Waipoua River 20130219.pdf - Northland Regional Council

1 Introduction1.1 BackgroundThe Waipoua River is located approximately 55 km North of Dargaville on the West Coast ofNorthland. The Waipoua area, including the River and the Waipoua Forest, has high cultural,recreational, ecological and environmental values. It is also has great economic importanceto the Northland Region, as a major tourist destination. The River is one of the most pristinerivers in Northland, with excellent water quality and high conservation and ecological value.For these reasons the Northland Regional Council (NRC) identified the Waipoua River asone of several priority catchments for the Northland Water Programme.1.2 Purpose of this documentThe main purposes of this document are to:1. provide an up-to-date overview of river water quality and quantity and the use andvalues associated with the River2. identify knowledge gaps that will be required to be addressed in order to bettermanage pressures on the River and its catchment and better allocate resources.This document will inform the Northland Water Programme.1.2.1 Northland WaterNorthland Water is a programme for improving the management of water quality andquantity across the region. It brings together and coordinates a number of NorthlandRegional Council’s water management responsibilities, including its programme forimplementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPS).The NPS requires Northland Regional Council to establish freshwater objectives and setassociated water quality and quantity limits for every stream, river, lake, wetland, and aquiferacross the region. It then requires Northland Regional Council to implement regulatory andnon-regulatory actions to achieve the freshwater objectives.Northland Regional Council has committed to an approach that involves setting acombination of specific limits in priority catchments and region-wide interim and/or defaultlimits for other freshwaters. Northland Regional Council is also aware of the strongcorrelation between freshwater and coastal water in Northland, especially given that all ofregion’s major river systems drain to estuaries and harbours. The proposed Regional PolicyStatement for Northland, notified in October 2012, establishes a framework for the integratedmanagement of fresh and coastal waters, including by identifying a number of regulatory andnon-regulatory actions to be implemented by Northland Regional Council.Actions include policies, regulations, and incentives. Achieving objectives is also dependenton a good deal of landowner and community commitment. Robust information is critical tothe limits setting process and very important to assess the on-going achievement offreshwater objectives.6

Northland Regional Council identified the Waipoua River as one of several prioritycatchments for establishing catchment specific freshwater objectives and freshwater qualityand quantity limits.1.3 Document structureThis document is structured as follows:Section 2 provides an overview of the river and its catchment, including informationabout its related uses and values. It also outlines the current policy framework formanaging activities that can have an impact on the river and its catchment.Section 3 describes the quality and quantity of water in the river, the river ecosystemand freshwater biodiversity, and identifies information gaps.Section 4 identifies known and likely pressures on the River and its catchment. Thissection also identifies information gaps.Generally speaking, this document has been prepared for a wide audience. Wheneverpossible, technical details and background information has been minimised but some is stillrequired.2 The Waipoua River and catchment2.1 OverviewLike many of Northland’s rivers, Waipoua River is relatively short. However, unlike most ofNorthlands rivers (which usually discharge to harbours) Waipoua flows into open sea on theWest Coast. The headwaters of the Waipoua River are in the Parataiko Range andMataraua Plateau, at about 650 metres above sea level (masl), near Tutamoe. From here itflows west, under SH12 (about 100 masl), past Waipoua Forest Visitor Centre and WaipouaSettlement, before discharging to the West Coast, approximately 10 kilometres north ofManganui Bluff.The Waipoua River is the boundary between the Kaipara and Far North District Councils.The entire catchment is within the rohe of Te Roroa and Waipoua Forest has been identifiedas the heart of their Rohe (Te Roroa Manawhenua Trust 2009).The River is named after the Poua, a large pipi that tastes like a toheroa (Harris undated).The total catchment area of the Waipoua River is approximately 11,160 Ha. Part of theWaipoua River is classified as an ‘Outstanding river’ in the Regional Water and Soil Plan(RWSP) (Figure 1). The ‘Outstanding river’ part of the catchment basically includes all of thecatchment upstream of SH12 and Waikohatu Stream. Approximately 70% (7,790 ha) of thewhole catchment is within the area identified as an ‘Outstanding river’. The majority of thisarea is within the Waipoua Forest (ie, has indigenous forest land cover), except for somesmall areas of pasture in the headwaters.In Waipoua Forest, the average air temperature is 14.2°C with average monthlytemperatures ranging from 10.2°C in July to 18.2°C in December (DOC 2011). The averageannual rainfall at the Waipoua Forest Visitor Centre is 1605 mm, with the wettest monthsbeing June and July and the driest month January (Table 1). Higher areas in the east (on the7

The Crown purchased the land that is now Waipoua Forest in 1876 (DOC 2011).Inaccessibility was probably the main factor that protected the Waipoua Forest fromextensive kauri tree logging, although over 600 men carried out gum digging and gumtapping in the Waipoua area in the early 1900s (DOC 2011). Construction of State Highway12 (SH12) through the heart of the forest began in 1926 (DOC 2011). Intensive logging wasdone in Waipoua Forest during World War II, up until 1948, with the Forest obtainingprotection in 1952 (Miller and Holland 2008).The present day land cover for the entire catchment is dominated by indigenous forest(75%), followed by exotic forest (16%) with pasture being less than 5% (Table 2 and figure2). While there are some small areas of pasture in the headwaters of the catchment, themajority of the exotic forestry is downstream of SH12 (ie, outside of the ‘Outstanding river’catchment). The pastoral land cover is used for sheep and beef dry stock farming. Over 90%of the area in the ‘Outstanding river’ catchment (ie, upstream of SH12) is indigenous forest,with the remainder mainly being pasture and manuka/kanuka shrub (Table 2). The majorityof this pastoral land in the headwaters of the catchment is now either owned by the NewZealand Native Forests Restoration Trust, which has become the Professor W. R. McGregorReserve or the Waipoua Forest Trust, who both aim to restore the land to indigenous forest(New Zealand Native Forests Restoration Trust 2012).Table 2: Land cover (LCDB3), in hectares, of the entire Waipoua River catchment and thecatchment identified as an ‘Outstanding river’ in the Regional Water and Soil Plan.Land cover Outstanding river Whole catchmentBroadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods 26.8 (0.3%) 62.7 (0.6%)Coastal Sand and Gravel 9.3 (0.1%)Exotic Forest 60.6 (0.8%) 1,689.6 (15.1%)Forest - Harvested 143.8 (1.3%)High Producing Exotic Grassland 420.1 (5.4%) 494.8 (4.4%)Indigenous Forest 7,063.7 (90.7%) 8,361.9 (74.9%)Low Producing Grassland 4.6 (0.1%) 8.8 (0.1%)Manuka and/or Kanuka 212.2 (2.7%) 372.3 (3.3%)River 18.0 (0.2%)Transport Infrastructure 0.6 (0.01%)Total 7,788.0 11,161.9Less than 200 people live in the Waipoua River Catchment (DOC 2011). There are anestimated 10-15 dwellings in Waipoua Settlement in the valley downstream of SH12including the two Te Roroa marae; Pānanawe and Matatina. There is the WaipouaCampground and Visitor Centre, located by the River directly downstream of SH12. Ownedand managed by Te Iwi O Te Roroa, it includes a Visitor Centre and café, 80 tent sites, 18cabins and at least 6 houses. There is also an estimated 5-7 dwellings in the uppercatchment on SH12, including the Waipoua Lodge, which can sleep about 12 guests(Waipoua Lodge 2012) and a further 2-3 dwellings on the Kaikohe Road past Tutamoe.10

Figure 2 Land cover of the Waipoua River catchment11

2.2.2.1 PeriphytonPeriphyton is found in all aquatic habitats and refers to the algae that grow on stablesurfaces in river beds. Periphyton is naturally occurring and fundamental for sustainingstream life. However, under optimum conditions, it can also form thick growths of matsand/or filamentous periphyton that can adversely affect instream values, such asrecreational use, stream biodiversity and aesthetics.The periphyton community at the Waipoua River site is diverse, typically dominated bydiatoms and desmids but also green filamentous and blue-green algae on occasion and atsome sites (Gray 2012, Dwersteg 2007). Algal biomass is consistently low, well below theguidelines for ‘clean water’ invertebrates of 50 mg/m 2 (Gray 2012, Dwersteg 2007).2.2.2.2 Freshwater fishA total of 11 native freshwater fish species have been recorded in the Waipoua Rivercatchment (Table 3), including all records in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database(NIWA) dating from 1965 and a recent survey by Mahurangi Technical Institute in March2012 (O’Brien 2012). They include several species considered to be ‘at risk’ including thelong-finned eel, torrentfish, lamprey (kanakana) and short-jawed kōkopu (DOC 2011).Many of our native fish species are migratory, spending a significant amount of their life atsea, meaning they must have access in both directions (both up and downstream) tocomplete their life cycles (McDowall 2000). This includes all the native fish species recordedin the catchment.Table 3: Freshwater fish (native and exotic) recorded in the Waipoua River catchment,including the freshwater crayfish (koura), with frequency of occurrence in records (Datasource: NZFFD and O’Brien 2012)Common name Scientific name FrequencyLongfin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii 23Banded kokopu Galaxias fasciatus 17Koura (freshwater crayfish) Paranephrops sp 13Koaro Galaxias brevipinnis 8Shortfin eel Anguilla australis 4Unidentified eel Anguilla sp. 4Common bully Gobiomorphus cotidianus 3Inanga Galaxias maculatus 3Shortjaw kokopu Galaxias postvectis 3Torrentfish Cheimarrichthys fosteri 2Common smelt Retropinna retropinna 2Redfin bully Gobiomorphus huttoni 2Unidentified galaxiid Galaxias sp. 2Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis 1Lamprey Geotria australis 1Unidentified bully Gobiomorphus sp. 113

The only exotic fish recorded in the catchment are two mosquito fish recorded at onelocation in 1992, in a small unnamed tributary near the Waipoua Campground and VisitorCentre. There are no other records for mosquito fish elsewhere in the catchment or since1992, however, there has been very little fish monitoring carried out in recent years.2.2.2.3 Freshwater invertebratesThe Waipoua River has a rich diversity and density of freshwater invertebrates (Seitzer 1996in Miller and Holland 2008). A total of 61 different taxa have been recorded at the SH bridgesite, in the annual monitoring since 2004, however, 18 of these taxa have only been found inone of the nine years of monitoring (Appendix 1). The greatest number recorded in one yearwas 36 taxa in 2010 (Table 8). Total freshwater invertebrate diversity in the catchment islikely to be much higher than this, as this is only one site, which is a reasonably large fastflowingpart of the river system, the sampling is of only one habitat type (riffle-cobble) andidentification of taxa is only carried out to genus, family or in some cases order level.A species of particular significance is the caddisfly, Oxyethira waipoua. As Waipoua River isthe only site in New Zealand in which it is known, it is classified as ‘At risk’ (range restricted)(Miller and Holland 2008). This species was first found and classified in January 1996 asadults on the river edge at the SH bridge (Wise 1998). Since annual monitoring began in2004, the Oxyethira genus has only been recorded at the site in 2010 and from the availabledata the species is unknown. However, it is worth noting that the commonly found speciesO. albiceps is usually found in quite different habitat to the Waipoua River eg, in openstreams and ponds with degraded water quality.Another species of potential conservation interest is the stonefly Spaniocercoides watti,which is reported to be restricted to the banks of the Waipoua River (Collier 1992). However, noSpaniocercoides sp. have been found in the annual freshwater invertebrate monitoring since itbegan in 2004.2.2.2.4 Ecology in the surrounding catchmentThe Waipoua Forest contains the largest remaining tract of old-growth kauri forest in NewZealand, which is now reduced to less than 2% of its original extent (DOC 2011). This Forestis part of the Waipoua – Mataraua – Waima Forest tract, the largest indigenous forest northof Auckland. These forests are characterised by their diversity of plant species andcommunities. The Kauri National Park Proposal (DOC 2011) clearly identifies the ecologicalvalues of the Waipoua Forest. Key points are included in the excerpts below:“Vegetation communities of the Waipoua Forest tract are very diverse, reflectingenvironmental factors such as elevation, slope and distance from the coast, and historicalfactors such as fire, logging and gum digging. Kauri is a significant component of only 4 ofthe 17 major vegetation communities mapped by Burns and Leathwick (1992)…. Theyrecorded over 380 indigenous vascular plants in this area, of which 69 (18% of the total)are restricted to the north of the North Island. This includes 37 of the 128 species of treesand shrubs. There is also a rich flora of fungi and non-vascular plants such as mosses andliverworts, algae and lichens. Even this extensive list is known to be incomplete, as anumber of other species have been recorded from coastal areas, and some very seasonalplants, such as ground orchids, are difficult to find.14

At low altitude, forest associations of taraire, kohekohe, kauri, nīkau, kahikatea, māmāngi,māpou and kānuka are dominant. At mid-altitudes, forest associations are dominatedvariously by taraire, kohekohe, tōwai, rewarewa, kauri, Hall’s tōtara and kiekie. Relativelyhigh altitude forest associations are composed of mixtures of tōwai, tawa, rimu, makamaka,supplejack and kiekie. With increasing elevation, kauri and coastal species disappear andthe forest becomes dominated by rimu and other podocarps.Within the kauri forests, gullies are dominated by taraire, kohekohe, nīkau, māhoe andCyathea ferns. Midslopes support forests with taraire, tōwai and tawa with abundant kiekieand silver fern. On the ridges, dominant species are kauri, towai, Hall’s tōtara, tāwheowheoand tāwari, with the climber Metrosideros albijlura being common. Groundcover is oftendominated by large clumps of kauri grass (Astelia trinervia) and the large sedge Gahniaxanthocarpa.Fauna and flora values of the Waipoua Forest tract are very high, with a range of endemicand nationally threatened species present including North Island brown kiwi, North Islandkokako, kukupa/kererū (New Zealand wood pigeon) and short- and long-tailed bats.Together with the contiguous areas of the Waima and Mataraua Forests, Waipoua supportsthe largest remaining North Island brown kiwi population and the last functional populationof kōkako in Northland. Birds of a limited distribution nationally, but not uncommon withinthe forested areas, are the North Island kiwi and pied tit (miromiro), and the kākāriki is alsopresent. The North Island fernbird (mātātā) is found in the shrublands nearer the coast.Other native birds are relatively common and widespread throughout the area, including tūī,silvereye, fantail, grey warbler, kingfisher, morepork and shining cuckoo.The invertebrate fauna is not well known. [Native land] Snails are a notable feature of theNorthland fauna and are well-represented at Waipoua, particularly the large and attractivekauri snail (Paryphanta). A survey of the conservation needs of 101 native invertebratesfound Northland to have the second highest occurrence of threatened species nationally—55 or 18% of the total surveyed (McGuinness 2001)”. (DOC 2011, p. 20)“Waipoua Forest supports the largest population in the country of the nationally threatenedNI brown kiwi (Serious Decline), possibly between 1–2000 birds (R. J. Pierce pers. comm.),while the Waipoua/Mataraua plateau contains the most viable population of NI kokako(Nationally Endangered) in Northland.” (Miller and Holland 2008, p. 7)2.2.3 Recreation and aestheticsWaipoua Forest and River have high recreational and aesthetic values. Recreationalactivities include walking, camping, swimming, road cycling and hunting. Many visitors comepurely to enjoy the beauty of this near pristine area of Northland and view the iconic giantkauri. Waipoua Forest is a popular Northland and New Zealand tourist destination. It isidentified as an iconic area and attractor in the Northland Tourism Strategy with up to100,000 [sic] visitors to the Tāne Mahuta site every year (DOC 2011).There are currently nine short walks easily accessible from the SH (DOC 2011); one of theseis the ‘Ricker Walk’, which is a 5 minute walk along the River from the SH bridge. TheWaipoua Forest Fun Run and Half-Marathon from Tāne Mahuta to the Waipoua CampingGround has been held every year since 2008. It is a popular event (DOC 2011) with, forexample, 250 competitors in 2009 (The Northern Advocate 2009).15

The Waipoua Campground and Visitor Centre is located beside the River, downstream ofthe SH bridge. Since 2000, an average of 80,000 people per year has visited the Centre(DOC 2011). Near the Campground is a popular swimming spot in the River. It is possiblethat other locations on the River are also used for swimming, especially by the localcommunity, such as downstream in the Waipoua Settlement.Each year DOC issue a low number (eg, 8 in 2010) of hunting permits, mainly for pigs, forthe purpose of managing pests (DOC 2011). Fishing in relation to mahinga kai collection isdiscussed in section 2.2.4.Common recreational uses are shown in Figure 3 on the next page.2.2.4 Maori cultural valuesThe Waipoua River itself is one of the significant wāhi tapu sites in Te Roroa area, rich infish and seafood and the valley had fertile cultivated land. The Waipoua Forest has beeninhabited by Te Roroa ancestors for 27 generations or about 1,000 years (Harris undated).There is still customary use of the natural resources in the catchment today, including pighunting, and collection of eels and other freshwater fish from the River and its tributaries(DOC 2011).There are many wāhi tapu sites and wāhi taonga (treasured) sites of historical and culturalsignificance to Te Roroa in Waipoua Forest, which reflect their history of association andinterconnection with the landscape (DOC 2011). The proposal for a national park highlights:“there is extensive evidence of early Māori occupation in the lower Waipoua Valley withnumerous pā sites, middens, stone heaps, terraced garden systems and wāhi tapu. Theareas adjacent to the Waipoua River are particularly significant for the density ofarchaeological sites.” (DOC 2011, p. 22)There are about 170 Maori archaeological sites registered in the New ZealandArchaeological Association’s Database as being located in the Waipoua River catchment.They are all located downstream of the SH12 bridge and include pa, stone heaps, terraces,middens, urupu (burial sites) and pits.Today, Te Roroa still heavily use and treasure the Waipoua River and Forest. Te Roroaoffices, including administration, commercial development and environmental managementunits, are located in the centre of Waipoua Forest (DOC 2011). Te Roroa, as the recognisedkaitiaki of the Waipoua Forest and surrounding area, has been involved in a wide range ofenvironmental management and development issues and research with various governmentand private organisations over the years. The 2009 Te Roroa Iwi Environmental Policyspecifically notes that the whole of Waipoua Forest and the surrounding public conservationland is viewed by Te Roroa as “a record of the interaction of our tupuna with this place”.Te Roroa are currently involved in many aspects of DOCs work in the Waipoua area. TeRoroa people are established as service contractors who undertake:archaeological surveying and monitoringpest and weed controlbiosecurity monitoring of kauri dieback disease and Argentine ants.16

Figure 3 Common uses of the Waipoua Forest and River17

Under the umbrella of its Oranga Whenua programme, Te Roroa is restoring lands retiredfrom pine production. As mentioned previously, Te Roroa also owns and operates theWaipoua Campground, Visitor Centre and café and there are two marae located in theWaipoua Valley (Pānanawe and Matatina).2.2.5 EconomicThe main economic value of the Waipoua River and Waipoua Forest is tourism:“Waipoua Forest is an iconic Northland and New Zealand tourist destination…The ruggedwest coast of Northland is marketed as the ‘Kauri Coast’ and the giant kauri trees form one ofthree strategic sites for the Northland tourism industry. Both Waipoua Forest and TrounsonKauri Park are identified as icon areas and attractors in the Northland Tourism Strategy. Up to100,000 [sic] people per year visit the Tāne Mahuta site. Tourism flows in the forest are highlyseasonal, with the peak period in the summer season from December to February. Recentsurveys have shown that overseas tourists make up the majority (62%) of visitors to theforest, with people from Auckland making up the majority (38.5%) of domestic visitors.” (DOC2011, p. 22)The Waipoua Visitor Centre has a small gallery, café and a retail/reception area withcampsite, cabin and house accommodation in the adjacent Waipoua Camping Ground.Since 2000, there has been an average of 80,000 visitors per year (DOC 2011).Individuals or businesses undertaking commercial activities or research in Waipoua Foresthave to apply for a concession because it is public conservation land (DOC 2012). Aconcession is a permit, licence or lease that allows commercial or organised non-profitactivities and/or the occupation of land/building of structures. Approximately 20 concessionscurrently operate in this area for guided activities, grazing and scientific research (DOC2011).2.2.6 Other valuesAdditional to the historical values of significance to Maori already identified in section 2.2.4,there are more historical values of the Waipoua River and surrounding catchment. There area total of 230 archaeological sites registered in the New Zealand ArchaeologicalAssociation’s Database as being in the Waipoua River catchment. They are all locateddownstream of the SH bridge and are concentrated around the river (DOC 2011). About 170are identified as Maori archaeological sites (see section 2.2.4). The remaining 60 sites aremainly related to the kauri gum-digging and logging history of the area, including gum-holes,camps, horse tracks and a house/gum store. There is also one actively managed historicalsite: the Kauri Lookout, constructed by the New Zealand Forest Service in the 1960s (DOC2011).Other values of the Waipoua River include water supply, mainly for stock, and electricitygeneration. However, information on these uses is very limited and is not likely to be ofsignificant nature, given the remoteness of the area and low population.18

2.3 Managing the River and its catchment2.3.1 Management of Waipoua RiverUnder the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Northland Regional Council isresponsible for managing the region’s freshwater quality and quantity by controllingdischarges, water takes and land use activities that impact on water. Under the LocalGovernment Act 2002, Kaipara and Far North District Councils are responsible for theprovision and operation of wastewater, stormwater, and potable water infrastructure, as wellmanaging use and development of land generally. Integrating the functions of the threeCouncils for managing the use of land is important for ensuring effective management ofwater quality.Contaminants can enter waterbodies from direct and diffuse discharges. Direct dischargesare sources of contaminants that discharge from discrete points or identifiable localisedareas. Direct discharges, including stormwater and wastewater, to streams, rivers, and landare controlled by rules in the RWSP. Diffuse discharges typically arise from land useactivities that are spread across a catchment. Diffuse contaminants can enter waterbodiesby sub-surface drainage (leaching) and surface run-off. Diffuse discharges can includefertilisers, animal faeces and soil from agricultural land, and soil and fertilisers from forestryand horticultural land use. Diffuse discharges also includes stormwater from areas that arenot reticulated, including from some roads (without drains) and road banks, which can be asignificant source of sediments.2.3.2 Management of Waipoua ForestThe majority of the “Outstanding river’ catchment is within the Waipoua Forest (part of theNorthland Conservation Park).A conservation park is to be managed “for the protection of its natural and historicresources and, subject to that, to facilitate public recreation and enjoyment” (section 19Conservation Act 1987). Some of the forest is further classified as a sanctuary area, “to bemanaged to preserve in their natural state the indigenous plants and animals in it, and forscientific and other similar purposes” (section 22 Conservation Act 1987). (DOC 2011, p.20)All public conservation lands managed by the Department are managed in accordance withregional Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs). The purpose of a CMS is to“implement general policies and establish objectives for the integrated management ofnatural and historic resources, including any species, managed by the Department … andfor recreation, tourism, and other conservation purposes” (section 17D Conservation Act).(DOC 2011, p. 16)Day to day management of the Forest includes extensive weed control along the length ofthe Waipoua River and SH12, and control of pests, including rats, stoats, possums, goatsand pigs.2.3.3 Iwi environmental managementThe entire area of Te Tarehu (wider than just Waipoua Forest) is a wāhi tapu of vital culturalimportance to Te Roroa, and includes many specific wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga (treasured19

sites) (DOC 2011). Section 50 of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Act 2008 establishes TeTarehu, a classification that overlies the majority of the land in the entire Waipoua Rivercatchment.In particular, the Settlement Act Te Tarehu acknowledges the traditional, cultural, historicand spiritual associations of Te Roroa with the forest, while leaving day-to-daymanagement with the Department. ….. The Settlement Act also requires decision makersto have particular regard to the views of Te Roroa in respect of Te Tarehu values andprotection principles. (DOC 2011, p. 11)These values and protection principles are documented in Appendix 2.3 Water quality, water quantity and ecosystem healthThe Waipoua River has remained in a near pristine state, due to:its remoteness and the surrounding steep topography making logging difficult in theearly 1900s, the establishment of the Waipoua Forest Sanctuary in 1952the upper and mid catchment being identified as an ‘Outstanding river’ in the RWSP.Current monitoring shows that water quality and ecosystem health are excellent in the midand upper catchment. However, there is very little data for the lower reaches of thecatchment. There is also limited data on changes in water quality over time and waterquantity.3.1 Current monitoring of the RiverNorthland Regional Council currently undertakes the following monitoring in the WaipouaRiver:River Water Quality Monitoring Network (RWQMN) established in 1996. 36 riversites throughout Northland encompassing 22 river catchments are monitored monthlyfor a range of parameters, including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, water clarity,nutrients and bacterial levels. This monitoring includes one site in the Waipoua Rivercatchment located at the bridge on SH12, which was added to the Network in 2002.Annual reports are available here:Stream invertebrate monitoring at RWQMN sites since 1997. Every site in theNetwork is monitored once a year in summer. Monitoring at the one Network site onWaipoua River started in 2004. Annual reports are available here:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Environmental-Monitoring/Stateof-the-Environment-Monitoring/http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Riversand-streams/Periphyton monitoring at 25 of the RWQMN sites started in 2007. Every summeralgal biomass and species identification has been sampled at the Waipoua River site.20

Stream habitat assessments at RWQMN sites since 2004. Assessments aretypically carried out every second year. The Waipoua River site has been assessedin 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012. Reports are available here:Recreational Water Quality Programme (2002/03 - present). The programme iscoordinated by Northland Regional Council in partnership with Northland Health andthe region’s three District Councils. The aim of the programme is to provideinformation on bacterial levels at popular freshwater and coastal swimming sites inNorthland to allow the public to make an informed decision about where to swim.One location in the Waipoua Catchment, near the Camping Ground, has beenmonitored as part of this programme from December 2005. Monitoring reports andmore information can be found at:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Riversand-streams/http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-andreports/Recreational-swimming-programme/http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Living-in-Northland/At-the-beach/Swimming-water-quality/Hydrological monitoring. NRC installed an automatic telemetered water levelrecorder in Waipoua River at the SH12 bridge in June 2007. Metservice operate arainfall station at the Waipoua Visitor Centre, where daily rainfall is manuallyrecorded. As well as specific monitoring programmes some ad hoc monitoring as also beencarried out to check compliance with resource consent conditions and to investigateenvironmental incidents.Together, the information is central to assessing the state of the River. The data obtainedthrough these programmes and consent monitoring has been used to provide an overview ofwater quality and ecosystem health in the River. Figure 4 on the next page shows the sitescurrently monitored in the Waipoua River catchment.21

Figure 4 Monitoring sites in the harbour and its catchment3.2 Water quality and the river ecosystemThe ecological health, or integrity, of the river ecosystems are related to a number ofenvironmental factors including, but not limited to, the availability of suitable habitat types(e.g. diverse range of substrate sizes, aquatic plants, large woody debris and varied flowtypes), food and light availability, disturbance and high water quality. It is important to notethat the relationship between ecosystem health and environmental factors is often verycomplex and unpredictable.In rivers the water quality parameters of concern in terms of ecological health are, in noparticular order, temperature and dissolved oxygen, clarity, nutrients, suspended solids.Faecal pathogens are not known to affect aquatic ecosystems. The state of water qualityfrom a human health perspective is discussed in section 3.2.5 below. Biological monitoringinformation, such as invertebrates, periphyton, habitat assessment and fish, can be used tohelp determine the impacts of water quality, if any, on river ecosystems, however, asmentioned above causal effects are not always clear.The Council has adopted a river classification based on a system developed by Cawthron(Wilkinson, 2007). Rivers are classified into five classes; Excellent, Very Good, Moderate,Degraded and Very Degraded, based on a number of connected water quality indicators;nutrients, physical properties, clarity, bacteriological and invertebrates (Table 4).22

Table 4 Classification system based on Wilkinson (2007). The median results for a site areused to determine the class from A to E. Source: NRC 2012b.Indicator(values in mg/L unlessspecified)A – Excellent B - Very Good C - Moderate D - DegradedE - VeryDegradedNutrientsNitrate-NAmmonia-N

Dissolved oxygen is also important for freshwater invertebrates and fish, with some speciesbeing more sensitive to low oxygen levels than others. Dissolved oxygen levels vary withtemperature, biological activity and how quickly it transfers from the atmosphere. Biologicalactivity includes microbial activity by bacteria and primary production by plants and algae.Aquatic plants photosynthesise during the day (producing oxygen) and respire at night(using oxygen). Given the pristine state and lack of plants and algae in the Waipoua River itis likely that the fluctuation in dissolved oxygen throughout the day is reasonably smallcompared to an impacted lowland river dominated by aquatic plants.Between 2007 and 2011 the lowest dissolved oxygen recorded was 69.4% and the medianwas 101% (Table 5). Dissolved oxygen also scored Excellent for stream health. However,again it is worth noting that oxygen levels are likely to be lowest in the early hours of themorning and highest in the afternoon, which does not coincide with Council monitoring.Dwersteg (2007) recorded much higher dissolved oxygen levels at several sites in theWaipoua catchment, including at the SH bridge, in Waikohatu Stream and at the ford in thelower reaches, the highest of which was 124.5% saturation, which suggests that levels mayalso drop well below those recorded during RWQMN monitoring.Table 5: Water quality statistics for 2007-2011 for Waipoua River at the SH12 bridge, includingstream health score (A = Excellent, B = Very good) Source: NRC 2013.ParameterNo. ofsamplesMeanStdDevMed Min MaxNitrate, nitrite-N (mg/L) 54 0.03 0.03 0.02

Table 6: Trend analysis results for June 2007 to December 2011, with flow adjustment forWaipoua River. Source: NRC 2013.Indicator Median Rate of change (/yr) p valueTemperature (°C) 13.4 -0.0272 0.3723Dissolved Oxygen (% sat) 101.05 0.1032 0.8077pH (pH unit) 7.4 -0.0021 0.4654Water clarity (m) 2.0 -0.0322 0.342Turbidity (NTU) 2.3 -0.1545 0.2213Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen (g/m³) 0.024 -0.004 0.0426Dissolved reactive phosphorus (g/m³) 0.005 -0.001 0.0006Ammoniacal Nitrogen (g/m³) 0.005 0 0.4305Total Nitrogen (g/m³) 0.127 -0.014 0.2237Total Phosphorus (g/m³) 0.007 -0.0015 0.0285E. coli (n/100mL) 67.5 17.47 0.00273.2.2 PhThere is an ideal pH range for aquatic life. If water becomes too acidic or alkaline it can belethal to aquatic biota. A pH of 7 is neutral - naturally river water is typically slightly alkaline(above 7). The median pH for Waipoua River between 2007 and 2011 was 7.4, which wasclassified as Excellent (Table 5). There were two extremely low pH readings recorded inDecember 2007 and May 2008 of 3.8 and 3.4 respectively. It is unclear what the cause ofthese would have been or if these are even true readings or whether they weremeasurement errors. Dwersteg (2007) recorded similar pH levels for four sites in theWaipoua catchment in 2006 and 2007 with similar median pH and the lowest reading of 5.3,which was in the lower reaches of the catchment.The Council (NRC 2013) found no significant trends for pH for the 2007 to 2011 period(Table 6). However, caution should be taken when interpreting these trends due to the shorttime period being analysed.3.2.3 Water clarityGood water clarity is important for light availability for periphyton growth, the primary foodresource for stream life. Clear water is also important for visual feeding by fish andinvertebrates. Water clarity is influenced by suspended sediment and algal biomass.Suspended sediments are typically elevated following large rainfall events, causing lowwater clarity and high turbidity. There are two measures of water clarity; turbidity and thehorizontal distance until a black disc disappears.25

The average turbidity for 2007 to 2011 was 3.6 NTU (Table 5), which is the lowest of all the36 sites in the network, however, this only grades as “Very good” (B). The maximum turbidityrecorded over this same period was 26 NTU, which was associated with an elevated flowevent. This shows that even rivers in almost pristine native forested catchments haveelevated sediment levels following heavy rain. This will be a combination of sediment beingwashed into the river from surrounding land but also sediment being re-suspended from theriver bottom due to the increased flows.Water clarity was 2 metres or more on half the sampling occasions between 2007 and 2011(Table 5). Again Waipoua River was classed as “Very good” for this indicator. However, assaid above, there was occasion when the water was turbid, with low water clarity. The lowestclarity recorded between 2007 and 2011 was 27 cm, which corresponded with the highestturbidity reading and highest total suspended solids of 45 g/m 3 .There were no significant trends for clarity or turbidity for 2007 to 2011 (Table 6). However,caution should be taken when interpreting these trends due to the short time period beinganalysed.3.2.4 Nutrient levelsNitrogen and phosphorus are the two main nutrients required by algae, plants, and animalsfor metabolism and growth. Nitrogen and phosphorus naturally occur in water as a result ofnatural processes, such as the erosion of soil, atmospheric deposition, and the breakdown oforganic matter. Nitrogen is highly soluble and can leach through soil, whereas phosphorususually enters water in direct discharges or associated with sediment. Whilst they arenecessary for life, high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus can cause excessive growth ofaquatic plants and algae.The dissolved nutrient levels in Waipoua River are typically low. Dissolved reactivephosphorus (DRP) and ammoniacal nitrogen are often below detection level, with themedian for 2007 to 2011 for both being below detection limit (Table 5). The median nitratenitritenitrogen (NNN) for 2007 to 2011 is 0.2 mg/L and the highest result was 0.13 mg/L.The scores for dissolved nutrients are both Excellent (A). Slightly higher levels ofphosphorus and nitrate were found at the four sites sampled in 2006 and 2007 (Dwersteg2007). However, the accuracy of the testing method used is uncertain. Dwersteg (2007)recorded nitrate levels as high as 0.3 and 0.7 mg/L and dissolved phosphorus of 0.12 and0.1 mg/L, at the SH bridge and at the ford in the lower catchment respectively.NRC (2013) reported significant improving trends for 2007 to 2011 for DRP, NNN and totalphosphorus (TP). NNN has decreased at a rate of 0.004 mg/L per year (Table 6). DRP andTP have deceased at a rate of 0.001 and 0.0015 mg/L respectively. However, given thenumber of occasions where DRP was below detection limit and there was a change ofmethod, and in turn detection limit, during this time, this trend may be a reflection of thechanging detection limit, rather than a true decrease in DRP. This may also be the case forthe TP trends. There are no obvious reasons in terms of changes in the catchment upstreamof this site that would be likely to be having an effect on water quality at the SH bridge, as towhy there are improving trends in nutrients. Trend analysis on data not adjusted for flowfrom July 2002 to June 2010 did not detect any significant trends for nutrient levels at theWaipoua River site (NRC 2011).26

3.2.5 Invertebrate community healthStream invertebrates (macroinvertebrates) can be used as biological indicators of waterquality and stream health. The number of taxa (taxanomic diversity) at a site is a goodindicator of the health and conservation value of a site. However, identification as part of theinvertebrate monitoring programme is not to species level, so the diversity is likely to bemuch higher than the data suggests.The Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) is an indicator of organic enrichment, wheretaxa are assigned predetermined scores on a scale of 1 to 10 depending on their sensitivityto organic pollution. The total MCI score at a site is based on the taxa present with thecategories in Table 7 used to determine the overall level of enrichment. The Semi-Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index is similar to the MCI but takes into accountthe relative abundance of each taxa present. The categories used to determine the level oforganic enrichment for SQMCI are also shown in Table 7. “Fuzzy boundaries’” of ± 5 MCIunits and ± 1.0 SQMCI unit are often used when interpreting the categories (Pohe 2012), toaccount for the complexity and variation in invertebrate communities.Table 7: Categories for MCI and SQMCI (Boothroyd and Stark 2000).Category MCI SQMCIClean water > 120 > 6.00Possible mild pollution 100 – 119.9 5.00 – 5.99Probable moderate pollution 80 – 99.9 4.00 – 4.99Probable severe pollution < 80 < 4.00Most mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera) and stoneflies (Plecoptera) aremore sensitive to changes in their environment. Therefore, like the MCI and SQMCI, thenumber of Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera taxa present as a proportion of thetotal number of taxa recorded can be used as a measure of likely organic pollution at a site(%EPT). The caddisflies; Oxyethira and Paraoxyethira, have been excluded from the %EPTtaxa as they are often associated with enriched conditions (Pohe 2012). It is worth notingthat the exclusion of Oxyethira from the %EPT taxa is based on the speciesO. albiceps, which is common in enriched lowland streams and rivers. However, it ispossible that the Oxyethira sp. present in Waipoua River in 2010 was Oxyethira waipoua,which are not associated with enriched conditions given their restricted range to this area.A total of 61 different taxa have been recorded at the SH bridge site, in the annualmonitoring since 2004, however, 18 of these taxa have only been found in one of the nineyears of monitoring (appendix 1). The greatest number recorded in one year was 36 taxa in2010 (Table 8). As mentioned previously, the freshwater invertebrate diversity for the entirecatchment is likely to be much higher than this.MCI consistently indicates that the Waipoua River at the SH bridge falls in the ‘clean water’category with scores ranging from 118 to 136, with an average of 128 for the nine years ofmonitoring (Table 8). SQMCI also consistently indicates no or very little organic enrichmentwith scores ranging from 6.7 to 8.1, with an average of 7.6 (Table 8).27

The SH bridge site is dominated by pollution sensitive taxa, with at least half of the taxapresent being EPT taxa in all nine years (Table 8). The invertebrate indices are consistentwith the water quality data, that is, showing that Waipoua River is the most pristine of theriver sites routinely monitored in Northland, with typically the highest number of invertebratetaxa, %EPT taxa, MCI and/or SQMCI.Table 8: Freshwater invertebrate data for Waipoua River at SH bridgeYear No. of taxa MCI SQMCI %EPTMar-04 13 121.5 6.70 53.8Mar-05 20 135.0 7.39 55.0Mar-06 20 136.0 8.11 65.0Mar-07 21 129.5 7.20 66.7Jan-08 29 135.5 8.21 72.4Apr-09 26 118.8 6.79 53.8Jan-10 36 121.7 7.86 55.6Mar-11 34 128.5 7.91 58.8Feb-12 32 129.1 7.89 62.5Average 25.7 128.4 7.6 60.4The data for Waipoua River suggests there has been very little ecological change in theinvertebrate communities between 2004 and 2012 (Pohe 2012).3.2.6 Fish communityAlthough a recent survey (O’Brien 2012) only recorded four native fish species at the SH12bridge (banded kokopu, koaro, short jaw kokopu and long fin eel), historical surveys in thelower reaches of the river recorded a diverse fish community of 11 different native species(see section 2.2.2.2). As mentioned in section 2.2.2.2, all of the 11 native fish speciesrecorded in the catchment spend part of their life at sea and must be able to move both upand downstream to complete their life cycles. A ford on Waipoua River Road in the lowercatchment is currently causing a severe barrier to fish passage and has been for manyyears, preventing/limiting fish migration to the optimal habitat in the headwaters (O’Brien2012).Two of the species present in the catchment are regionally rare and one is sparse (koaro,banded kokopu and lamprey respectively, Miller & Holland 2008) and another is in decline(shortjaw kokopu, Allibone et al 2009). O’Brien (2012) suggests that if fish passage wasrestored, the conservation value of the site at the SH bridge would be greatly enhanced.3.2.7 Periphyton communityPeriphyton is an important indicator of environmental quality, as the main primary producerin stream ecosystems, but also because of its ability to respond quickly to changes in waterquality and form excessive growths under ideal conditions, affecting instream values, suchas biodiversity and recreational use.The Waipoua River consistently has low periphyton biomass with chlorophyll α being wellbelow Biggs’ (2000) guideline for ‘clean water’ invertebrates of 50 mg/m 2 (Gray 2012,Dwersteg 2007). The Council’s periphyton monitoring has shown that the periphytoncommunities of streams in native forested catchments are typically dominated by diatomsand desmids, which is the case for Waipoua River in most years. However, in 2007 and28

2009 the community at the Waipoua River site was dominated by blue-green and greenfilamentous algae species. While these communities are indicative of mesotrophic conditions(ie, slight enrichment), this is unlikely to be the case with the relatively low nutrient levels atthe Waipoua River site and the low chlorophyll α (algal biomass) for the same years. Thechange in community composition in 2007 and 2009 is most likely a natural occurrencerelated to a combination of flow regimes, water temperatures and/or light availability (Gray2012).Dwersteg (2007) studied periphyton at four sites in the Waipoua River catchment on severaloccasions in 2006 and 2007. The sites were the Waipoua River at the SH12 bridge and inthe lower reaches at the ford on Waipoua River Road, and the two tributaries; Waikohatuand Toronui Streams.Dwersteg (2007) also found the SH12 bridge site to be dominated by low biomass formingdiatoms with blue-green and green algae species present in some samples. Biggs and Kilroy(2000) state that oligotrophic streams draining native forested catchments can have bluegreendominated periphyton communities form in summer low flows. Dwersteg (2007) foundthe periphyton community at the Waikohatu Stream site to be quite different to the SH bridgesite, with a slightly higher algal biomass and dominated by green filamentous algae. This sitehad higher light availability and a slightly different flow regime compared to the SH bridgesite. The site in the lower reaches of the river, is more impacted by humans, with pineforestry in the surrounding catchment and associated superphosphate fertiliser use and aford restricting water flow, causing it to be slower and relatively homogenous. Despite this,the periphyton community at this site was found to be similar to the SH bridge site, with itdominated by low biomass diatoms. The Toronui Stream site was greatly affected by a floodearly in the study with periphyton recovery being slow but still dominated by diatoms.3.2.8 Stream habitat qualityIn 2012, only two sites of the 36 sites in the Network were assessed as having optimalstream habitat for freshwater biota (NRC 2012a). The two sites were Waipoua River andWaipapa River at Forest Ranger in Puketi Forest. Approximately 60% of the stream channelfor Waipoua River is shaded by native riparian vegetation, the stream banks are stable andthe river has a range of flow types, such as riffle, pools, chutes and runs and a range ofsubstrate sizes, including gravel and pebbles, cobbles, boulders and bedrock.The Waipoua River has remained in the sub-optimal to optimal grade for habitat quality sinceassessments started in 2004 and bank and stream channel stability has remained good toexcellent (NRC 2012a).3.3 Water quality and human healthFaecal pathogens (sickness-causing organisms) could enter the Waipoua River in leakagefrom wastewater infrastructure, from wildlife such as waterfowl, possums or pigs, and/or inrun-off from pastoral farmland.These organisms can pose risks to human health when water is used for contact recreation,such as swimming. During swimming there is a reasonable risk that water will be swallowedor inhaled, or come in to contact with ears, nasal passages, mucous membranes, or cuts inskin, allowing pathogens to enter the body (MfE 2003). Health effects are generally minor29

and short-lived. However, there is the potential for more serious diseases, such as hepatitisA, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, campylobacteriosis, and salmonella (MfE 2003).It is difficult to measure the level of faecal pathogens in water. Instead, like other agencies,Northland Regional Council measures the levels of indicator micro-organisms in accordancewith the national microbiological water quality guidelines published by the Ministry for theEnvironment and the Ministry of Health (2003). The Recreational Guidelines usebacteriological indicators associated with the gut of warm-blooded animals to assess the riskof faecal contamination and therefore the potential presence of harmful pathogens.Compliance with the guidelines should ensure that people using water for contact recreationare not exposed to significant health risks. The bacteriological indicator used for freshwateris Escherichia coli (E. coli).The Recreational Guidelines work with a defined ‘tolerable risk’ rather than no risk at all. Formost healthy people coming into contact with water within the guideline value will pose aminimal level of health risk. However, the same water may still pose a greater health risk tohigh-risk user groups such as the very young, the elderly, and those with impaired immunesystems (MfE 2003). Health risks associated with levels of bacteriological indicators arediscussed in further detail in the following sections.In addition, while it is correct to infer that water exceeding the guideline values pose anunacceptable health risk, the converse is not necessarily true. This is because wastewatereffluent may be treated to a level where the indicator bacteria concentrations are very low,but pathogens such as viruses and protozoa may still be present at substantialconcentrations.3.3.1 Contact recreationFor contact recreation the Recreational Guidelines are summarised in Table 9 below. Theyare based on keeping sickness risks associated with recreational water use to less than 2percent (i.e. ≤19 people in 1,000).When levels of E. coli are within the surveillance (green) category, the risk of sickness fromswimming is acceptable, ie, sickness risks are below 19 per 1,000 swimming events (MfE2003). If levels fall into the alert category, there is an increased risk of illness fromswimming, but still within an acceptable range. However, if levels enter the action category(>550 E. coli per 100 mL) then the water poses an unacceptable health risk from swimming.At this point, if the high levels persist, warning signs are erected and the communityinformed that it is “unsafe” to swim at this location.Table 9 Surveillance, alert, and action levels for freshwaterStatus E. coli per 100mL Management actionSurveillance (Green) < 260 Routine monitoring (i.e. weekly)Alert (Amber) 260 – 550 Increased monitoring (i.e. daily), investigation of sourceand risk assessmentAction (Red) > 550 Closure, public warnings, increased monitoring (i.e. daily)and investigation of source30

Northland Regional Council currently check E. coli levels at the swimming hole near thecamping ground downstream of the SH bridge over the summer period (December to March)as part of the Recreational Swimming Water Quality Monitoring Programme. Thisprogramme follows the methodology set out in the Recreational Guidelines, and sampling isat least weekly.The results for all the available routine data are shown in Table 10 below. Please note thatthe percentage (%) samples within the guideline value are indicative of the percentage of thesummer season when sites are suitable for swimming. They do not represent the actual timethe sites were in compliance with the guideline value. Numbers in red show counts thatexceed “safe” for contact recreation levels.Table 10 Recreational water quality compliance for E. coli levels at Waipoua River swimmingspot near the Camping Ground (weekly summer sampling)Site name (number)SummerssampledNo. ofsamplesRange Median 95 th %ile(Hazen)% of samples withinguideline (

waters with the shellfish gathering guidelines (MfE 2003). The median faecal coliform countfor the 7 sampling occasions was 150 per 100 mL, which exceeded the guideline value(used for shellfish gathering) of 14 faecal coliforms per 100 mL. Furthermore, 6 (86%) of the7 samples exceeded the second guideline value of 43 faecal coliforms per 100 mL (for whichno more than 10% of the samples should exceed this guideline). However, the maximumfaecal coliform count was only 240 per 100ml and the E. coli levels were all reasonably lowranging from 41 – 238, with a median of 84 E. coli per 100 mL.The difference in microbiological water quality between the SH12 bridge and swimming spotwithin such a small distance and with very few potential sources of contamination and theincreasing trend for 2007 to 2011 both warrant further investigation. Other information gapsin relation to microbiological water quality are the sources of the peaks in bacterial levelsfollowing rainfall and the lack of microbiological data for the lower reaches of the catchment.Faecal source tracking techniques such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) markerscould be used to try to identify the source of microbial contamination.3.4 Water quantityA certain minimum flow is required to protect the life-supporting capacity and wasteassimilation potential and to meet the needs of recreational, amenity and cultural uses (NRC2008b). Generally, smaller rivers are more sensitive to the potentially adverse effects of flowreduction on their life-supporting capacity than larger rivers. The mean annual low flow(MALF) is the flow required to be maintained in flow-sensitive rivers (rivers of high ecologicalvalue sensitive to the potentially adverse effects of flow reduction). The MALF is obtained byaveraging the lowest daily flow for each year of record. This average estimates a naturalminimum, which generally occurs in summer.The automatic flow recorder was established in Waipoua River at the SH bridge in June2007. Based on just over 5-years data from 30 May 2007 to 28 August 2012 the (1-daymoving average) MALF for Waipoua River is 543 L/s and the 7-day MALF is 606 L/s. Giventhe short length of record there could be up to 20% inaccuracy in these figures (D. Hansen,NRC, pers. comm.). However, a comparison of the MALF (731 L/s) for Kaihu River for thissame time period (2007 to 2012) with the MALF (700 L/s) for the entire flow record for KaihuRiver (1983 to 2012), shows that the figures for Waipoua River are reasonably accurate,despite the short length of flow record.Figure 5 shows the flow record for Waipoua River (note the full y-axis is not shown so thatthe average flow is easier to see). The median and average flow for 30 May 2012 to 28August 2012 is 1.58 and 3.19 m 3 /s respectively. There are usually at least 4 or 5 floodevents a year that exceed 10 times the median flow, which is well above the flow level thatwould significantly impact on instream fauna, such as invertebrates and periphyton.Metservice operate a rainfall station at the Waipoua Visitor Centre with daily rainfall readingstaken manually. The recorded average annual rainfall is reasonably high at 1605 mm (Table1) and is thought to be even higher further upstream, reaching as high as 2500 mm in thehigher altitudinal areas in the east (DOC 2011). As discussed earlier, the wettest months areJune and July and the driest month January. Although there is a good long term rainfallrecord for Waipoua Forest dating from 1928, there are some gaps in the data in recentyears, for example, there is no data in the CLIFLO database for 2012.32

There is no information on groundwater quality or quantity for the catchment; however, thereis anecdotal evidence of groundwater springs throughout the forest (Dwersteg 2007).Figure 5 Water flow (m 3 /s) in Waipoua River at SH12 for 2 June 2007 to 28 August 2012 (notethe y-axis has been cut off to show the smaller flows)3.5 Summary and considerationsAvailable information indicates that water quality in the upper and mid reaches of theWaipoua River is excellent and suitable for supporting its high ecological values. However,there is insufficient data to determine the state of water quality in the lower reaches. This is asignificant information gap as all the native fish found in the catchment are migratory andpoor water quality in the lower catchment could also act as barrier to fish migration.Monitoring results show that the situation is similar in terms of microbiological water qualityfor human health. While the area around the SH12 bridge has bacterial levels that suggest itis suitable for contact recreation most of the time. There are occasions, especially followingrainfall, when bacterial levels are elevated. Given the relatively pristine nature of thecatchment upstream from here these peaks in bacterial levels may warrant furtherinvestigation. There is basically no bacterial data for the lower catchment.Similarly to water quality, there is no water quantity data for the lower catchment. Surveyingof low flows in the lower catchment would be of value again because of the importance ofmaintaining flows for fish migration. There are also recent gaps in the rainfall data for thearea.An analysis of flow-adjusted water quality data for 2007 to 2011 for Waipoua River at SH12showed that there was improving trends for nitrate, dissolved phosphorus, total phosphorusand deteriorating trends for bacterial levels. However, this finding should be considered with33

caution because of the limited data set on which it is based and the number of occasions inwhich results are below detection limits for dissolved phosphorus and total phosphorus.Trend analysis on data from the same site not adjusted for flow from July 2002 to June 2010did not detect any significant trends for nutrient or bacterial levels.Monitoring of water quality, water flows and biological indicators, such as fish, invertebratesand/or periphyton in the lower catchment is required to obtain a more accurate picture of theentire catchment.4 Key threats to the River and its catchmentThis section looks at known and likely future pressures on the Waipoua River and itscatchment. The focus is pressures on water quality and the river ecosystem, however,potential pressures on terrestrial ecosystems, particularly the Waipoua Forest, are alsoincluded because the excellent state of the Waipoua River is highly dependent on theprotection of the Waipoua Forest.4.1 Land use4.1.1 Pastoral farmingCurrently, there is very little pasture (less than 5%) in the entire Waipoua River catchment(approx. 500 Ha – see section 2.1). The majority is in the headwaters and is farmed withreasonably low intensity, with some areas being allowed to revert back to scrub. There areno dairy farms in the catchment. Therefore, this is currently unlikely to be a significantpressure on the Waipoua River.4.1.2 ForestryLess than 1% (60 Ha) of the ‘Outstanding river’ catchment is in forestry and it is in theheadwaters of the catchment, so any impacts are likely to be less than minor. However,there are substantial areas (1,700 Ha) of forestry in the lower catchment, comprising 15% ofthe whole catchment.In general, exotic forestry can have a positive influence on water quality by stabilising landand reducing sediment run-off during forest growth between harvesting periods(approximately every 25-30 years). Possible impacts on aquatic ecosystems during this timeinclude sediment run-off from forestry roads, poorly designed river crossings that restrict fishmigration and nutrients inputs from fertiliser usage.The potential pressures increase during harvesting periods. Sediment can enter waterbodies as a consequence of disturbance to land from felling and removing trees and have animpact on aquatic ecosystems. Sediment can continue to enter water following harvestinguntil replanting and canopy closure has occurred (up to six years). There is also potential forforestry harvesting activities to impact on terrestrial biodiversity and archaeological sites inthe catchment if not carefully managed.It is difficult to determine the influence of production forestry on the lower reaches of theWaipoua River because there is no data for the lower catchment. However, there is34

evidence that the causeway on Waipoua River Road is restricting fish passage (O’Brien2012) and Dwersteg (2007) detected elevated nutrient levels, which were thought to possiblybe from fertiliser use, however, the accuracy of the results are questionable.There is currently one resource consent for forestry operations in the catchment(CON20060689402), which includes consent for earthworks, discharge of stormwater to landand a water permit for the diversion of stormwater. Monitoring in 2004 and 2012 showed thatoperations were fully compliant with consent conditions. Monitoring comments included“Roading sink holes in place to trap sediment runoff and prevent erosion. Good managementpractices being undertaken, resulting in minimal adverse effects.” and “The earthworksassociated with the harvesting operation were minimal.”In addition to resource consents, the RWSP has a number of controls on harvestingoperations including controls on earthworks and the disturbance of riparian margins ofstreams and rivers, riparian setbacks, and discharge rules. In partnership with the RMAForestry Development Group, Northland Regional Council have developed guidelines forplantation forestry (NRC 2012). The intent of the document is to provide the forestry industry(including contractors operating under permitted activity and/or a resource consent) with adocument to help with undertaking operations by providing examples of best practice tocontrol and reduce sediment runoff. In addition, Northland Regional Council is working withforestry managers to promote and train forestry operators in the use of the guidelines.4.2 Development4.2.1 Land use changeAs discussed above, the current pressures from pastoral land use and forestry in the‘Outstanding river’ part of the catchment are likely to be less than minor. However, this couldchange if there is development to a more intensive land use, such as subdivisiondevelopment and/or intensive pastoral farming, such as dairy production, in the small areaoutside of the Waipoua Forest.Run-off from pastoral land can potentially contain nutrients, sediments, faecal pathogens,and also heavy metals. Nitrogen compounds and faecal pathogens can also leach throughsoil to water bodies, including groundwater. Diffuse sources include, but are not limited to,stream banks and other erosion prone land, stock access to the beds and riparian marginsof waterways, general grazing of animals, and fertilisers.4.2.2 Roading and trafficTraffic over the Waipoua River on SH12 is currently in the region of 400 vehicles per day onaverage with it steadily increasing between 2006 and 2010 (Table 12). This is likely tocontinue to increase, especially given that the Waipoua Forest has been identified as astrategic site for Northland’s tourism industry (DOC 2011), SH12 is part of the ‘Twin CoastDiscovery’ tourist route identified in the Transport Strategy (NRC 2010) and it is possible thatthis area will become a National Park (see below).35

Table 12: Annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for two locations on SH12 near WaipouaRiver from 2006 to 2010 and the percentage of which is heavy vehicles (greater than 3.5tonnes) Note: Reference station 89 (South of Wairau river Bridge) is North of Waipoua Riverand reference station 106 (800m north of Aranga Station Rd) is South of Waipoua River. Datasource: NZ Transport Agency 2011Site Ref station 89 Ref station 106AADT 2006 262 374AADT 2007 275 399AADT 2008 273 413AADT 2009 330 452AADT 2010 350 511% Heavy 8.3 10.6The most significant potential environmental pressures from roading and traffic on theWaipoua River at SH12 and Waipoua Forest are:stormwater run-offintroduction of pests and weedsrubbishenvironmental incidents.Stormwater run-off refers to rain water that drains from impervious surfaces (eg, roads andcarparks). Stormwater run-off flows into the Waipoua River untreated and can carry a rangeof contaminants such as litter, sediment, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, oil and grease. Thearea of impervious surfaces near the Waipoua River and its tributaries is currently small.DOC undertakes extensive terrestrial weed control along the length of the Waipoua Riverand New Zealand Transport Agency employs contractors to control weeds along StateHighway 12, the two main pathways of weeds into the forest (DOC 2011). Pest control,including the use of 1080, cyanide and traps for possums and rats, and shooting for goatsand pigs is also carried out by DOC and Te Roroa (DOC 2011).Since 1997, seven environmental incidents in the Waipoua Catchment have been reportedto the Regional Council, none of which were found to have had a significant impact on theRiver.As the 30 Year Transport Strategy for Northland identifies:Northland’s land transport network extends to, or passes through, a number of naturalareas that have important conservation and landscape values such as Waipoua Forest.Careful attention needs to be given to the effects of new road and rail works on naturalareas including: removal or alteration of vegetation with a subsequent loss of habitat; introduction of noxious weeds and predators to natural habitats; changes to natural drainage patterns and wetland system; creation of a physical barrier to the movement of some wildlife; and effects on wildlife from the noise, lights, and movements of traffic. (NRC 2010, p. 25)Pressures from roading in the lower catchment are much less due to lower trafficvolumes, however, there is the additional pressure of sediment washing off unsealedroads and the significant impact that the ford crossing on Waipoua River Road is having36

on the river ecosystem, particularly fish migration, invertebrate drift downstream andwater flows.4.3 WastewaterThere are no reticulated wastewater treatment schemes in the Waipoua River catchment.However, there are several septic (onsite) systems (ie, wastewater treatment that is notconnected to a reticulated system). Septic systems fit into two main categories: communitysystems and single premise systems. Examples of community systems include schools, foodpremises, camping grounds and accommodation facilities, sports and recreation facilities,marae and community halls.Failing and poorly performing septic systems, which can lead to untreated wastewaterreaching freshwater and coastal environments, have been an ongoing issue in many areasof Northland (SOE 2007). Untreated wastewater contains high levels of faecal pathogensand nutrients. It also contains a range of other contaminants, such as household chemicals,pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, and particulate matter. It is difficult to know the state ofseptic systems in the Waipoua Catchment due to the lack of data but the majority of systemsare located well away from the Waipoua River and its tributaries.There is data for one system in the catchment. This system has a resource consent todischarge up to 29.1 m 3 per day of secondary treated wastewater from the Waipoua VisitorCentre and Camping Ground complex to land (CON20010479501). The system wasupgraded in 2004 because the previous soakage trench system was failing. The new systemincludes an intermittently loaded sand filter and pressure compensating dripper irrigationline, which discharges to land approximately 500 m south of the Waipoua River on a heavilyvegetated slope. This disposal area is at least 30 metres from all watercourses. Given theupgraded treatment system, the method of disposal and the separation distances to thenearest watercourses, the Council consider that the adverse environmental effects on waterquality will be no more than minor. The latest monitoring in 2012 shows the discharge is fullycompliant with resource consent conditions. Bacterial levels in the discharge have beendramatically lower since the system was upgraded in 2004, with all results below 1,200 E.coli per 100 mL and an average of 500 E. coli/100mL for the 7 sampling occasions sinceJanuary 2005.4.4 Water takesThere is currently very little information on water takes from the Waipoua River. Under theRWSP and the RMA, water can be taken from surface water resources for stock drinkingwater and domestic purposes provided specific criteria are met (NRC 2008b). There arelikely to be some water takes from the Waipoua River for these purposes, but to meet thepermitted activity rules they must be downstream of the SH12 bridge (ie, not in the‘Outstanding rivers’ part of the catchment) and must be less than 30 m 3 /day (June toNovember) and 10 m 3 /day (December to May). Therefore, the total water taken under thepermitted activity rules is likely to be minor.The only water take consent in the Waipoua catchment is to take up to 173 m 3 /day for thepurpose of electricity generation (CON20051307001). The water is taken from an unnamedtributary in the lower reaches of the catchment, used and discharged back to a drain, which37

flows 110 m before reaching the Waipoua River. As all water used is discharged back to theRiver, this take is unlikely to have adverse effects on the environment.4.5 Recreational use and tourismTourism and its associated uses (eg, walking, picnicking and camping) are the mainrecreational uses in the Waipoua River catchment. As discussed previously, traffic volumesand tourist numbers to the Waipoua area are already relatively high and expected toincrease. A major risk associated with these recreational uses is the introduction of pestsand weeds via camping and tramping gear. A significant concern in recent years has beenthe fungus kauri dieback disease, which causes debility and death of all kauri trees it infects.One way the fungus is thought to be spread is by mud on shoes (DOC 2011). Otherpressures, already discussed above, that will increase with increased visitors to the Waipouaarea are volumes of wastewater requiring disposal and the demand on water supply.Fishing nets are a potential vector for the spread of invasive aquatic weeds and fish. Eventhough mosquito fish have already been recorded in the catchment (in one location in 1992),there has been no further records of them since. Mosquito fish have probably not becomewell established in the River because their usual habitat is slow-flowing streams andwetlands, especially where there is prolific aquatic plant growth (McDowall 2000). Althoughthe risk of invasive weeds or problematic pest fish becoming established in the fast-flowinghigh quality waters of the upper catchment is low, the impact would be large. There is verylittle information for the lower catchment but presumably the risk of establishment would behigher.Other recreational uses, such as swimming and road cycling, are unlikely to be impacting onthe River or its catchment.4.6 National Park proposalThere have been several proposals to establish a National Park in Northland incorporatingthe Waipoua Forest, the latest of which is currently being considered (DOC 2011 and DOC2012). As the area of the catchment that is proposed to be included in the National Park isthe area that currently sits within the Conservation Park, there is unlikely to be much changewith respect to permitted use and day-to-day management of the area. Most of the lowerWaipoua River below State Highway 12 is outside the proposed area.As mentioned above, visitor numbers would be expected to increase if National Park statuswas obtained, as studies have shown for other National Parks (DOC 2011). As the proposalstates:Specific attention is needed to coordinate agencies in providing adequate infrastructure forthe expected increase in visitor numbers and, through this, increase local people’sacceptance of tourism. Key infrastructure needs associated with increased tourism are: Roads and bridges Sewerage systems and toilet facilities, including campervan waste dumping sites andpublic toilets…. Water supplies Rubbish collection and disposal. (DOC 2012, p. 44).38

However, overall the benefits of obtaining National Park status are likely to outweigh anyincreased pressures.4.7 Summary and considerationsThe current pressures on the upper Waipoua River (ie, upstream of SH12) are minimal,given the catchment is dominated by indigenous forest. This is consistent with the excellentwater quality and ecological health at the SH12 monitoring site. However, any futureincrease in pressures on the River in this part of the catchment would have a huge impact onthis relatively pristine and highly sensitive environment.The number and range of potential pressures on the River increase moving downstreamfrom the SH bridge. The potential pressures include roading infrastructure, recreational use,wastewater, water takes and forestry. These are discussed as potential pressures becausethere is a lack of information on many pressures, especially for the lower catchment, such asthe number of permitted water takes and the state of onsite wastewater systems. Also theactual impacts that these pressures are having on water quality and ecosystem health isunclear due to the lack of water quality data for the lower reaches of the catchment. Impactsfrom these pressures could include low dissolved oxygen levels due to reduced flows,biochemical oxygen demand or extensive weed growth, increased water temperatures,sediment, nutrient and bacterial inputs, introduction of invasive pest animals and plants andbarriers to fish and invertebrate movement. These impacts would affect cultural, recreational,ecological and economic values of the River and catchment.While it is likely that the impacts of any one of these pressures in isolation is minimal, it iswell known that the cumulative effects moving down a freshwater catchment often lead todeteriorated water quality and ecosystems in the lower reaches of rivers and streams. Thesepressures are likely to increase over time with the predicted increase in visitor numbers tothe area.As mentioned above, monitoring of water quality, water flows and biological indicators in thelower catchment is required to obtain a more accurate picture of the state of the entirecatchment, to ensure connectivity with the sea is maintained and to monitor the impacts ofthis increase in pressures as you move down the catchment.5 ConclusionAvailable information indicates that water quality in the upper and mid reaches of theWaipoua River is excellent with good temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, lowsediment levels and clear water, low nutrient levels and low bacterial levels the majority ofthe time, making the River suitable for supporting its high values including ecological,environmental, recreational, cultural and water supply. While the periphyton and freshwaterinvertebrate communities and stream habitat data shows that the ecological values are highand currently being supported by this excellent water quality, fish monitoring shows that thefish communities are being effected, most likely by a ford in the lower reaches restrictingmigration. This highlights the importance of the lower reaches of the river in terms ofprotecting and maintaining the health of the upper catchment and that the entire catchmentmust be considered as a whole.39

The current pressures on the upper Waipoua River are minimal, given the catchment isdominated by indigenous forest, which is consistent with the excellent water quality andecological health. However, the number and range of potential pressures on the Riverincrease moving downstream from the SH bridge, including roading, recreational use,wastewater, water takes and forestry.The lack of water quality, biological and water flow data for the lower catchment is asignificant information gap, especially given the evidence that fish communities in the uppercatchment are currently likely to be affected by a ford in the lower reaches and thecumulative impact of pressures on the river are likely to increase as you move downstream.In summary, the lower catchment is the area of greatest concern for several reasons:Due to the need for connectivity with the sea for fish migration to and from the uppercatchment The likely impact that a ford in the lower catchment is having on flows and fishmigrationThe increase in potential pressures as you move down the catchmentLack of water quality, biological and flow data for the lower catchment.Future management and monitoring of the catchment needs to carefully consider the entirecatchment, not just the areas that fall within the Waipoua Forest (ie, indigenous forest landcover) or area identified as ‘Outstanding river’ in the RWSP.AbbreviationsAADTDRPDOCEPTMALFMCIMfENNNNPSNRCPNAPRMARWQMNRWSPSHAnnual Average Daily TrafficDissolved Reactive PhosphorusDepartment of ConservationEphemeroptera, Trichoptera and PlecopteraMean Annual Low FlowMacroinvertebrate Community IndexMinistry for the EnviromentNitrate-Nitrite NitrogenNational Policy StatementNorthland Regional CouncilProtected Natural Areas ProgrammeResource Management ActRegional Water Quality Monitoring NetworkRegional Water and Soil PlanState Highway40

SQMCITPSemi Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community IndexTotal PhosphorusReferencesANZECC. (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality,Vol 1. The Guidelines. Prepared by Australian and New Zealand Environment andConservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource Management Council ofAustralia and New Zealand. Available on the Ministry for the Environment website at thefollowing link:http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/anzecc-water-quality-guide-02/index.htmlChadderton, L. W., Brown, D. J. and Stephens, T.R. (2004). Identifying freshwaterecosystems of national importance for biodiversity: Criteria, methods, and candidate list ofnationally important rivers. Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand.Collier, K. J. (1992). Freshwater macroinvertebrates of potential conservation interest.Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand.DOC. (2011). Kauri National Park Proposal. An Invitation to Comment. Public DiscussionPaper. Department of Conservation: Whangarei.DOC. (2012). Proposed Kauri National Park Waipoua Forest, Northland: InvestigationReport by the Director-General of Conservation to the New Zealand Conservation Authoritypursuant to Section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980. Department of Conservation:Wellington, New Zealand.Dwersteg, D. (2007). Algal abundance, species and ecology in different river habitats –Tutamoe Ecological District, New Zealand. Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischenGrades Diplom-Geoökologin.Gray, T. (2012). State of the Environment Monitoring of Periphyton at Northland’s RiverWater Quality Monitoring Network sites 2007 – 2012. Report prepared for NorthlandRegional Council by Tanya Gray, TEC services.Harris, N. (undated). Te Roroa’s lands, showing some of the most significant wahi tapu sites.Available here:http://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/maps/teromap.gifMcDowall, R. M. (2000). The Reed Field Guide to New Zealand Freshwater Fishes.Auckland: Reed Books.Miller, N. and Holland, W. (2008). Natural areas of Tutamoe Ecological District:Reconnaissance survey report for the Protected Natural Areas Programme. Department ofConservation: Whangarei, New Zealand.MfE. (2003) Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and FreshwaterRecreational Areas. Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health. Available here:http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/microbiological-quality-jun03/NRC. (2008a). Northland Stream Habitat Assessments 2007 and comparison with 2004 and2005. Report prepared by Northland Regional Council. Available here:41

NRC. (2008b). Chapter 10: Surface Water Quantity. In: Northland Regional Council 2007State of the Environment Report. Report prepared by Northland Regional Council. Availablehere:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Rivers-andstreams/http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Environmental-Monitoring/State-of-the-Environment-Monitoring/NRC. (2010). 30 Year Transport Strategy for Northland ‘incorporating’ The Regional LandTransport Strategy. Northland Regional Council: Whangarei.NRC. (2011). Northland River Water Quality Monitoring Network State and Trends 2010.Northland Regional Council: Whangarei, New Zealand. Available here:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/riverdataNRC. (2011a). Northland Rivers Habitat Assessment 2008 – 2010. Report prepared byNorthland Regional Council. Available here:NRC. (2011b). Recreational Swimming Water Quality in Northland Summer 2010-2011.Report prepared by Northland Regional Council. Available here:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Rivers-andstreams/http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Recreationalswimming-programme/NRC. (2012). Forestry Earthworks & Harvesting Guidelines for Northland. Prepared byNorthland Regional Council in collaboration with Hancock Forest Management (NZ),Rayonier / Matariki Forests, Chandler Fraser Keating, Northland Forest Managers, PF Olsenand Juken New Zealand. Available here:http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Environment/Land/Northland-Forestry-Guidelines/NRC. (2012a). Northland Rivers Habitat Assessment 2010 – 2012 Draft. Report prepared byNorthland Regional Council.NRC (2012b). Chapter 4 – Our Freshwater Draft. In: State of the Environment Report 2012.Report prepared by Northland Regional Council.NRC (2013). Northland River Water Quality Monitoring Network. State and trends 2007-2011Draft. Report prepared by Northland Regional Council.New Zealand Native Forests Restoration Trust (2012). Professor W.R. McGregor. Retrievedfrom http://www.nznfrt.org.nz/index.php?page_id=89 on 17 December 2012.NZ Transport Agency. (2011). State Highway Traffic Data Booklet 2006-2010. New ZealandTransport Agency.O’Brien, Q. (2012). Northland Region Freshwater Fish Monitoring 2012 sub-report 7: 15Waipoua River. Report prepared by Mahurangi Technical Institute for Northland RegionalCouncil.42

Ogle, L. and Cook, T. (2005). Northland Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Programme:Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and Habitat Assessments 2004. Report prepared by NorthlandRegional Council. Available here:Pohe, S. R. (2012). Northland Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Programme: 2012 MonitoringReport. Report prepared by Pohe Environmental for Northland Regional Council.Te Roroa Manawhenua Trust. (2009 unpublished). Ngā Ture o te Taiao o Te Roroa – Te Iwio Te Roroa environmental plan.http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Research-and-reports/Rivers-andstreams/The Northern Advocate. (2009). Fun run to raise forest awareness draws 250. Retrievedfrom http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/fun-run-fun-run-to-raise-forest-awarenessdraws-25/1004563/on 20 December 2012.Waipoua Lodge (2012). Reservations. Retrieved from http://www.waipoualodge.co.nz/reservations/ on 19 December 2012.Wilkinson, J. (2007). Updated Freshwater Classification for Nelson 2007. Prepared forNelson City Council. Cawthron Report No 1349. 58p.Wise, K. A. J. (1998). Two new species of Oxyethira (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae) in NewZealand. New Zealand Entomologist, 1998, Vol. 21, p. 17-23.43

Appendix 1 – Freshwater invertebrate dataTable 13: Macroinvertebrates recorded in Waipoua River at SH12 Bridge in annual monitoring,showing the number of years each taxa has been recorded. Taxa are assigned codes of1=Rare, 5=Common, 20=abundant, 100=very abundant, 500=extra abundant.Year Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Jan-08 Apr-09 Jan-10 Mar 11INSECTAEphemeropteraAcanthophlebia 5 5 1 5 1 5 6Ameletopsis 1 1 1 1 4Arachnocolus 1 1Atalophlebioides 5 5 1 20 4Austroclima 1 1 2Coloburiscus 20 100 5 20 5 20 5 20 8Deleatidium 20 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 9Mauiulus 5 1 1 3Neozephlebia 1 1Nesameletus 20 20 100 20 100 20 100 100 100 9Rallidens 5 5 5 1 4Siphlaenigma 1 1Zephlebia 1 5 1 1 1 5 5 7PlecopteraAustroperla 5 5 2Megaleptoperla 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Stenoperla 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Zelandoperla 20 20 5 1 5 5MegalopteraArchichauliodes 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 9OdonataAntipodochlora 1 1ColeopteraElmidae 5 5 20 1 5 5 5 5 20 9Hydraenidae 1 1 2Scirtidae 1 1DipteraAphrophila 5 20 20 20 20 1 5 5 20 9Austrosimulium 5 1 1 5 4Ceratopogonidae 1 1Chironominae 1 1 1 1 4Empididae 1 1 2Eriopterini 1 1 2Hexatomini 1 1 2Feb-12No. ofyearsrecorded44

Table 13 cont. Macroinvertebrates recorded in Waipoua River at bridgeYear Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Jan-08 Apr-09 Jan-10 Mar 11 Feb-12Maoridiamesa 5 5 2Mischoderus (Tanyderidae) 1 1Muscidae 1 1Orthocladiinae 20 5 20 1 5 20 5 1 20 9Paralimnophila 5 1Polypedilum 1 1Tabanidae 1 1Tanypodinae 1 1 5 1 1 5TrichopteraAoteapsyche 5 20 20 5 20 5 5 5 20 9Beraeoptera 5 5 5 3Costachorema 1 1 1 3Helicopsyche 100 1 100 5 20 1 100 7Hudsonema 1 5 1 3Hydrobiosis 1 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 9Neurochorema 1 1 2Olinga 5 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 8Oxyethira 5 1Plectrocnemia 5 1Polyplectropus 1 1Psilochorema 1 1 1 1 1 5Pycnocentria 1 1 2Pycnocentrodes 5 5 5 1 1 5 6Triplectides 5 1 2Acarina 1 1 2CRUSTACEAAmphipoda 1 1OSTRACODA 1 1Paratya 1 1MOLLUSCAFerrissia (Gundlachia) 1 1Latia 5 1 1 1 1 5Potamopyrgus 5 1 5 5 5 5 6OLIGOCHAETA 1 1 5 1 4PLATYHELMINTHES 1 1 2Taxonomic richness 13 20 20 21 29 26 36 34 32 61MCI value 121.5 135.0 136.0 129.5 135.5 118.8 121.7 128.5 129.1SQMCI value 6.70 7.39 8.11 7.20 8.21 6.79 7.86 7.91 7.89%EPT* 53.8 55.0 65.0 66.7 72.4 53.8 55.6 58.8 62.5No. yearsrecorded45

Appendix 2 – Te Roroa values and principlesAs the National Park Proposal (DOC 2011) states, decision makers are required to haveparticular regard to the views of Te Roroa in respect of Te Tarehu values and protectionprinciples. These values and principles are:“Te Roroa values relating to Te Tarehu are stated in the Deed of Settlement:Waipoua Forest is a taonga and wāhi tapu to Te Roroa of fundamental cultural,ecological and religious significance, parts of which were regarded by Te Roroa tupunaas wāhi tino tapu, whenua rahui.In the Waipoua Valley, the settlement pattern encompassed three zones: the pā on thehigh ridges, the fertile lower slopes and river terraces, and the coastal flats.Topographical features were made more indelible by stories of tupuna involved in namingthe many places.The isolation of Waipoua has been a contributing factor to the unassailed position TeRoroa has held in respect of their mana whenua, mana moana and mana tupuna.Waipoua Forest contains specific taonga and wāhi tapu, including the kauri trees, urupāand kainga tupuna, as well as traditional resources.Te Roroa are the kaitiaki of Waipoua Forest and everything in it and assert that theymaintain tino rangatiratanga over the Forest.The protection principles are also outlined in the Deed of Settlement:Protection of wāhi tapu, indigenous flora and fauna and the wider environment withinWaipoua ForestRecognition of the mana, kaitiakitanga and tikanga of Te Roroa within Waipoua ForestRespect for Te Roroa tikanga within Waipoua ForestEncouragement of respect for the association of Te Roroa with Waipoua ForestAccurate portrayal of the association of Te Roroa with Waipoua ForestRecognition of the relationship of Te Roroa with wāhi tapu, and wāhi taonga.” (DOC2011, p. 12)46