before the board of inquiry in the matter of the … · 1.8 prior to being engaged to assist with...

Sainsbury Logan & Williams Ref: Lara J Blomfield Solicitors Fax: 06-835 6746 Cnr Tennyson Street and Cathedral Lane Phone: 06-835 3069 PO Box 41 Napier

BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF Stephen Graeme DAYSH

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 6 3. CONSULTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE RWSS ..................................................... 7 4. THE MANA WHENUA WORKING PARTY .................................................................. 12 5. NOTICE OF REQUIRMENT – ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 18 6. THE INTEGRATED MITIGATION AND OFFSET APPROACH ................................... 30 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WITNESSES FOR CONDITION CHANGES ............. 34 8. RESPONSE TO CONDITION REQUESTS NOT ADDRESSED BY OTHER WITNESSES ......................................................................................................................... 37 9. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 1 The Environmental, Social and Cultural Section of the Feasibility Report

(Section 3)...................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 2 The Draft Minutes of the 31 August 2013 Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group

Meeting. ......................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 3 The Approved Minutes of the 31 August 2013 Ruataniwha Stakeholder

Group. ............................................................................................................ 54 10. EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................. 55 Exhibit SGD 1: Mana Whenua Working Party report ........................................................... 55 Exhibit SGD 2: RWSS Part D Proposed Conditions – Updated September 2013 .............. 56 Exhibit SGD 3: Excerpt from the New Zealand Gazette, No. 38, 28 March 2013 ............... 57

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Stephen Graeme Daysh.

1.2 I am a Director and Principal Planner in the Napier office of Environmental

Management Services Limited (“EMS”), a specialist environmental planning

consulting company that I founded in 1994.

1.3 I have a Bachelor of Regional Planning (Honours) degree from Massey

University and have over 30 years of experience as an environmental planner

and project manager. I am a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute,

the Resource Management Law Association, the New Zealand Geothermal

Association and the International Geothermal Association. I am a certified

Commissioner (Chairs endorsement) under the Ministry for the Environment

“Making Good Decisions” programme.

1.4 Over the last 20 years, while at EMS I have been the project manager / lead

consultant for a number of significant environmental permitting projects

associated with large energy infrastructure developments in New Zealand and

Asia. Some of these involved re-consenting long-standing existing assets

under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) process and others were

new projects seeking consents after feasibility studies had been undertaken.

The larger projects for which I have had a major role in coordinating the

environmental investigations and consenting processes are listed below:

(a) Wayang Windu Geothermal Plant Consents Project - Indonesia (1994-

1996)

(b) Kamojang Geothermal Plant Expansion Project - Indonesia (1997)

(c) Ohaaki Geothermal Plant Re-consenting Project (1997-1998)

(d) Tauhara I Geothermal Consents Project (1996-1999)

(e) Taranaki Combined Cycle II Gas Plant Consents Project (2000-2001)

(f) Cobb Hydro Plant Re-consenting Project (2001-2002)

(g) Marsden B Coal-fired Repowering Project (2004-2006)

(h) Wairakei Geothermal Plant Re-consenting Project (1999-2007)

(i) Te Mihi Geothermal Plant Consents Project (2007-2008)

(j) Hauāuru mā raki Wind Farm Consents Project (2007-2010)

(k) Waitahora Wind Farm Consents Project (2008-2009)

(l) Tauhara II Geothermal Plant Consents Project (2008-2010).

1.5 I have also had extensive experience in designating infrastructure assets.

Before forming EMS, I worked for Works Consultancy Services Limited. In

1992 I established and was the National Environmental Manager for Works

Environmental Management, a division of Works Consultancy Services Limited,

and prior to that between 1988 and 1991 I was the Planning Manager for that

company in their Waikato and Bay of Plenty Division after moving from the

Wellington office where I was employed as a Senior Planner.

1.6 With Works Consultancy Services’ focus on State Highway roading projects I

led the investigations into and the subsequent designation (in several cases) of

a number of significant State Highway Roading Projects for Transit New

Zealand including:

(a) SH1 Wellington/Kapiti Western Corridor Study

(b) SH 1 Levin Bypass

(c) SH1 Mission to Hallets Bay Realignment

(d) SH1 Cambridge Bypass

(e) SH2 Tauranga Route J Expressway

(f) SH2 Te Puke Bypass

(g) SH2 Katikati Bypass

(h) SH30 Rotorua Eastern Arterial

(i) SH1 Hamilton to Tamahere Realignment Projects

1.7 In 1995 and 1996 I was engaged by Transit New Zealand as the Peer Reviewer

for the Wellington Urban Motorway Designation process. Aside from the

Hauāuru mā raki wind farm project, which involved designating a 30km 220kV

transmission line, my more recent significant designation experience has been

as sole Commissioner hearing the Te Kauwhata Bypass Notice of Requirement

(which had a wide range of community and ecological issues associated with it),

and as the lead consultant for the Whakatu Arterial designation process in

Hawke’s Bay where the Notice of Requirement and AEE studies are currently in

preparation.

1.8 Prior to being engaged to assist with the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme

(“RWSS”) I had worked for various clients on a number of water storage

feasibility studies since the early 1990s associated with hydro-generation /

irrigation opportunities within the Clutha, Hawea, Waingaro, Tukituki,

Whangaehu, and Mohaka Catchments. This included major reviews of new

hydro dam opportunities (including necessary Transmission Upgrades and

Irrigation potential) on the Upper and Lower Clutha Rivers for Contact Energy in

1996 and again in 2012.

1.9 A range of clients have engaged me to advise on RMA and associated land

issues in due diligence processes for the prospective purchase of the following

hydro-electric scheme assets; Waipori, Clyde, Roxborough, Cobb, Waihi, and

Matahina. In 1998, I was appointed as the planning advisor to the Interim

Development Board set up to establish Genesis Energy Limited as it was

assessing the purchase of the Huntly, Tongariro Power Development, and

Waikaremoana generation assets from the Crown.

1.10 I have been intimately involved in four previous RMA Board of Inquiry

processes as the lead consultant for Contact Energy’s Te Mihi and Tauhara II

geothermal and Hauāuru mā raki wind farm projects, and as the Section 42A

Peer Reviewer for the Waterview Connection roads of national significance

project in Auckland. In 2011 the Tauhara II Project was awarded the trophy in

the Major Projects category at the Resource Management Law Association

Awards and a Highly Commended Award in the Nancy Northcroft New Zealand

Planning Institute Awards.

1.11 Since March 2011 I have been engaged by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

(“HBRC”) and then the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited

(“HBRIC Ltd”) on the RWSS, firstly leading the environmental component of the

feasibility study, and from late 2012 as the consenting manager for the RWSS

applications. Over this time I have been closely involved in the following

specific tasks:

(a) Assisting with the stakeholder consultation programme, focused on the

Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, and the Pan Sector Group1

(b) Facilitation of the Land Use Intensification and Mana Whenua Working

Parties2

(c) Briefing and coordinating the various environmental investigations and

reports associated with both the feasibility study phase and the applications

and Assessment of Environmental Effects (“AEE”) document3

(d) Co-authoring the report entitled “Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme:

Alternatives Assessment for Primary Distribution System – Zones A to D”

which is Schedule Four of the Notice of Requirement4

(e) Co-authoring the report entitled “Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme:

Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach” which is Report K6 in

the RWSS application documentation5

(f) Co-authoring the preparation of the AEE6

(g) Coordinating the drafting of a suite of proposed resource consent

conditions for consideration by the Board of Inquiry7.

1.12 I have also been involved in a number of preliminary landowner briefings and

discussions and more recently have assisted Mr Hansen to co-ordinate initial

property negotiations with landowners in the RWSS reservoir footprint area

associated with implementing a proposed mitigation and offsetting project in

that area (as discussed by Mr Hansen and Mr Kessels in their evidence).

Purpose and Scope of Evidence 1.13 The purpose of my evidence is to:

(a) Present an updated set of Proposed Conditions that reflect the position of

HBRIC Ltd after consideration of submissions on the RWSS as assessed

by the various experts who are giving evidence.

1 Described in RWSS Folder 2, Tab 1, Section 28 2 ibid 3 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 1 4 RWSS Folder 1, Tab 2 Schedule 4 5 RWSS Folder 3, Tab 6 6 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 1 7 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2

(b) Explain the stakeholder consultation process and provide my opinion on

that process based on my experience with other similar projects.

(c) Outline the Mana Whenua Working Party process including an update

since the RWSS application documentation was finalised in early May

2013.

(d) Discuss the process involved in preparing the assessment of alternatives

for the Zones A to D Primary Distribution Network notice of requirement

and respond to submissions on the designation.

(e) Finally I give a process summary associated with the development of the

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach.

1.14 I have ordered my evidence under the following main heading:

(a) The Consultation Process for the RWSS

(b) The Mana Whenua Working Party

(c) The Notice of Requirement Alternatives Assessment and Conditions

(d) The Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach

(e) An update of the Proposed Conditions based on advice from other

witnesses

(f) Responses on points raised by submitters regarding conditions that are not

dealt with by other witnesses

Expert Code of Conduct 1.15 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in section 5 of the

Environment Court’s Practice Note (2011). I agree to comply with that Code of

Conduct. Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of

another person, my evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise. I

have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or

detract from the opinions which I express.

2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

2.1 I have been fully involved in consultation and stakeholder engagement on the

RWSS since I started work on the project in March 2011.

2.2 Formalised stakeholder engagement processes have occurred which involved

the establishment and/or engagement with multiple groups, including the Mana

Whenua Working Party, Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, a wide range of

community groups, landowners, the Land Use Intensification Working Party, a

Pan Sector Group, the Key Farmer Reference Group and the Hawke’s Bay

District Health Board.

2.3 The Mana Whenua Working Party was established in November 2012, with

representatives appointed from HBRIC Ltd, Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te

Taiwhenua o Heretaunga.

2.4 The consultation undertaken in the context of the Mana Whenua Working Party

(and through preparation of the cultural impact assessments) ensured that all

substantive cultural issues were clearly “on the table” and mana whenua

representatives were fully involved through the process.

2.5 Outside of formalised stakeholder engagement processes, I consider that there

has been ample information and time available for the broader public to become

familiar with the issues and m aterial related to the RWSS, and t o make their

views known, either directly to HBRC and HBRIC Ltd, or through other means

such as submissions

2.6 Overall, my view is that HBRC, and subsequently HBRIC Ltd, have taken a

thorough and measured approach to stakeholder engagement and consultation

for the RWSS.

2.7 HBRIC Ltd has lodged a Notice of Requirement for the Zones A to D Primary

Distribution System which included an assessment of alternatives in

accordance with the requirements of the RMA.

2.8 I consider that the process undertaken to assess the alternatives for the notice

of requirement reflected leading planning practice, which included an early and

broad options analysis of realistic engineering alternatives and a structured

multi-disciplinary / multi-criteria assessment methodology to assess the

identified technical and environmental considerations relevant to the

alternatives.

2.9 A cornerstone of the RWSS proposal is the Integrated Mitigation and Offset

Approach. The Approach has been developed through extensive technical

assessments and consultation. Five projects are proposed in response to the

potential effects of the RWSS. The projects collectively set out biodiversity

restoration and enhanc ement strategies and ap proaches for offsetting effects

on recreation, cultural and heritage values, phosphorus inputs to the streams

and the availability and quality of in-stream habitat.

2.10 The estimated total cost provision for offset mitigation requirements over a 30

year period equates to approximately $8.7 million, with the most significant

costs incurred in the first ten years of the project.

2.11 I have proposed a number of changes to the proposed conditions lodged with

the RWSS applications in May 2013. These changes are in response to

evidence prepared for the hearing by experts advising HBRIC Ltd, some of

whom have recommended condition changes after considering submissions

seeking either general outcomes or specific conditions.

2.12 In addition, there are number of condition matters that I have addressed myself

in response to various condition requests and relief sought by submitters.

3. CONSULTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE RWSS

3.1 Consultation is undoubtedly an important element in planning for, and

delivering, large infrastructure projects and claims of “a lack of” or “inadequate”

consultation is often a common theme in RMA cases dealing with such projects.

While consultation is not a m andatory legal requirement for those lodging

resource consent applications or notices of requirements, it is well accepted as

good practice. Schedule Four of the RMA states that AEE’s should identify the

persons affected by the proposal, the consultation undertaken, if any, and any

response to the views of any person consulted.

3.2 My specific role and responsibilities have been associated with the RWSS

component of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal. I have been f ully involved in

consultation and stakeholder engagement on the RWSS since I started work on

the project in March 2011, following the completion of the pre-feasibility stage.

At this time, there had already been significant stakeholder engagement around

both the Hawke’s Bay Water Strategy (discussed in the evidence of Ms Codlin)

and water storage opportunities through the Ruataniwha pre-feasibility stage

(discussed in the evidence of Mr Hansen and Dr Wakefield).

3.3 A number of submitters including; Jenny Baker8, Operation Patiki9 Hawea

Tomoana10, Eugenie Sage11, Ngai Te Upokoiri ki Omahu Marae,12 Ngāti

Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated13, and Waipatu Marae/Ngai Hawea, Ngati Hori,

Ngati Hinemoa14 claim that consultation has not been adequate.

3.4 Dr Wakefield has already covered the process of engagement with iwi and

hapu. This included the commissioning of Cultural Impact Assessments

(“CIAs”), consultation with marae and hapu by the authors of those

assessments, the direct attendance by HBRC and HBRIC Ltd representatives at

a number of marae based meetings, and the convening of the Mana Whenua

Working Party in late 2012 as agreed between HBRIC Ltd, Te Taiwhenua o

Heretaunga and Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea.

3.5 As a member of the Mana Whenua Working Party, I can confirm there was

discussion within that group about the need to offer marae based briefings at

marae along the Tukituki River around the time the RWSS application

documentation was being completed and l odged with the EPA, to provide an

update on the work of the Working Party and the key issues which had been

assessed through that process. I am aware that a number of these marae

meetings were held and both Mr Hansen and I offered to attend the meetings.

However, the other members of Working Party who convened these meetings

preferred to front the meetings themselves.

3.6 The Mana Whenua Working Party also facilitated presentations on the RWSS at

two hui in March 2013. These were the “Fish Hook Summit”, an annual hui a

iwi focusing on environmental matters convened by Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi

Incorporated, on 7 March 2013 and a hui a hapu held in Waipawa on 27 March

2013. These hui were well advertised and well attended.

8 Submitter # 216 9 Submitter # 252 10 Submitter # 331 11 Submitter # 362 12 Submitter # 357 13 Submitter # 359 14 Submitter #395

3.7 In terms of the general criticisms over the consultation process for the RWSS I

am aware from my experience with other large projects that whatever is done

by an applicant in this area, some individuals and parties will always desire

more discussion and/or more time for them to assimilate information. However,

at some stage a dec ision has to be m ade by the applicant that enough

consultation has been done and that it is time for it to lodge its applications.

3.8 There is also a general theme running through some of the submissions (and in

various comments from parties reported in the media over the last two years)

that HBRC and HBRIC Ltd may have been “holding back RMA relevant

information to its advantage” and not providing access to all possibly relevant

information in a timely way. I disagree that this has been the case.

3.9 I consider that there has been ample information and time for interested people,

not directly involved in the formalised stakeholder processes that I discuss

below to become familiar with the issues and material, and to make their views

known, either directly to HBRC and HBRIC Ltd, or through other means such as

submissions. I n fact, over the last two years HBRC and H BRIC Ltd have

provided regular project updates to all regional ratepayers via various

communication means, including newsletters, full page updates in local

newspapers and via media releases. N umerous parties and i ndividuals have

provided comments on the RWSS in local and national media so there seems

little chance that people, with a g enuine interest in accessing relevant

information, have not been alerted to the existence of the RWSS and the issues

it raises.

3.10 The core environmental studies and reports associated with the RWSS

(including their key findings and recommendations) prepared for the feasibility

stage have been publ icly available on the HBRC website since September

2012, some eight months prior to the final application documents being lodged

and made publicly available in May 2013. All of the “Final Draft” RWSS

Application documents were uploaded to the HBRC website around the middle

of March 2013, six weeks prior to them being formally lodged with the EPA and

well over three months prior to the closing of submissions on the RWSS

applications in August 2013.

3.11 I note by way of general approach, HBRIC Ltd was generally careful not to

place these reports in the public domain until they were concluded, albeit drafts

of all the key reports were discussed with the relevant stakeholder and working

party representatives as part of their preparation. While sometimes requested

to release preliminary drafts, HBRIC Ltd was concerned this would lead to

‘misinformation’ or potential confusion as the assessments evolved, and before

the relevant outputs were incorporated in the Scheme though proposed

mitigation and option refinement in a range of areas. I understand this may have

caused some frustration by members of the public and interested parties and

can appreciate this, but I consider the timing of final reports being released was

reasonable, as just explained.

3.12 The sheer volume of material and getting through the project information is a

challenge for some parties. I fully acknowledge this concern and therefore

attempted as best as I could to put together the project components and key

findings in a clear and relatively concise AEE. In discussions with parties who

were struggling with the weight of information I stressed to them to focus on the

AEE document as the “roadmap” for the project information and then to look at

the more detailed reports that they were interested in to get the further detail

they needed.

3.13 I refer above to the RWSS feasibility study information published in September

2012. The “Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Feasibility Report to Council,

HBRC Water Initiatives Group, September 2013” (“Feasibility Report”)

discussed in the evidence of Mr Hansen covered the technical, environmental,

social and cultural, and economic feasibility for the project. I was responsible

for the environmental feasibility component of this report. The feasibility study

was a s ubstantial and important exercise covering an eighteen month period

guided by the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group. Rather than paraphrasing this

important process in the body of my evidence, I attach the following extracts

that form part of the overall report, along with the key stakeholder meeting

minutes which included a draft of the report:

Appendix 1 The Environmental, Social and Cultural Section of the Feasibility

Report (Section 3)

Appendix 2 The Draft Minutes of the 31 A ugust 2013 Ruataniwha

Stakeholder Group Meeting including the Record of Discussion

on the Draft Council Feasibility Report Environmental, Social and

Cultural Studies & Community Engagement Sections (Appendix

4 of the Report)

Appendix 3 The Approved Minutes of the 31 August 2013 Ruataniwha

Stakeholder Group.

3.14 The Tukituki Choices process described in the evidence of Ms Codlin provided

another excellent opportunity for public comment and input into Tukituki

Catchment planning as a whole through September and October 2012, leading

up to the HBRC and HBRIC Ltd decision in late October 2012 to proceed with

further developing and lodging RWSS and Change 6 elements of the Tukituki

Catchment Proposal together, and seeking that they be determined by a Board

of Inquiry.

3.15 Based on my experience with a significant number of similar large projects, my

view is that HBRC, and subsequently HBRIC Ltd, have taken a thorough and

measured approach to stakeholder engagement and consultation for the

RWSS. The RWSS AEE15 outlines the details of this process with the

outcomes summarised in Section 28.10 as:

(a) Input to Scheme shaping through the early appointment and

involvement of the Leadership Group.

(b) Communication with, and input from the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group

through 19 meetings held in Waipawa starting in May 2010, including

agreement of the group to the range and content of the environmental

studies undertaken to support the feasibility decision.

(c) Active involvement of the environmental groups on t he Ruataniwha

Stakeholder Group in the development and prioritisation of elements of

the five proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset projects.

(d) Numerous meetings, presentations and discussions with a wide range of

community groups.

(e) Regular briefings with landowners on whose properties Scheme

infrastructure will be l ocated to assist with refining the primary

distribution system and to form a basis for land access agreements.

(f) Involvement of nominated members of the Ruataniwha Stakeholder

Group in the Land Use Intensification Working Party process.

15 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 1

(g) The convening of a Mana Whenua Working Party to provide a forum for

Mana Whenua represented by a number of groups to work with HBRIC

Ltd representatives to develop effective ways of addressing the

recommendations of the various cultural impact assessments which

have been prepared for the Scheme.

(h) Input from a P an Sector group into the development of the proposed

conditions for the management of the Production Land Use element of

the Scheme, as part of a wider brief which also assisted HBRC with the

approach to limit setting developed for Change 6.

(i) Feedback from a K ey Farmer Reference Group into the details of the

proposed conditions for the management of the Production Land U se

element of the Scheme, as these were being drafted.

(j) Liaison with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in the drafting of

proposed conditions associated with Public Health matters.

4. THE MANA WHENUA WORKING PARTY

4.1 While a num ber of Cultural Impact Assessments had been pr epared for the

feasibility stage of the project (i.e. up to September 2012) there equally were a

number of recommendations from these reports that needed t o be di scussed

further and implemented.

4.2 As explained in Section 28.6 of the AEE16 a Mana Whenua Working Party was

established after a meeting held on 19 November 2012 involving myself, Mr

Newman and Mr Hansen from HBRIC Ltd, Professor Maaka and Mr Mohi from

Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Mr Apatu representing Te Taiwhenua o

Heretaunga. This meeting was convened after the decision had been made to

move on from the feasibility stage to preparing the RMA application

documentation for the RWSS and i n response to the following findings and

recommendations contained in the Feasibility Report:

“In relation to the recommendations contained in the Cultural Impact

Assessment Report we consider the following matters are relevant

considerations:


a) The recommendations regarding governance and m anagement

associated with the Tukituki Catchment seem to be largely addressed by

the co-governance function of the recently established HBRC Regional

Planning Committee whose function is to oversee the development of

policy and plan instruments for the catchment

b) The recommendations associated with “mauri” have been r ecognised

and addressed through the development of the integrated mitigation and

offset report, with iwi representation proposed on the administering Trust

c) Council is assessing the implementation of higher minimum flow limits to

address the historic low flow issues in the catchment, as part of the

upcoming Plan Change.

We consider that further discussions should be held with Te Taiwhenua O

Tamatea and Te Tai whenua O Heretaunga in relation to the other key

recommendations such as:

a) How to realise potential social and ec onomic benefits for tangata

whenua

b) Potential involvement of tangata whenua in monitoring

c) How best to define and recognise any unregistered wahi tapu / wahi

taonga; and

d) Historic Places Act authority requirements including the development of

appropriate Accidental Discovery Protocols.”

4.3 At the 19 N ovember 2012 meeting, I suggested a c ombined Working Party

approach which, after discussion, was agreed. I suggested this initiative based

on successful approaches that I had helped co-ordinate between mana whenua

and Contact Energy during the Hauāuru mā raki Wind Farm and Tauhara II

Geothermal Plant consenting processes.

4.4 In the Hauāuru mā raki situation, a coastal Waikato iwi, Ngati Tahinga (whose

rohe extends from north of Raglan to Port Waikato), worked collaboratively with

the project team from the project inception to assess a wide range of cultural

and environmental issues. This process resulted in an A greement between

Ngati Tahinga and Contact Energy presented to the Board of Inquiry for that

case by the iwi. The agreement was founded on Ngati Tahinga having the ‘first

right’ to co-ordinate and undertake a l arge part of fourteen ecological offset

projects that had been agreed with the Department of Conservation and other

parties, along with significant annual training and cultural project funding.

4.5 The Tauhara II process built on s ome long-standing relationships Contact

Energy had established with hapu in the Wairakei and Tauhara areas of Taupo,

associated with their operations on t he Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal Field.

The situation with the Tauhara II project (a new 250MW geothermal power plant

and steamfield planned for east of Taupo Township) was quite complex as the

project area covered several Maori owned blocks of land, and a wider range of

hapu were directly affected as mana whenua than had previously been involved

during the Wairakei re-consenting process. A fter a de tailed and t horough

working party process covering approximately six months, two Agreements

were signed, one w ith a Wairakei Hapu Collective (building on t heir prior

agreement associated with Wairakei Power Station Re-consenting) and the

other with a Tauhara Hapu Collective. These agreements covered a range of

matters including agreement to “minimum conditions” and annual funding to

Trusts set up to administer environmental and cultural projects of relevance to

hapu. The agreements were presented to the Tauhara II Board of Inquiry by

the two hapu collective groups, with the Board commenting in their decision

that, “In the context of a nat ionally significant project we were pleasantly

surprised at the extent to which agreement has been reached”.

4.6 The approach agreed at the 19 November 2012 meeting was for HBRIC Ltd, Te

Taiwhenua o T amatea and Te Taiwhenua o H eretaunga to nominate three

representatives each onto a Working Party and then for a Terms of Reference

to be developed by the group. Mr Ratima, Mr Paku and Dr Whyte were

nominated by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga; Professor Maaka, Mr Gregory, and

Mr Mohi were nominated by Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea; and Mr Hansen, Ms

Letica and I were nominated by HBRIC Ltd.

4.7 The final Mana Whenua Working Party report is attached as Exhibit SGD1.

The Working Party Terms of Reference are attached as Appendix A of the

report and Table 2 sets out the various hui and milestones associated with the

process between November 2012 and July 2013. The Final Report was signed

by eight of the nine Working Party Members on 22 August 2013.

4.8 At a key planning session held on 24 January 2012, the Mana Whenua Working

Party discussed the following three key issues that were derived from the Terms

of Reference.

• Meeting Social and Economic Opportunities

• Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring

• Cultural and Accidental Discovery Protocols

4.9 These three key areas form the structure of the “Agreed Approach” in Table 3 of

the Report which includes both Working Party Comments and t he Agreed

Approach associated with each of these three key issues. Through the

process, three additional issues were tabled as part of the Agreed Approach

under the following headings:

• Deforestation of the Tukituki Catchment

• Investment and Representation

• Use of Mana Whenua Working Party Model for Future Processes

4.10 The Agreed Approach references an Agreement between HBRIC Ltd and Te

Taiwhenua o Tamatea which provides for (among other things):

(a) Agreement between the parties as to certain minimum resource consent

conditions associated with matters of interest to mana whenua

(b) A first right for a Trust established by Te Taiwhenua o T amatea to

secure the contracts to undertake the five projects identified in the

“Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: Integrated Mitigation and Offset

Approach (HBRIC May 2013f)17 filed with the RWSS applications

(c) Provision of an educ ation and training fund with a pr iority to support

those who whakapapa to, or can evidence affiliation with, the

Ruataniwha District.

4.11 The matters covered in the Agreement were derived from discussions at a

Working Party hui held on 21 March 2013. After presenting these and

discussing them with Mr Newman, the Managing Director of HBRIC Ltd, I

coordinated the drafting of the Agreement and a draft copy was circulated to all

Working Party members prior to Easter. T he Agreement has subsequently

been discussed and ratified at HBRIC Ltd meetings and by the Te Taiwhenua o

Tamatea Governance Board.


4.12 I understand the Agreement will be made available to the Board of Inquiry by Te

Taiwhenua o Tamatea, as part of them addressing their submission on the

RWSS.

4.13 As set out in Table 3 o f the Mana Whenua Working Party Report, there is a

range of other “Agreed Actions”. One of the most significant, in my opinion, is

the influence that the Mana Whenua Working Party has had in terms of HBRIC

Ltd requiring the prospective Design and C onstruct contractors to include a

“Hawke’s Bay Industry Participation Policy Statement” in their tenders. T he

Working Party has also tabled a Mana Whenua Values and A spirations

document with the prospective contractors and this will be part of the evaluation

of the tenders received for this aspect. In RMA terms, I consider that this is a

real and practical demonstration of the Section 5 theme of enabling people and

communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, along

with a practical expression of kaitiakitanga of relevance under Section 7.

4.14 A footnote to Table 3 records that: “The Working Party Members who have

signed this report wish to record that those members who have not signed this

report participated fully in the Working Party process, including definition of the

key issues and in the discussions on the Agreed Approach set out in Section

6.0 (Table 3)”.

4.15 Working Party member Dr Whyte, who is now the Acting Chief Executive of

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, was the only member who did not sign the

Final Working Party Report. Dr Whyte had advised the Working Party prior to

the 22 August 2013 meeting that, at a ‘hui a hapu’ held at Matahiwi Marae on

31 July 2013, a motion had been pa ssed “That Ngāti Kahungunu (Iwi Inc)

should lead the proposal to ensure that the tino rangatiratanga of each hapu is

maintained and recognised and that the mana of the Tukituki is maintained and

enhanced.” and that “This motion has been actioned by filing a submission in

opposition to the proposed dam”. She also advised that as a r esult, Ngāti

Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated was unable to sign the Mana Whenua report at

that stage and would not be attending any future Mana Whenua Working Party

hui.

4.16 I attended the 31 July 2013 hui a hapu at Matahiwi marae, along with Mr

Maxwell from HBRC, and make three observations about this hui.

(a) Dr Whyte had s tressed at previous Working Party Meetings the

importance for her that the draft findings of the Working Party be

presented to a hui a hapu as this was appropriate tikanga.

(b) At a Working Meeting held on 5 J uly 2013 t here was an ac tion for Dr

Whyte to liaise with Mr Mohi and Professor Maaka regarding the hui a

hapu arrangements, which was agreed should be in the Tamatea rohe,

as this is where the RWSS is based. Dr Whyte originally called the hui

in a panui via the Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated notification network

to be in Waipawa without discussing the arrangements (date and venue)

with the Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea representatives. I understand from

Professor Maaka and Mr Mohi that they were not comfortable with this

lack of consultation and unilateral approach and so instead Ngāti

Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated issued another panui for the hui to be held

at Matahiwi Marae, near Clive, which is in the rohe of Te Taiwhenua o

Heretaunga.

(c) As far as I could determine, although Mr Mohi at least was present, no

representatives of Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea marae spoke for their

marae at the 31 July 2013 hui, but representatives from a number of the

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga marae did. Much of the discussion raised

long-standing specific water management issues that Heretaunga

marae had outside the Tukituki Catchment, and it is relevant to note that

the marae seconding the meetings motion (Kohupatiki) is not located in

the Tukituki Catchment.

4.17 By way of conclusion on consultation issues, and on the basis of my

understanding that the purpose of consultation is to:

(a) As under the Local Government Act, enable an understanding of the

views and preferences of the broader community; and

(b) Relative to the resources and r elationships of significance to Maori

(under s6(e) of RMA), to enable decision makers to make informed

decisions about those matters.

then in my opinion, this consultation process has been extremely successful. In

my view very few issues were identified in submissions on the RWSS that had

not been raised by stakeholders during the consultation programme that I have

outlined, and in turn assessed by relevant experts where required in order to

ensure the RWSS appropriately responded to those issues. As Dr Wakefield

confirms in her evidence, the consultation undertaken in the context of the

Mana Whenua Working Party (and through preparation of the cultural impact

assessments) ensured that all substantive issues were clearly “on the table”

and mana whenua representatives were fully involved through the process.

5. NOTICE OF REQUIRMENT – ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND CONDITIONS

5.1 HBRIC Ltd has lodged a Notice of Requirement for the Zones A to D Primary

Distribution System18. HBRIC Ltd was approved as a requiring authority for

purposes of the distribution system by Gazette Notice on 28 March 2013 (a

copy is attached as Exhibit SGD3). Under Section 168A(3)(b) of the RMA:

When considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial authority must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to— (a) … (b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative

sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work if— (i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the

land sufficient for undertaking the work; or (ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse

effect on the environment.

5.2 HBRIC Ltd does not currently own the land covered by the requirement and

given the scale of the proposed work, it can fairly be s aid that it will have

significant effects on the environment. Therefore an as sessment of

alternatives19 was prepared to support the Notice of Requirement.

5.3 I was a co-author of this report with Ms Coubrough, a planner from HBRC. The

general methodology adopted for determining the preferred primary distribution

system alignment and conveyance option for Zones A to D is set out in the 10

step process outlined in of the Alternatives Report as set out below:

18 RWSS Folder 1 Tab 2 19 RWSS Folder 1, Tab 2 Schedule 4

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM231904

5.4 I consider that the process undertaken to assess the alternatives for this notice

of requirement in the Table above reflected leading planning practice

characterised by:

(a) An early and broad options analysis of realistic engineering alternatives

to meet the Scheme objectives for water distribution and supply.

(b) Testing for a range of constraints which relate to RMA Part 2 Matters so

that any areas of potential contention were identified and excluded from

any early stage.

Step 1: Irrigation areas and planning constraints mapped, and initial alignment and conveyance options identified

Step 2: Site visit and completion of Baseline Landscape Assessment

Step 4: Multi- criteria analysis of options

Step 3: Preliminary costing of options

Step 5: Comprehensive Landscape and Visual Assessment

Step 6: Design optimisation and cost refinement

Step 7: Engagement with affected landowners

Step 8: Primary Distribution System alignment refinement and preparation for Designation process

Step 9: Receive and respond to EPA comments on preliminary Draft (December 2012)

Step 10: Secondary engagement with affected landowners

(c) A subsequent structured multi-disciplinary / multi-criteria assessment

methodology led by planning expertise, but also involving the principal

areas of specific expertise required to deal with the identified technical

and environmental considerations relevant to the alternatives (as left

after the Part 2 sieving process discussed above).

(d) Identification of two preferred options for subsequent comprehensive

landscape and in turn design optimisation and cost refinement, followed

by selection of a preferred alternative for consultation with landowners.

(e) An open-minded approach by HBRIC Ltd to making amendments to the

its preferred alternative when discussions were held with the affected

landowners on the selected alignment to cater for landowner wishes and

concerns, (leading to revised alignments of some sections of the

network and adop tion of a greater extent of the underground pipeline

conveyance option, despite greater costs to the project). This process is

further outlined in Mr Hansen’s evidence.

(f) An opportunity to discuss comments on the methodology and to tighten

the alternatives assessment report up in some areas after discussion on

the draft report with the Central Hawke’s District Planner, Ms

O’Shaughnessy, and the Council’s Planning Advisor, Ms Allan.

5.5 The Notice of Requirement covers the alignment shown on Plan 1 - Overview

Plan below as shown as Primary Headrace Canals and Primary Pipelines within

Zones A to D. More detailed requirement plans at a 1: 10,000 Scale are

provided with the Notice of Requirement itself.

5.6 A number of submitters have made comments on the notice of requirement with

the following addressed below; LINZ Holdings Limited as Trustee for Nochi

Trust20, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council21, Federated Farmers of New

Zealand22, Transpower New Zealand Ltd23, Mr Apple24, and Horticulture New

Zealand and other parties25.

5.7 The submission by LINZ Holdings Limited as Trustee for Nochi Trust raises a

specific concern regarding the effects of the notice of requirement and water

distribution headrace canal on their land, upon which they are currently

irrigating with the use of pivot irrigators. It is acknowledged there are

challenges with the proposed canal through this property for the existing

irrigation operation on this property. The evidence of Mr Morris outlines some

engineering solutions which would maintain the operability of the pivot irrigation

plant affected. The implementation of this would need to be worked through in

the final design with the landowner, and i n the property negotiations and

compensation arrangements for this property.

20 Submitter # 107 21 Submitter # 256 22 Submitter # 354 23 Submitter # 372 24 Submitter # 376 25 Submitter # 384

5.8 It is informative to note that this submission is the only submission from among

the 19 landowners over which the notice of requirement traverses. In my

experience with notices of requirement in other areas, this is an unusually

positive outcome. In my view, the outcome is a result of the robust and open

process of alternatives assessment, where once the general alignment was

determined, Mr Hansen on behalf of HBRIC Ltd, liaised closely with the

landowners on the details, and the company was prepared to make some

changes and compromises to fit in with landowner wishes, as much as was

practicable.

5.9 Central Hawke’s Bay District Council generally supports the RWSS, but flags

particular issues regarding the subsequent Outline Plan process associated

with the notice of requirement. The first is a reference to issues associated with

the actual and potential benefits of the proposed Outline Plan process raised in

the Council’s Section 149(G) Key Issues Report. The second issue relates to a

concern that the costs of processing the Outline Plan will impose an

unreasonable burden on its ratepayers, and the third issue relates to the

relationship between the Outline Plan contents and t he contents of various

management plans.

5.10 HBRIC Ltd has not sought to waive the requirement to prepare an Outline Plan

under Section 176A(2) of the RMA and has signaled in the AEE26 that CHBDC

will have the opportunity to have an i nput into the process by which the

relatively generally expressed designation is converted to detailed plans and

specifications. The May 2013 pr oposed conditions for the designation27 are

framed to specify that an Outline Plan will be required prior to commencement

of construction works. The Outline Plan is to provide details of the final design

and location of access points, along with implementation of defined “Headrace

Design Principles”, as recommended by the Landscape Architect advising

HBRIC Ltd, Mr Lister. I consider that this is an appropriate process in that the

final design of the works has not been undertaken. The Outline Plan process is

established under RMA precisely for this type of scenario, and it provides a

distinct procedure (with defined guidance) to ensure the final design of the

works is appropriately undertaken in consultation with the landowners and

Council.

26 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 1 Section 1.3.2 27 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2 Pages 3 and 4

5.11 I do, however, accept the position of Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

regarding the potential for unnecessary overlap and duplication between this

Outline Plan process and t he requirements to prepare a S upplementary

Construction Environmental Management Plan (“SCEMP”) for the Primary

Distribution headrace canal and pipelines28. In this regard I think it would be

open for the Outline Plan requirement to be waived (and be de leted from the

Designation Conditions), but that would be a step the Council itself has to take,

unless the Board is minded to confirm the designation without an Outline Plan

requirement. The requirements for the design and location of access points

across the canal, consultation with the landowners and implementation as far as

practicable of the “Headrace Design Principles” could equally be s et as a

requirement under the SCEMP conditions to be addressed prior to the

construction of these particular works. To provide for this option (requiring

waiver by the Council or approval by the Board) I have made these

amendments to the updated Proposed Conditions that I have prepared and

which is attached as Exhibit SGD2.

5.12 On this basis, the concerns of Central Hawke’s Bay District Council regarding

recovering the costs of processing the Outline Plan would fall away, but I would

have expected that these could have been claimed as Section 36 C harges,

particularly as the Councils’ 2013-2014 Schedule of Fees and Charges includes

a deposit (minimum charge) requirement, and an ability to charge actual costs

for functions associated with designations. I note Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council has raised similar issues around being reimbursed for time spend

administering the resource consents within their District, which I address further

in my evidence in Section 8.

5.13 Although not specified in its submission, the Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council / Hastings District Council Section 149G Report raises some issues

regarding the “Proposed Restrictions on Use of Land and Water” which are set

out in Schedule 3 of the Notice of Requirement29. The Council has taken legal

advice on this matter and t his is appended t o the Section 149G report as an

Appendix. I have assessed that legal advice and have discussed it with HBRIC

Ltd’s legal counsel. On reflection, it is considered that in terms of the Proposed

Restrictions on U se of Land and Water in Schedule 3 of the Notice of

Requirement documentation:

28 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2, Condition 11 of Schedule One 29 RWSS Folder 1, Tab 1

• Item (a) is an appr opriate restriction in this circumstance as public (and

private access) to the canal area in particular outside of public or private

roads and/or bridges will involve significant safety concerns, especially with

under river siphons proposed. The most likely form of access to the land

HBRIC Ltd would itself secure by agreement with landowners is an

easement, which would not give the company exclusive possession rights

enforceable against third parties. This aspect of Schedule 3 should be

retained in my opinion, to give flexibility for the easement access right

method to be applied (and as actually sought by one submitter, addressed

below) while enabling HBRIC Ltd to prevent third party access that might

‘prevent or hinder’ the work involved.

• It is agreed that Items (b), (d) and (e) would be restrictions imposed under

Section 176 of the RMA in any event, and are therefore not required.

• Item (c) relates to a restriction of activities outside the designated area and

it is agreed that without designating further land, or some form of ‘reverse

sensitivity’ control being imposed on ad jacent land, this restriction is

problematic. On reflection again, it is not likely to be reasonably necessary

and in any event these types of effects are controlled through the Regional

Resource Management Plan. It should be deleted.

5.14 The submission by Federated Farmers of New Zealand relating to the Notice of

Requirement expresses some concern about landowners being negatively

impacted by the designation and public works across their land and in particular

is concerned where the RMA Section 186 (compulsory acquisition) procedures

could be invoked. They consider that the interests the requiring authority wants

over private land should be negotiated through an easement process, with

compensation paid and seek the following relief:

That easement agreements and compensation are utilised during the

process whereupon the requiring authority gains an interest over private

properties.

5.15 The first thing to say in response is that each of the 19 property owners with

land covered by the notice of requirement have had meetings with HBRIC Ltd to

discuss the proposal and that only one o f these has expressed any concern

through making a s ubmission. The second point is that the farms which the

proposed work crosses will have the opportunity to utilise the water from the

RWSS for productive purposes, and hen ce the RWSS is an oppor tunity for

them to increase the value of their businesses despite the effects of having the

primary distribution network traversing their land. The final point in response is

that the relief sought by Federated Farmers of New Zealand is exactly what is

proposed by HBRIC Ltd, although I do not think this relief is something that

could be imposed by way of a condition of consent. Given that HBRIC Ltd will

want to maintain all its avenues under legislation to provide an appr opriate

basis for negotiations, the company would not wish to accept such a condition.

5.16 Transpower New Zealand Limited has a general concern with the proposal to

locate distribution pipelines underneath their Fernhill to Woodville A & B

electricity transmission lines. In relation to the land area covered by the notice

of requirement their specific concern relates to both the construction of the

Primary Distribution Pipeline in the vicinity of pole 416 on t he Fernhill to

Woodville B and pot ential effects of the pipeline on its ability to maintain this

pole. This is a fair concern.

5.17 I have been involved in some of the discussions with representatives of

Transpower and HBRIC Ltd both prior to their submission being lodged and

note that some condition changes have been agreed between the parties to

address their concerns. These are reflected in the requested relief in

Transpower’s submission. The first request is to add into the proposed

restriction regarding entering onto the designated land, an exception for network

utility operators. This amended restriction should be to the update restriction a)

in Schedule 3 of the notice of requirement to read as follows (additional words

underlined):

(a) Enter onto or occupy the designated land except on publ ic or private

roads and/or bridges, or (in the case of network utility operators to

access, operate, maintain or upgrade their networks.

5.18 The second request relates to the addition into Schedule One of the proposed

conditions (as new conditions 13 and 14 ) specific requirements to address any

potential effects on any National Grid line associated with the construction of

the primary and secondary distribution pipeline network. The new conditions 13

and 14 of Schedule One in my Exhibit SGD2 do not cover the Zone M

distribution pipeline network as requested by Transpower in their submission,

as to my knowledge there are no National Grid lines in this area.

5.19 The Mr Apple submission comments that the objectives for the notice of

requirement are tightly defined and that because of this, an assessment (under

Section 171(1)(c) of the RMA) of the extent to which the project or work and

designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives is of limited

value. I consider that clear and pr ecise objectives for notices of requirement

are essential, and it would not be appropriate for objectives to be framed any

other way. I note the drafting of the objective was revised and f ramed as

currently worded following input from Ms Allan as part of the CHBDC review

referred to earlier in my evidence. I do agree with the Mr Apple submission that

given the promotion of the notice of requirement together with the consents for

the RWSS, this an integrated proposal and that Part 2 i s an important thread

tying all the components together. Mr Chrisp covers these Part 2 matters in his

evidence.

5.20 The submission by Horticulture New Zealand and other parties opposes the

notice of requirement as it considers there has been an inadequate

consideration of alternatives, that it will create inequality between HBRIC Ltd

and other permit holders, and there is a lack of opportunity to engage further in

the detailed design process.

5.21 Turning to the first matter, I do not agree that the alternatives assessment

undertaken for the notice of requirement is inadequate. Section 171(1)(b) of the

RMA requires the decision maker to assess whether adequate consideration

has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work.

The Alternatives Assessment Report was completed by a m ulti-disciplinary

team, but the initial definition of appropriate alignment and conveyance options

(including defining appropriate Primary Distribution System options to assess at

different RL levels) was undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor Limited to scope

realistic engineering options for water distribution and supply to irrigated land.

5.22 A discussion of this option definition process is set out in Section 2.1 of the

Alternatives Assessment Report where it is explained that a r ange of heights

were assessed by Tonkin and Taylor starting at a potential upper water

elevation (hydraulic grade) of 250m RL. Ultimately, Tonkin & Taylor settled on

two elevations to assess, based on a higher alignment (which would drive more

pressure) of 240m RL, and a l ower 220m RL alignment. The subsequent

alternatives assessment looked at both these alignment options (along with a

range of different conveyance types) and as sessed these through a robust

multi-criteria process, including factoring in the costs and benefits of gravity

versus pumping. Mr Morris elaborates on this matter in his evidence.

5.23 The Horticulture New Zealand and others submission also poses the possible

alternative (method) of somehow artificially recharging the Ruataniwha

groundwater system as an alternative method. Based on my experience with

geothermal projects detailed in my submission, I struggle with the idea that it

would be possible first to effectively artificially recharge the aquifer to replace

the dam storage given the volumes of water involved, and second to use it as a

means of distributing water from a central point on the plains underground with

any assurance that the water would conveniently arrive under the properties of

scheme participants, and be ac cessible for extraction. I regard it as

speculative, but have asked Dr Baalousha to comment further.

5.24 The question of whether the notice of requirement is necessary for meeting the

project objectives is raised in the submission of Horticulture New Zealand and

others, and it suggests that the proposed works may be m ore appropriately

managed through resource consents. There is also a suggestion that the notice

of requirement somehow creates an i nequality between HBRIC Ltd and ot her

permit holders. The RMA provides a process where notices of requirements

can be lodged by network utility operators for particular purposes. One of these

purposes specified in Section 166(d) of the RMA is for the distribution of water

for supply (including irrigation). HBRIC Ltd is a requiring authority and a

network utility operator for this purpose.

5.25 There are sound reasons why the RMA establishes the special designation

provisions in Part 8 for such purposes, especially where a proposed work

covers a long lineal route, and the ultimate ability to implement it might

potentially be frustrated by one or a small number of landowners. A designation

serves three purposes as follows:

• Approval Function: It operates as a land use consent overriding an district

plan rules infringed by a proposal and for which resource consent approval

would otherwise be needed (note though, it does not override regional level

plan restrictions or consent requirements)

• Restraining Function: It constrains what a land owner can do within the

designated land (any use of land that would ‘prevent or hinder’ the proposal

(i.e. make it more difficult or expensive) is unlawful, without prior written

consent of the requiring authority

• Acquisition Function: It may assist implementation of the proposal by

adding weight to any request the requiring authority might make to the

Minster of Lands to compulsory acquire land for the project (if a negotiated

land arranged was not able to be achieved)

5.26 HBRIC Ltd has utilised the designation approval option for the Primary

Distribution Network, as it has the legal right to do, and in my opinion this is an

appropriate course given the factors outlined above for this particular part of the

overall proposal. I do not understand the claim in the submission by

Horticulture New Zealand and others that there is some form of inequality

compared with other permit holders created by the course of action taken to

designate rather than seek resource consents. Both processes require

approval by a decision maker and anal ysis and review under the RMA,

including Part 2, as outlined in the submission of Federated Farmers of New

Zealand. HBRIC Ltd is approved by the Minister for the Environment as a

requiring authority for the specific purpose of seeking this designation, and

following review to satisfy the Minister the powers would be ex ercised

responsibly under the RMA.

5.27 The final point regarding the designation raised in the submission of Horticulture

New Zealand and others relates to how the final design details of works within

the designation are worked through, including consultation with their

stakeholders. The submission refers to proposed condition 2 o f the notice of

requirement30 which relates to the Outline Plan process. Earlier in this section

of my evidence, in response to the submission raising Central Hawke’s Bay

District Council’s unease with the Outline Plan and its duplication with the

SCEMP process, I have suggested that the Outline Plan process could be

waived by the Council and that the final design details for the Primary

Distribution Network could be worked through under the preparation of the

relevant SCEMP and its certification. As previously noted, I have amended the

Proposed Conditions as shown in my Exhibit SGD2 to provide for this option.

5.28 Ultimately the Board of Inquiry will need to determine its preferred approach, but

either way, in terms of further input by directly affected landowners and wider

30 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2 pages 3 and 4

stakeholders into the final Primary Distribution Network design, the following

safeguards already exist:

(a) Every affected landowner will have the opportunity to negotiate final

details of the works across their land as part of the property /

compensation arrangements that HBRIC Ltd will need to conclude

before the works can proceed.

(b) There is a condition obligation (originally in condition 2 of the

Designation condition associated with the Outline Plan process, but now

transferred to the SCEMP requirements in condition 12 of Schedule One

in my updated Proposed Conditions set shown in Exhibit SGD2) for

each landowner to be consulted during detailed design.

(c) Conditions 43 to 46 of Schedule One of the Proposed Conditions (as

updated in Exhibit SGD2) provide for a “Construction Liaison Group” to

be established prior to construction and this group has functions of the

kind that Horticulture New Zealand is seeking in its relief. It is proposed

that the group includes two Ruataniwha Plains Community

representatives which I would envisage would be farmers.

5.29 Given the primary current land use within the notice of requirement area is

pastoral farming, I do not consider Horticulture New Zealand stakeholders

would have any specific interest in that particular aspect of the project.

However, on reflection, and looking at the balance of the proposed Construction

Liaison Group, and given the extensive area of the proposed irrigation footprint

which will include a range of different production land use types, I consider that

it would be appr opriate to replace the Ruataniwha Plains Community (2

nominated representatives) in condition 40f) with the following:

f) A representative from each of the five Irrigation Zones (Zones A to D and M)

chosen to provide an appropriate geographical spread and range of farming

systems.

5.30 I have amended condition 40f) in Schedule One of the Proposed Conditions

accordingly in my Exhibit SGD2.

6. THE INTEGRATED MITIGATION AND OFFSET APPROACH

6.1 The Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach31 is a cornerstone of the RWSS

proposal and was developed over the two year period starting in the middle of

2011. The report was co-authored by Mr Kessels, Mr Hansen, Ms Coubrough,

and myself. Mr Hansen provides an update on key landowner liaison

associated with some of the proposed projects and M r Kessels responds to

submissions on the approach in their evidence. The inclusive and interactive

process for developing the approach is important and so I have set out below

an extract from the AEE32 which explains this below:

“A range of studies have been completed in order to quantify the potential

effects of the proposed RWSS on the environment and c ommunities in

Central Hawke’s Bay as presented in this AEE.

Through their assessments, a range of environmental effects study authors

have taken account of avoidance, remediation, and mitigation proposals built

into the scheme design, and where necessary, have made recommendations

for additional actions avoiding, remedying or mitigating potential effects.

The separate report Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach (HBRIC, May

2013f) sets out the proposed integrated mitigation and of fset approach

designed to address the residual biophysical effects (e.g. effects on

terrestrial and aquatic ecology) around the dam/reservoir area and

downstream to the Upstream Water Intake site, that are not practicably able

to be otherwise avoided, remedied, or mitigated directly or entirely. Flooding

of the Makaroro River bed upstream of the dam will also have a permanent

effect on recreation facilities and the historic Yeoman Mill site at the end of

Wakarara Road. As such, the effects on recreation, landscape, heritage and

cultural values have also been considered.

Effects addressed in HBRIC (May 2013f) include:

• Loss of significant terrestrial indigenous vegetation. This is the area of

ecologically significant indigenous vegetation covered by the dam and

reservoir footprint, which is calculated to be 106.10 ha

31 RWSS Folder 3, Tab 6 32 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 4, Section 8

• Edge effects. The assumed detectable edge effects area which would

be adversely affected is 10 ha

• Braided river habitat. The area of braided river habitat (gravel river bed)

lost under the reservoir and dam footprint is calculated to be 73.97 ha

• Wetland habitat. The area of ecologically significant wetland and seep

zone habitat which would be lost is estimated to be 5.11 ha

• Loss of habitat for Threatened and At Risk Species. Loss of significant

habitat for seven At Risk and Threatened terrestrial fauna and flora

species would result as a consequence of the dam and reservoir,

equating to 185.18 ha

• Loss of habitat for some indigenous aquatic species that are unlikely to

find the reservoir habitat suitable for them

• Loss of trout spawning habitat in the areas occupied by the dam and

reservoir

• Loss of the established walking track from the end of Wakarara Road,

across the Makaroro River, to the DOC tracks extending throughout the

Ruahine Forest Park

• Loss of the informal camping area located on the Wilson’s property

• Inundation of any remaining infrastructure associated with the historic

mill site located at the end of Wakarara Road

• Loss of fish passage beyond the proposed dam to the upper bounds of

the Makaroro River and Dutch Creek

• Changes to the flow regime of the Makaroro and Waipawa Rivers; in

particular, upstream of Caldwell Road with a consequent adverse effect

on the invertebrate population and trout spawning in those reaches

• Potential increase in DRP inputs to the rivers as a result of land use

intensification and an associated increase in periphyton growth.

The mitigation/offset projects proposed were developed via the following

steps:

1. Individual Assessment of Environmental Effects reports were completed

by consultant/HBRIC teams for the studies listed in Section 1.2 of the

HRBIC (May 2013f) report. Thi s included assessing the proposed

Scheme against relevant planning provisions, quantifying potential

effects, recommending actions to avoid, remedy or mitigate those

effects, and where residual adverse effects were identified, highlighting

these in the study reports for follow up by the HBRIC project team. With

respect to the terrestrial ecology study, this also included an assessment

against the BBOP Principles33 and proposed National Policy Statement

on Indigenous Biodiversity

2. The issues, constraints and opportunities identified through the AEE

reports were explored during a Design Workshop held on 6 March 2012

and attended by key consultant teams and representatives of DOC and

Mana Whenua

3. A meeting with landowners was held on 30 March 2012 t o share

information about the Scheme and f lag the issues, constraints and

opportunities for follow-up with landowners on a one-on-one basis

4. Individual study findings and recommendations were presented to the

Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, including the measures proposed to

mitigate or offset potential effects where concepts were adequately

advanced

5. Consideration was given to the Tukituki Cultural Values and Uses report

– Taiwhenua ō Tamatea & Taiwhenua ō Heretaunga (June 2012), which

makes recommendations regarding the maintenance and restoration of

Mauri to provide appropriate responses through a mitigation and offset

programme that ensures the Scheme recognises appropriate cultural

values (including native fish and water quality benefits)

6. Presentation of the draft “Proposed Integrated Mitigation and O ffset

Approach” report to the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group during their 27

July 2012 meeting

33 Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Principles - the preferred approach to biodiversity mitigation by

Department of Conservation

7. Refinement (including costing) and documentation of the

mitigation/offset package proposed, taking into account written feedback

received from stakeholders after the 27 July 2012 meeting

8. Further project development via a workshop with key stakeholders, held

on 16 January 2013

9. The report was presented to the Mana Whenua Working Party on 8

February 2013 for discussion and feedback

10. From subsequent discussions with the Mana Whenua Working Party

regarding the on-going kaitiaki role of Mana Whenua HBRIC Ltd decided

that it would be appropriate to offer a Mana Whenua entity the first right

to tender for the contract to implement the mitigation and offset projects

11. A joint key stakeholder / Mana Whenua Working Party workshop was

held on 17 April 2013 to discuss the proposal developed in Step 10 and

the mechanisms to achieve this including conditions etc. It was also

agreed at this meeting that Project E would be added to the proposed

mitigation and offset approach. Project E concerns the restoration of the

old bed of the Waipawa River and t he Papanui Stream as part of the

primary distribution of irrigation water to Zone M of the Scheme

12. Recent (May 2013) reallocation of funding between components of

Project C (as described below) to enable greater priority to be given to

downstream eel trap and transfer over recommended bat survey and

targeted habitat enhancement, with final decisions over these funding

reallocations to be m ade on f uture implementation over a 30 y ear

timeframe.

Five projects are proposed in response to the potential effects outlined above

and discussed in detail in the HBRIC (May 2013f) report. P rojects A to C

and E set out biodiversity restoration and enhancement strategies proposed

to address residual effects on both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. These

projects also address effects on recreation, cultural and he ritage values

associated with the Wakarara Road-end area. Project D provides an

additional offset for adverse effects of the proposed Scheme on phosphorus

inputs to the streams and the availability and quality of in-stream habitat for

trout spawning, native fish and invertebrates.

The estimated total cost provision for offset mitigation requirements over a

30 year period equates to approximately $8.7 million, with the most

significant costs incurred in the first ten years of the project.

Acknowledging that the success of the projects proposed depends on t he

long-term, sustained agreement and effort of a number of key stakeholders,

it is proposed that a Ruataniwha Biodiversity Advisory Board be

established prior to construction of the dam. The Advisory Board’s primary

role would be to receive the Integrated Mitigation Offset Programme Annual

Report required in the proposed conditions of resource consents for the

Scheme, to guide the prioritisation of activities, and to ensure delivery of the

proposed projects within the agreed timeframes.”

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WITNESSES FOR CONDITION CHANGES

7.1 When I compiled the set of Part D – Proposed Conditions lodged with the

RWSS applications,34 I liaised closely with the various experts advising HBRIC

Ltd in relation to the parts of the conditions relevant to them. These experts

have also produced evidence for the hearing and some of them have

responded to submissions seeking either general outcomes or specified

conditions, with recommendations for changes or additions to the proposed

conditions lodged with the RWSS applications in May 2013. I summarise and

discuss these by witness name and topic below.

Ms Frey (Recreation)

7.2 In response to a number of submissions Ms Frey recommends in her evidence

(at paragraph 3.8) that reference be made in the conditions addressing the

Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (“RFERP”) to the “Public Access

& Offset Mitigation Progress Plan” attached to her evidence as Exhibit MAF2. I

have added some new wording to proposed updated condition 22 (c) of

Schedule One in my Exhibit SGD2 to address this.

7.3 I have added a new Schedule Eight to the proposed conditions where this plan

would be l ocated and made a not ation in this schedule “To insert most up t o

date version when conditions are finalised”. This is because, as Mr Hansen

outlines in his evidence, the various elements shown on the “Public Access &

Offset Mitigation Progress Plan” attached to Ms Frey’s evidence as Exhibit


MAF2 are under advanced negotiation with the various landowners in the

reservoir area. While letters of support/intent from landowners are attached

with Mr Hansen’s evidence, there may be some alterations to this plan after the

final negotiations are completed, and prior to finalisation of these conditions and

hence, the most up t o date plan should be included in Schedule Eight of the

conditions at that time.

Mr Landon-Lane (Roading and Traffic)

7.4 Mr Landon-Lane at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 of his evidence recommends that in

order to mitigate potential nuisance dust effects both pre and pos t dam

completion on the unsealed portion of Wakarara Road raised by Mr Wilson /

Parks Peak Station in his submission, that 400m either side of the Wilson’s

residential driveway be sealed. This has been agreed to by HBRIC Ltd and I

have included this as a new Condition 36 in Schedule One of the Updated

Proposed Conditions in Exhibit SGD2.

Ms Mulcock (Production Land Use)

7.5 Schedule Three of the proposed conditions is a comprehensive set of

conditions designed to manage and monitor the effects of production land use

on properties sourcing water from the RWSS. Responding to a nu mber of

submissions, Ms Mulcock has recommended a substantial range of additions

and alterations to Schedule Three, associated with the Farm Environmental

Management Plan process. The majority of these are associated with

amending the conditions to reflect the recommendation from Dr McDowell that

the RWSS should be able to demonstrate a phosphorous neutral position at a

sub-catchment, as well as a whole of Scheme level. M s Mulcock also

comments on other Schedule Three condition changes requested by a number

of submitters. I have worked closely with Ms Mulcock and Dr Ausseil (see

below) on the drafting of the Schedule Three condition changes shown in

Exhibit SGD2.

7.6 During our discussions on t he condition updates to Schedule Three following

receipt and c onsideration of submissions, Ms Mulcock, Dr Ausseil and I

recognised the importance of the proposed updated condition 11 around

phosphorous management and control as part of HBRC’s nutrient management

approach for the Tukituki Catchment established in Change 6. We recognise

that the RWSS manager will need t o work very closely with its farmer clients

through the development and monitoring of the new irrigated farming systems

using the Farm Environmental Management Plan (“FEMP’) process that Ms

Mulcock has designed. We also recognise that as part of the adaptive

management framework associated with phosphorous management and control

that if, as provided for in Change 6, further regulation is required to ensure the

phosphorous targets are achieved there is a further review of the Hawke’s Bay

Regional Resource Management Plan required in 2020 or 2025, that the RWSS

consents may need t o be r eviewed to line up with any further regulation. Of

course, the end goal of phosphorous management is the control of periphyton,

so we would expect that if such a review occurs in the future the contributions of

the RWSS flushing flows discussed in Dr Ausseil’s evidence will be a key factor.

Accordingly, I have amended the review condition in Schedule Three (re-

numbered condition 32 b)) to reflect this and have included an ad visory note

regarding the flushing flow context.

Dr Ausseil (Water Quality)

7.7 In his evidence, Dr Ausseil has recommended that four additional water quality

monitoring sites be ad ded to Table 6 i n Schedule Three of the proposed

conditions. This is to provide a more robust network of water monitoring sites

associated with the need to have effective monitoring at the bottom of sub-

catchments where land use production associated with the RWSS would occur.

7.8 Dr Ausseil has also reflected on the proposed conditions associated with E. coli

and has recommended some changes to those conditions as he is concerned

that the application of these conditions to sub-catchments where the E. coli

limits are not met may lead to un-anticipated outcomes, in particular the

triggering of further investigation conditions when the Scheme properties may

not be the cause of the issue. RWSS irrigated properties may be unfairly

penalised by existing baseline or other non RWSS farmers causing effects.

These recommended changes are set out in conditions 12 t o 14 o f Schedule

Three in Exhibit SGD2. Drafting these conditions has been s omewhat

challenging as in Change 6 E. coli values are couched as “limits” in under-

allocated sub-catchments and “ targets” in “over-allocated sub-catchments for

this contaminant, but I consider the re-drafted conditions are now clearer and

will achieve the desired purpose.

Dr Young (Aquatic Ecology)

7.9 Dr Young has made two recommendations relating to the proposed conditions

in his evidence. The first relates to his recommendation to delete condition 9 of

HBRC Consent WP120371M (Makaroro Damming, Take, Diversion and

Discharge). Dr Young explains this is because he i s concerned that this

condition could facilitate potentially undesirable aquatic ecology effects and on

this basis, it is shown as deleted in my Exhibit SGD2. The second relates to a

recommendation in the Cawthron Aquatic Ecology Assessment lodged with the

May 2013 R WSS application suite35 associated with the pre and post

construction monitoring of the eel population to ensure the trap and transfer

program in Project C of the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report

submitted with the application – HBRIC (May 2013f)36 is enabling successful

recruitment of young eels to the reservoir and river above the dam. The failure

to include conditions addressing this recommendation was an omission on my

part and n ew conditions 15 and 16 have been added to HBRC Consent

WP120371M in Exhibit SGD2 to cover this matter.

Mr Kessels (Terrestrial Ecology)

7.10 Mr Kessels had made a number of recommendations in his Terrestrial Ecology

Report lodged with the RWSS applications37 and in his evidence he e xplains

that while he had input to the drafting of the proposed conditions he wants to

make two of his recommendations from his report associated with translocation

of lizards and invertebrates clearer in the conditions associated with the

development and i mplementation of the Reservoir Filling and E dge

Rehabilitation Plan (“RFERP”). I have included an addition to the renumbered

condition 22 j) in Schedule One of Exhibit SGD2 to address this request.

8. RESPONSE TO CONDITION REQUESTS NOT ADDRESSED BY OTHER WITNESSES

8.1 A variety of witnesses have responded to submissions on specific proposed

conditions (sometimes recommending condition changes and s ometimes not)

and I have addressed a range of condition changes in Exhibit SGD2 both

recommended by other witnesses, and after my own consideration of

submissions associated with the notice of requirement. 35 RWSS Folder 5, Tab 3 36 RWSS Folder 3, Tab 6 37 RWSS Folder 6, Tab 1

8.2 There are a s mall number of residual condition matters that I would like to

respond to in this section of my evidence and I do t his by submitter name

below. I have not dealt with every single submission point dealing with

conditions, but have covered key condition matters raised in submissions as I

have read them. Before I discuss these specific submissions, I think that it is

important to briefly outline the general design of the conditions and to explain

this I have set out below some extracts from the AEE38.

“The structure of the proposed conditions recognises the degree of overlap

between the resource consents and designation applied for.

Accordingly:

• The construction related activities are subject to a single set of

conditions in Schedule One of the proposed conditions.

• Conditions related to Operations and Maintenance activities are similarly

collected together in Schedule Two of the proposed conditions.

• Production land use activities are governed by Schedule Three of the

proposed conditions. These conditions apply both within the five defined

irrigation zones (Zones A-D and M) and to the use of RWSS water by

existing irrigation consent holders outside those zones. The latter have

water permits of their own (as will some water users within Zones A-D

and M), but it will be a contractual condition of water supply to them that

they comply with the obligations arising from the proposed Schedule

Three conditions in respect of their entire properties irrespective of

whether they choose to retain their existing resource consents.

In addition, several of the consents have specific conditions proposed

relating only to that consent (or designation). A s already noted, while

Schedules One and Two relating to Construction and Operations &

Maintenance currently contain conditions applying to the Notice of

Requirement, it is intended that the relevant conditions will be split off later in

the application process so that the designation (if confirmed) has its own

standalone set of conditions for ease of administration.”

And

“A feature of the Proposed Conditions in Part D is the provision of a number

of Management and M onitoring Plans to govern both the construction and

38 RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2 Sections 1.4 and 1.10

future operation of the Dam and Distribution System. These are described

and explained below:

• A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will

generally follow the draft set out in Schedule Six of Part D – Proposed

Conditions. The CEMP will be finalised once the main contractors are

appointed and prior to construction commencing. The proposed

conditions provide that during that finalisation process, matters of detail

in the Scheme design as set out in the Project Description (Tonkin &

Taylor, May 2013a)) may change, provided the objectives and

performance standards set out in the Draft CEMP and conditions are still

met and any change does not cause any greater environmental effect.

The proposed conditions also provide a process for more significant

variations from the Scheme design as set out in the Project Description,

subject to specific safeguards. In particular, it is envisaged that in the

detailed design process, the exact location and the design elements of

the dam structure and related diversion tunnel, spillway and power

station structures may change. The proposed conditions make it clear

that this is permissible provided the works occur within the area

identified in the consent application plans; that the change results in an

outcome which meets or exceeds the relevant specified engineering

design standards, and is of no materially greater or different effect in

relation to environmental outcomes. A dual certification process is

required whereby the engineer responsible for the Scheme design

certifies that the variations meet or exceed the dam design criteria

relevant to dam safety, and that opinion is confirmed by a second

engineer approved by HBDC and CHBDC. A similar process is provided

for changes to the upstream and downstream water intake structures,

but without the added process step of a second engineer’s opinion

because the same potential safety issues do not arise for such changes

to the design of those structures.

• To ensure that an appropriate level of environmental management is

applied, all principal components of the RWSS will require

Supplementary Construction Environmental Management Plans

(SCEMPs). These SCEMPs are location or activity specific and will be

prepared in accordance with the objectives and performance standards

outlined in the Draft CEMP and conditions.

• An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) to ensure appropriate management

of the risk associated with unplanned abnormal or excessive flow

releases from the Dam.

• A Water Level Safety Plan (WLSP) to detail procedures (signage,

warning sirens, and public information) to warn of the risk to public

safety of planned sudden operational changes in river flows along the

Makaroro River below the Makaroro Dam at points accessible to the

public.

• A Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP) to

minimise (inter alia) as far as practicable the loss of indigenous fauna

and manage clearance of vegetation and reservoir edge erosion

resulting from construction earthworks, vegetation removal and reservoir

filling. The RFERP will also address optimisation of public access and

recreation opportunities associated with the reservoir.

• A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to ensure that traffic

generated during the construction phase of the Scheme is effectively

managed so that increases in traffic volume are safely accommodated

within the existing road network.

• An Infrastructure Stormwater and Maintenance Management Plan (ISMMP) governing stormwater management (including oil containment)

and maintenance activities on structures forming part of the RWSS.

• A Sediment Management Plan as described in Sedimentation

Assessment (Tonkin & Taylor, May 2013b) dealing with the

management of sediment, gravel and dust in the reservoir, river system

and coastal environment.

• A Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP), to identify and monitor the

quality of existing bores utilized for the supply of human drinking water

prior to and post the exercise of the consents, including actions to be

taken by Scheme users upstream from such bores where there is

potential to exceed Drinking Water Standards as a result of the consents

being exercised.

• A Groundwater Mounding and Drainage Monitoring Plan (GMDP) to

monitor groundwater mounding in areas identified as susceptible to

surface and near-surface effects resulting from the groundwater table

rising, and to provide for effective management of that risk.

• An Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP) and

associated Farm Environment Management Plans (more particularly

described in Section 7 of this document) which describes how irrigation

users who join the Scheme will be required to interact with HBRC’s

planned sustainable water quality regime in the Tukituki Catchment.

• An On Farm Monitoring Plan to cover monitoring of soil conservation

on a range of irrigated and non-irrigated properties within the

Ruataniwha and Papanui Basins to provide information to improve the

ongoing effectiveness of the FEMPs.

All of these Management and M onitoring Plans are incorporated in, or are

required to be pr epared pursuant to Part D – Proposed Conditions. The

proposed conditions require each management plan to be certified by the

relevant consent authorities against set objectives, performance standards

and/or matters to be addressed.”

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Section 149G Report

8.3 Although not a s ubmission, a report prepared under Section 149G by the

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council raises the question of the potential for adverse

effects on two consent holders whose takes are tied to the naturalised median

flow in the Waipawa and T ukituki Rivers respectively. O ne of those consent

holders is a submitter (Addavale Produce Ltd39) and the submission notes that

the consent relates to the operation of a dam which has yet to be constructed.

It is understood that the other consent also involves supply for an on-farm water

storage pond on the edge of Zone M near Otane servicing irrigation of process

crops. I propose that the potential effect on these consent holders be

addressed by a protocol designed to ensure their storage facilities are not

compromised by the operation of the RWSS. I have drafted a c ondition

accordingly and added t his as new condition 9 to HBRC Consent WP120371M

as shown in Exhibit SGD2.

Hastings District Council

8.4 Hastings District Council40 has made a brief submission that should consent be

granted “conditions that are attached to that consent must be defensible, intra

vires, certain and enforceable but more importantly robust, clear and concise”. I

agree. To this end when I was drafting the proposed conditions to lodge with

the RWSS application, I liaised with the consents teams from the three Councils

that would administer any consents that are granted, i.e. Hastings District

39 Submitter # 267 40 Submitter # 370

Council, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional

Council.

8.5 An early draft of the proposed conditions were circulated to these teams prior to

lodging the Final Draft application documents with the EPA for their

completeness check process in mid-March 2013. I convened a half-day

workshop with the Council planners where feedback on the conditions as they

stood at that time was provided. This provided very useful input and I revised

the proposed conditions after this feedback session. Hastings District Council

request that they are included as a party for any caucusing required by the

Board of Inquiry, and this is entirely appropriate given they would be a Consent

Authority administering the conditions of consent is granted. I support the

concept for caucusing on conditions at an appropriate stage, which in my view

would be after the close of submitter evidence, where hopefully the Councils will

have looked in more detail at areas of the conditions which are considered do

not meet the tests Hastings District Council has set in its submission.

8.6 It appears from their submission that the Council may have some concerns

regarding the proposed timeframes for responding to their certification role with

various Management Plans. I agree that it is important to strike the correct

balance with these timeframes between the efficiency and ef fectiveness of the

review and c ertification process. I consider that those promoted in the

proposed conditions do provide an appr opriate balance, but accept that this

may require further discussion.

8.7 Hastings District Council have sought a specific section 36 to cover the costs of

consent administration and monitoring and I can confirm that such a condition

has already been i ncluded in all the proposed conditions lodged with the

application.

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

8.8 I have already covered much of the focus of Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council’s submission41 in my section 5 above regarding the notice of

requirement. The residual matters relate to the recovery of Consent Authority

costs (which I have already addressed above relating to the Hastings District

Council), the lapse period, and the overlap in conditions that may be imposed at

the district and regional level.

41 Submission # 256

8.9 HBRIC Ltd has sought a t en year lapse period for all consents. Mr Chrisp

provides specific reasons in his planning assessment42 justifying the need f or

the ten year lapse period, which I outline below:

“A lapse period of 10 years is sought in relation to all of the applications for

activities within the administrative jurisdiction of the CHBDC, HDC, and

HBRC.

A lapse period of 10 years is also sought in relation to the designation for the

primary headrace canal and pipelines within the administrative jurisdiction of

the CHBDC.

A lapse period of 10 years is sought on the basis that:

• The Preliminary Construction Programme in Appendix B of the Project

Description indicates a construction period of approximately four and half

years;

• There will be a lead-in period prior to construction associated with

completing land owner negotiations and agreements, contract

management, financing, detailed design, and the finalisation of the

various management plans required by the proposed consent conditions

(see Part D); and

• An allowance for delays at any stage of the construction phase.

It is also noted that, for similar reasons, a 10 year lapse period (or longer) is

typically applied to other large scale infrastructure development projects

including New Zealand Transport Agency’s state highway projects (e.g.

sections of the Waikato Expressway) and renewable electricity generation

projects (e.g. Contact Energy Ltd’s Tauhara 2 G eothermal Development

Project and the Hauāuru mā raki - Waikato Wind Farm)”.

8.10 Regarding the point made regarding overlapping district and regional Consent

Authority obligation, I understand and appreciate the desire of the Council that

overlap is minimised and there is as clear a distinction as possible. However,

particularly in the construction related consent conditions, there is considerable

overlap and it makes sense for the district and regional jurisdictions to work

together in the certification roles that have been set out in the proposed

conditions. T his will promote integrated and e ffective resource management.

At the request of the Council planners at our meeting in March 2013, I have

specified Advisory Notes under each relevant consent, where one or more of


the three potential Consent Authorities will not be involved in the administration

of the particular condition. The Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

submission does not disclose any concern about the notations I have made to

the conditions in this regard.

Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council and Eastern Fish and Game Council

8.11 In their submission on the RWSS, Fish and Game43 have commented that

several key management plans have not been provided, and are not proposed

to be provided until after resource consents have been granted. They suggest

that this does not give the Board the opportunity to assess whether the plans

adequately address adverse effects. I have outlined the various proposed

Management Plans in the extract from the AEE set out above in paragraph 8.2.

8.12 Management Plans are a us ual feature of resource consents for significant

infrastructure projects under the RMA. It is always a judgement call as to the

amount of expense and detail should be put into developing management plans

for such projects. Usually detailed designs have not been prepared and it is

difficult to develop the finer details of many management plans until a final

design and a contractor engaged to build the project.

8.13 I note that two key management plans have been provided with the RWSS

applications, being the Draft Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP),

and the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). For the

other proposed management plans, a range of objectives, matters to address

and performance measures have been included in conditions, depending on the

situation and purpose of the plan. The various management plans are required

to be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced people, and this is backed

up by certification processes that will be undertaken by professional and

qualified staff. This is a standard RMA approach and is one that has been

accepted for other large integrated resource consent processes heard by

Boards of Inquiry, which I have been involved with.

8.14 I disagree that the Board in this case will not be in a position to assess whether

the plans will adequately address adverse effects. The objectives, matters to

address and, where relevant performance measures, set in the proposed

conditions have been r ecommended in the main by experts in their field who

have been advising HBRIC Ltd, and it is open for submitters and of course for

43 Submission # 242

the Board itself to suggest any additional criteria which are considered

necessary for the plans to cover, or to add performance standards which ought

properly be met as part of the decision making process.

8.15 In Appendix 4, Section 3 of their submission, Fish and Game make some

suggestions about the types of conditions they feel should be included if the

Board is minded to grant consent to the applications. I consider that the

conditions I have proposed, as updated in Exhibit SGD2, cover most of these

elements effectively, apart from their suggestion in 3 (viii) regarding nitrogen

control. Such a condition would not be appropriate to be imposed on any grant

of consent, as my understanding is this would be impossible to comply with in

conjunction with irrigation-based intensification of productive land uses.

Moreover, the evidence of the technical witnesses appearing for HBRC and

HBRIC Ltd is that such a condition is not required in order to maintain relevant

river values.

8.16 The one area where I consider an additional condition is justified, as suggested

by Fish and Game is a “condition precedent” regarding third party agreements

for the implementation of key elements of the proposed mitigation and of fset

approach being in place prior to commencement of the project. H aving said

this, I do no t think it is necessary or possible to lock down all land access

arrangements, for example, much of the riparian planting, fencing, animal pest

control and other projects associated with proposed Projects B, C, D, and E will

occur progressively over many years into the future working in partnership with

a wide range of landowners, which will not require land acquisition (including on

public land and r iver margins controlled by HBRC and the Department of

Conservation).

8.17 However, for Projects A which concerns works and mitigation around the Dam

and Reservoir I consider that such a condition precedent is reasonable (noting

of course that for Project A the key landowners are already working closely with

HBRIC Ltd and have provided letters of support), as discussed in Mr Hansen’s

evidence. I have drafted an addition to Condition 1 in Schedule Two of the

proposed conditions in Exhibit SGD2 to cover this.

Environmental Defence Society

8.18 The submission by Environmental Defence Society Inc.44 makes only limited

reference to specific proposed conditions. They do seek at paragraph 4.7 (e)

that where water levels are nearing minimum flows the RWSS should be

required to release water at the rate of the natural inflow. T his is already

covered in proposed condition 8 b) in HBRC Consent WP120371M as regards

the Waipawa at RDS minimum flow. A different model-based approach is

proposed in respect of the Red Bridge Minimum Flow, for the reasons set out in

the Flow Optimisation Report presented with the applications45. T hey also

comment at paragraph 4.8 (j) that condition 11 of Schedule Three relating to

phosphorous control is objective based with no condition that sets action to be

taken if the objective is not being met. A s I discuss in paragraph 7.6 of my

evidence I have conferred with Ms Mulcock and Dr Ausseil regarding this

condition and we have recommended a more robust condition based on outputs

from the FEMP process at a s ub-catchment level. A lso in paragraph 7.6 I

outline the changes I have made to the Section 128 review clause in Schedule

Three of the proposed conditions which specifically link to the Change 6

proposed phosphorous target reviews in 2020 and 2025 w hich provides an

adaptive management process for phosphorous control.

Horticulture New Zealand and Other Parties

8.19 Horticulture New Zealand and others parties make a r ange of comments and

suggestions in their submission on t he RWSS and i ts interrelationship with

proposed Change 6 water quantity polices and rules. For example, the

submission includes a proposition that the RWSS should be required to “prop

up” the security of supply for existing consent holders who will be subject to new

increased minimum flows set through Change 6. I do not consider this to be an

appropriate type of condition which responds to any adverse effects caused by

the RWSS proposal. The proposed flow releases from the dam (conditions 6 to

12 of HBRC WP120371M) meet assessed environmental requirements (and in

the case of the flushing flows provide environmental benefits) and also meet the

policy requirement to “keep whole” the rights of existing consent holders under

Change 6.

44 Submission # 304 45 RWSS Folder 3, Tab 4

8.20 There is a request in the submission for HBRC to establish a governing group to

manage the RWSS flow release including the HBRC Group Manager Resource

Management and three representatives of third party consent holders. This is

not a v ires condition; however the proposal for a Scheme Operations Liaison

Group in the Schedule Three conditions will provide an i mportant liaison and

feedback function and will receive all the flow release monitoring information for

review and discussion. On this basis, I do consider it would be appropriate for

third party consent holders outside the RWSS Scheme to be i nvolved in this

group and accordingly I have added this category of stakeholder to updated

condition 30 in Schedule Three of the proposed conditions in Exhibit SGD2.

8.21 On the water quality side, the Horticulture New Zealand and ot her parties

submission seems to generally support a monitoring and adaptive management

approach to managing the effects of nutrient levels associated with the RWSS.

The proposed condition framework associated with managing the effects of

Production Land use, as set out in Schedule Three of the proposed conditions

establishes a suitable water quality adaptive management regime which, in my

view, responds to the water quality limits and target policy and rule regime set

out under Change 6. The submission seeks some specific relief regarding a

monitoring programme associated with guaranteeing water clarity in the water

released from the dam, but as Dr Young discusses in his evidence the water

exiting the dam into the Makaroro River downstream of the dam will be of high

quality and s uch a condition is considered unnecessary to deal with any

predicted effect.

8.22 The submission seeks to ensure that for horticulture operations the proposed

FEMP template covers the whole operation rotation system employed by

horticulture operations. I have checked with Ms Mulcock on this point, who has

advised me that the FEMP process she has developed and which she

discusses in her evidence does cater for this. Ms Mulcock advised me that

Overseer is currently complicated and time-consuming for horticultural systems,

but this is covered in the proposed FEMP conditions by allowing for other

models to be utilised. She also advised me that there is currently work

underway looking at whether there can be improvements made to Overseer to

make it simpler for horticultural /arable rotations.

8.23 The final condition matter in this submission that I would like to comment on is

the request for the FEMP provisions in Schedule Three of the proposed

conditions to be abl e to accept a Fa rm Environment Plan accredited under

NZGAP (New Zealand Good Agricultural Practice). R esponding to similar

submissions made by Dairy NZ and Font erra, in her evidence Ms Mulcock

agrees such a condition is appropriate, but only if the alternative system met the

objectives and covered the matters required under the updated condition 25

process set out in Schedule Three. Proposed updated condition 25 h) of

Schedule Three in Exhibit SGD2 covers this request.

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

8.24 Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated46 have lodged a w ide-ranging submission

generally in opposition to the RWSS proposal, but with a range of propositions

put forward for consideration if the project is granted resource consents.

Several witnesses for the applicant respond to different elements of the 48

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated requests for changes to either project design

or conditions in their evidence, as discussed below. Many of the suggestions

made are already covered is scheme design and/or conditions, as discussed

below. Some of the points of submission are too vague to comment on as they

stand without seeing further evidence based rationale or justification supporting

them, and/or are legal, jurisdictional or policy matters (14.4, 14.9, 14.21, 14.23,

14.26, 14.42, 14.43, 14.44, 14.45, 14.47 and 14.48) which will be addressed by

counsel in submissions. Other requests involve matters that have already been

discussed in the Mana Whenua Working Party process.

8.25 The following specific submission points are responded to either in the effects

based reports lodged with the applications and/or in evidence:

• 14.1 regarding restricting the storage capacity to 60 million cubic metres is

discussed by Mr Leong where he says that this relief would either result in

an untenable reduction in supply reliability or a 33% reduction in total

irrigated area. I am not aware of any effects based reason that would justify

that level of reduction;

• 14.15 relating to the potential opportunities to establish or enhance wetlands

is covered as part of Mr Kessels Terrestrial Ecology Report and the

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report lodged with the applications, and in

his evidence;

46 Submitter # 359

• 14.24 relating to the interaction between surface and groundwater is

appropriately dealt with in the reporting and evidence of Dr Baalousha and

Mr Waldron;

• 14.28 requesting the creation of additional indigenous forest habitat in the

Makaroro sub-catchment is covered as part of Mr Kessels Terrestrial

Ecology Report and in the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report (Project

A) lodged with the applications, and in Mr Kessels evidence;

• 14.30 regarding the use of averages and medians in modeling to assess the

sustainability and effects on aquatic ecology is not specifically address but

Dr Young has considered the implications of the altered flow regime on

aquatic ecology and made recommendations as to how adverse effects are

addressed through mitigation and offsetting;

• 14.32 regarding climate change effects affecting rainfall is covered in the

evidence or Dr Renwick;

• 14.33 seeking restrictions on the times irrigation can occur is discussed in

14.40 below (a related point) and is responded to in the evidence of Mr

Millner;

• 14.34 regarding what is an appr opriate residual flow from the dam is

covered in the Cawthron Aquatic Ecology Assessment Report prepared by

Dr Young, and this point is also covered in his evidence;

• 14.41 requesting the creation of braided river habitat to offset that lost in the

Makaroro sub-catchment is covered as part of Mr Kessels Terrestrial

Ecology Report and the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report (Project B)

lodged with the applications, and in his evidence;

• 14.37 regarding aeration of water is addressed by Dr Young in his evidence

where he does not recommend any additional conditions;

• 14.38 requesting additional gauging and flow assessment work is

addressed by Mr Leong who comments that the submitter would need to

explain the rationale for what is proposed and provide greater detail of the

monitoring envisaged before this submission point could be properly

assessed;

• 14.39 regarding limiting the period when irrigation water can be ut ilised to

promote groundwater recharge is covered by the evidence of Dr Baalousha

and Mr Waldron detailing the positive effect of irrigation recharge on

groundwater levels. To the extent that groundwater levels are drawn down

by third party takes (as discussed by Dr Baalousha) this is not an effect of

the RWSS;

• 14.40 seeking restrictions on the times irrigation can occur is responded to

in the evidence of Mr Millner and in the Schedule Three conditions ensuring

efficient water use;

• 14.46 raising issues around reservoir water quality and c onsequential

adverse effects on downstream ecology are addressed by Dr Ausseil and Dr

Young in their evidence;

• 14.47 regarding delaying construction until all consents have been obtained

is addressed by Mr Chrisp in his evidence who explains the rationale for

deferring application for some consents.

8.26 The following specific submissions points are already well catered for in scheme

design, and/or conditions in my view:

• 14.2 regarding native fish passage is dealt with comprehensively by Dr

Young in both his Aquatic Ecology Report and evidence and he also worked

closely with the Mana Whenua Working Party in assessing the best overall

mitigation option for native fish passage;

• 14.5 seeking lease arrangements for third party land used in offsetting is

partly addressed by my insertion of the condition precedent in the proposed

condition 1 of Schedule Two in the conditions update attached with my

evidence as Exhibit SGD2;

• 14.6 regarding the Accidental Discovery Protocol has been covered through

the Mana Whenua Working Party designing and agreeing the protocol,

which is attached to the proposed conditions;

• 14.7 regarding fish screen devices is covered in the Tonkin & Taylor Project

Description Document lodged with the applications where design standards

are set in place based on advice from Dr Young;

• 14.8 is appropriately covered in the performance standards set out in the

Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) appended t o

the conditions;

• 14.11, 14.12, 14.16 and 14.17 seeking sustainable management and

effective monitoring of nutrient and o ther discharges is covered in the

evidence of Dr Ausseil, Mr Milner, and Ms Mulcock with a comprehensive

set of conditions governing this in Schedule Three of the proposed

conditions;

• 14.13 regarding disturbance to streambeds being kept to a minimum is

covered in the Draft CEMP and associated conditions;

• 14.25 regarding groundwater quality has been t he subject of detailed

discussions between HBRIC Ltd and H awke’s Bay DHB representatives

culminating in an agreed set of conditions on this matter in Schedule Three

of the proposed conditions. Dr Jones from the Hawke’s Bay DHB and Dr

Baalousha from HBRC provided a s pecific technical presentation to the

Mana Whenua Working party on this matter; and

• 14.36 regarding water quality monitoring at a sub-catchment level is

covered in Tables 6 and 7 and as sociated conditions in Schedule Three of

the proposed conditions, as recommended by Dr Ausseil.

Stephen Daysh September 2013

9. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 The Environmental, Social and Cultural Section of the Feasibility Report (Section 3)

3.0 Environmental Social and Cultural Studies | Page 39

Ruataniwha Water Storage Report to Council | September 2012

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STUDIES

3.1 METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 Advanced Pre-Feasibility

As part of the Advanced Pre-Feasibility Study completed in February 2011 by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, the environmental issues associated with an assessment of 12 short-listed storage options were identified. This included an initial assessment of aquatic ecological issues undertaken by the Cawthron Institute. Other issues were highlighted as requiring further assessment.

The Advanced Pre-Feasibility Study recommended that two in-river storage options (A7 on the Makaroro River and D5 on the Makaretu River) be advanced for full feasibility assessment.

Two cultural effects reports were also prepared during the Advanced Pre-Feasibility phase by Dr Benita Wakefield, the first associated with eight of the original fourteen site options and the second focusing on the A7 and D5 sites.

Subsequently (and prior to any of the feasibility stage environmental report drafts outlined below being received) the Makaretu River D5 site was abandoned due to geotechnical issues.

3.1.2 Feasibility Scoping and Process

In March 2011 Environmental Management Services was engaged to assist Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) with the environmental, social and cultural aspects of project feasibility.

It was determined that the most efficient way of assessing the environmental feasibility of the project was to assess the environmental effects of the project in the same way that would be required for preparation of an Assessment of Environmental Effects accompanying resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act 1991. This involved the following steps:

a) Briefing the project engineers (Tonkin & Taylor Ltd) to prepare an “Initial Project Description Report” outlining the design and key operating parameters of the project. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd were also asked to undertake an assessment of sedimentation within the proposed reservoir and consequential physical changes to river morphology downstream of the dam site

b) Developing work scopes for the key modelling studies covering reservoir water quality, groundwater and surface water interaction under a range of scenarios and the nutrient flows associated with land use intensification

c) Developing work scopes for a range of environmental studies including social and cultural assessments

d) Presentation of the draft work scopes to the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group for review and input

e) Seeking proposals and commissioning the various studies based on the finalised work scopes from experts in each field

f) The preparation of Inception reports for the terrestrial and aquatic ecology assessments to confirm the assessment methodology, based on initial site visits and meetings with HBRC and key stakeholders

g) Receiving and reviewing the first drafts of the various reports and identifying consequential changes to the Initial Project Description report



h) Development of the Final Feasibility Project Description report

i) Convening of a Land Use Intensification Working Party to provide an interactive working forum to follow the development and application of the Ruataniwha Land Use Intensification Model

j) Completion of the modelling and assessment reports to a final draft stage

k) Presentation and discussion of the modelling and assessment reports at Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group meetings

l) Development of an integrated mitigation and offset report detailing how some of the mitigation and offsetting proposals recommended by the effects assessment authors might be implemented

m) Finalising of the modelling and assessment reports. In the case of some key reports6 this included a review by independent peer reviewers and the opportunity for report writers to respond to matters raised. In addition Mr John Cheyne coordinated “Green Group” feedback comments on the aquatic and terrestrial ecology and integrated mitigation and offset reports which were addressed by the authors of those reports as part of their finalisation.

3.1.3 Feasibility Reporting Approach

The approach taken in this report is to reproduce the executive summaries of the modelling and assessment reports which have been prepared by the various experts. The various assessment reports follow a structured assessment methodology which addresses the following matters.

Potential environmental effects

Assessments undertaken

Results of assessments

Suggested approach for effects identified.

It is important to note that for consistency and accuracy the key findings of each of the reports are set out in the words of the respective authors, and have not been adapted or paraphrased in this overall feasibility report, except where minor tense and wording changes have been needed to assist readability.

Where the report authors make recommendations these are highlighted in bold italics in the text below.

For more detail on the various assessment areas readers are directed to each of the specific reports contained on the HBRC website in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project section.

3.1.4 HBRC Core Team Recommendations

The HBRC Core Team comprising Graeme Hansen, Stephen Daysh, Olivier Ausseil, Monique Benson and Larissa Coubrough have considered all of the information and recommendations contained in the environmental studies commissioned by the Council for this feasibility stage. Their overall findings, and recommendations for further work if the project proceeds to resource consenting are included in Section 3.10 of this report.

6 The groundwater / surface water and effects on land use on nutrient modeling reports and the aquatic and terrestrial

ecology assessment reports



3.1.5 Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group Consideration

A draft of the Environmental, Social and Cultural Studies section of this Report was considered and discussed by the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group on 31 August 2012. The outcome of their consideration as recorded in the minutes of that meeting is included in Appendix 4 of this report.

3.2 STUDIES UNDERTAKEN

The investigations undertaken have provided a comprehensive analysis of the environmental, social and cultural issues associated with the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage project. If the project is deemed feasible by Council, they will be a critical input to the Assessment of Environmental Effects for the purposes of the resource consent applications which will be necessary for the project to proceed.

The various reports will be updated as required to reflect any project changes and optimisation which occurs after the completion of this feasibility stage, if the Council resolves to seek resource consents for the project after considering this report. In some cases, report writers have recommended further work to confirm their findings and to feed into the final reports that would accompany resource consent applications.

Table 4: Project Technical Reference Reports

Title Date Organisation Authors Bibliographic

Reference

Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Feasibility Project Description

August 2012 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

M. Taylor

D. Leong

T. Morris

P. Carter

D. Knappstein

Taylor et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Sedimentation Assessment

July 2012 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

T. Fisher

J. Russell

Fisher and Russell, 2012



Table 5: Modelling Studies

Title Date Organisation Authors Bibliographic Reference

Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Characterisation of Reservoir Water Quality

July 2012 NIWA M. Gibbs

C. McBride

D. Ozkundakci

D. Hamilton

Gibbs et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Tukituki River Catchment Assessment of Potential Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

June 2012 HBRC R. Waldron

H. Baalousha

Waldron and Baalousha, 2012

Modelling the Effects of Land Use on Nutrients Entering the Tukituki River, Hawke’s Bay

August 2012

NIWA, AgResearch, Plant & Food Research, Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd

K. Rutherford

A. Mackay

A. Manderson

S. Green

B. Clothier

I. Power

H. Eaton

A. Nicholls

C. Lewis

A. Macfarlane

Rutherford et al, 2012

Table 6: Terrestrial Aquatic and Ecology Assessment Reports


Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Terrestrial Ecology Study Assessment of Ecological Effects

July 2012

Kessels & Associates Ltd

G. Kessels

B. Deichmann

P. Stewart

D. Riddell

M. Hasenbank

R. Clark

U. Brandes

Kessels et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project – Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects

August 2012

Cawthron Institute

R. Young

N. Berkett

R. Holmes

J. Hay

Young et al, 2012



Table 7: Cultural Effects Assessment Report


Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses1

June 2012 Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea in Partnership with Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga

Benita Wakefield

M. Hape

J. Maaka

Bruce Wakefield

H Maaka

M Apatu

D. Moffatt

D. Whitiwhiti

Wakefield et al, 2012

1 This report was prepared as an overall cultural values and uses report for HBRC in relation to the Tukituki Plan Change process. The cultural effects of the Ruataniwha Storage Project were specifically addressed in Section 5.2 of this overall report, which summarises both the earlier Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) Reports and the Lower Tukituki CIA report prepared by Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga.

Table 8: Other Effects Assessment Reports


Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Road Infrastructure and Traffic Assessment

June 2012 OPUS International Consultants Ltd

R. Landon-Lane

N. Uran

A. Jones

Landon-Lane et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Noise Effects Assessment

July 2012 Marshall Day Acoustics

M. Halstead Halstead, 2012

Ruataniwha Irrigation Project: Archaeological Assessment

July 2012 Clough & Associates Ltd

S. Bickler

R. Clough

P. Parsons

Bickler et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Social Impact Assessment

July 2012 Taylor Baines and Associates

N. Taylor Taylor, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Recreation Assessment

August 2012 OPUS International Consultants Ltd

S. Morgan

M. Frey

Morgan and Frey, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment

August 2012 Isthmus G. Lister

W. Robertson

Lister and Robertson, 2012



Table 9: Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report


Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach

August 2012 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

L. Coubrough

G. Hansen

S. Daysh

G. Kessels

Coubrough et al, 2012

Table 10: Land use Intensification Working Party Report


Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Land Use Intensification Working Party Report

August 2012 Environmental Management Services Ltd

S. Daysh Daysh, 2012

3.3 FEASIBILITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION

As discussed above, the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Feasibility Project Description report was developed in two stages to provide the key base information for the modelling and assessment reports. An Initial Project Description was prepared in November 2011 to enable the key environmental assessment work to get underway while engineering investigations continued. The report provided an overview of the project including key design and operating parameters and described how construction would be managed. The report was then finalised with reference to the initial drafts of the environmental investigations.

For the purposes of environmental effects assessment, the key elements of the project are:

Construction of a large in-river dam on the Makaroro River;

Conversion of an upper catchment riverine environment into a lacustrine environment;

Flooding of a substantial area of land, including an area of native bush;

Creation of a barrier to upstream and downstream aquatic migration patterns;

Alteration of the flow regime from the dam site downstream;

Construction of a water intake on the banks of the Waipawa River with a water distribution network spreading laterally across the Ruataniwha Plains;

Land use changes resulting from the use of irrigation water, causing increases in nutrient outputs both from irrigated areas and non-irrigated areas.

3.4 MODELLING REPORTS

3.4.1 Reservoir Water Quality Modelling

The scenarios modelled for this supplementary desktop study indicate that a broad range of water qualities in the reservoir and discharged from the reservoir are possible. The highest water quality



would be associated with scenario M1 which would have all water drawn from an elevation of 405mRL. This scenario is likely to provide high quality water, which would be, on average, better than the inflow water from the Makaroro River. The water in the reservoir would be well oxygenated and suitable for aquatic life except in a small (<0.25% of the total volume of the reservoir when full) dead zone below the outtake level; although short periods of low dissolved oxygen concentration (<2gm3) would be possible without aeration under base flow conditions at the end of the stratified period. An aeration system should be installed in the reservoir as described in section 6.1 of the report to maintain bottom water DO levels above the minimum needed for fish and to accommodate the extreme events observed in other years, but not used in the simulations.

An aeration-style energy dissipation device below the discharge point from the reservoir would prevent river bed scour and boost DO levels in the Makaroro River below the reservoir.

Scenarios that included base flow draw from the toe of the dam also provided water quality better than the inflow water quality but would require aeration during the base flow only discharge period during summer stratification. The initial modelling scenario and scenario M3 demonstrated the use of a dual draw from 395 plus 426mRL and 405mRL plus 443mRL, respectively, where the outflow water was nearly always well oxygenated. However, if low water levels prevented discharge from the 426 or 443mRL outtake valves, the discharge water from the low level outtake valve would become anoxic. In these scenarios (initial and M3) the upper water column would remain well oxygenated and capable of supporting aquatic life. However, the available volume of habitable water would be small until natural thermal stratification isolated a surface mixed-zone layer. If the base flow from the reservoir was drawn from the 426mRL or 443mRL outtake valve as an outflow = inflow discharge, the downstream water would also be well oxygenated although warmer than the inflow and with elevated nutrients and phytoplankton biomass due to a surface skimming effect. If phytoplankton biomass was high, the pH would also rise. For the initial and M3 scenarios to operate efficiently, aeration would be needed during the summer stratified period.

The worst water quality came from scenarios where the outtake valves were high in the water column and there was no base flow discharge from the bottom of the dam. These scenarios, with all discharge water being taken from an elevation of either 426 or 443mRL, produced semi-permanent stratification with the water below the draw depth becoming anoxic and enriched with ammonium-N and phosphate. With the potential for summer water levels to fall to near the draw depth in these scenarios, the reservoir water quality would not be suitable for aquatic life in summer without the use of aeration.

Although there are benefits to removing the vegetation in the reservoir extent before filling, the cost would be high and valuable aquatic habitat diversity would be lost.

Because the reservoir water will be sensitive to nitrogen, catchment management to reduce or maintain low levels of nitrogen will be important. Managing sediment inputs would have the dual effect of reducing phosphorus loads in the lake bed and infilling of the reservoir with silt. Future-proofing the reservoir by providing 25m wide planted buffer zones between production forest land the reservoir are recommended, as is the construction of the necessary infrastructure required for forest harvesting before the reservoir is filled. Because the catchment land is susceptible to erosion and particularly slipping, management strategies designed to minimise bare land exposure will also be important. Land clearance of steep land within the reservoir catchment should be a discretionary action in the regional plan requiring a resource consent, and sediment control plans should be provided and approved before harvesting production forest.+

3.4.2 Groundwater / Surface Water Modelling

This study investigates the potential future impact of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme on water resources in the Tukituki Catchment and Ruataniwha Basin.



The Ruataniwha Plains (approximately 40,000 hectares) are located in central Hawke’s Bay overlying the Ruataniwha Basin and aquifer within the Tukituki River Catchment and have significant agricultural potential. However this is restricted by the ability to access water. Approximately 6000 hectares of the plains are currently irrigated, principally supplied by groundwater abstracted (pumped) from the Ruataniwha Aquifer. Water is also abstracted from the Tukituki River and its tributaries. Studies have identified an additional 22,550 hectares of potential irrigable land within the Ruataniwha Plains. However groundwater and surface water abstractions are considered to be fully allocated and as such, the provision of irrigation capacity from a potential community water storage scheme located on the Upper Makaroro River (a tributary of the Waipawa River which feeds into the Tukituki River) is being investigated.

The purpose of this study was to predict and compare the potential future impact of four different water resource management scenarios which incorporate different levels of water abstraction, with and without the operation of the proposed water storage scheme, on the Ruataniwha Aquifer System and river flow regimes within the Tukituki River Catchment.

Four scenarios were considered:

1) Natural system (no consented water abstraction or storage scheme in place)

2) Current (actual) water abstraction continues up to the end of 2016

3) Proposed water storage scheme in operation from 2017 to 2022 while consented water abstraction is discontinued from 2017

4) Proposed water storage scheme in operation from 2017 in combination with consented water abstraction continuing to 2022

A transient groundwater model developed by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was used to simulate changes to the aquifer system in terms of aquifer storage, aquifer-spring interactions and aquifer-river interactions.

The change in aquifer contribution to river flows within the Ruataniwha Basin and change to river flow regimes were also simulated under each of the four scenarios at three river flow sites; Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, Waipawa River at RDS and Tukituki River at Red Bridge.

Scenarios incorporating the water storage scheme (Scenarios 3 & 4) were compared to Scenario 2 which represents the effect of ‘current abstraction’ on the resource simulated to the end of 2016 prior to the start of the scheme in 2017. Scenario 2 was also compared to Scenario 1 which represents the ‘natural state’. The relative change to aquifer storage modelled under each scenario is graphically depicted in the following figure.



Figure 8: Relative Changes to Aquifer Storage Under Each Scenario

The Scenario 3 simulation compared to Scenario 2, predicts a significant recovery in Ruataniwha Aquifer storage by 2022 (32 MCM) with spring flow returning to near natural levels as a result of ceasing all abstraction within the basin.

Scenario 4, predicts a decline in aquifer storage, spring flow and aquifer contribution to river flow similar to that predicted under Scenario 2.

The aquifer system is predicted to be close to a state of dynamic-equilibrium from 2017 to 2022 under Scenarios 2 and 4, which means that only minimal changes in aquifer storage would be expected after 2022 based on the assumed conditions. At the end of the simulation period for Scenario 4 (31-Dec-2022) the total predicted storage loss from natural conditions was 68 MCM.

The predicted decline in spring flow in Scenario 4 over the last 12 years compared to the first five years is approximately 60 l/s, which is similar to the decrease predicted in spring flow at the end of the simulation for Scenario 2.



Figure 9: Aquifer/Groundwater (GW) Contribution to Tukituki River Flow Under Scenarios 1-4

Figure 10: Aquifer/Groundwater (GW) Contribution to Waipawa River flow under Scenarios 1-4

The aquifer/groundwater contribution to river flow in the Upper Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers (shown in the previous figures) is the greatest when the system is at ‘natural state’ (Scenario 1).

Aquifer contribution to river flow is predicted to decline (from natural conditions) under Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 up to the end of 2016. This decline is attributed to continuing current levels of abstraction from the aquifer. Under Scenario 2, aquifer contribution to river flow is predicted to stabilise from the beginning of 2017.

Under Scenario 3, an increase in aquifer contribution to river flow is predicted from 2017 to 2022 in both the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers. The aquifer contribution to river flow is predicted to recover

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

4800

5000

5200

14

/01

/90

14

/01

/92

14

/01

/94

14

/01

/96

14

/01

/98

14

/01

/00

14

/01

/02

14

/01

/04

14

/01

/06

14

/01

/08

14

/01

/10

14

/01

/12

14

/01

/14

14

/01

/16

14

/01

/18

14

/01

/20

14

/01

/22

GW

Co

ntr

ibu

tuti

on

to

Riv

er

Flo

w (

l/s)

Tukituki Scenario 1 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s) Tukituki Scenario 3 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s)

Tukituki Scenario 4 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s) Tukituki Scenario 2 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2017 (l/s)

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

14

/01

/90

14

/01

/92

14

/01

/94

14

/01

/96

14

/01

/98

14

/01

/00

14

/01

/02

14

/01

/04

14

/01

/06

14

/01

/08

14

/01

/10

14

/01

/12

14

/01

/14

14

/01

/16

14

/01

/18

14

/01

/20

14

/01

/22

GW

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o R

ive

r Fl

ow

(l/

s)

Waipawa Scenario 1 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s) Waipawa Scenario 3 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s)

Waipawa Scenario 4 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2022 (l/s) Waipawa Scenario 2 GW Contibution to River Flow 1990-2017 (l/s)



to near natural conditions at the end of the simulation period in 2022 with only minor further changes expected after that time.

Under Scenario 4, a minor further decline in the aquifer contribution to the Waipawa River and a minor recovery in the groundwater contribution to the Tukituki River are predicted from 2017.

Table 11: Summary of Modelled River Flow Statistics

* Days per year averaged over the modelled river flow record

The ‘proposed minimum flows’ referred to in the above table have been developed for the pending Tukituki Catchment Resource Management Plan Change as a result of work undertaken by the HBRC. The proposed minimum flows for the Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd and Waipawa River at RDS are based on a flow predicted to provide 90% habitat protection available at the mean annual low flow (MALF) for juvenile longfin eel. The proposed minimum flow for the Tukituki River at Red Bridge is based on a flow predicted to provide 90% habitat protection available at the MALF for adult rainbow trout. These minimum flows have yet to be formally adopted by the HBRC at the date of writing this report.

The above table summarises changes to modelled river flow statistics from which the following comparisons have been made.

The proposed water storage scheme will not involve any abstraction or retention of water from the Tukituki River upstream of the confluence with the Waipawa River. Modelling results therefore predicted that discontinuing groundwater and surface water abstractions from 2017 and migrating them to the storage scheme under Scenario 3, would have a positive impact on river flows in the Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, predicting that river flows would return to near natural conditions (Scenario 1) by 2022.

Migrating all current groundwater and surface water abstractions to the storage scheme under Scenario 3 is predicted to result in some significant gains for rivers at low flow conditions compared to Scenario 2 (under which current abstraction continues). The greatest change to key low flow statistics is predicted in the Q99 statistic (flow that is equalled or exceeded for 99% of the time), which increased between 24% and 44% at all three river sites. Under Scenario 3, the MALF was predicted to increase by 28% in the Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, by 5% in the Waipawa River at RDS

Scenario 2

(2016)

Continuation of

Current Abstraction

Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd 8912 l/s +6% (9433 l/s) +0.4% (8949 l/s)

Waipawa River at RDS 8452 l/s -22% (6587 l/s) -25% (6308 l/s)

Tukituki River at Red Bridge 20657 l/s -5% (19526 l/s) -9% (18717 l/s)

Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd 15091 l/s +4% (15631 l/s) +0.3% (15129 l/s)

Waipawa River at RDS 14636 l/s -14% (12535 l/s) -16% (12257 l/s)

Tukituki River at Red Bridge 43224 l/s -3% (41715 l/s) -5% (40891 l/s)

Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd 1220 l/s +44% (1754 l/s) +3% (1260 l/s)

Waipawa River at RDS 1864 l/s +24% (2316 l/s) +13% (2102 l/s)

Tukituki River at Red Bridge 3577 l/s +27% (4532 l/s) +7% (3814 l/s)

Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd 2161 l/s +28% (2772 l/s) +2% (2205 l/s)

Waipawa River at RDS 2654 l/s +5% (2794 l/s) -6% (2495 l/s)

Tukituki River at Red Bridge 5256 l/s +15% (6055 l/s) -2% (5150 l/s)

Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd (2300 l/s) 33 days -15 days (18 days) No Change (33 days)

Waipawa River at RDS (2500 l/s) 26 days -11 days (15 days) +7 days (33 days)

Tukituki River at Red Bridge (5200 l/s) 26 days -15 days (11 days) +3 days (29 days)

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Median

(2022) (2022)

Change from

Scenario 2

Change from

Scenario 2

River Flow SiteRiver Flow Statistic

Lo

w F

low

Ran

ge

Mid

Flo

w R

ang

e

Days ≤ Proposed

Minimum Flow *

(l/s)

MALF

Q99

Mean



and by 15% in the Tukituki River at Red Bridge. As a point of reference, the lowest recorded flow was predicted to increase by 78% in the Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, by 91% in the Waipawa River at RDS and by 70% in the Tukituki River at Red Bridge.

At Waipawa River at RDS the Q99 increased by 24% to a flow higher than that modelled under natural flows in Scenario 1. This is attributed to low flows being augmented by the residual flow discharged from the storage dam. The Q99 increased by 44% at Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, a result of river flows in the Upper Tukituki Catchment returning near to natural conditions. In the Lower Tukituki River at Red Bridge, Q99 also increased (by 27%) to a flow higher than that modelled under natural conditions which is attributed to a cumulative effect of Upper Tukituki River flows returning to natural conditions and Waipawa River flows being augmented by the storage dam residual flow.

Modelling results predict that Scenario 3 would reduce mid to high range flow statistics in the Waipawa and Lower Tukituki Rivers (for example, reducing median flow in the Waipawa River at RDS by 22% and by 5% in the Tukituki River at Red Bridge). The reduction in mid to high range flows reflects the effect of the dam intercepting and storing Makaroro River flows, discharging a residual flow and releasing flow for subsequent abstraction downstream for irrigation. Mid to high range flows are predicted to increase in the Upper Tukituki River due to not being directly affected by the scheme.

In comparison to Scenario 2, a significant decrease in days where river flow is less than or equal to the proposed minimum flow is predicted at all sites under Scenario 3. At each site, days less than or equal to the proposed minimum flow are predicted to return to that shown in the natural flow regime under Scenario 1; a reduction of 15 days at Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd and Tukituki River at Red Bridge, and a reduction of 11 days at Waipawa River at RDS.

Continuing current groundwater and surface water abstraction in combination with operating the water storage scheme under Scenario 4, predicts an increase in the Q99 low flow statistic from Scenario 2 at Waipawa River at RDS of 13% and 7% at Tukituki River at Red Bridge. Again as a point of reference, the lowest recorded flow was predicted to increase by 71% in the Waipawa River at RDS and by 37% in the Tukituki River at Red Bridge. These increases are attributed to residual flows provided by the scheme during periods of low flow conditions. However this scenario is not predicted to provide significant benefits to any other flow statistics. In the Waipawa and Lower Tukituki Rivers, Scenario 4 is predicted to result in further reductions in all other flow statistics from Scenario 2. Reductions in mid to high flows ranged between 14% and 25% at Waipawa River at RDS and between 4% and 9% at Tukituki River at Red Bridge. These are slightly higher reductions than that modelled under Scenario 3 which reflects the effect of water abstractions continuing in combination with the dam intercepting and storing Makaroro River flows.

Minimal change was predicted in the flow regime at Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd under Scenario 4 from that of the river flow regime modelled under Scenario 2. Scenario 4 predicted a minor increase in low flow statistics (no more than 3%) which is attributed to the stabilisation of the Ruataniwha Aquifer System over time.

When comparing Scenarios 2 and 4, in terms of predicted days where river flow is less than or equal to the proposed minimum flow, Scenario 4 showed an increase of 7 days from Scenario 2 at Waipawa River at RDS, an increase 3 days at Tukituki River at Red Bridge, whereas no change was predicted at Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd.

Operating the water storage scheme after discontinuing all current abstraction under Scenario 3 predicted:

a) A lower overall impact on river flows in the Waipawa and Lower Tukituki Rivers than if current abstractions continued in conjunction with the water storage scheme in operation under Scenario 4.



b) An increase in low flow statistics towards natural conditions in all rivers.

c) A higher impact on mid to high range flows in the Waipawa and Lower Tukituki Rivers than if only current abstraction continued under Scenario 2.

d) Upper Tukituki River flows would return to near natural conditions throughout the full range of the flow regime.

For each site, scenario-modelled daily mean flow records have been produced. These are available from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on request.

The scenarios modelled in this report were designed to predict relative changes to a complex dynamic system when changes are made to various input parameters. Some future predictive input parameters were averaged from historical records. An additional margin of uncertainty was introduced by strong reliance on literature values for input parameters where measured data was not readily available.

In addition, modelling current levels of surface water abstraction on river flow records used estimates of actual water use throughout a typical year. These estimates were based on available metered actual water use data. The available metered data for the Tukituki Catchment was limited to 2007-2008. In the absence of additional metered data, it was assumed that 2007-2008 represented a typical year of surface water abstraction in the Tukituki Catchment. Groundwater abstraction estimates used in the transient groundwater model were based on crop water demand studies and available metered well data.

In view of the previous statements, modelling results in this study should principally be used for making comparisons between scenarios rather than identifying absolute changes or making comparisons with actual values.

3.4.3 Land Use Intensification Modelling

The Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) requires an assessment to be made of the likely impacts of the proposed Ruataniwha irrigation scheme on nutrient inputs to the Tukituki River, and the resultant impacts on aquatic plants. A multi Crown Research Institute (CRI) approach has been used to model the current and expected nutrient loss into the Tukituki River, as a result of land use intensification. The agencies and experts involved in this process include:

Dr Steve Green and Dr Brent Clothier; Plant and Food Research (PFR)

Dr Alec Mackay and Dr Andrew Manderson; AgResearch

Dr Kit Rutherford; NIWA

Input assumptions to the model were developed through the On-Farm Economic Study (2011) by MacFarlane Rural Business Ltd. This included the predicted future land use and farm management practices.

The purpose of the nutrient modelling has been to determine:

Current nutrient loss from farms, through the SPASMO model

Potential nutrient loss from a likely change in land use through the SPASMO model

The extent of current and potential nutrients reaching surface water as a result of farm land nutrient losses and the resulting effects on water quality, through the NIWA land use model, and on nutrient transformations and biomass growth, through the NIWA stream model.

Mitigation options to avoid or minimise effect of land use on surface water through the OVERSEER model.



This report details the development and calibration by NIWA of a model of nutrient loss (the ‘land use model’) from the Ruataniwha Basin to the Waipawa and Tukituki rivers. The land use model predicts soluble nitrogen (N) and total phosphorus (P) losses, but does not predict particulate nitrogen losses. A conceptual model for nutrient, rather than a process-based model, is considered suitable for this project given its aims and the information available.

The land use model considers the spatial distribution of land use across an area of 80,500 ha, which includes 31,870 ha of land (Zones A, B, C and D – the irrigation command area) assessed as potentially suitable for irrigation7 and an additional 45,800 ha (Zone X – the upstream area within the model area) which overlies the Ruataniwha aquifer and may undergo land use change to support farming enterprises in the irrigation area. The land use model predicts annual average N and P loads and yields in the Tukituki and Waipawa rivers near Waipukurau and Waipawa, taking account of groundwater travel times and nutrient attenuation.

Three scenarios of land use are modelled in detail: Scenarios A, B and C.

Scenario A represents current land uses and models the movement and attenuation of N and P estimated (from the SPASMO modelling process described in Appendix 1) to be lost from land via surface runoff and sub-surface groundwater pathways into surface water bodies. Scenario A is intended to provide a baseline scenario capturing current nutrient loadings to the catchment and the resulting aquatic plant growth, against which the impact of land intensification utilising water stored as part of the Ruataniwha Storage Scheme might be assessed.

The land use model was ‘calibrated’ for current land use by adjusting three key model coefficients – drainage, attenuation and groundwater travel time – to match observed stream nutrient loads in the Tukituki River at Waipukurau and the Waipawa River at Waipawa from 2004-2009. Model calibration and sensitivity analysis indicate that a similar goodness of fit can be obtained using several combinations of the key model coefficients. The choice of coefficients used for prediction is guided not just by goodness of fit, but also by other information from the Ruataniwha and similar studies elsewhere.

After calibration to measured N and P loads in the Tukituki River at Waipukurau, predicted annual yields in the Waipawa River at Waipawa match important features of observed 1994-2009 yields including average yield and year-to-year variations driven by climate. The land use model is considered to be sufficiently accurate to predict the likely impact of the proposed irrigation scheme on annual nutrient exports at the basin outlet.

The outputs of the land use model (expressed as nutrient yields downstream from the irrigation area) are used as inputs to the ‘stream model’ which predicts nutrient concentrations and aquatic plant biomass in the Tukituki River below the townships of Waipukurau and Waipawa.

For Scenario A, Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd provided farm production and management information to PFR for input into the SPASMO modelling. Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd assumed ‘average’ performance with farming practices and associated nutrient losses typical of current farms. If farms currently lose more nutrient than is calculated by SPASMO assuming ‘average’ performance, then the calibrated attenuation coefficients will be under-estimated. This means that for Scenarios B and C, predicted stream loads will be over-estimated, the actual nutrient concentrations and consequent effects on ecosystem ‘health’ are likely to be less significant than the predictions, and hence there is a ‘margin of safety’ in the modelling. If farms currently lose less nutrient than is predicted by SPASMO assuming ‘average’ performance, then the converse applies but this is not considered to be likely.

7 The revised Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd report (currently in press) assumes an irrigable area of 22,500 ha. HBRC is

considering some modifications to the area of land modelled. It is recommended that the land use model be re-run once the final irrigation area and area of influence have been resolved.



The second scenario (Scenario B) models modified land uses resulting from the availability of irrigation water from the Storage Scheme across the irrigation area. The nature and extent of modified land uses reflects advice from Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd as to what land use changes might realistically be expected on irrigated farmland (refer to Appendix 1). N and P losses from those modified land uses have been calculated by PFR using the SPASMO model. The purpose of Scenario B is to quantify the likely increase in nutrient losses to the Tukituki catchment resulting from land intensification associated with the Storage Scheme and the consequent effect on aquatic plant growth. For Scenario B Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd provided production and management information to PFR assuming that the ‘top 20%’ of farmers would be operating after the Storage Scheme is implemented (compared with ‘average’ performance assumed for Scenario A). Scenario B assumes that land use does not change in Zone X. In the irrigation area it assumes: fenced and destocked waterways, no fertiliser spread in waterways, nitrogen applied at a rate that can be taken up by pastures and crops, fertiliser applications made according to a nutrient budget, careful cultivation to minimise soil loss by erosion and to reduce the breakdown of organic matter, careful grazing management to minimise pugging and runoff, and irrigation management to maintain growth but minimise leaching.

Because the level of nutrients and aquatic plant growth in the Tukituki catchment below Waipukurau and Waipawa is affected by discharges from the municipal wastewater facilities servicing those communities, which are the subject of plans to reduce contaminant levels, the stream model for Scenario B has two sub-scenarios, one assuming continuation of those wastewater discharges and one assuming they reduce.

Using data supplied by PFR and AgResearch, the land use model indicates that, comparing Scenario B (irrigation and ‘top 20%’ performance) with Scenario A (current land use and ‘average’ performance):

N losses from the model area increase from 2,440 to 3,060 t y-1 (25%).

P losses from the model area increase from 67 to 80 t P y-1 (20%).

The model area encompasses Zones A-D and X but land use change is assumed to change only in Zones A-D. N and P loads leaving the Ruataniwha Basin increase by lower percentages than losses from the irrigation area because of dilution from upstream and attenuation.

N loads leaving the Ruataniwha Basin increase from 1,320 t y-1 to 1,615 t y-1 (22%).

P loads leaving the Ruataniwha Basin increase from 57 t y-1 to 63 y t-1 (10%).

In a separate analysis the implications of extending dairy and intensive arable by a further 5,450 ha and reducing sheep and beef extensive, orchard and vineyard by the corresponding area translated to an increase in total N losses of 101 t y-1 compared with Scenario B.

The third scenario (Scenario C) tests the potential benefits of reducing N losses from a selection of land uses under the irrigated Scenario B by adopting specific mitigation actions to reduce N losses. Intensive arable and process vegetable cultivation and dairying were chosen to be the subject of this scenario because they represent a significant proportion of the assumed land uses in the irrigation area under Scenario B, and because they produce relatively high levels of N losses. Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd has advised what on-farm mitigation options might realistically be employed (described in Appendix 3) which include the actions listed for Scenario B plus: application of nitrification inhibitors, reduction in nitrogen fertiliser use, reduction or removal of high nitrogen loss crops such as potatoes and squash, reduction in grazing time on pasture in order to reduce the number of urine patches, substitution of pasture with other feeds such as grain or silage, holding stock off pasture on feed pads to collect dung and urine for more even distribution, and reduced lactation periods to allow destocking by grazing off on support farms. AgResearch calculated, using the OVERSEER model, the effect of adopting a suite of mitigation practices on the level of nitrogen losses from the



intensive arable and dairy systems. A reduction of 16 kg ha-1 (for intensive arable/process vegetable cultivation) and 21 kg ha-1 (for dairying on light soils) was required to reduce the N leaching losses for both land uses to 30kgN/ha/yr. The methodology employed is described in more detail in Appendix 4. The purpose of Scenario C is to provide an initial indication of the sensitivity of the predicted effects of land intensification on water quality to an on-farm N leaching limit. Mitigation of N losses may, or may not, be required depending on the N guidelines adopted to protect downstream water quality and ecosystem ‘health’. Comparing Scenario C (irrigation with N mitigation to an on-farm limit for two land uses) with Scenario B (irrigation and ‘top 20%’ performance), N mitigation measures reduce N losses by 9%.

Comparing Scenario C with Scenario A (current land use):

N losses from the model area increase from 2,440 to 2,780 t y-1 (14%).

N loads leaving the Ruataniwha Basin increase from 1,320 t y-1 to 1,480 t y-1 (12%).

Again, the model area encompasses Zones A-D and X but land use change only occurs in Zones A-D.

If we assume 10, 20 or 50% (extreme) of the extensive sheep and beef operations (22,018ha) in Zone X (45,802ha) shift enterprises to include wintering dairy cows and contract heifer grazing, the increase in total N losses in Zone X would amount to 1.04, 2.1 and 5.2 t y-1, respectively, This is a small increase in N loss from the zone and an insignificant amount compared with the N loads leaving the Ruataniwha Basin. The corresponding increases in total P losses in Zone X, again assuming 10, 20 or 50% (extreme) of the extensive sheep and beef operations in Zone X shift enterprises to include wintering dairy cows and contract heifer grazing, would amount to 23, 46 and 116 kg P y-1, respectively. These increases are again very small.

Work is on-going to refine the assessments reported here, and further scenarios will be modelled to assess the effects on nutrient losses and consequential downstream effects of: mitigating both N and P losses, a wider range of modified land uses and changing the mix of land uses modelled.

An existing mechanistic model of stream nutrient dynamics and aquatic plant growth (the ‘stream model’) is applied in the lower Tukituki River between Waipukurau and the sea. The model is used to assess the effect of the Storage Scheme and Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) discharges in the lower Tukituki River downstream from the townships of Waipukurau and Waipawa. It is also used to estimate the effects of the Storage Scheme on nitrate concentrations to enable an assessment of the risks to stream ecosystem ‘health’ posed by nitrate toxicity once revised nitrate toxicity guidelines become available. The majority of reported problems with high periphyton biomass occur in the lower Tukituki River downstream from the townships of Waipukurau and Waipawa, although there may be some ‘hot spots’ in streams within the Ruataniwha Basin, where high nitrate concentrations and/or high plant biomass occur.

Daily nutrient concentrations are estimated from annual yields using the available monitoring data, to provide input data for the stream model. The estimated daily concentrations match the observed variations of concentration with flow and time, and furnish estimates of annual nutrient yield that compare favourably with published estimates.

Predicted nutrient concentrations account for the reduced dilution of nutrient losses arising from likely flow changes. Scenarios B and C make the ‘worst case’ assumption that surface and groundwater abstractions continue at current levels after irrigation starts. Data supplied by HBRC indicate that the irrigation scheme will decrease average river flows, notably in the Waipawa River, although it will increase summer low flows.

A possible guideline, derived from a review of (mostly overseas) published nitrate toxicity studies is 1.7 g NO3N m-3 quoted as providing protection for 95% of species. The percentage of days when this guideline is exceeded in the Tukituki River at Waipukurau increases from 18% (Scenario A) to 36%



(Scenario B) and 29% (Scenario C). Work has recently been completed by NIWA to measure the susceptibility to nitrate of two keystone New Zealand freshwater organisms (one fish species (Galaxias maculatus (inanga)) and one mayfly Deleatidium sp.). That work, and other recent nitrate toxicity data, have not yet been incorporated into existing guidelines. There are indications, however, that the 1.7 g NO3N m-3 guideline may be conservative for the organisms tested and that a higher guideline may be acceptable, but this awaits confirmation.

The wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) at Waipukurau and Waipawa townships discharge large amounts of P compared to losses from the Ruataniwha Plain. In this report both land disposal and phosphorus stripping are modelled, as well as irrigation. The stream model predicts that there are likely to be significant beneficial effects, in terms of reduced DRP concentrations, reduced periphyton biomass and associated improvements in ecosystem ‘health’, from reducing P inputs from the WWTP discharges at Waipukurau and Waipawa.

Irrigation (Scenarios B and C) leads to higher peak biomasses than for current land use (Scenario A) in the vicinity of Waipukurau. If P inputs from the WWTPs are reduced as planned, then the highest biomass is predicted to occur at the top of the modelled reach (viz., in the vicinity of Waipukurau). Whereas the 10%ile biomass (viz., the biomass that is only exceeded 10% of the time) at SH2 currently averages 49 gC m-2, this is predicted to increase to 57 gC m-2 with irrigation because of increased P inputs. These simulations do not consider possible P loss mitigation measures which are currently being investigated.

There is uncertainty in model predictions of periphyton biomass arising from high variability in observed biomass used for calibration. In addition, spatial variability in bed stability, water depth and water velocity affect predicted periphyton biomass. There is also uncertainty arising from the omission of particulate N losses from the irrigation area. Consequently, the longitudinal profiles of predicted biomass presented here may not be quantitatively accurate. Nevertheless, they provide strong qualitative indications of the likely magnitude of change.

Further work is currently being undertaken to extend the model upstream from Waipukurau and Waipawa in order to assess the impact of irrigation and land use intensification within the Ruataniwha Plain, notably where groundwater upwelling occurs and ‘hot spots’ of N and P occur. This work will include modelling the effects of land use change outside the irrigation area, including land in the lower Tukituki River.

3.5 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS

3.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The Terrestrial Ecology Study is part of the wider Technical Feasibility and other scientific assessment studies that will provide the information for the resource consenting process for the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Project in Central Hawke’s Bay if the project is deemed feasible. Kessels & Associates have been engaged by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to conduct an ecological impact assessment and make recommendations regarding measures to avoid, mitigate or offset potential adverse effects on indigenous terrestrial fauna and flora species and their habitats.

Potential Ecological Effects

The potential ecological effects of the construction and operation of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project on terrestrial indigenous fauna and flora are:

A permanent loss of a variety of indigenous vegetation communities and braided river within the inundation, dam and spillway footprint area;

A permanent loss of a variety of feeding, roosting and breeding habitats (both exotic and indigenous) for birds, lizards, bats and invertebrates;



Alteration of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna within and adjacent to braided river ecosystems downstream of the dam and intake structure associated with changes in sediment deposition rates, river flow patterns and changes in landuse; and

A change of habitat types on the margins of the reservoir due to changes in hydrology and effects of seasonal and irrigation drawdown causing inundation and ebbing of the ‘lake’ edge; and

Disturbance of remaining indigenous flora and fauna adjacent to the reservoir due to potential increases in the recreational use of the reservoir and its margins.

Assessments Undertaken

Field assessments have been undertaken over the period of September 2011 to February 2012 within, and over areas potentially affected by, the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Project. In addition, literature searches, data analysis, GIS mapping analysis and ecological significance determination have also been undertaken during this period. Specifically, the investigations have focussed on:

Field Investigations to ground truth and refine vegetation maps and to assess whether any at risk or threatened plants are in the affected areas;

Avifauna surveys to determine relative abundance of common indigenous and native birds and to assess whether any at risk and/or threatened birds utilise the affected areas;

Field investigations to confirm the level of importance of affected habitat for long-tailed bats;

Field investigations to confirm the importance of affected habitat for lizards, in particular to identify the presence or absence of at risk and threatened species;

Field investigations to confirm the importance of affected habitat for invertebrates, in particular to identify the presence or absence of at risk or threatened species;

An examination of the impact of habitat loss on functional landscape ecology values;

Potential effects of river morphology changes on terrestrial linked ecosystem values; and

Recommendations for appropriate measures to avoid, remedy, mitigate, or offset for any potential adverse effects identified.

Results of the Assessment

The total area affected by flooding, the dam structure and spoil disposal is approximately 450.21 ha. A third of this area (i.e. 38.7% or 174.24 ha) is covered in pasture or rank grasses, with the area classified as indigenous vegetation or habitats covering 242.4 ha8 (53.8%). The total area of terrestrial indigenous vegetation cover (which excludes wetlands, seepzones and gravel riverbed) is 163.23 ha (36%), in comparison to 204.90 ha (45%) of exotic vegetation cover (i.e. pasture and exotic forest and scrub). One At Risk plant species was found – red mistletoe.

A total of 37 bird species (11 endemic) were identified at the proposed reservoir locality during field surveys. Of these birds 55% were native and 45% introduced. Threatened or At Risk species comprise 2.3% of all observations, including one pair of the Nationally Vulnerable New Zealand bush falcon, which was most likely nesting in the site during spring. Nationally ‘At Risk’ species detected were pied stilt, New Zealand pipit, black shag and North Island fernbird.

8 NB: Includes all indigenous woody vegetation, wetland and seeps, as well as braided river and open stream channel



Long-tailed bats were found throughout the proposed reservoir during an ultrasonic survey completed between November 2011 and February 2012. Simultaneous surveys of the inundation area and wider landscape showed that it is likely that bats are resident and roosting within the inundation area, and then move out into the wider landscape throughout the night. Activity levels are higher within the inundation zone when compared to the wider landscape demonstrating the importance of this habitat for the bats.

Eleven lizard species are known from the southern Hawke’s Bay region or neighbouring areas of the southern North Island. However, only one lizard was found during the field survey. This was a southern North Island forest gecko. It is not classified as being a nationally At Risk or Threatened species.

Targeted rapid surveys for terrestrial invertebrates were undertaken within the proposed reservoir site in December 2011 and again in January 2012. In addition, passive detection devices have been deployed and checked throughout the site from November 2011 until February 2012. Results showed a rich diversity of insects and land snails. However, to date, no terrestrial invertebrates listed as rare, or threatened have been discovered.

A total of 182.52 ha of ecologically significant indigenous vegetation and habitats would be flooded by the proposed reservoir. This comprises of: 80.72 ha of mature and secondary indigenous forest; 22.71 ha of secondary indigenous scrub; 73.97 ha of gravel river bed; and 5.11 ha of wetland or seepzones.

Suggested Approach for the Effects Identified

A number of measures are required to avoid or remedy potential adverse effects on terrestrial ecology. These include:

A two year pre-construction bat survey to determine the size of the resident bat population; its roosting sites and movement patterns across the landscape;

A bat management plan pending the results of the two year survey;

A pre-construction lizard survey and translocation plan;

A weed hygiene and surveillance plan; and

Post-construction monitoring of key wader bird species within affected braided river habitat and contingency habitat enhancement if adverse effects are shown to occur.

In addition to measures to avoid, remedy or directly mitigate for potentially affected flora and fauna, three broad biodiversity restoration and enhancement packages are recommended. These are:

A: Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone

The objectives of this package are to:

Recreate 46 ha of riparian margin with indigenous vegetation, which will provide habitats and ecological linkages for a wide range of fauna and flora.

Restore and enhance at least 100 ha of marginal farmland and existing forest, scrub, treeland, shrubland and wetland remnants within the sub-catchment above the dam to quickly improve existing habitat for flora and fauna, reinforce ecological linkages within the landscape and provide refuge for species during and after the flooding process.

B: Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone

The objectives for this package are to:



Control of willows/lupins and other braided river weeds to maintain and enhance habitat for wading birds, particularly banded dotterel, within the Waipawa and Makaroro Rivers. This may also include fencing and restoring margins of the main stems of the two rivers where required, in consultation with adjoining landowners. The primary target area for these works would be high quality wading bird habitat.

Carry out ongoing animal pest control over the 616 ha of existing bush, scrub and wetland habitats within the zone, targeting possums and rats.

Assist landowners with fencing, replanting (as required) and legally protecting existing areas of wetlands, bush and scrub within or contiguous with the 1 km enhancement zone.

C: Ruataniwha Threatened Species Habitat Enhancement:

Its objectives are to:

Instigate measures to enhance habitat for key threatened species, such as falcon and blue duck.

Implement a targeted assistance programme to foster research, advocacy and habitat protection/enhancement of bats and their habitats throughout the Hawke’s Bay Region.

The mitigation recommendations contained within the report have been integrated into a separate report entitled “Ruataniwha Water Storage Project – Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach”, which should be read in conjunction with the report.



3.5.2 Aquatic Ecology

This assessment of aquatic ecological effects of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Project (RWSP) informs a wider assessment of environmental effects that will be lodged as part of a resource consent application process, if the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) decides to proceed with the project. HBRC engaged the Cawthron Institute to review the Tukituki catchment’s aquatic values, summarise the state of the existing environment, provide an assessment of effects on aquatic ecology as a result of the RWSP, and identify mitigation and monitoring options.

Current Values

Values that apply to the whole of the Tukituki Catchment include: life supporting capacity, mauri, contact recreation, water use (quality and economic), and fish passage.

Values that may vary across the catchment include: natural state, wetlands, riverine bird habitat, inanga spawning, native fish habitat, trout spawning and habitat and contact recreation (amenity).

Potential Project Effects

The key potential effects of the construction and operation of the RWSP on aquatic ecology and associated values are:

Disturbance of the riverbed during construction and associated mobilisation of sediment that could influence water clarity and have effects on periphyton, invertebrates and fish (both native and introduced species)

Effects of changes in bed geomorphology downstream of the dam on periphyton, invertebrates and fish

Effects on water quality associated with water storage within the proposed reservoir

Blockage/interruption of upstream and downstream fish passage by the dam

Permanent loss of riverine habitat resulting from inundation by the proposed reservoir

Reductions in the quantity and quality of spawning habitat for rainbow trout

Changes to angling opportunities

Changes in water quality associated with changes in the flow regime downstream of the dam

Changes in periphyton abundance and distribution as a result of changes in the flow regime

Effects of changes in the flow regime downstream of the dam (including short-term fluctuating flows associated with changes in irrigation demand and hydro-peaking) on habitat availability for invertebrates and fish

Effects of flow changes on fish stranding

Diversion of fish into the water distribution network at the irrigation intake

Instream and riparian habitat disturbance associated with changes in land use on the Ruataniwha Plain associated with the RWSP

Changes in water quality and effects on periphyton, invertebrates and fish associated with changes in land use.


A combination of existing data, models, interviews, field studies and literature reviews were used to identify the key values associated with the Tukituki catchment and the state of the existing environment. Similarly, Cawthron’s assessment of effects of the RWSP was conducted using the



information gathered on the state of the existing environment, modelling of how water quality and instream habitat are affected by changes to the flow regime, and guidelines/knowledge associated with sediment effects, periphyton, invertebrate and fish habitat requirements. Concurrent work on water quality in the reservoir (Gibbs et al. 2012), predicted changes to the flow regime (Tonkin & Taylor 2012; Waldron & Baalousha 2012), predicted changes to sediment transport and geomorphology (Tonkin & Taylor 2011), surveys of trout spawning and juvenile trout density (Maclean 2011; 2012), predicted effects of land use on water quality and periphyton (Rutherford 2012) and new information on nitrate toxicity thresholds (Chris Hickey, NIWA, report in preparation) have been incorporated into Cawthron’s assessments.

Results of Assessments

Effects of construction on water quality are predicted to reduce rapidly once the working site is adequately stabilised. However, deposition of mobilised sediment downstream of the proposed dam site may have longer term effects that take 6-months to one year for full recovery. The effects will be most marked close to the proposed dam site and have less influence downstream of the Waipawa and Tukituki confluences.

The reduction in bed aggradation, due to sediment retention in the proposed dam, is likely to result in a reduction of gravel removal from the channel, and associated reduction in habitat disturbance. This is likely to have a net benefit to the aquatic ecosystem. The coarsening of the bed substrate is also likely to have a net benefit for many species of native fish which prefer coarse substrates. However, bed coarsening and armouring will potentially increase the suitability of habitat for nuisance periphyton growth and reduce the availability of suitable spawning gravels for rainbow trout downstream of the dam.

Modelling (Gibbs et al. 2012) predicts that changes in water quality associated with storage of water within the reservoir are expected to be relatively minor. Water quality will be continuously monitored and an aerator is recommended to be installed near the upstream face of the dam to manage any unforeseen changes in water quality. Problems with levels of dissolved oxygen, nutrients and sediment released downstream from the reservoir are not expected.

Movement of fish, both upstream and downstream, past the dam will be affected by the presence of the dam. The seven migratory native fish species currently present in the vicinity of the dam are unlikely to sustain self-supporting populations above the dam. Consequently, these species would be lost from the fish community above the dam over time, unless fish passage is provided. While the loss of the seven migratory species within the Makaroro River upstream of the proposed dam would restrict the geographic range of these species within the wider Tukituki catchment, the loss of the upper Makaroro River populations of these species is not expected to result in a significant increase to the threat of extinction of these species from elsewhere in the catchment. Nevertheless habitat loss for any indigenous or valued species is not desirable, so we recommend that fish passage be provided.

The creation of a 372 ha reservoir will result in a loss of approximately 7 km of flowing water habitats. Some of the native fish species currently found in the river habitat are also commonly found in still water habitats and will be able to use the newly formed lake-like habitat of the reservoir. However, other species (e.g. torrentfish, bluegill bully, redfin bully, Cran’s bully, and dwarf galaxias) are unlikely to use the still-water habitat in the reservoir, and for these species the inundation of streams in this area will represent a loss of habitat. Many of the invertebrate species found in the Makaroro River are also unlikely to use the still water habitat in the reservoir, although invertebrates that prefer still waters will replace them to some extent and provide food for fish living in the reservoir.

A trout population of between 1000-2000 adult fish is likely to develop in the reservoir and support a full season fishery for small rainbow trout, rather than the current early and late



season fishery for post- or pre-spawning rainbow trout of average size. Juvenile trout production from these adult trout may be enhanced compared with the status quo as a result of the reservoir. It is very likely that some of these juvenile trout will successfully pass downstream through the turbines or over the spillway and make a substantial contribution to the fishery in the Waipawa and Tukituki rivers. The benefits to be derived from the juvenile trout that will pass downstream are difficult to quantify precisely and hence so are the overall effects on the trout fishery of the inundation and loss of spawning habitat associated with the reservoir and the blockage of the spawning migration from downstream caused by the dam.

The proposed project will result in substantial changes to the flow regime downstream of the dam. In the reach between the dam and the irrigation intake there will be higher flows in the summer irrigation period and lower flows in late autumn and winter. Flood frequency will be reduced particularly during late autumn and winter when floods will be captured within the refilling reservoir. Downstream of the irrigation intake, there will be a general reduction in median flows throughout the year as a result of the project, but an increase in the lowest flows. The changes in flow are most significant in the Makaroro and Waipawa rivers. Downstream in the Tukituki River, the changes in the flow regime are smaller because flow inputs from the upper Tukituki River and other tributaries are largely unaffected by the project.

Increases to low flows are predicted to occur when the scheme is in operation, particularly if current surface and ground water abstractions are ‘migrated’ to the Scheme water (Waldron and Baalousha, 2012).

At times, the water temperatures within the Tukituki catchment currently approach levels that will begin to stress sensitive aquatic life. The RWSP will result in higher summer flows and cooler summer water temperatures between the dam and the irrigation intake because of the flow releases of cool water sourced from the dam. Therefore, this is expected to be a net benefit to the river ecosystem in these reaches. Downstream of the irrigation intake, there will be a decrease in median flows, but higher minimum flows than occurs under the status quo. Any effects of changes to the flow regime itself on water temperature will be at most, minor (predictions of no change to mean temperature and <0.5°C increase in maximum temperature).

The change in the flow regime in the Makaroro River will provide better hydraulic conditions for the growth of undesirable long and short filamentous algae on the river bed, but reduce habitat suitability for desirable diatoms. This is considered to be a net negative effect on the river ecosystem, but periphyton growth is not expected to be problematic in this reach because nutrient concentrations are relatively low. Further downstream and below the irrigation intake, the changes in flow regime on habitat suitability for different components of the periphyton community are mixed, with increases in suitability in some months and decreases or no change in other months.

The frequency of flows large enough to flush periphyton from the river bed is more important in controlling periphyton biomass than general hydraulic suitability for periphyton. The frequency of flows capable of flushing periphyton will be reduced, particularly during the irrigation season and during late autumn/winter when the reservoir will be refilling. However, the project design has incorporated the capacity for four flushing flows to be released from the dam per year to remove nuisance accumulations of periphyton. These flushing flows will be most effective in the Makaroro and Waipawa rivers downstream of the dam, but could also be effective in the Tukituki River if the flow releases are timed to coincide with natural freshes from the upper Waipawa and Upper Tukituki rivers. Therefore, nuisance periphyton accumulations will be able to be managed to a large extent using these flushing flows.



The broad-scale changes to the flow regime will result in both gains and losses in habitat suitability for invertebrate species. While there will be changes to the composition of invertebrate communities in the Makaroro as a result of changes to the flow regime, the predicted habitat losses will not affect the viability of populations below the dam down into the Tukituki system. The largest effect of the proposed flow regime on the invertebrate community relates to the regular short-term fluctuations in flow that result from changes in irrigation demand during the summer and from hydro-peaking during winter. These flow fluctuations will have negative effects on habitat suitability for species with limited mobility. Margins of the channel that are suitable at the high end of the flow fluctuation cycle will dry out or become too shallow during the low flow part of the fluctuating cycle, while areas in mid-channel that are suitable at the low end of the fluctuating cycle may become too fast at the high end of the cycle. These flow fluctuations are predicted to result in a 50% reduction in habitat availability for invertebrates (and up to a 100% reduction i.e. complete removal in habitat availability for rainbow trout spawning) in the Makaroro and Waipawa rivers downstream of the proposed dam. The effects in the Tukituki River will be much lower due to flow contributions from other parts of the catchment making the relative change in flow smaller, and downstream attenuation of the flow fluctuations themselves. It should be noted however, that these predictions do not take into account the effects of natural flow fluctuations and therefore are probably an overestimate.

The degree to which fish abundance and/or growth rate may be affected by this reduction in invertebrate habitat is uncertain, because it depends on whether fish are currently food limited. But given that the predicted reduction in invertebrate habitat is potentially large (around 50% for Deleatidium which represents a riverine trout’s main food source), this may have some adverse effect on food intake by fish - with a consequent adverse effect on growth rates and/or survival.

Fluctuations in flow that result from changes in irrigation demand during the summer and from hydro-peaking during winter may result in relatively fast declines in flow within the Makaroro River at times, potentially resulting in fish strandings. However, the shape of the Makaroro River channel means that there will be limited areas where isolated pools are likely to be formed by rapid dewatering. Therefore, the effects of flow reductions on fish stranding in this reach are expected to be minor.

The main potential effect of the irrigation intake structure is the potential entrainment of fish into the canal system. A rockfill infiltration bund is currently proposed to act as a fish screen at the proposed intake. The efficacy of this bund as a screen will be dependent on the size of the packing fill used to construct the bund because the fill needs to emulate 3 mm mesh openings in a metal screen. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd have confirmed that the packing fill will meet this intent and therefore the effects on fish entrainment should be largely avoided.

Possible future land use changes may mean that there will be more heavy animals (i.e. cattle rather than sheep) and higher stocking rates on the Ruataniwha Plains. These changes to stock type and stocking rate have the potential to increase the amount of physical damage to instream habitat and the riparian margins of streams flowing through the irrigated areas if stock are not excluded from waterways. It is recommended that riparian protection works be an integral part of the overall project design.

Modelling of a future land use scenario for the Ruataniwha Plains with good practice farm management predicts that annual average nitrogen concentrations will increase by 24% and annual average phosphorus concentrations will increase by 7% in both the Waipawa at SH2 and Tukituki at SH2. The increase in phosphorus concentration is predicted to result in faster periphyton growth and higher peak biomasses of periphyton in the lower Waipawa and Tukituki rivers. Periphyton biomass currently exceeds guidelines for the protection of



biodiversity and trout fisheries on a relatively regular basis, so the adverse effects of periphyton proliferation on invertebrates and fish are already occurring.

Prior to construction of the RWSP, the discharges of sewage from Waipukurau and Waipawa will be significantly reduced as part of their consent conditions. This diversion of phosphorus load to the river will reduce periphyton growth rates and peak biomasses. For example, periphyton biomass in the Tukituki River at Walker Road is currently predicted to exceed relevant guidelines for 32% of the time. The reduction in phosphorus inputs from the sewage discharges is predicted to result in guidelines being exceeded for only 10% of the time assuming current land use, and for only 20% of the time assuming the future land use scenario. Therefore, even with land use change associated with the RWSP, periphyton blooms are predicted to be less common than they are now as a result of the reduction in contaminants from the sewage discharges.

The frequency of flushing flows is also a primary factor controlling the proportion of time when periphyton biomass exceeds the relevant guidelines. This again demonstrates the need for the flushing flows that are planned to be released from the dam each year to reduce nuisance accumulations of periphyton to below guideline levels.

High concentrations of nitrate nitrogen can be toxic to aquatic life affecting growth rates, development and, at extremely high concentrations, mortality. Due to the substantial contribution of nitrate-rich groundwater to river flows at the outlet of the Ruataniwha Basin, concentrations of nitrate in the Tukituki River are at their highest at this point. Under the future land use scenario, mean annual nitrate nitrogen concentrations are predicted to increase from 1.24 to 1.54 mg/L at the Tukituki at SH2 and from 0.65 to 0.81 mg/L at the Waipawa at SH2. These concentrations all meet the 95% species protection guideline (1.7 mg/L) that is likely to be proposed for the Tukituki Plan Change, indicating that nitrate toxicity is unlikely to adversely affect aquatic organisms downstream of these points.

Winter peaks and summer lows in nitrate nitrogen concentration are observed in the Tukituki catchment. Therefore, the risk of seasonal peaks in nitrate concentration also needs to be assessed. Statistical distributions of nitrate concentration at the outlet of the Ruataniwha Plain shows that seasonal peak concentrations (95th percentiles) are around 2.4 mg/L and are predicted to increase to 3.0 mg/L under the future land use scenario. Again these seasonal high concentrations are below the 95% protection threshold effect concentration guideline (3.2 mg/L) that is likely to be proposed in the Tukituki Plan Change for managing nitrate toxicity risk of seasonal concentration peaks, providing further assurance that nitrate toxicity is unlikely to adversely affect aquatic organisms.

The only residual issue regarding nitrate toxicity is in spring-fed systems at the base of the Ruataniwha Plains where nitrate-rich ground water may comprise all of the base flow. There is currently little information on nitrate concentrations in these systems and the model predicting the effects of land use change does not cover these areas of the catchment. Further monitoring and modelling of nitrate concentrations in a range of rain-fed and groundwater-fed streams surrounding the Ruataniwha Plain is planned for winter 2012 to determine the scope of this issue.

Suggested Approach for Effects Identified

A number of initiatives are recommended to mitigate potential adverse effects of the RWSP on aquatic ecology. These include:

A trap and transfer programme that will enable migratory native fish to access habitat upstream of the proposed dam

Pre and post-construction monitoring of the age-structure of the eel population upstream of the dam to ensure that the trap and transfer programme is enabling successful



recruitment.

Post construction monitoring of the efficacy of the rockfill infiltration bund as a fish screen.

We recommend that these initiatives could be implemented alongside three broad restoration and enhancement packages. These include:

Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone:

This is as proposed in the terrestrial ecology effects assessment. In terms of aquatic ecology the key objectives of this initiative would be to protect and enhance the aquatic habitat within the upper Makaroro River above the dam and other reservoir tributaries such as Dutch Creek. This would also help to limit inputs of nutrients and sediment to the proposed reservoir and maintain reservoir water quality, although this effect would be minor.

Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone:

Again, this is as proposed in the terrestrial ecology effects assessment. The focus of this initiative should be on protection of riparian habitats alongside the Makaroro and Waipawa rivers that are affected by flow fluctuations resulting from the project.

Ruataniwha Plains Spring-fed stream Enhancement and Phosphorus Mitigation:

The changes in land use associated with the RWSP will have to be managed carefully. The objectives for this initiative are to protect and enhance the spring-fed streams and other waterways that drain the lower Ruataniwha Plains (e.g. tributaries of the lower Mangaonuku, Kahahakuri, Waipawamate, Black Stream, Maharakeke, Tukipo and presumably many unnamed ones). These streams provide good habitat for eels and some other native fish species and also appear to be important locations for spawning and juvenile trout rearing. The package would involve support for landowners with fencing, replanting and ongoing riparian maintenance and legal protection and fencing of any existing wetlands. A focus will be on ensuring that stock are permanently excluded from waterways and sediment/phosphorus inputs are restricted.

Provided that all these mitigation initiatives are in place, the RWSP will have relatively minor effects on the aquatic ecosystem and the Tukituki will continue to support the current wide range of values.



3.6 CULTURAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT9

3.6.1 Tamatea CIA Reports

Over the last few years, the HBRC has undertaken a pre-feasibility and feasibility study to investigate potential dam sites within the Ruataniwha region. The initial CIA report was commissioned in 2010 to investigate eight potential dam sites (Wakefield et al, 2010). The supplementary report was commissioned in 2011, which narrowed the focus to two potential dam sites on the Makaretu and Mākāroro Rivers (Wakefield et al, 2011). The CIA reports identified registered and unregistered wāhi tapu and other cultural values likely to be adversely affected by the location of the proposed sites. Another focus of the reports was to assess any cumulative effects on the health state of the Tukituki River catchment in terms of tangata whenua relationship to cultural values, mauri, water quality, indigenous biodiversity, and other concerns within the Tukituki catchment. These two CIA reports focused primarily on the views of mana whenua within the central Hawke’s Bay region associated with Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea. The HBRC Māori standing committee representatives strongly advocated for the involvement of marae and hapū from the lower Tukituki River catchment. This resulted in a CIA report commissioned by the HBRC to be undertaken by Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga and was completed in 2012 (Te Apatu & Moffat, 2012). There was a single focus on the proposed dam site on the Mākāroro River.

The first CIA report identified several cultural values of importance to mana whenua and has formed the foundation for the cultural values framework constructed for this report on the Tukituki River catchment cultural values and uses change plan. These cultural values were applied to the supplementary and third CIA report completed. There was a broad description of tangata whenua cultural values and their relationship to the Tukituki catchment and included: Te Ao Māori world views; Papatūānuku earth mother; Kaitiakitanga responsibilities; the elements of nature; ki uta ki tai - Ruahine ranges: headwaters, Ruataniwha plains and the lowlands of the Tukituki river mouth; Taonga Tuku Iho of ngā wai and the biodiversity values and mahinga kai resources within the Ruataniwha plains of importance to tangata whenua.

Tangata whenua were asked their views on potential effects of cultural values, potential benefits and costs and finally, their socio-economic aspirations for marae and hapū and the findings are briefly outlined below:

First CIA Report

The relationship of cultural values to water flow regime and water quality focussed on the headwaters as the source of mauri, waipuna/ springs/ aquifer and the effects of land use intensification activities, Riparian areas, mahinga kai/ biodiversity and indigenous species, river mouth environment and the role of Kaitiakitanga.

There are no known wāhi tapu sites registered or unregistered specifically located within any of the eight proposed water storage site. However, sites A1, A2 and D3 are included in the Waitangi Tribunal claims under He Toa Takitini claimant group and the HBRC needed to continue consulting with the Group.

Potential issues associated with the proposed Tukituki water storage dams outlined particular concerns with water flow management and water allocation, water quality, land use activities and effects on water quality and water bed and river margins.

The findings from the first CIA study indicated that marae and hapū were cautious and uncertain on what the potential benefits might be for Māori. There was a significant issue with the lack of

9 From Section 5.2 of Wakefield et al, 2012 which includes and summarises three separate Cultural Impact Assessment

(CIA) reports prepared by Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga.



consultation that did not occur with marae/hapū during the pre-feasibility study. Most of the recommendations made from Tangata whenua were focused around the HBRC consulting directly to follow-up on this CIA study and to discuss how the council would address the issues and concerns highlighted in the report.

Supplementary CIA Report

The findings from the supplementary CIA report revealed there was some support in principle for the proposed dam sites on the Makaretu and the Mākāroro. Mataweka and Tapairu marae reinforced their position stated in the first CIA report concerning sites A1 on the Mākāroro in that they are were not very supportive of this site located in an area that is pristine, was where taonga species like tuna spawn, and still had remnants of precious native bush.

The change from smaller dams to one large dam proposed on the Mākāroro raised concerns on any potential break in the dam which was likely to directly flood out the Waipawa district in particular. Their preference is for smaller dams and would like to discuss this more directly with the HBRC. There are concerns for the cumulative health effects from pollution, water quality, flows and over allocation of water which needed to be mitigated.

There were unregistered wāhi tapu/ wāhi taonga which would require more discussion with tangata whenua directly to ensure these sites were protected in the assessment process of the feasibility study. There was also a need for more discussion on potential social and economic benefits for tangata whenua. With Waitangi Treaty claim negotiations still to be settled, this was likely to highlight wider issues concerning co-management of the waterways within the Ruataniwha region.

3.6.2 Lower Tukituki (Heretaunga) CIA Report

Within the CIA report, there is a comprehensive overview of the historical and contemporary issues raised for Heretaunga marae/hapū. Although these issues are related to the proposed dam on the Mākāroro, they are also relevant to how mana whenua cultural values relate to the whole of the Tukituki River catchment. The executive summary of the CIA is reproduced below and provides a deeper insight and understanding of their cultural values as they apply to the Tukituki River.

Ko Heretaunga Haukunui, Ararau, Haaro te Kaahu, Takoto Noa

Heretaunga - of the life-giving dew, of the hundred pathways, the vision of the far-sighted hawk, left to us, the humble servants.

“Ko Heretaunga Haukunui, Ararau, Haaro te Kaahu, Takoto Noa” is a centuries old tribal whakataukī (proverb), that is as relevant today as it was when it was first uttered. It has many layers from which to identify and describe the tangata whenua (people of the land), acknowledging Maori and their spiritual connection and birthplace of Heretaunga, the environment, and their relationship to each other, and as such is the framework upon which this report is based.

It is a statement of mana whenua (authority, possession and spiritual connection to certain land), and that in turn is the foundation that says ngā hapū o Heretaunga (clans of the Heretaunga region), are entitled to be equal partners at all levels of engagement, to be decision-makers for the future, and to have guardianship of the whenua (land) and awa (waters), which cannot be broken.

While appreciating the differences between the lower and upper Tukituki catchments, the hapū residing in the lower Tukituki area do not separate the awa, and have cultural links right from the headwaters to the river mouth.



Environmentally, tangata whenua see an awa as a whole entity whose parts are interdependent and the health or well-being of any tributary, flora, fauna, birds, fish, or insect will be affected by the health of the awa, and vice versa; and so too the well-being of the people.

Marae/ hapū (common village, clan or social order) feel very much a part of the river and see it as their right, as tāngata whenua, to be involved in its life. It is their duty as kaitiaki (guardians) to be involved in protecting its mauri (life force, essence), and “Hurumanu” (with a bird’s-eye view) reminds us that there must be an active role and participation in doing so. The questions arise, “Will this be possible?” “How?”

Many of the issues raised in this report are related to protecting the mauri of the river and its environs, habitats and ecosystems. There have already been losses from a hugely modified river, and it is of concern that further modification will render mahinga kai (traditional food gathering sources or places), livelihoods, traditional practices, and recreation very much reduced, or even non-existent - not only for marae/ hapū, but for other local communities, interest groups, and the majority of whānau and families of the region.

Hapū wish to be involved at all levels of the process to ensure that the Māori world view is represented, that they can fulfil their obligation as kaitiaki and that they are not marginalised or excluded from prosperity. It is vital that they do not continue to suffer disconnection from their awa as has happened in the past.

Whakapapa (Genealogy)

In December 1992, Ngāti Kahungunu produced the document, “Kaitiakitanga mo ngā Taonga Tuku Iho” as an introduction to Ngāti Kahungunu ethics for sustainable resource management. It was mooted as the forerunner to further development by hapū and was adopted by Councils as a basis for discussion prior to preparation of policies and plans. In explaining the Ngāti Kahungunu perspective, the document states, “That our Māori forebears were willing to ‘share’ the natural and physical resource is a fact – they never intended to give away or cede tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) or kaitiakitanga (intergenerational guardianship – inherited responsibilities) in the process. An invitation to share a meal is not a license to take the whole harvest.”

Ownership issues and loss, early and on-going modification, pollution, and loss of access to traditional Mahinga kai, as well as marginalisation of Māori in the development of the structure and economy of the Hawke’s Bay Region, has been the basis of protest and grievance over time, but the close identification of Māori with their ancestral waterways has never waned.

Wai-Awa (Wai – Water, Awa - River)

The importance of water today is reaching epic proportions globally, and this is no less so in Hawke’s Bay. It is a precious resource, a taonga (treasures, highly prized) that underpins Māori well-being and economy. Water is the basis of life without which nothing would exist.

From a Māori perspective, waterways are the life-blood of the whenua and therefore, themselves. This is irrefutable.

Mauri (Life Force, Essence)

The authors of this report can say with surety that the issues, impacts and recommendations herein are all based on a timeless Māori world view that has the protection and enhancement of mauri as a foundation principle.

Wāhi Tapu (Sacred Places)

There are site-specific wāhi tapu in regards to the Makaroro Water Storage Project and the Tukituki River catchment, and these have been expanded on in the body of this report.



Perhaps the most significant wāhi tapu in the vicinity of the Makaroro dam site are the Te Whiti o Tu Pā site and the location/s of the hostile encounter (also referred to as Te Whiti o Tu), that took place along the corridor/passage in the Makaroro sub-catchment that links with the Waipawa River.

Te Reo Māori

Te reo Māori is a taonga for tangata whenua.

An essential component of mātauranga (knowledge) Māori, and Ngāti Kahungunu cultural knowledge, is Te reo Māori. In the Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi summary of WAI 262 Flora and Fauna Waitangi Treaty hearing, it is clear that unless there is on-going support and encouragement of Te reo Māori the loss of Ngāti Kahungunu cultural knowledge will worsen.

Treaty Claims

It is in an evolving political environment and how the Heretaunga-Tamatea claim affects contemporary issues in the Tukituki catchment is an on-going discussion. However, as Crown lands abut the Makaroro dam site, it is fair to say that this area will be in contention for Heretaunga-Tamatea claims discussion with the Crown.

For the purposes of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, those hapū with mana whenua in the Tukituki River catchment have been asked to comment requiring some prescience as to settlement outcomes. The results are undoubtedly influenced by historic and contemporary grievances as yet unresolved. Extracted from the CIA Report (2012: pg 4-5).

Within the CIA reports there is a description of the contemporary environmental issues for Heretaunga and are reproduced below:

Contemporary Environmental Issues

The research commissioned by the Crown Forest Rental Trust (CFRT) to provide background for the Heretaunga-Tamatea Treaty Settlement Claim covers the timeframe from the early 19th century to the end of the 20th century and records issues being raised about the Tukituki River during that time that are still relevant today, and may be subject to the claims. Instances are highlighted below in excerpt from the commissioned Heretaunga-Tamatea Environmental Overview Report (2009: 287- 294):

… dependent on seasonal factors and also rainfall. In 1851 Robert Park reported that the Tukituki was ‘navigable for canoes in the winter time as far as the Western boundary’ of the Waipukurau block…The Tukituki, as we have seen, was the main transport route through Heretaunga for much of the nineteenth century but by 1900 it was no longer navigable, as a consequence of [land clearance3 for pasture and resultant erosion and] river run-off.

…the notion that the HBCB [Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board] ‘cooperated’ with nature is debatable. Both rivers [Ngaruroro & Tukituki] were hugely modified from the 1860s onwards – including private stop banks and works of early river boards as detailed in the section above…

Both the Ngaruroro and Tukituki rivers were important sites for Maori for kai moana. The various river works and pollution from farming [related activities] and from other sites damaged the [indigenous] fishery resources of these rivers. However, the environmental damage that was occurring was not recognised until the 1950s and fishery surveys were not undertaken until the 1970s. Control of the fisheries was also operated on a license system.



Because of riparian rights to use water for landowners whose property abuts rivers, and the dominance of pastoral and agricultural use [industries] in the Hawke’s Bay plains, pollution of the rivers does not figure in archival records until the late 1950s.

By the early 1970s the pollution of Hawke’s Bay Rivers was impacting upon seafood throughout the region’s inland waterways. In March 1971 Mr Tomoana, the Māori Welfare Officer at Hastings, informed the Marine Department that shell-fish were being polluted by sewerage discharge along an extensive stretch of the coastline, including the Awatoto sea frontage (where there was a sewerage outfall), the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri River outlets, and east Clive and the foreshore to the mouth of the Tukituki River. The mussel reef running from Haumoana to Cape Kidnappers (Matau-a-Maui) remained unpolluted as it was subject to tide and currents, but perhaps for not much longer unless something was done. This area needed protection not only from pollution, but also ‘commercialisation’. It was claimed by Mr Tomoana that hundreds of people took ‘tons’ of shell-fish every weekend. Strict laws were needed so that ‘future generations can enjoy the heavy yield, that there is an abundance…It was also likely, according to the writer, that pollution would occur at Te Awanga and Clifton. Unless the disposal of sewerage was regulated by the use of septic tanks or some other means, Tomoana added, the position would become much worse.

(Extracted from the CIA Report (2012: pg 25-27).

The CIA report highlights several contemporary environmental concerns impacting on cultural values and are summarised in the next section. The comments and feedback from marae/ hapū are given below:

Comments and Feedback from Marae/ Hapū

Loss of the Continuation of Traditional Practices

The transportation option is long gone; whanau recreation is fast becoming a memory and remaining options for kai gathering are at high risk.

…pollution, loss of mauri of the river, severely limited access from private land ownership or other access restriction…it’s not our river anymore.

How will the dam affect our practices? Will there be fish passage?

Everyone could swim, even the babies. Don’t remember being taught. Didn’t know of anyone that drowned…now I’m paying $40 for my moko to learn to swim at the baths.

Mahinga Kai

Hapū used whānau land and traditional ‘possies’ to have seasonal camps on the river. These nohoanga were as much a tradition as mutton-birding is down South. This practice is severely restricted now.

Keep our kai basket clean.

…water was clean. It’s gone now…won’t go near fish [because of ] pollution.

My Grandfather would take us when he would get inanga. Our job was to hang them up to dry. He would split the flax and we would thread it through their eyes to hang them up. Yes, they were that big.



Traditional Hapu Asset Management

Resources were managed by knowledgeable people. We all knew who they were. Rāhui were placed on stretches of the river if stocks were depleted or things weren’t ‘right’.

Water needs to be running…the Maori way, way I’ve been taught.

…clean and running or don’t gather kai there, or rongoa…

Effect on Native Species/ Eel passage to and from Pacific Moana (Hikurangi, Tonga trenches)

Experts knew the life cycle of everything, of the tuna, it was their word ….the cycles must not be compromised.

How will the tuna get home?

We would get īnanga there. Whitebait further down and smelts at Haumoana.

Inland Habitats and Ecosystems

These things are connected and interdependent. If one is gone the whole chain can disappear.

We should not limit ourselves to fish stock only but look at shingle in the river, whenua on the side of the river, flora and fauna on the side of the river…

Now when you go down there, there is no water on the side. You have to walk across the whole dry river bed to the water - hoha.

Estuarine Habitats

The life on the beach and at the river mouth is so fragile and complex, you can’t risk that…it is our most abundant provider.

…in the river it was okay. At the mouth, the beach…if you turned a rock over you had to turn it back…I was taught you leave everything as you found it.

Whole of Takiwa Consideration

Ki uta ki tai….always.

The minimum flow could end up being the maximum flow.

…acknowledge the wars that have taken place along the awa.”

The dam is not being built for the health of the river. It is for milk.

Is the dam going to be used for fracking? Will the aquifer be used for fracking?

What will drilling companies do with the waste water?

Biodiversity/ Loss of Indigenous Species, Bush, Flora and Fauna

Every part of the waterways used to provide a rongoa, from kai to medicine, from fun to cleansing…whether it’s the trees and plants or the life in the river. I don’t know anything to do with willows

My Nanny taught me [about the river}…ate from the river, the sea, from the land.

That was in 1938, 39 when I was about 8 years old. There’s none there now.



Indigenous Biosecurity/ Risk Management Practices (e.g. Tapu, Rāhui)

…it is not just about taking the paru out but not putting the teko in the awa.

Mauri of the Awa

Mauri is life itself. It is paramount. One thing dies, it affects us all.

…regard for the awa is quite different …water means more.

river was deep in the middle, not bad on the side.

Dredges and gravels….interfering with the flow.

Water Quality

It’s not just the drinking water. We lived around the river. It is so sad that our young ones won’t learn in that manner. Tuakana, teina…just learning from the older ones around you. Even pakehas with not much money used to spend their time at the river. Where do they go now? Mac Donalds, wander the street? Sad alright.

…water was clean. It’s gone now…won’t go near fish [because of ] pollution.

My mokos won’t swim in the river…they go Eww, Nan!

We used to take our kids to the river back when they were little. It wasn’t always that nice but it was what we knew …can’t do that anymore and they don’t take their kids either.

Access to/ Loss of Traditional Resources

We used to own our land and we used to let everyone go where they needed to, we could wander over it without harm. But now our land is gone or leased out & we have to ask permission to go on our own land, and if they say no…well, what can you do?

… someone would do this, someone would do that. Your mana…nice table for tangi, for anything…how water provides.

Nowadays…buy everything for the tangi…

Kaitiakitanga / Traditional & Contemporary Planning and Monitoring

Tohunga, or knowledgeable river people, decreed when it was time to fish, time to stop fishing, how to look after things, what to do with respect to keeping things safe, when not to go near things…they knew, it was their area of expertise.

Council don’t get taken to task. Nobody takes the Council to task for the things they do.

…looked after one another…and you knew whose ‘possies’ were whose too.

If you didn’t get a catch you were given some….if you caught some you would drop some off to Aunty or Uncle.

You don’t take heaps and heaps, get enough for your needs, for kai.

Summary of Issues Identified by Focus Groups and Runanganui

Cultural auditing

Economic impact on Māori / region

Land / farming intensification effects



Gravel extraction

Erosion of hills / accretion / denuding of hills (native trees)

Lack of understanding of what will ACTUALLY happen in practice

Lack of trust in authorities

Oil & mineral drilling/ mining - Fracking and potential contamination

Treaty claims settlement

Waste management

Air quality

Ownership, co-governance, co-management of resources

Technical Issues Raised

What are the protocols around solid rock forms (elements of Rakahore) in terms of a water storage structure? Is there a connection or synergy there that needs addressing?

From a structural perspective, where will the materials (rocks, stones, shingle and concrete mix) be sourced from? Will rocks be sourced from elsewhere?

Te Whāriki o Rakahore (infrastructure lining and walls of the resulting dam and lake) ; what protection will there be from threats from Whakaruaumoko (earthquake, tremors) Tū Matau-enga and Mamaru (causes of severe storms)?

Will awa flow be enhanced through augmentation on a daily basis or as a result of a more sophisticated flow regime?

Depending on conditions (seasonal changes & extremes) will there be enough water at the required level throughout the awa? Successive droughts will create issues

Mauhi’s role denotes the importance of ‘eel passage’ from the mountains to the sea and to the Tonga trench – Will there be a fish passage? With participation and guarantee will this be carried out to meet expectations? Extracted from the CIA Report (2012: p 27-37).

The CIA report makes numerous recommendations throughout the report which are reproduced below:

Summary of Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS – WHAKAPAPA (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)

This report recommends that:

a) Heretaunga marae/ hapū be provided an on-going role in governance, management and monitoring of the Tukituki River, the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, and other developments in the Tukituki catchment, in order to uphold the mana of Heretaunga.

b) Replication and/or restoration of natural elements and laws are given priority in the development and construction of the Makaroro site and dam.

c) The mauri of the Tukituki River and its environs is safe-guarded and enhanced through concurrent replanting, reforestation, and other environmental measures targeting mauri enhancement.

d) There be acknowledgement and commemoration of the mana whenua history of the Makaroro catchment, and opportunity provided to record that which may be lost/submerged. (Extracted from the CIA Report (2012: p 17).



RECOMMENDATIONS – WAI-AWA (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)

This report recommends:

a) Future planning and strategies keep the river as natural as possible (pre-empt, not react).

b) Enhancement of flow and depth of water in the Tukituki River.

c) No increase in the number of water takes on the Tukituki River, in particular in the lower catchment, and robust monitoring of groundwater takes.

d) The hierarchy of need for water/cost benefit includes the mauri model and is based on people being a priority before cows.

e) Replanting & reforestation of hills.

f) Riparian plantings.

g) Monitoring/compliance of dairy farming.

h) A system be implemented and monitored that pre-empts water shortage in the Tukituki due to full or over-stretching of allocation of stored water. Extracted from CIA report (2012: p 24).

RECOMMENDATIONS – MAURI (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)


a) The Water Storage Project be governed and managed so as not to compromise the mauri of the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers, or their tributaries, by ensuring water flow and levels, water quality, and species protection, are the main priorities.

b) Mana whenua cultural values and matauranga Māori be recognised and incorporated into the Central Hawke’s Bay waste management plan as a priority.

c) Marae/ hapū of the Tukituki awa have a role in governance, management and monitoring of the Tukituki awa.

d) Future modifications and planning for the Tukituki awa adopt whole-of-takiwā and mauri models as guidelines.

e) A Heretaunga hapū ‘Red Bridge to Waipureku’ mauri-based river strategy be initiated and implemented in partnership with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. This to be inclusive of a whole-of-takiwā gravel extraction plan, species monitoring, mahinga kai protection, and so on. Extracted from CIA report (2012: p 28-29).

RECOMMENDATIONS - WĀHI TAPU (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)


a) As the immediate impact upon many outlying sites is indeterminate, a precautionary or monitoring approach is employed over time to gauge effects on outlying systems, and consequently on wāhi tapu sites situated further away from the Makaroro dam site and the Tukituki River itself.

b) A cultural audit of the Makaroro Valley and river take place. This will require the services of a suitable tohunga and matakite (seer) in order to determine any sites of concern, and to discuss how the tapu may be remedied or avoided.

c) The process of engagement for Council on wāhi tapu matters includes seeking mana whenua guidance and direction.

d) There be a strengthening of the clause to “recognise and provide for the relationships of tāngata whenua with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga”,



within statutory plans (and plan changes), to ensure mana whenua have a role in governing and managing activities that impact on wāhi tapu.

e) Access is made available for tangata whenua to traditional wāhi tapu sites or areas to allow for cultural practices and traditions to be maintained.

f) Inclusion of Accidental Discovery Protocols to allow appropriate actions and procedures to be taken in relation to the unearthing of cultural material including kōiwi, wāhi tapu, ancient pā sites etc.

g) Cultural artefacts or materials found are returned to Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (a registered holder of antiquities).

h) Cultural monitoring of earthworks is carried out within areas of particular cultural relevance.

i) There is recognition of Māori oral histories alongside other recorded evidence, as oral evidence forms a major part of Ngāti Kahungunu's history and traditions and must be given sufficient weight when considering historical matters and cultural heritage values.

j) Archaeologists and historians are kept informed of Ngāti Kahungunu iwi and hapū histories in relation to specific sites, as per the Historic Places Act 1993.

k) Contractors undertaking work in the Makaroro and Tukituki catchments where there is a high probability of cultural material or wāhi tapu being unearthed, provide opportunities for cultural kaitiaki to access and inspect soil and sites.

l) Any site that fulfils the criteria of the Historic Places Act 1993, whether recorded or not (it just has to be suspected), is protected under the Act.

m) Mātauranga of Ngāti Kahungunu are recognised and provided for in all cultural and historic heritage resource management matters.

n) Tikanga Māori is observed on all wāhi tapu sites affected by the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, to protect such sites from inappropriate activities during development which may disturb the tapu status. Extracted from CIA report (2012: p 31-32).

RECOMMENDATIONS – TE REO MAORI (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)


a) Before it is changed, the essence of the Makaroro catchment is captured in order for the mātauranga and te reo of the area to survive. This is a contemporary claimant issue that will involve tangata whenua and Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi. Extracted from the CIA report (p 35).

RECOMMENDATIONS – TREATY CLAIMS (MITIGATION OF IDENTIFIED EFFECTS)


a) Mana whenua are involved in all levels of decision-making in regard to issues that affect them directly.

NB In terms of water and its values, causes of actions by various authorities and their ordinances are stated in the Heretaunga–Tamatea comprehensive Treaty claim. Redress to these claims is currently being worked through with He Toa Takitini. Extracted from CIA report (2012: p 37).



3.7 OTHER EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS

3.7.1 Road Infrastructure and Traffic

This report provides an assessment of the impact that the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project will have on existing road infrastructure and provides recommendations on improvements where required, along with appropriate monitoring, inspection and response measures over the course of the project (construction phase in particular). The report was commissioned by the Hawkes Bay Regional Council, and it outlines the findings of Opus International Consultants.


Potential project effects considered as part of this study are:

Suitability of the roading network affected by the project, in terms of adequate pavement strength and appropriate geometric alignment

Structural capacity of existing bridges affected by the project

Assessment Undertaken

The following assessments were undertaken:

Magnitude of construction traffic

Roads affected by construction traffic

Bridge infrastructure affected by construction traffic

Traffic loading requirements of the construction traffic

Road pavements and surfacing affected by construction traffic

Suitability of existing road alignments


Bridge Infrastructure All the bridges affected by the construction traffic are currently assumed to withstand a Class I type loading, as none have any restriction on their live load carrying capacity. However, local CHB bridges will see a large increase in their current traffic volume which may affect their load carrying capacity, and so ‘before, during and after’ inspections for the construction period are recommended along with appropriate remedial response (refer below). It is considered that the effect of the construction traffic on the SH bridges will be minimal.

Road Pavement and Surfacing Delivery of initial project plant to site and dam construction traffic are likely to follow similar routes. Any overweight loads are likely to impact on the road surfacings in vulnerable areas, such as curves and intersections. In particular, sections of SH50 and Wakarara Road have curvilinear alignment which may be impacted by construction traffic. The surfacings on Wakarara Road are also all single coat seals which will be more susceptible to shear related distress or binder pickup on the vehicle

tyres, particularly at surface temperatures above 40C.

A further factor to consider with overweight and overdimension vehicles, is any pavement and surfacing construction works being undertaken during the period of transportation. If this takes place during the period from October to March, there will be pavement rehabilitation construction and resurfacing completed on isolated areas along the construction traffic routes which will be impacted by construction traffic.



For State Highways, based on the preliminary analysis there is unlikely to be any significant impact on the existing pavement from the additional construction traffic on this route.

Local Authority roads, in particular sections of Wakarara Road may be impacted due to the proportional increase in heavy vehicle loadings (double existing traffic on some lengths). The increased loading requires an increase in design pavement depth. However, for the majority of the existing road, pavement depth and age data could not be obtained to verify actual improvement requirements.

Road Alignment A desktop assessment has identified three possible sites on Wakarara Road which may warrant further investigation to check their suitability for an increased number of heavy vehicles during the construction period. These are detailed below:

Curve immediately west of Hardy Road

Curves at Pendle Hill Road

New Access Roads The main dam access road is likely to require a granular pavement to a depth of up to 300mm and a minimum width of 5.0m.

An existing forestry access road and a farm access track will become inundated with water from the reservoir once the dam is completed. Preliminary alignments of alternate accesses have been identified.


Bridge Infrastructure

Due to the increase in the volume of traffic the Central Hawke’s Bay bridges will experience during the construction stage of this project, it is recommended the affected structures are evaluated in accordance with the NZTA Bridge Manual Section 6 and their load carrying capacity confirmed. The evaluation shall take into account the current condition of the structures as some defects (i.e. deck cracking) may decrease their load carrying capacity.

In order to assess any changes during the construction period in the condition of the both local Central Hawke’s Bay and State Highway bridges, it is recommended a regime of inspections is established.

It has been assumed most of the construction traffic will be Class I loading and it is recommended the traffic is limited to this in particular over the CHB Bridge infrastructure. Nevertheless, if an overweight load (indivisible) needs to be taken into the construction site an Overweight Application Process could be completed as detailed in Section 5.4.2.

Alternatively, the construction route could also be assessed as a HPMV route if it is considered there will be more frequent or regular demand to carry heavier than Class I type loading. Both of these processes will entail carrying out bridge evaluations specific to the desired traffic configuration and weight of vehicles. As a consequence, bridge strengthening/replacements may be required to achieve the higher load carrying requirements.

Road Pavement and Surfacing

In order to minimise the likelihood of damage to surfacing from overweight vehicles the following conditions are recommended:



The maximum surface temperature that any section of the pavement on the construction

traffic route should be trafficked is 40C. This maximum could be raised to 45C if

experience shows that no damage occurs at temperatures close to 40C.

No overweight loads should be transported over any seal that is less than one week (7days) old.

Further, it is recommended that no transportation of overweight/overdimension loads should take place during construction and for a week long period following any pavement rehabilitation construction. This condition will allow pavements to be constructed without interruption and will allow the cement stabilised pavements to “set up” prior to heavy loading.

It is recommended that vulnerable areas of the routes to be used by construction traffic be regularly (e.g. 3-monthly) monitored throughout the construction period. This should be completed by experienced surfacing practitioners (e.g. network consultants). Where any failures of the surfacing, including reduced skid resistance, are observed the areas should be resurfaced.

Monitoring of older sections of pavement on both State Highways and Local Authority roads should be carried out throughout the construction period and maintenance completed as required to ensure the road continues to meet the Levels of Service set by road controlling authorities. The monitoring could be carried out by network maintenance contractors during their normal monthly inspections and any maintenance issues that appear to be outside normal expected maintenance requirements reported to the dam construction project management team.

It is recommended that where the existing pavement depth and age is unknown this is verified through on site testing to establish its current capacity. This would include using more detailed project level FWD testing and/or destructive test pitting and subgrade scala penetrometer testing. From this information on the current subgrade strength, pavement depth, materials and an indication of pavement age can be determined. If areas of the pavement prove to be inadequate, pavement rehabilitation works should be undertaken, such as an overlay of granular basecourse or stabilisation of the existing pavement.

At the end of construction period all pavement lengths should be assessed by experienced practitioners using appropriate visual inspection and condition data to determine any significant deterioration beyond normal expected deterioration based on modelling and forward works programmes. Those areas deemed to have deteriorated to an unacceptable level would need to be rehabilitated.

Road Alignment

On site topographical survey of identified potential problem areas should be completed and actual construction traffic configurations sourced, particularly for over-dimension vehicles. From this information a more detailed swept path analysis can then be undertaken to determine actual realignment requirements.

New Access Roads

In order to reduce dust along the main dam access route, it is recommended that it be chipsealed as this route will carry the majority of construction traffic.

The existing subgrade along new access routes should be tested using scala penetrometer testing to verify actual granular pavement depths required.

Replacement forestry and farm access roads will need to be constructed similar to existing access roads, in consultation with the landowners requirements.



3.7.2 Noise

The Ruataniwha Water Storage Project comprises very significant earthworks in and around the Makaroro River. Significant amounts of noise will be produced over approximately a 4-1/2 year construction timeframe. The report considers the noise sources, reviews the standards and assessment methods for evaluating noise effects, presents predicted noise levels from the activity, and recommends mitigations to avoid, remedy or mitigate noise effects.


The noise effects which are expected to arise from the proposed water storage project are almost entirely related to construction activities. These include construction of access roads, excavation and transport of aggregate, placement of aggregate and spoil, blasting, concrete batching and placement, and site reinstatement. This will occur in the vicinity of the proposed dam site and to a much lesser extent near the water intake site and along the reticulation network. These sites are generally at large distances from dwellings.

The noise effects from the operation of the water storage project will be very limited, and will generally consist of a modification of natural noises rather than introduction of man-made noise.


This assessment of noise effects has been made by comparing predicted noise levels from construction activities to the applicable noise standards, including district plan noise limits and the Construction Noise standard (NZS6803:1999).

Noise predictions have been made on the basis of typical construction machinery sound power levels, with geometry and duration as described in the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Project Description document. Noise is predicted using the ISO9613-2 Industrial Noise Model, implemented in SoundPLAN software.


Construction noise levels are predicted to comply with daytime construction noise limits in NZS6803:1999 at all dwellings, and night-time construction limits at most dwellings.

The noise effects at all dwellings are considered to be reasonable provided that adequate consideration of night-time noise mitigation at near dwellings Rec 6, 7 and 9 is taken into account during certain specific periods of construction. This may require limiting activities at night-time, or providing some other means of mitigation to the residents of those dwellings.

The noise levels in the working rural environment are considered to be reasonable, and will not have adverse effects.

The noise level and character of the ongoing operation of the water storage project are consistent with the expectations of rural land near a water course, and no adverse noise effects are predicted.


It is recommended that a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) be prepared to ensure that construction activities are carried out in a manner which avoids unreasonable noise emissions, and which ensures that adverse noise effects are appropriately mitigated at the three dwellings identified, and any noise sensitive locations which are found to be affected near the headrace construction. The CNMP should also provide a means for good communication with the community and a pathway for feedback to the project team regarding noise concerns.

With this CNMP, adverse noise effects will be avoided or appropriately mitigated.



3.7.3 Archaeology


The Ruataniwha irrigation project proposed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has some potential to destroy, damage or modify archaeological sites. This potentially applies to:

Previously unrecorded but visible archaeological sites

As yet unknown archaeological sites that might be exposed by earthworks.


HBRC commissioned Clough & Associates to carry out an archaeological survey and assessment of the areas affected by the proposed irrigation project (the reservoir, dam, headrace corridor and reticulation network).

The assessment involved:

A search of the NZ Archaeological Association’s site record database (ArchSite) and the Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan schedules for information on any recorded or scheduled archaeological or other historic heritage sites.

A search of early Survey Office (SO) Plans and Deposited Plans (DP) held by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) for information on former land use.

A brief review of literature and archaeological reports relevant to the area.

Meetings with Dr Benita Wakefield and staff of Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea, and Pat Parsons regarding the cultural and historic heritage aspects of the project. Historical background information provided by Pat Parsons has been included in this report.

An initial visual inspection of the dam area on 7 September 2011.

A more detailed archaeological survey covering the larger footprint of the dam and reservoir in January 2012. Where possible, this involved close examination of the ground surface for evidence of former occupation or use.

A desktop assessment covering the route of the proposed headrace and associated irrigation infrastructure.

Clough & Associates did not include an assessment of effects on Maori cultural values. Such assessments should only be made by the tangata whenua, and Maori cultural concerns may encompass a wider range of values than those associated with archaeological sites. These assessments have been undertaken separately.


No archaeological sites had been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dam and reservoir prior to the assessment, although sites including two Maori pa are recorded approximately 7-10km away. The density of archaeological sites previously recorded in the wider area around the proposed dam site is low.

No Maori or other pre-1900 archaeological sites were identified during the field survey. The area of the reservoir and dam does not appear to have been a favoured location for pre-European settlement for topographic reasons, and the tangata whenua have not identified any archaeological sites of significance to them in the immediate vicinity. However, the possibility that pre-1900 subsurface archaeological remains may be encountered during earthworks cannot be completely excluded.



One archaeological site of early 20th century date was identified within the project area – the site of Gardner and Yeoman’s Sawmill, located on the southern bank of the Makaroro River near Dutch Creek. Various remains of the mill operation were noted, dating from the period 1920s-1950s.

The mill site is of local historic heritage significance based on its archaeological values, its historical values and its educational potential. However, its heritage values are considered to be moderate rather than high in view of its relatively late date and limited integrity. It is not scheduled for protection on the Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan, or registered as a historic place by the NZ Historic Places Trust.

The site of the mill would be permanently flooded by the Ruataniwha irrigation project.

No recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed headrace and associated irrigation infrastructure will be affected.


As it would not be possible to protect the Gardner and Yeoman mill site in situ, the following measures are proposed by way of mitigation:

Archaeological investigation and further recording of the site should be carried out prior to flooding.

A report on the history of the mill (based on oral and archival sources) and the results of the archaeological investigation should be prepared and deposited in the local museum and library and the NZHPT library.

An interpretation plan should be prepared and interpretive signage detailing the location and history of the mill should be installed in a suitable location (or locations) near the dam and reservoir that is accessible to the public. This could be associated with the existing Yeoman’s Track.

The boiler and any other significant industrial remains should be removed from the site prior to flooding and deposited in a local museum or installed on higher ground nearby in a location accessible to the public as part of the interpretation of the site.

Although the potential for archaeological remains to be exposed during construction is low, it is also recommended that comprehensive Accidental Discovery Protocols should be developed in consultation with the NZHPT and tangata whenua. These would ensure that if koiwi tangata (human remains), taonga or sub-surface archaeological evidence is uncovered during construction, work would cease in the immediate vicinity of the remains so that appropriate action could be taken. A field survey of the headrace should also be carried out by an archaeologist prior to earthworks as a precaution in case any unrecorded sites are present.

If modification of an archaeological site does become necessary, the effects could be appropriately mitigated under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An Authority to modify an archaeological site would be required before any work could be carried out that would affect an archaeological site. It would be possible to apply for a general Authority from the NZHPT prior to earthworks as a precaution to minimise delays should archaeological remains be accidentally discovered.

A Workshop on a potential integrated Mitigation and Offset programme associated with the physical effects of the project on the environment was held on 6 March 2012. This was attended by DOC and Iwi representatives as well as the authors of the Recreation, Landscape, Archaeology and Terrestrial Ecology Reports. The recommendations contained in this report were discussed at the workshop and HBRC have prepared a separate report entitled "Ruataniwha Water Storage



project – Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach", which should be read in conjunction with this report.

3.7.4 Social Impacts


The Social Impact Assessment reports on the social and socio-economic effects associated with the proposed Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Scheme.

Key land use changes anticipated with irrigation are:

Dairying & its associated dairy support – more than double existing areas

Intensified horticultural operations

Irrigated arable farming

Some irrigated sheep and beef farming.

The assessment found that, as in comparative areas of New Zealand, this level of land-use change will lead to a series of social changes driven by changes in land use, new farmers moving into the area with new or different approaches to debt and farming practices, and higher levels of employment with more intensive farming practices. While these changes will lead in turn to strengthening of local populations and communities through the employment created on and off farm and additional business activity, including in the towns of Waipukurau and Waipawa, potential social issues could arise with land use change around the integration of newcomers, loss of sense of place and possible values conflicts. With appropriate strategies in place to manage change, however, the proposed scheme should result in a significant net beneficial social effect for the people and communities of the district.

Assessment Undertaken

The scope of this assessment was directed at the potential social effects of the scheme associated with:

Changes in farming practices

Changes in land ownership

Demographic changes (numbers and composition of the population)

Strengthening rural communities (education, health, commerce, clubs etc)

Value conflicts associated with new / intensified land uses versus traditional dryland farming practices

Wider regional socio-economic effects including construction effects.

A multi-method approach was used with the main phases being scoping of effects and profile of the assessment area, assessment of effects, feedback and validation of findings, and reporting. The main sources of information were:

Analysis of data about the affected communities and social trends from census and other secondary data sources

Use of a scenario of potential land use change and projection of likely changes in farm ownership, employment and populations

Analysis of social infrastructure and likely changes in communities resulting from changes in numbers and characteristics of farmers, farm workers and their families



Information from meetings with stakeholders and key-informant interviews to assist with understanding of social issues and trends and likely changes with irrigation.


There are 429 farms greater than 10 hectares in the key zones A-D of the Ruataniwha Plains. Increased areas of irrigation and associated changes in land use on these farms will lead to the following effects:

A reduced average age of farmers and new families coming into the area

Some of the new farm workers are likely to live in the villages and main townships and some seasonal workers in on-farm accommodation camps

A turn around from negligible growth in population evident in the district over recent years

A flow on effect of growth in numbers employed and population for any new processing plant associated with new or increased farm outputs

A change in the composition of the population, especially of the rural areas, with younger families and children and consequent rises in school rolls

Increased turnover of population and more overseas workers, with more ethnic diversity and a need to provide social support to new comers

Increased participation in sport and recreation and community activities and greater demand for social services, including health services, although with the exception of health there are facilities and capacity to meet new demand.

Other potential effects identified included:

New and increased health and safety risks around new waterways, increased traffic on rural roads and on farm with intensified activities. There may be a perception of risk around dam failure

Consequences of residual bio-physical effects on local people and communities from construction activities, alleviated by suitable mitigation measures and management plans

Changes in recreational and cultural values as identified in the recreation and cultural assessments with potential for community tensions and conflict in an inherently adversarial planning approach.


Experience with irrigation projects demonstrates the importance of a proactive approach to managing social and economic change to achieve desired social-economic outcomes. The net social-economic benefit of the scheme will depend on active management of change by the councils and key stakeholders, along with communication and consultation with the affected communities.

Active involvement of the two councils along with the stakeholder group provides an opportunity to develop a change management strategy around the following initiatives:

Develop a social impact management plan for the construction phase as part of the front-end engineering design of the headworks in order to maximise local employment benefits from construction and avoid adverse effects of an incoming workforce

Develop a coordinated employment strategy with agencies and training providers for future land uses and off-farm opportunities including training and skills development, with an emphasis on local placement, including working closely with Maori



Prepare a business development strategy working with regional and district business development agencies and sector groups

Build on community, youth and sports and recreation development in the district to enhance community benefits from incoming population

Establish a programme to assist the integration of newcomers into the community, including migrants from outside the district and overseas workers

Establish a programme of technology transfer for the uptake of the latest land, water and nutrient management practices to enhance social, economic and environmental outcomes

Develop a strategy to encourage to identify and retain important landscape values in the face of land-use change

Undertake a comprehensive communications strategy for the scheme through the consenting and construction phases, with regular communications through multiple media, to support participation of interested and affected parties through the planning process.

3.7.5 Recreation

Potential Environmental Effects

Potential recreation effects of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Dam project include the following:

Recreation Zone 1 - (upstream of the dam head)

Effects on access to the Ruahine Forest Park for a range of recreation activities including tramping/ hiking, hunting, mountain biking, kayaking and fishing.

Effects on the activity of fishing, four wheel driving and kayaking in the dam footprint. The opportunity to undertake these activities in ‘Recreation Zone 1’ will be affected.

Effects on day visits and the activities associated with scouts/ Wakarara Camp at the Wakarara Road end and associated heritage and natural amenity areas. The Wakarara Road end will be affected.

The activity of camping will be affected. The private camping ground at Wakarara Road end is located within the dam footprint.

Recreation Zone 2 - (between the dam head and the outlet)

There will be no effects on existing access to the Makaroro River and Waipawa River by the current dam proposal.

Although the mean annual flow in the Makaroro River in Recreation Zone 2 will not change, monthly median flows will change. This means that although the activities of fishing, swimming and kayaking will not be lost, the nature of the activity will change.

Effects During Construction

There will be effects on access to all current recreation activities during construction.

There will be effects on the activities of kayaking, fishing, four-wheel driving, day picnicking and swimming during construction.


Hawke’s Bay Regional Council commissioned Opus to prepare a Recreation Assessment (April 2012) which addresses the following:



Identify and characterise the range of recreational activities undertaken in the project area. Determine the context of these opportunities on the basis of the range and availability of existing outdoor recreational opportunities within Hawke’s Bay and surrounding regions as well as their proximity to people living in Hawke’s Bay.

Assess the effects of the project on the identified recreational activities being undertaken in the project area.

Identify and characterise any new recreational opportunities that may be created by the project, and their potential benefits (in the context of the availability of existing outdoor recreational opportunities available to Hawke’s Bay residents).

Identify and report on any available and appropriate means to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on current recreational use of the project area.

The Recreation Assessment was undertaken between the months of December 2011 and February 2012. It entailed observation from two site visits; consultation with key stakeholders and recreational groups; and research of relevant literature to develop a sound understanding of the area and associated recreation activities currently undertaken. Findings from other dam developments were also reviewed particularly where recreation has been considered. This assisted in developing an overall impression of the activities affected, possible mitigation for the effects identified and possible opportunities for a project of this nature.


The preliminary suggested approach for effects identified for each recreation activity is discussed in Section 4 of this Assessment. Overall the main effect on recreation will be loss of access to recreation activities in the wider area. It is recommended that alternative access to these activities be provided for in the long term. This has been acknowledged by HBRC and alternative access is being considered around the top end of the dam.

The other key conclusion of this report is in relation to the opportunity the completed dam will have for recreation activities. Flat water is sought after in Hawke’s Bay for rowing and motor boat activities, and it is acknowledged that there is potential for these and a range of other recreational activities such as fishing, swimming and lakeside activities to be provided for at the future dam. If provision for these activities is a desired outcome it is recommended that work be undertaken with user groups to better understand their needs and the ability of the dam to accommodate these.

Issues such as water plumage (as discussed further in section 1.2 of this assessment); devegetation (or lack of) and how this is managed (discussed further in section 1.2); and treatment of the ‘dead zone’ around the dam periphery will potentially place constraints on the dam for recreational use. The requirement for a recreation management plan as a condition of consent is therefore recommended.

In addition, a Workshop on a potential integrated mitigation and offset programme associated with the physical effects of the project on the environment was held on 6 March 2012. This was attended by representatives from the Department of Conservation (DoC) and Iwi along with the authors of the Recreation, Landscape, Archaeology and Terrestrial Ecology Reports. The recommendations contained in this report were discussed at the workshop and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC or the Council) have prepared a separate report entitled "Ruataniwha Water Storage project – Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach" which should be read in conjunction with this report.



3.7.6 Landscape and Visual Effects


Potential landscape effects of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project include the following:

a) Potential effects on the natural character of the following rivers and their margins:

The Makaroro River and its tributaries (Dutch Creek and Donovan’s Gully) as a result of construction of the dam and inundation of the existing river;

The Makaroro, Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers downstream of the dam as a result of changes to flow regimes;

The Waipawa River at the location of the water out-take structure in the vicinity of Caldwell Road as a result of changes to the river bank; and

Smaller streams and watercourses in the Ruataniwha Plains where traversed by the headrace, as a result of construction of culverts or inverted siphons.

b) Potential effects on the outstanding natural landscapes of the Ruahine Ranges as a result of the nearby reservoir lake.

c) Potential effects on landscape amenity including:

Visual effects of the dam and reservoir lake;

Visual effects of the head-race (from both private and public views);

Visual effects of the power station and transmission line; and

Effects on the character of the Ruataniwha Plains as a result of increased irrigation (including pasture ‘greening’ and additional use of pivot irrigators);

d) Effects on the biophysical landscape including effects of earthworks on landforms, watercourses, or vegetation; and

e) Temporary construction effects.


Hawke’s Bay Regional Council initially commissioned Isthmus to undertake a ‘Baseline Landscape Assessment’ (23 January 2012) and to provide input to the refinement of the project design. The ‘Baseline Landscape Assessment’ assessed the existing landscape values, scoped potential landscape effects, appraised alternative headrace types and alignments, and proposed a series of principles or guidelines for the detailed design of the headraces.

The subsequent Landscape and Visual Assessment addressed the following matters:

a) A description and appraisal of the existing landscape including;

Its physical, perceptual and associative factors,

The nature and degree of natural character of the rivers and their margins; and

Identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes.

b) An analysis of the effects on natural character of the rivers, including effects on both biophysical and perceptual aspects of natural character, taking into account the inundation of the existing river by the dam, modification of downstream flows, and the construction of the primary distribution system including the intake structure and crossing of smaller streams by the headrace;



c) An analysis of the effects of the dam and reservoir on the values of the nearby Ruahine Ranges (being the only Outstanding Natural Landscape potentially affected);

d) An analysis of the effects of landscape amenity and biophysical effects. Given the dispersed nature of the project this was dealt with by dividing the project into its components as follows:

Dam and Reservoir

Hydro-electric (add-on) Station

Transmission Line

Secondary Distribution System and Changes to Land Use Patterns

Primary Distribution System including the Head-race Canal and Buried Pipelines

e) An assessment of potential temporary construction effects.


Natural Character

The main adverse landscape effect will be on natural character of the Makaroro River in the vicinity of the dam and reservoir, and on the downstream flows below the dam. Such effects are common to any in-river dam. However, the effects will be minimised for a project of this type because of the following factors:

a) The adjacent land has a modified ‘working rural character’;

b) The dam will have low visibility (hence low effects on visual aspects of natural character);

c) The reservoir lake will have a naturalistic appearance; and

d) There will be positive effects on the lower Tukituki River as a result of increased summer flows.

Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes

The only outstanding natural feature or landscape in the area is the Ruahine Ranges. The project will have negligible effects on the landscape values of the Ranges because the dam and reservoir will be in a working landscape that is clearly separate from the Ruahine Ranges, the dam itself will not be visible from the ONL (except in very long distance views from the mountains) or from roads providing access to the Ranges, and the upstream end of the reservoir will not be visible from where the Makaroro River emerges from the Ranges.

Landscape Amenity and Biophysical Effects

Adverse landscape amenity effects will be low for a project of this type for the following reasons:

a) The dam, which is the feature with the greatest potential adverse amenity effects, will have very low visibility. To most intents and purposes it will have no public visibility except for future users of the reservoir;

b) The distribution system intake on the Waipawa River is tucked against a bank in an unobtrusive location;

c) The headrace, which forms part of the primary distribution system, will not be out-of-place in a working rural landscape and will continue a tradition of community water races in the area;

d) The headrace alignment follows the contours, avoids most houses, and minimises the extent of earthworks required; and



e) While there will be changes in land-use, field patterns and associated structures (such as pivot irrigators), such land uses will not be dissimilar to existing activities and they will continue a pattern of change and evolution that has characterised the landscape over the last 150 years.

There will be some positive landscape amenity effects:

a) The reservoir will have high amenity as a lake taking into account its serpentine form, tributary reaches, and bold hill backdrop; and

b) The head race canal may also be perceived as a positive and interesting feature.

The main potential biophysical landscape effects are subsumed under the topic of ‘natural character’ above. Any adverse biophysical effects in addition to those addressed under that topic will be low for the following reasons:

a) The project will be within a modified working rural landscape;

b) Most of the distribution network will be by means of buried pipelines; and

c) The headrace canal has been aligned to follow flat to rolling topography which will minimise the scale of the earthworks, and it traverses open farmed country.

Temporary Construction Effects

The dam and its ancillary structures present the main potential for construction effects. However such effects will be confined to a relatively small area with visibility essentially restricted to private farmland.

There will be some adverse construction effects associated with the contouring and armouring of the reservoir margins, headrace construction, laying of distribution system pipelines, installing the transmission line, and constructing such elements as the intake structure and inverted siphons. Such effects will, however, be temporary in nature, short term in duration (construction and earthworks will be rehabilitated as the project progresses), limited in scale, and will not be out-of-place in a cultivated rural landscape.

Summary of Effects Assessment

In summary the project will not be out-of-place in the landscape, the main elements have been appropriately designed and located, and the degree of residual adverse landscape or visual effects will be relatively modest for a project of this type.


Measures that are already incorporated within the project design will avoid or minimise potential adverse landscape effects. Such measures include the selected dam site and footprint of the reservoir, the location and design of the primary distribution system including the intake structure, headrace type and alignment, and proportion of the system that will be buried.

Suggested further measures to mitigate residual adverse effects (and enhance amenity) include planting around parts of the lake margin, measures (such as armouring and contouring) to ameliorate the fluctuating water level bare zone, public amenity facilities adjacent to the lake, and implementing the landscape principles and guidelines for the detail design of the headrace. Landscape measures should be incorporated into an integrated design, along with measures relating to other disciplines, as described in the parallel document ‘Ruataniwha Water Storage Project – Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach’.



3.8 INTEGRATED MITIGATION AND OFFSET REPORT

A range of studies were completed during the feasibility phase of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project in order to quantify the potential effects of the project on the environment and communities in Central Hawke’s Bay. Outcomes of these studies were presented as a series of Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) reports by the consultant/HBRC teams commissioned to undertake them, and will guide development of any future resource consent applications for the project.

Through their assessments, study authors have taken account of avoidance, remediation, and mitigation proposals built into the scheme design, and where necessary, have made recommendations for additional actions avoiding, remedying or mitigating potential effects.

This report sets out the proposed integrated mitigation and offset approach designed to address the residual biophysical effects (e.g. effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecology) around the dam/reservoir area and downstream of the intake site, that are not practicably able to otherwise be avoided, remedied, or mitigated directly. Flooding of the Makaroro River bed upstream of the dam will also have a permanent effect on recreation facilities and the historic Yeoman Mill site at the end of Wakarara Road. As such, the effects on recreation, landscape, heritage and cultural values have been considered also. Effects addressed in this report include:

Loss of an area of ecologically significant indigenous vegetation covered by the dam and reservoir footprint; calculated to be 104.32 ha.

Edge effects across an area of approximately 10 ha.

Loss of braided river habitat (gravel river bed) that would be inundated by the reservoir, equating to 73.76 ha.

Loss of 4.95 ha of ecologically significant wetland and seep zone habitat.

Loss of 183.03 ha of habitat utilised by Threatened and At Risk Species.

Loss of fish passage beyond the proposed dam to the upper bounds of the Makaroro River and Dutch Creek.

Loss of habitat for some indigenous aquatic species that are unlikely to find the reservoir habitat suitable for them.

Loss of trout spawning habitat in the areas occupied by the dam and reservoir.

Changes to the flow regime of the Makaroro and Waipawa River’s; in particular, upstream of Caldwell Road, with a consequent adverse effect on the invertebrate population and trout spawning in those reaches.

Potential increase in DRP inputs to the rivers as a result of land use intensification and an associated increase in periphyton growth.

Loss of the established walking track from the end of Wakarara Road, across the Makaroro River, to the DoC tracks extending throughout the Ruahine Forest Park.

Loss of the informal camping area located on Mr Stephen Wilson’s property.

Inundation of any remaining infrastructure associated with the historic Yeoman Mill site located at the end of Wakarara Road.

The mitigation/offset projects proposed were developed via the following steps:

a) Individual AEE reports were completed by consultant/HBRC teams. This included assessing the proposed project against relevant planning provisions, quantifying potential effects, recommending actions to avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects, and where residual adverse effects were identified, highlighting these in the study reports for follow up by the



HBRC project team. With respect to the terrestrial ecology study, this also included an assessment against the BBOP Principles and proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity

b) The issues, constraints and opportunities identified through the AEE reports were explored during a Design Workshop held on 6 March 2012 and attended by key consultant teams and representatives of Department of Conservation and Iwi

c) A meeting with landowners was held on 30 March 2012 to share information about the project and flag the issues, constraints and opportunities for follow-up with landowners on a one-on-one basis

d) Individual study findings and recommendations were presented to the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, including the measures proposed to mitigate or offset potential effects where concepts were adequately advanced

e) Consideration was given to the combined Tamatea and Heretaunga Tukituki Cultural Values and Uses report (June 2012), which makes recommendations regarding the maintenance and restoration of Mauri to provide appropriate responses through a mitigation and offset programme that ensures the Ruataniwha Water Storage project recognises appropriate cultural values (including native fish and water quality benefits)

f) The draft “Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach” report was presented to the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group during their 27 July 2012 meeting, and feedback sought

g) The report was refined in August 2012, taking into consideration the feedback received from Forest and Bird, Department of Conservation, and a Hawke’s Bay conservation group including representatives from Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust, Forest and Bird, Bay Watch Environmental Group, Fish & Game, and Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum.

Four projects are proposed in response to the potential effects outlined above. Projects A-C set out biodiversity restoration and enhancement strategies proposed to address residual effects on both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. These projects also address effects on recreation, cultural and heritage values associated with the Wakarara Road-end area. Project D provides an additional offset for adverse effects of the project on phosphorous inputs to streams and the availability and quality of in-stream habitat for trout spawning, native fish and invertebrates.

The estimated total cost provision for offset mitigation requirements over a 30 year period equates to just over $7 million, with the most significant costs incurred in the first ten years of the project. Acknowledging that the success of the projects proposed depends on the long-term, sustained agreement and effort of a number of key stakeholders, it is proposed that a Ruataniwha Biodiversity Trust be established prior to construction of the dam. The Trust’s primary role would be to administer and manage project funds, to lead consultation with affected landowners and stakeholders, to prioritise activities, and to ensure delivery of the proposed projects within the agreed timeframes.

3.9 LAND USE INTENSIFICATION WORKING PARTY REPORT

The Working Party Terms of Reference specifies the following outcome as part of the Operational Protocols:

A Working Party Report will be compiled by the Facilitator at the completion of the process. This Working Party Report shall record the matters traversed by the Working Party and any recommendations that are agreed for HBRC to consider in its assessment of the projects feasibility. This Working Party Report will be made public by HBRC as part of its deliberations and reporting on the feasibility of the project.



3.9.1 Working Party Findings and Recommendations

Table 12 below records the recommendations of the Working Party.

Table 12: Findings and Recommendations – Discussed and Agreed at 17 August 2012 Meeting

Nutrient Allocation Framework and Policy Development

1. That the SWOT Analysis and Principles outlined in Appendix 2 of this Report generally reflect the

views of the Working Party. A version of the Natural Capital Based (Land Use Capability)

approach is generally favoured over the Equal Allocation (Averaging) and Grandparenting

approaches.

2. That the Working Party acknowledges the water quality information regarding periphyton

control, provided to them to date by HBRC, and understands that the Councils advice is to focus

periphyton control around phosphorus management. However it is noted that some Working

Party members have different views regarding the phosphorus and nitrogen management and

reserve their position pending further information and discussion among experts.

3. That the Working Party acknowledges that further nitrate toxicity analysis has been undertaken

for HBRC by Dr Chris Hickey of NIWA and these numbers are being used in the Tukituki Choices

document.

4. It is recommended that HBRC convene a caucus of water quality experts (including water quality

experts nominated by Ruataniwha Stakeholder members) to discuss the matters in point 2 and

3 above, with the objective of seeking agreement between the scientists on the approach

undertaken and the recommendations.

5. Managing the environmental impacts of land use intensification successfully will require

universal adoption of effective and appropriate land management (good agricultural practices)

by farmers utilising irrigation water in particular, as well as by other farmers in the catchment.

6. That the “Trigger Level” approach for nitrogen management outlined in the paper entitled

Nutrient Management Framework presented to the Working Party by Helen Codlin on 9 August

2012 is generally supported, however it is noted that Working Party members wish to reserve

their position on the approach, pending the publication of the Tukituki Choices document, the

supporting report entitled Nutrient Management Approaches for the Tukituki Catchment,

August 2012, and the Draft Tukituki Plan Change including more detail regarding operational,

monitoring and enforcement mechanisms (such as nutrient management plans and stock

exclusion rules).

7. It is recommended that the HBRC policy team reconvene the Working Party to discuss and

provide input to the Draft Tukituki Plan Change document once it has been prepared by HBRC

following completion of the Tukituki Choices consultation period.



Continued: Findings and Recommendations – Discussed and Agreed at 17 August 2012 Meeting

Ruataniwha Storage Scheme Land Use Intensification

8. The Working Party records that it has followed the development of the NIWA report entitled

Modelling the effects of Land use on nutrients entering the Tukituki River, Hawke’s Bay and

notes the further modelling actions that are outlined in the Executive Summary of that Report.

It is recommended that HBRC convene a caucus of water quality experts (including water

quality experts nominated by Ruataniwha Stakeholder members) to discuss this work with the

objective of seeking agreement between the scientists on the approach undertaken and the

scope of the further modelling proposed for the upper catchment area.

9. It is recommended that if HBRC determines that the Ruataniwha Water Storage project is

feasible and resolves to seek resource consents for the project that the Council reconvene the

Working Party to discuss and provide input to proposed resource consent conditions (including

the development and assessment of tools for managing and monitoring intensified farms) for

nutrient management within the irrigated area.

10. The Working Party acknowledges that it has not developed and assessed a complete mitigation

tool box and this needs to be a continual improvement process supported by extension,

education and regulation where required.

All parties participating in the Land Use Intensification Working Party process have agreed with these recommendations and signed off the final report with the exception of Fish & Game, who make the following statement:

“Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game has not signed the final report from the land use intensification working party. Fish & Game has concerns regarding some of the content including records of minutes, and the current proposed approach of the regional council to set instream nitrogen levels at toxicity standards. The report is a mix of process, administrative, and outcome statements which should stand on its own merit. Fish & Game has fully participated in the process from the outset, appreciates the efforts made by the Regional Council to engage, and will be confirming its position on the project at the appropriate time once it is fully informed on the issues.”

3.10 HBRC CORE TEAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall Conclusions

The HBRC Core Project Team have reviewed the conclusions and recommendations of the various modelling and environmental, social and cultural assessment reports summarised above. Collectively the reports are considered to be thorough and of high quality given the stage of the project leading up to the feasibility decision. We are confident that the Council has sufficient information on the environmental, social and cultural issues and effects associated with the scheme to make an informed decision as to its feasibility in relation to these aspects. In particular we have identified no material gaps in the assessment work done to date that would suggest a need to defer a decision to proceed to the next stage (preparation of resource consent applications and the associated Assessment of Environmental Effects documentation).

To the extent that the study authors have identified the need for further work we support their recommendations. We believe that there is further work required to confirm the conclusions they have reached in some areas, but based on the information in hand we do not anticipate that this



further work will identify any fatal environmental flaws that would call the entire project into question.

Cultural Values

In relation to the recommendations contained in the Cutural Impact Assessment Report we consider the following matters are relevant considerations:

a) The recommendations regarding governance and management associated with the Tukituki Catchment seem to be largely addressed by the co-governance function of the recently established HBRC Regional Planning Committee whose function is to oversee the development of policy and plan instruments for the catchment

b) The recommendations associated with “mauri” have been recognised and addressed through the development of the integrated mitigation and offset report, with iwi representation proposed on the administering Trust

c) Council is assessing the implementation of higher minimum flow limits to address the historic low flow issues in the catchment, as part of the upcoming Plan Change.

We consider that further discussions should be held with Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga in relation to the other key recommendations such as:

a) How to realise potential social and economic benefits for tangata whenua


c) How best to define and recognise any unregistered wahi tapu / wahi taonga; and

d) Historic Places Act authority requirements including the development of appropriate Accidental Discovery Protocols.

Downstream Effects of Sediment Retention

As recommended in the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd sedimentation assessment report (Fisher & Russell, 2012) HBRC has recently commissioned some further assessment work associated with effects of sediment retention and the consequent interruption of downstream gravel supplies. We understand this work is to be completed during the balance of 2012 and note that the outcomes of the work will need to be included with the Assessment of Environmental Effects if the project is put forward for resource consenting.

Erosion and Sediment Control

Another area where we definitely consider further work is required is in the area of erosion and sediment control, where Tonkin & Taylor Ltd has recommended that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) be prepared by the contractor once that body is appointed. Given the extensive areas of earthworks involved and the critical importance of controlling sediment run off to waterways we recommend that a detailed ESCP be prepared as part of the suite of documents to support resource consent applications if these are lodged.

Irrigation Command Area

We also note that there are some inconsistencies through the various reports regarding the amount of land area that might be ultimately serviced by the scheme. This has resulted from progressive refinement of the project occuring in parallel with modelling and effects assessments. There is also the factor that depending on the ultimate mix of land use that might develop, a greater or lesser area would able be able to be serviced with the irrigation water, as different land uses have different water demands. We do not believe that the differences are material to the conclusions the authors have reached, but this is a matter that needs to be better reconciled and explained in further reporting on the scheme if it is progressed past feasibility.



Contentious Issues

Community engagement to date would suggest that the contentious issues in any consenting process are likely to surround the effects on water quality resulting from land use intensification and the ability to guarantee an improved summer flow regime in the lower catchment where amenity and contact recreation values are important for the community living in this area.

Integrated Tukituki Catchment Management

HBRC has invested significantly in assessing these issues and we note there is an overlap with the development of changes to the Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Plan occurring alongside the feasibility study for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project. We are aware that the policy statement and plan change process also has to reflect changing scientific understanding around water quantity and quality limits. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management means that the status quo management of the Tukituki catchment is not an option for Council. During the middle of 2012 the Council decided that it was appropriate to integrate the consideration of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project and the relevant regional policy and planning instruments.

The key linking document between the two processes is “Tukituki Choices” which summarises the catchment issues and the potential management options available to Council. Normally in an assessment of environmental project feasibility of this nature, one would analyse the key planning instruments in some detail. In this case, with the regional planning position also at a key decision making point, this would not be a useful exercise. Therefore, our analysis on environmental feasibility has proceeded on the assumption that the outcome of the Tukituki Choices process is one of general support for water storage in the Tukituki catchment and that the regional planning framework will reflect that. The counterpoint is that in our view a Council decision on project feasibility should necessarily be provisional pending the outcome of the Tukituki Choices process where Council is seeking community input and discussion on the priorities for catchment management.

Planning Status

We have, however, undertaken a preliminary assessment of consenting status of the project within the District Council planning jurisdictions. While the vast bulk of the project footprint resides in Central Hawke’s Bay District, a small portion of the proposed reservoir lies in Hastings District. Our conclusion is that any land use applications will be considered as discretionary activities under both District Plans. The effects assessments prepared to date in relation to District Council matters (e.g. noise, landscape, traffic, archaeology) do not identify any issues that cannot be managed through appropriate mitigation and suitable resource consent conditions. It will be necessary to undertake a full planning assessment if the project is to proceed to a resource consenting phase.

Land Use Intensification

Returning to the contentious environmental issues associated with the project, the analysis of land use intensification effects on water quality suggests to us that effective management of nitrate to avoid toxicity effects in some spring fed tributaries on the Ruataniwha Plains is likely to be a key issue and NIWA have recommended further work to give greater confidence that an acceptable environmental outcome can be achieved.

We also believe that with the current NIWA modelling showing increased phosphorus inputs to the catchment resulting from land use intensification, providing confidence that farm nutrient management plans and mitigation actions will minimise phosphorus reaching surface water bodies will be a key consenting issue. While the NIWA modelling predicts an improved in-river outcome in terms of periphyton levels in the middle to lower catchment from the current position, this is the product of reduced phosphorus from the Waipukurau and Waipawa waste water plants and the modelling demonstrates that without effective management, future land use intensification will



erode some of the benefit from reductions from these point sources. From the information we have, we believe it is possible to control phosphorus outputs from irrigated farms to an acceptable level, but the Council will need to commit the resources and planning framework to provide the necessary confidence that this will actually occur. Again this is an area where development of the project assessments and consent conditions, and the upcoming plan change, need to be integrated.

The peer reviewer of the land-use intensification modelling work has commented that more work is required in respect of the SPASMO and OVERSEER inputs to that work, to identify what margin of error those components contribute to the modelled predictions. If the project proceeds further, it is proposed to focus on this aspect of the modelling work, desirably with the assistance of a specialist peer reviewer, expert in the construction and use of such models.

Specifically, if it is decided by Council that the project should progress to the consenting phase, it will be necessary to expand the extent of the modelling that has already been completed and the Core Team recommends that:

a) The land use/nutrient/periphyton model be expanded to the whole of the Tukituki catchment to provide more detailed outputs, particularly within the Ruataniwha Plains area;

b) The above expanded model be applied to the current and future land use scenarios developed as part of the feasibility study;

c) If a decision is made to extend the irrigation area to Zone M, the land use/ nutrient/ periphyton model will need to be extended to that zone, to assess the potential effects of irrigated land uses;

d) A comprehensive assessment of the following be undertaken:

the options to mitigate phosphorus losses from land, including livestock exclusion, and

the likely water quality and periphyton outcomes resulting from the implementation of the above mitigation options within the irrigation command areas.

Summer Low Flows

The other issue highlighted by the HBRC groundwater / surface water modelling assessment and emphasised by stakeholder feedback to date is that realisation of the full potential benefits of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project in terms of increasing summer low flows is tied to the extent to which existing surface and groundwater consent holders on the Ruataniwha Plains migrate to use of stored water. The development scenarios tested in the HBRC modelling report assumed either 100% migration of consent holders or nil migration. Obviously with reduction in irrigation security for at least some of those existing irrigators if the signalled increased minimum flow limits are put in place in the Tukituki Plan Change, it is likely that some greater or lesser percentage of existing irrigators will migrate. However, any estimate of what the percentage might be can only be speculation at this point so the HBRC report prepared for feasibility purposes correctly models only the extremes.

In terms of Waipawa River flows at RDS and Tukituki River flows at Red Bridge (sites directly affected by the operation of the scheme), modelled predictions of the extreme case with no existing irrigators migrating to the scheme (Scenario 4) show minor increases in flow statistics representing extreme low flow conditions (e.g the Q99 statistic where flows are exceeded 99% of the time), but minor decreases in other flow statistics such as the Q95 and MALF when compared to relation to current conditions (represented by Scenario 2). In contrast, the Q99, Q95 and MALF all show a material increase in the scenario that assumes all existing irrigators migrate to the scheme (Scenario 3).

Council cannot require existing irrigators to relinquish their consents and move to the Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme. However the Core Team believes that an environment which encourages existing Ruataniwha Plains irrigators to migrate to the scheme will improve environmental



conditions in the lower catchment and assist achievement of community aspirations for that area of the catchment. We note there are a range of potential incentives which may encourage existing irrigators to consider a transition to utilising stored water from the Rauataniwha Water Storage Scheme including:

a) If the Council implements the proposed increased minimum flow regime in the upcoming Tukituki Plan Change, the reliability of irrigation water for many current irrigators will decrease from what it is at present. Water security under a stored water scenario at 95% reliability would be materially better than surface water and linked groundwater take reliability;

b) Increasing electricity charges over time will mean the predominantly gravity-fed Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme will have energy cost advantages over pumped groundwater irrigation water;

c) If the project proceeds to the consent application stage, a consent term of 35 years will be sought which, if granted, would provide long-term regulatory security for irrigators.

In addition to the potential incentives listed above, we recommend Council consider favourably an economic incentive package which enables existing irrigators to transfer to the storage scheme (if it is built) on a cost effective basis for their businesses. The reality is that the uncertainty as to how many irrigators will migrate to the scheme will remain but the more likely it is that irrigators will make the change, the greater the level of confidence RMA decision-makers will have that the benefits of the scheme will be optimised.

In conjunction with development of such incentives, we recommend further work be undertaken on the construction of the “no migration” water flow scenario. Recent analysis of the areas able to be serviced by scheme water in Zones A to D suggests that it may well not be possible to utilise all the stored water unless a substantial number of existing irrigators join the scheme and/or the command area is extended into substantial areas of Zones M and/or N. Accordingly the modelled “no migration” scenario (Scenario 4) requires some re-definition in our view. We also note that any extension of the command area would require further consideration of a range of technical, environmental and presumably economic issues before any resource consent applications are made.

Another potential benefit that might be assessed relates to the availability of “unutilised water” during the initial uptake period when the water from the storage scheme is not being fully used for irrigation. During this period, there is potential for stored water to be released as an additional “environmental flow contribution” (over and above the constant residual flow) to augment low summer flows downstream. However, from an effects assesment persepective, we would caution that this potential benefit would only be temporary, as the economics of the project will require full uptake of the available water for irigation as soon as it can be contracted.

We consider that longer term Tukituki River benefits might acrue from some further analysis being undertaken associated with the most effective utilisation of the “environmental flows” assumed in the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Feasibility Project Description. The constant residual flow from the dam of 90% of MALF combined with the proposed flushing flow volume provision of 1.5 million m3 per annum is a significant amount of water and we recommend that Cawthron and Tonkin & Taylor Ltd be jointly tasked with assessing the most effective utilisation of this water volume in terms of overall river ecology.

Integrated Mitigation and Offsetting

As discussed in section 3.11 below, feedback from the Department of Conservation in the Stakeholder Group meeting discussing the draft Environmental, Social and Cultural sections of this report, suggested that the expenditure proposed in the Integrated Mitigation and Offsetting Report might be able to be redistributed in order to achieve greater overall environmental benefits. The



Core Team recommends that this potential be explored in direct discussions with the Department, if it is decided by Council that the project should progress to the consenting phase.

3.11 RUATANIWHA STAKEHOLDER GROUP CONSIDERATION

Section 4.3 below discusses the membership and role of the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group. A draft of the Environmental, Social and Cultural section of this Report was circulated to the Stakeholder Group and was discussed at its 31 August 2012 meeting. The format of the discussion was that Stakeholder Group members considered each section of the Environmental, Social and Cultural component of this Report in turn.

In relation to the methodology adopted (section 3.1 above) the Stakeholder Group confirmed its understanding of the methodology utilised for assessing reporting on the Environmental, Social and Cultural elements of the Project feasibility.

The Stakeholder Group acknowledged the range of studies undertaken (outlined in section 3.2 above) and confirmed their review of and input into the scope of the studies.

Prior to discussion of the findings and recommendations of the various studies, the Fish & Game representative indicated that they had insufficient time to fully review and comprehend the studies and would therefore abstain from expressing any views at that point in time. Fish & Game advised that they would provide their position subsequently in writing. The following statement has been provided by Fish & Game:

"The critical information that is required for a professional response has only just been provided to Fish and Game and other parties in the past few weeks and months. It requires detailed technical analysis and to do this work requires input from a variety of sources which comes at considerable unbudgeted cost.

It is not accurate to identify Fish and Game as having ‘no position’, and I trust that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council team will respect the fact that a number of issues are unresolved for Fish and Game largely as a consequence of information still to come to hand, and expert technical conferencing on the existing and intended technical reports. In particular fish and game has significant concerns with current proposals to set instream nitrogen limits at toxicity standards instead of for periphyton growth and life supporting capacity. As we have identified, this project is costed by your own projections at many hundreds of millions of dollars, and it would be ridiculous to continue to work to arbitrary dates when further technical information and informed discussion is required on a number of matters related to the project.

Fish and Game has concerns regarding some of the content including records of minutes, and the current proposed approach of the regional council to set instream nitrogen levels at toxicity standards. Fish and Game has fully participated in the process from the outset, appreciates the efforts made by the regional council to engage, and will be confirming its position on the project at the appropriate time once it is fully informed on the issues.”

The balance of the Stakeholder Group confirmed their understanding and support for the Reservoir Water Quality Modelling Report discussed in section 3.4.1 above.

In relation to the discussion of the Land Use Intensification Modelling discussed at section 3.4.3 above, Messrs Belford, Christie and Cooper (representing Forest & Bird), and Cheyne (representing Te Taiao Environmental Group) expressed the view that the additional modelling recommended in this report should be undertaken prior to a determination of project feasibility.



Members of the Stakeholder Group (excluding Fish & Game) indicated their understanding and support for the recommendations in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment (discussed in section 3.5.1 above).

In relation to the Aquatic Ecology Assessment, Messrs Belford and Christie reserved their support and Mr Carlton of Department of Conservation did not support the trap and transfer system proposed by Cawthron. All other Stakeholder Group Members (excluding Fish & Game) indicated their understanding and support for Cawthron’s recommendations.

All members of the Stakeholder Group aside from Fish & Game indicated their understanding and support for the balance of effects assessments discussed in sections 3.6 - 3.7.6 inclusive.

In relation to the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report the Department of Conservation representative expressed the opinion that there were additional opportunities that could be realised within the current budget provision for the offset mitigation work recommended. Forest and Bird requested that mitigation work should be mandated in the resource consent application as opposed to being left as “best efforts”.

Mr Belford reserved his position on the Core Team recommendations set out in section 3.10 above. The balance of the Stakeholder Group, excluding Fish & Game, agreed that the recommendations set out in section 3.10 be implemented if Project feasibility is confirmed by Council and the Project proceeds to a resource consenting phase.

The Stakeholder Group unanimously agreed that the more detailed matrix, attached in Appendix 4, should be included in the Feasibility Report to Council.

Having considered the input from the Stakeholder Group, the Core Team believes it is appropriate to draw the Council’s attention to the expression of opinion on behalf of the environmental groups represented on the Stakeholder Group that a decision on project feasibility should be deferred until completion of further monitoring work as above. This recommendation is not supported for the reasons set out in section 3.10 above. In addition, if the Core Team recommendations are accepted, the results of the further modelling will be known before any resource consent applications are lodged.

The suggestion from Department of Conservation that a redistribution of proposed mitigation/offset expenditure might achieve greater environmental benefits is also worthy of note. An additional recommendation has been added to section 3.10, that discussion be held with the Department to explore this issue further.

Appendix 2 The Draft Minutes of the 31 August 2013 Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group Meeting.

Appendix 4 | Page 129


MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE RUATANIWHA PLAINS WATER STORAGE STAKEHOLDER GROUP

DRAFT Date: Friday 31 August 2012 Time: 9.00 am Venue: Council Chamber

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Present: Debbie Hewitt (Chairman)

Dave Carlton - DOC Grenville Christie – F&B Vaughan Cooper – F&B Pete McIntosh – Fish & Game Phil King – Water User Group Andrew Watts – Land Owner Campbell Chard – Water User Group Christine Scott – HBRC Councillor Benita Wakefield – Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea Hugh Ritchie – Land Owner Tom Belford – Land Owner Peter Butler – CHB DC John Freeman – CHB DC Craig Preston – Land Owner John Cheyne – Te Taiao Environment Group George Williams – Recreational User Group (from 9.45 am)

In Attendance from HBRC:

Andrew Newman Fenton Wilson Graeme Hansen Stephen Daysh, EMS Ltd Grant Pechey Helen Codlin Larissa Coubrough Drew Broadley Barry Lynch Monique Benson Sally Chandler Olivier Ausseil, Aquanet

Observers Marge Hape & Hirani Maaka, Tamatea Taiwhenua Corina Jordan Fish & Game



1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES The Chairman, Debbie Hewitt welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies were accepted from: Mike Mohi, Liz Graham, Chris Lester and Duncan Holden.

Andrew Watts/Benita Wakefield CARRIED

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2012 The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2012 a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting were accepted.

Vaughan Cooper/Hugh Ritchie CARRIED

3. REVIEW OF MATTERS ARISING/ACTION ITEMS

There were no outstanding matters arising or action items.

Mr Newman however reiterated his comments from the last minutes ... a plan change alone cannot cancel all current water take consents, but under the minimum flow scenarios being considered there will be less security for current irrigators, which in itself may be an incentive for irrigators to migrate to the storage scheme’ s water.

He further noted that he has been consistently suggesting that a combination of regulation and storage infrastructure may offer the best route to healthier summer river flows.

Further discussion on plan change and consents took place and the following points were noted:

Stored water provides greater security, potentially providing for 35 year consents

Transition period an option

CHB waste water discharge consent must meet standard

GW/SW migration of consents would be a negotiated process

Incentives for early uptake

4. PROJECT UPDATE

Science Caucus – Mr Hansen advised that Iain Maxwell, HBRC Resource Management Group Manager was coordinating this process. Stakeholder group representatives including Benita Wakefield, Pete McIntosh, Tom Belford, Hugh Ritchie, CHBDC and Chris Lester replied to the offer of a caucusing option.

First meeting sometime mid September.

Will look at Water Quality, Ecology issues.

Identify any work still to be done.

Provide a position statement whether Agree or Disagree with the findings. It is still a useful exercise to undertake.

Aquatic Ecology - Mr Daysh advised the comments provided by John Cheyne and his group to the Cawthron report had been responded to and included in the final Cawthron report.



Off-set Mitigation – Mr Daysh advised a response had been provided to Mr Cheyne following his comments on the Offset Mitigation report.

Following a question on when the 100 point survey was taking place in the catchment Mr Ausseil advised staff were just waiting on river conditions and weather to improve.

5. LUI UPDATE Mr Daysh advised a final copy of the LUI Working Party report was available for members to sign or the option not to sign if you weren’t at the last meeting.

Hugh Ritchie recommended the group reconvene at some stage to work on appropriate land management plans for farmers.

8. DRAFT FEASIBILITY SUMMARY REPORT TO COUNCIL Stephen Daysh provided the group with an overview of the report that was emailed earlier in the week giving clarification on what outcome was expected for the group.

A draft document, with suggested stakeholder comments, was circulated at the meeting that gave an outline of the items that needed to be discussed, debated and agreed upon if possible.

The document was shown on the screen allowing for comments and amendments to be directly inserted. This was carried out by Larissa Coubrough.

An updated version is attached to these minutes.

Mr Daysh proceeded to read through the items:

Items 1.1 & 1.2 - Agreed – All

Items 1.3.1 & 1.3.2 – following a point of order, Fish & Game advised they would abstain from participating in the remainder of this agenda item until they had time to fully comprehend it. They advised they would provide their position in writing.

Craig Preston questioned whether Fish & Game had surveyed their CHB members for their feedback on the project and they responded that they hadn’t spoken directly to their members.

Item 1.3.3 – Agreed – All


Item 1.4.2 – Agreed - All

Item 1.4.3 – The following did not agree with the statement – Tom Belford, Grenville Christie, John Cheyne, Vaughan Cooper; they considered that additional modelling work should be undertaken prior to deciding on project feasibility.

Clarification was provided on the project timeline –

26 September Council meeting - full Feasibility Report presented to Council

31 October Council meeting – Council decision due on project feasibility

Meeting broke for morning tea at 10.40 am and resumed at 11.00 am

Item 1.5.1 – Agreed - All.

Item 1.5.2 – Tom Belford and Grenville Christie reserved their support. Dave Carlton from DOC did not support the trap & transfer programme recommended.



It was advised that mitigation costs had been modelled into the financial feasibility for the project.

A correction to last paragraph of the Aquatic Ecology recommendation was noted.

Item 1.6 – Agreed – All.

Benita Wakefield indicated that whilst she shared some of Fish & Game & Tom Belford’s concerns about potential effects on the river. While advising the importance of improving and enhancing the Mauri of the river there were also wider considerations including economic and social and on balance, supported the development going forward.

Items 1.7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – Agreed All

Item 1.8 – Agreed All. It was noted DOC believed there were more opportunities that could be realised within the current budget provision for the offset mitigation work recommended.

It was requested by Vaughan Cooper (Forest & Bird) that Mitigation work should be mandated in the resource consent application and not left as “best effort”. This also applied to 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.

Item 1.9 – Agreed All. Item 1.10 – Tom Belford reserved his position.

Item 2.1 to 2.7 – Agreed All.

Item 2.8 – Note: a) recommendation - invite HDC and Te Taiao Environment Forum to join the stakeholder group. Note: b) Consideration be given to expanding the LUI working group with suitably qualified members i.e. farming technical / industry expertise.

Note: to amend Clause C to D and add clause C from environmental report.

Recommendation That the Stakeholder Group agree the position paper Record of 31 August 2012 Discussion be included as their recommendation and included in the Environmental, Social and Cultural Studies and Community Engagement section of the Feasibility Report to Council dated September 2012.

Benita Wakefield/Andrew Watts CARRIED

UNAMIOUSLY

Dr Barry Lynch – was introduced to the group. Dr Lynch provided an update from Council on the position of Cadmium in the soil. The following was noted:

Cadmium accumulation in soils is primarily associated with the application of phosphate based fertilizers as cadmium is a trace contaminant found in phosphate rock, the raw material for phosphate fertilizers

The best way to reduce the rate of cadmium accumulation in soils is by reducing the cadmium content of the phosphate fertilizers.

This issue is well acknowledged by the farming industry and government agencies. The Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) is currently working on a plan in conjunction with fertilizer companies, farmers, regional councils and research establishments to deal with this issue.



ensure that risk based guidelines for management of cadmium are in place by 2017.

Council already has more than 30 soil quality monitoring sites that are sampled every year for multiple parameters including cadmium. This current network of sites is being added to annually until a regional coverage is attained (approximately 92 sites).

7. UPDATE ON ECONOMICS

Mr Newman introduced Mr Grant Pechey. An overview of the project economics was provided.

Mr Pechey showed a selection of slides from Macfarlane Rural Business - Review of Farm Profitability.

The meeting broke for lunch at 12.45 pm and returned at 1.30 pm

The following participants did not return to the meeting from the lunch break –

Andrew Newman, Fenton Wilson, Campbell Chard, Benita Wakefield, Marge Hape & Hirani Maaka.

6. TUKITUKI CHOICES SCENARIOS – HELEN CODLIN Helen Codlin provided an update on the Tukituki Choices document and process. ACTION: Provide the Stakeholder Group with a list of all the public meetings scheduled. The group discussed different aspects of the presentation and the following was noted:

In response to a question from Mr Belford on why the stakeholder group was not

asked to provide input into this document, after being told at an earlier meeting that it would, Mrs Codlin advised she was not aware of this.

Stephen Daysh also commented that he did not recall this commitment being

made at the last meeting and he did not think it had been recorded as an Action in the 27 July Stakeholder Meeting minutes.

Mrs Scott advised a wide number of groups had informed the development of the document -including those participating in the Water and Land Strategy Group.

Mr Belford believed the LUI working group had access to the most critical issues

and they could have provided valuable input to the scenarios. He suggested HBRC staff had identified the preferred option and put that into Tukituki Choices.

Stephen Daysh disagreed with the position Mr Belford put. He believed the LUI

working party did have input into the scenarios. The LUI Working Party Minutes of 9 August (Special Meeting regarding Policy Issues) and 17 August (Final Working Party Meeting) which are appended to the Final LUI Working Party Report record the discussions between Helen Codlin and the members of the Working Party regarding the future scenarios and the position of the parties.



Mr Belford advised that at last LUI working party meeting there was disagreement around “these numbers” and asked that “you note the reservations we have”. He believed this was not answered or reflected in the framework presented.

Helen Codlin confirmed that drafts of the Scenario Construction Report had been

circulated to and discussed with the LUI Working Party and that Choice B had been adapted after the 9 August LUI Working Party Meeting to reflect the suggestion from Fish & Game at the 9 August meeting that N limits be based on managing periphyton growth (and not nitrate toxicity).

Mr Ritchie asked how farmers would know if their bore is a stream depleter or not

and indicated they would need to know that in order to evaluate the scenarios. He also noted that the document should be clear that Land/farm Management Plans will be a requirement of any Storage Scheme.

Mr Cheyne questioned the zones and trout spawning locations indicated within the

scenarios, he said that most of the spawning occurs between SH50 and SH2 in the main rivers and tributaries. It was advised the location of the zones related to Water Management Zones within the catchment, and did not necessarily reflect the location of spawning habitats.

Mr Cheyne suggested that by increasing the nitrate toxicity guideline, HBRC staff

had created more headroom so that it made the storage project feasible in his view this equated to a permit to pollute, which was unacceptable.

Helen Codlin responded that the scenarios were based on the Nitrate Risk

Framework developed by Dr Chris Hickey for the Tukituki catchment and based on the ANZECC methodology, and it represents the latest scientific findings. She acknowledged that the report was only recently completed and that the Group had not had an opportunity to review this report and that copies were now available.

Olivier Ausseil commented that Dr Hickey is a leading scientist in this field, and is

an independent professional who was asked to undertake independent work, and this was the basis under which all external experts for the project were engaged. Dr Ausseil stated that the numbers came out higher than the 2009 ECan review, but could equally have come out lower. The final numbers were a reflexion of the data, not of HBRC staff trying to influence the outcomes of Dr Hickey’s work. Suggesting otherwise was calling Dr Hickey’s integrity into question.

Helen Codlin suggested a sentence could be included in the Tukituki Choices

document if the group agreed along the lines of “environmental groups challenge some of the data”. Draft wording was suggested on white board, but when asked, no one in the group indicated they wanted it included.

It was suggested that this group make a submission to the Tukituki document and

that a special meeting of the Group be organised to provide feedback on the Tukituki Choices discussion document.

Other Items

Mr Broadley advised that the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project was now framed by the Tukituki Choices Project.

Mr Belford advised of a public forum taking place at EIT on 18 September, speakers

confirmed at this stage were Andrew Newman and Dr Roger Maaka.



1

New works for the project including optimisation to be identified, budget and MPI support being worked through.

Full Feasibility document will be presented to Council on 26 September. Tukituki

Choices consultation running alongside this. This group to review Tukituki Choices document and discuss and provide feedback to

Council. ACTION – date to be confirmed. Concern was raised on the ‘self audited management’ approach proposed for

farmers and that this approach would be too soft with few results achieved. It was clarified that this approach is easily confused but is in fact an audited self management approach which would require on farm audits from an external body. The details of this are yet to be defined but would require some sort of on farm planning (including nutrient) and assurance that the plan is being implemented.

In summing up Mrs Hewitt noted that the LUI Working Party report had been signed

by all except Fish & Game.

She also recommended the group review the Social Impact Assessment report that had been provided and pass on the recommendations to the community.

The meeting closed at 2.45 pm.



Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project Stakeholder Group

Record of Discussion on the Draft Council Feasibility Report Environmental, Social and Cultural Studies and Community Engagement Sections

31 August 2012

Forest and Bird’s preference would have been for an out-of-stream dam, but acknowledge that economic and geotech issues meant that this was not feasible.

Record of 31 August 2012 Discussion

Draft Report Section

Topic Stakeholder Group Comments / Position

1.1 Methodology The Stakeholder Group understands the methodology

utilised for assessing and reporting on the environmental,

social and cultural elements of the project feasibility.

1.2 Studies Undertaken The Stakeholder Group acknowledges the range of

studies undertaken and confirms their review of, and

input into, the scope of these studies.

Note: From this point forward (1.3.1) Fish and Game have abstained and will advise their position at a later date, in writing.

1.3.1 &

1.3.2

Feasibility Project

Description

The Stakeholder Group understands the scope of the

Feasibility Project Description document developed by

Tonkin & Taylor to includes the design and operational

proposals for the project and that this document has

been used as the basis for the various environmental,

social and cultural expert assessments reported to

Council.

1.3.3 Sedimentation

Assessment

The recommendations of Tonkin & Taylor in their

sediment assessment report are understood and

supported.

1.4.1 Reservoir Water

Quality Modelling

The recommendations of NIWA in their reservoir water

quality modeling report are understood and supported.

1.4.2 Groundwater /

Surface Water

Modelling

The Stakeholder Group acknowledges that this is a

modelling report which does not include any

recommendations for further work, but that the HBRC






Core Team is suggesting further flow analysis be

undertaken (refer to comments under 1.10 below).

1.4.3 Land Use

Intensification

Modelling

The Stakeholder Group acknowledges that further work

is being undertaken by NIWA and the wider modeling

team as set out in Section 1.4.3 and understands that

this will be reported prior to any resource consents being

lodged for the project.

Tom Belford, Grenville Christie, Vaughan Cooper and

John Cheyne consider the additional modeling work

should be undertaken prior to deciding on project

feasibility.

1.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology

Assessment

The recommendations of Kessels and Associates in their

terrestrial ecology assessment reports are understood

and supported.

1.5.2 Aquatic Ecology

Assessment

The recommendations of the Cawthron Institute in their

aquatic ecology assessment report are understood and

supported.

Tom Belford and Grenville Christie reserve their support.

Dave Carlton does not support the trap and transfer

system proposed.

1.6 Cultural Effects

Assessment

The recommendations of Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and

Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga in their cultural effects

assessment are understood and supported.

1.7.1

Road Infrastructure

and Traffic

Assessment

The recommendations of Opus International Consultants

in their road infrastructure and traffic assessment report

are understood and supported.

1.7.2 Noise Assessment The recommendations of Marshall Day Acoustics in their






noise assessment report are understood and supported.

1.7.3 Archaeology

Assessment

The recommendations of Clough & Associates in their

archaeology assessment report are understood and

supported.

1.7.4 Social Impact

Assessment

The recommendations of Taylor Baines in their social

impact assessment report are understood and supported.

1.7.5 Recreation

Assessment

The recommendations of Opus International Consultants

in their recreation assessment report are understood and

supported.

1.7.6 Landscape and

Visual Assessment

The recommendations of the Isthmus Group in their

landscape and visual assessment report are understood

and supported.

1.8 Integrated Mitigation

and Offset Report

The Stakeholder Group acknowledges that HBRC has

developed and costed an Integrated Mitigation and Offset

proposal involving four identified projects in this report

and the Group understands that there are further

opportunities for interested parties to be involved in the

focus and implementation of these projects if the

Ruataniwha Water Storage project proceeds.

1.9 Land use

Intensification

Working Party Report

The Stakeholder Group thanks the Landuse

Intensification Working Party for the work it has

undertaken between January and August 2012 and

supports the recommendations of the Working Party as

recorded in their report.

1.10 HBRC Core Team

Findings and

Recommendations

The Stakeholder Group acknowledges the findings of the

HBRC Core Team and agrees that their

recommendations as outlined below be implemented if

project feasibility is confirmed by Council and the project

proceeds to a resource consenting phase:






That further discussions should be held with Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga in relation to:

e) How to realise potential social and economic benefits for tangata whenua

f) Engagement of tangata whenua in monitoring, improving and enhancing Mauri

g) How best to define and recognise any unregistered wahi tapu / wahi taonga; and

h) Historic Places Act authority requirements including the development of appropriate Accidental Discovery Protocols.

Given the extensive areas of earthworks involved and the critical importance of controlling sediment run off to waterways we recommend that a detailed ESCP be prepared as part of the suite of documents to support resource consent applications if these are lodged.

It will be necessary to undertake a full planning assessment if the project is to proceed to a resource consenting phase.

The Core Team recommends that: e) The land use/nutrient/periphyton model be

expanded to the whole of the Tukituki catchment to provide more detailed outputs, particularly within the Ruataniwha Plains area

f) The above expanded model be applied to the current and future land use scenarios developed as part of the feasibility study

g) If a decision is made to extend the irrigation area to Zone M, the land use/ nutrient/ periphyton model will need to be extended to that zone, to assess the potential effects of irrigated land uses.

h) A comprehensive assessment of the following be undertaken: the options to mitigate phosphorus losses from

land, including livestock exclusion, and the likely water quality and periphyton outcomes






resulting from the implementation of the above mitigation options within the irrigation command areas.

Council consider favourably an economic incentive

package which enables existing irrigators to transfer to

the storage scheme (if it is built) on a cost effective basis

for their businesses.

In conjunction with development of such incentives, we

recommend further work be undertaken on the

construction of the “no migration” water flow scenario.

The constant residual flow from the dam of 90% of MALF

combined with the proposed flushing flow volume

provision of 1.5 million m3 per annum is a significant

amount of water and we recommend that Cawthron and

Tonkin & Taylor be jointly tasked with assessing the most

effective utilisation of this water volume in terms of

overall river ecology.

Tom Belford reserves his position.

2.1 to

2.7

Sections Recording

Community

Engagement

The Stakeholder Group acknowledges and confirms the

record of community engagement processes undertaken

by HBRC as set out in these sections.

2.8 Recommendations

for Further

Community

Engagement

The Stakeholder Group ratifies the following recommendations: That the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group be

maintained as an important community based reference group through-out the consideration of the Tukituki Choices document, the development of the Tukituki Plan Change and any Ruataniwha Storage Project resource consent applications that are prepared through the balance of 2012 and 2013. Consideration should be given to the addition of other key parties such as representatives of Te






Taiwhenua O Heretaunga, Hastings District Council, Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum, and the Ministry of Primary Industries, if it is decided to maintain the group through this period

That the Land Use Intensification Working Party be reconvened to provide input into the resource consent condition drafting process associated with land use intensification management and monitoring conditions if the project proceeds through to the consenting phase later this year. Consideration should be given to expanding this group, recognising that additional expertise may be required.

That Council engage further with the Pan Sector Group if the project develops past feasibility into a consenting phase, in particular to seek input and assistance with the development of appropriate land use intensification management and monitoring conditions.

That detailed one-on-one meetings are held with all landowners affected by the dam/reservoir and distribution headrace canal so that issues can be discussed and addressed in the design of the scheme prior to any application for resource consent being lodged.

Appendix 3 The Approved Minutes of the 31 August 2013 Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group.

File Ref: WTR2/1-9

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE RUATANIWHA PLAINS WATER STORAGE STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Date: Friday 31 August 2012 Time: 9.00 am Venue: Council Chamber

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Present: Debbie Hewitt (Chairman)

Dave Carlton - DOC Grenville Christie – F&B Vaughan Cooper – F&B Pete McIntosh – Fish & Game Phil King – Water User Group Andrew Watts – Land Owner Campbell Chard – Water User Group Christine Scott – HBRC Councillor Benita Wakefield – Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea Hugh Ritchie – Land Owner Tom Belford – Land Owner Peter Butler – CHB DC John Freeman – CHB DC Craig Preston – Land Owner John Cheyne – Te Taiao Environment Group George Williams – Recreational User Group (from 9.45 am)

In Attendance from HBRC:

Andrew Newman Fenton Wilson Graeme Hansen Stephen Daysh, EMS Ltd Grant Pechey Helen Codlin Larissa Coubrough Drew Broadley Barry Lynch Monique Benson Sally Chandler Olivier Ausseil, Aquanet

Observers Marge Hape & Hirani Maaka, Tamatea Taiwhenua Corina Jordan Fish & Game

2

c:\users\administrator\google drive\project archive\sgd292 - rwss\evidence\s daysh\confirmed meeting mins 310812.doc

1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES The Chairman, Debbie Hewitt welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies were accepted from: Mike Mohi, Liz Graham, Chris Lester and Duncan Holden.

Andrew Watts/Benita Wakefield CARRIED

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2012 The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2012 a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting were accepted.

Vaughan Cooper/Hugh Ritchie CARRIED

3. REVIEW OF MATTERS ARISING/ACTION ITEMS

There were no outstanding matters arising or action items.

Mr Newman however reiterated his comments from the last minutes ... a plan change alone cannot cancel all current water take consents, but under the minimum flow scenarios being considered there will be less security for current irrigators, which in itself may be an incentive for irrigators to migrate to the storage scheme’ s water.

He further noted that he has been c onsistently suggesting that a c ombination of regulation and storage infrastructure may offer the best route to healthier summer river flows.

Further discussion on plan change and c onsents took place and the following points were noted:

• Stored water provides greater security, potentially providing for 35 year consents

• Transition period an option

• CHB waste water discharge consent must meet standard

• GW/SW migration of consents would be a negotiated process

• Incentives for early uptake

4. PROJECT UPDATE

• Science Caucus – Mr Hansen advised that Iain Maxwell, HBRC Resource Management Group Manager was coordinating this process. Stakeholder group representatives including Benita Wakefield, Pete McIntosh, Tom Belford, Hugh Ritchie, CHBDC and Chris Lester replied to the offer of a caucusing option.

• First meeting sometime mid September.

• Will look at Water Quality, Ecology issues.

• Identify any work still to be done.

• Provide a position statement whether Agree or Disagree with the findings. It is still a useful exercise to undertake.

• Aquatic Ecology - Mr Daysh advised the comments provided by John Cheyne and his group to the Cawthron report had been responded to and included in the final Cawthron report.

3


• Off-set Mitigation – Mr Daysh advised a r esponse had been pr ovided to Mr Cheyne following his comments on the Offset Mitigation report.

• Following a q uestion on when the 100 poi nt survey was taking place in the catchment Mr Ausseil advised staff were just waiting on r iver conditions and weather to improve.

•

5. LUI UPDATE Mr Daysh advised a final copy of the LUI Working Party report was available for members to sign or the option not to sign if you weren’t at the last meeting.

Hugh Ritchie recommended the group reconvene at some stage to work on appropriate land management plans for farmers.

8. DRAFT FEASIBILITY SUMMARY REPORT TO COUNCIL Stephen Daysh provided the group with an overview of the report that was emailed earlier in the week giving clarification on what outcome was expected for the group.

A draft document, with suggested stakeholder comments, was circulated at the meeting that gave an outline of the items that needed to be discussed, debated and agreed upon if possible.

The document was shown on the screen allowing for comments and amendments to be directly inserted. This was carried out by Larissa Coubrough.

An updated version is attached to these minutes.

Mr Daysh proceeded to read through the items:

Items 1.1 & 1.2 - Agreed – All

Items 1.3.1 & 1.3.2 – following a poi nt of order, Fish & Game advised they would abstain from participating in the remainder of this agenda item until they had time to fully comprehend it. They advised they would provide their position in writing.

Craig Preston questioned whether Fish & Game had surveyed their CHB members for their feedback on the project and they responded that they hadn’t spoken directly to their members.



Item 1.4.2 – Agreed - All

Item 1.4.3 – The following did not agree with the statement – Tom Belford, Grenville Christie, John Cheyne, Vaughan Cooper; they considered that additional modelling work should be undertaken prior to deciding on project feasibility.

Clarification was provided on the project timeline –

• 26 September Council meeting - full Feasibility Report presented to Council

• 31 October Council meeting – Council decision due on project feasibility

Meeting broke for morning tea at 10.40 am and resumed at 11.00 am

Item 1.5.1 – Agreed - All.

Item 1.5.2 – Tom Belford and Grenville Christie reserved their support. Dave Carlton from DOC did not support the trap & transfer programme recommended.

4


It was advised that mitigation costs had been modelled into the financial feasibility for the project.

A correction to last paragraph of the Aquatic Ecology recommendation was noted.

Item 1.6 – Agreed – All.

Benita Wakefield indicated that whilst she shared some of Fish & Game & Tom Belford’s concerns about potential effects on the river. While advising the importance of improving and enhancing the Mauri of the river there were also wider considerations including economic and s ocial and on balance, supported the development going forward.

Items 1.7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – Agreed All

Item 1.8 – Agreed All. It was noted DOC believed there were more opportunities that could be r ealised within the current budget provision for the offset mitigation work recommended.

It was requested by Vaughan Cooper (Forest & Bird) that Mitigation work should be mandated in the resource consent application and not left as “best effort”. This also applied to 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.

Item 1.9 – Agreed All. Item 1.10 – Tom Belford reserved his position.

Item 2.1 to 2.7 – Agreed All.

Item 2.8 – Note: a) recommendation - invite HDC and Te Taiao Environment Forum to join the stakeholder group. Note: b) Consideration be given to expanding the LUI working group with suitably qualified members i.e. farming technical / industry expertise.

Note: to amend Clause C to D and add c lause C from environmental report.

Recommendation That the Stakeholder Group agree the position paper Record of 31 August 2012 Discussion be included as their recommendation and i ncluded in the Environmental, Social and C ultural Studies and Community Engagement section of the Feasibility Report to Council dated September 2012.

Benita Wakefield/Andrew Watts CARRIED

UNAMIOUSLY

Dr Barry Lynch – was introduced to the group. D r Lynch provided an update from Council on the position of Cadmium in the soil. The following was noted:

• Cadmium accumulation in soils is primarily associated with the application of phosphate based fertilizers as cadmium is a trace contaminant found in phosphate rock, the raw material for phosphate fertilizers

• The best way to reduce the rate of cadmium accumulation in soils is by reducing the cadmium content of the phosphate fertilizers.

• This issue is well acknowledged by the farming industry and government agencies. The Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) is currently working on a plan in conjunction with fertilizer companies, farmers, regional councils and research establishments to deal with this issue. The MPI have established a Cadmium Management Group (CMG) which has already published a cadmium management strategy (2011) and will

5


ensure that risk based guidelines for management of cadmium are in place by 2017.

• Council already has more than 30 soil quality monitoring sites that are sampled every year for multiple parameters including cadmium. This current network of sites is being added to annually until a regional coverage is attained (approximately 92 sites).

7. UPDATE ON ECONOMICS

Mr Newman introduced Mr Grant Pechey. An overview of the project economics was provided.

Mr Pechey showed a selection of slides from Macfarlane Rural Business - Review of Farm Profitability.

The meeting broke for lunch at 12.45 pm and returned at 1.30 pm

The following participants did not return to the meeting from the lunch break –

Andrew Newman, Fenton Wilson, Campbell Chard, Benita Wakefield, Marge Hape & Hirani Maaka.

6. TUKITUKI CHOICES SCENARIOS – HELEN CODLIN Helen Codlin provided an update on the Tukituki Choices document and process. ACTION: Provide the Stakeholder Group with a list of all the public meetings scheduled. The group discussed different aspects of the presentation and the following was noted:

• In response to a question from Mr Belford on why the stakeholder group was not

asked to provide input into this document, after being told at an earlier meeting that it would, Mrs Codlin advised she was not aware of this.

• Stephen Daysh also commented that he di d not recall this commitment being

made at the last meeting and he did not think it had been recorded as an Action in the 27 July Stakeholder Meeting minutes.

• Mrs Scott advised a wide number of groups had informed the development of the document -including those participating in the Water and Land Strategy Group.

• Mr Belford believed the LUI working group had access to the most critical issues

and they could have provided valuable input to the scenarios. He suggested HBRC staff had identified the preferred option and put that into Tukituki Choices.

• Stephen Daysh disagreed with the position Mr Belford put. He believed the LUI

working party did have input into the scenarios. The LUI Working Party Minutes of 9 A ugust (Special Meeting regarding Policy Issues) and 17 August (Final Working Party Meeting) which are appended t o the Final LUI Working Party Report record the discussions between Helen Codlin and the members of the Working Party regarding the future scenarios and the position of the parties.

• Helen Codlin also responded confirming that no decision had been made and that

the Choices were scenarios only, and the document was a consultation document only.

6


• Mr Belford advised that at last LUI working party meeting there was disagreement

around “these numbers” and asked that “you note the reservations we have”. He believed this was not answered or reflected in the framework presented.

• Helen Codlin confirmed that drafts of the Scenario Construction Report had been

circulated to and di scussed with the LUI Working Party and t hat Choice B had been adapted after the 9 August LUI Working Party Meeting to reflect the suggestion from Fish & Game at the 9 August meeting that N limits be based on managing periphyton growth (and not nitrate toxicity).

• Mr Ritchie asked how farmers would know if their bore is a stream depleter or not

and indicated they would need to know that in order to evaluate the scenarios. He also noted that the document should be clear that Land/farm Management Plans will be a requirement of any Storage Scheme.

• Mr Cheyne questioned the zones and trout spawning locations indicated within the

scenarios, he said that most of the spawning occurs between SH50 and SH2 in the main rivers and tributaries. It was advised the location of the zones related to Water Management Zones within the catchment, and di d not necessarily reflect the location of spawning habitats.

• Mr Cheyne suggested that by increasing the nitrate toxicity guideline, HBRC staff

had created more headroom so that it made the storage project feasible in his view this equated to a permit to pollute, which was unacceptable.

• Helen Codlin responded that the scenarios were based on t he Nitrate Risk

Framework developed by Dr Chris Hickey for the Tukituki catchment and based on the ANZECC methodology, and it represents the latest scientific findings. She acknowledged that the report was only recently completed and that the Group had not had an opportunity to review this report and that copies were now available.

• Olivier Ausseil commented that Dr Hickey is a leading scientist in this field, and is

an independent professional who was asked to undertake independent work, and this was the basis under which all external experts for the project were engaged. Dr Ausseil stated that the numbers came out higher than the 2009 ECan review, but could equally have come out lower. The final numbers were a reflexion of the data, not of HBRC staff trying to influence the outcomes of Dr Hickey’s work. Suggesting otherwise was calling Dr Hickey’s integrity into question.

• Helen Codlin suggested a s entence could be i ncluded in the Tukituki Choices

document if the group agreed along the lines of “environmental groups challenge some of the data”. Draft wording was suggested on white board, but when asked, no one in the group indicated they wanted it included.

• It was suggested that this group make a submission to the Tukituki document and

that a s pecial meeting of the Group be or ganised to provide feedback on the Tukituki Choices discussion document.

Other Items

• Mr Broadley advised that the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project was now framed by the Tukituki Choices Project.

• Mr Belford advised of a public forum taking place at EIT on 18 September, speakers

confirmed at this stage were Andrew Newman and Dr Roger Maaka.

7


• New works for the project including optimisation to be identified, budget and MPI support being worked through.

• Full Feasibility document will be presented to Council on 26 S eptember. T ukituki

Choices consultation running alongside this. • This group to review Tukituki Choices document and discuss and provide feedback to

Council. ACTION – date to be confirmed. • Concern was raised on the ‘self audited management’ approach proposed for

farmers and that this approach would be too soft with few results achieved. It was clarified that this approach is easily confused but is in fact an audited self management approach which would require on farm audits from an external body. The details of this are yet to be de fined but would require some sort of on farm planning (including nutrient) and assurance that the plan is being implemented.

• In summing up Mrs Hewitt noted that the LUI Working Party report had been s igned

by all except Fish & Game.

• She also recommended the group review the Social Impact Assessment report that had been provided and pass on the recommendations to the community.

The meeting closed at 2.45 pm.

10. EXHIBITS

Exhibit SGD 1: Mana Whenua Working Party report

Mana Whenua Working Party Report Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme

Prepared by the RWSS Mana Whenua Working Party August, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Information – RWSS ...................................................................................... 2

3.0 Cultural Values ........................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Origins, Settlement, History .............................................................................................. 5 3.2 Pūrākau ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Key cultural values ............................................................................................................ 5

4.0 Legal Framework ....................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Resource Management Act 1991 ..................................................................................... 6 4.3 Treaty of Waitangi Claims ................................................................................................. 7

5.0 RWSS Mana Whenua Working Party ......................................................................... 8

5.1 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Working Party Process ...................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Key issues and agreed approach on effects ............................................................ 10

APPENDIX: A Terms of Reference – RWSS Mana Whenua Working Party

Mana Whenua Working Party Report Final - August 2013

P a g e | 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (“HBRC”) embarked on investigating the potential for water storage in the Tukituki River catchment in Central Hawke’s Bay for a number of regionally significant purposes including suitable river flow for supported values, water quality protection or enhancement and community economic opportunity. Eighteen potential sites for water storage were initially considered however, after much investigation, the upper Mākaroro River was identified as the preferred site in 2011 and full feasibility investigations for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (“RWSS”) were launched and concluded in August 2012.

Three cultural impact assessments (CIA) (Wakefield et al., 2010; 2011: Apatu et al., 2012) were commissioned by HBRC. The first of these reports investigated eight potential water storage dam sites with the second narrowing the focus to two potential storage dam sites on the Mākāretu and Mākaroro Rivers. The third report focused on the cultural values and uses associated with the lower Tukituki catchment and impact assessment of a storage dam on the Mākaroro River.

These cultural impact assessments contributed to the Feasibility Study which recommended the final site on the Mākaroro River.

A fourth joint report utilising input from the three reports outlined above was prepared by Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea in partnership with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (Wakefield et al., 2012).

From this report the HBRC Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Core Project Team made the following observations (HBRC, 2012).

In relation to the recommendations contained in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report we consider the following matters are relevant considerations:

(a) The recommendations regarding governance and management associated with the Tukituki Catchment seem to be largely addressed by the co-governance function of the recently established HBRC Regional Planning Committee whose function is to oversee the development of policy and plan instruments for the catchment.

(b) The recommendations associated with “mauri” have been recognised and addressed through the development of the integrated mitigation and offset report, with iwi representation proposed on the administering Trust.

(c) Council is assessing the implementation of higher minimum flow limits to address the historic low flow issues in the catchment, as part of the upcoming Plan Change.

We consider that further discussions should be held with Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga in relation to the other key recommendations such as:

(a) How to realise potential social and economic benefits for tangata whenua.

(b) Potential involvement of tangata whenua in monitoring.


P a g e | 2

(c) How best to define and recognise any unregistered wāhi tapu / wāhi taonga; and

(d) Historic Places Act authority requirements including the development of appropriate Accidental Discovery Protocols.

At a meeting on 19 November 2012, involving representatives of HBRIC, Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, it was agreed to establish a Working Party to advise on how best to implement the Wakefield (2012) recommendations associated with the RWSS. A further meeting was held on 22 November 2012 to discuss the form of the Working Party and nominations for the Working Party were subsequently received.

The purpose of this report is to document the RWSS Mana Whenua Working Party process which has considered the RWSS and recommended ways in which the concerns held by mana whenua regarding the cultural impacts of the RWSS can be addressed.

As background information this report also includes excerpts of the history of the land (whenua), waters (wai) and cultural values associated with these taonga.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION – RWSS

Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC) seeks resource consents and confirmation of a notice of requirement to enable it to build and operate a 90 million cubic metre storage reservoir and associated intakes, canals, pipelines and outfalls together providing a water distribution network. The dam will be located in the upper Mākaroro River in Central Hawke’s Bay where it will harvest winter and other high flows and provide the storage reservoir to supply water for irrigation to between 25,000 and 30,000 hectares, providing a reliable irrigation supply for at least 19 in every 20 years.

The reservoir will also provide an important resource to maintain higher flows from the Mākaroro River contributing to the Tukituki River system at times when flows are most under stress and assist the management of excess periphyton that currently diminishes recreational amenity in the lower river. The project includes a small (6.5MW) renewable energy hydro-electric power station to be constructed adjacent to the dam.

Comprehensive land use consent applications cover the activities associated with the Scheme within the administrative jurisdiction of each of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (hereafter referred to as CHBDC) and Hastings District Council (hereafter referred to as HDC).

Applications for a total of fifteen resource consents cover those aspects of the Scheme within the administrative jurisdiction of the HBRC. The applications are structured in a manner whereby there is a single comprehensive resource consent application for the construction, operation and maintenance of each key element of the RWS Scheme (or group of similar activities) along with separate resource consent applications for the damming, diversion, take, use and discharge of water associated with each of the various elements of the RWS Scheme as required (post construction).

In addition, there will be two regional land use consent applications, one for the use of production land, and the other for plantings within a Flood Control Scheme area. Finally, there is an application for a coastal permit to authorise deposition of sediment within the Coastal Marine area to the north and south of the mouth of the Tukituki River for the purposes of beach nourishment.


P a g e | 3

The aspects of the RWSS that are permitted activities and which are not therefore the subject of any notice of requirement or a resource consent application are:

• The secondary pipelines

• The 33kV electricity lines

• Bridges associated with the primary distribution system headrace canal within Zones A

Figure 1 below shows the location and layout of the RWSS and has been extracted from HBRIC’s consent application documents.

Figure 1: RWSS Overview Plan

3.0 CULTURAL VALUES Te Ao Māori world view provides an explanation and understanding of the inter-relationships between people and their turangawaewae, whenua or traditional lands. A central principle of the Māori world view is the concept of whakapapa that is literally translated as laying one thing upon another (horizontal links) or the genealogical descent of all living things. Mātauranga Māori recognises the inter-relatedness and inter-generation lineage of all living things that are imbued with an infinite life force, mauri. It also provides a contextual framework for articulating the spiritual principles and values in a Māori corpus of knowledge which gives emphasis to localised tribal knowledge and interpretation of their oral histories, traditions and events. Another important use of mātauranga Māori in a contemporary context is to analyse and consider aspects of our modern world in order that certain issues and matters are addressed. This might also involve the construct of alternative approaches, new ways of being and thinking.


P a g e | 4

Wise management of taonga requires an understanding of the spiritual realm (Ira Atua) and the physical realm (Ira Tangata) so that a place and its mātauranga are inseparable, interrelated and interdependent. Whakapapa-ranga enables this to occur inter-generationally through the passing down of knowledge of these connections and associations.

The concept of whanaungatanga to mana whenua refers to the rights, obligations and dynamic relationship between marae and hapū. There is an emphasis on kinship bonds and reciprocal responsibilities in determining action and the importance of whakapapa in establishing rights and status of mana. The origins, settlement and history of Māori to the areas surrounding the Tukituki River catchment reinforce the notion of hapū and marae allegiance: for demonstrating the kinship bonds which hold marae and hapū together as a distinct people.

Kaitiakitanga refers to the act of guardianship and while kaitiaki are the traditional guardians with reciprocal responsibilities to protect the natural elements, people have taken on the kaitiaki responsibilities as stewards to protect the spiritual wellbeing of whanau, marae and hapū through the wise management of taonga or natural resources and to ensure the mana of mana whenua is upheld.

In summary, the following table was prepared by Wakefield (2012) to provide an overview of how mana whenua have expressed their relationship to their traditional lands, taonga tuku iho and kaitiakitanga responsibilities to uphold the integrity of the mauri of the waterways and to the protection of their waahi tapu and landscapes of particular significance.

Table 1: “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values & Uses” (Wakefield et al., 2012).


P a g e | 5

3.2 Origins, Settlement, History

Many ancestral lines have led to the marae/hapu descendants in the Ruataniwha plains and Ruahine range areas to the present day. The Ruahine Ranges were not extensively settled by Māori and were instead passageways for seasonal expeditions by the tribes of Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Apa and Rangitane to and from the coastal lowlands to inland Mokai Patea and the central plateau. The ranges also provided refuge to settled tribes from raiding parties.

Rangitane was one of the earlier tribes to settle in the Ruataniwha plains but was eventually settled in the area south of the present day town of Dannevirke to the Manawatu and the Wairarapa and Ngati Kahungunu became the dominant tribal group of this area with different hapu settling on the Ruataniwha plains.

The history of settlement from the Ruahine ranges down to the Ruataniwha plains and beyond to the Heretaunga Plains were shaped and influenced by the many battles and skirmishes that occurred throughout the history of settlement. Some of the most important events to shape the history of all the marae and hapū take place in the Ruahine Ruataniwha area around the period leading into the 1800’s and after. It is the period referred to as, ‘Ko a tatou ririri tara a whare’ – their own interal hapu fights between two kin groups of these lands, Te Upokoiri and her brother Manawakawa.

3.2 Pūrākau

According to Māori narratives and oral history, the plains were once covered by a large lake which was the lair of two enormous taniwha who regarded the Māori living around the lake as a source of food. One narrative associated with the lake and Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers describes a fierce battle between the two taniwha for a plump little boy who had unfortunately fallen into the lake near where the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers now flow. The wild lashing of their tails cut through the eastern hills and the lake poured out forming the two rivers.

3.3 Key cultural values

Kaitiakitanga - from the Hapu perspective Kaitiakitanga is not a passive custodianship, nor is it simply the exercise of traditional property rights, but entails an active exercise of mana to look after the taonga to hand on to future generations.

Rangatiratanga - refers to having Mana and relationships between our culture and traditions, with the natural world. Rangatiratanga is traditionally embodied within the concept of Manawhenua.

Manawhenua incorporates customary rights and obligations attached to our lands.

Mahinga kai are places and resources important for the sustenance of our Whanau.

Manaakitanga for our Whanau is the practice of our hospitality towards manuhiri.

Mauri is the life force of paramount importance to the wellbeing in both our physical and spiritual worlds which includes our taonga such as ngawha, puia, waiariki, Wāhi Tapu and whenua.

Taonga are our taonga tuku iho derived from Atua through whakapapa to us which includes (amongst others) all natural resources, air, land, water both tangible and intangible.


P a g e | 6

Tikanga are customs and practices determined, maintained and regulated by our Whanau such as (amongst others) pepeha, whakatauki, moteatea, patere, tauparapara, whakapapa.

Wāhi Tapu are our sacred areas held in reverence according to our tikanga and history

Rongoa is our traditional medicine regulated and maintained in accordance with our tikanga.

Mana tangata is the identification and recognition of Whanau and ownership through whakapapa.

Puurakau are the traditional stories about our histories and tipuna handed down.

4.0 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

4.2 Resource Management Act 1991

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) promotes sustainable management of natural and physical resources and seeks to minimise or offset any adverse environment effects associated with development.

The RMA establishes a regulatory regime whereby certain activities are authorised by rules in the district and regional plans.

To better understand the effects associated with the RWSS, it is recognised that the applications need to be considered within the context of RMA principles relating to “sustainable management”, including “the existing environment baseline”, and the guiding Māori principle of kaitiakitanga.

“Sustainable management“ is defined in section 5 of the RMA, and incorporates the concepts of current economic, social and cultural wellbeing, with sustaining the needs of future generations and safeguarding the life supporting capacity of natural resources and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Case law determines that the correct approach to apply is an overall “broad judgment” to determine whether the sustainable management purpose of the RMA is being achieved. That means taking account of the intrinsic nature of the resource, enabling use and development for the benefit of the community and New Zealand, and identifying ways of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

With respect to “the existing environment baseline”, case law has determined that in assessing the actual and potential effects of activities on the environment, this must be on the basis of the environment as it currently exists. It is not appropriate to take a historical state of the environment as a reference point.

Under New Zealand’s existing RMA framework kaitiakitanga is defined as meaning the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship.


P a g e | 7

4.2.1 Part II

Part II of the RMA sets out the purpose and principles of the Act, which includes section 5 (Purpose of the Act), section 6 (Matters of National Importance), section 7 (Other Matters) and section 8 (Treaty of Waitangi).

Section 5 of the RMA states:

“The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”

In achieving the purpose of the Act, sections 6 and 7 of the RMA recognise the important role of Māori in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources. This includes a requirement to recognise and provide for:

6(e) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi Tapu, and other toanga”;

and have particular regard to:

7 a) Kaitiakitanga; and

7 aa) The ethic of stewardship:

Section 8 of the RMA states:

“In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).”

4.3 Treaty of Waitangi Claims

A number of Treaty of Waitangi Claims have been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in the Tribunal’s Southern Hawkes Bay Inquiry District (SHBID). He Toa Takitini is the organisation, mandated by hapū/marae claimant groups within the Heretaunga-Tamatea Inquiry District to:

• Settle the many claims in the Inquiry District through Direct Negotiations with the Crown,

• keep all claimant groups and the wider iwi informed,

• be a point of contact for all whose interests the different claims represent.

Treaty Claims are matters for the Crown to determine, and are separate from RMA resource consent processes. RMA case law makes this separation between the two processes clear.1

HBRIC acknowledges these claims and respects the process that is being undertaken. It understands that Māori will have to deal directly with the Crown on these matters, as will HBRIC.

HBRIC recognises the benefits of adopting a partnership approach to work towards a longer-term relationship with Mana Whenua.

1 See Ngāti Rangi Trust v The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Environment Court A067/2004).


P a g e | 8

5.0 RWSS MANA WHENUA WORKING PARTY

5.1 Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference (“TOR”) for the Working Party are attached as Appendix A to this report.

The objectives of the Working Party are as follows:

• To provide a forum for discussing the recommendations associated with the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Project (RWS) contained in the “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses” Report, June 2012. Three prior cultural evaluation and assessment reports2 gave background to this June 2012 report.

• To facilitate any necessary presentations to the Working Party from experts associated with effects of specific interest to Mana Whenua.

• To prepare an agreement between the parties, including;

(a) an agreed position on how to appropriately implement the “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses” Report recommendations (including, but not limited, to resource consent conditions); and

(b) Defining employment and economic opportunities which may be able to be accommodated through the RWS project.

5.4 Working Party Process

In order to come to an understanding of the proposed RWSS and identify issues of concern for mana whenua, the Working Party held numerous meetings, hui-a-iwi, hui-a-hapu workshops and a site visit. The full work programme of the Working Party is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Working Party Work Programme

DATES HUI AND MILESTONES

30 November 2012 Nominations of members for the Working Party confirmed and amendments to draft ToR received.

17 December 2012 Working Party first hui. Amendments to draft ToR discussed and resolved, copy to be re-distributed and further amendments/clarifications sought. Final released thereafter.

2“Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams”, 10 September 2010.

“Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams: Supplementary Report on the Makāretu and Mākāroro Proposed Dam Sites”, March 2011.

“Cultural Values and Uses, Cultural Impact Assessment Report of the Lower Tukituki Catchment”, 16 May 2012.

“Ko wai ko hua - Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses”, June 2012.


P a g e | 9


15 January 2013 Working Party and technical experts to RWSS team hikoi to Mākaroro River and downstream environments (Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers).

24 January 2013 Working Party planning session to discuss and confirm the key focus areas for the group.

8 February 2013 Working Party Environment Focus Day (Ecology effects, Offset proposal, Trap and Transfer).

22 February 2013 Working Party Employment Focus Day (Employment Opportunities).

7 MARCH 2013 HUI-A-IWI “FISH HOOK SUMMIT”.

15 March 2013 EPA pre-lodgement review / completeness check.

21 March 2013 Working Party hui to confirm matters to be addressed in MOU / Agreement. Ruataniwha Tauwhiro Taitaiao (RTT) Concept discussed

27 MARCH 2013 HUI-A-HAPŪ HOSTED BY TAMATEA TAIWHENUA

4 April 2013 Working Party hui – Technical presentation and discussion on groundwater nitrates. Extension of Working Party timeframe discussed

17 April 2013 Working Party hui – Offset Mitigation discussion with environmental groups and presentation of Draft Zone M CIA Addendum

6 May 2013 Final resource consent application documentation lodged with EPA.

May / June 2013 Various Nga Marae hui

24 May 2013 Working Party hui to discuss planning for the next steps for the Working Party post lodgement of the RWSS applications

12 June 2013 Working Party hui to review and confirm key issues to be included in the final Working Party Report

20 June 2013 Working Party hui to discuss and confirm the updated draft Working Party Report to a Final Draft Stage

5 July 2013 Working Party hui to discuss and confirm the Final


P a g e | 10


Draft Working Party Report to a Final Stage for Signing

6.0 KEY ISSUES AND AGREED APPROACH ON EFFECTS

As set out in the Terms of Reference, one of the objectives of the Working Party is to prepare an agreed position on how to implement the Wakefield (2012) report recommendations (including, but not limited to, resource consent conditions) and defining employment and economic opportunities which may be able to be accommodated through the project.

To assist with this, the Working Party members have identified key issues, and through discussion have developed an agreed approach, as presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Key Issues and Agreed Approaches

Key Issue Working Party Comments Agreed Approach

Social and Economic Opportunities

This was a key focus area for the Working Party as confirmed in the planning hui held on 24 January 2013, and these matters were discussed in detail during the Employment Focus Day held on 22 February 2013.

The Working Party supports the recommendations contained in the Taylor Baines Social Impact Assessment lodged with the RWSS resource consent applications, which it is noted HBRIC Ltd are seeking to implement in partnership with a range of Hawke’s Bay agencies under a MOU regarding the management and monitoring of the Socio-Economic Effects of the RWSS.

1. On the recommendation of the Working Party, HBRIC Ltd has set a requirement in the RWSS Design and Construction Tender process that a “Hawke’s Bay Industry Participation Policy Statement” to identify work and training opportunities for local people, including mana whenua be included in the tenders from the two consortia bidding for the contract.

2. A copy of a Mana Whenua Values and Aspirations document prepared by the Working Party has been supplied to the two consortia to provide more focus for them in the preparation of their respective Hawke’s Bay Industry Participation Policy Statements.


P a g e | 11


3. HBRIC Limited have agreed that the Working Party will be involved in evaluating the Design and Construct tender proposals in relation to the Hawke’s Bay Industry Participation Policy Statements as lodged by the two consortia.

4. Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, Nga Marae o Heretaunga and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated have been asked to be parties to a Socio-Economic MOU which will establish a Ruataniwha Socio-Economic Working Party to oversee the implementation of the socio-economic report recommendations contained in the Taylor Baines report (May 2013) lodged with the RWSS resource consent applications.

Environmental Effects Including Mitigation and Monitoring

This was a key focus area for the Working Party as confirmed in the planning hui held on 24 January 2013, and these matters were discussed in detail during the Environment Focus Day held on 8 February 2013 and during the Environmental Offset hui held with the environmental groups on 17 April 2013.

The Working Party have worked with Dr Roger Young from Cawthron Institute to consider and assess the various options for mitigating the effects on native fish including long fin eels and

1. The Agreement between HBRIC Ltd and Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea recognises the particular cultural and resource management values held by Tamatea (including as to waahi tapu, mahinga kai, taonga and mauri) and the need to recognise, provide for and maintain the relationship between Tamatea and their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga affected by the construction


P a g e | 12


support the proposals for the Upstream and Downstream Trap and Transfer proposal for long fin eels and the offset approach for enhancing habitat for native fish in other areas of the Tukituki catchment contained in the HBRIC document filed with the applications for the Resource Consents entitled Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach (HBRIC May 2013 f)

The Working Party supports the resource consent conditions dated May 2013 proposed by HBRIC Ltd regarding:

• Paragraphs 18 – 24 of Schedule One to the Proposed Conditions Document relating to the Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP);

• Paragraphs 40-43 of Schedule One of the Proposed Conditions Document relating to Construction Liaison Group;

• Paragraph 1 -3 of Schedule Two to the Proposed Conditions Document relating to the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme, and with express reference to the HBRIC document filed with the applications for the Resource Consents entitled Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach (HBRIC May 2013 f); and

and subsequent use and operation of the RWSS, including their role as kaitiaki. This agreement includes:

a. A first right for Ruataniwha Tauwhiro Taitaiao to secure the contracts to undertake the five projects identified in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach (HBRIC May 2013 f). and

b. An education and training fund with a priority to support those who whakapapa to, or can evidence strong affiliation with the Ruataniwha District.


P a g e | 13


• Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule Three to the Proposed Conditions Document relating to the Scheme Operations Liaison Group.

The Working Party would like the conditions to be clear that any changes to representation groups post settlement governance entity can be accommodated.

Cultural and Accidental Discovery Protocols

This was a key focus area for the Working Party as confirmed in the planning hui held on 24 January 2013.

A Cultural and Accidental Discovery Protocol has been prepared with the assistance of Professor Roger Maaka.

1. Support by the Working Party for the Cultural and Accidental Discovery Protocol submitted as part of the RWSS Proposed Resource Consent Conditions (Schedule Seven).

2. HBRIC Ltd agree to facilitate a cultural blessing of the Makaroro Dam Site area prior to construction commencing.

3. HBRIC Ltd agree to engage with representatives of Mihiroa and Kahuranaki marae to ascertain if they have any concerns associated with Zone M over and above those identified in the Zone M CIA Addendum Report.

Deforestation of the Tukituki Catchment

Working Party members are concerned with the adverse environmental effects associated with the historical deforestation of the Tukituki Catchment area and would like to see a strategic approach undertaken by HBRC to

1. Through implementing the integrated mitigation and offset programme opportunities for re-forestation and native vegetation should be a


P a g e | 14


addressing this issue over time.

The Working Party accepts that this is a catchment wide issue which needs to be addressed in a concerted and sustained way by HBRC and that apart from providing for appropriate offsets for the direct effects of the RWSS on the terrestrial vegetation that will be inundated by the Makaroro Dam Reservoir, other programmes are required to address this issue. These include:

• The Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan which is part of Proposed Plan Change 6 and which identifies non-regulatory actions including the identification of priority sub-catchments which require remediation through a multi-party approach

• The development and implementation of the HBRC Biodiversity Strategy which is currently a focus for HBRC.

The Working Party wishes to ensure that mana whenua are involved at all levels of the planning and implementation processes identified above to ensure their views and concerns are recognised and provided for in terms of long term Tukituki catchment care.

priority.

2. That this issue of concern for the Working Party be brought to the attention of HBRC via the Regional Planning Committee with a request that mana whenua be involved at all levels of the planning and implementation processes associated with:

• The Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan; and

• The HBRC Biodiversity Strategy.

Investment and Representation

The Working Party would like to record that they consider that it is important that mana whenua continue to have representation on HBRIC Ltd Board and any subsequent commercial entity, (even if there is no direct

1. That this recommendation be presented to the HBRIC Board for consideration.


P a g e | 15


investment), in order to ensure the continuity of mana whenua representation at the “top table”.

Use of Mana Whenua Working Party Model for future processes

There may be other specific projects within the region that would benefit from the convening of a similar group in the future.

The Working Party members consider that the working process and outcomes achieved through the Mana Whenua Working Party forum has been a positive and successful model for ensuring robust and effective engagement of relevant mana whenua with local government regarding a specific resource management issue.

1. That this conclusion be reported to HBRC via the Regional Planning Committee with a presentation of this report to the Regional Planning Committee by Working Party members.


P a g e | 16

The Ruataniwha Mana Whenua Working Party records participation in the Working Party and acknowledges the Agreed Approach in Table 3 above, which was discussed and agreed following the process of hui outlined in Table 2 of this document.3

Ruataniwha Mana Whenua Working Party

Signed by Professor Roger Maaka Rongo o Tahu Marae & Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea

) ) )

Signed by Dr Adele Whyte Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Acting CEO

) ) )

Signed by Des Ratima Nga Marae o Heretaunga Kaikokiri Kaupapa

) ) )

Signed by Mike Mohi HBRC Maori Committee Chairman Nga Whenua Rahui

) ) )

Signed by Brian Gregory Tapairu Marae & Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea

) ) )

Signed by Peter Paku Ruahapia Marae & Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

) ) )

Signed by Graeme Hansen HBRIC Ltd - RWSS Project Manager

) ) )

Signed by Stephen Daysh EMS Ltd – RWSS Consenting Manager

) ) )

Signed by Martell Letica HBRC – Senior Consents Planner

) ) )

3 The Working Party Members who have signed this report wish to record that those members who have not signed this report participated fully in the Working Party process, including definition of the key issues and in the discussions on the Agreed Approach set out in Section 6.0 (Table 3).

____________________________________________________

Appendix A ____________________________________________________

ToR RWS Mana whenua Working Party 8 February 2013

1

TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR) FOR THE RUATANIWHA WATER STORAGE PROJECT

MANA WHENUA WORKING PARTY

THE MEMBERSHIP

At a m eeting on 19 th November 2012, involving representatives of Hawke’s Bay

Regional Council, Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, it was

agreed to establish a W orking Party to advise on how best to implement the

recommendations associated with the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project (RWS) in a

Tukituki values and uses report which had been completed in June 2012. A further

meeting was held on 22nd November 2012 to discuss the form of the Working Party

and nominations for the Working Party were subsequently received.

Working Party members and t heir backgrounds are presented in Schedule 1

attached, including key contact details.

WORKING PARTY OBJECTIVES To provide a forum for discussing the recommendations associated

with the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Project (RWS) contained in the “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses” Report, June 2012. Three prior cultural evaluation and assessment reports4 gave background to this June 2012 report.

To facilitate any necessary presentations to the Working Party from experts associated with effects of specific interest to Mana Whenua.

4“Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams”, 10 September 2010.

“Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams: Supplementary Report on the Makāretu and Mākāroro Proposed Dam Sites”, March 2011.

“Cultural Values and Uses, Cultural Impact Assessment Report of the Lower Tukituki Catchment”, 16 May 2012.

“Ko wai ko hua - Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses”, June 2012.


2

To prepare an agreement between the parties, including; (a) an agreed position on how to appropriately implement the

“Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses” Report recommendations (including, but not limited, to resource consent conditions); and

(b) Defining employment and economic opportunities which may be able to be accommodated through the RWS project.

BACKGROUND

1. In 2009, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (“HBRC”) embarked on investigating the

potential of water storage for a number of regionally significant purposes

including suitable river flow for supported values, water quality protection or

enhancement and community economic opportunity.

2. In 2010, a cultural impact assessment (CIA) was commissioned to investigate

eight potential water storage dam sites. A supplementary report was

commissioned in 2011 which narrowed the focus to two potential dam sites on

the Mākāretu and Mākaroro Rivers. These two reports described tangata

whenua cultural values, the relationship of tangata whenua to the Tukituki River

catchment and included recommendations considered necessary to address

issues or concerns in relation to the conflicts between the proposal and important

values identified.

3. Later in 2011, in recognition that the two CIA reports were focused primarily on

the views of mana whenua within the central Hawke’s Bay area associated with

Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea, HBRC commissioned Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga to

prepare a third report, Ko Wai Ka Hua – Cultural Values and Uses, Cultural

Impact Assessment, Report of the Lower Tukituki Catchment, May 2012.

4. A joint report utilising input from the three documents outlined in Clauses 2 and 3

above was prepared by Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea in partnership with Te


3

Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. This report entiltled “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural

Values and Uses” June 2012, covered both the overall cultural values of the

Tukituki River (as background to the Tukituki Plan Change process), and a

specific summary section including recommendations (Section 5.2) associated

with the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage project.

5. The Ruataniwha Water Storage Mana Whenua Working Party has been formed

to;

(a) Develop a framework for conditioning avoidance, remediation or mitigation

measures as part of a suite of Resource Consent Applications to ensure:

i. The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their

ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other toanga, including

ecological values, water quality and water quantity (specifically pp60-63

of the “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses”, June 2012

report) are recognised and provided for (Section 6 (e) of the RMA); and

ii. Particular regard is given to how Mana whenua can fulfil their

Kaitiakitanga obligations (Section 7 (a) of the RMA).

(b) Assess how positive socio-economic opportunities and outcomes for tangata

whenua might be factored into the planning and delivery of the Ruataniwha

Water Storage Project.

WORKING PARTY ISSUES AND CONTEXT 6. The following matters underpin the overall recommendations in the “Tukituki

River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses” June 2012 Report:

(a) Recognising and providing for a “whole of catchment” perspective (Mountain

to Sea, Ki Uta ki Tai).

(b) Connection to the awa is not compromised and mauri is safe-guarded.

(c) Protection of known wāhi tapu sites and precautionary approach to outlying

areas to be able to determine sites of concern, i..e, suitable accidental

discovery protocol.


4

(d) Ecological protection and enhancement - river flows, fish passage and water

quality.

(e) Defining and providing for tangata whenua participation – “co-drivers” in

planning, co-governance and co-management structuring and economic

opportunities.

7. The Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Core Team made the following

observations in “Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Feasibility Report to

Council”, September 2012.

In relation to the recommendations contained in the Cutural Impact

Assessment Report we consider the following matters are relevant

considerations:

a) The recommendations regarding governance and management

associated with the Tukituki Catchment seem to be largely addressed by

the co-governance function of the recently established HBRC Regional

Planning Committee whose function is to oversee the development of

policy and plan instruments for the catchment

b) The recommendations associated with “mauri” have been recognised and

addressed through the development of the integrated mitigation and offset

report, with iwi representation proposed on the administering Trust

c) Council is assessing the implementation of higher minimum flow limits to

address the historic low flow issues in the catchment, as part of the

upcoming Plan Change.

We consider that further discussions should be hel d with Te Tai whenua O

Tamatea and Te Tai whenua O Heretaunga in relation to the other key

recommendations such as:

a) How to realise potential social and economic benefits for tangata whenua


c) How best to define and recognise any unregistered wahi tapu / wahi

taonga; and


5

d) Historic Places Act authority requirements including the development of

appropriate Accidental Discovery Protocols.

WORKING PARTY PROCESS

8. The Working Party shall meet on an “as needed basis” to meet the Milestone

Programme appended to this document (Note, tentative dates have been

included in the Milestone Programme).

9. All Working Party meetings and discussions shall be held on a “without prejudice”

basis and it is recognised that the membership to this working party does not limit

the involvement of the tangata whenua members or groups represented in

relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 statutory processes on integrated

Tukituki River catchment management.

10. All Working Party meetings shall be formally minuted.

11. The Working Party shall seek feedback and authority from a hui-a-iwi and HBRIC

on any agreements drafted and proposed by the Working Party, prior to any

agreements being proposed to the HBRIC Board for approval.

12. Any final agreement between the parties will be made public.

13. HBRIC will pay all reasonable costs associated with the operation of the Working

Party as outlined in paragraphs 15 to 20 below.

WORKING PARTY MEETING VENUES

14. The venue of choice is generally recognised as being Heretaunga Park, 821

Orchard Road, Camberley, Hastings. However, venues will be decided and

confirmed at the close of each Working Party hui and all members notified

accordingly.


6

EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY HBRIC

15. HBRIC will pay for administration, preparation and printing of documentation

produced by the Working Party.

16. HBRIC will pay necessary fees for the hiring of meeting rooms. Depending on

meeting durations, costs associated with provision of refreshments and small

meals will also be included in this.

17. HBRIC will give appropriate koha where Working Party members are hosted on a

marae for a Working Party event.

18. Based on attendance, HBRIC will pay to Mana whenua Working Party members

a Working Party meeting fee of $265 gross per day.

19. HBRIC will pay for nominated technical experts to attend relevant Working Party

meetings as required.

20. HBRIC will pay reasonable costs associated with advertising and holding hui-a-

iwi to discuss Working Party recommendations.

WORKING PARTY REPORT

21. A report will be prepared by the Working Party that includes:

A copy of final Terms of Reference.

Final agreements recommended to hapū and the HBRIC Board.

Any reviews undertaken for the Working Party.

The Working Party Report will be available for public dissemination by the parties.


(Schedule 1) 1

Schedule 1: RUATANIWHA WATER STORAGE PROJECT MANA WHENUA NOMINATED WORKING PARTY MEMBER CONTACT DETAILS.

NAME PHONE MOBILE EMAIL BACKGROUND

Graeme Hansen (06) 835 9204 0274 555 213 [email protected] Group Manager Water Initiatives HBRC

Project Manager, Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Team, HBRC

Stephen Daysh (06) 834 4344 021 2468 595 [email protected]

Director Environmental Management Services Limited

Environmental Planning Projects Consultant for Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Team, HBRC

Martell Letica (06) 833 8071 - [email protected] Senior Consents Officer, HBRC

Secondment to Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Team, HBRC

Dr. Adele Whyte (06) 876 2718 027 500 1871 [email protected] Director of Fisheries and Environment, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

Professor Roger Maaka

(06) 974 8000 Ext 5488

027 510 7633 [email protected] Rongo o Tahu Marae representative on Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea governance board.

Spokesman for the 4 Central Hawke’s Bay Marae (2 in Waipawa and 2 in Takapau)

Peter Paku (06) 879 4911 - - Ruahapia Marae

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

2

Des Ratima [email protected]

Nga Marae o Heretaunga

Mike Mohi (06) 857 7358 027 2466 200 [email protected] HBRC Maori Committee Chairman

Nga Whenua Rahui

Brian Gregory (06) 8575130 021 824 374 [email protected] Tapairu Marae


(Milestone Work Programme) 1

MILESTONE WORK PROGRAMME

DATES (DATES TO BE CONFIRMED) MILESTONE TARGET

30 November 2012 Nominations of members for the Working Party confirmed and amendments to draft ToR received.

17 December 2012 (PM) Working Party first hui. Amendments to draft ToR visited and resolved, copy to be re-distributed and further amendments/clarifications sought. Final released thereafter.

15 January 2013 (all day) Working Party and technical experts to RWS Project team hikoi to Mākaroro River and downstream environments (Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers). “Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses”, June 2012 report recommended reference material for hikoi.

24 January 2013 (half day (AM)) Working Party planning session for progressing avoidance, remediation or mitigation framework.

8 February 2013 (AM) Environment Focus Day (Ecology effects, Offset proposal, Trap and Transfer).

22 February 2013 (PM) Employment Focus Day (Employment Opportunities).

7 MARCH 2013 HUI-A-IWI “FISH HOOK SUMMIT”.

15 March 2013 EPA pre-lodgement review / completeness check.

16 / 17 MARCH 2013 HUI-A-IWI, HOSTED BY TAMATEA TAIWHENUA.


(Milestone Work Programme) 2

DATES (DATES TO BE CONFIRMED) MILESTONE TARGET

22 March 2013 Working Party hui to discuss, clarify and resolve matters. Preliminary draft report prepared by Martell, to be pre-circulated to members.

28 March 2013 Updated draft Working Party Report distributed to members.

13 / 14 APRIL 2013 HUI-A-IWI; TABLE AND DISCUSS DRAFT WORKING PARTY REPORT AND MOU.

19 April 2013 Working Party hui to discuss, clarify and resolve matters. Final draft Working Party Report and MOU tabled for discussion.

26 April 2013 Final Working Party Report distributed to members.

3 May 2013 Completion of Working Party report, signing of agreement, potentially a signing ceremony?

6 May 2013 Final resource consent application documentation lodged with EPA.

(Appendix 1) 1

APPENDIX 1 – Report Reference Tables

Table 1: Feasibility Report to Council


Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Feasibility Report to Council

September 2012

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

RWSP Core Project Team

RWSP Core Project Team, 2012

Table 2: Integrated Management Community Engagement


Tukituki Choices September 2012

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Strategic Development Group

Strategic Development Group, 2012

Table 3: Technical Reference Reports Title Date Organisation Authors Bibliographic

Reference Ruataniwha Plains Water Augmentation Scheme: Technical feasibility Study Inception Report


M. Taylor D. Leong T Morris T. Fisher P. Carter D. Knappstein

Taylor et al, 2011a Or Ref: 27690.100

Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Feasibility Project Description


M. Taylor D. Leong T. Morris P. Carter D. Knappstein

Taylor et al, 2012a Or Ref: 27690.100/ Issue 5

Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Technical Feasibility Study Feasibility Report


M. Taylor D. Leong T. Morris P. Carter D. Knappstein D. Bouma

Taylor et al, 2012b or Ref:27690.100/3

(Appendix 1) 2

Table 3: Technical Reference Reports Title Date Organisation Authors Bibliographic

Reference Ruataniwha Water Augmentation Scheme: Stage 1 - Geotechnical Factual Report A7 Makaroro

June 2011 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

D. Leong M. Thomas

Leong and Thomas, 2011 Or Ref: 27195.200

A7 Makaroro River dam site - Phase 1B: Updated active fault and surface rupture displacement hazard and acceleration response spectra reassessment

December 2011 GNS R. Langridge P. Villamor G. McVerry M Cabeza

Langridge et al, 2011 Or Ref: 2011/300

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Report on Engineering Geological Investigations A7 Site, Volume 1 & 2

March 2012 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

B. Hegan D. Bouma

Hegan and Bouma, 2012 Or Ref: 27690.200

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Sedimentation Assessment

July 2012 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

T. Fisher J Russell

Fisher and Russell, 2012 Or Ref: 27690.600

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Dam Break Analysis

July 2012 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

C. Goodier Goodier, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage and Generation Value Report

February 2012 Simply Energy M. Dyer Dyer, 2012



Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Characterisation of Reservoir Water Quality

July 2012 NIWA M. Gibbs C. McBride D. Ozkundakci D. Hamilton

Gibbs et al, 2012

(Appendix 1) 3



Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Tukituki River Catchment Assessment of Potential Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

June 2012

HBRC R. Waldron H. Baalousha

Waldron and Baalousha, 2012

Modelling the Effects of Land Use on Nutrients Entering the Tukituki River, Hawke’s Bay

August 2012

NIWA, AgResearch, Plant & Food Research, Macfarlane Rural Business Ltd

K. Rutherford A. Mackay A. Manderson S. Green B. Clothier I. Power H. Eaton A. Nicholls C. Lewis A. Macfarlane

Rutherford et al, 2012

Table 5: Terrestrial Aquatic and Ecology Assessment Reports


Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Terrestrial Ecology Study Assessment of Ecological Effects

July 2012

Kessels & Associates Ltd

G. Kessels B. Deichmann P. Stewart D. Riddell M. Hasenbank R. Clark U. Brandes

Kessels et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project – Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects

August 2012

Cawthron Institute

R. Young N. Berkett R. Holmes J. Hay

Young et al, 2012



(Appendix 1) 4



Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams

September 2010

Te Manga Māori and Eastern Institute of Technology

Dr. B. Wakefield H. Taungakore K. Steffert J. Maaka C. Marunui U. Te Aho


Cultural Impact Assessment of the Tukituki Proposed Water Storage Dams: Supplementary Report on the Makāretu and Mākāroro Proposed Dam Sites

March 2011

Te Manga Māori and Eastern Institute of Technology

Dr. B. Wakefield J. Maaka H. Taungakore M. Hape


Ko Wai Ka Hua: Cultural Values and Uses, Cultural Impact Assessment of Lower the Tukituki Catchment

May 2012 Te Manaaki Taiao and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

M. Apatu D. Moffat

Apatu et al, 2012

Tukituki River Catchment Cultural Values and Uses

June 2012 Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea in Partnership with Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga

Benita Wakefield M. Hape J. Maaka Bruce Wakefield H Maaka M Apatu D. Moffatt D. Whitiwhiti




Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Road Infrastructure and Traffic Assessment

June 2012 OPUS International Consultants Ltd

R. Landon-Lane N. Uran A. Jones

Landon-Lane et al, 2012

(Appendix 1) 5



Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Noise Effects Assessment

July 2012 Marshall Day Acoustics

M. Halstead Halstead, 2012

Ruataniwha Irrigation Project: Archaeological Assessment

July 2012 Clough & Associates Ltd

S. Bickler R. Clough P. Parsons

Bickler et al, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Social Impact Assessment

July 2012 Taylor Baines and Associates

N. Taylor Taylor, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Recreation Assessment

August 2012

OPUS International Consultants Ltd

S. Morgan M. Frey

Morgan and Frey, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment

August 2012

Isthmus G. Lister W. Robertson

Lister and Robertson, 2012

Table 8: Integrated Mitigation and Offset Report


Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach

August 2012 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

L. Coubrough G. Hansen S. Daysh G. Kessels

Coubrough et al, 2012

Table 9: Land use Intensification Working Party Report


Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project: Land Use Intensification Working Party Report

August 2012 Environmental Management Services Ltd

S. Daysh Daysh, 2012

Table 10: Economic Reports

(Appendix 1) 6


Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Financial Feasibility

September 2012

BNZ Advisory BNZ Advisory

BNZ Advisory, 2012

Tukituki River catchment: Economic Impact of Minimum Flow Proposals on Existing Irrigators

September 2012

Harris Consulting

Harris Consulting

Harris, 2012a

Tukituki Choices: Economic Impact of Future Scenarios for the Tukituki River

September 2012

Harris Consulting

Harris Consulting

Harris, 2012b

Ruataniwha Irrigation Project: Regional Economic Impacts and Financial Cost Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Ruataniwha Irrigation Scheme.

September 2012

Butcher Partners Limited

Butcher Partners Limited

Butcher, 2012

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project: Review of Farm Profitability

September 2012

Macfarlane Rural Business Limited

H. Eaton M. Everest A. Macfarlane C. Lewis (Baker & Associates) S. Orsborn (Baker & Associates) C. Clelland (Agfirst)

Eaton et al, 2012

Exhibit SGD 2: RWSS Part D Proposed Conditions – Updated September 2013

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme PART D

Proposed Conditions

May Updated September 2013

Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme - Proposed Conditions

May Updated September 2013 P a g e | i

Table of Contents CHBDC Land Use Consent ....................................................................................... 1

HDC Land Use Consent ............................................................................................ 2

CHBDC Primary Distribution System Designation ..................................................... 3

HBRC Consent LU120370C (Makaroro Dam Structure) ............................................ 5

HBRC Consent WP120371M (Makaroro Damming, Take, Diversion and Discharge) 7

HBRC Consent LU120372C (Upstream Water Intake Structure) ............................. 15

HBRC Consent WP120373T (Upstream Water Intake Diversion and Take) ............ 17

HBRC Consent LU120374C (Downstream Water Intake Structure) ........................ 20

HBRC Consent WP120375T (Downstream Water Intake Diversion and Take) ........ 22

HBRC Consent LU120376C (Beds of Rivers and Streams) ..................................... 25

HBRC Consent LU120377C (Works In and Near Waterways) ................................. 27

HBRC Consent LU120378C (Mangaonuku Outfall Structure) .................................. 28

HBRC Consent DP120379W (Mangaonuku Outfall Discharge) ............................... 30

HBRC Consent LU120380C (Kahahakuri Outfall Structure) .................................... 32

HBRC Consent DP120381W (Kahahakuri Outfall Discharge) ................................. 34

HBRC Consent LU120382L (Production Land Use) ................................................ 36

HBRC Consent LU120388P (Planting and Associated Works) ................................ 37

HBRC Consent CD120400D (Beach Nourishment) ................................................. 39

Schedule One General Conditions – Construction ....................................... 43

Schedule Two General Conditions – Operations & Maintenance ................. 64

Schedule Three General Conditions - Production Land Use ........................... 76

Schedule Four Resource Consent Plans

Schedule Five Zones A to D Primary Distribution System Designation Plans

Schedule Six Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Schedule Seven Cultural / Archaeology Sites Protocol

Schedule Eight Public Access& Offset Mitigation Progress Plan


May Updated September 2013 P a g e | ii

Glossary Abbreviations and Definitions

AEP: Annual Exceedence Probability

CCTO: Council Controlled Trading Organisation

CEMP: Construction Environmental Management Plan

CFRD: Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam

CHBDC: Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

CHBDP: Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan

CTMP: Construction Traffic Management Plan

CWD: Clean Water Diversion Drains

Dam: The Proposed Makaroro Dam (on the Makaroro River) or RWSS Dam also

referred to as “the dam”, “storage dam” or “the Makaroro Dam” and

includes all facets of the dam and associated structures

D&C: Design and Construct

DEB: Decanting Earth Bund - for treating storm water runoff from areas less

than 0.3 ha

DWI: Downstream Water Intake - the point and structure at the lower end of

the Waipawa River where water released from the dam is taken to supply

Zone M

GMP: Groundwater Monitoring Plan

GMDP: Groundwater Mounding and Drainage Monitoring Plan

EAP: Emergency Action Plan

EPA: Environmental Protection Authority

FEMP: Farm Environmental Management Plan

HBRIC Ltd: Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited

HBRC: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

HDC: Hastings District Council

HDP: Hastings District Plan


May Updated September 2013 P a g e | iii

Headrace: Also referred to as “headrace canal” as part of the PDS Headrace canal

watercourse system stemming from the UWI and the DWI

IEMP: Irrigation Environmental Management Plan

ISMMP: Infrastructure Stormwater and Maintenance Management Plan

RFERP: Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan

MALF: Mean Annual Low Flow

NZHPT: New Zealand Historic Places Trust

OFMP: On-Farm Monitoring Plan

Overseer: A computer model that calculates and estimates the nutrient flows in a

productive farming system and identifies risk for environmental impacts

through nutrient loss, including run off and leaching, and greenhouse gas

emissions

PC6: “Plan Change 6” or “Change 6” being the Tukituki River Catchment Plan

Change. A proposed plan change which inserts Tukituki Catchment

specific objectives, policies and rules into the RRMP

PD: Project Description. Provides a description of the proposed Ruataniwha

Water Storage Scheme, see the PD for a full description

PDS: Primary Distribution System. Comprises the primary headrace canals and

pipelines that are connected to the intake structures that provide water

to the SDS, see the PD for a full description

PLUA: Production Land Use Areas. Areas of irrigable land suitable for primary

production within the RWSS’s five command zones

Reservoir: The body of water stored behind the dam on the Makaroro River

RMA: Resource Management Act 1991

ROR: Reservoir Operating Regime

RRMP: The Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (generally

referred to as the “regional plan”)

RPS: The Hawke’s Bay Regional Policy Statement (forms part of the RRMP)


May Updated September 2013 P a g e | iv

RPS Change 5: Regional Policy Statement Change 5 “Land use and freshwater

management”

RWSS: Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (also referred to as “the Scheme” or

“RWS Scheme”

SDS: Secondary Distribution System. Comprises of a network of pipelines that

are connected to the PDS that deliver water to properties i.e. “the farm

gate”, see the PD for a full description

SCEMP: Supplementary Construction Environmental Management Plan

SMP: Sediment Management Plan

SRP: Sediment retention pond – for treating storm water from areas greater

than 0.3 ha up to 5.0 ha

TRIM: Tukituki River Model. A computer model incorporating models,

environmental data and GIS used to manage nutrient inputs, land use and

water quality

WDN: Water Distribution Network. Comprises of the PDS and SDS, see the PD

for a full description

WLSP: Water Level Safety Plan

UWI: Upstream Water Intake. The point and structure at the upper end of the

Waipawa River where water released from the dam is taken to supply

Zones A, B, C and D

Zone: An area labelled A, B, C, D or M that the scheme is providing water to.

Also referred to as “command zones”. The word zone is also used in

relation to zones in planning maps in the CHBDP and HDP and can be

used in different contexts


May Updated September 2013 P a g e | 1

CHBDC Land Use Consent

Consent Type: Land Use Consent.

Activity Authorised: All uses of land associated with the construction, operation

and maintenance of:

A water storage dam and the part of the associated

reservoir within the Central Hawke’s Bay District on the

Makaroro River at Wakarara approximately 35km

northwest of Waipawa including facilities for the

generation of electricity and an associated transformer;

Two water intake structures adjacent to the Waipawa

River;

A water outfall structure adjacent to the Mangaonuku

Stream;

A water outfall structure adjacent to the Kahahakuri

Stream; and

All associated works, earthworks (including gravel

extraction), vegetation clearance, construction of roads

and tracks, structures, proposed plantings, storage and

use of hazardous substances, and ancillary activities to

the extent required by the Central Hawke’s Bay District

Plan (including but not limited to the modification of

Areas of Significant Nature Conservation Value) within

the Central Hawke’s Bay District.

Within the areas shown on Plans 1 – 7 in Schedule Four but

excluding the Zone A to D primary headrace canals and

pipelines which are the subject of a separate designation.

Conditions:

1. The exercise of this consent is subject to compliance with the conditions specified in

Schedule One in relation to construction activities and Schedule Two attached in

relation to operations and maintenance activities.



HDC Land Use Consent

Consent Type: Land Use Consent.

Activity Authorised: The establishment and operation of part of a water reservoir

on, and in the vicinity of, the Makaroro River within the

Hastings District north of Wakarara (adjacent to the

boundary of the Hastings and Central Hawke’s Bay Districts)

approximately 35km northwest of Waipawa within the areas

shown on Plans 1 and 2 in Schedule Four, and including all

earthworks and mining, vegetation clearance, construction

of roads and tracks, proposed plantings, and other

associated works and ancillary activities within the Hastings

District.

Conditions:


Schedule One in relation to construction activities and Schedule Two attached in

relation to operations and maintenance activities.



CHBDC Primary Distribution System Designation

Purpose of designation: Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme - Primary Distribution

System (Zones A-D).

Location of designated land: The site to which the requirement applies is located on the

Ruataniwha Plains to the northwest, west and southwest of

Waipawa and Waipukurau as follows:

A corridor of land running from a point to the north of the

Waipawa River in the vicinity of Makaroro Road and then

extending north along State Highway 50 to the

intersection with Smedley Road and Butler Road;

A corridor of land running from a point to the south of

the Waipawa River, initially running alongside the true

right bank of the river and then heading in a generally

southern direction to Oruawhara Road to the east of

Takapau; and

The corridor of land is a maximum of 100 metres wide

and an average of approximately 60 metres wide where

the primary distribution system headrace canal is

proposed, and a maximum of 25 m wide where primary

distribution system pipeline is proposed (apart from the

area where the primary distribution system headrace

canal meets the primary distribution system pipeline).

The land which is the subject of this Notice of Requirement is

shown on NOR Plans 1 to 11 in Schedule Five.

Conditions:

1. The exercise of this designation is subject to compliance with the conditions

specified in Schedule One attached in relation to construction activities and

Schedule Two attached in relation to operations and maintenance activities.

2. The requiring authority shall submit an outline plan or plans to CHBDC pursuant to

section 176A of the Resource Management Act 1991 prior to the commencement of

construction works, which shall include (without limitation) details of the final



design and the location of access points across the primary distribution system

headrace canal to maintain access for property owners. In preparing the outline

plan(s) the requiring authority shall consult with each landowner and implement as

far as practicable the “Headrace Design Principles” as set out in the Landscape and

Visual Assessment Report supplied with the Applications - Isthmus (May 2013).

2. After completion of the detailed design of the Zone A to D primary distribution

system headrace canal and pipeline and following consultation with the relevant

landowner(s) and occupiers, the necessary easement width will be determined within

the designated area. The requiring authority shall uplift the designation in relation to

any part of the designation that will not be utilised (i.e. the land beyond any final

easement area) within 3 calendar months of the all the final easement areas for the

works being determined.

[Notes:

a) The intention is to split out the conditions in Schedule One and Two relevant

to the designation into this set of conditions once the final content of those

Schedule One and Two conditions have been confirmed after the release of a

Draft Board of Inquiry Decision]

a)b)The Outline Plan requirements have been deleted from these conditions and

transferred to updated condition 13 in Schedule One, responding to the

submission by CHBDC regarding their concern over duplication of the Outline

Plan and SCEMP processes.]



HBRC Consent LU120370C (Makaroro Dam Structure)

Consent Type: Land use consent, water permit, and discharge permit. Map Reference: Dam Crest – at or about E1880627 N5592232 (NZTM).

Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of a dam on the

Makaroro River at Wakarara approximately 35km northwest

of Waipawa within the areas shown on Plans 1 – 3 in

Schedule Four forming part of the Ruataniwha Water

Storage Scheme, including the associated:

Placement of the dam and all associated structures on

the river bed, and consequent occupation of the river bed

by the same;

Earthworks and the clearance of any vegetation

associated with construction activities;

Disturbance of the bed of the river including any

excavation, drilling and tunnelling;

Removal of river bed sediment, gravel and sand and

deposition of spoil associated with construction activities

and on an ongoing basis to maintain the operational

integrity of the dam water intake structure within the

reservoir;

Damming, diversion, take and discharge of water and

contaminants including water-borne sediment to land

and water associated with construction activities;

Discharges to air associated with construction activities;

Diversion and discharge of stormwater; and

All associated works and ancillary activities.

Consent Duration: 35 years from the date of grant



Conditions:

Construction, Operations and Maintenance Activities


Schedule One attached in relation to construction activities and Schedule Two

attached in relation to operations and maintenance activities.

Management of Accumulating Sediment

2. The consent holder shall engage a Registered Professional Surveyor to survey the bed

of the reservoir formed behind the Makaroro Dam prior to reservoir filling and then

at intervals of not more than three years thereafter. The survey shall have a

maximum grid spacing of 50 metres in any direction. The farthest survey point from

the Dam structure shall be located at the intersection of the river bed at the Dam’s

full supply level of 469.5 m RL (Hawke’s Bay Datum).

3. Within one calendar month of completion of each survey under condition 2 of this

consent after reservoir filling, the consent holder shall calculate the storage capacity

of the reservoir relative to the first survey and supply the results of that calculation to

the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management.

4. If the survey results supplied under condition 2 of this consent show that the storage

capacity of the reservoir has reduced relative to the first survey by more than

3,500,000 cubic metres by reason of accumulating sediment, the consent holder shall

engage an independent expert qualified and experienced in management of reservoir

and riverbed sediment to provide a report not later than six calendar months

following receipt by the consent holder of the bed survey results identifying options

to manage or prevent further accumulation of sediment and consequential loss of

reservoir storage capacity, where this is necessary to ensure:

a) Sufficient storage capacity is available to meet irrigation demands at the

contracted security of supply; and

b) Compliance with conditions 6 to 11 of Resource Consent WP120371M.

5. A copy of the expert’s report, together with the consent holder’s response to the

experts recommended options, the options it proposes to implement and the

timeframe(s) for their implementation, shall be supplied to the HBRC Group

Manager, Resource Management, with a copy to CHBDC and HDC, within one

calendar month after it is received by the consent holder.



HBRC Consent WP120371M (Makaroro Damming, Take, Diversion and Discharge)

Consent type: Water permit and discharge permit. Map Reference: Dam Crest – at or about E1880627 N5592232 (NZTM).

Activity Authorised: Damming, taking, diverting, use (for the purposes of

electricity generation) and discharging of water and water-

borne sediment to water associated with the operation of

the Makaroro Dam at Wakarara approximately 35km

northwest of Waipawa within the areas shown on Plans 1 – 3

in Schedule Four as part of the operation of the Ruataniwha

Water Storage Scheme.

Consent Duration: 35 years from the date of grant.

Conditions:

General

1. The activities authorised by this consent shall be undertaken in general accordance

with the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme application for resource consents and

notice of requirement lodged by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company

Limited, dated 6 May 2013.

2. Pursuant to Section 125(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent will

lapse if not given effect to within 10 years of the commencement of the consents.

3. The consent holder shall be responsible for compliance with these conditions. The

purpose of the conditions is both to set out the obligations of the consent holder

and to describe the process by which the consent holder shall ensure that those

obligations are met.



Reservoir Level Control

5. Control of reservoir levels shall be undertaken such that the normal operating

maximum reservoir level shall be 469.5mRL (based on a 3 hour rolling average), as

measured at the Makaroro Dam.



Environmental Flows

6. A minimum discharge of 1.23 m3/s shall be maintained below the Makaroro Dam at

all times, as measured:

a) At the outlet works (including operation of the turbine and residual flow);

and

b) At the spillway (indirectly via recorded reservoir levels).

7. The consent holder shall release water from the Dam as required to ensure that the

security of supply to third party resource consent holders is not adversely affected

by an increase in the number of days on which the flow at the Waipawa at RDS flow

measurement site and Tukituki at Red Bridge flow measurement site drops below

the minimum flows fixed in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan as

a result of the exercise of this consent in conjunction with Resource Consents

WP120373T, WP120375T, DP120379W, and DP120381W.

8. In order to identify what flow releases are required to be made pursuant to

condition 7 above, and to demonstrate compliance with that condition:

a) The consent holder shall maintain a model, certified by the HBRC Group

Manager Resource Management as fit for purpose, that determines the

combined effect of damming, diversion, taking, use and discharge of water

pursuant to Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, DP120379W, and

DP120381W and this Resource Consent , on the security of supply to third

party resource consent holders subject to the Red Bridge Minimum Flow

established by HBRC Proposed Plan Change 6, relative to the position if

Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, DP120379W, and DP120381W

and this consent were not being exercised. A report of the results of the

model simulation of the catchment and of the flows released to comply with

this condition shall be provided to the HBRC Group Manager Resource

Management each year not later than 31 July in respect of the 12 months

ended the previous 30 June; and

b) In relation to the Waipawa at RDS flow measurement site, when measured

flows at that site are within 2% of the Minimum Flow established by HBRC

Proposed Plan Change 6 and dropping, the consent holder shall discharge

from the dam a volume and rate of flow matching the inflows to the



Makaroro Dam reservoir or 1.23 m3/s (whichever is the greater) until such

time as measured flows at the Waipawa at RDS flow measurement site are

102% of the Minimum Flow at that site or greater.

In either case, if the inflows into the Makaroro Dam reservoir are greater than

1.8m3/s the consent holder shall be under no obligation to release water for the

purposes of condition 7 and this condition.

9. The consent holder shall consult with the holders of HBRC resource consents

WP110302T and WP120230T to establish a protocol to ensure that the water

storage systems serviced by those consents are not materially compromised by the

exercise of this consent in conjunction with Resource Consents WP120373T,

WP120375T, DP120379W, and DP120381W. The protocol required by this condition

shall utilise the model maintained in accordance with condition 8 a) of this consent

to establish the effect of the exercise of this consent in conjunction with Resource

Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, DP120379W, and DP120381W.

9. If no third party water permit holders are subject to the Waipawa at RDS Minimum

Flow or alternatively if all water permit holders subject to the Waipawa at RDS

Minimum Flow provide their written consent the consent holder shall not be

required to release water to meet the requirements of condition 8 b) above.

10. The consent holder shall release water from the dam up to a maximum of 1 million

cubic metres for each release, with the objective of mitigating the build-up of

periphyton downstream (flushing flows). These flushing flows shall occur up to four

times during the period 15 December and the following 30 April.

11. Water released during flushing flows shall not be taken under Resource Consent

WP120373T or WP120375T for irrigation and/or water supply purposes

downstream. The discharge of flushing flows pursuant to this condition shall be

undertaken in accordance with the following requirements:

a) No flushing flows are required to be released while flows measured at the

HBRC flow monitoring site at Red Bridge exceed 50 m3/s (the ‘trigger flow’)

or within the period of 20 days thereafter;

b) Between 20 days and 30 days following a trigger flow event, if the measured

flow at Red Bridge exceeds 15 m3/s as a result of natural freshes in the river

system, the consent holder shall release a flushing flow for a period of 9.25



hours. The flushing flow shall be the lesser of 30 m3/s and the difference

between 50 m3/s and flow recorded at Red Bridge at the commencement of

the flushing flow release;

c) If no flushing flow release is made under condition 11b) within 30 days of

the last trigger flow, the consent holder shall release a flushing flow of 30

m3/s for a period of 9.25 hours; and

d) Where the Dam is unable to physically release the flushing flow required in

conditions 11 a) to c) above, the flow that is able to be released shall be

released over a proportionately longer period, up to a maximum of 12

hours, so that one million cubic metres is released during any flushing flow.

12. The consent holder shall monitor periphyton cover, including the presence and

relative abundance of Phormidium Spp. before and after flushing flows released

pursuant to conditions 10 and 11 of this consent as follows:

a) Monitoring shall occur before and after each flushing flow released during

the first year of irrigation releases from the dam, then before and after two

flushing flow releases during the following four years, and before and after

at least one flushing flow each year thereafter for the balance of the term of

this consent as specified below:

i. The monitoring shall be undertaken no more than 48 hours before the

beginning, and no more than 48 hours after the end, of each flushing

flow;

ii. The monitoring shall follow the RAM-1 method contained in the “stream

periphyton manual” (Biggs and Kilroy, 2000)1 or such similar method

approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management;

iii. The monitoring shall be undertaken at no less than;

1 site on the Makaroro River between the toe of the dam and the

confluence with the Waipawa River

2 sites on the Waipawa River between the confluence with the

Makaroro River and the confluence with the Tukituki River

1 Biggs, B.J.F. and Kilroy C. (2000). Stream periphyton monitoring manual. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment by NIWA, Christchurch. ISBN 0-478-09099-4



4 sites on the lower Tukituki River between the confluence with the

Waipawa River and the Black Bridge monitoring site.

b) The location of the monitoring sites shall be determined annually in

consultation with the District Health Board.

Reservoir Water Quality

13. The Consent holder shall implement a reservoir water quality monitoring

programme at a point in the reservoir located at or near the deepest point in the

reservoir for the monitoring parameters and frequency specified in Table 1 below.

Unless otherwise specified in the conditions of this consent, the monitoring

protocols shall follow the protocols described in the Ministry for the Environment

report “Protocol for monitoring trophic levels of New Zealand lakes and reservoirs”

(Burns et al. 2000).

Table 1

Type Monitoring parameter Frequency

Laboratory Analysis

(Water samples taken at three representative depths using a Van Dorne-type sampling apparatus)

Nitrate Nitrogen

Monthly

Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen

Total Carbon

DRP

Total Phosphorus

Algal abundance (cell count)

Algal abundance (biovolume)

Field Measurements

(depth profiles)

Visual clarity (Secchi depth) Monthly

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen (g/m3 and % saturation)

Conductivity

Turbidity

Chlorophyll fluorescence

Phytocyanin



Index calculation Trophic Level Index

(following the methodology set out in Burns et al. 2000)2

Annually

14. The Consent Holder shall install a single line compressed air aerator on the floor of

the reservoir in the vicinity of the dam wall. The aerator shall be operated, and

additional monitoring for dissolved oxygen and temperature shall be undertaken,

according to the triggers defined in Table 2.

Table 2

Clause

Water temperature

triggers

Dissolved oxygen triggers Aerator

Additional Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

Monitoring Profile Surface Bottom a Uniform, low

temperature >95% Sat

>95% Sat

Off Not required

b Surface temperature higher than bottom temperature

>8 g/m3 Off Fortnightly (alternate fortnights with condition 13)

c Surface temperature higher than bottom temperature

7 g/m3 to 8 g/m3

Off Weekly (except when already undertaken under condition13)

d Surface temperature higher than bottom

<7 g/m3 On continuously

Weekly (except when already undertaken under condition 13)

e Uniform, high temperature, and constant or rising

>7 g/m3 Alternate: 2 days or more on; 2 days off

Weekly (except when already undertaken under condition 13)

f Uniform, temperature dropping

>7 g/m3 Off Weekly for one month (alternate fortnights with condition 13), then monthly

2 Burns, N., Bryers, G. and Bowman, E. (2000). Protocol for Monitoring Trophic Levels of New Zealand Lakes and Reservoirs. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. Lakes Consulting Client Report 99/2.



15. The consent holder shall provide an annual report in July on the actions taken to

comply with conditions 6 to 14 over the twelve month period ending 30 April to the

HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management. Where data is provided it shall be in

a form compatible with the HBRC data systems.

Pre and Post Dam Construction Eel Monitoring

16. The consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced freshwater

aquatic ecologist to investigate and report on the size structure of the eel population

in the Makaroro River upstream of the proposed dam before and after dam

construction to determine if the trap and transfer programme required under

Condition 1 of Schedule Two of these conditions as part of Project C of the

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report submitted with the application –

HBRIC (May 2013f) is enabling successful recruitment of young eels to the reservoir

and river above the dam. The investigation shall be undertaken prior to dam

construction and at five yearly intervals after construction over the duration of the

consent.

17. A copy of the report prepared from each sampling occasion under Condition 15

above shall be provided to the HBRC Group Manager – Resource Management

within 3 calendar months of the sampling.

Review

16.18. The Consent Authorities may, during the March to June period within every

year that this consent is current, serve notice on the consent holder under section

128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the

conditions of consent for the following purposes:

a) To review the effectiveness of the conditions of the consent in avoiding,

remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the

exercise of the consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such

effects by way of further or amended conditions;

b) To ensure that the conditions are consistent with any policies or rules in a

regional plan or National Environmental Standard or Regulation that becomes

legally effective after grant of consent; or

c) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the

consent holder.



Administration

17.19. The Consent Holder shall pay to the Consent Authorities any administrative

charge fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991,

or any charge prescribed in accordance with regulations made under section 360 of

the Resource Management Act 1991.



HBRC Consent LU120372C (Upstream Water Intake Structure)

Consent Type: Land use consent, water permit, and discharge permit.

Map Reference: At or about E1890317 N5584739 (NZTM).

Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of water intake

facilities on the true right bank of the Waipawa River near

Makaroro Road approximately 4.5km west of State Highway

50 (referred to as the ‘Upstream Water Intake Structure’)

within the area shown on Plan 4 in Schedule Four forming

part of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, including the

associated:

Placement of the water intake and associated structures

on the river bed, and consequent occupation of the river

bed by the same;




excavation, drilling and tunnelling associated with

construction activities;





Ongoing (post construction) disturbance and excavation

of the river bed to maintain the river channel (flow and

level) at the intake location and to manage the deposition

of sediment at the intake location;

Excavation and flushing of accumulated sediment;


All associated works and ancillary activities




Conditions:






HBRC Consent WP120373T (Upstream Water Intake Diversion and Take)

Consent Type: Water permit.


Activity Authorised: Diversion of water and taking up to 11.1 m3/s of water from

the Waipawa River near Makaroro Road approximately

4.5km west of State Highway 50, within the areas shown on

Plans 1 and 4 in Schedule Four, and to subsequently take the

same water from the water distribution network and to use

that water for water supply, including for irrigation purposes

on production land, as part of the operation of the

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, within:

The areas located on the Ruataniwha Plains identified as

Zones A – D to the west of Waipawa and Waipukurau

shown on Plan 8 in Schedule Four; and

Other properties beyond the area covered by Consent

LU120382L (shown on Plans 8 and 9) which are the

subject of an existing Water Permit as shown on Plan 10

in Schedule Four.


Conditions:

General















Fish Passage

5. The arrangements for water take pursuant to this consent shall ensure fish exclusion

to a standard consistent with the NIWA Fish Screening Good Practice Guidelines,

October 2007.

6. The consent holder shall engage an appropriately qualified aquatic ecologist to

assess the performance of the intake as a means of compliance with condition 5

above and shall report to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management within 3

calendar months of the consent being exercised. If that report identifies that

condition 5 is not being met then within a further 3 calendar months the consent

holder shall undertake remedial works recommended by the aquatic ecologist to

achieve compliance with condition 5. Following the completion of the

recommended remedial works the consent holder shall provide a certificate to the

HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management from the aquatic ecologist that these

works meet condition 5.

Take Volume

7. The volume and rate of water taken pursuant to this consent shall not be greater

than the volume and rate of water discharged pursuant to Resource Consent

WP120371M, less the minimum discharge and any additional flows discharged to

meet the requirements of conditions 6 to 11 of that permit.

Water Use Condition

8. The use component of this consent is subject to compliance with the conditions

specified in Schedule Three attached.

Review

9. The Consent Authorities may, during the March to June period within every year

that this consent is current, serve notice on the consent holder under section 128(1)

of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of

consent for the following purposes:





exercise of the consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such






consent holder.

Administration

10. The Consent Holder shall pay to the Consent Authorities any administrative charge

fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, or any

charge prescribed in accordance with regulations made under section 360 of the

Resource Management Act 1991.

.



HBRC Consent LU120374C (Downstream Water Intake Structure)



Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of water intake

facilities on the true left bank of the Waipawa River near the

southern end of Walker Road approximately 1km upstream

of the confluence with the Tukituki River (referred to as the

‘Downstream Water Intake Structure’) within the area

shown on Plan 5 in Schedule Four forming part of the

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, including the

associated:

Placement of the water intake and associated structures

on the river bed, and consequent occupation of the river

bed by the same;




excavation, drilling and tunnelling associated with








level) at the intake location and to manage the deposition

of sediment at the intake location;







Conditions:






HBRC Consent WP120375T (Downstream Water Intake Diversion and Take)

Consent Type: Water permit.


Activity Authorised: Diversion of water and taking up to 1.82 m3/s of water from

the Waipawa River near the southern end of Walker Road

approximately 1km upstream of the confluence with the

Tukituki River, within the areas shown on Plans 1 and 5 in

Schedule Four, and to discharge that water into a primary

distribution system (being the old Waipawa River bed /

Papanui Stream) and to subsequently take the same water

from the Zone M Primary Distribution headrace and to use

that water for water supply, including for irrigation purposes

on production land within the area located on the

Ruataniwha Plains identified as Zone M to the east of

Waipawa as shown on Plan 9 in Schedule Four, forming part

of the operation of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme.


Conditions:

General















Fish Passage

5. The arrangements for water take pursuant to this consent shall ensure adult trout

exclusion.

6. The consent holder shall engage an appropriately qualified aquatic ecologist to

assess the performance of the intake in terms of compliance with condition 5 above

and report to the consent holder and the HBRC Group Manager, Resource

Management within 3 calendar months of the consent being exercised. If that

report identifies that condition 5 is not being met then within a further 3 calendar

months the consent holder shall undertake remedial works recommended by the

aquatic ecologist to achieve compliance with condition 5. Following the completion

of the recommended remedial works the consent holder shall provide a certificate

to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management from the aquatic ecologist that

these works meet condition 5.

Take and Discharge Volume

7. Following first exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall take and discharge a

minimum of 50 litres/second to the Zone M Primary Distribution headrace which

shall not be subsequently taken by the consent holder (or third party water permit

holders by arrangement with the consent holder) for irrigation and/or water supply

purposes downstream. Provided that when the natural flow of the Papanui Stream

at Newmans Ford is greater than 3000 litres per second, the consent holder shall

cease discharging pursuant to this consent.

8. The volume and rate of water taken pursuant to this consent for irrigation use

and/or water supply purposes shall not be greater than the volume and rate of

water discharged pursuant to Resource Consent DP120379W.

Water Use Condition

9. The use component of this consent is subject to compliance with the conditions

specified in Schedule Three attached.

Review


that this consents is current, serve notice on the consent holder under section

128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the

conditions of consent for the following purposes:




remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from

the exercise of the consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or

mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions;

b) To ensure that the conditions are consistent with any policies or rules in

a regional plan or National Environmental Standard or Regulation that

becomes legally effective after grant of consent; or

c) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken

by the consent holder.

Administration







HBRC Consent LU120376C (Beds of Rivers and Streams)


Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of siphons,

pipelines and/or culverts associated with a water

distribution network in, on, under, and over (and within 6m

of) the beds of the following rivers and streams:

Waipawa River;

Mangaoho Stream;

Kahahakuri Stream;

Ongaonga Stream;

Tukituki River;

Tukipo River;

Makaretu River;

Porangahau Stream; and

Various tributaries to the above rivers and streams.

and including the un-named streams at the locations shown

on Plan 11 in Schedule Four, forming part of the Ruataniwha

Water Storage Scheme, including the associated:

Placement of the siphons and/or pipeline and all

associated structures under the stream and river

beds, and consequent occupation of the stream and

river beds by the same;


associated by construction activities;

Damming, diversion, take and discharge of water

and contaminants including water-borne sediment

to land and water associated with construction

activities;

Disturbance of the bed of the stream or river,

including any excavation, drilling and tunnelling

under the stream or river bed;

Discharges to air associated with construction

activities; and






Conditions:






HBRC Consent LU120377C (Works In and Near Waterways)

Consent Type: Land use consent, water permit and discharge permit

Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of the primary

headrace canals and pipelines within, and within 6m of, the

beds of rivers and streams, and emergency overflow /

spillway discharges to land and surface water from the

primary headrace canals and pipelines shown on Plan 1 in

Schedule Four, forming part of the Ruataniwha Water

Storage Scheme, including:



Construction of culverts and stop-banks;

Sealing of the channel in areas of excess infiltration;

Damming, diversion, take and discharge of water

and contaminants including water-borne sediment

to land and water associated with construction

activities;

Discharges to air associated with construction

activities;


Riparian planting;

Flow control structures;

Roading and access; and

All associated works and ancillary activities,


Conditions:






HBRC Consent LU120378C (Mangaonuku Outfall Structure)

Consent type: Land use consent, water permit, and discharge permit.


Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of a water outfall

structure on a tributary to the Mangaonuku Stream near

Tikokino Road approximately 2km upstream of the

confluence with the Waipawa River, within the area shown

on Plan 6 in Schedule Four, forming part of the Ruataniwha


Placement of the water outfall and all associated

structures on the river bed, and consequent occupation

of the river bed by the same;






Disturbance of the bed of the river;




level) at the outfall location and to manage the

deposition of sediment;







Conditions:






HBRC Consent DP120379W (Mangaonuku Outfall Discharge)

Consent Type: Discharge permit.


Activity Authorised: Discharge of up to 3 m3/s of water and any associated

contaminants to a tributary to the Mangaonuku Stream via a

water outfall structure adjacent to Tikokino Road


Waipawa River, within the area shown on Plan 6 in Schedule

Four, forming part of the operation of the Ruataniwha



Conditions:

General











Discharge Monitoring

4. The consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced freshwater

aquatic ecologist to investigate and report on the operation of this consent to

ensure that fluctuations in the rate of discharge do not cause fish stranding

downstream of the outfall and to recommend remedial steps if such occurrence is

observed. Such investigation shall be undertaken over the first three years after first

exercise of this consent at times the ecologist identifies as posing most risk of fish



stranding, and the consent holder shall implement the recommended remedial steps

within 6 calendar months of receiving the report.

5. A copy of the report prepared under Condition 4 above shall be provided to the

HBRC Group Manager – Resource Management within 3 calendar months of the

investigation concluding.

Review











becomes legally effective after grant of consent;; or



Administration







HBRC Consent LU120380C (Kahahakuri Outfall Structure)



Activity Authorised: Construction, operation and maintenance of a water outfall

structure on a farm watercourse / drain connecting to the

Kahahakuri Stream approximately 2km upstream of the

confluence with the Tukituki River, within the area shown on

Plan 7 in Schedule Four forming part of the Ruataniwha


Placement of the water outfall and all associated

structures on the river bed, and consequent occupation

of the river bed by the same;






Disturbance of the bed of the river;


and



level) at the outfall location and to manage the

deposition of sediment;







Conditions:






HBRC Consent DP120381W (Kahahakuri Outfall Discharge)

Consent Type: Discharge permit.

Map Reference: At or about E1899223 N5571173 (NZTM)

Activity Authorised: Discharge of up to 0.35 m3/s of water and any associated

contaminants to a farm watercourse / drain connecting to

the Kahahakuri Stream via a water outfall structure


Tukituki River, within the area shown on Plan 7 in Schedule

Four, forming part of the operation of the Ruataniwha



Conditions:

General











Review
















Administration







HBRC Consent LU120382L (Production Land Use)

Consent Type: Land use consent.

Activity Authorised: Use of production land pursuant to section 9(2) of the

Resource Management Act 1991 within the Tukituki River

catchment facilitated within the Ruataniwha Water Storage

Scheme (a Community Irrigation Scheme) Area identified as

Zones A – D to the west of Waipawa and Waipukurau and as

Zone M to the east of Waipawa on Plans 1, 8 and 9 in

Schedule Four.

Consent Duration: 35 years from date of grant

Conditions:


Schedule Three attached.



HBRC Consent LU120388P (Planting and Associated Works)

Consent Type: Land use consent.

Activity Authorised: Planting and associated works within the Upper Tukituki

Flood Control Scheme area


Conditions:

General











Works

4. The planting and associated works authorised by this consent shall be undertaken in

the area and for the purposes described in the Integrated Mitigation and Offset

Approach Report submitted with the application – HBRIC (May 2013f).

5. Before undertaking any works pursuant to this consent the consent holder shall

submit a work plan to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management

demonstrating how the proposed works will not exacerbate flood risk or

compromise flood protection works.

Review
















Administration







HBRC Consent CD120400D (Beach Nourishment)

Consent Type: Coastal Permit.

Map References: Northern Site - at or about E1938354 N5610481 (NZTM). Southern Site - at or about E1939005 N5609116 (NZTM).

Activity Authorised: Deposition of up to 3,400m3 per annum of sediment in the

Coastal Marine Area for beach nourishment purposes in the

areas to the north and south of the mouth of the Tukituki

River shown on Plan 12 in Schedule Four.


Conditions:

General











Beach Nourishment

4. The consent holder shall deposit 1,700 m3/year of river sediment directly along the

barrier beach between Richmond Road and School Road Extension and an additional

1,700 m3/year of river sediment to the south along the spit within the Coastal

Marine Area for the duration of these consents (i.e. a total of 3,400 m3/year), as

shown on Plan 12 in Schedule Four.

5. The sediment shall be extracted in October or November and shall be sourced from

upstream of Black Bridge or other locations in the Tukituki/Waipawa Rivers as

determined by the HBRC annual gravel allocation process, and the extraction of

sediment shall be in accordance with HBRC’s river management practices described



in the Sedimentation Study submitted with the application – Tonkin & Taylor (May

2013b).

6. The extracted sediment shall be transported by truck and taken along either

Haumoana Road on the southern bank of the Tukituki River or Lawn Road on the

northern bank.

7. Transport of material along Haumoana Road and Domain Roads may only occur on

weekdays and Saturdays, and between 7:30am and 6:00pm.

8. All deposition activities must proceed with consideration for noise effects as

recommended in New Zealand Standard 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise.

For the avoidance of doubt, this includes avoiding unnecessary noises (such as

unnecessary truck idling within residential areas, use of unnecessary audible alarms

or communications noise) and ensuring that machinery is maintained to a good

standard to avoid unnecessary noise generation.

9. The consent holder shall advise residents living on Haumoana, Grange Road North

Domain Roads, and Lawn Road along the transport routes being used for the

purpose of the exercise of this consent (by way of written notice in all letter boxes or

equivalent) prior to works commencing each year and provide a point of contact in

the event of any concerns or complaint arising.

10. The consent holder shall ensure an ecologist inspects the beach deposition areas

shown on Plan 12 in Schedule Four before the beginning of the deposition period

each year to ensure there are no nesting birds (particularly black billed gulls or white

fronted terns) in the beach deposition areas. If nesting birds are found within 100m

of the deposition areas, the deposition that year should be relocated or postponed

until such time as the nest is abandoned or the chicks have fledged.

Review
















Administration







SCHEDULE ONE

GENERAL CONDITIONS – CONSTRUCTION



Schedule One General Conditions – Construction

General Conditions attached to the CHBDC Land Use Consent, HDC Land Use Consent,

HBRC Resource Consents LU120370C, LU120372C, LU120374C, LU120376C, LU120377C,

LU120378C, LU120380C and the Primary Distribution System designation within Central

Hawke’s Bay District collectively covering construction of the Ruataniwha Water Storage

Scheme (the “Scheme”)

Advisory Notes:

i. These conditions relate to land use consents falling within the administrative

jurisdiction of CHBDC and HDC, a designation falling within the administrative

jurisdiction of CHBDC and to a number of resource consents falling within the

administrative jurisdiction of HBRC associated with the undertaking of construction

activities.

ii. The conditions in this Schedule are administered by all three Councils except to the

extent recorded in the advisory notes to these conditions.

iii. Reference to “consents” in these conditions includes the resource consents

referenced in the heading above and the Zones A to D Primary Distribution System

designation unless otherwise stated.

[Note: The intention is to split out the relevant conditions in this schedule into a standalone

set of Primary Distribution System designation conditions once the final content of the

conditions has been confirmed after the release of a Draft Board of Inquiry Decision]

General

1. The activities authorised by the consents shall be undertaken in general accordance




2. The construction activities for the Scheme governed by these consents shall be

undertaken within the areas shown on Plans 1 to 7 attached as Schedule Four to

these conditions. The area within which construction activities may be undertaken

for the purposes of the Primary Distribution System Headrace designation will be

defined in the Outline Plan submitted pursuant to section 176A of the Resource

Management Act 1991, prior to the commencement of construction works.



3. Pursuant to Section 125(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, these consents

will lapse if not given effect to within 10 years of the commencement of the

consents.





Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

5. Prior to the commencement of construction activity pursuant to these consents, the

consent holder shall provide to the Consent Authorities a final Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared by a suitably qualified and

experienced person(s).

6. The final CEMP shall be prepared generally in accordance with the draft CEMP in

Schedule Six of these conditions and shall be submitted to the Consent Authorities

for certification that:

a) It meets the objectives and performance standards set out in section 1.4 of the

draft CEMP in Schedule Six as set out below:

Objectives for the Environmental Management of Construction Activities

i. Avoiding where possible adverse environmental effects, and where not

possible ensuring appropriate mitigation or remediation is undertaken;

ii. Minimising the extent or time that areas are disturbed; and

iii. Integration of good environmental practice into construction activities.

Performance Standards for Earthworks

i. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed and maintained on all

soil disturbance activities during construction in accordance with the

HBRC Waterway Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control;

ii. All exposed earthworks areas capable of generating sediment shall be

stabilised against erosion by topsoiling and establishing a grass sward (or

other effective methods such as straw mulch) following completion of

each section of earthworks, in order to avoid adverse effects of

sediment discharge to water. Areas of earthworks that are to be left

unworked for a period of 4 weeks or more shall similarly be stabilised.



iii. All ‘clean water’ runoff from stabilised surfaces shall be diverted away

from earthwork areas via a stabilised system to prevent surface erosion;

iv. The percentage reduction to the Quantitative Macroinvertebrate

Community Index (QMCI) score relative to the QMCI up stream of the

discharge shall not exceed 20% after reasonable mixing3 at all flows; and

v. The percentage reduction in water clarity relative to water up stream of

the discharge should not exceed the following;

20% at flows less than the median flow after reasonable mixing for

works in Water Management Zone 4 and works on the mainstems

of the Tukituki River or the Waipawa River in zones 1, 2 and 3 (refer

to HBRC Plan Change 6, Planning Map - Water Management Zones

as notified in May 2013);

30% at flows less than the median flow after reasonable mixing for

works elsewhere.

vi. Works in any active river channel shall be planned to minimise the

duration of the works and the generation of sediment. The performance

standards in condition 6 a) iv and v above shall not apply during such

works or for a period of 9 hours after their completion.

b) In relation to all other matters in the Draft CEMP, that any change results in no

greater adverse environmental effects.

For the avoidance of doubt, the certification required from each Consent Authorities

under this condition relates to matters affecting works and activities within its

jurisdiction.

7. The Consent Holder may commence construction activities in accordance with the

CEMP unless one or more of the Consent Authorities advises the consent holder in

writing within 20 working days of receipt of the CEMP that it refuses to certify the

3 For purpose of these conditions “reasonable mixing” of contaminants in flowing surface water will be considered to have occurred at whichever of the following is the nearest to the point of discharge:

a) a distance 200 metres downstream of the point of discharge;

b) a distance equal to seven times the bed width of the surface water body, but which shall be not less than 50 metres;

c) the distance downstream at which mixing of contaminants has occurred across the full width of the surface water body, but which shall not be less than 50 metres.



CEMP on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of condition 6 above in

relation to an activity within the relevant Consent Authorities jurisdiction, and

provides reasons why that view is held.

8. Should the Consent Authorities refuse to certify the CEMP in accordance with

condition 7 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised CEMP to the Consent

Authorities for certification as soon as is practicable. The certification process shall

follow the same procedure as outlined in condition 6 and 7 above.

9. Once certified the CEMP may be varied by the consent holder. The certification

process for a CEMP Variation shall follow the process outlined in conditions 5 to 8

above. Construction activities subject to the variation shall not commence until the

variation has been certified by the Consent Authorities.

10. The consent holder shall comply with the certified CEMP at all times.

Supplementary Construction Environment Management Plans (SCEMPs)

11. Supplementary Construction Environmental Management Plans (SCEMPs) shall be

prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) for the construction

elements as specified in Section 2.5.1 of the draft CEMP in Schedule Six as set out

below:

SCEMP 1 Dam construction, including associated access tracks and lay down area;

SCEMP 2 Borrow areas, spoil disposal areas, and mobile aggregate crushing plant if

used;

SCEMP 3(a) Concrete batching plant, 3(b) and 3(c) Material processing areas;

SCEMP 4 Powerhouse construction;

SCEMP 5 Temporary cofferdams and tunnels;

SCEMP 6 Intake tower construction;

SCEMP 7(a) Upstream water intake (UWI) construction including Waipawa River

Siphon, 7(b) Downstream water intake (DWI) construction;

SCEMP 8 Primary Distribution System headrace canal (including siphons);

SCEMP 9(a) Primary Distribution System Pipeline, 9(b) Secondary Water Distribution

Network – Zones A to D, 9(c) Secondary Water Distribution Network - Zone M;

SCEMP 10 Site office workshop facilities;



SCEMP 11 Construction of roads to replace those inundated; and

SCEMP 12 Landslip; and

SCEMP 13 Primary Water Distribution Network – Zone M.

The location of the areas covered by these SCEMPs is shown in Figures 106, 107 and

2b in Schedule Six.

Advisory Note:

HDC has no role in administration of this condition as it relates to SCEMP 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7a, 7b, 8, 9a, 9b, 10 and 12.

12. Each SCEMPs shall include (where relevant):

a) Detailed design drawings;

b) Identification of those involved in preparing the SCEMP;

c) Calculations for sizing of sediment control structures;

d) Calculations for sizing culverts and design including scour protection;

e) Actions taken in design to minimise extent and effects of earthworks;

f) Contact details for the D&C contractor’s staff, sub-contractors and relevant

consent holder staff;

g) The location of any sites with special landscape, ecological and archaeological

values as identified in the RFERP and measures to avoid or minimise impacts on

these values;

h) Work programme;

i) Plan showing all proposed works and sediment control measures;

j) Schedule of sediment control measures;

k) Revegetation schedule; and

l) Monitoring schedule.

13. SCEMP 8 shall provide details of the final design and the location of access points

across the primary distribution system headrace canal to maintain access for

property owners. In preparing the SCEMP the requiring authority responsible for

works within the designated area shall consult with each landowner and implement



as far as practicable the “Headrace Design Principles” as set out in the Landscape

and Visual Assessment Report supplied with the Applications - Isthmus (May 2013).

14. Before the commencement of any construction activities associated with the

Primary Water Distribution System Pipeline and Secondary Water Distribution

Network – Zones A to D, the consent holder shall consult with Transpower and

submit draft SCEMPs 9(a) and 9(b) to Transpower for comment. SCEMP 9(a) and

9(b) shall:

a) Be given to the National Grid Operator for its comment at least 20 working days

prior to being submitted to the Consent Authorities for certification pursuant to

condition 15 below. The National Grid Operator may review the SCEMP within

that 20 working day period prior to the SCEMP being submitted to the Consent

Authorities. Any comments received from the National Grid Operator by the

consent holder within 10 working days shall be considered by the consent

holder, and provided to the Consent Authorities along with a summary of how

(and to what extent) the comments have been addressed within the terms of

the SCEMP when the SCEMP is submitted for certification;

b) Specify the name, experience and qualifications of the personnel to supervise

the implementation of, and adherence to the SCEMP; and

c) Include construction drawings and procedures, methods and measures to:

i. Ensure that the National Grid lines can be accessed for maintenance at

all reasonable times, or emergency works at all times, during and after


ii. Appropriately manage the consented activities so the discharge of dust

and/or particulate matter does not cause any National Grid line to fail,

result in material damage (beyond normal wear and tear), or adversely

affect the ability to maintain the lines;

iii. Ensure that no activity is undertaken during construction that would

result in ground vibrations and/or ground instability likely to cause

material damage to any National Grid line;

iv. Ensure that changes to the drainage patterns and runoff characteristics

do not result in adverse effects from stormwater on the foundations and



structural integrity of any structure forming part of any National Grid

line;

v. Ensure that the primary pipeline is located at a minimum of 12m away

from the foundation of all the National Grid line support structures;

vi. Ensure that the secondary pipelines are located a minimum of 8m away

from the foundation of all National Grid line support structures;

vii. Ensure that the primary and secondary water distribution network

pipelines are designed and constructed to the relevant AS/NZ Standard

or IPENZ Approved Standard to withstand the reasonable use of the

heavy machinery required to operate, maintain, or upgrade the National

Grid lines; and

viii. Ensure that the works will comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code

of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:201).

13.15. Certification of a SCEMP and any variations shall follow the same process as

outlined under conditions 5 to 8 of this schedule for the certification of the CEMP.

14.16. The consent holder shall comply with the certified SCEMPs at all times.

Advisory Note:

The CEMP and SCEMPs are required to be submitted to the relevant Consent Authorities.

In order to avoid duplication of process, it is anticipated that the Councils will engage a

common reviewer for the CEMP to provide for a common certification process by the

Councils (while recognising that not all matters contained within the Plan will

necessarily be within the jurisdiction of all three Councils).

Earthworks, Facilities and Infrastructure

15.17. All earthworks, facilities and infrastructure authorised under the consents

subject to this schedule shall be constructed generally in accordance with the

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Project Description -Tonkin & Taylor (May

2013a)), provided that the relevant Consent Authority may through the certification

of the Final CEMP and any relevant SCEMP approve a change that is not generally in

accordance with that document which meets or exceeds the relevant specified

engineering design standards and is of no materially greater or different effect in

relation to environmental outcomes. Specifically, and without limitation:



a) Provided that the dam structure and related diversion tunnel, spillway, and

power station structures are located generally within the area shown on the

Makaroro Dam and Associated Structure Construction Area shown on Plan 3 in

Schedule Four, the exact location and design elements of these structures may

vary from those shown on Project Description drawing 27690-DA-100 - Revision

1 - Tonkin & Taylor (May 2013a), and further provided that:

i. A professionally qualified engineer experienced in large dam design in areas

subject to seismic activity, and who was responsible for the varied design,

certifies that the variations meet or exceed the dam design criteria relevant

to dam safety underpinning the ‘Application Design’ as set out in Section 4.3

of the Project Description submitted with the application - Tonkin & Taylor

(May 2013a) and;

ii. A second professionally qualified engineer experienced in large dam design

in areas subject to seismic activity approved by HBRC and CHBDC certifies his

or her agreement with that opinion.

b) Provided that the upstream water intake structure is located generally within

the area shown on Plan 4 in Schedule Four, the exact location and design

elements of the structure may vary from those shown on Project Description

drawings 27690-DN-100,101,102,103,and 104 - Revision 3 – Tonkin & Taylor

(May 2013a), if a professionally qualified engineer experienced in large water

intake structure design and who was responsible for the varied design, certifies

that the variations meet or exceed the design parameters and specifications

relevant to the intake structure underpinning the ‘Application Design’ as set out

in Table 5.1 of the Project Description submitted with the application - Tonkin &

Taylor (May 2013a);

c) Provided that the downstream water intake structure is located generally within

the area shown on Plan 5 in Schedule Four, the exact location and design

elements of the structure may vary from those shown on Project Description

drawing 27690-DN-110 - Revision 1 - Tonkin & Taylor May (2013a), if a

professionally qualified engineer experienced in large water intake structure

design and who was responsible for the varied design, certifies that the

variations meet or exceed the design parameters and specifications relevant to

the intake structure underpinning the ‘Application Design’ as set out in Table 5.5



of the Project Description submitted with the application - Tonkin & Taylor (May

2013a).

16.18. The consent holder shall ensure that at all times during the construction of

the Makaroro Dam while it impounds a volume of water sufficient to threaten

public safety or more than minor damage to private property in the event of an

uncontrolled release of water, it retains the ability to pass a flood flow of up to 450

m3/s.

Advisory Note:

HDC has no role in administration of this condition.

Noise

17.19. All noise from construction activities pursuant to these consents shall meet

the requirements of the long duration noise limits in Table 3 of New Zealand

Standard NZS6803:1999 (Construction Noise).

Advisory Note

HBRC has no role in administration of this condition.

Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP)

18.20. Prior to the completion of dam construction and commencement of

reservoir filling the consent holder shall engage a team of independent advisors to

prepare a Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP) for certification by

the Consent Authorities that it meets the objectives and covers the matters

outlined in conditions 19 21 and 20 22 below. The RFERP shall operate in

conjunction with the establishment of Project A as outlined in the Integrated

Mitigation and Offsetting Approach required to be implemented under conditions 1

and 2 of Schedule Two. The team of advisors responsible for preparing the RFERP

shall consist of an ecologist, a landscape architect, an engineer, a recreation planner

and a cultural advisor. Each advisor shall be suitably qualified and experienced.

19.21. The RFERP shall be focused on the following objectives:

a) To minimise as far as practicable the loss of indigenous fauna resulting from

construction earthworks, vegetation removal and reservoir filling;

b) To manage clearance of vegetation within the reservoir footprint so as to

minimise adverse effects on native fauna, particularly bats, and to provide an



opportunity for mana whenua to access suitable native timber for traditional

cultural uses;

c) To optimise the value of the reservoir and its surrounds for recreational use,

having regard to the need for water levels to fluctuate intra year through the

implementation of the “Public Access & Offset Mitigation Progress Plan”

attached as Schedule Eight to these conditions;

d) To minimise reservoir edge erosion during reservoir filling, and throughout

operation of the Scheme, particularly in areas accessible to the public;

e) To ensure control of animal pests during revegetation of work areas beyond the

reservoir footprint;

f) To minimise the effects and introduction of plant pests during the construction

period;

g) To ensure planted out areas within construction areas are maintained following

completion of construction.

20.22. The RFERP shall at minimum address the following:

a) Identifying indigenous timber within the reservoir footprint that is suitable for

cultural use and establishing methodologies for its harvesting and use for such

purposes;

b) Identifying other vegetation within the reservoir footprint needing to be cleared

in order to ensure maintenance of visual amenity during reservoir -filling and

subsequent Scheme operation;

c) Subject to (a) and (b) above identifying the vegetation within identified

construction areas that cannot practically be preserved during the construction

process and ensuring that effects on the balance of vegetation are minimised;

d) Identifying priority areas of reservoir edge accessible to the public and providing

for their management in order to optimise visual amenity and recreation use of

the reservoir;

e) Identifying areas of potential reservoir edge erosion during reservoir-filling and

providing for preventative measures to maintain visual amenity, particularly in

areas accessible to the public;

f) Managing plant and animal pests as set out below:

i. Appropriate measures to control plant and animal pests during and

after the construction period within any construction areas in order to



achieve the objectives in condition 19 21 (e) and (f), including (but not

limited to);

ii. Weed monitoring and control within the reservoir margin and in all

areas disturbed by construction and those areas adjacent to the

disturbed areas that may, as a result of construction, be adversely

affected by weeds, and covering all regionally ecologically-threatening

species and that are listed in the National Pest Plant Accord;

iii. Weed monitoring inspections within areas proposed to be disturbed to

be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person or

persons, at a frequency no less than 4-monthly intervals from start of

construction until one year after the completion of construction for the

Reservoir, and from the one year post construction anniversary, weed

monitoring at least annually;

iv. Weed hygiene controls, including equipment wash-down sites and

facilities, the sources and hygiene requirements for quarried material,

and inspection and preventative measures to prevent terrestrial and

freshwater weeds being transported to and from the Scheme sites;

v. Weed monitoring and control as otherwise recommended in the

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report - HBRIC (May 2013f).

vi. Trapping, termination and disposal of possums, wild cats and mustelids

around the reservoir area;

vii. Control of wild cats, possums, rats and mustelids within all herpetofauna

translocation areas both prior to and after translocating any

herpetofauna (to the extent required by (h) below).

g) Appropriate measures to ensure planted out areas within construction areas are

maintained following completion of construction, including new planting as

required to achieve the standard of revegetation specified in the CEMP;

h) All relevant recommendations arising from the pre-construction herpetofauna,

avian and bat surveys undertaken in accordance with the Terrestrial Ecology

Assessment Report filed with the applications - Kessels &Associates (May 2013);

i) Protocols to minimise the impacts on bats, indigenous birds and lizards during

vegetation removal or construction;

j) Where feasible and practical capture and translocation of At Risk and

Threatened Fauna and Flora species and in particular to:



i. Transfer soil, litter and other material from key forest and scrub

clearance sites containing invertebrates and to implement measures to

limit the risk of foreign invertebrates entering the site in accordance

with the recommendations of Table 22 and Section 22 of the Terrestrial

Ecology Assessment Report filed with the applications - Kessels

&Associates (May 2013);and

i.ii. Undertake pre-flooding surveys and consequential translocation of any

lizards found in accordance with the recommendations of Table 22 and

section 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 of the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report

filed with the applications - Kessels &Associates (May 2013);

k) Procedures for the identification, protection, management and replacement of

bat roosts found during the pre-construction surveys, and requiring avoidance of

disturbance of all bat maternity roosts while they are in use;

l) Annual monitoring reports regarding key indicator indigenous fauna and flora

species (including bats) and their habitats for every year for the first 10 years

following the commencement of the first filling of the reservoir; and

m) Annual reporting on the results of the monitoring tasks outlined above to the

HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management in a form compatible with the

HBRC data systems, with a copy of such reports to be provided to CHBDC and

HDC.

21.23. The Consent Holder may commence construction activities in accordance

with the RFERP unless one or more of the Consent Authorities advises the consent

holder in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the RFERP that it refuses to

certify the RFERP on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of condition

220 above in relation to an activity within the relevant Consent Authorities

jurisdiction, and provides reasons why that view is held.

22.24. Should the Consent Authorities refuse to certify the RFERP in accordance

with condition 21 23 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised RFERP to the

Consent Authorities for certification as soon as is practicable. The certification

process shall follow the same procedure as outlined in condition 18 20 to 21 23

above.

23.25. Once certified the RFERP may be varied by the consent holder. The

certification process for a RFREP Variation shall follow the process outlined in

conditions 18 20 to 22 24 above. Construction activities subject to the variation



shall not commence until the variation has been certified by the Consent

Authorities.

24.26. The consent holder shall comply with the certified RFERP at all times.

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

25.27. The consent holder shall no less than 20 working days prior to any

construction work commencing engage a suitably qualified and experienced Traffic

Engineer to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) in

conjunction with the CEMP for certification by CHBDC and HDC that the plan meets

the objective set out in condition 26 28 below and implements the traffic related

recommendations contained in the Road Infrastructure and Traffic Assessment

Report filed with the applications - OPUS (May 2013b).

26.28. The objective of the CTMP shall be to ensure that traffic generated during

the construction phase of the Scheme is effectively managed so that increases in

traffic volume are safely accommodated within the existing road network and in

compliance with the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management.

27.29. The Consent Holder may commence construction activities in accordance

with the CTMP unless one or more of the Consent Authorities advises the consent

holder in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the CTMP that it refuses to

certify the CTMP on the grounds that it fails to meet the objective in condition 26

28 above in relation to an activity within the relevant Consent Authorities

jurisdiction, and provides reasons why that view is held.

28.30. Should the CHBDC and/or HDC refuse to certify the CTMP in accordance

with condition 27 29 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised CTMP to the

relevant Consent Authority for certification as soon as is practicable. The

certification process shall follow the same procedure as outlined in condition 25 27

to 27 29 above.

29.31. Once certified the CTMP may be varied by the consent holder. The

certification process for a CTMP Variation shall follow the process outlined in

conditions 25 27 to 27 29 above. Construction activities subject to the variation

shall not commence until the variation has been certified by the relevant Consent

Authority.

30.32. The consent holder shall comply with the certified CTMP at all times.



Advisory Note:

HBRC has no role in the administration of conditions 25 27 to 3032.

Certified Management Plans to be Held On-Site

31.33. A copy of the certified versions of the relevant CEMP, SCEMPs, RFERP, and

CTMP shall be kept on each construction site to which the plan relates at all times

and the consent holder shall ensure that all key personnel are made aware of each

plan’s contents.

Road, Bridge and Culvert Investigation and Remediation

32.34. The consent holder shall, prior to and post construction activities

commencing pursuant to these consents, in consultation with CHBDC and HDC,

undertake an investigation and analysis of all parts of the road network within the

respective Districts and owned by each Council that will be utilised for construction

of the Scheme. The investigation and analysis shall record the road condition,

including bridge and culvert structures and shall:

a) Be undertaken using best practise asset management which is approximately

equivalent to the District’s typical asset management practices;

b) Implement the recommendations contained in the Road Infrastructure and

Traffic Assessment Report filed with the applications - OPUS (May 2013b).

The findings of the road analysis shall be provided to CHBDC and HDC, respectively.

33.35. The road carriageways, drainage systems, bridges, culverts and other road

components within the sections of road used shall be reconstructed or repaired at

the end of the construction period in general accordance with New Zealand

Transport Authority specifications, so that their condition is at least equivalent to

that prior to the commencement of construction.

New Sealing on Wakarara Road

36. As part of preliminary construction activities and within three months of

construction works commencing the consent holder shall arrange for the sealing of

Wakarara Road for a length of 400 metres either side of the Parks Peak Station

homestead.

Advisory Note:



HBRC has no role in the administration of conditions 32 34 to 3335 and HDC has no

role in administering Condition 36 above.

Construction Water Quality Monitoring – Dam construction site

34.37. The consent holder shall establish two in-stream monitoring sites

respectively located 150m upstream (and clear of any construction activity areas)

and 500m downstream of all Dam construction activity areas, and undertake

monitoring for the monitoring parameters and at the monitoring frequency

specified in Table 3 below. Monitoring at both sites shall start at least one calendar

month before the beginning of the construction activities and stop 2 calendar

months after completion of the construction of the Makaroro Dam and the

commencement of the first filling of the reservoir.

Table 3


Laboratory Analysis

Total Suspended Solids

Fortnightly at times chosen at random during the working day Turbidity

Field Measurements

Visual clarity (Black Disc) Fortnightly at times

chosen at random during the working day Deposited fine

sediment Turbidity Continuous QMCI Annually

Construction Water Quality Monitoring – River intake structures

35.38. The consent holder shall establish four in-stream monitoring sites

respectively located approximately 150m upstream (and clear of any construction

activity areas) and 500m downstream of the two irrigation river intake structures on

the Waipawa River, and undertake monitoring for the monitoring parameters and

at the monitoring frequency specified in Table 4 below. Monitoring at each site shall

start at least one calendar month before the beginning of the construction activities

and stop 2 calendar months after first use of the intake.



Table 4


Laboratory Analysis

Total Suspended Solids Fortnightly Turbidity

Field measurements

Visual clarity (Black Disc) Fortnightly Deposited fine sediment Turbidity Continuous

36.39. If the monitoring undertaken pursuant to conditions 34 37 or 35 38

identifies a breach of the water clarity performance standard specified in condition

6 of this Schedule more than 12 hours after the end of any in-river construction

work the consent holder shall immediately give notice to the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management.

37.40. In that event that either monitoring undertaken pursuant to conditions 34

37or 35 38 or spot sampling by HBRC indicates a breach of the water clarity

performance standard specified in condition 6 of this Schedule more than 12 hours

after the end of any in-river construction work, the consent holder shall:

a) Cease new earthworks in any area identified as causing the breach until

corrective action is taken to meet the standard

b) Within five working days undertake a full review of the relevant erosion and

sediment control devices within the immediate vicinity of the sampling site, and

erosion and sediment controls and methodologies in the wider catchment

c) Within five working days identify any potential causes beyond the control of the

consent holder such as slips or stream bank erosion

d) Undertake further water clarity measurements daily for ten working days after

the breach occurs and, where breaches of the water clarity performance

standard specified in condition 6 of this Schedule are detected in 2 consecutive

samples ,commission an ecological assessment of the receiving environment to

determine any responses by the aquatic communities to the breach and any

necessary or appropriate corrective action

e) Implement any corrective action to the area causing the breach (and equivalent

corrective action on other erosion and sediment controls using the same



methodologies in the wider catchment) as recommended in the ecological

assessment

f) Identify action(s) necessary to ensure future compliance with the water quality

standards

g) Identify amendments to erosion and sediment control plan design,

methodologies and policies within the relevant catchment and, as appropriate,

as applicable elsewhere within the site, to ensure that a repeat breach does not

occur

h) Implement the actions identified in paragraph e), and the amendments

identified under paragraph f), above

i) Advise the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management of the steps taken in

accordance with paragraphs b) to g) above

j) Incorporate the actions identified in paragraphs e) and f) within any revised

CEMP prepared under condition 8 of this Schedule.

38.41. The consent holder shall provide an annual report on the results of the

monitoring tasks outlined above in conditions 34 37 to 37 40 to the HBRC Group

Manager, Resource Management in a form compatible with the HBRC data systems.

Advisory Note:

HDC and CHBDC have no role in the administration of conditions 34 37 to 3841.

Cultural / Accidental Discovery Protocol

39.42. The consent holder shall ensure that the Cultural / Archaeological Sites

Protocol attached as Schedule Seven shall be adhered to.

Advisory note:

In addition to the above protocol, the consent holder is also subject to the legal

requirements of the Historic Places Act 1993, Antiquities Act 1975 and any other

governing legislation.

Construction Liaison Group (CLG)

40.43. The consent holder shall, prior to construction commencing and annually

thereafter during the construction period, advertise a public meeting for the

purpose of facilitating the establishment and review of a Construction Liaison

Group (CLG) in order to consult with representatives of the community. As a



minimum, the consent holder shall invite the following interested parties to

participate in the CLG:

a) Tamatea Taiwhenua (1 nominated representative);

b) HBRC (1 nominated representative);

c) CHBDC (1 nominated representative);

d) HDC (1 nominated representative);

e) Landowners in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir footprint (2 nominated

representatives);

f) A representative from each of the five Irrigation Zones (Zones A to D and M)

chosen to provide an appropriate geographical spread and range of farming

systems;

f) Ruataniwha Plains Community (2 nominated representatives);

g) Department of Conservation (1 nominated representative);

h) Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council (1 nominated representative);and

i) Royal Forest and Bird Society (1 nominated representative).

41.44. The CLG shall be conducted in a manner of good faith and have the following

objectives:

a) Facilitating information flow between the consent holder and the community

regarding the implementation and environmental effects of the activities

authorised by these consents (including new information, results of monitoring

and studies relevant to such effects);

b) Identifying any issues of concern that arise during the construction period of the

Scheme and/or identifying and discussing appropriate measures to address

issues raised; and

c) Making recommendations for the consent holder to consider in relation to any

issues identified in terms of b) above.

42.45. The consent holder shall assist the CLG to fulfil its objectives by, among

other things:

a) Arranging an appropriate venue in the local area for the meetings of the CLG and

meeting any other reasonable administrative costs of the meetings;

b) Appointing a Community Liaison Officer with authority to represent it on the CLG

and ensuring the Community Liaison Officer attends all of the formal meetings of

the CLG;



c) Ensuring that a representative of the Company responsible for construction the

Scheme under contract with the consent holder attends all meetings;

d) Providing information to the CLG about progress in relation to the Scheme,

including the environmental effects of the Scheme and compliance with consent

conditions and the development of management plans; and

e) Being prepared to discuss the environmental effects of the Scheme, any

concerns in relation to human health and safety, and any complaints from the

local community, including provision of further information and identification of

appropriate measures to address issues raised.

43.46. The consent holder shall use its best endeavours to ensure that meetings of

the CLG are held as follows:

a) At least once every three calendar months during the construction period

unless requested by the CLG that the meetings be more or less frequent; and

b) One meeting six calendar months prior to construction of Scheme commencing,

and one meeting six calendar months following completion of construction.

Review


year that these consents (not including the Zones A to D Primary Distribution

System-Headrace Canal and Pipeline Designation) are current, serve notice on the

consent holder under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of

its/their intention to review the conditions of one of more of the consents they

have administrative responsibility for, for the following purposes:

a) To review the effectiveness of the conditions of the consents in avoiding,


exercise of the consents and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such






consent holder.

Administration



SCHEDULE TWO

GENERAL CONDITIONS – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE



Schedule Two General Conditions – Operations & Maintenance

General Conditions attached to the CHBDC Land Use Consent, HDC Land Use Consent,

HBRC Resource Consents LU120370C, WP120371M, LU120372C, WP120373T, LU120374C,

WP120375T, LU120376C, LU120377C, LU120378C, DP120379W, LU120380C, DP120381W

and the Primary Distribution System designation within Central Hawke’s Bay District

collectively covering operations and maintenance (including mitigation and offset works

commencing with construction) of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (the “Scheme”)

Advisory Notes:

i. These conditions relate to land use consents falling within the administrative

jurisdiction of CHBDC and HDC, a designation falling within the administrative

jurisdiction of CHBDC and to a number of resource consents falling within the

administrative jurisdiction of HBRC.

ii. The conditions in this Schedule are administered by all three Councils except to the

extent recorded in the advisory notes to these conditions.

iii. Reference to “consents” in these conditions includes the resource consents

referenced in the heading above and the Zones A to D Primary Distribution System

designation.

[Note: The intention is to split out the relevant conditions in this schedule into a standalone

set of Primary Distribution System designation conditions once the final content of the

conditions has been confirmed after the release of a Draft Board of Inquiry Decision]

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme

1. Upon commencing construction, the consent holder shall also commence the

funding and implementation of the programme specified within the Integrated

Mitigation and Offset Approach Report submitted with the application – HBRIC (May

2013f), including but not limited to the establishment of a Ruataniwha Biodiversity

Advisory Board, in order to meet the performance targets in section 3.0 of that

report related to the following projects:

a) Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone;

b) Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone (River Halo Project);

c) Ruataniwha Threatened Species Enhancement;

d) Ruataniwha Plains Spring-fed Stream Enhancement and Priority Sub-catchment

Phosphorus Mitigation; and



e) Old Waipawa River Bed and Papanui Stream Restoration.

The consent holder shall secure all necessary third party land agreements to

implement Project A are in place prior to completion of the dam. The consent

holder shall supply the Consent Authorities with a statement confirming the legal

property arrangements which secure the land areas required to implement the

proposed delivery mechanisms and performance measures for Project A as outlined

in the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report submitted with the

application – HBRIC (May 2013f).

2. Each year in the month of July following the commencement of construction the

consent holder shall convene an Annual Review Meeting to report on progress on

the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Programme. Members of the

Ruataniwha Biodiversity Advisory Board, the HBRC Regional Planning Committee (or

equivalent regional planning governance entity) and relevant contractors shall be

invited to the Annual Review Meeting which shall have the following objectives:

a) To review an Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme Annual Report

prepared by the Consent Holder which is to be pre-circulated at least a calendar

month prior to the Annual Review Meeting which sets out:

i. The specific work undertaken in the preceding year on each of the

projects outlined in condition 1 of this Schedule;

ii. The amount spent on each project over that period reported against the

budgets contained in the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach

Report submitted with the application – HBRIC (May 2013f);

iii. An assessment of whether the Performance Targets set out in the

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report submitted with the

application – HBRIC (May 2013f) are being met; and

iv. Any recommendations for altering the focus of any of the Integrated

Mitigation and Offset Approach projects which it is considered would

better meet the objectives of the programme within the budgets set in

the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report submitted with

the application – HBRIC (May 2013f).

b) To develop and agree an Annual Meeting Report for distribution to the Consent

Authorities within one calendar month after the meeting is held outlining the

outcomes of meeting, including any agreement with recommendations made

under condition 2 a) iv of this schedule.



3. Upon receipt of the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme Annual Report

prepared by the Consent Holder and the Annual Meeting Report the Consent

Authorities may approve (in a certifier capacity) a variation to the programme

specified within the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach Report, provided

that the ability to meet the Performance Targets and the overall budget provision

for each project set out in condition 1 of this schedule are not reduced.

Infrastructure Stormwater and Maintenance Management Plan

4. Prior to the completion of dam construction , the consent holder shall provide to the

Consent Authorities an Infrastructure Stormwater and Maintenance Management

Plan (ISMMP) to cover the effective management of stormwater, including

containment of oil and the maintenance of structures authorised by these consents

and which shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s).

Objective for the ISMMP

The objective of the ISMMP is to ensure that stormwater management and

maintenance works necessary to enable efficient operation of the structures

authorised by these consents are undertaken in a manner which identifies roles and

responsibilities for and integrates good environmental practice into stormwater

management and maintenance activities.

ISMMP Performance Standards

a) Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed and maintained on all soil

disturbance activities during maintenance works in accordance with the HBRC

Waterway Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control;

b) All potentially erodible exposed soil areas capable of generating sediment shall

be stabilised against erosion by vegetation cover or other methods as soon as

practical following completion of soil disturbing activities and within six to

twelve months from the date of disturbance or the next planting season

(whichever is sooner) to avoid adverse effects of sediment discharge to water;

c) All ‘clean water’ runoff from stabilised surfaces shall be diverted away from

earthwork areas via a stabilised system to prevent surface erosion;



d) The percentage reduction to the Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community

Index (QMCI) score relative to the QMCI up stream of the discharge shall not

exceed 20% after reasonable mixing4 at all flows;

e) The percentage reduction in water clarity resulting from any discharge of

stormwater from Scheme Structures and during maintenance activities relative

to water up stream of the discharge should not exceed the following;

i. 20% at flows less than the median flow after reasonable mixing for

works in Water Management Zone 4 and works on the main stems of the

Tukituki River or the Waipawa River in zones 1, 2 and 3 (refer to HBRC

Plan Change 6, Planning Map - Water Management Zones as notified in

May 2013);

ii. 30% at flows less than the median flow after reasonable mixing for

works elsewhere.

f) The following performance standards shall apply to the management of facilities

containing oil:

i. All bunded stormwater shall be discharged through an oil and water

separator device(s) prior to final discharge.

ii. The oil separator control systems shall be maintained and operated

according to the manufacturer’s directions so that at all times it is

operating within its design criteria. Solid waste collected in the

stormwater system shall be removed and disposed of at an approved

landfill. Details of inspections and maintenance shall be recorded and

provided to the Council on request.

iii. All transformers and oil bearing equipment containing at least 1,500

litres oil shall be located on concrete bunded pads. Each pad shall have

the capacity to hold at least the discharge from the single piece of

equipment containing the largest volume of oil and a one in ten year ARI

rainfall event of at least 22.5 mm over 30 minutes (taken from Hawke’s

4 For purpose of these conditions “reasonable mixing” of contaminants in flowing surface water will be considered to have occurred at whichever of the following is the nearest to the point of discharge:

a) a distance 200 metres downstream of the point of discharge;

b) a distance equal to seven times the bed width of the surface water body, but which shall be not less than 50 metres;

c) the distance downstream at which mixing of contaminants has occurred across the full width of the surface water body, but which shall not be less than 50 metres.



Bay Waterway Guidelines Stormwater Management, HBRC Plan Number

4104, Shaver, E. & Clode, G. May 2009, page 59).

iv. The concentration of the oil (total) in the discharge shall not exceed 15

milligrams/litre.

v. The consent holder shall ensure that there is a point where the

stormwater discharged from oil separator control systems can be

sampled at or prior to the point of discharge. The consent holder shall

provide access to this sampling point for the Council to enable a sample

to be taken during an inspection. The cost of any sample taken will be

charged to the consent holder.

vi. An electronic warning system on the transformers shall trigger an alarm

alerting staff of fault or malfunction. Alarms shall be monitored by staff

at all times and acted upon within 60 minutes. A system failure shall be

rectified within five working days.

vii. A log shall be kept of all oil spill control system alarms stating the date,

time, problem and any remedial action taken. This log shall be made

available to the Council for inspection at any time.

viii. That where, for any cause (accidental or otherwise), contaminants

associated with the consent holder’s operations escape to water other

than in conformity with the consent, the consent holder shall:

Immediately take all practicable steps to contain and then remove the contamination from the environment, and;

Immediately notify the Council of the escape, and;

Report to the Council, in writing and within 7 days, describing the manner and cause of the escape and steps taken to control it and prevent its reoccurrence.

5. The Consent Holder may commence maintenance activities in accordance with the

ISMMP unless one or more of the Consent Authorities advises the consent holder in

writing within 20 working days of receipt of the ISMMP that it refuses to certify the

ISMMP on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of condition 4 above in

relation to an activity within the relevant Consent Authorities jurisdiction, and

provides reasons why that view is held.

6. Should the Consent Authorities refuse to certify the ISMMP in accordance with

condition 3 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised ISMMP to the Consent



Authorities for certification as soon as is practicable. The certification process shall

follow the same procedure as outlined in condition 4 and 5 above.

7. Once certified the ISMMP may be varied by the consent holder. The certification

process for an ISMMP Variation shall follow the process outlined in conditions 2 to 4

above. Maintenance activities subject to the variation shall not commence until the

variation has been certified by the Consent Authorities.

8. The consent holder shall comply with the certified IMMP at all times.

Advisory Note:

HDC has no role in the administration of conditions 4 to 8.

Sediment Management Plan

9. The consent holder shall no less than 20 working days prior to the first filling of the

reservoir engage a suitably qualified and experienced Engineer to prepare a

Sediment Management Plan (SMP) in conjunction for certification by the HBRC

Group Manager- Resource Management that the plan implements conditions 2 to 5

of Resource Consent LU120370C and the recommendations contained in the

Sedimentation Assessment Report filed with the applications - Tonkin & Taylor (May

2013b).

10. The Consent Holder may not commission the Makaroro Dam unless the HBRC Group

Manager- Resource Management certifies that the SMP meets the requirements of

condition 9 above.

11. Should the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management refuse to certify the SMP

in accordance with condition 10 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised

SMP for certification as soon as is practicable. The certification process shall follow

the same procedure as outlined in condition 9 and 10 above.

12. Once certified the SMP may be varied by the consent holder. The certification

process for a SMP Variation shall follow the process outlined in conditions 9 to 11

above.

13. The consent holder shall comply with the certified SMP at all times.

Advisory Note:

HDC and CHBDC have no role in the administration of conditions 9 to 13.



Reservoir Inflows, Water Level and Flow Releases

14. The consent holder shall estimate inflows into and measure the water level of the

reservoir immediately behind the Makaroro Dam and all flow releases from the dam,

other than spillway flows. A record shall be kept of all estimates and measurements

pursuant to this condition and made available to the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management upon request.

Water Take and Water Discharges

15. The consent holder shall measure and record the volume and rate of water taken

from the Waipawa River (Upstream Water Intake and subsequent Primary Headrace

canal takes, and Downstream Water Intake) and the volume and rate of water

discharged into the Mangaonuku Stream and the Kahahakuri Stream.

16. The location of the flow measuring device or system shall be as close as practicable

to the site of take or discharge as certified by HBRC Group Manager Resource

Management as providing a true record of water flows.

Measurement Accuracy and Reporting

17. All measurements shall be taken at the following levels of accuracy:

a) Open channel measurements shall be measured with an accuracy of +/- 10%;

b) Closed pipe measurements shall be measured with an accuracy of +/- 5%; and

c) Water level measurements shall be measured with an accuracy of +/- 1mm.

18. Each water level, rate, or volume measurement site shall be equipped with a data

logger and telemetry unit. Data loggers and telemetry units shall record the water

level, rate or volume of take every 15 minutes. Each 15 minute interval of data shall

be date and time stamped with the New Zealand Standard Time at the end of the 15

minute interval. Data shall be transmitted to the Council’s telemetry system at least

once per day.

Verification of Flow Measurement and Level Equipment Accuracy

19. The consent holder shall engage a person who, in the opinion of the HBRC Group

Manager, Resource Management, is suitably qualified to verify the accuracy of the

flow measuring device or system. Verification of accuracy shall be undertaken at the

following frequencies:



a) For closed pipe measuring devices, verification shall occur before the end of the

first year of water take / discharge and at five yearly intervals thereafter;

b) For open channel measuring devices, verification shall occur three monthly.

Maintenance of Flow Measurement and Level Equipment

20. The consent holder shall ensure the functionality and accuracy of the equipment

measuring, recording and reporting on reservoir water levels, flow releases from the

dam, takes from the Waipawa River and discharges of water into the Mangaonuku

and Kahahakuri Streams. Any failed measuring device shall be reinstated within

seven days, to the standards required above.

Advisory Note:


Dam Safety Requirements

21. The consent holder shall ensure that the Makaroro Dam and all its associated

components and accessory structures are designed, constructed and maintained to

operate in a safe and stable condition. Without loss of generality, the Makaroro Dam

shall be designed such that the maximum design flood level for the reservoir formed

upstream of the Makaroro Dam shall not exceed a level 30 centimetres below the

effective crest of the Dam (based on a 3 hour rolling average), as measured at the

Makaroro Dam.

22. Dam safety shall be managed in accordance with the principles of the Dam Safety

Guidelines issued by the New Zealand Society on Large Dams and the requirements

of the Building Act 2004.

23. The consent holder shall engage a Professional Engineer with experience in design

and construction of large dams in seismically active areas to certify that the design

of the dam and its construction are in accordance with good engineering practice

including being consistent with the Dam Safety Guidelines issued by the New

Zealand Society on Large Dams and the requirements of the Building Act 2004. This

certificate shall be submitted to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management

prior to first filling of the dam reservoir.

24. Prior to the first filling of the dam reservoir, a Dam Safety Assurance Programme

shall be produced by a Category A recognised engineer, as defined by the Building

(Dam Safety) Regulations 2008, outlining a programme of inspections and quality



assurance for the dam and its associated components and accessory structures. The

Dam Safety Assurance Programme shall be developed to be consistent with the Dam

Safety Guidelines issued by the New Zealand Society on Large Dams and shall be

certified as appropriate by the recognised engineer and both the Programme and

covering certificate shall be submitted to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource

Management prior to first filling of the dam reservoir. The Dam Safety Assurance

Programme shall as a minimum:

a) Be consistent with the Dam Safety Guidelines issued by the New Zealand

Society on Large Dams and the requirements of the Building Act 2004 and

the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2008;

b) Address the distinct requirements of both the reservoir first filling stage and

the scheme operational stage;

c) Include a monitoring system capable of reliably and accurately detecting

warning signs of threats to dam safety;

d) Specify an organisational approach that efficiently records processes,

evaluates and reports observations of the dam’s performance;

e) Include trigger levels for observational results that are considered to require

action;

f) Include a strategy of mitigation and actions to be undertaken in the event

the specified trigger levels are exceeded;

g) Provide for reporting to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management

of any trigger level exceedence and actions taken to address any such

exceedence;

h) Provide for inspection of the dam and its associated components and

accessory structures as soon as practicable after any earthquake with an

intensity of IX or greater on the Modified Mercalli scale is experienced at the

dam; and

i) Provide for reporting to the HBRC Group Manager Resource Manager of the

results of any inspection undertaken in accordance with (h) above.

25. The consent holder shall comply with the Dam Safety Assurance programme at all

times.

Advisory Note:




Emergency Action Plan

26. The consent holder shall engage a professional engineer with experience in

management of large dams with an assessed Potential Impact Category of High to

prepare an Emergency Action Plan (EMP) to ensure appropriate management of the

risk associated with uncontrolled abnormal or excessive flow releases from the Dam.

The Emergency Action Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Civil Defence

Emergency Management Group and shall, as far as practicable, be consistent with

the Civil Emergency Management Group Plan governing the Central Hawke’s Bay

District pursuant to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. It shall

contain, as a minimum:

a) Maps of land areas modelled as being subject to inundation in the event of

abnormal or excessive flow releases and contact details for people resident

within those areas, where they can be ascertained; and

b) Contingency plans for alerting people within the identified areas of

inundation and relevant civil defence authorities of the risk of such events.

A copy of the Emergency Action Plan shall be provided to HBRC, CHBDC, HDC, the

Civil Defence Emergency Management Group and the New Zealand Transport

Agency prior to reservoir filling.

27. The consent holder shall cause the EMP to be periodically reviewed, timed to

coincide with a review of the Civil Emergency Management Group Plan governing

the Central Hawke’s Bay District pursuant to the Civil Defence Emergency

Management Act 2002. Such reviews shall follow the same process as for the initial

EMP.

Water Level Safety Plan

28. The consent holder shall, in consultation with the Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council, prepare and submit to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Group Manager,

Resource Management for approval a Water Level Safety Plan (WLSP) within 6

calendar months of the commencement of this consent.

29. The WLSP is to detail procedures (signage, warning sirens, and public information) to

warn of the risk to public safety of planned sudden operational changes in river

flows along the Makaroro River below the Makaroro Dam at points accessible to the

public.



30. The signage plan shall identify the sites and the form and content of the signs,

warning sirens and public information procedures to be used by the consent holder.

31. The consent holder shall provide, maintain, and operate signage and warning sirens

in good repair in accordance with the plan.

Advisory Note:

HDC has no role in the administration of conditions 28 to 31.

Review


that these consents are current, serve notice on the consent holder under section

128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its/their intention to review the

conditions of one of more of the consents they have administrative responsibility

for, for the following purposes:






regional plan or National Environmental Standard or Regulation that


c) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by

the consent holder.



SCHEDULE THREE

GENERAL CONDITIONS – USE OF WATER FOR PRODUCTION LAND USE



Schedule Three General Conditions - Production Land Use

General Conditions attached to HBRC Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and

LU120382L covering production land use utilising water from the Ruataniwha Water

Storage Scheme (the “Scheme”)

General

1. The activities authorised by HBRC Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and

LU120382L shall be undertaken in general accordance with application for resource

consents “Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company limited, Ruataniwha Water

Storage Scheme” dated 6 May 2013.

2. The use of production land utilising water from the Scheme shall be limited to the

land shown on Plans 1, 8 and 9 together with the other properties identified on Plan

10 attached as Schedule Four to these conditions, but not including the Excluded

Areas as shown on those plans.

3. Pursuant to Section 125(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, these consents

will lapse if not given effect to within 10 years of the commencement of the

consents.





Water Quality Conditions

5. The activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T

and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L shall be undertaken so as to

ensure that those activities do not cause the following in-river nitrate–nitrogen

concentration limits as defined in Table 5 below to be exceeded at any of the

monitoring locations defined in condition 6

Table 5

Tukituki Water Management Zone (as defined in Proposed Regional Plan Change 6)

Annual Median (mg NO3-N/L)

95th Percentile (mg NO3-N/L)

Zones 1 and 5 2.4 3.5

Zones 2 and 3 3.8 5.6



6. The Consent holder shall implement a water quality monitoring programme at the

monitoring sites specified in Table 6 below and for the monitoring parameters and

frequency specified in Table 7 below. Where applicable, this monitoring programme

shall be integrated with HBRC’s current water quality monitoring programme. For

those sites specified in Table 6 that are already monitored by HBRC for the

monitoring parameters and frequency specified in Table 7, the Consent Holder may

utilise monitoring data collected by HBRC for the purpose of complying with the

monitoring requirements set in this condition. The monitoring shall commence at

least 24 calendar months before the supply of irrigation water commences.

Table 6

Tukituki Water Management Zone (as defined in Proposed Regional Plan Change 6)

Monitoring Site

Grid Reference (At or About)

(E & N: NZTM)

Zones 1 and 5 Tukituki River at Tamumu Bridge 1914766/5570121

Tukituki River at Red Bridge 1936720/5596441

Papanui Stream at Camp DavidMiddle Road

1917836/5581620

Papanui Stream at Pourerere Road 1911285/5569830

Zone 2 Waipawa River at SH2 1906330/5571900

Waipawa River at SH50 1894737/5581847

Waipawa River below Irrigation intake 1890992/5584215

Mangaonuku Stream at Tikokino Rd 1901319/5576606

Zone 3 Tukituki River at SH50 1886319/5574049

Maharakeke at Limeworks Road 1894118/5563820

Tukipo River at Makaretu RoadMangatewai Stream at SH50

1881656/5574499

1884153/5568387

Makaretu River at SH50 1883623/5565238

Kahahakuri Stream at Springhill 1888901/5582700

Kahahakuri Stream at Scenic Road 1899320/5569224

Tukituki River at SH2 1903805/5567336

Porangahau Stream at Oruawhara Rd 1887680/5564125

Maharakeke Stream at SH2 1896836/5568262

Maharakeke Stream at U/S Maharakeke Confluence

1879019/5568824



Tukipo River at U/S Makaretu Confluence

1897330/5569186

Tukipo River at SH50 1884777/5570703

Advisory Notes:

i. A suitable location for the Papanui Stream at Middle Road monitoring site is

being investigated and it is possible that a location located downstream of

Camp David will be selected.

i.ii. High flow conditions can prevent safe access to the Makaretu at U/S

Maharakeke Monitoring site. Under such conditions, sampling shall be

undertaken at the following location: Makaretu River at Speedy Road

(1894421/5567602 – NZTM).

Table 7


Laboratory Analysis

Nitrate Nitrogen Monthly

Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen

Dissolved Organic Nitrogen

Turbidity

DRP

Total Phosphorus

Dissolved Organic Phosphorous

E.Coli (CFU)

MCI Annual

Periphyton biomass

Field Measurements Horizontal visibility (black disc) Monthly

pH

Conductivity

Temperature

Periphyton cover, including the presence and relative abundance of Phormidium Spp (Visual)

Deposited sediment cover (visual)

7. At any locations where in-stream annual median and/or 95 percentile nitrate–

nitrogen concentrations measured by the consent holder or HBRC are greater than



80% of the limits set out in condition 5 above, the consent holder shall assess

whether the operation of property owners contracted to use water from the

Scheme (“Scheme Participants”) needs to be adapted to ensure compliance with

condition 5 as follows:

a) The nitrogen outputs for the actual land use by Scheme participants in that

part of the catchment above the sampling point shall be compared to the

Current Land Use Scenario and the Post Irrigation Land Use Scenario as at 6

May 2013 as presented with the resource consent applications for the

Scheme in the TRIM2 Stream Modelling Reports submitted with the

applications - NIWA (May 2013a) and NIWA (May 2013b)

b) The nitrogen outputs for the actual land use by Scheme participants in that

part of the surface and groundwater catchment above the sampling point

shall be modelled to predict the in-stream nitrate-nitrogen concentration at

the sampling point.

c) The modelling will use the NIWA TRIM2 model used as detailed in NIWA

(May 2013a) and NIWA (May 2013b) supplied with the Applications or an

updated version of that model or an alternative model certified as being fit

for purpose by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management.

8. In the event that modelling undertaken for the purposes of condition 7 above

predicts that the continued use of production land utilising water from the Scheme

is likely to cause measured nitrate-nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits in

condition 5 then the consent holder shall:

a) Require all landowners receiving waters from the Scheme potentially affecting

the in- stream concentrations measured as exceeding 80% of the limits in

condition 5 to immediately review their respective Farm Environmental

Management Plans to identify and implement additional on-farm nitrogen

leaching mitigation measures sufficient to reduce modelled outputs to the

extent necessary to ensure the combined nitrogen outputs from farming

operations supplied with water from the Scheme do not cause in-stream nitrate-

nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits in condition 5.

b) Re-run the model of production use activities to demonstrate the effect of the

steps taken in terms of in-stream nitrate-nitrogen concentrations.



9. In the event that modelling undertaken for the purposes of condition 7 above

predicts that the continued use of production land utilising water from the Scheme

is not likely to cause measured nitrate-nitrogen concentrations to exceed the limits

in condition 5 then the consent holder shall re-run the model every 12 months

thereafter, until such time as in-river annual median and 95 percentile nitrate–

nitrogen concentrations measured by HBRC are less than 80% of the limits set out in

condition 5 above. Condition 7(c) shall apply to each re-run of the model.

10. The consent holder will report to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management

on steps taken pursuant to condition 8 and the outcomes of condition 9.

11. Based on the sum of the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ for each ‘Proposed Farm

System’ under conditions 25 e) or g) of this Schedule the consent holder shall ensure

that within each sub-catchment specified in Schedule XIV of Proposed Plan 6 as

notified in May 2013 that it is supplying water within, there is no overall increase in

phosphorous output from the land supplied by the Scheme compared with a 2013

baseline established by the sum of the ‘Pre-Scheme Farm Systems’ phosphorous

outputs established under condition 25 c) I A of this Schedule. The activities

authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T and

WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L shall be managed so as to

minimise the loss of phosphorus to waterways in the Tukituki catchment with an

objective of ensuring that those activities do not cause a net increase of Dissolved

Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) in waterways compared to the existing land use position

as at 6 May 2013 modelled as the Current Land Use Scenario in NIWA (May 2013b).

12. The activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents WP120373T

and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L shall be undertaken to

ensure that those activities do not cause the following water quality limits in under-

allocated sub-catchments defined in Change 6 as notified in May 2013 for E. coli to

be exceeded, or in already over-allocated sub-catchments that they do not

materially contribute to the following water quality targets being further exceeded:

a) For surface water bodies:

i. A maximum 95th percentile, calculated over a minimum of 20

sampling results, of Escherichia coli concentration of 260 Escherichia

coli per 100 millilitres for the 1 November to 30 April bathing season at

river flows below the median flow.



ii. A maximum 95th percentile, calculated over a minimum of 20


coli per 100 millilitres for the 1 November to 30 April bathing season at

river flows between the median flow and three times the median flow.

iii. A maximum 95th percentile, calculated over a minimum of 20


coli per 100 millilitres for the rest of the year at river flows below three

times the median flow.

b) For groundwater less than one Escherichia coli per 100 millilitres

13. Each year in the month of June, the consent holder shall undertake an assessment of

the monitoring results obtained under condition 6 of this Schedule against the water

quality limits and targets set in condition 12 above. In the event that monitoring

undertaken pursuant to condition 6 above identifies that the limits or targets set in

condition 12 are being exceeded at any of the monitoring sites specified in condition

6, the consent holder shall:

a) Undertake further monitoring to confirm or otherwise the exceedences; and

b) Undertake an assessment of the likely causes and sources of the exceedences.

This assessment shall be completed and reported to the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management by the 30th June in the following year.

14. In the event that the assessment undertaken pursuant to condition 13 above

identifies that the activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource

Consents WP120373T and/or WP120375T, and/or by Resource Consent LU120382L

are the cause of, or a significant contributor to, the exceedences, the consent holder

shall identify specific actions required to be taken by property land owners supplied

by the Scheme upstream from the monitoring site(s) where the exceedences have

been measured in order to ensure that the land ‘use’ component of Resource

Consents WP120373T and or WP120375T does not cause, or be a material

contributor to, the exceedences the limits specified in condition 12 are met and shall

procure that the required steps are taken as soon as practicable thereafter.

15. Prior to the exercise of Resource Consents WP120373T, WP120375T, and

LU120382L, the consent holder shall engage a suitable professionally qualified and

experienced person to prepare a Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP), in



consultation with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and the HBRC Group

Manager, Resource Management. The Plan shall address the following matters:

a) Identification on a best endeavours basis of the location of and water quality in

existing bores utilised for the supply of human drinking water within the area

serviced by the Scheme, prior to the exercise of these consents;

b) A plan for the ongoing monitoring of groundwater trends influenced by the

exercise of these consents in order to identify changes in groundwater quality in

waters used for the supply of human drinking water; and

c) A plan to assess the risk to groundwater quality of existing bores utilised for the

supply of human drinking water based on the monitoring results obtained under

condition 15 b) above and taking into account groundwater catchments and

groundwater age and transport times.

16. Should the monitoring results obtained under condition 15 b) exceed 80% of the

nitrate concentration standard in the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand

2005 (2008 or subsequent revision), or the risk assessment undertaken under

condition 15 c) indicate there is potential for the nitrate concentration standard in

the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (2008 or subsequent revision)

to be exceeded, the consent holder shall identify specific actions required to be

taken by property owners supplied by the Scheme upstream from bores utilised for

the supply of human drinking water to reduce the potential for such exceedences to

be caused by the exercise of these consents and the consent holder shall procure

that the required steps are taken as soon as practicable thereafter.

17. Where the activities authorised by the ‘use’ component of Resource Consents

WP120373T and WP120375T, and by Resource Consent LU120382L may be

contributing to nitrate-nitrogen levels in groundwater utilised for supply of human

drinking water exceeding those specified in the Drinking-Water Standards for New

Zealand (2008 or subsequent revision), the consent holder shall:

a) Identify potential sources of groundwater nitrate-nitrogen affecting a water

supply bore and investigate the potential for modified land use practices by

property owners supplied with water from the Scheme to improve downstream

groundwater quality as a means to ensure drinking water from the water supply

bore does not exceed nitrate-nitrogen levels specified in the Drinking-Water

Standards for New Zealand (2008 or subsequent revision) ; and



b) Provide treatment of human drinking water supplied from groundwater sources

to ensure compliance with the standards for nitrate-nitrogen in the Drinking-

Water Standards for New Zealand (2008 or subsequent revision) for so long as

the groundwater in question fails to meet those standards; or

c) Provide a replacement source of human drinking water which is compliant with

the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand (2008 or subsequent revision) for

so long as the groundwater in question fails to meet those standards

18. Within six months of the first exercise of Resource Consents WP120373T,

WP120375T, and LU120382L, the consent holder shall engage a suitable

professionally qualified and experienced person to prepare a Groundwater

Mounding and Drainage Monitoring Plan (GMDP). The Plan shall be based on the

recommendations contained in the Golder Associates report dated 23 April 2013 set

out in Appendix D of the Flow Optimisation Report submitted with the applications -

Aquanet (May 2013).

19. The consent holder shall provide a draft of the GMDP to the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management for certification that it provides an appropriate framework

for identifying and managing the risk of the adverse effects of groundwater

mounding in the areas identified in the Golder Associates report referenced in

condition 18 above.

20. Once certified the consent holder shall implement the GMDP. If high groundwater

levels at shallow depths caused by irrigation drainage occurs which adversely affect

existing land uses or in-ground infrastructure (including in-ground private waste

water treatment systems), the consent holder shall implement a system of

engineered ground drainage to maintain the effective serviceability of such land and

in-ground infrastructure.

Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP)

21. At least six calendar months prior to the first delivery of irrigation water from the

Scheme the consent holder shall submit a Final revised Irrigation Environmental

Management Plan (IEMP) to the HBRC Group Manager for certification that the

IEMP provides an appropriate management framework to meet, or exceed, the

consent conditions contained in this Schedule. The Final revised IEMP shall be an

update of the Draft IEMP tabled with the applications to take into account any



proposed operational changes associated with the final design, and construction,

and operation of the Scheme that is not covered in the Draft IEMP.

22. Following commissioning of the Scheme, the consent holder shall review the IEMP at

least once in every five years and update it, if necessary, to reflect current best

practices. Each review will take into account the information gained from the

monitoring required by the conditions of this Schedule Three.

23. Any subsequent revisions of the IEMP proposed by the consent holder shall be

submitted to the HBRC Group Manager for re-certification.

21.24. Once certified the consent holder shall comply with the IEMP at all times.

Farm Environmental Management Plan Process

22.25. The consent holder shall ensure that, under its water supply contracts, it is a

condition of any land owner receiving water from the Scheme that a an up to date

Farm Environmental Management Plan (FEMP) is prepared and implemented,

covering the total farm property, including areas of the farm not using water

supplied by the scheme. The FEMP shall meet the following requirements:

a) Each FEMP shall have the following objectives:

i. To be generally consistent with the approved IEMP;

ii. To ensure any new irrigation infrastructure is designed and installed in

accordance with Design Standards for Piped Irrigation Systems in New

Zealand (Irrigation NZ, October 2012); Code of Practice for the Design of

Piped Irrigation Systems in New Zealand (Irrigation NZ, October 2012);

and Installation Code of Practice for Piped Irrigation Systems (Irrigation

NZ, January 2012);

iii. To ensure the irrigation system is operated and maintained so that

water is applied efficiently, minimising drainage, run-off, and soil

erosion;

iv. To ensure soils and nutrients are managed to maximise nutrient use

efficiency while minimising nutrient losses to water, limiting adverse

impacts on soil quality and contributing to compliance with conditions 5

to 17 of this schedule;



v. To ensure surface water bodies, wetlands5 and their margins are

managed to avoid minimise stock damage, and direct and indirect input

of nutrients, sediment and microbial pathogens; and

vi. To ensure collected effluent systems are managed to avoid adverse

effects on surface and groundwater quality and meet existing consents

held, or as specified by the Scheme.

b) Each FEMP shall include:

i. A description of the property and its land uses, including soils,

topography and water bodies;

ii. An environmental risk assessment that identifies risks to the local and

on-farm receiving environments from farm activities including:

irrigation, stock, cultivation, fertilisers, collected effluent and

construction activities for new irrigation;

iii. Farm policies, practices and actions to achieve the objectives set out in

condition 253 a), to comply with any recognised industry good practice,

and to avoid or minimise the risks identified in ii. above. For the

avoidance of doubt, such measures shall include exclusion of stock from

all lakes, wetlands, permanently or intermittently flowing rivers6;

iv. A nutrient budget prepared by a person with experience and

qualifications approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource

Management for that purpose, to meet the requirements specified in 23

25 c) below; and

v. Any other matters identified as required contents for FEMPs in Schedule

XXII of Proposed Plan Change 6 as notified in May 2013.

c) The nutrient budget in the FEMP shall:

i. Include an OVERSEER7(or an alternative model approved by the HBRC

Group Manager, Resource Management8) nutrient budgeting model

covering nitrogen and phosphorous outputs for:

5 As defined in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan as at May 2013. 6 An intermittent river does not flow continuously but has a bed that is predominantly un-vegetated and comprises sand, gravel, boulders or similar material. 7 Overseer is a nutrient budget model that calculates and estimates the nutrient flows in a productive farming

system. It is owned and administered by the Ministry of Primary Industry, Fertiliser Association of New Zealand and AgResearch. The Overseer model is available at http://www.overseer.org.nz/Home.aspx

http://www.overseer.org.nz/Home.aspx



A. the ‘Pre-Scheme Farm System’ using inputs that fairly represent

the Irrigation Water Supply’ farming system and practices over the

period immediately prior to as at 6 May 2013; and

A.B. and one for the ‘Pproposed ‘Post-Scheme Irrigation Water

SupplyFarm System’ using inputs that fairly represent the proposed

farming system and practices using Scheme water supply;to

quantify the change in nutrient outputs from the property taking

into account the specific works and farming practices outlined as

per b) above;

ii. Calculate a “Post-Scheme Irrigation Water Supply”’Pre-Scheme Farm

System’ and a ‘Proposed Farm System’ nitrogen conversion efficiency

(NCE9) for the property;

ii.iii. Quantify the change in nitrogen and phosphorous outputs from the

property comparing the ’Pre-Scheme Farm System’ and ‘Proposed Farm

System’ models from condition 25 c) i. above;

iii. Identify the modelled phosphorus outputs from the property under the

proposed “Post-Scheme Irrigation Water Supply” farming system

relative to the Farming system as at 6 May 2013. If the modelled budget

shows a phosphorous output increase, the FEMP for the property shall

identify what additional steps beyond those modelled the landowner

will adopt to ensure a phosphorous neutral position relative to 6 May

2013; and

iv. Be updated biannually biennially by a person with experience and

qualifications approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource

Management, and a copy supplied to the consent holder by 31 August

every second year. Each update shall utilise the farming records from

the preceding two years ended 30 June to ensure that it reflects the

current farm practice.

Advisory Note:

8 Approved by HBRC on the basis that any alternative leaching loss model is fit for purpose for the land use, have a demonstrable repeatability of results, be field tested, and be validated to accepted scientific standards.

9 NCE is a measure of the percentage of nitrogen input to a farm that is captured in product (e.g. meat, milk, fibre). It is calculated by dividing the nitrogen content in the products by the nitrogen inputs.



The 'Pre-Scheme Farm System' nutrient losses are calculated using a specific set of inputs and a particular version of Overseer or other model. Should subsequent versions of Overseer, or another model, result in the 'Pre-Scheme Farm System' nutrient losses increasing using the original inputs, then the consequential adjustments will need to be made and reported to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management (see Condition 28 c of this Schedule).

d) If the nutrient budget models show a phosphorous output increase under the “Proposed Farm System” relative to the “Pre-Scheme Farm System”, the FEMP for the property shall identify what additional steps beyond those modelled the landowner will adopt to minimise the increases in phosphorous output.

e) Prior to the supply of water from the Scheme to a land owner the phosphorus and nitrate outputs for each ‘Proposed Farm System’ shall be assessed by the consent holder to ensure that those outputs in combination with other approved ‘Maximum Approved Outputs’ collectively meet the requirements of Conditions 5 and 11 of this Schedule at a sub-catchment level.10 If the consent holder is satisfied on this basis then it shall notify the landowner that such phosphorous and nitrogen outputs are ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ and this shall be included in the relevant contract for the supply of water.

f) Reviews of the FEMP will be required:

i. If the biannual biennial review of the nutrient budget prepared under

condition 25 bc) iv above shows a material increase in nitrogen outputs

compared to the ‘Approved Maximum Output’ for the ‘Proposed Farm

System” as established by condition 25 e)previous two year period, the

FEMP for that property shall be reviewed against the objectives and

requirements in condition 253 a) and b) above and existing practices

modified, as necessary, to manage and control the nitrogen outputs. A

material change for this purpose is a change that results in a modelled

increase in the loss of nitrate-nitrogen from the land of more than 10%

above the ‘Approved Maximum Output’ for the ‘Proposed Farm System’.

ii. If the biennial review of the nutrient budget prepared under condition 25 c) iv above shows an increase in phosphorus outputs compared to the ‘Approved Maximum Output’ for the ‘Proposed Farm System’ as established by condition 25 e), the FEMP for that property shall be reviewed against the objectives and requirements in 25 a) and b) above and existing practices modified, as necessary, to manage and control the phosphorus outputs.

10 i.e. a sub-catchment specified in Schedule XIV of Proposed Plan Change 6 as notified in May 2013



iii. If a ‘Proposed Farming System’ different to that for which water is contracted and supplied is proposed by a land owner.

g) Following a review of an FEMP under condition 25 f) and an assessment by the consent holder to ensure that such an amendment in outputs, in combination with other approved ‘Approved Maximum Outputs”, collectively meet the requirements of Conditions 5 and 11 of this Schedule at a sub-catchment level, the consent holder may amend the ‘Approved Maximum Outputs’ for the land covered by that FEMP.

h) Alternative FEMP programmes may be utilised, provided that the HBRC Group Manager Resource Management certifies that the alternative programme meets the requirements in conditions 25 a) to g).

Farm Environmental Management Plan Audits

23.26. The consent holder shall arrange for an audit of each FEMP, including any

alternative FEMPs prepared in accordance with condition 25 h) above, as follows:

a) Each Plan shall be audited by a suitably qualified independent assessor

appointed by the consent holder and approved by the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management. Each audit shall assess and report on:

i) Performance against the objectives in condition 23 25 a);

ii) Implementation of proposed works and farming practices set out in the

FEMP;

iii) Overall robustness of the FEMP to manage identified risks;

iv) Level of confidence that the modelled nutrient budget accurately reflects

the actual farming system; and

v) Overall compliance or non-compliance with FEMP requirements.

b) For the first three years of receiving and using scheme water, each FEMP will be

audited annually;

c) After the first three years of a property receiving and using Scheme water,

provided the audit report prepared in accordance with condition 23 25 a) above

confirms full compliance for those three years, the relevant FEMP shall be

audited every three years thereafter as a minimum; and

d) For each year ending June 30, at least 20% of all FEMPs shall be audited.

e) Following each audit, an audit report shall be supplied to the relevant land

owner/s and manager, as applicable.



24.27. If an Audit Report provided under condition 24 a) above indicates non-

compliance with the conditions of water supply set out in condition 23 above, then

the consent holder shall give notice to the land owner that unless remedial actions

are undertaken to ensure the conditions of water supply are met before

commencement of the following irrigation season water will not be supplied to that

property until the conditions of supply are met.

Reporting

25.28. The consent holder shall supply the HBRC Group Manager, Resource

Management with an Annual summary report by 31 October each year:

a) Listing the names of landowners and location of properties receiving water from

the Scheme, including any short term supply contracts for provision of water in

the previous irrigation season;

b) Aggregating the nutrient budgets supplied to it for ’Approved Maximum

Outputs’ on a sub-catchment basis for all the properties supplied with water

from the Scheme, and using that information to report against the requirements

of conditions 5 to 17and 11 above;

c) Reporting the results of the audits of FEMPs undertaken in the twelve month

period ending 30 June of that year, including identifying any issues of non-

compliance with any specific Plans and detailing actions taken by the consent

holder to address such non-compliance; and

d) Reporting on the results of monitoring data collected during the twelve month

period ending 30 June of that year undertaken under the conditions of this

schedule in relation to the requirements of conditions 5 to 17 above.

On-Farm Monitoring Plan

26.29. Prior to the exercise of these consents, the consent holder shall engage a

suitable professionally qualified and experienced person to prepare and implement

an On-Farm Monitoring Plan, in consultation with the HBRC Group Manager,

Resource Management. The Plan shall address the following matters:

a) Identification of appropriate locations for not less than five on-farm monitoring

programmes covering a range of soil types, climatic conditions and farming types

within the areas supplied with water from the Scheme to provide calibrating

information against which the nutrient budgets for the relevant properties can

be compared;



b) Development of a network of 20 paired sites enabling comparison of farm

practices affecting soil conservation on irrigated and non-irrigated land across a

range of soil types and land uses within the Ruataniwha Basin to assess the

effectiveness of the FEMPs required under condition 23 25 above in achieving an

appropriate level of soil quality;

c) The technical specifications for the monitoring programmes;

d) How the information obtained can be utilised for shaping wider Tukituki

Catchment improvement initiatives including the Ruataniwha Plains Spring-fed

Stream Enhancement and Priority Sub-catchment Phosphorus Mitigation

programme outlined in the ‘Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: Proposed

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach, May 2013’; and

e) An appropriate Annual reporting protocol including recommendations for future

action to the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management.

Scheme Operations Liaison Group (SOLG)

27.30. The consent holder shall convene a Scheme Operations Liaison Group

(SOLG) to provide an Annual Meeting forum for the dissemination and discussion of

information gathered pursuant to these consents related to environmental

performance matters. The consent holder shall invite to attend that Annual

Meeting:

a) A water user representative from each of the five Irrigations Zones (Zones A to D

and M) chosen to provide an appropriate geographical spread and range of

irrigated farming systems operating within the Scheme;

a)b) Three “third party” water users representing water take consent holders within

the Tukituki Catchment who are not associated with the Scheme.

b)c) A mana whenua representative nominated by the Tamatea Taiwhenua;

c)d) A mana whenua representative nominated by the Heretaunga Taiwhenua;

d)e) A Department of Conservation representative;

e)f) A Fish and Game New Zealand representative;

f)g) A Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society representative;

g)h) A CHBDC Representative;

h)i) A Hastings District Council Representative;

i)j) A HBRC Representative.

28.31. The SOLG shall have the following broad objectives:



a) To facilitate information flow between the consent holder and the community

regarding the operation and environmental effects of the activities authorised by

these consents and the other related Scheme operation and maintenance

consents (including new information, results of monitoring and studies relevant

to such effects);

b) To identify and discuss any issues of concern that have arisen in the preceding

year; and

c) To make recommendations for the consent holder to consider in relation to any

issues identified in terms of 29b31 b) above and to the Consent Authorities

regarding the potential exercise of Section 128 Resource Management Act 1991

powers of review.

Review


year that these consents are current, serve notice on the consent holder under

section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the

conditions of one of more of the consents for the following purposes:







legally effective after grant of consent and in particular to align the conditions

with any increased regulatory approach for phosphorous management notified

in any review of Policy TT5(1) promulgated after the 2020 and 2025 reviews of

this policy required by Policy TT5(2) (c) of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource

Management Plan; or


consent holder.

Advisory Note:

In any condition review under condition 32 b) associated with increased

phosphorous control requirements, it is anticipated that the effectiveness of the



flushing flows required under conditions 10 to 12 of HBRC Consent WP120371M to

control the build-up of periphyton downstream will be a consideration.

Administration







SCHEDULE FOUR

Resource Consent Plans

[Contained in Part A - Resource Consent Applications Document Plans to be added to conditions after conclusion of the Board of Inquiry process]



SCHEDULE FIVE

Zones A to D Primary Distribution System Designation Plans

[Contained in Part B – Notice of Requirement Document Plans to be added to conditions after conclusion of Board of Inquiry process]



SCHEDULE SIX

Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)



SCHEDULE SEVEN

Cultural / Archaeology Sites Protocol

[To Insert Version Agreed by Mana Whenua Working Party]



SCHEDULE EIGHT

Public Access & Offset Mitigation Progress Plan

[To insert most up to date version when conditions are finalised]

Exhibit SGD 3: Excerpt from the New Zealand Gazette, No. 38, 28 March 2013

28 MARCH 2013 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 38 1139

Departmental Notices

Environment

Resource Management Act 1991

The Resource Management (Approval of Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited as Requiring Authority) Notice 2013 Pursuant to section 167 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Minister for the Environment hereby gives the following notice. N o t i c e 1. Title—This notice may be cited as the Resource Management (Approval of Hawke’s Bay Regional

Investment Company Limited as Requiring Authority) Notice 2013. 2. Approval as requiring authority for the distribution of water for supply—Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited is approved as a requiring authority under section 167 of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the purpose of distribution of water for supply (including irrigation) associated with the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme located within the Central Hawke’s Bay District and Hastings District, including intake infrastructure for water taking and discharge to enable distribution of that water. Dated at Wellington this 20th day of March 2013. HON AMY ADAMS, Minister for the Environment. go1888

Health

Medicines Act 1981

Consent to the Distribution of a New Medicine Pursuant to section 20 of the Medicines Act 1981, the Minister of Health hereby consents to the distribution in New Zealand of the new medicine which was referred to the Minister of Health under the provisions of section 24(5) of the Act and is set out in the Schedule hereto: ScheduleProduct: Myozyme Active Ingredient: Alglucosidase alfa 52.5mg Dosage Form: Powder for infusion concentrate New Zealand Sponsor: sanofi-aventis new zealand limited Manufacturers: Genzyme Ireland Limited, Waterford, Ireland

Hospira Inc, Kansas, United States of America

Dated this 21st day of March 2013. DR DON MACKIE, Chief Medical Officer, Clinical Leadership, Protection and Regulation Business Unit, Ministry of Health (pursuant to delegation given by the Minister of Health on 6 July 2001). go1816

Consent to the Distribution of New Medicines Pursuant to section 20 of the Medicines Act 1981, the Minister of Health hereby consents to the distribution in New Zealand of the new medicines set out in the Schedule hereto: ScheduleProduct: Concentrated Haemodialysis Solution Formula NGF - Part A (Article No. 2895) Active Ingredients: Acetic acid 8.4g/L

Calcium chloride dihydrate 6.5g/L Glucose 34.7g/L Magnesium chloride hexahydrate 3.6g/L Sodium chloride 214.8g/L

Dosage Form: Dialysis solution New Zealand Sponsor: Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Limited (NZ) Manufacturer: Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Limited, Smithfield, Australia

Simon

Rectangle

before the board of inquiry in the matter of the … · 1.8 prior to being engaged to assist with...

Documents