environmental performance.
The Council’s monitoring programme for the period under review included seven
hydrological inspections, three site inspections and one other inspection following flooding.
Coincident with two of the hydrological inspections, a flow gauging was performed. In
addition, analysis was conducted of generation data, lake level data, Patea River flow and
groundwater abstraction data, provided by the Company. The Council also reviewed a
number of reports submitted in accordance
Monitoring in
the previous monitoring period showed that some improvement is necessary in the control systems
managing the provision of flushing flows to the Mangaotea Stream. This was formally communicated to
Company in the last monitoring period. No abstraction from the Mangaotea Stream occurred during this
monitoring period.
Following the establishment of the 400 L/s residual flow limit in 2002, the difference in water temperature
between natural flows in the Manganui River and those in the
consent 2299-3 27
Table 7 Evaluation of environmental performance over time 27
List of figures
Figure 1 Location and key features of the Normanby Power Ltd hydro-electric scheme 5
Figure 2 Abstraction and residual flow data recorded by the Company, 2016-2017 14
Figure 3 Residual flow data and abstraction data compared with river flow data recorded at State
Highway 45, 30 April 2017 to 6 June 2017 16
Figure 4 Residual flow data and abstraction data compared with river flow
environmental performance.
The Patea HEPS was visited four times during the monitoring period, being two site inspections and two
hydrological inspections. In addition, analysis was conducted of generation data, lake level data, Patea River
flow and groundwater abstraction data provided by the Company. The Council also reviewed a number of
reports submitted in accordance with consent conditions. Although there were no hydrological inspections
programmed for the 2016-2017 period, two were undertaken
properties in that reach.
The much smaller Kaihihi Stream is equally as steep as the Stony River in its lower reaches
but although its catchment is greater than 75% of the Stony, its flood flows are significantly
smaller because its headwaters only rise to an elevation of approximately 800m on the more
stable Pouakai Ranges.
Whilst the Kaihihi Stream channel is much more stable than the Stony River channel, erosion
still occurs along its unconsolidated stony river banks and relatively course
properties in that reach.
The much smaller Kaihihi Stream is equally as steep as the Stony River in its lower reaches
but although its catchment is greater than 75% of the Stony, its flood flows are significantly
smaller because its headwaters only rise to an elevation of approximately 800m on the more
stable Pouakai Ranges.
Whilst the Kaihihi Stream channel is much more stable than the Stony River channel, erosion
still occurs along its unconsolidated stony river banks and relatively course
performance.
The Patea HEPS was visited two times during the monitoring period, being two site inspections. In addition,
analysis was conducted of generation data, lake level data, Patea River flow and groundwater abstraction
data provided by the Company. The Council also reviewed a number of reports submitted in accordance
with consent conditions. There were no hydrological inspections programmed for the 2017-2018 period,
but hydrological monitoring was undertaken by maintaining the McColl’s
regardless of whether the discharge is
treated or untreated.
- It is the expectation from Te Korowai that an appropriate map which clearly outlines the discharge activity
will be included in the application. The map must be clear, precise and include the property boundaries,
discharge boundaries, and any added features the applicant has ticked on the application i.e., cowshed, ponds.
- All unnamed waterways in the application are tributaries to the Waingongoro River which is under severe
stress.
-
the consents,
including upgrading the fish pass, undertaking monitoring of the erosion of the river bed and
banks around the scheme, and monitoring of the effects of the scheme on the residual flow
reach. This includes no or inadequate baseline information being collected on the trout
communities and recreational activities of the residual flow reach, despite the scheme now
being operated whenever flows allow. Of most concern, was the provision of false data. In this
case, the Company had
Waitotara 8 261.0 379 282.0 185 22 Apr 1998
Waitotara Coast 8 271.8 330 281.4 189 24 Sep 2015
page
Table 2: River Flow at 9 sites throughout the region
River and Site
Recorded Flows (m3/sec)
Records
Began
Maximum Minimum Mean
February
2022
February all
previous
years
February
2022
February all
previous
years
February
2022
February all
previous
years
Waitara at Bertrand Rd 864.135 1467.500 5.608 4.400 81.787 31.328