From: Shelby Managh To: Mailroom Mailbox Subject: Proposed Plan Change 7 to the LWRP Submission Date: Thursday, 12 September 2019 1:07:54 PM

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached to this email Trustpowers submission on proposed Plan Change 7 to the Canterbury LWRP.

Thanks

Shelby Managh Environmental Advisor - Policy

Trustpower

M 027 269 9488 E shelby.managh@.co.nz Trustpower Limited, Private Bag 12023, Tauranga 3143, trustpower.co.nz

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose this email or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete both emails from your system. It is your responsibility to check this email and any attachments for viruses or other harmful code before opening or sending on. Trustpower Limited and its subsidiaries (collectively, Trustpower) accepts no responsibility for any such virus or any effects of a virus on your systems or data. Trustpower does not endorse anything in this email that is not related to its official business. Please think of the environment before printing this email.

rrrust . ' powerm

Proposed Plan Change 7

A submission to the Canterbury Regional Council

September 2019

Trustpower Submission 1 September 2019

SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED CHANGE 7 TO THE CANTERBURY LAND AND WATER REGIONAL PLAN UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

To: Canterbury Regional Council Email: [email protected] Submission on: Proposed Plan Change 7 – Part A Submitter name: Trustpower Limited Address for service: Trustpower Limited Private Bag 12023 TAURANGA 3143 Att: Nicola Foran

Phone: 021 908 951

Email: [email protected]

Trustpower Limited (“Trustpower”) makes the following submission to the Environment Canterbury Regional Council on Proposed Plan Change 7 to the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (“PC7”).

Trustpower’s submission on the individual provisions of PC7 is set out in the attached document.

Trustpower could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.

Trustpower would like to be heard in support of its submission.

If others make a similar submission, Trustpower would be prepared to consider a joint case.

Signature:

Nicola Foran For, and on behalf of, Trustpower Limited

Dated: 12 September 2019

Trustpower Submission 2 September 2019

1.0 Introduction and Overview

1.1 Trustpower is a New Zealand based renewable electricity generator and multi product retailer, offering electricity, gas and telecommunication services. With a history dating back to 1915, Trustpower’s electricity generation portfolio consists of 19 hydro-electric power schemes (“HEPS”) throughout New Zealand. Within the Canterbury Region, Trustpower owns and operates the Coleridge HEPS, a 40 MW station, and the Highbank and Montalto HEPS, a combined 28 MW scheme. 1.2 Trustpower is committed to responsible and effective energy generation and to applying industry best practice to these activities. Trustpower acknowledges the importance of the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, to its continued operations, and has adopted a set of environmental policies which encourage the practical minimisation of any adverse environmental impacts associated with the company’s activities. Trustpower is also active in various environmental initiatives within the vicinity of its generation assets. 1.3 Trustpower has also successfully developed the Project by augmenting the use of the Coleridge HEPS in a staged manner so that water stored in the lake is able to be utilised for enhancing irrigation reliability on the Canterbury Plains, as well as additional hydro-electricity generation. This was achieved by Trustpower successfully varying the Nation Water Conservation ( River) Order 1988 (“Rakaia WCO”) in 2013 to enable the future consenting, construction, and operation of the Lake Coleridge Project.

2.0 Trustpower’s Unique Portfolio

2.1 A number of Trustpower’s electricity generation schemes are embedded into the local energy supply network and form a vital element in sustainable energy supply within New Zealand. The location and scale of Trustpower schemes, along with a commitment to local supply (so as to ensure that electricity is consumed as close as possible to where it is generated) is a key and somewhat unique feature of Trustpower’s generation philosophy and portfolio. 2.2 Trustpower differs from other electricity generators in the following ways:  Its assets are typically moderate in scale and output;

 The schemes are relatively numerous and complex;

 The capital investment in individual schemes is modest in comparison to other large generators; and

 The schemes are spread throughout a number of districts and regions in New Zealand often serving provincial areas where other large generators are not present.

3.0 Trustpower’s General Submission

3.1 Trustpower is interested in this plan change for the implications which the indigenous freshwater species habitat layer means for a number of our structures and corresponding activities at Lake Coleridge. 3.2 The Coleridge Hydro-Electric Power Scheme diverts water from the Harper and Wilberforce Rivers, through canals, into Lake Coleridge. Intake structures for the power

Trustpower Submission 3 September 2019

station are located at the south-eastern end of the Lake. The Coleridge Power Station discharges water back into the . 3.3 The Coleridge HEPS utilises a range of structures to support its ongoing operation, and also to provide valuable real time monitoring information on hydrological conditions. This data is also used to demonstrate compliance with the associated resource consents, and ensure adverse effects on the environment are minimised. 3.4 For Trustpower, it is critical that these monitoring structures are able to be maintained so that they can continue to provide hydrological data. In addition, on occasion new monitoring structures need to be installed to provide additional information or to replace redundant structures. 3.5 Trustpower’s specific relief sought in relation to this submission is detailed in Section 4 below. 3,6 For more information on the structures and monitoring installations used in Lake Coleridge, please refer to Appendix B. This gives details and photographs of the structures associated with the Coleridge HEPS.

Trustpower Submission 4 September 2019

4.0 Relief Sought by Trustpower

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) Definitions: Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat Support Trustpower supports the addition of this definition Retain as notified. that outlines which indigenous freshwater species New means an area identified as are being provided for in the Indigenous ‘Indigenous Freshwater Species Definition of Freshwater Species Habitat layer identified in the Habitat’ on the Planning Maps, and Indigenous Planning Maps. which provides habitat for at least one Freshwater of the freshwater species listed below: Species 1. Giant kōkopu/Taiwharu (Galaxias Habitat argenteus) 2. Lowland longjaw galaxias (Waitaki) (Galaxias cobitinis) 3. Canterbury mudfish/Kōwaro (Neochanna burrowsius) 4. Bignose galaxias (Galaxias macronasus) 5. Upland longjaw galaxias (Galaxias prognathus) 6. Upland longjaw galaxias (Waitaki) (Galaxias prognathus) 7. Shortjaw kōkopu (Galaxias postvectis) 8. Northern flathead galaxias (Species N (undescribed)) 9. Lamprey/Kanakana (Geotria australis)

Trustpower Submission 5 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) 10. Freshwater crayfish/Kekewai (Paranephrops zealandicus) 11. Freshwater mussel/Kākahi (Echyridella menziesi) Abstraction 4.61 A Preserve indigenous biological Support in Trustpower supports the intent of this policy in Amend as follows: diversity within water bodies by Part providing for both freshwater habitat values and of Water a. by refusing any application to take requiring applications to abstract the needs of the community. water that would reduce the area or surface water or stream depleting Policy 4.61A Renewable electricity generation (“REG”) activities compromise the values of the groundwater to assess the potential are of national significance with national, regional, Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat, effects, including cumulative effects, and local benefits. The National Policy Statement except for an application to take water of the proposed abstraction on any for Renewable Electricity Generation (“NPS-REG”) for a community water supply or an Indigenous Freshwater Species directs decision makers to recognise and provide existing hydro-electric power scheme; Habitat, and: for the maintenance or increase in electricity and

generation capacity and security of electricity a. by refusing any application to take supply. It also directs decision makers to have b. if the application is to take water for water that would reduce the area or particular regard to the maintenance of a community water supply or an compromise the values of the generation output of existing REG activities by way existing hydro-electric power scheme Indigenous Freshwater of maintaining operational capacity. and the take would reduce the area or Species Habitat, except for an compromise the values of the application to take water for a Trustpower submits that existing hydro-electric Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat, community water supply; and power schemes should be exempt from the policy allow any significant adverse effects on to give effect to the NPS-REG. This will avoid that habitat to be offset by the creation b. if the application is to take water for reductions in the generation output which can of new habitat in the same surface a community water supply and the otherwise have cumulative significant adverse water catchment and with the same or take would reduce the area or effects on national, regional, and local outputs, improved habitat characteristics. compromise the values of the and compromise the objective and values of the

Indigenous Freshwater Species NPS-REG. Habitat, allow any significant adverse effects on that habitat to be offset by the creation of new habitat

Trustpower Submission 6 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) in the same surface water catchment and with the same or improved habitat characteristics. Habitat of Avoid the damage or loss of Support in Trustpower supports in part the intention of this Amend as follows: Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat Part policy where effects of habitat damage are Indigenous Activities shall be managed to caused by sediment discharges, remedied or mitigated, or habitat loss will be minimise Avoid the damage or loss of Freshwater vegetation clearance, excavation and offset. However, it opposes the use of the word Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat Species deposition of material, or other ‘avoid’ in relation to the activities referred to in caused by sediment discharges, disturbance in a surface water body, the policy. vegetation clearance, excavation and unless: Trustpower understands that this policy is likely to deposition of material, or other a. the effects of habitat damage will give effect to Objective 9.2.1 of the Canterbury disturbance in a surface water body, Policy 4.101 be remedied or mitigated; or Regional Policy Statement which seeks to halt the unless: decline of the regions ecosystems and indigenous b. the habitat loss will be offset by the a. the effects of habitat damage will be biodiversity. creation of new habitat in the same remedied or mitigated; or surface water catchment and with the Trustpower submits that the level of activities b. the habitat loss will be offset by the same or improved habitat which have the potential to cause damage or loss creation of new habitat in the same characteristics. to habitat should be managed in a way in which surface water catchment and with the effects are minimised. This enables such activities same or improved habitat that have positive effects on the environment, characteristics. such as excavation of excess sediment or the removal of pest plant species, while also minimising any loss or damage to indigenous habitat. This also works to halt the decline of ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity by managing negative effects on the environment and allowing indigenous habitats to thrive. Habitat of Structures enable the safe passage of Oppose in Trustpower understands the intent of this policy, Amend Policy 4.102 as follows: indigenous fish, while avoiding as far Part in that the construction of new in-stream Indigenous Structures enable the safe passage of as practicable, the passage of any structures should not to prevent fish passage. indigenous fish, while avoiding as far as

Trustpower Submission 7 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) Freshwater invasive, pest or nuisance fish species However, it has concerns around the implications practicable, the passage of any invasive, Species by: under ‘b’ for existing lawfully established pest or nuisance fish species by: structures, which may impede fish passage, and a. the appropriate design, a. the appropriate design, construction, may not be easily modifiable, and where removal construction, installation and installation and maintenance of new in- is not appropriate. In particular, some structures maintenance of new in-stream stream structures; and needed for renewable electricity generation may Policy 4.102 structures; and impede fish passage. However, as part of lawfully b. where reasonably practicable, b. the modification, reconstruction or establishing these structures, the impacts on fish consider the modification or removed of existing in-stream passage were assessed. reconstruction or removed of existing structures. in-stream structures which impede the Trustpower also notes that there is no objective safe passage of indigenous fish as associated to this proposed policy, and so it required by any new or variation to an remains unclear as to what this policy is seeking to existing resource consent for that achieve. However, there is an existing Objective structure. which provides for nationally and regionally significant infrastructure being enabled. (Obj 3.3) It is understood from the S32 report that this policy will apply when resource consent applications are lodged for new or existing structures. However, that is not clear in the reading of the policy, and should be rectified. Trustpower submits that greater clarity is incorporated into the policy as per the relief sought or any similar relief. Also, for the policy to include the words “reasonably practicable” to indicate that there are no unreasonable expectations set upon lawfully existing structures. Structures The use and maintenance of Oppose Trustpower understands that the Council has Amend Rule 5.139 as follows: structures, excluding dams, on, in or included this provision, as well as others, to 4. Except for bridges, culverts, pipes, under the bed of a lake or river are strengthen the management of activities which Rule 5.139 ducts, cables and wires and their associated support structures or

Trustpower Submission 8 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) permitted activities, provided the can result in the damage to or loss of habitat of structures associated with existing following conditions are met: indigenous freshwater species. hydro-electric power schemes, the maintenance of that part of the 1.The structures have been lawfully While it is understood that man-made structures structure within the bed of a lake or established; and can still provide habitat to indigenous species, river is not undertaken within a salmon Trustpower’s intake and associated structures do 2.Any material deposited in, on, under spawning site listed in Schedule 17, or not become fully submerged, and due to their or over the bed in order to maintain in any inanga spawning habitat during nature, it is not possible for the species the Council the structure is of inert materials of the inanga spawning season of 1 March seek to protect to make the inside of the structure colour and material type that to 1 June inclusive, or in any Indigenous suitable for habitat. blends with the surrounding natural Freshwater Species Habitat. environment, is not contaminated Trustpower currently has consent to excavate and

with any hazardous substance; and remove material up to 80 meters along the shoreline from Beban Groyne for maintenance 3.Any upgrading or minor alteration purposes. Trustpower requests that a 40 meter does not increase the footprint, buffer zone be allocated within the layer to allow height, or external envelope of the Trustpower to continue with maintenance works structure; and in this area to avoid the accumulation of sediment. 4. Except for bridges, culverts, pipes, Trustpower submits that the Indigenous ducts, cables and wires and their Freshwater Species Habitat layer excludes associated support structures the structures associated with hydro-electric maintenance of that part of the generation activities within Lake Coleridge. structure within the bed of a lake or Namely, the intake and groyne structures on the river is not undertaken within a west side of the lake, as well as the weir which salmon spawning site listed in covers the mouth of the Oakden Canal. Schedule 17, or in any inanga spawning habitat during the inanga spawning season of 1 March to 1 June inclusive, or in any Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat. Structures The installation, alteration, extension Oppose Monitoring equipment and devices allows the Remove the addition of the Indigenous or removal of any equipment or monitoring of activities to measure and determine Freshwater Species Habitat to clause 5 device on or in the bed of a lake or potential or actual effects on the environment, as as below:

Trustpower Submission 9 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) 5.140A river, that is for the purpose of well as providing general state of the environment 5. The installation, alteration, extension monitoring, measuring, or taking information. In Trustpower’s view, it seems or removal of any equipment or device samples from any surface waterbody, contrary to the purpose of the Plan to restrict the is not undertaken in any inanga and the associated excavation, use of monitoring equipment in these spawning habitat during the inanga disturbance and consequential environments. The effects of monitoring spawning season of 1 March to 1 June deposition of substances on, in or equipment on the environment is less than minor, inclusive, or in any Indigenous under the bed of a lake or river is a often being attached to existing structures or Freshwater Species Habitat. permitted activity, provided the placed unobtrusively to gain an understanding of

following conditions are met: the environment. … Monitoring equipment is also not for the sole benefit of one particular party, as other parties use 5. The installation, alteration, monitoring equipment and/or the associated data extension or removal of any collected from it, including the Regional Council, equipment or device is not for monitoring and implementing the NPS-FM, as undertaken in any inanga spawning well as fulfilling the purpose of the RMA where habitat during the inanga spawning Council has a duty to monitor and gather season of 1 March to 1 June inclusive, information. or in any Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat. Removing the permitted status of this activity hinders the Council’s obligations to monitor and report on the state of the environment, as well as Trustpower’s and other parties abilities to assess the effects of their activities on the environment. Trustpower submits that the appropriate controls are already in place through the existing rule, and the inclusion of the Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat layer is redundant to the objectives and policies of the Plan.

Trustpower Submission 10 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) Vegetation The introduction or planting of any Support Trustpower supports the conservation of Retain as notified. in Lake and plant, or the removal and disturbance vegetation in habitat areas. If vegetation clearance of existing vegetation in, on or under were to remain a permitted activity in these areas, Riverbeds the bed of a lake or river and any there is a risk of clearance taking place that could associated discharge of sediment or hinder indigenous habitats. Converting this activity sediment-laden water in to restricted discretionary status gives the Council circumstances where sediment may control over what type of clearance could be 5.163 enter surface water is a permitted allowed in this area. For example, the Council activity, provided the following could permit the removal of aquatic weeds which conditions are met: threaten indigenous plants in order to cultivate indigenous habitat and halt its decline. …

7. Vegetation clearance does not occur in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17, or in any inanga spawning habitat during the period of 1 January to 1 June inclusive; or in any Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat; and Planning Planning maps 41, 41, 47, and 48 Oppose While Trustpower supports the intention of the As per Appendix A. which cover Lake Coleridge. Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat layer to Maps protect identified species, being koura within Lake Coleridge, it opposes the layer intersecting structures associated with existing hydro-electric power schemes. As previously stated in the submission point for 5.139, it is understood that man-made structures can still provide habitat to indigenous species. However, as Trustpower’s intakes and associated structures do not become fully submerged, and due to their nature, it is not possible for the

Trustpower Submission 11 September 2019

Chapter & Proposed Provision Trustpower’s Relief Sought (additions underlined, Trustpower’s Submission Provision Position deletions struck through) species the Council seek to protect to make the inside of the structure suitable for habitat. Trustpower currently has consent to excavate and remove material up to 80 meters along the shoreline from Beban Groyne, on the west side of the lake, for maintenance purposes. Trustpower requests that a 40 meter buffer zone be allocated within the layer to allow Trustpower to continue with maintenance works in this area to avoid the accumulation of sediment which will impact the quality of the Lake. Also for the layer to stop before the weir which covers the mouth of the Oakden Canal. Planning Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat Support in As mentioned in the previous submission point, Trustpower requests that the layer be Maps layer (and in particular for Lake Part Trustpower supports the intention of the layer and reviewed and amended for greater Coleridge) the outcome the Council are seeking to achieve. accuracy. However it has concerns that the layer is not accurate, and often encompasses sections of land which are clearly vehicle access ways, and excludes areas of water. It is understood that some of the species identified in the layers definition may, on occasion, move above the water level or to the land area immediately surrounding a waterbody. However it is not clear why the layer would exclude parts of a waterbody. Trustpower submits that this lack of clarity is confusing and could cause issues in the future.

Trustpower Submission 12 September 2019

Appendix A: Proposed Buffer Zones of Trustpower Assets from Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat Layer

Image of the Weir at Lake Coleridge

Figure 1: Weir intersecting Oakden Canal and Lake Coleridge and proposed buffer zone

Figure 1 shows the latest imagery of the weir which intersects Oakden Canal and Lake Coleridge. The purple and black layer is the current Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat layer. The drawn green line is the proposed boundary for the layer which Trustpower is proposing to change as per the submission point for the Planning Maps.

Trustpower Submission 13 September 2019

Image of Trustpower intake structures at Lake Coleridge

Figure 2: Trustpower intake structures and proposed buffer zone

Figure 2 shows the latest imagery of Trustpower’s intake structures at Lake Coleridge. Two of the orange arrows point towards these structures, one being the Coleridge Intake Tunnel 2, located in the side of the lake, the other being the small white dot which the arrow points to. This second intake structure is an in-lake structure, Intake Tunnel 1, which sits in the lake and pumps water into a nearby pumping shed which then connects the water to the Coleridge HEPS. There are more images in Appendix B which show further detail of these, and other, structures. The purple and black layer is the current Indigenous Freshwater Species Habitat layer. The drawn green line is the proposed boundary for the layer which Trustpower is proposing to change as per the submission point for the Planning Maps.

Trustpower Submission 14 September 2019

Appendix B: Structures and Monitoring Installations associated with Coleridge HEPS

The below images show the structures and some examples of monitoring equipment which Trustpower has installed in Lake Coleridge. This has been included to demonstrate to Council the nature and purpose of these structures. Particularly our monitoring equipment which is attached to existing structures for the purpose of further clarifying Trustpower’s position on rule 5.140A. Image 1: Lake Coleridge instantaneous lake level gauge

Date Taken: 1 June 2016

Trustpower Submission 15 September 2019

Image 2: In-lake Intake Tunnel 1, artificial groyne, and instantaneous lake level gauge

Date Taken: 4 November 2014

Image 3: Lake Coleridge instantaneous lake level gauge

Date Taken: 4 November 2014

Trustpower Submission 16 September 2019

Image 4: Coleridge Intake Tunnel 2, outlook from the instantaneous lake level gauge

Date Taken: 4 November 2014

Image 5: Artificial groyne protecting Intake Tunnel 2 from rough lake conditions

Date Taken: 5 May 2014

Trustpower Submission 17 September 2019

Image 6: Example of the rough conditions the Groyne protects Intake Tunnel 2 from

Date Taken: 5 May 2014

Image 7: In-lake Intake Tunnel 1

Date Taken: 4 November 2014

Trustpower Submission 18 September 2019

Image 8: Pumping station which connects Intake Tunnel 1 to the rest of the Coleridge HEPS

Date Taken: 4 November 2014

Trustpower Submission 19 September 2019

Image 9: Oakden Canal Weir

__... --,---

~-., ..!S J• . ·- •'\ "Pl• - ... - , ~ ,- , ...... ~ l ~ ~-"1-•·• ' ..:~~ •' "' 4llr • . ': ..' .,,'f '-'··· .,,,. . . ,.. 1 ·'.,. -'· l - •; . ., .~.. ··•-- ' ~. • . ·•.. : .,. '.· I{~;. ' ~-''::-i·-~~r.~~· .. -~,.. i: .: -lo,.-: ·,l•;-. · . . ,; . .. 1¥\•l..., .. _. ....

,-,.--· ._->~r.(:-fJ~ .:-·,.~~tm,p~· • :::.-:} . '·•. ··;;.,~ - -~-q,. v.-_. . . , . ~ 'S 1, .\ ,. • ' .--.•u .. ~~•·• 7 • . -" ~~. . . • ·\I ( ·:> ·. .f ~-~.:, .. ,.l" '!-•· .' , ~- . • •.. ., . . • \ .· . .., .. , -.. :(-1, ".' ...... :., 'f'-ii . \ .. .,r . .. , . •...... L• .. n ~ Date Taken: 18 January 2019

Image 10: Oakden Canal Weir

Date Taken: 22 March 2016

Trustpower Submission 20 September 2019

Image 11: Coleridge upper lake level staff gauge

Date Taken: 10 September 2018

Image 12: Coleridge upper lake level staff gauge

Date Taken: 2 November 2015

Trustpower Submission 21 September 2019

Image 13: Coleridge upper lake level

Date Taken: 18 January 2019

Image 14: Coleridge lake stream gate

Date Taken: 10 September 2018

Trustpower Submission 22 September 2019

Image 15: Lake stream gate level gauge

Date Taken: 10 September 2018

Trustpower Submission 23 September 2019