Aquatic Ecology - Palmerston North City Council

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFigure 5: Community composition (%) recorded at Puketoi Ridge and Western Tributary sites in April 2011. ................. 11Figure 6: Percentage Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) recorded at Puketoi Ridge and WesternTributary sites in April 2011. ............................................................................................................................. 12Figure 7: QMCI values calculated for macroinvertebrate communities recorded at Puketoi Ridge and WesternTributary sites in April 2011. ............................................................................................................................. 13Figure 8: Koura recorded at Tributary A1. ......................................................................................................................... 14Figure 9: Source of springs A1 and E1 sampled for spring and groundwater specialist taxa ............................................ 14Figure 10: Community composition (%) recorded at Makuri Stream/River sites in April 2011. ......................................... 17Figure 11: Percentage Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) recorded at Makuri Stream/River sitesin April 2011. .................................................................................................................................................... 17Figure 12: QMCI values calculated for macroinvertebrate communities recorded at Makuri Stream/River sites inApril 2011. ........................................................................................................................................................ 18Figure 13: NMDS of log+1 transformed invertebrate relative abundance data from five sites on the MakuriRiver/Stream and ten tributary streams. Stress = 0.11 ..................................................................................... 19APPENDICESAPPENDIX AReport LimitationsAPPENDIX BMapsAPPENDIX CRaw Invertebrate DataAPPENDIX DWater Quality DataJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093iv

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 BackgroundMighty River Power (MRP) proposes to construct and operate a wind farm along the Puketoi Range, which isorientated roughly north-east to south-west and is approximately 30 km from the sea and 23 km east ofPahiatua (Figure 1). The Puketoi Wind Farm (PWF) Development comprises two interconnected elements:an operational wind farm and a transmission line to convey the generated energy. The PWF will have amaximum installed capacity of 326 MW and a projected average annual output of 1272 GW/hr. The PWFwill compromise some 53 turbine structures and an array of associated facilities. The largest type of turbinethat is being considered has an installed capacity of 6.15 MW.Golder Associates (NZ) Limited were commissioned to undertake an evaluation of the aquatic freshwatervalues of the PWF and to assess the potential and actual effects of the proposed wind farm including thetransmission line. This report has been prepared to support the overall ecological assessment of effects forthe PWF Development carried out by Dr Paul Blaschke. This report supports Dr Blaschke’s assessment inthe following ways:• By describing the existing aquatic freshwater environment• By describing the ecological values currently present within this environment• By broadly identifying any potential effect on the aquatic freshwater environmentDr Blaschke’s report will use the findings of this report, in conjunction with the findings of separate reports onterrestrial ecology (Wildlands Consultants) and avifauna (Green Inc), to undertake an overall assessment ofecological effects and to make final recommendations on mitigation.1.2 Scope of WorkThis report 1 details an evaluation of the freshwater ecological values of streams draining the Puketoi Ridge,and an assessment of the potential impacts of the PWF construction and operation, transmission; and anyrecommendations to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential effects. Specifically this report includes:• An assessment of the ecological significance of the site and surrounding catchments aquatic habitatsand aquatic fauna relevant to the area.• An assessment of the potential ecological effects of the wind farm on freshwater ecosystems, aquaticcommunities and habitats, stormwater and sediment impacts and an assessment of the overall risk tothose ecosystems.• Recommendations to minimise, avoid or mitigate effects, including proposed ecological mitigationmeasures and potential positive ecological benefits to help inform the final design of the developmentand to provide information to assist the various stakeholders understand environmental issuesidentified.The report details findings of a desktop analysis and site survey performed from 9 to 14 April 2011 andconsiders in turn water quality, freshwater habitat diversity, macroinvertebrate and fish communities.1 This report is subject to the limitations as detailed in Appendix A.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 1

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.55000005520000554000018200001840000FIELDINGPALMERSTON NORTHPAHIATUAPALMERSTON NORTHWELLINGTON1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZMS Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.18200001840000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\Fig01_SiteLocationMap_GIS.mxdWOODVILLE1860000Datum: NZGD 2000Projection: Transverse Mercator1860000TITLEDANNEVIRKE18800000 5 10 15 20 251880000SITE LOCATION:PUKETOI WIND FARMLegendPROJECTPuketoi Wind FarmJULY 20111178205093¯Kilometres119000005540000552000055000001900000

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES1.3 TerminologyFor the purpose of consistency within this report and between other documents associated with the PWF thefollowing terms have been adopted:• Puketoi Wind Farm site (PWF site): all the properties on which the wind energy generation is proposedto take place.• WF envelope: all areas within the PWF site mapped in detail by Wildland Consultants in April 2011including possible road, turbine, fill and infrastructure areas identified at that time and including a bufferof 50 m from these areas.• PWF internal footprint: those areas within the PWF site on which specific elements of the projectinfrastructure are proposed to be sited, including on site access roads, turbine envelopes, sub-stations,batching plants, internal transmission line, etc.• PWF external footprint: those areas outside the PWF site on which other specific elements of theproject infrastructure will take place, notably the external transmission line route and the external roadtransport route.2.0 SITE ENVIRONMENT2.1 ContextPWF is a proposed power generation development located in the Tararua District. MRP proposes to site thewind farm atop the Puketoi Range. The Puketoi Range extends from Puketoi Road northwards to Oporaefor about 25 km. The range is composed of alternating layers of mudstone, sandstone and shelly limestonewhich form a broad, western flank but almost vertical bluffs on the eastern side of the ridge. Consequently,the majority of the range drains westward into the Manawatu catchment via the Makuri River and MangatoroStream, but also south and east into the Owahanga River which discharges on the east coast. The climateis cool and wet, with annual rainfall ranging from 1,200 - 2,000 mm per annum. The area is largely clearedof forest and maintained as moderate intensity grazing for sheep and cattle.The majority of streams draining the western flank of the ridge are spring fed and arise at discontinuitiesbetween the limestone and another rock type. Some streams come to the surface and return underground,whilst others appear to have continuous flow from the upper source to the confluence with the main valleywater course. Tributary streams draining the Puketoi Ridge are predominantly steep first and second order,streams and the occasional patch of native forest. The Makuri Stream and Makuri River receiveconsiderable flow from tributaries draining the Puketoi Ridge, but also two large tributaries which drain hillsto the west (Figure 2 and Appendix B). At the Pongaroa Road Bridge the Makuri River is a substantial fourthorder water course with a catchment area of 120.3 km 2 , and mean annual flow of 3.73 m 3 /s. The MakuriRiver Gorge is a Scenic Reserve approximately 5 km in length, falling approx 120 m in a series of cascades,waterfalls and rapids, through mostly large boulders. Riparian vegetation within this gorge is almost entirelynative plant species.2.2 Geo-hydrologyThe geo-hydrology of the PWF location has been described by Tonkin & Taylor (2011). In summary, thewest facing dip slopes of the Puketoi Range are drained by regularly spaced streams flowing more or lessdirectly down dip on the Te Onepu Limestone with lateral branches flowing obliquely across the moreresistant (non porous) strata within the limestone, giving rise to a rectangular drainage pattern. The onlystream that dissects the Puketoi Range is the unnamed stream following the Pahiatua to Pongaroa road.The drainage off the west facing dip slopes is collected at the toe of the slope by the Makuri Stream in thenorth and the Makuri River in the south.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 3

BLUFF ROAD2760000RIVER ROADPAHAHEKE ROADWAITUNA ROAD2765000TOTARA ROAD27700002775000¯6085000MAKAIRO ROAD6085000WAITAHORA ROAD6080000SURREYDALE ROADWaewaepaScenic ReserveCOONOOR ROADTOWAI ROADCoonoorConservationArea6080000Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.607500060700006065000PORI ROADMakuri 5!(Tributary F1Tributary E2Makuri 4Tributary H1Makuri Gorge Scenic Reserve!(Tributary G1!(!(PuketoiConservationAreaTributaryD11. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZMS Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.2760000TITLE2765000TributaryE1!(PUKETOI ROADMakuri 2Makuri 1Tributary A1!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( Makuri3!(!(HAUNUI ROADDatum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2770000!(PuketoiConservationArea!(!(Spring E2PAHIATUA ROADPUKETOI RIVER ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION:CLIMATE, SOURCE OF FLOW, GEOLOGY, LANDCOVERSpring C1Spring C2Spring E1Tributary B1Tributary C1Spring A1Puketoi WaterConservation ReserveTributary B2RIMU ROADK:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\REC_series\REC_All_Levels\Fig02_REC_COMBINED_CLASS_GIS.mxdHUIA ROAD0 1 2 3 4 5PROJECT2775000JULY 20111178205093ROUTE 52Kilometres2607500060700006065000

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES2.3 Karst Hydrology and EcosystemsLess than one percent of the area of the North Island of New Zealand comprises karst or carbonate rocks,therefore this rock type and its associated landscapes are comparatively rare (Williams 1992). Karst rockshave a unique characteristic with important implications for hydrology and streams. These carbonate rocksare highly soluble in rainwater which contains a weak carbonic acid. Percolating rain water seeps intoweakness in the rock such as faults, bedding plains and joints, enlarging them by dissolution formingsubterranean drainage paths. Over time limestones may become riddled with passages such that all surfacewater is rapidly lost to underground flow paths. This results in the occurrence of “dry valleys” high on thelandscape, but also springs where water discharges at the point that drainage pathways intersect the groundsurface (Williams 2004).Groundwater recharge on the Puketoi Range comes from direct rainfall and infiltration through the surfacerocks and soils. The waters which discharge from a karst groundwater system have certain characteristicswhich differ from those seen in surface streams. Depending on the permeability and capacity of theunderground drainage system, spring fed streams may be considerably buffered against variations inprecipitation; base flows are comparatively high whilst flooding flows, notwithstanding the addition ofoverland inputs, are generally rare. Water temperatures are also likely to be stable and approximate theannual average air temperature (Smith et al. 2003). Cool water is particularly important for aquatic life inhigh summer when stream flows may be low and water temperatures, particularly in the absence of riparianvegetation, increase. Due to these conditions spring fed streams commonly contain biotic communities notfound in surface fed streams and may be important centres of biodiversity in a landscape (Scarsbrook et al.2007).3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS3.1 ApproachThe approach to assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed PWF on the aquatic values ofstreams draining the Puketoi Ridge fell into two parts. A desktop assessment was undertaken to establishthe geomorphology and vegetation characteristics of the landscape. All waterways draining the westernflank of the ridge were considered and classified according to position on the ridge and other distinguishingfeatures such as size, occurrence of native vegetation and proximity to significant construction sites (e.g.,access roads), for the proposed wind farm. The New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD) was alsoconsulted to assess the composition of fish communities known to occur in the Makuri River catchment andother waterways upstream of the Manawatu Gorge.Subsequently, an ecological survey of multiple tributaries and the Makuri Stream/River itself was undertakento characterise the physical environments and biotic communities (Figure 1, Appendix B). An exhaustivesurvey of all waterways on the Puketoi Ridge was not feasible, and the approach taken was to assessrepresentative streams along the length of the ridge according to the criteria outlined in the desktop analysis.Consequently, seven tributary stream (five draining the ridge and two eastern tributaries) and five sites alongthe Makuri River were sampled along with three spring source locations. This approach provided acomprehensive assessment of the aquatic habitats on the Puketoi Ridge and placed them in context withother local streams.For the transmission and transport routes associated with the proposed PWF, the assessment of ecologicalvalues and the assessment of effects of the proposed wind farm rely on existing data and thus a desktopinvestigation only was carried out.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 5

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES3.2 River ClassificationFor the purposes of defining and characterising waterways, stream types at the PWF location have beenanalysed using the River Environment Classification (REC). The REC is an ecosystem-based spatialframework for river management purposes and provides a context for inventories of river resources, as wellas spatial framework for effects assessment, policy development and developing monitoring programmes.The REC has been used to classify all the rivers of New Zealand at a 1:50,000 mapping scale. The areaclassified comprises 267,000 km 2 and 426,000 km of river network. The REC was used to provide a baseclassification of the waterways and to indicate the similarity or dissimilarity thereof. In the absence of acomplete walkover of all the tributary sites, the basemap provides an indication of the source and extent ofwaterways; primarily the REC basemap has been used to define permanent waterways cf. intermittent orephemeral waterways, unless onsite information has been available to ascertain the situation. This isimportant for the locating of fill sites and culverts for roads. The REC basemap for PWF is shown inFigure 2. The classification is based on climate, source of flow, geology and landcover database layers.3.3 Water ChemistryWater quality samples collected from each site were analysed for nutrients (ammoniacal nitrogen (NH 4 -N),nitrite-N, nitrate-N, total oxidised nitrogen (ToxN, nitrate + nitrite) and dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)),cations (total hardness, dissolved calcium, dissolved magnesium, dissolved potassium, dissolved sodium),carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, turbidity, and total suspended solids (TSS). Spot measurements ofdissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH and conductivity were taken at each site using a YSI 556 hand-heldmeter. Water quality data measured in 2011 were compared to appropriate local and national guidelines andtrigger values (i.e., POP (2010) and ANZECC (2000)). Where water quality results were returned as belowdetection limit, a result of half the detection limit was used in the presentation or calculation of any averagevalues.3.4 Physical HabitatSample sites were located in representative riffle habitats on stream sections with similar habitatcharacteristics to allow for direct comparisons of aquatic community data to be made. In-stream habitat andriparian characteristics assessed included estimates of stream channel dimensions (i.e., width anddepth (m)), water velocity (m/s), stream bank erosion (type and extent (%)), streambed substratecomposition, organic matter content (woody debris, leaves, fine detritus), riparian vegetation characteristics,and percent channel shading, macrophyte and periphyton community composition and percent cover.3.5 MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrate communities were assessed according to the hard bottomed stream semi-quantitativestandard protocols outlined by Stark et al. (2001). This method provides data which describes the broadcomposition of invertebrate communities and the taxa present in a stream reach. Briefly, a kick net is usedto collect invertebrates from approximately 1 m 2 of stream bed at each site. However, in order to collect thecomplete range of taxa present other habitat types, such as woody debris, macrophytes and stream banks,were also sampled. Macroinvertebrates were then enumerated at an accredited laboratory.The following ecological indices were calculated from the macroinvertebrate data and used to assess thestream health of each site. .• Taxa richness: The number of macroinvertebrate taxa (e.g., species, genera, families) present in eachsample, expressed per unit area of river bed. Generally in streams, the greater the numbers of taxapresent the higher the quality of the environment.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 6

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES• Percent EPT abundance: Provides a measure of the relative abundance of water and habitatsensitive mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly (EPT) taxa in a sample. Higher %EPT abundance is indicativeof good water and habitat quality.• Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index (QMCI) is similar to the MCI but utilisesquantitative data (Stark 1985, 1993). The QMCI is based on the relative sensitivity of different taxa in asample to changes in water quality (Table 1). The QMCI is designed to be particularly sensitive tochanges in the relative abundance of individual taxa within a community. The QMCI is calculated asfollows:QMCI=∑( n aiNi)Where: ai = the sum of individual taxon scores in a sample.ni = the number of individuals in the ith taxon.N = total number of individualsThe QMCI is based on scores between 1 and 10 assigned to each taxon, with low scores indicating hightolerance to organic pollution and high scores indicating low tolerance to organic pollution. Using theequations above, QMCI values are calculated, with higher scores indicating higher water quality (Stark1993).Table 1: Interpretation of MCI and QMCI values.Water quality class Description QMCIExcellent Clean water >5.99Good Doubtful quality or possible mild pollution 5.00 - 5.90Fair Probable moderate pollution 4.00 - 4.99Poor Probable severe pollution

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES4.0 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS AT THE PUKETOI WIND FARM SITE4.1 IntroductionThis section of the assessment describes the aquatic environments at the PWF site dealing first with thespring fed streams and then the Makuri Stream/River itself. For each of these, the existing aquaticenvironment is characterised in terms of water quality, physical habitat, macroinvertebrate and fishcommunities.Water quality data is compared to a range of regulatory water quality guidance used to provide benchmarksin relation to values and uses that are applicable to those waterbodies. In this assessment, the key guidanceis that provided by the Proposed One Plan (2010) (the decision version as amended) (POP 2010) andANZECC (2000). The POP values utilised are those identified for the Tiraumea (Mana 7) watermanagement zone and in particular the Makuri (Mana7d) sub-zone. This zone is considered to provide agenerally representative set of benchmarks for this assessment. Other water quality guidelines are referredto where needed. For completeness those water quality standards set out in Rules of the ManawatuCatchment Water Quality Regional Plan (MCWQRP) are also identified.4.2 Puketoi Spring-Fed Streams4.2.1 Water chemistrySpring fed streams draining the Puketoi Ridge were consistently cool, due to the influence of groundwater.Dissolved oxygen concentrations were high and DO saturation was higher than 80% at all sites. Water wastypically alkaline with high dissolved oxygen concentrations (Table 2).The two sampled tributaries draining hill country to the east of the ridge, D1 and F1 were noticeable warmer,had similar oxygen concentrations and pH, but lower alkalinity. This difference in hydrochemistry reflects thedissolution of limestone in groundwater which supplies flow to Puketoi streams. The hill country to the eastof the ridge contains limestone, but is predominantly composed of mudstones and flow is derived fromsurface water. The streams draining the Puketoi Ridge were all very similar in terms of carbonate, chloride,sulphate and cation concentrations suggesting very similar hydrological processes along the ridge.Although the one pH value (A1) exceeds and the pH values measured in the various tributaries are at theupper end of the pH range identified in POP(2010), the pH is naturally alkaline and as such the natural rangeneeds to be considered further prior to any concerns being identified in relation to water quality in thesetributaries..Water clarity measures (TSS and turbidity) showed that in most waterways examined, both measures werelow. In this assessment water clarity concerns relate to visual clarity for fish health and in relation to potentialsediment deposition in relation to fish and macroinvertebrates. POP (2010) contains a water clarity ‘target’for aesthetic and human recreation safety. Smith et al. (1993) and ANZECC (2000), provide some guidancein relation to the potential negative effects of particulate matter on freshwater biota with TSS and turbidityguidelines that are generally similar. Reference to Table 2 shows that several sites had both TSS andturbidity values that were higher than the nominated guidelines in both documents. TSS exceededguidelines identified by Smith et al. (1993) at sites E1 and H1, both of which were spring-fed, but also lowerin the catchment. It is likely that TSS and turbidity levels were high at these sites due to the accumulativeeffect of stock access and erosion in upstream reaches.It should be noted that TSS concentrations >5 g/m 3 are considered to alter aquatic invertebrate communitieswhile >15 g/m 3 or 15 NTU may result in avoidance behaviour in fish (Quinn et al. 1992, Boubée et al. 1997,Bilotta & Brazier 2008).July 2011Report No. 1178205093 8

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESTable 2: Physico-chemical conditions in eight tributary streams draining the Puketoi Ridge and environs.Puketoi Ridge tributaries Western tributariesA1 B1 E1 E2 G1 H1 D1 F1 Guidelines SourceTemperature (°C) 10.8 12.3 12.0 12.9 11.8 11.6 15.4 14.3

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESMeasurement of nitrogen and phosphorous in tributary streams indicated that catchments feeding thetributaries contained readily available soluble inorganic nitrogen (SIN) and dissolved reactive phosphorous.Nutrient concentrations (TOxN and DRP) in spring streams were generally high and exceeded both POP(2010) and ANZECC (2000) trigger values at several sites. The dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrationscan be considered to be high and well above concentrations that have the potential to result in unwantedgrowths of aquatic plants and periphyton.Examination of additional information provide by Biggs (2000) who specifically examines the relationshipbetween nutrients and periphyton growth in cobble and stony bed waterways, shows that accrual period andhigher flows will play a role in minimising potential periphyton growth where substrate allows. Biggs (2000)identified that SIN concentrations should be below 0.075 g/m 3 where accrual periods extended to 30 days.The corresponding DRP concentration was 0.006 g/m 3 . As such, the tributaries have excess SIN and it islikely that if growth is limited it will be limited by DRP. If DRP concentrations are elevated, there is ampleSIN for plant and periphyton growth.4.2.2 HabitatThe physical habitat of tributary streams varied consistently with size and location of sampling site (Figure 3and Figure 4). Flow habitat types comprised a run-riffle-pool sequence typical of a first order stream in steephill country.Figure 3: Habitat detail from 1) tributary site G1 showing dense growths of macrophytes overlying coarse substrates and2) a view of the lower reaches of tributary G showing general morphology and riparian vegetation.Close to their origins streams were generally dominated by thick growths of macrophytes, predominantlyNasturtium sp. Stream channels were generally open (0-15% shade), with little riparian vegetation otherthan grass/tussock. Banks were generally stable although there was evidence of stock access andundercutting at all sites.Substrates were a mixture of cobbles and gravel overlain in low energy areas by fine silts. Further down thetributary catchments many streams passed through tight gorges, over steep waterfalls or returnedunderground briefly but at the surface became larger and more incised. Macrophyte growths tended to beabsent downstream and accumulations of fine silt less common. Bryophyte growths were more common andperiphyton communities more diverse. Substantial areas of bedrock also occurred in the stream bed at anumber of sites. Woody debris was only present in the forested site H1.Spring-fed tributary streams supported diverse periphyton communities including thin and medium green anddark brown algal mats. However, sites were dominated by macrophyte growths and silty substrates and hadlittle periphyton. Periphyton cover did not approach nuisance levels as defined by Biggs (2000). Nationalperiphyton guidelines for protection of aesthetics and biodiversity values are 20 mm long) and 3 mm thick) (Biggs 2000). Riparianvegetation was predominantly introduced grasses, native scrub in the upper catchments and willow closer tothe valley floor.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 10

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFigure 4: Habitat detail from 1) a gorge reach of tributary E and 2) substrates, mosses and macrophytes in site E2.4.2.3 MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrate communities recorded in the Puketoi Ridge tributary sites were diverse and included bothpollution-sensitive and pollution-tolerant taxa (Figure 5).Figure 5: Community composition (%) recorded at Puketoi Ridge and Western Tributary sites in April 2011.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 11

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESSensitive taxa recorded included mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera)and freshwater crayfish (koura, Parenephrops planifrons). The most common mayfly recorded at all siteswas Deleatidium, a taxa that is typically associated with clean, hard-bottomed streams with fast flowingwater. Of the diverse range of caddisflies recorded throughout the Puketoi Ridge tributary sites, the netspinningcaddis Aoteapsyche was the most common. Aoteapsyche is similarly indicative of good streamhealth.Predominantly pollution tolerant taxa recorded in the Puketoi Ridge and western tributary sites included trueflies (Diptera) and snails (Mollusca). Taxonomic composition varied between sites and no clear trend wasevident based on stream position within the catchment. Western tributary sites D1 and F1 contained agenerally higher proportion of mayflies and caddisflies in comparison with Puketoi Ridge tributary sites.The number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) recorded at tributary sites rangedbetween 4 taxa at Tributary C1 and 16 at Tributary D1. The proportion of EPT taxa recorded at samplingsites was generally high (>40%), with the exception of Tributary Sites C1 and E2 (Figure 6).Macroinvertebrate communities from western tributary sites D1 and F1 were dominated by EPT taxa (>80%).Figure 6: Percentage Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) recorded at Puketoi Ridge and WesternTributary sites in April 2011.Tributary QMCI scores ranged between 3.6 at Tributary E2 and 7.4 at Tributaries B2 and D1 (Figure 7). Thecalculated QMCI values were generally high and reflected the diverse and abundant pollution sensitive taxadescribed above. Tributaries C1, E2 and H1 contained a higher proportion of pollution tolerant taxa (i.e.,amphipods, Potamopyrgus snails and oligochaete worms (MCI score 2-3)) resulting in a low QMCI scoreindicative of poor water and habitat quality (Stark et al. 2005). Tributaries B2, D1 and F1 contained a greaterproportion of macroinvertebrate taxa (i.e., Zelandoperla, Helicopsyche and Austroclima) and were indicativeof ‘excellent’ water and habitat quality.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 12

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFigure 7: QMCI values calculated for macroinvertebrate communities recorded at Puketoi Ridge and Western Tributarysites in April 2011.4.2.4 KouraThe koura, or freshwater crayfish, is endemic to New Zealand and includes two species. Parenephropszealandicus is found only in the South Island, whereas P. planifrons occurs throughout the North Island andinto the north-western regions of the South Island. Koura live in streams, lakes, ponds and swamps, oftenburrowing deep in mud or hiding within rocky substrates. Koura are vulnerable to habitat loss anddegradation, as well as predation by introduced mammals and fish, and by over exploitation throughharvesting. Both species are currently classified as being in gradual decline (Hitchmough et al. 2007).Koura play a key role within aquatic ecosystems through invertebrate predation, sediment removal andorganic matter processing (Parkyn et al. 1997). Koura populations are known to be particularly sensitive toboth the presence of trout and elevated suspended sediment loads (Usio & Townsend 2000).Koura were observed at Puketoi Ridge tributary sites A1, B2, C1 and E2 (Figure 8). Individuals ranged insize from 10 - 80 mm in carapace length and included gravid females, indicating that koura at these sites arebreeding. The high number of koura in spring fed creeks draining the Puketoi Ridge relative to the MakuriStream/River can be attributed to the absence of aquatic predators (i.e., eels and trout) and suitable waterquality. A number of koura carcasses were found adjacent to Tributary A1, and were presumably predatedby a mammalian (stoat) or avian predator (e.g., kingfisher, Halcyon sancta, or magpie, Cracticus tibicen).July 2011Report No. 1178205093 13

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFigure 8: Koura recorded at Tributary A1.Macroinvertebrate samples were also collected from three spring source locations to assess the occurrenceof spring or groundwater specialist taxa (Figure 9). Spring sample sites were selected based on size,volume and likely permanence (assessed by the presence of macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes).Spring source habitats contained diverse invertebrate communities although no spring or groundwaterspecialist taxa were identified. Although groundwater specialist taxa have been found in similar karstsystems in New Zealand (Duncan Gray pers. com. 7/07/2011; Scarsbrook et al. 2007) their abundance isgenerally low. This is considered to be because of the tendency for karst drainage systems to flush rapidlyand not provide a stable groundwater habitat in comparison to an alluvial aquifer, i.e., during periods of lowprecipitation groundwater conduits and springs may dry. Furthermore, of the isolated nature of many karstdeposits may prevent initial colonisation of groundwater systems by taxa. Communities at all sites weredominated by the amphipod Tallitridae and gastropod Potamopyrgus antipodarum. Also present were anumber of Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera taxa indicative of clean, cold water. Koura were alsoobserved living at the immediate spring source of these streams.Figure 9: Source of springs A1 and E1 sampled for spring and groundwater specialist taxaJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093 14

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES4.2.5 FishFish were absent from all spring fed tributaries sampled apart from the very lower reaches of Tributary Babove the confluence with Makuri Stream where a single longfin eel was observed. The remaining streamson the Puketoi Ridge were sampled upstream of significant fish barriers which are likely to prevent theupstream movement of fish.4.3 Makuri Stream/River4.3.1 Water chemistryThe Makuri Stream/River was consistently cool, due to the influence of groundwater, and alkaline with highdissolved oxygen concentrations similar to the spring fed tributaries (Table 3). There were no cleardownstream gradients in any of the water chemistry variables, all of which reflected the karstic groundwatersource of the river. Table 3 provides a summary of the data and comparative guidelines from POP (2010)and ANZECC (2000).As was the case with the tributary samples, the pH in all samples collected was alkaline, reflecting thecatchment geology. The general water quality also reflected the geology with elevated water hardnessdominated by calcium.Dissolved oxygen concentrations were high at all sites and DO saturation was higher than 80% at all sites.The TSS and turbidity in river water samples was generally low indicating relatively high water clarity. TheTSS measured at sites 2 and 5 were slightly higher and exceeded the guideline value identified by Smith etal. (1993) for the maintenance of aesthetic and recreation values in streams. It is considered likely that roadand drainage works underway at the time of sampling would likely have contributed to elevated turbidity, andtherefore, although TSS levels did exceed guidelines in the Makuri Stream/River these levels were notregarded as normal for the system.Ammoniacal-nitrogen concentrations were low in the Makuri River samples with concentrations belowdetection (Table 3). The low concentrations are considered to be a consequence of a lack of direct sourcesof ammoniacal-nitrogen (e.g., wastewater) or contributions from stock near the points of sampling.Concentrations were also lower than the ammoniacal-nitrogen guideline identified by ANZECC (2000) toassist in the prevention of nutrient related effects in freshwater.SIN concentrations were elevated above ANZECC (2000) trigger values at all Makuri Stream/River sitesindicating a ready source of soluble nitrogen from land within the catchment. Dissolved reactivephosphorous was low by comparison with the target identified in POP (2010). The POP (2010) target isderived from Biggs (2000). Overall, the SIN concentrations are high and the DRP concentrations are lowsuggesting that phosphorous is likely to be the limiting nutrient at the sites sampled.4.3.2 HabitatBetween Makuri 1 and 5 the Makuri Stream becomes Makuri River and increases in average width from 3 to13 m. It is joined by two significant tributaries, the larger of which, the Makuriiti Steam contributes asignificant amount of flow and alters the substrate composition of the stream bed. Upstream of the Makuriiticonfluence (Sites Makuri 1 & 2) the Makuri Stream has steep banks, is dominated by run and pool habitatand substrates tend to be a mixture of armoured cobble and boulders with some bedrock and clay. Belowthe confluence with Makuriiti Stream, the Makuri Stream widens and features a more mobile, loosely packedcobble gravel substrate. Banks are less steep and exposed gravel bars are common. Further downstreamthe Makuri River enters the Makuri Gorge and is once again tightly constrained.Makuri Stream/River sites supported diverse periphyton communities including green and dark brown algalmats with a small proportion of long green filamentous algae observed at the upper three Makuri sites (2-5%at Makuri 1, 2 and 3). However, Periphyton cover did not approach nuisance levels as defined by Biggs(2000). National periphyton guidelines for protection of aesthetics and biodiversity values are

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUEScover with long filamentous algae (>20 mm long) and 3 mm thick) (Biggs2000). Riparian vegetation was predominantly introduced grasses and willow although several patches ofnative bush and exotic plantation forest did occur.Table 3: Makuri (Mak) Stream/River water chemistry results.Mak 1 Mak 2 Mak 3 Mak 4 Mak 5 Guidelines SourceTemperature (°C) 12.7 11.9 12.5 13.7 12.0

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES87QMCI value6543FairGoodPoor210Makuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5SiteFigure 12: QMCI values calculated for macroinvertebrate communities recorded at Makuri Stream/River sites in April2011.An NMDS of log+1 transformed relative abundance macroinvertebrate data showed considerable overlap incommunity composition between the Makuri River and its tributaries (Figure 13). ANOSIM indicated nosignificant difference between these groups (Global R = -0.112, p = 0.79). However, it can be seen inFigure 13 that there is a greater degree of spread, i.e., more diversity in the community composition oftributary invertebrates than within the Makuri River/Stream. This suggests that whilst overall thecommunities in these sites are quite similar, there is a greater degree of difference between tributarystreams, likely due to the occurrence of rare (low abundance) individuals at some sites. Conversely, theMakuri River/Stream contains a central core of generalist taxa and communities are relatively quite similar.Despite these results the comparison of the tributaries and Makuri Stream macroinvertebrate communitiesdo not reveal any significant communities of special interest.4.3.4 KouraKoura were observed at Makuri 1, but were absent from sites downstream. Koura are known to be prey forlarge trout and eels which may contribute to their apparent absence from the lower sites on the Makuri River.4.3.5 FishFish communities recorded by Golder in April 2011 were of low diversity and abundance despite intensivefishing effort. Three fish species (brown trout, longfin and shortfin eels) were observed in the MakuriStream/River sites (Table 4). Upland bullies and rainbow trout (anecdotal record only) have been recordedwithin the Makuri River, but were not observed during this survey.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 18

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFigure 13: NMDS of log+1 transformed invertebrate relative abundance data from five sites on the Makuri River/Streamand ten tributary streams. Stress = 0.11Table 4: Fish species and koura recorded at Makuri Stream sites during April 2011 survey.Common Name Species Name Makuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5Longfin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii 1 1Shortfin eel Anguilla australis 1Unidentified eel Anguilla spp. 4Brown trout Salmo trutta 1 1The Makuri River system contains a depauperate fish community including native and introduced species(Table 5). At the scenic reserve gorge on the Makuri River the distance to the sea is approximately 154 km.This distance alone represents a considerable barrier to many diadromous fish. Diadromy refers to fishwhich migrate to and from the sea at well defined seasons and life cycle stages. In New Zealand

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESTable 5: NZFFD records for Makuri River, Makuri Stream, Makuri-iti Stream (excludes unidentifiedspecies).Common NameSpecies NameMakuriStreamMakuriRiverMakuri-itiStreamThreat status (Alliboneet al. 2010)Shortfin eel Anguilla australis Not threatenedLongfin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii At Risk: DecliningUpland bully Gobiomorphus breviceps Not threatenedBrown trout Salmo trutta Introduced and naturalised4.3.6 Trout fisheryGood trout habitat is a combination of several factors: water quantity (depth and space), water quality, lowwater velocity, little water temperature or flow variation, cover and shelter, food abundance and availability,and good spawning grounds.The Makuri River has a reputation as a high quality trout fishery throughout the fishing fraternity, and isconsidered one of the best fisheries within the Wellington Fish and Game Council area (Steve Pilkington,Fish & Game, 12.05.2011). It is a unique fishery, being relatively small and isolated, within a predominantlylimestone catchment. It is very scenic, easily accessible (apart from the gorge), and has an impressivepopulation of both rainbow and brown trout, some of trophy status (see Giles 2011). Interestingly, noRainbow trout were collected during this study or recorded in the NZFFD. As part of a survey of anglers,respondents rated the river as highly important Richardson et al. (1984); the highest grade selected. Basedon seven factors, the survey showed that anglers considered the Makuri River as relatively remote, withgood access and large areas of fishable water. It had high scenic beauty and high solitude value, with amedium catch rate and medium size of fish.Brown and rainbow trout spawn in gravel-bottomed, upland rivers and tributaries from late autumn to spring(May to September inclusive), eggs and fry incubate in the gravels for a period of time before emerging intothe stream. The success of trout spawning requires that spawning locations are relatively undisturbed forthis period of time (May to October inclusive). At the time of writing no detailed mapping of trout spawningareas within the Makuri Stream has been carried out.4.4 Regional Context4.4.1 BackgroundThe Manawatu River drains a catchment both east and west of the Ruahine and Tararua ranges. The riveris one of the largest rivers on the West Coast of the North Island with a catchment area of 5,994 km 2 ofwhich 3,231 km 2 (54%) occurs east of the Manawatu Gorge. Information on the aquatic resources of theManawatu River has been drawn from a variety of sources including reports commissioned for the Horizons‘One Plan’ policy development. The Makuri River was previously the subject of the ‘Local WaterConservation (Makuri River) Notice, 1991. This was revoked by the Manawatu Catchment Water QualityRegional Plan.4.4.2 Water qualityThe Makuri River and tributaries are being managed for the purpose of fisheries as well as for contactrecreation. The combined standards identified in the MWRWQP for those classifications ensure that anydischarges to those rivers will not allow the water quality to be degraded below a point adversely affectingthe values they were established to protect.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 20

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES4.4.3 MacroinvertebratesIn a study of macroinvertebrate community structure in streams of the Manawatu-Wanganui region, Death &Joy (2004) found a diverse range of species (105 taxa collected from 187 streams). Half of these taxa wererecorded in less than 5% of the sites sampled. Numerically, the most dominant taxa were Deleatidium(occurring at 92% of the sites sampled). Death & Joy (2004) found that the macroinvertebrate communitiesexhibited a steady increase in the relative abundance of Crustacea and Mollusca as alkalinity increases(cf. a decline in the relative abundance of Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera). Crustacea and Mollusca may beresponding directly to chemical characteristics of the water such as CaCO 3 concentration for shell formation.The macroinvertebrate communities within the Makuri Stream and tributaries are broadly similar to thediversity findings of Death & Joy (2004), and the greater contributions of Crustaceans and Molluscs occurredat sites with the highest alkalinity; and the greatest contribution of Trichoptera and Ephemeroptera occurredat sites with lowest alkalinity in the tributaries west of the Makuri Stream.Stark (2008) investigated trends in river health using state of the environment monitoring data for theManawatu-Wanganui region. No monitoring sites were present on the Makuri River but the nearbyMangatainoka River at SH2 was classed as ‘fair’ condition. In this study, river health indicators (QMCI)assessed from the Makuri Stream mainstem recorded good-excellent condition. The ridge tributary streamscondition varied from fair to excellent, and the western tributaries were in ‘excellent’ river health.4.4.4 FishSix native and three introduced fish (not including rainbow trout) have been recorded from theManawatu/Mangatainoka River catchment (Table 6). In the Mangatoro River catchment, longfin eels andupland bullies were the most widely distributed and common fish species. The upland bully is nondiadromousand occurs throughout the South Island and lower North Island. It is found in a wide range ofdiverse, usually slow flowing habitats. Its life cycle does not involve a marine stage.The fish communities of the Manawatu River appear to be predominantly influenced by instream barriers,with fish communities below barriers dominated by eels and those above barriers dominated by dwarfgalaxias (Galaxias divergens) (Death & Joy 2000).As already described in section 4.3.6 the headwaters of the Makuri Stream/River are and important troutfishery and spawning location (Steve Pilkington, Fish & Game, 12.05.2011). This factor is likely to beregarded as important to local inhabitants, Fish & Game and the national angling fraternity.Table 6: Numbers of native and introduced fish species recorded from Upper Manawatu Gorgestreams.Common NameSpecies NameUpper Manawatu Gorgestreams. No. of fishConservation status(Allibone et al. 2010)Shortfin eel Anguilla australis 441 Not threatenedLongfin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii 10 At risk - decliningInanga Galaxias maculatus 2 At risk - decliningCrans bully Gobiomorphus basalis 9 Not threatenedUpland bully Gobiomorphus breviceps 21 Not threatenedCommon bully Gobiomorphus cotidianus 7 Not threatenedPerch Perca fluviatilis 3 Introduced and naturalisedBrown trout Salmo trutta 9 Introduced and naturalisedGoldfish Carassius auratus 11 Introduced and naturalisedJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093 21

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES4.5 Significance of Aquatic Ecosystems4.5.1 Puketoi spring-fed tributary streamsThe following key attributes were evident for the spring-fed tributary streams:• Water quality, particularly low turbidity and cool stable temperatures, is a distinctive feature of spring fedstreams draining this karst landscape. These features are important contributors to the ecologicalcommunities and to the ecological values of the streams themselves and the downstream MakuriStream/River, in particular the trout fishery.• Springs and spring streams contained abundant and diverse macroinvertebrate communities however,spring or groundwater specialist macroinvertebrates were not observed. Streams are moderatelyimpacted by grazing stock, particularly at spring sources, but otherwise appear to be healthy, spring-fedhill country streams.• Koura occurred in four of the eight spring-fed tributary streams that were sampled.4.5.2 Makuri StreamThe following key attributes were evident for the Makuri Stream:• The Makuri Stream/River had low fish diversity (only longfin and shortfin eels and trout), but healthy anddiverse aquatic invertebrate populations including koura. Longfin eels are now classified as “At-risk -declining” in lists of conservation status of native fish but shortfin eels are “not threatened” (Allibone etal. 2010).• Makuri Stream/River is a nationally important and regionally significant trout fishery with spawningvalues.5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:PUKETOI WIND FARM5.1 IntroductionThe PWF site is dissected by a network of numerous small watercourses and ephemeral stream gullies thatdrain to the Makuri Stream and River. Effects of the PWF on aquatic environments may occur duringconstruction or operation of the wind farm. In this section of the report, the potential effects of the on-sitewind farm access, construction and operation of the wind farm on the freshwater resources are discussedand recommendations for avoidance, remediation and mitigation of actual effects are presented.5.2 Proposed ActivitiesThe activities involved in the transport, construction, operation and transmission of the PWF are described in(Tonkin & Taylor 2011b). The key activities posing potential impacts to waterways are:• Stream crossings for the access route and internal transmission cables• Earthworks that lead to sediment addition to waterways• Fill sites that infill gully areas• Contaminant runoff from access roads, vehicle movements, concrete batching and other infrastructure,and flocculants from sediment pondsJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093 22

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES5.3 Site Access Routes5.3.1 Culverts and fordsThe proposed access routes to the Puketoi Ridge are detailed in Tonkin & Taylor (2011b). The accessroutes require that several streams and gullies be crossed. For the most part this will necessitate the use ofculverts over permanent and/or ephemeral streams (essentially dry overland flow gullies). Because allwaterways have not been physically viewed and assessed, and as outlined in the approach to this AEE(Section 3.1), for the purposes of this assessment the REC base classification (Figure 2) has been used toestimate the permanence of waterways. The tributary streams all have similar ecological values so thesewaterways will be evaluated together.The proposed southern access route will require the development of a culvert ford. A resource consent isrequired for the ford as it covers an area >4 m 2 . Fords have similar potential effects to culverts with theaddition of potential contaminant intrusion from the passage of vehicles across the ford and from the flushingof contaminants from newly laid concrete surfaces.5.3.2 Potential effects of culverts and fords on aquatic ecological valuesWhere culverts occur within permanent waterways, the actual effect of the construction of culverts is tocause a small loss of habitat within a waterway (the stream is effectively piped). The best estimate of theextent of culvert construction at the time of writing this report is that 13 culverts and one ford crossing will berequired on the tributary streams for the access roads within the PWF site. At an estimated average of 12 mper culvert length this amounts to some 168 m of aquatic habitat. Of these, nine culverts are required onpermanent streams, while five culverts are planned for ephemeral or zero-order gullies in the upperheadwater areas. The loss of aquatic habitat, particularly that in permanent streams is expected torepresent only a small portion of the available aquatic habitat within the PWF.Where culverts occur in permanent waterways the potential effects are:• Physical disturbance to the waterway during construction and placing of the culvert in the streambed• Scour and sediment intrusion downstream of the culvert as water velocities increase at the outlet• Prevention of upstream passage for migratory fish and other aquatic organisms between upstream anddownstream sections of the waterway5.3.3 Avoidance, remediation and mitigation of effects related to culverts andfordsSediment additions and habitat disturbanceWhere culverts are used to cross dry overland flow gullies, the culvert will have no effect on aquatic values,as long as the ephemeral flow paths remain open. This will allow the water to resume its normal surface flowpath and infiltration patterns towards permanent surface water features downstream.The development and construction of the culverts and ford will be undertaken utilising current sound practicethat will result in minimal impact on water quality and in-stream disturbance.As much work as practical will be undertaken during dry periods in accordance with GWRC’s Erosion andSediment Control Guidelines (GWRC 2002). If streams are flowing during construction, water will bediverted around the working area by using an open diversion channel or pipe, or the water will be pumpedaround the work area (Tonkin & Taylor 2011a). All provision will be made to prevent the addition ofsediments to the stream using appropriate sediment management practices.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 23

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESFish passageThe permitted status for culverts requires that fish passage is maintained. Given that no fish were recordedfrom the tributary streams, and the presence of koura populations, in part resulting from a lack of predatoryfishes (especially eels), the maintenance of fish passage is not a preferred condition of the construction ofany culverts that replace existing fabrications which previously prevented fish passage. Specifically, it wouldbe preferable not to allow fish into a stream reach that they were previously not able to access, be that dueto natural or man-made obstacles. Passage through culverts should be retained for the koura populations.Although freshwater koura are not known to migrate, there will be some movement along the waterways andkoura access to upstream and downstream locations in permanent waterways should be provided for. Thistypically means some solid (as opposed to rope mechanisms used for fish passage) climbing facilities at theculvert exit.Freshwater springsWhere possible culverts should not be located at spring sites or immediately downstream of spring sites (i.e.,within 50 m). Where springs are impacted by the use of culverts or fords the fencing of springs and theirimmediate downstream areas would be desirable to excluded stock, reduce sedimentation (from stockactivity within the waterway) and to maintain flow and cool temperatures.5.4 Earthworks5.4.1 Earthworks and sediment generationSediment entering the subterranean limestone drainage, tributary waterways and the Makuri Stream is acontinuing natural process. All of the sinkhole features on site are caused by soils eroding into underlyinglimestone conduits and joints (Tonkin & Taylor 2011a). Small active sediment fans on the slopes belowspring upwellings were evident and are formed by sediment laden water discharging from joints in thelimestone. Sediment is also generated on the project site through human activity such as farming and thelime quarry operation on Towai Road.A large amount of earthworks are required for the formation of the access roads, internal roads and turbinefoundations. However, the earthworks affect only a fraction of one percent of the surface area of the PWFsite. The proposed earthworks are generally located on the western slopes of the range, within the MakuriStream/Makuri River catchment, with exception of a 280 m length of road between WT33 and WT34.The proposed earthworks are likely to encounter different geological materials; the rock and soils aregenerally low in fines and not overly susceptible to erosion by rainfall or surface water flow (Tonkin & Taylor2011). Nevertheless, due to the different material characteristics the Erosion and Sediment ManagementPlan/Supplementary Environmental Management Plans (SEMP) will require a slightly different focus for eachdifferent material type. General materials and earthwork properties and design parameters are provided inTonkin & Taylor (2011a,b).5.4.2 Potential effects of earthworks on aquatic ecological values5.4.2.1 Modifications to geo-hydrologyWater quality and the relative stability of flow (particularly during summer) has been identified as veryimportant to the maintenance of the Makuri River trout fishery. Any interference (e.g., modified flow regime),would detrimentally impact on the present equilibrium:• Alteration of flow paths and permeability through karst groundwater systems could affect flow to specificsprings and streams.• The addition of silt generated via construction activities into groundwater flow paths could promoteclogging and an increase in the proportion of precipitation which drains via surface flow paths.Consequently, the stability of flow in streams would alter.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 24

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES• Altered flow regimes could results in changes to both temperature regimes and the relative impact of siltadditions.5.4.2.2 Use of waterWater may be required for construction, concrete batching, dust suppression, support of critical vegetationestablishment and potable water for site staff and facilities. One option is to take water on site from existingpermanent waterways or to store water in reservoirs on permanent waterways. In both cases there arepotential effects on the aquatic freshwater values of the site. The take of water from a permanent waterwaycan result in:• Reduction of in-stream habitat availability (reduction of wetted area)• Increased temperatures• Reduced velocities• Increased settlement of suspended sediments• Locally increased concentrations of contaminantsTypically, the amount of water that can be abstracted (even temporarily) is dependent upon local habitatcharacteristics and aquatic community values. There is likely to be a requirement for a minimum flow to beretained in the waterway which may require some further investigation to establish.The damming and storage of a permanent waterway can result in:• Loss of stream habitat• Increased water temperatures downstream of the storage dam• Reduction of in-stream habitat availability (reduction of wetted area)• Addition of sediment to waterways during construction and during its removal if required post use5.4.2.3 Physical disturbance to waterwaysPhysical disturbance to permanent waterways can result in:• Sediment intrusion to the waterway with potential downstream effects• Localised loss of habitat for aquatic organisms in the reach where work is undertaken• Alterations to the local geomorphology of the waterway and resultant modifications to available habitatThe movement of sediment into local watercourses during the construction phase could give rise to adverseeffects depending on the nature of downstream habitats. There is the potential for a decline in water qualityand the health of downstream aquatic and wetland ecosystems. In particular sediment generation can resultin:• Smothering and infilling of the stream bed resulting in loss of habitat for bottom dwelling organismsincluding periphyton the food for grazing invertebrates; and the loss of food availability for fish and insome locations birds.• Clogging and covering of the gills of invertebrates and fish reducing efficiency of uptake of oxygen.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 25

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES• Cessation of interstitial flow which provides oxygenated water to fish eggs and larval fish, particularlysalmonids.Observations on site during the field work suggest that the Makuri Stream appears to carry a moderate siltload.5.4.3 Avoidance, remediation and mitigation of earthworks effects5.4.3.1 HydrologyDetails of the earthwork programme for the PWF are included in the geotechnical investigation (Tonkin &Taylor 2011a) which identifies that proposed earthworks will not noticeably affect the size of catchments (i.e.,works will not redirect flows from one stream catchment to another). Therefore, provided sediments areprevented from entering ground and surface water flow paths where works occur, there will be no detrimentaleffects on surface water hydrology.5.4.3.2 Use of waterIt is proposed to ‘truck’ water to the site for the purposes of construction for concrete batching, dustsuppression, support of critical vegetation establishment and potable water for site staff and facilities.This has the benefit of not taking from or damming the waterways on site. Some 8,500 m 3 of water will berequired for concrete batching, with the peak daily requirement not expected to exceed 3,000 m 3 per day. Inaddition, a total of 3,100 m 3 of water per month will be required for dust suppression and vegetationmaintenance.Although this water will not be discharged directly to any waterways on the site, it is important to verify thatthe source water is free of invasive organisms. The amount of additional water that will only find its way tothe watercourses during significant ‘events’ is expected to be minimal and is not expected to result in anychanges to the aquatic values of the Makuri Stream and tributaries.Water will be stored on site in storage ponds at the concrete batching plants and water tanks within thecontractor’s compound and substation.The storage ponds will be rehabilitated back to the original state upon completion of the wind farmconstruction. Thus, the use and potential effects of the use, take and storage of water from permanentwaterways will be avoided.5.4.3.3 Physical disturbance to waterwaysNo fill sites are planned to occur in any permanent watercourses and typically are planned to occur inshallow depressions on the upper ridge. Consequently the location of fill sites away from permanentwatercourses will ensure that here is no physical disturbance to permanent watercourses and as such thepotential issue has been avoided. Any fill sites not located on the upper ridge will avoid both permanent andephemeral stream channels.Localised loss of habitat for aquatic organisms and alterations to the local geomorphology of the waterway inthe reach where work is undertaken will be minimised by avoiding earthworks directly in streams werepossible. Where activities must take place within the stream or its immediate environs provisions made inthe CEMP will be applied to reduce any potential impacts.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 26

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES5.4.3.4 Sediment intrusion to waterwaysEarthwork fill sitesProcedures for the development of earthwork ‘fill’ sites are included in the Construction EnvironmentalManagement Plan (CEMP) and the geotechnical report (Tonkin & Taylor 2011a). Consideration has beengiven to minimising the potential for erosion and sediment discharges to waterways by:• Minimising the area of disturbance and exposure of soils• Minimising fill site catchment area• Staging the earthworks (detailed in SEMPs)• Reinstating any disturbed areas as soon as practical• Implementing sediment treatment measures such as sediment pits, decant ponds etc• Collecting and treating sediment laden runoff before it can enter the subsurface drainage networksThe SEMPs will identify the type, size and location of the erosion and sediment control measures and nochanges can be made to these measures without the approval of both Horizons Regional and TararuaDistrict Councils. Methods to avoid erosion and the generation of sediment for the project, and thecircumstances in which these measures should be used are shown in Table 7 of the CEMP. Thesemeasures principally focus on reducing the area that can produce sediment or protecting surfaces whichhave potential to be erosive and include the use of cut-off drains, armouring, flumes, pegging out and rockchecks. Details of these methods are also included in the CEMP.The limestone karst geology and features at PWF create the potential for sediment fines to enter thegroundwater drainage system at fill sites, and thus exert an effect on the surface waters following emergenceat spring sites and further downstream into the Makuri Stream. Avoidance and mitigation of the potential forsediment to enter waterways and underground drainage networks is provided for in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of thegeotechnical investigation report (Tonkin & Taylor 2011a).Fill disposal sites will be located to avoid:• Areas where there is (or will be) no surface drainage (post filling) (i.e., large sink holes or blind valleys)• Swallow holes and stream sinks• Exposed limestone surface outcrops (other than remnant boulders that can be moved)• Drop out collapse, caprock or other types of large sinkholesWhere fill sites are constructed over sinkholes, the disposed sediment will be separated from the underlyingkarst feature (conduit or fissure) by filter fabric. Filter fabric 2 will be effective in preventing soils migrating intothe underlying cavity or conduit. In instances where the underlying feature is wide or cannot be practicallysub excavated down to the limestone surface, geogrid will be used under the fill to provide tensile capacity(strength) to the underside of the fill. This will allow the fill to span over identified or potential voids.Excavation of fill sitesThere is a potential for modest volumes of sediment to enter the open joints or conduits of the limestoneduring excavation. For the most part, this sediment will be limestone derived so will be gravel to sand size2 Filter fabrics (commonly referred to as geotextiles) are routinely used in earthworks and other civil engineering projects. They are commonly used as a filter to prevent soil fineswashing into coarser soils. Water is able to flow through the filter fabric but soil particles are held in place. Filter fabrics are specified for use in this project particularly as a means ofpreventing soil fines migrating from earthworks into the underlying drainage network. Typically made from synthetic materials they are manufactured using either woven or nonwoventechniques. Geotextiles are used for filtration, separation and strength applications. Typically non-woven geotextiles have a better ability to filter smaller particles while wovengeotextiles are typically able to provide higher tensile strengths.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 27

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESlimestone and will settle rapidly. The following methods are proposed to minimise the sediment entering thelimestone drainage network via open joints and conduits (Tonkin & Taylor 2011a):• Stop excavation when rainfall causes surface run-off on the working areas.• Strip a majority of the top soil and loessal mantle away from the limestone before excavating into theunderlying limestone.• For large limestone excavations, excavate to full depth in one pass (rather than lowering in multiplepasses) to avoid continually working debris over an open joint.• When a conduit joint or void is observed, excavate material away from the feature rather than pushingor dragging material over it.• Open joints and fissures exposed on the base of the formation will be undercut and lined with filterfabric.Stormwater runoff from fill sitesTo treat the stormwater runoff from fill areas with a surface area greater than 0.3 ha it is proposed to usesediment retention ponds (SRP) (Tonkin & Taylor 2011b). The design of these ponds will be in accordancewith GWRC’s ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines 2002’.One of the options for treating stormwater in areas where significant excavations are being undertaken (andthere is limited space to construct SRPs) is to retain storm water within the workings by maintaining a bufferat the down slope end to prevent the escape of water. Following a rainfall event the area is dewatered bypumping to a tanker for disposal over pasture or onto tracks within the project area; or pumped out directlyand sprayed on the ground in the vicinity of the construction area. No pumped water will be dischargeddirectly to or in close proximity to any permanent or ephemeral watercourse.Distributing stormwater onto pasture within ephemeral gullies carries a small risk that the surface sedimentwill be carried into the underground drainage network and thus enter the tributary streams.Decant stormwater from fill sites will be disposed so as to avoid:• Surface limestone features• Swallow holes or stream sinksFlocculationThere is the potential that the erosion sediment control measures on site will include the use of flocculationfor some areas (to improve suspended sediment removal efficiencies) (CEMP; Tonkin & Taylor 2011b). AFlocculation Management Plan will be prepared and any flocculation to be undertaken on site will be done inaccordance with the Flocculation Management Plan. The use of flocculants has the potential to introducechemicals into waterways and the Flocculation Management Plan will need to give consideration todischarge of decant water where flocculation is used. Flocculation use and discharge water qualitycharacteristics are relatively well studied and as such the use of flocculants should be able to be managed toensure no effects on waterways (ARC 2004).RoadsThe roads on the site will be surfaced with gravel to reduce sediment runoff. Discharge from roadconstruction between turbines 33-37 will need to be to the east because of the topography of the land at thislocation. Any potential sediment runoff at this location will be to the tributary of the Mangatiti Stream(originating at BN36: 608 097) and discharging to the Mangatiti at BN36:629065, and ultimately to the EastCoast via the Owawhango River. A greater intensity of sediment control is proposed at this location (Tonkin& Taylor 2011b).July 2011Report No. 1178205093 28

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESEarthworks MonitoringAlthough all attempts have been made to avoid or minimise the potential for sedimentation effects on thewaterways, it is recommended that sediment monitoring is carried out as part of the CEMP. Monitoringshould include measurements of both suspended and settled sediment and are discussed further inSection 8.0 of this report.5.5 Contaminant Loss to Ground and Surface Waters5.5.1 SourcesThere is the potential for contamination of permanent waterways from:• Contaminants in stormwater runoff from access roads (Sediment, metals and metalloids, petroleumhydrocarbons and PAH’s)• Contaminants from spills (vehicle oil, fuel, grease and refuelling)• Contaminants from concrete batching plants (concrete wash, lime)• Contaminants from sediment ponds (flocculants, sediment)• Other hazardous substances retained on site5.5.2 Potential effectsThe potential effects associated with these matters have in part been described in previous sections. Forcompleteness, the key effects are outlined below:All vehicles generate contaminants (via exhaust emissions, brake pad and tyre wear etc) and regionaltransport will generate airborne contaminants that will reach the Puketoi Range from local roads. Vehiclesusing the site during construction and during operation will generate contaminants. The amount of traffic isconsidered to be minor on site roads.There is always a risk that loss and spills of fuel and oil associated with vehicles might occur. Such eventsare minimised through appropriate vehicle and personnel management and training. Use of appropriatemanagement tools (refer below) will ensure that the potential adverse effects of fuel or chemicals enteringsite waterways will not occur.The use of sediment ponds as a tool to minimise downstream sediment losses from earthworks requiresgood management of the flocculants used (storage, handling etc) and the ‘treatment system’ to preventunwanted sediment losses or excess flocculant. Their loss has the potential to have a range of adverseeffects from suspended sediment and sediment deposition (described earlier) and toxicological effects ofexcess flocculant products (e.g., dissolved aluminium) depending on the flocculants used.5.5.3 Avoidance, remediation and mitigation of groundwater contaminantsWhere no provision is made in the CEMP for any of the potential contaminants listed above refer to standardoperating procedures and protocols in the relevant regional plan or national guidelines.Should any other hazardous substances be required on site (other than bulk flocculants, fuel, oil, paint andrelated products etc.) they will be stored in a manner determined by their hazardous substance classificationand in a way that ensured that direct loss to waterways could not occur. The movement and storage of allpotential contaminants must be performed in accordance with the CEMP (Tonkin & Taylor 2011b).July 2011Report No. 1178205093 29

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESAppropriate spill kits will be maintained on site to ensure that such losses and spills are contained, managedand cleaned up where required. In the majority of cases spills or losses are small and may require use ofsorbent at the site or removal of small volumes of surface soils for appropriate disposal. Good on-sitemanagement and clean-up where required should ensure that risks to local waterways is prevented.The loss of excess sediment requires good pond management and appropriate dosing of flocculants. Theloss of excess flocculent or flocculent products requires good management of dosing. These tools areroutinely used in the construction and building industry. Overall, effective management of sedimentationponds will ensure no excess sediment enters site waterways.5.6 SummaryIn summary, there are a few factors that could affect the biodiversity and fishery values of the MakuriStream/River and tributaries arising from the construction of the PWF.The Makuri Stream/River already has a relatively high sediment loading, a feature of the geology in thiscatchment. Current loads of sedimentation would only become a serious threat to invertebrate (includingkoura) communities and the fishery if either one and/or two factors became more prevalent. First, if thegravel supply from the Makuri-iti Stream to the mainstem were either stopped or slowed then fine sedimentdeposition emanating from the Makuri Stream might overwhelm and bury the existing gravel substrates.Second, if the rate of catchment erosion on the Puketoi Ridge increased fine sediment input, there would bea similar effect. These changes have the potential to affect the trout spawning grounds in this area,anecdotally the main reproductive source for the whole river, as well as koura populations in the tributaries.Furthermore, benthic invertebrate production would decline as fine sediment, both settled and in suspension,increased. A survey of trout spawning grounds is proposed for August 2011.Discharge stability is also pivotal to the Makuri Stream/River ecosystem and is currently, relatively stable byvirtue of the high proportion of groundwater contributions to the stream. Any clogging or sealing of theinfiltration points and flow paths which connect the upper slopes of the Puketoi Ridge to the springs andMakuri Stream might increase the proportion of surface flow. However, this eventuality is addressedthroughout section 5.3 of this report and in the CEMP (Tonkin & Taylor 2011b). Similarly the risk ofcontaminants entering waterways will be avoided as set out in established plans and protocols.6.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:TRANSMISSION ROUTES6.1 IntroductionTwo transmission lines are proposed for the PWF:• Internal transmission line (33 kV) collecting generated power within the PWF site• External transmission line (220 kV) transporting generated power to substation at TuriteaA substation is proposed within the northern portion of the PWF site. The substation will transform theelectricity conveyed to it from 33 kV via an internal transmission line to the transmission voltage of 220 kV.From the substation the external transmission line will convey the electricity generated by the PWF to theproposed Plantation substation at Turitea. The external line will consist of 111 steel support structures.6.2 Proposed ActivitiesThe proposed activities for the construction and operation of the two transmission lines include:• Development of access routes to the transmission pole and tower sites• Construction activities and earthworks at the pole and tower siteJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093 30

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES6.3 Potential Effects of Construction and Operation of theTransmission LinesThe construction and operation of the transmission lines is detailed in (Tonkin & Taylor 2011c). Thepotential effects of the construction and operation of the transmission lines are:• Disturbance to waterways from construction activities in the streambed.• Loss of permanent stream habitat from any culverts required for access routes.• Sediment intrusion to permanent waterways from earthworks.• Contaminants from stormwater runoff from access roads (metals, sediments, PAH’s), from spills (oil,fuel, grease) and other hazardous substances that might be retained on site.6.4 Avoidance, Remediation and Mitigation6.4.1 Disturbance to waterwaysThe preferred route for the external and internal transmission lines are detailed in Tonkin & Taylor 2011c.Some of the pole locations require access tracks that will cross streams and thus result in the requirementfor culverts or bridges. At the time of writing some five streams have been identified as requiring accessacross waterways for the construction of the external transmission line. Some tracks for access to the poleand tower locations for the external transmission lines already follow existing tracks adjacent to waterways.Overall, there are waterway related issues associated with access to 27 of the proposed 103 towers. Theavoidance, remediation and mitigation for culverts as detailed in Section 5.3.3 of this report are appropriatehere.6.4.2 Sediment managementThe avoidance, management and mitigation of sediments are detailed in Section 5.4.3 and 5.3.3 of thisreport.6.4.3 ContaminantsThe substation will be constructed with oil containment facilities to ensure that all oil contained within thetransformers can be accommodated on site and not released into the environment should a spill occur(AECOM 2011). Up to 120,000 L of oil will be held within the two transformers and other equipment locatedwithin the substation.6.5 SummaryConstruction of culverts and access roads result in the loss of aquatic habitat as detailed in Section 5.3.However identification of the amount of habitat involved shows that this habitat represents a very smallproportion of the overall habitat and operating procedures prevent impacts extending beyond the workslocation itself.Provided plans and protocols detailed above and in previous sections of this report for the management ofsediment and contaminants in and around water courses are followed there will be no detrimental effect ofthe PWF transmission line on aquatic biodiversity values in the area.Sedimentation of streams will be minimised and all possible efforts made to prevent the escape ofcontaminants into streams.Fish passage may also be impeded by fords and culverts, however this can be avoided through appropriatedesign and construction techniques as detailed in section 5.3.3.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 31

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:TRANSPORT ROUTE AND ROAD MODIFICATIONS7.1 IntroductionThe route for transporting the turbine components follows the major highways and local roads to the site. Nonew roads are anticipated in order to transport the turbine components to the base of the site (i.e., theMakuri River Gorge). However, a number of modifications to bridges and the margins of streams may benecessary to ensure all road safety factors are met and the path of the over-dimension loads can beaccommodated.The main locations of modifications to the transport route are detailed in the Puketoi Traffic Assessmentreport (Traffic Engineering & Management Ltd). The most significant issue resulting from the transport routeis the widening of bridge P17/24/68, and modifications to local roads (essentially Coonoor Road) external tothe site to achieve a minimum 6 m sealed carriageway width. Localised widening on moderate to severebends will also be necessary to accommodate the sweep path requirements of the anticipated vehicles(including the over-dimension transporters). At the time of writing the specific location of modifications tolocal roads are unknown so a generic effects assessment has been undertaken.7.2 Potential Effects of Transport Route7.2.1 Widening of bridge P17/24/68The main transport route from Napier to the site follows the route as outlined in the Traffic report (TrafficEngineering and management Ltd 2011). Although the preferred route crosses a number of streams andrivers, for the most part there are no consequences relating to the route for freshwater resources.At one location (on the Pahiatua-Pongaroa road crossing an un-named Stream) the bridge requires wideningto accept the transporters. The bridge, referred to as Bridge P17/24/68, is required to be widened by 6.5 m(T&T drawing No. MRP-PKT-3338-1). In doing this there will be a requirement for bridge stations to be put inplace and this will result in some disturbance to the riverbed.7.2.2 Construction of temporary new bridgesIn order to transport the turbine components from the Makuri Valley to the Puketoi Ridge, two new bridgecrossings over the Makuri Stream are required (Tonkin & Taylor Drawing No.’s MRP-PKT 3330-4 & 3332-4).The stream crossings are in the vicinity of Makuri village (GRs approx BN36:557090 and BN36:568102) andwill involve piles and abutments within the stream bed and its margins. The piles can be driven from theedge of the stream, and the abutments will be outside the wetted area of stream bed (but within the riparianmargins of the stream).The potential effects of the construction and de-construction of a new bridge are:• Disturbance of the bed of the stream and habitat• The potential for mobilisation of sediment into the water column and downstream• Disturbance to the banks and margins of the river• The release of fresh sediment from bank and other works into the water and downstreamAs outlined in section 4.4.4 above, the Makuri Stream is a regionally significant trout fishery and spawninglocation. The potential effects of increased sedimentation, amongst other things, are the increasedsmothering of the stream bed restricting benthic habitat, the clogging of interstitial spaces within thestreambed, and the potential to reduce habitat, benthic diversity and food available to fish and birds. GivenJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093 32

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESthe identified values of the waterway, a key concern is the disturbance to and smothering of existing troutspawning areas.Disturbance to the banks and margins of the river can result in the release of sediments to the waterway,and the disturbance of mature riparian vegetation that may be present. Riparian vegetation has the benefitof providing shade and providing a barrier between adjacent land activities and the stream.7.3 Avoidance, Remediation and Mitigation of Bridge ConstructionWhere possible it is desirable to avoid locations where mature riparian vegetation is present. Open pasturesites require lesser disturbance than areas with mature woody riparian vegetation; and the benefits of theexisting established riparian vegetation are not lost.As noted above, the bridge piles will be driven from the edge of the stream, and the abutments will beoutside the wetted area of stream bed (but within the riparian margins of the stream). This will minimise theimpacts of steam bed disturbance.Any streambed or riparian bank disturbance should be avoided during the trout spawning and incubationseason.As mitigation for potential disturbance to spawning areas within the Makuri Stream, it is recommended that,in association with Fish and Game, a survey of trout spawning habitat be undertaken in the Makuri Stream/River (between the headwaters of the Makuri-iti Stream and the Makuri Gorge) and recommendations for theenhancement of spawning habitat in this area be developed.7.4 SummaryEarthworks for road widening and in-stream bridge construction activities have the potential for the additionof fine sediments to the Makuri River, direct disturbance of the stream bed and damage to riparianvegetation. In particular these activities have the potential for a detrimental effect on the trout fishery andtrout spawning. However, these effects can be avoided by minimising activity in the stream bed andavoiding any direct stream bed disturbance during the trout spawning and incubation period.8.0 CONSENT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING8.1 Consent RecommendationsThe following consent conditions are recommended to ensure that works are carried out in a manner that willnot result in adverse effects on watercourses:• All effort shall be made to avoid the alteration of ground or surface water flow paths through the additionof sediment or unnecessary covering of sink holes and infiltration zones. These areas should beprotected by buffer zones.• All effort shall be made to avoid the addition of sediment and contaminants to surface or groundwaterflow paths. Streams and infiltration zones should be protected by buffer zones.• All earthworks and construction in the vicinity of water courses shall adhere to procedures and protocolin the relevant plan which seeks to avoid, mitigate or minimise the impacts of habitat destruction,sedimentation or contamination on that stream.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 33

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES• All practicable steps will be taken to avoid the addition of sediment to a water course during the troutspawning and incubation period (May to October inclusive). Direct disturbance of stream beds,particularly the Makuri Stream/River, shall not take place during this time period.8.2 MonitoringThe primary potential impacts on the aquatic values within the influence of the PWF site, transmission andaccess routes relate to the addition of sediment to water courses from works or discharges. Accordingly, aminimum recommended monitoring regime involves the assessment of in-stream sediment particulate levels(TSS concentration, turbidity, water clarity) and deposited sediment prior, during and after the construction ofthe PWF.For routine work, visual assessment of sediment has been shown to be an adequate estimation of actualsediment when compared to more intensive quantitative techniques (J. Clappcott, Cawthron Institute, Pers.Com, 24 June 2011). However, sampling should be undertaken to ensure that discharges do not result inunacceptable downstream changes in water clarity or suspended sediment. This sampling should be carriedout at least seasonally especially during construction.9.0 CONCLUSIONThe proposed PWF is situated along the Puketoi Range, a karst formation 23 km east of Pahiatua in theTararua District. The range is drained by numerous streams which flow into the Makuri Stream/River. Theproposed PWF will require substantial earthworks for the construction of access routes and operationalmaintenance. These will occur at the PWF site itself, along the transmission route and along existing StateHighway access roads.The streams draining the Puketoi Range are primarily spring fed from the karst aquifer and consequently arerelatively cool with distinctive karst derived water quality. All streams had elevated nutrient concentrations,reflecting catchment land-use, while a sub-set had relatively elevated sediment loadings.Fish were absent from tributary streams due to downstream barriers, but macroinvertebrate communities,including koura, were diverse and indicative of generally clean water. The Makuri Stream/River had similarlydistinctive water quality to its tributaries and a diverse macroinvertebrate fauna. Fish communities in theMakuri Stream/River were depauperate, typical of locations >120 km inland, but the river is widely regardedas an important recreational trout fishery.Overall, the construction and operation of the PWF will not result in a detrimental effect on the aquatic valuesof streams within the PWF external footprint. Increased sedimentation is a concern during the constructionphase of this project and it is recommended that sediment management be a focus of on-site managementplans. In addition, it is recommended that environmental monitoring include checks on discharge and instreamsediment concentrations. With the downstream waterways having identified values for fish habitatand spawning, and tributaries providing habitat for koura it is also recommended that fine sediment cover onstream beds be monitored before, during and after the construction phase.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 34

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUES10.0 REFERENCESAECOM 2011. Puketoi Wind Farm transmission technical report. 16p.Allibone RM, Chadderton WL 1992. Marmite, a new fish bait. Freshwater Catch 48: 19p.ANZECC 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality 2000. Australianand New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council ofAustralia and New Zealand.Auckland Regional Council 2004. The use of flocculants and coagulants to aid the settlement of suspendedsediment in earthworks runoff: trials, methodology and design (draft). Auckland Regional Council, technicalpublication 227. p41.Bebner ER, Brown PR 2011. Mighty River Power Puketoi Wind Farm: transportation assessment. TrafficEngineering and Management Ltd. Project 11023, Auckland, New Zealand. p34.Biggs B 2000. New Zealand periphyton guideline: detecting, monitoring and managing enrichment instreams. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, NIWA, Christchurch.Bilotta GS, Brazier RE 2008. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquaticbiota. Water Research 42: 2849-2861.Boubée JAT, Dean TL, West DW, Barrier RFG 1997. Avoidance of suspended sediment by the juvenilemigratory stage of six New Zealand native fish species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and FreshwaterResearch 31: 61-69.Clarke KR 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. AustralianJournal of Ecology 18: 117-143Clarke KR, Warwick RM 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis andinterpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth.Death RG Joy MK 2000. Freshwater Fish in tributaries of the South Eastern Upper Manawatu River.Institute of Natural Resources-Ecology Massey University, Palmerston North.Greater Wellington Regional Council 2002. Erosion and sediment control guidelines for the greaterWellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council. 115p.Hitchmough R, Bull L, Cromarty P 2007. New Zealand threat classification system lists, 2005. Department ofConservation, Wellington.134p.Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council 1998. Manawatu Catchment Water Quality Regional Plan ISBN: 1-877221-10-4 Report Number: 98/EXT/331.McDowall RM 1993. Implications of diadromy for the structuring and modelling of riverine fish communitiesin New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27: 453-462.POP 2010. Proposed One Plan, Horizons Regional Council, Palmerston North.Quinn JM, Davies-Colley RJ, Hickey CW, Vickers ML, Ryan PA 1992. Effects of clay discharges on streams2. Benthic Invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 248: 235-247.Richardson J, Teirney LD & Unwin MJ 1984. The relative value of Wellington rivers to New Zealand anglers.Fisheries Environmental Report # 40 FRD, MAF.Rowe D, Hicks M & Richardson J 2000. Reduced abundance of banded kokopu (Galaxias fasciatus) andother native fish in turbid rivers of the North Island of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 34: 545-556.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 35

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESRowe DK, Hicks M, Smith JP, Williams E 2009. Lethal concentrations of suspended solids for commonnative fish species that are rare in New Zealand Rivers with high suspended solids load. New ZealandJournal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 1029-1038.Scarsbrook M, Barquin J, Gray DP 2007. New Zealand coldwater springs and their biodiversity. Science forConservation 278, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 74p.Smith, C.M.; Wilcock, R.J.; Vant, W.N.; Smith, D.G. & Cooper, A.B. 1993. Towards sustainable agriculture:freshwater quality in New Zealand and the influence of agriculture. MAF policy technical paper 93/10. 119p.Smith H, Wood P, Gunn J 2003. The influence of habitat structure and flow permanence on invertebratecommunities in Karst spring systems. Hydrobiologia 510: 53-66.Stark JD 1998. SQMCI: a biotic index for freshwater macroinvertebrate coded abundance data. NewZealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 32: 55-66.Stark JD, Boothroyd IKJ, Harding JS, Maxted JR, Scarsbrook MR 2001. Protocols for samplingmacroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, SustainableManagement Fund Contract No. 5103. Wellington, New Zealand, 57p.Stark JD, Maxted JR 2007. A biotic index for New Zealand's soft-bottomed streams. New Zealand Journal ofMarine and Freshwater Research 41(1).Tonkin & Taylor 2011a. Puketoi Wind Farm: Geotechnical Investigation and Design Report. Technicalreport prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for Mighty River Power.Tonkin & Taylor 2011b. Puketoi Wind Farm: Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan. Technicalreport prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for Mighty River Power.Tonkin & Taylor 2011c. Puketoi Wind Farm: transmission line – geotechnical and civil. Technical reportprepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for Mighty River Power.Usio N, Townsend CR 2000. Distribution of the New Zealand crayfish Paranephrops zealandicus in relationto stream physic-chemistry, predatory fish, and invertebrate prey. New Zealand journal of marine andfreshwater research 34: 557-567.Williams PW 2004. Karst Systems. In: Harding, J.S.; Mosley, P.; Pearson, C. & Sorrell, B. (eds) Freshwatersof New Zealand. New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, New Zealand.Williams P 1992. Karst in New Zealand. In: Soons, J.M. & Selby, M.J. (eds) Landforms of New Zealand.Longman Paul, Auckland, New Zealand.July 2011Report No. 1178205093 36

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESAPPENDIX AReport LimitationsJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESREPORT LIMITATIONSThis Document has been provided by Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the followinglimitations:(i).(ii).This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and noresponsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for anyother purpose.The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subjectto restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possibleconditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is notexpressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assumethat any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.(iii). Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder wasretained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur betweeninvestigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have notbeen revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in theDocument. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.(iv). In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment providedin this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of theproduction of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form nomore than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot beused to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, orany laws or regulations.(v).Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from publishedsources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that theactual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.(vi). Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. Noresponsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.(vii). The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder toprovide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for theServices and work done by all of its subconsultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it willonly assert claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder andnot Golder’s affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledgesand agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, orcause of action, against Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.(viii). This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professionaladvisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to anyperson other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance onor decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts noresponsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actionsbased on this Document.July 2011Report No. 1178205093

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESAPPENDIX BMapsJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093

27600002765000277000027750006090000¯6090000B260800006075000608000060850006085000Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.607000060650006060000B82760000B71. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZMS Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.TITLEB62765000B5B4Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2770000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITESMAP EXTENTSK:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB1_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdB3LegendMap extentsTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants0 1 2 3 4 5PROJECT2775000JULY 20111178205093KilometresB16075000607000060650006060000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.608200060810006080000Legend2773000MAKAIRO ROADSampling siteWatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants2773000WAITAHORA ROADCOONOOR ROAD1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.2774000TOWAI ROAD1:20,0002774000UnnamedK:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB2_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLE27750002775000Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2776000Coonoor Conservation Area2776000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES¯PROJECT27770000 500 1,000 1,5002777000JULY 20111178205093¯MetresB2608200060810006080000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.6079000607800060770002771000Waewaepa Scenic Reserve2771000Makuri 1Ongaha Conservation Area27720001. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.2772000COONOOR ROAD2773000Tributary A12773000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB3_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLESpring A15/07/1602774000Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2774000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES¯5/07/47527750005/07/339Coonoor Conservation Area2775000LegendPROJECT5/07/0680 500 1,000 1,500JULY 20111178205093¯WatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenantsMetresB3607900060780006077000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.60760006074000LegendSampling site2768000WatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenantsTributary D1Ohinereiata Scenic Reserve2768000Makuri 3Tributary E11. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.2770000COONOOR ROADPipinui Waterfall Scenic ReserveMakuri 2Pipinui Gravel Reserve2770000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB4_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLETributary B1Tributary C1Spring C1Puketoi Water Conservation ReserveTributary B2Spring C2Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid27720002772000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES5/07/1365/07/156PROJECT5/07/1600 500 1,000 1,500JULY 20111178205093¯MetresB460760006074000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.6072000607100060700006069000Makuri Township Scenic ReserveMakuri Town Conservation AreaMakuri 42766000Makuri 27 Gravel Reserve27660002767000COONOOR ROADMakuri 26 Gravel Reserve1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.Tributary G1276700027680002768000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB5_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLE2769000Tributary E2Spring E12769000Spring E25/07/4142770000Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2770000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES¯2771000Puketoi Conservation AreaLegend0 500 1,000 1,500PROJECTSampling siteWatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants2771000JULY 20111178205093¯MetresB56072000607100060700006069000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.606900060680006067000606600027620002762000Makuri Gorge Scenic ReservePORI ROADLegendSampling site2763000Makuri 5WatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.276300027640002764000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB6_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLE276500027650002766000Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid27660002767000Makuri 26 Gravel ReserveTributary G1Puketoi Conservation Area2767000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITESPROJECT27680000 500 1,000 1,5002768000JULY 20111178205093¯MetresB660690006068000606700060660006065000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.607200060710006070000606900060680002761000LegendSampling siteWatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants27610002762000Makuri Gorge Scenic Reserve1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.2762000Makuri 5PORI ROAD27630002763000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB7_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLE2764000Makuri Town Conservation Area27640002765000Makuri Reservoir ReserveMakuri Township Scenic ReserveMakuri Town Conservation AreaMakuri Water Conservation ReserveTributary H1Datum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2765000Makuri 4PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES2766000COONOOR ROADMakuri 27 Gravel Reserve27660002767000¯Makuri 26 Gravel ReservePROJECTTributary G10 500 1,000 1,500JULY 20111178205093Metres2767000B760720006071000607000060690006068000

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.6071000607000060690006068000Legend2756000KAITAWA RIDGE ROADKaitawa Ridge Gravel ReserveSampling siteWatercourseTurbinesFill areasExisting roadsNew roadsProposed accesswaysDOC unitsQEII covenants275600027570001. Map image: Land Information New Zealand Topo50 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.275700027580002758000K:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2011\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_MRP_Puketoi_Wind_Farm_GIS\MapDocuments\SiteBaseMaps\FigB8_SiteBaseMapGPS_GIS.mxdTITLE275900027590002760000PAHIATUA PONGAROA ROADMakuri Gorge Scenic ReserveDatum: New Zealand 1949Projection: New Zealand Map Grid2760000PUKETOI FRESH WATER SAMPLING SITES27610000 500 1,000 1,5002761000PROJECTJULY 20111178205093¯MetresB86071000607000060690006068000

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESAPPENDIX CRaw Invertebrate DataJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTable 1: Invertebrates found in the tributary streams during this survey. P indicates present.Tributary Tributary Tributary Tributary Tributary Tributary TributaryA1B1B2C1D1E1E2TributaryF1EphemeropteraAcanthophlebiaAmeletopsisPArachnocolusAtalophlebiodesAustroclima 26 9 51 3AustronellaColoburiscus 13 22Deleatidium 21 5 61 2 54 27 P 57IchthybotusIsothraulusMauiulus 1NeozephlebiaNesameletus 4 POniscigasterRallidensSiphlaenigmaTepakiaZephlebia 22 6 1 3 23PlecopteraAcroperlaAustroperlaCristaperlaHalticoperlaMegaleptoperlaPNesoperlaSpaniocerca 1SpaniocercoidesJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 1/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1StenoperlaPTaraperlaZealandobiusZealandoperla 1 1 4 2 PNotonemouridaeindetTrichopteraAlloecentrellaAoteapsyche 19 126 11 29 24 20 3 2BeraeopteraConfluensConuxiaCostachorema 1CryptobiosellaDiplectronaEconominaEdpercivaliaEconomidaeHelicopsyche 18 8 PHudsonemaHydrobiosella 7 1Hydrobiosis 2 1 5 10 5 2 1 2HydrochoremaKokiriaNeurochorema 4 1 1OecetisOeconesidae 1Olinga 36 P 13OrthopyscheJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 2/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1Oxyethira 2 2 2ParaoxyethiraPhilorheithrusPlectrocnemiaPolyplectropus 1Psilochorema 1 1 1 PPycnocentrellaPycnocentria 4 4 14Pycnocentrodes 8 15 27RakiuraSynchoremaTiphobiosisTriplectidesTriplectidinaZelandoptilaZelolessicaMegalopteraArchichauliodes 2 P 6OdonataAeshnaAntipodochloraAustrolestesHemicorduliaProcorduliaUropetalaXanthocnemisHemipteraAnisopsDiaprepocrisJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 3/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1MicroveliaSaldidaeSigaraPColeopteraAntiporusBerosusPCopelatusDytiscidaeElmidae P 25 16 4EnochrusHomeodytesHydraenidae 1 1HydrophilidaeLiodessusPodaenaPtilodactylidae 3RhantusScirtidaePStaphylinidaeNeuropteraKempynusDipteraAnthomyiidaeAphrophila 24 11 20 11 2 5Austrosimulium 1 2 3BlephariceridaeCalopsectraCeratopogonidaeChironomidaeJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 4/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1ChironomusCorynoneura 1 32 1CryptochironomusCulexCulicidaeDiptera indet.DixidaeDolichopodidaeEmpididaeEphydridaeEriopterini 3 1 1 1HarrisiusHexatomini 1LimnophoraLimoniaLobodiamesaMaoridiamesa 9 8 20 10MischoderusMolophilusMuscidae P 2 PNannochoristaNeocurupiraNeolimniaNeoscatellaNothodixaOrthocladiinae 15 8 6 1 5 2ParochlusParadixaParalimnophilaJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 5/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1PaucispinigeraPelecorhynchidaePeritheatesPodonominaePolypedilumPsychodidaeSciomyzidaeStratiomyidae 1SyrphidaeTabanidae 1TanypodinaeTanytarsini 3 1TanytarsusThaumaleidaeTipulidaeZelandotipulaPLepidopteraHygraulaCollembola 2ACARINA P 1 1ARACHNIDADolmedesCRUSTACEAAmphipoda 50 3 1 17 9 8CopepodaCladoceraIsopodaOstracoda 29 1 5 12 2ParaleptamphopusJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 6/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1ParacalliopeParanephrops 4 2 1ParatyaTanaidaceaMOLLUSCAFerrissiaGlyptophysa =PhysastraGyraulusHyridellaLatiaLymnaeaMelanopsisPhysa (= Physella) 6Potamopyrgus P 21 54 3 84 109 15SphaeriidaeOLIGOCHAETA 1 12 P 4 2 2HIRUDINEAPLATYHELMINTHES 5 1NEMATODANEMATOMORPHANEMERTEACOELENTERATAHydra 3Halicarcinus lacustrisChironomidae indetDiptera indet.Leptophlebia indetPlecoptera indetJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 7/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteTributaryA1TributaryB1TributaryB2TributaryC1TributaryD1TributaryE1TributaryE2TributaryF1Hydrobiosidae indet 1Temnocephala P 4Table 2: Invertebrates found in the Makuri Stream/River during this survey. P indicates present.Makuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5EphemeropteraAcanthophlebiaAmeletopsisPArachnocolusAtalophlebiodesAustroclima 2 17 7AustronellaColoburiscus 7 3 1 19Deleatidium 48 12 102 44 5IchthybotusIsothraulusMauiulusNeozephlebiaNesameletus 5 2OniscigasterRallidensSiphlaenigmaTepakiaZephlebia 4 2 2PlecopteraJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 8/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5AcroperlaAustroperlaCristaperlaHalticoperlaMegaleptoperlaNesoperlaSpaniocercaSpaniocercoidesStenoperla 1TaraperlaZealandobiusZealandoperla 1NotonemouridaeindetTrichopteraAlloecentrellaAoteapsyche 21 22 18 15BeraeopteraConfluensConuxiaCostachorema 1 PCryptobiosellaDiplectronaEconominaEdpercivaliaEconomidaeHelicopsycheHudsonemaHydrobiosellaHydrobiosis 3 4 4 2 4July 2011Project No. 1178205_093 9/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5HydrochoremaKokiriaNeurochorema P 10 1OecetisOeconesidae 1Olinga 12 35 4OrthopyscheOxyethiraParaoxyethiraPhilorheithrusPlectrocnemiaPolyplectropusPsilochorema P 1 2PycnocentrellaPycnocentria 5 6 26 1Pycnocentrodes P 28 12 52 22RakiuraSynchoremaTiphobiosisTriplectidesTriplectidinaZelandoptilaZelolessicaMegalopteraArchichauliodes P 4 1 2 8OdonataAeshnaAntipodochloraAustrolestesJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 10/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5HemicorduliaProcorduliaUropetalaXanthocnemisHemipteraAnisopsDiaprepocrisMicroveliaSaldidaeSigaraColeopteraAntiporusBerosusPCopelatusDytiscidaeElmidae 9 2 16 12 3EnochrusHomeodytesHydraenidae 1HydrophilidaeLiodessusPodaenaPtilodactylidaeRhantusScirtidaePStaphylinidaeNeuropteraKempynusDipteraJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 11/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5AnthomyiidaeAphrophila 28 24 8 2 7AustrosimuliumPBlephariceridaeCalopsectraCeratopogonidaeChironomidaeChironomusCorynoneuraCryptochironomusCulexCulicidaeDiptera indet.DixidaeDolichopodidaeEmpididaeEphydridaeEriopterini 3 3 1 4 3HarrisiusHexatominiLimnophoraLimoniaLobodiamesaMaoridiamesa 7 PMischoderusMolophilusMuscidae 1 1NannochoristaNeocurupiraJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 12/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5NeolimniaNeoscatellaNothodixaOrthocladiinae 12 22 3 1 30ParochlusParadixaParalimnophilaPPaucispinigeraPelecorhynchidaePeritheatesPodonominaePolypedilumPsychodidaeSciomyzidaeStratiomyidaeSyrphidaeTabanidae 6Tanypodinae 1Tanytarsini 9 2 2 19TanytarsusThaumaleidaeTipulidaeZelandotipulaLepidopteraHygraulaCollembolaACARINAPARACHNIDADolmedesJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 13/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5CRUSTACEAAmphipoda 2CopepodaCladoceraIsopodaOstracoda 1 1ParaleptamphopusParacalliopeParanephropsParatyaTanaidaceaMOLLUSCAFerrissiaGlyptophysa =PhysastraGyraulusHyridellaLatiaLymnaeaMelanopsisPhysa (= Physella)Potamopyrgus 53 22 2 8 45SphaeriidaeOLIGOCHAETA 3 5 P 1 2HIRUDINEAPLATYHELMINTHES 1NEMATODAPNEMATOMORPHANEMERTEACOELENTERATAJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 14/15

APPENDIX CInvertebrates found in streams at the PWF siteMakuri 1 Makuri 2 Makuri 3 Makuri 4 Makuri 5HydraHalicarcinus lacustrisChironomidae indetDiptera indet.Leptophlebia indetPlecoptera indetHydrobiosidae indet 1Temnocephalaj:\projects-numbered\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_mrp_puketoi wind farm\reports (golder)\appendices\bugs\appendix c.docxJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 15/15

PUKETOI WIND FARM: FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL VALUESAPPENDIX DWater Quality DataJuly 2011Report No. 1178205093

July 2011Project No. 1178205_093 1/3APPENDIX DWater quality data from Puketoi Wind Farm streams

July 2011Project No. 1178205_093 2/3APPENDIX DWater quality data from Puketoi Wind Farm streams

APPENDIX DWater quality data from Puketoi Wind Farm streamsj:\projects-numbered\11782x\05xxx\1178205_093_mrp_puketoi wind farm\reports (golder)\appendices\wq\appendix d.docxJuly 2011Project No. 1178205_093 3/3

At Golder Associates we strive to be the most respected global companyproviding consulting, design, and construction services in earth, environment,and energy. Employee owned since our formation in 1960, we have created aunique culture with pride in ownership, resulting in long-term organisationalstability. Golder professionals take the time to build an understanding of clientneeds and of the specific environments in which they operate. We continue toexpand our technical capabilities and have experienced steady growth withemployees who operate from offices located throughout Africa, Asia,Australasia, Europe, North America, and South America.AfricaAsiaAustralia &New ZealandEuropeNorth AmericaSouth Americasolutions@golder.comwww.golder.com+ 27 11 254 4800+ 852 2562 3658+ 61 7 3721 5400+ 44 356 21 42 30 20+ 1 800 275 3281+ 55 21 3095 9500TAKAPUNATel [64] (9) 486 8068Fax [64] (9) 486 8072Level 2Takapuna Business Park4 Fred Thomas DriveTakapunaAuckland 0740(PO Box 33-849Takapuna 0622)CHRISTCHURCHTel [64] (3) 377 5696Fax [64] (3) 377 9944Level 1132 Tuam StreetChristchurch 8011(PO Box 2281Christchurch 8140)TAURANGATel [64] (7) 928 5335Fax [64] (7) 928 533678 Maunganui RoadTauranga 3116(PO Box 13611Tauranga CentralTauranga 3141)DUNEDINTel [64] (3) 479 0390Fax [64] (3) 474 9642Level 9AJohn Wickliffe House265 Princes StreetDunedin 9016(PO Box 1087Dunedin 9054)NELSONTel [64] (3) 548 1707Fax [64] (3) 548 1727Level 3295 Trafalgar StreetNelson 7010(PO Box 1724Nelson 7040)