BEFORE WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND WESTLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER of applications by TrustPower Limited for resource consents for the McKays Creek and Kaniere Forks Hydro Electric Power Schemes
DECISION OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND WESTLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
26 July 2012
Commissioners: Terry Archer (Chair)(Westport) Sharon McGarry (Christchurch) Mike Garland (Christchurch
CONTENTS Paragraph
Chapter 1: Introduction Summary of decision……………………………………………………………………………...1 Background …..……………………………………………………………………………………3 Hearing procedure………………………………………………………………………………...9 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………..14
Chapter 2: The application Description of the proposed activity……………………………………………………………15 Consents sought…………………………………………………………………………………23 Notification and submissions ……………………………………………………………...... 24 Summary of issues raised………………………………………………………………………29
Chapter 3: Summary of evidence and submissions Applicant’s opening submissions……………………………………………………………….30 Summary of evidence presented on behalf of the applicant…………………………...... 34 Submissions and evidence on behalf of submitters……………………………………...... 49 Applicant’s right of reply………………………………………………………………………...59
Chapter 4: S.42A Planning Report West Coast Regional Council and Westland District Council joint s.42A Planning Report ..…………………………………………………………………………...... 63
Chapter 5: Principal issues and effects Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………73 Hydrology Effects………………………………………………………………………………...75 Water Quality …………………………………………………………………………………….78 Water Quantity……………………………………………………………………………………93 - Kaniere River……………………………………………………………………………………95 - Lake Kaniere………………………………………………………………………...... 117 Lakeshore Effects…………………………………………………………………………...... 157 Cultural Effects………………………………………………………………………………….164 Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects……………………………..167
Recreation Effects………………………………………………………………………...... 175 Terrestrial Ecology Effects…………………………………………………………………….180 Aquatic Ecology Effects………………………………………………………………………..206 Heritage Effects…………………………………………………………………………………241 Positive Effects………………………………………………………………………………….246
Chapter 6: Main findings of Principal Issues Summary ………………………………………………………………………………….……. 253
i Chapter 7: Statutory provisions Part 6 RMA: • Overview Section 104D ……………………………………………………………………..254 • Section 104……………………………………………………………………………………257 • Section 105 and 107 ………………………………………………………………………...261 West Coast Regional Plans……………………………………………………………..…….266 Westland District Plan…………………………………………………………………..……..270 National Environmental Standards……………………………………………………..……272 Other Regulations……………………………………………………………………………...275 National Policy Statements………………………………………………………………..….276.
Chapter 8: Part 2 Matters Matters of National Importance –Section 6………………………………………………….278 Other Matters – Section 7……………………………..……………………………………...283
Treaty of Waitangi – Section 8…………………………………………………………..……293 Purpose –Section 5………………………………………………………………………..…..294
Chapter 9: Determination Decision …………………………………………………………………………………..……305 Consent duration and Lapsing Period…………………………………………………..…..307
Chapter 10: Consents and conditions …………………………………………………... 308
Chapter 11: Appendices Plans List of submitters and Summary of Issues
ii Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Summary of Decision
1. TrustPower Limited (the applicant) has applied to the West Coast Regional and Westland District Councils for a number of resource consents for land use, water permits, and discharge permits associated with the re-consenting of the existing McKays Creek and Kaniere Hydro Electric Power Schemes (HEPS), together with constructing, maintaining, operating and enhancing the McKays Creek HEPS. The schemes are located approximately 16 kilometres (km) inland from Hokitika, on the Lake Kaniere outlet and Kaniere River.
2. After considering all of the evidence presented to the Committee during the course of the hearing, we have determined that the applicant, TrustPower Limited, has made its case for the re-consenting of the scheme and for the proposed upgrade of the McKays Creek HEPS. Details of the resource consents granted together with the consent conditions imposed are contained within Chapters 9 and 10 of this decision.
Background
3. Nestled below Mount Graham, the Newton and Browning Ranges, and located approximately 16 km inland from Hokitika, on the West Coast of the South Island, lies Lake Kaniere. This lake is a naturally formed lake surrounded by indigenous bush clad hills. The lake, which has a water catchment area of approximately 52.3 km 2, has been utilised by the early settlers as a source of water for gold mining and later hydro electricity generation. The surrounding Kaniere settlement is sparsely populated with a normally resident population of 462 (as at the 2006 census). Residential development at Lake Kaniere consists of permanent residences and holiday homes which have been developed to a larger extent towards the northwestern end of the lake in the vicinity of Hans Bay and Sunny Bight.
4. The Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek HEPS date back to 1874 with the construction of a water race for gold sluicing between Lake Kaniere and Hokitika. The initial Kaniere Forks power station was commissioned in 1909 and extended to incorporate the McKays Creek scheme in 1931. Since that time both schemes have operated continuously and more recently under the ownership of TrustPower, who purchased the schemes in 1999.
5. The water for both schemes is drawn from Lake Kaniere via a control gate. A 9 km long water race (much of it timber lined) supplies the Kaniere Forks HEPS, with the water then being returned to the Kaniere River but below the intake weir for the McKays Creek scheme. The McKays HEPS water intake point is at McKays weir on the Kaniere River approximately 1.3 km above the Kaniere Forks scheme return discharge, and receives additional water from Blue Bottle Creek approximately mid-way between the weir and power station. This water passes
1 through a series of races, tunnels and pipes to the McKays power station before being returned to the Kaniere River.
6. TrustPower Limited currently operates the Kaniere and McKays HEPS within the Kaniere River Valley pursuant to a number of existing resource consents which were granted for 25 year periods and have since expired on the 26 th May 2011. The applicant initially made application to the West Coast Regional and Westland District Councils on 25 November 2010 to renew those consents and to enhance both the existing schemes.
7. The existing schemes continue to operate under the provisions of section (s.) 124 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or the Act) in that applications to renew the impending expiration of the consents, were made within 6 months before they expired.
8. On average, the long term hydrology records show that approximately 7 cubic metres per second (cumecs or m 3/s) of water flows out of Lake Kaniere. The former consents allowed water takes from the Kaniere River of 1m 3/s to the Kaniere Forks HEPS and 5m 3/s to the McKays HEPS within a defined operating range. This operating range required a minimum residual flow down the Kaniere River of 0.2m 3/s (200 litres per second (l/s)) and was required to be controlled to ensure that no water was taken for electricity generation when lake water levels receded to a staff gauge level of -0.2m. This water volume is sufficient to generate 0.43 Megawatts (MW) and produces an annual average of nearly 4 Gigawatt hours (GWh), which is sufficient electricity to supply approximately 1450 households with their annual needs.
Hearing Procedure
9. Following public notification of the proposal, a joint hearing of both the West Coast Regional Council (WCRC) and Westland District Council (WDC) was convened to consider the sought resource consents under the provisions of s.102 of the RMA, with the WCRC assuming the administrative role for the hearing. The Hearing Commissioners, who were jointly appointed by the two Councils, and given the necessary delegations to hear and decide the applications were: • Mr Terry Archer , WCRC Councillor, Westport (Chair) • Ms Sharon McGarry , Resource Management Consultant, Christchurch; and • Mr Mike Garland , Resource Management Consultant, Christchurch; all of whom are accredited commissioners under the provisions of s.39A and B of the RMA.
10. The hearing was held at the Beachfront Hotel in Hokitika commencing on 6 June 2012 and was adjourned on 13 June 2012, awaiting receipt of further information. The requested information together with the applicant’s closing legal submission (Right of Reply) and a set of final proposed conditions was provided to us in electronic form on 23 June 2012. Additional information was requested and provided on 5 July 2012.
2
11. At the commencement of the hearing the Chair introduced the parties, outlined the hearing procedure and asked if there were any procedural or jurisdictional matters to be raised. None were raised.
12. The Commissioners undertook a site visit on 5 June 2012 and were guided by Mr Jim McDermott a local manager for the applicant, but who took no part in the hearing. We visited Sunny Bight, the control gates and water race, the lake outlet weir, and Hans Bay at Lake Kaniere. We also visited the Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek power stations and McKays weir, the Wards Road site, the Blue Bottle Creek intake point and viewed the existing water flume, water race, siphon, and tunnel serving the McKays Creek power station and area of the proposed tunnel bypass options.
13. The hearing concluded on 6 July 2012.
Acknowledgements
14. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions and help received from the applicant, counsel, witnesses, submitters, officers and council staff throughout the hearing process. In particular we thank all parties who presented evidence to us during the hearing, for the manner in which they conducted themselves. Similarly, we also wish to express our appreciation to Mr McDermott for his helpful information and guided tour during the site visit.
Chapter 2: THE APPLICATION
Description of the proposed activity
15. The original applications lodged to both Councils included upgrade to both the Kaniere Forks scheme and McKays Creek scheme together with the continuance of operation and maintenance of both HEPS. It was on this basis that the consents were publicly notified.
16. However, on 29 February 2012 the applicant advised the Councils that due to some difficulties encountered regarding negotiations of a land package, they had decided to place the Kaniere Forks HEPS enhancement proposals ‘on hold’, but would continue with the proposal to include a ‘fish pass’ to the Kaniere Forks scheme.
17. Notwithstanding the parts of the applications placed ‘on hold’, the remaining applications are fully described in the documentation lodged by the applicant and will not be repeated in full here, but are shown in general detail below and more specifically under consents granted at Chapter 10. In summary, a combined total of 23 consents have been lodged with the WCRC and WDC to continue to operate and maintain both the Kaniere Forks and the McKays Creek HEPS and to construct, extend and modify by enhancement, the McKays HEPS.
3 18. Water for the Kaniere HEPS is taken from the outlet of Lake Kaniere at a rate of 1 m3/s and passes through approximately 9 km of races to a power station before being discharged back into the Kaniere River. The only additional consents sought at the power station location, is to install a fish bypass to provide better fish access and passage. This scheme will continue to generate 3.75 GWh of electricity per annum.
19. Currently the McKays HEPS takes up to 5 m 3/s of water from the McKays weir on the Kaniere River (above the Kaniere HEPS point of discharge) and up to 1 m 3/s of water from Blue Bottle Creek through a series of water races to a second power station, before discharging back into the Kaniere River. This scheme currently generates 8 GWh of electricity per annum. Combined, both schemes generate 1.53 MW with an annual average of 11.75 GWh per annum.
20. The proposed key water volume upgrade to the McKays HEPS, include increasing the take of water from the Kaniere River from 5m 3/s to 8m 3/s and continuing to take 1m 3/s from Blue Bottle Creek, which will enable generation of an additional 1.4 MW resulting in a combined generation capacity of approximately 20 GWh per annum, which is an increase of approximately 8 GWh per annum over the current generation capacity.
21. Part of the proposed McKays Creek HEPS enhancement includes development of a head pond above the penstock to the power station, and the possible development of an alternative tunnel bypass water race, if further investigations on the integrity and enlargement of the existing tunnel show that ongoing use of the existing tunnel is no longer feasible. It is proposed that if investigations on the condition of the tunnel show that upgrade work on the exiting tunnel cannot be undertaken safely and economically, then one of the two possible tunnel bypass options will be selected. Consent is sought to enable the applicant the flexibility to implement all three options (i.e. tunnel upgrade or one of two bypass route options.
22. The application included the an outline of the resource consents sought, diagrammatic representations of the proposal, an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) which incorporated an assessment of the existing environment, a detailed description of the scheme proposal, consultation undertaken, the statutory framework, and proposed conditions. The AEE was accompanied by the following additional documents: • Civil review of Wards Road enhancement – on hold • Hydrology Assessment • Aquatic Ecology Assessment • Terrestrial Ecology Assessment • Landscape Assessment • Heritage Assessment • Scheme Drawings and Figures • Consultation
4 Consents Sought
23. The following summary of activities outlines the general nature of the resource consents sought with a full description of individual consents granted at Chapter 9:
WCRC Land Use Consents : • To undertake vegetation clearance and earthworks, including works within riparian margins, associated with the construction/enhancement, operation, repair and maintenance of the Kaniere and McKays HEPS. • To disturb the bed of watercourses and to erect, place, repair and maintain structures within the bed of watercourses and gravel extraction associated with the construction/enhancement, operation, repair and maintenance of the McKays HEPS.
WCRC Water Permits : • To take, use, dam and divert water from Lake Kaniere, the Kaniere River and Blue Bottle Creek associated with the construction/enhancement, operation and maintenance of the Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek HEPS. The dewatering of any decommissioned water races and the McKays Creek power station.
WCRC Discharge Permits: • To discharge water and contaminants (sediment and aquatic herbicide) into water associated with the construction/enhancement, operation, repair and maintenance of the Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek HEPS. • To discharge contaminants into air, including dust, vehicle emissions and other fugitive emissions associated with the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of the McKays Creek HEPS.
WDC Land Use Consent: • All activities associated with the construction, operation, maintenance and repair of the enhanced McKays Creek HEPS for hydro electricity generating purposes, including: Construction of infrastructure and buildings including additions/enhancements to an existing McKays Creek power station. Clearance of indigenous vegetation within and outside riparian margins and earthworks. Undertaking construction activities in accordance with the New Zealand Standard for Construction Noise NZS6803:1999 “Acoustics- Construction Noise”.
Notification and Submissions
24. The applications were notified in the Hokitika Guardian on 12 August 2011 and in the Greymouth Star on 13 August 2011. The submission period closed on 9 September 2011.
5 25. A total of 136 submitters made submissions on the applications. Eighty nine of these submissions related solely to WCRC consents and four related solely to the WDC consent. Forty three submissions were received as ‘joint’ submissions to both the WCRC and WDC consents.
26. Of the 136 submitters, 59 indicated they wished to be heard in relation to their submission, while 75 indicated they did not wish to be heard and two did not state. Those who made their submissions on a ‘pro forma’ template and did not indicate if they wished to be heard were counted as not wishing to be heard.
27. Due to the amendments made to the application after notification, and the observations made that that many of the issues raised in these submissions related exclusively to the proposed Kaniere Forks HEPS which were ‘put on hold’, the Councils sent a letter to these submitters which outlined the changes to the application and asked the submitters if they wished to be heard in relation to the McKays Creek HEPS proposed upgrades only. In response to this letter, eight submitters indicated that they no longer wished to be heard.
28. A number of submitters who indicated they did wish to be heard, were allocated speaking time, but subsequently decided that they did not wish to be heard. Included in Chapter 11 of this decision is a list of submitters which notes the submitters who appeared at the hearing and those who stated they wished to be heard.
During the hearing the following submitters withdrew their wish to be heard: Fish and Game New Zealand, West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (written statement provided), Westland District Council and Mrs Jackie Gurden.
Summary of Issues Raised
29. Part of the s.42A report contained an evaluation of all the original submissions raised. This table is inserted below, but it should be noted that submissions relating to the applications regarding the proposed Kaniere Forks HEPS upgrade, which have been ‘put on hold’, have been deleted for clarity.
Category Matters Raised Construction Activities • Disturbance of the bed of waterbodies should not be allowed. • Potential impacts on private property. • No materials to be excavated. • No mitigation and management for construction activities. Electricity • Other consented schemes are likely to supply enough energy to the coast for the near future. • Will not necessarily improve energy security or reduce electricity costs in the area. • Enhancements are only a profit gathering exercise by selling excess power back to the grid. Existing/Expired resource • Current consents have expired. consents • Current consents authorise the lake level to be reduced to the level proposed in new application but in reality that level has 6 never been reached. What can be considered as the permitted baseline? • The expired consents should be renewed but for the lake levels experienced to date not the applied for level that has never been reached. Aquatic Ecosystems • Damaging lake ecosystems by lowering lake levels. • Freshwater mussels may be affected by rapidly changing lake levels. • Eels will have much further to reach the bush. • Effects on fish life and loss of habitat. • Minimum residual flows in the lake and river not sufficient. • Role of Kaniere River as a habitat for fish not just a corridor. • Effects on trout and salmon habitat and migration. • Potential effects on tributaries such as Blue Bottle Creek. Terrestrial Ecology • Effects on bird life. • Clearance of native vegetation. • Destruction of native fauna and habitat. • Affects habitat for endangered bird species. • Could adversely affect wetland areas and dry them out. • Weed incursion. Discharges • Release of chemicals (aquatic herbicide) will effect habitats Landscape/Amenity • Effects on a scenic area featured in holiday brochures. • Drop in lake levels will result in unsightly banks, mud and rotting aquatic vegetation. • Affect outlook from properties in the area. • Shingle beaches well away from waters edge at low water levels and will not be able to adjust to rapid changes in water level. • Odour from rotting aquatic vegetation. • Beaches may slump as water laden beach material may not release its water as quick as the lake level changes causing it to slump into the lake. • Effects on tourism and power boating events. • Natural character of the Kaniere River also adversely affected. • Lake Kaniere should be considered as an outstanding natural feature and landscape. • Kaniere River will be reduced to a trickle. • Aesthetic qualities of water race and associated walking track. Heritage/Culture • Heritage will be altered/destroyed • Adverse impacts on the mauri of the lake. Recreational • Effects on swimming, sailing, kayaking, fishing, water skiing, power boating and jet skiing on both the lake and river. • Boat ramps and jetty will become unusable. • Effects on boat racing. • Aquatic weeds closer to the surface may block jet boat units. • Will cause issues with the ski course on the lake due to fluctuating levels. • Regular boating, skiing and fishing competitions would be disrupted.
7
Environmental • Possible increases in contaminants and bacteria as a result of lower lake levels. • Effects of rotting aquatic weeds. • Potential for algal blooms in both lake and river due to lower flows. • Increase in water temperature affects aquatic habitats in Kaniere River. • Invasion by pest species. Safety • Swimming hazard from drop off at lakes edge. • Danger to boats from exposed rocks and logs, navigation. • In an emergency it would be difficult to reach the shore safely in many places. Property • Reduction in value of properties. • Effects on property water supplies sourced from the lake. • Potential effects on Hokitika community water supply. • Introduce solar water heating as an alternative to using electricity. • Shallow wells of lake front properties may fail.
Chapter 3: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Applicant’s Opening Submission
30. Mr Jason Welsh, legal counsel TrustPower, presented the applicant’s opening submissions and called 12 witnesses. He was assisted by Ms Helen Andrews. Mr Welsh outlined the history of the existing HEPS, provided a background on the present applications and explained why the Kaniere Forks HEPS proposed upgrade was being placed ‘on hold’. He overviewed the scope of submissions and TrustPower Limited’s response.
31. Mr Welsh summarised the proposal, the status of the activities for which consent is sought, the terms of consent sought and requested a lapsing period of 10 years. He listed the witnesses he intended calling and the scope of their evidence. Mr Welsh provided a legal assessment of the applications under the RMA and provided a legal position against many of the issues which had been raised.
32. In particular, Mr Welsh explained the applicant’s proposed intention, after discussion with stakeholders and submitters, to introduce a seasonal operating regime which would ensure that Lake Kaniere would be maintained at a higher level during the summer months (November to March) when recreational use of the lake was at its highest, with lower levels during the winter months (April to October). The lake levels throughout this decision refer to the staff gauge and relate to a 1.0m reduced level which is the spill level from the lake outlet. The applicant’s proposed intention was that the lake could only be below 0.3m for 20% of the time (including below 0.1m for 10% of the time) during the summer months, and below 0.1m for 20% of the time during the winter months.
8 33. Mr Welsh referred to the applicant’s proffered consent conditions, he noted the supporting comments in the Council Officers’ s.42A report, and made general comment on the submissions received. His principal submission focused on the applicant’s commitment to sound environmental practice, the benefits of the scheme towards meeting Government policy, increased renewable electricity generation, the rigorous assessment of the proposal undertaken by the applicant’s experts, the re-consenting of existing infrastructure, and the scope of the consultation undertaken. In general, he submitted that granting the resource consents as sought would promote the purpose of the RMA under s.5 and would not be contrary to the matters set out in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA.
Summary of Evidence Presented on Behalf of the Applicant 34. Mr Kerry Watson is the Manager – Environment for TrustPower. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Diploma of Teaching and a Certificate in Contemporary Policing. He emphasised that his brief was not given as expert witness but as a manager directly involved with the project. In his evidence he covered the background to the company, its investment in the power schemes and its electricity generation and environmental management philosophy policies and previous compliance track record. 35. Mr Robert Shelton is a Chartered Professional Engineer with a Bachelor of Science (Geology) and a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering). He is a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers NZ, the NZ Geotechnical Society, the NZ Society of Large Dams and the NZ Society for Sustainable Engineering and Science. Mr Shelton is the Project Manager in TrustPower’s Generation Division. His evidence addressed matters relating to the civil engineering design, feasibility construction and standards of the proposals. He described the existing schemes, the relevant design standards and criteria for the project, the hydrology and operational hydraulics, the alternative design options considered, the scheme layout and operation, an assessment of risk and construction methodology. 36. Mr Lennie Palmer is employed by TrustPower Ltd as an Hydrological Engineer. He holds Master of Applied Science (focused in hydrology and water resources) and Bachelor of Science degree, and over 20 years of experience in hydrology and the electricity industry. He was the author of the Hydrology Report 1 which was included with the original application and was peer reviewed by Mr Paul Mitchell of Ryder Consulting. Mr Palmer undertook the hydrological modelling of the existing water abstractions and of the proposed water abstractions to assess actual and potential effects on water levels in Lake Kaniere and water flows in the Kaniere River. In his evidence presented at the hearing, Mr Palmer updated the key outcomes of the hydrology assessment of the existing environment based on the longer period of record now available, and revised the hydrological analysis to reflect the amended application (i.e. without the Kaniere Forks HEPS enhancements). He provided supplementary evidence at the hearing in response to questions and after the hearing was adjourned as directed in our Minute.
1 Appendix B - Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek Power Schemes Re-consenting: Hydrological Study (19 Nov 2010) 9 37. Dr Gregory Ryder is a Water Quality Scientist and Aquatic Ecologist, and Director of Ryder Consulting Limited. He holds Bachelor of Science and Doctorate degrees (Zoology), and has 25 years of experience in freshwater ecology and water quality. Dr Ryder and Ms Ruth Goldsmith were co-authors of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment Report 2 which was included with the original application. Dr Ryder’s evidence summarised the existing information on aquatic values in the area, assessed the potential effects of the proposal on aquatic values, and made recommendations on the mitigation of effects and monitoring. 38. Dr Martin Single is an Environmental Consultant and Director for Shore Processes and Management Limited. He holds a Doctorate degree in Geography (investigating coastal processes and geomorphological change) and has 20 years of experience in science, management and planning of coastal lands and waters. Dr Single undertook an inspection of the shoreline of Lake Kaniere when water levels were about 1.0m and examined photographs of Sunny Bight, Canoe Cove and Hans Bay when the water level was about -0.1m. His evidence addressed the effects of the proposed operating regime on the physical shore environment, and in particular lake shore erosion of Lake Kaniere. 39. Mr Scott Hooson is an Ecologist for Boffa Miskell Limited. He holds Bachelor of Science (Ecology and Geography) and Master of Science (Zoology) degrees and has eight years of experience as an ecologist. Boffa Miskell prepared the Terrestrial Ecology and Avifauna Assessment 3. Mr Hooson undertook six site visits and field investigations, including shoreline surveys of Lake Kaniere, wetland vegetation community mapping, surveys in the MFPS area, assessment of terrestrial bird habitat, assessment of water bird habitat along the Kaniere River, and assessment of faunal habitats for bats, lizards and terrestrial invertebrates. His evidence described the existing ecological environment (with reference to avifauna and terrestrial ecology), summarised the assessment of effects and recommended measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects. 40. Mr Peter Clough is a Senior Economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. He holds Bachelor of Arts (Geography and Land Economy) and Master of Science degrees (Recreational Land Management), and a Post graduate Diploma (Agricultural Economics). He has over 20 years of experience of applied economics research and consulting, specialising in applying economics to the natural environment and public sector. Mr Clough’s evidence addressed the relevance of economic analysis to the RMA, the existing environment and changes to it from the proposal, key components of the proposal from an economic perspective, assessed economic impacts of expenditure on the existing and proposed schemes, the value of electricity generation, and the economic consequences and net benefits of the proposal.
2 Appendix C – McKays Creek/Kaniere Forks Hydroelectric Power Scheme Re-consenting Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects (November 2010) 3 Appendix D – Kaniere Forks/McKays Creek Hydro-Electric Power Scheme – Terrestrial Ecology and Avifauna Assessment (November 2010) 10 41. Dr Rodney Clough is the Director of Clough and Associates Ltd, Heritage Consultants, and holds a Doctorate in Archaeology from the University of London and a Master of Arts (Anthropology) from University of Auckland. He has over 40 years experience in the field of archaeology, and over the past 24 years has largely focused on New Zealand archaeology. His experience extends from lecturing to field studies and reporting over many parts of the country and includes a number of other energy generation projects. In addressing the McKays Creek HEPS, Dr Clough said that this area did not include any pre-1900 elements, but had some heritage value based on its contribution to hydro-electric power generation in the area dating back to the 1930’s. He concluded that the proposed re-consenting of the Kaniere Forks HEPS will have less than minor adverse effects, however the proposed enhancements of McKays Creek HEPS will have some adverse effects on the heritage values. He noted that these effects could be acceptably mitigated, and made recommendations so that overall the effects will be less than minor. 42. Ms Mary Buckland is a Landscape Architect of 39 years’ experience. She holds Diplomas in Horticulture and a Post Graduate Diploma in Landscape Design. Ms Buckland was commissioned by TrustPower Limited to undertake a landscape and natural character assessment of the proposed re-consenting of both the Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek HEPS. She also considered the proposed enhancements of the McKays Creek HEPS. Her evidence covered the existing environment which she subdivided into three categories. ‘Area A’ covered most of Lake Kaniere and Mt Graham and Tuhera. ‘Area B’ incorporated the area to the north-west of the Kaniere River and the lake including part of the Lake Kaniere Reserve. ‘Area C’ was the landscape surrounding the Kaniere Forks and McKays Creek HEPS. Each of these areas displayed different characteristics with ‘Area A’ displaying high natural character, whereas ‘Area B’ had been disturbed in many parts by human activity such as mining and bach settlement. ‘Area C’ included pine forests, some regenerating bush, and extensive areas of weed species. 43. She described the key elements of the proposal from a landscape perspective in terms of the effects from the enhancement of the McKays Creek HEPS – the revised lake level range, increase in river water levels, the provision for minimum residual river flows, repairs, additions and improvements to flumes, canals and weir and power station. These are mostly in her ‘Area C’. She discussed these in terms of the relevant statutory considerations of the RMA, the West Coast Regional Policy Statement (WCRPS), and the Westland District Plan (WDP). She and other TrustPower experts had produced a set of draft conditions which include an Environmental Management Plan and provision for mitigation of indigenous vegetation clearance, particularly related to the proposed tunnel bypass options to replace the existing tunnel. With these conditions applied, she opined that the proposal would have less than minor effects from a visual landscape and natural character perspective. Ms Buckland had produced a number of photographs in a graphics folder some of which illustrated Lake Kaniere at specific lake levels. One of these, provided as Photograph 3 of Figure C3 was incorrectly labelled “Sunny Bight Boat Ramp. Lake Level at -0.1m.” The correct lake level at the time the
11 photographs were taken was 0.62m. She corrected this error in supplementary evidence. 44. Mr Ryan Piddington is a qualified Environmental Scientist and advisor to TrustPower. He has an Honours Degree in Environmental Science. Mr Piddington emphasised that his evidence was given as a TrustPower employee managing the consenting phase of the scheme. In his evidence he outlined the background to the alternatives considered, explained why the Kaniere Forks HEPS enhancements had been placed on hold and the form of consultation undertaken. TrustPower, he said, was committed to engaging in effective and meaningful consultation as a two-way process. 45. Mr Piddington outlined that three phases of consultation were undertaken prior to lodgement of the applications. The first round was conducted in 2009 through individual meetings with key organisations: the two Councils, the Lake Kaniere Property Owners Association, Ng āi Tahu, Ng āti Waewae, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game and NZ Historic Places Trust. The second round was undertaken in 2010. It consisted of re-establishing contact with the key organisations and to arrange further meetings if requested. Further meetings were conducted with Ng āi Tahu, Ng āti Waewae and Department of Conservation (DoC). At the end of 2010, a further phase was conducted primarily to engage with those first phase parties not included in the second phase. Meetings were held with the Councils, DoC, Fish and Game, and Development West Coast. 46. Information was provided to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, Westland Mountain Bike Club and Westland Dairies. In February 2011, a public meeting was held at which point TrustPower had determined the option it wished to progress with. Following lodgement of the applications, meetings were held with the Councils, DoC, Ng āti Waewae and the Kaniere Power Boat Club. The last mentioned meeting was attended by the general public as well. Further public meeting were held in Hokitika and Christchurch. A number of amendments were made as a result of the consultation which included: the recording and mapping of historic features, the introduction of a seasonal operating regime to ensure a higher lake level over the November to March summer period, a hazard survey and proposed extensions to the boat ramps. An agreement had been reached with Fish and Game and consideration would be given to provision of an ‘on line’ lake level indicator so that people could find out whether or not they could launch their boats without travelling to the lake. 47. Mr Mathew Bonis is a qualified and experienced Planning/Resource Management consultant with 16 years of experience. He holds a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning Degree (Hons) and is a Full Member of the NZ Planning Institute. Mr Bonis traversed the legislative considerations that are required for processing the applications drawing together the various expert opinions given in support of the applicant. He concluded that those parts of the project requiring consent as non-complying activities passed both the threshold tests of s.104D of the Act. He explained that there was significant national policy support for the project to be found in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation and the New Zealand Environmental Standards. He outlined 12 comprehensively the support for the project at the regional and local policy level through the Regional Policy Statement documents and the District Plan. Comprehensive and robust conditions had been proposed incorporating concerns raised in submissions and the s.42A report, and concluded that the proposal was consistent with the purpose of s.104 of the Act. 48. Mr Robert Greenaway is a leisure and open space planner qualified in Parks and Recreation Management operating a Nelson based consultancy, Rob Greenaway and Associates. He had been asked to review the recreation and tourism effects of TrustPower’s proposal arising from: • A change in the percentage of time that the lake is allowed to be kept at lower levels within its existing consented range; • An increase in the frequency that areas of beach are exposed; and • Changes in the hydrology of the Kaniere River.
As far as Lake Kaniere is concerned, Mr Greenaway examined the effect on key recreation resources related to boat launching, jetties, swimming, subsurface hazards and water skiing. He recommended several mitigation measures such as the scanning for and marking of underwater hazards, redeveloping the launching ramps, extensions to the Hans Bay jetty and that consideration be given to the placement of one or two swimming platforms. He supported Dr Single’s recommendations. Mr Greenaway considered that recreation on the Kaniere River would be affected very little and that, in fact the ramping rate restriction would be an improvement over the existing situation. Submissions and Evidence on Behalf of Submitters
49. Mr Ian McCann presented a submission in opposition to the application on behalf of himself and his partner Ms Marjolein Koridon. They live at Hans Bay and have been permanent residents since February 2007. In their original submission, they questioned the stated “growing demand due to industrial and commercial development in the area” and the need to increase supply particularly in view of the under construction Amethyst – Hari-Hari scheme and the consented Arnold River scheme. They highlighted the high recreational values of Lake Kaniere, the aquatic ecology of the Kaniere River, the loss of terrestrial ecology, and landscape and natural character effects.
50. At the hearing, Mr McCann focused our attention on potential adverse effects on existing lake levels from increased water abstraction. He used the applicant’s hydrological data to model the expected lake levels based on the additional abstraction of 2m 3/s under a number of assumptions (as outlined by the applicant). Mr McCann was of the view that his modelling showed significantly lowered mean and median lake levels, and years of substantially reduced lake spill. He suggested the graphs indicated that there would be extended periods of time when electricity generation would not be possible. He considered the proposed scheme could not be called efficient and he doubted the applicant’s claimed 90% increase in output from the McKays HEPS. He tabled a series of photographs of the Hans Bay and Sunny Bight lake shoreline taken at 0.0m on 13 September 2011 and at -
13 0.06m taken on 29 September 2011. He considered they showed the significant adverse effect on visual amenity at these low lake levels and noted the public outcry these levels caused. He noted lake belongs to the people of New Zealand and that DoC considered it to be one of the most beautiful lakes in New Zealand.
51. Mr Ian Anderson and Ms Emma Harding have owned a holiday property at Hans Bay, Lake Kaniere, since 2001 and generally spend approximately eight weeks per year at the lake. Their reasons for purchasing the property were due to the unique beauty and serenity, and its historically wonderful boating and swimming beaches. In their view, they considered that the applicant had not exercised the full range of their consents over the last 10 years and were shocked at the very low lake levels at the end of August 2011, believing that this was a direct result of TrustPower excavating the outlet and drawing down the lake level. Based on the relatively low generation capacity, they found it difficult to accept that the enhanced scheme would provide much in the way of energy security for the West Coast. Mr Anderson reflected further on a number of questions asked by the Commissioners and provided a more detailed written response to those questions on 18 June 2012. In summary they considered that if consents were granted, the operational levels of the lake should reflect the historical lake levels, and that in general they supported the ‘status quo’. Any consent for additional water abstraction should be declined as they were likely to generate significant negative effects they said.
52. Mr Drew Howat has been a Lake Kaniere resident for 25 years and his family have owned property there for 68 years. He supported the principle of hydro power generation but considered the minimum lake level should be restricted to 1.0m below the weir and could accept that the applicant could draw down any amount within this range. Mr Howat was opposed to the enhanced scheme and increased draw down and considered that when the lake level was too low they were left with an unsightly lakeshore which compromised both amenity and aesthetic values. Mr Howat made a number of references to the Westland District Plan and the West Coast Regional Council’s policies and objectives.
53. Mr Grant Hinchcliff had an affiliation to Lake Kaniere for 25 years. He initially opposed the applications but in general supported hydro schemes. His principal concerns related to lowering the lake level below historical mean and median levels which would result in larger expanses of exposed shoreline. He considered the lake had high scenic and amenity values and lower lake levels would compromise those values.
54. Mr Kevin McGirr resides in Greymouth and together with his family, has been a regular recreational lake user for 50 years. He wanted the lake levels and water takes unaltered to ensure that his grandchildren would be able to enjoy the lake as it was now. He believed the lake would be lowered by 500mm which would result in visitors having to walk through mud and slime to gain water access. He believed that he would not be able to launch his boat at water levels below 600mm and was opposed to having to go to Sunny Bight for this purpose. Mr McGirr believed that the recent record low levels of the lake were a direct result of the applicant clearing
14 the lake outlet. He did not oppose the taking of an additional 2m 3/s of water, providing the lake continued to be operated to historical levels.
55. Mr Neil Twist is a Greymouth resident and is a regular recreational user of the lake over summer. He opposed a number of the consents sought and was particularly concerned about lowering lake levels and the effects that would have on his boating activities. He provided us with a number of photographs of his boat and explained the difficulties he would have when launching his boat and the minimum water depths required is 600mm. He also had concerns about the visual effects of lowered lake levels and exposed weed.
56. Mr Warren Diedrichs is a Hokitika resident who has lived near and used the lake for recreational purposes over the last 70 years. He is opposed to increasing the water takes and considered that the lake levels should be limited to average historical abstraction rates. He has concerns over shoreline exposure and wetland effects.
57. Mr Athol Olson is a Hokitika resident and although he provided a written statement to be tabled, he also was in attendance for the bulk of the proceedings. He confirmed that he did not have any additional verbal statement to make. He is opposed to all consents and is generally concerned over environmental degradation by the proposal. He considers that there will be damage to ecological values, erosion, loss of wetlands, rising water temperatures and insufficient monitoring. In general he rejects the applicant’s evidence and modelling provided.
58. New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (The Trust) was unable to be present at the hearing and forwarded a written statement to be tabled. The Trust had no concerns with the re-consenting of the Kaniere Forks HEPS. They acknowledged the proposal to provide an Accidental Discovery Protocol and a Heritage Management Plan, but also noted and supported the advice of Dr Clough to seek a cautionary Section 12 Archaeological Authority before commencing work in the McKays Creek HEPS area. The Trust noted with concern a recent view that the McKays Creek Power Station may be demolished, and while they provided a brief summary of the history of the building, had made no submission on the significance of this building and wished to be involved in an assessment of the buildings significance, before any decision was made on its future use.
Applicant’s Right of Reply
59. Mr Welsh, in his closing submission, concluded that consents, as sought, should be granted as they would promote the Act’s sustainable management purpose, with a wide margin of comfort. He said that any finding to the contrary, or the imposition of further conditions which reduced the historic lake operating range or introduction of additional operating restrictions, would not be in accordance with the expert evidence provided.
60. He summarised a number of the submitter’s preferences for a range of operating levels, which essentially represented their individual personal preference for 15 recreational activities. Mr Welsh drew our attention to the evidence of Mr McCann in that he did not apply any seasonal variations to the modeling he provided, which resulted in incorrect assumptions which Mr Welsh highlighted. However Mr Welsh noted that Mr McCann’s model served to demonstrate the value of the seasonal operation as a mitigation tool.
61. Mr Welsh reinforced his opening statement by refocusing on the positive effects of the applicant’s proposal which were an increase in renewable generation, the economic benefits during the construction period, assisting New Zealand to reach its renewable energy targets and Kyoto Protocol obligations, an increase in security of locally embedded electricity supply and displacement of higher cost generation from the market.
62. In regard to ‘Other Matters’ he noted that none of the submitters who addressed the Committee had expressed concerns beyond Lake Kaniere, and on this basis he concluded that activities beyond the lake did not appear to be an issue, or at least had been satisfactorily addressed by conditions. Mr Welsh referred to his final set of proffered conditions which had been amended to take into account the evidence presented and comments from experts, Council Officers, Commissioners and submitters which aimed at even further reducing or avoiding the potential adverse effects.
Chapter 4: SECTION 42A PLANNING REPORT 63. The s.42A report was prepared as a joint report by Ms Rachel Clark of the West Coast Regional Council and Mr Martin Kennedy (Planning Consultant) for the Westland District Council. Since it had been pre-circulated it was taken as read. 64. Ms Clark is Senior Consents Officer for the West Coast Regional Council. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree and has six years of experience as a WCRC consents officer and 15 years as an environmental officer in Australia. 65. Mr Kennedy is a Resource Management and Planning Consultant based in Greymouth. He holds a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Regional and Resource Planning and is a member of the NZ Planning Institute. Mr Kennedy has 21 years of experience. 66. The s.42A report provided a planning review and assessment in accord with the RMA. It traced the conception and development of the project from the initial receipt of the application through the process of initial checks and requests for further information to the final amended application that we must consider. The application includes land use consents for construction /enhancement and maintenance of the existing and proposed structures, earthworks, vegetation removal, disturbance of water courses and modification and destruction of heritage sites. Permits are sought to take, use, divert and discharge water for hydroelectricity generation and discharge to land and air. 67. The analysis of the key statutory considerations set out in the s.42A report succinctly sets out our tasks under s.104 and s.104D of the Act.
16 68. In terms of the bundling of the consents sought, the enhancement work for the McKays Creek HEPS is a non-complying activity in relation to the consent being sought from the WDC. Similar bundling of the various consents required for land use discharge and water permits from the WCRC requires consent to a discretionary activity. We do not consider it would be appropriate to bundle the regional and district consents together for overall consideration of the project as non-complying activities. 69. In Chapter 7 of this decision, we refer to the statutory framework and the relevant matters that we are required to consider. The s.42A report concludes that the proposal meets the provisions of the first and second gateway tests of s.104D and goes on to assess all the elements of the application in terms of the broader requirements of Part 2 and s.104 of the Act. 70. The relevant national matters for consideration include the National Environmental. Standards (NES) and National Policy Statements (NPS). The relevant NES include the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 and the National Environmental Standards for sources of Human Drinking Water 2007. The relevant NPS include the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations also apply. 71. The relevant regional plans include the West Coast Regional Policy Statement, the Proposed Water Management Plan, the Regional Plan for Discharges to land, the Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan. The proposed Regional land and Riverbed Plan and the Regional Air quality Plan. At the District Council level the relevant plan is the Westland District Plan. The relevant provisions of these documents were contained in appendices to the report. After considering these matters, the s.42A report concluded that although there would be some adverse effects none of these would be considered to be fatal flaws. Over all the Council Officers considered that there would be positive effects and that an array of mitigation methods are available to ensure that the proposal would meet the purpose of the Act. 72. The s.42A report therefore recommended that approval be given to the applications with a lapsing period of 10 years subject to a comprehensive suite of consent conditions.
Chapter 5: PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND EFFECTS
Introduction
73. This section provides an outline with some commentary on the various issues relevant to this application which were bought to our attention and summarised in Chapter 3. Because of the effects-based nature of the RMA, we have reviewed the actual and potential effects of the proposal on a range of relevant matters, largely as identified in the Fourth Schedule of the RMA. This approach is consistent with s.104 of the RMA. 17
74. This review considered all the evidence concerning each of the principal issues and the effects on the environment that were brought to our attention. This includes the more important aspects of the evidence we heard on behalf of the applicant and from submitters, as well as from the Council Officers from WCRC and WDC. At the conclusion of our discussion of each issue we summarise our findings and conclusions with respect to that issue. This, in due course, provides the basis for our decision and, in terms of our duties under the RMA, this section is consistent with s.113(1)(ac) and s.113(1)(ae). Hydrology Effects 75. Actual and potential hydrological effects of the proposal on water quality and quantity in Lake Kaniere and the Kaniere River were assessed in the Hydrology Report and the Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects, and in the evidence of Mr Palmer and Dr Ryder. The Hydrology Report was reviewed prior to the s.92 request by the WCRC’s Hydrologist Mr Stefan Beaumont (water quantity) and Resource Scientist Mr Jonny Horrox (water quality). 76. No evidence was presented challenging the methodology or conclusions of the Hydrology Report or the Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects, and overall the WCRC accepted the applicant’s assessment of actual and potential environmental effects in the s.42A report. 77. Our assessment considers actual and potential water quality effects and water quantity effects separately. An assessment of any resulting adverse effects on aquatic ecology, recreation, amenity and natural character values associated with hydrological effects is undertaken in each relevant section that follows. This section assesses the magnitude, extent, duration and frequency of hydrological effects. Water Quality 78. General concern was raised by submitters regarding potential adverse effects on water quality in Lake Kaniere and the general degradation of waterways. It was submitted that low water levels could increase contamination and bacteria in the lake water. No further evidence or submission was made on this by submitters at the hearing. 79. There was general agreement between the applicant and both the Councils that the existing water quality in Lake Kaniere and the Kaniere River is very good and that the proposal is not expected to change this. 80. Dr Ryder noted that the water quality of Lake Kaniere catchment is generally very good and is characterised by good clarity, low suspended sediments and low nutrients. Ms Clark informed us that WCRC had undertaken contact recreation water quality monitoring (faecal coliforms and E. coli ) at three sites in Lake Kaniere from November 2004 to March 2009. She noted that this monitoring had since been discontinued on the basis of consistent results showing excellent water quality. 18 81. Dr Ryder stated there is limited information on water quality within the Kaniere River, but that he expected it to reflect the water quality of the lake. He noted recent occurrences of high water temperatures below McKays weir, but considered these to be typical of that found in summer in the West Coast region. He also noted that high water temperatures can also occur at the lake outlet. 82. Dr Ryder outlined the relationship between water temperature in the upper portion of the lake water column and the strong influence this has on downstream water temperatures and other water quality parameters, regardless of flow. He explained how the lake acts as a buffer to ambient water temperature as the main driver of temperature changes are climatic and not flow related. However, he noted that reduced river flows would increase daily variations in temperature, and that substantial increases coupled with the absence of safe retreat could result in fish mortality. 83. To address this concern, Dr Ryder recommended that the river temperature is continuously monitored at two key sites to determine the relationship between flow and temperature under the proposed scheme. He also recommended a trigger level be incorporated to require the applicant to increase the flow to reduce downstream temperatures. In answering questions, Dr Ryder considered that monitoring may show that increasing the flow may make very little difference if the temperature of lake water is also elevated. 84. In acknowledging that low flows will occur for significantly longer durations both downstream of the lake and downstream of McKays weir, the applicant has proposed a condition to continuously monitor water temperature in the river upstream and downstream of the intakes and if necessary increase minimum flows. 85. In considering the potential adverse effects of the proposed modifications to the existing scheme on water quality, Dr Ryder was of the view that these would be short term and reversible. He considered activities such as dewatering races, and excavations and disturbance of the river bed can be adequately managed by the imposition of consent conditions and implementation of management plans. He also considered management plans would address any potential risk of the introduction and spread of exotic aquatic plant and algae. In response to question, Dr Ryder agreed it would be appropriate to require the recovery and release of any adult fish observed to be stranded during dewatering or the decommissioning of water races. 86. Ms Clark was satisfied with the conditions proffered by the applicant to continuously monitor water temperature in the Kaniere River and release additional water if the temperature in the river rises 3˚C above the water at the lake outlet. 87. Ms Clark noted that significant algal growth already occurs on occasion due to the flow buffering effect of the controlled lake outlet and the reduction in freshes. She was of the view that if excessive algal growth occurred as a result of the proposal it could be addressed be releasing flushing flows.
19 88. WDC raised concern regarding potential adverse effects on the quality of the water for Hokitika’s town supply. Dr Ryder considered there would be no change in the lake’s water quality and noted the town supply intake pipe is quite deep well below the minimum lake level. Mr Palmer confirmed that the intake was more than 10 metres below the minimum lake level. Summary 89. Having considered the evidence presented in relation to potential adverse effects on the existing water quality in Lake Kaniere and the Kaniere River, we are satisfied that the proposal is not likely to result in any measurable changes in the existing water quality. 90. We consider that sustained periods of reduced flow in the most highly impacted sections of the Kaniere River has the potential to cause increased temperature variations, particularly during the summer months. We accept the evidence of Dr Ryder that this can be addressed by monitoring water temperatures and if necessary by increasing river flows. 91. We are satisfied that potential adverse effects on water quality during construction works can be addressed by implementation of appropriate management plans such as an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. We accept that these effects will be localised and of short duration, and that they are unlikely to result in significant effects on aquatic life. 92. Overall we accept the view of Dr Ryder that the proposed conditions of consent will ensure that the lake and river water quality is maintained in its current good state. Water Quantity 93. The applicant is seeking consent to increase water abstraction from Lake Kaniere from the existing maximum of 6m 3/s (1m 3/s to Kaniere Forks HEPS and 5m 3/s to McKays Creek HEPS) to 8m 3/s (1m 3/s to Kaniere Forks HEPS and 7m 3/s to McKays Creek HEPS). This increase in abstraction will change the historical fluctuations in lake levels and river flows that have resulted from operation of the existing schemes. 94. Our assessment considers the water flow changes in the Kaniere River from the existing scheme and the predicted flow changes from the proposed scheme; and lake level fluctuations from the existing scheme and predicted fluctuations from the proposed scheme. Kaniere River 95. Submitters have raised general concern regarding low flows in the Kaniere River below the intake points. In particular, DoC and the Conservation Board were concerned regarding minimum residual flows downstream of the water intakes at the lake outlet and McKays weir. It was submitted that low flows downstream of McKays weir would occur more frequently and for longer durations.
20 96. Water abstraction for the existing power schemes has already resulted in significantly altered water flows in the Kaniere River downstream of the lake outlet and McKays weir. Current water abstraction also alters the residual flow downstream of the Greens Race intake point on Blue Bottle Creek. The existing consents require a residual flow of 0.2m 3/s is maintained in the Kaniere River below the lake control gates and McKays weir. There is currently no requirement for a residual flow downstream of the intake on Blue Bottle Creek. 97. The existing scheme requires the release of up to 1m3/s to Kaniere race for use in the Kaniere Forks power station and up to 5m 3/s to the upper section of the Kaniere River for use in McKays Creek power station. Because the intake point for McKays Creek power station (McKays weir) is some considerable distance downstream of the lake outlet, water released for electricity generation flows down through the upper section of the Kaniere River before it is diverted to the McKays Creek intake race. This results in relatively stable water flows in the upper section of the Kaniere River, as shown in the evidence of Mr Palmer. 98. Mr Palmer presented flow data for the actual flow to the river and the spill from the lake, as measured at a site positioned under the Kaniere Road Bridge. He noted that under the existing scheme water flows in this section of the river were below 2m 3/s for less than 3% of the time and below 0.5m 3/s for 1% of the time. He showed graphically that for 70% of the time flows are between 4m 3/s and 8m 3/s. He calculated that the mean flow for the 2002 to September 2011 period was 6.0m 3/s and the median flow was 5.4m 3/s. He noted that recorded data indicates that the lake spills to the river over the lake outlet weir approximately 40% of the time. 99. On the basis of catchment area, Mr Palmer estimated that the water flow in the river between Lake Kaniere and the McKays weir increases by an average of 1m 3/s. He estimated that approximately 0.2m 3/s of the McKays Creek HEPS mean flow is from the Greens race diversion from Blue Bottle Creek. 100. Dr Ryder also noted that under the existing scheme minimum flows in the Kaniere River rarely reach minimum flows below the Kaniere race intake. He outlined that because the McKays Creek HEPS diverts majority of the river flow at McKays weir the river is effectively divided into two sections with differing flow characteristics and partial barriers to fish. He noted that the most impacted section of the river was below McKays weir. 101. Mr Palmer noted that actual flow records show that flows below McKays weir are below 0.5m 3/s for 25% of the time under the existing scheme and that the mean flow was 2.4m 3/s. Mr Palmer estimated that downstream of the McKays weir and upstream of the McKays Creek HEPS discharge, tributaries (Coal Creek, Blue Bottle Creek, Kennedys Creek and McKays Creek) contributed around 3m 3/s to the river flow. Mr Palmer noted that the Kaniere Forks HEPS discharge contributes about 1m 3/s continuously to the river downstream of the weir and that this in combination with other tributary flows resulted in a mean flow of 3.1m 3/s, with flows less than 0.5m 3/s occurring for 4% of the time.
21 102. Mr Palmer stated the Blue Bottle Creek (for which there was only a short period of flow data) flow is less than 0.1m 3/s for 30% of the time and less than 0.05m 3/s for 10% of the time. He noted that approximately 0.3m 3/s is diverted from Blue Bottle Creek into Greens race and that residual flows can get very low. He stated that the flow gets naturally very low and that frequent freshes occur. 103. Under the proposed scheme with the increased abstraction, the applicant is proposing a new minimum flow regime for the Kaniere River as follows: • 0.3m 3/s downstream of Lake Kaniere; • 0.4m 3/s at Wards Road; • 0.3m 3/s downstream of McKays weir; and • 0.5m 3/s ay McKays ford.
104. Mr Palmer noted that due to the increased release of water into the river under the proposed scheme the flow out of the lake is increased to above 6.5m 3/s for around 70% of the time, with mean outflow of 6m 3/s and median flow of 7m 3/s. He estimated that lake spill would be reduced to approximately 10% of the time and that managed flows would be less than 0.5m 3/s for 9% of the time. He noted the proposed seasonal operating regime had little effect on river flows in comparison to the proposed scheme with no seasonal limits. 105. Mr Palmer noted that under the proposed scheme the model predicted that flows downstream of McKays weir would be below 0.5m 3/s for 82% of the time. He noted that mean flow below the weir would be reduced from 2.4m 3/s to 1m 3/s. He estimated that based on downstream flows, spill over McKays weir would be reduced from 70% of the time under the existing scheme to 17% of the time under the proposed scheme. 106. Mr Palmer outlined that the difference in downstream flows reflects the McKays Creek HEPS increased capacity, the ability to release of only enough water to maintain minimum flows below the weir and the ability to ramp back lake releases if McKays weir is spilling. 107. Mr Palmer noted that rapid flow changes in the Kaniere River due to operation of the scheme are currently infrequent due to the both power stations’ high capacity factor and manual operation. He outlined that rapid flow changes were only currently observed after heavy rainfall events. However, because the proposed scheme will be automated (allowing remote management) more frequent and substantial flow changes would occur in the Kaniere River. 108. Mr Palmer outlined studies that were undertaken to identify flow travel times and rates of change to assess the effects of the proposed scheme. He noted that the Kaniere River in the vicinity of the lake was considered to be a vulnerable location due its accessibility to the public, steepness and relatively narrow nature of the bed, and proximity to the control gates. He explained that ramping conditions limiting the increase in river flows to below 5m 3/s have been proposed to address safety concerns associated with operational increases in flow. He noted that trials undertaken indicated that a 45 minute interval is adequate to avoid flow changes catching up with each other from a safety and recreational perspective. He 22 confirmed that no ramping conditions were proposed for decreasing flows. Conditions are also proffered requiring appropriate warning signs at points of public access to the river advising the public of rapid changes in water level.
23 Summary 109. The water flow (water quantity) changes in the Kaniere River from the existing power schemes were outlined by Mr Palmer from the hydrological modelling undertaken. It is clear from this modelling that the existing scheme results in significantly altered water flows in the river below the lake outlet control gates and McKays weir. 110. McKays weir effectively separates the river into two sections with flows upstream generally increased by water released for power generation and flows downstream significantly reduced by diversion of majority of the flow to the McKays Creek HEPS for power generation. This has resulted in the upper section of the river having relatively high stable flows and the lower section having relatively low flows for prolonged periods. Rapid flow changes are currently only associated with significant rainfall events and the spilling of water over the lake outlet weir and/or McKays weir. 111. The hydrological modelling undertaken shows that the proposed scheme will significantly alter the existing managed flows in the Kaniere River. In short, flows in the upper section of the river will be higher (due to increased release from the lake), and flows in the lower section will be kept at low flow levels for much longer periods of time. We note that this will result in substantially reduced frequency and duration of flushes and freshes with spills from the lake outlet weir reduced from 40% of the time to 10% of the time; and spills over McKays weir reduced from 70% of the time to 17% of the time. 112. We note that while minimum flow levels are currently imposed in the Kaniere River below the lake outlet control gates, low flow levels are rarely reached due to the managed release of water for diversion to McKays Creek HEPS. Mr Palmer’s estimate that flows below 0.5m 3/s occur for less than 1% of the time, illustrates the McKays Creek HEPS existing high capacity factor and that there is currently very little time when water is not released for electricity generation. In contrast to this, we note that under the proposed scheme flows below 0.5m3/s are predicted to increase to 9% of the time. This indicates to us that water would not be released to the upper Kaniere River for most of the time as it is now and that for approximately 9% of the time only enough water to meet minimum flow levels will be released. 113. In answer to our questions regarding configuration of the existing schemes, Mr Welsh confirmed that the combined maximum take of 8m 3/s could be directed down the river to the McKays Creek HEPS under the consents sought. He noted that diversion of the combined take to the Kaniere Forks HEPS could not be undertaken without changes to the consents as sought and the need for additional consents for the upgrade of the Kaniere Forks HEPS. Mr Palmer’s evidence was consistent with this noting that if the Kaniere Forks HEPS was not operating, the full combined take could be used in the McKays Creek HEPS. 114. We note that if 1m3/s is not diverted to Kaniere Forks HEP there is no commensurate increase in flow from the Kaniere Forks HEPS discharge below McKays weir. The effect of diverting the combined maximum rate of take down the
24 river to the McKays Creek HEPS would be to reduce the mean flow below McKays weir to about 2.1m 3/s. 115. The proposed scheme will not change the current reduction in the flow of Blue Bottle Creek below the Greens race intake. The diversion of up to 1m 3/s of water will continue to take a significant proportion of the flow for most of the time. While we accept it may be difficult to define a minimum residual flow (on the current available information) we consider it is important that an adequate minimum flow level is investigated and imposed. 116. On the basis of the evidence presented, we consider the proposed scheme will result in significant changes to the existing managed flow regime in the Kaniere River. The environmental effects of these hydrological changes are assessed in the aquatic ecology section of our report. Lake Kaniere 117. The general lowering mean and median lake levels was the issue of most concern to submitters. Many submitters were of the view that the proposed seasonal levels of 0.3m and 0.1m were not normal and that the lake was rarely this low, particularly in summer. They expressed concern that the lake would be operated at these low levels more frequently and for longer durations. 118. Concern was also expressed regarding the -0.2m minimum operating level and the fact that it had never been lowered to this level in the past. Submitters requested that the baseline for management of the lake be based on historical practice and not on the previous consents that weren’t fully exercised. 119. Many submitters noted concern that the volume of water abstracted should not be increased and that the volume sought should be reduced to ensure the lake is kept in equilibrium. All of the submitters who appeared at the hearing accepted the continued abstraction of water for the existing schemes, but strongly opposed any increase in abstraction. 120. The Hydrology Report stated that the mean annual inflow into Lake Kaniere is 7.25m 3/s and the median is 5.4m 3/s (from 1999-2009). The report noted that the mean inflow for the period 2002 to 2008 was 7.0m 3/s. We note that data for this inflow series was been generated from actual lake level and outflow data from 2002, and that it was extended back using Arnold River and Lake Brunner data. Mr Palmer noted higher inflows for June and the September to January period, and lower inflows in the months of March to April, and July and August. 121. The Hydrology Report stated that the average total outflow from Lake Kaniere is 7.04m 3/s and the median is 6.44m 3/s (2002-2009). We note that the outflow series was derived based on Kaniere race flows, and Kaniere River flows as measured immediately downstream of Lake Kaniere. We also note there are significant gaps in the records. 122. Mr Palmer noted that the existing minimum operating level is -0.2m and that the weir at the lake outlet spills at levels over 1.0m. He estimated that between the
25 minimum level and spill level there is enough storage for approximately 30 days at the maximum consented rate of take of 6m 3/s. 123. Mr Palmer estimated that with an increased outflow of 8m 3/s and no inflows into the lake, the maximum daily drawdown that could be achieved is 0.05m. He confirmed this included WDC’s water supply take and that the increased take represented an additional 0.01m drawdown. He noted that higher daily water level fluctuations would be associated with increases due to rainfall events. 124. Mr Palmer stated that over the 2002 to September 2011 period the maximum recorded level was 1.71m (January 2002) and the minimum level was -0.13m. He noted that the median lake level over this period was 0.9m and the mean level was 0.84m. 125. Mr Palmer presented a table showing the operating ranges of a number of South Island managed lakes which indicated Lake Kaniere had the narrowest operating range. He also outlined the natural ranges for Lake Brunner, Lake Mapourika and Lake Moeraki, and suggested that based on these it was possible that the Lake Kaniere range is kept to within a possibly narrower than the limit that would naturally occur. 126. Mr Palmer undertook hydrological modelling to assess the effects of the proposal on lake levels. To calibrate and check the hydrological model, he incorporated a lake operating strategy to replicate the existing operation of the scheme as follows: • Release of 4.5m 3/s to the Kaniere River for lake levels above 0.2m and release of 2.5m 3/s for levels between -0.1m and 0.2m; • Release of 1m 3/s to the Kaniere Forks water race for all levels above -0.1m; • No releases to either scheme for lake levels below -0.1m (as these were considered to be seldomly used); • Lake releases were scaled back when the Kaniere River was spilling over McKays weir; and • When required water was released to maintain the existing 0.2m 3/s minimum flow to the Kaniere River.
127. The operation of the proposed scheme was modelled as follows: • Release of 1m 3/s to the Kaniere Forks water race for all levels above -0.1m; • No releases below lake levels of -0.1m, or if the duration in the low range gets near the summer or winter threshold; • Release of 7m 3/s to the Kaniere River for lake levels above 0.1m above the summer middle (0.3m) or winter low (0.1m) operating range; • Release of 5m 3/s to the Kaniere River for levels within -0.1m of the seasonal operating range (with releases reducing as the level lowers); • Release to the Kaniere River further restricted depending on lake level and duration in the low range; • Reduced lake releases when McKays weir is spilling; for levels between - 0.1m and 0.2m; and • Released flow to maintain proposed residual flows in the Kaniere River.
26 128. The model was run over hourly time steps for the seven year period 2002 to 2008 and was subsequently updated to cover the longer period of record to September 2011. Mr Palmer noted the actual and simulated level distributions showed a good correlation, with the simulated levels showed a smaller proportion of lake levels in the lower range which reflected optimal operation of the power stations. He noted that the model most accurately represented the actual scheme operation data for the more recent record, but that overall it was sufficiently calibrated and accurate for indicating lake levels under different scenarios. 129. To mitigate adverse effects on lake levels from the proposed increase in abstraction the applicant has proposed seasonal operating restrictions on minimum lake levels as follows: • Summer months (November to March inclusive) 20% allowance for lake levels below 0.3m (up to 30.2 days) and a 10% allowance for lake levels below 0.1m (15.1 days); • Winter months (April to October inclusive) 20% allowance for lake levels to be below 0.1m (up to 42.8 days).
130. Mr Palmer commented that the model indicated as lake levels go below 0.3m it is difficult to get levels back out of the low range. 131. In order to illustrate the mitigating nature of the seasonal operating limits, Mr Palmer’s analyses compared the modelled lake levels under the proposed scheme without the seasonal lake range (M7K1) against the proposed scheme with seasonal limits (M7K1_Seasonal). He noted that the modelling demonstrated that the seasonal operating range limited the time the lake would spend in the lower range (particularly in summer) and that as a consequence the mean lake levels are slightly higher. He concluded “…the Lake Kaniere will on average be lower under the enhanced scheme (incorporating the seasonal operating regime) than observed in the past under the currently consented scheme. However, time spent in the low ranges is limited with the proposed seasonal operating ranges” (p.17). 132. Mr Palmer’s Figure 5 (evidence in chief) showed the Lake Kaniere level distribution for the 2002-2011 period for the actual data (existing scheme), the proposed scheme without the seasonal lake range (M7K1) and the proposed scheme with seasonal limits (M7K1_Seasonal). 133. Mr Palmer’s Figure 6 (evidence in chief) showed the Lake Kaniere level distribution for the 2002-2011 period for the summer (November to March) record for the three scenarios modelled. 134. The predicted lake levels for the existing scheme and the proposed scheme with seasonal limits taken from Mr Palmer’s Figures 5 and 6 are summarised in the table below.
27 135. Average number of days below lake level over 2002-2011 record period
<0.8m <0.6m <0.3m <0.1m
Existing scheme – 146 days 82 days 29 days 6 days annually (365 days) 40% 22% 8% <2%
Proposed scheme – 283 days 237 days 139 days 33 days annually (365 days) 78% 65% 38% 9%
Existing scheme – 45 days 20 days 6 days 1 days summer (151 days) 30% 13% 4% 0.5%
Proposed scheme – 95 days 72 days 24 days <2 days Summer (151 days) 63% 48% 16% 1%
136. Mr Palmer noted that annual mean lake levels under the proposed scheme are 0.36m lower than existing lake levels observed, with a difference of 0.27m over summer and 0.41m over winter. He outlined that the greater difference in winter reflected the lower winter operating limits and lower inflows. 137. Mr McCann submitted that our key focus should be on the increased water abstraction and that the potential effects of the proposal can only be negative. He highlighted that the hydrological modelling cannot predict what will happen in the future, but can only assess what may have happened to lake levels historically if the seasonal operating regime was applied. In this regard, he was of the view the applicant had not provided enough detail on how the seasonal operating regime would be implemented to make an accurate assessment. 138. Mr McCann undertook his own analysis of Lake Kaniere operating levels for the past 6 years (1 January 2006 to 30 April 2012) with the proposed additional abstraction using composite daily lake level data supplied by the applicant. He applied the same conditions as outlined in the Hydrological Report (full abstraction for lake levels above 0.2m, ramping back to half abstraction below 0.2m and no abstraction below 0.1m with only release of the minimum flow to the river) with the addition of restricted outflows of 0.02m per day where actual data shows the lake is spilling the weir, but modelled data is under the level of weir spill. Mr McCann’s modelled outflows were based on actual daily outflows (assumed to be 6m 3/s under the existing consent) plus an additional drawdown of 0.0066m per day to the additional abstraction of 2m 3/s. He graphed the results of his modelling for each year showing actual lake levels with the existing scheme and modelled lake levels with the proposed scheme. 139. Mr McCann noted that when the applicant had restricted outflow from the lake to only minimum flow levels (0.2m 3/s) during Easter 2012 (to accommodate the New
28 Zealand National Power Boat Racing Series) the lake remained at a constant level. He suggested this indicated that at times of no rainfall normal inflows to the lake are 0.2-0.3m 3/s. 140. Mr McCann concluded that his graphs showed considerably lower lake levels under the proposed scheme and that the lake would not recover to the same levels as previously experienced under the current scheme for long periods of time. He considered the proposal would effectively reduce the operating range of the lake and that in some years weir spill would never occur. He drew our attention to the substantially lower lake levels under the proposal, which he said was not surprising giving the additional abstraction. He noted that the modelled mean and median lake levels, even in quite wet years (such as 2006/07 and 2008/09) would have been reduced to just above the seasonal operation regime limit of 0.3m. He also noted that even in quite wet years such as the 2006/07 period (with 167 days above 1.0m) the proposal would have resulted in a reduction in mean lake level of 0.513m and the median level by 0.616m. 141. Mr Palmers’ additional information included graphs for the period 1 Nov 2001 to 1 April 2012 of actual lake levels and modelled lake levels for this historical period under the proposal, presented in a form similar to Mr McCann’s graphs for the period 2006-2012. Mr Palmer noted that Mr McCann’s model did not take into account the seasonal operating regime and pointed out times during the record period when proposed limits would be exceeded. In this regard, he considered Mr McCann had not taken into account reduced outflow (abstraction) to ensure compliance with limits. Furthermore, he noted Mr McCann had used rates of drawdown (which equates to outflow) and that this did not take into account spill or management of the lake to avoid spill. 142. In considering these graphs we note the following: Over the ten year period actual lake levels show– • On two occasions lake levels were below 0.00m (April 2003 and September 2011). • The lowest recorded lake level was about -0.13 (30 April-1 May 2003). • Lake levels have never been reduced to -0.2m. • Lake levels were below 0.3m for a total of 289 days or <8% of the time (excluding the 90 days which occurred centered on September 2011, this is reduced to 199 days or 5% of the time). • Lake levels were below 0.1m for a total of 71 days or <2% of the time (excluding the 50 days which occurred centered on September 2011, this is reduced to 21 days or <0.5%). • The mean lake level ranged from 0.705 to 1.14m and the median lake level ranged from 0.649 to 1.16m. • There was spill over the lake outlet weir every year (in both summer and winter seasons).
143. Over the ten year period modelled lake levels under the proposed scheme show-
29 • On eight occasions lake levels would have been below 0.00m (April 2003, April 2005, August 2006, April/May 2007, May/June 2008, July 2009, June 2010, April/May 2011). • The lake lowest level would have been below -0.1m on six separate occasions. • Lake levels would have been below 0.3m for 1347 days or 37% of the time. • Lake levels would have been below 0.1m for 326 days or 9% of the time. • The mean lake level ranged from 0.37 to 0.59m and the median level ranged from 0.25 to 0.59m. • There would have been spill over the lake outlet weir for 358 days or 10% of the time. • In summer there would have been spill over the weir for 263 days or 17% of the time. • In winter there would have been spill over the weir for 81 days or 4% of the time. • In three of the ten years modelled (2005, 2007 and 2011) there would be no spill over the weir over the winter season (7 months period) and in two of these years there would only be spill over the weir for 5-6 days in summer. • In the winter season of 2005, 2007 and 2011, lake levels would be below 0.3m for 75%, 50% and 89% of the time respectively.
144. In the s.42A report, Ms Clark was of the view that with implementation of the seasonal operating regime the lake would be at its lowest levels for a similar amount of time as currently occurs during the summer months. Having heard all the evidence, she was of the view that the key consideration was the time at which low levels occurred and the duration. In response to questions, she considered that the Christmas/New Year and Easter periods appeared to be critical in terms of the number of amenity and recreational use. In response to questions, she agreed that the seasonal regime could be refined to address these periods. 145. In response to concerns raised by submitters that the applicant’s management of the lake for electricity generation caused unusually low lake levels in September 2011, Mr Palmer presented evidence indicating that this was the second driest period on record since 2002. He presented Figure 2 (Appendix 3) to illustrate the gradual decline of lake levels from early August and the ramping back of generation in response from mid-August 2011. He noted that inflows generated for six of the seven months from March 2011 were below average and that June, August and September inflows were the lowest in the 10 years simulated. He submitted that the Hokitika airport rainfall record indicated the cumulative monthly rainfall totals from January to September 2011 were well below the 1964 to 2011 average, with the four month rainfall total from June to September 2011 the lowest on record at 60% of the average for these months. He noted this record is consistent with the Colliers (17km south-west from the top end of Lake Kaniere) rainfall record which indicated cumulative rainfall totals from February to August 2011 ranking the driest since 1992.
30 146. Mr Palmer considered there would be no adverse effect on WDC’s water take as the applicant is not seeking to change the minimum lake level and the intake is at least 10m below the minimum operating level. 147. Submitters raised concern that lower lake levels would affect shallow groundwater and domestic supply for lake front properties. No evidence was presented in relation to this. The applicant has proffered a condition requiring monitoring of groundwater levels. Ms Clark confirmed the WCRC does not currently monitor groundwater levels at this location. Summary 148. The hydrological modelling undertaken by the applicant is useful in analysing what would have happened to lake levels over the previous ten years under the proposed scheme. We are very conscious that the accuracy of the results is highly dependent on the quality of the input data and the assumed parameters of operation. The hydrological modelling is based on historical records of lake levels and outflow from the lake, and inflow data utilizing relationships from Lake Brunner and Arnold River tributary flow. We note it is not based on actual rainfall data and that there are discrepancies and gaps in the Kaniere River flow records. We note that in 2002 to September 2011 record period there is 494 days of missing data (14%). The Hydrological Report stated “ The quality of this record, especially that of the outflow records, will influence the quality of the calculated inflow record.” (Appendix 2 pg.54). Mr Palmer noted a higher level of certainty with the power station throughput data (used to convert electricity (MW) generated to flow) and recent tributary data, and acknowledged some inconsistencies with the hydrological data. 149. We appreciate the effort Mr McCann has gone to in order to engage with the hydrological modelling and consider his modelling clearly illustrated the effect of increased abstraction on lake levels, without compliance with the proposed seasonal operating regime and without the details of how operationally this would be achieved. His evidence caused us to request the applicant to present the results of their modelling in a similar format and we consider this has greatly assisted us in our assessment. We accept the differences between Mr McCann’s modelling and Mr Palmer’s modelling is not significant and indicates it is indicative of the general lowering of lake levels that would have occurred with increased abstraction. 150. While we acknowledge there is some uncertainty with the modelling, we accept it represents the best information available. However, we are somewhat cautious regarding the estimated annual inflows and the fact that the applicant is seeking to abstract more water than will be on average be coming into the lake. In this regard it is clear to us that there will not be always enough water available to abstract the maximum volume sought. This point is further illustrated by the modelling undertaken, in that there are numerous periods over the ten years when there would not be enough water available to generate power. We note that this is very much in contrast to the very rare occasions that this would have occurred under the existing scheme and lower abstraction volumes.
31 151. While Mr Palmer noted that the proposal represents a 25% increase in abstraction from the lake, we are mindful that the records show that significantly less than 5m 3/s has historically been released from the lake to achieve the outlined mean flow through the existing scheme McKays Creek HEPS. In this regard, we are of the view that in reality the proposed maximum combined abstraction could be more than a 25% increase over actual rates of release from the lake over the past ten years. 152. We accept the modelling indicates the level of mitigation provided by the proposed seasonal operating regime; however our focus is on the effect of the proposed scheme on lake levels in comparison to the existing scheme’s effect on lake levels and not the proposed scheme without the seasonal operating regime. 153. The summary of these changes in lake levels outlined above, confirms significant reductions in the range of mean and median lake levels and significant increases in the percentage of time the lake will be below 0.3m, particularly in winter. 154. We agree with submitters that actual lake levels from the operation of the existing scheme over the last ten years results, confirm that lake levels below 0.3m occurred very rarely. They also indicate that levels below 0.0m have only ever occurred twice. 155. On the basis of the evidence presented, we accept that the unusually low lake levels experience in September 2011 were probably primarily due to extremely low rainfall. However, we are mindful that this period also illustrates Mr Palmer’s point that it is very difficult to get lake levels back up once they are below 0.3m. It also appears that abstraction was not reduced significantly when lake levels were below 0.3m. 156. We accept that any potential effects on groundwater levels or shallow bores surrounding the lake can be addressed by consent conditions. Lakeshore Effects 157. Submitters also raised concern regarding increased shoreline erosion. No evidence was presented regarding this issue at the hearing. 158. Dr Single outlined that the sorting of sediments on the shore is a function of wave action. He considered wave energy on the lake was limited and it is likely to be subject to waves up to 0.3m high, except along the southern shore. He noted waves breaking had resulted in small erosion scarps at Hans Bay and possible overwash and inundation at Sunny Bight. He outlined how the water level controls where waves can do work on the vertical extent of the shore, and how both high and low water levels can result in sediment movement onshore and offshore respectively. He considered the shores of Lake Kaniere showed no evidence of detrimental effects of the current changes in water level. 159. Dr Single noted the localised wave induced erosion at Hans Bay (especially in the vicinity of the jetty and the southern end of the playground) and considered this may be the result of human activity such as boat wake or wave interaction with the
32 structures such as the jetty or the rock groyne. However, he noted that there is no evidence of wave induced erosion at any other sites on the shoreline of the lake. He was of the view that it was likely to be as the result of high water levels and wave action from strong westerly winds. 160. Dr Single noted that under the proposal the lake would be at lower levels for longer periods and that wave energy would be potentially expended on lower elevations than at present. He considered this could result in the finer sediments drying out and potentially moved by wind and/or wave action. He noted that the fine sediment would probably be moved offshore and an equilibrium character similar to what is presently seen would be likely to develop over time. He recommended that regular five yearly inspections of the shoreline be carried out to monitor changes over time. 161. Overall, Dr Single concluded “…that the effects of the proposal on the physical shore environment, and in particular lakeshore erosion of Lake Kaniere, are likely to be short term and of little consequence to the geomorophological character of the shore” (pg. 4). 162. In response to questions, Dr Single noted that the resorting or removal of fine sediment over time would depend on the coincidence of high wave energy and wind. He considered the removal of fine sediment at lower lake levels was unlikely to occur on the sheltered side of the lake or at Sunny Bight. Summary 163. Overall, we accept the evidence of Dr Single that predicted lake level changes are unlikely to cause or exacerbate shoreline erosion. Given his evidence on the resorting of sediment, we consider it is unlikely that fine sediments will be removed overtime. Cultural Effects 164. Mr Piddington outlined the consultation undertaken with Ng āi Tahu and Ng āti Waewae. Ng āi Tahu’s main concerns were the potential impact on native fish, their continued passage through to the lake and whether any archaeological sites were expected to be encountered. There was some interest in whether a Cultural Impact Assessment would be undertaken and who would carry this out. TrustPower indicated that it would take direction from Ng āi Tahu and Ng āti Waewae. Ng āi Tahu wished to keep a watching brief and requested to remain involved, offering technical help to Ng āti Waewae. 165. Ng āti Waewae discussed the archaeological investigation, concerned that those conducting it should have sufficient local knowledge. The R ūnanga reserved its view as to whether a Cultural Impact Assessment was needed until the options for the schemes were finalised. The R ūnanga was not aware of any cultural sites affected, although the lake itself was one. Ng āti Waewae indicated that it would not need to make a submission, provided native fish passage was provided for and a comprehensive Accidental Discovery Protocol was included in the consent conditions. We note that both of these requests have resulted in inclusion of these 33 matters in the proffered conditions which in general we have decided should be imposed, together with other conditions, on the consents granted. Summary 166. We have no evidence to suggest that the proposal is likely to have any adverse effects on tangata whenua values. We are satisfied that the proffered conditions regarding accidental discovery and native fish passage address issues raised during consultation. We are mindful that the proposal is unlikely to affect the existing good water quality in the lake and river, and acknowledge the importance to tangata whenua of protecting water quality. Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects 167. Although the Lake Kaniere landscape is not classified as ‘outstanding’ under the relevant planning documents, much of it is of very high quality. Overall, when looking at the lake from a distance, lower water levels may not appear as a significant effect. However, for people using the lake edge for recreation levels approaching 0.0m or below does leave an unsightly muddy and weedy margin. We accept that these levels could occur without restriction under the current consents and have occurred occasionally over the last ten years. 168. Under the proposed regime in practice, the lake will have a lower level for longer periods than currently occurs because of the increased water abstraction. We were provided with photographs showing the lake full at Hans Bay, and at 0.62m at Hans Bay and Sunny Bight by Ms Buckland. Photographs taken at the same locations by Mr McCann with the level at 0.0m show a very different shoreline with unpleasant patches of mud and weed. To mitigate these visual and aesthetic effects TrustPower has offered conditions which limit its ability to draw the lake down into these lower levels, particularly during the summer recreation season. 169. Mr McCann produced tables and graphs purporting to show that considerably lower lake levels would result from the additional 2m 3/s abstraction and that levels would not recover for considerable periods of time. This aspect has been of some concern to us and it was for that reason that we requested Mr Palmer produce a series of graphs and tables showing the actual and modelled lake water levels for the enhanced scheme assuming the applicant’s seasonal operating limits between 2002 and 2012. These were much more reassuring. They showed that under the proposed operating regime, lake levels below 0.1m would generally have varied but have been confined to the period between mid-April and June. Commonly this would coincide with the colder period when activities such as swimming and water skiing were not occurring, although there would clearly have been a possible overlap with the Easter holiday period. 170. If anything, the extra 2m 3/s released into the river from the Lake to McKays weir will be an improvement in terms of natural character and visual amenity. Below the weir minimum flows will be maintained as at present. No issues were raised at the hearing in relation to the natural character of the river.
34 171. The McKays canal work however, does involve some significant effects. The replacement of the Coal Creek Flume with two or three pipes has some heritage implications but also the new structure will be overtly visible from the Lake Kaniere Road. The visual effect of this could be readily mitigated by painting the structure in recessive colours as recommended by Ms Buckland. 172. The two possible options for alternatives to upgrading the McKays tunnel to take a 9 m3/s flow have more significant implications from a landscape point of view. Clearly the upgrading of the tunnel is to be preferred. For the most part, in our observation, the two alternative routes pass through gorse and scrub covered land but either of these would involve clearing 1.2 ha of indigenous vegetation (secondary kamahi/Q uintinia forest) and the initial stockpiling of cut and fill material further by its potential spreading and rehabilitation on the Marshall farm land. There are large earthwork volumes involved (up to 650,000 cubic metres for a 850m long up to 24m deep canal). We are told that upgrading the tunnel which would involve widening, deepening and smoothing would be investigated first and if it did not prove to be viable for reasons of safety or cost, the tunnel would be sealed and the bypass option which involved the least earthworks would be chosen. All of this needs further investigation and for that reason TrustPower is seeking consent involving all three options. Should either of the deviation options be chosen the company has proposed the covenanting and fencing of an offsite mitigation area located on the boundary of the Kaniere Scenic Reserve. This area contains indigenous vegetation of a much higher value (Kahikatea, Rimu, Miro Kamahi/ Quintinia ). It would either pass into DoC hands or would be protected by QEII covenant or equivalent. This has been negotiated with the private landowner but not with the DoC or the QEII National Trust. There can be little doubt that the upgrading of the tunnel would have minimal effect but there are uncertainties over the alternative routes and the mitigation proposed and in the event of a consent being exercised, some certainty must be ensured. 173. The new larger head pond above the McKays Creek power station, the new penstocks and power station are of minimal significance in terms of natural character. Summary 174. Apart from the McKays canal work we are satisfied that any adverse effects from the proposal would be relatively minor. In the event that an upgrading of the tunnel proves not to be possible, implementation of either of the two alternatives will result in significant clearance of indigenous vegetation, a loss which is proposed to be offset by the permanent preservation of a balance area. We are satisfied with this arrangement which must be secured by conditions. Although consent is sought for all three options (the tunnel and the two alternative canal routes) we are concerned that only one of these should proceed. Again this is a matter for conditions.
35 Recreation Effects 175. There is no question that Lake Kaniere is an important recreation resource. It is billed as one of New Zealand’s most beautiful lakes. It is popular for camping, boating, water skiing, fishing, kayaking and canoeing and swimming. There is an active and concerned Lake Kaniere Property Owners Association and Lake Users Group and we heard from some of its members. 176. Lake levels were the primary concern of the lake users and although the applicant had decided not to seek a greater level of draw-down than for the current consent, we were told that this low level did not often occur however the prospect of it happening for an extended period of time, was alarming. 177. The applicant furnished us with photographs of the Lake full at Hans Bay Reserve, at 0.62 m in the same location and at 0.62m at Sunny Bight. These indicated little cause for concern. However, Mr McCann produced photographs of the Sunny Bight foreshore when the staff gauge showed the level at 0.1m on the shore adjacent to the Dorothy Falls Bay Wetland at the same level and the Hans Bay foreshore at 0.0m. The veracity of these photographs was not disputed and these clearly showed significantly diminished levels of amenity. Such levels would not be appropriate at any time during the summer boating and recreational season. 178. At present the boat ramps are not able to be used when the lake is at its lower consented levels and it is clear that these lower levels will occur for longer periods than with present operations. Mr McCann produced a photograph showing that the Sunny Bight Boat ramp was not usable at a level of 0.46m and again the veracity of this was not disputed. It is the common view that at times the boat ramps are not usable and hence the applicant has agreed to enhance the ramps. Mr Shelton explained that the boat ramp at Hans Bay already provides access at low lake levels and it is necessary only to provide some erosion protection works at the downstream end of the ramp. The Sunny Bight ramp would be extended by an additional 4m to give an additional 0.4m (400mm) water depth. Boat owners indicated that 600mm was necessary at transom level for effective launching. Summary 179. It is clear to us that when the lake is at its lowest consented levels that water based recreation is adversely affected. Such levels are not acceptable over the summer recreation period and we are concerned that the operating regime should take this into account. We consider that lake levels lower than 0.0m are unacceptable and should be avoided. We are of the view that recreational use is at its highest during the Christmas holiday period and that levels below 0.3m are undesirable over this period. Terrestrial Ecology Effects 180. Potential effects of the proposal on terrestrial ecology values were assessed in the Terrestrial Ecology and Avifauna Assessment (2010) by Boffa Miskell, and in the evidence of Mr Hooson.
36 181. Submitters raised concerns regarding the removal of indigenous vegetation, destruction of indigenous fauna and habitat, potential adverse effects on wetlands and bird life, and increased risk of weed incursion. Many of these concerns were raised within the context of the original application to upgrade the Kaniere Forks HEPS and water race. Under the amended proposal potential adverse effects on terrestrial ecology are predominantly associated with the proposed tunnel bypass options. 182. Mr Hooson assessed potential effects of the proposal on terrestrial ecology undertaking six site visits which included a boat based survey of the lake shoreline, shore based wetland surveys, vegetation surveys of affected areas, and assessment of habitats for birds, bats, lizards and terrestrial invertebrates. He undertook an assessment of the significance of the vegetation and habitats under section 6(c) of the RMA using the Policy 9.2 of the RPS and Part 4 (D) of the WDP. He concluded that the area of vegetation that would need to be removed for either of the tunnel deviation bypass options would be considered to be significant in terms of section 6(c). 183. Mr Hooson outlined that the proposal is situated within the Whataroa Ecological Region within the Hokitika Ecological District (HED). He explained that the area was once dominated by rimu and kahikatea forests which have since been cleared, except around Lake Kaniere. He noted that despite modifications, over 46% of the HED is protected as public conservation land and the majority of this is forested. 184. Mr Hooson considered the indigenous vegetation surrounding the lake appeared to have adjusted to existing water level fluctuations. He considered that the vegetation surrounding the lake is part of a larger intact area of indigenous vegetation that is of high ecological value and, in his opinion, is significant under 6(c). 185. Mr Hooson informed us there are 19 wetlands comprising some 15.1ha surrounding the lake; most of which are small, with only eight greater than 0.05ha and two greater than 1ha. He noted the two larger wetlands in Big Bay and Slip Bay are of very high ecological value. In his view the wetlands surrounding the lake are considered significant in conjunction with the surrounding indigenous terrestrial vegetation. 186. Mr Hooson concluded there would be no adverse effects on terrestrial vegetation from inundation. Although there was potential for some species (e.g. Juncus ) to extend their distribution down the lake shore during extended durations of low flow, they will be limited by reoccurring higher water levels. 187. Mr Hooson was of the view that lake level changes are likely to result in subtle, but complex changes in the distribution and composition of species in the wetlands that occur at the lake margins. However, he considered these would be limited due to the fact species are already adapted to existing fluctuations, there will be no increase in the range, and ongoing rainfall and stream input influences. Mr Hooson
37 considered the risk of terrestrial vegetation invasion was low given their general absence from the area, and that there was no increased fire risk. 188. To ensure there would be no significant impacts on wetlands surrounding the lake, Mr Hooson recommended regular monitoring of the community composition and health in identified wetlands and outlined measures to be undertaken if significant adverse effects are occurring. The applicant has proffered a condition giving effect to his recommendation. 189. Mr Hooson noted that most of the proposed upgrade works, and ongoing operation and maintenance of the schemes’ infrastructure will occur within the historically modified envelopes in which the existing schemes are located. He was satisfied the proposed new McKays Creek HEPS and headpond will be located in previously modified areas of low ecological value. 190. Mr Hooson noted that the vegetation on the ridge above the tunnel is intact primary rimu/kamahi forest of high ecological value. He considered the proposed tunnel bypass option would adversely affect secondary kamahi/Quintinia forest with the Kaniere Farm Conservation Area, and primary rimu-miro/kamahi- Quintinia . He noted the secondary kamahi/ Quintinia forest plays an important role in connecting the Kaniere Forks Scenic Reserve with the large area of protected land to the south. He considered the permanent loss of 1.1ha of this vegetation required mitigation. He also recommended that large mature rimu trees in the vicinity of the tunnel bypass route be avoided during detailed design, if possible. We note that this has been proffered as a condition of consent. 191. Mr Hooson submitted that the sites identified for spill disposal from the proposed tunnel bypass options are on private land that is dominated by gorse scrub and has low ecological value. He noted the site would be re-contoured and sown with pasture or allowed to naturally regenerate. He outlined that rehabilitation of cut faces would be limited due to their height and steepness and that because of this edge effects would require mitigation. He considered the new section of water race would act as a physical barrier to the movement and dispersal of fauna and that the existing ‘bridge’ between the Kaniere Farms Conservation Area and the Kaniere Forks Scenic Reserve would be lost. 192. Mr Hooson considered construction effects such as noise and vibration would be of short duration. He was of the view that potential effects such as sediment discharges would be adequately avoided or mitigated by implementation of the management plans. 193. Mr Hooson considered the birds observed during surveys were typical of this habitat type of Westland. Species diversity observed was low, with paradise shelduck, grey duck, mallard and NZ scaup comprising the majority of birds counted. Three species with threat classification rankings were observed, grey duck (‘Nationally Critical’), black shag (‘Naturally Uncommon’) and South Island fernbird (‘Declining’). He noted because historical recordings of Australasian crested grebe (‘Nationally Vulnerable’) and the occurrence of grey duck (‘Nationally Critical’) the lake is recognised by the WCRC as having significant
38 value for birds. Overall, he concluded that lowered lake levels would have a negligible effect on birds inhabiting the lake. 194. Mr Hooson described the low quality habitat value of the Kaniere River and observations of grey duck, paradise ducks and black shags. He concluded that any change to the flow regime from the proposal would have no effect on water birds. He considered the most impacted reach (downstream of McKays weir) currently provides poor quality feeding and roosting, and that this is unlikely to change under the proposal. 195. He described the common indigenous species of the forested areas included bellbird, brown creeper, grey warbler, NZ pigeon, tui, South Island fantail, yellow breasted tit, and yellow crowned parakeet. He noted three at risk species were observed, kea and long tailed cuckoo (both ‘Naturally Uncommon’), and western weka (‘Declining’); and that South Island kaka (‘Nationally Endangered’) and the NZ falcon (‘Nationally Vulnerable’) have also been recorded in the area. 196. Mr Hooson noted that the forested habitats also provided habitat for the South Island long-tailed bat (‘Nationally Endangered’), the West Coast green gecko and speckled skink (both ‘Declining’). 197. Mr Hooson noted that the forest along the tunnel bypass provided good habitat for indigenous birds and its removal would result in loss of feeding, roosting and breeding habitat. While individual birds would be adversely impacted, there were unlikely to be impacts at a local population level. To avoid impacts on bats roosting in large trees, he recommended pre-construction surveys to ensure bats are not roosting in trees to be felled. Like birds, he considered the scale of the loss and the surrounding forest habitat would ensure that any impacts to lizards and invertebrates were not at a population level. 198. In the event that one of the tunnel bypass options is implemented, the applicant has proposed to mitigate the loss of indigenous vegetation and habitat by protecting a 3.5ha area of significant indigenous vegetation on private property owned by Kaniere Farms Limited. Mr Hooson considered this area to be of high ecological value despite its small size and the adverse effects of cattle and deer. He noted that kahikatea forest under-represented in the HED and that lowland rimu forest has been disproportionately cleared. Mr Hooson considered the area proposed for protection provides suitable mitigation as it has high ecological values, it is close to the affected area (700m), it represents a like-for-like scenario, it is on private land and is under threat of clearance, and it will rapidly improve with the exclusion of cattle and deer. He noted the proposed area was more than three time the size of the protected area in recognition of the direct removal of vegetation, and indirect effects such as edge effects and loss of ecological corridor function. 199. Mr Hooson acknowledged the proposal would not result in an increase in the area of forest within the HED, but protection of the site (by covenant or by transfer to DoC) would result in a positive environmental outcome. To ensure this, he
39 recommended fencing and maintaining the boundary of the site to exclude cattle and deer, and weed surveillance and control. 200. In general, Ms Clark accepted the applicant’s assessment of effects on terrestrial ecology. She was satisfied that most of the infrastructure upgrades would not result in the loss of significant indigenous vegetation or habitats. She considered the tunnel deviation options were narrow corridors and any adverse effects on fauna such as birds and lizards would be on a very small population. She noted the applicant’s proffered condition would mitigate any effects in bats. 201. Ms Clark considered the loss of 1.1ha of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat associated with the tunnel bypass options, and was of the view that this should be avoided if the tunnel refurbishment is a viable option. However, she accepted that it may not be and therefore had considered the tunnel bypass options. She accepted the mitigation proffered by the applicant to protect 3.5 ha of significant vegetation at another site and agreed was likely to result in a positive outcome on terrestrial values in the area. 202. Ms Clark informed us that none of the wetlands surrounding Lake Kaniere were identified in Schedule 1 of Variation 1 of the Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan, but that three are identified in Schedule 2 of the Environment Court’s interim decision regarding appeal of Variation 1. Ms Clark accepted it was unlikely that the proposed changes in lake levels would adversely affect the wetlands surrounding Lake Kaniere. She noted some of the wetlands near the lake edge could potentially be affected, but accepted this could be addressed by the condition proffered by the applicant to survey the condition and extent of the wetlands over time. Summary 203. In having regard to the evidence presented, we accept that any significant adverse effect from the proposal on wetlands surrounding the lake is unlikely. We are satisfied that the conditions proposed require regular monitoring of specifically identified wetlands over time and if necessary remediation or mitigation of any adverse effects. We are mindful that the applicant is not seeking to change the range of lake levels and consider that fluctuations will continue to occur after significant rainfall. 204. We accept the evidence of Mr Hooson that the loss of 1.1ha of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat can be adequately mitigated by the legal and physical protection of the identified 3.5ha of significant indigenous vegetation, and the imposition of specific conditions relating to fauna. Having said that, once the applicant has determined which of the alternatives to the tunnel (if any) is to be proceeded with, we are concerned that the consent in relation to the discarded options should lapse. 205. We are satisfied that any adverse effects on terrestrial ecology associated with the proposed construction works occur predominantly within the existing scheme envelopes and can be avoided or mitigated by implementation of management plans and design. 40 AQUATIC ECOLOGY EFFECTS 206. The existing scheme has been in place for many years and it is therefore possible to assess the actual adverse effects of historical hydrological changes in the lake and river on aquatic ecology. Although there is no baseline information on lake levels and river flows before water abstraction and lake level management, it is possible to assess the diversity and quality of the existing biota. 207. In our earlier sections on hydrological effects we assessed the likely changes on water quality and water quantity (river flows and lake levels). This section assesses how those changes are likely to affect the aquatic ecology of the lake and river ecosystems. Lake Kaniere 208. General concern was raised in submissions regarding potential adverse effects on the existing aquatic flora and fauna of the lake. Some submitters were concerned that lower lake levels would expose aquatic plants (weed mats) which would rot and die. No evidence was presented by submitters in relation to these potential adverse effects at the hearing. 209. Dr Ryder noted there are 37 species or sub-species of plant identified from the lake bed (34 of which are indigenous), including two threatened species (ranked ‘in gradual decline’). He outlined that these are mainly found in the depth range 0- 3.5m, although some are found at slightly greater depths, which is probably due to high water clarity. Dr Ryder noted the macrophyte communities are similar to those found in other West Coast lakes and that this suggested the communities had not been adversely effected by existing water fluctuations. 210. Dr Ryder outlined the predicted changes in mean and median lake levels, and the reduced time of water spill over the lake outlet weir. He noted these changes have the potential to adversely impact aquatic plant communities in the littoral zone of the lake. In this situation, he noted the predicted fluctuations would occur within the existing operating range and that the variations would occur over weeks rather than daily. He considered that given the plants occur over a range of depths the adverse effects would be minor. 211. Ms Clark noted in the s.42A report that the Lake Submerged Plant Indicators database complied by NIWA shows that Lake Kaniere has the highest condition factor out of all of the lakes on the West Coast that are recorded on the database. She suggested this indicated the existing aquatic plants were in good health and had adapted to the existing water level fluctuations. In view of this, she accepted it is likely aquatic plants will quickly adapt to the proposed new fluctuations. 212. Dr Ryder stated that the lake supports native fish species, including common bully, giant kokopu, and longfin and shortfin eel, and introduced fish species including brown trout, Chinock salmon, perch and rainbow trout. Dr Ryder was of the view that the only adverse effect of the existing scheme is to fish populations that rely on access to the sea because of the existing physical barrier of McKays weir.
41 213. In considering the predicted reduction in the proportion of time the lake is spilling (from an average of 38% of the time to an average of 10% of the time) and the mean flows at the lake outlet, Dr Ryder was of the view that “there would be sufficient and regular opportunity for all fish species to migrate in and out of the lake from the upper Kaniere River” (pg.15). 214. Concern was raised by submitters for freshwater mussels on the shoreline of Lake Kaniere. Dr Ryder noted that freshwater mussels have already adapted to the existing water level fluctuation. Given the fluctuations associated with proposal will occur gradually, he considered they would adapt to the new regime. Ms Clark accepted the applicant’s expert evidence that the mussels would adjust their position on the lake bed to allow for more frequent lower lake levels. 215. Mr Bradley and Ms Gurden, and Mr Olson raised particular concern regarding the effect of fluctuating lake levels on fish breeding. Dr Ryder was of the view that there would be no effect on fish spawning in the lake, as fluctuations from the proposed activity would not be rapid. Summary 216. In having regard to the evidence presented, we accept that the proposal is unlikely to adversely affect the existing aquatic ecology in Lake Kaniere. We consider the existing aquatic ecology has adapted to fluctuating water levels and the communities present appear to be robust and healthy. 217. We are somewhat concerned that the hydrological modelling shows that in some years the lake will not spill for over seven months in winter and remain unconvinced that there will be sufficient and regular opportunity for trout and salmon to migrate in and out of the lake in every year. However, we have no evidence addressing this particular point and the Fish and Game Council did not appear at the hearing on this matter. Kaniere River 218. In general, relative to the existing situation, the proposed scheme will result in slightly higher flows in the upper Kaniere River from the lake outlet to McKays weir, reduced flows in the reaches from McKays weir to the McKays Creek HEPS discharge, and increased flows downstream of the McKays Creek HEPS discharge. 219. Dr Ryder considered the predicted changes to median flows (relative to the existing situation) and noted that habitat upstream and downstream of McKays weir and downstream of McKays Creek HEPS discharge would decrease as a result. He noted there would be a slight increase in habitat downstream of the Kaniere Forks HEPS discharge. 220. Dr Ryder noted that reduced flows can affect connectivity within the mainstem and to tributaries. He confirmed that he had inspected the upper river at minimum flow levels (0.2m 3/s) and that no connectivity issues were identified. He noted that a similar inspection of the reach below McKays weir at a flow of 0.22m 3/s indicated
42 native fish passage was possible, but that passage of large salmonids would be restricted. 221. Dr Ryder was of the view that the McKays weir and the Lake Kaniere outlet control structure, and to a lesser extent the weir on Blue Bottle Creek, are already adversely affecting the distribution and abundance of native fish species in the wider Kaniere River catchment. He noted that these physical barriers (structures) combined with the existing alteration in the flow regime of various sections of the river were the primary issues affecting aquatic ecology. 222. Dr Ryder noted that all of the fish species present (except brown mudfish) are diadromous requiring access to the sea to complete their lifecycle. He considered fish passage was probably only currently possible when water was spilling over the weir at the lake outlet and at McKays weir, and that fish may become entrained in the races associated with the schemes. He noted that existing bar spacings at the intakes were insufficient to exclude fish and that mortality is likely when passing through the turbines. He considered that these adverse effects were occurring under the existing scheme and would continue under the proposed scheme unless remedied or mitigated. To address this, Dr Ryder recommended the installation fish exclusion screens and where necessary fish return channels. He also recommended screening of the Blue Bottle Creek intake. These recommendations have been captured in the applicant’s proffered conditions. On questioning, Dr Ryder confirmed that the need for return fish channel (or pipe) at the McKays Creek HEPS tailrace would need to be assessed during November for lampreys, and in January and February for elvers (juvenile eels). He considered that if significant numbers were accumulating in the tailrace, a return channel or transfer system would need to be established. This has also been proffered as a condition of consent. 223. Dr Ryder recommended modifications to the lake outlet weir and McKays weir to provide for unhindered native fish passage. He considered that if there were ‘pinch points’ where there was not sufficient depth under low flows, it would be possible to modify the channel with machinery. Dr Ryder considered that if monitoring determines that fish recruitment is not occurring upstream of McKays weir, there is the ability to release flows, within the limits of the control gate operation, timed to coincide with peak migration of key species such as eels. 224. With regard to the structure on Blue Bottle Creek, Dr Ryder noted that there was currently no minimum residual flow required downstream of the intake structure and that under low flow conditions there is very little water flowing over the weir. He noted the loss of connectivity downstream of the intake point during low flow and that this may be adversely affecting fish distribution. He considered that surveyed distributions indicated that passage is possible at higher flows, but that he was uncertain what flow is sufficient to maintain connectivity. To address this he recommended a trial of residual flow options and the applicant has proffered this as a consent condition. 225. Dr Ryder outlined that periphyton was visible at all sites surveyed along the Kaniere River. He noted that the cover of algae complied with the Ministry for the
43 Environment’s guidelines at all sites except for upstream of McKays weir. He considered that because there was only a small flow reduction at this point (1 m3/s) it was likely to be influenced by habitat conditions. 226. Dr Ryder considered the issue of nuisance filamentous algae under the proposed scheme and noted the reach below McKays weir to be at the greatest risk. To address this, he recommended periphyton monitoring during the summer months (Nov-April) and the release of flushing flows to scour the bed. He suggested management would be site specific and would need to be monitored and adjusted to determine appropriate and efficient flushing regimes. He noted the magnitude of the flushing flows in the order of 4-6 (or more) times the previous flow would be needed to provide sufficient scouring of the bed. 227. Ms Clark noted that some sections of the river currently experience significant levels of algal growth. She was of the view that releasing flushing flows during prolonged periods of low flow would mitigate excessive algal growth in susceptible reaches. 228. Dr Ryder considered the surveyed benthic macro-invertebrate community of the Kaniere River to be comparable to similar river habitats on the West Coast. He outlined a total of 40 macro-invertebrate taxa that were identified at six sites, including two threatened species (freshwater mussel and freshwater crayfish) ranked in ‘gradual decline’. He noted the macro-invertebrate health indices were indicative of ‘fair’ to ‘good’ quality habitat and reflected the stable nature of a lake outlet river that provides favourable habitat for high algae and plant biomass. 229. Dr Ryder outlined that the range of native fish species present in the Kaniere River system is similar to that of other West Coast rivers, with the exception of the absence of dwarf galaxias and upland bullies. Fish diversity is high compared to neighbouring rivers, but Dr Ryder considered this may reflect a relatively large sampling effort. Species found included bluegill bully, giant kokopu, inanga, koaro, lamprey, shortfin and longfin eel, redfin bully, shortjaw kokopu and torrentfish. He noted the fish surveys showed distinct differences between upstream and downstream of McKays weir, with only longfin and shortfin eels found above the weir. Dr Ryder concluded the abundance and distribution of fish species appears to be controlled by the physical size of the habitat and barriers to upstream migration. He noted the trout fishery of the river is minor due to the limited habitat available to adult trout. 230. Dr Ryder examined the relationship between physical habitat and flow in order to assess the critical ‘break point’ for fish and macro invertebrate species. He outlined that determination of an appropriate flow regime requires balancing the habitat requirements of different species in order to select a flow that retains some habitat for all species. On the basis of his analyses, he recommended the proposed increased minimum flow levels and considered these to be adequate to maintain existing biota. He noted that the increase in minimum flow below McKays weir from 0.2 to 0.3m 3/s was important, as the river would at minimum flow levels in this reach for 80% of the time. Overall he emphasised that an adaptive
44 management approach had been proposed to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and ensure sufficient flow is maintained to sustain the existing fisheries. 231. Dr Ryder noted that with reduced spill over the weir at the lake outlet there would be reduced opportunity for fish passage upstream from the river to the lake, as discussed above. He noted that proposed modifications to the lake outlet gates and that Kaniere Race intake, and McKays weir were unlikely to improve fish passage for all fish species. He considered that modification to the outlet weir could improve passage into the lake for some native fish that are good climbers, but that salmonids can only enter the lake when it is spilling over the outlet weir. He noted the same applied to McKays weir. 232. Fish and Game made a submission regarding the existing instream barriers to fish migration and outlined that they have had to augment the trout and salmon populations. Fish and Game were concerned that flow reductions between the lake outlet and Wards Road would make this section of the river difficult for salmon to negotiate. We note that Fish and Game have signed a side agreement with the applicant to mitigate effects on the salmonid fishery and that they did not elaborate on the original submission at the hearing. 233. Dr Ryder acknowledged his assessment had not taken into account the passage of salmon because of the lack of records for salmon in the river. He noted that stocking of the lake with trout and salmon was only a recent practice. He referenced a range of estimates of the water depth required by adult salmonids for upstream passage of 18-25cm and that the depth of water in the reach from the lake outlet to Wards Road at flows of 0.3-0.4m 3/s is predicted to be 19-21cm and at median flows 53cm. 234. DoC’s submission highlighted the role of the Kaniere River as a habitat in itself, and not just as a corridor. Dr Ryder acknowledged that he had considered the most impacted sections as conduits for fish passage rather than as habitat due to the existing flow modifications. 235. DoC noted that the existing minimum flow downstream of the lake outlet (0.2m 3/s) is never reached because of the configuration of the existing take and discharge points, and the fact that water must pass down the river to reach the McKays weir before it is abstracted. DoC noted the requirements of Policy 7.3.1 and Policy 7.3.2 of the Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan and the importance of maintaining adequate residual flows. 236. Ms Clark was of the view that the proposal would have some adverse effect on the trout and salmon fisheries due to the reduction in flow in the Kaniere River and the restricted migration of large salmonids. Overall she noted the positive effects of reduced fish mortality (by use of fish screens on intakes and return channels) and modifications to the existing physical barrier to ensure native fish passage can occur. 237. Mr Olson raised concern regarding loss of fish spawning. Dr Ryder noted most fish species present in the Kaniere River are likely to spawn in the tributaries, but that
45 plenty of physical habitat would remain in the mainstem of the river. As discussed above, he considered there would be no effect on fish spawning in the lake. Summary 238. It is important that sufficient flow is maintained to sustain existing fish populations and benthic macro-invertebrates, and to minimise nuisance algae growths. It is also important to ensure that sufficient fish passage remains both up and down the Kaniere River (and its tributaries). On the basis of the evidence of Dr Ryder, we are satisfied that these objectives can be achieved by monitoring the distribution and abundance of fish species upstream and downstream of the three existing physical barriers and ensuring sufficient minimum flows are maintained throughout the mainstem of the Kaniere River and downstream of the intake on Blue Bottle Creek. It is clearly important that sufficient and regular spill occurs at critical time to enable salmonids opportunity to pass over McKays weir and the lake outlet weir. 239. We note that proffered conditions require the applicant to monitor the effectiveness of modifications for fish passage. If recruitment is not occurring above or below the weirs, modifications will need to be made to ensure sufficient fish passage can occur. We are mindful that the reductions in spilling time are substantial and that this has the potential to limit the passage of large salmonids. 240. We consider it is important that sufficient flushing flows are regularly released to ensure prolonged low flow conditions do not cause excessive periphyton growth. We are satisfied the applicant’s proffered condition will ensure MfE guidelines are met and if necessary that flushing flows are released. We note that if periphyton limits are exceed downstream of McKays weir the applicant will initiate a flushing flow of at least 6 times the preceding flow for a duration of at least 12 hours. Heritage Values 241. The applicant has undertaken a heritage assessment of the proposed enhancement works for the McKays HEPS in recognition of s.6(f) RMA which requires as a matter of national importance to “…recognise and provide for… the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development” .
242. Dr Clough, an experienced archaeologist, undertook the assessment and in his report concluded that this area did not include any pre-1900 elements, but had some heritage value based on its contribution to hydro-electric power generation in the area dating back to the 1930’s. He made a number of recommendations designed to mitigate the minor adverse effects, which were supported in the s.42A report. These recommendations included: • Obtaining a general archeological authority under s.12 of the Historic Places Act; • Recording and photographing Coal Creek Flume before removal and replacement; • The existing McKays Creek power station be preserved and adaptively reused
46 • Development of an Accidental Discovery protocol; and • Development of a Heritage Management Plan.
243. These recommendations as well as being supported in the s.42A report, which noted that there were no identified Historic Places in the McKays Creek HEPS area which were listed in Appendix A of the Westland District Plan, are also supported by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
244. While many of the original submissions, following notification, were opposed to the initial proposal to enhance the Kaniere Forks HEPS, it appears that following this part of the application being ‘put on hold’, there are no specific submissions in opposition to the amended proposal, in terms of heritage values, to the McKays Creek HEPS proposal.
Summary
245. In our assessment, we accept the views of Dr Clough, the Council Officers and the Historic Places Trust, that subject to the acceptance of the recommendations, the proposal meets the requirements of s.6(f) RMA.
Positive Effects
246. Mr Welsh submitted that the real and not insignificant benefits of the proposal are increased renewable energy generation, the economic benefits and employment during the construction period (three years), assisting New Zealand to reach its renewable energy targets and Kyoto Protocol obligations, an increase in security of locally embedded electricity supply and displacement of higher cost generation from the market.
247. Mr Clough outlined the relevance of economic effects to the RMA and our determination. He noted the capital cost of the upgrades, the ongoing expenditure, and the direct jobs created both in the construction and operation of the schemes. He considered the proposal created a valuable commodity from a natural resource – water – avoiding the costs and consequences of alternative means of electricity supply. He suggested any environmental effects of the proposal have been assessed and sustainably managed and do not create undue costs that undermine the value of the benefit gained.
248. Mr Clough outlined the operation of NZ’s wholesale electricity market and its physical constraints. He noted the West Coast region generated around 23% of its own demand for electricity, with the scheme contributing 8.7% of current generation capacity and 12.1% of the region’s electricity generation. While he acknowledged the schemes made only a modest contribution to regional generation, he considered benefits went beyond the volume of electricity generated by alleviating some of the costs incurred from an attenuated supply over the grid. He noted that reducing the loss in transmission and retaining generation capacity are real resource gains that constitute public benefits. He acknowledged
47 the schemes were unlikely to influence local power prices, as this would continue to be set by the cost of the power imported into the region.
249. Mr Clough noted data from the Electricity Authority indicated demand is growing, with the longer term forecast to 2025 of a growth average of 1.2%. He outlined the McKays Creek HEPS upgrade would nearly double the electricity generated each year from the schemes and would increase the productive efficiency of generation per unit of water used. He noted the additional generation from the proposal would increase the shares to 16% of capacity and 21% of generation in the region, which he viewed as significant at a regional level.
250. Mr Clough outlined the capital cost of the proposal would be $12.5 million (spread over three years) with around $9.3 million spent on civil engineering, construction and electrical trades in the region. He noted additional income would also be created by economic multiplier effects and would provide a significant stimulus to the local economy.
251. Mr Clough discussed the value of additional renewable energy generation in displacing thermal generation, the costs of emissions and NZ’s Kyoto Protocol commitments. He was of the view that the proposal fitted well with recent national policy and strategic directions and the RMA’s 2004 amendments.
Summary
252. On the basis of the evidence presented, we accept the proposal will have positive economic benefits for the West Coast’s regional economy, particularly over the three years construction period. We are satisfied the schemes will contribute to decreasing transmission losses and increase the local security of supply. While we accept there may be some contribution to the displacement of thermal generation and ultimately a reduction in greenhouse gases, we consider this to be very small and highly uncertain.
Chapter 6: MAIN FINDINGS OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES
Summary
253. The provisions of s.113(ae) require an assessment of the main findings of issues in contention. The table below summarises these matters and largely reflect our findings of Chapter 5 together with an identification of the relevant RMA reference.
48
Effect of Proposal Our Findings RMA
Natural Character, Although the Lake Kaniere landscape s.6(a),s.6(b) Landscape, and is not classified as outstanding in Visual Amenity relevant plan documents, we believe s.7(c) Effects muc h of it is of very high quality. s.7(f) Nonetheless, in this case, we accept that with suitable mitigation any adverse effects can remain no more
than minor. In particular, we consider a minimum level of 0.0m and implementation of the proffered seasonal operating regime will avoid and mitigate the unacceptable adverse effects on recreation and visual amenity values. We consider a minimum lake level of 0.3m is appropriate over the Christmas holiday period.
Water Quality Effects The proposal is unlikely to have any s.5(2)(a) measurable impact on existing water quality and water quality in the lake s.7(d),s.7(f), and river is likely to be maintained. s.7(g)
Water Quantity The proposal will alter water flows in s.6(a),s.6(e), Effects the Kaniere River. Mean flows in the upper section of the river will be s.7(b),s.7(c) increased and minimum flows will s.7(d) occur more often. Mean flows downstream of McKays weir will be reduced and minimum flows will occur more frequently and for longer durations. The percentage of time the lake outlet weir and McKays weir spill will be substantially reduced. Mean and median water levels in Lake Kaniere will be lowered. Lake levels will be significantly lower for significantly longer periods, particularly in winter months. Implementation of a seasonal operating regime will limit the percentage of time the lake can be 49 operated at low levels, particularly in the summer months.
Aquatic Ecology The proposal is unlikely to adversely s.6(c) Effects affect the existing aquatic ecology in Lake Kaniere, as the existing aquatic s.7(d) ecology has adapted to fluctuating s.7(h) water levels. It is accepted that the imposition of consent conditions will ensure that sufficient flow is maintained in the Kaniere River to sustain existing fish populations and benthic macro- invertebrates, and to minimise nuisance algae growths. The proposed modifications to allow native fish passage will be an improvement to the current situation. While there may be some adverse effect on the migration of adult salmonids, mitigation measures have been proffered.
Terrestrial Ecology The proposal is unlikely to adversely s.6(a) Effects affect wetlands surrounding the lake. Conditions are proffered to monitor changes in identified wetlands.
Should the tunnel option be found to s.6(c) be not feasible, a bypass option will result in the loss of 1.1 ha of significant s.7(f) indigenous vegetation and habitat of indigenous fauna. The permanent s.104(c) protection 3.5 ha of otherwise unprotected similarly high quality vegetation can mitigate this loss. We accept this offset area to be suitable compensation for this loss and for the loss of ecological connectivity and increased edge effects. We accept proffered conditions will avoid and mitigate adverse effects on birds and bats.
50 Heritage Effects There would be a net positive effect s.6(f) from the recording and display of heritage items such as materials from the coal creek flume. Notably the Historic Places Trust did not wish to raise any issues.
Cultural Effects The proposal is unlikely to have any s.6(e),s.6(g) adverse effects on tangata whenua s.8 values.
Lakeshore Effects The proposal is unlikely to cause or s.7(f) exacerbate lake shore erosion.
Fine sediments exposed at low lake levels are unlikely to be removed overtime.
Recreation Effects Although the proposed operating s.7(c) regime will not result in lower lake levels than those currently consented, those lower levels will persist for
longer periods. This will affect the ability to launch boats and reduce the opportunities and access for swimming and other water based recreation. It is important that improvements to the launching ramps are undertaken and that other improvements such as jetty extensions and swimming platforms are considered to maintain public access. Above all, a minimum level of 0.0m and the seasonal operating regime should ensure adequate water levels over the summer recreation
season.
Social Effects In the absence of mitigating conditions s.5(2) this proposal would generate adverse social effects from longer periods of low lake levels.
It is essential, therefore, that robust conditions are imposed to ensure that such adverse effects are no more than minor.
51 Positive Effects The proposal will have positive s.5(2), economic benefits for the West Coast’s regional economy, particularly s.7(b), s.113 over the three years construction period. We are satisfied the schemes will contribute to decreasing transmission losses and increase the local security of supply
Chapter 7: STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Part 6: RMA
Overview of Section 104D
254. We agree that s.104D applies only to the consents required under the Westland District Plan. The non-complying status is applied because the work to be carried out in some respects is within 10m of a river or stream with a width of more than 3m. These works relate to the installation of fish returns at the lake intake, at McKays weir and the tailrace below the McKays Creek HEPS. Works are also required to replace the existing flume across Coal Creek with pipes. They are either relatively small works or are within the footprint of the existing scheme. In other respects, the proposal is discretionary and we are conscious that it could be argued that this minor part of the project should not confer status on the major part of the project. The bundling of the Westland District Council consent was not challenged, however. 255. The first of the tests to be considered is whether or not the effects of the activity on the environment will be minor. There is little question in our minds that the installation of fish passes would have an adverse effect that is less than minor and that, provided a condition requiring a low reflectivity finish is applied (and exercised) to the pipes replacing the Coal Creek flume, the visual effects will be minor. Should the tunnel option prove to be the chosen method to convey water, then we believe the effect would be minimal. However, there is to be a clearance of part of an area of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat if either of the tunnel bypass options is chosen. At face value, this would have a more than minor adverse effect. While some mitigation in the form of revegetation of cut faces will be carried out, the applicant has recognised that this will not be sufficient and to this end proposes to protect a larger area close by with similar or higher ecological values. Protection would be ensured either through QEII covenant (or equivalent) or by inclusion in the adjacent DoC estate. Should such protection be achieved, we agree that the option of bypassing the tunnel would have adverse effects that on balance would be minor. This means that with appropriate conditions applied and exercised, we consider the first of the gateway tests can be met. 256. The s.42A report tested the applications against the relevant objectives and policies and did not find it was contrary to them (in the sense of being opposed to
52 in nature). This view was confirmed by Mr Bonis and was not contradicted at the hearing by any witness. Since the proposal has to meet only one or other of the gateway tests, we consider that there is no barrier to continued assessment in terms of Part 2 and s.104 of the Act. Overview of Section 104 257. The tests in s.104 apply to both the regional and district applications. 258. Section 104(1)(a) requires us to consider the actual and potential effects on the environment that would result from the exercise of the consents sought. Our assessment of environmental effects is in Chapter 5 and our main findings of fact are in Chapter 6. At this point we note our concerns that there is a potential for adverse effects that are more than minor in terms of extended low lake levels and the loss of indigenous habitat if not subject to appropriate conditions. 259. If we are to consider these effects in terms of the permitted baseline, we note that the current consented limits of lake drawdown are not proposed to be exceeded. To that extent, it might be said that the effects will not change. Their frequency and duration, however will be extended and to the extent that consented low levels may not have been exercised in the past, they may be required to be in the future. In this regard we view lake levels less than 0.0m to be unacceptable and consider levels this low should be avoided. 260. In relation to s.104(b) we are satisfied that the applications on balance are consistent with the relevant National Environmental Standards, National Policy Statements, any regulation, regional policy statement, proposed regional policy statement or plan or proposed plan as set out in the s.42A report. Sections 105 and 107 261. In terms of s.105 of the RMA, when considering any s.15 (Discharge Permit) matter, we are required to have regard to: (a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and (b) the applicant’s reason for the proposed choice; and (c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge to any other receiving environment.
262. We are satisfied that the applicant has had regard to these matters. We accept the water taken and discharged to generate power is unchanged from the non- consumptive use.
263. In terms of our consideration of s.107(1), we are prevented from granting a discharge permit to discharge a contaminant or water into water if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by itself or in combination with the same, similar or other contaminant or water), is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters-
53 (c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams or floatable or suspended materials; (d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity; (e) any emission of objectionable odour; (f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; (g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.
264. Pursuant to s.107(2), we may only grant a discharge permit to do something that would otherwise contravene s.15 that may allow any of the effects described in subsection (1) above, if we are satisfied- (a) that exceptional circumstance justify the granting of the permit; or (b) that the discharge is of a temporary nature; or (c) that the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance work- and that it is consistent with the purpose of this Act to do so.
265. We accept that the discharge of water from the power stations is unlikely to result in any of the effects set out in s.107(1)(c)-(g). We are satisfied that any discharges of sediment during construction works are likely to be localised and of short duration. We consider implementation of suitable management plans ensure best practice methods are utilised to avoid and minimise any discharges of contaminants during construction works. West Coast Regional Plans
266. There is no dispute between any of the parties as to which WCRC plans are required to be evaluated. As a general observation, we consider that the predominant plans to which these applications relate are the West Coast Regional Policy Statement (operative) and the Proposed Land and Water Plan which is the result of a merging of three separate plans, which are generally operative. To avoid repetition we accept the relevance of all the WCRC plans identified in the s.42A report and in Mr Bonis’s evidence. It is noted that all parties have finally agreed that the applications to the WCRC are, and have been considered as discretionary, and we agree.
267. We accept the evaluation of the regional plans contained within the s.42A report, which notes in regard to the application to re-consent the existing Kaniere Forks HEPS, that it would be a controlled activity if not for the additional improvement of the installation of a fish pass. This installation makes the re-consenting a discretionary activity and on this basis are both required to be, and have been, evaluated under s.104B of the RMA. Similarly the applications for the enhanced McKays Creek HEPS are discretionary.
268. We similarly accept both the s.42A report and Mr Bonis’ evidence that iwi have been consulted and that no submission was received from either Ngai Tahu or Ngati Waewae. On this basis we accept that there are no matters which have been bought to our attention which could be of concern to iwi.
54 269. Having reviewed all the information provided to us, we are satisfied that the proposals are generally consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement and the associated regional plans.
Westland District Plan
270. Re-consenting of the Kaniere HEPS is considered to be an ‘existing use right’ under the Westland District Plan. However the work proposals for the upgrade to McKays Creek HEPS as noted above, due to proximity and width of waterway, are deemed to be a non-complying activity and on this basis the application is required to be evaluated under the provisions of s.104D of the RMA. Details of this evaluation are shown above which support the s.42A report and Mr Bonis’ evidence, which conclude that the effects are no more than minor and that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan.
271. The s.42A report and Mr Bonis’s evidence are not dissimilar and to avoid repetition we generally accept both opinions. On this basis we accept the proposal passes both limbs of the ‘Gateway Tests’ of s.104D.
National Environmental Standards
272. There are three potentially relevant National Environmental Standards which a consent authority must have regard to under s.104(1)(b) of the Act - • The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality 2004; • The National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water 2007; and • The National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities 2009.
273. These were covered in the s.42A report and by Mr Bonis. We note that as far as air quality is concerned the relevant standard is the national standard for fine particles – PM 10 which in this case would relate to dust nuisance from spoil storage and extraction. The major source of such fine particles is combustion (under 10µm in diameter) and particulate matter from the construction activity is likely to be made up of larger size fractions. As far as the human drinking water standard is concerned, Lake Kaniere is the source of the Hokitika community water supply. We accept that none of the activities proposed could have direct impact upon this. The standard for electricity transmission relates only to construction of new transmission lines which are not involved in this proposal.
274. Consequently, there is not any basis for refusing consent in regard to any of these National Environmental Standards.
Other Regulations
275. The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 require takes of water exceeding 5 litres per second to be
55 measured and reported to regional councils. Conditions are proposed to achieve consistency with these regulations.
National Policy Statements
276. Two National Policy Statements, that for Freshwater Management 2011 and that for Renewable Energy Generation 2011 have relevance. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management contains a number of objectives. The main method of implementing this NPS is through the WCRC’s planning instruments. These objectives have been covered in the s.42A report and at some length by Mr Bonis. We note the conclusions that the proposal is consistent with the objectives relating to freshwater ecology in terms of the maintenance of flows in the Kaniere River. Conditions require provision of an adequate residual flow downstream of the Blue Bottle Creek intake point, based on further assessment and trials. Plants and organisms are expected to adapt quickly to a new regime in lake levels and there will be improved connectivity with the establishment of fish passages. While there will be some adverse effect on the salmonid fishery there will be opportunity for adult fish passage during floods and freshes and when there is weir spill. Efficiency in the use of freshwater is one of the main objectives of the enhancement scheme and consultation with iwi has not raised any issues.
277. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation encompasses policies requiring decision makers to recognise and provide for the national significance of renewable electricity generation activities; to have particular regard to matters relating to the practical implications of achieving the national target for electricity generation from renewable resources and to the practical constraints associated with their development. When considering the residual environmental effects of such generation, regard is to be had to offsetting measures or environmental compensation including measures which benefit the local environment and community affected. It is the common view expressed in the s.42A report and the evidence of Mr Bonis that the proposal is in accord with this National Policy Statement and this has not been challenged. We accept that view.
Chapter 8: PART 2 MATTERS
Section 6: Matters of National Importance 278. Section 6 of the Act (which is subordinate to s.5) is concerned with matters of national importance which must be recognised and provided for. Section 6(a) relevantly covers preservation of the natural character of wetlands and lakes and rivers and their margins. As we understand it, most if not all, the wetlands around the lake edge are maintained in their “wet” state by recharge from local streams rather than relying on incursion of lake water. This is an issue that requires monitoring during longer periods of draw down particularly for the wetland in Dorothy Falls Bay. With the construction of fish passes if anything an original natural feature will be partially restored and natural character will not be affected. The upgrade to the McKays Creek HEPS will have adverse effects on the lake, the river and the landscape which will have to be mitigated. Provided suitable 56 mitigation measures are exercised we are satisfied that the provisions of s.6(a) will be met. 279. Section 6(b) requires the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use and development. In some respects, the District can be said to have an abundance of outstanding natural features and landscapes. It could be said that this landscape is typical in that context. However, the area has many features and it is a landscape that has a character that would be seen as outstanding in many contexts. While the upgrade of the McKays Creek HEPS will result in lower lake levels occurring more frequently and for longer durations and there is evidence that the shoreline will adapt to this, we consider it is important that a seasonal operating regime limits the lower lake levels so that they are avoided in the summer period when recreational activities are at their highest. 280. Section 6(c) requires the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. About 1.1ha of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat will be affected if a bypass option to the existing tunnel is found to be necessary. This ecological loss has been recognised by the applicant and for that reason the purchase of and protection of 3.5ha of indigenous vegetation with like or greater ecological value is proposed. We accept this will adequately compensate for the loss of ecological values, and adverse effects on ecological connectivity. 281. Section 6(d) recognises the need to maintain and enhance public access to and along waterbodies. For the most part existing access will not be affected. Improvements to the boat ramps will assist to maintain boat access to the lake. Provided sufficient depth is available at times of boating activity, effects on public access will be adequately mitigated. Having considered the evidence presented, we consider public access to the lake for swimming and recreational activities is significantly limited at very low lake level. For this reason we consider levels below 0.0m to be unacceptable and that these very low levels should be avoided. We also consider that levels below 0.3m are undersirable over the Christmas holiday period when public access is at its highest level. 282. Consultation was undertaken with Ng āi Tahu and Ng āti Waewae as described in Chapter 3 and below. We accept that appropriate recognition has been given to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions in accord with s.6(e). Likewise, we are satisfied that no identified archaeological sites are involved (s.6(f)) and that there are no recognised customary activities in the area in relation to s.6(g). Other Matters - Section 7 283. Section 7 which is also subject to s.5 requires particular regard to be had to a number of matters. We have already observed that consultation has been undertaken with Ng āi Tahu and Ng āti Waewae in terms of kaitiakitanga (s.7(a)). Section 7(aa) – the ethic of stewardship has been respect in that apart from the
57 above consultation the discussions with the NZ Historic Places Trust and the Department of Conservation demonstrate a diligent approach. 284. In terms of s.7(b) we are satisfied that the proposal will efficiently use and develop the natural and physical resources to the extent that the proposed land and water uses will enable people’s social and economic wellbeing. We have concluded that the proposals will not impair the social well-being or health of the community, generally avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment, and maintains and enhances amenity values and the quality of the environment with the required seasonal operating regime and a minimum level of 0.0m imposed. 285. As far as s.7(ba) is concerned, we believe that hydro-electric generation per se is an efficient form of generation. We are not aware that this power will be inefficiently used. We accept the point made by Mr McCann that there may be increased periods when there is no water available for electricity generation due to the increase rate of abstraction. But we acknowledge this is an operational issue for the applicant, to be managed in conjunction with the seasonal operating regime and minimum lake level limit. Overall, we are satisfied that the applicant can operate the proposed scheme efficiently, particularly given the future remote automation of the release of water. 286. In relation to s.7(c) we are satisfied that with the comprehensive conditions imposed, amenity values will be maintained so that the effects of the proposal will be adequately mitigated. In particular, we are of the view that if lake levels are not reduced below 0.0m, any adverse effects on amenity values are likely to be no more than minor. 287. We are satisfied that with the imposition of appropriate conditions the intrinsic value of ecosystems in terms of s.7(d) also will be maintained. 288. Section 7(f) requires regard to be had to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. Specific assessments of these elements can be found in those sections in Chapter 5. Overall we are satisfied that the quality for the environment will be maintained. 289. Section 7(g) relates to the finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. The proposal does not involve the use of a finite resource. 290. Section 7(h) requires the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon. We are satisfied the proposal will have a minor effect on the existing habitat of trout and salmon. The habitat is currently limited by flow modification from the existing schemes. Increased minimum flow levels are likely to enable fish passage by larger fish and opportunities for migration will occur when there is spill over the weirs and during floods and freshes. 291. Section 7(i): The effects of climate change are perhaps not so relevant in this case but we note the observation in the s.42A report that with the predicted 25% increase in rainfall by 2070, there could be additional benefit from the enhanced scheme. 58 292. Section 7(j): The benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy are relevant to this project. A local source of renewable energy will result in greater independence for the region and reduced transmission loss. Treaty of Waitangi – Section 8 293. Section 8 requires us to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This implies a duty to protect tangata whenua interests and to involve local iwi in resource management. We are satisfied that this has occurred. Section 5: Purpose
294. Section 5 (1) and (2) of the Act set out its purpose as promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. That means managing the use, development and protection of these resources, but there is a caveat: it must be done in a way or at a rate which enables people to get on with providing for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their safety. Wellbeing is not something to be actively provided for, it is something that should be allowed to happen. The Environment Court has confirmed that this enabling function is a passive one. 4 Thus, those responsible for decisions must protect the environment and at the same time allow people and communities to develop. 295. There would be positive benefits for the company and the community in terms of job creation and security of power supply. Mr Clough outlined these. The schemes will inject funds into the local economy, particularly during the construction phase and to a much lesser extent during the ongoing operation. To this end, Mr Clough in responding to questions, replied that there would be few ongoing benefits to the community of this scheme unless the region was a net exporter of surplus electricity. There are critical variables in the capital construction cost and its staging, on-going expenditures on local services and suppliers and direct jobs for construction and operation of the schemes. In his view, the creation of a valuable commodity from a natural resource – water – while avoiding the costs and consequences of alternative means and locations of electricity supply, is perhaps the most significant benefit. In his opinion, the McKays Creek HEPS enhancements would need to create “an irreversible, substantial and unsubstitutable deterioration in recreational opportunities, landscapes and heritage assets for there to be a significant economic consequence from such effects. 296. These benefits were seen as insignificant by some submitters, particularly by lake users who saw significant disbenefits in the potential for low lake levels to occur more frequently for long periods. There was little or no comment from submitters on the potential loss of indigenous habitat from the tunnel bypass options which could not be fully mitigated. It is proposed to be offset by the permanent protection of significant habitat elsewhere. This is addressed in more detail in Chapter 5. 297. Clearly, meeting the purpose of the Act, mitigation measures are necessary in order to maintain the sort of parity required. These are matters covered by Mr
4 Wakatipu Environmental Society v QLDC, C180/99, pp 112-113 Terrace Tower (NZ) Pty Ltd v QLDC, C1112000 59 Greenaway, Ms Buckland, Dr Clough and Dr Single. Broadly, they are encompassed in the proposed operating regime. 298. After a thorough evaluation of s.6, 7 and 8 of the Act above, we are required to consider overall, whether or not the proposal satisfies the sustainable management of natural and physical resources outlined in s.5. The positive aspects of the applicant’s case were based on New Zealand’s demand for more energy and the need for it to come from a renewable energy source. It is subsequently clear to us that the proposal, although small, is both sustainable and is renewable and as a result will assist in meeting these national demands by generally satisfying the provisions of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, the NZ Energy Strategy, and the NZ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Subsequently we are satisfied that the proposal meets the single purpose of the RMA as prescribed in s.5. Chapter 9: DETERMINATION
299. These applications are made in order to make more efficient use of two existing hydro-electric generation schemes. The efficiency improvements are comparatively small, at least on a national scale, but in this case the generation is from a renewable resource. The benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy have been accorded a higher priority with recent concerns relating to climate change and the contribution that the use of fossil fuels is making to that. There are some direct economic benefits to the local economy from the upgrade of the McKays Creek HEPS, particularly during construction and less significantly once the scheme is operating. Security of electricity supply for the West Coast is improved and transmission losses are reduced. 300. As is usually the case, these benefits of the proposal are achieved at a cost in terms of possible loss of indigenous habitat, and to the lake as an established highly valued relatively unmodified natural environment and recreation resource. The number of submissions received regarding lowered mean and median lake levels, and the passion with which submitters spoke at the hearing emphasises to us the high value people place on Lake Kaniere. 301. We believe that if either of the alternatives to the tunnel upgrading is to be adopted, the off-site mitigation offered by the applicant will be sufficient to compensate for the terrestrial ecology loss. Numerous other conditions are proposed by the applicant in order to mitigate effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecology and we believe these are appropriate measures. 302. Our main concern, however, is that the proposed increased abstraction of water from Lake Kaniere is likely to result in relatively long and frequent periods where the lake level is so low as to severely limit public access such as boat launching and swimming activities. In particular, we regard lake levels of 0.0m as being incompatible with reasonable recreational use and access, and unacceptable visually due to the exposure of weed mats and mud.
60 303. While the applicant has proposed a number of positive measures, such as improving the boat ramps (which we regard as essential) and will investigate the establishment of swimming platforms, we believe these need to be backed up by the establishment of an operating regime which ensures that like levels do not fall below 0.0m and that lake levels above 0.3m are maintained during the summer season for 80% of the time. We also consider it is appropriate that lake levels are above 0.3m over the Christmas period when public access is at its highest level. 304. We consider an overall minimum operating level of 0.0m and 0.3m over the Christmas period represent environmental bottom lines which are critical to ensuring that the applicant has the opportunity to abstract more water (than has historically been abstracted) without adversely affecting the existing values of Lake Kaniere. Given the estimated annual inflows into the lake, we would not be comfortable with any increase in abstraction without these minimums and the proffered seasonal operating regime. We are conscious that even with the imposition of these limits the lake will be significantly lower for much longer durations than has historically occurred. However, we accept this environmental bottom line approach represents an appropriate balance between social, economic and environmental interests. Decision 305. Having carefully considered all the relevant reports and documentation supplied with the application, submissions and the evidence presented to us during the hearing, we consider that the applicant TrustPower, has made its case and consents sought should be granted. In reaching our decision we are satisfied that adequate reasons have been provided above particularly in Chapter 5: Principal Issues and Effects. 306. We subsequently grant the following consents under delegated authority from the WCRC and WDC subject to the conditions contained below within Chapter 10. Consent Duration and Lapsing Period
307. The term of the consents granted is for a 35 year period with a lapsing period of 10 years.
Terry Archer (Chair) Sharon McGarry
Mike Garland
Dated this 26 th day of July 2012
61 Chapter 10: CONSENTS AND CONDITIONS 308. In attaching conditions to our decision, we have largely accepted the proffered conditions by the applicant, with input from the Council officers, with a number of variations including modifications to lake levels. These conditions appear for the most part, to have been accepted by the applicant.
62 Chapter 11: APPENDICES
Location Plan
McKays Enhancement Proposal
SUBMITTERS
LIST OF SUBMITTERS Bold print indicates heard at hearing or supplementary submission presented. *Indicates general submission made on Kaniere Forks which is now ‘on hold’.
Submitter Council Position Heard? submitted to Amos Both Oppose Joint
Anderson Both Oppose Joint
Anderson Both Oppose No
Anderson Both Oppose Joint
Anderson & Harding WCRC Oppose Yes
Barcock WCRC Oppose Yes
Barcock Both Oppose Yes
Beatson Both Oppose Yes
Beatson Both Oppose Yes
Bedford Both Oppose No
Bennett and Crowe Both Oppose Joint
Birdling Both Oppose No
Black Both Oppose Joint
Blok Both Oppose Yes
Boniface Both Oppose Not stated
Boon Both Oppose Not stated
Bradley Both Neutral No
Breeze Both Oppose Yes
Breeze Both Oppose Yes
Breeze Both Oppose Yes
Brown Both Oppose Not stated
Carruthers WDC Oppose Yes
Chatterton and Birdling WCRC Oppose No
Clarke Both Oppose Yes Clausen Both Oppose Yes
Collins Both Oppose Joint
Community and Public Health Both Not stated Yes
Copplestone Both Oppose Joint
Copplestone Both Oppose No
Craig Both Oppose Not stated
Department of Conservation Both Neutral No
Diedrichs WCRC Oppose Yes
Dyzel Both Oppose No
Esquilat Both Oppose Yes
Esquilat WDC Oppose No
Fahey Both Oppose Joint
Fish & Game New Zealand - West Coast Region WCRC Oppose Yes
Flood Both Oppose Yes
Foster * Both Oppose No
Gavin WDC Oppose Yes
Gold Both Oppose Joint
Grigg WDC Oppose No
Gurden Both Oppose Yes
Gurden Both Oppose Yes
Harford WCRC Oppose No
Hill * WDC Oppose No
Hinchliff Both Oppose Yes
Houston Both Oppose No
Howat Both Oppose Yes
Hurley WCRC Oppose Yes
Hustwick Both Oppose Yes
Ireland and family * WCRC Oppose Not stated
Janes and Button * WCRC Oppose Yes Jet Boating New Zealand Inc* WCRC Oppose Yes
Johnston Both Oppose No
Jones Both Oppose No
Jones Both Oppose No
Keenan * Both Oppose Yes
Keenan * WDC Oppose No
King Both Oppose Joint
King Both Oppose Joint
Kingi Both Oppose Yes
Knopp Both Oppose Joint
Koridon and McCann Both Oppose Yes
Kruhlak Both Oppose Joint
Lemon Both Oppose Yes
Lines Both Oppose Yes
Lochhead Both Oppose No
Lukes Both Oppose Yes
Marshall WCRC Support No
McDougall Both Oppose Yes
McGirr Both Oppose Joint
McIntosh WCRC Oppose No
McIntosh Both Oppose Joint
McPhail Both Oppose Yes
Molloy WCRC Oppose Yes
Muirhead-Smith Both Oppose Joint
Neal and Cooper Both Oppose Joint
New Zealand Historic Places Trust WDC Oppose Yes
Nicol Both Oppose No
O'Donnell WCRC Oppose Yes
Oliver Both Oppose Yes Olson Both Oppose Joint
Orange Both Oppose Yes
Park Both Support Yes
Parsons Both Oppose Yes
Penny and family WCRC Oppose No
Pontin Both Oppose Yes
Powell WCRC Support No
Pringle Both Oppose Joint
Provis WCRC Oppose Yes
Rapley Both Oppose Joint
Rich WDC Oppose No
Rich * Both Oppose No
Richardson Both Oppose Not stated
Riley Both Oppose Yes
Ritchie Both Oppose Yes
Robbins WCRC Oppose No
Robertson Both Oppose Not stated
Robinson Both Oppose No
Robinson * Both Oppose No
Rodgers Both Oppose Joint
Rodgers, Preston, Boon & Dunn * Both Oppose Yes
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc Both Oppose Yes
Ruarus Both Oppose Not stated
Ruarus Both Oppose Not stated
Sawkins Both Oppose Yes
Schroder Both Oppose Joint
Scott WCRC Oppose Yes
Secker * WCRC Oppose No
Silcock Both Oppose Joint Simes Both Oppose Joint
Smith WCRC Oppose No
Smith Both Oppose Joint
Smith Both Oppose Joint
Smith Both Oppose Joint
Smith and Kearns (withdrawn) Both Oppose Yes
Spark * Both Oppose Not stated
Spark Both Oppose Yes
Spark Both Oppose Yes
Spark Both Oppose Not stated
Stewart WCRC Oppose No
Sullivan Both Oppose Joint
Sullivan Both Oppose Not stated
Taylor Both Oppose Joint
Taylor Both Oppose Joint
Thomson * Both Oppose Yes
Twist Both Oppose Yes
Ward Both Oppose No
Warren Both Oppose Yes
Waterman Both Oppose Not stated
Watson and Landis Both Oppose Yes
West * Both Oppose Yes
West Coast ENT Inc Both Oppose Yes
West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board WCRC Neutral Yes
Westland District Council Both Neutral Yes
Wilson Both Oppose No
Wilton * Both Oppose Yes