Case book for Stage 2 Opening submissions for the Applicants
(excluding cases previously provided in Stage 1 case book)
1. Re Draft National Water Conservation (Mataura River) Order C32/90, 4 May 1990 at 39-40 2. Hearing Committee Report on the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere amendment order, July 2011 3. Report by the Special Tribunal on the Rangitata River Water Conservation Order Application, October 2002
Rangitata River Water Conservation Order Application
Report by the Special Tribunal
October 2002 Table of Contents
NOTICE TO MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT...... i
PART I PROCESS ...... 1 The application...... 1 Water conservation order legislation ...... 2 Accepting the application ...... 2 Tribunal appointment process...... 3 Notification ...... 3 Submissions ...... 4 Pre-hearing conference ...... 5 Range of the tribunal’s inquiry ...... 7 Hearing...... 7 Timeline ...... 7 Field trips ...... 8 Tribunal decision-making and reporting process...... 8 Legal issues and terminology...... 9 Description of the Rangitata River ...... 15
PART II WATERS IN A NATURAL STATE 21
PART III EVALUATION OF OUTSTANDING FEATURES AND QUALITIES 23 Introduction...... 23 Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms...... 24 Fishery...... 33 Wild, scenic and other natural characteristics...... 45 Scientific and ecological values...... 53 Recreation ...... 60 Historical, spiritual and cultural purposes ...... 70 Significance in accordance with Tikanga Māori ...... 74 Summary of outstanding features & qualities & waters in a natural state...... 78
PART IV NEEDS OF INDUSTRY AND THE COMMUNITY...... 79 Introduction...... 79 Consents...... 79 Consent applications ...... 80 Rangitata Diversion Race ...... 81 Water needs within the Rangitata catchment...... 84 Future needs of industry and the community...... 85 Conclusions...... 90
PART V PLANS, POLICY STATEMENTS ETC...... 93 Introduction...... 93 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement...... 94 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement...... 95 Regional Coastal Plan for Canterbury ...... 99 Ashburton District Plan...... 100 Timaru District Plan...... 103 Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (draft) ...... 105 Opihi River Management Plan & Waimakariri River Management Plan ...... 107 New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy...... 107 Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy...... 108 “The 1986 Plan” (see Part I) ...... 108
PART VI WATER MANAGEMENT REGIMES RECOMMENDED TO THE TRIBUNAL ...... 109 The Applicant (“applicant”)...... 109 Department of Conservation (“DoC”) ...... 110 Environment Canterbury (“ECan”)...... 111 Dr Paul Mosley (“Mosley”)...... 111 Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd and Trustpower (“RDR”) ...... 112 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc (“Forest and Bird”) ...... 112
PART VII PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF OUTSTANDING FEATURES AND QUALITIES ...... 113 Introduction...... 113 Preservation of waters in a natural state ...... 113 Protection of outstanding characteristics ...... 113 Restrictions and prohibitions to protect outstanding features and qualities ...... 122 Necessity for a water conservation order...... 132
PART VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 137 Conclusions...... 137 Draft order attached ...... 139
APPENDIX 1 DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION ORDER
APPENDIX 2 LIST OF SUBMITTERS
APPENDIX 3 LIST OF WITNESSES
APPENDIX 4 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS AND TERMS
APPENDIX 5 MAPS
c/o PO Box 1345 Christchurch
21 October 2002
Hon. Marian Hobbs Minister for the Environment Parliament Buildings Wellington
Dear Minister
Rangitata River Water Conservation Order Application
Pusuant to s208(1) and (2) Resource Management Act 1991, a copy of the report and recommendation of the special tribunal appointed to hear the Rangitata River water conservation order application is annexed to this notice. The report includes the reasons for our recommendation, as well as our recommended Draft Water Conservation Order (Rangitata River) 2002.
The special tribunal received over 1,100 written submissions and heard 27 days of evidence. Our report sets out the process and results of our deliberations. We have concluded that different sections of the Rangitata River have outstanding features and qualities including: • Amenity and intrinsic values afforded by waters in their natural state • Aquatic bird habitat • Salmon fishery (salmon habitat and salmon fishing) • Wild & scenic, and other natural characteristics • Scientific and ecological values for braided river characteristics, indigenous riverbed plant communities and aquatic macro-invertebrates • Water-based recreation • Spiritual, cultural and historical values • Significance for Tikanga Māori • Amenity and intrinsic values
We also had regard to the needs of industry and the community, as well as the relevant policies and plans. As a result of taking all these matters into account we recommend to you that, in order to preserve or protect the outstanding features and qualities of the Rangitata River, a water conservation order is made. The draft order that we have prepared includes restrictions and prohibitions to achieve the following: • Preserve the headwaters (the Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries), as far as possible, in their natural state • Maintain the main stem of the Rangitata River as a free-flowing river • Retain freshes and floods • Maintain a flow hydrograph that is as close as practical to the natural regime
i • Set minimum flows below which no abstractions are permitted • Maintain high water quality • Minimise disturbances in the bed of the river • Protect salmon spawning waters and access to them • Maintain the waters of the upper Rangitata and the gorge, as far as is practical, in their present highly natural state by minimising abstraction and discharges. • Maintain the mitigating ecological effects achieved by a large continuous abstraction
We also recognise the needs of industry and the community to use water, as long as the outstanding features can be protected, so our draft water conservation order proposes a river management regime consisting of: • A minimum flow of 20 m3/s in summer and 15 m3/s in winter; • Changes between summer and winter minimum flows on 15 September and 15 May; • A 1:1 sharing of a maximum of 33 m3/s abstraction according to a workable schedule; • Additional abstraction of up to 20 m3/s in two steps when the flow in the river is above 110 m3/s; • At least 28 m3/s being allocated to one continuous abstraction; • No damming of the main stem of the Rangitata River; • Restriction on the number of points where water may be abstracted from the main stem to three locations (not specified), all below the gorge; • Abstractions may be permitted from tributaries, subject to appropriate conditions; • Water quality standards to protect salmon, salmon spawning, recreation, and macro-invertebrates including requirements relating to temperature.
Please also note that the special tribunal adjourned its hearing on 20 December 2001. Subsequently the special tribunal has determined that there is no need to reconvene and therefore the hearing is formally closed.
While it has taken us some time to come to our conclusions regarding this application, we wish to note that the issues are complex, and we were presented with a large amount of high quality evidence on many topics. We have endeavoured to fully understand all the material that was presented to us. We appreciate the huge amount of effort that many people went to, in both their written and oral presentations, to ensure that we had the opportunity to make a sound recommendation.
Yours sincerely
Dr Jonet Ward Chairperson
ii Part I Process
The application
1. The application was filed on 23 December 1999, by the New Zealand Fish and Game Council and the Central South Island Fish and Game Council (the applicant).
2. The application was made in respect of the Rangitata River and its tributaries together with shallow groundwater reserves within 15 metres from the surface and less than 1000 metres from the main river downstream from Arundel Bridge.
3. The reasons given for the application were as follows: • A nationally important and outstanding sports fish resource • Habitat for native fish • Recreational use including: rafting, canoeing, kayaking, jetboating, whitebaiting, floundering, picnicking and sightseeing • Native bird habitat • High level of accessibility
4. Natural features supporting these values were stated as: • Water temperature coupled with the incidence of fresh flows • Frequency and duration of fresh flows • Sufficient flow to ensure the mouth stays open • Sufficient flow to provide adequate fish passage • No dams • Pristine water quality
5. The application noted that the Rangitata River has special importance for Ngāi Tahu, recognised by the Crown in the Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. The application appended a letter (dated 22 December 1999) in support of the water conservation order from Te Rünanga O Ngāi Tahu to the New Zealand Fish and Game Council.
6. The key provisions that the applicant sought in a water conservation order were: • Restriction on damming of water (not applying to existing rock weirs and river works to the same level and extent as occurring as at 1 January 2000, nor to work necessary for flood and asset protection) • Restriction on alterations of river flow and form, specifically no change to the channel cross section, meandering pattern and braided river channel characteristics of the river • Restriction on the diversion or taking of water contrary to the following: o Total abstraction limited to 33 m3/s o 1 September - 30 April a minimum flow of 20 m3/s and a ratio of 1:1 sharing instream and out-of-stream when flows are between 40 and 66 m3/s as measured at Klondyke. Flow in excess of 66 m3/s to remain instream
Part I 1 o For the period 1 May – 1 August the minimum flow to be 15 m3/s and a ratio of 1:1 sharing instream and out-of-stream when flows are between 30 and 66 m3/s. Flow in excess of 66 m3/s to remain instream • No alteration of water quality existing at 1 January 2000 • Maintenance of fish passage • Prevention or minimisation of fish entering an intake to the satisfaction of the applicant
Water conservation order legislation
7. Part IX of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the purpose and meaning of water conservation orders and defines the mechanisms for an application and its processing.
8. In summary these are: S199 Purpose of water conservation orders S200 Meaning of “water conservation order” S201 Application S202 Minister’s obligations upon receipt of an application S203 Special tribunal S204 Notification S205 Submissions S206 Conduct of hearing S207 Matters to be considered S208 Special tribunal to report on application S209-213 Environment Court process S214 Making of a water conservation order S215 Minister’s obligation to state reasons S216 Revocation or variation of order S217 Effect of water conservation order
9. We note that this is the first order to be initiated and considered solely under Part IX RMA, rather than previous legislation Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 (W&S Act), although some applications begun under the W&S Act were completed under the RMA.
Accepting the application
10. The application was sent to the Minister for the Environment with payment of the prescribed fee. The Minister acknowledged receipt of the application on 12 January 2000, and did not seek further information on the application (S201).
11. Section 202 obliges the Minister, as soon as practicable, to either appoint a special tribunal to hear and report on the application, or to reject the application supplying reasons for the rejection. Rejection of an application requires sound and relevant grounds to justify that decision. There were no grounds for rejection of the application.
Part I 2 Tribunal appointment process
12. Tribunal appointments, which must be approved by the Appointments and Honours Committee of Cabinet, were made after wide consultation. Consultees included heads of Government Departments, Members of Parliament in the area local to the Rangitata River, as well as the Ministers of Conservation and Maori Affairs, as specified in section 202.
13. On 10 October 2000 the Minister for the Environment appointed the three person special tribunal to hear and report on the application for a water conservation order on the Rangitata River. She appointed Dr Jonet Ward to chair the special tribunal, and Claire Mulcock and Dr Murray Parsons as members.
Role of the special tribunal
14. The role of the special tribunal is to make a recommendation, not a decision. The recommendation is to the Minister for the Environment, who is the final decision-maker under section 214 or 215 RMA (positive or negative recommendation to the Governor-General that an order be made).
15. The tribunal is required to either prepare a draft water conservation order or to recommend that the application be declined. In either case it must give the reasons for its conclusion (s20A).
Notification
16. In accordance with sections 205(7) and 37 of the RMA, the special tribunal publicly notified the application on 9 December 2000 with a closing date for submissions of 28 February 2001. The period selected contained 39 working days as, under section 2, the dates 20 December to 15 January and Waitangi Day are not counted as working days. A submission period longer than the 20 day minimum was chosen to allow potential submitters adequate time over the summer holiday break without causing undue delay.
17. As per the requirements of section 204, a public notice appeared in the New Zealand Herald, The Dominion, The Press, The Otago Daily Times, the Southland Times and Timaru Herald. Notice was served on the applicant, Environment Canterbury, the Timaru and Ashburton District Councils and Te Rūnanga O Ngāi Tahu.
18. Any person may make a submission to the application. Any person who supports the order but who would prefer preservation of a different but related water body in the same catchment, or that different features or qualities of the water body be preserved can include that in their submission along with reasons and suggested provisions. Any person who opposes the order should specify the reasons why the order is not justified.
Part I 3 19. Although the special tribunal may request further information from any submitter, no such requests were made.
Submissions
20. The application attracted more than 1,100 submissions. The list of submitters is attached in Appendix 2. Despite pressure from the media to come up with the figures of submissions in support and in opposition to the application, these were never provided. The special tribunal deemed this irrelevant being firmly of the view that it is neither a vote, nor a numbers game. Further, it would be difficult to reach a final figure as some submitters neither supported nor opposed the application. Still others wrote clearly in support of an order but stated that they opposed it, and vice versa. Many of the submissions in support of an order were one page submissions on a form widely circulated amongst potential supporters.
21. The majority of submissions were made by people living locally or in the region with others from elsewhere in New Zealand or overseas. Submissions also came from people who had visited New Zealand as tourists.
22. Summary of submitter location
(note: numbers may not be exact) Town/District Support Oppose Other Total
Near Rangitata Rakaia 7 1 8 Ashburton / Tinwald 177 85 262 Geraldine / Fairlie 84 26 1 111 Mayfield / Methven 9 0 9 Temuka & environs 62 24 86 Timaru & environs 156 17 173 Waimate 10 0 10 Upper Waitaki 5 1 6 Oamaru 10 1 11
Other South Island Nelson/Marlborough 21 0 21 West Coast 4 0 4 North Canterbury 27 1 28 Christchurch & environs 234 9 1 244 Central Otago 6 1 7 Dunedin & environs 24 1 25 Southland 13 0 13
The Rest North Island 57 5 62 Overseas 11 0 11 Other (address not given) 8 1 1 10
23. Submitters encompassed a wide range of backgrounds, ages, affiliations etc. They included: • Individuals, families and organisations.
Part I 4 • Males and Females • Old and young • Instream interests and out of stream interests • Local residents and overseas people • Green groups, farming groups, recreational groups • Government departments, iwi groups, industry groups
Availability of submissions
24. Submissions were made available for viewing at the offices of: • Ashburton District Council • Timaru District Council • Ministry for the Environment (Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland offices) • Christchurch Central Library (Aoteoroa New Zealand section)
25. A full set of submissions could be bought at a cost of $80 plus postage. A key point summary of submissions was made available in May 2001 at a cost of $30.
26. As many submissions were hand-written, and all were submitted in hard copy it was not practical to make submissions available on the internet. The summary of submissions was provided on the Ministry for the Environment website (www.mfe.govt.nz).
Pre-hearing conference
27. A pre-hearing conference was held on 4 April 2001 at the Desmond Unwin Tennis Centre in Timaru. All submitters were invited to attend. The purpose of the pre-hearing conference was to arrange the hearing process.
28. Counsel for Environment Canterbury, Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd and the Timaru District Council lodged memoranda with the special tribunal seeking an order for full exchange of evidence prior to the beginning of the hearing. Counsel for those submitters also sought a deferral of the proposed hearing dates from June 2001 until later in the year. The applicant concurred with this request.
29. Counsel for Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd and the Timaru District Council also sought provision of technical information. The suggestion was made that the special tribunal obtain for itself independent advice, information and review.
30. The special tribunal adjourned to consider the requests. Following the adjournment the special tribunal noted that it needed to take into account the interests of all submitters.
Part I 5 Request for deferment of hearing
31. The special tribunal agreed to a deferment with dates to be decided, but the hearing not to take place before September.
Exchange of evidence
32. The special tribunal did not make an order requiring exchange of evidence. It stated that with the deferment of the hearing, if the reports currently commissioned are made available, this should act fairly to inform parties of the necessary background information. The tribunal also noted its appreciation of the logistical difficulties that exchange of evidence would entail, bearing in mind the large number of submitters and the need to be fair to everyone who had an interest.
Provision of technical information
33. The special tribunal requested that all parties provide, to those who requested it, a list of reports being prepared. The tribunal asked all parties to be responsible in making reports available to those who wanted them.
Other matters
34. The tribunal declined to commission an independent report. It noted that a number of reports had been commissioned by various parties and it did not consider a further report necessary.
35. The tribunal did not consider that an independent review was required.
36. The tribunal did not propose to appoint an expert technical advisor.
37. After the pre-hearing conference, all submitters were notified in writing of the deferral of the hearing and given the opportunity to state that they wished to be heard at this later time, even if they had previously indicated that they did not wish to attend the hearing scheduled for June.
38. Submitters that had already indicated they wished to be heard were sent a letter advising them of the deferral, appending the resolutions made by the special tribunal and indicating the following procedural matters: • Submitters would not be required to swear an oath; • Submitters could request that sensitive information be protected; • There would be no cross examination, although questions of clarification could be requested through the chair.
39. Apart from the pre-hearing conference referred to above, the special tribunal did not hold any formal pre-hearing meetings.
Part I 6 Range of the tribunal’s inquiry
40. Section 205 RMA which provides for submissions to be made to the tribunal enables submissions to seek an order for –
(a) a different but related water body; or
(b) different features and qualities to be preserved.
41. This indicates that the tribunal may have the range of its inquiry extended by the content of the submissions received.
42. We note that the applicant sought a water conservation order “for the whole of the river from the source to the sea, including all tributaries, lakes, tarns and wetlands ….”; “also seeks inclusion of “shallow groundwater reserves ….”. No submissions were received regarding different but related water bodies.
43. However, in addition to the protection sought by the applicant, submitters asked for an order to protect other characteristics and qualities including: • habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms - especially aquatic birds and native fish • scientific or ecological values - including glacial fed, braided river characteristics • historical purposes • characteristics in accordance with tikanga Māori
44. The special tribunal, therefore, included all these matters in its deliberations.
Hearing
45. Approximately 150 submitters asked to be heard in support of their submissions. Including counsel and witnesses for each party, approximately 216 presentations were made to the special tribunal during the hearing. The list of appearances is given in Appendix 3.
46. The special tribunal sat for 27 days between 3 October and 20 December 2001 to hear the submitters and their witnesses. The hearing ran to time, but extra days had to be programmed along the way to provide for submitters’ illnesses and adjusted requests for time.
47. Extra days were also required as submitters took the special tribunal on a number of field trips in order to point out particular features. Visits were made to the Mayfield-Hinds and Rangitata Diversion Race irrigation systems, to the upper catchment to see fish spawning and bird nesting sites, to the river mouth and estuary, and to the Opuha dam and Levels Plains irrigation system.
48. As well as traditional written evidence and power point or overhead projections, evidence presented took the form of oral statements, poems, music, slides, videos, and historic movie footage.
Part I 7 Timeline
49. Key dates: 23 December 1999 Application lodged 12 January 2000 Minister for the Environment acknowledges receipt of the application 21 March 2000 Minister for the Environment accepts the application 10 October 2000 Minister appoints special tribunal 9 December 2000 Public notification 14 December 2000 Tour of the catchment by air 28 February 2001 Close of submissions 4 April 2001 Pre-hearing conference June 2001 Proposed date for hearing October - December 2001 Actual date for hearing 3 October 2001 Applicant opens case 8 October 2001 Submissions in support begin 29 October 2001 Submissions in opposition begin 12 December 2001 Last day of submissions 20 December 2001 Applicant closes its case
Field trips
50. The special tribunal made several visits: 14 December 2000 Special tribunal tour of the Rangitata River catchment from mountains to sea by air 10 October 2001 Special tribunal visit to river mouth (south side) 28 October 2001 Special tribunal visit to river mouth (north side) 7 November 2001 Trip by bus to tour lower catchment and Rangitata Diversion Race and Mayfield Hinds Irrigation systems 5 December 2001 Four-wheel drive trip to upper catchment 11 December 2001 Federated Farmers and Rangitata Community Catchment organised bus trip to the Opuha Dam 20 December 2001 Special tribunal trip to the river mouth (south side)
Tribunal decision-making and reporting process
51. Following the hearing the tribunal had to decide whether or not to recommend a draft water conservation order. The following steps were taken in order to reach a conclusion.
52. The special tribunal considered all the submissions, both those that were read and/or presented upon, and those submissions which were in writing and which were not spoken to or orally addressed in person at the hearing. This is in line with its statutory obligations under s207(a) RMA.
53. The tribunal first evaluated which, if any, of the characteristics, values or purposes able to be protected or preserved by a water conservation order were outstanding (Part III). We also considered whether or not the waters are in their
Part I 8 natural state (Part II). During this part of our deliberations we did not consider whether or how to recognise and provide for protection for any feature that we found to be outstanding.
54. Having concluded that there were outstanding features, the tribunal assessed the needs of primary and secondary industry and the community and reviewed relevant plans and policies (Part IV and Part V).
55. Next the conditions required to protect the outstanding features were determined, and then allowance given for industry and community needs that could be met while still protecting the outstanding features (Part VII). At this point the tribunal decided that a water conservation order was necessary to protect or preserve the outstanding features and a draft was prepared. (Part VIII and Appendix 1).
Legal issues and terminology
Part IX of the RMA
56. Part IX of the RMA deals with water conservation orders. The first statutory provision for the making of water conservation orders was introduced by an amendment to the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 in 1981. This amendment became known as the “Wild and Scenic Rivers” legislation. This 1981 amendment introduced sections 20A-20J to the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. Its purpose included ensuring that adequate account was taken of the needs of primary and secondary industry, community water supplies, all forms of water-based recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitats, and of the preservation and the protection of the wild, scenic and other natural characteristics of rivers, streams, and lakes.
57. The purpose of water conservation orders is now set out under s199(1) RMA. This purpose is to recognise and sustain –
(a) Outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state:
(b) Where waters are no longer in their natural state, the amenity or intrinsic values of those waters which in themselves warrant protection because they are considered outstanding.
58. The preservation and protection aspects of the order introduced by the long title to the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 (as amended in 1981) is carried through in s199(2) RMA. That states that a water conservation may provide for any of the following:
(a) The preservation as far as possible in its natural state of any water body that is considered to be outstanding:
(b) The protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes to, and which are considered to be outstanding, –
Part I 9 (i) As a habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms:
(ii) As a fishery:
(iii) For its wild, scenic, or other natural characteristics:
(iv) For scientific and ecological values:
(v) For recreational, historical, spiritual, or cultural purposes:
(c) The protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes to and which are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Māori.
59. In comparing the purpose of the wild and scenic rivers legislation with that set out in s199 RMA, the wording is broadly similar. However a comparison also requires reference to s20B(6) Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 which required the Minister to take into account: “
(a) All forms of water-based recreation, fisheries and wildlife habitats;
(b) The wild, scenic, or other natural characteristics of the river, stream, or lake;
(c) The needs of primary and secondary industry, and of the community; and
(d) The provisions of any relevant regional planning scheme and district scheme.”
60. Similar to this provision is s207 RMA, which directs the special tribunal to have particular regard to the purpose of the water conservation order and the other matters set out in s199, and also directs that the special tribunal shall have regard to –
(a) The application and/or submissions; and
(b) The needs of primary and secondary industry, and of the community; and
(c) The relevant provisions of every national policy statement, New Zealand coastal policy statement, regional policy statement, regional plan, district plan, and any proposed plan.”
61. A significant difference between the two regimes is the introduction as a consideration into s199(2) RMA of the protection of characteristics which any water body may have or contribute to, where such characteristics are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Maori. The Act defines “tikanga Maori” as: “Maori customary values and practices”.
62. Another significant difference under the RMA is that a water conservation order may now also provide for the protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes to, and which are considered to be outstanding for historical, spiritual or cultural purposes.
Part I 10 Quality of the application
63. Some parties criticised the quality of the application and believed that a lack of information therein is grounds for rejection of the application or the seeking of further information.
64. In fact, acceptance by the Minister is a “triggering device” that sets the application on a process which itself takes the form of an inquiry. The information that is required to make a decision on the outcome of the application is then presented by the applicant and submitters to the independent special tribunal.
Coastal Marine Area
65. Several parties (including the Minister of Conservation and Federated Farmers NZ) highlighted the fact that an order cannot extend into the coastal marine area (as defined in the RMA).
66. We do not disagree with this, but note that we accept that outstanding characteristics that are identified within the coastal marine area are relevant to our considerations. If there are outstanding characteristics that depend on the functioning of the mouth and part of lower river to remain outstanding, we must take account of this.
Sustainable management and water conservation orders
67. Mr Christensen in his opening on behalf of the applicant at paragraph 3.8 stated that: “… the water conservation order regime sits outside of the purpose and principles of the [RMA] as contained in Part II. In other words, the water conservation order regime is a code and in addressing this application, the special tribunal is not to consider the concept of “sustainable management” as it is defined in s5 of the Act. There is no balancing exercise to be undertaken.”
68. Mr Christensen went on to refer to this code as being a clear and deliberate intent of Parliament.
69. As already noted, the provisions in the RMA controlling the application for and issuing of a water conservation order is in Part IX of the Act. Section 199(1) states: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Part II, ….” and then goes on to state the purpose of a water conservation order already quoted above. With respect to Mr Christensen, the special tribunal does not wish to state that Part IX is a code. It relies on the comments of the then Planning Tribunal in Re Draft Water Conservation Order (Mohaka River) Order W20/92, where the Tribunal noted the purpose of a water conservation order was stated in wider terms in s199 RMA than it was under the Water and Soil Conservation Act, 1967.
70. That Tribunal noted that this was particularly so in respect of the amenity or intrinsic values of waters not in their natural state, and also in respect of the
Part I 11 scope of the order that might be made under the RMA. Importantly, the Planning Tribunal itself was not prepared to rule in Re Draft Water Conservation Order (Kawarau) Order C33/96 that Part IX was a code, but it accepted, as we must also, that Part IX has primacy over Part II of the Act. Thus the only Part II matters of relevance to our considerations are those referred to in s199 and s212. To that extent we accept Mr Christensen’s submissions, particularly his point that decisions about sustainable management are to occur subject to any water conservation order.
Outstanding
71. The term “outstanding” was used under the previous legislation (refer s20D(2) Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967) and is carried through in s199(1) and s199(2).
72. We note that many of the earlier water conservation order decisions of the Planning Tribunal related to wording different from that now found in the RMA. Thus in Re Draft Water Conservation (Mohaka River) Order W20/92 it was held that intrinsic values were not a matter for independent consideration under the 1981 amendment to the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, nor a feature to be specified in a conservation order. However, the outstanding amenity or intrinsic values afforded by waters in their natural state are now relevant as a specific purpose set out under s199(1)(a) “outstanding amenity or intrinsic values”. Even when waters are no longer in their natural state, under s199(1)(b) we must consider the amenity or intrinsic value of the waters.
73. However, in other respects earlier case law does still apply. Thus the then Planning Tribunal’s consideration, in cases such as the Mataura, the Mohaka and most recently the Buller Water Conservation Orders, that to be “outstanding”, a reasonably rigorous test must apply. The Tribunal has held that this would mean that amenity would need to be out of the ordinary on a national basis. Against that comparison we have measured the evidence presented to this tribunal.
74. We are also guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated [1988] 1 NZLR 78, where at 91 the Court of Appeal found that a conservation order under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 “may and in some cases clearly should extend to an entire river system, including parts of the system which would not in themselves be worthy of preservation or protection but for their contribution to the system” (our emphasis). The contribution by a water body to the protection of characteristics considered to be outstanding is specifically recognised in s199(2)(b) and (c).
75. However, that does not mean to say that an entire river system must necessarily be protected by the order. We remind ourselves of the then Planning Tribunal’s conclusions in its decision on the Re Draft Water Conservation (Buller River) Order C28/93. There the Tribunal found that a catchment-wide or whole system approach did not accord with the relevant provisions of the Water and Soil Conservation Act. If a water body is contributing to another water body
Part I 12 which contains an outstanding feature, then the contributing water body may itself be worthy of inclusion in a conservation order if its contribution to the outstanding feature or characteristic is significant enough. As we understand the law, mere proximity to an outstanding water body is not sufficient.”
76. The Planning Tribunal stated in its report on the Mataura River that: “The test as to what is outstanding should be a reasonably rigorous test”.
77. This was repeated in the Buller and followed by another division of the Planning Tribunal in the Mohaka report. Reference to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition for “outstanding”:
“1. That stands out or projects; projecting, prominent, detached.”
“2. Standing out from the rest; conspicuous;, eminent; striking.”
“3. That stands over, that remains undetermined, unsettled or unpaid.”
78. Clearly, the ordinary meaning of the term indicates that the characteristics for which protection is sought have to be conspicuous, eminent or striking. They must stand out from the rest. In the Mataura case, the Planning Tribunal considered outstanding as “conspicuous”, “eminent”, “special by excellence” or “standing out from the rest” and applied these tests to the evidence presented about the fishing and angling features. In the Mohaka case the Tribunal found that, for a characteristic or feature to qualify as outstanding, it would need to be quite out of the ordinary on a national basis. In the case of the Buller, the Planning Tribunal held that, to qualify for inclusion in a national water conservation order, a water body either has to be outstanding in a national context or contribute in some significant way to outstanding characteristics or features.
79. The special tribunal concluded that “outstanding” is not synonymous with “unique”. To be unique, there can only be one. Clearly, the ordinary meaning of the term indicates that for characteristics to be outstanding they must be conspicuous, striking or eminent. They must stand out from the rest. We take this to mean that to be outstanding, characteristics must be quite out of the ordinary on a national basis. We also understand that the test for “outstandingness” is reasonably rigorous.
Natural characteristics
80. The RMA refers to “natural characteristics” in Part IX, rather than “natural character” which is referred to elsewhere in the Act. We have considered natural character cases, although our primary consideration has been on the evidence put before us as to whether the particular portions of the Rangitata addressed in that evidence have outstanding natural characteristics. We are not aware of any discussion in the earlier case law under the Water and Soil Conservation Act of the term “natural characteristics”, a phrase which also occurred under s20B of that Act. We have taken “natural character”, noting that
Part I 13 it may involve more component parts than would a broad, overall assessment of character.
81. When assessing what natural character there is in a particular riverine environment, the presence of human-made structures and modifications will not necessarily remove the natural character (National Water Conservation (Mataura) Order C32/90).
Wild and Scenic
82. When considering whether the waters have wild, scenic, or other natural characteristics, we note that wild and scenic is by implication related to “natural”. We have taken the approach that “wild” implies an untamed or relatively unmodified environment. In turn, “scenic” implies a visual environment, which has fine natural scenery, sometimes described as picturesque but not always so. It is the general appearance of natural features in a district which amount to the scenery. Every area has a scenery. However, the values people place upon that scenery differ according to the viewers’ perceptions. We have tried to be as objective as possible in determining whether there are scenic values associated with the Rangitata or portions of its main stem and tributaries. We again note that in addressing the application for this water conservation order it is a national water conservation order which is being sought.
Preservation s199(2)(a)
83. This is referred to in s199(2)(a) RMA. Preservation is only available for water bodies in their natural state. In Part II of our decision we specifically address whether we have evidence to find that portions of the Rangitata River are in their natural state.
Protection s199(2)(b)
84. In determining whether a water conservation order should be recommended to the Minister, we recognise that two of the purposes set out under s199(2) are the “protection” of those characteristics specified under subparagraphs (b) and/or (c). Therefore, in making our recommendation we seek to identify which, if any of the relevant characteristics are outstanding for the Rangitata River, or that may contribute to outstanding characteristics. We then determine if they require protection for their “outstandingness” to be maintained. This report sets out our conclusions on each of the specific items given in s199(2).
85. However, we note that at least in the case of “as a fishery”, to some extent consideration of this matter could easily be duplicated by reference to “recreational purposes”. Again, using that example, there is an overlap between fisheries characteristics and “ecological values”, or “habitat of aquatic organisms”. Therefore to some extent the consideration of each individual item is somewhat artificial. Whilst we acknowledge this, we have tried not to
Part I 14 reproduce in other sections of the report those aspects which are primarily considered under one heading. Thus, the main discussion of salmon and salmon fishing will be found under the topic of “Fishery” rather than under any other subject heading, such as “Recreation”.
Description of the Rangitata River
86. From its source to the sea the Rangitata is about 140 km long, with a total catchment area of about 1,600 km2. Tributary drainage from the snow covered ranges discharges onto a broad sub-alpine braided river plain up to 4 km wide and some 30 km long before entering a narrow gorge cut into the greywacke- argillite bedrock. On exiting the gorge the river initially has a quasi-meandering, single-thread channel, but by Peel Forest has become fully braided again, and maintains this nature for the remaining 50 km to the sea.
87. The river has four distinct sections: • the glaciated mountainous headwaters • the upper Rangitata River plain • the Rangitata gorge • the lower Rangitata River, including the mouth.
88. The headwater tributaries of the Clyde and Havelock are largely unmodified.
89. The main salmon spawning tributaries are in the upper river (Deep Creek, Deep Stream, Brabazon Fan, Black Mountain Stream) and are mostly spring-fed. This part of the river is little modified.
90. The gorge is unlike other Canterbury braided rivers in that it is cut into greywacke / argillite bedrock. Here the channel is much narrower, with a succession of rapids. Hillsides are covered with shrubland and unimproved pasture.
91. The lower river has two sub-sections: the primarily single-thread channel from the gorge to Arundel, and the lower braided reach from Arundel to the sea.
92. Tributaries on the plains include ephemeral and permanent springs in the Arundel area and Ealing Springs on the north bank, and spring-fed McKinnons Creek in the Rangitata Island area.
93. In the river below the gorge, the principal modifications are the major abstraction to the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR); invasion of the river bed and bermlands by exotic vegetation; and training works to protect eroding banks, road and rail crossings etc.
94. The river mouth has a lagoon up to 2.5 km long contained by a shingle barrier. The size of the lagoon varies as the river outlet migrates northward, followed by periodic reinstatement of the outlet directly seawards of the river delta. Some witnesses recalled summers in the past when the lagoon area was large and many water sports were enjoyed. Although they attributed the change to the effects of abstractions, it seems more likely that these were years where flows in
Part I 15 the early summer were insufficient to move the outlet southward and it remained in a northerly position, keeping the lagoon large.
95. This is supported by Mosley (2001) who notes that periodic large floods return the outlet to a position directly seaward of the main river channel, and that this cycle is unlikely to be altered by either the present or conceivable changes to the flow regime.
96. Mouth closure occurs only rarely and never for more than a few tide cycles.
Hydrological regime
97. The hydrologic regime of the river reflects the fact that its headwaters come from the Main Divide, with snowmelt accounting for perhaps 15% of total runoff. All aspects of the hydrologic regime display considerable year-to-year variability; annual mean flow ranges from 80 m3/s to 128 m3/s. Flows have declined below 40 m3/s in 12 out of the 20 years of record, and long periods of sustained low flow can occur, especially in winter. The monthly 7-day low flow varies from an average of over 90 m3/s in November-January to 45-50 m3/s in July and August.
98. Some key hydrological statistics for the river as recorded at Klondyke are (from Scarf): • Mean flow 95 m3/s • Median flow 77 m3/s • Mean annual low flow 40 m3/s • 1:5 year low flow 36 m3/s • 1:10 year low flow 34 m3/s • Lowest daily flow recorded 32.7 m3/s.
99. We note that other submitters report different mean flows. With a variation in annual mean flow from 80 - 128 m3/s, and only a moderate length of flow record it is expected that the mean flow will vary depending which part of the record is analysed. The 1986 plan, using records from 1967-85 gives a mean flow of 93 m3/s, others as high as 100 m3/s. We consider that about 95 m3/s is a reasonable estimate of the long term mean.
100. The river hydrology is dominated by the annual cycle of snow pack accumulation and thaw. Low flows for the year invariably occur in the July- September period when the catchment is ‘frozen up’ and snow pack is accumulating. Snow melt each spring usually sets in about 22 September, firstly from the more coastal ranges followed some three weeks later by the commencement of snow melt from the Southern Alps.
101. The influence of snow melt is seen in higher than average flows through to late December beyond which the hydrology is dominated by the frequency and severity of nor-west rainstorms in the Southern Alps. By the end of March the incidence of such events has tailed away and it is not uncommon for the river to go through a low flow period during April and early May.
Part I 16 102. The Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) has been operating since 1945, and since this time has been the dominant water abstraction from the Rangitata River. Under the present rules the RDR abstraction does not alter the overall shape of the annual flow regime, but mean monthly flows are reduced by 20-25 m3/s throughout the year. The impact is greatest on low and medium flows; abstraction has a negligible effect on flood peaks. With the principal effect on low and medium flows, which occur for much of the time, the RDR in effect causes at least a 30% reduction in discharge for over 70% of the time.
Turbidity
103. Water turbidity is a distinctive aspect of physical water quality. During the snow melt period the turbidity is slightly higher for the same flow than through the remainder of the year.
Water quality
104. The quality of water is similar to that observed in other braided rivers in the region, notably the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers, with generally low nutrient concentrations and periphyton biomass and moderate concentrations of indicator bacteria.
Water temperature
105. In general, water temperatures are within guideline values for instream species.
Groundwater
106. Shallow groundwater is found at depths ranging between 6 and 15 metres below ground within the claybound gravels of the Rangitata fan. Deeper groundwater (greater than 50 metres depth) is also known to exist in an aquifer that appears to be semi-confined. However there is not a lot known about the groundwater resource on the north bank: “the availability of groundwater from deep aquifers underlying the Ashburton-Rangitata Plains has never been properly investigated.” “There is less known about groundwater in the Ashburton – Rangitata Plains than in any other part of the Canterbury Plains.” (Brown L.J. 2001: Canterbury In Groundwaters of New Zealand, M.R. Rosen and White P.A. (eds) NZ Hydrological Society Inc, Wellington pp 441- 459).
107. Groundwater at depths is known to exist between the Coast and (at least) to SH1 Bridge, however yields are extremely variable. There are numerous examples of bores that have low to moderate yields only, and other bores that only provide irrigable quantities of groundwater as a consequence of recharge from the Mayfield Hinds irrigation scheme (de Joux).
Part I 17 108. On the south bank, groundwater close to the river shows the influence of flows in the Rangitata, although some areas, especially on higher terraces appear to be fed from local rainfall, rather than the Rangitata River.
109. ECan (report U01/76) carried out a desk-top assessment of the likely stream depletion effects of groundwater abstraction on the Rangitata River and its tributaries, including McKinnons Creek. This noted that there will be variation between bores, and individual bores could display higher or lower effects than their calculations using estimated values. The report stated that “in some locations, it is probable that groundwater pumping, especially from galleries extending beneath creek beds, contribute to the drying out of tributaries of McKinnons Creek.” “On the north bank of the Rangitata, groundwater abstractions are likely to affect the flow of springs such as the Ealing Springs …”
110. From concurrent gauging work carried out in the 1970s, 1984 and since 1999 (Ingles 2000) it is concluded that there are no significant channel losses or gains downstream from the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) intake to the sea, although when groundwater tables are higher than normal there is probably a small increase in flow (<5%) between Badhams Road and the sea.
Consents
111. Environment Canterbury (ECan) has issued some 27 consents to various landholders to take in total 1.74 m3/s from groundwater resources. Most of this is from shallow wells (<15m deep) that penetrate the unconfined aquifer within the Rangitata Island area. Pumping from these wells has a stream depletion effect on the river, McKinnons Creek or both. This stream flow depletion effect has been assessed by Aitchison-Earl for ECan to total almost 0.95 m3/s.
Communities
112. There are no major towns or cities within the catchment. Ashburton to the north and Timaru to the south are the closest major centres. The river lies wholly within the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury – ECan) jurisdiction and forms the boundary between Ashburton and Timaru Districts.
113. Near the mouth there are small holiday settlements close to the River on both the north and south banks.
114. Ashburton District Council has a permit to take water at the Cracroft intake for community stock and domestic water, and from groundwater for the Montalto rural water supply (community stock and domestic piped water supply). Timaru District Council has a permit to take groundwater for public supply at Rangitata Huts, and from the main river at SH 1 for stockwater.
Part I 18 Current management regime
115. In the absence of a regional plan under the RMA that covers management of the Rangitata River, a non-statutory management plan “Rangitata River Water Management Plan 1986 – 1996” (South Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water Board) still provides the framework for management. We refer to this document as the 1986 Plan.
1986 Plan
116. The provisions in the 1986 Plan included: • 1 June - 31 August, a minimum flow of 15 m3/s • 1 September – 31 May, a minimum flow of 20 m3/s • Above 64 m3/s there were no restrictions and available flows were to be shared on a 1:1 sharing regime • Abstraction was progressively limited, according to the tables below, as river flow fell below 64 m3/s.
In addition there were requirements that: • Wells deemed to be exploiting shallow aquifers directly linked to the surface water resource would be treated as surface water takes • Water quality was to be maintained • Water abstraction restricted according to the following rules:
For the period 1 June – 31 August (all flows in m3/s) Flow at Klondyke RDRM Ltd Stockwater Other Residual Power Irrigation Flow Above 64 30.7 1.0 0 GT 32.3 64.0 – 60.1 30.7 1.0 0 32.3 – 28.4 60.0 – 50.1 26.5 1.0 0 32.5 – 22.6 50.0 – 40.1 21.5 1.0 0 27.5 – 17.6 40.0 – 38.1 22 1.0 0 17.0 – 15.1 38.0 – 36.1 20 1.0 0 17.0 – 15.1 36.0 – 34.1 18 1.0 0 17.0 – 15.1 34.0 – 32.1 16 1.0 0 17.0 – 15.1 32.0 – 30.1 14 1.0 0 17.0 - 15.1
Part I 19 And for the period 1 September – 31 May (all flows in m3/s) Other Residual Flow at Klondyke RDRM Ltd Stockwater Irrigation Flow 64.0 – 60.1 30.7 1.0 0.3 32.0 – 28.1 60.0 – 50.1 26.2 1.0 0.3 32.5 – 22.6 50.0 – 43.1 21.8 1.0 0.2 23.0 – 20.1 43.0 – 40.1 18.9 1.0 0.1 27.0 – 20.1 40.0 – 38.1 16.9 1.0 0.1 22.0 – 20.1 38.0 – 36.1 14.9 1.0 0.1 22.0 – 20.1 36.0 – 34.1 12.9 1.0 0.1 22.0 – 20.1 34.0 – 32.1 10.9 1.0 0.1 22.0 – 20.1
Draft Natural Resources Regional Plan
117. A discussion draft of some chapters of the “Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan” (NRRP) was released for public discussion during the hearing for this order. Management of the Rangitata River is included in these sections. This is discussed in Part V.
Part I 20 Part II Waters in a Natural State
1. No particular evidence was presented to make a case for waters being in a natural state, although several witnesses identified waters they considered are or aren’t in a natural state. We note that whether or not any party specifically provides evidence on waters being in their natural state, it is open to the special tribunal in conducting this inquiry to find that, on the evidence, portions of the waters are in fact in their natural state. If they are in their natural state they may then be preserved, in terms of Part IX of the legislation.
2. As preservation is only an option for those waters which are in their natural state we found it necessary to reach agreement on this, drawing on our own observations and from evidence presented on various topics.
3. Ruapuna Irrigation told us that the Rangitata River above and below gorge is not in its natural state as it is all affected by human occupation and farming.
4. New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association and New Zealand Rafting Association told us that two reaches of the river are in a natural state: Stew Point – Coal Creek in the upper Rangitata and the gorge. Rackham (ECan) identified the river above the Rangitata Diversion Race intake as being essentially in its natural state. Forest and Bird stated that a water conservation order preserving the Rangitata River in and above gorge in its natural state is supported by evidence for outstanding amenity and intrinsic values.
5. In the headwaters (waters of the Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries) much of the catchment is in Crown land, managed for conservation purposes. Some of the land in the lower reaches of both the Clyde and Havelock is farmed but stocking levels are low, and there are no consents under the RMA that we are aware of relating to water use or riverbed activities. Evidence from Lucas, Davis, Mosley and Rackham was relevant.
6. The waters of the upper Rangitata River (and tributaries) from the Clyde/Havelock junction to below the Rangitata Gorge are also largely unmodified. However, there are river management works in the riverbed, as well as two water permits. Some suitable land on the river flats and terraces has been developed to improve farm production.
7. The major abstraction to the RDR occurs not far below the gorge, and although the water quality remains reasonably high, the flows are sufficiently altered for the waters not to be in their natural state. River training works and considerable invasion of exotic plants into the riverbed further modify the natural state.
Conclusions
8. We concluded that: • The Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries (“the headwaters”) remain in a natural state. • The waters of the upper Rangitata and the gorge are essentially in their natural state. • The waters below the RDR intake at Klondyke are not in their natural state.
Part II 21 Part III Evaluation of Outstanding Features and Qualities
Introduction
1. The purpose of water conservation orders is to recognise and sustain particular outstanding characteristics, values and purposes as set out in S199 of the RMA.
2. In order to determine whether or not we would recommend that an order is appropriate for the Rangitata River, the special tribunal evaluated which, if any, of the characteristics, values or purposes able to be protected or preserved by a water conservation order were outstanding.
3. We examined all the evidence, including written submissions, and came to a conclusion for each feature in each part of the river, considering both its existence and its quality. During this part of our deliberations we did not consider whether or how to recognise and provide for protection for any feature that we found to be outstanding.
4. While many submitters addressed the entire river system, others confined their points to one specific section. As each of these sections has its own distinctive geomorphic, hydrologic and ecological attributes we consider them separately, as well as the entire river system, in terms of the water conservation order criteria.
5. We considered the Rangitata River in the following sections: • Headwaters (Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries) • Upper Rangitata (from Clyde/Havelock confluence to the top of the gorge) • The gorge • Bottom of the gorge to Arundel bridge (primarily single channel) • Lower river (Arundel bridge to sea) (braided)
6. We report on our findings regarding outstanding features under the following headings, but note that many characteristics are inter-related and there are overlaps: • Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms • Fishery • Wild, scenic and other natural characteristics • Scientific and ecological values • Recreational, historical, spiritual & cultural values o Canoeing & kayaking o Rafting o Jet boating o Tramping, hunting, climbing • Significance in accordance with tikanga Māori • Waters in natural state
Part III 23 Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms
Introduction
7. Aquatic macro-invertebrates, aquatic birds, native bats and indigenous plants were the four groups of organisms that were presented to us as being significant in the Rangitata River, and for which a water conservation order could offer protection. For aquatic birds and native bats much of the evidence was related to the habitat that the river provides, whereas for indigenous plants and macro- invertebrates the evidence was more about the “specialness” of the species etc. Undoubtedly there is overlap, but we have decided to consider aquatic birds and native bats particularly in relation to the habitat offered; macro-invertebrates for their scientific and ecological values, and indigenous plants both as a natural characteristic and for scientific and ecological values.
8. Note: numbers in brackets beside names refer to the written submission number.
Bird Habitat
Introduction
9. Expert evidence on birdlife and bird habitat was provided by Butcher (Scott) and Schmechel (Forest and Bird), O'Donnell and Hughey (DoC) and Jolly (RDR and personal).
10. O'Donnell, Hughey, Schmechel and Jolly gave evidence covering the whole river, although Hughey specifically addressed three key bird species. Butcher gave evidence related to a recent (2000) survey of the lower river.
11. Keedwell (156), a PhD student studying black-fronted terns, made a written submission. Many other submitters, most in support of a water conservation order, mentioned the importance of the indigenous bird fauna and the threats to these populations. Timaru Civic Trust (1026), although opposed to a water conservation order, stated that the breeding grounds of endangered species of birds and other fauna must be protected. We note that while a water conservation order cannot protect land, attributes of the river that contribute to maintaining bird habitat could be, if found to be outstanding.
12. The Ashburton Branch of the Forest and Bird Protection Society presented a slide show depicting the flora and fauna and landscapes of the Rangitata River from headwaters to the mouth. Thames/Hauraki branch of Forest and Bird (1056) made a written submission which noted how the breeding habitat of the wrybill, banded dotterel and other birds in the Rangitata is linked with the areas to which they migrate, such as the Firth of Thames. Counsel for Forest and Bird noted that the Firth of Thames is internationally recognised under the Ramsar convention for its habitat values.
13. Tribunal members visited the river mouth on several occasions from October - December and observed the activity of large numbers of birds.
Part III 24 14. For the Rangitata to have outstanding habitat for birds we considered that it needs to have most or all of the following: • a high proportion of the natural diversity of bird species for this habitat • rare and/or distinctive species present • relatively intact/unmodified habitat • habitat that can probably be sustained long term for these species (i.e. it has sufficient size and diversity)
Data
15. The expert witnesses had access to the same field survey datasets from which to draw their conclusions: Lower river: Moore (1982) & Butcher (2001); upper river: Moore (1986) & O’Donnell (2001). In addition, Hughey used data from a survey he conducted by kayak between Klondyke and Lynn Stream in October 2001 and Jolly (2001) reported on other recent survey work in the upper river. Amateur ornithologists also provided reports of their observations.
16. There was general agreement that caution should be used in interpreting the survey data. However, there was some disagreement as to the validity of using the data, which does not cover the whole river, to determine likely total population numbers of various species over the whole river or to make comparisons (whether over time, or between different rivers or reaches of the same river).
17. Despite the lack of survey data for the whole river and disagreement over the use of existing records for extrapolation and comparisons, we consider that there is sufficient information to provide a fair assessment as to the importance of the bird habitat provided by the Rangitata River.
Nature of the Habitat
18. The habitat that the Rangitata River provides for birds has developed from its natural characteristics including high spring-summer flows, rapid and frequent flooding, unstable gravel riverbeds, and braided channels that provide many shallow edge areas. The bird habitat that was described to us included the river channels, backwaters and seepages, the active river bed, young low level terraces that may be inundated from time to time, and the river mouth/lagoon area. These habitats are maintained by the nature of the flow hydrograph, which is currently largely unchanged from the shape of the natural flow hydrograph.
19. Braided riverbed habitat of the type found in the Rangitata and other Canterbury rivers is both rare and important nationally and internationally, and the associated bird fauna includes highly specialised species (Keedwell, O'Donnell, Schmechel and Jolly).
20. O'Donnell described how the Rangitata River represents one of the largest areas of habitat for aquatic bird life in New Zealand. He noted that the habitat on the Rangitata is the second largest after the Rakaia and is three to four times greater than the largest of the other braided rivers such as the Waimakariri, the Ahuriri,
Part III 25 the Hurunui, and the Waitaki. This large size means that habitat is extensive enough to support viable populations of almost all braided river bird species.
21. Birds have not been surveyed or studied in the headwaters of the Rangitata, the gorge or in the wetlands, tarns etc on the river margins. No conclusions can be drawn about the habitats these areas provide.
Bird Species
22. The Rangitata River supports a wide range of aquatic birds because it continues to provide the habitat that they require. Although there have been declines in the population of some species, overall the bird numbers recorded in the Rangitata during the 1980s and in 2000 - 2001 were similar. This trend is also seen in other large braided Canterbury rivers.
23. Amongst these birds are several species that are considered to be nationally or internationally threatened with extinction.
24. Expert witnesses described how birds may be listed on various national or international listings of threatened birds: • IUCN red list (Hilton-Taylor (2000)) sets out globally threatened taxa. • “Classifying species according to threat of distinction – a system for New Zealand” (2001) sets out criteria for New Zealand species; a list has been developed from this. • Action Plan for seabird conservation in New Zealand, DoC, Wellington. (Taylor (2000))
25. We note that these lists are primarily about species threatened with extinction rather than habitats that are outstanding, as was the New Zealand SSWI inventory (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest), which was also referred to.
26. Bird species on these lists that are known to breed on the braided river bed of the lower Rangitata include: Table 1 DoC NZ category* IUCN category Wrybill 3 Nationally vulnerable vulnerable endemic Black-fronted tern 4 Serious decline endangered endemic Banded dotterel 5 Gradual decline vulnerable endemic Caspian Tern 3 Nationally vulnerable n/a found elsewhere Black-billed gull 4 Serious decline n/a endemic * The categories “nationally vulnerable” etc are those defined in “Classifying species according to threat of distinction – a system for New Zealand” (2001). These replace the earlier classification system (Molloy et al. 1994) with categories “C”, “O” etc. that some witnesses referred to.
27. Although O’Donnell reported that another six bird species present in the Rangitata River are threatened, we note that three of these (black stilt, white heron and royal spoonbill) are vagrants; the blue duck has not been reported since 1991 and may be locally extinct; the bittern has only been identified by
Part III 26 hearsay and the white-fronted tern is primarily a coastal species, although it may breed in braided river beds.
28. In addition to the threatened species, the Rangitata River supports a diverse range, and high numbers, of other indigenous water birds. Some other significant species include: • Paradise shelduck - partially protected endemic species • South Island pied oyster-catcher - protected endemic species or sub- species • Pied stilt - protected native species • Spur-winged plover - protected native species • White-fronted tern - protected endemic species • Black-backed gull - unprotected native species
29. Hughey and Jolly both consider that three of the species listed in Table 1 - the wrybill, black-billed gull and black-fronted tern are the key species that make the Rangitata outstanding bird habitat as they are endemic species that breed only, or primarily, on braided rivers and are present on the Rangitata in considerable numbers. Each of these species is considered to be of conservation concern, and all have populations that are continuing to decline. Although their precise habitat requirements vary, all three require large expanses of sparsely vegetated gravel riverbed for nesting.
30. The Rangitata does not provide habitat of such key importance for the banded dotterel, which is relatively more abundant (estimated population 50,000) than wrybill, black-fronted tern and black-billed gull. The Caspian tern is rare in New Zealand, but has secure populations elsewhere.
Wrybill
31. Of the threatened species above wrybill is the most dependent on the large braided rivers of Canterbury and Otago for breeding. Wrybill are migratory and arrive in late winter/spring from Auckland and Northland, especially the Firth of Thames. They prefer minor channels for feeding and forage in riffles and water edges. The total population is currently estimated to be around 4,000 birds, with a decline of up to 20% in last 7 years (Schmechel).
32. Hughey considers that the Rangitata River is probably the single most important wrybill breeding habitat, although only a quarter to a third of the river has ever been surveyed. About 90% of wrybill breed in the Rangitata, Rakaia, Waimakariri and upper Waitaki Rivers.
Black-billed gull
33. Although the open shingle areas of braided rivers are prime breeding habitat for black-billed gulls, they also breed on the coast. Key feeding habitats in summer include major and minor channels, riparian areas etc.
34. Overall numbers appear to have declined substantially in the South Island in the past 20 years. The total population is now estimated to be 50,000 – 100,000 breeding pairs.
Part III 27 Black-fronted tern
35. Black-fronted tern breeding is almost entirely in braided eastern South Island riverbeds. They depend on large channels for feeding and bare shingle for breeding, mostly well inland. Populations appear to be declining, with national population estimated to be between 1,000 – 5,000 pairs.
Upper Rangitata
36. Hughey and Jolly considered the upper and lower river separately, whereas O’Donnell generally referred to the river as a whole.
37. Jolly, O'Donnell and Hughey gave evidence on the upper Rangitata and agreed that the upper river provides an outstanding habitat for braided river birds.
38. Their conclusions were based mainly on two surveys (1986 and 2001). These showed that the total number of birds recorded in the area surveyed in the upper Rangitata in 1986 (2082) was similar to the total for the same section of the river in October 2001 (1705). Very high numbers of both banded dotterel and wrybill were found. Numbers of banded dotterels were lower in 2001 than in 1986, but the wrybill count was higher in 2001. The other threatened species (black-billed gulls and black-fronted terns) were recorded in similar numbers in both surveys.
39. Wrybill appear to be more abundant on the upper Rangitata than on nearly any other river. Only in the Godley River in the upper Waitaki Basin does the recorded abundance of wrybill reach similar levels to those found in surveyed reaches of the upper Rangitata River (Jolly). The total wrybill population on the upper Rangitata is clearly difficult to estimate (and impossible to count accurately!). However figures given indicated that there was a minimum of 12% (Jolly) and up to 60% (O'Donnell) of the total breeding population of wrybills on the upper Rangitata River in 2001. It is clearly a significant proportion.
40. Black-fronted terns were more abundant in the upper section of the upper Rangitata than in all rivers other than the lower Ohau River. Black-billed gulls are more abundant in the lower reaches of several rivers, including the lower Rangitata, than in the upper Rangitata.
41. The 2001 survey found 23 species (excluding introduced songbirds). There were only minor species differences between this and the 1986 survey.
42. There was agreement that this area meets the 'Ramsar' criteria for a wetland habitat of outstanding international significance because it has a high diversity of species and high numbers of three threatened species, as well as a large, diverse habitat with extensive swamp, spring-fed streams and shingle deltas of other streams and a high level of naturalness.
Lower Rangitata: Gorge - Arundel
43. The 1982 survey was only carried out below Arundel, but in 2000 Scott Butcher personally surveyed parts of a 10 km reach (Peel Forest to Arundel). He mapped
Part III 28 colonies that he found. This was a different method to all the other survey work. He reported (Table 2 of his report): Black-fronted terns 40 Black shags 6, plus the presence of 8 other species. (These 8 include a colony of 258 black-billed gulls recorded in this reach by Peter Howden in the same season).
Hughey, on his kayak trip (Klondyke to Lynn Stream, above Peel Forest, October 2001) recorded 50 black fronted terns and 18 black-billed gulls.
44. This reach provides different habitat to the rest of the surveyed areas; much of it is single channel, and more bouldery. Species diversity and total numbers of birds are lower in this reach. However, because of the different survey methods and lack of historic data we cannot make direct comparisons between this and other reaches.
45. Two key threatened species (black-fronted terns and black-billed gulls) were found to be breeding here, although no wrybills were found.
Lower Rangitata: Arundel - mouth
46. Surveys reported about 15,000 aquatic birds in 1982 and about 17,000 in 2000 in the lower Rangitata River. Overall, the recent survey showed at least 13 breeding aquatic species and a total of 41 species of aquatic and terrestrial birds. Butcher considered that numbers of aquatic birds recorded were higher than in many similar rivers.
47. All five of the threatened species (Table 1) were present and breeding in this part of the river. Scott Butcher, who reported on the 2000 survey of the lower river, considered that the population of around 500 black-fronted tern (probably one of the largest in any river in Canterbury) is outstanding. This represents a significant proportion (4 - 10%) of the total population. He noted that populations in other Canterbury rivers are declining. Black-fronted terns nest exclusively on shingle within braided rivers; and specialise by feeding on mayflies in larger river channels.
48. Black-billed gulls in the lower Rangitata represent 2 - 4% of the total New Zealand population (Butcher).
49. Several wrybills exhibiting breeding behaviour were seen in the recent survey, and chicks were observed indicating that successful breeding can still occur in the lower river. This is one of only 5 or 6 lowland Canterbury rivers with breeding wrybill. Butcher considered that, given the low number of this species, all breeding areas are important.
50. Jolly challenged O'Donnell as to the whether the lower river meets the Ramsar criteria (1999) for a habitat of international importance. O'Donnell believed that the whole river meets the criteria, but Jolly contended that the lower river does not meet the criterion of "naturalness or near naturalness" because of modifications such as stop banks, river control works and major invasions of
Part III 29 tree and shrub weeds. Jolly did agree that in the lower river there are threatened species breeding in significant numbers and dependent on a limited habitat, and that therefore this section may be a habitat of high national significance, although he would rank the upper river more highly.
51. Bach holders and anglers also commented on the impressive bird populations that they have observed especially in the lagoon / river mouth area. The presence of these birds contributes to the angling and other recreational experiences.
Comparison with other braided rivers
52. O’Donnell (2000) considers that each of the Canterbury rivers is superficially similar but sufficiently distinctive in habitat characteristics to have its own unique combination of wildlife.
53. Most of the lower reaches of the braided rivers of Canterbury have been surveyed formally only once and not for 20 - 25 years (O'Donnell, 2000). Although survey results cannot necessarily be compared directly, because of different methods etc, we believe that there are some valid comparisons that can be drawn.
54. The Opihi and the Orari Rivers appear to have had major declines in bird populations. Black-fronted terns were reported to have decreased by 75% between 1980s and 1990s from over 250 to 50; and black-billed gulls declined from 8707 in 1987 to 1648 in 1994. The Ashburton River had the second largest black-fronted tern population in the 1980s, but has seen a decline from about 800 to less than 200 birds in 1999.
55. Wrybills are more abundant in the upper Rangitata than in most other rivers, although the Godley River is similar. Banded dotterels are more abundant here than in most rivers except the Godley and Tasman Rivers, and similar in numbers to lower Ohau and upper Rakaia.
56. Black-fronted terns are also very abundant in upper Rangitata River compared with most other rivers. Black-billed gulls are less abundant than in other places including lower Rangitata River.
57. Counts of black-billed gulls (84.1/km), black-fronted terns (17.8/km), and South Island pied oystercatchers (6.8/km) were much higher in the lower Rangitata than the counts from almost all other braided rivers of Canterbury (counts from O'Donnell and Moore, 1983; Maloney, 1997). The next highest counts for the lower reaches of other rivers were: black-billed gulls 42.5/km (lower Waitaki), black-fronted terns 9.1/km (lower Waitaki), and South Island pied oystercatcher 4.4/km (lower Waitaki) (O'Donnell and Moore, 1983) (calculated by Jolly).
58. The Watson-Howden family (8 October, p5) noted that “The Ashburton District Proposed Plan states – (page 20) ‘It is the braided rivers traversing the plains, and their mouths, which are of significant conservation value as they provide habitat for a wide variety of birds. The Rangitata, Rakaia and Ashburton Rivers are regarded nationally and internationally as important areas, providing habitat
Part III 30 for threatened indigenous birds (such as wrybill plover, the banded dotterel, black-billed gulls and South Island pied oystercatcher) ……’.
59. O’Donnell reported that he had ranked all the rivers in Canterbury according to their significance as habitat for birds with respect to section 6(c) of the RMA. He concluded that the Rangitata ranked as being High 1, or of national and international significance in terms of the habitat for the bird community, but did not refer to particular sections of the river. He did not state how he ranked other braided rivers relative to the Rangitata. However, he did suggest that his ranking for the Rangitata River equates to the river being of outstanding value to aquatic birds.
Conclusions
60. We find that two sections of the river: upper Rangitata and lower Rangitata (Arundel to mouth) meet our criteria for outstanding aquatic bird habitat. We also find that the gorge to Arundel section contributes to the outstanding habitat, but is not, itself, outstanding.
Upper Rangitata
61. The braided river form of the upper Rangitata, with its unstable bare shingle river bed and variable flows provides habitat for exceptionally high numbers of three threatened species: wrybill, black-fronted tern and banded dotterel, as well as a high diversity of other aquatic species.
62. The bird habitat in upper Rangitata is intact and largely unmodified; there is a high level of naturalness. In addition to the open gravel areas, tributary stream deltas and swamplands bordering the river provide diversity and provide for high food production of aquatic invertebrates and other species. There are large areas available here for nesting, roosting, and feeding. This habitat is rarely represented elsewhere in New Zealand.
63. The diversity of aquatic bird species is high. The numbers of two threatened species: wrybill and banded dotterel are very high. Between the surveys in 1986 and 2001 both bird counts and species counts have remained high, indicating that this area is capable of sustaining these species in the longer term.
64. The upper Rangitata has substantial populations of four threatened braided river species, a high diversity of bird guilds, a spread of bird numbers between those guilds, and high level of endemism within these species. It provides outstanding habitat for water birds and maintains some of the largest populations of several threatened endemic species.
65. We conclude that the upper Rangitata is outstanding bird habitat for aquatic species, especially those adapted to unstable gravel river beds.
Lower river – gorge to Arundel
66. The gorge to Arundel section does not contain a high diversity of species, although two threatened species were found breeding there in recent surveys.
Part III 31 There were no historic data available to compare changes over time. The habitat in this reach appears more susceptible to weed incursion than the upper river, but we consider that the single channel, more bouldery nature of this reach makes it a less attractive area for many of the birds found in other reaches of the river. Although abstraction occurs here, this does not significantly change flood flows, so gravel areas are maintained.
67. We do not find this reach outstanding, but consider that it contributes to the outstanding habitat above and below, particularly by providing spatial linkages and some additional habitat for at least two threatened species.
Lower river: Arundel – mouth
68. The lower river provides a large area of a habitat type that is rarely represented elsewhere in New Zealand. It does have modifications that make this area less intact than the upper river. Vegetation encroachment onto the shingle areas reduces the most desirable bird habitat. However, despite the major abstraction in this reach, the characteristics of the habitat are still maintained by the river.
69. All five of the key threatened species were found breeding here. A significant proportion of the estimated populations of black-billed gulls and black-fronted terns are still found here, despite major declines in other nearby rivers. Although wrybills were only found in small numbers, their breeding distribution is sufficiently limited that this, too, contributes to the outstanding nature.
70. Despite the current level of abstractions, stop banks and other river works, weed encroachment, and other people related impacts, we conclude that the lower Rangitata provides nationally significant habitat for threatened aquatic bird species that depend on the limited amount of braided river habitat available in New Zealand.
71. We conclude that the lower river (Arundel – mouth) is outstanding bird habitat for aquatic species, especially those adapted to unstable gravel river beds.
Native Bats
72. The long-tailed bat is a protected endemic species that is rare on the South Island east coast. Individuals have been seen feeding along aquatic riparian areas of the river and Lynn Stream, especially over indigenous vegetation (O’Donnell).
Conclusions
73. Insufficient evidence was provided to enable us to determine whether or not the Rangitata River provides outstanding habitat for native long-tailed bats. From the information we have, we conclude that the habitat provided by the Rangitata is not necessarily outstanding for these bats.
Part III 32 Fishery
Introduction
74. Under S199(2)(b)(ii) of the RMA a water conservation order may provide for the protection of characteristics …. which are considered to be outstanding as a fishery. S199(2)(b)(v) similarly enables provisions to be made for outstanding recreational purposes.
75. The definition of “fishery” is not given in the RMA. Submitters appear to have used the term to apply both to place where the fish live (hatch, rear, migrate, spawn etc) and the occupation (commercial or recreational) of catching them. The following dictionary definitions provide some guidance:
76. Reed dictionary of New Zealand English (Third revised edition): a) the occupation or industry of catching fish b) a place where fish are bred, hatched and reared
77. Oxford English Dictionary 1. The business, occupation or industry of catching fish or of taking other products of the sea or rivers from the water 2. A place or district where fish are caught; fishing ground 3. A fishing establishment 4. The right of fishing in certain waters
78. As “fishery” is specifically mentioned in S199 we consider that this topic should be addressed separately. As there is unlikely to be fishing without fish we consider the fish species and the fishing and determine separately whether either is outstanding.
79. More than 60 written submissions made the point that the Rangitata River is one of New Zealand's best salmon rivers and many noted that it is recognised nationally and internationally for this. However most of these did not make it clear whether it was the angling experience, the fish species and their habitat, or all of these that they were considering. Hughey, who is a wildlife researcher and a very experienced salmon and trout angler considered that the Rangitata River is an outstanding salmon and trout fishery, within national, regional and local contexts. Very few submitters said that they did not believe that the Rangitata River has an outstanding fishery.
Part III 33
Fish species and habitat
General
80. The Rangitata River is one of four major salmon rivers in New Zealand (Waimakariri, Rakaia and Waitaki are the others). Although the Chinook salmon fishery is clearly the most important the Rangitata River also supports populations of • brown and rainbow trout; • brook char (uncommon); • at least sixteen species of native fish including eels, whitebait, flounder, herrings, and kahawai.
81. Fisheries experts, professional fishing guides and many fishers - men, women and children - gave evidence about the fishery and the fishing. The experts included Unwin, Glova and Jellyman, fisheries scientists with NIWA and Webb, employed by Central South Island Fish and Game Council, who gave evidence both for his employer and on his own account with particular emphasis on salmon angling and salmon spawning.
82. Comments about the outstanding nature of the fishery over a number of years are also found in publications that were prepared quite independently of the water conservation order application. Examples include: the 1986 plan which states that "the river supports a nationally important fishery"; Tierney (1982), who states that it is a “nationally important recreational fishery popular both with local and non-local anglers” (Tierney 1982); the Ashburton District Council in its District Plan (see later section).
Salmon Fishery
83. The Rangitata River salmon fishery is self-sustaining. New Zealand has the only anadromous Chinook fishery outside the native range in the North Pacific that is self-sustaining. All of the four major salmon rivers in New Zealand (Rangitata, Waimakariri, Rakaia and Waitaki) are considered to be nationally and internationally outstanding salmon fisheries. These four rivers differ in size, profile and other characteristics but the fishery in the Rangitata is considered to be no less significant or outstanding than the others. There was overwhelming agreement that the Rangitata River is outstanding for its salmon fishery values, although a number of submitters argued that a water conservation order was not required to manage the resource.
84. Recent studies show that over the 90 years since these salmon were introduced to New Zealand there have been evolutionary changes and there are now well- defined differences, at least some of which have a genetic basis, between the stocks in the four major salmon rivers. It was not suggested to us that this gives the salmon population of the Rangitata outstanding scientific values.
Part III 34 Salmon life cycle
85. To support an outstanding self-sustaining salmon fishery the river must provide: • sufficient suitable habitat for spawning and juvenile fish • conditions for downstream passage that enable adequate numbers of juveniles to reach the sea • conditions that allow upstream passage of sufficient adult salmon to the spawning streams
Spawning Habitat
86. Deep Creek (Mt Potts) and Deep Stream (Mesopotamia) which are above the gorge, provide for 70% of the spawning. Webb told us that “these streams have exceptional values”. Although Mosley considers that these spring-fed streams are not unusual or particularly striking features in the South Island high country, he does acknowledge that fisheries experts designate them as "outstanding" because of their importance for the salmon run.
87. The main river and other tributaries in the upper river, including Brabazon Stream and Black Mountain Stream also provide spawning habitat.
88. Only 10 – 20% of spawning occurs below the gorge; much of this in Ealing Springs. These figures are very different from the Opihi River which has only 5- 20% of spawning above its gorge.
89. The braided upper basin is believed to be important for juvenile rearing.
Downstream passage
90. Despite loss of 5-30% of salmon smolt production through entrainment into the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR), the fishery continues to be self-sustaining. This loss of juvenile salmon through the irrigation races has the capacity to reduce returning adult salmon by about a third. If successful intake screening or diversion of juvenile salmon can be provided, as proposed by Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd. (RDRM), this problem would be reduced or eliminated.
91. Unwin described how there is a moderate correlation between river flows and survival of juveniles, apparently because the resulting off-shore freshwater plumes help to buffer the transition from the freshwater to salt environment. However, much of the variation in survival appears to be related to factors in the marine environment, but the reasons/causes are not understood.
Adults returning upstream
92. For the fishery to be outstanding adults that return must reach the spawning grounds in sufficient numbers to produce a new generation of salmon. Mouth opening, river flows and water temperature are all key ingredients. Although the current flow regime may not be optimal, the 1986 management plan (see Part I) recognized that "the river supports a nationally important fishery" and the flow
Part III 35 management regime set out in that plan aimed to maintain that fishery, while enabling other uses.
93. Water temperatures are believed to reach levels that will cause a migratory block for at least short periods in summer according to Ryder (RDR).
Barriers to passage
94. Undoubtedly the absence of a dam on the mainstem Rangitata River contributes to the success of the Rangitata River fishery for species, including salmon, that move up and downstream during their life cycles. In comparing the Rangitata with the Opihi two key differences are noted – the Opihi has only 5-20% of spawning above its gorge (c.f. > 80% for Rangitata), and has two other major tributaries (in addition to the one dammed), so the effects of damming are reduced. Other effects of damming are discussed further in Part VII.
Rangitata Salmon fishery in context of local rivers
95. The Opihi, Ashburton, and Pareora Rivers may have been outstanding for salmon at one time. In 1982 a report on angling in South Canterbury rivers found that the Opihi and Rangitata were both of at least regional importance, although the Opihi rated lower in quality and was valued for both trout and salmon, but the Rangitata just for salmon. In 1987 the Ashburton was still considered an angling river of significance in Canterbury although it was acknowledged to be downgrading in quality. Now the Ashburton (below SH1), Pareora River and other fishing rivers are high on a list of degraded rivers in Canterbury prepared by ECan.
96. Witnesses told of the loss of the Ashburton River salmon fishery citing high levels of abstraction leading to lower flows, reduced water quality and increased frequency of mouth closure as reasons.
97. A report in 1987 (Teirney et al.) found that the Rangitata salmon fishing was as highly valued as the Rakaia, and that both were salmon fisheries of national importance.
98. It is clear that Rakaia and Rangitata are the only rivers to now warrant consideration as having outstanding fisheries, although the Opihi may improve significantly with increased minimum flows via Opuha Dam.
99. The tribunal was left in no doubt that the Rangitata River, by comparison with other local rivers is now significantly the best salmon river in the local area, and that in the wider district the Rangitata is on a par with the Rakaia, although offering different experiences.
Native fish
100. There has been limited study of native fish in the Rangitata River. The only documented scientific study is the report by Bonnett (1986) on his sampling and analysis at four sites over one year (1983-84).
Part III 36 101. Jellyman, a fisheries scientist, (RDR) concluded that the river contains a species assemblage of native fish (16 species) that is typical of an East Coast braided river, with high densities of fast-water species.
102. In his opinion they did not constitute an outstanding native fish biota. No rare or endangered species were identified. While none of the native species is described as rare, the long-jawed galaxias has a very restricted distribution, being confined to the upper reaches of maybe four rivers (Waimakariri, Rakaia, Rangitata and Waitaki).
103. Many of the native species require access to or from the sea to complete their life history, and therefore maintaining river mouth opening is critical. Native species support significant customary, recreational and commercial fisheries. Several species of marine fish also occur in or near estuarine areas of the lower river. However, there is a clear distinction in the distribution of fish within the Rangitata, as the migratory native species rarely penetrate above the gorge, while non-migratory species are rarely encountered below it.
104. The table below lists the native fish species known to occur in the Rangitata catchment. From Table 1 in the evidence of Jellyman (for RDR).
Common name Scientific name Status
Longfinned eel Anguilla dieffenbachii migratory; commercially harvested Shortfinned eel Anguilla australis migratory; commercially harvested Canterbury galaxias Galaxias vulgaris non-migratory Alpine galaxias Galaxias paucispondylus non-migratory Longjawed galaxias Galaxias prognathus non-migratory Koaro Galaxias brevipinnis landlocked in tarns; some migratory juveniles also (whitebait) Inanga Galaxias maculatus migratory (whitebait); juveniles harvested Torrentfish Cheimarrichthys fosteri migratory Upland bully Gobiomorphus breviceps non-migratory Bluegilled bully Gobiomorphus hubbsi migratory Common bully Gobiomorphus cotidianus migratory Giant bully Gobiomorphus gobiomorphus migratory Lamprey Geotria australis migratory Common smelt Retropinna retropinna migratory; mostly estuarine Stokell's smelt Stokellia anisodon migratory; mostly estuarine Black flounder Rhombosolea retiaria Migratory Yellow-eyed mullet Aldrichetta forsteri estuarine/marine Kahawai Arripus trutta estuarine/marine
Trout
105. Rainbow trout are occasionally caught by anglers in the Rangitata River, but this species is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the Rangitata sports fishery. Rainbow trout are most likely to be encountered in the upper river, although occasionally a few are caught between the gorge and the mouth.
Part III 37 Mature rainbow trout enter high country tributary streams during autumn to spawn.
106. Brown trout are common throughout the Rangitata River, and support a significant sports fishery. Brown trout are known to spawn in the high country tributaries such as Deep Stream and Deep Creek. However, brown trout spawning is likely to be more widespread than that of Chinook salmon, occurring in streams and channels throughout the river and its tributaries.
Fishing – the Rangitata River as a place where fish are caught
107. Although the Rangitata River has a long history as a salmon river it was initially renowned as a trout river.
108. While fishing for salmon dominates, other species sought include trout (also sea-run trout) whitebait, eel, kahawai, mullet. Most fishing is recreational, although there is commercial eel-fishing, and fishing guides take clients to Rangitata River to fish for trout and salmon.
109. Many people gave evidence on fishing in the Rangitata River, especially for salmon. Witnesses included a large number of anglers expressing their own feelings about the quality of the angling and their use and enjoyment of the river for salmon angling, often combined with other river-based activities. They described in glowing terms the fishing experience and produced many exhibits including videos, colour slides, photographs and even a mounted trophy salmon. The age of those making presentations ranged from young children to over 80 years. Trout Unlimited New Zealand (884) (an incorporated society with the aim of protecting and enhancing New Zealand’s freshwater trout and salmon fisheries) stated that the Rangitata River is a river of national importance; it is a nationally important salmonid fishery attracting anglers from New Zealand and overseas. Lynn (887) from Hawkes Bay noted that it is a "top salmon and trout fishery". Commercial fishing guides gave evidence of their use of the Rangitata River to provide special experiences for their clients (generally from overseas). The special tribunal also heard evidence from expert witnesses who had assessed the fishing from angler survey data.
110. The Watson-Howden family (8 October) noted that the Ashburton District Council Annual Plan 1999/00 states that "The Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers are world renowned for salmon fishing between November & April".
111. Jellyman noted that the recreational fishery for Chinook salmon is highly regarded, and has been so throughout the operational life of the RDR.
112. Tribunal members visited the mouth on both north and south banks and the upper river and gained an appreciation of the environment at these places. As it was outside the salmon fishing season we didn’t see first-hand the activities that were so vividly described to us.
Part III 38 Angler Usage
113. Angler usage was described by Webb, Mosley and others using data collected between 1978 and 2000 by various organisations, including Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (1978 - 1987), NIWA (94/96) and Fish and Game Councils (and their predecessors). Angler groups and individual anglers also described in considerable detail the facilities (e.g. baches) and equipment that are all part of the fishing experience.
114. Mosley noted that the salmon run is the feature of the Rangitata River that is so important recreationally.
Surveys
115. The 1994/96 National Angler Survey (Unwin and Brown, 1998) found from random interviews that about 20% of all river angling occurred on the four major salmon rivers. The Rangitata River ranked tenth in terms of usage with more than 36,000 angler days. This compares with Waimakariri (74,600) Rakaia (50,500), and Opihi (23,100). Visitors to the Central South Island region (i.e. anglers with licences from other regions) accounted for 23% of all angler effort. Only the West Coast (44%) had a higher proportion.
116. The Rangitata River and Opihi ranked about equal in angler usage in a 1979 survey, but the Rangitata River was ahead in terms of angling quality (Teirney et al, 1982). The Rangitata River's strengths were its "big river" attributes - extensive areas of fishable waters, sense of solitude that could be obtained, its scenic qualities and the year-round nature of the flows.
117. Angler Interviews (1987 - 2000, 1673 people interviewed at random on the Rangitata River) showed that >97% fished for salmon. Of those interviewed 77% had Central South fishing licences, 16% North Canterbury, 4% Otago and 3% other. Based on data from 97/98 to 99/00 about 3,000 salmon anglers fish the Rangitata River in an average season.
118. Webb concluded from his analysis that overall 64% of those fishing the Rangitata were local residents, with the remainder from other parts of New Zealand or overseas. This proportion of non-local anglers is extremely high. Evidence given on the Mataura River in Southland, which was found to be a nationally outstanding trout fishery and have nationally outstanding angling amenity, described it as the most heavily fished brown trout river in New Zealand with 80% local anglers and 20% from other parts of New Zealand and overseas.
119. Mason (Ecan) stated that ECan finds the Rangitata River outstanding by way of angling for trout and salmon as the Rangitata River is the third equal most fished river in New Zealand. We note that this is on a river by river basis (i.e. excludes lakes). From the same data (Unwin and Brown 1998), the Rangitata is the tenth most fished catchment (i.e. includes lakes and tributaries).
120. However, we concur with Davidson (and others) that numbers of users, on their own, are insufficient evidence that the amenity is outstanding. We do not
Part III 39 consider that numbers of anglers using the different rivers can be used to determine relative importance as there are many other factors that determine why anglers use particular rivers. For example, the proximity of the Waimakariri to a large urban area the size of Christchurch inevitably increases its popularity. However, the high proportion of non-local users does give an indication of the 'specialness' of the fishing. We take into account, too, the evidence of Kerr who shows that the Rakaia is perceived as a complement to the Rangitata River, but the Waimakariri is a substitute.
Catching Salmon
121. Rangitata River is the smallest of the major salmon rivers (in terms of mean flow, catchment area etc) and is seen to be more angler-friendly and less daunting for novice anglers than the others, while still offering real challenges to experts. Good accessibility (foot, 4WD) may be part of what makes it attractive (Webb). Brooks noted that Rangitata River is the most accessible of the snow-fed rivers.
122. The odds of catching a salmon are long, even in a "good" year. Up to 60% of anglers may not catch anything in a particular year, but the opportunity and challenge are sufficient to maintain loyalty and passion for the sport (Webb).
123. However, estimates over last 6 seasons (Jellyman quoting Webb) are that 40% of the total run may be caught. Earlier estimates (Jellyman quoting S.F. Davis) were higher - up to 75% or more might be caught.
Distribution of fishing effort and season salmon catch on Rangitata River (data from 1997/98 - 1999/2000 (Webb)) Reach Anglers fished % Season Harvest % Surf, Mouth & lagoon 52 58 Lagoon to SH 1 26 20 SH 1 to Gorge 13 15 Gorge and above 5 2 Unidentified 4 5
124. 75% of the fishing is done in the reach from the mouth to SH1.
125. Salmon fishing season is from November to April, with the peak in January (30 - 40% of all activity), and the main months being January, February and March.
Fishing for introduced species other than salmon
126. There is a significant brown trout sports fishery with anglers fishing throughout the river, whereas rainbow trout appear to comprise only a small proportion of the sports fishing in the Rangitata River and are found mainly in the upper river.
127. Jellyman commented that anglers fish throughout the river for trout. However, the trout fishery is of secondary importance to most Rangitata anglers – less than 20% of the total number of angler visits are made by anglers who wish to
Part III 40 catch trout (Davis et al. 1987). We were also told that the Rangitata River also provides exciting fishing for sea-run trout.
128. Brook char are uncommon in the Rangitata River and attract little attention from anglers.
Fishing for native species
129. Rangitata River supports small but important customary and commercial eel fishery. Historically, the Rangitata was one of the great eel rivers, but land use changes are considered to be a major cause of reduction in eel habitat, although overfishing is also thought to have contributed to the decline, both in the Rangitata River and in other rivers. McKinnons Creek continues to provide good habitat for eels.
130. Whitebait provides a small catch, but is recreationally important. Most whitebait fishing occurs very close to the river mouth. According to Davis (1984) whitebaiting is the third most popular recreational activity on Rangitata River, despite there being only a short season.
131. Rangitata River also supports small recreational fisheries based on flounder, kahawai and yellow-eyed mullet, similar to those in other large rivers along the Canterbury coast. Jellyman concluded that fishing for native species is limited, but locally important. The river is not a classic whitebait or eel fishery due to the limited estuarine habitat.
132. Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua specifically referred to eels and whitebait as mahinga kai species that continue to be important.
Quality of the angling experience
133. The quality of the angling experience depends chiefly on three factors: • accessibility • suitable flows • suitable clarity
134. Interestingly, it appears that the number of fish caught is of lesser importance in determining the quality of the experience than other attributes of the fishing experience. Undoubtedly, however, knowing that there are fish there to catch is important.
135. As well as expert witnesses, numerous anglers gave evidence, including many who have fished all over New Zealand and overseas. Several witnesses, all fishing enthusiasts, talked of immigrating to enjoy the fishing. Fishing guides (Back Country Trout and Ivey (RDR)) gave evidence of the angling experience that brings overseas clients to fish New Zealand salmon and trout rivers, and the importance of the Rangitata River in this context. We consider that the breadth of experience demonstrated by the anglers who gave evidence showed that many were experts in their field and their evidence is evaluated accordingly.
Part III 41 136. At least one witness (Banwell) told us that the salmon fishing was outstanding but is not now.
137. Flows that provide the optimum conditions for the salmon themselves don't necessarily meet the flow requirements most desirable for angling. The requirements for angling appear to be more demanding than the biological requirements of the fishery.
138. Several expert witnesses gave evidence on flows suitable for angling. While there is not total agreement, there is reasonable common ground. Overall moderate flows and somewhat cloudy water are most favoured. "When you can see the toe of your wader in knee-deep water" is an good indicator of favourable conditions. Ivey noted that at flows >50 m3/s in a single braid it is hard for anglers to cross the river.
139. High flows are not suitable for angling, but many anglers, as well as experts recognised the importance of frequent higher flows to induce runs of fish (not only salmon) into the mouth. At flows of over 120 m3/s at Klondyke the river is agreed to be too turbid for fishing, and below 40 m3/s the river becomes too clear to fish well.
140. Webb said that for fishing preferred flows below the gorge are those corresponding to a flow at Klondyke of 70 - 110 m3/s (i.e. 40 - 80 m3/s in lower river). He reported that about 70% of angler activity and nearly 80% of the total salmon catch occurred when the river is in this range (from 3 seasons of record).
141. Webb stated that the window of preferred summer angling flows that provide desirable flows and turbidity is 45 - 80 m3/s in the lower river (about 87 - 110 at Klondyke under present abstraction). He noted that 44% of days in summer the water is too clear for good salmon angling.
142. Salmon fishing above the gorge occurs later in the season but is also exciting fishing with a different experience in an isolated environment with fewer anglers. Webb noted that few, if any, anglers become expert at fishing more than one or two reaches, and the upper river clearly offers different challenges.
143. While acknowledging that a higher minimum flow would provide more angling opportunity anglers also commented that the flow sharing regime that enables freshes to pass through the river was more important than an increased minimum. They observed that the present regime has been in place since 1986 and that there have been both very good and very poor salmon runs over the period.
144. Flow variability provides regular changes i.e. the flow doesn't stay for long periods at single flow. Despite the RDR abstraction, the flow sharing regime gives a natural pattern to the river flows.
145. While some older anglers believed that the fishing had declined since the RDR started operating (>50 years) others talked of a mix of excellent, average and poor runs over the years.
Part III 42 146. Webb (personal submission) noted that one of the features that make the Rangitata River outstanding is the diverse range of trout and salmon angling.
147. McDowell (809) commented that, in competition run by an Ashburton fishing club from Rangitata River, 47% of fish entered and 65% of fish caught by juniors came from Rangitata River. Ivey (RDR) commented that the Rangitata River has large areas of good fishing available and that it is not difficult to find solitude and good fishing water together.
Significance of the Rangitata River for Angling
148. Kerr's analysis of the value of the Rangitata River to anglers was determined using the “travel cost” method. The study used data collected from Rangitata River anglers to obtain a measure of recreation benefits from angling.
149. He showed that the Rangitata River has a high value for angling compared with other rivers that have been the subject of similar studies. For example, the Rangitata River angling use benefits exceed those obtained from the Rakaia River and are similar to the Greenstone/Caples Rivers (an acclaimed trout fishery) on an individual trip basis.
Conclusions
The fish
150. Rangitata River has provided, for over 90 years, one of few self-sustaining salmon fisheries outside its native range. There are now genetic differences that have developed in the salmon populations in New Zealand rivers, so the salmon are different in different rivers, as well as now being genetically separate from the original stocks.
151. We find that the Rangitata River provides an outstanding salmon fishery in the upper Rangitata River and in the lower river (gorge to sea) because of the spawning and rearing habitat in the upper river, and the ability provided by the flow regime and water quality that enables juveniles to migrate to sea and adult salmon to return. We find that the gorge, while being more difficult for adults to move upstream, contributes to the outstanding salmon fishery.
152. The Rangitata River also has populations of trout and native fish but on balance of the evidence presented we do not find these outstanding, although we acknowledge that native species have only been studied in a limited manner. Further work may find characteristics that are outstanding.
Part III 43 Catching fish
Salmon fishing
153. The three sections of the river where most fishing occurs all provide a high quality experience. The fishing experiences vary from place to place in the river, but we conclude that salmon fishing is outstanding in all of these sections: • Upper Rangitata • Lower Rangitata (gorge – Arundel) • Lower Rangitata (Arundel to mouth)
154. Catching salmon in a large snow-fed river is undoubtedly a significant experience for those who achieve it. Even the many salmon anglers who don’t catch fish very often (up to 60% of anglers may not catch a salmon in any one year) obviously find aspects of the experience sufficiently special to keep trying. There are very high numbers of people fishing; many from outside the local area.
155. Although the numbers who fish in the upper river are only a small percentage, the experience is still outstanding, although different to being amongst the crowds at the mouth.
156. The factors that makes Rangitata outstanding salmon fishing include: • Mouth stays open almost always (c.f. the Ashburton that often closes now) • Regular freshes give conditions that encourage salmon to move into the river • Stable spring-fed streams provide outstanding habitat for spawning • Access to a range of angling experience (mouth, upper river etc.) • Opportunity to combine fishing with other recreational activities (e.g. picnicking, camping, boating, solitude, bird watching)
Fishing for trout and other species
157. Although there is undoubtedly good trout fishing in the Rangitata River, we did not conclude that it is outstanding.
158. While it is the salmon run that makes the fishing outstanding, the opportunity to fish for other species, especially trout (including sea-run) and whitebait enhances the fishing experience.
159. We do not consider that eel, whitebait or other fishing is outstanding, although some of these may have been in the past.
Part III 44 Wild, scenic and other natural characteristics
Introduction
160. The special tribunal visited all reaches of the main river, and flew over the river from the mouth to the Clyde / Havelock junction. One special tribunal member has tramped and climbed in the Clyde and Havelock Rivers and several headwaters' tributaries.
161. We note that wildness is not wilderness, nor necessarily indigenousness, nor pristine. However, we expect that outstanding wild characteristics will occur in largely indigenous natural situations.
162. Expert witnesses gave considerable evidence on their assessments of the Rangitata River landscape and natural character, including amenity and intrinsic values. Lucas and Rackham have qualifications in landscape planning and Mosley is a hydrological and environmental scientist. All three have given evidence in other water conservation order applications.
163. The Ashburton branch of the Forest and Bird Protection Society presented a slide show that included riverscapes and landscapes of the Rangitata River.
164. Lucas and Rackham were in agreement that it is the waters themselves or the contribution that they make to wild and scenic values that need to be considered. Both witnesses had participated in the "Canterbury Regional Landscape Study" 1993 (see next section). We note that although this study is relevant, an aspect or feature that is regionally outstanding may not necessarily be nationally outstanding and vice versa i.e. something that is locally common, may also be striking or special on a national basis.
165. Unlike Lucas, Rackham did not present a systematic evaluation of the reaches for outstanding wild and scenic and other characteristics. Instead he presented a description of each reach of the river and the levels of modification, and assessed the effects on each reach of further abstraction and damming. He also reviewed existing water conservation orders and concluded that relatively few stretches of any river have been identified as having outstanding wild and scenic characteristics.
166. As a basis for his evidence he used a report that he had prepared for ECan on the Rangitata River, although it was not specifically for assessing water conservation order criteria. The report does, however, contain a section on the water conservation order process where he notes that "the natural characteristics, landscape quality and amenity of the Rangitata River are similar to several of the other major Canterbury rivers. However, the Rangitata River lacks obvious distinctive qualities that make it stand out from the other rivers. Its combination of qualities and values are unique, but do not, in themselves, suggest that the Rangitata River is exceptional."
Part III 45 Canterbury Regional Landscape Study
167. The Canterbury Regional Landscape Study reports on a “desk” study (i.e. no new field work was carried out) prepared in 1993 for the Canterbury Regional Council. The study sought to identify landscapes of regional significance in relation to the Council’s responsibilities with respect to sections 6, 7 and 30 of the RMA.
168. The upper Rangitata River was found to be regionally outstanding primarily on the basis of being "clearly outstanding" in terms of natural science, legibility, and aesthetic values, and "probably outstanding" in terms of "shared and recognised” values. “The sense of wilderness and space is remarkable”
169. The gorge had not been surveyed and, thus, there was no basis for assessing whether it was outstanding. However, it was ranked as being regionally significant.
170. The lower Rangitata River was not found to be outstanding, but was described as regionally significant.
171. Peel Forest and Mt Peel are ranked as being regionally outstanding on the basis of natural science and aesthetics.
Headwaters
172. Lucas found that the headwaters are highly natural and there is an outstanding natural landscape with high legibility of the processes of ice and water that shape the rock and aesthetic harmony in the patterns formed, resulting in outstanding amenity values. The valley floors of the headwaters, especially the Havelock, have ancient stable riverbeds supporting extensive moss fields (Racomitrium spp.). There are also old intact plant communities. Such unmodified communities are rare in Canterbury. The natural characteristics of these fluvially formed surfaces and the plant communities of the old riverbeds are assessed by Lucas as outstanding intrinsic values.
173. She concluded that the headwaters have outstanding amenity values, outstanding intrinsic values, and outstanding wild, scenic and other natural characteristics.
174. Rackham told us that “these streams and rivers are an integral component of this mountainous landscape and are typical of the greywacke Canterbury high country and alpine environment”, and later that, although he did not consider that any of the river had wild, scenic or other natural characteristics that met the test for a water conservation order, “if this Tribunal considers a Water Conservation Order is justified, the wild and scenic qualities of the ….. headwaters ….. will need to be carefully considered”. We take from this that although Rackham did not find these characteristics outstanding he did consider that at least some attributes are close to the threshold.
175. Mosley found that the scenery in the glaciated headwaters is exceptional.
Part III 46 Upper Rangitata
176. Lucas described this reach: "A grand and dramatic land in which the fluvial system and its glacial predecessors are major drivers." "Within the huge upper Rangitata landscape there is fine detail of the river system that provides diversity and interest for the viewer and for habitat." “The matrix of the braids, their waters and the raw gravels of the islands between, provide a fascinating aesthetic at varying scales and angles of elevation under different light conditions.”
177. Lucas described how "it is the river based experience that provides the outstanding amenity values through the exceptional scenic characteristics that are iconic New Zealand high country..... The exceptional in-stream experience is ... not from grand and/or wild flows, but from the intricate and highly legible natural patterning in the overall vast scale of the river as the core component of a grand and beautiful landscape".
178. Although there is land development on the flats and lowlands, little human- induced modification is experienced in association with the river. Natural patterns, natural processes and natural elements are totally dominant.
179. Lucas concluded that the upper Rangitata has outstanding amenity values, outstanding wild and scenic characteristics, particularly as experienced from the river itself. The intrinsic values of this high country braided river system are outstanding.
180. Rackham found that in the upper river natural character is high with little weed invasion of the inner bed and only occasional willow planting apparent in river margins, although he did not consider it sufficiently high to be outstanding in terms of the water conservation order criteria.
181. Submitters who used this reach (e.g. for angling, boating) commented on the “specialness” of this reach where they could find solitude in a grand and spacious environment.
182. Outdoor education instructors noted how the intrinsic values of the resilient and largely unmodified ecosystems of the upper Rangitata enabled them to teach ecological skills in conjunction with water-based activities and other life skills. This is an exceptional attribute of this section of the river. (see section on Recreation for further details).
Gorge
183. Cutting a slot in the hard greywacke-argillite hills this relatively short stretch of river provides a major natural barrier in the river. It is the only one of the major snow-fed braided South Island east coast rivers to display such a confined gorge. It also provides a major change in landscape/riverscape experience. It is not just the landform but also the vegetation that is different. Steep gorge sides and ledges are covered in native shrubland, including kowhai, fivefinger, broadleaf, harakeke, and koromiko.
Part III 47 184. Lucas concluded that the gorge has outstanding intrinsic and amenity values as a particular natural characteristic within a great braided river, and outstanding wild and scenic characteristics.
185. Although not finding the gorge outstanding Rackham did note that the sense of wilderness and drama presently experienced by rafters and kayakers would be replaced by a more benign experience if a dam is built. He considered that the qualities of the gorge presently experienced by rafters and kayakers would be lost or seriously compromised.
186. Mosley noted that many observers would describe the gorge as “outstanding”, and that despite the various methodologies that have been employed, earlier assessments of the scenic value of the river have been in broad agreement that the gorge is noteworthy. He concluded that the gorge might be regarded as outstanding on a local or at best regional scale as a natural feature.
Gorge to Peel Forest
187. This reach was not found outstanding by Rackham, Lucas or Mosley for its amenity values or wild, scenic and other natural characteristics.
Lower Rangitata (Peel Forest to mouth)
188. The Peel Forest - mouth section does not have outstanding scenic characteristics. Lucas found that there are significant amenity values, but not of outstanding aesthetic quality from landscape perspective, and that at an overview scale the lower river and mouth are important contributors to the plains section of a most important natural feature. She noted that natural features of this type and scale are scarce in this terrain in New Zealand.
189. Rackham considered that the natural character, landscape and visual amenity values of the lower river are not considered outstanding and do not in themselves warrant protection.
190. Mosley found the scenery “ordinary” along much of the lower river where the braided channel is bordered by bermlands covered in introduced shrubland. He notes that the lower river is in many places heavily infested by exotic species, although the regime of periodic floods is maintaining the overall braided form of the riverbed. He commented that the "braided section is an unremarkable natural feature"; “river mouth is unremarkable”; “lower river is an unremarkable feature on a regional and national scale”.
Whole River
191. Overall Rackham concluded that the Rangitata River is unlikely to be outstanding by way of wild and scenic values, although the gorge and headwaters are undoubtedly spectacular. He noted that it is highly valued and has many of the characteristics of one of the great South Island rivers, but
Part III 48 concluded that from a landscape assessment perspective it may not be outstanding.
192. While he found that the wild and scenic values of river are significant in some stretches, he did not consider that they meet the standard necessary to be nationally outstanding. However, he noted that the wild and scenic values of gorge and headwaters need to be carefully considered if an order is considered.
Comparison with other rivers
193. Rackham told us that “the major rivers of Canterbury with their headwaters in the snowfields of the Alpine divide, channels carving through the high country basins, disgorging through the rugged front ranges to the coastal plains and coast are iconic features of the region. In this sense many of them may be considered “outstanding” natural features”.
194. The conclusion that he drew from these analyses and evaluations is that the Rangitata is unlikely to be outstanding from the perspective of its wild and scenic characteristics, although its headwater and gorge are undoubtedly spectacular. However, using past water conservation order decisions to calibrate an assessment of the Rangitata, he concluded that these landscape values do not appear to be sufficiently outstanding to justify a water conservation order.
195. Lucas did not make any direct comparisons between the Rangitata and other rivers, although she did note that the Rangitata River rated similar to and higher than the Rakaia in the 64 New Zealand Rivers Study (see below), but neither were “exceptional”.
Surveys/inventories etc
64 New Zealand Rivers (Egarr et al, 1979)
196. This scenic evaluation done by canoeists for New Zealand Canoeing Association sought "to reflect the aesthetic judgement of the average informed layman" The Rangitata was ranked as follows: Headwaters exceptional Upper Rangitata interesting Rangitata Gorge impressive RDR – Peel Forest interesting Peel Forest – mouth ordinary
197. Scenic quality was ranked on a 5 point scale from dull to exceptional based on observations. Of the 64 rivers evaluated, only 5 were ranked “exceptional” – the Clarence, Kawarau (including the Shotover), the Hollyford, the Grey and the Buller. So, neither the Rakaia nor the Rangitata was found to be exceptional in this survey.
198. Lucas notes that “This rating of not quite exceptional for the Rangitata River is not surprising given the criteria and their interpretation and appreciation back in the 70s”. She suggests that there have subsequently been changes in perception
Part III 49 such that we would now rank non-forest indigenous ecosystems more highly than in the past.
New Zealand Recreational River Survey (Egarr & Egarr, 1981)
199. The focus of this survey was on recreational use, but it also ranked scenery. Each river was also noted for “the appearance of the river and the valley as seen from the river level.” “No attempt has been made to scientifically analyse the vista …. But we have attempted to reflect the aesthetic judgement of the average informed layman, who will be the recreationalist using the resource.”
200. The survey considered four sections of the Rangitata River, plus the RDR. In the summary of findings there is particular mention of the Rangitata Gorge for its white water recreational values. Their recommendations for protection for recreational use included the gorge and the river down to Peel Forest.
Their rankings for scenic value were: • Upper valley picturesque • Rangitata Gorge impressive • Middle river picturesque • Lower river uninspiring • RDR picturesque
201. Lucas noted that while in-stream assessments may be applicable in very enclosed riverscapes such as the gorge, this is not an adequate approach for the experience of wide braided rivers.
National Inventory of Wild and Scenic Rivers (1982 and 1984)
202. A draft inventory, based on nominations, was released in 1982. The Rangitata River (source to the sea) was included in list B (rivers that the steering committee believed may have outstanding characteristics, but had insufficient information to be certain). The final inventory (1984) contained 44 rivers. Two of the major braided rivers (Rakaia and Waimakariri) were in the list but neither the Rangitata nor the Waitaki River. Mosley notes that nominations could have been influenced by possible conflicts with uses such as irrigation, and the absence of a river from this list does not imply that it has no intrinsic value.
Rivers and lakes deserving of inclusion in a schedule of protected waters (1985)
203. This report considered a broader range of rivers than the 1984 inventory (see above). The Rangitata River was included in group 1 (highest priority for inclusion). Mosley commented (p27) that the Rangitata River appeared to be ranked more highly in this list than in inventory of wild and scenic rivers because the committee took account of recreation and amenity values as well as scenic. "This river received a higher measure of support in the public submissions than any other river ...... ". This tribunal also acknowledges the enormous effort that recreational users, including salmon anglers and canoeists, put into their submissions etc. regarding this water conservation order application.
Part III 50 Other witnesses
204. River users expressed personal views about the importance of wild and scenic values of the river, especially in the headwaters and upper river, and the contribution of these to their overall experience. We also heard from a number of salmon anglers that the mouth has outstanding natural characteristics and intrinsic values, being wild, unpredictable and often windswept, with fantastic vistas including sunsets, sunrises and approaching storms.
205. The New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association (NZRCA) and the New Zealand Rafting Association found that sections of the Rangitata River highly valued for canoeing and rafting have outstanding wild, scenic and other natural characteristics, and are in need of protection: Stew Point to Coal Creek (part of upper Rangitata River) and the gorge. They considered that both these sections are in their natural state. They also believe that the navigable length of Rangitata River has outstanding amenity and intrinsic values as a major, braided, glacial- fed river, incorporating the unusual natural features contained in the gorge and in the section from Klondyke to Peel Forest.
Conclusions
206. We note that experts disagreed about the headwaters, upper Rangitata River and gorge sections, but the Canterbury Regional Landscape study found that the upper Rangitata River is regionally outstanding and the gorge regionally significant. We consider that these types of landscape are more commonplace in Canterbury than nationally, and can be nationally outstanding even if only significant regionally.
207. We concur with the expert witnesses that below the gorge the river does not have outstanding wild and scenic or other natural characteristics. However, we find that the lagoon and mouth area is an important natural characteristic, and in the Klondyke to Peel Forest section there are important intrinsic values, but not outstanding visual, scenic or wild landscape values. Intrinsic values of the Rangitata River system are discussed under “Scientific and Ecological values”.
208. It appears that the recreational users of the Rangitata have been passionate and active about protecting the Rangitata River for many years.
209. In weighing the evidence produced we conclude that the Rangitata River has outstanding wild, scenic and other natural characteristics, and/or outstanding amenity and intrinsic values in the following sections of river:
Headwaters outstanding wild, scenic and other natural characteristics outstanding amenity and intrinsic values
Upper Rangitata outstanding wild and scenic and other natural characteristics outstanding amenity values
Part III 51 Gorge outstanding wild and scenic and other natural characteristics outstanding amenity values
Rangitata River system outstanding natural characteristics - iconic
Part III 52 Scientific and ecological values
Introduction
210. We note that for some of the characteristics and values of the Rangitata River there may be more than one part of S199 RMA that is relevant. For example, aspects of the salmon run may have scientific values as well as fishery values. For practical reasons we have chosen to discuss each feature under the heading we deem most appropriate.
211. Note that aquatic birds and native bats are discussed in the section on “Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms”, fish species under “Fishery”. There are some references to scientific values in the discussion on wild, scenic and other natural characteristics.
Scientific values of braided rivers
212. Several expert witnesses gave evidence about the rarity of braided rivers like the Rangitata River and how the habitat types that they sustain are special because they are adapted to the unstable nature of this river type with its high spring- summer flows and rapid and frequent flooding.
213. DoC and Forest and Bird described how braided rivers of the type found in Canterbury are nationally and internationally rare and provide unique habitat which gives rise to the specialisation of the flora and fauna that inhabit them.
214. The importance of the river system remaining intact was mentioned by several witnesses. Harding (917) stated that "The Rangitata is a river system. Disturbance of one part affects the physical character, conservation value, and the aesthetic beauty of the whole river system." DoC said that "The continued functioning of braided rivers from a biological and geomorphologic perspective relies on the river system being maintained intact".
215. Pyle stated that "One of the outstanding features of the Rangitata is its unusual flow regime as a consequence of its glacial origins." "The Rangitata with its distinctive glacial "signature" forms a connection between the Canterbury Plains and Southern Alps". He notes that colour of the water due to the glacial fines and the natural flow regime having lowest flows in the winter provide a strong link to the mountains, in contrast to rivers rising in the foothills or on the plains.
216. Pyle considered that with its unimpeded flows from the headwaters to the sea and its glacial flow regime, the Rangitata River is outstanding, and is only one of two rivers of its type in New Zealand. (The Rakaia is the other.)
217. NZRCA and NZ Rafting Association found the Klondyke to Peel Forest section, although not in its natural state outstanding for unique scientific values.
Part III 53 218. Five sites in the Rangitata catchment are listed in the geopreservation inventory. The details of these are summarised below. Although some of the features result from the actions of ice and water, none appears to be in a situation where a water conservation order is likely to offer protection.
219. In the headwaters, two sites are listed: rich Triassic macroflora and rich Torlesse macrofauna of brachiopods, bivalves, nautiloids and vertebrates in a stream cutting in Rocky Gully (Lizard Gully), on the true left hand side of Clyde Branch of Rangitata River; and Triassic Torlesse macrofossils in a stream cutting in a tributary of Carneys Creek, Havelock Branch of Rangitata Valley.
220. In the upper Rangitata, on the north side of Forest Creek a complete sequence of glacial features on valley side slope provides a record of ice levels during glaciation and deglaciation intervals in the Rangitata and is classified as extremely well defined landforms of scientific/educational value; and large latero-terminal moraines of a Pleistocene valley glacier, the best preserved example in the Two Thumb Range, are found on Crooked Spur, Bush Stream.
221. Below the gorge an excellent example of outwash river terracing (up to 7 in places) is found in the Rangitata River, downstream from the Rangitata Gorge for at least 10 km.
Conclusions
222. We conclude that the Rangitata River has outstanding scientific values as a type of river that is rare in New Zealand and internationally and has a flow pattern that is largely unmodified
223. We find that the Rangitata River has outstanding scientific and intrinsic values as a braided river system.
Part III 54 Aquatic macro-invertebrates
224. Expert evidence was given by Stark, Digby (for applicant) and Ryder (RDR).
Data
225. Data on macro-invertebrate communities in the Rangitata River is limited to work by Bonnett who sampled at four reaches every second month from June 1982 to July 1983 (Bonnett, 1986), and more recent work (unpublished) by Digby who sampled the river in May - June 2000. We note that Digby was assisted by Stark to develop his study design, aimed at collecting macro- invertebrate samples from the Rangitata River and tributaries.
226. The data from the two periods is not completely comparable. The locations of Bonnett’s sites were • the upper Rangitata, • near Arundel, • near SH 1 bridge • near the mouth.
227. Digby took samples near the mouth and near Arundel, concentrating on collecting samples from different habitat types. He also collected tributary samples.
Macro-invertebrate species and densities
228. Stark reported that the invertebrate communities documented by Bonnett were very similar in composition to those recorded in the recent samplings. He considers that "there is little to suggest that there has been any significant change in mainstream macro-invertebrate communities over the last 18-19 years.”
229. From the recent survey work Stark noted that seepage streams supported the greatest variety and densities of macro-invertebrates, with minor braids, intermediate braids and major braids providing habitat for progressively decreasing numbers and variety of species.
230. The recent work also included semi-quantitative sampling in tributary streams and Stark reported that there was a greater variety of species in the tributaries than in the main river reflecting a greater diversity of habitats. He commented that this makes the tributaries important as sources of invertebrates for downstream reaches.
231. In summary, Stark noted that there are at least 105 different macro-invertebrate taxa known from the Rangitata River system. When questioned as to whether he considered the macro-invertebrate communities of the Rangitata River are outstanding Stark commented that the braided rivers are outstanding and from what is known, the Rangitata River is the best of these.
Part III 55 Comparison with the Rakaia River
232. Stark compared aquatic invertebrates in the Rangitata River with those recorded for the Rakaia. Although the data for the two rivers is not strictly comparable, he considered that it provides a reliable basis for his assessment that the Rangitata River has approximately 50% more known macro-invertebrate taxa than the Rakaia. He also noted that the Rangitata River has the highest number of taxa that has been recorded from a braided Canterbury river.
Conclusions
233. The Rangitata River has a significantly higher variety of macro-invertebrate taxa than that recorded for any other Canterbury braided river, including the Rakaia River. The numbers are also high.
234. The data collected was limited in its spread throughout the river. In making comparisons with the Rakaia River, Stark referred only to the river as a whole. There is no data on the gorge, and limited data for the upper river.
235. We find that the Rangitata River is outstanding in terms of the habitat for aquatic macro-invertebrates because of the numbers and variety of species found.
Indigenous plant communities
Introduction
236. Indigenous plant species and communities adapted to these environments still prevail in the largely unmodified river system of the headwaters, upper Rangitata and gorge. From below the gorge to the sea introduced plants, especially woody weeds, now dominate.
237. We consider that vegetation in the riverbed of the Rangitata River is directly affected by the waterway itself in an ongoing manner, and can therefore be considered as part of the river.
238. Riparian vegetation is less directly affected by the river itself and more by land management. Therefore we do not draw conclusions about the riparian vegetation with respect to water conservation order criteria.
239. Davis, an ecologist, (Forest and Bird Protection Society) gave detailed evidence on indigenous plants. He described the plant communities in the different sections of the Rangitata River and assessed their importance. This evidence was not challenged by other parties. Lucas (DoC) in her evaluation of wild, scenic and other natural characteristics also commented on the significance of the indigenous plants and their habitat.
240. Harding (917) stated that the "Rangitata riverbed supports rare and possibly threatened species of indigenous plants. .... Unnamed species of woollyhead (Craspedia sp.) and broom (Carmichaelia sp.) are known to be present.”
Part III 56 241. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu & Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua: The significance of plants as foods, medicines and materials used in the lives of Ngāi Tahu must be recognised. The list of some of the valued mahinga kai plant species was provided by the submitter.
Plant Diversity
242. Braided rivers provide many habitats, including freshly deposited silts and sands, exposed gravel islands and bars, older stabilised terraces, backwaters and isolated wetlands. These support a diversity of indigenous plants, and it is the mosaic of plants in different habitats (and at different successional stages) that make braided river beds distinctive and ecologically significant.
Upper Rangitata
243. We note that Davis did not define the “upper Rangitata” but we assume that he was describing the Rangitata River and its tributaries, above the gorge i.e. he includes the headwaters.
244. Davis found that the successional sequences of indigenous plants are most intact in the upper river, and would be similar to those of other large braided river, particularly the Rakaia and the Waimakariri.
245. He noted that control works in the upper river (groynes near Erewhon homestead, at Forest Creek and Bush Stream) have restricted the dynamic nature of the river in these places and have altered the natural successional processes by artificially stabilising the bed. In the upper river there has been limited cultivation and drainage on terraces and fans adjacent to the river. Davis considered that many of the wetlands and ecological sequences adjacent to the main river and its tributaries remain significant.
246. Davis noted that one endangered plant (Luzula celata) has been recorded at 11 sites in the upper Rangitata and other rare species have also been identified, and considered that further surveys to improve the knowledge of the flora of the Rangitata would find other species with restricted distribution.
247. He described how many wetlands, with a variety of wetland types, are associated with the Rangitata River, but few have received vegetation assessments. However, in Davis's opinion many are likely to be significant. In the Heron ecological district Protected Natural Area (PNA) surveys, three wetlands in the Rangitata River were recommended for protection (RAP 18, 21, 22). One of these is the largest wetland complex associated with the riverbed, extending from the area around Mt Sunday to the base of the Potts River fan.
Gorge
248. In the gorge, indigenous species dominate the plants occupying crevices and ledges on the rock bluffs and sidewalls. A mixture of grasslands containing exotic and introduced species and shrublands, largely indigenous, occupy the terraces and fans.
Part III 57 Lower Rangitata
249. In the lower river, indigenous associations are rare and are mainly limited to the lagoon backwaters and to some areas of shrublands on terraces below the gorge. Riparian and riverbed vegetation is dominated by introduced plants, including gorse, broom, lupin and willows.
Assessment of ecological values
250. Davis evaluated each river section under four criteria: naturalness, and three Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) assessment criteria: representativeness (in relation to vegetation that was originally present), sustainability (i.e. the extent to which the values in the proposed area are likely to survive and to evolve in a natural way in the long term) and landscape integrity. He did not use the fourth NHF category: amenity.
251. The table below summarises Davis’s evaluation.
Vegetation Assessment summary Upper River Gorge Lower River Riverbed Riparian Riverbed Riparian Naturalness Moderate / Low - High Low - Low Low - High Moderate / Moderate High Representativeness High Low - High Low - Low Low - High Moderate / High Sustainability High Moderate - High Low Low - High Moderate Landscape High Moderate - Moderate Low - Low - integrity High Moderate Moderate
252. In the upper Rangitata: • representativeness of riverbed vegetation is high. Habitats are similar to pre-European ones and are regularly renewed through natural ecological processes such as flooding. • naturalness is moderate to high. Ecological functioning is largely intact, and upstream of the Potts River modifications are minor. Below the Potts there are more weeds but ecological functioning is still largely intact. • sustainability is high. With the large area and almost fully functioning natural processes the upper river is largely buffered from adjacent land uses. River control works and weeds (lupins, gorse, broom and willows) cause disruption to natural processes.
253. In the gorge: • representativeness is high in the plant associations of the bluffs and crevices; and medium-high in the shrublands. • sustainability is readily achievable providing burning does not occur.
254. In the lower river: • sustainability is compromised by weeds
Part III 58 • representativeness is low as few indigenous plants and communities remain and weeds are dominant
Conclusions
255. We note that most of the indigenous plant species themselves are found in other types of rivers and habitats and are therefore not outstanding.
256. We note that one endangered plant (Luzula celata) has been identified in the riverbed. There have been limited studies of the vegetation, so it is possible that further rare or endangered species may be found.
257. We conclude that the riverbeds of headwaters, upper Rangitata and the gorge do have outstanding scientific and ecological values for indigenous plants and their communities because of the variety of different aged surfaces. The river flows are an intrinsic part of these features.
Part III 59 Recreation
Introduction
258. Note that recreational fishing is covered under fishery.
Evaluating Recreational Significance
259. Methods for measuring the significance of recreational values of waterways are discussed in the “Flow guidelines for instream values” (MfE, 1998). This report states that: “An internationally significant river would offer some characteristic that attracted interest or use from outside the country ..... There is often a feature that is unique, rare or unusual at an international level.”
260. The report is not as definitive about nationally significant recreational values, but notes two methods: The “disappointment factor” and the “travel cost method”. “An approach to nationally significant could be based on the “disappointment” factor. A well-informed recreational user to an “outstanding” waterway is very rarely “disappointed” ……Thus, if a resource that consistently satisfies a set of expectations is changed in some way, then the level of disappointment is likely to be extreme.” The “travel cost” method of resource valuation assumes that the more costs a person is willing to incur through travelling to a resource the more they value it. Kerr (witness for the applicant) used the travel/cost method to evaluate the recreational value of angling. (see earlier section).
261. For the activities discussed in this section we have considered: where the users come from and what specifically attracts them to the Rangitata River; what alternatives there are for the same or similar activity, and whether the experience offered by the Rangitata River would be similar.
Witnesses
262. This special tribunal acknowledges the enormous effort that recreational users, instructors, guides and commercial operators including salmon anglers and canoeists, put into their submissions, particularly their oral evidence and presentations for this water conservation order application.
263. Witnesses included outdoor education instructors, rafting guides, experienced kayakers and rafters with New Zealand and overseas experience. National recreation organizations presenting evidence included New Zealand Jet Boat Association Inc., New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association (NZRCA), and New Zealand Rafting Association.
264. Other parties, including Rangitata Community Catchment of Federated Farmers NZ Inc and others (combined presentations) (Bob Douglas) and Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd, also discussed the recreational values of the river.
Part III 60 265. Many individual and family group submitters identified their uses of the river. They noted how families had fished and enjoyed the Rangitata for three, four, and five generations and how they wanted to protect this for both present and future generations of New Zealanders. Often they recorded several activities, active and passive.
266. Some examples of their comments are: MacDonald Family (407) "We use the Rangitata River for rafting, kayaking, swimming, camping and tramping, fishing, and relaxation." Inkster, John (109) "Angler and jet boater for 20 years, children and grandchildren use the Rangitata River for fishing, kayaking, and swimming." Tweed, Rodney & Allan (331) "I use the Rangitata River for picnics, family fishing, and swimming." Drummond, Violet (112) I enjoy birdwatching, the outdoor environment, tramping, sightseeing, the sounds, and views, and the family enjoy fishing. Ivey, Grant S (316) We fish for salmon, trout, flounder, whitebait, and sea fish. Whitebaiting on the Rangitata River can be very fruitful if conditions are right. Also go duck shooting. Beeston, Bryan P (428) Uses the Rangitata River for fishing, rafting, and take overseas visitors fishing and rafting. Kingston, William H.(683) Use the Rangitata River for four wheel biking, fishing, and picnics. Crum, Terry F. (529) Family use the Rangitata River for fishing, jet boating, swimming, whitebaiting, holiday making, rockhounding and 4X4 riding. Parkin, Ryan J.(706) Recreational values I get out of the Rangitata River: salmon and trout fishing, jet boating, whitebaiting, motorbiking, deerstalking and many more. School of Recreation, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (1024) (on behalf of 150 students and staff “for whom the river plays an important role recreationally, educationally and as a place to develop an affinity with the planet”) “It would be very detrimental to alter such a river ….. why does short term economics take precedence over spiritual values and well-being?”.
General
267. Although most evidence on recreation was about specific activities in particular reaches of the river, there were also more general views.
268. Federated Farmers reviewed various reports on angling and other recreational activities including Egarr and Egarr (1981), (see Wild and Scenic values section). We note that, apart from Unwin and Brown (1998) “The Geography of Freshwater Angling in New Zealand”, all these reports were based on surveys prior to 1983. The conclusion that Federated Farmers drew was that while the recreational amenities of the Rangitata River are very important regionally they are not unique and do not stand out from a national perspective. (See also the section on salmon fishing.)
269. Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd noted that the NZRCA ranked the Rangitata River as 18th in the top 20 rivers in New Zealand and did not list it on their priority list for protection. They considered that this does not make the river outstanding for recreation.
Part III 61 270. Dr Chris Burt, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, spoke about the recreational value of the Rangitata River and its outstanding contribution to the health and well-being of individuals that use it and the community at large. He spoke also of the importance of the intergenerational knowledge transfer chain and how, if broken, the knowledge will be lost forever. He spoke of the learning benefits from recreation and the importance of the natural environment in this process, concluding that the Rangitata River must be considered outstanding because of the learning it affords to those who use it.
271. Counsel for Forest and Bird described how the Rangitata is outstanding for recreational purposes. She described activities including tramping, walking, mountain-biking, climbing, kayaking, bird-watching and picnicking in different parts of the river, and noted that “In all these activities the experience of the river’s natural character is an important contribution to the experience of visitors and recreational users …..”
Recreational Surveys
272. New Zealand Recreational River Survey (Egarr & Egarr, 1981), 64 New Zealand Rivers (Egarr et al, 1979), Rivers and lakes deserving of inclusion in a schedule of protected waters (1985) are discussed in the section on wild and scenic characteristics.
273. We note that in the “Rivers and lakes deserving of inclusion in a schedule of protected waters” the Rangitata River in listed in group 1 (highest priority for inclusion). Mosley commented that the Rangitata River appeared to be ranked more highly in this list than in inventory of wild and scenic rivers because the committee took account of recreation and amenity values as well as scenic. The Committee commented on the Rangitata River: "This river received a higher measure of support in the public submissions than any other river. The Rangitata River is an outstanding recreational amenity at all points. It has a very high angling use for trout and salmon and is jet-boated, camped, driven, viewed, swum, tramped, painted, photographed, watched for birds, etc. It is outstanding for canoeing, rafting, wildlife and scenery.”
274. Tierney et al (1982) found that 20-30% of anglers also picnicked, camped, and/or enjoyed scenery.
275. We note that these reports are all 15 or more years old. The only more recent survey work (other than on angling) is the 1991 survey by NZRCA of its members.
1991 NZRCA River Use Survey (Hunt)
276. The NZRCA surveyed its members in 1991 to determine the usage of different rivers and evaluate the relative importance of these. The results of this survey of 200 reaches were presented to this tribunal by Hunt, an experienced kayaker.
277. He explained that the results showed that the Rangitata Gorge:
Part III 62 • Ranked 20th (i.e. in top 10%) of importance (Important: the river provides an experience exceeded by few other rivers.) • Ranked 4th nationally for degree of canoeing challenge. (Note that this is not absolute difficulty, but relative to the kayaker's ability at the time) i.e. it is frequently one of their first experiences at this level of difficulty. • Was rated as having the whitewater experience more significant than the scenic factor • Ranks 6th nationally in "reputation" (close to Motu, Shotover, Clarence, Mohaka, Karamea and Whanganui) i.e. in terms of the numbers of respondents who had not kayaked a particular reach but aspired to do so.
278. For the section to Peel Forest the survey showed that, compared with other sections of similar difficulty in Canterbury, it rated slightly lower than the upper Hurunui and Waimakariri Gorge, but higher than the Lower Waiau, Rakaia and lower Hurunui.
279. Hunt compared the 1991 survey with the Egarr and Egarr 1981 survey. He noted the following points: Egarr and Egarr ranked the gorge as having "high" recreational value, so it has maintained its importance. Egarr and Egarr regarded the Rangitata gorge as for "extremely skilled canoeists" and "the goal for a South Island canoeist's career". Although it is still a significant challenge, better equipment and improved techniques mean that not only elite canoeists can tackle the gorge, but it is still a challenging experience.
280. Egarr and Egarr gave the Klondyke to Peel Forest an "exceptional" rating for recreational values. So, the recreational value dropped between 1981 and 1991. Hunt includes in his reasons that kayakers now progress more quickly to more difficult waters than this, and that the Coast to Coast race has increased the focus on the Waimakariri River.
281. We note that more than 10 years has passed since the 1991 survey and evidence from the Outdoor Pursuits Centre (OPC) at Peel Forest and others suggests that there has been a significant increase in use of this section since that time.
Canoeing, kayaking and rafting
Introduction
282. Note that we use the term canoeing to refer generally to both canoeing and kayaking, unless specified.
283. In addition to the New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association (NZRCA) (with about 30 affiliated member clubs) and New Zealand Rafting Association, clubs and individuals made written and oral submissions including instructors Anna Williams (899) and witness Logie, University of Canterbury Canoe Club Inc., Otago Canoe and Kayak Club (286), Waimanu Kayak Club, Women Stepping Outdoors (WSO) (Debbie Martin).
284. Some general comments included: Otago Canoe and Kayak Club (286): "We value the Rangitata River because it is easily accessible from Otago, it provides
Part III 63 for kayakers of all skill and experience, it contains rapids suitable for kayakers, and training and racing, is suitable for paddling even during high flows because the banks are not lined with trees" and Pentecost, Ian (287) commented that “The river is precious to kayakers offering both relatively safe paddling for beginners and more exciting challenges for the more advanced paddler”. He noted that he kayaks the Rangitata River about 10 times a year, usually with other club members from Dunedin.
285. The New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association (NZRCA) and New Zealand Rafting Association made a joint presentation to the tribunal, with witnesses from a variety of kayaking and rafting backgrounds, including expert paddlers, professional instructors and commercial guides and operators and the Club Captain for the University of Canterbury Canoe Club (UCCC). As part of their evidence this group showed and discussed a collection of slides taken by Rankin and two others to illustrate in detail river features as well as showing canoeing and rafting on the Rangitata River.
Gorge
286. The gorge is considered to be one of top 100 kayak runs in New Zealand. It is described by Charles in "New Zealand Whitewater: 120 Great Kayaking Runs" as "a legendary Canterbury test piece and adrenaline stimulant" and "the home of the Canterbury kayaking megagods/godesses".
287. Rankin told us that "The gorge provides an intact wilderness experience for kayakers. ... The wilderness experience adds immensely to its canoeing value and is an important attribute of the Rangitata Gorge". “A special feature of the Rangitata Gorge is the technical difficulty and "big" or "high volume" whitewater to be found. This type of whitewater offers excitement and a supreme technical challenge to experienced boaters and is highly prized. This is always present in the Gorge under its natural flow regimes and is always accessible.” “"Big" water is rare in New Zealand because of the size of our country and river catchments, and the loss of a number of large rivers and rapids to hydro electric power developments."
288. Rankin ranked the canoeing values of the gorge with its "big water" rapids as similar to those offered by other nationally important rivers with significant whitewater and canoeing values including some with water conservation orders (Motu, Mohaka (pending), Kawarau, Buller and Rangitikei), and others without such as the Karamea, Whitcombe, Whataroa, Perth, Landsborough and Waiatoto, most of which are remote and only accessible by helicopter.
289. Based on his own experiences (extensive throughout New Zealand and in USA and Europe), Rankin concluded that the Rangitata Gorge is nationally outstanding for canoeing values, such as its "big water" and challenging canoeing. He added that the scenic and wilderness values complement this ranking.
290. Barnes (UCCC) made similar comments to Rankin about the kayaking experience but also noted that the easy access to the river provides one of the few low cost reaches at this grade which makes it particularly important to
Part III 64 students. He noted that most other big water experience of this type is on the West Coast and requires helicopter access.
Gorge to Arundel
291. Rankin considered that the section from Klondyke to Peel Forest is significantly better than other South Island east coast braided rivers, except for the lower Clarence from Glen Alton to the sea. The Rakaia and Wamakariri do not offer the same high gradients, large rocks and water flows, and therefore do not provide alternatives. He noted, as did others, that people travel from Dunedin and Christchurch just to run this section. As a recreational paddler he finds this section is regionally significant.
292. Barnes (UCCC) noted that he supported Rankin’s evidence about the Klondyke to Peel Forest section and described how the section from Klondyke to Arundel is an excellent river for multisport kayakers to paddle because of the exciting experience and because there is an easy car shuttle to retrieve boats. He rated this section as equivalent in difficulty to the Waimakariri gorge but with different river features.
Rafting
293. Gualter, the manager and part owner of Rangitata Rafts presented evidence on the rafting values of the Rangitata River. The commercial rafting business of Rangitata Rafts, focussed on the gorge, has developed rapidly during the 1990s. We heard that the Rangitata River gorge offers the only readily accessible high volume technical rafting section in New Zealand. Other commercially rafted rivers in New Zealand are either lower volume and technical (e.g. Rangitaiki, Wairoa and Shotover) or high volume and relatively non-technical (e.g. the Kawarau and Buller rivers). It offers an ideal sequence of river features for a commercial raft trip, starting on slow, open water and becoming progressively more difficult in the gorge. It provides high levels of enjoyment with relatively low risk. Most of gorge is reasonably benign if rafters fall out; but difficult holes can be "covered" from the bank by guides.
294. Flows are reliable, which are important for a commercial business. They never get too low, and only rarely get too high, although character varies with flow, which means people return to run the river again. Gualter considered that the Rangitata gorge provides white water rafting that is unique compared with other New Zealand rivers that have single-day drive-in commercial raft trips. Most of the North Island rivers are controlled by dams which reduces their amenity.
Summary of Kayaking and Rafting Values
295. NZRCA and NZ Rafting Association contended that the Rangitata Gorge (which is in its natural state) is outstanding for white water rafting and kayaking recreation and in need of protection. They also found that sections of the river had outstanding wild and scenic and other natural characteristics and that it has outstanding amenity and intrinsic values as a braided river (see earlier sections).
Part III 65 296. Rankin concluded that reaches in Rangitata River used by canoeists are primarily • the Gorge • Klondyke to Lynn Stream, Peel Forest or Cracroft intake • Peel Forest or Cracroft to Arundel Bridge (lesser importance)
297. He also noted that canoeing has changed significantly in last 20 years, especially with new materials for boats, and that aspects of the surveys from the 1970s and 80s will be out-dated.
298. Instructors and recreational paddlers alike mentioned the importance of the natural variations in flows in the Rangitata River, and the different reaches that can be paddled. They noted how varying flows provide different experiences on different trips to the river, but also that there is a high reliability of finding suitable flows at all times of the year. This is also important for the commercial businesses.
Jet boating
299. Many individual submitters mentioned jet-boating as one of their activities on the river, usually amongst other uses. Mosley noted that "Currently, the river below SH1 is used to a significant extent by jet-boaters, predominantly in association with angling, but also for family group and club outings". Referring to the upper Rangitata he also reported that recent telephone interviews "... indicate a significant level of use for jet-boating, in association with angling and simply for "Sunday outings"".
300. New Zealand Jet Boat Association (NZJBA) described how the Upper Rangitata River is the most extensive and unspoilt area of braided shallow water boating in New Zealand. Jet-boaters from the North and South Islands view this as a "must do". It provides conditions that that are suitable for both experts and beginners. "This unspoilt section above the gorge is singular and outstanding, with its combination of natural and recreational values, its backdrop of alpine splendour and its history."
301. While the gorge is rarely challenged by jet boats the NZJBA places a high value on the unique and spectacular rapids and the scenery of the gorge itself and considers that it "remains one of the ultimate challenges to white water boaters".
302. The gorge to Arundel section is regarded as exciting adventure boating; not for family outings. It is described in the Association's handbook as "classic boulder bashing". The flows and clarity required to jet boat this section are rarely available under the current flow regime and would be further reduced with increased abstractions.
303. NZJBA also noted that because of the gentler gradient, the section from SH1 to mouth can be boated at lower flows than the gorge to Arundel reach, and that most of the jet boating in this section is to transport anglers.
Part III 66 304. Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd considered that the Rangitata is not outstanding for jet boating and the river is a minor jet boating river compared to the Waimakariri, Rakaia and Waitaki. However, they gave no further information to substantiate their claim. NZJBA produced diagrams to show how the number of boating days reduces as abstractions increase, and flows in the river reduce.
Tramping and hunting
305. A number of individual submitters mentioned trips to the river for tramping - especially in the headwaters. Women Stepping Outdoors use the headwaters for tramping trips, and Osborne (359) commented that “Friends and I enjoyed duck shooting, enjoying New Zealand's wide open and beautiful spaces where I have hunted for the last 15 years.” Counsel for Forest and Bird described tramping and climbing on the Potts, Two Thumb, Harper, Ben McLeod, the Main Divide and other ranges surrounding the river, as well as the valley itself. She noted that the natural flows are an important component of the views from these places.
306. Webb gave evidence on game bird hunting and showed that the Rangitata River had a higher harvest rate (birds per hour) than for the Central South Island (Fish and Game Council) (CSI) region overall since 1966 in all years except one. He also showed from survey data that CSI has a very high harvest rate compared to other major hunting areas. Much game bird hunting is on private land, but the Rangitata River offers a large public area that is available to all. Webb concluded that the hunting opportunities and benefits provided by the Rangitata River are of regional and national importance, and that it has an outstanding recreational resource for gamebird hunting.
307. No other parties gave evidence on the extent or quality of hunting either for game-birds, deer etc, although some submitters mentioned that they used the upper river and headwaters for hunting trips, and other referred to duck shooting as a recreational activity on the river.
Rangitata River for education and instruction
308. The river is widely used for canoeing and other outdoor education instruction. Several experienced instructors who currently use the Rangitata River for training gave evidence on the importance of the Rangitata River for water-based and other outdoor instruction/education. (Williams, Logie, Keenan, Wensley). Experienced recreational paddlers who have also done some instructing (e.g. in university and other canoe clubs) (Baker, Rankin) also rated the river highly for its values for training.
309. Williams had surveyed 3 local high schools (Mackenzie College (Fairlie), Pleasant Point High School and Geraldine High School) and showed extensive use for Year 12 (Form 6) outdoor education programmes. Logie gave details of the Aoraki Polytechnic outdoor instructor training courses, and Keenan noted that the Outdoor Pursuits Centre at Mount Peel (OPC) had 50 groups (over 3800 people) (including schools, polytechs/universities, sports clubs, businesses, New
Part III 67 Zealand Army) participating in their programmes in 2000-2001. Ashburton Intermediate School (552) has used the Rangitata River and Peel Forest area since 1979.
310. Keenan told us that in the 12 years he has worked on the Rangitata River he has seen a rapid growth in the number of recreational users on the gorge and Klondyke sections, as well as a larger number of school outdoor education courses. He believes that the surge in river use is still growing, and stated that the Rangitata River is recreationally one of the most well used rivers on the east coast of the South Island. He gave as reasons for the high utilisation as: accessibility, the variety of river sections (beginner to experienced), the impressive scenery, the bird and fish life and the safety of the reaches.
311. Wensley told us that the Rangitata River is one of the few places where a broad range of kayak experiences can be accessed in a close geographical area. She noted that the Buller River also provides a high diversity of kayak experiences but lacks a section with the technical difficulty of the Rangitata Gorge. She told how the Rangitata River offers the opportunity for an instructor to challenge students by providing all of the following: • river sections of different technical ability • different "types" of rivers - low volume, high volume, braided, gorged • river sections unfamiliar to students • river sections at water flows unfamiliar to students
312. Mote said that he used to teach canoeing and rafting on the Rangitata River between the Klondyke and Peel Forest and that it was excellent to teach on and a safe piece of water. He stated that there is no other similar teaching resource in Canterbury.
313. All instructors gave similar descriptions of the importance and uses of each section, and the different features and level of difficulty provided.
Upper River
314. Several sections above the gorge are used, particularly for instructing beginners. Instructors Logie, Williams, Keenan and Martin all described how a mix of gently flowing water without obstructions, in a scenic area with high ecological values provided a safe but inspiring beginners' canoeing journey. School groups are the main users but others (e.g. Women Stepping Outdoors and recreational users) also enjoy these reaches.
315. Keenan commented that it is "a safe, controlled introduction to moving water .... for younger children rafting on this section is still a huge buzz…..to be able to get out in the middle of a large river, see salmon moving up the shallows and be so near the Southern Alps".
316. Logie described trips in this section as having a similar "high country" feel to the upper Ahuriri and upper Rakaia, but as better for recreational and educational kayaking because of its unique combination of volume of water, gentleness and easy road access. He also described this part of the river as
Part III 68 excellent for training aspiring instructors because of the few hazards, but long stretches of moving water that provide challenges in group management skills.
Gorge
317. Logie noted that the gorge is unique on East Coast of South Island for its "big water" feel but it is possible to scout and portage all rapids, so students don’t have to paddle the whole gorge. It is used by Aoraki Polytechnic students for advanced and advanced-intermediate whitewater paddling. Also used by OPC for staff training and personal paddling; the centre does not compete directly with the "Rangitata Rafts" business.
Gorge to Arundel
318. Keenan (OPC) described this as "a fun, safe section of river; the one most of our clients would paddle in ....."
319. Wensley rated the flat-water section upstream of the Klondyke intake as suitable for "first time" kayak experience as it can be accessed directly without having to paddle turbulent water and is confined so that beginners are in no danger of drifting away. The upstream part of this section also provides accessible "teaching rapids".
Conclusions
320. We conclude that, based on our assessment of the evidence in terms of the “disappointment” factor, and features attracting interest from outside the region and outside the country the Rangitata River does have outstanding recreational values for kayaking, rafting and jet-boating in certain reaches of the river.
321. There are outstanding recreational values in the following sections: • Upper River: for canoeing, rafting and jet boating • Gorge: for kayaking and rafting • Gorge to Arundel: for kayaking and rafting
322. We also find that the river provides an exceptional mix of attributes for outdoor education. We find several reaches outstanding because of the mix of water- based recreation training and the ecological values. With an increasingly urban- based population formal outdoor education is being used to teach the skills that older generations took for granted but are part of the New Zealand culture.
323. We find that the Rangitata River has outstanding intrinsic values in the upper river, the gorge and in the gorge to Arundel sections that make it an exceptional place for training for canoeing and rafting and more general outdoor and life skills.
Part III 69 Historical, spiritual and cultural purposes
324. Note that spiritual, cultural and historic purposes specific to Ngāi Tahu are covered in the section on tikanga Māori.
Introduction
325. We note that spiritual and cultural purposes are criteria that were not part of the previous legislation (Water and Soil Conservation Act), and therefore there is little experience from previous orders that we can draw on.
326. For the purpose of our deliberations we have taken “spiritual purposes” to be those that concern the dimension of reality that gives worth or value to something that is witnessed or experienced; this dimension is intangible and resists definition and measurement, but it is readily understood from comparable experiences.
327. We take “cultural purposes” to relate to the whole way of life of a people, a community or a group. They are the way things are done or happen, and are often longstanding with some basis in tradition.
328. Culture is not confined to indigenous communities and culture is evolving and on-going. The culture of New Zealanders today is different from that of earlier generations. Both Māori and Pākehā are involved in all the present day activities on the Rangitata River. Recreational activities including salmon and trout fishing, tramping, bird watching, boating, rafting, are an important part of the culture of the Rangitata River, but we consider that recreational importance alone does not necessarily imply significant cultural purposes.
329. Cultural and spiritual attributes are closely linked and cover a spectrum of values. We consider that the following characteristics contribute to cultural and spiritual values: • shared community history • inter-generational transfer of cultural values, information and skills • physical health and sustenance • significance for present and future generations • contribution to spiritual and cultural cohesion • spiritual continuity
330. We note that other elements, too, have a cultural dimension - e.g. wild and scenic characteristics.
Historical, Spiritual and Cultural attributes of the Rangitata River
331. A number of submitters directly referred to the spiritual aspects of the Rangitata River. The saving of the river was described by one witness as a spiritual issue and several were almost at a loss to describe in words how passionate they felt about the Rangitata and what it meant to them. During the delivery of their oral evidence, witnesses displayed the depth of emotion they have for the river. Two
Part III 70 Pākehā witnesses used Māori words “whakapapa” and “tūrangawaewae” to describe the depth of feelings they felt of belonging and their attachment to the river that no English words are able to convey. Another said “...we too experience the powerful aura of the place...” It was described as a very physical river with energetic and exhilarating activities as well as passive ones including “quiet observation”. People are inexplicably attracted to the Rangitata River. “...It also has a spirituality, an empowering quality that affects many people whose contacts with the river are as varied as the people themselves” (Edith Smith 526).
332. In addition to those who mentioned spiritual values directly, others spoke of similar feelings including: the magic of the Rangitata River, the pure pleasure of being there and how it has held a spell over their lives. They spoke of the peace, tranquillity, the beauty and grandeur, and the inherent wild and scenic qualities, especially in the upper river. The wild turbulence of the white water in the gorge and the sheer volume of water in this river demands respect (Tipa 2000). The feeling of space and wideness of the sky at the mouth, and beautiful sunrises and sunsets were described.
333. Although not finding it to have outstanding landscape values, Lucas commented that “the raw, wild and unpredictable state of the river mouth is an aesthetic not traditionally valued in Pākehā culture”.
334. Some witnesses spoke of the immeasurable health benefits afforded from the pleasure and relaxation just from being there - the intangible, unseen things about the river and the environment. One said his father was given 3 years to live and he actually lived for 12 years because of his visits to the Rangitata River (Sefton Gray).
335. Submitters used the current degraded state of the Ashburton, Selwyn and Opihi rivers, which they considered deplorable, as examples of what can happen to a river. They pleaded with and implored the tribunal to prevent this happening to the Rangitata River. For example, Matthew Hall (496) said “For 150 years now we have managed as a nation to live our lives without destroying the Rangitata. We have made a good job of ruining other rivers such as the Pareora, the Hinds, the Orari, the Ashburton and to some extent the Opihi. Is society now saying to us that we can no longer afford to retain the Rangitata River in the state that many of us have grown to value?”
336. Submissions from the bach holders at the mouth of the Rangitata River (both north and south banks) gave evidence about the importance of the river for its longstanding history for families and communities and for the importance for families to pass on values and skills from one generation to another. The importance to health and well-being was described as being more than just the recreational fishing opportunity, and one that would be lost if the river declined to a point where the fishing could not be sustained. The Ashburton River was quoted by many as an examples of how the community spirit has been lost with the deterioration in the river.
337. Both Lucas (DoC) and Robyn McKenzie showed that braided rivers are important to the landscape and the cultural identity of the people of Canterbury,
Part III 71 and that these rivers have influenced the way in which Canterbury people express themselves and their sense of place in literature, music and art. Sunday Island in the upper Rangitata has been used as a location for ‘Edoras’, and will feature in the second film of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy. Robyn McKenzie suggested that “what makes the Rangitata outstanding is not its uniqueness, or distinctiveness, but precisely its sameness, its similarity and commonality with the other braided rivers of Canterbury (and these) are outstanding...”
338. The early Pākehā history of the upper Rangitata is well-known, largely because of the writing of Samuel Butler. His comments in his book “Erewhon” published in 1872 were reflected in the views expressed in 2001. For example “...the country was the grandest that can be imagined, the downs, the huts, the plain, and the river-bed - that torrent pathway of desolation, with its distant roar of waters. Oh, wonderful! Wonderful! So lovely and so solemn” (from “Erewhon”). Lucas referred to the Canterbury Landcape study which stated that “The sense of wilderness and space is remarkable and the area has a particular place in high country literature”. Rackham, too, noted that the upper river has strong historical significance.
339. Many submitters acknowledged the need for a philosophy of sharing. They spoke of the need to share the water of the Rangitata for a range of purposes that included maintaining the river ecosystems, providing for economic uses and for cultural uses, both active and passive. Most did not give details on how they would allocate the water, although Mortimer (496-1) suggested that a third for irrigation (abstraction) a third for recreation and a third for the life of the river would be appropriate while others made comments such as “...(I) would like to see this great river being given some of it's own life blood back" (Edith Smith 526).
Conclusions
340. Many Pākehā submitters clearly have strong spiritual and cultural connections with the Rangitata River. It is not only Māori who perceive that water bodies, especially those largely in a natural state, have a life-giving vitality. The value of the river for these purposes is clearly something that is wider than their fishing or other active and passive recreational pursuits. The factors that are considered to provide the spiritual importance are generally those that are linked to the highly natural appearance, as well as the wild character and behaviour of the river. We note that in the lower river these values persist under the current flow regime even where the waters are no longer in their natural state.
341. We conclude that two sections of the river (upper Rangitata and lower river, especially the lagoon and mouth) have spiritual and cultural attributes that are very special, and therefore outstanding. There was insufficient evidence regarding the headwaters to determine whether or not this section has outstanding spiritual and cultural values.
342. We consider that the historic importance of the early European settlement of the upper Rangitata stands out and we find that it has outstanding historical values, at least in part because the river and the landscape remain largely unmodified.
Part III 72 343. We also conclude that the integrity of the braided river system of the Rangitata River makes it outstanding for cultural and spiritual purposes.
Part III 73 Significance in accordance with Tikanga Māori
Introduction
344. Ngāi Tahu Whānui is the collective name given today to the various Māori hāpu and whānau that have always occupied the major and southern part of the South Island, including South Canterbury. Ngāti Huirapa o Arowhenua is a hāpu of Ngāi Tahu Whānui.
345. The Tribunal was told that Ngāti Huirapa o Arowhenua, the Arowhenua people, have the manawhenua and are the kaitiaki of the Rangitata River.
346. The Rangitata River is mentioned in Schedule 55 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 which sets out Ngāi Tahu's association with the Rangitata and acknowledges its immense cultural, spiritual, traditional and historic significance to Ngāi Tahu Whānui.
347. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the tribal representative body of Ngāi Tahu Whānui, a body corporate established on 24th April 1996 under section 6 of the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1966. The special tribunal noted the request that the evidence presented by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu should not be treated as a single submission, but should be accorded the status and weight due to the tribal collective, Ngāi Tahu Whānui, which it represents. “There are currently just over 29,000 enrolled members of Ngāi Tahu Whānui .... and this number continues to grow.” (Penter).
Treaty of Waitangi
348. Two witnesses, John Wilkie from the north side of the Rangitata River mouth, and Bevan Wilkie representing New Zealand Federation of United Seafood Interests Incorporated, made submissions referring to Treaty of Waitangi issues. After due deliberation the special tribunal believes that the hearing of an application for a water conservation order for the Rangitata River is not the place to consider these issues. The Waitangi Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such a discussion.
Importance of the river to Ngāi Tahu
349. The special tribunal was told that for Māori every waking action is experienced as spiritual. Every mountain, every river, every person, every relationship, every human activity has a spiritual dimension: the taha wairua.
350. To Ngāti Huirapa o Arowhenua, the Arowhenua people, who have the manawhenua and are the kaitiaki of the Rangitata River, the river is a taonga, a wāhi tapu area and an area of special values and relationships. The Ngāti Huirapa o Arowhenua look to the mountain Tarahaoa (Mt Peel) situated on the
Part III 74 southern side of the Rangitata River as part of their “take”1, their mountain of traditional, authentic significance.
351. The tribunal was told that the Rangitata River was sometimes used by Ngāi Tahu parties from Canterbury as part of a trail to Te Tai Poutini (the West Coast). A Ngāti Huirapa member spoke of a traditional story of a woman bringing greenstone over to the east coast. The tūpuna (elders) of Ngāi Tahu had an intimate knowledge of navigation, river routes, safe harbours and landing places (tauranga waka), and the mahinga kai (locations of food and other resources) on the river. A list of traditional names given to physical features, settlement places and special food gathering sites within the river system was provided in the written submission, and attested to Ngāi Tahu’s use of the whole Rangitata River. Lists of plants used for food, fish and birds sourced in the Rangitata catchment were given, emphasising the cultural importance of the River to Ngāi Tahu. Many of these are taonga species recognised in Schedule 97 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 . The tribunal also notes that in the report prepared for Environment Canterbury by Members of Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua and Gail Tipa, and entitled “Rangitata River Tangata Whenua Values”, Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua was reluctant to include site-specific information”.
352. In Ngāi Tahu tikanga (the right way of doing things) it is necessary to consider the catchment in its entirety: ki uta ki tai or “mountains to the sea approach” is the correct one, and so a water conservation order over the whole Rangitata system is supported by Ngāi Tahu.
353. The mauri (or 'life-force') of the Rangitata River represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life-force, and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whänui with the river. The continuity of the flow of water, from the mountains to the sea, is essential for ensuring the well being of the mauri of the waterway. A waterbody with an intact mauri will sustain healthy ecosystems and support mahinga kai. The loss of mauri is recognised by the degraded nature of the resource and the loss of its life supporting capacity. Activities that have been identified as potentially eroding the mauri of water bodies include the damming of rivers, abstracting water from rivers and streams, and the diverting of waters. Ngāi Tahu believes that every effort should be taken to ensure that the mauri of a resource should not be desecrated. The integrity of the waterways on which their survival and their cultural identity depends must be protected. The protection of mauri is vitally important to Ngāi Tahu.
354. Because water is a taonga that has been left for the life sustaining use of their descendants, Ngāi Tahu, as the descendants of tūpuna and the Tangata Tiaki, are Kaitiaki who are responsible for ensuring that this taonga is passed on in as good a state, or indeed better, to the generations that follow.
1 Their place of origin as expressed by familiar geographic features such as a mountain.
Part III 75 355. Mahinga kai remain a cornerstone of Ngāi Tahu culture and identity. Although the number of sites available to Ngāi Tahu has been reduced today, and the abundance and diversity of mahinga kai species are also reduced, mahinga kai continue to play a vital role in the health and well-being of Ngāi Tahu. Seasonal activities that were specifically referred to by members of Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua include: eels, taken in the greatest numbers during the heke (migration) and whitebait; eggs which were taken at Labour Weekend and birds; and plant resources for food, medicines and materials.
356. John Wilkie mentioned that the food in the swamps on the lowlands was no longer available as these areas had been drained. He said that seepage streams and backwaters were important feeding areas for maintaining the traditional eel fishery. The Rangitata River was a great area for eels, especially in the many backwaters of the well braided river. The reduced water flow has reduced the number of braids and backwaters and consequently reduced the number of eels. In traditional times the Rangitata River had huge eel weirs. He also added that the freshwater from the Rangitata River, while stimulating the salmon movement upstream also has an important effect on the breeding of the marine elephant fish along the shore from the river mouth.
357. In their submissions Ngāi Tahu clearly signalled their concerns with regard to further water abstractions, reduced water levels, and other demands on the use of surface waterways. Ngāi Tahu were impressed by the pragmatism and sensibility of the applicant’s proposal; “...particularly by the manner in which it acknowledged existing water abstractions from the Rangitata, and did not seek to turn back the clock...”. Ngāi Tahu also appreciated that the applicant, in seeking to establish adequate protection of the Rangitata River, extended this protection to include the cultural values associated with the river and its catchment. Ngāi Tahu identified that a water conservation order as proposed to this special tribunal, would be acceptable and appropriate for ensuring Ngāi Tahu's cultural interests and aspirations were safeguarded. By their measure, the Rangitata River is of outstanding significance, particularly in terms of its immense cultural, traditional and spiritual significance to Ngāi Tahu Whānui.
358. The Ngāi Tahu submission was challenged by Ms Undorf-Lay on behalf of Federated Farmers and by counsel for Ashburton District Council and Timaru District Council, the latter without evidential support. The tribunal considers that it is inappropriate to try to compare the Ngāi Tahu contention that the Rangitata river is outstanding with the nature and standing of Aoraki - Mount Cook. Similarly, to suggest that this river should be compared with other rivers such as the Mohaka or Motu, valued by other iwi, is not in accordance with tikanga Māori.
Part III 76 Conclusions
359. The values that Ngāi Tahu consider are outstanding in the Rangitata River are wide-ranging. They include: • the history as seen in place names (settlements & food gathering sites) • the physical features of the catchment (rivers, ranges etc) • wāhi tapu / wāhi taonga • trails • mahinga kai • mauri
360. We note, too, that the Rangitata River has previously been acknowledged to be of special significance to Ngāi Tahu, through its statutory acknowledgement in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.
361. The evidence given demonstrates that the river is outstanding not only to Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua but also to the much larger and more widely representative Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.
362. We consider that the Rangitata River as a whole has a range of characteristics that are of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Māori.
Part III 77
Summary of outstanding features and qualities and waters in a natural state
363. The table below summarises for each section of the river, and the whole river, which following features, characteristics values and/or purposes we find are outstanding, and which waters are in a natural state.
Headwaters Upper river Gorge Gorge - Arundel Arundel - mouth Whole river
Waters in a natural state √ √ √
Aquatic bird habitat √ contributes √ Fishery - salmon √ contributes √ √ √ Fishery – salmon fishing √ √ √ Wild & scenic √ √ √ Other natural characteristics √ √ √ Braided river √ Indigenous plants √ √ √ Macro-invertebrates √ Water-based recreation √ √ √ Spiritual/cultural √ √ √ Historical √ Tikanga Māori √ √ √ √ √ √ Amenity / intrinsic √ √ √ √
Part III 78
Part III 79 Part IV Needs of industry and the community
Introduction
1. S207(b) RMA requires the special tribunal to have regard to the needs of primary and secondary industry and the community.
2. Using water from the Rangitata River for current and potential abstraction for irrigation was the key industry focus. There was a high acceptance amongst submitters about community needs for irrigation water, and there was fairly general agreement that continued abstraction at about current levels was not inappropriate. However, several parties proposed different regimes for abstraction with higher minimum flows, with or without flow-sharing above the minimum. The key variations are outlined in Part VI. Water users were concerned that any increase in minimum flow would reduce the certainty of supply, possibly below acceptable levels.
3. Parties looking to develop further irrigation were generally seeking allocations above the existing uses and demonstrated what benefits would, in their view, arise from increased irrigation. Some were proposing to develop storage options that would increase reliability of supply and/or enable flood flows to be captured.
Consents
4. Data on consents and consent applications was provided by ECan (witness: Pascoe & report U01/40).
5. At May 2001 there were 43 water permits to divert dam and take from the Rangitata River catchment with a combined maximum rate of take of 32.787 m3/s (31.970 surface water takes and 0.817 m3/s groundwater). It was made up as follows:
Surface water permits (m3/s) RDR 30.70 non-RDR stockwater 1.007 non-RDR irrigation 0.263 31.970
Groundwater
6. At May 2001 there were 26 permits (table 1, ECan report U01/40) to take groundwater from the Rangitata catchment, including McKinnons Creek, totaling 0.817 m3/s.
Part IV 79 Other consents
7. There were five discharge permits: • two for irrigation by-wash • one not being exercised (Rangitata Salmon Ranch) (this has conditions regarding suspended sediment and BOD levels) • two for the RDR sandtrap that returns sediment to the river (one for dewatering during maintenance and one for returning sediment to this river, subject to stringent conditions)
8. The only "damming" of water in the Rangitata River is behind the weir at the intake to the Rangitata Diversion Race. This raises the water level on average 2.5 m above the natural riverbed.
Stockwater and domestic supplies
9. In addition to the use of Rangitata River water for stockwater under the consents granted there will be other stockwater takes that are permitted by s14(3)(b) of the RMA. ECan consider that these are likely to be very small and have a negligible effect on both groundwater and surface water resources.
10. ECan did not refer to domestic water use under s14(3)(b) of the RMA and we assume that this use is negligible.
Low flow rules - McKinnons Creek.
11. In recent years, minimum flow rules have been set on consents granted for taking water from McKinnons Creek and from nearby shallow groundwater. The rules vary and ECan noted that if this order sets minimum flow rules for this creek then it would be useful to choose a single site that can be easily and accurately gauged and where rules can be set to protect the instream values. One possible site is Wallaces Bridge where a minimum flow of 300 l/s has been set for some consents. We note that this site and this minimum flow are those set out for McKinnons Creek in the draft NRRP (see Part V).
Consent applications
12. The tribunal was told that in 1999/2001 consent applications for a total of 16.94 m3/s of new surface water abstractions were lodged by:
• Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd (8.0 m3/s for irrigation) (advertised 18/12/1999)
• Rangitata South Irrigation (5.94 m3/s for irrigation) (advertised 12/4/2000)
• Ashburton River Irrigation Association Inc (3.0 m3/s to augment flows in Ashburton River) (not advertised - further information requested).
Part IV 80 13. Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd has lodged applications for replacement consents at the same rate and volume of abstraction and subject to the same low flow provisions. These were advertised on 10/2/2001. At the time of our hearing ECan was seeking further information from the applicant.
14. At the time of our hearing Ruapuna and Rangitata South applications had been advertised, and the Ashburton River Irrigation applications were on hold awaiting further information. Both Ruapuna and Rangitata South had also been asked for more information.
15. Between July 1999 and April 2000 there were 9 new applications to take a total of 1.384 m3/s from groundwater from aquifers adjoining the Rangitata River between SH 1 and the sea. The takes sought are from a mix of shallow and relatively deep groundwater. ECan estimates that the stream depletion effect on McKinnons Creek or Rangitata River from these will be about 100 l/s. At the time of the hearing some of these were on hold awaiting further information, others were on hold at the request of the applicant.
Rangitata Diversion Race
16. The Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) dominates abstraction from the Rangitata River. It is a multi use water supply conduit built to supply water for irrigation, power generation and stock water. Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd (RDRM) is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the RDR.
17. The intake is sited at the lower end of the gorge and operates continuously except for a short period in May once every three years when the main race is closed for maintenance purposes. The main race, some 68 km long, provides water for three irrigation schemes totaling around 64,000 ha. In addition, the race services two small hydro power stations: Montalto and Highbank. These are owned and operated by TrustPower. Water from the Highbank tail race is discharged into the Rakaia River. The RDR also supplies stock water to Ashburton District Council and is used for various recreation pursuits.
18. The RDR commenced operation in 1945, and has been embedded in the local and regional economies and geography for over 54 years. Take up of water for irrigation did not gather momentum until the mid 1970s and in the earlier years much of the water take was used for power generation purposes. That situation has since reversed with irrigation now being the predominant user. Overall operating efficiency of the RDR is in the range 94-98%.
19. The capital value of the scheme is $25m; and replacement value is estimated to be $40m. (Lees, TrustPower). This includes the large RDR canal, the three community irrigation schemes and the two power stations, but not the supply race and gate structures.
20. During the period September to April priority is given to meeting irrigation needs. Any water surplus to those needs is retained in-race and used for power generation. For the remaining winter months, May-August, the irrigation
Part IV 81 schemes are shut down and water taken into the intake is used solely for power generation purposes.
TrustPower
21. TrustPower has a 12.5% shareholding in the RDR and currently contributes 45.1% of the operating costs apportioned by water usage. The company owns and runs two hydro power stations based on the RDR:
• Highbank station which operates whenever there is water available from the RDR.
• Montalto which is on the RDR and utilises a 7m fall in the race.
22. Power generation provides positive economic benefits to the region and NZ. Reduction in water supply to the RDR (e.g. with an increased minimum flow) will affect power generation as well as irrigation and will increase the costs of both uses relative to the benefits.
Consents
23. RDRM holds a consent to take 28.315 m3/s. This consent expired on 1 October 2001 but in accordance with Section 124 of the Resource Management Act, the Company continues to exercise the consent pending consideration and determination of its applications for new consents. There has long been some controversy surrounding the authorisation enabling RDR Management’s consent to take 28.315 m3/s. We were provided with considerable detail on this matter, but most parties did not make any claims that RDRM was operating in an unauthorised manner. However, in their written submission (1070) Te Rūnanaga o Arowhenua stated that they are particularly concerned that the RDR is illegally taking water. They contend that the RDR is legally entitled to take only 27 m3/s and water that should be left instream is being taken illegally. For our purposes we consider that 30.7 m3/s is the current permitted take.
Current regime
24. The RDR operates under low flow rules set up in a non-statutory management plan ("the 86 plan" - see Part I for some details). There is widespread agreement that these rules have worked well for most, if not all, parties. The needs of an irrigation program which has to meet daily changes in the total flows available are reflected in this plan which provides for a stepped regime, and generally mirrors the natural master base flow recession curve. This also allows prediction of pending restrictions.
25. RDRM calculated that, under the current regime, the RDR has the following amounts of water available: • Up to 30.7 m3/s for 68% of the time • Up to 26.5 m3/s for 74% of the time
Part IV 82 • Up to 21.8 m3/s for 88% of the time • Up to 18.9 m3/s for 97% of the time
26. RDRM noted that the impact of the 1986 Plan flow sharing regime on the RDR intake is significant, with restrictions being required in every year of record. RDRM contested statements by Mosley (section 3.3 of Mosley (2001)) that “abstraction is seldom restricted under this rule” and consider that this is not consistent with the frequency at which actual restrictions have been imposed on the RDR since 1986.
27. The RDR abstraction has modified the hydrological regime downstream of the RDR intake since 1945. The effect of the abstraction is most noticeable during times when the river flow is at or below approximately 100 m3/s. Because of the speed at which the river flow rate changes during freshes and floods, the abstraction has only a limited capacity to reduce the number of flood peaks in excess of 250 m3/s.
28. Engelbrecht (RDR) described how the effect of the RDR scheme is to allow production through a dry Canterbury summer and to overcome soil moisture deficits whenever they may occur through the irrigation season. He stated that, based on average climatic conditions, over $120 million of farm gate values of additional farm production is created directly from irrigation provided by the RDR.
Juvenile salmon
29. Diversion of juvenile salmon into the RDR during the downstream migration period has long been an issue. Based on research over recent years RDRM is looking closely at the installation of an acoustic fish deflection system at a cost of about $300,000 plus ongoing maintenance costs. Jellyman noted that the main impact of the RDR on the fishery is entrainment of juvenile salmon but that the successful incorporation of an acoustic diversion device at the intake could potentially increase the numbers of adult salmon by up to a third.
Other uses
30. The race is open for use by others. The exceptions are certain hazardous areas such as the intake and other structures, and areas which remain in private ownership. The race supports a number of recreational uses. It has a sustainable brown trout population and provides the only year-round fishery resource for anglers in Mid-Canterbury. Trout fishing is common along the whole of the race. Hunting wild fowl including mallards, grey ducks, paradise ducks and Canada geese is a popular pastime along the race. The canal is also popular with local residents for swimming, canoeing, kayaking and even hosts a multi-sports event.
31. Other non-water based recreational activities include tramping along the race (e.g. the Methven walkway which is part of the National Walkway system), picnicking and photography.
Part IV 83 Water Conservation Order
32. RDRM was opposed to a water conservation order and requested that it be declined in its entirety, but noted that if a water conservation order can be justified then it should specify and protect the RDR and its current level of abstraction. RDRM also noted how the applicant had recognised the importance of RDR to industry and the community and had included explicit provision in its suggested draft water conservation order for the RDR on similar terms and conditions to the present.
33. TrustPower also requested that the application be declined, but noted that what they sought in terms of the application was to secure outcomes which allow them to remain commercially viable. They noted that the draft application prepared by the Fish and Game Council essentially did this and are not opposed in principle to an order like this, but would be opposed to one that restricted the availability of water beyond the status quo. This, in its view, would significantly diminish the positive social and economic effects that the scheme induces, without justification. TrustPower described how it is an environmentally responsible company and has implemented an environmental management system for the power station operations.
34. RDRM considered that the regimes advanced by ECan, DoC and Mosley place additional restrictions, some more severe than others, on irrigation reliability, particularly in the critical spring, late summer and autumn periods.
35. As an example, they used the flow records for 2000-2001 to examine the percentage water availability under the proposed minimum flow regimes and determined that half the time in some months, particularly September, February and March, 25-33% of the scheme area could not be irrigated, should one or other of the ECan, Mosley and DoC options be adopted.
36. These proposals would also reduce the water available to TrustPower which noted that any regime which threatens its use of water, affects and threatens its operations, and there is a corresponding effect on its contribution to RDR funding.
Water needs within the Rangitata catchment
37. Most of the abstracted water is used beyond the Rangitata River catchment. Many of the farm businesses within the catchment, especially those above Arundel made submissions regarding their needs for water. Some were opposed to a water conservation order, others were not. However, their concerns were that they, too, have development opportunities on their properties, and these will generally require water. Although this water may be available in tributaries to the Rangitata River, they noted that they could be denied access to it through a water conservation order. A potential need for water storage was also noted.
38. Other concerns that were noted included the need to maintain river protection works, provide water for fire-fighting, domestic and stock water supply.
Part IV 84 Future needs of industry and the community
39. Irrigation was the key water use topic presented to us. Quantity and reliability of supply were both important issues. Water storage either within the Rangitata, or elsewhere, was discussed both as a means of increasing the reliability of supply and to capture water from higher flows in the river.
40. Irrigators told how reliability of supply is vital and that unplanned restrictions reduce both the quality and quantity of the crop. Mayfield Hinds Irrigation Society told us that “as irrigators on a flow of the river irrigation scheme, we farm in constant fear of restrictions especially in the shoulders of the season."
41. Irrigator groups and farmer organisations were generally opposed to a water conservation order, noting that the 1986 plan still works, and preferring a management plan developed by ECan. However, many were also strongly critical of ECan for not yet developing a plan for the catchment. These groups seemed to be of the view that a plan would give them more options for obtaining irrigation water than they felt that they would have under a water conservation order. Mayfield-Hinds Irrigation Society considered that a water conservation order would “lock the water resource of the Rangitata into today’s thinking”. The Ashburton District Council, although opposed to an order and preferring a regional plan supported the applicant’s minimum flow regime, stating that this should be incorporated into a plan. We note that this is not what ECan is proposing in their draft NRRP (see Part V).
42. Expert witnesses gave evidence on the importance of the RDR to the current viability of primary production in mid-Canterbury and estimated the potential economic gains that could be achieved through increased irrigation but would be lost if a water conservation order prevented any further irrigation development from the Rangitata River. They also discussed the effects on existing irrigation of increasing the minimum flow in the Rangitata River.
Effects on present irrigation
43. Engelbrecht (RDR), a farm consultant based in Canterbury, described the need for the reliability of irrigation water supply, both in volume and availability, and stated that less than 90% reliability has significant implications for farmers, particularly in a low and unreliable rainfall climate such as much of Ashburton district. He considered that a high degree of reliability of supply is essential to maintain high quality production of stock and specialist seed crops, and to make dairying viable. Increased uncertainty of supply would mean that farming practices would be scaled down or land uses changed to accommodate the changes in water supply.
44. Engelbrecht considered that the Ashburton district economy and local infrastructure is strong and vigorous and the RDR is a crucial contributor. He noted that the certainty of the irrigation is as much an issue as the volume of irrigation and that with a higher minimum flow run-of-the-river supply irrigated farming in the RDR schemes could become something of a lottery.
Part IV 85 45. He described how the benefits are achieved with a relatively low scheme duty (i.e. the l/s/ha that each scheme is allotted) of 0.45 l/s/ha. He compared a number of irrigation schemes on the basis of litres per second per hectare supplied to each of the irrigation schemes. Each of the three irrigation schemes served by the RDR take less water per hectare than any other scheme except the Waimakariri. He noted that it is accepted that to irrigate at a rate of less than 0.6 l/s/ha is deficit irrigating. The figure of 0.6 l/s/ha allows for the replacement of water in the soil lost through evapotransporation.
46. From a farm consultant’s point of view, Engelbrecht considered that the ECan proposals are unworkable. The uncertainty and unreliability of irrigation water flow would be so serious to a farm management programme that the effects on production and financial performance would be intolerable. He found the DoC proposals even more severe in their potential adverse effects particularly in the early/mid spring, while the Mosley proposal is even more serious again, during the February/March period.
47. Overall he noted that the suggested flow regimes recommended by ECan, DoC and Mosley would impose serious constraints on current levels of irrigation water supply from the Rangitata River in all respects, including certainty, reliability and adequacy. Engelbrecht considered that these constraints would lead to reductions in farm income, and therefore reductions in the economic benefits to the community.
48. Sanderson (RDR), an economist, endeavoured to assess the impact of altered flow regimes on the agricultural sector, but noted that this is difficult because the present RDR schemes are already key elements in the pasture and mixed cropping economy of Mid-Canterbury and likely changes would be complex and difficult to model.
49. He found that the generation of hydro-electricity provides a reasonable level of economic activity in the District and also some certainty and security to power supply. Were the proposed restrictive regimes introduced (e.g. DoC, ECan), the generation level would also be reduced. The main effects on the community would be that the contribution of TrustPower to RDR operating costs would be reduced, increasing the cost of water to irrigators. The lower level of generation would mean that more ‘imported’ power would need to be purchased for the District, and the power price paid by the community and industry could be expected to increase. Generation would be reduced on average by 3.6% under ECan, 17.8% under DoC and 9.5% under Mosley. He noted, too, that there is wide variation between years, with the ECan rules showing a 14% reduction in one year of the historic flow record.
50. He noted that benefits from irrigation have contributed to social and physical improvement in the Ashburton district, in what would otherwise be a relatively harsh farming environment. The certainty it affords is central to attracting and retaining processing industries in the district. The direct, indirect and multiplier impact on the economy is marked, with added value of approximately $108.9 million, as well as valuable employment opportunities.
Part IV 86 51. Sanderson noted that if the volume of water available for irrigation is reduced in terms of the competing models, those proposed by DoC and Mosley are severely restrictive. Reversal of land back to dry land production is certain. The impact of the ECan proposal, while less measured in overall volume, will impact more harshly in some areas, but its prime effect falls in the loss of water in crucial periods for irrigation. Mean loss of irrigation water compared with 1986 Plan is 9.4% under ECan, 26.3% under DoC and 33.7% under Mosley. He estimated that the increases in cost of irrigation water would increase by more than 12% under ECan and over 44% under DoC and Mosley scenarios.
52. With its relative certainty of water supply for farm production the RDR has provided the conditions for reliable production which has attracted processing industries to the District. The proposed restrictive water regimes reduce the certainty of supply of water in total and at key periods in the season. Adoption of these regimes is therefore likely to result in less certainty of reliable production which will tend to encourage processors to consider processing in other regions. The loss of any of the processing and related industries would have very significant adverse economic and social impacts on the community and the industry of the District.
53. McFarlane, a farm management consultant, (Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Society Ltd) demonstrated how a 6.5% reduction in water availability reduces the efficiency of production by 14% in sheep, beef and dairying operations.
54. Mid-Canterbury Federated Farmers, who were opposed to a water conservation order, noted that they would like the irrigation season recognised as September 10 to May 9, rather than September 1 to April 30.
55. Walter Leuthwaite on behalf of Central Plains Irrigation, which is planning for increased irrigation between the Rakaia and the Waimakariri Rivers, noted that further restrictions on the Rangitata would increase competition for Rakaia water. He considered that a water conservation order would not provide for a balanced use of resources.
Industry - Potential Needs
56. Parties identified the following areas as being potentially affected by a water conservation order that limited further irrigation development:
• Upgrading schemes operating off the RDR (67,000 ha). The low volume per hectare (0.45 l/s/ha of water) and unreliability of that water limit land- use options and farm productivity.
• Mid Canterbury potential irrigation zone (108,000 ha), identified by Lincoln Environmental in a report prepared for the Ashburton Community Water Trust.
• 4,000 ha identified as being within 1 km of the river that could face restrictions on groundwater takes if these are identified as being hydraulically connected to the river.
Part IV 87 • 16,000 ha that could potentially be irrigated by a scheme taking water from the river - "Rangitata South scheme"
• Mid Canterbury groundwater zone, identified by Lincoln Environmental in a report prepared for the Ashburton Community Water Trust. This zone depends on irrigation in the upper plains providing significant recharge to the groundwater zone.
57. Ford (for Ashburton District Council) identified the potentially irrigable areas as having a relatively large proportion of light soils and low average rainfall. Irrigation would provide more reliable plant growth enabling changes to more intensive and profitable land uses. He documented changes in land uses that could arise from the suggested irrigation development and showed that this would more than double the value of the outputs at the farm gate.
58. Geoff Butcher (for Ashburton District Council) presented evidence regarding his estimates of the economic losses to the local and regional communities that would occur if a water conservation order prevented development of further irrigation based on the Rangitata River. He did not consider the effects of one suggested minimum flow versus another.
59. In his analysis Butcher used levels of potential farm outputs presented by Ford (for Ashburton District Council). These were derived from information on soil type and climate, and assumed that dairying is the most profitable land use, and there would be conversion to dairying wherever technically feasible. The figures also assumed that all land would be irrigated provided it was technically feasible and economic to the farmer i.e. it provides a maximum economic impact.
60. Butcher's conclusions were that a water conservation order that prevented further abstraction for irrigation from the Rangitata River would lead to a reduction of potential farm production valued at approximately $483 million per year compared with full irrigation. He added to this a loss of farm value-added of $280 million per year and 1,200 FTEs (full time equivalent workers) on farms in the irrigated area.
61. He also described flow-on effects through the district and region of $696 million per year that could be achieved from the additional farm production. This would be linked with employment of 6,400 FTEs on-farm and in processing industries.
62. He noted that these figures are a market economic study and have not been weighed against other social and environmental costs and benefits, and that this would need to be done to determine which outcome best enables people and communities to provide for their social and economic well-being.
63. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) evidence described studies underway to assess the potential water demand and availability for industry in the whole of Canterbury and noted that a decision on the water conservation order application now could foreclose future options as it would be based on partial information and the tribunal would therefore not be able to properly fulfil
Part IV 88 the requirements of s207 of the RMA to have regard to the needs of primary and secondary industry and the community.
64. Bright (Lincoln Environmental) gave evidence on behalf of MAF about the long term water needs in Canterbury. This evidence was based on work being carried out for the Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Bright considered that Rangitata River management options should be assessed in terms of their long term impacts on multiple catchments because the management regime on any one component of the Canterbury Plains water resource system impacts on other components. He considered that there is enough water to meet all instream and consumptive demands in mid-Canterbury providing that: • surface and groundwater in the Rangitata, Ashburton and Rakaia catchments are managed in an integrated manner • water harvesting and storage facilities are developed • there is the ability to take some (but not a lot) more water from the Rangitata catchment than is currently taken.
65. In evidence for the Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) Bright also noted that run-of river systems alone would be unable to meet community goals but that there are feasible options for water supply and harvesting. He discussed one option which would take water from the Potts River to storage in the Ashburton catchment. There is very little data on the Potts River, either given in evidence or in the reports referenced. A mean flow estimate of 3.2 m3/s was based on data from a few gaugings. (Lincoln Environmental Report 4446/2). He noted that the viability of storage systems would be adversely affected if no further abstractions from the Rangitata River were available.
66. We note that the MAF scenarios show potential future water demand as low for the Rangitata catchment itself (11 m3/s) because of the small area of potentially irrigable land, but the high demands being in the adjacent catchments of the Ashburton (166 m3/s) and the Opihi/Orari (76 m3/s).
67. Rangitata Sustainable Trust also presented possible future water allocations where it would start abstracting a proportion of its required water when the Rangitata River at Klondyke was above 66 m3/s and an increased amount above 110 m3/s.
Proposed new developments (consent applications made)
68. Three new schemes to take surface water from the Rangitata River have progressed to consent application. At the time of the hearing two had been publicly notified and further information had been sought on the other application.
Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd
69. Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd is seeking to establish new irrigation in the Mayfield Ruapuna area. The company has applied for consents to take 8.0 m3/s for irrigation of about 16,500 ha. Advertised 18/12/1999.
Part IV 89 Rangitata South Irrigation (RSIL)
70. RSIL was formed in 1999 with the aim of bringing reliable irrigation water to the land between the Orari and Rangitata Rivers from the foothills to the sea. The area to be irrigated would be 16,000 ha out of a total of 20,000 ha. We were advised that this land has no options for reliable irrigation from groundwater. The consent sought (advertised 12/4/2000) is for 5.94 m3/s for irrigation with a peak flow requirement 6-8 m3/s. The water would be taken form the Rangitata River between Arundel and Peel Forest. Witnesses for RSIL considered that the scheme would be worth $24-48 m per year in increased farm gate sales. The total irrigation season demand (September – May) would be 115 million m3.
Ashburton River Irrigation Association Inc (ARI)
71. ARI has applied for a consent to take 3.0 m3/s from the Rangitata River to augment flows in the Ashburton River. At the time of our hearing this had not been advertised as further information had been requested by ECan. This water would enable the minimum flow in the Ashburton River to be raised, and would be expected to reduce the time that the mouth is closed.
Other new developments
Damming
72. Mid Canterbury Irrigation Enhancement Society (MCIES) outlined a proposal for a 50 m high dam in the Rangitata River gorge that would generate some 280 GWh of electricity as well as providing storage for sufficient irrigation water to meet the foreseeable demand (1000 million cubic metres of useable storage). This maximum sized reservoir would extend 18 km to just above the Forest Creek confluence. The reservoir would need to have an operating range such that it would only be drawn down a few metres in most years, but to a lower minimum level in drought years. Morten (for Rangitata South) told us that such a dam could irrigate an extra 95,000 ha. Damming is discussed further in Part VII.
73. Rangitata Sustainable Trust and Ashburton Community Water Trust both described a range of options for increased use of Rangitata water for primary production.
Conclusions
74. The RDR and its associated irrigation and hydro generation schemes are embedded in the local economy. We note that, based on average climatic conditions, over $120 million of farm gate values of additional farm production is created directly from irrigation provided by the RDR.
75. Clearly there is a demand for further water for irrigation. The economic benefits to the businesses that obtain this water and to the wider communities are potentially large. Some proposals have proceeded to consent applications, whereas others are under consideration. Some parties noted that there was
Part IV 90 adequate water in the region for all uses, especially if storage is developed, providing that some further allocation is available from the Rangitata River. As with the RDR, the new proposals would generally irrigate land outside the immediate catchment of the Rangitata River.
76. There were no particular proposals presented regarding the future needs of secondary industry or the community. We note that by comparison with the volumes required for irrigation the other needs are small, especially in view of the technical difficulties (and costs) of abstracting water from a large braided river.
77. Farm businesses within the catchment have legitimate concerns that water available for abstraction may be allocated to other areas and so deny them the opportunity for development. We note that MAF estimated that, based on an assessment of potentially irrigable land, another 11 m3/s could be used for irrigation in the Rangitata catchment.
78. We note that under the RMA a water conservation order could not deny reasonable use of water for domestic and stock supply or fire-fighting (S14(3)) or limit maintenance of existing structures such as roads and bridges.
Part IV 91
Part IV 92 Part V Plans, policy statements etc.
Introduction
1. Section 207(c) of the RMA requires the tribunal to have regard to: “The relevant provisions of every national policy statement, New Zealand coastal policy statement, regional policy statement, regional plan, district plan, and any proposed plan.”
2. While the RMA requires us to have regard to every regional policy statement, regional plan etc, we have considered only those that are relevant, that is those that have effect over part or all of the Rangitata River or were specifically referred to by witnesses (e.g. Opihi River Management Plan). While the National Biodiversity Strategy is not a national policy statement under the RMA, it was referred to in evidence. The Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) is a regional document prepared under the Conservation Act and was also referred to in evidence.
3. We have identified the following documents as potentially relevant:
National policy statements • The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
Regional policies and plans • The Regional Policy Statement for Canterbury • The Regional Coastal Plan for Canterbury • Canterbury Natural Resources Plan (draft) • Opihi River Management Plan • Waimakariri River Management Plan
District plans • Timaru District o Transitional District Plan, (Strathallan County Scheme) o Proposed District Plan • Ashburton District Plan
Other plans and policies • Rangitata River Water Management Plan 1986-1996 (South Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water Board) (described in Part I) • New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy • Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy (2000-2009)
Part V 93 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
4. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) is a mandatory document under the RMA, prepared by the Minister of Conservation. This policy became operative in May 1994.
5. The purpose of the NZCPS, as set out in section 56 of the RMA, is to state policies in order to achieve the promotion of sustainable management of natural and physical resources in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. The “coastal environment” is not defined, either in the NZCPS or the RMA. In the context of the Rangitata River we understand that it includes the adjoining areas of open sea, the shingle bar and the lowest reaches of the river, back a distance probably of several kilometres.
6. We note that although the coastal environment is not defined, the coastal marine area (CMA) is defined in the RMA. It includes the foreshore, seabed and coastal water. Baker (DoC) advised us that for the Rangitata River the CMA extends inland 500m from the mouth. The coastal environment includes the CMA.
7. Various policies in the NZCPS may be relevant to a water conservation order for the Rangitata River. In summary, these include: • protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna (Policy 1.1.2); • protection of landscapes, seascapes and landforms, characteristics of special significance to Māori, and places or areas of historic or cultural significance. (Policy 1.1.3); • protection of the processes which provide for the natural movement of sediments, water and air, and their quality, and the natural movement of biota, and intrinsic values of ecosystems. (Policy 1.1.4); • restoration and rehabilitation of the natural character. (Policy 1.1.5); • protection of the habitats (in the coastal marine area) of species important for commercial, recreational, traditional or cultural purposes. (Policy 3.2.8).
Discussion
8. Hovell considered that the draft water conservation order (applicant’s version) is not inconsistent with the NZCPS. He considered that in the context of Policy 1.1.4, the proposed water conservation order would positively contribute by putting in place a regime to: enhance sediment and water flows; enhance water quality; and enable the opening of the river mouth, thereby enhancing the natural movement of biota. Overall he concluded that the purpose of the NZCPS will be promoted by adopting a water conservation order for the Rangitata River.
9. Batty assessed the NZCPS (and Canterbury Regional Coastal Plan (RCP)) and concluded that neither of these documents have anything to say which has a significant bearing on whether the water conservation order as sought should
Part V 94 proceed or not. Both are generally concerned to maintain the ‘natural’ coastal environment. In the case of braided alpine-fed rivers like the Rangitata however, those ‘natural’ processes would include the periodic transport of river gravel / shingle to the river mouth and the formation of natural bars.
10. Penter (Ngāi Tahu) referred to policies 1.1.3 and 2.1.1 and noted that NZCPS is relevant for this tribunal, and that the applicant’s draft covers the river from the source to the sea.
11. Counsel for Forest and Bird noted that the applicant’s draft water conservation order with Forest and Bird’s amendments (see Part VI) is consistent with NZCPS (and cites particular policies) and is relevant because of the relationship between river flows and coastal environment. Such a water conservation order would maintain the integrity, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment around the Rangitata River mouth.
12. Baker (DoC) stated that the draft water conservation order (applicant’s draft as amended by DoC) is not inconsistent with NZCPS and will promote its purpose.
Conclusions
13. We recognise that the CMA is excluded from the definition of a waterbody, and therefore a water conservation order cannot directly control activities in the CMA. However, we conclude that a water conservation order such as the applicant’s draft would not be inconsistent with the NZCPS.
Canterbury Regional Policy Statement
14. Status: Became operative in June 1998.
15. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) for Canterbury recognises that the RMA provides for water conservation orders without setting out any policy framework for indicating support or opposition to water conservation orders in the Region.
16. A description of Canterbury’s Natural and Physical Resource Relationships is set out in Chapter 3. Section 3.1 describes Canterbury’s diverse environment, recognising that braided rivers, some of which are of international importance, are of significance as wildlife habitats, recreation areas (jetboating and salmon fishing) and as sources for irrigation. The high country is described as important for tourism and recreation (fishing, tramping, hunting, skiing), its landscape and remnant indigenous flora and fauna. Groundwater resources are also recognised. The Rangitata River is not explicitly referred to in these provisions.
17. Section 3.2(c) discusses Economic Inter-Relationships highlighting the key role of farming and the growing tourism and recreation industry. Increasing demand for irrigation both from groundwater and surface sources is also noted.
18. Chapter 5 deals with Matters of Resource Management Significance to the Tangata Whenua. This chapter was prepared by the Tangata Whenua and
Part V 95 represents matters of significance to them. It notes that: “Tangata Whenua regard the environment from a holistic approach from the mountains to the sea and do not look in isolation at environmental issues.” One of the "Outcomes Sought by Tangata Whenua" is to establish water flow and/or water level regimes for Canterbury water bodies which are subject to competing demands for their use. In the section "Measures Sought by Tangata Whenua to Achieve Outcomes", water conservation orders are given as a desired method. The RPS states that although water conservation orders are a measure sought by Tangata Whenua they are not something the Regional Council can provide for.
19. Chapter 9 of the RPS (“Water”) acknowledges that there are upper catchments and braided rivers having high water quality and / or high natural character and recreational use potential such that it may be desirable to sustain those characteristics. A number of water bodies are then identified as being candidates for such treatment, including the Rangitata, but only above the RDR intake. This appears to be the only direct reference to the Rangitata River in this document. A number of other water bodies are specifically identified as priority areas for water flow, level or allocation regimes in order to resolve the competing demands for water from those sources.
20. The water chapter addresses three issues: competing demands for water; land use effects on water quantity; and effects of land uses and discharges of contaminants on water quality.
21. Issue 1 addresses competing needs and requires water allocation regimes to achieve the criteria set out in Objective 1(a) – (h): (Note that these are abbreviated.) (a) safeguarding sources of drinking water for people; (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the water; (c) safeguarding mahinga kai, (d) protecting wāhi tapu and other wāhi taonga of value to Tangata Whenua; (e) preserving the natural character of lakes and rivers; (f) protecting outstanding natural features and landscapes; (g) protecting significant habitat of trout and salmon; (h) maintaining and, where appropriate, enhancing amenity values.
22. Policy 1 associated with this Issue and Objective has the effect that flow, level and allocation regimes should achieve the (a) – (g) above. Policy 2 then qualifies this by seeking to maximise the wellbeing obtained from the water resources provided that any adverse effects on (e) – (h) are remedied or mitigated.
23. Policy 3 promotes efficiency of water use, while Policy 4 promotes investigation of water bodies that should be managed in their natural state and provides also for the establishment of water flow, level or allocation regimes to resolve competing needs. Priorities for establishing regimes are then identified, referring to six water systems. The Rangitata River is not one of these priority water systems.
Part V 96 24. Policy 5 gives priority to existing resource consent holders, stating that any take, use, damming or diversion of water should not preclude reasonable use of existing consents, except with the agreement of the consent holder.
25. Policy 6 lists the matters Environment Canterbury will have regard to in considering any permit to take water. These include the need to: specify maximum permitted water usage over specific time periods, as well as maximum abstraction rates; and provide mechanisms to reduce or suspend abstractions during periods of low flow.
26. Issue 2 identifies that land uses can have both positive and negative effects on water flows and levels, and on water body values. The associated Objective and Policies relate to the use of land.
27. Issue 3 identifies that land uses and discharges of contaminants can adversely affect water bodies and coastal waters. The associated Objective is the same as the Objective for Issue 2. Policy 9 for this issue states that water quality conditions, standards and terms will be set out in plans and as conditions on consents to achieve the objective.
28. Policy 9 in part, together with Policy 10, seeks to protect and improve water quality in water bodies that are presently degraded. Policy 10 also states that Council intends to investigate and provide for water bodies that should be sustained in their natural state.
29. Chapter 10 deals with the beds of rivers and lakes and their margins. This chapter promotes rivers and their margins in the Canterbury Region as being: “vital elements of the Canterbury landscape and important habitats for indigenous floral and fauna”; providing “ a highly valued trout, whitebait and salmon fishery”; “Canterbury has the best examples of braided rivers in New Zealand”. Issue 1 then identifies that land use activities within water bodies, their beds and margins can have adverse effects and significantly reduce amenity values, cultural and recreational values, natural features and landscapes. Effects of concern include those associated with extracting river material. The associated objective seeks to protect and, where appropriate, enhance various values including: natural character; habitat within braided rivers; and significant habitat of trout and salmon.
30. Policy 1 then seeks to identify and protect areas containing important conservation values, stressing that land use activities should be undertaken in such a way as to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on various values including: spawning habitats or the unimpeded passage for fish, including salmon; significant habitats of indigenous flora and fauna; natural character; and amenity and recreation values.
31. Chapter 14 of the RPS deals with the matter of Energy. Policy 3 is “ To enable existing hydro-electricity infrastructure in the region to be maintained, upgraded and enhanced provided appropriate regional plan rules and consent conditions relating to protection of water quality and quantity are met.”
Part V 97 Discussion
32. ECan did not present an analysis of the RPS in the way that a number other parties have done. Mason (ECan) told us that ECan staff recommended that the Council support some of the provisions in the application for a Rangitata water conservation order because the objective in the Regional Policy Statement is to protect the values of the region’s water bodies (Regional Policy Statement Chapter 9, Objective 1 (a) to (h)), regardless of whether they meet the threshold of “outstanding” in a national sense. Therefore, provisions in a water conservation order framed to protect “outstanding” values of the Rangitata River should not conflict with the Council’s objectives and policies expressed through a regional plan.
33. Mason (ECan) also referred to Chapter 9 Objective 1 and Policies 1 and 2 of the RPS as setting the region’s view of water management and comments that “These policies simply stated are that the Council will protect the values of rivers except that for amenity we will balance the community’s needs with its other needs.” He considers that the applicant’s draft water conservation order is inconsistent with the provisions in existing regional plans and the Regional Policy Statement, and goes beyond the matters which need to be addressed in a water conservation order and which would be better dealt with through the regional plan process. He provides an alternative draft order which he believes better provides for the Rangitata River’s outstanding values and leaves other matters irrelevant to the protection of outstanding values, to be dealt with through the regional plan process. We presume that ECan consider that their draft order would be consistent with the RPS.
34. Batty (RDR) comments that although the RMA provides for a water conservation order to be applied for, he does not consider that this can be seen to be consistent with the balanced examination and prioritisation approach reflected in the RPS, particularly when sought in relation to a whole river system. He considers that a water conservation order is relevant as a procedure in outstanding (exceptional) cases only. With respect to Chapter 14, policy 3 (Energy) he considered that “The proposed water conservation order would appear as a method to be inconsistent with and likely to frustrate any future ‘enhancement’ of such existing facilities served by the RDR.”
35. Hovell (applicant) concluded that “Overall, the RPS seeks the protection of water conservation values, and the proposed water conservation order (applicant’s version) is consistent with that. The RPS, however, is a policy document, not an implementation tool. Such action is left to other mechanisms, and a water conservation order is recognised as one such mechanism.”
36. Counsel for Forest and Bird submitted that a water conservation order (applicant’s version with higher minimum flows) is consistent with and would help implement a range of provisions in the RPS. Particular objectives and policies were identified.
37. Baker (DoC) noted that the RPS expresses matters in general terms through objectives and policies but gives little guidance on day-to-day management of the region’s water resources and concluded that, in his opinion, the proposed
Part V 98 water conservation order (applicant’s version with higher minimum flows) would greatly assist ECan to implement the RPS, especially without a regional plan covering the river.
38. Penter (Ngāi Tahu) drew our attention to Chapter 5 of the RPS and noted how Ngāi Tahu has signalled its concerns with the pressures on waterways, and has identified water conservation orders, including the applicant’s draft, as acceptable and appropriate.
Conclusions
39. We note that it is not surprising that RPS does not advocate water conservation orders as this mechanism is not one that the regional council has direct control over.
40. We note that there is some disagreement as to whether or not a water conservation order as suggested by the applicant and others would be consistent with the RPS. We conclude that a water conservation order would support some policies and objectives, but could potentially constrain implementation of others, especially those relating to water allocation for out-of-river uses.
Regional Coastal Plan for Canterbury
41. Status: At the time of the hearing the Proposed Regional Coastal Plan (RCP) was not yet operative, being subject to references to the Environment Court. While the Plan relates to the “coastal environment” (see earlier reference in this section to NZCPS) the rules within it apply only to the coastal marine area, which extends 500m inland from the Rangitata River mouth (Baker, DoC).
42. Chapter 3 of the Plan provides a description of the coastal area, including “the mouths of braided rivers and their coastal lagoons provide important habitats for indigenous birds, fish, invertebrates and plants; river mouth areas have small holiday settlements, such as those of Rakaia Huts, Rangitata Reserve and Milford.”
43. Within the Plan, the mouth of the Rangitata River is identified in Schedule 2 as being an “Identified Area of High Natural, Physical, Heritage or Cultural Value”. The following values are identified: Maori Cultural Values; Wetland, Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons; Marine Mammals and Birds; and Ecosystems, Flora and Fauna Habitats. No rules refer to this schedule. However, within Chapter 6, Natural Character and Appropriate Use of the Coastal Environment, it appears that it is the intent that these values will be protected and, where appropriate, enhanced. (Objective 6.1 and Policy 6.1).
Part V 99 Discussion
44. Hovell (applicant) noted that the purpose of the applicant’s proposed order is also to protect these and other values and therefore it is consistent with the proposed Regional Coastal Plan.
45. Baker (DoC) considered that the applicant’s water conservation order is not inconsistent with the RCP and amendments to it proposed by DoC will serve to ensure that the river mouth is maintained as part of the natural functioning of the braided river system and to ensure passage for migratory native and introduced fish.
46. Batty concluded that the RCP, (as for the NZCPS) has nothing to say that has a significant bearing on whether the water conservation order as sought should proceed or not. Both are generally concerned to maintain the ‘natural’ coastal environment.
47. Forest and Bird concluded that the applicant’s water conservation order with the Forest and Bird amendments would ensure that the river mouth is maintained as desired by RCP.
Conclusions
48. A water conservation order such as the applicant’s draft would not be inconsistent with the RCP.
Ashburton District Plan
49. Status: Ashburton District Plan 2001: operative.
50. The Ashburton District Plan applies to the land to the north of the Rangitata River. The approach adopted in this Plan is one that emphasises the integrated management of natural and physical resources.
51. In the context of the Rangitata River, the District Plan effectively splits it in two. The upper river is considered to be in its natural state and the emphasis is on the protection of the natural environment, takata whenua values, recreational values and intrinsic values, both of the river and its setting. Within the lower river the role of farming is recognised and provided for, but activities are required to have regard to the cultural and recreational values of the river.
52. Relevant objectives and policies in the District Wide Issues include:
• Nature Conservation Values: preserving the remaining natural character of rivers, wetlands and their margins and their value to Takata Whenua; maintaining, and where possible, enhancing the quality and quantity of water in rivers;
• Landscape Values: maintaining and enhancing landscape values and natural features; and avoiding adverse effects of development and management changes
Part V 100 within outstanding landscapes in the District (including the upper Rangitata River Valley) and significant landscapes (including the Rangitata Gorge);
• Takata Whenua Values: management of natural and physical resources to maintain and protect values important to Tangata Whenua; recognising the Māori world view - the interconnectedness of all aspects of the natural world, including people.
• Open Space and Recreation: achieving public access over private land in areas having particular value for recreation; negotiating public access along the length of the Rangitata River, particularly from the outlet of the gorge to the coast.
53. The Plan identifies the headwaters of the Rangitata River in the western part of the District as being nationally important for their remoteness and wilderness values and their commercial and private recreational values. Their spiritual and cultural significance to takata whenua is also acknowledged. The Plan describes open space and recreation activities on the Rangitata River: “The Rangitata River is important for its fishery values, and is used by jetboats, particularly in its lower sections. The Rangitata Gorge and middle sections of the River are popular and challenging for kayaking and rafting, with commercial operators running rafting and kayaking trips on the river.”
54. The open fairway parts of Rangitata River bed are included on planning maps as areas of significance for nature conservation. They are described in the plan as: 48 Upper Rangitata J35 300 564, RAP H21 (Rangitata River), SSWI (Rangitata River), WERI: River (Part) J36 669 144 An extensive area of braided river which provides a range of habitats for flora and fauna. Successional sequences are well represented and are maintained by active channelling and periodic reflooding. The bed is relatively weed free and provides an important habitat for several endangered bird species including blue duck (recorded breeding in the gorge) and the wrybill plover. South Island pied oystercatcher, black- fronted tern, banded dotterel, and black-billed gull are aso present. The Potts fan is included in this area because of its habitat value for wrybill plover, banded dotterel, and a black stilt record. 49 Lower Rangitata J366 669 144 SSWI (Rangitata), WERI: This river is one of the largest River K38 905 675 braided rivers in Canterbury. The river supports all the typical braided river bird species of Canterbury, including the threatened wrybill and black-fronted tern, and black-billed gull.
55. Under Natural Hazards it is recognised that communities in the Ashburton District are at potential risk from flooding, coastal erosion and inundation from the sea. The Rangitata River is identified due to its proximity to the Rangitata Hut settlement. When the river is in flood the Hut settlement is vulnerable to inundation. The Plan discourages development within areas potentially at risk.
56. In the Rural Issues, Objectives and Policies section the values of the Rangitata River as a water resource, for surface and groundwater, are recognised. The Rangitata Diversion Race as a source for irrigation, stock water and power generation is also highlighted. The importance of the river for fishing, boating, wildfowl hunting and other recreation is noted, as is the value of the upper
Part V 101 sections of the Rangitata River for fish during the spawning season. “The Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers are internationally renowned for salmon and trout.”
57. Amongst the policies and objectives within the Rural Issues, Objectives and Policies section the Ashburton District Council (ADC) seeks to: • avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on overall ecosystem functioning, natural character and habitat values of the high country; • provide for productive rural activities while maintaining or enhancing cultural values and recreational attributes; • provide for the ongoing operation, maintenance and upgrade of rural irrigation and stock water systems, including the Rangitata Diversion Race.
58. Objective 9, Policy 1 states: “To recognise and provide for the continuing efficient use and development of the Rangitata Diversion Race, irrigation and stock water systems in the District and their importance to the District’s people and communities.”
59. The Council gives effect to this policy by providing for water supply intakes and community irrigation and stock water races as a permitted activity under Utility Rule 1.1. The Highbank and Montalto hydro power stations (on the RDR) are also “scheduled” in the Plan, with the existing operation being a permitted activity and modification being a controlled activity. In this way Council supports continued use of existing irrigation and power schemes, and future development.
60. The District Plan rules apply a number of provisions to the margins of lakes and rivers including restrictions on earthworks, vegetation clearance and buildings.
61. The Canterbury Regional Council has three designations in force over parts of the Rangitata River and its margins for the purpose of “soil conservation and river control works” over an area of some 339 ha.
Discussion
62. The Ashburton District Council acknowledged that its plan identifies areas in the Rangitata River which have special landscape, nature conservation, recreational, spiritual or cultural values. The Council noted that any damming of the Upper Rangitata Valley which floods these areas of the valley floor may significantly affect landscape values and would be contrary to the intent of the District Plan. The rural water provisions also recognise the importance of rural irrigation, including the RDR. The Council opposes a water conservation order, believing that a regional plan is more appropriate. Anderson (Mayor, ADC) noted that the Council is satisfied with the objectives and outcomes of the 1986 plan and has been disappointed at ECan’s failure to review this plan.
63. Baker (DoC), counsel for Forest and Bird, and Hovell (for applicant) considered that a water conservation order would assist the Ashburton District Council to implement the plan, believing that they both seek to protect the same values. Batty (RDR) disagreed with Hovell and Baker, finding an order incompatible
Part V 102 with the above objectives, policies, and anticipated environmental results for water issues in the Ashburton District Plan. He did, however, note that if an order is made it would be necessary for the tribunal to ensure that, as far as may be possible, any operational flow management restrictions imposed would not be inconsistent with the intended outcomes of the District Plan objectives and policies referred to above.
Conclusions
64. The Ashburton District Plan identifies features of the Rangitata River (especially the upper river and gorge) as outstanding and seeks to protect these, while also supporting rural production.
65. An order similar to that proposed by the applicant would probably not be inconsistent with the approach set out in the Ashburton District Plan. An order that decreased the reliability of existing irrigation would not be consistent with the Ashburton District Plan.
Timaru District Plan
66. Status: The proposed Timaru District Plan was not operative at the time of the hearing. However, as only a few references remain outstanding we do not consider that it is necessary to have regard to the pre-RMA Strathallan County Scheme which is the relevant transitional District Plan.
67. The Proposed Timaru District Plan applies to land bordering the Rangitata River to the south. It only refers directly to the Rangitata River in the context of rules for motorised boats.
68. Page 6 of the Plan summarises the philosophy of the Plan: “The District Plan is the Timaru District Council’s response to enabling the community and its individual members to meet their social and economic objectives, while recognising its responsibility to effectively manage natural and physical resources together with Council’s other duties under the Resource Management Act. These responsibilities require the Council to ensure that elements of the natural and physical environment identified as being important are protected or enhanced. Where there are adverse effects produced by an activity or arising from inefficient use of community infrastructures and services, every effort is made “to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment” (s17) that may detract from people’s enjoyment of the District.”
69. At a general level the District Plan also seeks to: • promote and enhance natural character and functioning and habitat values of …. streams, rivers and their margins; • promote and enhance opportunities for public access and recreational use of the margins of rivers, including using esplanade reserves and strips; • restrict the use of motorised craft on the Rangitata River; • avoid future development at Rangitata Huts in areas at risk from flooding and erosion;
Part V 103 • safeguard indigenous biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
70. The District Plan zones land adjoining the Rangitata River on its true right bank as: • Rural 1, including much of the arable land, other than the highly productive Class I or II land. • Rural 3, being the areas with high natural values, including high country, foothills and rivers.
71. The plan then outlines activities that are provided for within each zone and requires compliance with performance standards, including: “the protection of indigenous flora and fauna and river and coastal margins”.
72. Within the rural areas the objective and policy framework seeks to: • protect water quality, soil integrity and stability, natural areas including riparian margins • protect and enhance the “ecological functioning, natural character and integrity” of rivers from inappropriate subdivision and development.
73. Although there are references in Part B of the Plan to the fact that Timaru District has a number of “outstanding natural features and landscapes”, these are not further identified either in the text or on planning maps.
Discussion
74. The Timaru District Council (TDC) considers that the applicant’s suggested order is incompatible with the Plan and Eunson (TDC) told us that “a number of activities are potentially affected including any activity that may directly or indirectly benefit from irrigation water from the Rangitata River.”
75. Baker (DoC) considers that the applicant’s suggested order, as amended by DoC is not inconsistent with the provisions of the proposed Timaru District Plan. He believes that the order will not compromise the policy framework of the plan, and would, in fact, strengthen the Council’s ability to protect the landscape and natural values of the Rural 3 Zone. Hovell concluded that “the proposed order (applicant’s version) is consistent with, and not contrary to, any of the provisions in this Plan.”
76. Batty concluded that “There are no references in this Plan that envisage or commend the need for a water conservation order to be applied to the Rangitata River.”
Conclusions
77. The Timaru Plan contains very limited direct reference to the Rangitata River, although there are policies, objectives etc. that are relevant.
Part V 104 78. An order similar to that proposed by the applicant would be consistent with the landscape and natural values objectives in the Timaru District Plan, but any order that reduced options for abstraction might not be consistent with this Plan.
Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (draft)
79. Some sections of the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) were released by ECan as a discussion draft during the hearing for this application. We note that, as it is only a discussion draft, S207(c) does not strictly apply to these documents. Neither ECan, nor any of the expert planning witnesses discussed the content of these drafts in their evidence.
80. Of the sections released we conclude that Chapter 5: Water Quantity and Chapter 7: Water Quality are relevant to our deliberations.
Water Quantity
81. This chapter deals with two major water management topics: setting flow and/or level management regimes to protect instream and intrinsic values of rivers, lakes and groundwater; and allocation of water to out-of-stream/consumptive uses.
82. Relevant objectives include: WQN1 Enable access to water while safeguarding and protecting instream values; WQN3 Water allocation; WQN5 Equitable allocation of water restrictions; WQN7 Manage effects of groundwater pumping on surface flow and allocation.
83. For each objective there are one or more policies. Those that are particularly relevant are summarised below.
84. Policy WQN1 is to retain river flows or lake levels in their natural state in listed water bodies including “all water bodies within the Southern Alps area of the Department of Conservation estate”. This would apply to much of the Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries. Draft rules would prohibit damming and new takes in these rivers.
85. Policy WQN2 seeks to retain the high degree of naturalness of selected water bodies including the Rangitata River upstream of and including the gorge. Methods for achieving this include preventing damming, preventing discharges of contaminants, ensuring that abstractions or diversions cease at set minimum flows.
86. Policy WQN3 applies to waters outside of those covered by policies 1 and 2, and would apply to the Rangitata River downstream of the gorge. Taking, use, diversion or damming of surface water would be controlled with the objective of enabling water use while safeguarding a range of instream values including life-supporting capacity, values important to Ngāi Tahu, protecting outstanding natural features, protecting habitat of trout and salmon and maintaining and enhancing amenity values.
Part V 105 87. Policy WQN12 sets out how ECan proposes to deal with allocation of water to users. Objective WQN3 includes maximising the amount of water available for allocation. The Rangitata River is one of a number of rivers listed in a separate schedule. ECan proposes to set allocation limits in blocks with the primary allocation block having high water availability in three out of five years, and the secondary block a lesser certainty. The notes on the Rangitata River in schedule WQN1 state that the Rangitata is considered to be outstanding for a number of values including its salmon fishery, trout and salmon angling, wild and scenic gorge, habitat for aquatic birds, importance to Ngāi Tahu and the glaciated headwaters catchments. ECan considers that the existing minimum flow is too low to protect the mauri of the river and other outstanding values. The schedule sets a minimum flow of 30 m3/s for August – March and 20 m3/s April to July for A & B permits and 63 m3/s August – March and 53 m3/s April to July for C permits.
88. Policy WQN19 sets out ECan’s approaches to managing the impact of groundwater takes on surface water bodies.
Water Quality
89. Chapter 7 Water Quality sets out policies, rules etc. to manage water quality to achieve desired standards.
90. Objective WQL 1.1 aims to retain water that is in a natural state in that way, and where water is not in a natural state desired water quality standards are given.
91. Relevant policies relate to management of point-source and non-point discharges into surface water. Rules control consents for land uses as well as discharges of contaminants.
92. The desired environmental results from the water quality section include: No decline in the water quality of waters in a natural state, and improvement in the quality of waters not in a natural state. The quality of discharges to water or onto land will be improved, and a riparian management strategy will be implemented to protect and restore riparian vegetation.
Conclusions
93. We note that the proposed higher minimum flow and higher allocation to out- of-stream uses, with A, B & C permits is significantly different to the regime proposed by the applicant’s draft order. If an order is made that sets a cap on abstraction, as proposed by the applicant, the NRRP proposal could not be implemented.
94. The NRRP objectives regarding safeguarding and protecting instream values, retaining the naturalness of the Rangitata River above the gorge, and maintaining or improving water quality would not be inconsistent with a water conservation order with similar objectives.
Part V 106 Opihi River Management Plan & Waimakariri River Management Plan
95. Mason (ECan) told the tribunal that in drafting a water conservation order “it would also be desirable to ensure that there is reasonable consistency with the regional rules that have been applied in the operative Opihi River Regional Plan and the proposed Waimakariri River Regional Plan and are likely to be applied to other rivers in the region.”
96. The operative Opihi River Regional Plan and Proposed Waimakariri River Regional Plan apply a system of “A” and “B” permits where “ “B” permits have a minimum flow equal to the “A” permit minimum flow plus the allocation for “A” permits. Hence they have a much lower reliability of supply. The “A” permit limit is set on the basis of reliability of supply to abstractors. Mason described how there is an element of judgement of what is an acceptable reliability of supply on a run-of-river basis. He noted that for the Waimakariri River the reliability of supply of a 25 m3/s allocation with a 41 m3/s river minimum flow ranges from a high of 95% in October to 45% in February and that very high reliability can only be guaranteed if a river is allowed to be depleted below its lowest natural recorded flow and if the total take is set at a very low level, or if there is storage in the system.”
Conclusions
97. We note that, if a water conservation order is made, then ECan would prefer that any rules are consistent with those in the Opihi and Waimakariri Regional Plans. ECan advocates a system of “A” and “B” permits (See discussion on draft Natural Resources Regional Plan in this section).
New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy
98. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (February 2000) establishes a strategic framework for action to conserve and sustainably manage NZ’s biodiversity. The primary focus is on indigenous biodiversity, but introduced species are also addressed. Freshwater biodiversity is one of ten themes. Desired outcomes for 2020 include maintaining or restoring the extent and condition of freshwater ecosystems and habitats. The action plan for protection and sustainable management of freshwater ecosystems includes using management mechanisms under the RMA.
99. The Department of Conservation advised us that the NZ Biodiversity Strategy is one of the policy / strategy documents that guides its advocacy on water conservation issues. We note that DoC supported a water conservation order.
Conclusions
100. We conclude that a water conservation order that supports the goals and objectives of conserving or sustainably managing freshwater ecosystems,
Part V 107 habitats and species (native and introduced) is likely to be compatible with the NZ Biodiversity Strategy.
Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy
101. The Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) is a statutory document written under the provisions of the Conservation Act, 1987, and approved by the New Zealand Conservation Authority in July 2000. The CMS sets out the management directions the Canterbury Conservancy of DoC will take for the next ten years, the objectives it wants to achieve and the means by which it will achieve these.
102. In the implementation section of the CMS water conservation orders are stated to be one of the appropriate protection mechanisms for waters in the Hakatere Ecological District (upper Ashburton / upper Rangitata /Ashburton lakes).
Conclusions
103. A water conservation order such as the applicant’s draft with the DoC alterations (see Part VI) would be consistent with the CMS.
“The 1986 Plan” (see Part I)
104. The Rangitata River Water Management Plan 1986-1996 (South Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water Board) referred to as “the 1986 Plan” (described in Part I) forms the basis for the current operating regime. It was developed to “manage and provide for planned utilisation of the water resources of the Rangitata River and its tributaries ….. pursuant to the aims and objectives of section 20 5(d) of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967.” Further details of the plan are given in Part I.
Conclusions
105. This plan is non-statutory and pre-dates the RMA. However, a water conservation order, such as the applicant’s draft would not be inconsistent with the objectives of this plan.
Part V 108 Part VI Water management regimes recommended to the tribunal
1. During the course of the hearing the tribunal was presented with several suggested flow management regimes for the Rangitata River, in addition to the present operating rules. Some parties provided their analysis and views on comparisons between different proposals. We describe a number of the regimes here. Where these are referred to elsewhere in the report they are referred to as ECan, DoC, Mosley, Forest and Bird and the applicant’s options.
2. ECan presented two options - one that had been approved by the Council, and a second that was called the staff version. We consider the Council approved version is the regime that ECan has recommended to the tribunal, and it is this version that is described below. We note, however, that it is not always clear which ECan version has been used for analysis by other parties where they have produced evidence comparing the effects of different proposals.
3. Parties generally recognised that a water conservation order could not affect existing lawful uses, maintenance of roads and bridges, domestic and stockwater and fire-fighting takes etc.
The Applicant (“applicant”)
4. The applicant recommended an order that included the following provisions: • Prohibition of damming in the Rangitata River, specified salmon spawning tributaries, and the Clyde and Havelock Rivers; • Restrictions on alteration of the channel form and braided river characteristics; • Minimum flows of o 15 m3/s from 15 May - 14 September; o 20 m3/s from 15 September - 14 May; • A cap on total abstraction, including shallow groundwater, of 33 m3/s; • Abstraction limited to existing points and takes; • Adequate natural fish passage must be maintained; • Fish must be prevented from entering any water off-takes; • Water quality must be maintained at the standards in Class FS (RMA) for waters identified as outstanding for salmon spawning, and Class F for other water with outstanding characteristics; • Shallow groundwaters within 15 m of the ground surface and less than 1000m either side of the main river downstream from Klondyke to be included in rules relating to abstractions; • Protection of the existing allocation of the 30.7 m3/s to the Rangitata Diversion race, at its existing location.
5. In addition the applicant’s proposed flow regime included the following tables which set out workable rules for sharing water between instream and abstraction. We note that these tables are substantially the same as the current operating rules and are derived from the 1986 Plan (see Part 1), although the
Part VI 109 irrigation season has been adjusted from 1 September – 30 April to 15 September – 14 May.
6. 15 May – 15 September: Flows between 30 and 66 m3/s to be shared between instream retention and water abstraction based on the following table:
Flow at RDRM Ltd Stockwater Other Residual Klondyke irrigation flow (m3/s ) 66-60.1 30.7 1.0 33.3-28.4 60.0-50.1 26.5 1.0 32.5-22.6 50.0-40.1 22 1.0 27-17.1 40.0-38.1 22 1.0 17-15.1 38.0-36.1 20 1.0 17-15.1 36.0-34.1 18 1.0 17-15.1 34.0-32.1 16 1.0 17-15.1
7. 15 September – 14 May: Flows between 40 and 66 m3/s to be shared between instream retention and water abstraction based on the following table:
Flow at RDRM Ltd Stock-water Other Residual Klondyke irrigation flow (m3/s ) 66-60.1 30.7 1.0 1.3 33-27.1 60.0-50.1 26.2 1.0 0.9 31.9-22.0 50.0-43.1 21.8 1.0 0.3 26.6-20.0 43.0-40.1 18.9 1.0 0.2 22.8-20.0
8. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua supported the applicant’s suggested water conservation order as it recognises, provides for and protects the characteristics of the Rangitata River that Ngāi Tahu consider are outstanding.
Department of Conservation (“DoC”)
9. The Department of Conservation (DoC) supported the making of a water conservation order including a flow regime based on minimum monthly flows, as measured at Klondyke, as follows: • May – July, a minimum flow of 20 m3/s • August, a minimum flow of 35 m3/s • September - January, a minimum flow of 40 m3/s • February - April, a minimum flow of 30 m3/s
10. In addition DoC’s recommended flow regime included:
Part VI 110 • A restriction on damming • Resource consents granted must maintain channel cross section, meandering pattern and braided river channel characteristics • No alteration of water quality • Fish passages to be maintained • Fish to be prevented from entering any intake; • Current abstraction of 33 m3/s permitted to continue, with 1:1 sharing between instream retention and out of river abstraction for any new takes in excess of 33 m3/s • Year round protection of flood flows in excess of 250 m3/s
Environment Canterbury (“ECan”)
11. ECan did not support the making of an Order but recommended the following provisions: • Waters in Clyde and Havelock Rivers, Black Mountain Stream, Deep Creek, Deep Stream and Brabazon Fan be retained in their natural state • For the remainder of the river: o 1 April - 31 July, a minimum flow of 20 m3/s o 1 August - 31 March, a minimum flow of 30 m3/s o 1 December - 31 March a minimum flow of 50 m3/s when flow at Klondyke is between 120-90 m3/s o No reduction in water quality
12. In addition ECan’s recommended flow regime included: • No “cap” on abstractions; • Hydraulically connected groundwater be identified using the “Jenkins method” and be included with groundwater abstractions in flow rules; • No dam or weir to be constructed unless the effects are no more than minor on natural flows.
13. Note that the “Jenkins method” for calculating hydraulically connected groundwater is described in Jenkins, C T (1977) Computation of rate and volume of stream depletion by wells, in Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the United States Geological Survey, Chapter D1, Book 4, 3rd printing.
14. Counsel for ECan submitted that it would be ultra vires the powers of this tribunal to recommend a water conservation order that made specific provision for the RDR abstraction.
Dr Paul Mosley (“Mosley”)
15. Mosley provided a regime that sought to “sustain the widest possible range of intrinsic and amenity values” . It included: • April – July, a minimum flow of 20 m3/s • August – November, a minimum flow of 35 m3/s • December – March, a minimum flow of 50 m3/s
Part VI 111 16. In addition the flow regime included: • Protection of flows above 250 m3/s at all times • Maintenance of water quality above bathing water standards • If damming: o Agreed optimum flow releases for rafting and kayaking; o Maintain clarity in cloudy or milky state at all times.
17. Mosley noted that there is room for debate over the particular flow values, in order to achieve management objectives for the river that as yet have not been clearly defined.
Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd and Trustpower (“RDR”)
18. RDRM Ltd and Trustpower did not support an order, but noted that if one is made they would require: • Specific reference to be made to Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd and the Map reference NZMS260 J36:678-144 • Provision for harvest of water should be made above flows of 110 m3/s subject to a 1:1 flow sharing regime
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc (“Forest and Bird”)
19. Forest and Bird recommended the following provisions in an order: • Flows in and above the gorge be maintained in their natural state • Minimum flow of 50 m3/s for September – January • Minimum flow of 35 m3/s for February – August • A 1:1 flow sharing regime above the minimum, between in-stream and out- of –river abstractions • Protection of floods in excess of 100 m3/s
20. Forest and Bird also supported the applicant’s recommendations on • Damming restrictions • Alterations to river form • Water quality • Fish passage
Part VI 112 Part VII Protection and Preservation of Outstanding Features and Qualities
Introduction
1. Having determined that there are outstanding features in the Rangitata River, we then considered what was required to retain these. Evidence was given by many experts and other witnesses on both the optimum and satisfactory flow regimes and water quality requirements for different species, activities, values etc. We only discuss these in detail for those features and characteristics that we have found to be outstanding.
Preservation of waters in a natural state
2. We found that there are waters in their natural state in the headwaters, the upper Rangitata and the gorge. However, we also found that there are demands for water in the upper Rangitata and we consider that preservation could unduly disadvantage primary industry in the catchment. While there are no particular industry needs identified for the gorge we note that it may not be practical to maintain these waters in a natural state if the section immediately upstream is not preserved in its natural state.
3. Therefore we conclude that only the headwaters (Clyde and Havelock rivers and their tributaries) should be preserved in a natural state. The upper Rangitata and the gorge are worthy of protection for the outstanding features that we have identified, including waters that are in a natural state.
Protection of outstanding characteristics
Salmon Fishery
Adult salmon passage
4. Water depth and water temperature are the key factors to be considered for ensuring upstream passage of adult salmon. The annual spawning run begins in November, with fish continuing to arrive in the spawning streams until early May.
5. The depth of water required for salmon passage was the subject of some debate amongst witnesses. However, we conclude that most parties agree that a depth of 25 cm will generally give adult salmon passage, and that fish can negotiate shallower water for short distances but may suffer loss of condition. Modelling work that was reported by Duncan and Hicks (ECan) estimated that in the braided Ealing reach 35 m3/s would give almost continuous fish passage, but in the Arundel reach, which is a semi-braided channel, only 15 m3/s is needed to
Part VII 113 give almost continuous fish passage. We consider that the modelling work gives a fair picture of the change in depths and habitat available at different flows, but we do not take it to give absolute values for fish passage.
6. Basil Ivey (professional fishing and hunting guide (RDR)) says he sees salmon moving upstream in flows of 20 m3/s, and in 25-30cm of water. In commenting on fish passage, Mosley notes that flows below 35 m3/s may be adequate for fish passage, as long as freshes can occur, and he suggests an absolute minimum of 20 m3/s. Other witnesses also noted that flow variability was important. Mosley noted that flows greater than 20 m3/s occur 94% of time i.e. the current minimum doesn't usually persist for long periods.
7. Taking into account the Duncan and Hicks modelling, Mosley concluded that 35 m3/s during November – March is a desirable minimum flow for upstream salmon migration.
8. The applicant considered that the current minimum of 20 m3/s during the period of salmon migration is not ideal, but is adequate.
9. Jowett (applicant) noted that, for fish, the change from winter to summer minimum flows in September is more appropriate than August as recommended by ECan, and for summer to winter May is more appropriate than April as ECan recommended.
10. Ryder (RDR) noted that salmon migration is directly affected by temperature, with fish using the colder flows during high flow events to carry out their migratory movements. While temperatures do increase on average as one moves further downstream, and high flows are generally associated with low river temperatures, he concluded there is little positive correlation between flow and temperature. He considered that under present conditions salmon will be experiencing occasional thermal stress, but these are probably not maintained for long enough to be lethal. Thermal refugia are likely to be important. Water temperature will probably act as a migratory block at least for short periods in summer. Salmon have an optimum water temperature of 14.8°C and would have a preference for temperatures below 19°C. Ivey (RDR), who is a commercial fishing guide, also provided information, based on his experience, of the importance of cold "flushes" for salmon migration.
Conclusions
11. We conclude that a minimum flow of 35 m3/s during the period of salmon upstream migration would be desirable, but that the current minimum flow of 20 m3/s is adequate, given that it does not occur very often, or for long periods, especially during the months when salmon are migrating.
12. At present water temperatures get sufficiently high to cause thermal stress. Therefore, new uses must not let the water temperature increase beyond acceptable limits. From the evidence presented, a maximum temperature of 20°C appears appropriate. This is consistent with the water temperature requirements in the Motueka River water conservation order.
Part VII 114 Salmon spawning
13. Most of the spawning is in the upper Rangitata, with some 70% occurring in two spring-fed stream systems, known locally as Deep Stream (Mesopotamia) and Deep Creek (Erewhon or Mt Potts). Only 5% is estimated to occur below the gorge, most of this in Ealing Springs Stream.
14. Although some spawning occurs in the main stem of the upper river, the preference is clearly for the characteristics of the stable, spring-fed flows of streams such as Deep Creek and Deep Stream. Passage to and from these streams is vital for the salmon fishery.
15. Water quality in the spawning streams is mainly determined by the natural flow regime but could be affected by adjacent land use.
Conclusions
16. Successful salmon spawning depends not only on upstream passage of the adult fish, but also on maintenance of the high water quality, gravel substrate and stable flows of spring-fed streams in the upper Rangitata, especially Deep Stream and Deep Creek. Ealing Springs Stream is also important as one of the few remaining salmon spawning streams in the lower river.
Effects of damming on salmon population
17. Only 5% of spawning in Rangitata River is believed to take place downstream of the likely dam site. Unwin, a fisheries scientist (applicant) considered that, in the absence of a suitable fish pass, a dam at the Rangitata River gorge would have a profound impact on the Rangitata River salmon population. He made a comparison with the Roxburgh Dam, which also had much of the spawning area above the dam. There the annual run strength declined from a peak of 50,000 before the dam to between a few hundred and a few thousand fish after the dam.
18. Glova, a fisheries scientist, (applicant), presented evidence on overseas experience with fish passes, especially in North America. He concluded that although the technology does exist to construct fish passes that successfully allow salmon to migrate upstream, there are difficulties that cannot always be predicted in the design phase, such as getting the fish to find and use the fish passes and development by trial and error may be necessary. For example, significant delays can occur in fish passage at the dam, or the pass may not be used. The salmon run in the Rangitata River typically comprises fish 2 - 4 years old, so the wild run would be seriously threatened if fish pass facilities were not working well within 2 - 4 years.
19. Glova's view was that the effects of a dam on downstream passage of juveniles would be greater than the effects on adult salmon passage. Even with the best technology he considered that significant delays and mortalities would be likely.
20. In addition to the effects of the dam on salmon passage, there would be significant loss of important rearing habitat for juveniles in the main stem of the Rangitata River above the gorge. Glova considered that the reservoir could be
Part VII 115 expected to be extensively silted and unproductive and would not provide a substitute for the existing habitat. Unwin noted that there is no quantitative data on how much of the juvenile rearing habitat is provided in this reach, but demonstrated that loss of this reach would conservatively represent 10% loss of rearing habitat and quite possibly 25% - 50% loss.
21. A dam at the gorge would also significantly affect the flow variability in the lower river. The experts recognised that there might be some benefits to the fishery from a managed flow regime from an impoundment, but considered that the disadvantages, including problems such as loss of spring floods causing decreases in juvenile survival, outweighed possible advantages.
Conclusions
22. Damming of main stem Rangitata River would put the outstanding salmon fishery at high risk. Even with successful fish passes the flow regime would be altered and the reservoir would affect habitat for both spawning and rearing and possibly fish passage. All the problems with salmon migration found at dams in the Columbia River system – injury, stress, disease, predation - are expected to occur here.
Salmon Angling
23. The flow requirements for salmon angling are more demanding than the biological requirements of the fishery. Salmon anglers prefer naturally low clarity during the fishing season and are concerned that further abstractions will increase the clarity at the preferred angling flows.
24. Preferred flows are 40 - 80 m3/s in lower river. We note that 71% of angler activity and 79% of the salmon catch occurred during these flows in 3 seasons (1990 - 1993). Lower than this the water is too clear and the salmon stop moving. The water is also getting too shallow for fish passage in places. Above 80 m3/s the flow is considered to be too high and water too turbid. Salmon may be holed up and not moving.
25. The applicant (Scarf evidence) considered that 40 m3/s in the river downstream of the RDR intake to the sea is the minimum flow necessary for salmon angling success, but flows in the range 40-80 m3/s would be optimal.
26. Desirable minimum flows for salmon angling were given by Mosley as • 50 m3/s year round • 70 m3/s November – December • 60 m3/s January – February
27. Ivey (RDR) considers that setting flows such as these focuses too narrowly on flow and not enough on temperature and turbidity, which he considers are the more important factors in determining preferred flows for angling. He attributes good fishing conditions to periods following freshes in the river which bring a drop in water temperature and an increase in turbidity.
Part VII 116 28. Ivey told us that "To me, in order to maintain “fishability” of the river, it is far more important to impose a cap on abstraction and/or a flow sharing regime, so that the variability of flow continues, rather than to raise the current minimum flow." "I consider the current flow regime is effective from a fisherman’s point of view as it maintains the variability of flow which is so important for both salmon migration, and for fishability. I believe that water temperature and turbidity are the major factors determining fishing success in the Rangitata River. Both limitations are natural – high temperatures occur in the upper reaches as the river flows over wide, shallow braids; and turbidity is related to rainfall and snowmelt.” “The strengths of the Rangitata River as a fishing river are its extensive areas of fishable water, the sense of solitude that can be obtained and the scenic qualities.”
29. Salmon anglers prefer low clarity during the fishing season and are concerned that further abstractions will increase the clarity at the preferred angling flows. However, the anglers were clear that at their preferred fishing flows (40 - 80 m3/s in the lower river) the present regime provides adequate, but not optimum time when the clarity is in the preferred range. Their rule of thumb for ideal clarity is that one should only just be able to see the toe of one's wader when standing in knee-deep water.
Conclusions
30. Flow rate and flow variability (freshes), water temperature and clarity are key factors in determining desirable river conditions for angling. Although these are interrelated, management of flow rate alone will not necessarily provide the greatest number of angling days. Higher minimum flows would increase the available days for angling, but increased abstraction that reduced freshes would be detrimental.
31. Capping the maximum allowable abstraction at or about the present levels would ensure that freshes are maintained in the river system.
Habitat for aquatic birds
32. Maintaining aquatic bird habitat in the Rangitata River depends particularly on ensuring that the macro-invertebrate food source is maintained and that large areas of unstable bare gravels persist for the birds to breed. We note that human activity in the river-bed (e.g. 4WD vehicles) is not an issue that a water conservation order can address. (See Part III Bird Habitat for a description of the bird species and their habitat requirements.)
33. Hughey gave minimum flows designed primarily around providing adequate early season food resources and feeding opportunities for black-fronted terns and wrybills which feed mainly on food of aquatic origin. His suggested flows are intended to maximise invertebrate densities, especially in the early part of the breeding season. His recommended minimum flows were: • 20 m3/s May/June/July • 35 m3/s August • 40 m3/s September - January
Part VII 117 • 30 m3/s February/March/April
34. Although Hughey considered that the higher minimum flows would improve nesting success, we note that in the range that he is considering (i.e. an increase from 20 - 40 m3/s) there is little change in the number of braids in the river, and probably insufficient increase to seriously deter predators such as stoats.
35. Hughey recommended that the upper Rangitata be protected both from damming and from significant abstraction of water, especially in the Potts River delta. He also sought protection of the flood regime, especially flows above 250 m3/s.
36. Mosley recommended 35 m3/s minimum flow especially from August - January for macro-invertebrate food production for birds. Jolly contested the need for the higher minimum flow in August, as this is too early for most of the critical bird species. Jolly concluded that the applicant’s draft water conservation order would be appropriate to protect existing bird habitat values.
37. The disturbance caused by instream works can directly affect birds by reducing populations of their fish and invertebrate foods, and interfering with their ability to find prey. Jolly noted that the present level of works associated with the RDR weir and intake being short-term and infrequent do not appear to adversely affect the bird populations in the lower river, but that more frequent activity could cause problems. The RDR sand-trap discharge only occurs when flows are high and the water naturally discoloured.
38. Jolly (RDR) considered that the existing level of takes and protection of bird habitat is appropriate but that a dam on the main stem would have a severely adverse effect on bird habitat and diversion of the tributaries would affect macro-invertebrate supply. He also noted that without a cap on abstraction there is the potential to reduce the flushing ability of the river.
Conclusions
39. September to January are the critical months for habitat quality for threatened bird species. Excessive water takes and frequent river works (e.g. maintenance of intakes, weirs, river control) during this period are likely to have adverse effects.
40. Modelling work has suggested that higher minimum flows (35 m3/s) would produce higher densities of invertebrates, and therefore more food, but not all witnesses agreed that the higher minimum is necessary.
41. Maintenance of flood flows is important for maintaining the open gravel habitat.
Scientific and ecological values: Aquatic macro-invertebrates
42. The aquatic macro-invertebrate communities in the Rangitata are dominated by species that are tolerant of disturbance by frequent high flows. The attributes of the river regime that are particularly important to protect the character and
Part VII 118 abundance of the macro-invertebrates include flood flows, periods of stable flow, and water temperature.
43. Water temperatures above 25°C are usually considered deleterious to NZ invertebrate species (Jowett). Stoneflies are particularly sensitive and are usually restricted to rivers with summer temperatures that do not exceed 19°C (Quinn & Hickey, in Jowett). Ryder stated that most of the common invertebrates in Rangitata River will not be experiencing temperatures that exceed their tolerance. Some may occasionally be affected by temperatures approaching their lethal limit (e.g. Deleatidium spp. 23°C), but for very short periods only. He noted that water temperatures that exceed the preferred temperature of taxa may result in a decline in numbers and condition, or total loss, of species but that under the present flow regime temperatures reach levels that stress invertebrates, but are probably not maintained for long enough to be lethal.
44. Digby estimated invertebrate production in the Rangitata River using his own work and data from other braided rivers. He concluded that production would be reduced by extended minimum flows as the minor braids and seepage streams that support a large proportion of the invertebrate production would be dewatered for longer periods. Ryder challenged the validity and logic of Digby's approach to calculating invertebrate production, and suggested that the relationship between flow and macro-invertebrate production is not straight forward. Invertebrate production is affected by factors other than flow, including depth, temperature and turbidity. He believed that it is not possible to conclude that production would be reduced at a minimum flow of around 20 m3/s.
45. Simulations by Duncan and Hicks indicate that the preferred macro-invertebrate habitat begins to decrease markedly below 35 - 45 m3/s.
Conclusions
46. The macro-invertebrate fauna is adapted to a naturally unstable flow regime and species that are found are those resilient to disturbance. Minor braids and seepages that are less severely disturbed by floods may contain comparatively high densities of invertebrates after floods. Maintenance of the flow regime and other river processes (e.g. sediment transport) that contribute to the braided channel structure will be important in retaining these species at levels of biomass production to provide adequate food for birds and fish.
47. Water temperatures under the current regime are likely to reach the lethal limit for macro-invertebrates from time to time. Further abstractions could exacerbate this.
48. Mosley and Hughey both recommend a minimum flow of 35 m3/s during spring/summer months to maximise biomass production of macro-invertebrates as a food source, especially for birds. We concur with Ryder’s view that, with current understanding, it is not possible to conclude that biomass production would be reduced by extended minimum flows of about 20 m3/s.
Part VII 119 Rafting and kayaking
49. The outstanding rafting and kayaking is provided by the water (depth, amount of white water, holes, waves etc) and the wild and scenic character. Even with periodic water releases for recreational uses, a dam at the gorge would degrade the experience. Keenan told us that controlled releases would be “sterile”. Alternative experiences might be provided but these would not compensate for losses, and would probably no longer be outstanding. The quality range of grades on one river is also out of the ordinary, making not only the gorge important for these activities.
50. Rankin (New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association) concluded that the following would be needed to maintain the outstanding rafting and kayaking in the Rangitata River : • prohibition of damming / impoundment • retention, as much as possible, of natural flows • maintenance of water quality
51. Gualter (manager of Rangitata Rafts) noted that the best flows for rafting are in the range 80 - 180 m3/s, but that the natural fluctuations are important. He noted that the gorge never becomes too low to navigate and only occasionally becomes too high. Rankin noted that the gorge can be kayaked in flows from 40 – 350 m3/s, but that 80 –120 m3/s offer the easiest kayaking. From Klondyke to Peel Forest the preferred flows are in the range 80 – 150 m3/s.
52. Rankin noted that the minimum flows for recreation recommended by Mosley: December – March 50 m3/s; April – July 20 m3/s; and August – November 35 m3/s would better meet the needs of canoeists than the current minimums. He noted that below 50 m3/s in the reach below the RDR the river becomes too small to be interesting, except perhaps for beginners.
Conclusions
53. The sustained and demanding nature of the rafting and kayaking in the gorge, the range of other quality canoeing water, and the wild and scenic environment are in large part outstanding because of the natural flows, high water quality and the high amenity values. Damming and changes to the natural regime in the gorge and upper river would be detrimental to the outstanding nature of the rafting and kayaking.
54. A higher minimum flow below the RDR intake would benefit the canoeing experience.
Tikanga Māori / Braided river character/ Spiritual and Cultural purposes / Wild, scenic and other natural characteristics / amenity and intrinsic values
55. The features that give the river its outstanding braided river character, wild, scenic and other natural characteristics and its spiritual and cultural values are similar to those that make the river of outstanding significance to Ngāi Tahu.
Part VII 120 56. A dam would alter the Rangitata River's unusual flow regime that is a result of its glacial origins. It would break the connection of the lower river with glacial origins, and would alter habitats for native fish, macro-invertebrates and birds. The sediment regime would change. A dam would adversely affect the mauri of the Rangitata River in several ways including by interrupting the continuity of flow from the mountains to the sea. This would conflict with the Ngāi Tahu mountains to the sea philosophy - "Ki uta ki tai". Habitat and passage for mahinga kai species would also be affected.
57. Modifications to the character of the headwater tributaries, the upper Rangitata, or the gorge could be caused by changes in the flow patterns or deterioration of the quality of the water, including all tributaries and the main stem, and diversion or dewatering of the tributaries.
58. Ngāi Tahu noted that the status quo already adversely affects the mauri of the Rangitata River, especially in the lower reaches and that no further reductions in water quality should be allowed.
59. Although we determined that it would be unreasonable to apply “preservation” status to the upper Rangitata and the gorge, these waters should still be retained, as far as possible, in their natural state, while making some provision for industry and the community.
Conclusions
60. The “mountains to the sea” attributes can only be maintained if the flow regime in the mainstem and the tributaries is kept as natural as possible; there are no structures that act as barriers to the flow of water or the passage of mahinga kai and other species. Maintaining an open river mouth and high water quality are also necessary.
Historical purposes
61. We found that the upper Rangitata River has outstanding historical attributes. We consider that it is because the river and its landscapes are largely in a natural state that the historical values remain. That is, the natural form and flow of the river enable present generations to vividly imagine what Butler and other early Europeans encountered in the Rangitata valley.
Conclusions
62. Measures to protect the outstanding amenity and intrinsic values, and wild and scenic and braided river characteristics will also protect the historical values, insofar as the water conservation order provisions are able to.
Scientific and ecological values: indigenous plants
63. The outstanding indigenous plant communities in the riverbeds of the upper Rangitata and the gorge have developed as a result of the river flows and form. A water conservation order can assist to protect them by maintaining the natural
Part VII 121 flow patterns and minimising adverse effects of activities in the river bed. Managing impacts such as invasion by exotic plants is outside the scope of a water conservation order.
Conclusions
64. Measures to protect the outstanding amenity and intrinsic values, and wild and scenic and braided river characteristics will also protect the indigenous plant communities in the riverbeds of the upper Rangitata River and the gorge.
Restrictions and prohibitions to protect outstanding features and qualities
Introduction
65. We have determined the outstanding features and values of the Rangitata River (Part III) and the requirements to retain their “outstandingness” (Part VII). We have also reviewed the needs of industry and the community (Part IV) and plans and policies (Part V). In this section we evaluate whether or not a water conservation order is required to protect or preserve the outstanding characteristics identified (Part III), and what degree of protection or preservation is appropriate, taking into account the needs of industry and the community and having regard to existing plans and policies.
Water quality
66. Many of the outstanding features including salmon fishery, macro-invertebrate species, rafting and kayaking, angling, spiritual and cultural values, and importance to Ngāi Tahu depend on high water quality to remain outstanding. Water temperature, clarity and potential adverse effects of abstractions, damming, discharges (point source and diffuse) and river works are key water quality issues.
67. ECan (Hayward and Meredith 2000) reported on the results of periodic water quality testing at three sites between 1993 and 2000. The results from the limited programme provide an indication of the quality. Low nutrient concentrations and moderate levels of indicator bacteria were found. Some of the measurements suggest downstream deterioration of chemical and bacteriological water quality. Chemical and bacteriological water quality is good, but not necessarily excellent. Tests indicated probable non-point source and/or point source contamination.
68. Discharge of sediment from the sand trap on the RDR is the only authorised discharge that may affect water quality, in particular clarity. Consent conditions and current practice mean that this sediment is only released in high flows, above those preferred for fishing, when sediment levels are already high.
Part VII 122 69. Water clarity issues in the Rangitata River centre around the relatively low natural clarity in the river at flows other than (but including) flood flows, due to the presence of fine glacial flour. Expert witnesses measured and described the clarity of the Rangitata River water using various techniques, including turbidity (NTUs) and suspended sediment. Comparisons were made with black disc measurements in the Waitaki River (clarity in metres). There was disagreement amongst expert witnesses as to whether or not abstractions reduced the clarity downstream more rapidly than under the natural flow regime. Ryder questioned the methodology used by Jowett for concluding that additional abstraction will increase downstream clarity and disagreed with the conclusion that abstraction results in an increase in water clarity.
70. We agree with Ryder that measuring clarity as turbidity with turbidimeters (NTUs) is not satisfactory for defining clarity requirements because of the high variability in the results and hence the difficulties in determining a useful relationship between NTUs and flow. We cannot determine from the evidence whether or not further abstractions are likely to increase water clarity for a particular flow in the lower river.
71. To retain the natural turbidity patterns any discharges that increase turbidity should be permitted only if they are carried out at times when the turbidity is already high (i.e. during floods).
72. Jowett modelled temperature changes with changes in flow. He concluded that additional abstractions would increase daily maximum water temperatures and that temperatures would be above 20°C more often. Ryder discussed temperature data collected by RDR Management and concluded that, with current abstractions, the temperature increase during the study did not exceed that considered acceptable under the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) 2001). Water temperatures in the lower river appear to reach levels that cause thermal stress to fish and invertebrates from time to time, but are unlikely to have lethal effects.
Conclusions
73. The quality of the water in the Rangitata River and its tributaries must be maintained to standards suitable for recreation, fish habitat and/or fish spawning depending on the reach or tributary. This will require limits on any discharges into the Rangitata River or tributaries. Setting appropriate standards for water quality should assist in determining what water uses can be allowed. As there are currently no standards set for the Rangitata River, we find that a water conservation order is required to set appropriate standards.
74. While the water quality classes given in the third schedule to the RMA are relevant, we consider that, rather than use these directly, it is more appropriate to set out those criteria that are relevant for protecting the outstanding features and qualities of the Rangitata River.
75. We conclude that any uses, especially discharges, should not: • allow the water temperature to rise over 20°C;
Part VII 123 • the pH to go beyond its natural range; • encourage undesirable biological growths; • put contaminants in the water that affect human consumption of fish or other aquatic organisms; • make the water unsuitable for contact recreation; • reduce the instream habitat quality by reducing dissolved oxygen below 80% of saturation.
76. Maintaining high water quality does not conflict with existing uses. Future uses would need to meet the water quality standards set, but we consider that this not unreasonable. Depending on the standards set, this would be consistent with the water quality objectives and rules in the ECan draft NRRP.
77. We note that deterioration of water quality (especially bacteriological contamination) in the lower reaches is probably a result of land use intensification (e.g. in the McKinnons Creek area). There is little that a water conservation order can do to address this problem.
Flows
78. The key attributes of the flow regime that need to be considered are: the hydrograph shape (i.e. the pattern of flows), mouth closure, freshes, floods, and minimum flows. We note that current abstractions do not significantly alter the overall shape of the flow hydrograph .
Mouth closure
79. Keeping the river mouth open is necessary for salmon and other fish species to migrate. Jellyman (RDR) commented that, although access to the sea at all times is highly desirable, intermittent mouth closure for a few days would not seriously impact on fish recruitment.
80. In a report to ECan (U98/01), Tonkin and Taylor stated that the mouth could close during a southerly storm at a river flow of less than 30 m3/s, and would close at 10 m3/s. Under the present regime, the mouth may have closed from time to time, but never for more that 1 or 2 tide cycles (Scarf and others). A flow of 20 m3/s is exceeded 94% of time below RDR intake (Mosley).
81. Scarf (applicant) expressed the view that a flow of not less than 20 m3/s is necessary to maintain the river mouth open.
Freshes and Floods
82. Many witnesses commented on the importance of freshes and floods to maintain both instream species and their habitat, as well as habitat for birds, and to maintain other characteristics and values including wild and scenic, spiritual and cultural etc.
Part VII 124 83. Freshes (up to 200 m3/s) are important for cooling water and appear to provide a trigger for salmon to move upstream. Regular freshes also reduce the risk of periphyton growths reaching nuisance levels.
84. Vegetation clearance of the gravel riverbed mostly occurs at much larger flows. Mosley reported that flows >250 m3/s are capable of flushing weeds. He noted that there are, on average, 10 of these events per year. The annual average maximum flow is 900 m3/s. Periodically, floods greater than 1000 m3/s occur, and will rework braids and move vegetation from larger areas.
85. Increased abstraction, especially with no flow sharing, would have the greatest impact on reducing the number of freshes that exceed 250 m3/s.
Minimum flows
86. Because the Rangitata is different from most other New Zealand rivers, with its lowest flows in the winter, not the summer, setting minimum flows in Rangitata River is also different. The usual approach is to set a single summer minimum flow, but this is not appropriate for Rangitata River. Minimum flows specific to different outstanding characteristics are discussed below. We note that the 1:100 year return period 7 day low flow has been calculated as 31 m3/s (ECan), indicating that naturally the flow would only drop below 30 m3/s on rare occasions.
87. The mean annual low flow (MALF) in the Rangitata River at Klondyke is 40 m3/s. In their written submissions, the Director General of Conservation (DoC) and Forest and Bird, while generally supporting the applicant, sought a minimum flow equal to the MALF i.e. 40 m3/s. Both parties modified this request in their presentations to the tribunal. DoC sought a minimum flow of • September – January 40 m3/s • February – April 30 m3/s • May – July 20 m3/s • August 35 m3/s
and Forest and Bird sought: • September – January 50 m3/s • February – August 35 m3/s
Both parties also sought flow-sharing above the minimum flows.
88. Desirable minimum flows for different attributes that we found outstanding ranged up to 70 m3/s for part of the year, with several parties requesting a minimum flow of 40 m3/s or higher. Bright (MAF) assessed how different minimum flows and allocation rules would affect the ability to meet long term consumptive needs for water in Canterbury. He concluded that if the minimum flow in the Rangitata River is raised to 40 m3/s it would reduce the irrigated areas that could be reliably supplied to 82% of the area that is potentially irrigable. His analysis assumes that all irrigation abstraction is removed from the Ashburton River to restore its flow, but that storage is developed which includes using water harvested from the Potts River.
Part VII 125 89. Robb (for ECan) presented results from modelling 7 different flow regimes, comparing them with the existing rules, and analysing the differences. The results showed that the higher minimum flows, as expected, improved indicators for recreation, fish passage and angling and decreased the availability of water for irrigation. The detailed results were made available in a report published by ECan.
90. We note that under the present regime the summer minimum flow of 20 m3/s is not reached very frequently, nor does this flow persist for long periods. However, it does provide the run of river takes with significantly higher reliability than would occur with a higher minimum. The minimum flow has been 20 m3/s since 1986, and the outstanding features have been retained.
91. The present winter minimum of 15 m3/s is lower than sought by a number of parties. We note that at present winter abstraction through the RDR passes into the Rakaia River through the Highbank power station.
92. We also note that although salmon angling was found to have the highest desirable minimum flow (70 m3/s for November and December), the applicant was not seeking a higher minimum flow in this regard.
93. The flow sharing regime requested by the applicant is hydrologically the same as the 1986 Plan. Both retain the natural variability of the river. The flow sharing regimes proposed by Environment Canterbury, Mosley and Department of Conservation, although similar in hydrological terms, result in the residual river flow receding to the minimum flows more rapidly and more often, and result in increased periods of prolonged constant flow and would be less like the natural flow pattern than the 1986 Plan regime.
94. ECan wanted to have a minimum flow during the summer of 30 m3/s, but have this increase to 50 m3/s when the flow at Klondyke is between 90 and 120 m3/s. We agree with Scarf (applicant) and Stewart (DoC) that increasing the minimum flow like this when river is in the range 90-120 m3/s would not be practical to implement.
Conclusions
95. A higher minimum flow would be highly desirable to reduce the impacts of low flows on in-stream values including fish passage, macro-invertebrate production and the number of suitable fishing days, but this would have adverse impacts on the established industry and the associated communities. The present regime with minimum flows of 15 m3/s in winter and 20 m3/s in summer with flow- sharing above this level takes account of the needs of industry, and when combined with other provisions should be adequate to protect the outstanding attributes of the river. These minimum flows should also keep the mouth open, except for short periods.
96. Changing between summer and winter regimes on September 15 and May 15 appears to be acceptable to both irrigators and fisheries advocates, but is different from the recommendations of ECan and some others.
Part VII 126 97. In conjunction with a minimum flow the most important flows for protecting the outstanding features are those below about 100 m3/s, providing these are complemented with appropriate flow variability and floods. This is the flow range most affected by the current abstractions, which are primarily below the gorge. We do not consider that further abstraction can be allowed in this range without serious adverse effects on the outstanding features.
98. We consider that higher minimum flows would potentially affect the reliability of run of the river takes to a point where the economic benefits are severely reduced. We note that the Ashburton District, although opposed to a water conservation order, supported the flow regime proposed by the applicant, which is similar to our recommendations.
99. Therefore, we recommend a cap on abstraction of 33 m3/s and maintenance of a 1:1 flow sharing regime between in and out of river uses. We note that 33 m3/s is a significant proportion of the mean flow (95 m3/s).
100. Above 100 m3/s there is a need to ensure that the number and sizes of freshes and floods are not significantly reduced. However we also accept that there is significant potential to develop further irrigation using Rangitata River water. We consider that when the flow in the Rangitata River is above 110 m3/s at Klondyke that an additional 20 m3/s can be made available for abstraction. The rates of rise in the river are extremely rapid, and this places a limitation on the ability to abstract significant amounts of water from the rising limb of the fresh or flood. It is not uncommon for the river to rise at rates in excess of 150 m3/s per hour during northwesterly rainfall, especially when that rainfall also produces snowmelt.
101. Therefore we consider that a 1:1 flow sharing regime would not be practical. We recommend a two step allocation: 10 m3/s when the natural river flow is between 111 m3/s and 120 m3/s, and 20 m3/s when the river is above this.
102. Our conclusions on flow regimes are consistent with the RPS, but somewhat different to the regime proposed in the draft NRRP. We conclude that a water conservation order is necessary to protect the outstanding features, as we consider that the provisions in the draft NRRP will not necessarily protect the outstanding features as there is no cap on total abstraction and no flow sharing.
Disturbances in the riverbed
103. Because of the unstable nature of the gravel river bed, abstraction points in the main river will require ongoing maintenance so that they can continue to operate. Such river works adversely affect salmon and bird habitats and angling.
Conclusions
104. There are currently three abstraction points on the main river. Each of these requires varying levels of in-stream works to keep them operating. As the outstanding features have been maintained with these abstraction points, there is no justification for reducing the number. However, increased abstraction points
Part VII 127 will require additional ongoing works at each point. There will be cumulative effects of additional works in the riverbed. It is not possible to determine the actual effects of additional disturbances. Therefore, we apply the precautionary principle to recommend that no further points be allowed, i.e. three is the maximum number allowed.
105. We do not, however, conclude that there is any reason why the abstraction points cannot be changed. For example a new intake further upstream could replace the existing abstraction on the south bank. Additional abstraction points from some tributaries will also be possible.
106. The upper river (from Clyde / Havelock confluence to below the gorge) is in a very natural state, although there are river protection works and farming operations. We conclude that any abstractions from the main river in this reach will adversely impact on the outstanding characteristics of the river. Therefore the three abstractions points on the main stem will be restricted to downstream of the gorge.
107. Consents for other river works, including construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and network utility operations, as well as soil conservation and river protection works undertaken under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 could still be granted. However, we do note that the timing of such works for outside the bird nesting and salmon migration months would be beneficial to these outstanding attributes.
Effects of damming
108. The special tribunal was presented with evidence that a dam in the gorge would be technically feasible. Few groups supported a dam. Many submissions expressed a view that a dam was highly undesirable and should be prohibited. Federated Farmers submitted that the negative effects associated with dam construction could be avoided or mitigated and that there are significant ecological, economic and social benefits that can be derived from the construction of a dam and water storage reservoir. However, they noted that they do not suggest that a dam should be built in the Rangitata River, only that the option be left available for future generations.
109. Mosley described how the impact of a dam on the hydrological regime would depend on the operating rules adopted, but a number of environmental impacts would be unavoidable, including inundation of the riverbed upstream to the confluence of Forest Creek, creation of a delta/wetland at the head of the impoundment, significant reduction of the amenity value of the gorge, changes to water clarity, reduction of bedload transport through the gorge and consequent changes in channel morphology, and closure of the gorge for migratory fish. Several impacts are largely negative; others could, with appropriate management, have positive benefits.
110. This issue does not appear to have been addressed by existing plans and policies, and we conclude that a water conservation order is needed to manage
Part VII 128 the effects of abstractions on the outstanding aquatic bird habitat and the salmon fishery in the main stem of the Rangitata River.
Conclusions
111. Although a dam in the gorge would clearly provide additional irrigation capacity, and more certainty than run of the river takes, we conclude that any dam on the main stem of the Rangitata River would unacceptably impact a number of outstanding characteristics.
112. The free-flowing nature of this glacial fed river is an attribute of many outstanding features. A dam in the gorge, as described to us, would adversely affect the following outstanding features: • aquatic bird habitat • salmon fishery and fishing • wild, scenic and other natural characteristics • braided river characteristics • macro-invertebrates • indigenous plant communities • rafting and kayaking • spiritual, cultural and historical values • value to Ngāi Tahu
113. Likely mitigation works and practices, such as fish passes or recreational flow releases would not be sufficient to retain the outstanding characteristics of the river. However, we accept that there are significant economic benefits from increased abstraction. Damming of the main stem, but not all tributaries, will be prohibited.
114. Prohibition of a dam in the mainstem of the Rangitata River is consistent with the draft NRRP and the RPS. It is not inconsistent with any specific objective or policy of either the Timaru or Ashburton District Plans, but could be inconsistent with objectives to provide more irrigation. While it is probable that the NRRP will protect the river from damming, this plan is still at a discussion draft stage, so there is no certainty that the operative plan will include this provision. Therefore prohibition of damming should be included in a water conservation order.
RDR abstractions
115. Even the current levels of abstraction have some adverse effects on the outstanding features of the Rangitata River. However, the nature of the RDR with its (almost) continuous flow provides a range of mitigating features. We do not consider that the RDR replaces the reduction in habitats or other features, but it does provide a self-sustaining trout fishery, macro-invertebrate and native fish habitat, and recreational opportunities. These features could not be achieved where abstraction is seasonal only, such as irrigation alone. Therefore we consider that a large proportion of the flow abstraction allowed must be as a
Part VII 129 flow that continues year-round (except for maintenance periods) to enable mitigating environmental effects to be maintained.
116. We agree that the RDR is firmly embedded in the bio-physical, economic and social environments of the Canterbury Plains, and we also note that RDR management has demonstrated that they are very willingly to meet environmental requirements, and have developed a positive working relationship with the Fish and Game Council. The validity of making special provision for the RDR was questioned by counsel for ECan. We note that other water conservation orders have specifically mentioned particular consents (Kawarau - Clyde dam and power station; and Buller - Maruia Thermal Springs), although not in the manner in which the applicant has suggested for the RDR.
Conclusions
117. In terms of protecting the outstanding features as we have determined them for the Rangitata River, we conclude that neither the exact position of any intake, nor any particular consent holder is relevant. However, we do find that increasing the number of abstraction points above three is likely to have adverse effects on several outstanding characteristics or qualities. We also find that the continuous nature of the RDR flow mitigates some of the adverse effects of abstraction.
118. However, the existing RDR consents are not inconsistent with protection of the outstanding qualities and characteristics that we have determined, providing that a satisfactory means of deflecting fish from the intake is installed. Nothing that we propose in our draft water conservation order is incompatible with granting new consents to RDR with similar terms and conditions to the present.
119. In order to protect the mitigating effects of the significant continuous flow of the RDR we conclude that of the maximum of 33 m3/s that we propose should be allowed for abstraction, at least one take should be of significant size and, as far as possible, continuous. We note the need to retain a certain amount of flexibility for future reallocation to other users, especially those within the catchment. A figure of 11 m3/s was given to us as the amount of water that could potentially be used within the catchment for new irrigation. We consider that the single continuous flow could, if required, provide half of that, therefore we conclude that at least 28 m3/s should be allocated to one continuous abstraction, leaving 5 m3/s, that may be allocated to this or to other users. This does not preclude more than 28 m3/s being allocated to the RDR, but is left for ECan to determine.
Groundwater
120. In the 1986 Plan, wells up to 15m deep and within 400m of the river or 50m of a tributary were considered to be directly connected to the river, and consents were therefore subject to the same minimum flow rules as surface water consents.
Part VII 130 121. ECan (Aitcheson-Earl; report U01/76) estimated that the existing wells cause 817 l/s of stream depletion. This is about 4% of the summer low flow of 20 m3/s in the lower river. This is based on a desk study rather than from an assessment of each bore.
122. The applicant (Scarf) considered that all shallow groundwater associated with the Rangitata River should be included in a cap on abstraction of 33 m3/s. In its draft water conservation order they defined this as all groundwater within 15 m below ground and less than 1000 m on either side of the river.
123. ECan prefer to use a calculation method to determine whether or not the groundwater is hydraulically connected, and sought to define this as: "Hydraulically connected groundwater means groundwater that is laterally connected to a river, with a stream depletion factor less than 100 days calculated using the method published by Jenkins, C T (1977) Computation of rate and volume of stream depletion by wells, in Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the United States Geological Survey, Chapter D1, Book 4, 3rd printing."
124. Examining the ECan data suggests that the applicant’s proposed "rule of thumb" is reasonable, as most wells more than 1000m from the river have a stream depeletion factor (sdf) of greater than 100days. However, there is at least anecdotal evidence that some wells on higher terraces close to the river are not directly connected.
Conclusions
125. We conclude that there is shallow groundwater (<15 m deep) that is hydraulically connected to the Rangitata River and tributaries, including McKinnons Creek, but exactly which groundwater is hydraulically connected and which is not is not well-defined.
126. However, hydraulically connected groundwater must be managed in the same way as surface water in terms of restrictions on total abstraction, and restrictions to meet low flow rules in the main river and tributaries.
127. From the evidence presented we conclude that beyond about 1 km, and deeper than 15m, there is a low probability that groundwater is hydraulically connected to the river. Therefore we conclude that all groundwater within 1000m of the river and tributaries, and less than 15 m will be considered to be hydraulically connected and abstractions from this groundwater will be subject to the same conditions as surface water abstractions, unless it can be shown that the water is not likely to be connected.
128. It is not appropriate for this tribunal to determine what methodology, either theoretical or experimental, is used to determine hydraulic connection. We leave this to ECan or to applicants for resource consents.
129. Our conclusion is not inconsistent with the NRRP, which also seeks to treat hydraulically connected groundwater in the same manner as the surface water to which it is connected.
Part VII 131 Necessity for a water conservation order
130. Having determined the management requirements to preserve or protect outstanding features and qualities, considered the needs of primary and secondary industry, we then evaluated what restrictions and prohibitions are required to protect the outstanding characteristics, taking into account the needs of industry and the community.
131. We also assessed to what extent existing policies and plans will achieve the protection that we seek. We do not consider that the existing plans and policy statements (including the draft Natural Resources Regional Plan) adequately meet the needs as we have determined them.
132. Therefore we recommend that a water conservation order is made to achieve preservation of waters in a natural state or for protection of outstanding features. The following sections summarise the outstanding features and qualities, and our proposed protection measures.
Headwaters
133. The headwaters (Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries) have outstanding: amenity and intrinsic values, significance for Ngāi Tahu, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, scientific and ecological values of indigenous plant communities in riverbed and braided river characteristics. The waters are in their natural state.
134. These waters should be preserved, as far as possible, in their natural state.
Upper Rangitata main stem
135. The upper Rangitata River has outstanding: amenity and intrinsic values, significance to Ngāi Tahu, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, spiritual, cultural, recreational and historical values, salmon fishery, scientific and ecological values: indigenous plant communities in riverbed; braided river characteristics. The waters are in their natural state
136. Given the needs of industry and the community, preservation in this reach is not considered appropriate, but very high levels of protection are needed to protect the outstanding features, with some limited opportunities for water use.
137. Protection in this section of the river will include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, values important to Ngāi Tahu, and for recreation.
• Minimising human disturbance of the river form, the river bed and the natural flows by prohibiting both damming and abstractions in main stem, especially to protect aquatic bird habitat, spiritual and cultural values,
Part VII 132 Ngāi Tahu values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, and recreation.
• Managing the flow regime to retain natural flow patterns by limiting the amount of abstraction from the tributaries, and requiring that sediment transport is maintained. This is particularly to protect values important to Ngāi Tahu, aquatic bird habitat, spiritual, cultural, historical and recreational values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, scientific and ecological values: indigenous plant communities and braided river characteristics.
• Protecting salmon spawning streams through water quality standards and restrictions on abstractions.
Tributaries of the upper Rangitata River and gorge, except for salmon spawning tributaries listed below
138. The tributaries of the upper Rangitata River and the gorge contribute to the outstanding aquatic bird habitat; braided river characteristics, salmon spawning & juvenile habitat, rafting and canoeing, aquatic macro-invertebrates and the significance to Ngāi Tahu.
139. Protection of the outstanding values requires that these tributaries retain sufficient water of high quality to retain their contribution to the main stem.
140. Protection measures include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, values important to Ngāi Tahu, and for recreation.
• Managing the flow regime to retain natural flow patterns by limiting the amount of abstraction that can be permitted from the tributaries, and requiring that sediment transport is maintained. This is particularly to protect values important to Ngāi Tahu, aquatic bird habitat, spiritual, cultural, historical and recreational values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, scientific and ecological values: indigenous plant communities and braided river characteristics.
• Managing damming so that sediment transport is maintained.
Gorge
141. The gorge is outstanding for amenity and intrinsic values, wild, scenic and other natural characteristics, indigenous plant communities, rafting, canoeing, and significance to Ngāi Tahu. It contributes to the outstanding salmon fishery and has waters in their natural state.
142. Protection in this section of the river will include:
Part VII 133 • Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, values important to Ngāi Tahu, and for recreation.
• Minimising human disturbance of the river form, the river bed and the natural flows by prohibiting both damming and abstractions in main stem, to protect aquatic bird habitat up and downstream, spiritual and cultural values, Ngāi Tahu values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, recreation.
• Managing the flow regime to retain natural flow patterns by limiting the amount of abstraction from the tributaries and requiring that sediment transport is maintained. This is particularly to protect values to Ngāi Tahu, spiritual and cultural values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, recreation; scientific and ecological values: indigenous plant communities, braided river characteristics, salmon fishery and aquatic bird habitat.
Main stem Rangitata River from below the gorge to Arundel; and
Main stem Rangitata River from Arundel to the sea
143. The Rangitata River main stem from below the gorge to Arundel is outstanding for salmon fishing, salmon passage, water-based recreation, significance to Ngāi Tahu. It contributes to aquatic bird habitat.
144. The Rangitata River main stem from Arundel to the sea is outstanding for aquatic bird habitat, salmon passage, salmon fishing, spiritual and cultural values, and significance to Ngāi Tahu.
145. Protection in these two sections of the river will include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon, values important to Ngāi Tahu, and for recreation.
• Minimising human disturbance of the river form, the river bed and the natural flows by: capping total abstraction at a maximum of 33 m3/s except during flood flows; limiting the number of abstractions points from the main river in these reaches to three, setting a minimum flow of 20 m3/s in summer and 15 m3/s in winter, prohibiting damming in main stem, to protect aquatic bird habitat, spiritual and cultural values, Ngāi Tahu values, salmon passage, salmon fishing and recreation (gorge to Arundel section).
• Managing the flow regime to retain natural flow patterns by limiting the amount of abstraction that can be permitted, and requiring that sediment transport is maintained. This is particularly to protect values to Ngāi Tahu, spiritual and cultural values, salmon passage, salmon fishing and scientific
Part VII 134 and ecological values: braided river characteristics, aquatic bird habitat Arundel to sea, contribution to aquatic bird habitat (gorge to Arundel).
Tributaries of the Rangitata River from below the gorge to the sea except for salmon spawning tributaries listed below
146. The tributaries of the Rangitata River from below the gorge to the sea (except for salmon spawning tributaries listed below) contribute to the outstanding aquatic bird habitat; braided river characteristics, salmon spawning & juvenile habitat, rafting and canoeing, aquatic macro-invertebrates and significance to Ngāi Tahu.
147. Protection measures include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, values important to Ngāi Tahu, and for recreation.
• Managing the flow regime to retain natural flow patterns in the main stem by limiting the amount of abstraction that can be permitted from the tributaries, and requiring that sediment transport is maintained. This is particularly to protect values important to Ngāi Tahu, aquatic bird habitat, spiritual, cultural historical and recreational values, wild and scenic and other natural characteristics, salmon passage, salmon fishing, scientific and ecological values: indigenous plant communities and braided river characteristics.
• Managing damming so that sediment transport is maintained
Ealing Springs Stream and McKinnons Creek
148. Ealing Springs and McKinnons Creek are salmon spawning tributaries that contribute to the outstanding salmon fishery. They also contribute to the significance of the Rangitata River to Ngāi Tahu, including the eel fishery.
149. Protection measures include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, and the values important to Ngāi Tahu.
• Prohibiting abstractions from Ealing Springs Stream and setting a minimum flow in McKinnons Creek.
Part VII 135 Brabazon Fan, Black Mountain Stream Deep Creek (Mt Potts), Deep Stream (Mesopotamia)
150. Brabazon Fan, Black Mountain Stream, Deep Creek (Mt Potts), and Deep Stream (Mesopotamia) are all salmon spawning tributaries of the upper Rangitata River and contribute to the outstanding salmon fishery.
151. Protection measures include:
• Setting standards to maintain high water quality particularly to protect the needs of salmon and salmon spawning, and the values important to Ngāi Tahu
• Prohibiting damming and abstractions
Shallow groundwater
152. Shallow groundwater within 15 m below the ground and less than 1000 m either side of the main river downstream from Klondyke, McKinnons Creek and Ealing Springs Stream that is hydraulically connected to the Rangitata River or its tributaries contributes to the outstanding features and qualities of the river.
153. Protection measures include all hydraulically connected groundwater being subject to the same flow management rules as the surface water, including the cap on abstraction, and the minimum flow rules.
Part VII 136
Part VIII Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
We have determined that the Rangitata River has • Outstanding amenity and intrinsic values afforded by waters in their natural state, and • Outstanding features and qualities of the river, and • Parts of the river that contribute to outstanding features and qualities.
We have determined that a water conservation order is required to preserve or protect these outstanding attributes.
Preservation in natural state
We have found that the Clyde and Havelock Rivers and their tributaries (“the headwaters”) are waters in a natural state. They have outstanding amenity and intrinsic values as well as outstanding wild, scenic and other natural characteristics. We note that the headwaters have been studied less than other reaches of the river and information was provided on fewer topics. There are likely to be other features that are outstanding, but we were not provided with enough information to assess these.
The attributes that contribute to the outstanding values include: • Aesthetic coherence • High legibility of water and ice processes shaping rock and landscape • Visual amenity • Ecosystem values • Wild and scenic characteristics • Natural characteristics
We acknowledge that there is some farming activity in the lower reaches of both the Clyde and the Havelock, but note that this does not detract from the outstanding characteristics we have found. We conclude that these waters should be preserved as far as possible in their natural state. This would not stop reasonable use for stock and domestic water.
We found other parts of the river to have outstanding amenity and intrinsic values as waters in a natural state (see Part II). However, we have determined that the needs of industry and the community are such that preservation of these waters in a natural state is overly restrictive. Protection of the outstanding features of these sections is part of our draft water conservation order.
Part VIII 137
Protection of outstanding features and characteristics
We have found outstanding characteristics in other parts of the Rangitata River. These include (see Part III for details): • Aquatic bird habitat • Salmon fishery • Salmon fishing • Wild & scenic, and other natural characteristics • Scientific and ecological values for braided river characteristics, indigenous riverbed plants and aquatic macro-invertebrates • Water-based recreation • Spiritual, cultural and historical values • Significance for Tikanga Māori • Amenity and intrinsic values
We conclude that a water conservation order is needed to protect these. We recommend that the conditions required to protect the outstanding features include: • Maintaining the main stem of the Rangitata River as a free-flowing river • Retaining freshes and floods • Maintaining a flow hydrograph that is as close as practical to the natural regime • Setting minimum flows below which no abstractions are permitted • Maintaining high water quality • Minimizing disturbances in the bed of the river • Protecting salmon spawning waters and access to them • Maintaining the waters of the upper Rangitata and the gorge, as far as is practical, in their present highly natural state by minimising abstraction and discharges. • Maintaining the mitigating environmental effects of a large continuous abstraction.
In determining our recommended flow regime we have taken into account the needs of industry and the community.
We recommend a river management regime consisting of: • A minimum flow of 20 m3/s in summer and 15 m3/s in winter; • Changes between summer and winter minimum flows on 15 September and 15 May; • A 1:1 sharing of a maximum of 33 m3/s abstraction according to a workable schedule; • Additional abstraction of up to 20 m3/s in two steps when the river is above 110 m3/s; • At least 28 m3/s being allocated to one continuous abstraction; • No damming of the main stem of the Rangitata River; • Restriction on the number of points where water may be abstracted from the main stem to three locations (not specified), all below the gorge.
Part VIII 138
• Abstractions may be permitted from tributaries, subject to appropriate conditions. • Water quality standards to protect salmon, salmon spawning, recreation, and macro-invertebrates, including requirements relating to temperature.
This will produce a flow regime that resembles the shape of the natural flow hydrograph. Major flood events (400 m3/s or greater) will be maintained, as will freshes and minor floods, although these will be reduced in size by the abstractions.
Landholders within the catchment noted their concerns that much of the abstracted water was used outside the catchment, and if a cap is applied they may be denied access to even small amounts of water for future irrigation opportunities. We considered this matter, but concluded that the outstanding features will not be affected to any significant extent by where the abstracted water is used. Therefore, allocation amongst users is a role for ECan, within the constraints of measures that we have determined are necessary to protect the river’s outstanding features and values.
We believe that the water conservation order that we propose is not in conflict with any rules in either the Timaru or Ashburton district plans, nor is it in conflict with either the National Coastal Policy, the RCEP or the RPS. We accept that it does place constraints on the development of further irrigation, and may, therefore, be inconsistent with some aspects of the district plans. However, we consider this necessary to protect the outstanding features. The regime that we propose is significantly different from that set out by ECan in its draft Natural Resources Plan, although both proposals seek to balance water use for primary industry with protection of natural features and recreational and other values.
We consider that without a cap on total abstraction, or restriction on the number of takes in the main stem the outstanding values etc would not necessarily be preserved / protected.
Draft order attached
We recommend that a water conservation order be made for the Rangitata River.
Our draft water conservation order is set out in Appendix 1.
Part VIII 139 Appendix 1 Special Tribunal Draft Order
Water Conservation (Rangitata River) Order
1 TITLE This order is the Water Conservation (Rangitata River) Order 2002.
2 COMMENCEMENT This order comes into force on the 28th day after the date of its notification in the Gazette.
3 INTERPRETATION In this order, unless the context otherwise requires, -
Act means the Resource Management Act 1991.
Reasonable mixing means the mixing that occurs: (a) Within a maximum radius of 200 metres from a discharge into a still water body; or (b) Within a maximum distance of 200 metres downstream from a discharge into a river.
"River" means the mainstem of those waters identified in the Schedules to this Order. The mainstem shall be the river with that name on the Infomap 260 series topographical maps between specified lower and upper limits as defined by map references in the Schedules to this Order.
Tributaries means all the tributaries of the rivers or sections of rivers identified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3.
“Klondyke” means the site of the water level recorder on the Rangitata River at or about J36 666149
4 OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES The waters specified in either Schedule 1, 2 or 3 include or contribute to, to the extent identified in Schedule 1 2 or 3, the following outstanding characteristics, features, and values: (a) amenity and intrinsic values; (b) habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms; (c) fishery values; (d) wild, scenic and other natural characteristics; (e) scientific and ecological values; (f) recreational, historical, spiritual or cultural characteristics; (g) significance in accordance with tikanga Māori.
1 5 WATERS TO BE RETAINED IN NATURAL STATE Because of the outstanding characteristics, features, and values identified in clause 4, the quality, quantity, level and rate of flow of the waters specified in Schedule 1 are to be retained, as far as possible, in their natural state.
6 WATERS TO BE PROTECTED Because of the outstanding characteristics, features, and values identified in clause 4, the waters specified in Schedule 2 are to be protected in accordance with the relevant conditions in clauses 8 to 11, as specified in Schedule 2.
7 WATERS TO BE PROTECTED AS CONTRIBUTING TO OUTSTANDING FEATURES Because of their contribution to outstanding characteristics and features identified in clause 4, the waters specified in Schedule 3 are to be protected in accordance with the relevant conditions in clauses 8 to 11, as specified in Schedule 3.
8 RESTRICTIONS ON DAMMING OF WATERS (1) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting the damming of the waters specified in Schedule 2. For the purposes of this clause, damming does not include any intake or deflection structure that does not - (a) Prevent the passage of any salmon; or (b) Reduce the use of the waters for rafting or canoeing; or (c) Reduce the aquatic bird habitat; or (d) Intrude visually to the extent that it reduces wild and scenic values. (2) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting the damming of the waters specified in Schedule 3, whenever that Schedule refers to this clause, if that will cause, either by itself or in combination with any other existing consents or rules, - (a) Material alteration of the naturally occurring sediment delivery to the mainstem Rangitata River; or (b) Reduction of the aquatic bird habitat. (3) This clause does not apply to the maintenance of existing rock weirs and river works to the same level and extent as occurring as at 1 January 2000 or to the placing of raw rock works and the carrying out of river engineering works necessary for flood and asset protection purposes.
2
9 RESTRICTIONS ON ALTERATIONS OF RIVER FLOWS AND FORM (1) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan – (a) that will cause the material alteration of the channel cross-section, or meandering pattern, or braided river channel characteristics of the form of any river specified in Schedule 2; (b) the restriction in clause (1)(a) does not apply in respect of dams, weirs, roads, fords, bridges, access ways, or fish passes lawfully existing on the date this order comes into force. (2) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan – (a) permitting the abstraction of water from any part of the Rangitata River specified in items 1,2,3 & 6 of Schedule 2; (b) that will cause, either by itself or in combination with any other existing consents or rules, alteration of the naturally occurring instantaneous flow of water at Klondyke - (i) by more than 2% when the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke is less than or equal to 110 m3/s; or (ii) by more than 12% when the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke is greater than 110 m3/s. (c) that will cause, either by itself or in combination with any other existing consents or rules, alteration of the naturally occurring instantaneous flow of water in any river specified in item 2 of Schedule 3 – (i) by more than 15% when the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke is less than or equal to 110 m3/s; or (ii) by more than 30% when the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke is greater than 110 m3/s. (d) that will cause, either by itself or in combination with any other existing consents or rules, total abstraction from any part of the Rangitata River specified in Schedules 1, 2 or 3 – (i) to exceed a maximum of 33 m3/s unless the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke exceeds 110 m3/s; or (ii) to exceed a maximum of 43 m3/s unless the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke exceeds 120 m3/s; or (iii) to exceed a maximum of 53 m3/s when the naturally occurring flow at Klondyke flow exceeds 120 m3/s. (iv) no sharing of flows is required for the additional abstractions permitted by clauses (2)(d)(ii) and (iii). (e) that will cause, either by itself or in combination with any other existing consents or rules, less than 28 m3/s of the total allowable abstraction to be available for one continuous take. (Note: continuous except for periodic, programmed maintenance shutdowns) (f) if the effect is that the number of takes from those parts of the Rangitata River specified in items 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 is greater than a maximum of three.
3
(3) For the period from 15 September to 14 May in the following year, there shall be a flow management regime in respect of the main stem of the Rangitata River comprising - (a) a minimum flow of 20 m3/s; and (b) when the flow at Klondyke is greater than 30 m3/s but less than 40 m3/s up to 10 m3/s shall be available to be taken, increasing incrementally to a maximum of 20 m3/s when the flow reaches 40 m3/s; and (c) when the flow at Klondyke is greater than 40 m3/s but less than 110 m3/s, up to 33 m3/s may be taken, on the basis of a 1:1 sharing between instream retention and water abstraction; and (4) For the period 15 May to 14 September each year, there shall be a flow management regime in respect of the main stem of the Rangitata River comprising – (a) a minimum flow of 15 m3/s; and (b) when the flow at Klondyke is greater than 30 m3/s but less than 40 m3/s up to 15 m3/s shall be available to be taken, increasing incrementally to a maximum of 25 m3/s when the flow reaches 40 m3/s; or (c) when the flow at Klondyke is greater than 40 m3/s but less than 110 m3/s, up to 33 m3/s may be taken, on the basis of a 1:1 sharing between instream retention and water abstraction. (4) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan that will cause, either by itself or in combination with other existing consents or rules, including existing surface and groundwater takes, reduction of the naturally occurring instantaneous flow in McKinnons Creek at Wallaces Bridge (map reference K38:887-716) below a minimum flow of 300 l/s. (5) The restrictions in clauses (2) - (4) do not apply in respect of any waters specified in item 3 of Schedule 6 that are not hydraulically connected to the Rangitata River or its tributaries.
10 REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN FISH PASSAGE (1) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan relating to the waters identified in Schedule 2, that will adversely affect the passage of salmon, where Schedule 2 identifies salmon passage or salmon spawning as an outstanding characteristic or contributing to an outstanding characteristic. (2) No resource consent in relation to an intake site may be granted for the waters specified in Schedule 2 unless that resource consent prohibits fish from entering the intake as far as is reasonably practicable.
4
11 RESTRICTIONS ON ALTERATION OF WATER QUALITY (1) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting a discharge into any of the waters identified in Schedules 2 or 3 at any time, if, after allowing for reasonable mixing of the discharge with the receiving waters, the discharge will alter the natural temperature of the receiving water by more than 3 degrees Celsius provided that the alteration does not increase the water temperature to more than 20 degrees Celsius. (2) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting a discharge into any of the waters identified in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3, unless, after allowing for reasonable mixing of the discharge with the receiving waters, any change in the acidity or alkalinity in the receiving waters, attributable to that discharge, maintains the pH within the range of 6 to 9 units. (3) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting a discharge into any of the waters identified in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3, unless, after allowing for reasonable mixing of the discharge with the receiving waters, - (a) There will be no undesirable biological growths attributable to the discharge, including, but not limited to the following: – (i) Bacterial and/or fungal slime growths that are visible to the naked eye; and/or (ii) Seasonal maximum covers of streams or river beds by:– I periphyton as filamentous growth or mats (longer than 20 millimetres) exceeding 30%; and/or II biomass exceeding 120 milligrams of chlorophyll-a per square metre; and/or III 35 grams ash-free dry weight per square metre of exposed surface area; and (b) aquatic organisms shall not be rendered unsuitable for human consumption through the accumulation of excessive concentrations of contaminants; and/or (c) the water is not made unsuitable for contact recreation by the presence of contaminants, or the median bacterial level of 5 samples or more taken over a period of 30 days shall not exceed 126 E. coli per 100 millilitres. (4) No resource consent may be granted or rule included in a regional plan permitting a discharge into any of the waters identified in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 if, after allowing for reasonable mixing with the receiving waters, the discharge will reduce the concentration of dissolved oxygen below 80% of saturation.
5
12 SCOPE OF ORDER (1) This order does not limit section 14 (3)(b) and (e) of the Act relating to the use of water for domestic needs, for the needs of animals, and for, or in connection with, fire-fighting purposes.
(2) This order does not restrict or prevent the grant of water or discharge permits to the Department of Conservation or rules being included in a regional plan that will permit minor water uses if those minor uses are necessary for the management of land administered by the Department.
(3) This order does not restrict or prevent the grant of resource consents for the purpose of - (a) Research into, and enhancement of, fisheries and wildlife habitats; or (b) Hydrological or water quality investigations; or (c) The construction, removal, maintenance or protection of any road, ford or bridge, or the maintenance and protection of any network utility operation (as defined in section 166 of the Act); or (d) The construction and maintenance of soil conservation and river protection works undertaken pursuant to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.
(4) This order does not prevent the management of flow abstractions above the minimum flow in a stepped manner according to published operating schedules.
(5) This order does not prevent the granting of further resource consents for the Rangitata Diversion Race on similar terms and conditions to those imposed on the resource consents held on the date this order comes into force.
13 EXEMPTIONS (1) Nothing in this order prevents the grant of a resource consent that would otherwise contravene the conditions set out in Clauses 8 to 11 if - (a) A consent authority is satisfied that – (i) there are exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of the permit; or (ii) the permit is for a discharge that is of a temporary nature; or (iii) the permit is for a discharge that is associated with necessary construction and maintenance work relating to works and structures not otherwise prohibited by this Order; and (b) the exercise of any such resource consent would not compromise the preservation and protection of the outstanding characteristics and features identified for the waters specified in the Schedules.
6
Schedule 1 Waters to be retained in natural state
All map references are to Infomap 260 series
Item Waters Outstanding characteristics or features Conditions to apply 1 Clyde River and all tributaries Amenity and intrinsic values Natural state Indigenous plant communities Wild and scenic and other natural characteristics Significance for Ngāi Tahu 2 Havelock River and all tributaries Amenity and intrinsic values Natural state Indigenous plant communities Wild and scenic and other natural characteristics Significance for Ngāi Tahu
7 Schedule 2 Protected waters
All map references are to Infomap 260 series
Item Waters Outstanding Characteristic or Features Conditions to apply 1 Rangitata River main stem from confluence with Clyde and Waters in a natural state Clauses 6, Havelock Rivers to the top of the gorge (at or about J36: Amenity and intrinsic values 8(1), 8(3), 636-174) “upper Rangitata” Habitat for aquatic birds 9(1), 9(2)a, Aquatic macro-invertebrates 10, and 11. Salmon spawning & salmon passage Salmon fishing Wild, scenic and other natural characteristics Indigenous plant communities Spiritual, cultural & historical values Rafting, canoeing and jet-boating Significance for Ngāi Tahu 2 Rangitata River main stem from to the top of the gorge (at Waters in a natural state Clauses 6, or about J36: 636-174) to the water level recorder at Amenity and intrinsic values 8(1), 8(3), Klondyke (at or about J36:666-149) “the gorge” Wild, scenic and other natural 9(1), 9(2)a, characteristics 10, and Indigenous plant communities 11 Rafting, canoeing Significance for Ngāi Tahu Contributes to salmon spawning & salmon passage
8 Schedule 2 Protected waters (continued)
3 Unnamed tributaries of the Rangitata River and other water Salmon spawning Clauses 6, bodies adjacent to the Rangitata River joining the Rangitata 8(1), 8(3), River at or about 9(1), 9(2)a, J36 390316 and known as Brabazon Fan; 10, and J36 348379 and known as Black Mountain Stream; 11. J36 414330 and known as Deep Creek (Mt Potts); J36 460242 and known as Deep Stream (Mesopotamia). 4 Rangitata River from map reference (at or about J36:666- Salmon fishing Clauses 6, 149) to SH 72 bridge at Arundel Salmon passage 8(1), 8(3), Water-based recreation 9(1), 9(2)(d),(e),(f), Significance for Ngāi Tahu 9(3), 9(4), 10, and 11. 5 Rangitata River from SH 72 bridge at Arundel to coast. Aquatic bird habitat Clauses 6, Salmon passage 8(1), 8(3), Salmon fishing 9(1), 9(2)(d),(e),(f), Spiritual & cultural values 9(3), 9(4), Significance for Ngāi Tahu 10, and 11. 6 Unnamed tributary known as Ealing Springs Stream joining Salmon spawning Clauses 6, Rangitata River at or about K37 824831 Significance for Ngāi Tahu 8(1), 8(3), 9(1), 9(2)a, 10 and 11. 7 Unnamed tributary known as McKinnons Creek joining Salmon spawning Clauses 6, Rangitata River at or about K38 893702 Significance for Ngāi Tahu 8(1), 8(3), 9(1), 9(2)(d),(e), 9(3), 9(4), 9(5), 10, and 11.
9
Schedule 3 Waters to be protected for their contribution to the above mentioned outstanding features
All map references are to Infomap 260 series Item Waters To maintain Conditions to apply 1 All tributaries of the Rangitata River from Adequate water of sufficient quality for the Clauses 7, the Clyde/Havelock confluence to the water outstanding aquatic bird habitat; braided river 8(2), 8(3), level recorder at Klondyke (at or about characteristics, salmon spawning & juvenile habitat, 9(2)(b),(d),(e), 9(3), J36:666-149) except those otherwise rafting and canoeing, aquatic macro-invertebrates, and 11. referred to in Schedules 1, 2 or 3. indigenous riverbed plants, and significance for Ngāi Tahu 2 All tributaries of the Rangitata River from Adequate water of sufficient quality for the Clauses 7, the water level recorder at Klondyke (at or outstanding aquatic bird habitat; braided river 8(2), 8(3), about J36:666-149) to the sea except those characteristics, salmon fishery, rafting and canoeing, 9(2)(c),(d),(e), otherwise referred to in Schedules 1, 2 or 3. aquatic macro-invertebrates, and significance for 9(3), 9(4), and Ngāi Tahu 11. 3 Shallow groundwater within 15 m below the Adequate water in the Rangitata River and tributaries Clauses 7, ground and less than 1000 m either side of for the outstanding aquatic bird habitat; braided river 9(2)(c),(d),(e), 9(3), a) the main river downstream from characteristics, salmon fishery, rafting and canoeing, 9(4), 9(5), and 9(6). Klondyke (at or about J36:666-149) aquatic macro-invertebrates, and significance for b) the unnamed tributary known as Ngāi Tahu. McKinnons Creek joining Rangitata River at or about K38 893702 c) the unnamed tributary known as Ealing Springs Stream joining Rangitata River at or about K37 824831
10 Appendix 2 List of Submitters
The list of submitters is not included in this version.
Appendix 3 List of Witnesses
Date of appearance Submitter Witnesses 3 - 5 October 2001 Applicant - Stephen Bryce Johnson Christensen (counsel) Jay Graybill Keith Hovell Frank Scarf Mark Webb Martin Unwin Ian Jowett Bruce Digby Basil Sharp Geoff Kerr Bryan Strange Gordon Glova John Stark 8 October 2001 Te Rünanga O Ngäi Tahu Bob Penter and Arowhenua (1070) South Rakaia Bach D B Banwell Owners (902) D B Banwell Ken Banwell (tabled) Karen Banwell (tabled) Steven Osborne (527) John Wilkie (not written) (320) Michael Moore (653) David Johnstone (not written) (53) Frank Scarf (362) Anna Williams (899) Ian Logie (appeared 29/10/01) Watson-Howden Family Ian Watson (736) (20, 164, 165, 679, 681, 736, 676, 677, 678, 688) South Canterbury Branch, Fraser Ross (199) Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ Inc (881) Edith Smith (526)
Date of appearance Submitter Witnesses 9 - 10 October 2001 Ashburton/Rangitata Frank Hamilton (894) Instream Users Group Matthew Hall (290) and (496), Nth Rangitata Huts, Family (65, 846) Sth Rangitata Reserve Karen Hall (922) (338), Canterbury Anglers Matthew Hall Junior (953) Club (520), Save the Martyn Baker (345) Rivers Mid Canterbury , Marian Baker (54) Canterbury Fly Fishing Trevor Isitt (387) Club Inc, Ashburton Club Terry Crum (529) and M.S.A (Fishing and Clive Gilbert (849) Game section), Peter J Boulton (659) and Family (593, 660) Andrew Boulton (592) Jeremy Boulton Christopher Burt (779) John Ell (319) Robert J Mortimer (880) Terry Oakshott (tabled) (335) Tony FitzGerald (479) Geoff Bailey Sefton Gray Alan Cooper (257) Jeremy Walton (120) Fred Van Slooten (493) Robert Metcalf (215) Henry Hill (261) Ian Parkin (599) Ian Watson (736) Murray Lane (557) Cyril Cousins (62) David McPhail (read by John Blanchfield (549)) 10 October 2001 New Zealand Salmon Neville Ellis Anglers Association Inc (789) B W Badland (377) Friends of the Earth NZ Thomas Hay Ltd (728) South Canterbury Anglers E V Davidson Club Inc (244) Women Stepping Outdoors Debbie Martin (713) Sheryl Thompson David Martin
Date of appearance Submitter Witnesses John Hooper (108) 11 October 2001 Philippa Grigg (86) Gary Rooney (883) Mark Webb (441) Ryan Parkin (706) Ian Parkin (599) Kevin Frazier (906) South Canterbury Branch Grant Ivey (316) of New Zealand Salmon Philip De Joux (750) Anglers Association (318) David Loomes (310) Richard Muhl (571) Susan Rapach (570) John Hodgson (747) Alexander Furness (399) Alan Brookes (875) Jacqueline Russell (796) (read by V Lynn) Vaughan Lynn (797) Rex Hobbs (735) 12 October 2001 Tinaka Enterprises (685) Peter Shutt George Anderson (11) Richard Taylor Kevin Payne (652) Payne Family (492, 616, Kevin Payne (652) 656) Ross Millichamp (916) Maurice Pentecost (317) Rex Whiting (323) de Joux family (58, 576, Steven de Joux (791) 750, 791) Phil de Joux (750) Kit Silcock (552) 29 October 2001 Director General of Mike Cuddihy Conservation (1002) - Colin O’Donnell Evan Alty (counsel) Ken Hughey Martin Rutledge David Stewart Stephen Baker (appeared 6/11/01) Di Lucas (appeared 6/11/01) Ministry of Agriculture Grant McFadden and Forestry (996) John Bright 30 October – 1 November Environment Canterbury Richard Johnson 2001 (714) – Malcolm Stewart- Alan Rackham Wallace (counsel) Shirley Hayward Warwick Pascoe Maurice Duncan
Paul Mosley Christina Robb Craig Mason 2 November 2001 Royal Forest and Bird Peter Howden (688) Protection Society Inc Edith Smith (526) (1060) (representing Eric Pyle Central Office, Ashburton, Mark Davis Marlborough (176), Scott Butcher Golden Bay (490), Frances Schmechel Dunedin (162), Nelson/Tasman (413), Kapati (457), Thames/Hauraki (1056), Te Puke (259), Wairoa (1072) Branches) – Kate Mitcalfe (counsel) Geoffrey Newton (1116) Alan Taggart (704) Stack Family (761) Daniel Stack Ray Prouting (not written) (609) Robyn McKenzie (1134) 6 November 2001 W G and L A Burdon W G Burdon (202) (202) and Pecora Farms Ltd (746) Whiterock Enterprises Ltd J Ecroyd (870) (717) & J & N Ecroyd (870, 872)
Mayfield Hinds Irrigation Alan Taggart (704) Society Ltd (578) Stuart Wilson Wyvern Jones David Keeley (756) Mark Slee Central Plains Water (491) Walter Leuthwaite New Zealand Jet Boat Katie James Association (1022) Guy Mannering (361) Rangitata Gorge Landcare Don Prouting (718) Group (515) Mt Peel Station (446) Rosemary Acland D A and H F Prouting (718) 7 November 2001 Rangitata South Irrigation Ian Morten (125) Ltd (436) Peter Callander David Attewell Ruapuna Irrigation Ltd Robert McDowell (987)
Date of appearance Submitter Witnesses 8 November 2001 New Zealand Recreational Dr Douglas Rankin Canoeing Assocation Wayne Keenan (1015) Maree Baker Sue Harrison South (71) (counsel) Jonathon Hunt Warren Gualter Maree Baker Ian Logie Michael Barnes (tabled) Linda Wensley (tabled) Timaru Civic Trust (1026) Tony Sleigh Murray Turley (727) 9 November 2001 Ashburton Lyndhurst George Brown Irrigation Society Ltd Andy MacFarlane (1012) Will Nixon Barry Croucher Beverley Tasker (1122) Rupert Curd (687) John Cocks (763) Bryan Beeston (427) Greenstreet Irrigation Stuart Walkham Society Ltd (547) Alastair Studholme (940) Laurence and Malcolm Laurence Prouting Prouting Russel Lister (707) Alan Turley (726) Malcolm Lill (915) Colin Bryant (759) Thomas Corbett (982) Ben Mcleod Station (751) Donald Aubrey 26 November 2001 Federated Farmers of Mid Stuart Wilson Canterbury (757) Meat and Fibre Section T D Wilkinson Federated Farmers Mid Canterbury (1013) Donald McFarlane (752) Canterbury Aoraki Alan Joliffe Conservation Board (1003) New Zealand Federation of Bevan Wilkie United Seafood Interests Inc (503) New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation (tabled) (930)
Date of appearance Submitter Witnesses 27, 29, 30 November 2001 Rangitata Diversion Race John Young Management Limited Ian Lees (1014) and Trustpower Richard de Joux New Zealand Limited Henry Hudson (966) – Nicholas Davidson Greg Ryder QC and Rachel Donald Jellyman Dunningham (counsel) Jim Jolly Basil Ivey Bob Engelbrecht Roger Burchett Kelvin Sanderson David Lowe Robert Batty 6 December 2001 Forest Creek Station (421) Doug Harpur – Amanda Douglas (counsel) Ashburton River Irrigation Ron Cocks Association Incorporated (762) Mark Lemon (691) Ashburton Community A D Argyle Water Trust (927) John Bright 7 December 2001 Rangitata Sustainable Nigel Gormack Trust (754) Dave Attewell Mid Canterbury Irrigation Mark Lemon (691) Enhancement Society Will Nixon (697) Alan Pickens 8 December 2001 James Jolly (898) Ashburton District Council Murray Anderson (925), Timaru District Michael Singleton Council (425), T & J Geoff Butcher Johnson (388, 396), Stuart Ford Pye Partnership (437) – Wynn Raymond Philip Milne (Counsel) Fiona Eunson Trevor Johnson (388) Leighton and Diana Pye (437) (tabled) 11 – 12 December 2001 Federated Farmers of New Pam Richardson Zealand Inc (939), Tom Lambie Combined Canterbury Ivon Hurst Provinces, Rangitata Jacob Haronga Community Catchment Tim Mutter Group (890), South Tom Henderson (725) Canterbury Federated Bob Douglas Farmers (1000?) Alison Undorf-Lay Andrew Hume Allan Andrews
Appendix 4 Abbreviations, symbols and terms
Abbreviations and symbols
ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CMA Coastal Marine Area (defined in RMA) CSI Central South Island Fish and Game Council DoC Department of Conservation ECan Environment Canterbury (Canterbury Regional Council) FTE When referring to jobs/employment - full time equivalent workers l/s litres per second MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry m metre m3/s cubic metres per second NRRP Environment Canterbury’s draft Natural Resources Regional Plan NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units RDR Rangitata Diversion Race RPS Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (ECan) RMA Resource Management Act 1991 SSWI Sites of special wildlife importance (a national inventory undertaken in the 1980s by the Wildlife Service) Definition of terms Abstraction in relation to a water body, means the taking of water from that water body. Amenity values as defined in RMA Section 2: “Amenity values means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.” Braided River any river with multiple successively divergent and rejoining channels separated by gravel islands Dam to create any kind of temporary or permanent barrier to water Ecosystem plants, animals, their physical environment, and the dynamic processes that link them Intrinsic values as defined in RMA Section 2: “Intrinsic values in relation to ecosystems, means those aspects of ecosystems and their constituent parts which have value in their own right, including – Their biological and genetic diversity; and The essential characteristics that determine an ecosystem’s integrity, form, functioning, and resilience.” Mauri essential life force or principle; a metaphysical quality inherent in all things Mahinga Kāi or the customary gathering of food and natural materials and the Mahika Kāi places where these resources are gathered (Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998) Ngāi Tahu and the collective of the individuals who descend from the primary
Ngāi Tahu Whānui hapū of Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe, and Ngāi Tahu, namely, Kāti Kuri, Kāti Irakehu, Kāti Huirapa, Ngāi Tuahuriri, and Kāi Te Ruahikihiki (Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998) Periphyton The term "periphyton" refers to the slimy growth (sometimes in long strands) often found on stones and other surfaces on the stream bed. Periphyton consists mainly of algae which are simple plants. Stream depletion is a factor, measured in units of days, giving an indication of factor (sdf) degree of connection between a well and a stream. The sdf is inversely related to the degree of connection, i.e., a low stream depletion factor indicates good connection. Tangata whenua or as in RMA – in relation to a particular area, means the iwi, or hapū Takata whenua that holds mana whenua over that area
Appendix 5 Maps
Maps are not included in this version.