Appendix 9 Aquatic Ecology Review Memorandum - Greater ...

MEMO
TO
COPIED TO
FROM
FILE
DATE
Christina Schierlitz
Juliet Milne; Mike Thompson
Alton Perrie
WAR/11/0162
18 November 2013
ESci water quality and aquatic ecology review: Matahiwi Dam consent
application (WAR110162)
Introduction
Qualifications and experience
1. My name is Alton Clifford Perrie. I am employed as an environmental scientist (freshwater
quality and ecology) by Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC). I have held this
position for over nine years. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Ecology and a Master of
Science in Freshwater Ecology (first class honours) from the University of Waikato.
2. My areas of expertise are in surface water quality and freshwater ecology. At GWRC I am
responsible for managing State of Environment programmes that monitor the Wellington
region’s rivers, streams and lakes, including both the water quality and biological aspects of
these programmes. As part of my role I also regularly provide technical advice on consent
applications in regards to assessments of freshwater values and potential effects from
proposed activities.
Involvement in WAR110162 consent process
3. I have reviewed the water quality and aquatic ecology aspects of the Matahiwi Farm Dam
consent application and provided technical review comments to the GWRC Resource
Officer (Christina Schierlitz). I also previously provided comments on some aspects of this
application during its initial stages to Grant Kneebone (the GWRC Resource Officer
processing the application at that stage) in late 2011.
4. On 3 April 2013 I attended a prehearing in which the focus of my involvement was on fish
passage upstream and downstream of the dam intake/harvest structure. This led to several
follow up conversations and emails with Andrew Lamason (EAM) and Cameron Drury
(Cheal) to further clarify information in regards to fish passage past this structure.
1287853-V2 PAGE 1 OF 14

5. I have also visited the location of the proposed dam site (November 2011) and have
undertaken a backpack electric fishing survey of the stream reaches above the proposed
dam site.
Scope of technical review
Documents reviewed
6. The reports directly relating to the application that I have consulted in whole or part to
prepare this memo include:
a) EAM Environmental Consultants 2011. Ecological assessment of effects for a
proposed water retention dam on an un-named tributary of the Wakamoekau
Stream, Waipoua River. Prepared for Rupert Handyside, January 2011.
b) Cheal Consultants Ltd 2013. Matahiwi Farms Ltd: Proposed Water Harvesting
Scheme (Assessment of Environmental Effects Report). Prepared for Rupert
Handyside, November 2013.
Area of focus
7. This memo focuses on the technical aspects of the proposed Matahiwi Farm Dam activities
in relation to water quality and aquatic ecology. In particular it includes comment on:
a) The adequacy of the water quality and ecological information provided;
b) The assessment of effects based on my understanding of the proposal;
c) Suggested monitoring and consent conditions should this application be granted;
and,
d) A summary of matters that I consider to be outstanding.
8. Technical material relating to surface water hydrology, in particular the significance of the
natural stream flow alteration as a result of the activity, have been reviewed by Thompson
(2013). The review of surface water hydrology by Thompson (2013) has been used to help
inform my understanding of some of the potential effects of this proposal.
1287853-V2 PAGE 2 OF 14

Findings of review
Adequacy of information and assessment of effects
Characterisation of water quality and ecology
9. The AEE produced by EAM characterises the ecological values of the unnamed tributary
of the Wakamoekau Creek by making general observations of the area to be affected,
describing stream habitat, undertaking surveys of the aquatic fauna and flora, and collecting
one-off water quality samples. Where appropriate, aspects of these assessments are
discussed further below.
Steam habitat assessment
10. The AEE provides good written descriptions of the stream habitat at three locations; at the
dam site and also above and below the dam site. The descriptions of the habitat are
consistent with my observations from when I visited the site. The stream reaches within the
dam foot print can be considered to be moderately degraded in terms of aquatic habitat. In
contrast, some of the reaches above the dam site have moderate to good habitat (eg, a
variety of instream habitats such as pools, riffles and runs and some riparian planting).
Water quality sampling
11. Water quality sampling was limited to the collection of one-off samples. While analysis of
one-off samples can be useful it is not appropriate to draw firm conclusions based on one
set of samples (ie, a larger dataset is required given the variability in water quality data) as
has been done in the AEE. Furthermore, Table 2 of the AEE that presents the water quality
data contains an error as total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrite-nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen
concentrations are all presented as being 1,000 µg/L (total nitrogen should equal the sum
of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrite-nitrate nitrogen).
12. The AEE concludes that the “existing water quality is poor and typical of an unprotected
lowland stream”. While I don’t strongly disagree with this statement, based on the limited
sampling, it would be more appropriate to conclude that the water quality is likely to be of
low to moderate quality (rather than poor) and probably fairly typical of other small streams
running through low intensity pastoral land use that has some stock access. Overall, while
not ideal, the water quality of the unnamed tributary is probably quite suitable for providing
habitat for a range of aquatic fauna.
Aquatic fauna surveys
13. The AEE states that macroinvertebrate life is “...generally poor but good numbers of koura
were found throughout the catchment with the exception of the open pasture reaches”.
However, no robust survey of the macroinvertebrate community following standardised
national sampling techniques (eg, Stark et al. 2001) was undertaken. Thus the conclusion
that the macroinvertebrate fauna “was very poor and typical of a degraded eutrophic water
body” must be interpreted with caution as this conclusion was formed based on “basic
searches”.
1287853-V2 PAGE 3 OF 14

14. Given the scale of the dam and the potential effects it would have been appropriate to
undertake a macroinvertebrate survey at several locations (eg, dam site and upstream and
downstream of the dam site) following standardised national protocols. These results would
have been useful for providing some information on the macroinvertebrate community
condition for the different stream reaches that contain different habitat quality (eg, dam site
vs. upstream), supplemented the limited water quality results (as macroinvertebrate
community condition responds to water quality as well as other factors such as habitat) and
been useful for discussing the potential effects of the application. A better understanding of
the macroinvertebrate community could also be factored into the design of the diversion
channels and used to set ‘mitigation targets’ to which this community must meet in the new
diversion channels (to show that mitigation has been successful).
15. The fish survey undertaken to inform the AEE involved a significant amount of
spotlighting (four hours) and some limited trapping and netting. The trapping and netting
effort would generally be considered very low (see Joy et al. 2013) but the high spotlighting
effort compensates for this. Longfin eel and common bully were recorded during these
surveys, both of which were considered common. Koura (freshwater crayfish) and several
congregations of Kakahi (freshwater mussels) were also recorded. The information from
these surveys was supplemented by using NIWA’s national freshwater fish database and
interpreting the fish survey records for the Waipoua River to assess if additional species
may be present.
16. While the fish survey represents a reasonable level of effort, given the potential effects of
the application, the fish survey should also have included backpack electric fishing.
Backpack electric fishing is a survey method that allows for the assessment of riffle-type
habitats that cannot be adequately assessed using spotlighting and nets/traps. This is
important given that riffle dwelling species, such as the threatened dwarf galaxias, have
been recorded within the Waipoua River catchment and a key habitat type for this species is
smaller streams located in foothill catchments (McDowall 2000). Furthermore, the more
fish survey methods used, the more likely that the entire fish community present within a
reach will be sampled (eg, due to biases/limitations associated with different sampling
methods, Joy et al. 2013).
17. A backpack electric fishing survey of the unnamed tributary upstream of the dam site was
undertaken by GWRC (November 2011). This survey focused on assessing all habitat types
available (riffles, runs and pools) and found good numbers of both longfin eel (a good
range of sizes including elvers) and Cran’s bully. Koura (freshwater crayfish) were also
recorded in good numbers. Cran’s bully was not recorded during the EAM surveys and
common bully was not recorded during the GWRC survey.
18. Overall the diversity of the fish community is low, but fairly typical of a small pastoral
stream that is located a relatively long way inland from the coast. And the fish survey
results are generally consistent with predictive models (eg, the Freshwater Environments of
New Zealand or FENZ predictive model indicates that this stream is mainly going to
provide habitat for longfin eel). The good numbers of longfin eel are also an indication that
1287853-V2 PAGE 4 OF 14

habitat and water quality remain in at least a moderate condition as this species is generally
absent or in low abundance in highly degraded pastoral streams.
19. EAM correctly identify that longfin eel are classified by the Department of Conservation
(Allibone et al. 2010) as a threatened species (at risk; declining) but in their overall
conclusion they neglect to mention that both koura and kakahi are also classified as
declining (Hitchmough et al. 2007). The presence of kakahi is somewhat unusual and I’m
not aware of any other records of kakahi from this area or nearby rivers/streams draining
the Tararua Range. Most populations are associated with catchments in the eastern
Wairarapa or lower Ruamahanga. In addition to the conservation interest in these three
species, all also have significant cultural value (mahinga kai species).
Wakamoekau Creek and Waipoua River
20. The focus of the EAM’s AEE was to characterise the ecological values of the unnamed
tributary. The AEE does not attempt to characterise the ecological values of the
Wakamoekau Stream or the Waipoua River. Some recognition, generally in regards to
policies in GWRC’s Freshwater Plan (RFP) and Regional Policy Statement (RPS), of the
ecological and recreational values is provided in Cheal (2013).
21. Given the potential effects of the proposed activity, it is a significant gap to not characterise
the ecological values of the Wakamoekau Stream and the Waipoua River. At minimum, a
desktop review of relevant ecological information should have been undertaken, especially
given the known values of these systems. A site visit, and potentially additional surveys of
the ecology of the Wakamoekau Creek, would also have been appropriate.
22. Known values and/or issues associated with these water bodies that should have been
investigated and discussed include, but should not necessarily be limited to:
a) Trout habitat: The Wakamoekau Stream and the Waipoua River are both listed in
GWRC’s RFP as water bodies with important trout habitat (including spawning
areas).
b) Indigenous fish values: The Waipoua River (including its tributaries) is listed in
the RPS as a significant indigenous ecosystem: habitat for threatened indigenous
fish species.
c) Recreational values and benthic cyanobacteria: The Waipoua River has high
recreational values (swimming in the reaches that flow through Masterton) but it is
also prone to blooms of potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria (eg, Greenfield et
al. 2012). Given that this application may result in changes in the flow regime of
the Waipoua, and that this may influence periphyton/cyanobacteria growth, some
discussion of this issue is warranted.
1287853-V2 PAGE 5 OF 14

Effects assessment
23. The AEE documents some of the potential effects from this proposal but does not provide a
comprehensive discussion around all of these effects. From my understanding of the
application the range of potential effects from the proposed activity are as follows:
a) A significant length of stream will be lost/drowned by dam;
b) A significant length of stream will be diverted to bypass the dam;
c) At times flows in the unnamed tributary downstream of the dam will be reduced
and flow variability, including flushing flows, will be affected;
d) At times flows in the Wakamoekau Creek and Waipoua River will be reduced and
flow variability, including flushing flows, will be affected (albeit not to the extent
experienced by the unnamed tributary);
e) Fish passage to habitat upstream of the dam may be inhibited; and,
f) A discharge of poorer water quality from the dam could occur to the unnamed
tributary.
24. Where appropriate, these effects are discussed in more detail in the sections below. Having
a clear idea of the potential effects is a necessary step in determining appropriate mitigation
measures.
Stream length lost and/or diverted
25. Based on the application, a significant length of stream will be drowned by the dam
(1.5km). Of this 1.5km, approximately 900m will be replaced by a diversion channel;
which are referred to in the application as the low flow diversion channel (430m) and the
dam overflow channel/realigned stream (~430m). This results in a shortfall of around 600m
of stream length that will be lost under this proposal (although note that total length of the
diversion channel requires further clarification).
26. The effects of the proposed diversions and the loss of stream habitat are not addressed in
any detail in the AEE or Cheal (2013) and are largely written off as negligible because the
stream to be lost is “very limited and degraded”. The loss of 600m of stream length, even
of “degraded” habitat, is still a significant amount of stream and this will require mitigation.
27. No information was provided on how the stream diversion will be constructed. The stream
diversion will need to be designed by a suitability qualified and experienced freshwater
ecologist and to a high standard (ie, improve the quality of the habitat over the existing
stream habitat) if it is going to be offered as mitigation. While riparian planting of the
diversion channel is proposed as part of the current mitigation package, the diversion
design needs to go further and include the design of instream morphological habitat (eg,
pools, runs, riffles, etc.).
1287853-V2 PAGE 6 OF 14

28. From aerial photographs in GIS it also appears that the ‘dam overflow channel/realigned
stream’ falls at least partly within the catchment of another small catchment south of the
main unnamed catchment. Clarification is required as to whether this is the case or not; if it
is, additional information on the effects on this catchment may be required.
Reduced flow, flow variability and magnitude of flushing flows
29. The application has two proposed scheme operations, ‘summer’ (November to April) and
‘winter’ (May to October). Under the summer operation, all natural flow in the unnamed
tributary will be diverted around the dam (ie, left in the stream) unless flow exceeds 25 L/s.
If the tributary is flowing greater than 25 L/s, harvesting of water into the dam will occur
(ie, in summer, a residual minimum flow of whichever is the lowest of the natural stream
flow or 25 L/s will be maintained in the diversion channel and unnamed tributary). During
the months May to October (inclusive), water is proposed to be harvested at any time that
flow in the Waipoua River exceeds 1,000 L/s, including at times when the natural flow in
the un-named tributary is less than 25 L/s (ie, in winter, the 25 L/s residual flow will not
necessarily be maintained).
30. Regardless of the operation (summer and winter), when water is harvested (diverted) into
the dam there will be less water volume flowing through the diversion channel and into the
unnamed tributary below the dam. Additionally, harvesting will impact on the variability of
flow experienced downstream, including flushing flows (as water is harvested under these
higher flows). These effects will be most severe in the unnamed tributary but will also be
exhibited, in decreasing amounts, in the Wakamoekau Creek and the Waipoua River. These
effects have not been well documented in the AEE although some are briefly discussed in
Cheal (2013).
31. Potential ecological effects from the harvesting (ie, reduced flow and reduced flow
variability) that should have been discussed in regards to the ecological values of the
unnamed tributary, the Wakamoekau Creek and the Waipoua River include:
a) A reduction in aquatic habitat available;
b) A reduction in the dilution of contaminants (eg, nutrients);
c) An increase in water temperature and subsequent decrease in concentrations of
dissolved oxygen;
d) A loss of connectivity with marginal (edge) stream habitat and the ‘ecosystem
services’ these areas provide;
e) An increase in periphyton and macrophyte growths due to increased flow stability;
f) A reduction in flushing/removal of periphyton and macrophyte growths; and,
g) A reduction in flushing/removal of streambed sediment.
1287853-V2 PAGE 7 OF 14

32. In determining the extent of the ecological effects listed above, it is important that the
hydrological effects are fully characterised as these are necessary to link with the ecological
values (and subsequently determine effects). The review undertaken by Thompson (2013)
highlights some deficiencies in the hydrological information provided to date, especially in
regards to the effects (frequency and magnitude) of the harvesting on base flows and
flushing flows.
33. Given that an accurate understanding of the hydrological effects of this proposal is critical
in determining the potential ecological effects, I support the recommendation by Thompson
(2013) for further hydrological assessment. In lieu of this additional information, general
comments on the potential effects of the harvest proposal for each of the three water bodies
that require further discussion by the applicant are outlined below.
Unnamed tributary
34. Approximately 1.5km of the unnamed tributary downstream of the dam (this approximate
length includes the diversion channel) will, at times, be significantly affected by reduced
flow and reduced flow variability. For example, during the winter operation when
harvesting is occurring, the volume of flow diverted into the dam is quite considerable (eg,
approximately 70%, see Thompson (2013) for details). There will also be no minimum
flow maintained in the unnamed tributary during the winter harvest period and under some
conditions it is possible that the flows will drop to quite low levels when compared to
winter base flows.
35. Given that 1.5km is a significant length of stream, and that the stream has at least
‘moderate’ ecological values, further assessment specific to the effects (as outlined above)
of this reduced flow and reduced flow variability on the ecological values of the unnamed
tributary is required. This assessment of ecological effects needs to be based on clarified
hydrological effects (reduced flow and reduced flow variability), such as how often flow
will be affected, to what extent, and how this will vary under the different operation
regimes and ‘natural’ flows upstream of the dam. The details of the hydrological analysis
required are fully outlined in Thompson (2013).
Wakamoekau Creek
36. Approximately 4km of the Wakamoekau Creek between the confluences of the unnamed
tributary and the Waipoua River will be affected by reduced flows and flow variability.
Cheal (2013) indicate that harvesting is unlikely to reduce flows in the Wakamoekau by
more than 12% and they conclude that this will be of minimal impact on the ecosystem.
However, neither Cheal (2013) nor EAM’s AEE have characterised the ecological values of
the Wakamoekau Creek or how these values are linked (or not) with flow. Characterisation
of the ecological values of the Wakamoekau Creek should occur before a conclusion is
made on the ecological effects of the flow harvesting operation.
1287853-V2 PAGE 8 OF 14

Waipoua River
37. While the overall proportion of flow in the Waipoua River contributed by the unnamed
tributary is considered low (

help determine some of the potential effects from this proposal and may also identify
potential mitigation options.
44. The information required needs to include how the stream will be dealt with during
construction. Ideally the stream diversion should occur first and be in operation before the
construction of the dam to minimise on-going disturbance of the stream. The construction
plan will also need to clearly outline mitigation steps, such as the design of the diversion
channel and how aquatic fauna and flora will be translocated from the existing stream to the
new diversion.
Consideration of the effects on high value aquatic fauna
45. A specific effects assessment regarding the high faunal value species present is lacking. In
terms of all the effects above, further assessment is required that focuses on the ‘high value’
fauna present in these water bodies, such as the longfin eel, kakahi and koura – all of which
have conservation and important cultural values (mahinga kai species). For example, how
will kakahi populations be affected by the changes in flow regime that will occur under this
proposal?
46. While I acknowledge that the unnamed tributary does not appear to provide good trout
habitat, the effects on trout (including spawning areas and spawning migrations) still need
to be discussed in regards to the value of the Wakamoekau Creek and the Waipoua River.
Mitigation
47. The mitigation is proposed as an overall package in Cheal (2013) and consists of fencing
and riparian planting of the diversion channel and the reach downstream of the dam to
Matahiwi Road, and also (just) fencing upstream of the dam.
48. To better assess the appropriateness of this overall package, a more transparent mitigation
plan is required. This needs to include actual stream lengths of planting and fencing, along
with the specific affects being mitigated. For example, the AEE states that “to counter the
loss of flow from the tributary it is recommended that riparian protection be
undertaken….”. However, there is no mention of what mitigation is being offered for the
approximately 600m of stream that will be lost/drowned. It’s worth noting that robust
methods are available for calculating appropriate mitigation when a length of stream is lost
(eg, SEV) and that these have not been used. The mitigation plan also needs to demonstrate
how the type of mitigation was calculated/derived and why it is suitable in offsetting the
effects, or aspects of, the proposal.
49. As mentioned previously, the construction of the diversion channel to enhance stream
habitat, along with how the construction is staged, will be key parts of the mitigation
package that require further detail.
50. Based on the information supplied, my current opinion is that the mitigation proposed in
Cheal (2013) is not sufficient (given the cumulative effects of reduced flow and reduced
flow variability, diversions and stream length lost, as well as potential downstream effects).
1287853-V2 PAGE 10 OF 14

Additional mitigation options should be explored such as extending the riparian planting
and fencing (eg, downstream of Matahiwi Road if suitable and/or on additional streams
located on the property) and remediation of existing fish passage issues (eg, the structure
that creates a drop-off at Matahiwi Road bridge).
51. The riparian guidelines (MfE’s (2001) Managing Water Ways on Farms) referred to by
Cheal (2013) provide good guidance on how to undertake riparian restoration. However,
further detail is required on how exactly this riparian planting is undertaken, eg, width of
planting (should be a minimum of at least 10m on each side of the stream but ideally 20m),
spacing of plants, weed control regime, etc. This detail could be specified in either a
consent condition or riparian planting plan (to agreed specification with GWRC) required
by a condition, or provided as part of an updated mitigation plan.
52. Man-made dams are frequently subject to the introduction of invasive aquatic plant and fish
species; they can act as ‘strongholds’ for these species and aid their spread throughout the
catchment. It would also be beneficial for the mitigation plan to outline a strategy that will
minimise the introduction (as far as practicable) of exotic plants and animals to the dam.
Proposed monitoring and consent conditions should this application be granted
Monitoring
53. There appears to be no monitoring of ecological values or effects proposed in Cheal (2013).
In the AEE, EAM propose annual ecological monitoring but no specific detail is provided
of what this monitoring should be. At minimum, if this application is granted, I would
expect the following to occur:
a) The diversion channel is monitored/checked by a suitably qualified and
experienced freshwater ecologist prior to flow being diverted into it, and
subsequent checks one year, and then three years later. This monitoring is to
ensure that the channel is functioning to the design specifications and achieving
appropriate mitigation of the effects of the proposed activity (ie, enhancing
instream habitat). Reporting of this monitoring should include any
recommendations for modifications to the diversion channel, if required, and
recommend whether further monitoring of the diversion channel is warranted.
b) Flows at the top and the bottom of the diversion channel are monitored for an
initial period to ensure that no flow is lost through the new section of stream.
c) Monitoring of riparian restoration plantings at appropriate intervals to ensure that
mitigation targets are being met.
d) Ecological surveys undertaken three and ten years after construction is complete
that assess stream habitat and aquatic fauna condition, with a particular focus on
longfin eel, koura and kakahi. Recommendations for additional mitigation
options, if required, and further monitoring requirements should also be part of this
assessment.
1287853-V2 PAGE 11 OF 14

Consent conditions
54. If this application is granted I would expect the matters outlined below to be
incorporated/addressed within consent conditions:
a) All monitoring, as outlined above (paragraph 53);
b) The design of the diversion channel is undertaken by a suitably qualified and
experienced freshwater ecologist and the design demonstrates how stream habitat
will be enhanced (to the satisfaction of GWRC);
c) Appropriate detail on the riparian planting is provided to ensure that it provides
sufficient mitigation;
d) Appropriate mitigation targets are specified to ensure that mitigation occurs to an
agreed standard and actions to be undertaken if these targets are not achieved;
e) An appropriate flow through the diversion channel for the winter harvest period is
set and maintained when flow is being harvested;
f) No flow is lost through the diversion channel;
g) Fish passage is maintained at all times past (upstream and downstream) the weir
structure used to harvest flow and, as far as practicable, fish passage is maintained
in and out of the dam;
h) Discharge from the dam to the unnamed tributary does not occur (as far as
practicable); and,
i) As per the recommendation in Thompson (2013), a condition that stops harvesting
from occurring if GWRC deem that a flushing flow is required in the Waipoua
River.
Overall comments and matters still outstanding
55. The AEE produced by EAM generally characterises the ecological values of the unnamed
tributary and I agree that this stream can probably be classified as, overall, having
‘moderate’ ecological values. Some additional assessments, such as macroinvertebrate
surveys following standardised national methods, would have been useful in providing
further evidence of this moderate classification. However, the presence of good numbers of
longfin eel, koura and kakahi (all of which are classified as threatened by DoC) and also the
high cultural values (mahinga kai species), place this stream at the high end of the
‘moderate value streams’.
1287853-V2 PAGE 12 OF 14

Matters still outstanding
56. While the ecological values of the unnamed tributary are generally well established in the
AEE, the values of the other affected water bodies are not. Furthermore, linkages between
specific effects and specific instream values are generally lacking and the overall mitigation
package does not clearly indicate which effects the mitigation is addressing. The main
deficiencies with this application that require further information and discussion before this
application can be progressed are outlined below.
Assessment of effects
57. The likely effects of the reduction in base flows and flow variability (including flushing
flows) need to be linked to the specific instream values (including high value species such
as longfin eel, koura and kakahi) of the unnamed tributary. This should be undertaken using
hydrological statistics that summarise the effects of the harvesting on the flow regime as
specified in Thompson (2013).
58. The instream values (ecological and recreational) of the water bodies downstream of the
unnamed tributary (Wakamoekau Creek and Waipoua River) need characterising and
linking of the likely effects of the reduction in base flows and flow variability (including
flushing flows) to the values specific to these water bodies is needed. This should be
undertaken using hydrological statistics that summarise the effects of the harvesting on the
flow regime as specified in Thompson (2013).
Mitigation
59. A clear and transparent mitigation plan is required that sets out the potential effects of the
applicant’s proposed activities and what is being proposed to mitigate these effects. This
plan needs to relate specific mitigation actions proposed for each effect (eg, stream lost,
stream diverted, reduction in flows and reduction in flow variability). This plan should
include an accurate breakdown of the stream lengths involved (affected and mitigated),
construction details where these are pertinent to the mitigation package (eg, construction of
instream habitat within the diversion channel, aquatic fauna translocation, etc.) and the
finer details of fencing and riparian planting that will occur (including on-going
management). The plan also needs to demonstrate how the type of mitigation was
calculated/derived and why it is suitable in offsetting the effects of the proposed activities.
References
Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R, Jellyman D, Ling N, Ravenscroft P and Waters J. 2010.
Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research, 44: 1–17.
Greater Wellington Regional Council. 2013. Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington region.
Publication No. GW/EP-G-13/21, Wellington.
1287853-V2 PAGE 13 OF 14

Greenfield S, Ryan A and Milne J. 2012. Recreational water quality in the Wellington region: State
and trends. Greater Wellington Regional Council, GW/EMI-T-12/142, Wellington.
Hitchmough R, Bull L and Cromarty P. 2007. New Zealand threat classification system lists, 2005.
Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Joy M, David B and Lake M. 2013. New Zealand freshwater fish sampling protocols: Part 1,
wadeable rivers and streams. Massey University, Palmerston North.
McDowall RM. 2000. The Reed field guide to New Zealand freshwater fishes. Reed Books Ltd,
Auckland.
Stark JD, Boothroyd IKG, Harding JS, Maxted JR and Scarsbrook MR. 2001. Protocols for
sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group
Report No. 1. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Management Fund Project
No. 5103.
Wellington Regional Council. 1999. Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington region.
Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. WRC/RP-G-99/31, Wellington.
Alton Perrie
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Science Department
DD: 06 826 1545
alton.perrie@gw.govt.nz
1287853-V2 PAGE 14 OF 14