or manage the Rakaia River mouth for multiple values and needs to protect wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and community values

5.2 Assessment scale for Recreational and Amenity Opportunities We have followed the approach in the Golder (2010) Preliminary Strategic Assessment of Waitaki – South Canterbury Options of using a generic metric for the assessment scale: net recreational effect. “Net recreational effect” considers the diversity of potential recreation opportunities and sites, as well as the number of users and the quality of their potential experience.

45

Table 14: Assessment scale for the Recreational and Amenity Opportunities Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Swimming assessment meaning

Large decrease in value

Small reduction in value

Status quo. No change in value

Slight improvement


Kayaking assessment meaning




Slight improvement


Jet boating assessment meaning




Slight improvement


Fishing assessment meaning




Slight improvement


5.3 Assessment of Options in relation to Recreational and Amenity Opportunities Target

The evidence of Rob Greenaway to the RWCO process states: “Salmon angling and jet boating on the Rakaia River are nationally significant recreation and tourism values on the Rakaia River…. These and the other recreation values of the Rakaia River are protected by the RWCO”31. The CPWES AEE (7.12; 6-40) for the original Waiāniwaniwa reservoir notes the recreational values existing in the Waiāniwaniwa Valley reservoir site as “eeling”, “occasional game bird and small game hunting and other non-aquatic activities such as horse trekking, trail bike riding and four wheel driving.” The AEE identifies that “The reservoir will change the character of the Waiāniwaniwa Valley with the addition of a large water body.” (6.4) However, it states that the reservoir “allows the opportunity for recreational pursuits such as boating, sailing, picnicking, and camping while the lake edge ecology could be enriched and made more diverse for wildlife” (4.3). Also, the AEE 7.12 refers to creating “equal or greater fishery and recreational opportunities than currently exist in the Waiāniwaniwa Valley”, including “canoeing/kayaking, sailing and windsurfing, power boats and jet skis and swimming” (7.13)32. These findings were disputed in other evidence33. It is understood that an assessment of recreational and amenity opportunities and challenges for a smaller Waiāniwaniwa reservoir has not been undertaken. The upper Selwyn River (Waikirikiri) and its tributaries have a long history of brown trout spawning and recreational fishing opportunities. Figure 5 shows Brown trout in the Hororata and Selwyn (Waikirikiri) river systems as well as water races. Tony Hawker (Fish & Game) considered the current status of both rivers and their tributaries to currently be that of local significance34. All foothills and upper plains areas of interest for water storage are understood to be off-line, i.e. not intersecting any natural waterway.

31 http://files.ecan.govt.nz/public/rakaia/rakaia-Evidence-Robert-Greenaway.pdf 32 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/AEEWholeDocumentFinal.pdf 33 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceDiLucas.pdf 34 17/4/2012 Pers. Comm. with Tony Hawker (Fish and Game)

http://files.ecan.govt.nz/public/rakaia/rakaia-Evidence-Robert-Greenaway.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/AEEWholeDocumentFinal.pdf


46

Table 15: Assessment in relation to Recreational and Amenity Opportunity Target.

Option Swimming Kayaking Rafting Jet boating

Fishing Info quality

Comment


1 1 0 0 Fig. 5 sites -2

2 1. -2 grading for sites in Figure 5 just for recreational species

1


1 1 0 1 3+

Scale: Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 All categories Large decrease in

value Small reduction in value


Grading between no change and slight improvement

Slight improvement Substantial improvement

0 to 1

6. Water use efficiency


6.1.1. Priority outcomes o Best practice nutrient and water management

• Land managers use optimal water and nutrient practices for their land class, soil type and farm system

• Management is based on clear and agreed science including mātauranga • Innovative nutrient and water management is adopted rapidly

6.1.2. Recommendations 2.4 New surface water applied, is first made available to the existing irrigated land area and:

• Is used in conjunction with audited self-management and extension programmes. • Users supplied with new surface water are not able to transfer their existing groundwater

consent.

2.5 Surface water applied is next made available to potential new irrigated land area and:

• Is used in conjunction with an audited self-management and extension programme. • if this level of intensification fits within the envelope of nutrient limits for water quality

2.6 Any water storage development will have the following characteristics:

• Surface water supply contracts are part of an Audited Self-Management framework developed to provide for optimum water and nutrient management

• The reliability of supply is high enough to incentivise surface water to replace groundwater, and meet the target of 95% reliability

6.2 Assessment scale for Water Use Efficiency target area Improving water use efficiency is a key theme in the CWMS. For irrigation, water use efficiency usually refers to production efficiency, which provides a measure of how efficiently water is used to produce farm output. A key benefit of water storage is that it provides a reliable supply of water, which is required for efficient water use when run-of-river supply reliability is low (as with the CPW scheme). The additional water provided from storage is also likely to increase down-gradient groundwater levels, which could allow for increased groundwater pumping in the lower catchment and/or increased lowland stream flows. These potential multiple benefits are also relevant to the Water Use Efficiency target.

Table 16: Assessment scale for the Water Use Efficiency Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Significant (>10%)

reduction in water use efficiency

Minor (<10%) reduction in water use efficiency

No change to the current level of water use efficiency

Minor (<10%) increase in water use efficiency

Significant (>10%) increase in water use efficiency

48

6.3 Assessment of options in relation to Water use efficiency target The Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) lists as a priority outcome: “Land managers use optimal water and nutrient practices for their land class, soil type and farm system”. It is assumed for both options that ‘new water’ supplied will be contingent upon an on-farm audited water and nutrient management system being in place, for example though the CPW scheme. Paragraph 1.54 of the CPW Joint Decision and Recommendation of Independent Commissioners, Part 6, dated 28 May 201035 states:

“We are satisfied that the proposed use of the water which will be taken will be efficient. The proposed use is not wasteful and will be limited to efficient application rates. We also consider that the proposed use is efficient in terms of 'allocative efficiency' (using water where it has greatest value).”

Table 17: Assessment in relation to Water Use Efficiency Target

Option Water use efficiency

Info quality

Comment


2 4

2. Waiāniwaniwa River 2 4

35 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-part-06-280510.pdf


49

7. Irrigated land area


7.1.1. Priority outcomes o Thriving communities and sustainable economies

• Sustainable and productive land use • Energy security is increased Secure water supply to provide a target of 95% reliability for irrigation

7.1.2. Recommendations 2.3 The upper central plains are supplied with surface water for irrigation to replace existing deep groundwater supply.



consent.


• Is used in conjunction with an audited self-management and extension programme. • if this level of intensification fits within the envelope of nutrient limits for water quality


• Infrastructure is future proofed, including the ability to harness the effects of climate change projections.

• Water is provided first to the Selwyn Waihora Zone • The reliability of supply is high enough to incentivise surface water to replace groundwater, and

meet the target of 95% reliability • The cost of development is economic for developers and water users

7.2 Assessment scale for Irrigated land area Target Under the CWMS Irrigated Land Area target the 2010 goal is “no reduction in irrigated land area in Canterbury or in overall reliability.” The assessment scale in Table 18 considers both factors. ZIP Recommendation 2.6 also states “the cost of development is economic for developers and water users”. Storage ideas are not sufficiently advanced at this stage for the economic viability issue to be assessed.

Table 18: Assessment scale for the Irrigated Land Area Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Reduction in area

irrigated and/or large reduction in the reliability of supply of existing users

Reduction in the reliability of supply of existing users

No increased area and no change in reliability

Small to moderate increase (<20,000ha) in area irrigated and overall increase

Large increase (>20,000ha) in area irrigated and overall increase in reliability of supply

50

in reliability of supply

7.3 Assessment of options in relation to Irrigated land area target The Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) lists as a priority outcome: “Secure water supply to provide a target of 95% reliability for irrigation”. The Central Plains Water project is stated as potentially providing run-of-river reliability in the low 50% for its fully consented scheme (<= 30,000 ha additional irrigated area). Even if access to some of the potential 100 Mm3 in Lake Coleridge eventuates, additional stored water (up to 250 Mm3 in total) may still be required to meet this target.

Table 19: Assessment in relation to Irrigated Land Area Target

Option Irrigated land area

Info quality

Comment


1 3


51

8. Energy security and efficiency



Energy security is increased

8.1.2. Recommendations 2.3 The upper central plains are supplied with surface water for irrigation to replace existing deep groundwater supply.



consent.



• Increased energy security is achieved

8.2 Assessment scale for Energy Security and Efficiency target area We have followed the approach of Golder (2010) who incorporated all electricity supply and demand factors into a single set of criteria by assessing net increase or decrease in electricity supplied to the national grid by hydro generation, after the supply and/or demand from the scheme is accounted for. “Supply” includes the potential for new generation, if generation opportunities have been identified within an option. The assessment scale is a measure of the overall change in electrical output as a result of the proposed option.

Irrigation development is assumed to require about 4-5 MW or 16-20 GWh p.a. of electricity generation per 10,000 ha to power pumps (Meridian Energy Ltd 2010 and 2011). The re-allocation of deep groundwater supply to reliable surface water supply is expected to save 0.68 kW/ha and 1,700 kWh/ha p.a. (Aqualinc, 2010).

Table 20: Assessment scale for the Energy Security and Efficiency target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Large net

reduction in contributions of hydro generation (>30 GWh)

Net reduction in contributions of hydro generation (0 - 30 GWh)

No change in contributions of hydro generation

Net increase in contributions of hydro generation (0 - 30 GWh)

Unknown net increase

Large net increase in contributions of hydro generation (>30 GWh)

52

8.3 Assessment of options in relation to Energy Security and Efficiency Target The ZIP includes “energy security is increased” as a priority outcome. Using the figures of Aqualinc (2010), the potential re-allocation of 30,000 ha deep groundwater supply to reliable surface water supply through the proposed Central Plains Water project is expected to save 20.4 MW and 51 GWh p.a.. Storage with no net energy loss that can be linked with new hydro generation such as the proposed Lake Coleridge canal can provide further net energy gain. Such storage could be placed in the Selwyn-Waihora foothills and/or the upper plains in the vicinity of the CPW headrace. Some pumping (input or output) may be required for such storages, but this could be more than compensated for by energy generation through the remainder of the system. Gravity fed tunnel and pumped options were considered for the large Waiāniwaniwa reservoir proposed as part of the 2006 Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme consent application (e.g., URS, 2006). A gravity fed option would be unlikely for the smaller (20-60 Mm3) Waiāniwaniwa reservoir ideas considered as part of this assessment. The amount of energy required for pumped storage is unknown at this stage but is not expected to exceed the gains from re-allocation of deep groundwater supplies (e.g., URS, 2006 states a maximum pumping capacity of 20 m3/s and a maximum pumping head of 55 m for the 280 Mm3 reservoir would require a pump station of approximately 13.8 MW capacity.)

Table 21: Assessment in relation to Energy Security and Efficiency Target

Option Net hydro generation

Info quality

Comment


2

2. Waiāniwaniwa River 2

1 to 2

1 to 2

53

9 Regional and national economies



• Sustainable and productive land use • Energy security is increased • Secure water supply to provide a target of 95% reliability for irrigation

9.1.2. Recommendations 2.4 New surface water applied, is first made available to the existing irrigated land area and:


consent.


• Is used in conjunction with an audited self-management and extension programme. • if this level of intensification fits within the envelope of nutrient limits for water quality.



• Infrastructure is considered as part of an integrated Canterbury wide concept to achieve the best CWMS outcomes.

• The cost of development is economic for developers and water users.

9.2 Assessment scale for Regional and National Economies target area We have followed the approach of Golder (2010) and used an assessment scale based on economic activity.

Table 22: Assessment scale for the Regional and National Economies Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Significant

decline in economic activity

Minor decline in economic activity

No change to current economic activity

Minor increase in economic activity

Significant increase in economic activity

9.3 Assessment in relation to Regional and National Economies target area Harris, Butcher and Smith (2006) estimated the economic contribution of the Opuha dam and irrigation scheme. Their study has provided the basis for estimating the likely economic contribution of water storage and irrigation development proposals. In general terms the economic contribution is proportional to the area irrigated and we have assumed this relationship in our assessment of economic activity. That is, options that substantially increase irrigated area are assessed as significantly increasing economic activity locally, in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone and in the region.

54

More recent economic modelling by Landcare Research (Samarasinge et al. 2011) indicates that nutrient load targets (in the Hurunui District) can be met with only modest decrease in total net revenue. It is unclear at this time whether this conclusion also applies in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone. The assessment of economic contribution assumes that all the options are affordable. That is, no allowance is made for the economic cost of unaffordable options. Section 11 considers economic viability of the options, but concludes that insufficient information is currently available to complete an assessment.

The Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) lists as a priority outcome: “thriving communities and sustainable economies” which includes a focus on sustainable and productive land use, increased energy security and 95% reliability for irrigation. Full realisation of CPW scheme benefits requires water storage to meet reliability targets. Widely differing estimates of net welfare gain were provided to the CPW hearing36.The CPW hearing decision refers to economic benefits as follows:

“In view of the reduced scale of the modified scheme, and the reduced extent of adverse impacts associated with it, we no longer think that the debate regarding the scale of benefits is critical. We think that it is sufficient that we be satisfied (as we are) that there will be significant economic benefits from the scheme” (S1.8). “We are satisfied that the amended scheme, albeit producing lower benefits than the original, is still viable and considerably more affordable for participants than the original scheme. We are satisfied that there are likely to be significant net benefits if the scheme is built. If the likely benefits are insignificant it is unlikely that the scheme will get built” (S1.16)37.

A recent assessment for the Selwyn-Waihora sub-Regional chapter of the Land and Water Regional Plan (Harris, 2013) concluded that full development of the CPW scheme would increase Regional GDP by approximately $330 million over the baseline scenario.

Table 23: Assessment in relation to Economic Contribution of the Options

Option Economic contribution

Info quality

Comment


2 4


36 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceTimothyHazledine.pdf http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/34Phil_Donnell_BOE.PDF http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/34Philip_Donnelly_S42A.pdf 37 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/cpw-decision-part-03-280510.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceTimothyHazledine.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/34Phil_Donnell_BOE.PDF

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/34Philip_Donnelly_S42A.pdf


55

10. Local Communities

10.1. Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme and Regional Implementation Programme – Issues and Recommendations


10.1.2. RIP Recommendations

RI.4.2 Facilitate multi-party co-operation on appraisal of water supply reservoir feasibility in the Selwyn-Waihora Zone

RI.4.3 Encourage developers to engage with landowners at an early stage as part of a dialogue with Zone Committees

10.2. Assessment scale for Local Communities target Infrastructure options may impact, positively or negatively, on local communities in two main ways:

• Indirectly through changes to the viability and vibrancy of the local community(ies). This may be measured through school rolls, access to health services, number of sports clubs, and the population of small rural towns;

• Directly from the impact of infrastructure on people’s homes and properties including from inundation following creation of a water storage reservoir or construction of canals, loss of transport connections or imposition of new “nuisance” impacts such as dust from exposed lake margins.

Table 24: Assessment scale for the Local Communities Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning relative to Vibrant & viable local communities

Significant decline in viability and vibrancy of local communities

Decline in viability and vibrancy of local communities

Neutral Increase in viability and vibrancy of local communities

Significant increase in viability and vibrancy of local communities

Meaning relative to direct social impact of development

Significant adverse direct impact of infrastructure

Adverse direct impact of infrastructure

Neutral Beneficial direct impact of infrastructure

Significant beneficial direct impact of infrastructure

10.3. Assessment of options in relation to Local Communities target Local Community Values

The evidence of Di Lucas to the CPWES hearing states “35. I assess the Malvern Hills heritage landscape of Homebush, Coalgate and Waiāniwaniwa to encompass these factors and to be of at least regional significance (as per the RPS Ch. 20.4), a matter of national importance (s. 6(f)), and to exhibit important amenity characteristics (s.7(c)).”38 “Social, economic and amenity impacts on the Coalgate and Waiāniwaniwa Valley communities” was one of the CPWES commissioners’ reasons for stating that CPWES

38 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceDiLucas.pdf


56

without the Waiāniwaniwa reservoir would have “less adverse effects”.39 These issues would need to be addressed if any smaller Waiāniwaniwa reservoir was considered.

The Wairiri Valley was also considered as the site of a storage reservoir, as part of the CPWES, but was not the preferred option taken to the consent hearing. One of the key reasons for not pursuing this option was that State Highway 77 would have to be rerouted. Strong local views in opposition to the original large Wairiri reservoir (e.g., evidence of Gordon Dennis40) have been submitted and similar sentiments have been echoed more recently in parliament41.

Local concerns around proximity to infrastructure could well have increased in recent years in the upper catchment following the September 2010 earthquake.

Archaeological sites

Figure 11 presents archaeological sites currently registered with the New Zealand Archaeological Association42. Archaeological sites are protected by the Historic Places Act (1993). Section 10 of the Historic Places Act (1993) states that an authority is required from the Trust if there is ‘reasonable cause’ to suspect that an archaeological site (recorded or unrecorded) may be damaged, modified or destroyed in the course of any activity. Two particular sites of interest are numbered on Figure 11 as follows:

1. This site is located in the Wairiri Valley and could be affected by a large reservoir in the valley. 2. These sites are located near where storage reservoirs connected to the proposed CPW intake canal could be situated.

The foothills of the Waiāniwaniwa Valley also contain a number of clusters of cultural sites and historic mines (half shaded squares). Figure 12 provides additional detail for this area. It suggests that the original large dam concept (withdrawn in 2009) avoids key archaeological sites and a smaller reservoir situated a couple of kilometres further up the valley may place the reservoir even further from these sites.

Table 25: Assessment in relation to Local Community Target Areas

Option Community vibrancy/ viability

Direct impact of development

Info quality

Comment


1 Short term (<5y) & local -2

2+

Otherwise 1


1 Short term (<5y) & local -2

2+ 1. Main issues for Coalgate & Glentunnel

Otherwise 1

39 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/Minute7FullMinute.pdf 40 http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceGordonPoleDennis.pdf 41 http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/mojo-mathers-maiden-speech-house 42 http://nzaa.eaglegis.co.nz/NZAAPublic/


http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/HearingEvidenceGordonPoleDennis.pdf

http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/mojo-mathers-maiden-speech-house

http://nzaa.eaglegis.co.nz/NZAAPublic/

Figure 11. New Zealand Archaeological Association registered archaeological sites.

1

2

58

Figure 12. NZAA registered archaeological site information for Waiāniwaniwa reservoir proposed for CPWES (reservoir proposal withdrawn in 2009).

59

11. Multiple uses

11.1 Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme –Recommendations 2.6 Any water storage development in the Selwyn Waihora Zone has the following desired characteristics:

• It is able to enhance Te Waihora, the Waikirikiri / Selwyn, lowland streams, hapua, and braided rivers, in accordance with the CWMS principles

• Native biodiversity corridors and new wetland creation are conditions of development • The natural character, ecosystems, habitats, and recreational opportunities of braided

rivers are protected or enhanced • Any mixing of waters is addressed with Te Taumutu and Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. • Infrastructure for water storage and distribution in the upper Zone is considered as a

part of an integrated catchment management approach with infrastructure for Kaitiakitanga and Te Waihora

• Infrastructure is considered as part of an integrated Canterbury wide concept to achieve the best CWMS outcomes

• Infrastructure is future proofed, including the ability to harness the effects of climate change projections

• Water is provided first to the Selwyn Waihora Zone • Surface water supply contracts are part of an Audited Self-Management framework

developed to provide for optimum water and nutrient management • The reliability of supply is high enough to incentivise surface water to replace

groundwater, and meet the target of 95% reliability • The cost of development is economic for developers and water users • Increased energy security is achieved

11.2 Assessment scale for Multiple Use target area New water infrastructure can be important for delivering many of the CWMS targets, not just those relating to irrigation and economic development. Water infrastructure can also address community water supply, hydro generation, recreational, and environmental outcomes. Therefore it is important to consider multiple uses and credit must be given to multiple uses particularly where the multiple uses align with the first order priorities in the CWMS (environment, community water supplies and customary use).

Table 26: Assessment scale for Multiple Use Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Significant

reduction in the multiple uses of water

Reduction in the multiple uses of water

Neutral Increase in the multiple uses of water

Significant increase in the multiple uses of water

60

11.3 Assessment of options in relation to Multiple Uses target area The multiple use recommendations of the ZIP with respect to water storage in the zone are presented in Section 10.1 above. The key difference between water storage areas is likely to be their effect on energy security. Storage that can be gravity fed and is linked to a hydro-generation system will perform better than pumped storage or storage that is too far down the plains to provide generation peaking opportunities. Foothills areas near the proposed TrustPower canal from Lake Coleridge are likely to perform the best with respect to this target.

Table 27: Assessment in relation to Multiple Use Target Area Option Multiple Uses Info

quality Comment


2 4


61

12 Economic viability

12.1 Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme –Recommendations 2.6 Any water storage development will have the following characteristics:

• The cost of development is economic for developers and water users.

12.2 Assessment scale for Economic viability Target The economic viability of a project and its affordability (cost/ha) for water users are critical factors in assessing the overall attractiveness of an option.

Table 28: Assessment scale for Economic Viability Target

Scale -2 -1 0 1 2 Meaning Not economically

viable with significant affordability gap

Not economically viable with small affordability gap

Neutral Economically viable though only affordable for high-value land uses

Economically viable and affordable for a wide range of land uses

12.3 Assessment of options in relation to Economic viability target Costings are not available for any options due to the early stage of concept development. In general, foothills storage is expected to be cheaper on a constructed volume basis due to the use of natural topography.

Table 29: Assessment in relation to Economic Viability Target

Option Economic Viability

Info quality

Comment


N/A 0 1. Required information not yet available

2. Waiāniwaniwa River N/A 0 1. Required information not yet available

62

References Aqualinc Research Ltd (2010) CWMS Energy Targets Identification and Preliminary Assessment of Options, 45p.

Chadderton, W. L., D. J. Brown and R. T. Stephens 2004. Identifying freshwater ecosystems of national importance for biodiversity: criteria, methods, and candidate list of nationally important rivers. Discussion Document. Wellington, N.Z. Dept. of Conservation: 112p.

Dyanna Jolly Consulting (2005) Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme: An assessment of impacts on Ngāi Tahu values. 58 p.

Golder (2008) Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Mitigation Plan for Canterbury Mudfish http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/25bRichardAlliboneMitigationPlanforCanterburyMudfishFinal.pdf Golder (2010) CWMS Preliminary Strategic Assessment: Waitaki-South Canterbury Options http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cwms-strategic-assessment-waitaki-south-canterbury.pdf

Harris, S., Butcher, G., and Smith, W. (2006). The Opuha Dam: An ex post study of its impacts on the provincial economy and community. Aoraki Development Trust, Ministry of Economic Development and Federated Farmers.

Harris, S. (2013). Technical Report on the Economic impacts in Selwyn Te Waihora limit setting process. Report prepared for Environment Canterbury (DRAFT 8 March 2013). 21p.

Meridian Energy Ltd. (2010). Hurunui and Waiau Rivers – Hydro potential. Presentation by Brian Elwood to Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee 08 November 2010.

Meridian Energy Ltd. (2011). Meridian Energy and Ngāi Tahu Properties Presentation on Draft ZIP to Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee members19 May 2011.

NIWA (2008), Projected climate and river flow for the Rangitata catchment for 2040, NIWA Client Report CHC2008-097, 36p.

NIWA (2011), Projected climate and river flow for the Waimakariri catchment for 2040s and 2090s, NIWA Client Report CHCH2011-025, 54 p.

NIWA (2012), Uncertainty of climate change projections for Waimakariri flows, NIWA Client Report CHCH2012-122, 18p.

Samarasinghe, O, Daigneault, N., Greenhaigh, S and Sinclair, R. (2011). Modelling economic impacts of Nutrient Reduction Policies in the Hurunui Catchment, Canterbury. Paper prepared for presentation at the New Zealand Association of Economists Annual Meeting, Wellington, New Zealand, 29 June – 1 July 2011.

Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme (2011) http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/cw-selwyn-waihora-zip.pdf

URS (2006) Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme: Assessment of Environmental Effects for Resource Consent Applications to Canterbury Regional Council, Report 42156547.66140\AEE R001C.

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/25bRichardAlliboneMitigationPlanforCanterburyMudfishFinal.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Consent%20Notifications/25bRichardAlliboneMitigationPlanforCanterburyMudfishFinal.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cwms-strategic-assessment-waitaki-south-canterbury.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/cwms-strategic-assessment-waitaki-south-canterbury.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/cw-selwyn-waihora-zip.pdf

Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngocong
View:	220 times
Download:	7 times