Cultural values & water management issues for the Hekeao/Hinds Catchment
Report No. R14/84 ISBN 978-1-927314-53-1 (print) 978-1-927314-54-8 (web) 978-1-927314-55-5 (cd)
Report prepared for Environment Canterbury by Tipa & Associates
July 2013
Report No. R14/84 ISBN 978-1-927314-53-1 (print) 978-1-927314-54-8 (web) 978-1-927314-55-5 (cd)
PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Phone (03) 365 3828 Fax (03) 365 3194
75 Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940 Phone (03) 687 7800 Fax (03) 687 7808
Website: www.ecan.govt.nz Customer Services Phone 0800 324 636
This report represents advice to Environment Canterbury and any views, conclusions or recommendations do not represent Council policy. The information in this report, together with any other information, may be used by the Council to formulate resource management policies, e.g., in the preparation or review of regional plans.
C
CULTURAL VALUES & WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
FOR THE
HEKEAO / HINDS CATCHMENT
Prepared by Tipa & Associates
July 2013
2
3
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...... 5 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ...... 6 1.3 TERMINOLOGY ...... 6 CHAPTER 2 – THE SETTING ...... 7 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 7 2.1 TE RUNANGA O NGAI TAHU ACT 1996 ...... 7 2.2 TE RUNANGA O AROWHENUA ...... 7 2.4 THE HINDS CATCHMENT ...... 8 2.4 THE RANGITATA CATCHMENT ...... 10 2.5 IRRIGATION ...... 10 CHAPTER 3 – METHODS TO INCORPORATE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ...... 13 3.1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS ...... 13 3.2 APPLICATION OF THE SIX STEP PARTICIPATORY PROCESS IN THE HINDS ...... 14 3.3 THE COMPONENTS OF THE CHI ...... 15 3.4 THE TEAM ...... 17 CHAPTER 4 – CULTURAL ASSOCIATION WITH THE RANGITATA AND THE HINDS ...... 19 4.1 BACKGROUND ...... 19 4.2 WAHI TAPU / TAONGA ...... 19 4.3. SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERGENERATIONAL LINKS ...... 20 4.4 WAI MAORI ...... 21 4.5 PLACENAMES ...... 22 4.5 MAHINGA KAI ...... 26 4.7 RESERVES AND EASEMENTS ...... 28 4.8 TAONGA SPECIES ...... 28 4.9 TRAILS ...... 29 4.10 CONTEMPORARY ASSOCIATIONS ...... 29 4.10 GOING FORWARD ...... 31 CHAPTER 5 – PERCEIVED WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 43 5.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...... 43 5.2 PRESSURES ON THE SYSTEM ...... 44 5.3 GENERAL CONCERNS ...... 46 CHAPTER 6: THE ASSESSMENTS OF 2013 ...... 49 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 83 REFERENCES ...... 87
4
5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Humans require access to reliable and predictable supplies of water in order to flourish. It is the only substance that all living things must have or die.
Historically Ngai Tahu lived on the shores of lakes, wetlands, streams and lagoons across Canterbury. They developed use patterns moving across designated whanau and hapu managed territories. Today the landscapes and patterns of settlements across Canterbury bear little resemblance to the places known and valued by those who ranged over them hundreds of years ago. Yet, the modifications have not severed the relationship of Ngai Tahu with the lands and waters of Canterbury. The Crown recognised this relationship as early as 1848 in the original Sale Deeds (and further evidenced by the later Crown Grants of lands) and more recently in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. Many schedules to that Act contain Statutory Acknowledgements of Canterbury rivers including the Rangitata and the Hekeao (Hinds). As Manawhenua, through whakapapa, Ngai Tahu have an enduring relationship that is accompanied by a responsibility to assess how the use and development of freshwaters impact their cultural beliefs, values, practices and most significantly their customary and Treaty rights to lands and waters in Canterbury.
This report serves dual purposes. While the primary purpose is to discuss the nature of the values of Manawhenua with respect to freshwater, as part of a broader discussion of beliefs, rights and responsibilities, it is also intended to aid Environment Canterbury decide the future use and protection of the catchment. It also highlights some of the concerns of Ngai Tahu whanau who have, for generations, voiced their concerns at the continual development of the waterways, which (today) are degraded as a result of what Ngai Tahu perceive as inappropriate use and development.
1.1 Project objectives and methodology
The overall objective of this project is to determine the water management requirements of the Rangitata and Hinds Catchments. More specifically, this investigation will: Identify the current and potential water dependent cultural values of the catchment; Gauge the perceived health of current interests; Identify the characteristics that whanau believe will maintain, rehabilitate or restore their values; Recommend management priorities to produce a catchment that meets the Kaitiakitanga standards in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy; and Analyse the degree to which the recommended management regime is consistent with current management regimes
6
To realise this objective we have:
1) Introduced some publicly available cultural information pertaining to cultural interests associated with the Hinds and the Rangitata;
2) Identified the extent and/or location of their interests;
3) Identified water related issues associated with these interests that are of concern to Manawhenua that need to be addressed by Environment Canterbury.
The principal sources of historical information were obtained from written records held by Ngai Tahu. These data are complemented by the field assessments undertaken by whanau in April 2013.
1.2 Structure of this Report
This report has been divided into a number of chapters: Chapter 1 sets out the scope, objectives and terminology used. Chapter 2 introduces the Rangitata, Hinds and Te Runanga o Arowhenua. Chapter 3 outlines the method used Chapter 4 discusses the cultural values of the Hinds catchment Chapter 5 presents the results of the cultural assessment Chapter 6 concludes with a series of recommendations.
1.3 Terminology
This report is principally concerned with the values of Manawhenua. While Manawhenua is discussed more fully in Chapter 2 definitions for a number of key phrases are given below.
Mana whenua is the term used to describe the right to use resources in an area. Accompanying this is the right and responsibility to make management decisions.
Manawhenua is the term used to describe the people who hold and exercise the rights of mana whenua.
Ngai Tahu In this report this is a collective term used often in substitution to identify all Ngai Tahu across Canterbury who exercise the rights of Manawhenua in the specific localised contexts within the Canterbury Region.
7
CHAPTER 2 – THE SETTING
2.0 Background Water is the foundation of life. It sustains flora and fauna, enhancing and enriching life. It is also the key driver of ecosystem and economic development. Historically, water sustained settlements and cultural practices (including mahinga kai); it nourished taonga species and provided navigational pathways. Although its ability to sustain these cultural values today may be compromised, water remains a source of sustenance in Canterbury. Where water is scarce or in demand – as it is across the Canterbury region - its centrality is even more pronounced. This has the potential to place Ngai Tahu in competition or conflict with non-Maori seeking to utilise valued waters for what Ngai Tahu contends are unsustainable uses that will seriously and possible irreversibly impact cultural ties to those same waters.
For Ngai Tahu the value of water in the Canterbury catchments involves more than just the economic value of contested water, or the debate between instream versus extractive uses. The maintenance of flowing streams with high quality water has become a symbol to Ngai Tahu of the determination to preserve their whakapapa, the use of their whenua (which includes reserve lands and easements previously granted by the Crown, plus entitlements and other acknowledgements from the Settlement), and the rivers that have sustained them historically.
Within this chapter four aspects are discussed: Identification of Manawhenua interests in Mid and South Canterbury; and Identification of Manawhenua interests in the freshwaters of Canterbury.
2.1 Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996 The legal identity of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu is established in the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996. It is the tribal representative body of Ngai Tahu whanui. It is a body corporate, established on 24 April 1996 under section 16 of the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996. Pursuant to section 3 of that Act, “the Act binds the Crown and every person (including any body politic or corporate) whose rights are affected by any provision of this Act”. The members of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu are the 18 papatipu Runanga, each of which is defined in the Act, as is the takiwa for each. Te Runanga Arowhenua is one such Runanga. This Act establishes who holds manawhenua rights over specific lands and waters within the rohe of Ngai Tahu. Te Runanga o Arowhenua is based at Temuka.
2.2 Te Runanga o Arowhenua As one of the 18 papatipu Runanga, the takiwa of Te Runanga o Arowhenua, as defined in the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996, extends from Rakaia to Waitaki, and thence inland to Aoraki and the Main Divide. The Rangitata and Hinds Catchments are wholly within the takiwa of Te Runanga o Arowhenua. 8
Figure 1: The takiwa of Te Runanga o Arowhenua (Canterbury Natural Resource Regional Plan).
2.4 The Hinds Catchment The area was described in 1860 in the first survey map as “an impregnable bog of water, toe toe, raupo, niggerheads and flax”. In dry periods with little water from the Hinds River, springs and groundwater, the area of the swamp would decrease and conversely in wet periods the swamp would increase in area and more overflow would reach the beach and sea (Mervyn Gray).
The Hinds River is a river in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. The Hinds River catchment, wedged between the Ashburton and Rangitata Rivers, drains approximately 350km drain the eastern flank of the Moorhouse Range, part of the Southern Alps. The North Branch and South Branch are the major tributaries and these converge at Mayfield to form the main river. The river then flows across the Canterbury Plains towards the Pacific Ocean, passing through the small town of Hinds along the way. In Hinds, State Highway 1 and the Main South Line railway cross the river. The South Branch of the Hinds River has a median flow of 110 litres per second (L/s) at Syphon and the median flow of the Hinds main at Poplar Road is approximately 642 L/s. The River is intermittent, generally dry for much of the year from Mayfield to approximately Boundary Road, 2.5km downstream of the SH1 road bridge, where the groundwater 9 table intersects the riverbed level. Surface water flow increases downstream in response to groundwater discharge and direct contribution from streams.
The river's mouth is located between the localities of Longbeach and Lowcliffe. In its upper reaches, the southern arm flows near the Rangitata River and the northern arm flows near the Ashburton River / Hakatere.
Figure 1: The Rangitata - Hinds Area Under Consideration
There are over 30 lowland streams/drains in the lower part of the catchment.
10
2.4 The Rangitata Catchment The Rangitata River is one of the braided rivers that helped form the Canterbury Plains in southern New Zealand. It flows southeast for 120 kilometres from the Southern Alps, entering the Pacific Ocean 30 kilometres northeast of Timaru. The river has a catchment area of 1,773 km2 (685 sq mi), and a mean annual flow of 95 m³/s (3,400 cu ft/s) at Klondyke.
Before the river enters the Canterbury Plains, part of it is diverted to the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) for irrigation and hydroelectric generation. The RDR was built between 2 April 1937 and 1944, and supplies water to the Montalto and Highbank schemes before joining the Rakaia River. The entry point has New Zealand's first acoustic fish fence, keeping salmon smolt in the river and preventing them ending up on farmland.
Towards its mouth, the river originally split into two streams, forming a large delta island (Rangitata Island). This island was crossed by State Highway 1 and the Main South Line railway between Ealing and Rangitata and thus was an island connected directly by New Zealand's main state highway and one of its primary railway lines. However, the south branch of this split has since been blocked, and the riverbed developed for agricultural purposes. Its course remains as a flood plain, but water does not normally flow here any longer.
The Rangitata is the most fished river in the Central South Island Region, having a self- sustaining Chinook salmon fishery. The salmon account for about 75 percent of angler activity on the river, other species fished are brown trout, rainbow trout and brook char.
On 23 December 1999, Fish and Game New Zealand lodged an application for a water conservation order on the Rangitata River. In June 2006, the water conservation order was gazetted.
UNDERSTANDING SIGNIFICANCE The state of the Rangitata River (a large braided river with high velocity flows) emphasizes the significance of the Hekeao to Te Runanga of Arowhenua. The reach between the Rangitata and the Orari was barren traditionally. Whanau were dependent on the resources that could be gathered from the safer waters of the Rangitata – Hinds zone.
2.5 Irrigation The Rangitata - Hinds Plains Area incorporates two groundwater zones – the Mayfield Hinds Groundwater Zone and Valetta Groundwater Zone.
There are five irrigation schemes in the Hinds Plains Area, two of which take water from the Rangitata Diversion race.
1. The Mayfield Hinds Irrigation Scheme irrigates approximately 32,000 hectares on the south side of the Hinds River; 11
2. the Valetta scheme irrigates approximately 7,000 hectares on the northern side of the Hinds River above State Highway 1;
3. the Barrhill Chertsey Irrigation Scheme irrigates approximately 4,700 hectares in the upper catchment;
4. Eiffelton Irrigation Scheme irrigates approximately 2,700 hectares in the lower catchment; and
5. Lynnford Irrigation Scheme irrigates approximately 120 hectares in the lower catchment.
There are also individual surface and groundwater takes throughout the catchment.
12
13
3 – METHODS TO INCORPORATE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
3.1 An overview of the process
The process that is currently underway involves the identification of values and interests of Tangata whenua. This process requires the identification of values and determination of the opportunities whanau want to see provided at a site, and an assessment as to whether or not the current health of the site provides those opportunities. The six stages of the process are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: A summary of the process to incorporate the cultural interests in flow regimes.
STEP OBJECTIVE OF STEP AND APPLICATION IN THE CASE
1. Initiating To identify the body representing Tangata whenua and secure mandates. the project
2. a. To identify the multiple dimensions that collectively represent cultural association with the study area. Documenting b. To identify the attributes used to assess whether environmental flows are sufficient to sustain cultural the interests. association c. To examine how their experiences are impacted by aquatic conditions, in particular river flow.
d. To document perceptions of changes to flow patterns over time, and the impact of these changes on cultural values.
3. Cultural a. To identify the cultural values associated with specific sites, together with the opportunities sought at Opportunity each site given the values identified mapping
4. Focusing a. To critically review the data collected and to focus on water management issues affecting the the waterways being investigated. investigation
5. Cultural a. To undertake assessments at sites to assess whether the sites sustain cultural values and provide the Opportunity opportunities sought. assessments
6. Analysis to Qualitative analysis and statistical analysis to identify management priorities. inform decision making
We focus on the identification of opportunities sought by whanau because water management objectives can be formulated that provide cultural opportunities. However, this process assumes that most Maori are capable of describing the opportunities they seek. The cultural opportunities sought are informed by traditional, historic and/or contemporary values, and may be akin to ecological, economic, recreational, aesthetic, and social opportunities sought by others, while some are distinctly cultural. A range of techniques for assessing opportunities have emerged in the last twenty years including a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Clarke and Stankey 1979), Water Recreation 14
Opportunity Spectrum, Tourism Opportunity Spectrum, and Forestry Opportunity Spectrum. Proposing an opportunity approach builds on this body of literature.
The cultural assessments that were undertaken in the Hinds used the Cultural Health Index process (Tipa & Teirney 2003, 2006)
3.2 Application of the six step participatory process in the Hinds
The first five steps in the participatory process, as illustrated in Table 1, are now summarised below. Step 6, analyses to identify flow thresholds, flow related issues, and management priorities, is not included in this report but will be included at the conclusion of the fieldwork.
Step 1: Initiating the project – Representatives of Te Runanga o Arowhenua confirmed support for the cultural health assessment of sites in the Hinds.
Step 2: Defining the cultural association with the river – A range of secondary data sources were reviewed, to describe the diversity and complexity of cultural relationships with the Hinds, and specifically how this may be affected by river management.
Step 3: Cultural mapping including cultural opportunity mapping Sites of cultural significance had been mapped previously. There was a need to translate this into expectations of river condition in terms of water quality and quantity. There are four distinct areas of data that we are in the process of collecting and collating:
1. How the river was valued and used;
2. The hydrological characteristics that manawhenua believe essential to protecting the sites valued and used; and
3. How the current hydrological characteristics of the river impact cultural values, interests and uses.
Step 4: Focusing the investigation: discriminating the water related issues identified –
This report enables water related issues to be signalled to Environment Canterbury at an early stage.
Steps 5 and 6: Undertaking Cultural Assessments and analysis to assess the Cultural Health of a number of aquatic habitats As noted earlier, sites were assessed using the Cultural Health Index. 15
3.3 The components of the CHI1
When developing the CHI, there were investigations in four catchments. There was a high level of agreement in the CHI scores relating to stream site status, mahinga kai and stream health provided by four runanga/iwi teams for four different river catchments. Together with further analysis of combined stream health data, a generic CHI was created. This generic CHI can be used confidently by any iwi at sites on streams of any size or river type. This is an index which allows iwi/hapū to assess the cultural and biological health of a stream or catchment of their choosing.
The Cultural Health Index, comprises three components: 1. site status, specifically the significance of the site to Maori; 2. a mahinga kai measure; and 3. a stream health measure.
4. A Cultural Stream Health Index when applied to a specific site will result in a score such as A-1/2.9/4.1. It is necessary to understand what each part of the score represents.
Site Status Mahinga kai measure Stream health measure
A – 1 2.9 4.1
For example: A-1/2.9/4.1 describes a site of traditional significance that Maori will return to, the mahinga kai values are only average, but the overall health of the stream is very good.
The first component assesses the significance of the site to Maori and asks them to distinguish between have traditionally been important and those that have only recently gained significance (i.e. the association is contemporary). The first question requires a site to be classified: A means the site is a traditional site of significance to Maori; or B means that the site is not traditional and has been included to enable other aspects to be considered e.g. it could be a site that is monitored by the regional council). The second question asks whether Maori would return to the site in the future, believing that it is able to sustain the cultural uses that it has had in the past. If the runanga would return, the site is awarded a 1 and if not, a 0.
1 Tipa and Teirney 2003, 2006 16
When the answers to the two questions are collated there are four possible combinations:
A-1 A-0 B-1 B-0
This is a traditional site, This is a traditional site This is a site that is not This is a site that is not that Maori would return that Maori would not of traditional of traditional to and use as they did in return to. It would not significance to Maori. significance to Maori. the past. be used in the future. However they would go Further they would not to the site in the future. go to the site.
The second component of the Cultural Health Index requires an assessment of the mahinga kai values of a site. Inclusion of this component in the Index recognises that in addition to the many intangible qualities associated with the presence of a waterway, mauri is tangibly represented by some of the physical characteristics of a freshwater resource, including: indigenous flora and fauna; water clarity, water quantity, and the mahinga kai it yields (Ministry for Environment, 1997).
There are four parts to the “mahinga kai measure” of the Cultural Health Index. 1. The first part (a) requires the identification of mahinga kai species present at the site. A list of plant, bird and fish species is prepared. A score, 1 - 5, is then assigned, depending on the number of species present. 2. The second factor (b) requires a comparison between the species present today and the traditional mahinga kai sourced from the site. This was deliberately factored into the design of the Cultural Health Index to recognise that maintaining cultural practices, such as the gathering of mahinga kai, is an important means of ensuring the transference of cultural values through the generations. Cultural continuity means that greater value is likely to be assigned to sites of traditional significance that continue to support the mahinga kai species sourced in the past. A single score, 1 - 5, is assigned, based on the number of species of traditional significance that are still present: Non traditional site scores a 1; None of the species sourced in the past is present at the site scores 1; At least 50% of the species sourced in the past are still present at the site scores 3; and All species sourced in the past are still present at the site scores 5.
3. Mahinga kai implies that Maori have physical and legal access to the resources that they want to gather. The third component of the mahinga kai measure (c ) therefore requires a score of 1 -5 to be assigned to each site based on the ability to access the site, where 1 equals no access and 5 equals unimpeded legal and physical access.
4. The fourth element in the mahinga kai measure (d) requires Maori to assess whether they would return the site in the future and use it: No - scores 1, Yes - scores 5.
17
The four mahinga kai elements are then averaged to produce a single score out of 5 – for example:
Mahinga kai measure
The four scores could be: a. species present 2 b. traditional species compared to present 3 c. access 2 d. return in the future 5
The third and final component of the Cultural Health Index is the stream health measure. Of the nineteen indicators identified by kaumatua, eight that can be defined objectively and most appropriately reflect runanga members’ evaluations of overall stream health are included in the Stream Health Measure2. The stream health measure is derived by averaging the 1-5 scores awarded to the eight factors to give a final stream health measure from 1-5.
3.4 The Team
The assessments were taken by mandated representatives of Te Runanga o Arowhenua. As noted in the Hakatere and Orari Reports, a lifetime of experience interacting with the wetlands, streams, rivers and coastline within their takiwa, and the Hinds in particular is important, as is knowledge of rivers, wetlands and drains. It is this expertise that they bring to the assessment process. The zone representatives did not participate in the field work.
2 A description of the statistical analyses undertaken to determine the significant indicators is sourced from Tipa G. Teirney, L. (2006) Using the Cultural Health Index: How the assess the Health of Streams and Waterways Ministry for Environment Reference ME711 18
19
4 – CULTURAL ASSOCIATION WITH THE RANGITATA AND THE HINDS 4.1 Background
Within the CWMS specific kaitiakitanga targets are prescribed. Those relevant to this assessment are listed below:
From 2010: Prevent further loss or degradation of Ngai Tahu nominated wāhi taonga Increase understanding in each zone of the customary values and uses associated with specific waterbodies or parts of waterbodies By 2015:
All degraded wāhi taonga and mahinga kai3 waterways nominated by Ngai Tahu have an active restoration programme in place that responds to cultural priorities A report on the health of all Ngai Tahu nominated waterbodies using Ngai Tahu Cultural Health Monitoring Tool Identified customary uses (current and potentially restored) for all waterways By 2020: Increased the abundance of, access to and use of mahinga kai. All marae and associated papakāinga have access to high quality drinking water
By 2040: Protection, in accordance with Ngai Tahu values and practises, of waahi taonga and mahinga kai waterways
4.2 Wahi Tapu / Taonga Since 1999 Ngai Tahu has identified a range of wahi tapu / wahi taonga. Those found in the Rangitata Hinds include:
Ara tawhito (ancient trails) Umu ti (earth ovens associated with preparation of kauru)
Kaika Nohoanga (occupation, Ikoa Tawhito (place names) settlement sites)
Mahinga Kai (places where resources Wähi kaitiaki (resource indicators
3 Mahinga kai - traditional food and other resources and the areas that they are sourced from 20
including food were/are procured) from the environment)
Mauka (important Mountains) Wahi kohatu (rock formations)
Pa Tawhito (ancient pā sites) Wahi paripari (cliff areas)
Tauranga Waka (canoe mooring sites) Wahi raranga (sources of weaving material)
Tuahu (sites of importance to identity) Wahi taonga (treasured areas generally)
Urupa (human burial sites) Wahi tohu (locators and their names within the landscape)
Repo Raupo (wetlands), puna Wai tapu (scared waters) (swamps) and Wai Maori (important freshwater areas
Taniwha Reserves, easements, entitlements
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: Te Runanga o Arowhenua wants to ensure that there is no further loss of wahi taonga because of inappropriate water management. In the paragraphs that follow we describe many of these wahi taonga. Further, the Tables in Appendix 1 summarise how these taonga may be dependent on flows.
Because the Zone Komiti members need to understand how decisions relating to water quality and quantity impact wahi taonga and wahi tapu, we have included as Appendix 2 a diagram that presents some of the interdependencies.
4.3. Spiritual significance of intergenerational links4
The Rangitata was a major mahika kai for Canterbury Ngäi Tahu. Weka and other forest birds were the main foods taken from the inland reaches of the Rangitata. Tutu berries were also taken along the waterway.
The river was sometimes used by Ngäi Tahu parties from Canterbury as part of a trail to Te Tai Poutini (the West Coast). The tupuna had an intimate knowledge of navigation, river routes, safe harbours and landing places, and the locations of food and other resources on the river. The river was an integral part of a network of trails which were
4 This is the text found in the Statutory Acknowledgement from the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 21 used in order to ensure the safest journey and incorporated locations along the way that were identified for activities including camping overnight and gathering kai. Knowledge of these trails continues to be held by whanau and hapu and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the river.
Hekeao and Tokara (the two branches of the Hinds River) traditionally supported a number of nohoanga (settlements), including Hekeao, Kakaho, Koroki, Te Mihi, Pakutahi, Karipo, Purakaunui, Rukuhia and Tokara. As a result of this history of occupations, there are a number of urupa associated with the river. Urupa are the resting places of Ngai Tahu tupuna and, as such, are the focus for whanau traditions. These are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngai Tahu tupuna, and are frequently protected by secret locations.
The river was an important mahinga kai, known particularly as a source of tuna (eel) and kanakana (lamprey). The tupuna had considerable knowledge of whakapapa, traditional trails and tauranga waka, places for gathering kai and other taonga, ways in which to use the resources of the river, the relationship of people with the river and their dependence on it, and tikanga for the proper and sustainable utilisation of resources. All of these values remain important to Ngai Tahu today.
The mauri of the Rangitata, Hekeao and Tokara represent 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 Ngai Tahu Whanui with the river.
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: The cultural and spiritual significance of the Hekeao to Te Runanga o Arowhenua does not diminish because of the level of modification and the changed patterns of access and use.
4.4 Wai Maori All natural water, be it in a river, stream, wetland, pond or drain is highly valued by whanau. Water itself is the taonga. Spring sourced water is especially valued because of its high quality, clarity, it reliability and its temperature.
Within the Rangitata, Ealing Springs on the north bank and McKinnon Stream on the south bank are two spring fed streams that are of immense significance to whanau, who are concerned that modification of these streams, to make them more suitable for exotic fish species will be to the detriment of indigenous biodiversity.
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: The natural waters of the Rangitata and the Hekeao, although carried in modified watercourses, remain highly valued by Te Runanga o Arowhenua . 22
4.5 Placenames Place names and histories provide cultural context. The naming of places by Ngai Tahu is testament to the long history of occupation and travel within the catchment. The placenames in the Table below confirm the presence of tupuna and their use of the resources in every part of the catchment. Important places include camping places enabling food gathering, those associated with creation traditions or tupuna, settlements, and sites renown for the different foods that could be obtained. Names provide insights to whanau resource use and the heritage values of places in the catchment. Ngai Tahu are obligated to their past and future generations to ensure that their identity and connection to the land lives on.
Ingoa Tawhito (place names) associated with the Hinds that are in the public domain are included in the Table where we also try to:
identify other taonga values associated with the area/site; and
identify the location - if known.
Table 3: Ingoa Tawhito in the Hinds Catchment5
Name Wahi tapu / wahi Location taonga Hinds Wai Maori Was identified as one of the big 5 rivers of Canterbury Kakaho Mahinga kai On the Hinds River Pa tuna (eel weir) Koroki Between the Hinds and Ashburton
Te-mihi Between the Hinds and Ashburton
Purakanui Mahinga kai
Waikakahi Mahinga kai Between the Hinds and Ashburton An eel weir on this stream
More-tahi Between the Hinds and Ashburton
Ti-oioi Between the Hinds and Ashburton
Ouhi Mahinga kai - An eel weir on this stream - Raupo present
Tuhina a po Pa A spot to the south of the Ashburton River Mouth Tuahu Urupa Eels, groper, shark, seals, frostfish, sea-nuts,
5 This is a work in progress that will be refined over the course of the fieldwork. 23
Mahinga kai kingfish, ling Tauranga waka On the north – south trail
Makiao On the Hinds River
Ohonu In the Lowcliffe District.
Pukutahi Near Eiffeltown
Wakara / Hinds township Waikara
Karipo Near where railway crosses Hinds
Rukuhia On the Purakanui Stream near Winslow
Tokara On the Purakanui Stream near Chelmsford Also name of the North Branch Heke ao Kaika Name of the south branch Mahinga kai Cultural Flax worked here materials Eels Lamprey Raupo Tu maru raki Kaika North side of Rangitata Mouth Tuahu Urupa Tutu grew here Mahinga kai Patu riki Near the Hinds River
Whakai a pakura
Whaka upoko toetoe
Ingoa Tawhito in the Rangitata Catchment
Te Awa a Atukua - Havelock Hamua - Coal Hill, Coal Creek River Hinewaikawa - Boundary Huakina - The island Stream
Hororoa - Towards the end of Te Tuna a te Whiwhi - A stream the island that was dammed for catching eels – on the north bank halfway Hapuiti - A small creek up the island 24
Hanui - Kaika Just above Whiwhi O’Ue, Otama Tako, Kiri - 3 lakes / lagoons at the head of the Katawai - Blackmount, Black Rangitata Birch Creek Rakitata ki uta - Around Kurama - South of Rangitata Mesopatamia Mouth Te Aika a wai - Chapman’s Creek Kauae Wiri - A stream near the coast Te Awa a te kapo iti - The stream at Mesopatamia Kahutawe - Where the river is one stream before dividing Te Awa Manaina - Clyde River
Koroki - Ben McLeod Totara - Forest Creek
Maitane - Site of the bridge Whakatao - Near where the railway crosses the river O Rae Korokio - Bush Creek
Permanent Settlements included: Aikawa - On the north side Whakatara - A settlement from long ago Otuakiri - On the south side of the river Kura Mahaka - To the south of Rangitata mouth Te Maru Raki - On the north side of the Rangitata Mouth
Food gathering sites included: Hakatarewa Pupu a tuke
Huakina Tawiri Toka
Hororoa Takitaki
Mahine Tutaewera
Okai Te Wai a Pohatu
Onerewa Te Aokahu a Tane
Ohapi Te Pari Whakatau
Papatuanuku Figure 3 Traditional place names across South and Mid Canterbury including Hekeao (Tipa and Nelson, 2011).
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: In section 4.3 we discussed the spiritual significance of environments to manawhenua. It is important to note that in addition to the taonga value of the placename itself, value also stems from knowing, being able to see the meaning of the placename when viewing the characteristics of the landscape, and being able to use sites as tupuna did.
26
4.5 Mahinga Kai6
Historical use
Historically Ngai Tahu led a highly mobile life, pursuing a seasonal round of hunting and food gathering over a large territory. Survival largely depended on hunting and gathering kai. Anderson (1998) described how the population dispersed during late spring to autumn to inland regions and retreated to long term settlements (typically nearer the coast) in winter and early spring. Various resources which were seasonably abundant, would be preserved and the food taken back to these more permanent settlements (Waitangi Tribunal 1991).
Despite the development of farming following the arrival of settlers, many Ngai Tahu continued to rely on their traditional resources for their existence. As Table 4 illustrates, 38 different foods and materials were gathered from across South and Mid Canterbury (between the Waitaki and the Rakaia and extending inland to the main divide). Table 5 presents the 10 most commonly gathered species.
Long fin eels are a taonga – a highly prized taonga
Table 4: Species traditionally gathered from across South and Mid Canterbury7.
SPECIES Eels Smelt Flounder Potato Turnip Rats Seals Whitebait Whale Aruhe Sea nuts Kanakana Patete Kauru Flax honey Flax Panako Kumara Shark Groper Shellfish Paua Sea urchins Tutu Kōkopu Koareare Weka Kahawai Cabbage Kokopara Kanaka Pakihi Minnows Taramea Birds Mullet Puha Watercress Koura
6 This is a general description that will be included in all South Canterbury Flow Reports. 7 This comes from analysis of the 1880 map and accompanying manuscript, commonly referred to as the “Taiaroa reports” by Ngai Tahu, represent a highly valued “cultural map” (Poole 2004). It was an initiative by kaumātua from neighbouring hapu and facilitated by H.K. Taiaroa, to map their collective territory, their mahinga kai interests and values associated with particular sites7.These records allow a more complete examination of the food gathering system within the Canterbury and Otago regions. Two thousand sites were listed.
27
Table 5: Percentage of sites from which species gathered in South & Mid Canterbury.
SPECIES PERCENTAGE OF SITES (%) Eels 72 Kauru (extract from the cabbage tree) 24 Minnows 19 Aruhe (bracken fern) 19 Turnip / potato 13 Whitebait 11 Flax 11 Koareare (root of the bulrush) 9 Weka 8 Kōkopu / kokopara 8
Eels and watercress are particularly relevant for the Hinds and Rangitata but koura (freshwater crayfish), waikakahi (freshwater mussel), kanakana (lamprey) and whitebait were also taken from the catchment. It must be acknowledged that traditionally rights had to be maintained through continual usage. Through an annual cycle of fishing, gathering and hunting, whanau and hapu “kept the fires burning” in many locations across a large tract of the South Island. Gathering across an extensive area underpinned the sustainability practices of Ngai Tahu by reducing the pressures on a particular site or resource.
The Continuing Importance of mahinga kai resources
Changing landuses over the last century, in particular the intensification of farming activity, resulted in mahinga kai losses. Despite these changes, it is important to emphasize that the cultural values and traditional mahinga kai behaviours have survived. Mahinga kai remains a cornerstone of Ngai Tahu culture and identity. In relation to the Hinds and Rangitata, whanau from Arowhenua still travel and fish the waterways, which today include the drains many of which are easily accessed from the roadways. When there were a number of tangi on the marae, it was streams such as the Hinds that ensured that the whanau could still put food on the Table as whanau members travelled as far as the Hinds because resources closer to the marae at Temuka were in scarce supply.
Recently, sustainable practices that were and continue to be applied to ensure that no area is over harvested, is to gather from a range of sites over a large area – it has been described as a practice akin got rotational grazing. The Hinds and Rangitata fit within this itinerant or rotational pattern of use.
The key point for Environment Canterbury is the continuing significance of the Hinds and Rangitata to Te Runanga o Arowhenua, despite the extent of modification in the catchment. The striking feature in recent decades is the significance of the drains and races as the means by which the natural waters of the catchment are conveyed, which have become substitute mahinga kai.
28
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: Te Runanga o Arowhenua wants to ensure that flows and water quality standards meet the needs of valued mahinga kai species, especially the tuna fishery. Whanau members repeatedly stressed the need for adequate fish passage throughout the system.
4.7 Reserves and Easements There are no reserves, easements or entitlements in the Hinds catchment.
4.8 Taonga species Daly (2004) explains that the Hinds River catchment provides habitat for eleven native fish species, three of which are threatened; the Canterbury mudfish (nationally endangered), longfin eel (gradual decline) and Stokell’s smelt (range restricted). Benn (2013) identifies fifteen native fish species, of which eight are threatened specifically: mudfish, long fin eels, torrentfish, koaro, inanga, lamprey, bluegill bully, and Stokels smelt. Fish in the Hinds Rangitata Zone (Benn, 2013)
Ten species of native bird have been identified. Of these seven are threatened, the black- fronted tern (nationally endangered), the banded dotterel, (gradual decline) and the black shag (sparse). Daly (2004) noted that the lower reaches of the catchment provided roosting and feeding habitats for open water divers, deep and shallow water waders, waterfowl, gulls and terns.
29
4.9 Trails Te Wai Pounamu was covered with an complex system of trail and access routes which linked the various settlements to the social and economic life of the tribe and tied them into networks of trade which extended well beyond the South Island. Trails had to follow food resources as whanau traveled at a slow pace, stopping for different periods of time at places where eels were plentiful, weka easily caught, or some other food obtainable. The Rangitata catchment was particularly significant. The trails followed a variety of routes: A trail went north along the coastal plains to Kaiapoi and onto Kaikoura (Waaka, 2000). There was also a trail to the West Coast via the Upper Rangitata (Waaka, 2000). Travellers could pass over the saddle to the Upper Ashburton or the Upper Rakaia (Waaka, 2000). Tarahaoa was a wahi tohu (locator). It provided guidance for those on route to the West coast and to Kaiapoi For those traveling north or south via the Upper Rangitata Catchment, this route was referred to as the “war trails”. The parties could move through the back country discretely with the movement not being observed (B Reihana, 2000). For those traveling north along the coastal plains, the small creeks on the south side of the river were especially important as a source of mahika kai. If the river was unpassable it may have been necessary to “rest until able to cross” (Benson). Also it was advisable to replenish stocks at these sites as it was easier to gather resources at these sites than for, the mainstem Rangitata or further up the coast. Travellers could follow the Rangitata mainstem upriver before following the valley to the east of the Potts River to access the wetlands and Lakes Clearwater, Camp Roundabout and Emma.
4.10 The Archaeological Evidence
In the figure that follows, we provide a map of the Rangitata – Hinds zone with archaeological sites recorded.
30
Archaeological Sites in the Rangitata Hinds
4.11 Contemporary Associations
The Crown’s settlement of the Ngai Tahu claim contained a number of components8 specifically:
An apology;
Aoraki – recognition of Ngai Tahu mana;
Economic redress;
8 See Te Karaka Special Edition from Ngai Tahu Publications in 1997, which set out the Crown Settlement offer. 31
Cultural redress; and
Non-tribal redress.
Cultural redress was intended to recognize the cultural and spiritual relationship of Ngai Tahu with the natural environment. The redress was aimed at “restoring Ngai Tahu’s ability to give practical effect to its kaitiaki responsibilities” (Ngai Tahu Publications, 1997). A summary of the range of mechanisms is included in Table 5. While the range of new legislative provisions is extensive, they are seen to complement the Crown Grants of the nineteenth century.
Table 5: A summary of mechanisms from the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement9
Type of recognition Mechanism Description Mana Recognition Statutory Acknowledgments For 64 areas Deeds of recognition For the same 64 areas Topuni 14 topuni created. Dual placenames 88 names to be changed. Mahinga kai Nohoanga 72 temporary campsites created Customary fisheries 8 elements included management Taonga species management A schedule in the Act recognizes 49 birds, 54 plants, 6 marine species. Coastal space Provisions are included that relate to coastal tendering. The Crown recognised the significance of the Hinds in the Statutory Acknowledge that is included in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT: Te Runanga o Arowhenua wants to ensure that the mechanisms negotiated in good faith during the Claim Settlement process are not undermined because of inappropriate water management.
4.10 Going forward
We have used the concept of Ki Uta Ki Tai to structure this part of the report. This concept comes from the traditions, and values of Ngäi Tahu in relation to the natural environment, and in particular from the custom of mahinga kai. However, this conceptualisation of a catchment confirms a deeper understanding acknowledging that rivers connect the entire landscapes from the mountains to the sea, and conversely that rivers are linked to their catchments. As a result of Ngai Tahu’s holistic view of river systems from a ‘Ki Uta, Ki Tai’ (mountains to the sea) perspective, the cultural values identified for the system are presented using the zonal approach.
9 The specifics of any of these instruments can be sourced from the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. 32
Ki uta kai - different geographic zones across the Rangitata – Hinds Zone Each part of the system has distinct characteristics and these in turn can be affected differently by development and river management. The values within the catchment, and the impacts on those values of past and current resource management practices, are considered across four broad geographic zones10. 1 the many creeks and streams flowing from the foothills; 2 the mid-catchment – seen as being upstream of State Highway 1; 3 the lower floodplain below State Highway 1; and 4 the dongas.
WITH RESPECT TO WATER MANAGEMENT Whanau want to see increased populations of mahinga kai with fish species (in particular eels) having free passage throughout the system at all stages of their life cycle. All species will be fit for use, and the river system will be desirable for whanau to access and use. The health of mahinga kai will be the ultimate indicator of the health of the system
This statement captures the need for - a functioning system that sustains the cultural uses and values of manawhenua into the future;
flow regimes, water quality standards and channel characteristics are to all be managed to protect cultural uses, (especially mahinga kai), which are a section 6(e) matter of national importance;
protection of native biodiversity in the waterways of the zone including wetlands, springs, streams, rivers, drains, races and ponds;
remnant habitat features in the natural waterways to be represented and restored over time;
native riparian vegetation communities to be re-established throughout the catchment, including along the bank of at least one side of drains and races;
native fish and other fauna to be able to move and migrate up and down throughout the system11;
linkages between drains, races, streams and rivers and their floodplains and associated wetlands to maintain ecological processes;
donga to be protected as a productive ecosystem sustaining many taonga species; and
10 Please note that the Rangitata Gorge and the Rangitata River Mouth would have been identified as separate areas but we are focusing on the area between the north bank of the Rangitata and Ashburton and not the Rangitata catchment per se. 11 Whanau anticipate that if there is a connection from inland to the coast, migrant eels will be able to cross the shingle barrier to migrate to sea. In contrast there needs to be an opening to enable the smaller glass eels to enter the system. 33
Whanau ideas about the future potential of the river to deliver a range of cultural opportunities summarized below in Table 6
Table 6: Summary of Current and Future Cultural Opportunities for Streams and Reaches of Significance in the Hinds catchment
Zone name and important Opportunities Sought streams A: Headwaters Protecting the existing source waters (the source of both the water and mauri12) Increase populations of taonga species, especially abundant mahinga kai (most notably eel fishery) which are to be restored across their historic range Protect remnant wetlands in the Clearwell River and the North Branch Prioritise maintaining and or restoring connections ki uta ki tai recognizing that drains and races may provide the “missing link” as they now represent substitute habitats. Ensure no further hydrological alteration unless it is to improve flows, and is undertaken with the agreement of the runanga Retain existing indigenous vegetation – riparian and terrestrial Protect remaining valued features in Limestone Creek Protect known habitats for Canterbury mudfish and koaro.
Mid Reestablishment of indigenous vegetation on riparian margins throughout the Catchment catchment, including drains and races. Set water quality standards and flows in this reach that support whanau use. Prioritise, via appropriate provisions within the planning framework, biodiversity and mahinga kai gains through improved drain and race management. Prioritise, via appropriate provisions within the planning framework, maintaining and or restoring connections ki uta ki tai recognizing that drains and races may provide the “link” habitats. Promote multiple use of ponds. Protect habitats known to sustain populations of taonga fish species, especially eels. Protecting existing spring heads: o protecting the water quality; o protecting the quantity; o permitting no alteration of the hydrology at the source o protecting the spring by retiring land around the springhead and shading by indigenous species.
Lower Restore abundant mahinga kai populations, especially eel fishery Floodplain Identify and protect existing spring heads Reestablish lost wetlands – using historic distributions as a reference Enhance water quality to make it a desirable place to visit, gather from, and for whanau to swim and enjoy Protect habitats known to sustain populations of taonga fish species, especially eels. Monitor compliance to ensure that customary fishery is enhanced.
12 Statement by kaumatua resident in Christchurch to the writer (pers comm.). 34
Dongas Enable connectivity of dongas to drains, streams and rivers for species to move to and from the river system for critical life stages Ensure flow management in drains ensures that there is access at crucial times for the ingress and egress of tuna.
Picking up on four of these issues, in the figures that follow we illustrate the Extent of natural land cover in the area,
the comparison between historic and natural wetlands.
The potential habitat remaining in the area for a selection of taonga species.
We provide maps showing the broader Rangitata – Hinds zone before focusing on the Hinds
Figure 6: The Extent of Natural Cover in the Hinds (source FENZ) – Protection of Indigenous Forests, Tussock lands and Native Bush is a Priority. Priorities are highlighted
Figure 7: This figure shows the predicted distribution of long fin eels across the area (right) and in the Hinds (left). The source is FENZ and NZFFD. Restoration of the Eel Fishery is a Priority 13
Despite the level of modification to the waterways, the landscapes in the lower and middle reaches are still recognised as being potential eel habitat.
13 Maps specific to other taonga species are included in the Appendices. 37
Figure 8: This figure shows the predicted distribution of short fin eels across the area (right) and in the Hinds (left). The source is FENZ and NZFFD. Restoration of the Eel Fishery is a Priority
38 Figure 9: A record of historic wetlands across the area (left) which can be compared today’s wetlands (right): source FENZ. Restoration of wetlands is a priority, along with identification of ways to increase the biodiversity values of drains and races. Historic Wetlands across the Area Contemporary Wetlands across the area
Historic Wetlands in the Hind Catchment Contemporary Wetlands in the Hinds Catchment
Figure 10: A record of historic wetlands in the Hinds (left) which can be compared today’s wetlands (right): source FENZ. Restoration of wetlands is a priority, along with identification of ways to increase the biodiversity values of drains and races. A summary of some of the key themes across all zones are as follows:
1 Redefining a new system of waterways – with many of the natural watercourses modified there is a need to re-examine the role of drains and races in providing linkages ki uta ki tai. Natural waters, highly valued by whanau, are being conveyed in waterways with varying degrees of modification. The waters remain a taonga regardless of the means of conveyance. Fish passage is likely to be heavily dependent on the use of drains and races providing linkages upstream and downstream. However, weirs and culverts on drainage and race systems could provide further barriers.
2 Restoration of mahinga kai – As noted above mahinga kai is the ultimate test of a river’s health. Flows and water quality standards are to support the enhancement of the eel fishery as a matter of priority. Watercress is taken from drains and streams. Because at present it absorbs contaminants in the streams, whanau want to see the input of contaminants to the waterway minimised. Drainage, drain management, spraying, gravel extraction all have the potential to adversely impact mahinga kai, and attempts by Te Runanga o Arowhenua to enhance mahinga kai.
3 Protection of spring heads - Reliable flows, good quality of water, depth of water, temperature of water and its clarity are also important characteristics that are sustained by springs.
4 Clean water is a key factor that will decide the future of the river for cultural use. Whanau recognize that the catchment lands are used intensively. Further they know that substantial improvement in water quality in the lower catchment is needed. Intensified landuse cannot be at the expense of cultural use.
5 Fish passage is a matter of priority to enable unimpeded passage through the system consistent with historic ranges. In Table 7 (on the following page) we identify the migration times of the respective species. Whanau believe that migrant eels once at the coast will be able to cross the shingle barrier and leave the system. However, connectivity is needed to provide passage for eels to the coast. The extent of connectivity via streams and drains needs to be investigated.
It is likely that the dongas will need to be open to the sea at times of migration to allow passage into the system.
41
Table 7: Key migration periods for selected New Zealand indigenous freshwater fish species ( = upstream, = downstream).
FRESHWATER FISH SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING COMMON SPECIES LIFE DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV NAME STAGE
Anguilla australis & A. Juvenile Tuna / Eels dieffenbachii
Short fin A. australis Adult
Long fin A. dieffenbachii Adult
Common smelt Retropinna retropinna Juvenile (riverine)
Adult
Īnanga Galaxias maculatus Larvae
Adult
Kōaro G. brevipinnis Juvenile
Adult a
Common bully Gobiomorphus cotianus Juvenile
Torrentfish Cheimarrichthys fosteri Larvae
Adult a a, More research is needed to confirm the migration period.
42
43
5 – PERCEIVED WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES 5.1 Summary of issues
In the Table below we summarise some of the concerns voiced by whanau.
Zone name Perceived Issues and important streams A: Headwaters Excessive extraction Reaches dewatered Invasive plants a threat to hydrology e.g. willows Riparian areas at risk through incremental vegetation clearance Fish passage issues (because of dewatered reaches) Risks associated with flow augmentation via managed aquifer recharge or inter-catchment transfers Loss of access due to private ownership.
Mid Catchment Tributaries and mainstem often run dry (or carries flood flows only) Excessive extraction Increasing pressure to irrigate further land Agricultural contaminants entering system Mahinga kai habitats have been lost and replaced by drains and races which, although substitute habitats, carry natural waters that are taonga, require regular maintenance that can destroy habitats. Inappropriate instream management practices – diggers, spraying etc. Culverts and weirs on drains and races can impede passage. Reduced numbers of mahinga kai species Reduced habitats Removal of wetland areas Concern at risks of pollution from further land intensification (e.g. dairy farms) Connections – ki uta ki tai – have been changed by the construction of drains, diversions, on farm storage, extractions, and dewatering Loss of springs Waterways impacted by inappropriate use of fertilisers etc in advance of north west winds – “It all ends up in the waterways”.
Lower Concern at risks of pollution from increased land intensification Floodplain Allocation too high Springs still being lost Mahinga kai habitats have been lost and others are under pressure. Inappropriate instream management practices – diggers, spraying etc. Reduced numbers of mahinga kai species Reduced habitats Increased periphyton growth creating nuisance and making sites unattractive for users. Increasingly unsafe water quality as move downstream inhibits use. Loss of wetlands 44
Loss of connectivity Loss of access due to private land ownership. Contamination of kai without any warning signs being present to advise gatherers.
Donga Character of dongas has changed – may no longer connect to inland waterways Loss of connectivity at the wrong time could impact migration and recruitment of migrating species especially eels Mahinga kai habitats have been lost Reduced numbers of mahinga kai species
5.2 Pressures on the system
Figure 11 confirms that the area is under pressure. There are calls to increase the security of supply to irrigators (to 95%). In addition there are calls to increase the area of irrigable land by (30,000ha).
This means that more water is wanted – but from the perspective of Arowhenua, there is no more water to give – it is the river that needs water. Proposals to augment flows via inter-catchment transfers are viewed with caution by runanga members. Of concern to Te Runanga o Arowhenua, loss of use leads to loss of practice, loss of tikanga associated with the practice and over time the loss of matauranga.
45
Figure 11: This is an Assessment of Stream Pressures (source FENZ).
46
5.3 General concerns
Te Runanga o Arowhenua have also identified a number of more general concerns that they want to see addressed by Environment Canterbury.
Excessive extraction o From the perspective of whanau, the system is over allocated and there is no more water to give.
Inappropriate instream management o Whanau have visited sites, knowing that they usually fit for use, only ot find that the site has been sprayed or diggers have been in and cleared over vegetation from instream and the riparian margin. o Whanau have been told by Environment Canterbury staff that they are able to spray and use diggers instream “as of right”.
Although they are modified watercourses many of the drains sustain populations of mahinga kai species, some of which are accorded the status f taonga species. Drain management that is not sensitive to the biodiversity found in drains is not supported by whanau.
Strategies are needed to ensure compliance with best practice. Whanau support regulation rather than encouraging land users to adopt best practice. Whanau have seen 20 years of encouragement which has not served to protect their mahinga kai.
Signage is needed to advise individuals that it is not safe to gather kai (especially watercress) from some sites. This is particularly important after spraying has taken place.
Investigation of linkages between drains, tributaries and mainstem is important if the extent and quality of aquatic habitats in the catchment is to be understood.
Shelterbelts need to be encouraged. The north west winds dry the land and intensifies the need to irrigate. Shelter is needed.
Arowhenua note that when considering the appropriateness of farming practices for the South Island climate, the focus usually turns to limiting the spreading of effluent in winter months when soils could be waterlogged. A concern that Arowhenua believe is not addressed is the practices employed by farmers that don’t take account of wind patterns – i.ie ploughing paddocks and applying fertilizer in advance of the north westerly winds.
Whanau remain uncertain as the costs and benefits of managed aquifer recharge
A major issue that requires discussion in the existing land tenure for riverbeds, drains, wetlands etc. 47
o Whanau have been ordered from watercourses they through they had the right to access. o Do whanau have the right to access drains? o With MAR, if the infiltration basin occurs on private land, who owns the water? o With MAR, will the waterways that are likely to benefit, those that are accessible to whanau?
Whanau are unaware of any legacy contamination issues. Environment Canterbury needs to investigate the level of contamination beyond nutrients.
Are there ad medium filum aquae rights in the Rangitata Hinds area: o Whanau are aware that the concept of ad medium filum aquae (to the middle line of the water) may apply where a river abuts a property and connection is not interrupted by a legal road or other form of public land, which means in effect that the adjoining landowner may own the riverbed to the middle line of the river. Whether this right exists needs to be ascertained. Whanau are increasingly being told that they cannot access waterways because of ad medium filum aquae but have never seen any maps or documentation proving the existence of the right.
We discuss many of these in the recommendations that are contained in section 7.
48
49
CHAPTER 6: THE ASSESSMENTS OF 2013
A team of four undertook a field visit in April 2013. Eleven sites that were considered to afford easy access were visited and assessed using the modified CHI methodology described in section 3 of this report. The sites visited are shown in Figure 4. The rest of this part of the report details the results of the field assessments. A standard format is used: Each of the indicators is rated on a 1- 5 scale (1 being unhealthy 5 being healthy). Species at the site are identified. The management actions members of believe need to be undertaken to address their concerns are listed. Two photos of the site are included Colour coding is used to highlight the scores awarded for each of the components.
1.0- 1.49 1.5 - 2.49 2.5 - 3.49 3.5 - 4.49 4.5 - 5.0
Sites visited are listed below and illustrated on Figures 12 -15. Some were without water and hence no cultural assessment was able to be undertaken. Those that were assessed are highlighted in bold. Hinds River North Branch – Hewsons Road Hinds River North Branch – Anama School Road Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama School Rd Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama School Road Hinds River North Branch – Anama School Rd Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama Settlement Rd Hinds River South Branch – Anama Settlement Road Hinds North Branch mainstem merge with tributary – Anama Settlement Rd Hinds Drain – Rangitata highway (South of Hinds Township) Hinds Drain – Gills Rd / McConnells Rd Hinds Drain – McConnells Rd Hinds Drain 1 – Poplar Rd Hinds Drain 2 & wetland – Poplar Rd Hinds Drain 3 – Poplar Rd Hinds Drain 4 – Poplar Rd Hinds Drain 5 – Poplar Rd Boundary Drain – Poplar Rd 50
Hinds River – Poplar Rd Hinds River – Boundary Rd Deans Drain – Poplar Rd Windomere Drain – Poplar Rd Home Paddock Drain – Poplar Rd Parakonoi Drain – Poplar Rd Longbeach Rd Drain Windomere Drain – Lower Beach Rd Deals Drain – Lower Beach Rd Hinds River (Mouth) – Lower Beach Rd Chesdale Dawsons Drain – Lower Beach Rd Waterton Drain – Lower Beach Rd Lower Flemington Drain – Lower Beach Rd Andersons Drain – Lower Beach Rd Donger – Lower Beach Rd Donger – Lower Beach Rd Pyes Drain – Ocean View Rd Waipuna / Drain Rd - Drain Pond remnant – Surveyors Rd
Figure 12: The sites visited in the Upper Catchment
51
Figure 13 The sites visited in the Mid Catchment
Figure 14 The sites visited in the Lower Catchment
52
Figure 15 The sites visited in the Lower Catchment
The recommendations that follow are based on whanau observations of both the sites that were assessed and the sites that were visited where there was no visible flow.
53
Site No. 1 - Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama School Road
Values & Opportunities sought Water is to run clear Plenty of vegetation is to be found on banks, if maintenance is needed, there is to be plating on at least one side (north preferably) Watercress is to be safe to gather Bullies, eels and galaxiids found in the Hinds North Branch are also found in this tributary and maintenance activities should not impact their habitats.
Perceived threats Adjacent landuse Little or no water Limited habitat available Lack of shade – no cover for species Linkages to North Branch of Hinds unknown.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure A-0 1.6 1.8
It is traditional site that is not in a state that sustains use, and its mahinga kai values and stream health values are poor – (all indicators scoring poorly). No visible sign of aquatic life; and Although alongside a road, access is still be a challenge.
Management Priorities Restore flows – a minimum depth of 30 centimeters is preferred. Improve water quality. Some larger tree to be planted in the riparian area to provide shade. Linkages to mainstem waterway is investigated - what species does it provide habitat for?
54
Site No. 2 - Hinds Drain 3 – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Whanau to be able to continue to use the site for kai gathering Remains an easily accessed resource Water remains clear, continues to be good quality Remains free of sediment on the bed Riparian and in-stream cover for aquatic species is increased, especially on north bank.
Perceived threats Site has been cleared but watercress is still available Limited habitat values Drain cleaning activities are a risk – runanga fear that instream vegetation could be sprayed or dragged out to maintain functioning as a drain.
Assessment score It is modified site that carries natural water of average quality. It is assessed as being in a state that sustains use, and its mahinga kai values and stream health values are good – (all indicators scoring average or above average). Watercress is present; and Access is available from the roadside. It is an example of a modified watercourse becoming a substitute habitat.
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-1 3.6 2.89
Management Priorities Drain to be managed for its biodiversity and mahinga kai values. Linkages to other waterbodies to be investigated. Example of good riparian cover on one side of the watercourse.
55
Site No. 3 - Hinds Drain 4 – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Whanau continue to use the site for kai gathering Drain continues to be in good health. Flowing water is observable. Good watercress – abundant, no snails, no contaminants. Variety of habitats – continue to be present. Shade over part of the channel is maintained Access continues to be good Clean water is to be retained.
Perceived threats Lots of sediment is evident but source unknown. Whanau suspect adjacent landuses are the cause Drain cleaning remains a risk to instream and riparian habitat.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 3.0 2.78
The main impediment to use is the present the sediment and potentially other contaminants. It scored average or above across most indicators.
Management Priorities Improve water quality Minimise sediment inputs – look at some of the sediment control practices included in the Appendix 3. Investigate connections to other waterways, especially the mainstem. Maintain vegetation on one side to provide shelter Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol
56
Site No. 4 - Hinds Drain 5 – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought A mix of habitats are maintained in the drain - some of which are shaded Fenced and stock are excluded
Perceived threats Heavy sedimentation evident Drain cleaning a risk Fields worked close to the edge of the drain. Limited shade at present. Further planting needed.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 3.0 2.7
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives an average mahinga kai score because it is accessible, watercress is present. It has some instream vegetation for habitat, although species present are limited. Health is average across all indicators, although sedimentation on the riverbed is a concern.
Management Priorities Watercourses such as this should have a minimum depth of at least 30cm. Maintain water quality. Minimise sediment inputs and impacts from adjacent landuse Investigate connections to other waterways Maintain vegetation on at least one side to provide shelter for instream habitats. See Appendix 3.
57
Site No. 5 Boundary Drain – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Clean running water is to be provided It is to be safe to use for gathering Access is to remain good It is to continue to sustain shortfin and longfin eels.
Perceived threats Drain cleaning is a risk Channel is not shaded MCI poor in 2012 Sediment appears to be deep on the riverbed.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 3.4 3.0
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives an average mahinga kai score because it is accessible, watercress is present. It has some instream vegetation for habitat, although like other modified sites, the species present is expected to be limited. Health is average across all indicators, but once again sedimentation on the riverbed is a concern.
Management Priorities Improve water quality Minimise sediment inputs and impacts from adjacent landuse Investigate connections to other waterways for both upstream and downstream movement of eels Maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Plant and maintain vegetation on one side to provide shelter Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol
58
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 9.8 NH3N (mg/l) 0.026
Temp © 12.6 NNN 6.70
Ph 6.9 DIN 6.72
Cond 17.8 TON 0.65
Turb (NTU) 2.7 DRP 0.004
SS (mg/l) 5.4 TP 0.01
E-coli 760 DIN/DRP 1678.9
FC 890 TN 7.30
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted in red, although those in purple also exceed guidelines. . 59
Site No. 6 - Hinds River – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought River main channel is clean and is to remain so. Watercress is available and is to be safe for gathering No black snails present Access good with road down to riverside. Appears to be good quality, clear water A range of habitats are to be maintained. Sustains a short fin eel fishery
Perceived threats Augmentation of flows from MAR or inter-catchment transfer is a risk. Further extraction Uncertain whether fish can access this reach. Connectivity needs to be investigated.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure A-1 3.50 3.89
This is a site that has a history of use. It scores average or above average across all activities. The presence of exotic species lowers the health score. Also the mahinga kai scores is only average because of the expectation that a limited range of species is present.
Management Priorities Improve water quality Maintain or enhance flows using methods / techniques that are supported by tangata whenua. MAR or inter-catchment transfer must only be implemented with the agreement of Te Runanga o Arowhenua. Identify the species present in the river Manage linkages between the tributaries, mainstem and dongas. Kai sustained by the river needs to be fit for use. Channel maintenance needs to protect instream habitat values.
Gathering watercress 60
A satisfactory flow of clear water looking downstream to the coast.
Water appears clear with no algae or weeds of concern. No sediment is visible on the riverbed. 61
The Lower Hinds after channelisation activities have destroyed instream habitats
62
Site No. 7 - Deals Drain
Values & Opportunities sought Easy access Unsure what species present It sustains bullies and shortfin eels – it should continue to do so.
Perceived threats Sedimentation – but source unsure. The extent of sedimentation is not as bad as other sites visited. Drain cleaning is a risk.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-1 3.0 3.0
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives an average mahinga kai and health scores. Once again sedimentation on the riverbed is a concern.
Management Priorities Minimise sediment inputs and impacts from adjacent landuse Investigate connections to other waterways for both upstream and downstream movement of eels. Maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Plant and maintain vegetation on one side to provide shelter. Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol.
63
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 10.4 NH3N (mg/l) 0.037
Temp © 12.2 NNN 6.90
Ph 7.8 DIN 6.97
Cond 23.3 TON 0.63
Turb (NTU) 3.8 DRP 0.012
SS (mg/l) 5.2 TP -
E-coli 610 DIN/DRP 589.50
FC 1600 TN 7.60
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted in red, although those in purple also exceed guidelines. 64
Site No. 8 – Parakonoi Drain – Poplar Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Waterway easily accessed from the roadside Sustains shortfins, longfins, bullies, inanga Historically springs used to be associated with the Parakonoi Stream.
Perceived threats Channel open and exposed MCI poor in 2006, 2012 Risk that instream vegetation (that provides habitat) could be removed during drain maintenance.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 3.0 2.33
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives an average mahinga kai score but a below average health score. A range of health indicators scored poorly including water quality, riparian cover, and rubbish in the water channel.
Management Priorities Enhance water quality Maintain a flow that provides a depth of 30cms. Minimise impacts from adjacent landuse Investigate connections to other waterways Plant vegetation on the riparian management, at least on one side (preferably north), to provide shelter. Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol
65
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 10.6 NH3N (mg/l) 0.046
Temp © 11.7 NNN 5.00
Ph 7.7 DIN 5.05
Cond 17.2 TON 0.30
Turb (NTU) 2.8 DRP 0.012
SS (mg/l) 7.9 TP -
E-coli 755 DIN/DRP 465.1
FC 710 TN 5.35
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted in red, although those in purple also exceed guidelines. 66
Site No. 9 - Dawsons Drain
Values & Opportunities sought Easy access is available from the road – access is to be maintained. It currently sustains bullies and should continue to do so.
Perceived threats Weeds are present Green slime was observed. No water movement was apparent.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 3.0 2.11
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives an average mahinga kai score and a below average health score. A range of health indicators scored below average including water quality, riparian cover, presence of exotics, sediment.
Management Priorities Enhance water quality Minimise sediment inputs and impacts from adjacent landuse Investigate connections to other waterways Plant vegetation on one side to provide shelter Maintain a depth of at least 30cm. Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol
67
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 9.5 NH3N (mg/l) 0.049
Temp © 12.3 NNN 3.80
Ph 7.8 DIN 3.86
Cond 19.3 TON 0.34
Turb (NTU) 3.4 DRP 0.007
SS (mg/l) 4.5 TP -
E-coli 595 DIN/DRP 579.3
FC 490 TN 4.20
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted in red, although those in purple also exceed guidelines. 68
Site No. 10 - Waterton Drain – Lower Beach Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Access is to be maintained. Connections to the system should see this waterway affording habitat for a range of species.
Perceived threats No kai species present Heavy sediment on riverbed
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure B-0 2.0 2.6
It is a modified watercourse that carries natural waters. It receives a below average mahinga kai score. With heavy sedimentation, there were no species observed and there was an expectation that few would be present. A range of health indicators scored poorly including water quality, riparian cover, and presence of sediment on the riverbed.
Management Priorities Minimise sediment inputs Investigate connections to other waterways for both upstream and downstream movement of eels. Maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Plant and maintain riparian vegetation on at least one side to provide shelter. Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol.
69
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 11.1 NH3N (mg/l) 0.045
Temp © 12.1 NNN 3.80
Ph 7.8 DIN 3.81
Cond 15.4 TON 0.39
Turb (NTU) 3.8 DRP 0.015
SS (mg/l) 5.6 TP -
E-coli 490 DIN/DRP 278.2
FC 430 TN 4.20
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted in red, although those in purple also exceed guidelines. 70
Site No. 11 - Pyes Drain – Ocean View Rd
Values & Opportunities sought Connection to the sea is to be maintained especially during the inward migration period. Clear water is to be maintained in the channel
Perceived threats Inland extraction will threaten connections to the sea. Risk of donga being disconnected from inland waterways (drains, streams and wetlands) that should feed it.
Assessment score
Site Status Mahinga kai Health measure measure A-1 3.0 3.7
This is a site that has a history of use. It scores average or above average across all indicators. Also the mahinga kai scores is only average because of the expectation that a limited range of species is present. The expectation is that migrant eels leaving the system would be able to leave the system over the shingle bar if flows enable them to migrate downstream to reach the donga.
Management Priorities Maintain connections from donga to inland waterways. While migrant eels would travel over the shingle bar, the bar needs to be breached to enable inward passage of elvers. Plant vegetation on one side to provide shelter
71
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 9.8 NH3N (mg/l) 0.040
Temp © 12.6 NNN 4.95
Ph 7.3 DIN 4.98
Cond 17.5 TON 0.73
Turb (NTU) 2.2 DRP 0.013
SS (mg/l) 3.9 TP 0.03
E-coli 505 DIN/DRP 398.6
FC 490 TN 560
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted. 72
In the matrix below, we have tried to show how the scores for the respective sites assessed relate to each other.
1 – 1.49 1.50 – 2.49 2.50 – 3.49 3.50 – 4.49 4.50 – 5.0
1 – 1.49 No. 1 Increasing Mahinga kai Values kai Values Mahinga Increasing
1.50 – 2.49 No. 10
No. 3 2.50 – 3.49 No. 8 No. 4 No. 11 No. 9 No. 5 No. 7
3.50 – 4.49 No. 2 No.6
4.50 – 5.0
Increasing good health
The matrix below confirms: - that the site that scored highest for both health and mahinga kai was the site No. 6 – the mainstem Hinds at Poplar Road - that the site that also scored highest for stream health was Pye’s Drain down in its lower reaches toward the donga. - that another site scoring high for its mahinga kai values is Site No. 2 – a drain on Poplar Road. - That many of the drains are in average health, and receive average scores for a range of indicators, and could support kai gathering, if management addressed the one or two issues that limited use e.g. the presence of sediment on the riverbed
73
Comments for sites that were visited but not formally assessed
Other sites that were visited can be broken into two categories Drains – modified watercourses. We conclude with a number of management priorities, based largely on the issues raised during the assessment of other drains. The Hinds mainstem or tributaries flowing to the mainstem.
Windermere Drain – Poplar Rd Sustains a long fin fishery MCI poor in 2012 No riparian vegetation – no shade for instream habitats
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 10.4 NH3N (mg/l) 0.047
Temp © 12.2 NNN 7.30
Ph 7.5 DIN 7.41
Cond 21.9 TON 0.84
Turb (NTU) 3.5 DRP 0.018
SS (mg/l) 8.3 TP -
E-coli 520 DIN/DRP 385.3
FC 520 TN 8.25
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted.
74
Lower Flemington Drain – Lower Beach Rd Dewatered Has features in the channel that afford instream shelter (habitat) MCI poor 2006 and 2012.
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 10.6 NH3N (mg/l) 0.043
Temp © 11.9 NNN 4.70
Ph 7.8 DIN 4.74
Cond 16.9 TON 0.21
Turb (NTU) 2.2 DRP 0.025
SS (mg/l) 8.5 TP -
E-coli 845 DIN/DRP 196.8
FC 330 TN 4.95
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted. 75
Andersons Drain – Lower Beach Rd Dewatered Has features in the channel that afford instream shelter (habitat)
Home Paddock Drain – Poplar Rd Historic but not current record of cultural use
76
Environment Canterbury monitoring of Water quality – Average statistics for monitoring 2000/01 and 2001/2002
DO (mg/l) 9.8 NH3N (mg/l) 0.051
Temp © 11.7 NNN 4.90
Ph 7.5 DIN 4.95
Cond 17.9 TON 0.50
Turb (NTU) 4.7 DRP 0.022
SS (mg/l) 10.7 TP -
E-coli 950 DIN/DRP 203.9
FC 460 TN 5.45
The indicators of concern with respect to kai gathering are highlighted.
Hinds Drain – Gills Rd / McConnells Rd A site from which watercress is gathered
Management Priorities for drains Where minimum flows are currently set, maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Plant and maintain riparian vegetation on at least one side to provide shelter. Negotiate with Te Runanga o Arowhenua and then implement an agreed drain cleaning protocol. 77
Hinds River – Lower Beach Rd Good flow observed Abundant watercress
Hinds River – Boundary Rd Whanau have had picnics here in the past.
Management Priorities for mainstem and lower catcdhment Where minimum flows are currently set, maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Maintain water standards to a standard where they are fit for recreational use Prohibit spraying of instream vegetation in the mainstem. Review the instream management programme, in consultation with Arowhenua, who have observed the loss of instream habitats through inappropriate (and destructive practices).
78
Hinds River North Branch – Hewsons Road The mainstem was dewatered
Hinds River North Branch – Anama School Road The mainstem was dewatered
79
Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama School Rd The tributary was dewatered
Hinds River North Branch – Anama School Rd There appears to be a remnant wetland area or spring – it appear to be dry downstream of road, but with wetland vegetation upstream
80
Hinds River North Branch tributary – Anama Settlement Rd There was a good flow of clear water that appears to flow into a pond Connections beyond the pond and what it means in terms of habitat and connections are unknown.
Hinds River South Branch – Anama Settlement Road The mainstem was dewatered
81
Hinds North Branch mainstem merge with tributary – Anama Settlement Rd The mainstem was dewatered The only flow appears to be coming from a tributary (as shown in the bottom picture)
82
Management Priorities for upper Hinds (the two branches and tributaries entering the mainstem) Where minimum flows are currently set, maintain a depth of at least 30cms. Protect remnant springs, ponds, wetlands and seepages. Prohibit spraying of instream vegetation in the mainstem. Review the instream management programme, in consultation with Arowhenua, who have observed the loss of instream habitats through inappropriate (and destructive practices). Establish a long term monitoring programme to ensure that the pattern of dewatering is not changing – Whanau suspect that the reaches stay dry for longer, with and the reaches are extending in area.
83
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In Section 6 we identified a number of management priorities. In this concluding section we pull together the key themes and summarise a set of further recommendations.
Protect the remaining good stuff Wetlands, springs, remnants of native vegetation need to be protected. Before identifying opportunities to restore or reconstruct habitats in such a modified catchment, it is important that no further losses occur.
Regulation to ensure more appropriate instream management o Whanau want to see the spraying of instream vegetation prohibited. This is considered necessary to protect instream habitats. o Whanau are to be advised . Of the regulatory methods Environment Canterbury will implement to protect instream values. . How the practices of Environment Canterbury, who often are undertaking the work, will change.
Regulation to improve drain management o In some districts of Canterbury, whanau have been involved in development of a drain management protocol. They are also involved in implementation – for example, walking behind a digger returning eels to the waterway rather than leaving them stranded in the material extracted from the river and piled on the bank. o Included as Appendix 3 are some of the initiatives that have been identified by Dr Henry Hudson who prepared a report for Waihora Enhancement Trust. Rather than encouraging more sensitive management of drains, Te Runanga of Arowhenua want to see many of the initiatives included in the policy framework of the catchment plan.
Strategies implemented to ensure compliance with standards o It is unclear how many of the best practice models are to be implemented if a farmer does not have the financial resources to adopt them.
Commitment to prescribe the topics to be covered in farm plans e.g. drain management for biodiversity gains Environment Canterbury should require that farm plans for the Hinds area include strategies o for achieving biodiversity gains at an individual farm level o for improving drain management, including managing drains for their biodiversity values o for delivering cultural outcomes.
84
Commitment by Environment Canterbury to prioritise indigenous biodiversity above introduced species Whanau are concerned that projects proposed by Fish and Game that are focused on introduced species may be prioritized over projects with native species.
Uncertainty with respect to managed aquifer recharge In theory MAR could enhance flows in the waterways of the catchment. But Tangata whenua have a low level of confidence in this method delivering tangible outcomes for whanau.
1. There is no guarantee that the volumes added to ground will be available for restoring flows and quality. If 5 cumecs is added via MAR, what will be available in the surface waterways of the Hinds?
2. Tangata whenua need to know how infiltration will occur. Whanau know that infiltration could be via wetlands. Discharging to a wetland may be preferable to discharging directly to a natural watercourse and using that as a “cheap” option where an affected river reach would in fact become part of and managed as part the infiltration infrastructure.
3. There is a fear that the water is being added to make water available for irrigation. How much of the 5 cumecs will be “tagged for” or used to meet irrigation demand? Conversely, how much of the 5 cumecs will be available for the river? Tangata whenua therefore require assurance that water added via recharge will not be extracted downstream. In other words they need to be advised of the planning provisions that will be put in place to ensure that the water is used to restore flows, habitats and water quality rather than allocation.
4. Knowledge of groundwater systems and knowledge of connections is not complete enough to give Tangata whenua the confidence and certainty that MAR will deliver cultural outcomes. With MAR there is a complication in that Tangata whenua are dealing with a theoretical option. In order for MAR to be of benefit there needs to be a high level of understanding of the groundwater resource, the effects of infiltration, knowledge of the total water resource in the areas that have been infiltrated, and the quantities available for augmentation and / or allocation from the “underwater tanks”. Tangata whenua are not confident that the knowledge needed is available. Knowledge of the system needs to be available before any allocation of the 5 cumecs should be contemplated.
5. Tangata whenua also need to be told where the additional 5 cumecs that is to be used for MAR is to be sourced from. Tangata whenua believe that the CWMS is underpinned by a philosophy of cross mixing. However they also note that some rivers, such as the Ashburton and the Hinds may benefit if takes from those catchments are halted and waters of those catchments stay in catchment. Will MAR enable a number of consents in the Hinds to be surrendered? 85
6. Finally, if MAR is proposed as one of the solutions, what will it mean in terms of tangible outcomes for mahinga kai in the catchment? How will this be monitored? What will be the adaptive management framework that will be put in place if these outcomes are not being realised?
Finally, Tangata whenua note that the Hakatere (Ashburton River) and the Hinds could benefit from improved flows. However they also realise that any suggestion of enhanced flows needs to be cautioned with the risk of increased contamination from land-use intensification in the newly irrigated areas.
Liaison with Te Runanga o Arowhenua about land tenure issues for riverbeds, drains, wetlands etc. Whanau need to know where ad medium filum aquae (to the middle line of the water) rights apply in the Hinds Rangitata zone. Maps are need to illustrate how this impacts the many waterways in the zone. This information is required before any decisions about MAR, inter-catchment transfer or storage can be considered.
As noted earlier, whanau are increasingly being told that they cannot access waterways because of the existence of ad medium filum aquae rights. Whanau do not want to be the distribution of benefits from a new management regime skewed if ad medium filum aquae rights prevent some from accessing waters and waterways.
.
86
87
REFERENCES
Beattie, H. (1945). Maori placenames of Canterbury. Christchurch: Cadsonbury publications
Beattie, H. (1945) Maori Lore of Lake, Alp and Fiord. Otago Daily Times and Witness Newspapers Co. Ltd., Dunedin, New Zealand. 150 pages
Benn, J. (2013) Heakao/Hinds River Catchment Report, New Zealand Department of Conservation, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Clarke, R. Stankey, G. (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-98, December 1979.
Daly, A. 2004. Inventory of instream values for rivers and lakes of Canterbury, New Zealand; A desktop review. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury Report U04/13. 17 p. plus appendices.
Environment Canterbury. 2012b. Hinds Plains: Current state, Community summary. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury Report E13/08. 13 p.
Meredith, A.; Croucher, R.; Lavender, R.; Smith, Z. 2006. Mid-Canterbury coastal streams: Assessment of water quality and ecosystem monitoring, 2000–2005. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury Report R06/19. 102 p.
Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act (1998). Statutory Acknowledgements, Schedule 19: Statutory acknowledgments for Hekeaa (Hinds River), Rangitata River.
Reed, A. W. (2010). In Peter Dowling. Place Names of New Zealand. Rosedale, North Shore: Raupo. p. 167. ISBN 9780143204107.
Tipa G. Teirney, L. (2003) A Cultural Health Index for Steams and Waterways: Indicators for Recognising and Expressing Cultural Values Ministry for Environment Technical Chapter 75. ME number 475
88
89
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Dependencies of wahi taonga on river flows and water quality.
Appendix 2: An interpretation of the Eco-Cultural System in the Hinds
Appendix 3: Drain Management Initiatives
90 91 APPENDIX 1 - WAHI TAONGA DEPENDENCIES ON WATER, PARTICULARLY FLOWS
WAHI WATER DEPENDENCIES FLOW RELATED DEPENDENCIES TAONGA CLASS 1. Mahinga kai Oxygen – fish get this from water Oxygen – fish species are sensitive to interruptions in water supply (pools V flow). Higher Food – for plants, birds and fish flows help oxygenate deeper water. Colder waters hold oxygen. Links to temperature. Mahinga kai o Fish eat algae, invertebrates, worms Food – flow dislodges material that drifts and is available as food. (places where o birds eat fish, invertebrates, worms, seeds etc Habitat (a place to live) – habitat varies by species and life stage (spawning, incubation, foods are from riparian plants rearing, living). procured and or o plants need nutrients Temperature – species have optimal temperature ranges for survival. Links to riparian produced). Habitat (a place to live) – riparian, channel structure, vegetation etc (and shade). Temperatures are inversely proportional to flows e.g. high flows “Kai awa” and patterns and quantity of sediments, contaminants, low temperature, low flows high temperatures. “kai roto” refers interactions between fish and invertebrates, Cover – affected by debris in stream; ratio of sands, gravels, cobbles; vegetation in and to the foods and competition with predators (fish, birds, plants, adjacent to stream; pools and overhang banks etc; stream depth and turbulence resources invertebrates etc) Life cycle stages – triggered by freshes, but need to consider sequence, scale and timing of sourced from Temperature of water freshes – for all, but inter species variations. Migration, freshes because flow has to be rivers and lakes Cover in aquatic ecosystems – protects species from sufficient to cover instream structures etc. high flows enable fish to cover vast distances in respectively. predators, high temperatures, high turbulence short period of time. Life cycle stages triggered by flows Gathering – methods change with flows; affects fishing experience, flows can change catch Gathering methods dependent on flows rates Transportation – if access dependent on boating etc Transportation - affect boatability, access, Turbidity – linked to oxygen concentrations. Turbidity - amount of sediment in water column is dependent on velocity and turbulence. Suspended matter affects growth rates, movements etc, Flows affect aggradation affects streambed A lot of focus has been on fish but they ate only one part of the kai gathered.
92 WAHI WATER DEPENDENCIES FLOW RELATED DEPENDENCIES TAONGA CLASS 2. Taonga species Food Food – links to Box 1 (food for all parts of the food chain) Habitat (a place to live) Habitat (a place to live) – riparian habitats important – i.e. habitats on riverbed and Cover floodplain. Flows create conditions for growth; keep water tables high; supplies nutrients etc; Life cycle stages variation establishes site specific conditions e.g. high flows move seeds etc. Flows work Movement corridors channels, banks, alter soil moisture etc Cover – flows provide protection especially for riverbed bird species, clear weeds etc. Riparian vegetation provides woody debris to rivers, intercept sediments & nutrients etc. Vegetation lessen velocities helps reduce flood peaks by facilitating infiltration to groundwater into the ground during high flows and releasing back to the channel as flows subside. Life cycle stages Movement corridors – free movement for life cycle stages or to move to better habitats. Reduces risk of getting stranded.
3. Wahi tapuketia – Water levels and flows determine risk of exposure Low levels and flows increase the risk of exposure buried taonga
4. Wahi ana – Ground water Ground water infiltration important cave areas Freshes and floods Ground water levels Freshes and floods affect shapes
5. Tuhituhi nehera – Ground water Ground water infiltration rock drawing areas Freshes and floods Ground water levels Infrastructure can create micro climates
6. Wahi tohu – Can be water related Changing flows can cause a river to lose its identity – boulders etc high and dry, islands gone, locators and their Can describe character of waterway river not dominant feature / the shore is. names within landscapes 7. Wahi paripari – Channel shaping flow regimes Flows change erosion, deposition, aggradation cliff areas 8. Tuahu – sacred Linked to water quality and character Can be water related place for spiritual Can be dependent on character of waterway – flow and quality purposes Can describe use
93 WAHI WATER DEPENDENCIES FLOW RELATED DEPENDENCIES TAONGA CLASS 9. Wahi rakau – area See earlier notes water and riparian area See earlier notes water and riparian area of important trees 10. Pa tawhito – Links directly to mahinga kai and water quality Links directly to mahinga kai and water quality ancient pa sites Mahinga kai – could only reside because resources were available to sustain whanau There was a potable water supply
11. Wahi raranga – See earlier notes water and riparian area See earlier notes water and riparian area sources of weaving materials 12. Maunga Flows make connections – maunga to the sea Flows make and maintain connections 13. Wahi kaitiaki – Can be water related Changing flows can cause a river to lose its identity – boulders etc high and dry, islands gone, resource indicators Can describe character of waterway river not dominant feature / the shore is. from the environment 14. Wahi kohatu – Channel shaping flow regimes Dominant river in relation to cliffs or rock formations can be dislocated when river at low rock formations flows. Flows changes erosion, deposition, aggradation patterns Can get bath tub ring effects 15. Tauranga waka Water based activity Location dependent on specific water characteristics Traditional tauranga waka Contemporary boat ramps
16. Ara tawhito Land and water based trails link to water Links to boatability, access, connections, mahinga kai 17. Wai Maori See all of above Specific waterbodies may be valued for combination of flow related characteristics e.g. bathing dependent on vortex, swimming related on depth and velocity in relation to access Streams have a shape, a channel, a floodplain, and a flow. Movement of sediment linked to stream energy (velocity, turbulence, slope and flow). Water quality - Flows influence dilution capacity, AND Flows impact the saltwater / freshwater interface
94 OTHER WATER DEPENDENCIES FLOW RELATED DEPENDENCIES
18. Repo raupo See all of above Specific waterbodies may be valued for combination of level related characteristics Wetlands support a range of taonga species and a range of mahinga kai values
19. Cultural use Turbidity High flows may make water turbid and scare people from using Features Flows may leave features “high and dry”
20. Wahi ingoa May be water relate Names for the waterway, reaches of waterways, and/or physical characteristics of waterway Can become dislocated Names for flow dependent features within the catchment – wetlands, puna, rocks, cliffs,
22. Taniwha Taniwha reflect an indepth ecological knowledge of Dwelling place of taniwha in and around waterway waterbodies and flows Role of taniwha to protect certain features of the river - shape e.g. bends in river, rapids, headwaters May have a history of moving throughout the catchment May be protecting a wahi tapu Taniwha describe the creation of and interrelationships between landforms comprising a cultural landscape
95
96 APPENDIX 2 – THE ECOCULTURAL SYSTME FOR THE HINDS
Eco-cultural system in Hinds
Climate and Time atmospheric condition D
Geology
Riparian zone condition – cover, Aquatic and temperature control riparian biota – Landform riparian wetlands E vegetation, fish, and springs periphyton, birds, F Biological invertebrates processes – life stages, primary Landscape production, I condition – incl. Wahi paripari food, mortality, competition, land cover A growth rates
Urupa Kaika, pa, nohoanga
Water quality – Taonga species incl. distinctive Water quantity – (incl.plants, fish, optical properties (surface flows, birds and at least Wahi raranga of glacial water G groundwater 30 mahinga kai - incl. levels, connections Ara tawhito species) harakeke to springs) B
Ingoa tawhito
Instream habitat conditions Stream geomorphology – H sediment type, stability C
97
98 APPENDIX 3 – DRAIN MANAGEMENT (Hudson, 2012) ~ :c · .r; -0 - :: ~ "' "' "' c C H · . 1 I I U
99
100 L f f ,,,. • • : I I r I . )( Al ft> C.I C.I ft) 0 :J" < "' :J :J :J - - " , ~ . l I u . , . ~ ~ ,,,, l
101 · "O .... u ...... - c 0 Q. E ~ ~ I I
102 ...... - ...... • :i:r. 0. J ~ I • ~ I I : - • • I I 1 l i
103 I I J i I l l l c CJ
104 I • •
105 "' "" 'C - ~ ., u 0 Cl) ~ ~ ~ c: I
106