IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF a joint application by Central Plains Water Trust and Ashburton Community Water Trust to:
Canterbury Regional Council for resource consent CRC021091 to take water from the Rakaia River for use by the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme and the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme
IN THE MATTER OF applications by Ashburton Community Water Trust to:
Canterbury Regional Council for resource consents CRC072637, CRC072636, CRC073863, CRC072638, CRC072639, CRC072640, CRC072641, CRC072642, CRC073862, CRC073864, CRC072643, CRC072644, CRC072645, CRC072646, CRC072647, CRC072648, CRC072649
and
Ashburton District Council for land use consent LUC07/0030
to use and divert water from the Rakaia river for the purposes of hydro electricity generation and associated consents required for the construction and operation of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme.
FINAL DECISION OF INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS MILNE, FENEMOR AND O’CALLAGHAN APPOINTED JOINTLY BY CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY) AND ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL
9230798-3 Page 1 Table of contents
PART I - HEARING AND DECISION...... 4 1. Decision...... 4 2. Introduction...... 5 3. Key issues ...... 7 4. Interim decision ...... 8 5. Summary of our preliminary conclusions...... 8 6. The resumed hearing ...... 10 7. Summary of our decision and Part 2 assessment ...... 12 PART II – CONTEXT ...... 17 8. Overview of the Applications ...... 17 9. Relationship to Central Plains Water and the joint application to take...... 26 10. Relationship of the ACWT consents to BCI and EAL consents ...... 27 11. Relationship to Synlait applications ...... 27 12. The Synlait appeal...... 28 PART III – FINDINGS ON LEGAL ISSUES...... 29 13. Jurisdictional issues...... 29 14. Fairness of our hearing the recent applications immediately after the CPWT applications 30 15. Change in purpose of the take consent ...... 30 16. Amendment to sediment discharge application ...... 34 17. Decision to jointly decide the ACWT applications but to separately decide the CPW matters and splitting of the joint take application ...... 35 18. Whether a separate decision on ACWT is contrary to the High Court decision?...... 38 19. Proceeding with the hearing before Synlait's remaining priority application is determined .39 20. Whether we can allow ACWT to take water which is unused by other consent holders .....41 21. Activity Status...... 41 22. Reasonably foreseeable future Environment...... 42 23. Decision making framework...... 43 24. Consistency with Rakaia Water Conservation Order take regime ...... 43 25. Consistency of sediment discharges with WCO ...... 47 PART IV – ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 49 26. Assessment of effects of proposed water take on flows...... 49 27. Impacts of the take on instream values ...... 52 28. Hydrological effects of the Barrhill discharge...... 53 29. Effects on sediment transport...... 53 30. Effects of water take on Flooding at the River Mouth ...... 53 31. Effects of water take on other consent holders...... 54 32. Effects of Sediment Disposal...... 55 33. Effects on Water Quality and in stream Ecology...... 56 34. Effects on avifauna ...... 57 35. Terrestrial Ecology...... 58 36. Effects on landscape, visual amenity and natural character...... 62 37. Effects on landowners ...... 65 38. Effects on Recreational Values...... 65 39. Economic, Social and Cultural Effects...... 66 40. Public access to and along the river...... 66 41. Construction Effects ...... 67 42. Traffic Effects ...... 68 43. Trustpower, Transpower and Telecom agreements ...... 68 44. Planning Assessment ...... 68 45. Consent Duration and Lapse...... 69 46. Conditions...... 69 47. Conclusion...... 77
Appendix 1 Summary of submitters and their concerns
9230798-3 Page 2 Appendix 2 Our Minute on the joint hearing of all related ACWT matters Appendix 3 Conditions
9230798-3 Page 3 PART I - HEARING AND DECISION
1. Decision
1.1 The Canterbury Regional Council and the Ashburton District Council appointed us to hear and decide the applications by Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT)). We, along with Commissioner Nixon were also appointed to hear the related Central Plains Water (CPW) applications and Notice of Requirement. That hearing commenced in February 2008 and included the joint application by ACWT and CPW to jointly or severally take up to 40 cumecs of water from the Rakaia.
1.2 We issued an interim decision in late November 2008. This final decision incorporates the interim decision and can be read on its own. The approach we have adopted is to focus on key evidential issues and then to return to weigh the proposal and conditions against the relevant statutory criteria and objectives and policies of the relevant planning documents. We have concluded that consent should be granted.
1.3 We have decided to grant the ACWT part of the joint application to take water as a separate consent from any water permit which might be granted to CPWT.
1.4 We are granting all of the consents sought subject to the modifications and conditions set out in Appendix 3. In summary those consents are as follows:
Consent Proposed water and discharge permits Number
CRC093683 to take up to a maximum of 40m3/s of water from the river at (being part of the specified location. application CRC021091) CRC080848 to use water for hydroelectricity generation
CRC072636 to divert up to 42m3/s from the Rakaia River at the specified location
CRC072638 to discharge up to 2m3/s of water and sediment to the Rakaia River at the specified location
CRC072639 to discharge, in emergency situations, up to 40m3/s, of water and sediment to the Rakaia River
CRC072640 to discharge up to 40m3/s, of water and entrained sediment to the Rakaia River at specified locations including for the purpose of sluicing the intake canal.
CRC072641 to discharge cross drainage water and sediment into an unnamed stream
CRC072642 to discharge material excavated from the settling pond onto the bed of the Rakaia River over an area of up to 2ha during any 12 month period
CRC072863 to dam water in a settling pond and head pond
CRC073862 to discharge contaminants, principally dust, to air
9230798-3 Page 4 Consent Proposed water and discharge permits Number
CRC073864 to discharge stormwater onto or into land, in circumstances where it may enter water
Application Proposed Regional land use and section 13 activities Number
CRC072643 To construct infrastructure required to divert, and convey water in the proposed scheme
CRC072644 To maintain the intake structure
CRC072645 To maintain a fish barrier
CRC072646 To maintain a canal and drainage structures
CRC072647 To maintain and reinstate riverbank protection measures
CRC072648 To carry out works in the riparian margin of the Rakaia River
CRC072649 To place silt onto the bed of the Rakaia River over an area of up to 2ha during any 12 month period
Application land use consent from Ashburton District Council Number
LUC07/0030 The construction, operation and maintenance of a hydro electricity generation scheme taking water from the Rakaia River approximately 5km south of the Rakaia Bridge comprising an intake, settling pond, two canals with two power stations within the first canal and a further power station at the foot of the river terrace 3.2km west of Barrhill. Undertaking earthworks and vegetation clearance in the bed and in the riparian margin of the Rakaia River and un-named ephemeral streams..(In the future the intake and canals may also be used to convey water for irrigation, subject to any water permits which may be required for that).
2. Introduction
2.1 We are appointed by the Regional Council and the District Council to jointly decide this matter. Mr Milne chaired the hearing. We are all independent commissioners.
2.2 We and Mr Nixon were appointed to hear all of the consents along with notice of requirement matters in relation to CPW, but the CPW hearing was intended to only to deal with the joint application to take water and all of the associated CPW applications and Notice of Requirement matters. That hearing did not cover the associated ACWT applications. Indeed, the ACWT applications to Ashburton District Council for land use consent had not been notified when we commenced the CPW hearing in February 2008
9230798-3 Page 5 and we had not been appointed to hear any matters relating to ACWT apart from the joint take application.
2.3 Central Plains Water (CPW) and ACWT jointly applied for resource consent to take 40 cumecs from the Rakaia River for irrigation and ancillary purposes in 2001 (CRC021091). Notification of the joint-take application was deferred, pending receipt of other applications related to the use of water, discharge, diversion and regional land- use consents necessary for construction and operation of the proposed schemes. On 2 March 2007 ACWT lodged applications with ECan for the various additional consents required from the Regional Council. By this stage, ACWT had changed its intended use of the water from irrigation to hydro generation. We will return to this point later. We reached the view at the start of the CPW hearing, that we should not hear the ACWT take application in isolation from its other applications to ECan. Our views for this are recorded in our Minute dated 28 March 2008.
2.4 We concluded pursuant to section 102 of the RMA, that the ACWT part of the joint take application needed to be jointly heard and determined at least with the other applications by ACWT to the Regional Council. We were of the view that ideally but not essentially, it should also be heard in conjunction with the ADC land use consent applications. We considered that it was critical that the applications to use and discharge water be heard at the same time as the applications to take water, so that we could understand the need for the volumes sought and understand the effects of any associated discharges to the river (including the potential beneficial effect of returning the water to the river).
2.5 As a result three of us were appointed to also hear the ACWT matters including the applications to ADC. Mr Nixon requested not to be appointed because a staff member in his firm was acting for one of the submitters on the ACWT applications.
2.6 The joint application to take was heard along with the CPWT matters. We heard from ACWT in support of the joint take application in May 2008 and continued with the CPWT hearing. The hearing of the matters relating solely to ACWT took the most part of 4 hearing days in September. We reconvened the CPWT part of the hearing in late September to hear some further evidence and closing submissions.
2.7 In essence this was a joint hearing of the CPW and ACWT matters. However, we note that It would not have been necessary to combine this hearing with the CPW hearing but for the fact that the take application is a joint application and, ACWT have relied to some degree on evidence called by CPW.
2.8 To streamline the hearing process, we required parties to the hearing to provide their evidence in advance of their presentations and this was made available for public download on the ECan website. Those appearing at the hearing were not permitted to repeat their written submission or evidence but were allowed to present a summary of their main points and this allowed the panel to run the hearing in the mode of an inquiry through questioning and allowing very limited opportunity for questions of clarification from the submitters.
2.9 The panel heard legal submissions and expert evidence for ACWT relating to the joint CPW/ACWT water take application on 23 and 24 April 2008. Further expert evidence was provided by CPW during that hearing to support the joint take application and ACWT relies on that evidence where relevant. Submitters on the joint take were heard in the period April to September as part of the CPW hearing process. The main part of the ACWT hearing ran 15 to 19 September 2008 and included a jet boat visit to the proposed intake site and to a point just downstream of Highbank power station.
9230798-3 Page 6 2.10 Section 42A reports were provided for ECan by Ms Keri Johnston and for Ashburton District Council by Ms Patricia Harte. Ms Johnston made no recommendation to grant or decline; Ms Harte considered that unless perceived deficiencies in information supporting the land use consent application could be addressed through the hearing, the application to ADC should be declined (this largely related to terrestrial ecology, and has subsequently been addressed).
2.11 In Appendix 1 we have set out a summary of the 18 submissions received by ECan on the ACWT specific applications and the submissions received by ADC. We have also summarised who was heard. There were 1414 submissions on the joint application to take However, with the exception of those who also submitted on the ACWT specific matters, most if not all of the remainder of the submissions on the joint take were focussed on the CPWT part of the proposal. We heard many of these submitters on the joint application, during the CPWT part of the hearing and we have taken their evidence into account in reaching our decision.
2.12 The following submitters were heard at the ACWT specific part of the hearing:
• TrustPower Limited
• Department of Conservation
• The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
• North Canterbury Fish and Game Council
• New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association Incorporated
• Synlait Developments Limited
• Mark Davey Limited
• Malvern Hills Protection Society
• Burrows Farm Ltd
3. Key issues
3.1 The key issues which arose were as follows: (in no particular order)
• Various legal and jurisdictional issues which we will come to.
• The relationship of the proposal to other applicants and existing consent holders. (CPWT, BCI, EAL and TrustPower in particular).
• The effect of the scheme on downstream water permit holders and on Synlait.
• Consistency with the Water Conservation Order (and associated interpretation issues).
• The effects of the proposed scheme on the landscape values and natural character of the river environs.
• The natural character impacts of intake and discharge maintenance works in the riverbed.
9230798-3 Page 7 • The hydrological and resulting instream impacts of the take, diversion and discharge.
• The impact of intake maintenance works on jet boating.
• The impacts of the proposal on the outstanding fishery in the river.
• The natural character, landscape and instream impacts of the proposed sediment disposal methodology (spreading of sediment on dry riverbed and allowing it to be removed in floods).
• The impact of the canal works on terrestrial ecology and in particular on significant indigenous vegetation.
3.2 We will address all of these matters in this decision, however we will focus on the more contentious matters. In particular we spend some time on the last point since that was a matter which we requested further information on from the applicant.
4. Interim decision
4.1 At the conclusion of the ACWT part of the joint hearing we adjourned rather than closed the hearing. This was to allow for the possibility that we might need to reconvene to hear or at least consider further information on terrestrial ecology and/or finalise conditions if we decided to grant consent. We issued an interim/provisional decision in late November 2008 to grant consent to ACWT. We indicated that the final decision would be subject to our satisfaction as to the adequacy of mitigation measures to protect significant indigenous vegetation, and/or the adequacy of the 'biodiversity offsets' proposed by ACWT. However, we concluded that it was likely that a combination of mitigation measures and biodiversity offsets encompassed in conditions and a management plan would be sufficient to mitigate adverse effects and address the requirements of section 6.
4.2 The interim decision includes a summary of our conclusions and our preliminary reasoning on key issues. We indicated that we would provide more complete reasoning in our final decision. We have not attached our interim decision to this final decision since the points within it are subsumed within or overtaken by this decision. We will briefly summarise our key preliminary conclusions.
5. Summary of our preliminary conclusions
5.1 We concluded in our interim decision, that subject to our being satisfied on the terrestrial ecology issues:
• The ACWT proposal is sustainable and should be granted consent.
• Conditions will ensure that the proposal is consistent with the Water Conservation Order and will ensure that the priority of downstream consent holders is protected.
• The decision on ACWT could be issued prior to a final decision being made on the CPWT applications.
• The ACWT part of the joint application to take could be granted separately from any consent which might be granted to CPWT.
• Sediment sluicing was more appropriate than the sediment deposition option proposed by ACWT.
9230798-3 Page 8 5.2 As part of our interim decision we reached the following conclusions regarding the terrestrial ecology issues:
• The applicant has proposed that if consent is granted, a full ecological survey would then be carried out prior to a management plan being prepared. However, in this case, given that there are section 6 issues involved (recognition and protection of significant indigenous vegetation) we are of the view that it is appropriate for us to require these steps to be carried out before we make our final decision. We understand that it is possible for a survey to be carried out this summer and the draft ecological management plan and conditions can then be redrafted to reflect the outcome of that survey………
• Mr Forbes [Summary p7.4] proposes ‘a comprehensive survey to locate, propagate and reincorporate any such affected specimens in revegetation plantings’. However we agree with Dr Keesing (and the submissions of DOC, Malvern Hills Protection Society, Forest & Bird) that the extent of mitigation for the loss of significant indigenous vegetation and of habitats of indigenous fauna has not been adequately scoped, because the extent and composition of those habitats has not been quantified through a detailed field survey along the channel alignment.
• Given the rarity of the plant species already identified, and the likelihood that associated invertebrate species and reptiles may also need consideration in mitigation conditions, we have concluded that a field survey of the Terrace Hydro portion of the scheme is required before consents can be granted. We exclude birds from consideration of terrestrial fauna based on Dr Hale’s evidence that impacts on birds are likely to be no more than minor.
• We have made an interim decision approving the ACWT proposal subject to completion of a detailed field survey of vegetation and fauna along the terrace scarp from chainage CH3500 to where the canal reaches the top of the terrace at CH11500 metres, and have some suggestions on amended mitigation conditions which take into account the results of that survey….
• Mitigation options should include consideration of adjustment of the canal route where feasible (eg. to reduce loss of the floodplain kowhai forest); changes to batter slopes, cut/fill balance and stabilisation proposals; area and nature and location(s) of the rehabilitation planting (which should allow to the extent possible the creation of habitat rather than simply rehabilitation of particular species); and an ongoing management regime that will maximise the likely success of the rehabilitation objectives.
• Subject to limits on time available for completion, design of the survey should include consultation with DOC, Forest & Bird, and ADC. Results with revised mitigation proposals should be circulated and discussed among those parties to, as far as possible, reach consensus on appropriate methods and level of mitigation – and appropriate consent conditions - prior to the hearing being reconvened (if that is necessary) This consultation should include consideration of the concerns raised in Dr Keesing’s report and the landscape recommendations underlined in Appendix 1 of Dr Clemens’ landscape review.
• Accordingly, we require the applicant to carry out a full ecological survey of the Highbank to Barrhill part of the route over the current summer and report to us the results of that survey in the new year, along with more detailed mitigation conditions and biodiversity offset proposals including any modifications to the draft ecological management plan. Unless the survey suggests that the effects cannot be adequately mitigated (which we think is unlikely) we will issue a final decision to grant consent. The hearing will be reconvened early in 2009 to allow us to consider
9230798-3 Page 9 the ecological report and to review all of the draft conditions of consent and the draft management plan. That may or may not require hearing time.
• Although it is not essential that the ecological management plan be in a final form for the purposes of conditions, it would be preferable if that could be achieved. In other words that the consent would refer to compliance with an attached management plan rather than leaving the details to be finalised later. However, we have an open mind to the management plan being finalised later, subject to independent or Council certification that it is adequate, prior to works commencing. If that approach is adopted, the objectives and the contents of the management plan will need to be set out in the conditions of the consent. (eg the areas of offset planting proposed).
• Early in the new year we will provide draft conditions to the applicant and the reporting officers. These will be based on those proposed by the Applicant, with some minor suggested modifications. The resumed hearing in February or March will provide an opportunity for the Applicant and the reporting officers to suggest amendments which might be required to those conditions before they are finalised. We will also provide submitters with an opportunity to comment where appropriate.
6. The resumed hearing
6.1 We had anticipated resuming the hearing in late February, but ACWT advised that it would not be ready until April. We reconvened the ACWT hearing on 22 April 2009 to consider the further evidence on terrestrial ecology and to address conditions. (The applicant had provided draft conditions to us at the substantive hearing).
6.2 On reflection we decided that rather than us providing suggestions on the applicant's draft conditions, we would await the applicant's proposals. We did however indicate some matters which we thought might need attention. We also encouraged the applicant to discuss draft conditions with ECan officers, Fish and Game, Forest and Bird, DoC and Synlait with a view to so far as possible, reaching consensus on the wording of these prior to the resumption of the hearing.
6.3 We received the applicant's further evidence on terrestrial ecology, draft conditions relating to that and a draft Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan in mid April. On 20 April we received a memorandum for ACWT outlining proposed revised conditions to deal with priority issues relating to taking of water (this being a matter which we had asked the applicant to give further consideration to).
6.4 At the resumed hearing we received a revised set of draft conditions proposed by the applicant which incorporated all suggested changes since the last year. The changes related to:
• Conditions relating to priority and compliance with the Water Conservation Order.
• Conditions relating to terrestrial ecology and a draft revised Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan (TEMP).
• Conditions relating to the discharge of sediment from the sediment pond to reflect the changes to that proposal as a result of our decision that the consent should be for sluicing not deposition.
6.5 We heard Mr Forbes, the applicant’s ecological consultant, Mr Woods on engineering matters and Mr Dunning in relation to conditions and consultation. We also heard briefly from Forest and Bird, the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game and the officers or representatives of both councils. Most of the discussion focussed around the results
9230798-3 Page 10 of the terrestrial ecological assessment undertaken by Wildlands for the applicant and on the resulting revised Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan. There was then a brief discussion of some minor residual issues raised by Fish and Game which can be addressed by some changes to conditions. Finally, we discussed the water take conditions and in particular how those relate to the Water Conservation Order and existing takes.
6.6 In summary, the outcome of the resumed hearing was as follows:
• We considered the Terrestrial Ecology survey and revised Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan (TEMP) and largely accepted those as appropriate.
• The applicant agreed to our suggestion to increase the size of the principal area of native planting from 6 ha to 7 ha so that it could encompass more of the existing mature kowhai.
• The applicant agreed to some other minor changes to the TEMP sought by Forest and Bird.
• The applicant agreed to include a “best endeavours” condition in relation to efforts to provide public access along some or all of the canal route in the future (we did not see this as being essential but it would be a desirable outcome).
• The applicant agreed to some minor changes to conditions to reflect some matters raised by Fish and Game and DoC.
• The applicant explained its reasons for wanting a residual area of 2ha of riverbed for sediment deposition (as compared to the original proposed 20ha) and we accepted that this was appropriate.
• The applicant explained why further avoidance of existing kowhai would be problematic and we accepted that explanation.
• There was discussion around the proposed take conditions. It was agreed that these required further minor amendment and the amended conditions would be provided to us within a week.
6.7 We then formally closed the hearing but allowed the applicant to submit revised conditions to reflect the matters which had been discussed. There was then some further email communication between the panel and the applicant's counsel and officers regarding the wording of the take conditions. This was to ensure that the conditions properly reflect the WCO and the priority situation. These exchanges were completed during the week of 18 May 2009 and resulted in some further modifications to the take conditions.
9230798-3 Page 11
7. Summary of our decision and Part 2 assessment
7.1 We will discuss key issues in more detail, however our decision can be summarised as follows:
7.2 Adopting an overall balancing approach we are satisfied that the proposal achieves the purpose of the Act and is consistent with its principles.
7.3 In terms of section 5, the scheme will enable the Ashburton District community to use the water of the Rakaia River to provide for its social and economic wellbeing by providing renewable energy. We are satisfied that any adverse effects on the environment will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and that the scheme is sustainable. It will not infringe any of the environmental bottom lines in section 5. Whilst it is not a requirement of the Act, we find that the overall effects of the scheme will be beneficial.
7.4 We conclude that the greatest potential for effects on birdlife is from activities in the Rakaia riverbed which is habitat for species under threat including black-fronted tern, wrybill, banded dotterel and black-billed gull. Changing sediment management from deposition to sluicing, as required above, will reduce effects on birds. We conclude that with proposed mitigating conditions for riverbed activities, adverse effects on avifauna will be no more than minor and the habitat of significant species will be protected.
7.5 The principal matter of contention in terms of section 6 relates to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Whilst neither the lower terrace nor escarpment downstream of Highbank are identified in the Ashburton District Plan as containing significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna, the evidence suggests that at least the former may be present. In particular the works will destroy about 12 ha of kowhai vegetation and treeland, including the threatened species Melicytus aff flexuosus. The canal and attendant earthworks rising up the terrace will also cause damage to this vegetation and to the habitat of terrestrial fauna such as lizards.
7.6 In our interim decision we had concluded that these effects could most likely be adequately mitigated, by way of replanting and protection of these new plantings. We were particularly wanting to see mitigation for loss of the threatened Melicytus spp. However, in order for us to be able to properly assess the impact of these works and to ensure that adequate conditions can be attached to address their effect, we required the applicant to carry out a full terrestrial ecology survey of the Highbank to Barrhill section over the 2008/2009 summer.
7.7 That survey determined that the original estimate of 5 ha of kowhai treeland destruction was inaccurate and the revised estimate is 12 ha. The evidence does not however suggest that these areas are significant habitats. Nor do we consider the lizard habitat to be significant.
7.8 We conclude that efforts must be made to mitigate for loss of Melicytus spp through propagation and restoration planting. We also accept that kowhai treeland is significant indigenous vegetation because it is representative and no longer abundant. It is also provides bird habitat and feeding. We do however have some reservations as to whether the “areas” of kowhai are significant. That is because the evidence is that they are not particularly “intact” and have a limited lifespan because there is no protection of seedlings from weeds, grazing, rabbits and hares or mature trees from damage. They are also on a working farm and could be removed without consent (for example for forestry). Dr Keesing’s evidence for ADC was the vegetation was probably not
9230798-3 Page 12 sustainable beyond 30 years from now. These areas are not scheduled in the District Plan as being of significance but do meet some of the criteria for significance in the Plan.
7.9 Nevertheless, given that the applicant accepted these areas as being significant, we have proceeded on that basis. We are satisfied that the applicant’s amended proposal to offset the 12 ha of loss with 17 ha of legally and physically protected planting, will adequately mitigate or even avoid any adverse effects on biodiversity. We are satisfied that whilst some significant indigenous vegetation will be lost, the proposed offset will result in a better long term environmental biodiversity outcome and will therefore protect the significant indigenous vegetation albeit not the particular areas which will be destroyed. We consider that this approach is consistent with recent case law for example, Bayly Trust v Minister of Conservation.
7.10 We do not accept the suggestion from Ms Lucas for Malvern Hills Protection Society that the landscape in the vicinity of the intake or canal is outstanding, though clearly it is regionally important. We note that the WCO recognises the gorge as providing outstanding landscape values, but for the lower river it is the braided nature of the river which is to be protected. The scheme will be well downstream of the gorge environment.
7.11 We accept that the braided river is an outstanding natural feature and that feature will be adequately protected. The scheme will have little if any impact on that feature and is in our view not an "inappropriate development" to be in proximity of that feature.
7.12 The intake will not be highly visible from the gorge bridge lookout. The sediment pond will be visible but in our view will not be visually obtrusive. The intake works and canal will not be highly visible from frequented public viewpoints.
7.13 The terrace canal as it rises up the escarpment will be visible to jet boaters and anglers but in our view the effects on natural character and visual amenity while not minor during and for some time after construction will become minor as the scheme becomes a part of the vegetated already modified rural landscape. The primary landscape, natural character and visual amenity effects would arise as a result of that part of the terrace canal between Highbank and Barrhill.
7.14 Even with planting, this will be a clearly visible modification to the escarpment. However, the viewing catchment of this part of the scheme is not great. The terrace canal works will primarily be visible by those using the river for jet boating or fishing. In our view, these works will not have any significant adverse effects on the character of the river or its amenity value. We are satisfied that the proposal will adequately preserve the natural character of the river and its margins and that with the landscape and other conditions proposed by the applicant, it is not an inappropriate development within that river environment.
7.15 Existing legal public access to the river will be maintained. Whilst there are opportunities to provide public access along the canal (for example, a walkway or cycle- way) we cannot compel private owners to accept such a proposal. There would also be attendant safety issues. However, at the resumed hearing the applicant agreed to a condition which requires it to use its best endeavours to provide access along some or all of the canal route if agreement can be achieved with landowners on this matter. This is not a condition which we could have imposed without the applicant's agreement.
7.16 The proposal is not contrary to any of the other provisions of section 6.
7.17 In terms of section 7(b) of the Act, we are satisfied that the proposal is an efficient use of natural resources and we have had particular regard to the benefits to be derived
9230798-3 Page 13 from the development of renewable energy (section 7 (j)) We note that the scheme would divert water from the river, use it to generate electricity and then return it to the river. It would also utilise currently wasted energy from the RDR/Highbank schemes for additional generation. We are of the view that this is efficient; however, ultimately, the economic efficiency of the scheme will be determined by the market. It will not be constructed unless the economic benefits outweigh the costs. We accept that we need not be concerned with the economic viability of the scheme.
7.18 Taken as a whole, the environmental costs of the scheme will not, in our view, be significant and accordingly we do not need to be satisfied that there will be significant economic benefit. However, the evidence (and intuition) suggests that there will be an economic benefit to the District and the Region from additional power generation. We record however, that our decision is not dependant on the scheme being principally for renewable generation.
7.19 There was a concern expressed by some submitters that in the future the scheme may be amended so that water is not returned to the river at Barrhill and is instead diverted for irrigation use downstream (as was originally envisaged at the time of the joint application). This is certainly a possibility; however, it is not the proposal before us and is therefore not something which we need consider.
7.20 If the scheme is amended in the future, then a separate consent would be required to divert and use the water for irrigation. Arguably such additional use would be more efficient than the current proposal, since the water would be utilised for both generation and irrigation. Before such a proposal could be approved, it would be necessary to consider the impact of not returning some or all of the water to the river at Barrhill. However, those issues are not for us to decide and would be considered in the context of any future application to obtain water permits to divert water at or before Barrhill and use it for irrigation.
7.21 Considered on its own (ie leaving aside the CPW, BCI and EAL schemes) this scheme will take up to 40 cumecs of water all year round, to be used for hydroelectricity generation, and will discharge it back to the river some 14 km downstream at Barrhill.
7.22 The water is only removed from the river for this distance and is then returned; accordingly, the primary effects of the scheme will be on that dewatered section. There will be little, if any, impact downstream of Barrhill.
7.23 We must disregard the effects of the existing BCI take and use consents, along with land uses authorised by the EAL consents. That is because those consents form part of the reasonably foreseeable future environment and the effects of those proposals have already been found to be sustainable.
7.24 In terms of the intake to the Barrhill section, the year-round taking and diversion of the first 17 cumecs of the 40 proposed by ACWT is already authorised by the BCI consents and therefore forms part of the reasonably foreseeable future environment.
7.25 The reasonably foreseeable future environment downstream of Barrhill must be considered on the basis that without ACWT the 17 cumecs authorised to be taken by BCI will not be returned to the river.
7.26 On that basis, the ACWT proposal has no more effect on the river downstream of Barrhill than what is reasonably foreseeable under the BCI consents. If BCI proceeds then up to 23 cumecs out of 40 will be returned to the river. If BCI does not proceed then virtually all of what is taken will be returned to the river.
9230798-3 Page 14 7.27 Between the intake and Barrhill we must only consider the effects (including cumulative effects) of the up to 23 cumecs of additional water which would be removed from this section of the river.
7.28 We have considered the effects on the basis that it is possible that CPW may not ultimately obtain consents, or may not proceed. In that event, subject to the terms of the Water Conservation Order (WCO) and assuming the BCI consents are exercised, up to 23 additional cumecs could be removed from this part of the river by ACWT at all times of the year (rather than only outside of the irrigation season). If CPW obtains consent it would take the water during the irrigation season and ACWT would take it during the off season, although this is subject to the final form of their water sharing agreement.
7.29 An intake, fish screen, sediment pond and canal to Highbank, catering for 17 cumecs are part of the reasonably foreseeable future (consented) environment and we should disregard effects up to that scale and focus only on additional and cumulative effects.
7.30 Sediment discharge/flushing from a scheme of 17 cumecs is also part of the reasonably foreseeable future environment.
7.31 Given the protections in the WCO, the effects on instream values of the additional 23 cumecs taken between the intake and Barrhill are no more than minor.
7.32 There will be little, if any, effect downstream of Barrhill where the water is returned, except for that part which the BCI consent allows to be diverted to irrigation.
7.33 We consider it improbable that the diversion of up to 23 cumecs out of the mid-sections of the river will have any impact on flooding or bar dynamics at the river mouth.
7.34 We do not think that the diversion is likely to lead to any significant build up of sediment upstream of Barrhill as a result of the maximum 23 cumec flow reduction. The WCO ensures that such diversion can only occur at relatively high flows. The vast majority of sediment transport occurs in freshes and floods and will continue to occur largely unabated. Any minor build up in this reach would be removed by the next flood.
7.35 We have had particular regard to the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon. Given the protections in the WCO, any effect of the diversion on the salmon and trout fishery or fishing amenity will be no more than minor.
7.36 We have concluded that potential effects on trout, salmon and native fish from the take and discharge can be adequately mitigated by way of the conditions required by the WCO and appropriately designed fish screens and diversions.
7.37 The 40 cumec intake and sediment pond proposed by ACWT will not have any more than minor effect on landscape values or the natural character of the river taking into account the 17 cumec scheme which has already been consented.
7.38 We had concerns regarding the natural character effects of the proposed sediment disposal method (spreading on the exposed river bed and allowing it to be removed in the next fresh). Accordingly, we have required ACWT to primarily utilise the sluicing methodology which has already been consented for BCI.
7.39 At the resumed hearing ACWT provided further evidence which satisfied us that it would be appropriate to allow spreading of intake channel sediment over up to 2 ha of dry riverbed. This is to provide a mechanism to dispose of sediment at times of sustained low flow.
9230798-3 Page 15 7.40 The residual 2 ha sediment disposal now proposed by ACWT (as compared to the original 20ha proposal) still has the potential to cause adverse ecological and natural character effects, however we are satisfied that these effects will be adequately mitigated by way of conditions.
7.41 There will be little if any effect on the operation of the Highbank power station. Conditions have been agreed with TrustPower as owner of that station and accordingly we did not need to hear the evidence from TrustPower.
7.42 There will be no effect on the ability of any other user to exercise their consents to take from the river or groundwater, except where that is agreed with the party concerned.
7.43 The conditions which are proposed will ensure that there are no effects on the ability of any existing consent holders to take water and no derogation of grant. They will also ensure that if Synlait obtains priority consents, there will be no effects on its ability to take priority water and accordingly no derogation from any consents which it may obtain.
7.44 The additional river control works required by ACWT as compared to BCI are unlikely to have any impact on jet boat passage. These works will have a minor and acceptable effect on natural character if restricted as proposed in consent conditions. We were assured that the river bed works to reconfigure the channel near the intake will be infrequent and in any case they are restricted in distance upstream and downstream of the intake.
7.45 The Highbank canal portion of the scheme has already been approved under the BCI consents for a canal sized for up to 40 cumecs. Accordingly in this area the ACWT scheme will have no additional effects beyond what can be anticipated under the existing consents.
7.46 The primary additional effects of the ACWT proposal as compared to the BCI/EAL schemes relate to the terrace canal between Highbank and Barrhill which is not required for either of the other schemes.
7.47 This section will be subject to significant earthworks and will have some landscape/natural character impact. However, in our view these effects can be adequately mitigated by way of landscape planting and the passage of time.
7.48 Adopting a purposive interpretation of the Water Conservation Order (WCO), we are of the view that the proposal is not contrary to the Order. Conditions are proposed which will ensure that WCO restrictions on take are complied with.
7.49 The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the relevant plans (the operative Ashburton District Plan and the proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan).
7.50 Although it is not a requirement of the Act that the proposal have no more than minor effects, we are satisfied that with the conditions proposed any adverse effects will not be significant. We are also satisfied that any such effects will be more than offset by positive effects.
9230798-3 Page 16 PART II – CONTEXT
8. Overview of the Applications
8.1 The resource consent applications to ECan and ADC have been set out in the summary table above. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, application CRC021091 to take up to 40m3/s was made and notified as a joint application by ACWT and CPWT, however the two proposed take points are on opposite sides of the river and the proposed schemes are entirely separate in a physical sense. Their only linkage is an agreement between the two applicants as to how they will manage their takes so as to both benefit, whilst also ensuring that conditions are met.
8.2 We heard from chairman Ian MacKenzie, that ACWT is a trust set up in 1999 by Ashburton District Council with objectives, among others, of furthering the current application, for the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme and also for pursuing irrigation options. If the scheme is granted consent. it is possible that separate applications may be made in the future to divert water from the Hydro Scheme at Barrhill and use that water for irrigation downstream of Barrhill. This would obviously reduce the return of water to the river and would thereby reduce downstream flows from what they would be with the hydro scheme alone. However there is currently no such proposal before us and we must focus on the scheme as currently proposed.
8.3 ACWT proposes a run of the river hydro scheme as shown in the figure below.
8.4 Up to 42 m3/s of water would be diverted from a braid of the Rakaia River into an intake structure on the true right bank approximately five kilometres downstream of the Rakaia Gorge bridge at Happy Valley. This is just upstream of the proposed intake for the CPWT scheme on the true left, which will be the subject of a separate decision to be made later this year. (2 cumecs of this is for a fish bypass).
8.5 The intake would be designed to deflect a flood in excess of 1000 year return period. The settling pond would have embankments typically 4-6 metres high on private land adjacent to the floodplain. After the settling pond up to 40 m3/s of water will be diverted through fish screens into the lower terrace primary canal system with water depths of up to 7metres. The canal would be designed to accommodate two power-generating drop
9230798-3 Page 17 structures and flow by gravity to the existing Highbank power station (the Highbank canal).
8.6 ACWT engineer Mr Woods indicated that the two Highbank canal generators will generate about 3 MW of electricity each for distribution in the local Ashburton network. The first will be located where the canal profile is able to rise approximately 7 metres above the existing ground level, and the water will fall to approximately 7 metres below ground level. The second drop structure is about 1.5 kilometres downstream, and also about 7 metres above ground level. Alongside each of the generating/drop structures will be a by-pass spillway that will allow water to pass around that station when electricity is not being generated.
8.7 Water from the second drop structure will then flow through a tailrace canal which will discharge into TrustPower’s existing Highbank Power Station tailrace where it will either enter the second part of the ACWT canal (the 10.5km Terrace canal) or flow back to the Rakaia River.
8.8 The proposed 40 m3/s terrace canal would divert water from the Highbank Power Station tailrace, i.e. flow from the station and from the Highbank canal. The terrace canal makes its way up the escarpment approximately between chainage 8500 to 11500m and continues along the top of the terrace to Barrhill at chainage 14000.
8.9 Up to 40 m3/s of water from the Rakaia River and from Highbank tailrace will enter a final head pond before passing through a final drop structure at Barrhill that will discharge via a new tailrace into the Rakaia River. This drop structure will have a much larger generating potential than the other two, and is anticipated to produce about 16 MW. As at Highbank, a barrier is proposed to prevent adult migrating salmon from entering the new tailrace. The interception of Highbank water will enable Rakaia water to be supplemented with Rangitata water at times when less than 40 cumecs is available from the Rakaia.
8.10 The ACWT proposal is designed to dovetail with the Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation (BCI) project and would, in whole or in part supplant the Electricity Ashburton Limited (EAL) hydro scheme. Both of these schemes are already consented, but neither is currently confirmed to proceed. If needs be, the ACWT scheme can proceed independently of either of these schemes and they can proceed independently of ACWT if it does not proceed. ACWT seeks that it be granted consents which are independent of these prior consents. However, the conditions of consent will need to address the possibility that either or both of the other schemes will also proceed. In particular the combined take from the river under any combination of schemes, including the CPWT scheme, must not exceed limits set by the Water Conservation Order and must not cause unsustainable cumulative effects.
The BCI scheme
8.11 In 2001 Barrhill obtained a suite of consents to enable the take and use of 17 m3/s of water (along with associated consents) for irrigation and hydro-electricity generation. The Barrhill intake site is the same as that proposed by ACWT.
8.12 The Barrhill irrigation (and EAL hydro) scheme has not yet been constructed but significant progress is being made towards this. A contract has been entered into for construction of the scheme.
8.13 Barrhill is currently awaiting a decision from the Environment Court on an application for declarations which will confirm whether the water Barrhill takes can be utilised in the wider area between the Rangitata and the Rakaia Rivers. This will also determine the
9230798-3 Page 18 ability of BCI to, with the agreement of RDRML, use of the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) as a conveyance mechanism to get water across the plains.
8.14 BCI has also entered into a commercial arrangement with EAL to give effect to the BCI take and its associated consents. The BCI consent lapsing period has been extended to mid 2010 with the consent of CP and Synlait and we understand that it will be applying to further extend that period and does intend to proceed. However its intentions are not directly relevant to our decision.
8.15 Ashburton District Council also granted consents to BCI for intake works and associated construction. These have subsequently lapsed, and have just been re-consented through consents granted to EAL which are discussed below.
8.16 Under the BCI scheme, a diversion channel will convey the water through to a storage/settling pond that will allow fine sediment and particulates to fall out of suspension. The settlement pond intake structure will be fitted with a fish screen. The screen will have a mesh size of between 3.8mm or 5mm (depending on the time of year). Any fish that enter the diversion channel would be able to return to an active braid in the River via a by-pass structure at the end of the channel. ACWT is proposing the same arrangement
8.17 The ACWT intake site is at the same location for which BCI (Barrhill) already holds a consent to take up to 17 m3/s of water for irrigation and hydro-electricity generation. The ACWT proposal is to use the same intake location and design approach but for a take of up to 40 m3/s instead of the BCI 17. It is proposed that eventually water will flow through the ACWT intake for use in the EAL/ACWT hydro scheme and the BCI irrigation scheme. The ‘off-take’ for the BCI irrigation scheme is located between the first and second drop structures in the Highbank canal.
8.18 The six Barrhi ll consents granted by ECan are as follows:
Consent Consented Activity Number CRC990088 to take up to 17 cubic metres per second (cumecs) of water and to divert up to 40cumecs of water from the Rakaia River for the purpose of irrigation of up to 40,000 hectares and electricity generation CRC990089 to discharge up to 80 cubic metres per second of water and sediment to the Rakaia River CRC990133 to disturb the bed of the Rakaia River to maintain existing river bank protection and facilitate the diversion of water to an intake structure and discharge of water and sediment CRC000132 to discharge up to 17 cumecs and up to 7 cumecs of bywash water to the Rakaia River (2 separate locations) CRC000133 to place an intake structure on and disturb the bed of the Rakaia River CRC000134 to disturb the bed of the Rakaia River to facilitate the discharge of water and to form discharge channels
8.19 The conditions of CRC990088 (the Barrhill take consent) specify when the taking of water must cease as a result of the WCO minimum flow.
“Whenever the flow (expressed in cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements of either the gorge recorder site (at or about map referen ce NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about
9230798-3 Page 19 map reference NZ MS 260 K 35:997-43 7), falls b elow the following fl ows, the taking of water in terms of this permit shall ceas e: Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Flow 150.5 134.5 131.5 123.5 121.5 122.5 Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Flow 117.5 118.5 116.5 132.5 155.5 165.5”
8.20 These flow figures reflect the Water Conservation Order minimum flow for the month concerned, plus an allowance of twice13.25 cumecs for existing takes. We have some reservation as to whether the correct figure was used. This is something which the ECan officers should check. It is important that all of these various consents are consistent with each other and with the WCO. If necessary, BCI should apply to vary the consent or the regional council should utilise section 128 to do so. (If the amendment is simply to ensure that the WCO requirements are met and to properly take into account existing consents, this is a matter which could probably be addressed on a non notified basis, however that is a matter which will need to be assessed at the time.)
8.21 BCI has a consent to divert 40 cumecs at its proposed intake but to then only to take 17 cumecs of that and further divert it via the canal. The up to 23 cumec difference is to be returned to the river after the sediment pond as a sediment flushing (bypass) flow. The total flushing flow may be up to 80 cumecs (ie the full diversion plus a further 40 cumecs from the pond). BCI has no separate consent to use the 17 cumecs for irrigation but the reference in the take consent to the "purpose" of the take being for irrigation implies that this permit also encompasses use. In contrast, ACWT has made a separate application for use.
The EAL scheme
8.22 We were advised that Electricity Ashburton Limited (EAL) has an agreement with BCI and has obtained consents for the construction and ongoing use of the Highbank canal for the generation of electricity from the up to 17 m3/s authorised to be taken by BCI. EAL does not require a consent to take since that is encompassed in the BCI take consent. We have perused the decision of Mr Rogers a commissioner on behalf of the Regional Council and Ashburton District Council dated 16 April 2008 and which granted consent to EAL as summarised below. The conditions proposed by ACWT are based in large part on these consents and on the BCI consents.
Consent Number Consented Activity CRC080152 to discharge scheme water into an artificial watercourse at a rate of up to 17 cubic metres per second at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:080-363. CRC080154 to discharge stormwater associated with construction to land at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and NZMS 260 K36:083-360. CRC080155 to discharge fugitive dust to air from construction activities, unconsolidated surfaces and stockpiled material. CRC080156 to construct and maintain infrastructure to divert, impound and convey water in a diversion race, sluice channel and fish bypass channel, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and K36:065-385. To construct and maintain infrastructure to divert, impound and convey water in a settling pond at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:055-389. To construct and maintain infrastructure to divert, impound and convey water in a canal at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:061-386 to NZMS 260 K36:079-364.
9230798-3 Page 20 Consent Number Consented Activity CRC080157 to maintain and reinstate the existing Rakaia riverbank and riverbank protection measures, and to place and maintain new riverbank protection measures in the bed and banks of the Rakaia River and associated disturbance of the riverbed and banks at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and NZMS 260 K36:080-363. CRC080159 to remove vegetation at or about map references NZMS 260 K36:050-393 to NZMS 260 K36:080-363. CRC080160 to excavate more than 100 cubic metres of material, and to place more than 20 cubic metres of material in excavations in land over an unconfined or semi-confined aquifer at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 to NZMS 260 K36:086-358. CRC080162 to store hazardous substances in an above ground container at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:067-374. CRC080361 to discharge up to 17 cubic metres per second of water and contaminants to the Rakaia River via the Highbank Power Station Tailrace at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:083-360. CRC080552 to discharge de-watering water to land and in circumstances that may enter surface water during construction of intake infrastructure at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050- 393 and NZMS 260 K36:060-390, during construction of scheme infrastructure and canal at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and NZMS 260 K36:080-363 and construction of the tailrace canal at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:079-364. CRC080553 to discharge water and sediment to the Rakaia River from the settling pond and canal system in an emergency, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:069-386. CRC080555 to discharge stormwater onto or into land from cross-drainage water at or about approximate map references NZMS 260 K36:060-386, K36:065-380, K36:069-375 and K36:078-365. CRC080556 to excavate and disturb land, deposit material and remove plant vegetation in the riparian margin of the Rakaia River and unnamed watercourses resulting from construction and maintenance activity, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050- 393 and NZMS 260 K36:086-358. CRC080557 to excavate and disturb the beds, to place culverts within and crossings over unnamed drainage channels along the route of the canal for the purposes of natural drainage of cross- drainage water under the canal alignment at or about map references NZMS 260 K36:060-386, K36:065-380, K36:069- 375 and K36:078-365, and to place a crossing over an artificial watercourse, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:079-364. CRC080558 to alter a watercourse and remove material from the bed of a watercourse for the purposes of construction of the scheme, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:048-393 and K36:086-358.
9230798-3 Page 21 Consent Number Consented Activity CRC080847 to divert water via an intake structure and fish screen, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-393 into a settling pond, into a canal, and into the Highbank Tailrace at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:083-360 and to dam water in a diversion race, settling pond and canal. CRC080848 to use water for hydro-electricity generation at or about map references NZMS 260 K36:070-375 and NZMS 260 K36:078- 366. CRC000133.1 to change conditions of CRC000133, to place an intake structure on and disturb the bed of the Rakaia River, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393 - to remove condition 6 relating to the height of the bank. LU07/0082 and The works, earthworks and vegetation clearance associated LU07/0083 with the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydro- electricity generation scheme involving diverting water from the Rakaia River into a canal system, though two power stations and returning the water to the Rakaia River. Undertaking emergency riverbank maintenance works in the riparian margin and riverbed, to place riverbank protection and to reinstate the riverbank as necessary to protect the infrastructure of the scheme.
For 20,000 litres of diesel storage in an above-ground tank.
8.23 There is an explanation of the relationship between the ACWT and EAL schemes in 2.2.2 of the EAL application which states:
"The Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) lodged applications for resource consent on 2 March 2007 for a hydrogeneration and irrigation scheme that incorporate the scheme now proposed by EA/BCI.
The ACWT application document shows the scheme in its entirety from the intake at Happy Valley and along a canal approximately 14km long to a proposed power station approximately 3.2km upstream of Barrhill.
The ACWT and EA proposals overlap between the intake and the Highbank tail race. This is because the EA scheme comprises the first stage of the overall concept, and the remainder of the scheme from Highbank to the Barrhill terminus comprises a separate stage."
8.24 The power scheme consented for EAL is in essence a scaled down version of the intake to Highbank section of the ACWT scheme (17 cumecs under BCI versus 40 cumecs under ACWT). The EAL scheme, unlike the ACWT scheme does not include the Terrace canal, i.e. the Highbank to Barrhill section or the Barrhill power station.
8.25 There is nothing in the Electricity Ashburton land use consent that specifies the capacity of the proposed canal system. The EAL/BCI take is limited to 17cumec and the intake and settling pond are based on that. However as we understand it, the plans for the canal system provided to ADC show cross sections for a 40 cumec canal. These are identical to the ACWT scheme which confirms that they both provide for a 40 cumec canal as far as Highbank.
8.26 It is of some relevance that EAL has land use consent from Ashburton District Council to construct a 40 cumec canal as far as Highbank. In terms of our assessment of effects
9230798-3 Page 22 we must put some weight on the fact that the effects of that portion of the canal have already been deemed to be acceptable. We have also derived assistance from the conditions included in the EAL consents.
Relationship between the three schemes
8.27 If the ACWT scheme proceeds, the 17 cumec EAL scheme will be eclipsed by the ACWT and most if not all of the EAL consents could be surrendered. However, the BCI consents will still be applicable for the diversion to irrigation of up to 17 cumecs if the BCI scheme proceeds. In practice if ACWT and BCI both proceed the various consents may be transferred to one entity in the future.
8.28 ACWT is applying for consents to use water for hydro-generation and to construct the infrastructure associated with the Rakaia terrace hydro proposal in its own right irrespective of BCI and EAL. It has applied for all necessary land use consents and water and discharge permits on a basis that if granted would allow it to proceed in its own right without the need to rely on either the BCI or EAL consents. However, the preferred scenario is that both BCI and ACWT would operate with a combined diversion of 40 cumecs with up to 17 of that going to BCI during the irrigation season after prior use in the first ACWT power station. The water used by BCI would not go through the Barrhill station and would not be returned to the river. However, outside of the irrigation season up to 40 cumecs would be available to ACWT at all three stations and all would be returned to the river.
8.29 In summary, approval of the ACWT applications would allow the diversion channel, settling ponds, canal and power stations to be used to generate electricity under the Rakaia terrace hydro proposal, with a capacity of up to 40 m3/s. However in practice the full 40 m3/s will not be available for much of the time.
Relationship to RDR and Highbank
8.30 The Highbank Power Station (and tailrace) currently receives water taken from the Rangitata River from the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) when it is not being used for irrigation in the various RDR sub-schemes. At present, after Rangitata water has been used for electricity generation at Highbank Power Station it enters the Highbank tailrace and is discharged to the Rakaia River with a mean flow of 13 m3/s (the highest flows are of course in winter when water is not required for irrigation).
8.31 Under the ACWT Rakaia terrace scheme, Rangitata-sourced water from the Rangitata Diversion Race, along with water taken by ACWT from the Rakaia that enters the tailrace from the Highbank canal, will be combined and up to 40 m3/s will be channelled into the second part of the ACWT Rakaia terrace hydro scheme. Any amount over 40 m3/s will be discharged to the Rakaia via the Highbank tailrace. This system will allow ACWT to use up to 40 cumecs at Barrhill, notwithstanding the loss of 17 cumecs to the BCI scheme if it proceeds. If the BCI scheme does not proceed then Rangitata water would presumably be preferentially diverted into the Terrace canal section because it has a higher reliability than Rakaia water..
8.32 Rangitata Diversion Race Management Limited (RDRML) holds water permit CRC011237 to take water from the Rangitata River and to use it for irrigation, stock water and hydro-electricity generation, including at Highbank Power Station. CRC011237 does not limit or prescribe the amount of discharge to the Rakaia River. TrustPower exercises the hydroelectric generation part of this consent at Highbank.
8.33 We were advised that under an agreement between the Ashburton District Council and TrustPower, TrustPower has no direct interest in the water in the Highbank Power Station tailrace once it has passed through Highbank Power Station. The agreement
9230798-3 Page 23 allows that water to be utilised by ADC or others if needs be. In writing this decision, it did occur to us that this taking, diversion and use of water from the Highbank tailrace, may require a separate consent which has not yet been applied for, however it may also be that it is a permitted activity. The applicant and the officers should look into this.
8.34 This portion of RDR water will be returned to the river at Barrhill rather than at Highbank. In any event, since the consent does not require the water to be returned the effects of non return (should that eventually be consented) would seem to fall within the existing consented environment. So far as the Water Conservation Order is concerned, we have concluded that any Rangitata water taken by ACWT should be excluded from the calculation of minimum flows and total abstraction for the purposes of the order. That is because there is no requirement for this water to be discharged to the Rakaia.
Notification, submissions and consultation
8.35 The joint applications to take were notified by Environment Canterbury on 27&28 June 2006. Remaining regional consent applications were notified on 4 July 2007 with 40 working days for submissions. The applications to Ashburton District Council were notified in May 2008. Appendix 1 sets out a summary of submissions which were specific to ACWT.
8.36 Over a thousand submissions were received on the joint application to take, however many of these submitters were concerned primarily with the CPWT proposal. Only eighteen submissions were received on the ACWT specific applications to ECan, with 17 opposing the applications and one neither opposing nor supporting. The following submissions were lodged only on the applications to ECan:
(a) Ngai Tahu-Mamoe Fisher People Inc;
(b) New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association Incorporated;
(c) Synlait Developments Limited;
(d) Mark Davey Limited (subsequently withdrawn);
(e) Save the Rivers Mid-Canterbury Inc;
(f) Ms E Sage;
(g) Mr C Morris;
(h) Ms L Weir;
(i) Mrs R Snoyink;
(j) Mr J Snoyink;
(k) Mr N Allen;
(l) Rangitata Diversion Race Management Limited (neither support nor oppose).
8.37 The following submissions, all in opposition, were lodged to both the applications to ECan and to ADC:
(a) TrustPower Limited;
(b) Transpower New Zealand Limited;
9230798-3 Page 24
(c) Department of Conservation;
(d) Malvern Hills Protection Society;
(e) Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Ashburton Branch;
(f) North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.
8.38 Six submissions in support of the application to Ashburton District Council were received:
(a) Ashburton Trading Society;
(b) Federated Farmers, Mid-Canterbury Province;
(c) Eiffelton Community Group Irrigation Scheme;
(d) Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Ltd (BCI);
(e) Electricity Ashburton Ltd (EAL);
(f) Paul Bruce, a landowner on the canal route.
8.39 Twelve submissions in opposition to the application to Ashburton District Council were lodged including:
(a) Maw Enterprises Ltd;
(b) Alister Clemens;
(c) Creeside Water Scheme;
(d) Burrows Farm Ltd;
(e) Graham Campion (Corwar Farm Ltd);
(f) A Maw, L Maw and G Campion.
8.40 Submissions to ADC which neither opposed nor supported came from:
(a) Telecom New Zealand Ltd;
(b) New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
8.41 We note that there is no obligation on an applicant to consult but it is good practice to do so. We were impressed with the level of consultation carried out over the ACWT proposal and the further consultation carried out after the hearing had commenced.
8.42 Land within the scheme alignment between the river intake and Highbank power station is owned by Mark Davey Limited (MDL), Electricity Ashburton (EA) and TrustPower. Mr Dunning advised that consultation with TrustPower had led to agreement on conditions in relation to their interests in Highbank power station. This was confirmed by Counsel for Trust Power when it appeared. ACWT also has an agreement in place with MDL.
9230798-3 Page 25 8.43 The applicant has also consulted with landowners along the Terrace canal section and with DOC, Forest & Bird, Fish & Game and Te Taumutu Runanga. Subsequent to our interim decision there has been further consultation with DoC, Forest and Bird, landowners, Ashburton District Council and Synlait. We commend the applicant’s efforts. The success of this consultation can be measured from the fact that at the resumed hearing there was no opposition to the consents being granted and a large measure of agreement in relation to conditions. Ms Clemens on behalf of Forest and Bird complimented the applicant on its very co-operative and inclusive approach with Forest and Bird. We welcome the constructive approach taken by Forest and Bird. It has actively sought to be involved with ensuring the biodiversity offsets will be a success.
9. Relationship to Central Plains Water and the joint application to take
9.1 The application to take is somewhat unusual, in that it is a joint application by ACWT and CPWT to take up to 40 cumecs from the river. The proposed CPWT take is on the north side of the river slightly downstream of the proposed ACWT take which is on the South bank. The CPWT take is for irrigation purposes whereas the ACWT take is now proposed to be for generation purposes.
9.2 The joint nature of the application is unusual because the takes are at different locations, for different schemes which are not connected in any physical sense. The application is for CPWT and/or ACWT to be able to utilise up to the full 40 cumecs at any time when the existing consents and the WCO would allow for that, but for the total from both takes (after bypass returns to the river) to never exceed 40 cumecs.
9.3 Both applicants propose that the water permit would not specify which party may take the water at any particular time; instead that is left to a side agreement between ACWT and CPWT. We understand that this joint approach has been adopted to ensure that the consenting process did not end up as a contest between the two parties. However, we were advised that if and when a joint consent is granted, the two parties would then apply to separate the consent into two separate consents. Although the Act does not provide expressly for severance of a joint consent, presumably this can be achieved by way of transfers of parts of the consent under section 136 of the Act.
9.4 As we understand it, if both parties obtain consent, then once both schemes are operating, CPW would have priority to the water during the irrigation season and ACWT would be able to take such of it as is not required by CPW. Outside of the irrigation season ACWT would have access to all of the available allocation, unless CPW requires some of that to top up its reservoir. However, that would only be the case if CPW does not obtain consent for its upper Waimakariri intake and tunnel supply to the reservoir and instead supplies the reservoir by pump from the headrace canal which is fed by both rivers. If CPW obtains approval for and builds the tunnel from the upper Waimakariri then it will not require water from the Rakaia outside of the irrigation season. At that time, ACWT would utilise all of whatever is allocated to it and CPW.
9.5 If CPW ultimately does not obtain consent for the Rakaia take, but ACWT does, then, subject to the conditions of the consent, ACWT would have access to the full 40 cumecs when that is available. There appears to be nothing in the application which implies that if CPW does not proceed, ACWT would not seek to utilise that part of the allocation that the parties jointly seek but which CPW would no longer need. We do not see any difficulty with that and we have accordingly assessed the effects of the proposal with that possibility in mind.
9.6 Ms Appleyard told us that the latest memorandum of variation between CPW and ACWT provides that ACWT will receive 44% of the water available to be taken at any given time as granted under CRC021091 plus the Glenroy consents which allocate up
9230798-3 Page 26 to 1.96 m3/s. This will give a ‘first call’ entitlement to about 16 m3/s (based on all currently available water in the Rakaia). However, pursuant to the original memorandum of agreement, ACWT can take any water that is not being taken on a particular day by CPW. Accordingly, it seeks authorisation to take up to 40 m3/s through its canal (42 diverted at the intake), including any water that may become available from time to time by agreement with other consent holders.
9.7 ACWT has offered a condition which would limit the total take by CPWT and ACWT to a maximum of 40 cumecs. We are not entirely sure that this is required by the WCO, but since it is part of the application and has some benefits to the reach of river between the CPWT intake and Barrhill, we have proceeded on that basis. On our interpretation of the WCO, CPWT and ACWT could take up to a combined take of 70 cumecs less any higher priority water which is taken and not returned by others upstream of Barrhill, providing that ACWT returns all of its take at or upstream of Barrhill.
10. Relationship of the ACWT consents to BCI and EAL consents
10.1 In view of our decision to grant consent to ACWT we have considered the extent to which the existing BCI and EAL consents will need to be reflected in the ACWT consents. We have already summarised the nature of the consented EAL and BCI schemes. ACWT has applied for independent consents which would allow it to operate irrespective of whether Barrhill proceeds. The intake, sediment pond, and Highbank canal portions of the BCI scheme would be subsumed within the bigger ACWT scheme if ACWT proceeds. The BCI take consent would still be required because it has priority over the CPWT and Synlait consents, whereas any consent granted to ACWT would not have such priority. The ACWT take consent will need to be worded so that it is clear that ACWT can take up to 40 cumecs if BCI does not proceed, but if it does proceed the total taken under both consents is limited to 40 cumecs (17 + 23 cumecs).
10.2 The ACWT consent would normally have to be granted in such a way that it does not impact on the ability of BCI to exercise its take and use consent. However, given the contractual arrangements between BCI and ACWT that is not necessary in this instance.
10.3 If ACWT proceeds, the EAL scheme would be subsumed within it and the EAL consents would presumably be surrendered. There is no need to make any provision in the ACWT consents for the relationship with EAL.
11. Relationship to Synlait applications
11.1 Synlait has been granted a consent to take up to 6 cumecs from the river on the north bank between Highbank and Barrhill but that consent is under appeal and has not yet commenced. The consent is for so called band 2 and 3 water which is not being used by existing higher priority consent holders. It is a point of debate as to whether this is water which has been allocated to those consent holders or not. The decision suggests that it has not been allocated to the existing consent holders. So far as ACWT also seeks to use this unallocated or unused water, it is competing with Synlait for it.
11.2 Synlait has also applied for consent to take so called 'Band 5’ water at Steeles Road, i.e. lower priority water that has not been allocated. That application has not yet been heard. The High Court has determined that both of these applications have priority ahead of the ACWT/CPWT joint application in terms of processing. That in turn will mean that if one or other or both of the Synlait consents are ultimately confirmed, they will have priority over any take consent which may be issued to ACWT.
11.3 The High Court decision is subject to appeal, however for the time being we must proceed on the basis that Synlait has priority. Accordingly, if we grant consent we must
9230798-3 Page 27 include a condition which provides for the possibility that Synlait succeeds on the priority issue and that after any appeals it obtains one or other or both of the consents which it seeks. The ACWT consent would need to provide for all possible scenarios. We see no difficulty with that approach, which was the same approach as was adopted in relation to the Ngai Tahu Properties consent to take from the Waimakariri River, which was subject to similar priority issues in relation to CPWT.
11.4 There also seems to be a suggestion from Synlait in its appeal on the interim decision, that we should delay our decision on at least the joint take application until after any decisions have been made on its consent appeal and its outstanding application. However, it made no application to us to adjourn nor to delay our decision on those grounds. It did seek that we hear all of the related ACWT matters together which is what we have done. We have concluded that we do not need to delay our decision on ACWT until the Synlait priority issues and its applications are finally determined. We have concluded that the priority issue can be dealt with via conditions which protect Synlait's priority if it attains such and if it obtains consent. We requested the applicant to redraft the conditions to properly reflect the priority situation and we provided Synlait with an opportunity to comment and suggest redrafting. We will discuss these conditions later.
12. The Synlait appeal
12.1 Since our interim decision, Synlait has lodged an appeal against that decision. We do not need to address whether it is open to appeal a provisional decision. However we do observe that the complaint that we did not provide sufficient reasoning reflects the fact that the interim decision was provisional and therefore did not provide our full reasoning. That reasoning is in this final decision. We also note that many of the points raised by Synlait were not raised by it in its brief presentation to the initial hearing and seem to relate to matters which were not finally determined at that point. We apprehend that some of its concerns are based on a misunderstanding of what we propose. In any event, now that we are fully aware of its concerns we are able to specifically address these in our decision.
12.2 In summary Synlait's appeal is based on the following grounds:
• The interim decision is contrary to the High Court decision in Synlait v Central Plains Water Trust as to the interconnectedness of the various components of the schemes (presumably CPW and ACWT).
• It is contrary to the High Court finding that the hydro component rendered the take component not yet notifiable.
• It purports to grant consents for components which were not notified.
• The interim decision does not provide an assessment of instream effects.
• There was insufficient evidence before us to allow full assessment in accordance with section 104.
• The interim decision does not demonstrate how the consent will meet the requirements of the Water Conservation Order.
• The indicated purposive approach to interpretation of Water Conservation Order is incorrect.
12.3 We note that none of these matters were raised by Synlait in its legal submissions on the ACWT component of the take. Nor did Synlait call any evidence in support of these claims at either part of the hearing. Whilst the original submission on the joint take
9230798-3 Page 28 application sought that it be declined, the legal submissions at the ACWT part of the hearing did not pursue that relief. In relation to the joint take application Mr Rennie QC for Synlait indicated that Synlait was not seeking any particular relief and did not propose any particular conditions. At the ACWT specific part of the hearing, Counsel for Synlait Ms Leeming noted in relation to the points made in its original submission that "Synlait does not wish to expand upon those any further today, other than to record that the issues with respect to the scope of these applications is a fundamental issue to be addressed by the Commissioners."
12.4 We have considered the points raised in the Synlait appeal, and consider that they do not provide any basis for us to alter our interim conclusion. In particular it seems to us that the priority issues raised by Synlait in its appeal are capable of being addressed by way of conditions which ensure that the ACWT proposal can not affect the taking of water under the Synlait permits if one or other of those are ultimately attained on a priority basis. We requested the applicant to turn its mind to the wording of these conditions and to provide that wording to Synlait, which we understand it has done. We provided Synlait with an opportunity to address us on those conditions and any other matter at the resumed hearing, but it chose not to do so.
12.5 We also note that Synlait in its appeal took issue with our preliminary decision to split the joint application to take, into its two component parts. We requested that Synlait raise those and any other jurisdictional or legal issues with us at the resumed hearing, however it did not appear at the resumed hearing.
12.6 We observe that given that Synlait has a direct interest in the conditions controlling the take, it would have been helpful for Synlait to have appeared at the resumed hearing to assist with the drafting of those. With the assistance of ACWT and ECan officers we have done our best to ensure that the conditions are drafted to reflect the current state of play with the Synlait consents, however there may need to be further adjustments to these conditions to reflect the ultimate outcome of various court proceedings.
12.7 At the close of the resumed hearing we asked the applicant to provide the further redrafted take conditions to Synlait in the hope that we would get some clarification from Synlait as to whether it accepts the approach which is proposed and which we have adopted. We have not heard any further from Synlait. However, a few days before we issued this decision, we were advised that ACWT, and Synlait may have reached an out of court settlement of all of the priority issues and we understand that Synlait will not be pursuing its opposition to the ACWT consent. Accordingly it seems that our discussion of the issues raised by Synlait in its appeal is now redundant. Nevertheless for the sake of completeness we have left this discussion in place.
PART III – FINDINGS ON LEGAL ISSUES
13. Jurisdictional issues
13.1 There were some jurisdictional/procedural issues which we needed to address (some of which are also raised in Synlait's appeal). These related to:
• The joint hearing of the joint take application along with the other matters.
• The change in purpose of the take consent.
• Deciding the take application separately from the CPWT part of the joint application.
• Extending the scope of the application to discharge sediment, to cover sediment sluicing from the intake canal.
9230798-3 Page 29
• Proceeding with the hearing and decision before Synlait's remaining priority application is determined.
• Whether we can allow ACWT to take water which is unused by other consent holders.
14. Fairness of our hearing the recent applications immediately after the CPWT applications
14.1 As noted above, we concluded that it was essential that we determine the take application together with the related applications and accordingly this has been a joint hearing.
14.2 Malvern Hills Protection Society voiced a concern that people may have been caught by surprise by the recent applications for land use to Ashburton District Council, and by the fact that the application to ADC has been heard so soon after notification. It was concerned that the consent authorities had not signalled to the public that there would be a joint hearing before the CPWT hearing commenced.
14.3 When we commenced this hearing we had not appreciated that ACWT's other applications to ECan were not at that stage before us. Nor were we aware of the application to ADC. These other applications necessitated decisions pursuant to section 102 and 103.
14.4 Whilst we appreciate that submitters may have been caught by surprise by our decision after the start of the CPWT hearing, to jointly hear these applications with the CPWT applications, in reality that is a decision which should have been made by officers, or referred to us prior to the hearing. However, we did not appreciate the interrelationships between the consents until the hearing had started, and had not understood that we were not at that stage appointed to hear the related applications to ECan. In any event, in the absence of a prior decision, we needed to make a decision on those points and we did so in March 2008 and recorded our reasons for the decisions we made (see Appendix 2). We concluded that we are obliged under sections 102 and 103 of the RMA to consider all of these related applications together.
14.5 The specific applications to Environment Canterbury by ACWT were publicly notified on 4 July 2007. We advised submitters in our second minute of 28 March 2008 that we would be hearing these in September and required ACWT to file its evidence in advance of the September hearing. There has been ample time for submitters to prepare for the current hearing, given that the issues are relatively confined as compared to the CPWT applications.
14.6 The application to ADC was notified on 24 May 2008 and a notice of hearing went out to submitters on 25 August. We do not see any prejudice in our hearing all of these application in a timely manner as required under the RMA. Whilst we appreciate that submitters such as MHPS and Fish and Game have had their resources thinly spread by having to deal with two significant applications, we note that the ACWT issues are very confined as compared to the CPW issues.
15. Change in purpose of the take consent
15.1 The original 2001 joint application CRC021091 to take water was applied for and notified with its purpose stated as being for irrigation purposes, however the subsequent application by ACWT is for use of the water for hydro generation purposes. Synlait raised the issue as to whether we have jurisdiction to grant consent to take water for a different purpose from what was notified. We have concluded that we do have
9230798-3 Page 30 jurisdiction. Synlait raised this issue in its original submission on the ACWT applications to ECan. The original submission from Synlait on the use and related applications was as follows:
1 The bundle of applications above are dependent on CRC021091 for the take from the Rakaia River. 2 The proposed use of the water for hydro generation is not referred to in the AEE for the take application. 3 The proposed use has different effects - particularly with respect to the timing and quantum of the take that are not referred to in the take application . 4 Hydro generation will lead to the take being exercised year round at all times at the maximum - irrespective of climatic conditions - and will not have the fluctuations in take levels which are associated with irrigation takes - both as to the seasonal nature of irrigation takes and the need based on climatic conditions 8 This application is beyond the scope of the take application. The issue for the consent authority is that such new use impacts upon the priority accorded to this suite of applications and the priority of the take application. This issue will only be resolved as a result of the outcome of High Court proceeds (and any appeals) due to be heard in October 2007.
15.2 We also received a letter from Duncan Cotterill dated 14 April 2008 to Environment Canterbury, acting for Synlait Limited. In their letter, Duncan Cotterill noted that in the joint take application there is no mention that the take is for the Rakaia terrace hydro scheme.
15.3 As a result of that letter we then posed the question to ACWT as to Whether we could grant consent to take water for a purpose which is different to that stated in the take application?
15.4 Ms Appleyard responded in her opening submissions for ACWT presented in April 2008 as follows: (emphasis added)
On a proper interpretation of the application, ACWT applied for and seeks only a consent to take water. It is not asking that the take application be specified to be for any particular purpose as that would effectively be seeking a consent for both the taking and use of water. ACWT was explicit that its application was limited to a take application.
…..Regarding applications authorising the taking, damming or diversion it is not necessary, in a jurisdictional sense, for the purpose for which water is being taken dammed or diverted to be specified in the application as that is not what is sought to be authorised through that application. There is a separate consent required to authorise the use of water. Indeed the separate nature of different types of consent is expressly recognised in the Act through the requirement in section 88(4)(b) to state in an application whether other resource consents are required and whether they had been applied for.
…Here in reality, the issue is therefore simply one of interpreting what ACWT applied for in the first place to decide whether what it now seeks is within scope. ACWT’s fundamental submission is that it is clear from the application that all that was applied for was a consent to take water. As specifically noted in the introduction section of the AEE the applicants spelt out that their reasoning for this as being to ascertain whether there was sufficient water in the Rakaia to meet the objectives and potential water requirements of the parties.
The application is explicit in that: “This application is therefore for the TAKE of water only, and has been structured in a manner which does not provide for the USE of that water. The use would be subject to
9230798-3 Page 31 further applications to be lodged before the Selwyn District Council, Ashburton District Council and Environment Canterbury.” It is submitted that any reader to the application would therefore be aware that it was defined by the applicants as simply an application to take water and it quite deliberately sought not to include within the proposal for which it was seeking consent an application for the specific use to which water taken could be put. The application made it clear that separate applications relating to the use of water were to be made in the future.
In that regard the words in the application document which refer to an intended purpose for the taking of water are contextual only. They are simply a statement of motivation in applying for the take consent at that time – the words were not, and could not be interpreted to be some form of limit on the scope of the actual application being made at that time which was simply to take water.
It is also submitted that it would be a nonsense to, on the one hand say that the Regional Council has placed the take application on hold on the basis of requesting a use application to understand what the water would be used for, but then on the other to say the original application – clearly expressed to be just for a take, somehow implied or limited the applicants to only then being able to take the water for the purpose expressed in the application.
The public notice of the take application states that it is made jointly, sets out both Rakaia intake sites and states that the water would inter alia be used “for ancillary purposes” associated with “the operation of … the Ashburton Community Water Trust Scheme”. The notice does not say that the water will be used for irrigation or water enhancement on the south side. It does not state any use for the water. It is not required to.
ACWT lodged further applications relating to the Rakaia terrace hydro proposal including an application to use water for hydro-electricity generation in March 2007 and these were notified in July 2007. The notification of the use application specifically states that the application to take water has been made by CPWT and ACWT and ties the use of water to that take application.
…Here there is no party coming forward to say that the effects of taking water for hydro-generation are significantly different from those if the water is taken for irrigation or water enhancement. Had they known that water was to be used for hydro-generation instead of irrigation or water enhancement they would have submitted on the take application in circumstances where they currently have not. Nor can it plausibly be said that anyone would do so.
…Here renotification of the take application itself would achieve nothing. The notification of the take application did not state the purpose of the south side take and nor does the applicant seek it to given that the use to which the water taken will be put is specifically set out in another application.
…Any party who had a concern about the use of the water being taken for hydro-generation once they knew the use to which the water would be put through public notification of the use was provided with opportunity to submit through notification of the use consent. So in other words if there is an issue about changing the scope of the application in terms of its purpose this was cured by public notification of the use application.
15.5 We agree with these submissions. In our view the stated purpose of the take is severable from the application since it was unnecessary for the purpose of a take application to be stated in the take application (presumably for that reason, the purpose was not stated in the notification). Alternatively, if the take application also
9230798-3 Page 32 encompassed use, the use component has been overtaken by the new application for use by ACWT.
15.6 ACWT needed a separate consent for use of the water and did not apply for that in 2001. The take application did not need to have any purpose specified on it. It is an application to take water, not to use it. There is no need for us to specify the purpose of the take in the take permit. The purpose will be specified in the separate water permit to use for hydro generation purposes. Accordingly, in our view since the take consent did not need to state a purpose, we are not limited to granting a consent for that purpose. We have assessed the effects of the now proposed use and have disregarded the original proposed purpose.
15.7 The proper way to address the intended purpose of the take, was by way of a separate or conjoint application to use the water for a stated purpose. Such an application was made in May 2007 and subsequently notified. In essence the applicant has abandoned that part of the joint take application which refers to the purpose as being for irrigation and has replaced it with a fresh application for use for hydro generation. We do not regard that as an amendment to the application and even if it was so regarded it would be a permissible amendment since it narrows the scope of the original application.
15.8 No person has been prejudiced by the abandonment of the redundant part of the take application. The subsequent use application was properly notified and all persons had an opportunity to submit on that. It is unlikely that other persons would have submitted on the take application had they thought that ACWT intended to use the water for hydro generation rather than irrigation. However even if there were such persons they could have submitted on the subsequent use application. In practice there was considerably less interest in the hydro use application as compared to the joint take application.
15.9 We accept that for the section of river between the take and the discharge, a hydro scheme would potentially have more impact than an irrigation scheme because it may operate all year round. However the joint take application was not limited to the irrigation season. The joint applicants sought a year round take of up to 40 cumecs. The side agreement between the applicants would allow CPW to have priority in the irrigation season and ACWT to have priority at times when CPW does not require the water.
15.10 Accordingly, the fact that ACWT now proposes to use the water for hydro generation rather than irrigation has no different effect from what was applied for in terms of the joint take application. Even if we are wrong on this point, the fact that the use application has been notified means that all persons who were concerned at the effects of a take for the purpose of hydro generation could make a submission and call evidence about those effects. In particular Synlait has had a full opportunity to raise its concerns.
15.11 We agree with Ms Appleyard that no purpose would be served by re-applying for the take application without the reference to the original purpose. To the contrary, that would in our view result in a significant waste of public and private resources given the stage that both the CPW and ACWT matters have reached.
15.12 The effects of a water take for a hydro generation scheme which returns the water to the river will be less than the effects of an irrigation scheme which does not. ACWT may take water all year round for a hydro scheme, whereas an irrigation scheme without storage would only be for the irrigation season. However, the joint take application was for year round abstraction because CPWT wants to retain the ability to take in the winter to replenish the reservoir. Accordingly, what is now proposed will have no greater effect that what was originally proposed.
9230798-3 Page 33 15.13 Granting the application for use for hydro generation purposes will have no different effect on Synlait than granting consent for irrigation purposes. Synlait made such a submission but called no evidence on this point. Accordingly we have no basis on which to conclude that it or the river would be adversely affected by the hydro scheme.
15.14 It seems to us that the effects on Synlait (if it obtains consent) will be the same whether ACWT has a hydro scheme in conjunction with CPW’s irrigation scheme or whether they both have irrigation schemes. In either event the provisions of the Water Conservation Order must be complied with and they limit the volume and times of take. Whatever the use of the water, conditions will be required to protect Synlait's priority. The conditions on the take consent will ensure that the take does not derogate from the ability of Synlait to take under its consents if either or both are confirmed.
16. Amendment to sediment discharge application
16.1 For reasons we explain later in this decision, we intend to grant regional land use application CRC072649 to deposit silt onto the bed of the Rakaia River and CRC072642 to discharge material to the river but only to be utilised in limited circumstances on up to 2 ha per 12 month period as compared to the 20 ha applied for. As a consequence application CRC072640 to discharge up to 40m3/s, of water and entrained sediment to the Rakaia River at the specified location has been amended to provide for discharge of sediment by way of sluicing from the intake channel.
16.2 This is more sediment discharge than was originally proposed but there will be correspondingly less sediment deposition. The sediment discharge is also a different location from what was originally applied for. ACWT did not apply for a discharge for sediment sluicing at the intake. Accordingly the question arises as to whether we have jurisdiction to amend the application in this manner.
16.3 Ms Appleyard made a submission on this point:
In my submission if ACWT decided to adopt BCI’s sluicing method then sluicing is still covered by the “discharge material” notified in respect of CRC072642. The nature of the activity remains the same. There are also no significant implications in terms of the proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) or any other equivalent statutory documents.
Given that the submission is presented on the basis that there is no legal significance to the amendments, it is my submissions that it would be much more prudent to have the Commissioners determine the application on the basis of being able to integrate more readily with the BCI/EAL scheme. It would otherwise be an unfortunate time requirement and financial cost to obtain the necessary amendments through an application/variation process that would probably be determined on an un-notified basis.
16.4 We agree with those submissions. As discussed later, we have concluded that the sluicing method will be more sustainable than what was notified. We have concluded that it can be incorporated into what has been applied for in terms of either CRC072642 or CRC072640. We have made the amendment to the latter since that related to the water rather than to the bed of the river. We now briefly discuss jurisdiction.
16.5 In Atkins v Napier CC 18/12/08, Wild J, HC Napier CIV 2008-441-564, the Court considered the case law discussing alterations to consent applications, and held that the test, as developed by the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal through a series of cases, is whether the activity for which resource consent is sought, as ultimately proposed to the consent authority, is significantly different in its scope or ambit fro m that originally applied for and notified (if notification was required) in terms of:
9230798-3 Page 34
• The scale or intensity of the proposed activity, or
• The altered character or effects/impacts of the proposal.
The Court held that whether there might have been other submitters, had the activity as ultimately proposed to the consent authority been that applied for and notified, is a means of applying or answering the test. But it is not the test itself.
16.6 If one considers consent CRC072640 on its own then the amendment probably fails the test set out above. However in our view the focus should be on the overall suite of applications; after all, that is why we are holding a joint hearing. On that approach, the effects of the amended proposal will be less than those of the original deposition proposal and the scale and intensity of the overall sediment disposal/discharge activities will not be increased. Whilst there will be some alteration in the character of the effects we are of the view that these will not be significantly different.
16.7 In our view, it is implausible that any other party would have submitted on the applications if they had included the sluicing operation. Fish and Game and the Salmon Anglers Association were both submitters and were able to address this change in their submissions and evidence. At the resumed hearing no party opposed this course of amendment which we had proposed in our interim decision.
16.8 Accordingly, we have concluded that the consent can be granted in the amended form. Alternatively, the applicant may wish to make a fresh application which in our view could be dealt with on a non-notified basis but which should (if made) be served on Fish and Game and the Salmon Anglers Association as the main parties having an interest in this matter.
17. Decision to jointly decide the ACWT applications but to separately decide the CPW matters and splitting of the joint take application
17.1 In view of the joint application we have considered both scheme proposals at the same overall hearing, albeit that we dealt with the ACWT and CPW specific consents in separate parts of the hearing and Mr Nixon did not take part in the ACWT specific hearing. This approach ensured that we fully understood the relationship between the two schemes.
17.2 During the hearing it occurred to us that it might be more sensible to deal with the two parts of the joint application as separate consents and to make a separate decision in relation to each of the joint applications to take from the Rakaia. We asked both applicants whether they had any difficulty with that approach and whether they could see any legal impediment to us doing that. Submitters also had an opportunity to comment on that suggestion.
17.3 Both applicants agreed to our suggestion that the applications/consents be split. We will of course need to ensure that both consents (if both are granted) have consistent conditions and ensure that the single consents together can have no greater effect than a joint consent would have. The conditions of both will need to ensure that the requirements of the WCO are met and that the exercise of both consents separately or together, does not give rise to any significant derogation of the rights of other consent holders.
17.4 No other party objected to this approach. The appeal by Synlait against our interim decision seems to argue that this course of action is beyond our jurisdiction, however Synlait did not pursue this or any other issue at the resumed hearing. Nevertheless since it seems to oppose this course we will set out our reasoning in a little more detail.
9230798-3 Page 35
17.5 We could have issued a joint decision on the joint application. That decision could either be to grant consent only to ACWT or to both applicants. One disadvantage of a joint decision is that ACWT would inevitably be caught up in delays in the CPW decision and likely appeals in relation to the CPW scheme. Many of the contentious issues associated with CPW (eg nitrate contamination, ground water mounding, objections to the taking of land, Canterbury mudfish, effects on the recreational amenity of the Waimakariri etc) do not apply to the ACWT scheme. If there are separate decisions, then there is a high probability that there will be no appeals on the ACWT consents or that those appeals could be resolved much more rapidly than will be the case with any appeals on the CPW scheme.
17.6 A separate decision means that if there are appeals on both schemes, the Court can focus on the effects of the ACWT scheme separately from the CPW scheme, just as we have. However if it wishes to consider them together it can require that irrespective of how our decision is framed. This approach is also consistent with what the joint applicants intended. They had indicated to us, that ultimately the consents would probably be separated.
17.7 In environmental terms, the two schemes are largely unrelated and ACWT can operate completely separately from CPW. The connection between the applications is an artificial one created by the joint application and the associated agreement between the two parties. Quite frankly we consider that it would be "messy" to have a joint consent to take applying to different schemes, for different purposes, on different sides of the river. That may also lead to enforcement issues.
17.8 We have considered whether we have jurisdiction to split the application. It was notified as a joint application for consent to take. As discussed above, we have jurisdiction to amend a consent from what was applied for, provided that the nature of the activity does not change, the effects of the amended activity are no greater than what was originally applied for and notified and no potential submitter is prejudiced.
17.9 We have considered whether, if the application had been notified as a single application by ACWT to take, it would have been likely that any other persons would have submitted who have not submitted in relation to the joint application.
17.10 In the present case, if the application had been separated from the CPW application, if anything, it would have attracted fewer submissions. The CPW scheme has attracted much publicity and many submissions in opposition. The ACWT is by contrast much less controversial and does not at the moment include irrigation. This scheme involves renewable generation, with discharge of all of the water back to the river. In contrast the CPW take does not return water to the river. The CPWT scheme is strongly contested for a variety of reasons which do not apply to ACWT. CPWT also seeks to take more water than ACWT (40 cumecs as compared to 23 cumecs of new take) and CPWT does not propose to return its water to the river.
17.11 It seems to us that the only party which might potentially have made a submission in opposition, if separate applications had been lodged is CPWT, because it would then have been competing with ACWT. Given that it has agreed to the consent now being split, in our view there is no potential for prejudice to any person if we grant consent to ACWT ahead of deciding the CPWT part of the application. We can protect CPWT's interests by ensuring that the conditions of consent allow the agreement between ACWT and CPWT to be given effect to if CPWT later obtains consent.
17.12 Separate consents will in total give rise to no greater or different effects than one combined consent. We cannot grant consent for more than what was applied for (a total of up to 40 cumecs whenever available and whenever that would not affect priority
9230798-3 Page 36 rights). In either event (joint consent or separate consents) the conditions of consent can and will constrain the effects to the same magnitude.
17.13 So far as the nature of the activity is concerned it will remain the same. The notified proposal involved a joint application by two parties to take at two separate locations. There is no difference between a joint consent to take up to 40 cumecs and two separate consents to take up to 40 cumecs provided that the conditions of each ensure that the combined take is no more than 40 cumecs.
17.14 Section103 is not applicable. That section requires that where there are two or more applications for consents being heard by the same consent authority in a joint hearing in relation to the same proposal then there must be a joint decision unless the authority is of the opinion that the applications are sufficiently unrelated so that it is unnecessary to decide the applications together.
17.15 The proposals by ACWT and CPW are for entirely different schemes so they do not appear to be for the same proposal. Even if one regards the joint application as being one proposal to take water by two different persons for different purposes, then section 103 still does not apply because there is only one application in that category. The rest of the ACWT applications relate to a different proposal from the CPW applications.
17.16 Nevertheless, in case we are wrong on this point, we record that we have concluded that the CPW and ACWT applications and the two parts of the joint application are sufficiently unrelated so that it is unnecessary to decide the applications (or both parts of the joint application) together. In particular:
• The two components of the joint application relate to different intake points on opposite sides of the river and there is no physical linkage beyond the fact that the takes would both be from the same river.
• The purpose of the two component takes is different: one is for irrigation and one is now for a hydro generation scheme.
• The ACWT scheme is totally unrelated to the remainder of the CPW applications and its Notice of Requirement.
• The effects of two takes for up to 40 cumecs authorised under two consents will be the same as the effect of two takes for up to 40 cumecs authorised under one consent.
• The effects of the ACWT take on the river and on other consent holders can be determined without knowing the outcome of the CPW scheme.
• The effects of the proposed CPW take on the river and on other consent holders can be determined without knowing the outcome of the ACWT scheme.
• Whilst the applicants have decided to apply together they could have (and normally would have) applied separately and been determined separately.
• If both parties obtain consent, then for administrative efficiency and accountability it would be preferable that each has its own consent given that the takes are by different persons for different purposes at different locations.
• If only ACWT secures consent then there will only be one consent in any event.
9230798-3 Page 37 • The combined hearing has allowed us to assess the effects of the total take applied for. Issuing a joint decision will not add to our understanding of those effects.
• The applicants intended to separate the consents in any event.
• If there are appeals against the ACWT decision, the Environment Court will still have the option of amalgamating those appeals with any appeals on the CPW proposal if it thinks fit.
• If the Court confirmed both consents it could grant them as one if it considers that to be necessary.
• In our view the applications would normally have been made separately and whilst we understand the strategic reasons for amalgamating them, we do not see that as being necessary for our decision making process.
• In our view no submitter or potential submitter will be prejudiced by us making a separate decision on the ACWT application.
• In particular, we do not see how Synlait will be prejudiced by this approach.
18. Whether a separate decision on ACWT is contrary to the High Court decision?
18.1 We have also considered whether such an approach is contrary to the High Court decision in Synlait v CPWT. This decision confirmed that it was appropriate for ECan to delay the notification of the joint application until ACWT had made its application to use the water, so that potential submitters could understand the justification for ACWT’s part of the take. However in our view it does not follow that there is a need for a joint decision. That will make no difference to appeal rights, nor to whether the Environment Court chooses to hear appeals together or separately.
18.2 If we decide to grant consent for the ACWT scheme, but ultimately we decline the CPW part of the joint application, then we would be granting a single consent in any event. Given that the schemes are completely separate and different in nature (in particular the ACWT water is returned to the river and the take points are different) it seems more appropriate to grant ACWT a separate consent.
18.3 The High Court found that the Regional Council treated the joint application as such and that it was appropriate for notification purposes for all aspects to be before the public. The Court concluded that the Environment Court should have treated the joint application as one for the purposes of determining when it was notifiable. However there is nothing in the decision which says or even implies that the joint application could not be split after it had been heard but before a decision has been made on the CPW part of the application.
18.4 The only link between the two schemes is that the two applicants have decided to make only one application to take from the Rakaia. There is also an agreement between them as to how the allocation would be shared between the two takes. The applicants have signalled that they had intended eventually to separate any joint consent which might be granted. It seems that the sole reason for the joint application was to avoid any competition between ACWT and CPW, in terms of the first-in first-served system.
18.5 We accept that because there was a joint application it was appropriate and perhaps essential to hear evidence relating to each proposal concurrently so that we could understand the interrelationships between the two schemes. That is also what Synlait requested in its submission.
9230798-3 Page 38
18.6 However we do not agree that it was necessary for us to issue one decision on the joint application. That might have been the case if there had been a joint take point, but as it is, the schemes are physically unconnected beyond the fact that they take from the same river.
18.7 We accept that the instream impact of the joint application if granted and the impacts on Synlait will derive from the net effect of both takes. Accordingly the conditions of both consents (if granted) will need to be directed at the combined effects. Thus both consents (if granted) will need to ensure that the provisions of the Water Conservation Order are met and that the cumulative effects of both consents and other consents are sustainable.
18.8 Both will also need to ensure that there is no substantial derogation of the Synlait consent or consents if such are confirmed on appeal. However, we cannot see any reason why all of this cannot be achieved by way of consecutive decisions granting separate consents. Indeed given that the intention has always been to separate the consent once granted, it would seem sensible that the panel which has heard the evidence does that now rather than leaving it to be sorted out by officials later.
19. Proceeding with the hearing before Synlait's remaining priority application is determined
19.1 In its appeal, Synlait claims that the interim decision is contrary to the High Court finding that the hydro component rendered the take component not yet notifiable. This is not an argument which it pursued at the hearing or resumed hearing. We do not entirely follow the point, but assume that Synlait is arguing that the decision on priority means that we should not make a decision on the joint application. Accordingly we will consider the point further.
19.2 The effect of the High Court decision (which is subject to an appeal) is that Synlait's applications have priority to be heard and determined ahead of the joint application. One of those applications has been heard and granted at first instance and the other will be heard later this year.
19.3 There was no application for us to delay the hearing or our decision on this basis. Nor do we consider it necessary to do so. Synlait's priority will be addressed by way of conditions on the take consent. The relevant conditions will address a range of possible priority outcomes.
19.4 Synlait did not originally suggest that the grant of consent would be contrary to the High Court decision. The conclusion of the legal submissions was that: "Therefore, the current position is that Synlait has priority over ACWT. No stay of those proceedings has ever been applied for or granted by the Court. It is submitted that the Commissioners, when considering these applications, must take into account the priority currently held by Synlait. The present applications are therefore to be considered in the context of the existing Synlait consents and the pending and prior application".
19.5 Ms Leeming Counsel for Synlait accepted that the priority issue made no difference to our assessment of the effects of ACWT on the environment. and stated that Synlait was simply appearing at the hearing to make sure that its priority interests were protected. It did not call any evidence as to the effects of ACWT on its potential takes. We had not understood Synlait to be arguing that the High Court decision prevented us from granting consent to ACWT. Rather we had understood the priority issue as being a matter which would need to be addressed in conditions of consent if we decided to grant consent.
9230798-3 Page 39
19.6 We have proceeded on the basis that if Synlait's consents are upheld on appeal they may have priority over the ACWT consent. Accordingly the ACWT consent will need to be worded in such away that it does not permit any significant derogation from the Synlait consent(s) if they are granted. One application has been granted but has not yet commenced because it is subject to an appeal and the other has not yet been heard.
19.7 The High Court concluded that the Synlait applications were ready for notification prior to the CPW and ACWT joint application for take and therefore had priority over the joint application. The Court held that that the joint application was not ready for notification until the ACWT application to use the water had been made. That application was not made until May 2007 after the Synlait applications were ready for notification. The High Court did not find that the ACWT take component was not notifiable. It found that it was not notifiable until May 2007. It has now been notified as have the all the related applications. That means that we are now obliged by the statutory time frames to get on and determine the applications.
19.8 As we see it, the key consequence of the High Court decision, is that if on appeal, Synlait is granted one or other consent to take, then that consent or consents will take priority over any consent(s) to take which are granted to ACWT and/or CPWT.
19.9 We are unsure whether Synlait is now also arguing that we should not consider the joint application to take, or cannot grant consent to take until the Synlait applications are finally determined.
19.10 The priority being addressed in the High Court decision is priority to process rather than priority as to the resource. At first sight that would appear to mean that Synlait is entitled to have its applications heard and determined by the Council before the CPWT and ACWT applications. It may also mean that it is entitled to have any appeals against the Regional Council decision, determined by the Environment Court first. Synlait's first application has been determined by the Regional Council and its second application has at its request not been heard.
19.11 The High Court decision was released after the hearing of the joint application had commenced. Synlait has not sought that the hearing be adjourned. Nor has it sought a Court order preventing us from proceeding, or sought a declaration to the effect that we should not proceed or cannot grant consent. Mr Hugh Rennie QC appeared for Synlait during the CPW part of the hearing and when pressed, made it clear that Synlait was not saying that we could not or should not grant consent to CPW. Indeed Synlait did not seek any specific relief. It did not call any evidence relating to the effect of proposed takes by CPW and ACWT on the river or on its operation. We held that the evidence it did seek to adduce at the hearing was irrelevant because it did not address the effects of the proposed take. At the ACWT part of the hearing Synlait called no evidence at all and did not seek any specific relief.
19.12 In the absence of any application for adjournment or an order requiring us to adjourn, we are bound by section 121 of the Act to avoid unreasonable delay. Section 37A also requires us to consider the interests of any person who may be affected by any extension of time or waiver and to consider the interests of the community. We do not think that it would be appropriate for us having heard months of evidence and submissions to now adjourn the proceedings to await Synlait's second application to be determined and presumably await the outcome of appeals on both applications.
19.13 In any event, in our view, the key point is that there is simply no need for such delay. Synlait's priority can be protected in three ways. Firstly Synlait was entitled to call evidence at this hearing to explain the effects of the proposed take on it.
9230798-3 Page 40 19.14 Secondly, if we grant consent to ACWT and/or CPW we can impose conditions which protect Synlait's priority if it obtains one or other consents. (This is the approach which commissioners Milne and Cowie adopted in relation to the Ngai Tahu application and which appears to have been accepted by the Environment Court as appropriate). We asked Synlait to make submissions to us as to appropriate conditions which would achieve this but it chose not do so and did not comment on the applicant's proposals.
19.15 Thirdly, Synlait will have rights of appeal if it is not satisfied with the way we address this issue. The Environment Court might potentially decide not to determine any such appeals until after it has determined any appeals against the Synlait decision, but that is a matter for it.
19.16 In summary, in our view the grant of consent to ACWT is not contrary to the High Court decision regarding priority.
20. Whether we can allow ACWT to take water which is unused by other consent holders
20.1 ACWT and CPWT seek consent to take water which is already permitted to be taken by other consent holders, at times when those consent holders are not using their "allocation". This would also include Synlait if it obtains a priority consent for band 5 water.
20.2 A question arises as to whether this would be contrary to the decision in Aoraki Water Trust v Meridian Energy Ltd. As we understand it that decision and a subsequent High Court decision in Southern Alps Air are authority that: Where a water resource is fully allocated, a consent authority cannot subsequently grant consent which would have the effect of substantially derogating from the rights held by existing consent holders.
20.3 The Synlait/Robinson application which has been granted by the Regional Council was also for unused band 2 and 3 water. The decision of the panel on that application was that the unused water had not been allocated to existing consent holders. That may well be the case, but we do not have sufficient information about the existing consents to be able to determine that.
20.4 If the water has been allocated to existing consent holders, it is certainly arguable ACWT could not be granted a consent to take already allocated water without the consent of the relevant consent holders. However, it could also be argued that at times when those consent holders do not require the water (eg outside of the irrigation season in the case of Synlait) that there would be no substantial derogation even if the water is taken without the existing consent holders permission.
20.5 Fortunately we do not need to determine that point since neither ACWT or CPW seek to take allocated but unused water except with the permission of the relevant consent holders. Accordingly, if the water has been allocated, that clearly involves no derogation and no environmental effect and accordingly we see no barrier to granting the take consents on that basis. A similar approach was adopted by commissioners Milne and Cowie in relation to the Ngai Tahu consent to take water from the Waimakariri river.
20.6 There is a practical issue, which is that all of the relevant takes will need to be monitored so that the combined total does not exceed any of the limits in the WCO or individual permits. That can be achieved by way of conditions.
21. Activity Status
9230798-3 Page 41 21.1 All of the resource consents applied for (both Regional and District Council) are for discretionary activities, including the joint take application with CPW. We do not see the overall activity status of the CPW applications as being relevant to the current application.
21.2 Mr Bonis for TrustPower noted that one application (CRC072643 for excavation of more than 100m3 of material and placement of more than 20m3 of material excavations over an unconfined or semi confined aquifer system) is non-complying because the 7m excavation depth exceeds the 5m limit set under Rule WQL40; this was acknowledged by Mr Dunning, planner for ACWT. However, our understanding is that this excavation occurs at the Highbank Canal drop structures which are already consented under the EAL consents (EAL decision para 3.9). In view of this we think that this activity can be unbundled from the other applications because this application is not essential to the scheme. Accordingly we consider the other applications as being discretionary. Nevertheless we record that even if this is not the case, we consider that the other applications pass the 104D threshold with conditions as proposed by us.
21.3 Section 104D will still apply to the one application. As noted that activity is already consented for another party. The effects of this excavation are localised and are in our view minor for the purposes of s104D. We note that Ms Johnston’s summary concludes that… ‘I am satisfied that the application of s104D(a) has been met with respect of resource consent application CRC072646’. Mr Dunning concludes:
‘The effects of this activity were assessed in the consideration of the EA/BCI proposal, which is the same in this regard as these aspects of the ACWT proposal. The effects were found to be minor in the context of adequate erosion and sediment control measures, dewatering activities, and stormwater management. The ACWT scheme does not introduce any additional excavations deeper than 5m…. proposed conditions of consent which are substantially similar to those applied to the EA/BCI consents in respect of erosion and sediment control’
22. Reasonably foreseeable future Environment
22.1 In respect of the intake and Highbank canal we agree with the submissions for ACWT, that the existing consents held by BCIL and EAL are part of the existing environment or perhaps more correctly, the reasonably foreseeable future environment, against which the current applications must be assessed. Whilst we have a discretion not to apply the permitted baseline (eg in relation to fanciful activities) we doubt that we have discretion not to take into account the effects of the proposals which have already been granted. In any event, we consider that it is appropriate for us to have regard to the effects of the consented activities, particularly as both sets of consents were granted relatively recently. Whist the future of the consented proposals is not certain, they certainly cannot be described as fanciful proposals.
22.2 We must consider the effects of the ACWT proposal in the context of these existing consents and consider that we should disregard such effects as have already been consented. In particular the following aspects have already been consented.
• The first 17 cumecs of the proposed 40 cumec take.
• The intake and related river works associated with a 40 cumec take.
• A settling pond (smaller than that proposed by ACWT).
• Sediment flushing from the intake canal at up to 80 cumecs.
9230798-3 Page 42 • 17 cumecs of take of water with no obligatory discharge back to the river (i.e under BCI).
• A 40 cumec canal up to Highbank and two 17 cumec capacity power stations in this section.
• Discharge back to the river of up to 17 cumecs at Highbank (authorised but not required).
22.3 We have disregarded the effects of what has already been consented for EAL and BCI and have focussed on the additional and cumulative effects which ACWT may cause if consented. In particular, so far as the take is concerned, we have disregarded the effects of the first 17 cumecs of the proposed 40 cumec take. We will also take into account the fact that BCI is not required to return up to 17 cumecs to the river. We have also disregarded the effects of the consented sediment discharges associated with the BCI consents.
22.4 In considering the land use consents we will focus on the additional effects which the ACWT infrastructure would have over and above the BCI/EAL infrastructure. In particular, the bigger sediment pond and the whole of the Highbank to Barrhill terrace canal. We will disregard the effects of constructing a 40 cumec canal from the intake to Highbank, since that is already consented, albeit that the EAL/BCI proposal was to only convey 17 cumecs.
23. Decision making framework
23.1 The Rakaia River Water Conservation Order (WCO) is the primary instrument governing the taking of water for the ACWT scheme. The statutory assessment of the applications includes the legislative requirements of Part II (sections 5, 6, 7 and 8) and the more specific sections relevant to this application that are contained in Part VI of the Act (sections 104, 104B, 105 and 107). It also includes the relevant planning instruments being the Ashburton District Plan, the TRP, the PNRRP and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.
24. Consistency with Rakaia Water Conservation Order take regime
24.1 Section 217 of the RMA prohibits us from granting any water or discharge permit which would be contrary to any provision of the Water Conservation Order and requires us to include conditions adequate to ensure that the provisions of the Order are maintained.
24.2 Relevant provisions of the WCO in terms of water quality and natural character include:
24.3 Clause 3 that states the outstanding characteristics and features of the Rakaia River and its tributaries include:
(a) an outstanding natural characteristic in the form of a braided river; and
(b) outstanding wildlife habitat above and below the Rakaia Gorge, outstanding fisheries, and outstanding recreational, angling and jet boating features.
24.4 In determining the maximum allocation available, Clause 7(4) requires that ‘while the gorge flow exceeds the minimum gorge flow by less than 140 cubic metres per second, the flow in the river shall not be reduced by abstraction or diversion by more than 70 cubic metres per second’.’
24.5 In addition, the taking of water under the WCO is subject to a one-to-one sharing rule when the flow at the Gorge bridge exceeds a minimum flow which varies from month to
9230798-3 Page 43 month (i.e. for every cumec of water abstracted from the river, a cumec of water is left in the river for in-stream values/uses). Once the flow as measured at the Gorge bridge drops below the specified minimum flow all takes must cease, apart from some pre- existing stock wat er takes. We have included consent conditions which will ensure that ACWT complies with the minimum flow and the one to one flow sharing rules.
24.6 Clause 9 ref ers t o water rights and general authorisations (now water and discharge permits, and permitted activity rules). It states in sub-clause (2) that water rights and general authorisations shall not be granted or made for any discharge into the Rakaia River downs tream of its confluence with the Wilberforce River, if the effects of the discharge would be to breach the following provisions and standards [our emphases]:
(a) any discharge is to be substantially free from suspended solids, grease and oil;
(b) after allowing for reasonable mixing of the discharge with the receiving water –
(i) the natural water temperature shall not be changed by more than 3ºC.
(ii) the acidity or alkalinity of the water as measured by the pH shall be within the ranges 6.5 to 8.3, except where due to natural causes.
(iii) the waters shall not be tainted so as to make them unpalatable, nor contain toxic substances to the extent that they are unsafe for consumption by humans or by farm animals, nor shall they emit objectionable odours.
(iv) there shall be no destruction of natural aquatic life by reason of a concentration of toxic substances.
(v) the natural colour and clarity of the water shall not be changed to a conspicuous extent.
(vi) the oxygen content in solution in the water shall not be reduced below 6mg/L.
(vii) based on not fewer than 5 samples taken over not more than a 30-day period, the median value of the faecal coliform bacteria content of the waters shall not exceed 200 per 100ml.
It is of note that (b) makes allowance for reasonable mixing whereas (a) does not. We discuss our interpretation of this provision later.
What is the effect of the WCO?
24.7 As noted above, section 217 requires us to ensure that the provisions of the WCO will be met if we grant consent. There was some debate around whether the WCO also creates a presumption in favour of the grant of a conforming consent to take water from the river. Original senior counsel for CPWT Dr (now Justice) Wylie submitted that the WCO has the purpose of protecting instream values and that accordingly, provided the provisions of the order will be met by any proposed take, the take should be granted. In other words, the order takes care of instream values and we need not consider instream effects further and cannot impose more onerous restrictions (eg higher minimum flows). Fish and Game, the Department of Conservation and others strongly disagreed with that position and we expressed some reservations during the CPW opening as to whether that is the correct position.
9230798-3 Page 44
24.8 Ms Appleyard for ACWT adopted a different position from Dr Wylie. She was of the view that the Order did not create any presumption in favour of the grant of a compliant consent and that there was no necessary barrier to imposing conditions more stringent than the WCO. However she was of the view that the terms of the order are a relevant matter under section 104.
24.9 Mr Burns, legal counsel for Malvern Hills Protection Society took a similar position:
The Rakaia River National Water Conservation Order does not provide a licence to take as much water as can be taken, and for whatever purpose an applicant chooses, as long as the minimum flows in them are maintained. Any water take proposal has to meet the sustainability test in the Act.
24.10 Neither the proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan or the Transitional Regional Plan provide any more detailed rules for the taking of water from the Rakaia. The taking of water from the Rakaia is therefore a discretionary activity pursuant to section 77C(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly we have discretion under section 104B to grant or refuse the application to take water from the Rakaia. The fact that the WCO allows takes up to an aggregate limit of 70 cumecs does not create a presumption that taking up to that limit and subject to the other flow limits is necessarily sustainable. There is no statutory or case law support for a positive presumption.
24.11 We also note that the WCO is directed at protection of certain listed outstanding characteristics. Whilst that includes the most important characteristics of the river it does not include them all. For example, the WCO does not protect landscape values, macro-invertebrates, or the Mauri of the river. We appreciate that the WCO was determined in the context of the best evidence available at the time and there is now two decades of additional experience to draw upon.
24.12 We can and do put some considerable weight on the fact that the flow regime prescribed by the WCO was seen at that time (pre-1988) as being sufficient to protect the outstanding values identified in the order. We must nevertheless carefully consider whether the proposed take subject to the suggested conditions will achieve the purpose and principles in Part 2 of the Act. In particular, we must consider the potential additional and cumulative effects of removing a further 23 cumecs of water from the river between the proposed intake and Barrhill above and beyond what has already been consented.
The abstraction limits
24.13 The consent conditions must ensure that ‘the flow in the river shall not be reduced by abstraction or diversion by more than 70 cubic metres per second’. This could be interpreted as meaning that the total abstraction downstream of the Gorge must not exceed 70 cumecs. However, in our view the WCO is directed at ensuring that the residual flow is not reduced by abstraction at any point down the river by more than 70 cumecs below what it would otherwise have been.
24.14 Mr Holland for Fish and Game suggested a non-spatial ‘box’ approach be taken in which all take allocations are summed (including fish bypass diversions) and further allocations prevented when the total reaches the WCO limit of 70 m3/s.
24.15 For example, he argued that the diversion of 42 cumecs by ACWT for a short distance before return of 2 cumecs back to the river as a fish bypass flow would be in breach of the 70 cumec total. We do not agree since this would not cause the flow within the river to drop for more than 70 cumecs at any point even though total abstraction over the length of the river might exceed 70 cumecs.
9230798-3 Page 45
24.16 A related point is whether the water returned by ACWT at Barrhill would then be available to other applicants. It seems to us that it would be, however since there are no applications before us for that water we do not need to determine this point.
24.17 Determining the current total allocation and therefore the remaining available allocation has been a matter for some discussion. This issue was raised by Mrs Snoyink and Mr Wardell for Malvern Hills Protection Society, and by Mr Holland for Fish and Game. Mr Tipler based his modelling on 34.3 m3/s having already been allocated, Mr Borrie for ACWT advised that current (net) allocations within the river total 34.5 m3/s, and Mr Duncan for ECan cited January 2008 figures of 33.84 m3/s. Neither the 6 m3/s of Synlait’s Band 2/3 allocations have been included in this figure nor the further 6 m3/s of Band 5 which awaits a hearing. The 17 cumecs granted to BCI (Band 4) has been taken account in these figures.
24.18 Mr Fietje in his supplementary evidence suggested that the allocation figure should include ‘groundwater takes which remove substantial additional water relatively quickly’ . We are also of the view that diversions of water that remain within the riverbed for all but a short distance, such as bypass flows, should not be included. Both Mr Tipler in his supplementary evidence for CPW and Mr de Joux for Fish and Game confirmed that ECan had updated the total existing allocation figure to 36.5 m3/s and we understand that figure to be based on those presumptions.
24.19 Mr Fietje advised that ECan proposes to ‘tidy up’ the Rakaia band allocations via a plan change, and we would support this as an opportunity to clarify the total allocations, including connected groundwater takes, because it is critical that all parties are clear on how the 1:1 sharing is being implemented, and when the 70 m3/s limit has been reached at points along the river.
24.20 On our interpretation of the WCO, the total allocation is not relevant in terms of compliance with the allocation limit or minimum flows in the order. The critical figure is the amount of water actually being taken out of the river between the ACWT intake and its discharge at Barrhill. The focus should be on the depletion of flow between the intake and Barrhill, and in terms of ACWT, on what it takes at the intake (pursuant to this consent rather than the BCI consent) and what it discharges at Barrhill or upstream. (including any BCI and RDR water).
24.21 The consent conditions must be worded so as to ensure that exercise of the consent in conjunction with all other consents operating at a particular time does not cause the flow in the river (at any point) to be reduced by abstraction or diversion by more than 70 cubic metres per second’ from what would otherwise have been the case at that time. In doing that calculation we consider we should disregard the Highbank discharge, since there is no obligation for that to occur.
24.22 Accordingly for the purpose of consent conditions the critical figure to know is the amount of water already allocated for abstraction between the ACWT take and its discharge. At our request ACWT provided this figure to us after the hearing and it has been verified by ECan officers. During the irrigation season (September to April) up to 22.031 m3/s may be taken in this reach including the BCI take. In winter the figure decreases to 1.139 m3/s since BCI and other irrigators will not be taking.
24.23 These figures include the Synlait consent which is under appeal but exclude its application for band 5 water which has not yet been heard. The depletion figure used in the conditions will need to be adjusted if Synlait obtains priority band 5 water since its intake would be upstream of Barrhill.
9230798-3 Page 46 24.24 The consent which has been granted to Synlait but which is under appeal relates to band 2/3 water. This has been accounted for in the total existing Rakaia allocation figure described above (36.5 m3/s). However, in determining the actual allocation above the ACWT outfall at Barrhill (i.e. 22031.14 l/sec and 1138.70 l/sec) it has been assumed that the consents that Synlait intends to monitor in band 2 & 3 are located downstream of the ACWT scheme. This means that if Synlait gains priority for Band 2/3 water and is taking that water above the Barrhill discharge, ACWT will need to reduce its take rates accordingly (through a s 127 application or a s128 review provided for in conditions). .
24.25 Both CPW and ACWT seek that the take consent or consents, if granted, allow for the possibility of them taking water which is currently within another persons 'allocation’ when that allocation is not being utilised. In our view that approach is consistent with the WCO since as noted above that seems directed at maintaining instream flows rather than limiting a legal allocation. We do not consider that such an approach is contrary to the Aoraki decision provided that the subsequent consent cannot be exercised so as to limit the taking or diversion of water by existing consent holders at times when they are authorised to take and use the water.
24.26 In its original submission Synlait suggested that: The application is inconsistent with the National Water Conservation Order on the Rakaia in that, if granted, it would result in a greater volume than the 70 cumec maximum being authorised having regard to the existing takes. It did not elaborate on this point in any of its submissions or evidence. As discussed above, we interpret the WCO as restricting the effect on flows to a 70 cumec reduction at any point, rather than imposing a 70 cumec limit on total abstraction.
24.27 The WCO includes a variable minimum flow and maximum reduction of 70 cumecs. All takes are subject to one to one flow sharing. The consent must include conditions which will ensure that these limits will all be complied with. Given that the take consent will include such conditions, the grant of consent is not inconsistent with the WCO.
25. Consistency of sediment discharges with WCO
25.1 It was suggested to us by Fish and Game that the discharge of sediment and in particular the now proposed sluicing operation might be contrary to the WCO.
25.2 Clause 9(2) (a) of the WCO. requires that any discharge into the Rakaia River ……"is to be substantially free from suspended solids, grease, and oil”. Unlike clause 9(2) (b) there is no allowance for "reasonable mixing of the discharge with the receiving water". We note the Planning Tribunal included clause 9 on the basis that no party challenged it, but did not set out its reasoning for the clause or relate it to the protection of any particular outstanding characteristic.
25.3 We also note that a consent to sluice the inlet canal has been granted to BCI (CRC990089), that allows the discharge of sediment laden water at a flow rate of up to 80m³/s. This consent forms part of the reasonably foreseeable future environment and accordingly, we can disregard the effects of the discharge of sediment at this flow rate from the inlet canal. ACWT has only applied to discharge up to 40 cumecs.
25.4 No party provided any evidence to suggest that the discharges in question would have any adverse effects on instream values or would cause conspicuous change to the colour or clarity of the river after reasonable mixing. Mr Holland for Fish and Game nevertheless advocated a literal interpretation of this clause. This interpretation would prohibit any discharges which are not substantially free of sediment. We first note that if this was correct then the BCI and EAL consents would also be contrary to the WCO.
9230798-3 Page 47 25.5 This same issue arises in relation to the CPW proposal. Mr Casey in closing summarised this issue and the CPW response as follows:
CPW seeks consent to discharge back into the River water which has been diverted, but not taken (CRC061980), and which will include sediment sluicing (and thereby contain suspended solids). The issue is whether this is a breach of the WCO.
Pursuant to s 5 Interpretation Act 1999 the Order is to be interpreted according to the principle that “the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose”. That purpose may be gleaned from the Order itself, but also from s 199 RMA which states the purpose of water conservation orders generally. It is (inter alia) to “recognise and sustain … outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state”. An Order may provide for the preservation of water in its natural state and for the protection of characteristics considered to be outstanding: s 191(2)(a).
What is proposed here is the return to the River of the naturally occurring sediment which is an unwanted by-catch of the water abstraction. The turbidity of the River is part of its natural state and is a particular characteristic of this and other comparable rivers.
As to the text, applying the ejusdem generis principle of interpretation, the rule is apparently directed at avoiding the introduction into the River of externally generated contaminants. Suspended solids, when read together with grease and oil, suggests that it is not intended to apply to sediment naturally occurring within the river, and being returned to it after a temporary diversion.
It is also relevant that the rule is qualified by the term “substantially” free of suspended solids. In the context of the return of the River’s natural sediment, this qualification should be applied in a purposive way. If the River itself is the source of the sediment then its return as proposed is “substantially”, in the sense of comparatively, free. This is clearly so if the River is in a turbid state at the time of the sediment sluicing, and applies even if the turbidity has receded at the time the sediment is returned.
25.6 Ms Appleyard in her submissions adopted the same position:
Finally, I should also note the inherent nature of the sediment and sluicing operations proposed by ACWT (and the consented operations of BCI/EAL):
Under the BCI/EAL proposal the sluicing of sediment would only occur when there was significant flow in the river to such an extent that there would be a reasonable expectation that the River would already be in a turbid natural state (like Central Plains). As noted above, ACWT may also like to undertake a similar process; and
In terms of the originally proposed sediment management for ACWT, sediment would actually manually placed on dry river-bed above the 300 cumec flood line – this would then be eroded in accordance with the natural erosion processes of the river. In this instance although arguably still within the definition of discharge under the Act (“emit, deposit, and allow to escape”), it could also be argued that the primary activity is not the discharge to water – rather it is the placement of sediments in a riverbed where they may form part of river’s natural erosion process.
Finally, it is submitted that the word “substantially” in cl 9(2)(a) must be applied in a purposive way. This is particularly given the actual nature and duration of the intended discharges.
25.7 We agree with the premise of these submissions. A literal interpretation of clause 9(2) (a) of the WCO would preclude discharges of irrigation or hydro return water, both of
9230798-3 Page 48 which contain suspended solids. In the present instance there will be a discharge of water returned at Barhill which arguably will not be substantially free of suspended sediment, but which will not adversely affect water quality. In our view it could not have been intended that such discharges would be precluded by the order, since that is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the order and indeed would serve no purpose. As there is an allowance for the allocation of water to activities under the WCO and some of these necessarily involve discharges containing suspended solids, we infer that it was not intended that such discharges be prohibited.
25.8 Potentially more problematic is the sluicing operation. The sluicing would result in the discharge of predominantly sand from the inlet canal. The deposition of material onto the river bed from the pond will result in the release of fine sediment from the dry bed of the river as river levels rise (see the discussion later).
25.9 We agree with Mr Casey and Ms Appleyard that the WCO must be interpreted purposively. In our view clause 9(2)(a) of the WCO requires that discharges to the river be substantially free of suspended solids at the point of discharge (ie with no allowance for reasonable mixing) but relative to the level of suspended solids in the river at the time of the discharge.
25.10 In our view this interpretation achieves the purpose of the WCO since such discharges would not result in the receiving water quality being reduced. This approach would not compromise the outstanding natural character of the river, its outstanding fishery or any of the other characteristics found to be outstanding.
25.11 In our view the deposition of material on the river bed does not involve a discharge to water and is not covered by the WCO. The discharge of sediment to the river from the inlet canal by sluicing, would not in our view infringe the WCO provided the operation occurs during high flows when the effects would not be distinguishable from the natural turbidity characteristics of the river.
25.12 We also observe that in our view the option of flushing the majority of sediment by sluicing is more consistent with the purpose of the WCO than the originally proposed option of all settled sediment to be managed by “deposit and erode”. The latter may potentially cause 'slugs’ of sediment still to be mobilised as a fresh recedes, with the result that for short periods there may be a reach downstream which is significantly more discoloured than upstream water or with sediment redeposited.
25.13 We do not agree that Mr Casey is correct in suggesting that this…..applies even if the turbidity has receded at the time the sediment is returned. It seems to us that the lack of reference to "reasonable mixing" in this clause as compared to the subsequent sub clause, suggests that the intention was that clarity in the river should not be adversely affected to a conspicuous extent, even for a short distance and/or on a temporary basis. Accordingly the sluicing condition for ACWT is drafted so as to achieve what we consider to be the intent of the WCO. No such conditions are required for the discharges of surplus water at Barhill since this will contain minimal sediment.
PART IV – ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL
26. Assessment of effects of proposed water take on flows
26.1 We heard evidence from Mr Borrie for ACWT on the effects of the proposed take on downstream flows. We also heard evidence from Mr Tipler on behalf of CPW on the same matter. Regional Council officers discussed the administration of the WCO and the informal "banding" regime that has been developed to implement the order. Neither Mr Fietje nor Mr Duncan for ECan expressed any concerns regarding the hydrological or instream effects of the proposal.
9230798-3 Page 49
26.2 As discussed earlier, BCI already has consent to take 17 cumecs at the same point as ACWT. Unless BCI surrenders its consent, or it lapses, this allocation will be available to ACWT and is not limited to the irrigation season. Accordingly ACWT will in practice only require another 23 cumecs to bring it up to the design capacity of the canals and generation stations. We have therefore focussed on the additional effects of that part of the proposed take.
26.3 The proposal is to return that water at Barrhill. ACWT does not want its discharge permit to require that water to be returned, however its application to use water only applies to the hydro-electric proposal between Happy Valley and Barrhill. There would need to be amendments to the use consent to allow the use of this water for irrigation. In addition, if the water taken by ACWT is not matched by the return to the river at Barrhill, that will affect the minimum flows at which its take can occur, because of the effect on higher priority takes downstream. Accordingly the requirement to return as much water as is taken, needs to be included as a condition of consent. (It is irrelevant whether the return includes BCI water or Rangitata water, all that is relevant is that the rate of return at least matchs the rate of diversion into the canal.)
26.4 As mentioned later, ensuring compliance with the WCO on a real-time basis really requires some type of telemetered system implemented by ECan for all Rakaia takes and diversions. We understand that such a system is being investigated by the Regional Council.
26.5 In terms of assessing potential effects we can proceed on the basis that this water must and will be matched by return to the river at or upstream of Barrhill. If ACWT subsequently wishes to pursue the irrigation option, it will need to have the effects of that non-return considered as a variation of these consents and in the context of whatever take consents exist from the Rakaia at that time.
26.6 For our purposes then, the effect of the ACWT proposal is that there could be up to an additional 23 cumecs removed from the river between the intake site and Barrhill beyond the 17 cumecs which is already authorised for taking by BCI. Up to 17 cumecs will not be returned during the irrigation season; all of the remainder will be returned.
26.7 If CPW does not proceed, then ACWT would utilise the water which CPW would otherwise have taken. It cannot divert more than 40 cumecs and 17 of that is already consented. In contrast CPW seeks to take up to 40 cumecs in addition to the 17 which BCI is authorised to take. In summary, without CPW the maximum take from this part of the river will be 40 cumecs of which at least 23 will be returned by Barhill. (17 lost to BCI) With CPW, up to 57 cumecs could be taken and at some times none of it would be returned. (17 to BCI and 40 to CPW).
26.8 What we have discussed above are maximum potential effects on river flows. However, the impact of such reductions is tempered significantly by the restrictions in the Water Conservation Order. In practice this means that ACWT could only commence its take at relatively high flows and could only take at the maximum rate at even higher flows.
26.9 As discussed , what is relevant to determining the monthly minimum flows at which ACWT can start taking water and the implementation of 1:1 sharing is the sum of allocations to higher priority consent holders above the ACWT discharge point(s). The current totalled allocations from the whole Rakaia river of 36.5 m3/s become irrelevant to that question.
26.10 Mr Tipler presented modelling of the effects of a 40 cumec CPW/ACWT take on the frequency and duration of river flows. We had that information based on the scenario that Synlait has priority and has consent and on the alternative. The modelling
9230798-3 Page 50 proceeded on the basis that none of the 40 cumecs is being returned. The analysis is therefore conservative when applied to the ACWT scheme, which will return all of the water it takes.
26.11 Hydrological analysis by Mr Duncan for ECan and Mr de Joux for Fish & Game confirmed that the WCO monthly minimum flows combined with 1:1 flow sharing mean that:
• flow variability is maintained in the Rakaia;
• there is no flat lining of flows;
• the time the river will be at or below the 7-day MALF (94.8 m3s-1) will not change; and
• the proposed takes will have no effect on flows below the median (ie the flow occurring 50% of the time).
26.12 Mr de Joux’s analysis concluded that based on the conservative assumption that all take con sents including ACWT/CPW are fully exercised, the median summer river flow would be reduced by 16% from the unmodified flow; the proposed abstraction reduces the median flows for October to January from their pre ACWT/CPW values by only 0.5%, 0.8 %, 0.9% and 1.3% respectively. This modelling relates to the joint proposal and therefore overstates the effect of ACWT on its own. In particular ACWT will have no effect on flows downstream of Barrhill.
26.13 Subsequent to the close of the hearing Mr Borrie at our request provided an amended table w hich shows the flows at which ACWT would be able to take water. This replaces a table he provided at the h earing which was base on a different interpretation of the WCO to the one we have adopted.
Table 1: Rakaia River flow le vels for each month
NWCO mini mum Minimum river flo w for Month river flow taking of wa ter (m3/s) (m3/s) January 124 168 A February 108 152 A March 105 149 A April 97 141 A May 95 97.3 B June 96 98.3 B July 91 93.3 B August 92 94.3 B September 90 134 A October 106 150 A November 129 173 A December 139 183 A
26.14 The A months are the months during the irrigation season and the B months are outside of the irrigation season.
9230798-3 Page 51
26.15 The impact of the proposed ACWT abstraction on the Rakaia River will barely be noticeable in dry years because there is seldom sufficient flow available for the required abstractions to occur. The greatest impact of the abstractions is in the average years. Mr Duncan noted that largest changes in flow occur over the range of 180 m3/s to 250 m3/s.
26.16 This observation leads us into assessment of the effects of the take on instream values of the Rakaia.
27. Impacts of the take on instream values
27.1 We accept evidence from Dr Hughey on effects of the flow reduction on birds (particularly of black-fronted terns and wrybills), from Dr Olsen on flow effects on aquatic invertebrates, and from Dr Hayes on the 15 native fish species recorded in the Rakaia. All suggested only minor impact of the proposed take under the WCO rules. We also accept Dr Glova’s evidence for CPW that the ACWT/CPW take will not significantly impact the availability of habitat for juvenile salmon and trout in the Rakaia, nor will it affect migration of adult salmon because the monthly minimum flows of the WCO provide adequate water depths.
27.2 Habitat and fish migration are less an issue than salmon angling opportunity. Dr Hayes appearing for Fish & Game observed that salmon angling is the critical value for determining instream flow levels in the Rakaia River during November to April, when adult salmon are swimming from the sea up to their spawning areas. He cited angler survey figures of 21,460 – 68,000 visits per year, sufficient to confirm the Rakaia as a nationally important salmon fishery, a point also emphasized by Mr Canham for Fish & Game and DOC.
27.3 Dr Glova concluded that optimal flows for salmon angling in the Rakaia River occur at the tail end of floods at flows of 160 to 180 m³/s and good catches occur over the range 135 – 180 m³/s. These flows were supported by the evidence of Messrs Matravers (best angling at 150 m³/s), Goldie (180 m³/s), Barr (130-180 m³/s), van der Zwet (115 - 180 m³/s) and Ellis for NZ Salmon Anglers (150 m³/s).
27.4 Dr Glova went so far as to suggest that the ACWT/CPW take could improve the number of angling days because it increases slightly the number of days that flows would be in the optimal angling range. We accept the views of Dr Hayes and angler witnesses that water clarity is also critical to angler amenity, and such an improvement in angler days is unlikely. However we are persuaded that the effect of the ACWT/CPW take is likely to be small in any case. While Dr Hayes did suggest increasing the minimum flows for December-March to 160-180 m³/s to improve angler opportunity, there was insufficient evidence of the benefits for us to increase the limits already provided for in the WCO.
27.5 One matter exercising our minds – and raised by submitters including MHPS – is how to satisfy ourselves that the cumulative takes from the Rakaia, as limited under the WCO, are both enforceable through conditions and in practice. This is especially important if ACWT and/or CPW wish to transfer and exercise portions of other people’s take permits when those other consent holders are not using them. In our view, this calls for implementation of a comprehensive real-time telemetered water metering system, managed or audited by ECan for compliance, and preferably with cumulative takes accessible to the public via the Internet. Such a system should include monitoring of the discharges returned to the river from Highbank and Barrhill. It is beyond the scope of this decision to prescribe such a system (other than prescribing conditions requiring compliance), but we raise this as a matter for consideration by ECan officers to achieve an integrated management system for Rakaia water takes below the Gorge, including connected groundwater takes.
9230798-3 Page 52
27.6 In relation to effects on Rakaia River flows, we have concluded that the hydrological impacts of the ACWT take will be minor. We were not presented with any evidence which disputed the hydrological evidence or advanced a contrary view. Nor did the Regional Council officers express any concerns regarding the proposed take. We discuss potential secondary effects below.
28. Hydrological effects of the Barrhill discharge
28.1 The proposal is to return up to 23 cumecs to the river at Barrhill (ie 40 cumecs less BCI 17). If the BCI scheme does not proceed ACWT would be diverting up to 40 cumecs and returning all of it to the river at Barrhill. However, since the BCI consent allows 17 to not be returned, we have assessed the impacts based on all of the ACWT take being returned up to a maximum of 23 cumecs. We doubt however, that the return or not of this water is significant in terms of instream effects.
28.2 As discussed earlier, the flows at which ACWT would be taking its 23 cumecs are quite high. The take is also subject to the one to one flow sharing. In this context we doubt that the return of the ACWT water at Barrhill will have much impact downstream. In other words, if ACWT ceases that return and uses the water for irrigation, we doubt that there will be any significant adverse effects on the river. If such a proposal is made in the future the effects of removing that return flow will be assessed at that time. For present purposes we simply conclude that in hydrological terms the Barrhill discharge will not have negative effects and may have some minor mitigation effects for the upstream discharge.
29. Effects on sediment transport
29.1 Downstream of the proposed ACWT intake the Rakaia River flows some 56 km to the coast in a braided gravel bed channel. There are usually two to four larger braid channels, and four to ten smaller braids. The fairway is between 1.0 and 2.1 km across, and is typically about 1.3 km wide it transports between 80,000 and 259,000 m3 of bed load to the coast per year. Dr Mabin reported that the Rakaia River has not shown clear trends of erosion or aggradation in its bed, and concluded that the river is well able to transport all the bed load supplied to it. We took from his analysis that the ACWT water take would have effects on sediment transport only if the larger flood flows are affected.
29.2 Dr Mabin concluded that from an operational point of view, it would be prudent for scheme operators to close intake gates at Rakaia River flows above about 800 m3/sec as this corresponds to suspended sediment concentrations of about 1,500 – 2,000 g/m3 at which excessive sediment deposition is likely in sediment settling pond. This is a moderate flood occurring about 5 times per year. Mr Woods confirmed that the intake would be shut down during such floods.
29.3 Even if ACWT/BCI continue taking water at flows exceeding 800 m3/sec, the reduction in bedload-transporting flows would only occur 1 day/year on average. We concur with Dr Mabin that the effect on bedload transport capacity and on the landform characteristics of braid channels, bars and islands across the Rakaia River fairway will be less than minor. In particular we are satisfied that the take will not compromise the braided characteristics of the river which the Water Conservation Order seeks to protect.
30. Effects of water take on Flooding at the River Mouth
30.1 Mr Southward, a witness for Malvern Hills Protection Society, described flooding at the Rakaia river mouth and was concerned that changes in the river flow may change the
9230798-3 Page 53 frequency of flooding and the closing of the river mouth which exacerbates localised flooding.
30.2 Dr Mabin concluded that there will be no reduction in the volume of sediment transported to the coast, and that the additional take will not cause siltation of the river mouth lagoon system. Mr Borrie noted that Rakaia river flows at the coast fluctuate by 30-35 m3/s because of variable discharges from Coleridge power station. He said that coastal processes and ‘blow-outs’ of the river mouth by flood flows are the dominant processes affecting flooding, and that neither will be affected by the proposed water take and discharge some 40km upstream.
30.3 On the basis of the evidence of Mr Borrie and Dr Mabin, we have concluded that the reduction of up to 23 cumecs in flow between the intake and Barrhill will have no impact on the river mouth system. We have also concluded that even without the return of that water at Barrhill, there is unlikely to be any impact.
30.4 Clearly, there is a problem at the river mouth, and we appreciate the significant efforts Mr Southward has gone to, to document the problem and draw it to the attention of the Regional Council. However, there is no evidence to confirm his view that the changes are as a result of current abstraction or that the additional ACWT take would have any effect. To the extent that the take may have some minor effect on sediment transport this will be limited to the section between the intake and Barrhill. If ACWT wishes in the future to cease the return at Barrhill it will need to demonstrate that this will not have any significant effect on sediment transport of river mouth geomorphology.
31. Effects of water take on other consent holders
31.1 There are six other takes on the south bank of the Rakaia, between 11.5 km and 40 km downstream of the proposed ACWT intake. On the true left (north) bank there are 22 takes between 9 km and 46 km downstream of the proposed CPW intake. Some of these consent holders lodged submissions concerned that granting consent to ACWT (or CPW) could jeopardise their right to the water or their reliability of supply. As discussed above under Flow Effects, we believe that with an appropriate monitoring system to ensure compliance with the WCO minimum flows and 1:1 sharing, the granting of the ACWT take will have no effect on downstream water availability. Physical water availability to the Creeside Water Scheme and Campion/Maw irrigation scheme within the scheme footprint have been dealt with through agreements with the applicant.
31.2 We also heard a submission from Synlait. It has been granted a consent to take 6 cumecs of unutilised Band 2/3 water. That consent is subject to appeal. It also has an application for Band 5 water which is to be heard later this year. The High Court in Synlait v Central Plains Water Trust1 has ruled that both applications have priority over the ACWT/CPW joint take application. This ruling has been appealed.
31.3 The joint CPW/ACWT application to take water is for Band 5 water, i.e. water remaining available for abstraction under the provisions of the WCO after higher priority water takes have been exercised. On the basis of this “first in, first served” system, the proposed take would hold the lowest priority, with all existing abstractors holding priority ahead of the applicant. As pointed out by Synlait Ltd, the only exception would be if the applicant agreed with an existing consent holder to take their water, with a higher reliability. Consent conditions for the ACWT take, which we propose to grant, recognise the higher priority to existing holders of water permits to take. In the case of Synlait this priority will be finally determined by the Court of Appeal/Supreme Court process. However the final outcome of its applications are the subject of the Regional Council and Environment Court process.
1 Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust High Court, Christchurch CIV-2007-409-1157, 11 March 2008
9230798-3 Page 54
31.4 Assuming Synlait's band 2/3 consent is confirmed, ACWT will not affect that consent because this is water which is already allocated to others and which is only available to whoever the existing consent holders agree may utilise that water (which is a matter for private agreement not the consent). We note that this will only be true if Synlait’s take is already incorporated into the allowance for takes granted to others We have proceeded on the basis that it has been factored into that allowance. If that is not the case then the conditions may need to be adjusted and we have allowed for that.
31.5 In contrast the application for band 5 water if successful (and subject to the outcome of Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hearings) may result in Synlait having priority for that water ahead of ACWT at least during the irrigation season. We have ensured that the conditions of consent reflect that potential priority.
32. Effects of Sediment Disposal
32.1 ACWT considered two options for the separation of sediment from the water abstracted from the river. The first option is to divert the flow from the river into a large settling pond to allow settlement of gravel, sand and silt in order to achieve a relatively clean flow entering the canal for downstream use. The settled sediment would be removed by mechanical excavator on a yearly basis and deposited on the dry river bed to be eroded and taken away under flood conditions.
32.2 The second option of sediment management is using the same process as that currently consented to BCI (consent CRC990089) which involves diverting the river flow into an inlet channel that can be used for flushing through to the downstream river, with a controlled off-take into a settlement pond. This option has the advantage that about 90% of the sediment diverted from the river can be settled in the inlet channel and flushed directly back to the river. The remaining 10% would enter the sediment pond and be removed by mechanical excavator and be deposited on the dry river bed as per the first option.
32.3 The first sediment management option described above requires the disposal of, on average approximately 80,000 tonnes per year which would be deposited over an area of about 20ha within a 75ha deposition zone. The second option involves the deposition of approximately 10,000 tonnes of material and this activity could be carried out every 2 – 3 years within a smaller deposition area. The typical depth of sediment across the disposal area would be 300 - 400mm with a maximum depth of 700mm. Large floods would flush this material downstream from time to time.
32.4 We viewed the proposed 75Ha deposition zone from both Rakaia Gorge and by jet boat. In our opinion, the first option, involving the deposition of up to 80,000 tonnes of material, within a 20ha area within the zone, could result in long periods when sediment would look unsightly, unnatural and potentially not be removed for long periods. It is also likely that some fine sediment deposition would occur in downstream river braids as river flows fall after a flood, with potential instream habitat impacts. The second option, involving a significantly lower quantity of material requiring a much smaller deposition area, mitigates these effects to a large extent.
32.5 Having weighed the evidence of the effects of both options, the panel is of the view that the first option of deposition of on average approximately 80,000 tonnes annually on the riverbed would have noticeable visual, ecological and water quality effects, and that the sluicing option should be implemented for the ACWT scheme with the deposition option reserved for the pond sediment.
32.6 We were advised by ACWT engineer Mr Woods that the sluicing option would require a 10ha pond (not the proposed 35ha) however there would still be times when some 10-
9230798-3 Page 55 15000 cubic metres of fine sediment would require disposal as not all the sediment could be removed by sluicing. Mr Woods suggested that ACWT would prefer to deposit this in some 2ha of the proposed riverbed disposal area. ACWT has not acquired land for a sediment disposal area. In our opinion, we would prefer that the riverbed be left in as natural a condition as possible however, we conclude that the disposal of the finer sediment from this option, on to the river bed is unlikely to cause noticeable adverse effects if it is limited in area and recurrence period.
32.7 On reflection, we considered that sediment could be removed from the sediment pond associated with the sluicing option and placed within an area of no more than 2ha, as this could result in less frequent pond emptying and less frequent works on the riverbed. This maximum disposal area for any disposal event allows ACWT to consider carrying out the removal of the sediment from the settlement pond at intervals of 1-2 yearly. Minimising the effects of this operation, in our view, requires a balance between frequency of disturbance of the river bed, extent of impact on the river bed and operational flexibility for ACWT. We still encourage ACWT to explore the possibility of disposal on private land, clear of the river bed, during its final negotiations with land owners, as an option to avoid any deposition on the river bed.
32.8 Dr Rowe provided evidence on effects of suspended sediment on fisheries, noting that differences in susceptibility to high levels of suspended solids among fish species means that an increase in suspended solids can be expected to change the faunal composition of a river. He reported that 22 different species have been recorded from the Rakaia ranging from brown trout as most abundant to banded kokopu as least. Native species are more tolerant of suspended sediment than salmonids.
32.9 Dr Glova told us that some mortality (around 10% for juvenile chinook salmon) can be expected to occur at present when suspended solids concentrations in large floods (≥800 m3/s) exceed 2,000 g m-3 for more than 24 hours. This is likely to occur naturally in the Rakaia. It was his opinion that displacement of fish by high water velocity is likely to be a much greater source of mortality during large floods, than high concentrations of suspended solids. The principal mitigation measure will be the requirement that such discharges only occur at river flows above 300 cumecs. We are satisfied that at these higher flows the localised increase in coarser sediment from the sluicing is unlikely to affect fishability and will have little if any effect on fish mortality rates.
32.10 In discussion with Dr Rowe about monitoring, we formed the opinion that monitoring of suspended solids above and below the intake is unlikely to provide any useful link between mobilised sediment and fish populations. We have also concluded that upstream/downstream monitoring of fish diversity and abundance, is unlikely to be able to determine whether the sediment deposition – or scheme riverbed works - are causing any discernable adverse effects. In view of the changes we have required to the sediment disposal methodology we have concluded that no monitoring is required..
33. Effects on Water Quality and in stream Ecology
33.1 Because of the flow sharing and minimum monthly flow limits imposed by the WCO, there will be no flat lining of Rakaia river flows and nor will the 7-day Mean Annual Low Flow occur for longer. Dr Burrell’s analysis showed that the maximum cumulative effect on the flow regime would be a 21% reduction of the FRE3 flow during summer (FRE3 being 3 times the median flow (477 m³/s), and the best predictor of various measures of periphyton and invertebrate biomass and diversity of the flow).
33.2 Although Dr Burrell conceded there could be a minor increase in periphyton, invertebrate, and fish productivity associated with the minor increase in flow stability he concluded this would be unlikely to result in nuisance algal growths or a major shift in
9230798-3 Page 56 invertebrate community composition because flushing by flood flows will continue, and nuisance growths of periphyton seldom occur in the Rakaia anyway.
33.3 Mr Kennedy stated that water abstraction effects on dissolved oxygen are not considered significant in the Rakaia River, as it has a naturally high capacity for recreation, cool temperatures, a low organic loading, and low biomass of periphyton and macrophytes.
33.4 We agree with Dr Burrell and Mr Kennedy and find overall that with management plans in place controlling construction effects and sediment sluicing limited to periods of high turbidity (above about 300 m³/s), the effects of the ACWT scheme on water quality, aquatic habitat and food resources of fish and wading birds will be minor.
33.5 Because the Rakaia is reportedly the sixth most fished river in NZ, protecting that recreational amenity is important. Dr Glova considered that the WCO monthly minimum flows for the Rakaia River adequately provide for passage of adult salmon and trout and that the water take would not appreciably reduce the amount of useable habitat available for salmonids downstream of the intake.
33.6 However he also suggested that based on optimal flows for salmon fishing being between 160 and180 m3/s, there could be a 29% reduction in time that flows are optimal for salmon fishing during dry years, and potentially a slight improvement in optimal fishing flows. Dr Glova suggested there may be some slight benefits from sediment flushing for fishability because temporarily increased turbidity stimulates upstream movement of salmon. We don’t believe this justifies sediment sluicing other than during higher flow periods, as the benefits are outweighed by other effects such as proximity of fishing sites near the intake site, and potential hazards from sluicing discharges.
33.7 Mr Neville Ellis appearing for NZ Salmon Anglers was concerned about discharge by ACWT of dirty water from the scheme, however we were advised that water taking would be stopped during high flows. In any case most turbidity will be reduced by settling at the intake pond.
33.8 Regarding provision of fish screens at the scheme intake, Mr Holland for Fish & Game in his supplementary evidence stated his satisfaction with the revised conditions agreed with ACWT.
33.9 There were differences of opinion on the amount of the flow needed through the fish bypass at the intake. We discussed with Mr Borrie the reasons for ACWT’s preference for 2 m3/sec as opposed to Dr Glova’s recommendation of 5 m3/sec on behalf of CPW. We agree that the depth and width of the bypass channel are the relevant considerations and that a 2 m3/sec flow will be adequate for fish passage through and past the intake, given the proposed intake structure and degree of flow control possible through the use of radial gates.
34. Effects on avifauna
34.1 In relation to effects on birds, we heard evidence from Mr Jolly on behalf of Dr Hale for ACWT, Mr Head for DOC and Dr Keesing for Ashburton District Council.
34.2 We conclude that the greatest potential for effects on birdlife is from activities in the Rakaia riverbed which is habitat for species under threat including black-fronted tern, wrybill, banded dotterel and black-billed gull. Changing sediment management from deposition to sluicing will mitigate effects on birds since that will reduce the use of machinery in the river bed. The other potential activities which might affect bird nesting and feeding are intake construction activities and any channel works required to
9230798-3 Page 57 maintain the intake. We conclude that with proposed mitigating conditions for riverbed activities, adverse effects on birds will be no more than minor and the outstanding wildlife habitat provided by the braided river will be maintained.
35. Terrestrial Ecology
35.1 Section 6(c) requires us to recognise and provide for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and this is most relevant for the vegetation clearance proposed along the Terrace Canal route. Section 6(c) does not require protection of indigenous vegetation or habitats in the absolute sense, as s6 matters of national importance are to be recognised and provided for in the context of achieving the purpose of the RMA under section 5. In other words, in some cases protection must take a back seat to achieving other aspects of sustainable management.
35.2 Even if we determine that these areas are not areas of significant indigenous vegetation, the adverse effects of their destruction must be taken into account. This is, of course, subject to the proviso that we must take into account as a permitted baseline any activity which is already permitted.
35.3 We heard evidence from Mr Forbes for ACWT, Mr Head for DOC and Dr Keesing for Ashburton District Council. The applicant did not initially provide an assessment of terrestrial ecology impacts within the Highbank section of the scheme, relying instead on the fact that the EAL consent already authorises works related to the construction of largely the same scheme as far as Highbank power station. We agree with this view because of the permitted baseline. However we note that the subsequent Wildlands survey usefully included this section.
35.4 Terrestrial ecology impacts are likely to be greatest where the canal cuts up the terrace riser from below Highbank power station to the top of the terrace at about chainage 11500m. The ACWT terrace comprises sparse and degraded remnants of native dry woodland and shrubland vegetation communities including mature kowhai, cabbage tree, coprosma and kanuka, but is dominated by invasive exotic plants. Parts of these indigenous remnants are considered to be ecologically significant - when assessed against Ashburton District Council criteria - with regard to rarity, distinctiveness / special ecological characteristics and representativeness values. For example, Mr Head listed three sites 1296-1298 between CH8400-9300 as having a significance class of ‘A’ from the 1996 PNAP survey. We heard that these are likely to be destroyed or reduced in size by the earthworks.
35.5 Two threatened plant species were described, including Melicytus aff. Flexuosus, only identified here in the last 3 years, and M. aff. alpinus “Blondin”, both noticed at CH9150. Mr Forbes agreed with Mr Head that the former would be described as ‘Acutely Threatened – Nationally Critical’, the highest possible category under the NZ Threat Classification. The latter was initially characterised as ‘Chronically Threatened – Gradual Decline’ but we heard at the resumed hearing that this threat classification has been relaxed to ‘Range Restricted’. It was also expected that native lizards and other native invertebrates would be present along the terrace riser.
35.6 The Ashburton District Plan provides for the felling or clearance of vegetation in some circumstances as a permitted activity. Specimens of significance (e.g. the Melicytus) could therefore be cleared as of right under the Plan. Nevertheless, we consider it unlikely (but not necessarily "fanciful") that there would be significant clearance of kowhai and other species by landowners. Accordingly we have not applied the permitted baseline to this clearance.
9230798-3 Page 58 35.7 In evidence presented to the hearing, ACWT proposed revegetation of both kowhai shrubland and woodland as well as seeding of kanuka shrubland, with plant materials sourced in part as propagules from native vegetation which will be lost during scheme construction, and with the revegetated area exceeding the area lost (some 17ha vs 12 ha lost). Given the importance of renewable energy, and the difficulty in finding appropriate sites for this purpose, we conclude that some adverse effect in the form of the removal of vegetation is justified. ACWT at the original hearing proposed 4.45ha of rehabilitation planting in three discrete patches comprising two of mixed native species and the third (0.45ha) of kanuka monoculture, of some 20000 locally sourced native plants.
35.8 We agree that the construction footprint has significant ‘Rarity’ values under the District Plan criteria for identification of Significant Nature Conservation Values. This is because of the presence of nationally threatened plant species (Melicytus spp.), and the remnant dry woodland and shrubland plant communities.
35.9 Mr Forbes [Summary p7.4] proposed ‘a comprehensive survey to locate, propagate and reincorporate any such affected specimens in revegetation plantings’. However in our interim decision of 28 November 2008, we agreed with Dr Keesing (and the submissions of DOC, Malvern Hills Protection Society, Forest & Bird) that the extent of mitigation for the loss of significant indigenous vegetation and of habitats of indigenous fauna had not been adequately scoped because the extent and composition of those has not been quantified through a detailed field survey along the channel alignment.
35.10 Given the rarity of the plant species already identified, and the likelihood that associated invertebrate species and reptiles may also need consideration in mitigation conditions, we required ACWT to carry out a field survey of the Terrace Hydro portion of the scheme before consents could be granted. We excluded birds from consideration of terrestrial fauna because we agree with Dr Hale’s evidence that impacts on birds are likely to be no more than minor.
35.11 Our interim decision of 28 November 2008 conditionally approved the ACWT proposal subject to completion of a detailed field survey of vegetation and fauna along the terrace scarp from chainage CH3500 to where the canal reaches the top of the terrace at CH11500 metres, and subject to recommendations on amended mitigation conditions which took into account the results of that survey. We required consideration of mitigation options including adjustment of the canal route where feasible (eg. to reduce loss of the floodplain kowhai forest); changes to batter slopes, cut/fill balance and stabilisation proposals; area and nature and location(s) of the rehabilitation planting (which should allow to the extent possible the creation of habitat rather than simply rehabilitation of particular species); and an ongoing management regime that would maximise the likely success of the rehabilitation objectives.
35.12 We also suggested that, subject to limits on time available for completion, design of the survey was to include consultation with DOC, Forest & Bird, and ADC. The aim was to, as far as possible, reach consensus on appropriate methods and level of mitigation – and appropriate consent conditions - prior to the hearing being reconvened on 22 April 2009. This consultation was to include consideration of the concerns raised in Dr Keesing’s report and the landscape recommendations underlined in Appendix 1 of Dr Clemens’ landscape review.
35.13 We made the following comment: “Mr Paul Bruce suggested that mature beech and kowhai could be relocated to the base of the canal; for the record, we are not convinced that the cost and risk warrant this. Revegetation using local plant material, as proposed by Mr Forbes, is our preference. For the record, we also agree with Mr Head’s suggestion (para 6.7) that Pinus Radiata not be used among the revegetation species at the Barrhill powerhouse.”
9230798-3 Page 59
35.14 The required terrestrial ecological survey was completed by Wildland Consultants over December 2008-January 2009 and reported as ‘Ecological Assessment of the proposed Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, Canterbury’, February 2009 (72pp).
35.15 It was pleasing to see the survey extending further downstream than we requested, i.e. covering chainage 3500 to 14000 at the proposed power station. It comprised a comprehensive survey of vegetation (including locations of threatened species Melicytus aff. Flexuosus and M. aff. alpinus “Blondin”), invertebrates (butterflies, moths and ground invertebrates), and lizards. It also recommended some changes to the mitigation measures proposed by ACWT in the MWH Addendum report of August 2008.
35.16 Appendix 3 of the report shows threatened Melicytus spp. was found at 14 locations associated with other indigenous vegetation between chainages 3900 (south of Highbank) and 11000 (0.5km before the proposed canal reaches the top of the terrace). However the authors had difficulty differentiating M.Flexuosus from M.alpinus “Blondin”. Three regionally uncommon plant species in the Plains Ecological Region were also noted. Two lizard species (Southern Alps gecko and common skink) were found throughout the affected area, although neither is a threatened species. A ‘surprisingly diverse’ beetle fauna was identified, and the authors suggest the river and its terrace slopes may be a refuge for these species.
35.17 These findings translate into high rarity (Melicytus) and high representativeness (three ‘A’ ranked PNAP sites) in terms of the Ashburton District Plan criteria for ecological significance, remaining criteria being rated low or medium. Some 28% of kowhai forest and treeland (12 ha) is likely to be lost to the scheme, and 15% of coprosma scrub with associated habitat. We observe that the area lost is substantially higher than originally estimated.
35.18 Wildland Consultants provided 8 recommendations for mitigation ranked as priority 1, 2 or 3. Highest priority is rerouting the canal, for example at Lowe’s Cutting and at chainage 5100. Second priority is to protect and enhance existing habitats. Third priority is to create new habitat by planting indigenous species.
35.19 They suggested restoring an area of indigenous vegetation slightly larger than that which will be lost. They also suggested that ‘the area adjacent to Lowe’s Cutting provides a good opportunity to restore an ecological sequence from kowhai treeland on stabilised gravels to dry forest on the terrace riser and even to podocarp forest on the Canterbury Plains proper. The site’s visibility and easy access would also allow it to serve as an educational opportunity and public relations exercise’. We think this proposal has merit.
35.20 The Wildlands report and consequential revised mitigation proposals – including a final draft Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan - were presented at the conclusion of the hearing on 22 April 2009, with evidence from Mr Forbes for ACWT and Dr Keesing for ADC, and statements – but no expert evidence - from DOC (Ms Rutledge) and Forest & Bird (Ms Clemens).
35.21 We were pleased with the level of agreement reached among the parties and with the willingness for Forest & Bird to help with the revegetation. We note that Forest and Bird were complimentary of the approach taken by the applicant and were optimistic and perhaps even enthusiastic regarding the opportunities for enhancing biodiversity values.
35.22 Dr Keesing for Ashburton District Council had originally expressed some reservations about the offset proposal however his principal concern was that the survey be carried out before we made our decision. At the resumed hearing he accepted that the
9230798-3 Page 60 Wildlands survey was comprehensive and he was supportive of the amended offset proposal offered by the applicant. Ms Rutledge appeared for the Department of Conservation. She sought some improvements to the proposal but did not call any further ecological evidence. Whilst the Department would have preferred a greater area of offset than what was proposed, it did not support that suggestion with evidence. We did not take it that the Department was maintaining its opposition to the scheme.
35.23 There was further discussion of the aspects of the mitigation proposal at the resumed hearing. This resulted in agreement by ACWT to the following amendments:
• to reflect the intention to secure ownership and covenanting of the planting areas in a condition of consent;
• to increase the area of revegetated kowhai shrubland (labelled D1 in Mr Forbes evidence) from 6 to 7 ha, bringing the total revegetated area to 17.96ha;
• to reshape area D1 to a shape more aligned with the land contours while protecting as many existing kowhai as possible;
• to narrow the farm accessway between D1 and the base of the new canal batter slope to 9m or less;
• to include the areas of kanuka seeding (for landscape mitigation) in the TEMP to ensure their maintenance;
• to revise the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan (TEMP) taking into account the further comments of ADC, DOC and Forest & Bird;
• to address our concerns that the TEMP needs to include clearer vision statements and to remain operative in the long term, rather than just the first 5 years signalled in section 1.2; and
• to include the commitment to public access to the revegetation areas within the TEMP.
35.24 All of these matters have been incorporated into conditions or into the TEMP as relevant.
35.25 We agree with the view of Dr Keesing that the mitigation proposals will go some way to protecting and enhancing what he described as ‘battered fragments’ of remnant native vegetation such as kowhai on the river flats, which are currently being gradually lost through lack of protection or management. As pointed out by Ms Clemens, there is even a possibility in future of creating a corridor linking areas with similar protected areas in the Rakaia Gorge.
35.26 In summary, the scheme will destroy around about 12 ha of kowhai forest and treeland (28% of the mapped area of these), including the threatened species Melicytus aff flexuosus which are significant indigenous vegetation. The evidence does not suggest that these areas are significant habitats. Nor do we consider the lizard habitat to be significant.
35.27 We conclude that efforts must be made to mitigate for loss of Melicytus spp through propagation and restoration planting. We also accept that kowhai treeland is significant indigenous vegetation because it is representative and no longer abundant. It is also provides bird habitat and feeding. We do however have some reservations as to whether the “areas” of kowhai are significant. That is because the evidence is that
9230798-3 Page 61 they are not particularly “intact” and have a limited lifespan because there is no protection of seedlings from weeds, grazing, rabbits and hares or mature trees from damage. They are also on a working farm and could be removed without consent (for example for forestry). Dr Keesing’s evidence for ADC was the vegetation was probably not sustainable beyond 30 years from now. These areas are not scheduled in the District Plan as being of significance but do meet some of the criteria for significance in the Plan.
35.28 In any event the applicant has not contested the significance of these remnants and we will adopt a conservative approach and regard them as being significant. We are satisfied that the applicant’s proposal to offset the 12 ha of loss with 17 ha of protected planting will adequately mitigate or even avoid any adverse effects on biodiversity. We are satisfied that whilst these areas of significant indigenous vegetation will be lost, the proposed offset will result in a better long term environmental biodiversity outcome and will therefore protect the significant indigenous vegetation albeit not the particular areas which will be destroyed. We consider that this approach is consistent with recent case law and in particular Bayley Trust v Minister of Conservation.
35.29 We acknowledge the argument advanced by Ms Rutledge for the Minister of Conservation that this does not protect the existing significant areas which will be destroyed. We consider that we should adopt a purposive approach to this provision. If the net outcome is either neutral or positive in terms of biodiversity and protection of the species in question then we do not think that it should be defeated by a literal interpretation of section 6. We consider that the outcome will be positive.
35.30 In passing, we note that our conclusion on the biodiversity offset, is based on our view that the net outcome will be positive and that the risk of the offset failing is low and is certainly lower than the risks associated with the existing areas of significant indigenous vegetation. This is rather different from the offset proposal advanced by CPWT in relation to mudfish in the Waianiwaniwa Valley. There the proposal is to replace the existing habitat which is not threatened, with artificial habitat. There are also risks associated with the success of that offset.
35.31 In case we are wrong in our approach to “protection” we note that in our view the areas of vegetation affected are not significant albeit that the vegetation is. Alternatively, we consider the proposal to be of sufficient regional importance that it should not be defeated by this provision.
36. Effects on landscape, visual amenity and natural character
36.1 Section 6(a) requires us to recognise and provide for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
36.2 The Water Conservation Order recognises the braided river system to be an outstanding natural feature and is aimed at protecting that and other outstanding characteristics of the river. We are satisfied that the scheme will not compromise the braided characteristics of the river and will not be an inappropriate development to adjoin that outstanding feature. The WCO decision acknowledged that this part of the river corridor is highly modified and the order contemplated further take consents. We do not see infrastructure associated with such take and use to be inappropriate in a farming environment.
36.3 We do not accept the suggestion from Ms Lucas for Malvern Hills Protection Society that the landscape in the vicinity of the intake or canal is outstanding, though clearly it is regionally important. We note that the WCO recognises the gorge as providing outstanding landscape values, but for the lower river it is the braided nature of the river which is to be protected. The scheme will be well downstream of the gorge
9230798-3 Page 62 environment. We also note that Ms Lucas's evidence was more focussed on the CPWT scheme than the ACWT scheme and she did not provide a full landscape assessment of the Rakaia parts of either scheme.
36.4 We were provided with some visual simulations of the intake and sediment pond from the Gorge lookout. We also visited that point ourselves and visited the intake site by jet boat.
36.5 The intake will not be highly visible from the gorge bridge lookout. The sediment pond will be visible but in our view will not be visually obtrusive. The intake works and canal will not be highly visible from any commonly frequented public viewpoints. The terrace canal as it rises up the escarpment will be visible to jet boaters and anglers but in our view the effects on natural character and visual amenity while not minor during and for some time after construction will become minor as the scheme becomes a part of the vegetated already modified rural landscape.
36.6 Adverse effects on landscape values, natural character and visual amenity will be temporary, and over time will merge into this already modified rural landscape, leading us to conclude that this is not an inappropriate development along this part of the river.
36.7 Mr Compton-Moen provided landscape evidence for the applicant and provided a draft landscape management plan. His conclusions were as follows:
Based on the landscape and visual impact assessment above, and implementation of the mitigation measures, I consider that the proposal would have a less than minor impact on the landscape character, natural character, landscape values and visually sensitive receivers, with the exception of the Clemens who retain residual moderate adverse effects. This is on the basis of the following reasons:
• The mitigated proposal would over time appear to be in character, both in form and scale, with the receiving landscape. The area, while not identified as an Outstanding Natural Landscape or Significant Landscape may be regarded as having a visual amenity of some value. This is mainly due to the recreational opportunities that the river provides and the high degree of amenity derived from the ever-changing dynamics, patterns and moods of the river. Access across the scheme to the river bed will be maintained. The proposal would not impact upon these values with the majority of the works proposed on the river terrace, primary escarpment or river flat where the character is dominated by managed agricultural farmland or plantation forestry. Where impacts occur within the river bed, the proposal consists of loosely formed channels using river stone which is in keeping with the braided nature of the river.
• While the landscape and natural character of the primary escarpment will be moderately affected during and immediately following construction, I consider that the residual effects can be mitigated to minor over 10 years with the proposed planting assisting with blending the proposal into the surrounding landscape.
• While Recreational VSR’s will experience moderate adverse effects during and immediately following construction, I consider that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, their residual visual effect (i.e. after 10 years) will be reduced to minor as the proposal will mostly be screened or viewed against the primary escarpment. For the other vantage points, the limited number of vantage points from where the proposal can be viewed combined with viewing distance, frequency and the low number of visually sensitive receivers, I consider the effects to be less than minor.
36.8 We accept these conclusions:
9230798-3 Page 63
36.9 The Highbank section of the ACWT proposed scheme is very similar to the EAL scheme already approved, the main differences being the wider intake structure (ACWT 30m vs EAL 12m) and larger settling pond (EAL10ha and ACWT 35ha although a smaller pond will be possible under the requirement for ACWT to sluice rather than deposit sediment). We accept Mr Compton-Moen’s advice that these effects are minor changes and that locations for viewing this part of the scheme are limited.
36.10 Ms Harte questioned whether the large canal proposed around the Highbank Power Station would be a visual barrier with safety issues and suggested that piping the flow may be preferable, as proposed in the original application. We understand this issue was canvassed in the EAL application and that TrustPower wish to retain public access here and are in agreement with the applicant’s proposal. We were also advised that no new powerlines are proposed across the riverbed.
36.11 Given that most of the works in the intake to the Highbank section are already consented under the EAL and BCI consents we have focussed on the additional landscape, natural character and visual amenity effects which would arise as a result of the terrace canal between Highbank and Barrhill.
36.12 Even with the proposed planting, this will be a clearly visible modification to the escarpment. However, the viewing catchment of this part of the scheme is not great. The terrace canal works will primarily be visible from those using the river for jet boating or fishing. In our view, these works will not have any significant adverse effects on the character of the river or its amenity value. Road, rail or other such cuttings along escarpments are not uncommon and are accepted as necessary features. The river lies within a working environment. There are other reminders of this along the length of the river downstream of the Gorge bridge. There are farm tracks, a quarry, and on this escarpment there is an area of plantation forestry.
36.13 We heard from Dr Clemens that at CH11500 the exposed height from embankment base to top of cut would be in the order of 60m, and cut heights of up to 70m at the base of the slope between CH4250 and 5250, with not insignificant visibility from the north side of the river and for recreational users of the river corridor. While we believe these effects on natural character are more than minor, they are an unavoidable effect of the scheme and will be partially mitigated over time through the revegetation required in the Landscape Management Plan. This plan must be developed in tandem with mitigation measures under the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan.
36.14 We have turned our minds to the question of cumulative effects upon natural character of terrace canals on both sides of the Rakaia River, if both the ACWT and CPWT proposals proceed. Potentially the construction and screening of both schemes, if both are approved, would happen within a similar 10-year period and both would be highly visible to users of the river corridor. Having viewed the ‘developed’ state of the Rangitata Diversion Race, we are of the opinion that if this occurs, then over time the combined effects on natural character would moderate and become less significant.
36.15 We are satisfied that the proposed landscape management plan will ensure that the landscape and visual amenity effects of the proposal are adequately mitigated, such that within a few years of construction of the canal, the effects will be minor. We have asked for the landscape planting works to be included in the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan so as to maximise the prospects of this planting be successful. We also note that we see the landscape planting of kanuka and other species along the canal escarpment as having value in conjunction with the biodiversity offsets, in providing enhanced bird habitat. The areas of planting will assist with providing a planted corridor for birds.
9230798-3 Page 64 37. Effects on landowners
37.1 In terms of potential physical impacts on landowners, there is potential for construction and operation of the ACWT scheme to disrupt farming operations and access to areas due to excavation, stockpiling, movement of machinery, hauling of soil and materials, and construction of culverts, canals and power station structures. These effects include noise, dust, vibration, electromagnetic radiation (‘noise’ on Telecom’s network) and amenity issues (eg visual).
37.2 Landowners affected along the Terrace Hydro portion of the proposal who made submissions – in order from the Barrhill end – are Mr Campion (Corwar Farm), Mr Clemens, Mr Burrows, Mr Maw, Creeside Water Scheme, Mr Bruce, Trustpower, Transpower and Telecom. We were advised that the draft conditions incorporate agreements agreed by ACWT, based on Attachment 4 of Mr McKenzie’s evidence (ACWT’s 12 September 2008 letter to landowners), although this was work in progress at the time of the initial hearing.
37.3 ACWT (unlike CPWL) does not have status as a network utility operator and has not sought to designate the works. Accordingly it cannot compel landowners to sell it land or provide access. All of the works on private land will require access arrangements and leases or purchase of private land. These agreements will provide a mechanism for most if not all landowner issues to be addressed. Accordingly we do not need to provide further protections in the consent conditions.
37.4 The biodiversity offset works will be on land owned by Mr Bruce. His agreement has been obtained for those works and the requisite land will be purchased off him. He has had input into the layout of the planting areas and they are laid out so that he has adequate access to his remaining land.
37.5 At the closure of the hearing on 22 April 2009, we were informed by Mr McKenzie that as far as he was aware the landowners are happy for the scheme to proceed, based on the draft conditions, and of course subject to later negotiations over land purchase and access. We did not receive any further evidence from landowners but we did receive a letter from Mr Burrow's lawyer which reiterated his concerns about the potential for the spread of noxious weeds to affect his export seed growing operations.
37.6 We note Mr Burrows’ concerns regarding the spread of noxious weeds. The possibility that seeding and use of forest duff contaminated with weed seeds could spread weeds was discussed at the hearing with Dr Keesing, and we share his concern. To address this issue, we have added an objective to condition 51 of LUC07/0030 relating to the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan and condition 4 relating to the Landscape Management Plan, to ensure the spread of weeds is actively controlled under those plans.
38. Effects on Recreational Values
38.1 ACWT advised that a degree of public access would be provided along parts of the canal and the road to the top of the escarpment would also provide improved public access to the river but ACWT has yet to finalise the agreements with landowners.
38.2 The proposal has a potentially negative effect on the recreational values associated with the river users. Mr Brookland gave evidence on behalf of Malvern Hills Protection Society. He drives commercial jet boats on the Waimakariri river and makes use of that river and the Rakaia for private jet boating. He expressed a concern that instream works to keep an active channel running past the intake point, coupled with the volume of abstraction at that point might make that channel unsafe for jet boating. Mr Brookland was present with us for the jet boat visit with Mr MacKenzie to the intake.
9230798-3 Page 65
38.3 Mr Ellis for the Salmon Anglers and Mr Brookland for MHPS both pointed out that even if a river braid is usually close to the intake side of the river, it is often some 30-50 metres away and flowing at only 10-25 m3/s. This would necessitate regular river works near the intake and potentially some distance upstream to maintain sufficient flow along this southern braid. Mr Borrie considered in-river works would only be needed once a year on average to maintain the intake flows. We want to avoid the riverbed below the Gorge becoming an industrial looking landscape. The visibility and unnatural nature of these works means only the minimum necessary to maintain inflows should be undertaken and we consider that conditions of consent will provide the appropriate management regime. We regard once or twice a year as acceptable.
38.4 We note that the BCI/EAL consents to take up to 17 cumec and divert up to 40 cumec have already created expected intake and attendant instream works at the same location. The additional river control works required by ACWT as compared to BCI are unlikely to have any impact on jet boat passage. These works will have a minor and acceptable effect on natural character if restricted as proposed in consent conditions. We were assured that the river bed works to reconfigure the channel near the intake will be infrequent and in any case they are restricted in distance upstream and downstream of the intake. The flows at which ACWT will start its take are relatively high. In the unlikely event that there are some effects on jet boating passage, then that is a matter which could be dealt with via a change in the operation or if necessary a review of the conditions of consent. However, we have concluded that the operation is unlikely to have any significant adverse effect on natural character or jet boating.
39. Economic, Social and Cultural Effects
39.1 We heard from Dr Small, an economist adviser for ACWT, who stated that the use and return of the water for the generation of up to 22MW of electricity is consistent with government policies for increasing/maximising energy generation with renewable sources. Construction of the scheme could employ up to 100 workers at peak. We did not hear any evidence relating to the net economic benefit of the project, however we do not consider such evidence to be necessary. The scheme will not have any significant adverse effects on the environment, so there is no need for us to consider whether such effects are offset by significant economic benefits. The economic viability of the scheme is not our concern.
39.2 Mr Dunning stated that the proposed water take would be used to the social and economic benefit of the wider community before being returned to the river without significant adverse effects on the river’s values, achieving the intent of Objective WQN5 and supporting policies. This evidence was not challenged. We conclude that the proposal will provide economic benefits to the wider community and is not an inefficient use of natural resources.
39.3 There are no known special sites of significance to tangata whenua in the immediate area of the scheme. An archaeological assessment was previously carried out by Electricity Ashburton over the upper part of the area upstream of the Highbank Power Station, at the request of Ngai Tahu, and it confirms there are no items or locations of interest to local runanga. Ms Harte for ADC concluded that no adverse cultural and social effects are anticipated.
40. Public access to and along the river
40.1 Existing legal public access to the river will be maintained. Whilst there are opportunities to provide public access along the canal (for example, a walkway or cycle- way) we cannot compel private owners to accept such a proposal. There would also be attendant safety issues. However, at the resumed hearing the applicant agreed to a
9230798-3 Page 66 condition which requires it to use its best endeavours to provide access along some or all of the canal route if agreement can be achieved with landowners on this matter. We are satisfied that the proposal will not have any adverse effect on public access to and along the river an may potentially enhance such access quite considerably. If the canal route becomes available for a walkway that would be a valuable addition to recreational opportunities.
41. Construction Effects
41.1 Mr Woods advised that the construction of the canal system is expected to require approximately 6 million m³ of earthworks to form the canals and the settling pond. This will generally be carried out as a series of balance cut to fill operations along the length of the canal. Construction activities will be carried out with the use of several Management Plans. We are satisfied that these Plans, which are required to be approved by ECan prior to construction being carried out, will provide the appropriate management mechanism to avoid significant adverse effects associated with construction. This includes management of embankment stability, an issue raised by Maw Enterprises. Attention to establishment of vegetative cover will be one important contributor to stability.
41.2 As noted by Dr Kennedy for CPW, the primary water quality effect caused by construction is potentially increased suspended sediment and sediment deposition from sediment laden water from construction areas. The Rakaia River has low sensitivity to any sediment inputs during construction as it is already a high sediment transporting environment. Water quality effects in our opinion can be adequately managed through proposed construction processes including the use of an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan. This Plan will be in accordance with the Canterbury Regional Council, 2007 “Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Canterbury Region” Report No. R06/23. We are satisfied that this process will achieve the required environmental outcome for this site.
41.3 There is the potential for noise and vibration to create nuisance to neighbouring landowners. There are several residential dwellings on the top of the primary terrace as close as 100m to the proposed canal alignment between chainage 11,000 to 14000. The residents of these dwellings are likely to be exposed to construction noise over the construction period, particularly during works to form the upper sections of canal and the head pond. Management of construction noise and vibration is to be achieved through the use of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan, which is incorporated in the consent conditions. The construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan must be developed in consultation with ADC, and Mr Dunning advised that noise attenuation measures would be agreed to with each landowner prior to the commencement of works.
41.4 Dust will require appropriate management because of fine soils and strong winds especially nor’westers in this area. The large amount of earthmoving during construction, especially up the terrace and near farms and Highbank, requires appropriate controls through a Dust Management Plan. The potential for dust nuisance is likely to be greatest for residents on the top of the terrace and for Trustpower and potentially Transpower assets. We were satisfied that these issues could be managed by way of conditions which require a Dust Management Plan to be certified by Canterbury Regional prior to the commencement of works.
41.5 The scheme involves the construction of large ponds and several kilometres of a significant canal. These structures have a risk of failure that could lead to something similar to a low dam failure. The risks associated with these structures will be managed with a process involving certification by an appropriately qualified specialist in design, construction and post construction monitoring and this process is reflected in conditions.
9230798-3 Page 67
41.6 Mr Woods stated that the earthworks will be carried out to a cut to fill balance, which will avoid the need to transport large quantities of materiel to or from the site. Off-site traffic effects are not expected to be large as the majority of traffic movements are expected to mainly be associated with earthworks activity, which will be within private land.
42. Traffic Effects
42.1 Access to the scheme would be via 3 roads: Happy Valley Road at the western end, Lowes Cutting (which doesn’t follow legal alignment at the bottom of the cutting), and possibly a new access at the eastern end around CH14000. Public roads feeding these would be Barkers Road, Rakaia Barrhill Methven Road and Rakaia River Road.
42.2 Mr Dunning concludes that traffic effects will be intermittent and temporary and at a similar level to permitted on public accessways. Ms Harte queries whether widening of Barkers track and Lowes Cutting may be needed for construction. These matters along with bridging requirements - some developed in discussion with Trustpower - are included in conditions. With these safeguards through conditions, no specific adverse traffic effects are anticipated.
43. Trustpower, Transpower and Telecom agreements
43.1 Trustpower, Transpower and Telecom raise specific issues in their submissions relative to Highbank power station, the electricity grid, and telephone network.
43.2 Trustpower raised issues of non-derogation of their existing consents, maintenance of the salmon barrier below Highbank, protection of existing access and their well water supply, and construction effects on the operation and stability of their assets.
43.3 At the hearing, Ms Burkhardt for Trustpower said that through discussions between Trustpower and ACWT, conditions had been agreed to address these matters. We have included those conditions in this decision.
43.4 Transpower did not appear at the hearing, but we were advised that their concerns about dust nuisance, hazard, and works near transmission lines and towers have been addressed through agreed conditions, which we have included in this decision.
43.5 Similarly, Ms Harte reports that with an appropriate condition about electromagnetic noise, Telecom’s concerns have been addressed.
44. Planning Assessment
44.1 We have summarised our assessment of Part 2 matters earlier. The ACWT scheme will make a contribution to meeting electricity demand growth and the need for security of supply in the central South Island. It contributes to the objectives of the NZ Energy Strategy to 2050 (MED 2007) which aims to deliver a secure, clean and reliable energy supply at affordable prices in an environmentally responsible manner, and to respond to climate change and carbon emissions from our energy production and use. It will also contribute to the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NZEECS) target of 90% renewable energy generation by 2025.
44.2 The integrated nature of this proposal together with BCI, EAL and Trustpower’s Highbank scheme create the opportunity for increased efficiency in the use of water through the integration of hydro electricity generation with irrigation, even though ACWT is not in itself seeking consents for the use of water for irrigation at this stage.
9230798-3 Page 68 44.3 We are required to have regard to the efficiency of the end use of energy (7(ba)) and the effects of climate change (7(i)) and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy (7(j)). In this respect the ACWT scheme enables the Ashburton District and the wider Canterbury Region to develop their own renewable energy resources. This also includes the possible integration of irrigation through the BCI scheme (or the development of future irrigation by ACWT) albeit with potential ‘downstream’ effects of irrigation which are beyond the scope of these applications.
44.4 We conclude that the ACWT proposal is an efficient use of the Rakaia River resource, especially given the discharge back into the river at Barhill, which preserves options under the NWCO for further downstream water takes.
44.5 Mr Dunning for ACWT summarised the planning provisions of the NWCO, the Transitional Regional Plan (TRP), the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS), and the Proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP). Ms Harte for ADC and Ms Johnston for ECan provided further assessment of the applications against objectives, policies and rules. The activity status of the bundle of applications has been addressed earlier as have the provisions of the Rakaia NWCO.
44.6 Ms Harte for ADC raised concerns about public access, and we have included as condition 59 of LUC07/0030 – agreed with ACWT – that best endeavours shall be made to improve public access to and along the canal route beyond that already legally available.
44.7 Overall, we consider that the scheme can be constructed and operated in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the RPS and with the relevant objectives and policies of the NRRP and the Ashburton District Plan.
45. Consent Duration and Lapse
45.1 The applicants seek a term of 35 years for all water related applications, and a lapse period of no less than 10 years to allow for the detailed design and construction of the scheme. The construction period is estimated to be approximately 3 years, and we were told that an extension of the lapse period for the BCI consents has been approved by Environment Canterbury, and that BCI’s intention is to exercise their consents.
45.2 The panel’s opinion is that concurrent expiry with the BCI and EAL consents would allow an integrated review of all 3 schemes, hence a 28 January 2035 expiry date is set for all water-related consents. A lapse date of 31 March 2017 is also provided for, because it achieves a balance between the time required for the applicants to get work under way, and the potential ‘locking up’ of the resource in the event that the scheme does not proceed.
46. Conditions
46.1 The applicant proposed a set of conditions at the substantive hearing. To a large extent these were based on the Barrhill Chertsey and Electricity Ashburton conditions. In our interim decision and subsequently, we indicated some areas which required attention. We requested that a revised set of conditions be discussed with officers and in relation to some matters with particular submitters.
46.2 A revised set of conditions was provided to us by the applicant at the resumed hearing. That was available to submitters on the web site the day before. The principal changes to the earlier draft conditions related to:
• Changes to the conditions of take to ensure that priority and other issues are adequate addressed;
9230798-3 Page 69
• Changes to the terrestrial ecology conditions and in particular to the draft Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan (TEMP);
• The addition of a bond condition which has been agreed with the District Council.
46.3 At the resumed hearing the officers of both the Regional and District Councils indicated that they were happy with the proposed conditions. Dr Keesing had some suggestions on the draft TEMP which now been incorporated. Ms Harte tabled the proposed bond condition which has been included in the conditions.
46.4 Forest and Bird expressed satisfaction with the TEMP but has some suggestions for minor changes which have subsequently been incorporated.
46.5 Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation sought some minor changes which have been incorporated.
46.6 Following the presentation of the applicant's evidence on the terrestrial ecology and comments from Dr Keesing we made a number of other suggestions to the applicant which it has agreed with. We summarised these earlier in this decision.
46.7 We also had a discussion around the water take conditions and suggested some possible amendments which we asked the applicant to discuss with ECan officers. This related to the flow banding and priority issues.
46.8 We note that we had asked the applicant to discuss the take conditions with Synlait and had encouraged Synlait to attend the resumed hearing to discuss its concerns regarding compliance with the WCO and protection of Synlait's priority. Synlait did not attend or provide any written submissions on conditions. Accordingly we take it that it is happy with what is proposed or at least that it is content that we will ensure that appropriate conditions are imposed. Ms Appleyard indicated that she thought that Synlait's appeal of the interim decision may have been based on some misapprehensions by Synlait as to what was proposed in terms of conditions. As mentioned earlier, we understand that there is now agreement between Synlait and ACWT on conditions and priority issues.
46.9 The applicant provided us with a final draft of conditions a few days after the resumed hearing. We understand that the take conditions have been discussed with Regional Council officers and are acceptable.
46.10 We reviewed the proposed changes and were happy with them however we considered the conditions of the take consent required adjustment We have however reviewed the take conditions so as to ensure compliance with the WCO and to ensure that they are otherwise lawful. We have found this task a little daunting because of the complexity of the conditions and the interrelationships between the new consent, the WCO, the BCI consent and other existing consents. We have needed to go back to the applicant and the officers on a number of occasions since the resumed hearing to make sure that we get these critical conditions correct. We have not included submitters in that process, since it is simply a matter of ensuring that the WCO requirements and priority matters are properly dealt with.
46.11 Condition 1 provides for a maximum rate of take of 40 cubic metres per second. It also provides that this maximum include any water taken by CPWT if it obtains consent provided that the taking continues to comply with clause 7 and other relevant provisions of the WCO.
9230798-3 Page 70 46.12 The maximum of 40 cubic metres is subject to conditions 1, 2, 3,4 and 5. Together these define the extent of the "allocation" or water available to ACWT.
46.13 Clause 7 (2) of the WCO provides that once the flow as measured at the Gorge bridge drops below the specified minimum flow for the month (the figures in the table above) flows downstream of the gorge must be retained in the river. For example in January, once the flow drops below 124 at the gorge bridge all takes must cease. The aim is to protect downstream flows.
46.14 Clause 7 (3) of the WCO provides that at intermediate flows when the flows at the Gorge are above the specified minimum flows by less than 140 cumecs, total abstractions at any point must not exceed the Gorge flow minus the minimum flow divided by two. This is one to one flow sharing. At these intermediate flows the maximum total allowable abstraction ranges from 0 to 70 cumecs.
46.15 Clause 7 (4) of the WCO provides that when flows at the Gorge are above the minimum flow plus 140 cumecs the one to one flow sharing does not apply but total abstractions at any point must still not exceed 70 cumecs.
46.16 As discusse d earlier, ou r interpreta tion is that the clause 7 of the WCO is directed at the total depletion at particular points in the river rather than at total abstraction. Accordingly, in calculating a total depletion we are of the view that diversions of water within the riv er channel s hould not be included . Thus the total down-stream depletion figure in the present cas e with AC WT operating should n ot include the water which is returned to the river at Barrhill. That water will not form p art of the total allocation.
46.17 On this bas is its seems to us that the minimum flows for ACWT should be based on:
• The m inimum flows required u nder the WC O; plus
• Any water that is required for abstraction upstream of the ACWT discharge point at Barrhill multiplied by two to allow for the one to one flow sharing. (including any water taken by CPWT if it is granted consent and any water taken by BCI or under the BCI consent).
46.18 Following further discussions with the officers, the applicant was able to provide a revised draft Condition 2(a) that was expressed as follows:
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Flow 124 108 +Irrig 105 97 95 96 (Y m3/s) +Irrig & & Other +Irrig & +Irrig & +Other +Other Other uses Other Other uses uses uses uses uses
Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Flow 91 92 90 106 129 +Irrig 139 (Y m3/s) +Other +Irrig & +Irrig & +Irrig & & Other +Irrig & uses Other Other uses Other uses uses Other uses uses [Irrigation and Other uses being the water consented for taking for irrigation and other uses including stockwater above the outfall multiplied by 2 to allow for 1:1 sharing]
46.19 In order for the condition to be certain, it needs to be clear what figure is being used for irrigation and other uses. We sought clarification of this figure and it was provided by memorandum and a further revised set of conditions after the resumed hearing.
9230798-3 Page 71 46.20 In particular, we asked ACWT and the officers to provide details of what the total depletion figure should be at a point just upstream of the discharge at Barrhill. Details are provided in Attachments 1 and 2.
46.21 The response was as follows:
We attach a schedule of existing upstream consents based on information supplied by ECan officers. This confirms that the total of consents above the discharge point (calculated in terms of their peak rates) is 5,031.14 L/s. Consents for activities other than irrigation, e.g. stockwater which would involve the taking of water in winter are identified in blue highlighting and total 1138.70 L/s.
Please note that the one substantive amendment we have made to the ECan schedule is to exclude the peak rate of the consent in the name of Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Limited (BCI) as that 17 m3/s is included in the overall take of 40 m3/s by ACWT and the conditions limit the total take through the BCI intake to 40 m3/s.
Since our memorandum dated 24 April 2009 we have had further discussions with the investigating officer regarding the suggestions in that memorandum. We understand that the investigating officer agrees with our suggestion that the cut off conditions should reflect NWCO minimum flow conditions plus an allowance for peak rate of take above the discharge point in the summer months.
Therefore for the summer months of 1 August to 30 April the minimum flow to be left in the river would be the NWCO minimum flow plus 5031.14 L/s (multiplied by two under condition 2(b) to provide for 1:1 sharing). In the winter months of 1 May to 31 July the minimum flow to be left in the river would be the NWCO flow plus 1138.70 L/s (multiplied by two under condition 2(b)).
ECan has raised an issue that a holder of a consent to take water for irrigation might choose to exercise that right in winter.
Leaving aside the legal issue of whether existing consents authorise the taking of water for irrigation in winter, there is precedent for dealing with this issue in the Waitaki context. Consents have recently been granted by ECan by a panel including Professor Skelton relating to Meridian’s hydro proposal for North Bank Tunnel. Under those consents the Commissioners have required that during the summer months the amount of water to be left in the river is the minimum flow plus the total peak rate of all consents above the discharge point (whether or not that water is actually taken).
For the winter months the amount of water to be left in the river above the minimum flow is not specified in numeric terms and it is just described as the actual requirements of those with existing consents to take water in winter.
Further dialogue with ECan officers suggests that they would be happy with such an approach in this case and ACWT additionally confirms that in the event it transpires that there is an existing consent other than the ones identified in blue on Appendix B which would allow water to be taken during the winter and that consent holder wishes to exercise that right, that ACWT accepts it would also leave that amount of water in the river.
The Commissioners should also refer in their decision to their understanding that for the months 1 August to 30 April the figure for irrigation and other uses is 5031.14 L/s and for the winter months 1 May to 31 July the figure for other uses is 1138.70 L/s or alternatively those figures could be added into the table in condition 2. One practical reason for not actually adding the figures into condition 2 is that if consents expire or are not replaced the actual rate to be provided may reduce.
9230798-3 Page 72 46.22 We agree that figure for irrigation and other uses should only include those takes upstream of the Barrhill discharge so long as that d ischarge is occur ring.
46.23 Attachments 1 and 2 provide an increased level of certainty over the flows that must remain in the river to allow for the continued abstraction by existing consent holders (and current applicants) above the ACWT outfall. We have relied upon the accuracy of these and so have attached these as Appendix 4 to this decision.
46.24 In addition to the above, BCIL will also exercise its own consent through the same intake as ACWT. In this context, the 17 cumecs already granted to BCIL in part limits the 40 cumecs that could otherwise be taken by ACWT.
46.25 The BCIL consent is subject to the following minimum flow:
“Whenever the flow (expressed in cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements of either the gorge recorder site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437), falls below the following flows, the taking of water in terms of this permit shall cease: Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Flow 150.5 134.5 131.5 123.5 121.5 122.5 Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Flow 117.5 118.5 116.5 132.5 155.5 165.5”
46.26 As discussed earlier, we are not entirely sure whether the BCI consent condition correctly reflects the WCO. It appears to be based on a figure of 13.25 cumecs having already been allocated prior to BCI. As discussed earlier, BCI and the officers should review whether the correct figure has been applied.
46.27 In any event, the minimum flow on the BCIL consent (which provides for irrigation and hydro-electricity generation) is to an extent irrelevant to ACWT except to the extent that ACWT wishes to utilise the BCI consent. Although BCIL will need to comply with the minimum flows provided above when it is taking through the intake, ACWT’s requirement to return all flows to the river will allow ACWT to take water at a lower minimum flow on the basis that (unlike BCIL) it will not be reducing the availability of flows to downstream abstractors.
46.28 With a joint scheme, ACWT will be able to take up to 17 cumecs pursuant to the BCI consent and up to 23 cumecs pursuant to its own consent. ACWT also seeks to have its consent worded in such away that if BCI does not proceed it can operate on its own utilising the full 40 cumecs and returning all of it to the river.
46.29 We could word the minimum flow condition on that basis in which case the relevant figure would be 5.03 cumecs. However the difficulty with that approach is that it assumes that all of what ACWT takes will be returned by Barrhill – and indeed some of that water may at times be returned at Highbank rather than Barrhill. Given that we have been told that BCI will proceed in some form we think we should draft the conditions based on the assumption that BCI will not be returning at least some of its water if it takes during the irrigation season (with ACWT being able to take all of BCIL’s water in the winter when it would be returned to the river).
46.30 On this basis it seems to us that the summer depletion figure for the purpose of the ACWT minimum flow (the flow at which ACWT may start to take) will be the actual rate of take by BCIL through the same intake, the peak rate of take by other consent holders who abstract above the ACWT discharge; and, in addition to this, it will be necessary for ACWT to leave additional water based on the actual rate of take by the Central Plains Water Trust in the event that its north bank scheme (or part of its north bank scheme) is granted.
9230798-3 Page 73 46.31 That then brings us to the winter depletion figure. The applicant suggests this should exclude the BCI 17 cumecs and we agree with that. During winter the BCI water will be not be used by BCIL and would be able to be taken by ACWT and discharged back into the river at Barrhill (although if BCIL chose to take water in winter then this has been provided for in the conditions – see below).
46.32 If one assumes that irrigators will not want to and/or do not have authorisation to take water outside of the irrigation season then we accept the applicant’s position that…In the winter months of 1 May to 31 July the minimum flow to be left in the river would be the NWCO flow plus 1138.70 L/s (multiplied by two under condition 2(b)). The only change we would make to this is to include August as a winter month to correctly reflect the actual extremes of the irrigation season.
46.33 We were not comfortable with the initial and alternative approach suggested that [f]or the winter months the amount of water to be left in the river above the minimum flow is not specified in numeric terms and it is just described as the actual requirements of those with existing consents to take water in winter. However the addition of Attachments 1 and 2, and a more descriptive explanation through the consent conditions has resolved our concerns.
46.34 We note that ACWT additionally confirms that in the event it transpires that there is an existing consent other than the ones identified in blue on Appendix B which would allow water to be taken during the winter and that consent holder wishes to exercise that right that ACWT accepts it would also leave that amount of water in the river.
46.35 We think the best approach is to incorporate this as a requirement of the consent.
46.36 Since Highbank tailrace water is not included in the Conservation Order, it can be excluded from the calculation of minimum flows. Accordingly, so far as flows between Highbank and Barrhill are concerned any actual discharge to the river at Highbank of water (from whatever source) times 2 can be offset against takes upstream of Barrhill. It seems to us that it does not matter where the water comes from. No matter whether it comes from the Rangitata or the Rakaia, it offsets what has been taken upstream of Highbank and therefore offsets any other persons takes between Highbank and Barrhill. This will potentially allow ACWT to take more water at its intake (provided that it still maintains the minimum flow between there and Barrhill.) We have provided for that in Condition 2. If necessary this regime can be adjusted by way of the rostering arrangements provided for.
46.37 Draft condition 2 (b) was intended to encompass the one to one flow sharing at intermediate flows and is as follows:
(b) Whenever the average flow for the 24 hour period ending at noon on any one day (expressed as X cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the Gorge Recorder Site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437), exceeds the minimum flow Y contained in condition 2 then the take shall not exceed Z cubic metres per second where:
Z = (X-Y)/2
46.38 Y is the minimum WCO flow for the month plus the allowances that are necessary to meet the dema n d of existing consents above the discharge point (the latter being multiplied by two to allow for 1:1 sharing).. In our view this condition correctly reflects the flow sharing in the WCO. However the one to one flow sharing does not apply at flows of more than 140 cumecs above the WCO minimum for the month.
9230798-3 Page 74 46.39 The condition do e s not reflect the maximum abstraction limit of 70 cumecs however that is now adequately addressed through the revisions that have been made to condition 1.
46.40 Draft Condition 3 is intended to provide for ACWT to obtain access to water which is allocated t o o thers, based on their agreement.
3 Wherever t he consent holder has entered into an agreement with one or more consent holders to comply with a water sharing roster then the rate of take shall not exceed that provided for in the water sharing roster:
(a) The water sharing roster shall specify:
i. the consent holders to which the roster applies;
ii. the period for the which the water sharing roster applies;
iii. the proportion of flows available for taking by each consent holder during any period where one or more consent holders are subject to a restriction event under their own individual consent(s);
(b) The water sharing roster shall ensure that:
i. the rate of water taken by any consent holder would not exceed the maximum allowable rate of take under their own resource consent, and
ii. the combined rate of the water takes by any consent holders would not exceed the combined rate of the water takes available to all consent holders who are subject to the roster.
(c) The water sharing roster shall be provided to Canterbury Regional Council no less than 10 working days before it is implemented;
then compliance with the water sharing roster in this condition shall be deemed to be compliance with conditions 1 and 2.
46.41 In our view this approach is generally appropriate. Since it involves the agreement of both parties it does not infringe the non derogation principle or otherwise interfere with priority rights. This approach is consistent with the Rakaia Water Conservation Order. We note that the Order is directed at what is left in the river rather than legal allocations per se. In that context, we are not sure that it is necessary for a consent holder to require the permission of another consent holder to utilise water which could legally be taken by that consent holder but which is not required. Nevertheless, since the applicant does not seek to utilise unused water except with the permission of relevant consent h old ers, we will keep to that approach. In some cases the utilisation of another c ons ent holders allocation may involve a transfer of consent and we have included an advice note which reflects this.
46.42 We have r es ervations about whether the final clause is appropriate. In our view it can be deleted with some other consequential amendments to this condition. We have provided for telemetered monitoring of any takes subject to the roster. We have also provided for Regional Council officers to have a certifying role in terms of the roster, to ensure that the WCO and consent requirements have been correctly reflected in the roster.
46.43 Draft condition 4 was intended to address the Synlait priority position.
9230798-3 Page 75
4 In the event that application CRC054384 or CRC062685 has priority over this consent and with the effect of reducing the amount of water available for allocation within the terms of clause 7(4) of the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order 1988:
(a) the rate that the consent holder shall be entitled to take water under condition 2 will be reduced to reflect that priority; and
(b) the consent holder will apply to Canterbury Regional Council to have the flows in condition 2 amended accordingly.
46.44 This puts the onus on the consent holder, rather than Synlait to apply to have the conditions adjusted to reflect any priority consent which Synlait may obtain. We do not think that there needs to be an application to change the consent conditions. We have amended the conditions so that the necessary adjustment would occur automatically. However, adopting a belts and braces approach, there is also a requirement that ACWT apply to amend the conditions if necessary and for the Regional Council to review the conditions of consent to address this matter. This is to ensure that if our the applicant’s calculations of the depletion figure are incorrect, the figure can be amended.
46.45 We had considered including 6 cumecs of allocation for Synlait. That would then have required ACWT to come back under section 127 to remove that allowance if Synlait does not obtain a priority consent. However upon reflection, given that the consent which has been granted to Synlait is under appeal and is not for band 5 water and given that the other application has not been determined we think that the approach above is more appropriate. We again, note that it is unfortunate that Synlait did not take an active role in ensuring that these conditions protect its potential priority. However, it may be that it intends to address these matters by way of water sharing arrangements with ACWT rather than via conditions.
46.46 We have made some other amendments to the draft conditions. We circulated those amendments to the Applicant and officers on 1 May and subject to some further minor amendments, they have subsequently been confirmed to be appropriate.
46.47 In summary the final draft conditions appear to be fully accepted by the applicant, officers and those submitters who attended the resumed hearing. Other submitters chose not to have input on conditions. Some changes have been made to the take conditions. Those changes have been agreed as between the officers and the applicant. We think that the amended conditions now properly reflect the Water Conservation Order. However if that is not the case the review condition allows the Council to adjust them by review or alternatively the applicant may apply under section 127 to vary the conditions. Fish and Game and Synlait have an interest in these conditions and should review our decision and reasoning on this matter. Overall, we are satisfied that the proposed conditions will adequately avoid remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment and ensure that relevant Part 2 matters are addressed.
9230798-3 Page 76
47. Conclusion
47.1 The consents as applied for are granted subject to the modification and conditions set out in Appendix 3. A copy of the full decision should be served on all submitters to the ACWT specific applications. We do not see the need to include the Draft Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan with that material, however that will be available at the Council and on the ECan web site. We have provided a separate summary of this submission to be served on the submitters to the joint take application. Those persons do not need to be served with a copy of the full decision, but that will be available to them at both Councils and on the ECan web site.
Independent commissioners for and on behalf of Canterbury Regional Council and Ashburton District Council
------
Philip Milne Ray O’Callaghan Andrew Fenemor Commissioner (Chair) Commissioner Commissioner
Dated:
25 May 2009
9230798-3 Page 77
Appendix 1 Summary of submitters on the ACWT specific applications, and their concerns
Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing?
Submissions in opposition Ngai Tahu-Mamoe Ngai Tahu-Mamoe Fisher People Inc (NTMFP) opposes the resource consent applications on the Fisher People Inc basis of unresolved Treaty of Waitangi and land ownership issues. The NTMFP claim rights to the natural resources within the jurisdiction of ECan, which has been presented to the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The NTMFP do not believe that the consents can be issued until the claim to the ownership of the natural resources has been resolved by NO way of negotiation with the Crown or by Judicial Review.
Transpower New Transpower New Zealand Limited (Transpower) opposes in part the resource consent applications for Zealand Limited the ACWT scheme. In particular, Transpower is concerned with regard to the potential for third party activities to adversely impact on the National Electricity Grid. These impacts may include increased risks to the structural and system integrity of the network as well as limitations on the ongoing Tabled operation, maintenance or upgrading of the existing transmission assets. Of particular concern is a evidence only section of the Benmore - Haywards -A transmission line that crosses the proposed canal alignment.
9230798-3 Page 78 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? TrustPower Limited TrustPower Limited (TrustPower) opposes all applications for resource consents associated with the proposed ACWT scheme on the basis that the grant of these consents may derogate or otherwise impose additional costs, limitations or constraints on the exercise of existing resource consents held by TrustPower for the Highbank Power Scheme. TrustPower submits that ACWT will benefit from the use of their infrastructure and on that basis, ACWT should share in the costs and responsibilities of consent compliance.
Specific concerns with the proposal include:
Impacts of additional discharge in the existing formed tailrace on the effectiveness of the existing salmon barrier;
The potential for adverse effects on the operation of the Highbank Power Station, including YES any loss in generation;
That should Ecan introduce a water use rating system, TrustPower submits that ACWT should meet a proportion of the costs relevant to the use of the water from the tailrace.
The potential for construction activities to affect TrustPower assets and the maintenance and operation of the Highbank Power Station;
That vegetation removal within or adjacent to the proposed canal alignment may impact on bank stability; and,
That any river protection works be undertaken in consultation and by agreement with TrustPower to ensure appropriate protection of existing assets.
9230798-3 Page 79 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? Department of The Department of Conservation (DoC) make the general submission that the proposed activities fail Conservation to promote the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources as required by Part II of the RMA. DoC submits that the assessment of effects provided is inadequate as it does not reflect the scale, significance or complexity of the proposed activities.
More specific concerns held by DoC include:
Intake design to address fish passage issues for indigenous fish species; YES
Concerns regarding the effects on indigenous vegetation, aquatic biota, important habitats, natural character and recreational access;
No detail provided of management and treatment of wastewater, stormwater and drainage from construction activities;
Application will have significant impacts on regionally significant values of the river and landscape The Royal Forest and The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated (Forest and Bird) make the Bird Protection Society following points in relation to the application; of New Zealand Incorporated The application fails to adequately consider alternative methods or areas to prevent or reduce adverse effects;
Information provided by the applicant does not satisfy requirements of Section 88 or the fourth schedule of the RMA particularly with regard to wetlands and the terrestrial ecology of the affected area, effects on the river by reducing the flow by 40 cumecs, and effects on braided river birds; YES
The potential for adverse effects on native fish and eels and water quality at the point of discharge; and,
That the proposal is contrary to provisions of the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order;
Forest and Bird request that the application for resource consent be declined. Alternatively, if the consents are granted, it is requested that the term of consent be reduced from the requested 35 years.
9230798-3 Page 80 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? North Canterbury Fish The North Canterbury Fish and Game Council (Fish and Game) opposes the applications in entirety, and Game Council based on a number of concerns with the proposal, including:
The effect of discharges on salmon migration and spawning
Impacts on water quality and consequential effects on habitat and amenity values;
Effects on safety of river users; Effects on natural character and landscape values; YES Lack of consultation with Fish and Game;
Lack of information on fish screen design and bypass, specifically the effectiveness, operation and maintenance of the structures;
Creation of gamebird habitat; and
Impacts of river control works.
New Zealand Salmon New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association Incorporated (NZSAA) opposes the applications and Anglers Association request that the applications are declined. The NZSAA submits that the proposal is contrary to the Incorporated provisions of the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order 1988. Other concerns include:
The scheme will modify the natural braided river; The scheme will have detrimental effects on salmon spawning and the salmon fishery; YES Discharges to the river will affect colour and clarity of the river (affecting salmon angling);
Safety of anglers, jet boaters and other river users from emergency discharges to the river; and
Access to the river.
9230798-3 Page 81 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? Synlait Developments Synlait Developments Limited (Synlait) request that the application for resource consent be declined in Limited full. Specific concerns include:
The proposed use of water was not referred to in the AEE for the take application, which has different effects particularly with respect to timing and size of the take. The use application is beyond the scope of the use application; YES Insufficient details were provided in the AEE with regards to the implementation of the scheme, particularly in regards to the interrelationship with the Barhill Chertsey/Electricity Ashburton scheme; and
The application is inconsistent with the RRWCO and the purpose of the RMA.
Mark Davey Limited Mark Davey Limited is opposed to the applications in their entirety. The proposed intake structure is to be built on the property of Mark Davey Limited. Mark Davey Limited outlined concerns relating to the reduction in farm land, ACWT scheme operation and the effects on farming operations, the increase in traffic, noise and dust during the construction phase and on going interference with stock on the NO property. (later Mark Davey Limited also submits that the application is contrary to the objectives and policies of RPS, TRP and PNRRP and contrary to the provisions of the RMA. withdrawn)
9230798-3 Page 82 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? Save the Rivers Mid- Save the Rivers Mid-Canterbury is opposed to the applications on the basis that the proposal is Canterbury Inc. contrary to planning documents and potential affects on the Rakaia River are unacceptable. Save the Rivers Mid-Canterbury has specific concerns regarding:
Over-allocation of water from the Rakaia lacks long term goals for water from the river.
Power station is unsightly in natural environment – contrary to the RRWCO. NO
Deposit of sediment on river bed could affect natural environment of the river and amenity for anglers.
Effects on the salmon fishery due to works in the river bed and inadequate fish screens.
Ms E Sage Ms Eugenie Sage opposes all the applications, stating the proposal is an abuse of the RMA and is misleading to the public. In particular, Ms Sage’s concerns include:
The submission of an inadequate assessment of environmental effects;
The absence of a comprehensive evaluation of natural character, landscape and ecological values of the river, and the effect of the proposal on these values NO Adverse effects on aquatic organisms and birds
Ms Sage believes the proposal is inconsistent with s5, 6 and 7 of the RMA, and contrary to the relevant planning documents (RPS, NRRP, Ashburton District Plan, Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy, Rakaia WCO).
Mr C Morris Mr Colin Morris opposes the applications, as he believes the proposal will destroy natural, ecological and recreational values of the Rakaia River. NO
Ms L Weir Ms Liz Weir opposes the applications, as she believes the applications are contrary to the objectives of the Rakaia River Water Conservation Order. Ms Weir submits that the proposal will destroy the natural, NO ecological and recreational values of the river.
9230798-3 Page 83 Summary Name Heard at Submissions to the Regional Council hearing? Mrs R Snoyink Mrs Rosalie Snoyink opposes the applications on the basis that the proposal is contrary to the aims of the Water Conservation Order on the Rakaia River, and will destroy the intrinsic natural, ecological and NO recreation values of the Rakaia River. Mr J Snoyink Mr Jules Snoyink opposes the applications, submitting that the proposal will destroy the natural values of the Rakaia River, and that the outstanding value of the river should be protected for the wellbeing of NO future generations. Malvern Hills Protection The Malvern Hills Protection Society (MHPS) opposes the applications, as they believe that the Rakaia Society River is an important braided river of international and national significance. The MHPS believes the application is contrary to the aims of the Water Conservation order on the Rakaia River and the YES proposed take and construction works will have an adverse effect on river flows and the values of the River. Mr N Allen Mr Nicholas Allen opposes the applications, as dewatering of river will induce the reduction of island habitat within the river and increase animal pests. Mr Allen submits that endangered species that NO depend on safe island habitats to breed will be at risk.
Submissions neither supporting or opposing the application
Rangitata Diversion Rangitata Diversion Race Management Limited (RDRML) conditionally supports the applications. Race Management RDRML is the owner and operator of the Rangitata Diversion Race and recognises that the water will Limited be used efficiently and supports the proposal on that basis. RDRML submits that the ACWT scheme will have a direct effect on the consents to divert and discharge water to and from the Rakaia River and associated land use consents. No mitigation has been offered to address these issues. NO
RDRML wishes that the consent authority ensures ACWT does not compromise their RDRML’s ability to comply with consent conditions.
9230798-3 Page 84
Summary Heard at Name Submissions to Ashburton District Council Hearing?
Submissions in Support
Ashburton Trading The Society supports the application as a welcome initiative to provide sustainable power generation and Society has a relatively low environmental impact. They seek that the Council approve the application. NO
Federated Farmers, Federated Farmers and the Irrigation group have lodged identical submissions supporting the scheme on Mid-Canterbury the condition that affected landowners are treated in a fair and reasonable way with regard to adverse Province and Eiffelton effects caused by construction and placement of the infrastructure required for the project. The Community Group submitters support the development of “embedded electricity generation capacity in Mid-Canterbury” as NO Irrigation Scheme well the additional capacity created for irrigation which could flow from this scheme. They seek that Council grant all consents
Barrhill Chertsey These submitters have lodged identical submissions in support of the ACWT proposal. The reason for Irrigation Ltd and their support include the fact that EA have entered into an agreement with BCIL to use the recently Electricity Ashburton granted consents to build and operate the primary canal from the Happy Valley intake to the Highbank tailrace, which was recently granted resource consent. While that application is separate from the ACWT Ltd NO application, in practical terms this primary canal can form the first stage of the of the larger power scheme proposed by ACWT. This is considered by the submitters to be a very efficient scheme combining hydro generation and irrigation. They seek that Council grant the application.
Paul Bruce This submitter is the landowner of land that the canal passes through. He supports the project but asks that surveying and fencing be undertaken before construction commences so farming can continue, a right of way to his farm at all times, and ongoing assistance with river protection. He would also like NO beech and kowhai trees transplanted at the base of the canal.
9230798-3 Page 85 Summary Heard at Name Submissions to Ashburton District Council Hearing?
Submissions in Opposition
TrustPower Limited TrustPower opposes the applications in their entirety and ask that they be declined unless the matters referred to in the submission are allayed and addressed in total. The matters raised are: • That TrustPower is the owner and operator of the Highbank and Montalto Hydroelectric power scheme that uses water from the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR). These power schemes are a significant physical resource, which contribute to the social and economic wellbeing of the Canterbury Region Resource consents • TrustPower’s hydroelectric power generation is subject to a number of resource consent conditions and costs. TrustPower submits that the ACWT proposal must not derogate from these rights, impose additional costs, limitations or constraints on TrustPower. • In order to meet the resource consent obligations, TrustPower have installed a salmon barrier and return channel to exclude mature salmon from the body of the existing Highbank power station tailrace. The proposed activity could affect, limit or constrain the continued operation of the exclusion system. Actual or potential effects on existing TrustPower assets. YES • The existing access road to the Highbank power station tailrace and a well are in the path of the proposed canal. • Access downstream would need to be provided and the existing well should not be decommissioned until a consented source of potable water of equal or better quality and yield has been established. • The ACWT proposal involves excavation for the purpose of enlarging the tailrace. TrustPower has concerns with the unstable nature of the surrounding land and its proximity to their assets. • The increase in sediment and the level of water in the tailrace could cause cavitation effects or reduce machinery efficiency due to loss of head. • Modification of the tailrace has the potential to disrupt periods of Highbank generation. River protection works • The proposed works may impact on the existing river protection works that safeguard the power station and its associated infrastructure.
9230798-3 Page 86 Summary Heard at Name Submissions to Ashburton District Council Hearing?
• If both ACWT and TrustPower undertake river protection works, TrustPower require that these be undertaken in consultation prior to commencement. Removal of Trees • If trees are to be removed, any such removal would need to be at market value; • Measures must be employed to rectify and ensure ongoing stability of the adjacent riverbank (replanting of vegetation will take place immediately post construction). Noise, dust and vibration Prior to work commencing, TrustPower require confirmation of the work programme dealing with likely extent and duration of effects and mitigation measures. In addition works would need to cease immediately if TrustPower notify a problem or suspect that a problem is occurring. Transpower New Transpower’s submission to the District Council land use application is the same as that lodged to the Zealand Limited Regional Council applications. The submission opposes the resource consents to construct and operate the Rakaia River Hydro Scheme and in particular wants specific consideration to be given to the potential adverse effects of the scheme on Transpower’s existing assets. The submission refers to the scheme being located in close proximity to the Benmore-Haywards A transmission line and specifically tower 521 Tabled and 522. In accordance with their usual policy Transpower seek a range of conditions and advice notes evidence only on the various consents to ensure that the security, safety and on-going operation of these facilities is assured. The submission makes no mention of the Transpower designation for the switchyard attached to the Highbank power station. Department of The Department considers the application fails to promote sustainable management under Part II of the Conservation Act, is deficient in parts of the AEE on the environment and does not adequately reflect the scale, significance and complexity of the proposed activities. In particular there is a lack of assessment of habitat and vegetation values and how they will be affected by construction, diversion and maintenance. YES In addition, they consider there has been inadequate consideration of native fish in the design of the fish screens. Finally, the Department state there is a lack of consideration of management of the overall effects of the construction works and a lack of adequate mitigation.
Creeside Water Scheme This submitter is concerned that the high water quality of domestic supply on Corwar land on the Rakaia river flats could be affected by the construction and wants this issue addressed. NO
9230798-3 Page 87 Summary Heard at Name Submissions to Ashburton District Council Hearing? Maw Enterprises Ltd This submitter owns land on the upper river terrace in the path of the canal and is concerned that it will disturb the stable embankment on the southern side of the Rakaia River. The submitter wants this matter NO addressed and/or compensation made.
Graham Campion This submitter is very concerned about the noise of the power station affecting their quiet environment. (Corwar Farm Ltd) The submitter wants this matter addressed. NO
A Maw, L Maw and G These submitters are concerned about the impact of the proposed discharge back to the Rakaia River Campion near their intake for consented irrigation. They want these issues relating to the construction and NO operation phase to be dealt with.
Alister Clemens This submitter acknowledges that the project is good for Mid Canterbury but is concerned their farm property will be severely affected by all stages of the project. He seeks compensation for loss of assets, NO impacts on consents for water extraction and use and disturbance to farm and personal operations. Malvern Hills The Society opposes the application because it contravenes the Rakaia Water Conservation Order and Protection Society is concerned about loss of natural, amenity, ecological and landscape values. They are also worried YES about back- flooding. Ashburton Branch of Forest and Bird oppose the application because the AEE does not acknowledge the valuable naturally Forest and Bird occurring native vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed canal. They consider that because some of the areas involved have not been subject to farming clearance that higher vegetation values can be expected to exist. They have undertaken some surveys which indicate native species such as kowhai trees at Lowe’s Cutting on or near the canal route that were not mentioned in the AEE and are concerned that about what processes will be in place to avoid damage to plants. A list of the species and YES photographs taken on a site visit are attached to the submission. Forest and Bird consider there is an opportunity to work with the applicant to revegetate with local species in coordination with the Ashburton Community Conservation Trust and to establish walking and cycling tracks as part of the canal route. The submitters seek a thorough inspection of the vegetation and associated species be undertaken and adequate mitigation to ensure minimal disturbance and restoration and enhancement.
9230798-3 Page 88 Summary Heard at Name Submissions to Ashburton District Council Hearing? Fish and Game Fish and Game have numerous concerns including: • Adverse effects on water quality from construction sediment • Reduced safety for river users from machinery or unexpected changes in river flows • Degraded natural character, landscape and amenity values from structures visible from the riverbed and from deposition of sediment. • Loss of access to and along the riverbed • Costs associated with increased habitat for Canada Geese. • Loss of riverbed habitat YES • Lack of information about the irrigation component of the proposal. The Submitter seeks that the application be put on hold and further information be requested in relation to the lack of information about the irrigation aspects and assessment of cumulative effects. If the Application is to be considered in relation to the hydro aspect then they request that it be declined because it is contrary or inconsistent with key clauses in the planning documents, the effects are more than minor and it is contrary to the purpose and principles of the Act.
Burrows Farm Ltd The submitter states that their property will be adversely affected by the proposal and that it should be amended to take these effects into account. The submitter considers the proposal has merit, but should be rejected in its current form. There should be adequate compensation for loss of assets, existing rights YES and disturbance to personal and farming operations.
Submissions not in Opposition or Support
Telecom New Zealand Telecom are concerned that they have cables and open wire lines in the vicinity and that a problem may Ltd arise with electromagnetic “noise”. They seek involvement in the design process to ensure substation NO and transmission does not cause a problem to existing plant.
New Zealand Historic The submitter does not oppose or support the application but seek a condition relating to the accidental Places Trust discovery protocol of archaeology to be adhered to, as well as an advice note regarding archaeological NO sites.
9230798-3 Page 89 Appendix 2 Our Minute on the joint hearing of all related ACWT matters
Appendix 3 Conditions
Ashburton Community Water Trust Conditions of Consent
CRC093683 – To take water from the Rakaia River (applied for as part of CRC021091)
Maximum rate of water take
1 The rate at which water is taken from the Rakaia River, at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-389 shall not exceed 40 cubic metres per second, and
(a) The maximum rate at which water may be taken by the consent holder under this consent and any consent granted to the Central Plains Water Trust under application CRC021091 to take water from the true left (north) bank of the Rakaia River at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:078-387 shall not exceed 40 cubic metres per second.
Provided that at any time consent CRC021091 is being exercised, the total rate of take by the consent holder and the Central Plains Water Trust shall not cause the flow in the river (across any section) to be reduced by more than 40 cubic metres per second or such lesser rate as might be required to meet the restrictions set out in the National Water Conservation Order (Rakaia River) 1988. For the purpose of this condition, reduction in flow relates to flows which would have been in the river but for these takes and excluding any discharge from the Highbank tailrace.
(b) The maximum rate at which water may be taken under this consent and any other consent held by any other party authorising the taking of water through the intake structure at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-389 shall not exceed a combined rate of 40 cubic metres per second.
(c) The daily volume of water taken from the river pursuant to this consent shall not exceed the combined daily volume of water returned by the consent holder to the river at Barrhill and any other points (including water taken from the Highbank tailrace).
Advice note 1: Condition 1(c) requires the volume of water taken under this consent (but excluding any taken pursuant water permit CRC990088 held by Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Limited).to be matched by the total discharged down-river by the consent holder, including any water which may have derived from the Rangitata Diversion race. This condition along with others will need to be amended if in the future the scheme is used for irrigation other than what is authorised under the Barrhill consents.
Protection of existing and other water takes above scheme discharge
2 Subject to condition 3:
(a) Whenever the average flow for the 24 hour period ending at noon on any one day (expressed in cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the Gorge Recorder Site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437) falls below the following flows expressed as Y cubic metres per second ), the taking of water in terms of this permit shall cease:
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 1
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Flow (Y m3/s) 124 108 105 97 95 96 +A +A +A +A +B +B
Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Flow (Y m3/s) 91 92 90 106 129 139 +B +B +A +A +A +A
Where: ‘Summer’ A = Two times the sum of the maximum consented rate of take of all resource consents for surface water and groundwater takes for irrigation, stockwater, dairy shed and domestic purposes between the intake and the discharge point at Barrhill, or renewals thereof, as set out in Attachment 1 plus:
i. two times the actual rate of take of any water taken under any water permit granted as a result of application CRC021091 by the Central Plains Water Trust; plus
ii. two times the actual rate of take under water permit CRC990088 held by Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Limited (or any other consent that is supplied through the intake located at map reference NZMS 260
iii. less two times the actual rate of discharge of water (by any person) from the Highbank tailrace (irrespective of the source of that water)
‘Winter’ B = Two times the maximum consented rate of take of all resource consents for surface water and groundwater takes for stockwater, dairy shed and domestic purposes, or renewals thereof, as set out in Attachment 2 plus:
i. two times the actual rate of take of any water permit granted under application CRC021091 to the Central Plains Water Trust;
ii. less two times the actual rate of discharge of water (by any person) from the Highbank tailrace (irrespective of the source of that water)
and
(b) Whenever the average flow for the 24 hour period ending at noon on any one day (expressed as X cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the Gorge Recorder Site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437), exceeds the minimum flow Y contained in clause (a) of this condition by more than 140 cumecs, the take in combination with any
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 2 other take or diversion shall not cause the flow in the river across any section to be reduced by more than 70 cubic metres per second.
Advice note 2: For the purpose of this condition, reduction in flow relates to flows which would have been in the river but for any takes or diversions and excluding any discharge or potential discharge from the Highbank tailrace.
Advice note 3: Conditions 2A(iii) and 2B(ii) are intended to ensure that the flow in the Rakaia River does not fall below the flow (excluding A or B) specified in the table in condition 2(a) which are the minimum flows specified in the Water Conservation Order.
(c) Whenever the average flow for the 24 hour period ending at noon on any one day (expressed as X cubic metres per second) in the Rakaia River, as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the Gorge Recorder Site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437), exceeds the minimum flow Y contained in clause (a) of this condition by less than 140 cumecs, then the take shall not exceed Z cubic metres per second where:
Z = (X-Y)/2
Advice note 4: The allocation of water to the consent holder at any given river flow or period of time is the amount of water it is able to take pursuant to conditions 1 and 2.
Advice note 5: Any water taken by Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Limited under water permit CRC990088 is subject to the restrictions set out in that permit. Nothing in this consent shall prevent the consent holder from taking water (that could otherwise be taken by Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Company Limited) where:
(a) Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Company Limited is not exercising its take; and
(b) where the taking of water by the consent holder will continue to comply with the restrictions set out in the National Water Conservation Order (Rakaia River) 1988.
Advice note6: Condition 2 allows the consent holder to take water during May to August inclusive which is not being taken by any other existing consent holder upstream of Barrhill, provided that clause 7 of the National Water Conservation Order (Rakaia River) is complied with.
Changes to the allowable rate of take and amendment to A
3 Subject to condition 5, the consent holder shall be allowed to deduct from A and B two times:
(a) the rate of take of any individual water permit to take, or part of a water permit to take that has been surrendered, cancelled, or expired and not renewed (either in whole or in part); and
(b) any additional water that is able to be taken by the consent holder in accordance with a water sharing roster established under condition 4;
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 3
Changes if a Water Sharing Roster is Operative
4 Wherever the consent holder has entered into an agreement with one or more consent holders above the scheme discharge at either K36:030-400 and/or L36:158-280 to comply with a water sharing roster then the rate of take shall not exceed that provided for in the water sharing roster:
(a) The water sharing roster shall specify:
i. the consent holders to which the roster applies;
ii. the period for the which the water sharing roster applies;
iii. the proportion of flows available for taking by each consent holder during any period where one or more consent holders are subject to a restriction event under their own individual consent(s);
(b) The water sharing roster shall ensure that:
i. the rate of water taken by any consent holder would not exceed the maximum allowable rate of take under their own resource consent, and
ii. the combined rate of the water takes by any consent holders would not exceed the combined rate of the water takes available to all consent holders who are subject to the roster; and
iii. the individual and combined takes comply with clause 7 of the Rakaia River Water Conservation Order; and
iv. the takes involved are adequately monitored by way of telemetry so as to ensure that the requirements of this condition and the roster are met.
(c) The water sharing roster shall be provided to Canterbury Regional Council no less than 10 working days before it is implemented and shall not be implemented until the Council has certified that the provisions of the roster achieve the requirements of this condition.
.
Advice Note7: The purpose of clause (c) above is to ensure that the rostering arrangements comply with the conditions of all relevant consents and with the requirements of the National Water Conservation Order (Rakaia River) 1988. In the event that the rostering arrangements involve a transfer of consent pursuant to section 136(2)(b) then the application would need to be approved by the Regional Council pursuant to section 136 (4).
Priority
5 In the event that application CRC054384 or CRC062685 has priority over this consent and either is granted with the effect of reducing the amount of water available for allocation within the terms of clause 7(4) of the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order 1988:
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 4 (a) Parameter A in condition 2 of this consent shall be increased by twice the amount of the priority water which is allocated pursuant to either application, for the time periods specified in the relevant consent. ; and
(b) the consent holder shall apply to Canterbury Regional Council to reflect the requirement of (a) above and for any other amendments which may be required to this consent as a result of such priority being accorded.
Fish screening
6. (a) The consent holder shall install, operate and maintain a fish screen in accordance with the NIWA publication Fish Screening: Good Practice Guidelines for Canterbury, October 2007”, NIWA Client Report CHC2007-092 at the entrance to the Highbank canal at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-389. Water shall be diverted through the fish screen into the canal only when the fish screen is operated in accordance with the following provisions: (i) the fish screen shall cross the full width of the Highbank Canal to prevent fish bypassing the screen into the canal; (ii) the screen material voids shall be no greater than 3 millimetre mesh or 2 millimetre wedgewire; (iii) the screens shall have an approach velocity of no greater than 0.12metres per second; (iv) the sweep velocity across the screens shall exceed the approach velocity; (v) An effective bypass system shall be maintained at all times that water is diverted into the scheme, to connect to an active braid of the river; (b) each fish screen shall be inspected at a frequency no greater than 48 hours, or 24 hours when the Rakaia River flows exceed 300 cubic metres per second as estimated by Environment Canterbury at the Rakaia Gorge recorder site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K:35: 015- 424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437); (c) in the event that a screen is damaged so as to be rendered less effective at excluding fish from the canal, the consent holder shall repair or replace the screen immediately, or shall shut down the screen such that water ceases to pass through it. In the event that a screen is shut down, it shall not be reopened until such time as it complies in full with the provisions of condition (6)(a) of this consent; (d) All incidence of screen shut down shall be recorded by the consent holder and reported to Fish and Game New Zealand within four hours. These records of screen failure shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council to the attention of the Compliance and Enforcement Manager, at the end of each irrigation season, or upon request. (e) The design plans for the fish screen shall be certified by a suitably qualified and experienced chartered engineer with experience in the design and operation of fish screens and / or a fisheries biologist with recognised experience in fisheries research to confirm that the design, function and operation of the screen is in accordance with the guidelines detailed in condition 6(a). (f) Prior to commencement of construction: (i) the consent holder shall provide to the Canterbury Regional Council: (a) the certified design plans showing the screen slot size, sweep velocity, approach velocity, and a by-pass which returns fish to an actively flowing braid of the Rakaia River; (b) a report from the certifying engineer or fisheries biologist which certifies and explains how the certified design and operation of the screen demonstrates compliance with the guidelines detailed in condition 6(a). (ii) the Canterbury Regional Council shall certify the design plans within 20 working days of receipt of those plans. The Certifier’s report shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall be forwarded to the consent holder and copied to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.
Flow measuring and metering
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 5
7. (a) The consent holder shall install a flow measuring device that has an international accreditation, New Zealand or equivalent calibration endorsement; to continuously measure the flow of water at the point of take to no less than an accuracy of plus or minus ten percent. (b) The measuring device shall, as far as practicable, be installed at a site likely to retain a stable rating. The measuring device shall be installed in accordance with ISO1100/1-1981 established standards by a competent /qualified person. (c) A site inspection of the measuring site shall be carried out at least once every month for the duration of this consent. (d) Water flows shall be recorded by electronic means, at not greater than fifteen minute intervals, in a tamper-proof recording device such as a data-logger, kept for that purpose. The recorded data shall not be changed or deleted by any person, unless twelve months have passed since the date of the recording. (e) Water flow data shall be provided in electronic form to Environment Canterbury at no longer than annual intervals, by 31 July each year, and in real time (for example via telemetry) within three months of being so requested by the Council’s RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager. (f) The measuring and recording devices shall be available for inspection at all times by the Canterbury Regional Council. (g) All data from the recording device described in condition 7(a), shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, on request, and shall be accessible and available for downloading at all times by the Canterbury Regional Council. (h) Within one month of the commencement of this consent, or the installation of a new measuring or recording device, and at five-yearly intervals thereafter, and at any other time when requested by the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, signed by a suitably qualified person certifying the accuracy of the measuring and recording devices installed in accordance with condition 7(a), and also certifying that data from the recording device described in condition 7(d) can be readily accessed in accordance with condition 7(f).
Review of consent
8. The Canterbury Regional Council may, on any of the last five working days of the anniversary of the month of commencement of this consent, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purpose of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment, which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage and may at any time serve notice of review for the purpose of amending any conditions to ensure that the provisions of the Rakaia Water Conservation Order are achieved and the priority of other consent holders is not affected by the exercise of this consent or any rostering arrangement to any substantial degree.
Lapsing and Expiry
9. The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
10. This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 6 Attachment 1 (‘Summer’ takes).
Water takes relevant for determining A in condition 21 Consent number Consent holder Category Maximum rate of take (l/sec)
CRC042529.1 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Surface 192 Dairies) water
CRC051415.1 Canterbury Grasslands Limited Surface 200 water
CRC051802.2 Glenroy Community Irrigation Surface 560 Company Limited water
CRC051803.1 Glenroy Community Irrigation Surface 1400 Company Limited water
CRC073867 Synlait Farms Limited Surface 380 water
CRC990074.1 Mr & Mrs A D & S M Clemens Surface 120 water
CRC990832.4 Mr W D G & Mrs H L Brownlee Surface 350 water
CRC990979.3 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Surface 113 Dairies) water
CRC990980.2 Canterbury Grasslands Limited Surface 140 water
NCY860218B Selwyn District Council Surface 1130 water
CRC011250.1 TrustPower Limited Ground 2.6 water
CRC011346 Mr P I Bruce Ground 40.1 water
CRC041784.2 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Ground 66.7 Dairies) water
1 Attachment 1 does not include consent CRC021091 (Central Plains Water Trust) or CRC990088 (Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Limited) which are addressed separately in condition 2.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 7 CRC041784.2 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Ground 64 Dairies) water
CRC041784.2 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Ground 47 Dairies) water
CRC041797 Canterbury Grasslands Limited Ground 2.3 water
CRC042529.1 Synlait Farms Limited (Riverlands Ground 192 Dairies) water
CRC972708 Highbank Water Society Limited Ground 3.8 water
CRC991397.1 Mr & Mrs T & H O Abbott Ground 15.1 water
CRC991397.1 Mr & Mrs T & H O Abbott Ground 12.54 water
Total water take 5031.14 l/sec
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 8 Attachment 2 (‘Winter’ takes).
Water takes relevant for determining B in condition 2 Consent number Consent holder Category Maximum rate of take (l/sec)
NCY860218B Selwyn District Council Surface 1130 water
CRC011250.1 TrustPower Limited Ground 2.6 water
CRC041797 Canterbury Grasslands Limited Ground 2.3 water
CRC972708 Highbank Water Society Limited Ground 3.8 water
Total water take 1138.70 l/sec
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 9 CRC072640 – To discharge up to 40 cubic metres of water and sediment to the Rakaia River at or about map reference K36:087-358; to discharge up to 40 cubic metres of water and sediment to the Highbank Power Station Tailrace at or about map reference K36:079-364; to discharge up to 40 cubic metres of water and sediment to the Rakaia River at or about map reference L36:158-280; to discharge up to 40 cubic metres per second of water and sediment to the Rakaia River at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:064-389 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) (a) Water shall only be discharged to the Rakaia River from the formed Highbank Power Station Tailrace at map reference NZMS 260 K36:083-360, or via the Barrhill Power Station Tailrace at approximate map reference NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. (b) Water shall only be discharged to the Highbank Power Station tailrace at map reference NZMS 260 K36:078-364 at a total combined rate (which includes any discharge or diversion of water authorised under CRC072636 and CRC073863 or renewals thereof) not exceeding 40 cubic metres per second. (c) All water discharged to the Rakaia River shall be to an active channel of the River, or to a channel connecting directly to an active channel of the Rakaia River. (d) The consent holder shall discharge water from the Highbank Power Station tailrace, and/ or from the Barrhill Power Station tailrace to the Rakaia River at a rate not exceeding 40 cubic metres per second. (e) Water may only be discharged from the formed Highbank Power Station tailrace at a rate not exceeding 17 cubic metres per second except in an emergency situation where the discharge shall not exceed 40 cubic metres per second. (i) Discharge from the emergency spillway to the unformed Highbank tailrace shall only occur in emergency situations and, together with other discharges authorised by this consent, shall not exceed 40 m3/s combined flow. (ii) The Consent Holder shall record all occasions where emergency discharges of scheme water occur, and the circumstances and duration of those discharges. These records shall be made available to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, on request. (iii) The emergency discharge shall not cause erosion of the bed or banks of the Highbank Power Station Tailrace. In the event of any erosion occurring to the bed or banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse, as a result of the discharge, the consent holder shall be responsible for rectifying the situation as soon as practicable. (f) There shall be no significant adverse effect on aquatic life as a result of the discharge. (g) Where any discharge from the emergency spillway to the unformed Highbank tailrace results in any geomorphological modification (including to the salmon bypass channel) that leads to an increased incidence of salmon entrainment in the tailrace, the consent holder shall re-grade or reinstate the channels to mitigate the increased incidence of salmon entrainment. (h) For the purpose of condition (2)(g) the consent holder shall monitor the performance of the Highbank Power Station formed tailrace and salmon barrier no less than weekly after there is an overflow or emergency discharge during the salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the incidents of the manual reinstatement of the salmon bypass or lower tailrace following such reinstatements, where required, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
3) For the purpose of determining compliance with condition (2)(b) the consent holder shall: (a) Measure and record the rate of the discharge of water from the Highbank canal into the Highbank Power Station tailrace at the point of discharge at no greater than 60 second intervals while the discharge occurs.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 10 (b) Measure and record the rate of the discharge of water from the Highbank Power Station tailrace into the Terrace canal at the point of discharge at no greater than 60 second intervals while the discharge occurs. (c) At no time shall the average flow rate averaged over any 1 hour period exceed the maximum flow rate in condition (2)(b).
4) The discharge shall not cause erosion of the bed or banks of: (a) The Highbank Power Station Tailrace; and / or (b) Any active channel, or any channel connecting directly to an active channel of the Rakaia River.
5) The discharge, after reasonable mixing shall not give rise to the following effects: (a) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or
suspended material; (b) any conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity; (c) any emission of objectionable odour; (d) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals.
The consent holder shall monitor the performance of the Highbank Power Station tailrace salmon barrier on a no less than weekly basis whenever the consent holder is discharging water to the Highbank tailrace for that period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31
May. A report detailing the incidents of the salmon barrier screens popping, the manual reinstatement following each incident, and any incidence of maintaining the connection of the fish bypass channel to the Rakaia River shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by the end of June each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
The salmon barrier shall be inspected weekly and the Consent Holder shall undertake any 6) necessary cleaning and maintenance works within seven days of that inspection, unless urgent maintenance or repair work is required in which case that shall take place as soon as possible. The consent holder shall be responsible for: (a) any re-grading and reinstatement of the unformed lower Highbank tailrace including any re-connection to an active branch of the Rakaia River; and
(b) any modifications to the salmon screen and / or salmon bypass channel necessary to give effect to this consent, or as advised by Environment Canterbury in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the consent holders monitoring responses in relation to the above, and as pursuant to s.128 of the Resource Management Act.
7) The consent holder shall erect warning signs at any known riverbed access points within one kilometre downstream of the Highbank tailrace salmon barrier, the Highbank Canal emergency overflow, and the Lowes Cutting Access of the Barrhill Hydro-electric Power Station warning of the possibility of sudden rises in river waters at any time.
8) An audible warning shall sound immediately preceding the commencement of any discharge from either the Highbank or the Barrhill Power Station tailrace.
9) The consent holder shall ensure that the braid of the Rakaia River diverted to connect with the Highbank tailrace fish bypass channel from the Highbank tailrace salmon barrier is maintained in good working order at all times to ensure migrating fish will be able to move upstream.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 11
10) A record shall be kept of the incidence of salmon entrained in the bypass channel and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council shall be notified on each occasion that Condition 9 is triggered. Records of salmon entrapment shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, at the end of June each year, or as requested. This report is also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
11) There shall be no significant adverse effect on aquatic life as a result of the discharge.
12) The consent holder shall be responsible for any re-grading and reinstatement of the salmon bypass channel including any re-connection to an active braid of the Rakaia River. SLUICING DISCHARGES
13) The rate at which water and sediment is discharged to the Rakaia River from the sluice channel at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36: 064-389 shall not exceed 40 cubic metres per second.
14) The discharge of water and sediment via the sluice channel shall commence no earlier than 1:00pm daily, and only when the flow in the Rakaia River is at or above 300 cubic metres per second as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the gorge recorder site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437).
15) The discharge of water and sediment via the sluice channel shall be gradually reduced to allow time for fish to find their way back to a flowing braid of the Rakaia River.
16) When sluicing ceases, a visual inspection of the sluice race shall be carried out to determine whether fish have become trapped in the sluice channel. In the event that fish have become trapped as a result of the sluicing event the flushing of sediment shall not resume until: (a) A solution to the entrapment of fish has been found and implemented; (b) A written report outlining the solution has been provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, the Department of Conservation and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council; (c) The necessary steps have been undertaken to enact that solution;
17) A record shall be kept of the incidence of fish entrapment, and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council and the Department of Conservation shall be notified. Records of fish entrapment (if any) shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council by the end of June each year, or on their request and copied to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council and the Department of Conservation.
18) Fish that have become entrapped in either the discharge channel or the sluice channel shall, as far as is practicable, be salvaged by the consent holder, or, where agreed with them, by staff of the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council or persons acting for them, and released into an active
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 12 channel of the Rakaia River.
ADMINISTRATION
The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and 19) have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions, and all Plans associated with these documents.
20) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.
21) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
22) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072638 – To discharge water and sediment to the Rakaia River at a maximum rate of 2 cubic metres per second from the fish bypass. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) (a) Water and sediment shall only be discharged from the fish bypass channel at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36: 085-360 to the Rakaia River at a rate not exceeding 2.0 cubic metres per second. (b) All fish bypass water discharged to the Rakaia River shall be to an active channel of the River, or to a channel connecting directly to an active channel of the Rakaia River.
3) For the purpose of determining compliance with condition (2) the consent holder shall: (a) Measure and record the rate of the discharge of water at the point of discharge to the bypass channel at no greater than 30 minute intervals while the discharge occurs. (b) At no time shall the average flow rate averaged over any 1 hour period exceed the maximum flow rate in condition (3)(a)
4) The discharge shall not cause erosion of the bed or banks of the active channel, or any channel connecting directly to an active channel of the Rakaia River.
5) The discharge, after reasonable mixing shall not give rise to the following effects: (a) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended material;
(b) any conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity;
(c) any emission of objectionable odour; (d) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 13
The consent holder shall ensure that the braid of the Rakaia River diverted to connect with the fish 6) bypass channel is maintained in good working order at all times as is adequate to ensure migrating fish are able to return to a main braid of the river.
At all times when this consent is being exercised, a minimum water depth of 0.3 metres shall be 7) maintained over the entire length of the fish bypass channel to provide for fish passage into a flowing braid of the Rakaia River.
During shutdown of the scheme, the discharge of water and sediment via the fish bypass channel 8) shall be gradually reduced to allow time for fish to find their way back to a flowing braid of the Rakaia River.
ADMINISTRATION
The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and 9) have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions, and all Plans associated with these documents.
10) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.
11) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
12) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072639 – To discharge in emergency situations, water and sediment, at a maximum rate of 40 cubic metres per second to the Rakaia River upstream of Highbank Power Station, at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36: 079-365. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
2) Water may only be discharged at a total combined rate not exceeding 40 cubic metres per second from the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme’s emergency spillway located on the Highbank Canal between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36: 075-370 and K36:075-368.
3) The discharge shall only be water and sediment from the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, settling pond and canal system.
4) The Consent Holder shall record all occasions where emergency discharges of scheme water occur, and the circumstances and duration of those discharges. These records shall be made
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 14 available to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, on request.
5) The discharge shall not cause erosion of the bed or banks of the Rakaia River within a distance of 1km downstream of the Highbank Canal emergency discharge point.
6) In the event of any erosion occurring to the bed or banks of the Rakaia River within 1km downstream of the Highbank Canal emergency discharge point as a result of the discharge, the consent holder shall be responsible for rectifying the situation as soon as practicable.
PUBLIC SAFTEY 7) (a) Warning signs shall be erected at any known fishing spots and river access points within one kilometre downstream of the proposed emergency discharge point. (b) An audible warning shall be given at the commencement of the discharge process.
ADMINISTRATION 8) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions, and all Plans associated with these two documents.
9) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.
10) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035. 11)
CRC072641 - To discharge cross-drainage water and sediment into unnamed streams, between about map references K36:061-386 and L36:152-280. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
2) (a) The discharge shall only be stormwater and sediment from cross-drainage associated with the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36:061-386 and K36:152-280.
(b) The discharge of stormwater shall be undertaken in accordance with the sediment and erosion control plan which forms a part of Schedule 1: General Conditions.
DEFINITIONS
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 15 3) For the purposes of this consent:
(a) From hereon in the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines are the Environment Canterbury’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Canterbury Region, Report No. R06/23, February 2007 or subsequent updates.
(b) Stabilisation: providing adequate measures, vegetative and/or structural that will protect exposed soil to prevent erosion.
4) The stormwater system shall be designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to dispose of all stormwater events up to and including a ten year one hour duration rainfall event at this locality.
ADMINISTRATION 5) Prior to the commencement of works, the consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
6) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 7) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
8) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC073864 - To discharge stormwater (water containing contaminants) onto or into land, in circumstances where it may enter water, and into the Rakaia River from all construction areas associated with the construction of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme between or about map references K36:050-393 and L36:158-280 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
2) (a) The discharge, other than as is covered by CRC072641 shall only be stormwater associated with the construction of the scheme between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36:050-363 and L36:158-280. (b) The discharge of stormwater during construction and scheme maintenance, other than as is covered by CRC072641 shall only be to land unless the provisions of condition (2)(c) are met. (c) The discharge of stormwater during construction and scheme maintenance, other than as is covered by CRC072641 to land in circumstances where it may enter water, or to water shall only occur following treatment adequate to remove suspended solids, such that after
reasonable mixing, the provisions of Clause 9(2) of the National Water Conservation Order (Rakaia) 1988 are met in full. (d) The discharge of stormwater shall be in accordance with the sediment and erosion control plan which forms a part of Schedule 1: general conditions. (e) For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any condition of this consent, there shall be no discharge of stormwater directly into, or onto land where it may enter, the existing Highbank Power Station Tailrace.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 16 3) For the purposes of this consent:
(a) The Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines refer to Environment Canterbury's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Canterbury Region, Report No. R06/23, February 2007 or subsequent updates. (b) Stabilisation: providing adequate measures, vegetative and/or structural that will protect exposed soil to prevent erosion
4) (a) Prior to bulk earthworks commencing for each stage of construction, the consent holder shall submit to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention RMA Enforcement & Compliance Manager a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced registered professional engineer to certify that the appropriate erosion and sediment control measures have been constructed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan required under Schedule 1. (b) Certified controls shall include but not be limited to, appropriate diversion channels, sediment fences, decanting earth bunds, the sediment retention pond and site exit point. (c) The certification for these measures for each construction phase shall be supplied to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention RMA Enforcement & Compliance Manager immediately upon completion of construction of those measures.
5) All exposed surfaces including swales shall be stabilized to prevent erosion once earthworks are complete or if the exposed area is not to be earth worked for a period of 14 days or more. Stabilisation shall be achieved in accordance with the Canterbury Regional Council’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.
6) All haul road or vehicle track stormwater shall be disposed of to a soak pit preceded by no less than 20 metres of grassed swale underlain by no less than 150 millimetres of topsoil.
ADMINISTRATION 8) Prior to the commencement of works, the consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
9) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 10) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
11) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC073862 - To discharge contaminants, being principally dust, to air from construction activities associated with the construction of the intake structure, settling pond, canals, head pond storage and power stations and any other construction and maintenance activities associated with the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme between at or about map references K36:030-400 and L36:158-280 This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 1)
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 17 (a) The discharge to air shall only be fugitive dust from the construction of The Rakaia 2) Terrace Hydro Scheme and associated infrastructure between map references NZMS 260 K36:030-400 and NZMS 260 L36:158-280. (b) The fugitive dust shall only be from construction activities, unconsolidated surfaces and stockpiled material.
The discharge of dust shall not be offensive or objectionable, beyond the boundary of the site on 3) which this consent is exercised.
The consent holder shall take all practicable measures to minimise dust discharges, including but 4) not limited to the following: (a) Water sprayed on to all potentially dusty surfaces, including unsealed surfaces traversed by vehicles and bulk material stockpiles using water cart and sprays. (b) Water sprayed on to bulk material screening operations.
The holder of this consent shall maintain a record of surface water abstracted and used for dust 5) suppression purposes and make this record available to the Canterbury Regional Council on request.
The site shall be maintained in a condition free of litter and other waste material that may be wind 6) blown from the site.
A record of all complaints relating to fugitive dust shall be maintained, and shall include: 7) (a) The location where the dust was detected by the complainant; (b) The date and time when the dust was detected; (c) A description of the wind speed and wind direction when the dust was detected by the complainant; (d) The most likely cause of the dust detected; and (e) Any corrective action undertaken by the consent holder, to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the dust detected by the complainant. This record shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, on request.
The discharge of contaminants to air from the site shall not create any dust hazard or nuisance to 8) the Benmore – Haywards A transmission line managed by Transpower New Zealand Limited. 9) The discharge of contaminants to air from the site, including but not limited to the use of the haulage route, shall not create any dust hazard or nuisance to the operation of Highbank Hydroelectric Power Station, including the switchyard.
ADMINISTRATION The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and 10) have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions, and all Plans associated with these two documents.
The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and 11) then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017. 12)
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 18 This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035. 13)
CRC072648 - To excavate and disturb land, deposit material and remove vegetation in the Riparian Margin of the Rakaia River 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) The works shall be limited to those required to excavate and disturb land, deposit material and remove plant vegetation in the riparian margin of the Rakaia River to construct and maintain the Rakaia Terrace Hydro-Electricity Scheme, between map references NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. 3) Earthworks shall not be undertaken in a manner likely to cause erosion of, or instability to, the banks or bed of any watercourse.
4) All erosion and sediment control shall be carried out in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan submitted in accordance with Schedule 1: General Conditions.
5) No cut or cleared vegetation, debris, or excavated material shall be placed in a position such that it may enter surface water.
6) (a) Any gravel, sand or other natural material excavated during construction of new channels and stored on the riverbed shall not be piled higher than 0.5 metres above the level of the immediately adjacent riverbed. (b) Banks constructed to divert water shall not exceed 1.5 metres in height above the level of the riverbed.
7) All practicable steps shall be undertaken to ensure that the works do not deflect floodwaters into the bank or berm of any watercourse. 8) Works shall not increase the potential for flooding on surrounding land. 9) Works shall not decrease the flood carrying capacity of the Rakaia River. 10) If excavation within the bed of the Rakaia River is not to occur within seven days following the last working at the site, then the following shall occur: (a) All deposits of gravel, sand and other natural material including reject material shall be leveled to the natural bed level; (b) The excavation area shall be reshaped and formed to a state consistent with the surrounding natural river bed 11) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to prevent the discharge of sediment arising from the works, entering flowing water.
13) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 19 riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 14) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions, which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
15) Works shall not take place in an active river braid during the period 1 December to 31 May, except in the case that;
(a) The river braid is dry; or
(b) The applicant has prior to works, consulted with The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and The Canterbury Regional Council, to identify and wherever possible avoid any ecologically sensitive areas of the river; and
(c) A suitably qualified person has inspected the area of proposed work and has provided a written report stating that any adverse effects of the works on the river's ecology (such as fish passage, redds and spawning sportsfish) shall be minor. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and the Regional Engineer, no less than ten working days prior to commencement of the works. Works shall not proceed until the report has been approved by the Canterbury Regional Council.
16) Condition 15 is not applicable to re-instatement works carried out within two weeks following floods, or maintenance works other than those involving the movement of heavy machinery across the riverbed. 17) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise adverse effects on property, amenity values, wildlife, vegetation, and ecological values. 18) No person may excavate or otherwise interfere with any land: (a) At a depth greater than 300 millimetres within 6 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundations of any tower supporting any conductor; or (b) At a depth greater than 3 metres, between 6 metres and 12 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundation of any tower supporting any conductor; or (c) In such a way as to create an unstable batter.
ADMINISTRATION 19) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these documents.
20) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 21) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 20
22) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072646 - To use land to construct and maintain a storage settling pond, the Highbank and Terrace Canals, a head storage pond, and drainage structures and associated bed excavation and disturbance in, on, under or over the beds of unnamed streams along the route of the Highbank and Terrace Canals. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) The works shall be limited to the construction and maintenance of infrastructure to divert, impound and convey water in a settling pond, canals, a head storage pond and tail race canals between map references NZMS 260 K36:050-393 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. 3) Works in unnamed streams crossing the canal alignment shall be limited to those required to place pipes, culverts siphons and erosion protection structures within and over existing streams or drainage channels along the route of the canal for the purposes of maintaining naturally occurring land drainage under the canal alignment. 4) All erosion and sediment control shall be carried out in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan in compliance with Schedule 1: General Conditions.
5) Works shall not cause erosion of the bed or banks of the Rakaia River, or the TrustPower Highbank Power Station tailrace canal. 6) In the event of any erosion occurring to the bed or banks of any watercourse that is attributable to the works, the consent holder shall be responsible for rectifying the situation as soon as practicable.
7) The works and associated structures shall not have any adverse effects on the flood carrying capacity of the unnamed drainage channels or watercourses crossed. 8) In the event of any damage to the culverts and crossings attributable to the exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall be responsible for maintaining the flood carrying capacity of the unnamed drainage channels and artificial watercourse and take all practicable measures to minimise erosion until such time as the damage is rectified. 9) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to prevent the discharge of sediment, arising from the works, entering flowing water. No sediment shall enter the Highbank Power Station Tailrace from any of the works.
10) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 21 (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 11) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Appendix A which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
12) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise adverse effects on property, amenity values, wildlife, vegetation, and ecological values.
13) Works shall not take place in an active riverbraid during the period 1 December to 31 May, except in the case that;
(a) the riverbed is dry; or
(b) the applicant has, prior to the works, consulted with The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and the Canterbury Regional Council, to identify and wherever possible provide for avoidance of any ecologically sensitive area of the river; and
(c) A suitably qualified person has inspected the area of proposed work and has provided a written report stating that any adverse effects of the works on the ecology of the riverwill be minor. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and the Regional Engineer no less than ten working days prior to the commencement of works. Works shall not proceed until the report has been accepted and certified by the Canterbury Regional Council.
14) Condition (13) is not applicable to reinstatement works carried out within two weeks following floods, or maintenance works other than those involving the movement of heavy machinery across the riverbed.
15) Any structures forming part of the scheme shall not be located within 12 metres of the closest visible edge of any high voltage transmission line support structure foundation.
16) (a) All machinery and mobile plant operated in association with the scheme shall maintain a minimum clearance distance of four metres from the Benmore-Haywards A transmission line conductors at all times. (b) All machinery and mobile plant operated in association with the scheme shall maintain a minimum clearance distance of four metres from the Benmore-Haywards A transmission line conductors at all times. 17) No fences or conductive material shall be located within five metres of the outer edge of the visible foundations of any transmission tower.
18) No person may excavate or otherwise interfere with any land: (a) At a depth greater than 300 millimetres within 6 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundations of any tower supporting any conductor; or (b) At a depth greater than 3 metres, between 6 metres and 12 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundation of any tower supporting any conductor; or (c) In such a way as to create an unstable batter. 19) (a) All new structures associated with the scheme except at or below ground structures associated with the invert canal shall be set back by a horizontal distance of at least 12 metres either side (total of 24 metres) from the centre line of the Benmore-Haywards A transmission line.
(b) Prior to construction, the consent holder shall submit to the Canterbury Regional Council, and forward a copy of the same to Transpower, a report from a suitably qualified electrical
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 22 engineer confirming that any structure associated with the scheme complies with the minimum safe distances from the Benmore-Haywards A line as specified in Table 3 of the NZECP 34:2001
(c) No structure and/or site works shall be located to preclude existing 4-wheel drive access to the existing transmission line support structures (d) Excavated or other material must not be deposited under or near the Benmore - Haywards A line so as to reduce the vertical distance from the ground to the conductors to a distance less than: - 8.0 metres vertically, across or along driveways or on any other land traversable by vehicles; - 6.5 metres vertically, on any land not traversable by vehicles due to inaccessibility; and, - 5.0 metres in any distance other than vertical on all land (e) To ensure that the Benmore - Haywards A transmission line (namely Tower 522) is protected from any adverse effects as a result of the construction and operation of the scheme, the Consent Holder shall, to the satisfaction of the Canterbury Regional Council: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager: (i) Undertake to consult with Transpower New Zealand to identify and avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects as a result of the construction and operation of the scheme; (ii) Provide an independent engineering analysis to certify that the final design and location of the proposed diversion channel and any other relevant structure associated with the scheme does not generate potential adverse effects on the transmission line and Tower 522; and, (iii) Provide an independent engineering analysis to certify the acceptability of any alteration to the NZCEP 34:2001 minimum safe distance requirements and (to the extent relevant) to certify that any water flow will not affect and/or undermine the integrity of the structural supports.
20) (a) Within four months of construction works commencing, the consent holder shall develop and prepare, in consultation with TrustPower Ltd a management range for any tailrace discharge to maintain Highbank Power Station tail water levels within a range agreed by TrustPower Limited. The agreement, cosigned by both the consent holder and TrustPower Limited, is to be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager. If agreement is not reached within four months of construction works commencing, then construction works within 300m of the Highbank Power Station must cease. (b) The discharge range as identified in Condition 20(a) as above is to be included within the detailed design of the Scheme and its associated operation, and will remain an enforceable
condition for the duration of consent. (c) The consent holder shall, prior to commissioning of the scheme, provide a report to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager and TrustPower Ltd setting out the requirements of Condition 20(b) as above. (d) Monitoring of tail water levels of the Highbank Power Station are to be recorded on a continuous basis for the term of this consent. This monitoring is to demonstrate compliance with Condition 20(a) and (b) above, and is to be made available to TrustPower Ltd within five working days of its request. Annual monitoring reports are to be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year, or as requested. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
21) In respect of all works associated with the scheme, including sediment associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) For all works, sediment shall only be flushed from the scheme settlement ponds on the Rakaia River when the flow in the river, as estimated by Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the gorge recorder site or the recorder site at Fighting Hill, is greater
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 23 than 300 m3/s. (b) For sediment deposits associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’ where there are geomorphological modifications to either: i. The lower tailrace channel of the Highbank Power Station; and / or ii. The Fish bypass channel from the tailrace that lead to an increase the incidence of salmon entrapment, the channels are to be re-graded or reinstated in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the above.
For the purpose of (ii) the consent holder shall monitor the performance of the tailrace and salmon barrier on a no less than weekly basis no less than 5 working days after there is a flood, or fresh for that period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the incidents of the manual reinstatement of the Salmon Bypass or Lower Tailrace following such reinstatements, where required, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
(c) Works within 20m of, or within, the river bed shall not result in an increase in turbidity or reduction in clarity of the river flow which, in the opinion of a suitably qualified expert engaged by the consent authority but paid for by the consent holder, hinders the upstream passage of salmon in the Highbank salmon bypass channel.
ADMINISTRATION 21) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
22) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 23) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
24) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072644 - To place and maintain an intake structure on the bed of the Rakaia River, including associated bed excavation and disturbance, deposition of material, planting of plants, disturbance and removal of plants and habitat, and the reclamation or drainage of the riverbed, at the location of the Water Intake. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) The works shall be limited to: (c) Those in-river works reasonably necessary to construct the river intake structure in accordance with the concept design plans contained in the application,
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 24 identified as drawing C020 dated 12 November 2007; (d) The clearance of vegetation only as is reasonably necessary to facilitate the construction and maintenance of the intake structure; (e) The temporary drainage of the riverbed only as is necessary to enable the construction of the intake structure; (f) The deposition of construction material and / or natural material as may be necessary to reinstate the riverbed to a level and position approximately in accordance with the existing position of the riverbed and adjacent river banks as exist naturally prior to construction works commencing.
3) The works carried out in accordance with Condition (2) shall be located between map references NZMS 260 K36:046-393 and NZMS 260 K36:051-392. 4) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to ensure that works do not deflect floodwaters into the banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse. 5) Works shall not cause erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse. 6) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise vehicles and machinery entering the Rakaia River. 7) Works shall not increase the potential for flooding on surrounding land. 8) Works shall not decrease the flood carrying capacity of The Rakaia River. 9) (a) Any gravel, sand or other natural material excavated during construction of new channels shall not be piled on the riverbed higher than 1.5 metres above the level of the adjacent riverbed; (b) Banks constructed to divert water shall not exceed 0.5 metres in height above the level of the riverbed.
10) Works shall not take place in an active river braid during the period 1 December to 31 May, except in the case that;
(a) The river braid is dry; or
(b) The applicant has prior to the works, consulted with The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and The Canterbury Regional Council, to identify and wherever possible provide for avoidance of any ecologically sensitive areas of the river; and
(c) A suitably qualified person has inspected the area of proposed work and has provided a written report stating that any adverse effects of the works on the river's ecology (such as fish passage, redds and spawning sportsfish) shall be minor. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and the Regional Engineer, no less than ten working days prior to commencement of the works. Works shall not proceed until the report has been approved by the Canterbury Regional Council.
11) Condition 10 is not applicable to re-instatement works carried out within two weeks following floods, or maintenance works other than those involving the movement of heavy machinery across the riverbed 12) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 25 holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 13) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
14) The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, shall be notified not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of works.
15) The works shall not prevent the passage of fish, or cause the stranding of fish in pools or channels.
ADMINISTRATION 16) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions, and all Plans associated with these two documents.
17) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 18) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
19) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072643 – To excavate and disturb the bed of the Rakaia River to maintain existing riverbank protection structures, to facilitate the diversion of water and sediment, including deposition of material, planting of plants, disturbance and removal of plants and habitat and the reclamation or drainage of the riverbed, between map references NZMS 260 K36: 030-400 and NZMS 260 K36:070-382, and to disturb the bed of the Rakaia River to facilitate the discharge of water and to form channels, at or about map references NZMS 260 K36: 079-365, NZMS 260 K36:087-358 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280 being the sites of the emergency discharge, the Highbank Power Station tailrace discharge and the Barrhill Power Station Discharge. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 26 2) The works shall be limited to: (a) Those works reasonably necessary to maintain the position of the existing southern riverbank along the alignment of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, including replacing or repairing existing river protection structures; (b) The clearance of vegetation only as is reasonably necessary to facilitate the replacement or repairs of existing river protection structures. (c) The temporary drainage of the riverbed only as is necessary to enable works to proceed to replace or repair existing river protection structures; (d) The deposition of construction material and / or natural material as may be necessary to replace or repair existing river protection structures. (e) The disturbance of the riverbed as is reasonably necessary to form channels and facilitate the discharge of water and sediment from the scheme to an active river braid at or about NZMS 260 K36: 079-365, NZMS 260 K36:087-358 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280 being the sites of the emergency discharge, the Highbank Power Station tailrace discharge and the Barrhill Power Station Discharge. (f) The diversion of water to the river intake structure. 3) The diversion works carried out in accordance with Conditions (2)(a) to (e) shall be located between map references NZMS 260 K36:030-400 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. 4) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to ensure that works do not deflect floodwaters into the banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse. 5) Works shall not cause erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse. 6) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise vehicles and machinery entering the Rakaia River. 7) Works shall not increase the potential for flooding on surrounding land. 8) (a) Works and any planting undertaken shall not decrease the flood carrying capacity of the Rakaia River or encroach into any active channel. (b) In-river works and planting shall not reduce or prevent the ability of existing river channels to be navigated by watercraft, or obstruct the passage of aquatic fauna. 9) Works shall not cause the riverbank to advance beyond the position of the river bank as exists at the issue of this consent. 10) (a) Works undertaken in accordance with condition (2)(f) shall not occur upstream of map reference NZMS 260 K36:030-400 or downstream of map reference NZMS 260 K36:050-393;
(b) Bunds formed to divert water shall not exceed 0.5 metres in height above the immediately adjacent level of the riverbed; (c) Vehicles and machinery entering the riverbed to undertake works authorised by this consent shall remain in the riverbed no longer than is necessary to complete the works, or for a period of no more than 12 hours, whichever is the lesser; (d) Any gravel, sand or other natural material excavated during construction of new channels shall not be piled on the riverbed higher than 1.5 metres above the level of the adjacent riverbed.
11) Except in the event of an emergency where the physical infrastructure of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme or existing TrustPower infrastructure is at immediate risk, works shall not take place in an active river braid during the period 1 May to 30 September, except in the case that:
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 27 (a) The river braid is dry; or
(b) The applicant has prior to the works, consulted with The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and The Canterbury Regional Council, to identify and wherever possible provide for avoidance of any ecologically sensitive areas of the river; and
(c) A suitably qualified person has inspected the area of proposed work and has provided a written report stating that any adverse effects of the works on the river's ecology (such as fish passage, redds and spawning sportsfish) shall be minor. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and the Regional Engineer, no less than ten working days prior to commencement of the works. Works shall not proceed until the report has been approved by the Canterbury Regional Council.
12) Condition 10 is not applicable to re-instatement works carried out within two weeks following floods, or maintenance works. 13) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Schedule 1 attached to this consent; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 14) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
15) The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager shall be notified not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of works.
16) The works shall not prevent the passage of fish, or cause the stranding of fish in pools or channels. In respect of all works associated with the scheme, including sediment associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) For all works, sediment shall only be flushed from the scheme settlement ponds on the Rakaia River when the flow in the river, as estimated by Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the gorge recorder site or the recorder site at Fighting Hill, is greater than 300 m3/s. (b) For sediment deposits associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’ where there are geomorphological modifications to either: i. The lower tailrace channel of the Highbank Power Station; and / or ii. The salmon bypass channel from the tailrace that lead to an increase the incidence of salmon entrapment, the channels are re-graded or reinstated in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the above.
For the purpose of (16)(b)(ii) the consent holder shall monitor the performance of the tailrace and salmon barrier on a no less than weekly basis no less than 5 working days after there is a flood, or
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 28 fresh for that period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the incidents of the manual reinstatement of the Salmon Bypass or Lower Tailrace following such reinstatements, where required, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
Works within 20m of, or within, the river bed shall not result in an increase in turbidity or reduction in clarity of the river flow which, in the opinion of a suitably qualified expert engaged by the consent authority but paid for by the consent holder, hinders the upstream passage of salmon in the Highbank salmon bypass channel. 17) e The consent holder shall, after consultation with Canterbury Regional Council’s regional engineer, commission an appropriately certified Rivers Engineer to undertake an assessment to ensure that the river protection for the scheme is maintained at no less than the current standards both during construction activities and post commissioning. The Rivers Engineer shall, no less than 24 months post commissioning, undertake a further investigation confirming that the works have appropriate river protection, or recommending further river protection works that will need to be undertaken by the consent holder.
Advice Note: This condition has also been included in consents CRC072647 and LUC07/0030 ADMINISTRATION 18) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
19) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 20) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
21) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072647 – To place and maintain river bank protection structures in the bed and banks of the Rakaia River, including associated riverbed disturbance between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36: 068-378 and NZMS 260 K36: 096-350. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) The works shall be limited to: (a) Those works reasonably necessary to maintain the position of the existing southern riverbank along the alignment of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, including replacing or repairing existing river protection structures; (b) The clearance of vegetation only as is reasonably necessary to facilitate the replacement or repairs of existing river protection structures. (c) The temporary drainage of the riverbed only as is necessary to enable works to proceed to
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 29 replace or repair existing river protection structures;. (d) The deposition of construction material and / or natural material as may be necessary to replace or repair existing river protection structures. (e) The disturbance of the riverbed as is reasonably necessary to form channels and facilitate the discharge of water and sediment from the scheme to an active river braid at or about NZMS 260 K36: 079-365, NZMS 260 K36:087-358 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280 being the sites of the emergency discharge, the Highbank Power Station tailrace discharge and the Barrhill Power Station Discharge. 3) The works carried out in accordance with Condition (2) shall be located between map references NZMS 260 K36:046-393 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. 4) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to ensure that works do not deflect floodwaters into the banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse. 5) Works shall not cause erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse. 6) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise vehicles and machinery entering the Rakaia River. 7) Works shall not increase the potential for flooding on surrounding land. 8) (a) Works and any planting undertaken shall not decrease the flood carrying capacity of the Rakaia River or encroach into any active channel. (b) In-river works and planting shall not reduce or prevent the ability of existing river channels to be navigated by watercraft, or obstruct the passage of aquatic fauna. 9) Works shall not cause the riverbank to advance beyond the position of the river bank as exists at the issue of this consent. 10) (a) Any gravel, sand or other natural material excavated during construction of new channels shall not be piled on the riverbed higher than 1.5 metres above the level of the adjacent riverbed; (b) Banks constructed to divert water shall not exceed 0.5 metres in height above the level of the riverbed.
11) Except in the event of an emergency where the physical infrastructure of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme or existing TrustPower infrastructure is at immediate risk, works shall not take place in an active river braid during the period 1 December to 31 May, except in the case that:
(d) The river braid is dry; or
(e) The applicant has prior to the works, consulted with The Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and The Canterbury Regional Council, to identify and wherever possible provide for avoidance of any ecologically sensitive areas of the river; and
(f) A suitably qualified person has inspected the area of proposed work and has provided a written report stating that any adverse effects of the works on the river's ecology (such as fish passage, redds and spawning sportsfish) shall be minor. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and the Regional Engineer, no less than ten working days prior to commencement of the works. Works shall not proceed until the report has been approved by the Canterbury Regional Council.
12) Condition 10 is not applicable to re-instatement works carried out within two weeks following floods, or maintenance works other than those involving the movement of heavy machinery across the
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 30 riverbed 13) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 14) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
15) The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager shall be notified not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of works.
16) The works shall not prevent the passage of fish, or cause the stranding of fish in pools or channels. In respect of all works associated with the scheme, including sediment associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) For all works, sediment shall only be discharged via sluicing from the scheme settlement ponds on the Rakaia River when the flow in the river, as estimated by Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the gorge recorder site or the recorder site at Fighting Hill, is greater than 300 m3/s. (b) For sediment deposits associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’ where there are geomorphological modifications to either: iii. the lower tailrace channel of the Highbank Power Station; and / or iv. the salmon bypass channel from the tailrace that lead to an increase the incidence of salmon entrapment, the channels shall be re-graded or reinstated in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the above.
For the purpose of (ii) the consent holder shall monitor the performance of the tailrace and salmon barrier on a no less than weekly basis no less than 5 working days after there is a flood, or fresh for that period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the incidents of the manual reinstatement of the Salmon Bypass or Lower Tailrace following such reinstatements, where required, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.
Works within 20m of, or within, the river bed shall not result in an increase in turbidity or reduction in clarity of the river flow which, in the opinion of a suitably qualified expert engaged by the consent authority but paid for by the consent holder, hinders the upstream passage of salmon in the Highbank salmon bypass channel. 17) e The consent holder shall, after consultation with Canterbury Regional Council’s regional engineer, commission an appropriately certified Rivers Engineer to undertake an assessment to ensure that the river protection for the scheme is maintained at no less than the current standards both during construction activities and post commissioning. The Rivers Engineer shall, no less than 24 months
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 31 post commissioning, undertake a further investigation confirming that the works have appropriate river protection, or recommending further river protection works that will need to be undertaken by the consent holder.
Advice Note: This condition has also been included in consents CRC072643 and LUC07/0030
ADMINISTRATION 18) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
19) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 20) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
21) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072636 – To divert surface water up to 42 cubic metres per second from the Rakaia River via an intake structure at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-393, into a settling pond, and to divert up to 40 cubic metres per second from the settling pond into the Highbank Canal, into the Highbank Power Station tailrace at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36:083-360, into the Terrace Canal and into the Barrhill Power Station; and CRC073863 - To dam and convey water in a settling pond at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-391, in the Highbank Canal, in the Highbank Power Station tailrace at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36:083-360, in the Terrace Canal and in a head pond at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:152-280. (The following set of conditions apply to CRC072636 and CRC072863) 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
DIVERT WATER 2) Water shall be diverted via a river intake structure to be constructed at or about map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-393.
The rate at which water is diverted via the intake structure and conveyed into a settling pond, into the Highbank Canal, into the Highbank Power Station tailrace, into the Terrace Canal and then into a head pond shall not exceed 40 cubic metres per second.
3) The diversion and conveyance of water shall only occur when water is being taken in accordance with consent CRC093683.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 32
4) There shall be no significant effect on the passage of fish or to aquatic life as a result of the exercise of this consent. 5) (a) The consent holder shall install, operate and maintain a fish screen in accordance with the NIWA publication Fish Screening: Good Practice Guidelines for Canterbury, October 2007”, NIWA Client Report CHC2007-092 at the entrance to the Highbank canal at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36:057-389. Water shall be diverted through the fish screen into the canal only when the fish screen is operated in accordance with the following provisions: (i) the fish screen shall cross the full width of the Highbank Canal to prevent fish from entering the canal; (ii) the screen material void size shall be no greater than 3 millimetre mesh or 2 millimetre wedgewire; (iii) the screens shall have an approach velocity of no greater than 0.12 metres per second; (iv) the sweep velocity across the screens shall exceed the approach velocity; (v) An effective bypass system shall be maintained at all times that water is diverted into the scheme, to connect to an active braid of the river; (b) Water shall be diverted through the fish screen into the canal only when the fish screen is operated in accordance with the following provisions: (c) the fish screen shall cross the full width of the Highbank Canal to prevent fish bypassing the screen into the canal; (d) the consent holder shall maintain screens at all times that the scheme is operating; (e) each fish screen shall be inspected at a frequency no greater than 48 hours, or 24 hours when the Rakaia River flows exceed 300 cubic metres per second as estimated by Environment Canterbury at the Rakaia Gorge recorder site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K:35: 015- 424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997-437); (f) in the event that a screen is damage so as to be rendered less effective at excluding fish from the canal, the consent holder shall repair or replace the screen immediately, or shall shut down the screen such that water ceases to pass through it. In the event that a screen is shut down, it shall not be reopened until such time as it complies in full with the provisions of condition (5)(a) of this consent; (g) All incidence of screen shut down shall be recorded by the consent holder and reported to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council within four hours. These records of screen failure shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council to the attention of the Compliance and Enforcement Manager, at the end of each irrigation season, or upon request. (h) The design plans for the fish screen shall be certified by a suitably qualified and experienced chartered engineer with experience in the design and operation of fish screens and / or a fisheries biologist with recognised experience in fisheries research to confirm that the design, function and operation of the screen is in accordance with the guidelines detailed in condition 5(a). (i) Prior to commencement of construction: (i) the consent holder shall provide to the Canterbury Regional Council: (a) the certified design plans showing the screen slot size, sweep velocity, approach velocity, and a by-pass which returns fish to an actively flowing braid of the Rakaia River; (b) a report from the certifying engineer / fisheries biologist which certifies and explains how the certified design and operation of the screen demonstrates compliance with the guidelines detailed in condition 5(a). (k) The Canterbury Regional Council shall certify the design plans within 20 working days of receipt of those plans. The Certifier’s report shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall be forwarded to the consent holder and copied to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.
6) The consent holder shall within six months of the first exercise of this consent: (a) Install a water measuring device that has an international accreditation, New Zealand or equivalent calibration endorsement, to continuously measure the rate of water diverted to
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 33 within an accuracy of plus or minus five percent, at a location that will ensure the total diversion of water is measured; (b) The rate shall be recorded by electronic means, at not greater than fifteen minute intervals, in a tamper-proof recording device such as a data-logger, kept for that purpose. The recorded data shall not be changed or deleted by any person, unless twelve months have passed since the date of recording; (c) The measuring and recording devices shall be available for inspection at all times by the Canterbury Regional Council; (d) All data from the recording device described in clause (a), shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, on request, and shall be accessible and available for downloading at all times by the Canterbury Regional Council. (e) Within one month of the commencement of this consent, or the installation of a new measuring or recording device, and at five-yearly intervals thereafter, and at any other time when requested by Canterbury Regional Council, the consent holder shall provide a certificate to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, signed by a suitably qualified person certifying the accuracy of the measuring and recording devices installed in accordance with clause (a), and also certifying that data from the recording device described in clause (b) can be readily accessed in accordance with clause (d); (f) Ensure that the water meter is installed, maintained and operated throughout the duration of the consent in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; (g) Take all practicable measures to ensure that the water meter is fully functional at all times; (h) The hours and rate at which water is diverted shall be measured to within an accuracy of plus or minus five percent and recorded daily in a log kept for that purpose, and a copy of the records provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, before 31 July each year or at any other time as requested in writing by the Canterbury Regional Council, or provided in real time (for example via telemetry) within three months of being so requested by the Council’s RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager..
DAM CONSTRUCTION 7) Upon completion of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond and before first filling, the person responsible for the design and construction shall certify the scheme as safe and ready for operation. A copy of the certification document shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager. A construction report shall be prepared by the person responsible for the design and construction of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond, and a copy of which shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of the construction of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 8) The consent holder shall ensure that the settling pond, canal system and head pond is inspected comprehensively by, or under the supervision of, a suitably qualified chartered professional engineer, yearly for the first three years and then once every five years after that. A copy of the inspection report shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of the inspection. 9) (a) The person responsible for the design and construction of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond shall be present during first filling and shall record any
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 34 faults observed. (b) The consent holder shall immediately remedy any faults recorded during first filling. (c) A report shall be prepared detailing any faults observed and the remedial action taken, a copy of which shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of first filing.
10) (a) The consent holder shall ensure that a suitably qualified chartered professional engineer inspects the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond system within five days of first filling. (b) The chartered professional engineer shall record any faults or findings that could potentially lead to failure of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond system, and recommend the appropriate remedial works. A report of these findings and recommended remedial actions shall be prepared and a copy of which shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of the inspection. (c) The consent holder shall immediately undertake any remedial works or corrective actions recommended by the engineer and notify the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one week of completion.
11) The details and findings of any inspections and maintenance works shall be recorded in a logbook kept for that purpose. A copy of the logbook shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, once per year. 12) In the event of any evidence of erosion, seepage, cracking, settlement, slipping or other embankment deformation the consent holder shall, immediately: (a) report the event to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager; and (b) consult a suitably qualified chartered professional engineer who shall be requested to take responsibility for: (i) The inspection of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond system; (ii) The identification of remedial action required; (iii) The recording of the details of the inspection, reasons for the fault and remedial action required, in a report, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of the inspection. (c) undertake any remedial works or corrective action recommended by the engineer, and notify the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one week of completion.
13) In the event of failure of the intake, settling pond, Highbank Canal, Terrace Canal and head pond system, the consent holder shall immediately contact a suitably qualified chartered professional engineer who shall complete a report detailing the cause of failure and the action taken. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, within one month of the event.
ADMINISTRATION 14) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with these two documents.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 35 15) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 16) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
17) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072637 - To use surface water, at a maximum rate of 40 cubic metres per second from the Rakaia River, for hydro-electricity generation. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions. 2) Water diverted shall be used for hydro-electricity generation purposes only between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36:068-375 and NZMS 260 K36:078–364, and at or about map reference NZMS 260 L36:154–281.
ADMINISTRATION 3) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 4) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
5) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072642 – To discharge material excavated from the storage / settling pond and deposited on the bed of the Rakaia River, being an area adjacent to the storage / settling pond, in a manner that may enter water, between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36: 058-396 and NZMS 260 K36: 068-387. CRC072649 – To use land to place material (principally sediments) containing water excavated from the storage/settling pond onto the bed of the Rakaia River, between approximate map references NZMS 260 K36: 058-396 and NZMS 260 K36: 068-387 being an area adjacent to the settling pond. (The following set of conditions apply to CRC072642 and CRC072649) 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
2) The works shall be limited to the placement of sediment, and sediment containing water that is excavated from the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme settling pond. 3) The works carried out in accordance with Condition (2) shall be located between map references
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 36 NZMS 260 K36:058-396 and NZMS 260 K36:068-387, shall be limited to between 1 April and 31 May, and shall be limited to a total area no greater than two (2) hectares in any 12 month period. 4) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to ensure that works do not deflect floodwaters into the banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse, causing erosion, or damage to any flood control structure, or vegetation. 5) No vehicles or machinery shall enter any actively flowing part of the Rakaia River. 6) Works shall not increase the potential for flooding on surrounding land, decrease the flood carrying capacity of the Rakaia River, or directly result in permanent changes to the position of the main river channels. In respect of all works associated with the scheme, including sediment associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) For sediment deposits associated with the ‘Sediment Disposal Area’ where there are geomorphological modifications to either: i. The lower tailrace channel of the Highbank Power Station; and / or ii. The Fish bypass channel from the tailrace that lead to an increase the incidence of salmon entrapment, the channels are re-graded or reinstated in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the above.
For the purpose of (ii) the consent holder shall monitor the performance of the tailrace and salmon barrier on a no less than weekly basis no less than 5 working days after there is a flood, or fresh for that period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the incidents of the manual reinstatement of the Salmon Bypass or Lower Tailrace following such reinstatements, where required, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 31 May each year. These reports are also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
(b) Works within 20m of, or within, the river bed shall not result in an increase in turbidity or reduction in clarity of the river flow which, in the opinion of a suitably qualified expert engaged by the consent authority but paid for by the consent holder, hinders the upstream passage of salmon in the Highbank salmon bypass channel.
7) Works shall not cause the riverbank to advance beyond the position of the river bank as exists at the issue of this consent. The navigable braid of the river shall not be reduced as a result of the material deposited. 8) The material excavated from the settling pond shall not be deposited on the riverbed to a height greater than 0.5 metres above the existing level of the adjacent riverbed at the time of deposit.
9) The material excavated from the settling pond shall be placed only on the gravel river flats within the disposal area indicated, avoiding vegetated areas, and in a location that avoids mobilisation of the sediment in flows less than 300 cubic metres per second as estimated by the Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at either the Rakaia Gorge recorder site (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:015-424) or the recorder site at Fighting Hill (at or about map reference NZMS 260 K35:997- 437).
10) Prior to any mechanical works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 37 riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. 11) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
12) The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, shall be notified not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of works.
(14) The consent holder shall, in conjunction with the Canterbury Regional Council establish a suitably qualified and experienced independent review panel comprising three members to: (a) review the monitoring programme proposed by the consent holder; (b) advise any adjustments to the proposed programme; (c) review the results of the monitoring programme and forward a report on that review to the Canterbury Regional Council Compliance Manager; (d) recommend to the Canterbury Regional Council Compliance Manager any mitigation measures that should be instigated as a result of the findings of the monitoring programme; (e) At the end of the monitoring programme required by condition (13), the review panel shall review the results from the entire monitoring period and recommend to the Canterbury Regional Council Compliance Manager the ongoing level of monitoring required (if any) and recommend any changes of conditions based on that monitoring.
15) The works shall not prevent the passage of fish within river channels, or cause the stranding of fish in pools or channels.
ADMINISTRATION 16) The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document and Schedule 1: General Conditions and all Plans associated with the application.
17) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage. 18) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
19) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
CRC072645 – To place and maintain fish barrier structures on the bed of the Rakaia River, including associated riverbed disturbance at the fish bypass and at the points of discharge along
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 38 the project corridor, at approximate map reference NZMS 260 K36: 065-385, NZMS 260 K36:087-358 and NZMS 260 L36: 158-280. 1) This consent is subject to the general conditions listed in Schedule 1: General Conditions.
(2) Prior to the commencement of operational discharges from the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, the consent holder shall construct, place and maintain barrier structures at approximate map references NZMS 260 K36:065-385, NZMS 260 K36:087-358 and NZMS 260 L36:158-280: (a) Each barrier structure shall effectively exclude mature migrating salmon from entering the tailrace or discharge canal, and shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the recommendations of a suitably qualified aquatic ecologist, and a chartered professional engineer; (b) The consent holder shall form and maintain a bypass channel that ensures that salmon attracted to the Highbank Power Station salmon barrier are able to return to a main flowing channel of the Rakaia River. (c) Within three years of the commencement of this consent the consent holder shall provide the Canterbury Regional Council Compliance Manager with a report, prepared by a suitably qualified person, detailing the extent to which the systems referred to in condition (2) are meeting the objectives of this condition. (3) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to ensure that construction and maintenance works are undertaken in dry conditions, and that the structures will not deflect floodwaters into the banks of the Rakaia River or any other watercourse, causing erosion or damage to any flood control structure, or flood control vegetation. (4) No vehicles or machinery shall enter any active flow of the Rakaia River other than when crossing a braid. (5) Prior to any mechanised works being carried out in the period 1 August to 1 February, the consent holder shall ensure that: (a) A suitably qualified and independent person inspects the proposed area of works, no earlier than eight working days prior to any works being carried out, and locates any bird breeding sites of riverbed nesting species listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions; and (b) The person carrying out the inspection prepares a written report that identifies all the located riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites and provides copies of that report to the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council; and (c) The name and qualifications of the person carrying out the inspection are provided to the Canterbury Regional Council with the report; and (d) Any persons carrying out works authorised by this consent are informed of any riverbed bird breeding or nesting sites located. (6) No works shall be undertaken within 100m from any riverbed birds listed in Annexure A of Schedule 1: General Conditions, which are nesting or rearing their young on the riverbed or margins.
(7) The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, shall be notified not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of works.
(7) The works shall not prevent the passage of fish within natural river braids, or cause the stranding of fish in pools or channels.
(9) The consent holder shall ensure that the braid of the Rakaia River diverted to connect with the bypass channel from the Highbank tailrace salmon barrier (under consent CRC011249) is maintained in good
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 39 working order at all times to ensure migrating salmon are able to move upstream.
(10) A record shall be kept of the incidence of fish entrained and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council and the Department of Conservation shall be notified on each occasion that Condition (9) is triggered. Records of fish entrapment shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, at the end of by 31 June each year, or as requested. This report is also to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
(11) In the event that the consent holder or persons acting for them observes a minimum of 50 adult salmon that have become entrained in the Highbank Power Station tailrace channel or the Highbank emergency spillway above the salmon barrier, the consent holder or persons acting for them shall, as far as is practicable, be responsible for salvage, and release into an active channel of the Rakaia River.
(12) Monitoring of salmon entrainment shall be undertaken not less than weekly: (a) every year for the three years following the commencement of the scheme; and thereafter (b) for one migration season every four years post commissioning of the scheme for the term of this consent, for the entirety of the Salmon migrating season, being 1 December to 31 May.
(13) This monitoring referred to in Condition (12) is to determine whether there is an adverse effect on salmon entrainment in the Highbank Power Station tailrace channel as a result of the discharge that is more than minor. These annual monitoring reports are to be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 30 June each year, or as requested, and copied to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council. The report on any incidents of entrainment of salmon in the Highbank tailrace shall be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd.
(14) The consent holder shall monitor the performance of the Highbank Power Station Tailrace salmon barrier and associated by pass channel not less than weekly at all times when the consent holder is discharging water to the Highbank tailrace for the period of the entire salmon migration season, being 1 December to 31 May. A report detailing the performance or incidents of the salmon barriers popping shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, by 30 June each year, and copied to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council. The report is to be simultaneously served on TrustPower Ltd. (15) The Highbank Power Station salmon barrier shall be inspected no less than weekly and the Consent Holder shall undertake any repairs, cleaning and/or maintenance works necessary to maintain the integrity and function of the barrier within seven days of that inspection, unless urgent maintenance or repair work is required in which case that shall take place as soon as possible.
(16) The Highbank Canal fish screen shall be inspected no less than weekly and the Consent Holder shall undertake any repairs, cleaning and/or maintenance works necessary to maintain the integrity and function of the screen within seven days of that inspection, unless urgent maintenance or repair work is required in which case that shall take place as soon as possible.
(17) The consent holder shall be responsible for:
(a) any re-grading and reinstatement of the unformed lower Highbank tailrace including any re- connection to an active branch of the Rakaia River; and
(b) any modifications to the Highbank Power Station salmon barrier and / or the associated fish bypass channel necessary to give effect to this consent, or as advised by Environment Canterbury in response to any issues raised as a consequence of the consent holders monitoring responses in relation to the above, and as pursuant to s.128 of the Resource Management Act.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 40 (18) Prior to construction works being completed on the Highbank Canal auxiliary spillway, the consent holder shall ensure that the bypass flow enters the unformed tailrace as close to the Highbank salmon barrier as possible. Any works necessary to achieve this shall be undertaken and be concluded in a period that does not coincide with the salmon migration season, being that period between 1 December and 31 May.
(19) The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year during construction and commissioning, and then five yearly thereafter, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.
(20) The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 shall be 31 March 2017.
(21) This consent shall expire on 28 January 2035.
Schedule 1: General Conditions SCOPE
(1) A suitably qualified chartered professional engineer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the scheme. The chartered professional engineer shall prepare a design report. A copy of the design report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, no less than one month prior to commencement of the construction of each scheme component. This design report shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(a) Final details of the location and layout of the scheme. This shall include a New Zealand Map Grid Reference with a minimum of four digits, locating the site where each activity related to the construction and maintenance of the scheme shall be undertaken.
(b) Final details of the geometry of the scheme and related structures.
(c) Final details of the engineering design of the scheme.
(d) Final details of the operation of the scheme.
(e) Confirmation, signed by the chartered professional engineer, that the scheme has been designed according to engineering standards and practices for a structure of this nature.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 41 (f) A schedule of inspections to be undertaken under the supervision of the chartered professional engineer during the construction process. Work may not proceed until these inspections have been carried out and written authorisation provided by the chartered professional engineer.
(g) A schedule of routine inspections that shall be undertaken by the consent holder during the operational life of the scheme. Routine inspections shall be undertaken at least annually.
(h) A schedule of comprehensive inspections that shall be undertaken by a chartered professional engineer during the operational life of the scheme.
(i) Details of routine maintenance work that shall be undertaken by the consent holder during the operational life of the scheme.
A copy of the design report shall be forwarded to Canterbury Regional Council, attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, no less than one month prior to commencement of construction.
Works shall not proceed until the report has been certified by the Canterbury Regional Council.
MANAGEMENT PLANS
2. Prior to the commencement of works the consent holder shall prepare a Construction Phase Management Plan to which all works shall be subject. For works within 300 metres of the BEN-HAY A transmission line or the TrustPower Highbank Power Station and switchyard, the plan shall be prepared in consultation with Transpower NZ Ltd and TrustPower Ltd. This Plan, along with any formal comments from either TrustPower Ltd or Transpower in relation to any aspects of disagreement, is to be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and TrustPower Ltd. Works shall not proceed until the Plan has been certified by the Regional Council. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) the phases in which work shall be undertaken for the purposes of constructing and maintaining the scheme;
(b) the timing and duration for each phase, including the working hours in which works shall be undertaken.
(c) the disturbed area in square metres, including location, area and volume of earthworks and area and location of land clearance associated with each phase of the construction.
(d) Confirmation from TrustPower Ltd that it will not be operating the Highbank Power Station during the period of time within which the construction works on, in, or adjacent to the Highbank tailrace are to occur.
(e) Confirmation from the consent holder that the construction and maintenance of bridges and roads on TrustPower land, and the provision of permanent access to the fish screen, located NZMS 260 K36:080- 360, will accommodate 30 tonne excavator and transporter combination.
All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Phase Management Plan.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN
3 (a) The consent holder shall prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan in accordance with the Canterbury Regional Council, 2007 “Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Canterbury Region” Report No. R06/23 (“CRC06/23”) or subsequent updates, for the purpose of ensuring that the best practicable sedimentation and erosion control measures are implemented during any site disturbance. The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan shall comply with all the requirements of Condition (3)(e) below.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 42 (b) The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan shall be submitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, no less than 20 working days prior to any earthworks or vegetation removal authorised by this consent commencing, for certification that the Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan meets all the requirements of Condition (3)(a) of this Schedule.
(c) The consent holder may, at any time after receiving this certification, request amendments to The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan by submitting the amendments in writing to Canterbury Regional Council: Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, for certification that The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan, with those amendments, continues to meet all the requirements of Condition (3)(a) of this Schedule.
(d) No earthworks or vegetation clearance shall commence or be undertaken other than in full compliance with the latest version of The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan that has been certified by or on behalf of the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, in terms of Condition (3)(b) above as meeting all the requirements of Condition (3)(e) of this consent, for the stage or stages of works to be undertaken.
(e) The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan shall set out clearly the sediment and erosion control measures that are to be implemented for each phase of the works authorised by this consent. Those measures shall consist of but not be limited to the following:
(i) Clean water diversion channels for a 5% Annual Exceedance Probability Event; (ii) Decanting earth bunds or sediment ponds; (iii) Silt fencing; (iv) Soakage pits; (v) Infiltration basins; (vi) Swales.
(f) The Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan shall include but not be limited to:
(i) A locality map;
(ii) Contour information at suitable intervals;
(iii) Detailed drawings showing the type and location of erosion and sediment control measures, on-site catchment boundaries, and off-site sources of run-off;
(iv) Drawings and specifications of all designated erosion and sediment control measures with supporting calculations;
(v) Location of the works, and cut and fill operations;
(vi) Culvert designs and associated erosion protection;
(vii) The management of stormwater during and following construction;
(viii) The management of stormwater during operation of the scheme;
(ix) A programme for managing exposed areas including progressive stabilisation considerations;
(x) The inspection and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures;
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 43 (xi) Details of when the erosion and sediment control measures are to be established and decommissioned; and
(xii) Measures to ensure that there is no tracking of mud or earth onto the surrounding road network, including the provision of shaker ramps and/or wheel washes where appropriate.
(g) Prior to the commencement of any phase of any of the works authorised by this consent, a certificate signed by the person responsible for designing the system or other person accepted by the Canterbury Regional Council as being competent to provide such certification, shall be submitted to Canterbury Regional Council to certify that the erosion and sediment control systems for that stage are constructed and installed in accordance with Condition (3)(a). No such works shall proceed prior to this certification being provided to and approved by The Canterbury Regional Council.
DUST MANAGEMENT PLAN
4. Prior to the commencement of works, the consent holder shall develop and prepare, in consultation with Transpower New Zealand Limited, TrustPower Limited and affected residential dwellings (between chainage 4250m and 15000m), a Dust Management Plan to which all works shall be subject. A copy of the Dust Management Plan shall be forwarded to all affected parties. This Plan, along with any formal comments from any party in relation to any aspects of disagreement, is to be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager. Works shall not proceed until a certificate signed by a suitably qualified and experienced person, who is approved in writing by the Canterbury Regional Council Enforcement and Compliance manager, has been submitted to and approved by the Regional Council. The certificate shall certify that the Dust Management Plan contains acceptable methodologies for the following:
(a) Define actions to be taken to ensure compliance with all conditions of this consent;
(b) Define actions in response to any incident that may impact on the environment;
(c) Identification of the contractor’s staff member responsible for each action;
(d) Details of the steps to be taken to correct any element of non-compliance;
(e) Provision to amend the plan during the period of this consent as appropriate to improve management and contingency procedures.
(f) Standards for the monitoring of dust nuisance within the Highbank power station and switchyard; (g) Requirements of weekly inspections of the Highbank power station by the consent holder during any construction activities, including any haulage activities, within 300m of the Highbank Power Station or switchyard; (h) Procedures for managing dust nuisance from haulage traffic and unsealed haulage routes within 300m of affected residential dwellings between chainage 4250m and 15000m, and the Highbank power station and switchyards; and (i) Procedures for final inspections and resultant internal and external cleaning to the Highbank Power Station to remove any dust residue from either construction works, or from wind blown material up to 24 months post the commissioning of the Scheme as a consequence of the Scheme, including but not limited to wind blown dust from areas where re-vegetation has not yet established. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the Dust Management Plan.
5. A copy of the current Dust Management Plan shall be kept in the consent holder’s office on site at all times. A copy of any revisions of the Plan shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, with a copy to Transpower New Zealand Limited and TrustPower Ltd and the affected parties identified in this condition, within ten days of each revision being completed.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 44 IN-RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6. In-river works shall not proceed until:
a) A certificate has been provided by a suitably qualified and experienced person, and the certifier shall have been approved in writing by the Canterbury Regional Council, Enforcement and Compliance Manager. The certificate shall certify that the In River Management Plan contains the following: (i) A description of site operation in relation to its impact on the environment; (ii) the duration of the works in flowing water; (iii) a detailed plan illustrating the proposed regions of river bed and bank disturbance. This plan should include the areas (in square metres) for each region; (iv) the actions to be undertaken to ensure compliance with all conditions of this consent; (v) provisions to amend the In-River Management Plan during the duration of this consent as appropriate in order to improve management and contingency procedures. (b) The In-River Management Plan has been submitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention; Enforcement and Compliance Manager for certification. (c) The consent holder may, at any time after receiving this certificate, request amendments to the In-River Management Plan by submitting the amendments in writing to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, for certification that the Plan with those amendments continues to meet all the requirements of this condition.
7. One month prior to the commissioning of works, the consent holder shall prepare and forward an Emergency Action Plan to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, for certification.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
8. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the design plans submitted for compliance with Condition (1), the Construction Phase Management Plan submitted for compliance with Condition (2) and the Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan submitted for compliance with Condition (3).
9. At least one month prior to the commissioning the scheme, the consent holder shall provide to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, as-built drawings, specifications and other information, signed and approved by a suitably qualified Chartered Professional Engineer, to the satisfaction of the Council, to determine the nature and standard of construction.
10. Upon completion of the scheme, and before first filling, the chartered professional engineer shall certify the scheme as safe and ready for operation. A copy of the certification document shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, prior to commissioning. The scheme shall not be filled until this certification has been provided to and approved by the Canterbury Regional Council.
11. (a) A schedule of works shall be submitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, to the attention of the River Engineering Section and the RMA Compliance & Enforcement Manager, in January and July each year outlining proposed works to be undertaken in the following 6 months.
(b) A schedule of works shall be submitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, to the attention of the River Engineering Section and the RMA Compliance & Enforcement Manager, in January and July each year outlining actual works that have been undertaken in the previous 6 months.
12. The consent holder shall ensure that vegetation clearance shall be limited as far as practicable, and that disturbed riparian areas within 20 metres of the riverbank not occupied by infrastructure, grassed or required for maintenance access, shall be re-planted with appropriate native species at a distance of 1500 millimetre centres
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 45 within the first planting season following completion of works in that area. The plant mix shall contain but not be limited to Cordyline australis (Cabbage Trees), and shall not preclude the use of willow species for bank stabilisation. Prior to planting the plant mix shall be approved by a registered Landscape Architect. Approval shall be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, at least 10 days prior to planting.
NOXIOUS WEEDS
13. The consent holder shall ensure that all vehicles that access or work within the riverbed or on private land not under the authority or ownership of the consent holder for the construction and / or ongoing maintenance of the scheme and access road, shall be washed down or otherwise cleaned prior to accessing the riverbed such that the distribution and / or establishment of pest plant seeds and species as identified below is avoided:
(a) All plants listed in Schedule BLR1 of the Canterbury Regional Council’s Proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan, Chapter 6: Beds and margins of Lakes and Rivers.
14. In the event of the pest plants listed in Condition (13(a)) establishing on the riverbed or riparian margins as a result of the construction works or maintenance of the scheme, the consent holder shall be responsible for ensuring the removal or eradication of those species that are attributable to works undertaken in exercising this consent from the affected riverbed.
15. In the event of the pest plants listed in Condition (13(a)) establishing as a consequence of works undertaken in exercising this consent, and on land under the ownership, control or responsibility of the consent holder following the completion of construction works, the consent holder shall be responsible for ensuring the removal or eradication of those species within the affected area.
16. To prevent the spread of Didymo or any other aquatic pest, the consent holder shall ensure that activities authorised by this consent are undertaken in accordance with the relevant Biosecurity New Zealand’s hygiene procedures.
Note: The most current version of these procedures can be accessed from the Biosecurity New Zealand website http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz or Environment Canterbury Customer Services.
17. The consent holder shall take all appropriate steps to prevent the distribution both downstream and downwind of the site, of exotic weed species already present at the site attributable to works undertaken in exercising this consent.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
18. The consent holder shall ensure that:
(a) All practicable measures shall be undertaken to prevent oil and fuel leaks from vehicles and machinery.
(b) There shall be no storage of fuel or refuelling of vehicles and machinery within 20 metres of any water body or stream or river bed.
19. The consent holder shall maintain a current inventory of all hazardous substances stored on the site, and a copy of the inventory shall be made available to the Canterbury Regional Council and Ashburton District Council or emergency services upon request.
20. In the event of a spill of a hazardous substance within the site, the consent holder shall:
(a) Take all practicable measures to prevent the hazardous substance being further discharged into land or water; and
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 46 (b) Collect and remove the hazardous substance and any contaminated material immediately.
21. In the event of a spill of a hazardous substance on site, the consent holder or contracted agent shall record and provide to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and to the Ashburton District Council within 24 hours of the spill:
(a) The date, time, location and volume of the spill; (b) The substance spilt; (c) Measures taken to prevent the spilt substance being discharged into land or water; and (d) The cause of the spill and measures that will be taken to prevent a reoccurrence and the timeframes for such measures.
22. Any contaminated material removed from the site under Condition 20 shall be disposed of at an appropriate facility and the consent holder shall provide the Canterbury Regional Council with written confirmation of such disposal within 10 working days of the disposal.
23. The consent holder shall maintain on site at all times, measures to prevent spills entering land or water including:
(a) Spill kits to contain or absorb any spilled hazardous substance;
(b) Signs to identify the location of spill kits;
(c) Written procedures in a clearly visible location that are to be undertaken to contain, remove and dispose of any spilled hazardous substance.
ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY
24. In the event of any disturbance of Koiwi Tangata (human bones) or taonga (treasured artefacts), the consent holder shall immediately:
(a) Advise the Canterbury Regional Council of the disturbance;
(b) Advise the Upoko Runanga of Arowhenua and Ngai Tahu, or their representative, of the disturbance.
(c) Cease earthmoving operations in the affected area until the area containing the Koiwi Tangata or taonga has been clearly demarcated, and Kaumatua and archaeologists have certified that it is appropriate for earthmoving to recommence.
25. In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological remains, the following steps shall be taken:
(a) All activity affecting the immediate area shall cease and the Regional Archaeologist of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust shall be contacted;
(b) The site shall be secured to ensure that the remains are not further disturbed;
(c) Further works affecting the remains will not commence until either:
(i) the Regional Archaeologist of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust has confirmed in writing that the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 do not apply;
(ii) Or the requirements of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 have been met, and if required, and archaeological authority has been granted by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 47 iii) If human remains / koiwi tangata are located, in addition to the above steps, the Runanga representative for the area and the New Zealand Police must be contacted.
BOND
26. Prior to the commencement of any earthworks for each stage of development the consent holder or developer shall enter into an enforceable agreement with the Canterbury Regional Council and bond pursuant to section 108(2)(b) and 108A of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the performance of the Site Construction conditions in relation to that stage of development.
27. The agreement referred to in condition (26) shall provide for:
(a) a guarantor acceptable to the Canterbury Regional Council to bind itself to pay for the carrying out and completion of the obligations of the consent holder under the bond and conditions of this consent in the event of any breach of conditions or occurrence of any adverse environmental effect requiring remedy; or
(b) a bank bond acceptable to the Canterbury Regional Council to secure the performance of the obligations of the consent holder under the bond and conditions of this consent in the event of any default by the consent holder or any occurrence of any adverse effect requiring remedy; or
(c) a cash bond based on $15,000.00 per hectare of disturbed land in the stages of development covered by the bond to be delivered up to Canterbury Regional Council for use by the Consent Authority in the event of any breach or failure to perform with the conditions for all consents which refer to the General Conditions or any occurrence of an adverse environmental effect requiring mitigation or remedy, that the consent holder fails to remedy and providing that the liability of the consent holder shall not be limited to the amount of the bond.
28. All costs of, and incidental to, the preparation of documentation to meet Condition (26) shall be met by the consent holder.
29. Any bond provided under Condition (26) may be varied, cancelled or renewed at any time by agreement between the consent holder and the Canterbury Regional Council.
TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
30. Prior to construction and for the purpose of ensuring that Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) operations and associated infrastructure are protected from adverse effects from the construction and operation of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, the consent holder shall:
(a) consult with Telecom with the aim to identify and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects from the construction of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme on Telecom infrastructure and services; (b) specifically, the consultation should aim to identify and evaluate in conjunction with Telecom the extent and possible avoidance, mitigation or remediation (in accordance with the Electricity Act 1992 and Electricity Regulations 1997 and any subsequent amendments to them) of any resultant induction hazard and/or Earth Potential Rise (EPR) hazard; (c) forward to the Environmental Services Manager, Ashburton District Council, and copy to Telecom, a report detailing the consultation undertaken with Telecom, and the identification and evaluation of the matters set out in conditions (a) and (b) above. The report shall include a description of measures recommended to be taken by the consent holder to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on Telecom infrastructure and operations from the construction or operation of the scheme. Advice Notes:
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 48 All activities associated with the proposal must comply with the New Zealand Code of Practice for Electrical Safety Distances NZECP34 at all times. Specifically the attention of the consent holder and their agents is brought to pages 17 to 19 (Excavations or construction near electrical line supports and approach distances for mobile plant) of this code.
All land use activities, including earthworks associated with the hydro scheme must comply with the New Zealand Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001).
All trees and vegetation planted on site must comply with the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003.
Prior to construction, for the purpose of ensuring that TrustPower (TPL) operations are protected from the adverse effects from the construction and operation of the ACWT scheme, the consent holder will seek any necessary consents required to construct and make operational a potable water supply well in a location clear of the influence or interference from any works undertaken by the consent holder in giving effect to infrastructure associated with this scheme. The purpose of this well will be to replace the function of well K36/0578 for the purpose of supplying the Highbank Power Station with potable water to the same or better quality and quantity as currently provided. Prior to decommissioning K36/0578 this replacement, along with the associated water permit and conveyance infrastructure are to be transferred to TPL ownership.
Annexure A: List of bird species referred to in Schedule 1: General Conditions
South Island Pied Oystercatcher NZ Scaup Black Stilt Black-billed Gull Pied Stilt Red-billed Gull Wrybill Caspian Tern Banded Dotterel White-fronted Tern Black-fronted Dotterel Black-fronted Tern Spur-winged Plover White-winged Black Tern Paradise Shelduck Australasian Bittern Grey Duck Marsh Crake NZ Shoveler Spotless Crake Grey Teal Cormorant/shag colonies
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 49 Ashburton District Council – Conditions of Consent
Landuse consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydro electricity generation and water conveyance scheme taking water from the Rakaia River approximately 5km south of the Rakaia Bridge comprising an intake, settling pond, two canals with two power stations within the first canal and a further power station at the foot of the river terrace 3.2km west of Barrhill. Undertaking earthworks and vegetation clearance in the bed and in the riparian margin of the Rakaia River and un-named ephemeral streams.
(In the future the intake and canals may be used to convey water for irrigation subject to any consents or amendments to consents granted by Canterbury Regional Council.) 1. The development shall proceed in accordance with the information submitted and plans lodged, and entered into Council records as LUC07/0030.
Landscape Management Plan 2. The Consent holder shall undertake rehabilitation of the land surface, topsoil, drainage and vegetation in all areas disturbed in the construction and / or maintenance of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme to achieve the following objectives: (a) To reinstate vegetation cover on previously vegetated areas disturbed by construction or maintenance activities, where those areas do not contain components of scheme infrastructure or permanent accessways; (b) To visually integrate finished structures, landforms and vegetation into the surrounding landscape so that as far as possible they appear to be naturally occurring features or features which are already present in the immediate area. In particular the settling pond embankments and any excess cut stockpiles are to be shaped as naturalised landforms; (c) To ensure short and long term stability of disturbed land areas and their surrounding areas particularly on the terrace edges. (d) To minimise the loss of existing vegetation where possible, most notably riparian vegetation located on the edge of the river terrace; (e) To compensate for the loss of any native vegetation which is removed during construction.
3. A Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared and maintained by the Consent Holder, and all works undertaken by the consent holder or their agents shall be subject to, and comply with the provisions of the Landscape Management Plan. The Landscape Management Plan shall: (a) detail how the above objectives are to be achieved: (b) incorporate the proposed concept planting plan and mitigation measures contained in the evidence entitled Statement of Evidence of David Compton-Moen – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and in particular the mitigation measures contained in Section 9, and Figures 6.1 to 6.3 included in that evidence dated 16 September 2008; (c) The Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared and maintained for the duration of the construction period and a 24 month maintenance period following completion of all plantings required under the conditions of this consent. The Plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Services Manager of the Ashburton District Council at least one month prior to construction commencing. (d) The Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared, implemented and maintained in conjunction with, and in a manner that is consistent with the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan required under this consent.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 50 4. The Landscape Management Plan shall, include the following: (a) Details of all landforms, finishing, layouts, soiling, planting and grassing, roads, tracks, structures and maintenance programmes proposed for the scheme; (b) Methods for monitoring the success of re-vegetation plantings for at least 24 months following the planting; (c) Rehabilitation procedures that will maximise the blending of the private haul roads, canal and pond embankments and other proposed structures and in particular the intake, within the adjacent landscapes; (d) Identify how the consent holder intends to: (i) Naturalise the location and shape of any possible excess cut stockpile areas; (ii) Reinstate all disturbed ground surfaces; (iii) Avoid the spread of noxious weeds into neighbouring properties (iv) Complete all such works at the earliest opportunity, but no later than 1 season following completion of works.
5. The Landscape Management Plan shall be reviewed not less than annually and the revised Plan shall be submitted to the Council within one month of the review being completed. 6. The Landscape Management Plan may be amended, as the Consent Holder considers appropriate, during the period of this consent. Any amendments to the Plan must be submitted and approved by the Consent Authority prior to the amended works being undertaken. Where the Consent Authority considers amendments are warranted to ensure continued compliance with the conditions of this consent and these are notified to the Consent Holder, the Consent Holder shall respond to the request in writing within one month of receiving the request, with either amendments to the Plan or an explanation as to why the requested amendments have not been made.
Roading and Bridges 7. (a) The consent holder shall build a bridge on Happy Valley Road over the canal as a single-lane bridge built to provide for light vehicles up to 3500kg and with safety barriers and hand rails. i. The bridge shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements for lightly trafficked rural bridges as defined in Appendix D of the Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual; ii. The access ramps to the bridge shall not be steeper than a gradient of 1:8; iii. The surface of the access ramps are to be built to an all weather standard, but the surface is not required to be sealed; iv. The access ramps are to be constructed to a standard acceptable to the Ashburton District Council; v. The bridge is to be vested in the name of the Ashburton District Council at the completion of the maintenance period and issue of the maintenance certificate; vi. The bridge shall require a building consent; vii. The bridge may be fitted with a gate at one or both ends. This gate shall not be locked; viii. The new bridge will be subject to a 12 month maintenance period from date of completion. All maintenance and repair work required in this period shall be carried out by the Consent Holder. At the end of the maintenance period the bridge shall be inspected with a representative of the Council in attendance, and any additional work required shall be carried out by the Consent Holder. Once this work is complete, a maintenance certificate shall be provided by the Consent Holder to the Council.
(b) The consent holder shall build a bridge on the formed road at Lowes Cutting over the canal as a single- lane bridge to provide for vehicles to no less than a Class I standard, including safety barriers and hand rails, and in accordance with the Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual. i. The access ramps to the bridge shall not be steeper than a gradient of 1:8; ii. The surface of the access ramps are to be built to an all weather standard, but the surface is not required to be sealed;
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 51 iii. The bridge is to be vested in the name of the Ashburton District Council at the completion of the maintenance period and issue of the maintenance certificate; iv. The bridge shall require a building consent; v. The new bridge will be subject to a 12 month maintenance period from date of completion. All maintenance and repair work required in this period shall be carried out by the Consent Holder. At the end of the maintenance period the bridge shall be inspected with a representative of the Council in attendance, and any additional work required shall be carried out by the Consent Holder. Once this work is complete, a maintenance certificate shall be provided by the Consent Holder to the Council.
10. The consent holder shall build a single-lane bridge adjacent to the Highbank Power Station and Switchyard over the tailwater canal, built to the following specifications: a. The bridge shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements for lightly trafficked rural bridges as defined in Appendix D of the Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual, notwithstanding the application of that manual, minimum standards shall accommodate: i. A transporter loaded with a 30 tonne excavator; and ii. A minimum carriageway width of 4.0m. b. Any access ramps to the bridge shall not be steeper than a gradient of 1:8; c. The surface of the access ramps are to be built to an all weather standard, but the surface is not required to be sealed; d. The access ramps are to be constructed to a standard acceptable to the Ashburton District Council; e. The bridge shall require a building consent; f. The bridge may be fitted with a gate at one or both ends. This gate shall not be locked; g. The new bridge will be subject to a 12 month maintenance period from date of completion. All maintenance and repair work required in this period shall be carried out by the consent holder. The consent holder shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance of this bridge for the term of this consent.
11. The consent holder shall take the best practicable option to avoid the deposit of debris onto public roads during the construction period. The consent holder shall be responsible for the maintenance of Barkers Road from the intersection with Rakaia River Road to its terminus at the northern end for the duration of the construction period, except for any maintenance, repairs or reconstruction of the road arising from unusual or extreme weather events.
12. The consent holder shall nominate an experienced road maintenance contractor to carry out maintenance and restoration work, the appointment of which shall be approved by the Operations Manager of the Ashburton District Council before any work commences.
13. The consent holder shall ensure that Barkers Road from the intersection with Rakaia River Road to its terminus at the northern end is at cessation of construction activities restored to a standard that is consistent with or exceeds the condition recorded prior to the commencement of this consent.
14. The consent holder shall ensure that Happy Valley Road (legal Road) and Lowes Cutting Road are at cessation of construction activities restored to a standard that is consistent with or exceeds the condition recorded prior to the commencement of this consent.
15. The consent holder shall ensure that existing operational routes utilised to access the Highbank HEPS, switchyards and associated tailrace and fish bypass channel by construction and haulage traffic is at cessation of construction activities restored to a standard that is consistent with or exceeds the condition recorded prior to the commencement of this consent.
Rehabilitation Requirements
16. Rehabilitation shall include the removal of debris, stockpiles and buildings as follows: (a) The Consent holder shall remove all stockpiles other than rock stockpiled for the purpose of maintaining erosion protection works;
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 52 (b) The Consent holder shall remove all construction debris within six months of all construction being completed; (c) Within six months of completion of commissioning of the scheme, the Consent holder shall remove all temporary buildings, plant and equipment (whether attached to the land or not) associated with the exercise of these consents.
Landscape Reinstatement 17. The reinstatement of all works areas and landscaping shall be completed within one season (12 months) of the finishing of construction in that area.
18. In the event of rehabilitation plantings for any area not becoming successfully established, they will be replanted and maintained until successful.
19. The consent holder shall only plant species above the lower fish screen that do not create significant branch or leaf litter that may enter the scheme canal.
Accidental Discovery Protocol 20. In the event of any disturbance of Koiwi Tangata (human bones) or taonga (treasured artefacts), the consent holder shall immediately: (a) Advise the Canterbury Regional Council of the disturbance;
(b) Advise the Upoko Runanga of Arowhenua and Ngai Tahu, or their representative, of the disturbance;
(c) Cease earthmoving operations in the affected area until the area containing the Koiwi Tangata or taonga has been clearly demarcated, and Kaumatua and archaeologists have certified that it is appropriate for earthmoving to recommence.
21. In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological remains, the following steps shall be taken: (a) All activity affecting the immediate area shall cease and the Regional Archaeologist of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust shall be contacted; (b) The site shall be secured to ensure that the remains are not further disturbed; (c) Further works affecting the remains will not commence until either: (i) the Regional Archaeologist of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust has confirmed in writing that the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 do not apply; (ii) Or the requirements of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 have been met, and if required, and archaeological authority has been granted by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. (iii) If human remains / koiwi tangata are located, in addition to the above steps, the Runanga representative for the area and the New Zealand Police must be contacted.
Dust Mitigation 22. To mitigate dust movement within and beyond the site the consent holder shall limit the removal of existing shelter planting to those trees necessary to permit construction and operation of the scheme. National Grid 23. All new trees/vegetation (in excess of 2 metres in height at maturity) and all new structures associated with the scheme other than below-ground structures associated with the invert canal, shall be setback by a horizontal distance of at least 12 metres either side (total of 24 metres) from the centre line of the Benmore-Haywards A transmission line.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 53
24. Prior to construction, the consent holder shall submit to the Environmental Services Manager of Ashburton District Council, and forward a copy of the same to Transpower, a report from a suitably qualified electrical engineer confirming that any structure associated with the scheme complies with the minimum safe distances from the Benmore – Haywards A line as specified in Table 3 of the NZEP 34:2001.
25. No structures shall be located within 12 metres of the closest visible edge of any high voltage transmission line support structure foundation.
26. All machinery and mobile plant operated in association with the scheme shall maintain a minimum clearance distance of 4 metres from the Benmore – Haywards A transmission line conductors at all times.
27. No structures, site works and/or vegetation shall be located to preclude existing 4-wheel drive vehicle access to the existing transmission line support structures.
28. No fences of conductive materials shall be located within 5 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundations of any transmission line tower.
29. In the case of any tower supporting any conductor, no person may excavate or otherwise interfere with any land: a. at a depth greater than 300mm within 6 metres of the outer edge of the visible foundations of the tower; or b. at a depth greater than 3 metres, between 6 metres and 12 metres of the visible foundation of the tower; or c. in such a way as to create an unstable batter. 30. Excavated or other material must not be deposited under or near the Benmore – Haywards A line so as to reduce the vertical distance from the ground to the conductors to a distance less than: a. 8.0 metres vertically: across or along driveways or on any other land traversable by vehicles; b. 6.5 metres vertically, on any land not traversable by vehicles due to inaccessibility; and c. 5.0 metres in any distance other than vertical on all land. 31. Once construction is completed, no dust nuisance shall be generated either within or outside the boundaries of the site.
32. To ensure that the Benmore – Hayward A transmission line (namely tower 522) is protected from any potential adverse effects as a result of the construction and operation of the scheme, the Consent Holder shall, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Services Manager of Ashburton District Council: (a) Undertake to consult with Transpower New Zealand to identify and avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects as a result of the construction and operation of the scheme; and (b) Provide an independent engineering analysis to certify that the final design and location of the proposed diversion channel and any other relevant structure associated with the scheme does not generate potential adverse effect on the transmission line and Tower 522; and (c) Provide an independent engineering analysis to certify the acceptability of any alteration to the NZECP 34:2001 minimum safe distance requirements and (to the extent relevant) to certify that any water flow will not affect and/or undermine the integrity of the structural supports.
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNMP) 33. The consent holder will produce and comply with a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNMP), specifying those procedures to be followed by the consent holder, or parties under its control with respect to the construction works or related activities of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme. The plan shall describe the best practicable option (BPO) in accordance with Section 16 of the Resource Management Act, and shall be reviewed, either: not less than annually; or at the request of the Council based upon the receipt of a complaint inferring non-compliance related to construction noise or vibration. No work within 300m of the
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 54 Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard shall commence until the CNMP has been developed in consultation with the Ashburton District Council to ensure compliance with all other conditions of this consent.
34. The consent holder shall commission an independent appropriately certified Noise and Vibration Engineer to review the CNMP as outlined in Condition (31), and specifically to ensure appropriate standards, management techniques and monitoring intervals are in place to ensure that the stability of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard are maintained in accordance with the requirements of Condition (37).
35. This Management Plan, including any amendments as a consequence of Condition (31) shall be submitted to the District Council’s consents manager at least one month prior to commencement of construction of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme. A copy of this plan shall be simultaneously be provided to TrustPower Ltd and to all affected landowners within 500m of the construction zone. This Plan shall be prepared and executed by a suitably qualified person and shall provide details as to the construction programme, and methods for the management of noise and vibration.
36. This Management Plan shall include provision for Independent certification, monitoring and technical review procedure to outline the consent holder’s responsibility to undertake vibration checks and deformation surveys of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard before, during and no less than 24 months post the commissioning of the scheme.
37. This Management Plan shall provide relevant standards and reciprocal procedures for the cessation of construction activities, should monitoring in relation to the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard record any change in datum measures.
38. The consent holder shall not undertake any works closer than 30m measured from any part of the Highbank Power Station structures. To ensure compliance with this condition, the consent holder shall, at their cost, construct a secure temporary construction fence demarcating this distance, including any necessary access gates required by the operator of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard. The temporary construction fence shall be in placed prior to any works occurring within 300m of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard. The consent holder shall be responsible for the removal of this temporary fence, at their cost, within three months of commissioning of the scheme.
39. The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan shall as a minimum address the following matters: (i). Construction sequence; (ii). Machinery and equipment to be used; (iii). Hours of operation, including times and days when construction work would occur; (iv). The design of noise mitigation measures such as temporary barriers or enclosures; (v). Construction noise limits, minimum buffer distances and attenuation measures for specific activities and areas in order to comply with New Zealand Standard 6803P:1984 “The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction; (vi). Details of vibration testing of equipment to confirm that the vibration standards set out in German Standard DIN4150 or a more stringent standard, or as recommended pursuant to (xi) as below, are not exceeded. In the event that other machinery is to be used, vibration testing is to occur prior to works commencing to ensure that the vibration standards will be met; (vii). Development of alternative strategies where full compliance with NZS6803: 1999 and German Standard DIN4150 or a more stringent standard may not be achieved, including consultation with residents and other occupiers to achieve acceptable outcomes; (viii). Detailed methods for monitoring and reporting on construction noise and vibration throughout the process, including the location of vibration and noise monitoring for construction activities that are adjacent to occupied dwellings; (ix). Noise and vibration complaint procedures and response procedures/times. (x). Requirement for continuous monitoring of vibration when any construction works are being conducted within 300m of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard, or monitoring intervals as otherwise recommended by the independent expert commissioned. (xi). Identify particular vibration limits within 300m of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard, in conjunction with the requirements as a consequence of the displacement and
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 55 deformation survey pursuant to Condition (43), which requires construction to cease immediately and not restart until the consent holder is satisfied that the vibration will not exceed the stated levels. For the avoidance of doubt given the sensitivity of the Highbank HEPS structures these vibration limits are expected to be more stringent than those specified in German Standard DIN4150. (xii). All works undertaken by the consent holder or their agents shall be subject to, and comply with the provisions of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Civil Engineering & Dam Safety 40. The scheme be designed to the standards recommended in the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines and/or any new standards defined for dams under the Building Act.
41. The consent holder shall, after consultation with Canterbury Regional Council’s regional engineer, commission an appropriately certified Rivers Engineer to undertake an assessment to ensure that the river protection for the scheme is maintained at no less than the current standards both during construction activities and post commissioning. The Rivers Engineer shall, no less than 24 months post commissioning, undertake a further investigation confirming that the works have appropriate river protection, or recommending further river protection works that will need to be undertaken by the consent holder.
Advice Note: This condition has also been included in consents CRC072643 and CRC072647
42. The design and quality assurance process for the scheme should be in accordance with Condition (38) and (39) as above.
43. Construction of the scheme should be carried out by Contractors with suitable qualifications and experience, as defined by the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines.
44. The consent authority may at any time commission an independent audit of the design and construction of the scheme to confirm accordance with the recommendations of the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines. The consent holder shall meet the costs of any such audit.
45. The consent authority may at any time commission an independent audit of the design and construction of the scheme to confirm accordance with the recommendations of the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines. The consent holder shall meet the costs of any such audit.
46. Prior to detailed design, the consent authority may at any time commission an independent audit of the updated dam break assessment to confirm the Potential Impact Category of various parts of the scheme, as defined in the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines. The consent holder shall meet the costs of any such audit.
47. Comprehensive safety reviews for the scheme should be carried out at intervals of five years following the completion of commissioning, to a scope that meets the recommendations of the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines.
Displacement and Deformation Survey
48. The consent holder is to commission an independent expert, in consultation with TrustPower Ltd, to undertake a condition survey of the existing Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard. All costs of the survey shall be met by the consent holder. This survey should include: (a) A precise survey of the Highbank Power Station structures internal geometry at a minimum of four cross-sections; and
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 56 (b) Set up and monitoring of displacement monitoring pins, or extensometers across selected cross sections within the Highbank Power Station structures. (c) Reported recommendations as to the consent holder’s responsibilities to cease construction activity should any change in the datum measures occur either directly or indirectly, as a result of construction activities carried out exercising this consent. (d) The report containing these investigations shall be provided to the consent authority, and TrustPower Ltd no less than 3 months prior to the commencement of any construction activities within 300m of the Highbank Power Station structures and switchyard. Public Safety Design Plan 49. The consent holder shall provide to the Ashburton District Council and TrustPower Ltd a detailed plan and report as to how those infrastructural elements of the scheme as accessible from the private road operated by TrustPower Ltd are to be managed to restrict public access for reasons of safe operation of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, in particular the Highbank Canal, TrustPower bridge and tailrace. This plan is to be certified by the Ashburton District Council and is to be implemented prior to the Commissioning of the scheme.
50. The consent holder shall insert 15km/h road signs at the property boundary with TrustPower Ltd's land to provide identification of speed restrictions for construction haulage and construction traffic using construction routes within the TrustPower Ltd site.
Construction Phase Management Plan
51. Prior to the commencement of works within 300m of the BEN-HAY A transmission line or the TrustPower Highbank Power Station and switchyard, the consent holder shall develop and prepare, in consultation with Transpower NZ Ltd and TrustPower Ltd, a Construction Phase Management Plan to which all works shall be subject. This Plan, along with any formal comments from either TrustPower or Transpower in relation to any aspects of disagreement, is to be forwarded to the Ashburton District Council, Attention: RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager, and TrustPower Ltd. Works shall not proceed until the Plan has been certified by the District Council. All works undertaken by the consent holder or their agents shall be subject to, and comply with the provisions of the Construction Phase Management Plan, which shall include but not be limited to, the following: (a) the phases in which work shall be undertaken for the purposes of constructing and maintaining the scheme;
(b) the timing and duration for each phase, including the working hours in which works shall be undertaken.
(c) the disturbed area in square metres, associated with each phase of the construction.
(d) Confirmation from TrustPower Ltd that it will not be operating the Highbank HEPS during the period of time within which the construction works on, in, or adjacent to the Highbank tailrace are to occur.
(e) Confirmation from the consent holder that the construction and maintenance of bridges and roads, and the provision of permanent access to the Highbank salmon barrier located NZMS 260 K36:080- 360, will be to a standard that will accommodate a 30 tonne excavator and transporter combination. This bridge shall also include appropriate safety barriers and handrails adequate to provide for the safety of bridge users.
Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 57 52. All works undertaken by the consent holder or their agents downstream of the Highbank Power Station between chainage 3500 and 11500 shall be subject to and comply with the provisions of the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan certified by the Ashburton District Council.
53. The Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan shall be generally in accordance with the draft Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan presented on the concluding day of the hearing but subject to any amendments to reflect what was agreed or offered at the hearing, and shall be finalised in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, to best achieve the following objectives within the areas shown on the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan maps attached to this consent: (a) Avoid the loss of or disturbance to indigenous vegetation and habitats beyond the boundary of the construction zone as defined in the Construction Management Plan; (b) Maintain the abundance of threatened and uncommon plants, in particular Melicytus aff. flexuosus and Melicytus alpinus “Blondin” identified within the canal alignment through propagation from seeds and cuttings and translocation of plants from within the canal alignment and / or construction footprint (whichever is the greater in extent); (c) Mitigate through appropriate methods the loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats destroyed, removed or disturbed, during construction of the Terrace Canal; (d) Mitigate for the loss of indigenous vegetation-landform associations destroyed, removed or disturbed during construction; (e) Ensure the successful establishment and long term viability of proposed mitigation plantings; (f) Minimise the potential for lizards and large ground-dwelling invertebrates to be significantly affected by construction (g) Minimise the establishment or spread of noxious weeds within the areas and on to neighbouring properties.
54. No construction works downstream of the Highbank Power Station shall commence until the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan is certified by the Manager of Planning and Regulatory Services, Ashburton District Council as being adequate to: (a) achieve the objectives of the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan in full, as set out in condition (51); and (b) ensure consistency with all other relevant conditions of consent LUC07/0030.
55. The Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan shall be maintained as current at all times by the Consent Holder. The consent holder may, at any time following certification, request amendments to the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan. Amendments may be made following consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society by submitting the amendments in writing to the Manager of Planning and Regulatory Services, Ashburton District Council no less than 20 working days prior to the changes taking effect, for certification that the proposed amendments achieve the management plan objectives identified in condition (51).
56. The Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan shall be reviewed annually. Each Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan review shall incorporate all monitoring results obtained during that monitoring period as specified within the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan. A copy of each annual Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan review shall be forwarded to the Regulatory Manager of the Ashburton District Council, the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society within one calendar month of its completion.
57. The Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan shall be prepared, implemented and maintained in conjunction with, and in a manner that is consistent with the Landscape Management Plan required under this consent.
58. The consent holder shall be responsible for meeting the reasonable costs incurred by the Ashburton District Council in receiving and certifying the management plans and reviews referred to in this consent.
Public Access
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 58 59. (a) The consent holder shall maintain existing public access from Lowes Cutting at all times other than when temporarily restricting public access in the interests of public safety during construction or maintenance activities associated with the exercise of this consent;
(b) The consent holder shall endeavour, through consultation with affected land owners, to provide public access to and along the Terrace Canal upon the commencement of power generation activities, except where access would cross land in other ownership not authorized by the landowner, or when temporarily restricting public access in the interests of public safety during maintenance activities associated with the exercise of this consent, and within the limitations of the consent holders responsibilities under the relevant New Zealand Health and Safety legislation; (c) The consent holder shall where practicable provide for public access to the ecological re-vegetation areas identified on the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan Planting Plan Sheets 1 and 2 attached to this consent, in consultation with affected landowners and within the limitations of the consent holders responsibilities under the relevant New Zealand Health and Safety legislation, Advice Note: The Planting Plan Sheets referred to in (c) are MWH Ecological Planting Plan sheets 1 and 2 dated 06/04/09 provided with the draft TEMP, and updated to comply with condition 61 and other conditions of this consent.
Legal Protection
60. Prior to commencing construction between chainage 3500 and 11500 the consent holder shall provide the Ashburton District Council with legal descriptions and other documentation as may be necessary to confirm the consent holder’s ownership of all land to contain the ecological re-vegetation areas referred to in condition 57(c), and identifying covenants or other protection mechanisms to be applied to each ecological re-vegetation area in accordance with the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan.
61. Ecological Re-vegetation Area D1 shall be implemented in general accordance with the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan Planting Plans, Sheet 1. Ecological Re-vegetation Area D1 shall include no less than 7 hectares with a farm access way no wider than 9 metres between D1 and the base of the batter slope, and shall be of dimensions adequate to achieve the ecological management goals defined for area D1 in the Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan.
Performance Bond
62. The Consent Holder shall provide and maintain in favour of the Consent Authority a bond or bonds to secure the completion of rehabilitation in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan and Terrestrial Ecology Management Plan.
63. The Consent Holder shall not exercise these consents until the bond, or bonds, have been executed by the Consent Holder and guarantor and deposited with the Consent Authority.
64. Unless the bond is a cash bond to the consent authority, the performance of the conditions of the bond shall be guaranteed by a guarantor acceptable to the consent authorities. The guarantor shall bind itself to pay for undertaking and completion of any condition in the event of any default.
65. If the consent holder is unable at any time to arrange a guarantor for the quantum as determined in accordance with Conditions 66 and 67 the Consent holder will provide a cash bond or bonds for the quantum within 60 days of the date of the renewal specified in Condition 68.
66. The bond shall be in a form acceptable to the Consent Authority.
67. The Consent Holder shall provide the bond or bonds for the quantum determined in accordance with Bond Conditions 66 and 67 for a minimum term of three years, such term to be renewed for a minimum of a further three-year term (or such other term as the parties may agree) on a yearly basis commencing on the first
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 59 anniversary of the date that the first bond is executed by the Consent Holder and guarantor and deposited with the Consent Authority.
68. The amount (quantum) of the bond may be varied from time to time, but at any given time shall be sufficient to cover the estimated costs at that time (including any contingency) of compliance with all conditions to the extent indicated in the Landscape and Terrestrial Ecology Management Plans, including (but not limited to) : i. Eco-sourcing native vegetation for ecological re-vegetation areas ii propagation or other acquisition of plant material for the indigenous mitigation iii. Management of threatened and uncommon Melicytus spp iv Planting in ecological re-vegetation areas including protection and enhancement of two kowhai woodlands at Lowes Cutting. v. Animal pest control vi. Plant pest control vii Irrigation viii. Collection and translocation of lizards ix Site control Measures x Legal Protection of ecological re-vegetation areas xi Rehabilitation by re-contouring, spreading sub-soils and topsoil, and re-vegetation until disturbed areas have been re-established with suitable vegetation; xii Stabilisation of earthworks and landforms. xiii Landscape mitigation vegetation acquisition and planting xiv Landscape (wider site) re-vegetation maintenance xv Maintenance and monitoring of all re-vegetated and enhanced areas.
69. The initial bond quantum shall be set at the 80% level of confidence for the estimated costs determined by a suitably qualified specialist acceptable to the Consent Authorities in accordance with Bond Condition 59, based on the first Annual Work Plan and probabilistic calculations using the Monte Carlo simulation technique. Thereafter, the same specialist, or an alternate specialist acceptable to the Consent Authority, shall review and prepare a report for the parties on the bond quantum at yearly intervals based on the same methodology, but using the Annual Work Plan for the coming year. If the reviewed bond quantum is higher than the current bond quantum, then the bond quantum shall be increased accordingly within 30 days of the parties receiving the report, unless the Consent Holder invokes Bond Condition 66.
70. Should the Consent Holder not agree with the bond quantum determined in accordance with Bond Condition 67, then the matter shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. Arbitration shall be commenced by written notice (“notice of arbitration”) by the Consent Holder to the Consent Authority advising that the amount of the bond is disputed, such notice to be given within 14 days of the Consent Holder receiving the report referred to in Bond Condition 67.if the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator within 7 days if the notice of arbitration, then an arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand. Such arbitrator shall give an award in writing to the parties within 30 days after his or her appointment (the “date of arbitration decision”), unless the parties agree that the date of arbitration decision shall be extended. The Consent Holder shall bear the full and reasonable costs of the parties in connection with this arbitration. In all other respects, the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 shall apply. Pending the outcome of that arbitration, and subject, the current bond shall continue in force. The bond quantum shall be adjusted in accordance with the arbitration decision.
71. If the decision of the arbitrator is not made available by the date of arbitration decision specified in the bond report prepared in accordance with Bond Condition 67 then the amount of the bond shall be the quantum specified in the bond report prepared in accordance with Condition 67 until such time as the arbitrator does give a decision in writing to the parties. At that time, the amount of the bond shall then be adjusted in accordance with the arbitration decision.
72. The bond shall remain in place for a period of 12 months once rehabilitation works are complete and the scheme commissioned. Rehabilitation is not complete until the closure criteria listed in the Ecological Management Plan are met.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 60
73. The provisions of Section 109 of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall apply to any bond, or bonds, required pursuant to the above.
74. The Consent Holder shall meet the costs of providing any bond, or bonds, including the costs of the bond and any substitute bond.
TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
75. Prior to construction and for the purpose of ensuring that Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) operations and associated infrastructure are protected from adverse effects from the construction and operation of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme, the consent holder shall:
(a) consult with Telecom with the aim to identify and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects from the construction of the Rakaia Terrace Hydro Scheme on Telecom infrastructure and services;
(b) specifically, the consultation should aim to identify and evaluate in conjunction with Telecom the extent and possible avoidance, mitigation or remediation (in accordance with the Electricity Act 1992 and Electricity Regulations 1997 and any subsequent amendments to them) of any resultant induction hazard and/or Earth Potential Rise (EPR) hazard; (c) forward to the Environmental Services Manager, Ashburton District Council, and copy to Telecom, a report detailing the consultation undertaken with Telecom, and the identification and evaluation of the matters set out in conditions (a) and (b) above. The report shall include a description of measures recommended to be taken by the consent holder to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on Telecom infrastructure and operations from the construction or operation of the scheme.
Review of Conditions 76. Pursuant to Section 128(1) of the Act, the Consent Authority may review any of the conditions of these consents by serving notice either: (a) Within a period of two months of the date of commencement of these consents; or (b) Within a period of three months commencing on each anniversary of the date of issue of these consents for any of the following purposes: i. To deal with any adverse effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or ii. To require the consent holder to adopt the best practicable option to mitigate any adverse effect upon the environment; or iii. To deal with any other adverse effect on the environment on which the exercise of the consent may have any influence; iv. To deal with inaccuracies contained in the consent application that materially influenced the decision made on the application and is such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions. Advice Notes: The Council will require payment of its administrative charges in relation to monitoring, as authorised by the provisions of section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as contained in the Ashburton District Council’s Schedule of Fees. All land use activities, including earthworks associated with the hydro scheme must comply with the New Zealand Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001). All trees and vegetation planted on site must comply with the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003. The Environment Canterbury resource consents shall include requirements for a Dust Management Plan.
ACWT Conditions_22 April 2009_FINAL.docDocument Number: 230328 61