DRAFT Turitea Transmission Line Construction Environmental Management Plan by Mercury

Construction Environmental Management Plan Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) Turitea Transmission Line

This Construction Environmental Management Plan is the property of Electrix Limited. This document is not to be reproduced to third parties without written authority from Electrix.

Job Manager: Customer: Electrix Job No: Version No. Date of Issue:

Kevin Small Mercury NZ Ltd (Mercury) P.0242015.1.01 2.0 13th June 2019

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 1 of 43

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 2 of 43

Distribution Register Name

Designation

Role Peer Reviewer & Approver

Kevin Small

Project Manager

Emma ComrieThomson Chris Singleton

Environmental Consultant (Electrix) Client

Signature

Date

Approver KS CS KS CS

Peer Review Approver

Amendment Register Issue No

Issue Date

01 01

Description

Author

Reviewer

11 June 2019

Version 1

Emma Comrie-Thomson

13 June 2019

Version 2

Emma Comrie-Thomson

Environmental Management Plan Approval The undersigned acknowledge they have reviewed the Turitea Transmission Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and agree with the approach it presents. Changes to this CEMP will be coordinated with and approved by the undersigned or their designated representatives. Name

Designation

Role

Kevin Small

Job Manager

Approver

Chris Singleton

Client - Mercury

Approver

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Signature

Date

Page 3 of 43

ACRONYMS Acronyms

Defined

AAAC

All Aluminium Alloy Conductor

AEE

Assessment of Environmental Effects

AEMP

Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan

AEMRP

Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan

CEMP

Construction Environmental Management Plan

CLG

Community Liaison Group

CNMP

Construction Noise Management Plan

CTMP

Construction Traffic Management Plan

DEB

Decanting Earth Bund

EPT

Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly) and Trichoptera (caddisfly)

NMP

Noise Management Plan

OPGW

Optic Ground Wires

PNCC

Palmerston North City Council

QMCI

Quantitative Macro-invertebrate Community Index

SDS

Safety Data Sheets

SEMP

Site Environmental Management Plan

SRP

Sediment Retention Ponds

TDC

Tararua District Council

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 4 of 43

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

BACKGROUND

Introduction Purpose and Application Scope of Works Project Description 1.4.1 Assessment of Environmental Effects Legislative and Other Requirements 1.5.1 National Legal Requirements and Policies 1.5.2 Project Approval Process Principal Contractor - Transmission Line Construction

7 7 7 8 11 11 11 11 11

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND EFFECTS

Overview Construction Activities and Environmental Aspects 2.2.1 Construction Duration 2.2.2 Construction Works 2.2.3 Construction Effects 2.2.4 Environmental Risk Register 2.2.5 Review of the Register

12 12 12 12 15 21 21

SEMP

Design for the works

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION

CEMP Management structure Overview Organisation and Accountability Environmental Training and Induction 4.2.1 Training records Construction procedures inclusive of mitigation measures 4.3.1 Noise 4.3.2 Dust 4.3.3 Construction Machinery and Vehicle Emissions 4.3.4 Erosion and Sediment 4.3.5 Spill Response 4.3.6 Archaeology 4.3.7 Ecological and Landscape Management Traffic Management Emergency Contacts and Response 4.5.1 Incident/Emergency Management 4.5.2 Environmental Incidents Form 4.5.3 Environmental Incident Register 4.5.4 Hazardous Substances Spills and Spills Contingency Planning Complaints Management 4.6.1 Complaint Form

23 23 23 26 27 27 27 28 28 29 33 33 34 40 41 41 43 43 43 44 44

4.1.1 4.1.2

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 5 of 43

4.6.2

Complaints Register

MONITOR AND REVIEW

Compliance 5.1.1 Environmental Risk Register 5.1.2 Environmental Monitoring 5.1.3 Review Environmental Auditing Environmental Reporting CEMP Review

45 45 45 46 46 46 47

List of Figures Figure 1: General location of the site (Figure 1-1 of AEE)........................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Routes (yellow and red lines) for the line within the consented corridor (blue lines) - .............................. 10 Figure 3: Proposed Project programme. .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Laydown area for Hazardous Substances .................................................................................................... 21

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of key environmental issues and effects associated with construction. ...................................... 16 Table 2: Vehicle restrictions: Greens Rd and Kahuterawa Road. ............................................................................... 40 Table 3: Management of environmental incidents/emergencies. ............................................................................. 41 Table 4: Environmental Emergency Contact Details. ................................................................................................. 42

List of Appendices Appendix A - Conditions of Resource Consent Appendix B - Community Liaison Group Terms of Reference Appendix C - Environmental Risk Register Appendix D - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Appendix E - Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan Appendix F - Environmental Incident Form Appendix G - Complaints Form

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 6 of 43

1. Background Introduction This Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) details the principles, practices and procedures to be implemented to manage, remedy and mitigate potential adverse environmental effects during construction of a new 12km long 220kV transmission line to connect Transpower’s existing Linton Substation to the “Plantation Substation” at Mercury’s Turitea Wind Farm (the Project), near Palmerston North. These principles, practices and procedures meet resource consents conditions, relevant legislation and the environmental objectives of the Client, Mercury.

Purpose and Application The purpose of this CEMP is to describe the environmental management and monitoring procedures to be implemented during the Project’s construction phase. The CEMP will enable the Electrix Project team to construct the transmission line with the least adverse environmental effect. Overall, implementation of this CEMP will ensure:    

Compliance with the conditions of resource consent (Appendix A) and any relevant Management Plans required by these conditions. Compliance with environmental legislation. Adherence to Mercury’s environmental management requirements. Environmental risks associated with the Project are properly managed.

The CEMP defines details of who, what, where and when environmental management and mitigation measures are to be implemented. The CEMP covers all anticipated construction elements of the transmission line construction and presents a framework of principles, environmental policy, objectives and performance standards as well as processes for implementing good environmental management. This CEMP establishes the relationship with the related Management Plans. The CEMP sits alongside the Community Liaison Group (CLG) Terms of Reference (Appendix B). The CLG Terms of Reference identifies the key stakeholder groups and one method for community engagement throughout the construction phase of the Project.

Scope of Works This CEMP relates to the environmental effects associated with the construction of a new 12km long 220kV transmission line to connect Transpower’s existing Linton Substation to the “Plantation Substation” at Mercury’s Turitea Wind Farm, near Palmerston North. The principles and general approach to managing the environmental effects are set out in the main body of this document. The management of specific effects (e.g. construction noise etc.) are detailed more particularly within a suite of Management Plans that form the appendices to the CEMP. This suite of Management Plans includes: 

Construction Noise Management Plan; Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 7 of 43

      

Site Environmental Management Plans (SEMPs) (including site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plans); Construction Traffic Management Plan; Rehabilitation and Re-Vegetation Management Plan; Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan; Lizard and Snail Management Plan / Accidental Discovery Procedures (as relevant); Accidental Bat Discovery procedure; and Weed Management and Monitoring Plan.

Matters that have been addressed within each of these plans are identified in the subsequent sections of this CEMP. This CEMP and the various Management Plans may require review and amendment during the life of the Project to reflect changes in activities, risks, mitigation measures, responsibilities and management of process. Modifications may also be required due to additional acquisition of authorities/consents. The ability to make changes to the CEMP is important to ensure continuous improvement. The Project team will be required to undertake all construction activities on site in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Management Plans and resource consent conditions.

Project Description The Turitea Wind Farm site is located approximately 10 kilometres south-east of Palmerston North primarily along a 14-kilometre ridge in the northern Tararua Ranges. The environment includes a number of existing wind farms to the north. The Turitea Wind Farm is located within the Turitea Reserve (owned by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC)) and on adjoining private farmland. Within the Reserve, the land predominantly supports native vegetation, with some introduced species. The Reserve also contains several access tracks, wind monitoring masts, and dam infrastructure related to the storage of water for water supply to Palmerston North. The adjoining farmland is generally pasture used for sheep and cattle grazing. There are several farm tracks, as well as public access roads in the area including Pahiatua Aokautere Road, South Range Road and Greens Road. The site is located within the PNCC and Tararua District Council (TDC) municipal boundaries and comes under the jurisdiction of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons). The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1 and 2. The consented Turitea Wind Farm consists of up to 60 turbine locations and includes associated substations; internal electricity reticulation (made up of underground cables and overhead transmission lines from turbines to substations, internal overhead transmission lines connecting the two proposed substations; and an external overhead transmission line connecting the Turitea Wind Farm to the national grid at Linton substation); tracking; permanent wind monitoring masts; and associated earthworks, vegetation clearance and discharges associated with construction activities. The overall Wind Farm project includes the following:  The creation of internal equipment laydown areas and a construction site office. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 8 of 43

    

        

Alterations to existing access tracks and private roads at the site. Construction of several new tracks within the Wind Farm to provide access to turbine locations and some transmission tower sites. The minor upgrading of public roads providing access to the site; including upgrades to the Greens Road and the South Range Road intersection and creation of a secondary access to the site on Pahiatua Aokautere Road. Vegetation clearance for the creation of access tracks, road widening, creation of turbine platforms and lay down areas, plantation substation, and other ancillary activities. Land disturbance including cut and fill volumes comprising civil works for: - Upgrading and formation of roads and access tracks, - Turbine platform and foundation formations, - Substation and maintenance facility construction, - Cable trenching, and - Platforms for internal and external transmission support structures. The construction of 33 wind turbine generators (turbines) in the northern zone of the consented Wind Farm (Note: consented turbines in the southern zone do not form part of the project at this stage). One 33/220kV substation (Plantation Substation) within the Site in the general location of an existing pine plantation adjacent to South Range Road. The substation will include electrical equipment and operations and maintenance facilities. An internal reticulation network of 33kV underground cables generally along internal access roads connecting turbines and the Plantation Substation. A 220kV transmission line connecting the Wind Farm (from the Plantation Substation) to the national grid via the existing Transpower Linton Substation. The construction of wind monitoring masts of up to 80m in height within the site. The disposal of excess excavation material at identified disposal areas within the site. The commissioning of wind turbines. Ongoing maintenance activities including the monitoring, repair and replacement of turbine components; substation equipment; reticulation network; transmission lines and structures, monitoring masts and roading. Site reinstatement, revegetation and new areas of mitigation planting within the site.

This CEMP covers the Electrix component of the Project works entailing the following principal elements of construction:  Double circuit transmission line structures, including a mixture of steel tubular monopoles and steel lattice towers complete with concrete foundations, anti-climb devices and signage;  Two circuits to be strung with simplex Sulfur All Aluminium Alloy Conductor (AAAC), complete with all insulators, fittings, conductor hardware, and vibration dampers;  Two composite fibre-optic ground wires (OPGWs), complete with fittings, junction boxes and hardware and vibration dampers;  Duplicate 220kV line protection schemes for circuit 1 end to end inclusive of the required protection communications;  Access tracks for construction and future maintenance of the line and structures;  Vegetation removal and trimming; and  Waste removal and disposal.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 9 of 43

Figure 1: General location of the site (Figure 1-1 of AEE).

Figure 2: Routes (yellow and red lines) for the line within the consented corridor (blue lines) the exact location may still vary. Poles and towers are identified by number. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 10 of 43

1.4.1

Assessment of Environmental Effects

This CEMP and its Management Plans are consistent with and complement Mercury’s (formerly Mighty River Power) - Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) Turitea Wind Farm Redesign document dated February 2010. The AEE contains several technical assessment reports which inform the specific environmental management, monitoring and mitigation measures to be implemented by the Project team to manage actual and potential environmental effects during construction. The development shall be undertaken in general accordance with the plans and information submitted with the application (numbered 104553-104560 by Horizons, RC0068 by PNCC and 1448 by TDC).

Legislative and Other Requirements A full assessment and overview of statutory requirements of the potential effects upon the environment are contained within the AEE.

1.5.1

National Legal Requirements and Policies

Construction of the Project must comply with a range of national legislation, regulations, strategies and policies in order to provide for the management of environmental effects.

1.5.2

Project Approval Process

Mercury's resource consent application for Turitea was confirmed in September 2011 following a Board of Inquiry process. The Board limited the number of turbines to 60 in its final decision, and conditional on a range of consent conditions. The provisions within this CEMP comply with conditions of the resource consents. The finalised conditions form part of the CEMP. If required, the Electrix Project team (in consultation with Mercury) is responsible for obtaining new or altered consents required during construction. Alterations of consents will be associated with changes to construction techniques or natural environmental changes.

Principal Contractor - Transmission Line Construction Electrix recognises the serious impact environmental events can have on the community, and in turn, on Mercury’s assets, operations and reputation. This CEMP describes the specific systems the Electrix Project Manager and project team will implement to ensure effective environmental management controls relevant to the Transmission Line Construction (“the Project”). Electrix obligations regarding environmental management include compliance with the terms and conditions of any consent, outlined plans, or other approvals obtained and provided under the Resource Management Act (1991) by either Electrix or Mercury. The SEMPs will be updated as necessary during the Project to ensure that they remain current. Where relevant, significant updates will be re-submitted to the Approvers, listed in this document, for certification. Minor updates will be tracked in documentation but will not be resubmitted for approval. These are likely to include (but are not limited to):   

Minor design changes; Increase in environmental controls (e.g. Erosion and Sediment controls); and Changes as instructed by Regulatory authorities following audits.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 11 of 43

2. Construction Activities and Effects Overview This CEMP addresses both the actual and potential effects on the environment that may be generated by the Project. These effects have been assessed based on the activities authorised by the regional and district plans and resource consents. Section 2.2 provides a summary of the construction activities and related environmental aspects of the Project including the location of these activities. Section 2.3 details the use of an ‘Environmental Risk Register.’ A tool developed for the Project team to assess how these effects are best avoided and minimised during the construction phase of the Project. The Environmental Risk Register can be used by Mercury, PNCC, TDC, Horizons, and the Project team as a reference to activity type, location, potential effect and impact, risk rating, mitigation options and relevant Management Plans for a particular environmental aspect.

Construction Activities and Environmental Aspects 2.2.1

Construction Duration

The Project is anticipated to take approximately 1 year to construct. Many elements of the Project will be undertaken concurrently. Figure 3 shows an outline of the proposed Project programme.

2.2.2

Construction Works

There are a number of steps involved in the construction of this transmission line, those relevant to environmental considerations are. 



 



Identifying line route within the consented corridor: This will include the identification of trees that require trimming or removal; where access tracks need to be constructed or upgraded, ground stability issues will be determined, and sensitive sites will be avoided; Construction of access tracks and work sites: This includes a site survey, the creation or upgrade of both permanent and temporary tracks, clearing and levelling of the site for the poles/towers and creation of cranes pads for lifting of pole/tower sections (where required); Geotechnical investigation: Carried out to better understand the geotechnical makeup of the ground which will be used to guide the design of the pole or tower foundations; Foundations: This will include the drilling or digging of foundation holes, the placement of steel reinforcing and connecting elements between foundation and pole or tower and pouring of concrete; Construction of the pole or tower sections: These will be craned or helicoptered together with some preassembly of tower sections occurring; Wiring: Running blocks will be hung on the towers and a pulling rope will be run out between the towers by helicopter. The conductor will then be attached to the pulling rope and pulled through the towers. It is planned to do this in 3 sections. In each section there will be 8 wires pulled (two circuits each containing 3 individual conductor wires and 2 OPGW earth-wires); and Dressing: Running blocks will be removed, insulating stings hung to connect the conductor to the towers and vibration dampeners fitted.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 12 of 43

Figure 3: Proposed Project programme.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 13 of 43

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 14 of 43

2.2.3

Construction Effects

Table 1 summarises key environmental issues and effects associated with construction. Construction activities have the potential to cause dust and noise emissions that can cause a nuisance to people (and in extreme circumstances cause adverse effects to human health), traffic congestion and associated public safety hazards for road users and adversely affect the aquatic and terrestrial receiving environments.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 15 of 43

Table 1: Summary of key environmental issues and effects associated with construction.

Social and Environmental Issue

Noise and Air Quality

Light Pollution

Social and Environmental Assessment Effects The risk of the Project causing nuisance applies along the Project alignment. These effects include construction noise (including helicopter noise), dust generation and emission from Construction vehicles. Mitigating the risk of potential effects on nuisance from construction activities is to take place through the implementation of this CEMP and its Management Plans. During the majority of the construction period, it is unlikely to be necessary to continue construction work after sunset. However, there may be occasions when particular construction activities require work during darkness and artificial lighting may be required.

Waste Management

No domestic waste water will be discharged to ground or water within the water supply catchment.

Vehicle Movements

The overall level of truck traffic generated during construction will be highest at the start of construction when the Pahiatua Aokautere Road will carry a combined total of around 70 truck movements per day (35 in and 35 out). Greens Road access will carry around 50 truck movements per day (25 in and 25 out).

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Degree of Effect

Requirement

Sensitive receiving environments: A range of bird species have been recorded in the Turitea Reserve and surrounding area. Stock: distress from helicopter noise.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register. NZS6803:1999 Acoustics â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Construction Noise.

Portable lighting rigs will be employed. Any use of artificial lighting during construction will only be for short periods of time and given the remote location, it is unlikely that any lighting or night-works will be noticeable beyond the boundary of the Site.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register. District Plan Lux requirements.

All waste is to be collected and removed from site and disposed at an appropriately licensed facility.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register. Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Page 16 of 43

Social and Environmental

Social and Environmental Assessment

Issue

Effects

Water Resources

Erosion and Sediment Discharges

A number of freshwater aquatic receiving environments exist across the Project. These aquatic environs are potentially susceptible to adjustments in water quality from discharges of sediment, and contaminants generated by the construction activities. Mitigation of these potential effect on the aquatic receiving environment will be implemented through this CEMP and its Management Plans. Water will be required during construction for concrete production, dust suppression on gravel roads, wetting fill material, hydroseeding on exposed earth surfaces and for the construction workforceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. During construction, there is potential for sediment laden discharges to occur from bare earth surfaces/earthworks. These discharges can have a negative impact on the receiving environment. Dust can affect human health and plant life. Mitigating the risk of sediment and dust generated by construction activities is to take place through the implementation of the CEMP and its Management Plans.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Degree of Effect

Requirement

Sensitive receiving environments in the area include: Turitea Reserve, Turitea Steam, Kahuterawa Stream, Otangane Stream and Tainui Stream.

All areas of disturbance.

earthworks

Page 17 of 43

soil

SEMP. AEMRP. Environmental Risk Register.

SEMPs will contain specific erosion and sediment control methods consistent with Horizons Regional Council requirements. Environmental Risk Register.

Social and Environmental

Social and Environmental Assessment

Issue

Storage and Use of Hazardous Substances

Effects

Degree of Effect

Requirement

The majority of these substances will be stored within the dedicated laydown (see figure 4) and workshop areas on the Site and will conform to requirements for the storage and use of such substances.

Some of the hazardous substances potentially required during the construction of the Wind Farm and associated works include: Diesel oil for fuel (up to 1,000 ltrs) Petrol. Petrol vehicles may carry a 20ltr container which stays with the vehicle (most vehicles are diesel) Oil (up to 5Ltrs in a vehicle) Mineral oil for lubrication (up to 5ltr stored on site. But mostly stays with vehicle/plant) Hydraulic fluid (will not be stored on site) Mineral oils to prevent formwork sticking to concrete (10 ltrs) Welding gasses (brought in when required then removed) Paint (10 Ltrs) Bitumen based paint (10 Ltrs (if any)) All stored fuel will be protected by a bund for an appropriate volume to prevent spillage of fuel during normal use or by accidental rupture. A fuel bowser will then be used to transfer smaller quantities of fuel to plant employed around the Site. All fuel storage facilities will be constructed outside the Turitea water supply catchment.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 18 of 43

Social and Environmental Issue

Culture and Heritage

Social and Environmental Assessment Effects

Degree of Effect

Requirement

During the construction activities associated with the Project it is considered unlikely that any archaeological sites will be exposed.

No archaeological sites have previously been recorded within the boundaries of the proposed Turitea Wind Farm. It is considered unlikely that any archaeological sites will be exposed during construction of turbines and associated infrastructure. The possibility that they might be, however, means that an Accidental Discovery Protocol is in place. Avoidance of sensitive sites in design and acknowledgement of tangata whenua relationship with natural resources.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register. Accidental Discovery Protocol.

Ecological Impacts

Removal of vegetation Construction noise impacts. Dust.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Vegetation removal will be required for the creation and upgrading of access ways and transmission line structures. Terrestrial ecology effects from construction:  Vegetation clearance,  Adverse impact on threatened plant species,  Sediment run-off,  Potential loss of fauna habitat, and  Adverse effect on snail population.

Page 19 of 43

Preparation and adherence to an approved SEMP. Rehabilitation and Re-Vegetation Management Plan; Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan; Lizard and Snail Management Plan / Accidental Discovery Procedures (as relevant); Accidental Bat Discovery procedure; and Weed Management and Monitoring Plan

Social and Environmental

Social and Environmental Assessment

Issue

Effects

Degree of Effect

Requirement

Blasting

The use of explosives may be required during the earthworks phase of the project. At this stage it is not proposed.

The storage, handling and use of explosives associated with blasting will be in accordance with the appropriate New Zealand Standard (NZS 4403:1976).

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register. Construction Traffic Management Plan.

The key earthwork activities at the Site include the following:  Formation and upgrading of access roads,  Disposal of excess excavated material within the site, and  Construction of foundations and other land disturbance associated with overhead transmission lines.

Earthworks volumes have been assessed based on an analysis of the site contours and the concept design for access tracks and turbine platforms. In order to minimise the amount of movement of fill around the site, a number of clean-fill disposal sites have been defined. These sites generally allow for the excess fill material to be disposed on site. Clean-fill disposal sites have been identified in areas where they will not have any adverse effect on freshwater ecology or result in vegetation clearance. Wherever possible, the roads have been designed on a cut to fill basis. This approach speeds up construction, minimises the earthworks footprint, reduces the area of disturbance and vegetation removal, and reduces the length of time earthworks are exposed.

SEMP. Environmental Risk Register.

Earthworks

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 20 of 43

Figure 4: Laydown area for Hazardous Substances

2.2.4

Environmental Risk Register

A preliminary Environmental Risk Register is attached as Appendix C. The Risk Register is a live document which will be used by the Project team in the preparation of work plans. As construction progresses the risk register will be reviewed and updated as required.

2.2.5

Review of the Register

The Environmental Manager (roles and responsibilities defined in Section 4) is required to maintain and review the Environmental Risk Register. The risk assessment results will be reviewed at regular intervals and at critical Project timeframes such as change in methodology or following a significant environmental incident. This review may trigger the CEMP (and its management) to be updated as well. Should this occur, updates will be circulated for certification.

3. SEMP SEMPs will be prepared and submitted to Mercury for review and submission to Horizons Regional Council. SEMPs will be prepared for each of the sub-catchment areas (at a minimum). They are a sitespecific document which includes the application of the CEMP. SEMP are designed to ensure there is certainty of environmental outcomes.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 21 of 43

The SEMPs will draw upon input from specialists including (but not limited to):     

Consent Holder; Designer; Ecologists; Erosion and Sediment specialist; and Environmental practitioners.

Each SEMP will contain information appropriate to the sub-catchment area. This will include:      

A location plan; Description of works to be undertaken; Contact details for the onsite Operations Manager; Work programme; Method statement covering monitoring and contingencies; and Design for the works.

Design for the works The design of the works will be covered and will include descriptions of the following:      

     

Areas to be disturbed; Vegetation clearance methods and vegetation stockpiling; Fill areas; Spoil stockpile and disposal areas; Culverts and associated works in watercourses; Step by step criteria for determining the appropriate use of erosion and sediment control measures, including cut off drains, surface water control works, sediment ponds, flocculation measures (if required), and progressive rehabilitation of earthworks areas; Stormwater management measures; including both temporary and permanent measures; Re-vegetation and rehabilitation (identification of re-vegetation to be undertaken and revegetation methods and any maintenance); Inspection and reporting schedule in particular in response to adverse weather conditions; Maintenance and monitoring activities; Storage and handling of fuels and hazardous material and contingency measures for containment of spills; and Decommissioning and re-stabilising of sediment ponds, and other erosion and sediment control measures, at the completion of construction.

Construction activities will not commence in the relevant SEMP area until written certification has been obtained from the Regulator.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 22 of 43

4. Implementation and Operation CEMP Management structure 4.1.1

Overview

Each person involved in the Project has a responsibility to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. However, there are three key groups with responsibility. These include: 1. Mercury as the Project owner and holder of consents; 2. Electrix as the party undertaking the works; and 3. PNCC, TDC and Horizons who audit the works and monitor compliance against the authorities granted. Local Iwi (Rangitaane o Manawatu and Rangitane o Tamaki nui a Rua) also have an interest in the project and may, at their discretion, be involved as observers to monitor potential cultural effects associated with construction activities. During the construction phase of the Project, an Electrix Environmental Manager will be part of the Construction Team who will give advice and ensure the CEMP and Management Plans are implemented and maintained.

4.1.2

Organisation and Accountability

The proposed structure of the Electrix Project team is as follows:

Stakeholder Manager

Project Engineers

Design Manager

Project Manager Construction Manager

Health and Safety Manager

- Site Leading Hands - Foreman

Environmental Manager

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 23 of 43

Roles and Responsibilities The key requirements/responsibilities for Electrix Project staff in relation to environmental management are set out below: All Staff      

Attending tool-box talks and environmental training including familiarisation with relevant consent conditions and the requirements of the CEMP and Management Plans; Responsible for reporting environmental incidents, complaints, defects and other problem areas to senior staff as they arise; Ensuring that processes and procedures for environmental management are followed; Ensuring that environmental mitigation and protection measures are maintained and working as designed; Ensure the environment on site and surrounding the site is protected; and Ensuring the site is tidy and waste is removed.

Project Manager   

Responsible for day-to-day onsite compliance with specific resource consent conditions relevant to the Project works scope; Reviews and submits, to the Consent Holder (Mercury), SEMP; and Provides adequate resources to ensure environmental risks are managed in accordance with this CEMP and any relevant SEMPs and Management Plans.

Design Manager  

Incorporates environmental requirements into design as required by resource consents, CEMP and any relevant SEMPs and Management Plans; and Advises Environmental Manager of any design issues that may impact on the environment or compliance with authorities.

Construction Manager      

Provides leadership to the site team to achieve Project environmental objectives and targets; Responsible for ensuring environmental controls and erosion and sediment control works are installed, modified and maintained; Ensures adequate resources are provided to ensure environmental issues are appropriately managed; Reports all incidents and complaints to the Environmental Manager; Assists in the development, implementation and ground-truthing of Project environmental objectives; and Ensures that staff onsite are aware of environmental requirements at all times.

Project Engineers  

Prepare and review work packages against Project environmental objectives and targets and CEMP to ensure performance is achieved; Develop, implement and monitor construction methods ensuring compliance with consents and CEMP and Management Plans; Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 24 of 43

     

Complies with all legislation, regulations and consent conditions in relation to the work they are undertaking; Demonstrates understanding of major environmental and community issues and environmentally sensitive areas; Implements environmental protection measures in accordance with the contract, consents, best practice and CEMP any relevant SEMPs and Management Plans; Trains all workers in relation to environmental measures; Reports all incidents and complaints to the Construction Manager; and Ensures all workers comply with environmental operating procedures and community relations protocols.

Environmental Manager and Team     

          

Project Environmental liaison for Mercury (or its agents) for environmental site inspections, SEMP audits and compliance issues; Provides leadership and training to ensure staff are motivated to achieve environmental standards and comply with all resource consent conditions; Reports on environmental performance, incidents and issues; Develops, implements and reviews environmental management systems including the CEMP and any relevant SEMPs and Management Plans for the Project; Coordinates the interface and communication with external agencies and stakeholders in relation to environmental management on the Project in conjunction with Stakeholder Manager and Mercury; Assists Mercury with the management and coordination of consents required (current and any additional); Maintains and submits to Mercury, relevant reporting that is required by Resource Consent by PNCC, TDC and Horizons; Undertakes regular site inspections and audits to ensure compliance with the CEMP and any relevant SEMPs and Management Plans and consent conditions; Provides liaison point between site staff and specialists (e.g. ecologists); Trains staff in site specific environmental procedures (e.g. Accidental Discovery protocols); Coordinates environmental emergency responses; Notifies Mercury of any significant environmental non-compliance so that the correct Regulatory Authority can be contacted; Available to meet with PNCC, TDC, Horizons, Department of Conservation and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga representatives as required; In consultation with the Consent Holder, responsible for resolving issues of environmental noncompliance or complaint; Manages maintenance and monitoring of the effectiveness of erosion and sediment controls; and Ensures spill kits are available and stocked and provides training on equipment use.

Stakeholder Manager 

In consultation with Mercury Property Manager, responsible for notifying landowners (and where relevant, neighbours) of works occurring within the vicinity and managing mitigation as required, in conjunction with Mercury; Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 25 of 43

 

Subject to approval by Mercury, disseminates information to the public; and Primary contact for Project related complaints and enquires (whether directly or via Mercury’s Project- Complaints email or 0800 number).

Site Leading Hands     

Provides leadership to the site construction team to achieve Project environmental objectives and targets; Ensures that the CEMP and Management Plans are implemented appropriately; Ensures environmental controls are being protected and maintained; Leads the emergency response crew; and Reviews the need for dust suppression (e.g. water carts).

Foreman    

Manages the construction of critical erosion and sediment control devices and removal of vegetation; Coordinates daily site inspections of environmental controls including erosion and sediment controls; Monitors the site during rainfall events and trigger-based monitoring; and Ensures staff on site are aware of environmental requirements at all times.

Environmental Training and Induction All Project staff will undergo general environmental awareness training and training about their responsibilities under the CEMP and Management Plans. The training will ensure that all personnel understand their obligations to exercise due diligence for environmental matters. Suitable induction training and on-going programmes of environmental training will, at a minimum include:             

The significant actual or potential environmental impacts and the importance of mitigation; Location of sensitive receptors and area of high environmental value; Cultural awareness; Importance and relevance of the CEMP and Management Plans; Consent requirements; Roles and responsibilities in relation to compliance with consents and operating procedures; Familiarisation with site environmental controls; Spill response and emergency procedures; Hazard and risk management to ensure personnel understand the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures (contained within CEMP Environmental Risk Register); Mercury’s PreQual training; Accident, incident, spill reporting and methods for environmental prevention; Complaints management procedures; and Environmental monitoring.

The induction will include information on the surrounding natural environment and its sensitivity. Information will be provided on environmental controls such as sediment control, noise and dust mitigation measures, spill contingency and waste management. Project Engineers responsible for writing Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 26 of 43

plans and undertaking site specific safety and environmental risk assessments will also be given guidance on how to assess and plan for environmental issues using the CEMP and Environmental Risk Register. Environmental issues will form a regular part of “tool-box meetings” to ensure all workers are aware of the key issues. Site staff will be made aware of the operational restrictions when working near sites of archaeological and/or cultural significance, sensitive aquatic receiving environments, areas of retained/protected vegetation and other sensitive receptors.

4.2.1

Training records

Training records regarding environmental matters will be maintained by the Environmental Manager. Records will include:    

Who was trained; When training occurred; General description of training; and Trainer details.

Construction procedures inclusive of mitigation measures The sections below describe the environmental aspects associated with the construction phase of the Project and mitigation measures. Management Plans containing detailed controls and measures are cross-referenced.

4.3.1

Noise

An assessment of the existing noise environment has been undertaken for the Project and is provided in the Assessment of Noise Effects (Appendix M of AEE). This outlines that the potential noise effects of the proposed Project works include: 



noise from the construction of the roading network within the wind farm, the erection of the wind turbine generators and noise from construction traffic on the internal site roads and the public roading network (including traffic for construction of the Transmission Line); and noise from temporary support works, which include a possible extraction works.

A full assessment of the proposed construction works has been undertaken and the noise levels at the closest dwellings completed for each phase of the wind farm construction. The existing noise environment has been measured over a ten-day period at representative sites around the proposed wind farm in terms of the requirements of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise at all times. The assessment concluded that:  

construction traffic noise will be heard but will be well within a reasonable level at all times; and construction will only be undertaken infrequently at night (e.g. during particularly lengthy concrete pours). These night time construction activities will comply with the lower noise time noise requirements of the Construction Standard of (Leq) 45dBA for any activity at the closest construction site so ensuring there will not be a sleep disturbance for the residential neighbours.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 27 of 43

As access to the area between towers 31-35 (illustrated in figure 2) is difficult, it is proposed to transport the towers to the sites using a helicopter. The analysis has been undertaken based on an AS355 helicopter operation during the daytime period. The helipad will be located a minimum of 1km from any dwelling and the towers are a minimum of 2km from the closest house. Based on these distances and assuming the helicopter is flying constantly, the noise from the helicopter is unlikely to exceed 40dBA as a 1-hour Leq. This is well within an acceptable limit for both an ongoing sound and a construction activity. Noise from all construction work shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803 and shall comply with the noise limits for long-term duration set out in that Standard.

4.3.2

Dust

Due to the exposed, windy conditions along the ridgelines there is the potential for fine sediment to enter watercourses as windblown dust from earthwork areas. Limiting exposed areas and controlling the generation of windblown sediment via dust control will minimise the amount of airborne sediment generated during earthworks. As a result of the adoption of best industry practices for construction and given the location of works on the wind turbines pads and the majority of access ways are on ridgelines and spurs that are separated from perennial reaches of surface receiving waters, the effects of constructing the Turitea Wind Farm on aquatic ecology will be minor. Erosion and sediment control measures will be used across the Project and will be in line with the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines’ and also best practicable options that can be used in conjunction with those guidelines. The potential for nuisance dust to arise during the construction process will be mitigated by appropriate dust suppression methods (watering) where possible. Should any nuisance dust emissions occur, a written report will be prepared by the Environmental Manager (within 5 working days of being made aware of emission) which will include:    

A description of the severity of the event; The cause or likely cause and any factors which may have contributed to its severity; The nature and timing of any measure implement to avoid, remedy or mitigate any of the adverse effects; and The steps to be taken to prevent recurrence of similar events.

Dust reduction measures must be implemented to suppress dust caused by the movement of construction vehicles on Greens Road and Pahiatua-Aokautere Road during the construction period. This will be illustrated in the SEMP relevant to these areas.

4.3.3

Construction Machinery and Vehicle Emissions

Excessive smoke and odour from diesel-fuelled trucks, generators and other machinery is primarily cause by poor engine maintenance. Failure to maintain air filters, fuel filters and fuel injectors in accordance with manufactures recommendations may cause excessive black smoke and objectionable odour. Excessive smoke and odour discharges from trucks, earth moving machinery and generators could cause complaints from neighbours, if vehicles and machinery are not well maintained. The Project team will utilise late model vehicles where possible and will maintain all machinery and vehicles regularly to prevent excessive smoke and odour discharges.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 28 of 43

4.3.4

Erosion and Sediment

During construction, erosion and sediment control measures will be put in place to minimise potential adverse effects by utilising measures which meet (or exceed) industry best practice guidelines such as Greater Wellington Regional Council’s ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines’. Site and activity specific erosion and sediment control plans will be developed and adopted for each SEMP. These will include specific methodologies and management techniques that will be applied to each zone. As part of the erosion and sediment control methodology, ongoing site monitoring by the Project team will occur to ensure that the proposed erosion and sediment control measure have been installed correctly, methodologies are being followed and are functioning effectively throughout the duration of the works. Sediment control measures will be provided for potential silt run-off during construction and until the stabilisation of ground is established. Mercury (or its agents) will also undertake regular inspections of sediment controls. Each of the SEMPs will set out a risk management framework and the construction and environmental management and monitoring requirements in relation to land disturbing activities. The SEMPs will include information on the following:     

The management of sediment inputs to water courses from earthworks via stormwater and / or windblown dust; The design of stream crossings (predominantly culverts) to ensure they provide for fish passage; Best management practices to minimise the chance of accidental spillage or loss of hydrocarbons and non-stabilised cement products to watercourses; A monitoring programme that provides the basis for an adaptive management response to issues that may arise during the construction phase of the proposed Wind Farm; and Adoption of best practice sediment and erosion control measures.

Each of the SEMP will contain erosion and sediment control sections which will:       

Identify areas susceptible to erosion and sediment deposition with particular emphasis on identified high risk areas; Ensure construction and maintenance activities avoid, remedy and mitigate effects of soil erosion, sediment runoff and sediment deposition on high value ecological areas; Detail procedures to ensure erosion and sediment control measures are installed prior to and during all works and procedures for decommissioning of controls; Identification of Environmental Management staff who are appropriately qualified and experienced, their roles and responsibilities and chain of command; Detail monitoring requirements and responsibilities for turbidity monitoring and triggered event monitoring as detailed in Schedule 2: Conditions 27-29; Identify the catchment area for each relevant sediment control measures (Sediment Retention Pond (SRP), Decanting Earth Bund (DEB) etc); and Identify any ‘No-go’ areas for traffic vehicles.

Structures within Waterways The majority of in-stream works will be culvert crossings of ephemeral (temporary) watercourses at the extreme headwaters of catchments (i.e. towards the top of gullies) and are also in relatively small catchments. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 29 of 43

Construction for all works within watercourses will be undertaken based on the following principles:          

Installation of suitable runoff controls including diverting runoff from disturbed areas to minimise discharge of sediment and construction materials into the stream; Minimising the area of disturbance; Staging works to minimise work in the stream bed; Undertaking works, as much as practical, in the dry; Allowing ‘offline’ construction works by temporarily diverting the stream to minimise the generation of sediments and the possibility of construction materials entering the watercourse; Selecting materials (such as pre-cast headwall & culverts etc) to minimise time of the works in the stream; Removal of all construction materials on completion of works; Stabilising all exposed areas of soil against erosion by re-vegetating or other methods; No storage, refuelling or servicing of machinery in locations which could lead to a spill to the watercourse; and Regular inspections by Project Management to ensure construction materials handling and sediment mitigation measures are being adhered to.

In addition to the principles for works within the vicinity of watercourses, culvert works will also include the following:  

New culverts have been designed not to cause the upstream water depth and differential water level to exceed three metres; and Culverts have been designed to minimise impediment to fish passage.

General Erosion and Sediment Control Principles for the Site The underlying principles for the management of erosion and sediment are to undertake land disturbing activities in a manner that reduces the potential for erosion of bare soil surfaces to occur (Erosion Control) and to employ treatment devices to treat sediment laden water prior to discharging from the site (Sediment Control). The key principles which will be addressed in each of the SEMPs are:         

Minimise Disturbance - only work those areas required for the construction to take place. Stage Construction - carefully plan works to minimise the area of disturbance at any one time. Protect Steep Slopes - carefully consider activities on steep slopes and how runoff from these areas will be controlled. Protect Waterbodies - map all waterbodies and proposed drainage patterns before works commence. Stabilise Exposed Areas Rapidly. Install Perimeter Controls - divert clean water away from areas of disturbance and divert runoff from areas disturbed to sediment control measures. Employ Detention Devices - treat runoff by methods that allow sediment to settle out. Make Sure the Plan Evolves - Modify the ESCP as the project progresses. Inspect - inspect, monitor and maintain controls. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 30 of 43

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (within SEMPs) The Erosion and Sediment control descriptions will form part of each of the SEMPs. They will be prepared prior to works commencing and the controls designed and constructed to Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, Greater Wellington Regional Council, (2002). Where devices following exact Wellington guidelines are not appropriate, the best practicable option will be adopted. The Erosion and Sediment control descriptions will include (but not limited to) the following:   



   

Site description - soil types, vegetation, natural features, flood plains, waterbodies, climate; Site situation - the immediate, connecting and ultimate receiving environment; Description of proposed development - the nature and scale of works being undertaken including the total earthworks area on site, total length of exposed roads, trenches and tracks and volume of proposed earthworks; Detailed map - a detailed location map of the site with a north point and bar scale as well as a ratio scale, showing roads, boundaries, location of surface water bodies, any existing stormwater reticulation and outfalls; Limits of Disturbance - the map is to include all the “limits of disturbance” bounding protected areas. On site the limits of disturbance will be shown using fences, signs and flags; Erosion and sediment controls - a detailed map showing the erosion and sediment controls proposed; Monitoring - details of proposed monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the control measures; and Provide as-built certification sheets for Sediment Retention Ponds (SRP).

General Site Controls Stabilised Construction Entranceway A stabilised pad of aggregate on a geotextile cloth base will be located at the point of the site where traffic will be entering and leaving. This will prevent site access points from becoming sediment sources and assist in minimising dust generation and tracking of soil onto the adjacent environments. Details around the entranceways is illustrated and contained with the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). Runoff diversion Channel / Bund A non-erodible channel or bund may be used on site to intercept clean water from non-worked areas and direct it around the work site (clean water diversion). They may also be used to convey sediment-laden runoff from the site to an appropriate sediment retention structure. Stabilised Channel Protection The purpose of stabilising the channels of steep graded road side drains, diversion bunds and diversion drains is to provide suitable erosion protection. Stabilisation measures such as geotextile, vegetation stabilisation, or rock check dams may be used to line the channels of the diversion bunds and minimise erosion.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 31 of 43

Sediment Traps A sediment trap is an excavation that acts as a collection point for sediment suspended in stormwater. It is proposed that these collect flows from the roadside drains (turn out areas) and are the primary control for the access tracks where they are to be positioned. The discharge point will either be a pipe or spillway formed in in-situ materials. Depending on the topography, the sediment traps may need to be stabilised with geotextile to minimise erosion. The spacing of the sediment traps will depend on the vertical grade of the road they are servicing. Sediment traps will be built in accordance with Schedule 2: condition 10 and 13. Silt Fences Silt fences are a temporary barrier of woven geotextile fabric used to intercept runoff, reduce its velocity and trap sediment suspended in the runoff. Silt fences will be erected as a perimeter control and may also be used to limit disturbance of sensitive areas where diversion and earth bunds are not practical to construct. Silt fences will be utilised in the low wind areas where the topography is appropriate. Silt fences will be built in accordance with Schedule 2: condition 12. Super Silt Fences A super silt fence is a temporary barrier of woven geotextile fabric over chain link fence used to intercept sediment-laden runoff from soil disturbance. Some of the areas may require super silt fences due to site topography and/or the sensitivity of the receiving environment. Super silt fences are more effective than a regular silt fence as the barrier is stronger and will more likely cope with the exposed windy conditions. Super Silt fences will be built in accordance with Schedule 2: condition 11. Sediment Retention Pond Sediment retention ponds are temporary ponds incorporating a decanting device to dewater the pond at a rate that will allow suspended sediment to settle out. Sediment retention ponds may be used where earthworks areas of approximately 0.3 ha to 3 ha will remain exposed for a reasonable period of time i.e. at Browns Flat. Ponds are generally sized according to the catchment that is feeding them. Earthwork areas with slopes of less than 10Â°, or 200 m in length require a pond with a minimum volume of 2 % of the catchment area. For earthwork areas with slopes greater than 10Â° or longer than 200 m the minimum volume required is 3% of the catchment area. Any ponds will be monitored regularly, and sediment cleaned and disposed to fill to ensure the efficacy of sediment settlement. Site stabilisation The project will be staged so as to minimise the amount of exposed earth at any time. This will be achieved through staging of the works and progressive site stabilisation. Access roads will be stabilised as soon as their base course is down. Roads that have a slope of over 14 % will be stabilised with lime/cement or chip seal, the remaining access roads will be stabilised with metal. In some sections of the track, particularly along South Range Road and Water Catchment Access Road, it may be necessary to lay geotextile out over the worked site at the end of each working day to temporarily stabilise it, until metal is placed. Other parts of the site will be vegetated in a way that achieves a good level of vegetative cover (>80%) as quickly as possible to minimise erosion. Re-vegetation will be through hydroseeding and spreading of topsoil and grassing (mulching may be required in some areas). Hydroseeding will primarily be used on cut slopes and spoil sites. Where appropriate direct transfer of native vegetation from adjacent parts of the site will be used. Once the construction phase of the Project is complete, and it is practical to do so, on approval from Mercury (after taking advice from Council) the erosion and sediment control methods described above will be removed from site and the area reinstated. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 32 of 43

4.3.5

Spill Response

The construction of the Wind Farm will involve the storage and use of substances, some of which are potentially hazardous if discharged to the environment. Best management practices will be adopted to minimise the chance of accidental spillage or loss of hydrocarbons and non-stabilised cement products to watercourses. A monitoring programme will provide the basis for an adaptive management response to issues that may arise during the construction phase of the Wind Farm. Impacts on freshwater ecology from construction activities can be minimised through the management of contaminated land, groundwater, spills and hazardous substances. These environmental aspects have the potential to contaminate runoff and enter waterways. Emergency response and spill contingency plans will be implemented on site to minimise risks. The risk of accidental spillages of hydrocarbons and other potentially harmful substances during construction will be minimised by the adoption of best management practices such as refuelling in bunded sites out of sensitive sub-catchments and regular servicing / maintenance of hydraulic hoses on heavy machinery. All stored fuel will be protected by a bund for an appropriate volume to prevent spillage of fuel during normal use or by accidental rupture. A fuel bowser will then be used to transfer smaller quantities of fuel to plant employed around the Site. All fuel storage facilities will be constructed outside the Turitea water supply catchment. A Safety Data Sheet (SDS) is required for all hazardous substances stored/used on the Project. The SDS will be provided by the supplier and with delivery. The SDS must be available and understood by all personnel handling (or with access to) the substance. A location plan will be prepared for each of the SEMPs which will include the locations of:    

Stored hazardous substances; Firefighting equipment; First Aid kits; and Spill kits.

All heavy plant will carry their own spill kits with storage containers and additional spill kits carried in each of the vehicles. Hazardous materials will be stored in a container which will be bunded. Storage containers will be at the laydown yard (illustrated in figure 4).

4.3.6

Archaeology

The existing historic and archaeological values of the area have been evaluated in the Archaeological Assessment (Appendix E of the AEE). No pre-European archaeological sites have been recorded in the general vicinity of the site. During the preparation of the AEE, Iwi have confirmed that the Tararua Ranges are culturally, spiritually and historically significant to tangata whenua. Four sites of cultural significance have been identified within the vicinity of the Turitea Wind Farm. The works proposed within the Turitea Reserve have been designed so as to minimise earthworks and vegetation clearance. The fact that existing access tracks will be utilised wherever possible will also further reduce the likelihood of existing cultural or heritage sites being disturbed.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 33 of 43

It is considered unlikely that any archaeological sites will be exposed during construction of turbines and associated infrastructure. The possibility that they might be, however, means that an Accidental Discovery Protocol is in place. Accidental Discovery Protocol If Taonga (treasured or prized possessions, including Maori artefacts) or archaeological sites are discovered in any area being earth-worked, works shall cease immediately, within a 100m radius of the discovery. The Electrix Project Manager shall contact Mercury Project Manager as soon as possible. Mercury will facilitate the contacting of:   

local iwi; the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and the relevant Council Environmental Compliance Manager(s).

Works shall not recommence in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives, relevant Council staff and staff of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (if they consider it necessary); the appropriate action has been carried out to remove the Taonga and record the site, or alternative action has been taken; and approval to continue work is given by the relevant Environmental Compliance Manager(s). If during construction activities, any Koiwi (skeletal remains) or similar material are uncovered, works will cease within a 100m radius of the discovery immediately. The Electrix Project Manager shall contact Mercury Project Manager as soon as possible. Mercury will facilitate the contacting of:    

NZ Police; Local iwi; Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Relevant Council Environmental Compliance Manager(s).

Works shall not recommence in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives, relevant Council staff, and staff from the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the New Zealand Police (if they consider it necessary). This will likely include a blessing/appropriate ceremony conducted by iwi. The Koiwi or similar material discovered will likely be removed by the iwi responsible for the tikanga appropriate to their removal and preservation or re-interment, or alternative action (e.g. works are relocated). Approval to continue work will be given by the relevant Council Environmental Compliance Manager(s) in associated with the above parties.

4.3.7

Ecological and Landscape Management

Vegetation The degree of vegetation impact of each of the proposed turbine pad sites is related to the character of existing vegetation, steepness of terrain, and the extent of new roading infrastructure required to reach a turbine site. Thus, there are many turbine sites in the Reserve and on private land where, subject to road placement in relation to streams and related sediment control measures, effects have been classed as being ‘very minor’.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 34 of 43

The private land turbine sites are all pasture or require only minor clearance of indigenous shrubland to reach the proposed turbine sites. Care will need to be taken when crossing steeper gullies to minimise clearance of riparian vegetation, and final roading alignments will address this issue. Dust and Sediment Management The large-scale earthworks may generate dust. Although a nuisance, this is very unlikely to result in adverse ecological effects as most construction works will be confined to ridges in horopito-dominant vegetation, and dust will simply wash off vegetation during rain. The construction of roading may cause sediment and run-off effects, which may affect the quality of the waterways within the Turitea site. Construction of roading also has the potential to alter drainage courses or to require culverts. However, these effects will be mitigated by the implementation of sediment runoff controls to prevent sediment inputs into waterways. Further details of the proposed measures to be undertaken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the effects of sediment run-off are set out in Section 3.3.4 of this CEMP. Birds Indigenous bird species may be affected by the loss of habitat during the construction of the associated infrastructure (e.g. roads and building platforms). Habitat loss is required to be mitigated by Mercury in accordance with the Rehabilitation and Revegetation Management Plan. However, with construction being confined to ridge top vegetation, effects on mobile bird species are likely to be minimal. Effect on Bats Mercuryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pre-construction bat monitoring activity recorded no bats at the site. Construction activities will, therefore, be undertaken in accordance with an accidental bat / bat roost discovery procedure to be supplied by Mercury. Effect on Lizards Mercuryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lizard searching effort has shown that herpetafauna within the Turitea reserve is at very low densities, with only three green gecko (barking gecko) found in horopito scrub vegetation. No other species of skink, gecko or lizard have been found on site. The Department of Conservation is yet to confirm preferred lizard management methodology for this project in light of these lizard search results. Removal of potentially high value lizard habitat may still require some form of pre-clearance lizard search and salvage (e.g. tower locations in the Reserve). In any event, construction activities will be undertaken in accordance with final Lizard Protection Plans. Effect on Powelliphanta Snail Population Powelliphanta traversi tararuaensis may be present in the area. If found, populations will be translocated to safe sites, which will be carried out in consultation with the Department of Conservation. Controlled Blasting At present it is not proposed to use controlled blasting. However, should this change updates to the CEMP will be drafted.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 35 of 43

Helicopter Use Individual pylons away from access roads will be constructed using helicopters. The noise disturbance effects will be limited to a relatively small timeframe and effects will be minor. Effects and controls will be outlined in the CNMP. Aquatic Tonkin & Taylor Ltd undertook the baseline monitoring work over an eight-month period between June 2018 and January 2019. It was concluded that the most likely cause of instream effects associated with the Project would be:   

increased sediment loading to watercourses from vegetation clearance, construction/earthworks activities, the accidental spillage of hydrocarbons into watercourses from machinery; and the accidental spillage of concrete products entering watercourses.

and

Each of the effects listed above has the potential to adversely affect instream communities downstream of construction activities. Given the Project will be adopting and implementing best industry practices and given the location of wind turbine platform works and that the majority of accessways are on ridgelines are separated from perennial reaches of surface receiving waters, it is considered that the effects of constructing the Wind Farm on aquatic ecology have a high probability of being less than minor. The desired outcome will be achieved by following the following steps:     

Adoption of the measures detailed in Greater Wellington Regional Council’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (Denton and Robson, 2002); Adoption of Best Management Practices for instream works; Adherence to Tonkin & Taylors approved Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan (AEMP) (Appendix D); Adherence to Tonkin & Taylors Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report (Appendix D); and The implementation of the recommendations contained within Tonkin & Taylors Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan (AEMRP) (Appendix E).

Construction Monitoring Rainfall Monitoring Tonkin & Taylors Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report review of the continuous water quality monitoring data and comparison against rainfall data recorded at the Ngahere Park and Pahiatua rainfall stations has shown that: a)

b) c)

Rainfall within greater Turitea Reserve is often independent of that recorded at the existing lower elevation rainfall gauges. This could be due to the greater potential for precipitation at higher elevations or the distance between the rainfall gauges and the survey sites. There is also wide variance between the two rainfall gauge sites that seems dependant on the prevailing direction of travel for wet weather systems in the area. Rainfall patterns in the northern and southern areas of the site are different and weather systems do not always impact all parts of the site. Neither rainfall gauge site produces readily available sub-daily (hourly) rainfall data that would be needed to support a rainfall intensity (mm per hour) monitoring trigger that is generally needed for erosion and sediment control monitoring programmes.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 36 of 43

The above points highlight the need for on-site, telemetered rainfall stations to be established within the northern and southern turbine clusters as appropriate. This will ensure accurate rainfall data can be collected and will reduce the incidence of false alarm responses and missed events. In terms of triggers, the lack of hourly rainfall data has limited the Project team’s ability to develop a sitespecific rainfall intensity trigger. We are therefore going to follow the draft triggers as set out in the AEMP as a starting point and with reference to a site specific, telemetered rain gauge. These are:  

A rainfall event with an intensity equal to or greater than 6 mm/hr, and 20 mm total rainfall over any 24-hour period.

Triggers will be adjusted through the course of construction phase as necessary and as more data become available. Event Based Water Quality Monitoring Event based monitoring will be the responsibility of Electrix. This will include the initial sampling following a trigger exceedance. This event-based monitoring includes any monitoring relating to an event that has caused the need for subsequent sediment/in-stream ecology monitoring (as per the AEMRP) (provided the root cause is confirmed and found to be the result of construction activities). Continuous Monitoring Mercury will be carrying out the continuous monitoring which includes rainfall, regular grab and ecology sampling. Mercury has also installed a rainfall meter on site with telemetered data and alarm notifications. Turbidity will be used as the key parameter for monitoring construction effects on waterways, and trigger levels for further construction effects monitoring and investigation will be based on turbidity. Turbidity can be measured by field meters and loggers and therefore allows more rapid feedback compared to a sample collection and testing approach. However, best practice states that it would only be necessary to have turbidity loggers in place at sites that are potentially impacted by construction works at any particular time. Turbidity monitoring will comprise: 



Continuous monitoring: Consent conditions require continuous monitoring of temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen during key phases of construction. A turbidity sensor will also be included. Logging equipment will be deployed and maintained as determined by the construction programme. The continuous turbidity data will enable the duration and scale of any discharge event to be assessed retrospectively. Field measurement: Turbidity will be measured at the appropriate water quality monitoring sites using a calibrated hand-held meter in response to the established rainfall triggers. Field measurements will be gathered as soon as possible following the trigger rainfall event, when safe to do so and during working hours.

Turbidity measurements will be compared to the triggers established from the baseline monitoring. If the turbidity target is exceeded, then:  

Water quality samples will be collected for testing for the wider range of parameters as set out in Section 2.3.3 of the approved Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan, Tonkin & Taylor, July 2018 (Appendix D); An investigation of the cause or source of the increased turbidity will be undertaken;

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 37 of 43

  

Where appropriate, immediate actions will be taken to mitigate any sediment loss from the construction site so that turbidity drops back to the threshold; Management of the erosion and sediment control structures will be modified to prevent a similar occurrence in the future; and A report be prepared for the consent authorities outlining the nature of the event, any immediate actions taken to limit the loss of sediment from the site, the results of testing and changes to future practices to reduce the possibility that such an occurrence does not happen in the future.

The AEMP states that logger data will be obtained after 48 hours of the turbidity trigger to establish if deposited sediment monitoring should occur. Rather than linking responses to the above grab sample trigger, Tonkin & Taylor has recommended that if logged turbidity data remains generally elevated above prevailing turbidity pre-event for more than 24 hrs, then sediment deposition monitoring should be undertaken. Deposited Sediment The AEMRP includes preliminary triggers for an assessment of remedial and/or mitigation measures. Following the baseline monitoring Tonkin & Taylor has recommended that the visual monitoring method will be more appropriate for event based triggered monitoring. Although the results of the Quorer sampling appear somewhat comparable between sampling occasions the method cannot be used at all sites. Tonkin & Taylor have suggested that it would be more appropriate as part of the routine monitoring programme. We await Council’s approval. The baseline monitoring has shown that existing deposited sediment levels are low in most site streams, particularly in winter, and generally well below guideline levels to manage adverse ecological effects. It is therefore recommended that appropriate deposited sediment triggers would be a 20 % increase relative to the highest of the baseline values. Modified trigger recommendations are as follows: Event based monitoring: An increase in the mean visual sediment coverage of 20 % or more relative to the highest baseline visual estimate for that site. Routine monitoring: An increase in sediment coverage or re-suspendible sediment of 20 % or more relative to the highest measurement from baseline monitoring that persists for two or more consecutive quarterly monitoring occasions. Exceedances of the above deposited sediment triggers will result in an assessment of ecological effects and potentially remedial/mitigation measures. Periphyton In Tonkin & Taylor’s baseline monitoring report, they believe that periphyton monitoring will be best undertaken as part of routine monitoring, however could form a discretionary part of an investigation of the ecological effects of a discharge. For the later this would be triggered by deposited sediment or water quality results from the event-based monitoring or in response to a contaminant discharge. The visual assessment of periphyton coverage will be most useful for on-going monitoring given that many of the sites had high a proportion of the ‘clean’ and ‘film’ categories. There were small, if any, proportions of nuisance periphyton types. For the routine monitoring programme, if visual periphyton suggests a deviation from baseline conditions, then quantitative sampling will be conducted to further investigate a potential change. This trigger for Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 38 of 43

quantitative sampling would be an increase in nuisance periphyton coverage of 10% compared to the highest recorded value in the baseline monitoring programme. Nuisance periphyton being:  

Algal mats: the combined percent cover of thick mat and sludge, and Filamentous algae: combined percent cover of coarse and slimy filaments.

For the routine quarterly monitoring we will adopt accept that exceedances of the following triggers result in an assessment of the cause of the effect including an assessment of any remedial and/or mitigation measures. 

An increase in nuisance periphyton coverage of 10% compared to the highest recorded value in the baseline monitoring programme that persists for 2 or more consecutive quarterly monitoring occasions. Macroinvertebrate

As per periphyton, the Project team has been advised that macroinvertebrate monitoring is best undertaken as part of routine monitoring but could form a discretionary part of an investigation of the ecological effects of a discharge. For the later this would be triggered by deposited sediment or water quality results from the event-based monitoring or in response to a contaminant discharge or spill. Macroinvertebrate communities appear to be generally stable seasonally, with few sites exhibiting significant variation between the August 2018 and January 2019 sampling rounds. Macroinvertebrate metrics should therefore provide appropriate means for assessing the effects of any sediment or contaminant releases into the receiving environment. However, given that the data are limited to two sampling occasions, it is reasonable to apply a margin of uncertainty when comparing to these data. For the routine quarterly monitoring, Tonkin & Taylor have recommended that exceedances of the following triggers result should result in an assessment of the cause of the effect including an assessment of any remedial and/or mitigation measures. 



A statistically significant decrease in the mean Quantitative Macro-invertebrate Community Index (QMCI) relative to the lowest score from the baseline monitoring that persists for 2 or more quarterly monitoring occasions; or A decline in the mean % of EPT (Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly) and Trichoptera (caddisfly)) taxa richness of 10% or more compared to baseline monitoring scores that persists for 2 or more quarterly monitoring occasions. Vegetation and Topsoil Storage Sites

The resource consent Schedule 2: Condition 29.7 requires the monitoring of vegetation and topsoil storage sites. The baseline data collection programme has covered representative headwater streams for each of the catchments potentially impacted by project works, including vegetation and topsoil storage. Vegetation and topsoil storage sites will be captured in the construction phase monitoring through the event and routine monitoring described in the preceding sections. These sites will also be subject to erosion and sediment controls which will be checked and inspected on a routine basis and following rainfall trigger events. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 39 of 43

Traffic Management Traffic management is detailed within the CTMP required by Schedule 3: condition 70. Traffic will be monitored with the recording of:    

All vehicles travelling in and out of the site during construction; Any record where truck access was required outside of the prescribed limits for the purpose of carrying out emergency maintenance works or responding to a health and safety matter. Pavement surfaces on Greens Road shall be inspected by a suitably qualified engineer as required and reported as per Schedule 3: Condition 75; and Records will be kept by Mercury regarding calls received on the 0800-phone number about driver behaviour.

In total, no more than 5,800 truck* movements shall occur through the Greens Road access during construction. * N.B: A truck is defined by the Board of Inquiry decision as “a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3,500kg which requires a 2,3,4, or 5 drivers licence to operate.” Vehicles entering or exiting the site shall only travel on Greens Road or Kahuterawa Road at the following times: Table 2: Vehicle restrictions: Greens Rd and Kahuterawa Road.

Time Period

Light Vehicles

Trucks 6.30am to 7.30am; 8.15am to 3.15pm; and 4.30pm to 6.00pm;

Weekdays

No restrictions

Except that trucks shall not use the road when particular events, notified through community consultation, are held, and which involve a peak in the presence of vulnerable road users, such as equestrian or cycling events. In addition, the prohibition on access from 7.30am to 8.15am and 3.15pm to 4.30pm only applies on school days.

6.30am to 7.30am; and Weekends and statutory holidays*

5.00pm to 6.00pm; Except that up to 10 other light vehicle movements may occur outside of these times each day.

No truck access, except that up to 6 truck movements per day may occur on weekends and statutory holidays between the hours of 8am and 6pm.

*In addition to the traffic permitted above, light vehicle access is allowed at any time for the purposes of site security and site supervisors (associated with the monitoring of health and safety and environmental effects). Additionally, light vehicle and truck access is allowed at any time for the purpose of maintenance / emergency response, to carry out emergency maintenance works or to respond to a health and safety matter that cannot reasonable wait until a weekday.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 40 of 43

Emergency Contacts and Response There is the potential for unforeseen events to occur that may impact on the environment and will require emergency response. The following sections detail how environmental incidents or emergencies are to be managed by the Project team.

4.5.1

Incident/Emergency Management

An environmental incident is an occurrence which has (or potentially could have had) a negative or ‘adverse’ effect on the environment. An adverse effect is something that causes (or could have caused) environmental harm. An environmental incident can also be a deviation from this CEMP. This means there has been a failure to follow the established process or procedures that help the Project achieve best practice (e.g. failure to report a spill). Environmental incidents include but are not restricted to:    

Spills; Unforeseen impact on areas of high environmental value such as protected flora or fauna, archaeology; Council non-compliances (e.g. relating to erosion and sediment control); Other consent non-compliances.

An environmental emergency is an event which has a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment. A detrimental environmental effect is something that causes significant harm to the environment, which is not legally allowed and requires immediate response or a failure to follow the established process or procedures that helps achieve best practice. In the event of an environmental incident/emergency, the following procedures, Table 3 will be followed. Environmental emergency contact details are included in Table 4. Table 3: Management of environmental incidents/emergencies.

Environmental Incident Management Performance objectives

To ensure rapid and appropriate response is made to environmental incidents/emergencies.

Statutory and Legislative

Resource Management Act and resource consent conditions. All incidents to be formally registered.

Performance Criteria

All incidents responded to in a timely manner and investigated by the Environmental Manager. Environmental incident and emergencies to be reported to the Client within four (4) hours of the event. Eliminate potential for environmental complaints.

Response Person

The Environmental Manager is responsible for receiving, documenting and investigating all incidents. All members of staff are responsible for their actions which could impact or result an environmental incident.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 41 of 43

The details of all incidents will be registered on an Environmental Incident Form and supplied to the Environmental Manager. Upon receipt the Environmental Manager will commence an inquiry.

Mitigation

Steps to mitigate, isolate or eliminate the reoccurrence will be implemented. The environmental incident/emergency will be reported to the Client within four (4) hours of the event.

Monitoring

Ongoing monitoring will occur to ensure compliance and best practice is observed.

Review

In the event CEMP / regulatory guidelines or permitted criteria have not been breached, the Environmental Manager, Construction Manager and the Project Manager are to investigate how work practices may be modified to lesson perceived or actual environmental impact. The environmental incident/emergency will be reported to the Client within four (4) hours of the event. The Environmental Manager will summarise all incidents received throughout the sites to on-site staff members through weekly Tool Box sessions.

Reporting

The Environmental Manager shall include monitoring inspection records in the Weekly Environmental Compliance Report and a summary in the Monthly Environmental Compliance Report. Table 4: Environmental Emergency Contact Details.

Position

Name

Organisation

Phone

Environmental Manager

Emma ComrieThomson

Electrix

Ph: 021 755 509

emmac@4sight.co.nz

Construction Manager

Jon Edwards

Electrix

Ph: 021 953 336

jon.edwards@electrix.co.nz

Project Manager

Kevin Small

Electrix

Ph: 021 312796

kevin.small@electrix.co.nz

HSEQ Assessor

Alison Gardiner

Electrix

Ph: 021 822 900

alison.gardiner@electrix.co.nz

Environmental Resources Manager

Mark Henry

Mercury

Ph: 027 479 7592

mark.henry@mercury.co.nz

Consents Compliance Manager

Mason Jackson

Mercury

Ph: 027 230 8567

mason.jackson@mercury.co.nz

Hamish Sutherland

ManawatuWanganui Regional Council (Horizons)

Ph: 021829607

hamish.sutherland@horizons.govt.nz

and

Monitoring Officer * Horizons to act on behalf of PNCC and TDC

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 42 of 43

Horizon’s Regional Council Pollution response

4.5.2

Ph: 0508 800 800

Environmental Incidents Form

A standard Environmental Incident Form template will be used for all site-specific activities throughout the construction of the Project. A copy of the Environmental Incident Form is included in Appendix F.

4.5.3

Environmental Incident Register

A standard Environmental Incident Register will be controlled by the Environmental Manager. It will contain all environmental incidents occurring on sites within the Project. The Environmental Manager will input all data from completed Environmental Incident Forms as soon as possible. The Register will be discussed regularly at the Project Team meetings and reported in the Monthly reports to Mercury. These meetings/reports will discuss the corrective actions taken, and the preventative measures that have been put in place.

4.5.4

Hazardous Substances Spills and Spills Contingency Planning

Loss of containment of hazardous substances can potentially affect human health and the environment. The primary control for the management of hazardous substances will be to keep the handling and storage of hazardous substances (type and volume) to a minimum. The Project will manage hazardous substances to minimise the likelihood of a spill. This will be done by:  



Preventative measures: Implement and maintain the required preventive measures for handling, transferring and storing of oil, fuel and chemicals; Action in the Event of Spill: o Assess personal safety and explosion risk; o Stop operating machinery; o Isolate source of spill; o Take whatever action is necessary to contain the spill and prevent it from spreading or discharging into a stormwater drain or cesspit, natural waterway (e.g. create a temporary earth bund); o Notify Foreman/Supervisor; o Locate nearest spill kit; o Use absorbent booms, mats or ‘kitty litter’ to soak up the contamination; and o If external assistance is necessary, call the local provider of spill equipment or the Regional Council spill response unit. Reporting Spills: Report spills using the Environmental Incident Report form (Appendix F). Submit Incident Report to Project Manager and copy to Environmental Manager. The Environmental Manager will then log incident Report on Register. The Project Manager will as soon as practicable inform Mercury who will notify the Councils of any significant spill to land, stormwater system or natural watercourse. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 43 of 43



Investigation: An investigation report for spills having significant environmental impact will be prepared. This will be conducted by way of investigation and preparation of the report. The Environmental Manager will obtain witness statements where appropriate.

Complaints Management Procedure for keeping records of public complaints and any action taken in response in accordance with be carried out in accordance with Consent conditions Schedule 1: Condition 19-21. In this regard Mercury has set up a phone number (0800 201 520) and an email address (turiteawindfarm@mercury.co.nz) for members of the public to register inquiries or complaints. When an environmental complaint is received directly by Electrix, it will be communicated to Mercury, and vice versa if received through Mercury’s 0800 number or website. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Environmental Manager will then complete the following forms:

4.6.1

Complaint Form

A standard Complaint Form (Appendix G) will be used for all site-specific activities throughout the Project. The Environmental Manager will ensure that the details of the investigations and any follow up actions are completed and recorded for each complaint. The form will contain but not be limited to;       

Name and address of complainant (if provided); Identification of the nature of the complaint; Date and time of the complaint and alleged event; Wind and weather at the time; Activity occurring on the site at the time; Details of whether the compliant was or was not able to be verified; and Any remedial actions undertaken.

The Environmental Manager will commence an inquiry within 1 hour of receiving the complaint. Contact will be made with the complainant (if details have been provided) within the same working day an interim response advising that investigations are continuing is acceptable. A formal written response will be provided to the complainant and appropriate regulatory authorities within 10 days of complaint receipt.

4.6.2

Complaints Register

A Complaints Register will be controlled by the Mercury. It will contain all complaints received for the Project. The Environmental Manager will submit all data from completed environmental Complaints Forms as soon as possible. The Environmental Manager will summarise all complaints received throughout the site to on-site staff members during weekly Tool Box sessions. The Complaints Register will be discussed at regular meetings held between the Environmental Manager, Construction Manager, Mercury and Electrix Project Manager.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 44 of 43

5. Monitor and Review Compliance The following section describes procedures for monitoring activities to evaluate compliance with legal requirements, the Mercury objectives and relevant policies, standards and guidelines.

5.1.1

Environmental Risk Register

The Environmental Risk Register, to be populated and maintained by the Project team is a tool for identifying, prioritising and management of activities that have the potential to impact on the environment. As described in Section 2.3, the risk assessment process adopted defines a process of managing significant risks with comprehensive Management Plans. The Risk Register will be regularly updated and reassessed to allow all significant aspects to be identified. The Risk Register will allow the Project team to search and sort on activities, locations, environmental aspects, and risk ratings, and provide a quick reference to the mitigation measures and controls that are in place to manage the significant impacts.

5.1.2

Environmental Monitoring

Scheduled environmental monitoring of environmental performance and compliance with resource consents is required throughout the construction phase of the Project. This enables the overall effectiveness of the environmental controls to be determined and allows areas of non-compliance to be identified so corrective actions can be taken. Environmental monitoring has already begun to ensure baseline data has been collected. Some of this monitoring will continue during construction to assess the impact of the construction on the environment, and after construction to assess the impact of the completed Project. Environmental monitoring is required at various stages of construction for each environmental aspect as developed in specific Management Plans and this CEMP. The monitoring schedule will be a working document and will be amended and updated to reflect resource consent and management review changes. General Site Monitoring In addition to environmental monitoring, general site monitoring will also be undertaken: ď&#x201A;ˇ

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Daily - Electrix Delivery team and/or the Health Safety and Environmental Team will conduct inspection and issues will be noted. These inspections are informal visual inspection in order to check compliance with the CEMP. Weekly - Formal site inspections are to be completed by the Health Safety and Environmental Team. Site specific checklists will be developed to check compliance against the SEMP (including resource consent conditions). Issues will be noted if they present significant environmental risks (e.g. works near watercourses). Monthly - The Electrix Project Management Team and the Construction Manager will undertake a monthly site with the Environmental Manager to confirm the environmental monitoring programmes and work procedures containing environmental controls are being implemented in accordance with the SEMP and resource consents.

The Environmental Manager shall submit environmental performance reports monthly to the Project Manager for inclusion into reporting to Mercury. This report will include but not be limited to: Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 45 of 43

   

A summary of environmental issues and actions during the month; Complaints received; Incidents - associated and corrective actions; and Environmental inductions and awareness training provided.

5.1.3

Review

The Environmental Manager and Construction Manager will review the daily inspection forms on a weekly basis to confirm that the checks and subsequent required works are being carried out. A regular meeting will be held on site between the Project Manager, Construction Manager and the Environmental Manager to discuss the results of the weekly and monthly site monitoring. On a monthly basis the Environmental Manager will review the monitoring schedule and compliance results from the required Environmental Monitoring as per this CEMP. Should inspections indicate that the environmental controls are not functioning as intended, the Environmental Manager and Construction Manager will instigate a review of the CEMP or relevant Management Plans as required. The Project Team will be available for quarterly meetings with the Regulators and Iwi representatives at the Strategic Management Oversight Unit meetings.

Environmental Auditing Periodic environmental audits are required to:   

Determine conformance with the Projects Environmental Commitments; Ensure that environmental controls are properly implemented and maintained; and Determine the extent to which the requirements defined in project resource consents, Management Plans and environmental procedures have been met.

The frequency of these audits will be determined by past performance and environmental risk. Internal audits will be undertaken by the Environmental Team and by Mercury on a regular basis. These audits will focus on site and task specific activities such as erosion and sediment controls, concrete works, refuelling procedures and high-risk construction activities to ensure all controls and methodologies are being implemented as required. External audits will predominantly be undertaken by regulatory authorities such as PNCC, TDC and Horizons to confirm compliance with resource consent conditions. The Environmental Team with input from the Construction Team will host these audits. The Environmental Manager will be responsible for ensuring that all non-conformances identified in an audit are closed out in a timely fashion as per the auditor’s recommendations. Results of the audits will be reported back to the Project team through a variety of mechanisms including site toolbox meetings, construction meetings and Management Team meetings.

Environmental Reporting The following reports will provide a record of compliance with the resource consents:  

The Environmental Manager will report weekly to the Project Manager on the status of site environmental matters. Should any member of the Project team become aware of an environmental incident or hazard that is causing - or has the potential to cause environmental harm - that person must advise their immediate supervisor who will notify the Environmental Manager, and an incident report will be completed. Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 46 of 43



The Environmental Manager will be responsible for ensuring that all statutory reporting required by the consents is undertaken.

CEMP Review The CEMP and the Management Plans will be updated, with the necessary approvals, throughout the course of the Project to reflect material changes associated with changes to construction techniques or the natural environment. Approval from PNCC, TDC and Horizons will be required for any relevant revisions of a material nature to the CEMP or Management Plans, for which these authorities have jurisdiction. A management review of the CEMP will be undertaken at the 6-month anniversary of the Project starting by the Project Management team. The management review will be organised by the Environmental Manager. The review will take into consideration:           

Input from Mercury; Site personnel comments; Audit findings and recommendations; Environmental monitoring records; Site conditions (e.g. weather, archaeology, ecology); Environmental complaints, incidents and emergencies; Details of corrective and preventative actions; Environmental non-compliances; Changes to organisational structure; Ongoing compliance with objectives, conditions and targets; and Possible changes in legislation and standards.

The review process will include looking at the environmental controls and procedures to make sure they are still applicable to the activities being carried out. Reasons for making changes to the CEMP will be documented. A copy of the original CEMP document and subsequent versions will be kept for the Project records and marked as obsolete. Each new/updated version of the CEMP documentation will be issued with a version number and date to eliminate obsolete CEMP documentation being used.

Version: 2.0 DATE: 13/06/2019

Page 47 of 43

Appendix A - Conditions of Resource Consent

Appendix B - Community Liaison Group Terms of Reference

Turitea Wind Farm Community Liaison Group – Terms of Reference

1. Introduction In accordance with Condition 17 of Mercury’s resource consents for the Turitea Wind Farm, Terms of Reference for a Community Liaison Group (CLG) are required to be developed by Mercury and the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional, Palmerston North City and Tararua District Councils. Conditions 14 and 15 of the consents provide details on which organisations and interested parties Mercury shall invite to participate in the CLG, while Condition 16 provides detail on the specific function of the CLG. Accordingly, the requirements prescribed in conditions 14 through 17 of the consents have been used by Mercury and Manawatu-Wanganui Regional, Palmerston North City and Tararua District Councils to develop these Terms of Reference.

2. Membership As far as practicable, the membership for the CLG will be invited from parties that include;              

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (1 representative, 1 alternate) Palmerston North City Council (1 representative, 1 alternate) Tararua District Council (1 representative, 1 alternate) Rangitane o Manawatu (1 representative, 1 alternate) Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a Rua (1 representative, 1 alternate) The Tararua Aokautere Guardians Inc (1 representative, 1 alternate) The Friends of Turitea Reserve Inc (1 representative, 1 alternate) Owners of private land containing turbines (1 representative, 1 alternate) Residents in the Kahuterawa Valley (Kahuterawa Road and feeders including Green Road) (2 representatives, 1 alternate) Residents in the Turitea Valley (Turitea Road and feeders, including Ngahere Park Road) (2 representatives, 1 alternate) Residents on Pahiatua Track (Pahiatua-Aokautere Road and feeders) (2 representatives, 1 alternate) Residents on Makomako Road (1 representative, 1 alternate) Mercury (1 representative, 1 alternate) Manawatu Mountain Bikers (1 representative, 1 alternate)

Notes:    

The list of organisations and interested parties above has a wider range and a greater breakdown of community sectors than the list prescribed in Condition 14 of the Consents. The membership list is not intended to be exclusive or final. It is not mandatory for the CLG to have representatives for each of the groups listed above. Representation on the CLG by each of the groups listed (and any others that may come forward in future) is up to the wishes of each individual group. Although the CLG shall strive to secure an official membership base, other members of the community who are not CLG members will be free to attend CLG meetings in

accordance with the meeting protocols the CLG has set for itself outlined in Section 7 of these Terms of Reference. An independent Chair (convenor) will be appointed to ensure adherence to the CLG agenda, and these Terms of Reference and to run CLG meetings in a fair and independent way.

3. General Functions of the CLG Construction Phase ‐ ‐

To enable two-way flow of relevant project related information between the local community and Mercury; To share, clarify and understand the various project construction activities so that: o Community members:  remain informed about what’s happening with construction and how associated activities might impact them; and  have an opportunity to consider how they might avoid any construction related impacts; and  have an opportunity to suggest alternatives or changes to Mercury, that might avoid or minimise disruption or impact. o Mercury:  has an opportunity to hear any community concerns and understand any potential disruption or adverse impact its construction related activities may have on the community; and  can consider alternative methods or timings to avoid or minimise construction related disruption or impact. o The CLG:  can discuss practicable ways to avoid or minimise disruption or adverse construction related impacts on people’s daily lives; and  communicate such changes to the community.

Operations Phase ‐ ‐

To enable two-way flow of relevant wind farm-related information between the local community and Mercury; To share, clarify and understand the wind farm operational activities so that: o Community members:  remain informed about what’s happening with wind farm operations and how associated activities might impact them. o Mercury:  has an opportunity to hear any community concerns and understand any potential disruption arising from wind farm operations. o The CLG:  can discuss practicable ways to avoid or minimise disruption arising from wind farm operations.

4. Specific Functions of the CLG (as required by Condition 16 of the Consents) 3.1

Discuss Mercury’s performance in terms of:

a. Noise control and compliance; and b. Construction traffic impact. 3.2

Consider the results of all ecological monitoring and research required in accordance with the consent conditions.

3.3

Make recommendations to and receive feedback from Mercury, in respect of the above matters where considered necessary and appropriate.

3.4

Have input, as appropriate, via consultation with Mercury with regards to the implementation of the: a. Noise Management Plan; b. Construction Environmental Management Plan; and c. Construction Traffic Management Plan.

5. What is not the function of the CLG? It is not the CLG’s function to;   

propose or discuss any changes to the activities authorised by the Turitea Wind Farm Consents (for example, size and layout of turbines etc); or challenge or discuss the validity of the consents; certify or approve management plans or procedures required by the consents.

6. Variations to CLG’s Functions The CLG may vary its functions as it thinks fit from time to time to enable it to liaise more effectively with the community and Mercury, provided this is done in consultation with the Principal Planners at each respective Council, and the variation is accepted in writing by Mercury.

7. CLG Meeting Protocols Unless otherwise agreed by Mercury and the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional, Palmerston North City and Tararua District Councils, the CLG will meet at least; o o o

Monthly during the period prior to the commencement of construction; Quarterly during the period of construction; 6-monthly during the period of wind farm operation for the duration of the consents;

OR o

At such other frequency as the CLG decides.

Appendix C - Environmental Risk Register

Environmental Risk Register Risk Rating Likelihood

Consequence

Probable

Minor

Possible

Improbable

Medium

Low

Minor: low environmental impact. Short term and can typically be remedied.

Moderate

High

Medium

Low

Moderate: Environmental effect/s which can be remediated. Discharge off site occurs.

Major

High

Medium

CEMP = Construction Environmental Management Plan CLG = Community Liaison Group SEMP = Site Environmental Management Plan Electrix Environmental Manager = EEM Electrix Project Manager = EPM Electrix Project Ecologist = PE

Major: Significant environmental effect resulting in costly restoration under Resource Management Act.

Electrix Construction Manager = CM Construction Noise Management Plan = CNMP Assessment of Environmental Effects = AEE Electrix Environmental Management Team = EEMT Electrix Site Supervisor = SS

Appendix D: Environmental Risk Register pg. 1

Issue Sediment tracking onto roads

Likelihood

Consequence

Risk

Mitigation

Reference

Possible

Minor

Low

All entrances and exits from site are to be stabilised entrance ways. These are to be maintained and may have wheel washes associated with them.

CEMP. SEMP.

Road sweeping if required. Erosion and sediment controls to be in place. Inspect controls regularly. Public complaints

Possible

Moderate

Medium

Keep Community Liaison Group (CLG) informed of works and progress.

CLGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Terms of Reference.

Record complaint using the Complaints Form.

CEMP section 3.5. CEMP Appendix I.

Advise EEM. Waste management

Possible

Moderate

Medium

All waste is to be collected and removed from site and disposed at an CEMP. appropriately licensed SEMP. facility. No domestic waste water will be discharged to ground or water within the water supply catchment.

Waterway contamination due to sediment discharge

Possible

Moderate

Medium

Refer to the CEMP and the SEMP for site specific sediment controls.

CEMP section 3.3.4.

Methodologies within these documents need to be carefully followed.

SEMP.

EEMT will be responsible for regular inspection and maintenance of all erosion and sediment controls and audits.

AEE: Appendix J section 5.2.

Weather dependant checks will also be required from the EPM, CM and SS. Waterway contamination due to washing of vehicles and equipment

Improbable

Moderate

Low

No vehicle/equipment washing is to occur near waterways or stormwater cesspits. Designated areas will be utilised for washing vehicle/equipmemt.

CEMP.

Damaging protected vegetation

Improbable

Moderate

Low

SEMP identifies works affecting vegetation. All materials, plant and vehicles to be stored outside the dripline of all trees.

CEMP section 3.3.7. SEMP. AEE: Appendix D section 7.1.

Disturbance of sensitive areas due to storage of construction materials

Improbable

Moderate

Low

All materials, plant and vehicles to be stored outside the dripline of all trees. Locate all stockpiles away from waterways and overland flow-paths.

CEMP. SEMP.

Erosion and sediment controls to be in place. Inspect controls regularly.

Appendix D: Environmental Risk Register

pg. 2

Issue Lack of environmental awareness

Spill during refuelling of plant equipment to land or water

Spill of hazardous substances to land or water

Likelihood

Consequence

Risk

Mitigation

Reference

Possible

Moderate

Medium

Project environmental induction, SEMP induction and toolbox meetings.

CEMP.

Refuelling and servicing to occur in approved locations only.

CEMP.

All fuel storage facilities will be constructed outside the Turitea water supply catchment.

SEMP.

Possible

Moderate

Medium

SEMP.

Spill kits to be within easy reach and appropriately sized.

AEE: Appendix J section 5.2.

Spill kits to be within easy reach and appropriately sized.

CEMP section 3.4.4.

Appropriate training given to staff.

CEMP Appendix H.

Identify contaminant, stop source, protect receiving environment, contact EEM, clean up.

SEMP.

Review and report using Environmental Incident Form.

AEE: Appendix J section 5.2.

Store hazardous substances in bunded area or appropriately sized container. All storage containers to be labelled. Safety Data Sheet (SDS) to be stored with substances. Sediment discharge during dewatering

Possible

Moderate

Medium

Install perimeter controls to divert clean water away from areas of disturbance. Detention devices to be utilised - treating runoff by methods that allow sediment to settle out. Controls to be inspected before use and maintained during use.

CEMP. SEMP. AEE: Appendix J section 5.2.

Water quality in detention devices to be checked for hydrocarbons and other contaminates before discharge. No earthworks are proposed within 1.5km of the edge of the water reservoirs. Contamination of surrounding area during insitu concreting and grouting

Possible

Major

Medium

Isolation of work area away from waterways.

CEMP section 3.3.4.

Collect and dispose of excess concrete.

SEMP.

Spill kits to be within easy reach and appropriately sized.

AEE: Appendix J section 5.2.

Appropriate training given to staff. Culverts and temporary stream diversions preventing fish passage

Appendix D: Environmental Risk Register

Possible

Major

Medium

Ensure the design of culverts do not impede fish passage.

CEMP section 3.3.4.

As far a is reasonably possible, retain existing aquatic habitat and connectivity.

SEMP. AEE: Appendix J section 6.2.

pg. 3

Issue Damage to instream biota

Likelihood

Consequence

Risk

Mitigation

Reference

Possible

Major

Medium

As far a is reasonably possible, retain existing aquatic habitat and connectivity.

CEMP section 3.3.4. SEMP. AEE: Appendix J section 6.2.

Construction noise

Possible

Major

Medium

Plan and carry out works in accordance with Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP). Ensure any high-risk noise methodologies are communicated to CLG. Helicopterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to be used in accordance with hours of work provisions outlined in CEMP and SEMP.

CEMP section 3.3.1. CNMP. New Zealand Standard (NZS 4403:1976)

Blasting (should it be required) will be carried out in accordance with New Zealand Standard (NZS 4403:1976) Dust

Possible

Major

Medium

Controls to be inspected before use and maintained during use.

CEMP section 3.3.2.

Wetting down of any area of concern.

SEMP.

Limiting speed of traffic.

AEE: Appendix J section 6.0.

Surfaces and structures to be kept clean. Stabilisation of haul roads. All entrances and exits from site are to be stabilised entrance ways. These are to be maintained and may have wheel washes associated with them. Road sweeping if required. Archaeological disturbance

Possible

Major

High

Avoidance of sensitive sites in design and acknowledgement of tangata whenua relationship with natural resources. Accidental Discovery Protocol to be followed and form part of the Project Environmental Induction.

Contamination due to works around waterways

Possible

Major

High

CEMP section 3.3.6. Accidental Discovery Protocol (EM282).

Slurry to be captured and disposed to pit, bin or off-site.

CEMP section 3.3.4.

Use of a wet-vac to capture contaminated slurry (e.g. concrete).

SEMP.

Do not allow discharges to enter waterways or stormwater drains.

AEE: Appendix J section 6.0.

Culvert replacement and works within waterways to follow specific methodologies within SEMPs. Ensure timing of these works is appropriately managed with weather monitoring etc.

Appendix D: Environmental Risk Register

pg. 4

Appendix D - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report

REPORT

Turitea Wind Farm Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Prepared for Mercury NZ Limited Prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Date June 2019 Job Number 1006301

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Document Control Title: Turitea Wind Farm Date

Version

Description

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Authorised by:

24/5/19

1.0

Draft for client review

S Pratt D Miller

J Markham

T Fisher

12/6/19

1.1

Final report

S Pratt D Miller

J Markham

T Fisher

Distribution: Mercury NZ Limited

1 electronic copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE)

1 electronic copy

Table of contents 1

5 6

Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Report scope Monitoring locations and methods 2.1 Locations 2.2 Rainfall monitoring 2.3 Water quality 2.3.1 Parameters 2.3.2 Continuous (diurnal monitoring) 2.3.3 Grab sampling 2.4 Sediment deposition 2.4.1 Quorer method 2.4.2 Visual observations 2.5 In-stream community structure 2.5.1 Periphyton 2.5.2 Macroinvertebrates Baseline monitoring results 3.1 Site descriptions 3.2 Rainfall monitoring 3.3 Grab water quality monitoring 3.4 Continuous water quality monitoring (diurnal monitoring) 3.4.1 Site 1 3.4.2 Site 2 3.4.3 Site 3 3.4.4 Site 4 3.4.5 Site 5 3.4.6 Site 6 3.5 Sediment deposition 3.5.1 Quorer method 3.5.2 Visual observations 3.6 Instream community structure 3.6.1 Periphyton 3.6.2 Macroinvertebrates Summary and construction monitoring recommendations 4.1 Rainfall 4.2 Water quality 4.3 Deposited sediment 4.4 Periphyton 4.5 Macroinvertebrates Conclusion Applicability

Appendix A : Appendix B : Appendix C : Appendix D : Appendix E :

1 1 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 20 23 23 23 24 24 25 26 27

Monitoring site location plan Monitoring site details Water quality grab sampling summary tables Quantitative chlorophyll a laboratory transcripts Macroinvertebrate results

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Executive summary Mercury NZ Ltd (Mercury) holds a suite of resource consents from Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons), Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) and Tararua District Council (TDC) authorising the construction and operation of a new wind farm on the northern end the Tararua Ranges, Palmerston North (hereafter the Turitea Wind Farm). Mercury is progressing the detailed design of the northern cluster of wind turbines and construction is due to commence in late 2019. Resource consents for the wind farm require the preparation and implementation of an Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan (AEMP). The AEMP was prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) and approved by Horizons in July 2018. The AEMP covers both pre-construction (baseline) and construction phase monitoring. T+T undertook the baseline monitoring work over an eight-month period between June 2018 and January 2019. This included water quality grab sampling targeting rainfall events, deposited sediment and in-stream community structure (periphyton and macroinvertebrates) at 15 stream sites. More detailed continuous water quality monitoring was undertaken at six key sites that are proposed to be used for rainfall event based monitoring through the construction phase. This report provides a mostly factual summary of the water quality and in-stream ecology monitoring data collected as part of the baseline monitoring programme. The report provides site specific information in regard to monitoring locations and methods to update the approved monitoring plan as well as statistical summaries of the data. Overall, the receiving environments within the Turitea Reserve are characterised by high water quality and in-stream ecological health. Some comparatively lower in-stream ecology conditions are apparent in streams where contributing catchments are influenced by agriculture (or recently retired). Of note with respect to aquatic ecology monitoring consent conditions is that the locally rare Nereid polychaete worm (Namanereis tiriteae) was not encountered in any of the macroinvertebrate samples collected. The baseline monitoring has included representative sites in all catchments potentially impacted by discharges as a result of the project. Because the immediate receiving environments are headwater catchments upstream control sites are not available for construction monitoring. The preconstruction data therefore provide the baseline for which to compare construction phase monitoring data and assess effects should discharges occur. We have used the baseline data to provide recommendations in regard to the construction phase monitoring on the basis of site specific characteristics and access constraints. We have also used the data to provide recommendations on rainfall, water quality and in-stream ecology monitoring triggers for use in adaptive aquatic ecology management response and erosion and sediment control monitoring.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Introduction

This report presents the results of baseline aquatic ecology monitoring conducted in potential stream receiving environments for the proposed Turitea Wind Farm development.

1.1

Background

Mercury NZ Ltd (Mercury) holds a suite of resource consents from Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons), Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) and Tararua District Council (TDC) authorising the construction and operation of a new wind farm on the northern end the Tararua Ranges, Palmerston North (hereafter the Turitea Wind Farm). A Board of Inquiry granted consents in September 2011 for a reduced layout that split the wind farm into two parts including a northern cluster of 33 turbines and substation, and separate cluster of 27 turbines in the south with an associated substation. The two parts of the wind farm will be linked by high voltage transmission lines with pylons to be placed in existing forest canopy gaps or along the existing access road. Mercury is progressing the detailed design of the northern cluster of wind turbines and construction is due to commence in late 2019. Conditions 27 to 29 of Schedule 2 of the Horizons resource consents for the wind farm requires the preparation and implementation of an Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan (AEMP). The AEMP was prepared by T+T1 and approved by Horizons in July 2018. The AEMP covers the various potential stream receiving environments within and downstream of the construction footprint for both turbine clusters and includes both pre-construction (baseline) and construction phase monitoring. Full consent conditions are provided in Appendix A to the AEMP. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) undertook the baseline monitoring work over an eight-month period between June 2018 and January 20192.

1.2

Report scope

Overview information on the Turitea Wind Farm project, details on consent requirements for monitoring and aquatic receiving environment descriptions are provided in the AEMP and not repeated here. The AEMP should be read in conjunction with this report. This report presents the results of the completed baseline monitoring work, covering both turbine clusters (the overall project). The objectives of the baseline-monitoring programme and this report are to: 1

2 3 4

1 2

Characterise baseline aquatic community structure in the range of stream habitats potentially impacted by the proposed development, including identifying the presence (or otherwise) of a locally rare Nereid polychaete worm (Namanereis tiriteae) in the Turitea Stream; Establish a network of water quality monitoring sites that can be efficiently accessed for rainfall event based response monitoring during construction; Characterise baseline wet-weather water quality conditions in key water supply catchment receiving waters to assist in the assessment of any construction phase effects; Provide recommendations in regard to the construction phase monitoring on the basis of the baseline data (i.e. recommended modifications to the construction phase monitoring programme set out in AEMP); and

T+T, 2018. Turitea Wind Farm Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan. July 2018. Consultancy report prepared for Mercury. In accordance with T+Tâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal dated 27 March 2018.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

2 5

Provide recommendations on monitoring triggers and effects thresholds for use in the erosion and sediment control monitoring and in the Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan (AEMRP), which is also required by the consents.

All monitoring data have been compiled and will be provided to Mercury in electronic format to accompany this report.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Monitoring locations and methods

Details of the monitoring methods used are provided in the AEMP. This section provides updated monitoring site location details and outlines any specific refinements made to the methods to suit site conditions.

2.1

Locations

Monitoring locations are outlined in Table 2.1 and shown on Figure B1 in Appendix A. Figure B1 was included in the AEMP and monitoring site locations have been updated for this report to reflect actual site coordinates following the baseline work. We have included details on site coordinates, notes on best access routes and site photographs in Appendix B. Marker pegs have been installed at the upstream and downstream extents of each of the monitoring reaches surveyed for the baseline monitoring. Existing Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) sites were captured as far as practicable in accordance with Consent Condition 29.1 and the associated Schedule 2 Appendix to the consent. Site 13 is located at HRC’s “Kahuterawa at Johnstone’s Rata” flow gauging site as opposed to the PNCC site referred to in the consent, which is further upstream. The location of the Site 13 at the Johnstone’s Rata site being further downstream will capture more of the turbine zones should discharges occur to the Kahuterawa catchment. Additional site locations capture representative headwater streams in each of the potentially impacted catchments. Monitoring sites are divided into those that can be used for event based water quality response monitoring and those that can be used for routine water quality and in-stream community structure (ecology) monitoring. Table 2.1:

Aquatic ecology monitoring site location description

Site

Event based and routine water quality and ecology monitoring sites

Routine water quality and ecology monitoring sites

Catchment

Description

Site 1

Turitea

Main northern tributary, downstream of all northern turbines.

Site 2

Turitea

Upstream of Turitea Reservoir, northern branch.

Site 3

Turitea

PNCC site upstream of Turitea Reservoir, southern branch.

Site 4

Turitea

Main southern tributary, downstream of southern turbines.

Site 5

Matarua

Matarua tributary downstream of Turbine Group E (northern).

Site 6

Kahuterawa

Kahuterawa tributary downstream of Turbine Groups F, G and H.

Site 7

Turitea

Nearby to the PNCC site on the main Turitea Stream, downstream of the Reservoirs.

Site 8

Turitea

Nearby to the PNCC site on the tributary downstream of the Turitea Reserve.

Site 9

Matarua

Matarua tributary downstream of Turbine Group E (southern).

Site 10

Matarua

Matarua tributary downstream of Turbine Group E (southern).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Site

2.2

Catchment

Description

Site 11

Otangane

Otangane tributary downstream of Turbine Group A.

Site 12

Otangane

Otangane tributary downstream of Turbine Group G.

Site 13

Kahuterawa

HRC flow gauging site Kahuterawa at Johnstone’s Rata

Site 14

Unnamed tributary

Unnamed tributary of the Manawatu River downstream of Turbine Group C.

Site 15

Tainui

Tainui Stream headwater – no track access.

Rainfall monitoring

Rainfall monitoring will be an important part of the construction water quality monitoring programme and associated erosion and sediment control response. Therefore the baseline monitoring work describes stream water quality during and/or following wet weather events. A PNCC operated rainfall gauge is located at the Turitea Reservoir. However, due to concerns over the accuracy of the gauge the Horizons Ngahere Park Climate Station was used for rainfall monitoring. The Ngahere Park Climate Station is located around 2.5 km from the site. We understand that Horizons consider this climate station to be appropriate for use and we have obtained rainfall data from Horizons website (website queried on 2 May 2019). We have included rainfall data from the Pahiatua climate station (data sourced from NIWA’s CliFlo website, Network Number D05591, queried on 2 May 2019) in addition to the data utilised from the Ngahere Park Climate Station in our analysis. This is to provide rainfall data for both the western and eastern sides of the Turitea Reserve and to account for any potential rain shadow effects dependant on the movement direction of weather systems captured in the baseline monitoring.

2.3

Water quality

2.3.1

Parameters

Consent requirements with respect to water quality include sediment transport (Condition 29.2) and a requirement for diurnal (continuous) monitoring of pH, dissolved oxygen and water temperature during critical phases of construction (Condition 29.3). Parameters covered by the baseline monitoring were based on consent requirements and potential contaminant sources and comprised: 

Total suspended solids (TSS)



Biological oxygen demand (BOD)



Turbidity



Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN)



Dissolved reactive phosphorous (DRP)



Water temperature



Oil and grease



Dissolved oxygen



E. coli

2.3.2

Continuous (diurnal monitoring)

Continuous water quality monitoring was undertaken at all sites that will potentially be used for event based monitoring during construction (Sites 1 to 6 inclusive). Parameters included temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity and turbidity. Data were collected using calibrated Greenspan CS304 Water Quality Sondes and Greenspan TS300 Turbidity

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

5 Sensors installed for a period of two weeks (or more) at each of the Sites 1-6 and set to collect measurements at 15 minute intervals. Suitable deployment locations at each site were identified to ensure sensors remained submerged through the deployment period (i.e. pools). Deployment periods are provided in Table 2.2. Table 2.2:

Continuous monitoring deployment periods

Monitoring site

Catchment

Logger deployment period

Site 1

Turitea

15/08/2018 to 29/08/2018

Site 2

Turitea

15/08/2018 to 29/08/2018

Site 3

Turitea

18/07/2018 to 01/08/2018

Site 4

Turitea

18/07/2018 to 01/08/2018

Site 5

Matarua

01/08/2018 to 15/08/2018

Site 6

Kahuterawa

01/08/2018 to 15/08/2018

2.3.3

Grab sampling

Water quality grab sampling was undertaken in general accordance with the draft NEMS (2017e) guidance for Water Quality: Part 2 – Discrete River Water Quality Data3. Three water quality parameters were measured at each location using calibrated hand held meters. Parameters included: 

Temperature



Dissolved oxygen (DO, % and mg/L)

Water quality samples were also collected at each location and tested for the following parameters: 

Turbidity



Nitrate + nitrite



DRP



Total suspended solids (TSS)



Soluble carbonaceous BOD5



Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)



Oil and grease



Total ammoniacal nitrogen



E. coli

Water quality samples were collected on six occasions during or following periods of prevailing wet weather (refer to tables in Appendix C for sampling dates). Note that for the purposes of the baseline monitoring, the analysis of Oil and Grease and E.coli was not completed for all six sampling collection rounds. Oil and Grease was analysed a minimum of two occasions and E.coli a minimum of three occasions. Sampling dates and antecedent rainfall conditions for water quality grab sampling are included in Table 3.1 in Section 3.2.

2.4

Sediment deposition

The methodology for monitoring fine sediment deposition using the Quorer and visual techniques, and guidelines for interpreting the measurement data have been developed for New Zealand

NEMS, 2017e. Water Quality – Part 2 of 4: Sampling, measuring, processing and archiving of Discrete River Water Quality Data. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

6 streams (Clapcott et al. 20114). These methodologies are for â&#x20AC;&#x153;hard-bottomedâ&#x20AC;? streams with gravel, cobble and boulder-dominated beds. Deposited sediment monitoring was undertaken on two occasions at each site in conjunction with the periphyton and macroinvertebrate monitoring. Sampling dates for each site are provided in the results in Section 3.5.

2.4.1

Quorer method

Consent Condition 29.4 requires the Quorer technique is used to measure settled sediment. Resuspendible sediment monitoring followed the Sediment Assessment Method 4 (Quorer Methodology) from Clapcott et al. (2011) where bed substrate types allowed (cobble and gravel dominated habitats). The dimensions of the Quorer sampler (cylindrical tube) used for baseline sampling was 50 cm in diameter and 60 cm in length. In order to replicate the baseline sampling during construction a cylinder with the same dimensions will need to be used. At some sites the Quorer method was not appropriate or possible. Table 2.3 below provides a summary of sites where this method was not used including a brief comment on why this method was inappropriate for the given site. Table 2.3:

Summary of where the Quorer method has not been used

Site

Comment

Site 6

Site dominated by boulders.

Site 9

Relative absence of runs and substrate too large (cascade)

Site 10

Relative absence of runs and substrate too large (cascade)

Site 11

Relative absence of runs and substrate too large (cascade)

Site 13

Site dominated by boulders and deep water.

Site 14

The site is dominated by embedded large cobbles and boulders.

Site 15

Relative absence of runs and substrate too large (cascade).

2.4.2

Visual observations

Deposited sediment monitoring was undertaken at all sites following the Sediment Assessment Method 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; In-stream visual estimate of % sediment cover (Clapcott et al. 2011), which includes a minimum of 20 estimates over a reach of run habitat at each site. This method consists of the collection of visual estimates of the proportion of habitat covered by deposited sediment (< 2 mm). Representative photographs of the stream-bed were collected at the time of monitoring. Photographs have been compiled and will be provided to Mercury electronically.

2.5

In-stream community structure

2.5.1

Periphyton

Periphyton monitoring was undertaken at each site on two occasions (August 2018 and January 2019) using visual and quantitative methods as set out in the AEMP. Periphyton assessments were

Clapcott, J.E.; Death, R.G.; Harding, J.S.; Matthaei, C.D.; Quinn, J.M.; Young, R.G. 2011. Sediment assessment methods: protocols and guidelines for assessing the effects of deposited fine sediment on in-stream values. Cawthron Institute, Nelson. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

7 undertaken following Horizons Regional Council's protocol for routine visual assessments of periphyton in rivers (Kilroy et al., 20085). Sampling was undertaken at the same time as the deposited sediment and macroinvertebrate monitoring with sampling date information for each site provided in Section 3.6.

2.5.2

Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate sampling was undertaken on two occasions (August 2018 and January 2019) as per the methods in the AEMP. Macroinvertebrate sampling was timed to avoid the two-week period following any flow event estimated by the ecologist to have resulted in bed movement (significant habitat disturbance that reduces macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity). Sampling was undertaken at the same time as the deposited sediment and periphyton monitoring with sampling date information for each site provided in the results. Macroinvertebrate samples were processed by Stark Environmental Ltd, Nelson. A 200 individual fix count with scan for rare taxa was carried out following Protocol P2 (Stark et al., 2001), with animals identified to species level where possible. The matrices provided in this report include: 

taxonomic richness;



Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness;



% EPT;



Hard bottomed Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI); and



Hard bottomed Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index (QMCI).

Kilroy, C., Biggs, B. J. F., Death, R. (2008). A periphyton monitoring plan for the Manawatu-Wanganui Region.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Baseline monitoring results

3.1

Site descriptions

Brief descriptions of site locations and habitat characteristics for each of the established monitoring sites are provided below. Site co-ordinates, access notes and representative site photographs are provided in Appendix B. Site 1 (northern cluster): This site is located on the Turitea Stream approximately half way up the catchment. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. Overhead cover is dense and dominated by native vegetation providing high shading to the stream. Site 2 (northern cluster): This site is located on the Turitea Stream nearby the streams confluence with the Turitea water reservoir. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. Overhead cover is dense and dominated by native vegetation providing high shading to the stream. Site 3 (southern cluster): This site is located on the Little Turitea Stream nearby the streams confluence with the Turitea water reservoir. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run, shallow and deep pool habitat. Overhead cover is variable and dominated by native vegetation providing moderate shading to the stream. Site 4 (southern cluster): This site is situated on an unnamed headwater tributary of the Little Turitea Stream. The stream passes through retired farmland primarily consisting of rank grass, tussock and exotic pine wind breaks. Large areas of this flat are recovering wetland habitat. The site is hard bottomed and located immediately upstream to a retired and rarely used 4X4 crossing ford. Note that for this site two of the macroinvertebrate replicates were collected from a small riffle immediately downstream of the crossing to the habitat availability for sampling. Site 5 (northern cluster): This site is located a headwater tributary to the Matarua Stream situated on private property adjacent to the Turitea Reserve and lengths of the stream run parallel to Makomako Road, including upstream of site. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. The stream is situated within agricultural land utilised predominantly for dry stock beef. Stream shading is generally low due to limited riparian vegetation. Site 6 (southern cluster): The site is located within the downstream section of Ross Creek nearby its confluence with the Kahuterawa River, immediately upstream of the Sledge Track which runs adjacent to the Kahuterawa Stream. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. Overhead cover is dense and dominated by native vegetation providing very high shading to the stream. Site 7 (southern and southern cluster): The site is located on the main Turitea Stream downstream of the reservoir, and is situated nearby the PNCC monitoring site. The stream is hard bottom substrate and predominantly consists of riffle and run habitat. Shading to the stream is moderate and dominated by native vegetation. Site 8 (sub-station): The site is located nearby a PNCC monitoring site on a tributary of the main Turitea Stream nearby site 7. The stream has very high shading provided by dense native vegetation. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. Site 9 (northern cluster): This site is a headwater tributary to the Matarua Stream situated within the Turitea Reserve. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. The stream is situated within a densely vegetated gully within agricultural land partially utilised for dry stock beef. Overhead cover is dense and dominated by native vegetation providing very high shading to the stream. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

9 Site 10 (northern cluster): This site is on a headwater tributary to the Matarua Stream situated near the boundary of the Turitea Reserve with the adjacent NZDF land. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. Overhead cover is dense and dominated by native vegetation providing very high shading to the stream. Site 11 (southern cluster): The site is situated on a headwater tributary to the Otangane Stream within the Turitea Reserve. The stream is hard bottomed and consists of shallow pools and cascades with limited riffle and run habitat. Stream shading was very high with dense native vegetation providing overhead cover. Site 12 (southern cluster): The site is situated within a frost flat accessible and adjacent to the Toe Toe Track to the south of the Turitea Reserve. The site is a headwater tributary of the Otangane Stream, which feeds into the Mangahao River. The stream is hard bottomed consisting of shallow pool, run and riffle habitat. Shading to the stream is moderate and provided by densely vegetated riparian margins consisting of flax, Toe Toe and other native shrub vegetation. Site 13 (southern cluster): The site is located on the Kahuterawa River immediately upstream of the HRC gauging station at Johnstoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rata. The site is hard bottomed and largely consists of riffle and run habitat. Shading is low and limited to the river margins, partly due to the width of the river. Riparian vegetation is predominantly rank grass at the sampling location. Site 14 (northern cluster): This site is located on an unnamed headwater tributary, feeding into the Manawatu River, situated on private property adjacent to the Turitea Reserve. The stream is hard bottomed and predominantly consists of riffle, run and shallow pool habitat. The stream is situated within agricultural land utilised for dry stock beef and lamb. Stock have access to the stream both at the survey site as well as to the stream and smaller tributaries upstream of the survey area. Stream shading is generally low due to limited riparian vegetation. Site 15 (southern cluster): The site is situated on a headwater tributary to the Tainui Stream within the Turitea Reserve. The stream is hard bottomed and consists of shallow pools and cascades with limited riffle and run habitat. Stream shading was very high with dense native vegetation providing overhead cover.

3.2

Rainfall monitoring

The baseline monitoring sought to target wet weather in order to capture stream water quality during or as soon as practicable following rain events. Given the logistics involved accessing the sites (mostly on foot) it was not always possible to collect grab samples when streams were affected by elevated flows. Grab sampling rounds occasionally occurred over a two to three day period depending on resource availability. Continuous monitoring methods were used at key sites in order to better capture water quality conditions during rainfall and elevated stream flows (see Section 3.4). Table 3.1 below is a summary for total rainfall leading up to sample collection (7 day, 48 hr and 24 hr totals) and on the day of the grab sampling. Rainfall data were primarily drawn from the Horizons Ngahere Park Climate Station. However, it was apparent through the monitoring work that the Turitea Reserve is subject to varying degrees of rain shadowing dependant on the general movement direction weather systems. We have therefore provided data from the Pahiatua climate station also. Comparison of the observed rainfall totals shows wide variation between the two rainfall monitoring sites, and this is consistent with field staff observations that all sites did not always appear to be impacted by the rainfall recorded by one site or the other. Relying on either site for the purpose of rainfall triggered erosion and sediment control response has the potential to result in false alarms and/or events being missed. This further explored in our analysis of the continuous water quality monitoring data. It is noted that a project specific rainfall station may be needed within the site, and

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

10 potentially for each turbine cluster to deal with localised rainfall and reduce false alarms or missed events. Table 3.1:

Antecedent rainfall prior to water quality grab sampling events

Sampling round

Sampling date

Total rainfall (mm) recorded at Ngahere Park Climate Station (West of Turitea)

Total rainfall (mm) recorded at Pahiatua Climate Station (East of Turitea)

7 day

48 hr

24 hr

On day

7 day

48 hr

24 hr

On day

19/06/2018

42.6

12.4

10.4

25.8

73.2

14.4

1.2

29.0

21/06/2018

58.0

36.2

25.8

0.4

52.4

29.4

0.4

0.6

22/06/2018

45.4

1.0

0.4

0.0

47.4

30.0

0.6

0.4

17/07/2018

33.8

2.2

10.6

32.4

9.2

2.6

18/07/2018

23.7

12.8

10.6

1.0

14.4

11.8

2.6

0.0

Logger deployment

1/08/2018

23.8

12.0

0.0

0.2

19.4

4.0

0.0

Third

14/08/2018

10.4

0.0

5.8

1.0

0.0

3.0

15/08/2018

10.2

0.0

6.6

8.0

3.0

1.0

Fourth

12/10/2018

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.0

5.2

Fifth

30/10/2018

20.6

11.8

5.4

6.0

22.8

11.0

0.0

13.8

31/10/2018

26.2

11.4

6.0

7.4

36.6

13.8

0.6

27/11/2018

20.8

7.0

6.6

9.8

57.8

27.0

26.0

35.6

28/11/2018

30.4

16.4

9.8

4.4

91.0

61.6

35.6

1.0

First

Second

Sixth

3.3

Grab water quality monitoring

Water quality samples were collected from all sites during or as soon as possible after rainfall events. All sites were visited a minimum of six times, with the exception of Site 14 (private land) which could not be visited on some occasions during the lambing season. Table 3.1 shows prevailing rainfall conditions leading up to (24 hr, 48hr, and 7 day) and on the day of sampling. Additional grab sampling at Sites 1-6 also occurred around logger installation and collection where possible while considering prevailing weather. For this reason, the sampling on 1 August 2018 was limited to those sites where loggers were being retrieved or deployed, so an additional round was conducted at those sites. Summary statistics by site for all parameters measured using calibrated field meters are provided in Appendix C Table 1. Summary statistics by site for all laboratory tested parameters are presented in Appendix C Table 2. Full results and summary statistics in spreadsheet form and laboratory transcripts will be provided to Mercury electronically. There was variability in the intensity and duration of rainfall events monitored as well sample collection timing in relation to those events (due to logistics). Grab sampling data are best considered as being generally indicative of â&#x20AC;&#x153;wetâ&#x20AC;? weather conditions. The summary data have been used to inform the development of monitoring triggers and will be useful for context to assess likely discharge effects associated with the construction phase. However, the continuous monitoring data provide more insight to water quality during flow peaks at key sites with respect to developing monitoring triggers (see Section 3.4).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

11 The following provides a brief overview of the grab sampling water quality data for the key parameters. Summarised data tables for field and laboratory testing data are provided in Appendix C. 

Turbidity: grab sampling data were generally low with maximum readings of 20 NTU (Site 8), 30 NTU (Site 13) and 26 NTU (Site 15). Given that the grab sampling was conducted during generally wet weather conditions, but mostly after rainfall, it is apparent that spikes in turbidity are generally of short duration and associated with higher intensity rainfall events.



Total suspended solids: similar to turbidity, the grab sampling TSS data were generally low with maximum readings of 32 g/m3 (Site 13), 33 g/m3 (Site 5) and 50 g/m3 (Site 15). In general, TSS and turbidity appear to show similar, and roughly proportional, responses to wet weather. Turbidity is therefore a reasonable proxy for TSS as a construction monitoring measure (and can be more readily measured in the field).



Dissolved oxygen: all sites typically had high DO indicated by the minimum (>90 % and >8.4 mg/L) and mean (>92.3 % and 10.3 mg/L) recorded for the sites overall. The only exception to this is Site 4 (Brown’s Flat) which recorded lower DO (min: 75.3 % and 8.1 mg/L; mean: 86.3 % and 9.6) than the other 14 sites monitored, likely attributed to the comparatively lower flow velocity and distinct wetland catchment type.



Temperature: A wide range of temperatures were recorded across the sites with minimum and maximum recorded temperatures ranging from 5.5°C to 14.6°C over the monitoring period. Note that we have included the spot water quality measurements taken during the January 2019 (not targeting wet weather) which are indicative of summer temperatures and contribute to the higher end of the range.



pH: laboratory and field measurements were typical of upper catchment streams and were within a range of 6.0 – 7.7 across all sites. Based on mean pH the sites are generally slightly acidic to slightly alkaline. The site that consistently had the lowest pH was Site 4 which drains wetland habitat.



Nutrients: concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus were typically low, with higher concentrations found at sites with agricultural land use present within the upstream catchment. For example, comparatively high nutrient concentrations were consistently found at Site 5.



Oil and grease: concentrations were below or very close to the laboratory reporting limit for a number of sites. The only sites where oil and grease concentrations were notable were Site 1 (maximum of 10 g/m3), Site 5 (maximum of 9 g/m3), Site 6 (maximum of 38 g/m3), and Site 13 (maximum of 19 g/m3).



E. coli: concentrations were variable for a number of sites during the monitoring period. Sites where the catchment was entirely comprised of vegetation were either below the laboratory reporting limits or reported sporadic low concentrations of E. coli (<50 MPN/100 mL), likely attributed to low densities of feral animals within the area. Site 4 (355 MPN/100 mL), Site 5 (>2,420 MPN/100mL), Site 6 (4,110 MPN/100mL), Site 8 (1,086 MPN/100mL), Site 13 (1,860 MPN/100mL) and Site 14 (3,060 MPN/100mL) all reported higher concentrations of E. coli and were situated within catchments either partly or entirely of agricultural land use.

3.4

Continuous water quality monitoring (diurnal monitoring)

This section provides summary information on the continuous water quality monitoring undertaken at Sites 1 to 6 inclusive. We provide summary statistics for the data, discuss any data quality issues and discuss any observed trends, in particular in relation to measured turbidity during and following rainfall events. Water

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

12 quality conditions for southern sites have been compared against rainfall data from Ngahere Park climate station and those in the north to rainfall data from Pahiatua climate station. Part of the objective of the continuous monitoring was to gain an understanding of the response of potential receiving environment streams to rainfall of varying intensity and duration, especially in terms of turbidity. We were unable to obtain sub-daily (hourly) rainfall data from either rainfall station. Therefore we can only infer intensity for the events captured from the total daily rainfall and turbidity peaks.

3.4.1

Site 1

The site is situated within the upper section of the Turitea Stream downstream of all northern turbines. Water quality loggers were deployed for a period of two weeks (15 August 2018 to 29 August 2018). Spot water quality measurements using calibrated hand held meters upon deployment and retrieval of the logger were similar to data recorded on the logger once sensors had stabilised (pH appeared to take up to four readings (1 hour) before stabilising). Summarised data for the deployment period are provided in Table 3.2 below. A total of 77.0 mm of rainfall was recorded at Pahiatua during the deployment period with a maximum daily total of 21.8 mm (17 August 2018). The rainfall event of 17 August 2018 recorded a maximum turbidity reading of 1631.5 (NTU) and a minimum pH recording of 6.49 for the period of deployment. This rainfall event was registered on the Pahiatua rainfall gauge with a daily total of 20.3 mm. Smaller rainfall events on the 23 August 2018 and 24 August 2018 (11.8 and 12.6 mm, recorded respectively at Pahiatua) similarly saw a response in turbidity (peaks of 82.8 and 48.1 NTU respectively) and pH (6.57 on both occasions), though to a much lesser extent when compared to the larger event. The other parameters logged show less sensitivity to rainfall (and therefore stream flow). Table 3.2:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 1 between 15 August 2018 and 29 August 2018.

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

11.23

6.71

8.29

46.6

Standard deviation

0.23

0.06

0.63

157.7

Median

11.22

6.71

8.39

10.4

Minimum

10.76

6.49

6.48

3.7

Maximum

11.87

6.85

9.47

1,631.5

3.4.2

Site 2

The site is situated within the lower section of the Turitea Stream (downstream of Site 1) nearby the stream confluence with the Turitea Reservoir and is situated downstream of all northern turbines. The loggers were deployed for a period of two weeks (15 August 2018 to 29 August 2018), which was the same as the monitored period for Site 1. Spot measurements taken upon deployment and retrieval of the logger were similar to data recorded on the logger once sensors had stabilised (as per Site 1 pH appeared to take up to four readings before stabilising). During deployment, a total of 77.0 mm of rainfall was recorded at Pahiatua with a maximum daily total of 21.8 mm (17 August 2018).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

13 Summarised data from the period of deployment are provided in Table 3.3 below. High rainfall on 17 August 2018 recorded a maximum turbidity reading of 247.80 (NTU). This rainfall event was registered on the Pahiatua rainfall gauge which registered 20.3 mm on the day. Smaller rainfall events on the 23 August 2018 and 24 August 2018 (11.8 and 12.6 mm, recorded respectively at Pahiatua) similarly saw a response in turbidity (127.2 and 40.1 NTU) and the lowest pH recorded for the period of deployment (6.72 and 6.77 respectively). The other parameters logged show less sensitivity to rainfall. An important point to note is the lower peak in turbidity measured at Site 2 compared to Site 1 for the larger event of 17 August 2018. Table 3.3:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 2 between 15 August 2018 and 29 August 2018.

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

11.59

6.88

8.29

17.36

Standard deviation

0.29

0.06

0.71

14.23

Median

11.60

6.88

8.39

13.70

Minimum

10.99

6.72

6.31

9.60

Maximum

12.51

7.08

9.59

247.80

3.4.3

Site 3

The site is situated within the lower section of the Little Turitea Stream nearby the stream confluence with the Turitea Reservoir and is situated downstream of all southern turbines. The loggers were deployed for a period of two weeks (18 July 2018 to 1 August 2018). The multi-logger was replaced one week into deployment with another calibrated multi-logger supplied by NIWA due to a small cap having been removed from the DO probe upon deployment. The loggers were swapped as a precaution in the event that DO data were affected. Review of the data suggests the data collected in the first week was not compromised and therefore the data from the two multiloggers (first week and second week of deployment) were combined. Spot measurements taken upon deployment and retrieval of the logger were similar to data recorded on the logger once sensors had stabilised (pH appeared to take up to four readings before stabilising). Summarised data for the period of deployment are provided in Table 3.4 below. During deployment, a total of 60.2 mm of rainfall was recorded at Ngahere Park with a maximum daily total of 15.0 mm (23 July 2018). Rainfall on 29 July 2018 recorded a maximum turbidity reading of 27.40 (NTU). This rainfall event was not registered on the Ngahere Park rainfall gauge on the day (only recorded 0.2 mm). However, rainfall recorded at the Ngahere Park climate station recorded 9 mm in total on the two days prior and 12 mm on the day following this turbidity reading. This suggests changeable weather in the area, relatively isolated weather events occur within the catchment but may also reflect the aggregated nature of the total daily rainfall and time of reporting. Comparatively larger rainfall events recorded at Ngahere Park on the 23 July 2018 and 24 July 2018 (15.0 mm and 14.0 mm respectively). These events recorded lesser responses in turbidity (7.0 and 12.9 NTU respectively). pH appeared to drop slightly in response to rainfall events within the catchment. The other parameters logged show less sensitivity to rainfall.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

14 Table 3.4:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 3 between 18 July 2018 and 01 August 2018

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

11.70

6.85

8.70

4.16

Standard deviation

0.33

0.07

0.56

2.14

Median

11.66

6.84

8.81

3.70

Minimum

11.17

6.66

6.95

2.50

Maximum

12.61

7.00

9.61

27.40

3.4.4

Site 4

The site is situated on Browns Flat, on the main southern tributary of the Little Turitea Stream and is situated downstream of all southern turbines. The loggers were deployed for the same two week period as per Site 3 (18 July 2018 to 1 August 2018). The multi-logger was replaced one week into deployment with another calibrated multi-logger supplied by NIWA due to a small cap having been removed from the DO probe upon deployment. Similar to site 3 the loggers were swapped as a precaution in the event that DO data was effected, review of the data suggests the data collected in the first week was not compromised and therefore the data from the two multi-loggers (first week and second week of deployment) were combined. Spot measurements taken upon deployment and retrieval of the logger were similar to data recorded on the logger once sensors had stabilised (pH appeared to take up to four readings before stabilising). The exception to this was pH for which there was slightly more variance between hand held and logger measurements. This may reflect the more acidic conditions encountered at the browns flat site which is situated within a wetland environment. Summarised data from the period of deployment are provided in Table 3.5 below. During deployment, a total of 60.2 mm of rainfall was recorded at Ngahere Park with a maximum daily total of 15.0 mm (23 July 2018). Rainfall experienced on the 26 July 2018 recorded a maximum turbidity reading of 1,974.2 (NTU). This rainfall event was not registered on the Ngahere Park rainfall gauge, which only recorded a total of 2.1 mm on the day. However, rainfall recorded at the Ngahere Park climate station recorded 30 mm in total on the three days prior to and 4.1 mm on the day following this turbidity reading suggesting weather was changeable in the area at the time and isolated weather events occur within the catchment. Comparatively larger rainfall events recorded at Ngahere Park on the 23 July 2018 and 24 July 2018 (15.0 mm and 14.0 mm respectively), recorded lesser responses in turbidity (387.7 and 319.3 NTU). pH appeared to drop in response to rainfall events within the catchment. The other parameters logged show less sensitivity to rainfall. We note that in general turbidity peaks (and the data in general) were generally much higher at Site 4 compared to Site 3 further downstream.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

15 Table 3.5:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 4 between 18 July 2018 and 1 August 2018

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

10.23

5.72

8.51

34.56

Standard deviation

0.43

0.04

0.63

102.85

Median

10.20

5.76

8.59

9.90

Minimum

5.33

5.42

6.43

8.10

Maximum

11.14

6.02

9.50

1974.20

3.4.5

Site 5

The site is situated on a tributary of the Matarua Stream and is situated downstream of Turbine Group E (northern). The loggers were deployed for a period of two weeks (1 August 2018 to 15 August 2018). Spot measurements taken upon deployment and retrieval of the logger were similar to data recorded on the logger once sensors had stabilised. Summarised data from the period of deployment are provided in Table 3.6 below. During deployment, a total of 22.2 mm of rainfall was recorded at Pahiatua with a maximum daily total of 9.2 mm (5 August 2018). Rainfall on the 9 August 2018 recorded a maximum turbidity reading of 136.2 (NTU). This rainfall event was registered on the Pahiatua rainfall gauge as a total of 3.8 mm on the day. The largest rainfall event recorded at Pahiatua during the period of deployment was 9.2 mm on 5 August 2018. This event did not result in noticeably elevated turbidity at Site 5. A single spike in turbidity (166.1 NTU) recorded on 13 August 2018 appears not to be weather related with regards to prevailing weather and is of very short duration (a single 15 minute reading). The cause of this spike in turbidity is purely speculative, though potentially stock accessing the stream, and has therefore been disregarded for the purposes of this assessment. The other parameters logged show less sensitivity to rainfall. Table 3.6:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 5 between 1 August 2018 and 15 August 2018

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

11.03

6.51

9.89

17.33

Standard deviation

0.40

0.05

1.32

20.56

Median

11.02

6.51

9.98

10.20

Minimum

10.18

6.37

6.57

4.50

Maximum

12.21

6.62

13.15

136.20

3.4.6

Site 6

The site is situated within the lower section of Ross Creek nearby the confluence with the Kahuterawa Stream and is situated downstream of Turbine Groups F, G and H. The loggers were deployed for a period of two weeks (1 August 2018 to 15 August 2018). Spot measurements were taken twice, the day of and the day before retrieval of the logger, were similar to data recorded on the logger. Due to the team splitting in two on the day to complete the deployment and general sample collection, a field WQ meter was not available at the time of deployment at Site 6.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

16 Summarised data from the period of deployment are provided in Table 3.7 below. During deployment, a total of 27.2 mm of rainfall was recorded at Ngahere Park with a maximum daily total of 7.1 mm (9 August 2018). Rainfall on the 8 August 2018 resulted in a maximum turbidity reading of 27.7 (NTU). This rainfall event appears to have peaked near midnight at Site 6 and was registered on the Ngahere Park rainfall gauge as 7.1 m, although it was attributed to 9 August 2018. DO appeared somewhat variable over the first few days of deployment at Site 6 with some fairly rapid dips and improvement. Less daily variability in DO was recorded later in the deployment period. This site does drain a partially agricultural catchment and runoff from this area (and any associated biological oxygen demand) may have contributed to recorded minimums. Table 3.7:

Summary of the continuous water quality monitoring data collected at Site 6 between 1 August 2018 and 15 August 2018

Parameter

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean

10.92

6.69

9.06

12.40

Standard deviation

0.98

0.04

0.99

1.46

Median

11.06

6.69

9.33

12.10

Minimum

6.38

6.55

6.09

10.1

Maximum

12.47

6.81

10.35

27.7

3.5

Sediment deposition

3.5.1

Quorer method

The results of the Quorer monitoring are summarised below and presented as suspendible inorganic sediment (SIS) and suspendible organic sediment (SOS). SIS and SOS are presented as both g/m2 and g/m3, as per the calculations in Clapcott et al. (2011). The Quorer method was unable to be used at all sites (previously detailed in Section 2.4.1). Calculated Quorer results are presented in Table 3.8 below. Table 3.8:

Mean SIS and SOS calculated for applicable sites August 2018

January 2019

Location

SIS (g/m2)

SOS (g/m2)

SIS (g/m3)

SOS (g/m3)

SIS (g/m2)

SOS (g/m2)

SIS (g/m3)

SOS (g/m3)

Site 1

118.6

56.3

191.8

90.8

107.3

48.9

147.5

67.2

Site 2

70.9

21.9

101.6

31.3

90.0

30.8

117.5

40.2

Site 3

43.1

20.2

52.8

24.9

52.1

25.6

64.8

32.0

Site 4

87.4

18.0

95.0

19.6

102.7

26.8

115.4

29.9

Site 5

65.2

7.1

81.1

8.8

80.6

13.1

111.5

18.1

Site 7

15.1

4.0

17.8

4.7

43.4

13.4

52.4

16.2

Site 8

95.2

12.4

139.7

18.5

101.8

15.0

162.0

23.9

Site 12

119.5

56.6

165.3

78.1

180.8

83.5

248.6

115.1

The results of the Quorer sampling undertaken show some difference between the August 2018 and January 2019. There was generally more inorganic and organic sediment in samples from January. This may be related to wetter (more flushing) vs drier (less flushing) conditions in winter vs summer. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

17 For context, Clapcott et al. (2011) includes a recommended guideline for in-stream ecological health of less than 450 g/m2 (SIS) to protect in-stream biodiversity and fish habitat. All data were well below this guideline level.

3.5.2

Visual observations

Visual deposited sediment survey results are presented in Table 3.9 below. The summary table presents the mean percent coverage of the stream bed by deposited sediment for each site during the August 2018 and January 2019 surveys. The data variable from site to site and do not show the same reasonably consistent trend from summer to winter sampling events as per the Quorer. Highest deposited sediment coverage estimates occurred at Sites 4, 14 and 15. Both Sites 4 and 14 are located within active or more recently retired agricultural catchment areas. Site 15 is in mostly native bush. For context, Clapcott et al. (2011) includes a recommended guideline for in-stream ecological health of less than 20 % fine sediment cover to protect in-stream biodiversity and fish habitat. The Horizons One Plan includes a deposited sediment cover target of â&#x2030;¤ 15 % that applies to the entire Turitea Stream system (Water Management Zone Mana_11b). Data for all sites other than Sites 4, 14 and 15 were well below these guideline/target levels. Table 3.9:

Mean percent cover of the stream bed by deposited sediment (< 2mm) from visual estimates

Site

August 2018

January 2019

Site 1

0.7 %

5.8 %

Site 2

1.6 %

5.3 %

Site 3

1.9 %

7.2 %

Site 4

68.5 %

29.8 %

Site 5

5.5 %

3.9 %

Site 6

1.3 %

6.8 %

Site 7

2.0 %

2.3 %

Site 8

8.5 %

2.7 %

Site 9

0.5 %

6.9 %

Site 10

0.8 %

10.4 %

Site 11

5.8 %

5.1 %

Site 12

0.2 %

5.4 %

Site 13

0.6 %

5.3 %

Site 14

30.0 %

Site 15

27.9 %

21.4 %

*Site unable to be accessed due to lambing

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

3.6

Instream community structure

3.6.1

Periphyton

3.6.1.1

Visual periphyton

This section provides the results of the visual periphyton surveys undertaken in August 2019 (27, 28 and 29) and January 2019 (15, 16 and 17). Surveys were undertaken at all sites on both occasions, with the exception of Site 14 in August 2018 due to lambing occurring and therefore access to the site being restricted. Complementary quantitative sampling was undertaken in conjunction with the visual survey and is presented in the following section. Visual periphyton data has been summarised and is presented below in Table 3.10 and Table 3.11 as mean percent cover per site. Table 3.10: Mean percent visual cover of periphyton groups collected August 2018 Site

Clean

Film

Mats

Sludge

Cyanobacteria

Filamentous slimy

Filamentous coarse

Bryophyte

Site 1

7.2

92.8

Site 2

33.6

66.4

Site 3

0.6

99.2

0.2

Site 4

0.75

19.1

36.8

1.25

42.1

Site 5

Site 6

51.5

48.5

Site 7

2.85

96.95

0.2

Site 8

25.4

74.6

Site 9

71.5

28.5

Site 10

70.5

29.5

Site 11

4.9

93.15

1.95

Site 12

17.45

82.1

0.15

0.3

Site 13

0.65

98.2

0.3

0.85

Site 15

67.4

32.25

0.35

Table 3.11: Mean percent visual cover of periphyton groups collected January 2019 Site

Clean

Film

Mats

Sludge

Cyanobacteria

Filamentous slimy

Filamentous coarse

Bryophyte

Site 1

21.25

78.75

Site 2

0.5

99.5

Site 3

100

Site 4

44.25

41.25

14.5

Site 5

93.2

6.7

0.1

Site 6

11.5

88.5

Site 7

0.5

96.9

2.6

Site 8

Site 9

18.5

81.5

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Site

Clean

Film

Mats

Sludge

Cyanobacteria

Filamentous slimy

Filamentous coarse

Bryophyte

Site 10

14.5

85.5

Site 11

5.82

88.85

5.33

Site 12

5.5

91.4

2.3

0.8

Site 13

1.45

87.95

4.9

5.7

Site 14

93.5

6.5

Site 15

9.5

3.5

The summary data show that the majority of sites surveyed had low percentage cover of nuisance periphyton indicated by high percentage observations of film and clean categories. Site 4 however had higher percent cover of nuisance periphyton in the form of sludge and filamentous (slimy) algae present at the time of both surveys. Cyanobacteria was observed in small quantities at sites 4, 7, 12, and 13 during the August 2018 survey. The Horizons One Plan includes Region wide periphyton coverage targets of no more than 30 % coverage of filamentous periphyton cover and 60 % coverage diatom or cyanobacterial cover. Data for all sites other than Sites 4 (filamentous algae) were well below these target levels. 3.6.1.2

Quantitative periphyton

This section provides the results of the quantitative periphyton sample collections undertaken in August 2019 (27, 28 and 29) and January 2019 (15, 16 and 17). Samples were collected at all sites on both occasions, with the exception of site 14 in August 2018 due to lambing occurring and access to the site being restricted. Results of the sampling are provided as Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) and presented in Table 3.12 below. Laboratory transcripts are provided in Appendix D. Site 5 had the highest chlorophyll a concentration of 146.24 mg/m2 with the lowest concentrations found at site 8. In general, concentrations were higher in January 2019 though there were exceptions to this where concentrations were higher in August 2018 (Sites 3, 4, 6 and 13). The Horizons One Plan includes a quantitative periphyton (chlorophyll a) target of â&#x2030;¤ 50 mg/m2 that applies to the entire Turitea Stream system (Water Management Zone Mana_11b). Several sites exceeded this target value in either August or January. Table 3.12: Chlorophyll a concentrations from quantitative samples collected in August 2018 and January 2019. Site

August 2018

January 2019

Chlorophyll a (mg/m2)

Site 1

9.72

39.91

Site 2

6.40

116.63

Site 3

107.43

43.74

Site 4

85.01

15.03

Site 5

3.28

146.24

Site 6

11.02

5.10

Site 7

14.12

56.49

Site 8

2.96

5.92

Site 9

4.56

17.08

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Site 10

14.35

22.69

Site 11

4.65

17.13

Site 12

5.92

18.68

Site 13

28.97

19.68

Site 14

9.34

Site 15

9.87

26.00

3.6.2

Macroinvertebrates

The full results of the macroinvertebrate sampling for August 2018 and January 2019 are presented in Appendix E, with summary metric values presented below in Table 3.13. Moderate rainfall in the general area occurred over the two week period preceding the August sampling round (87.2 mm Ngahere Park Climate Station and 80.0 mm at the Pahiatua Climate Station). However, it was deemed unlikely that rainfall intensity over that period was of sufficient magnitude to have resulted in significant habitat disturbance. Furthermore, assessment of flow data from the Kahuterawa River indicated 3 times median flow had not been exceeded. Comparison of macroinvertebrate data in Section 3.6.2 appears to support the assumption that a significant bed moving event had not occurred. The August macroinvertebrate metrics closely match those for the January 2019 samples (3.8 mm Ngahere Park Climate Station and 20.0 mm at the Pahiatua Climate Station for the two-week period preceding sampling). Mean macroinvertebrate metric scores are generally consistent between the August and January sampling rounds with sites reporting similar, or in some cases the same, MCI and QMCI scores. The Horizons One Plan includes a specific MCI target of 120 for the Turitea Stream system. Summary points from the August 2018 sampling round are as follows: 

The lowest mean MCI and QMCI scores were reported for Site 7 (93 and 4.18) and the highest at Site 1 and Site 12 (145 and 8.0; 139 and 8.13).



MCI scores for nine of the sites were indicative of ‘excellent’ quality, four were indicative of ‘good’ quality, and a single site was indicative of ‘fair’ quality.



QMCI scores for ten sites were indicative of ‘excellent’ quality, one of ‘good’ quality, and three were indicative of ‘fair’ quality.

In summary, the January 2019 sampling round was as follows: 

The lowest mean MCI and QMCI scores were reported for Site 7 (93 and 4.02) and the highest at Site 12 (139 and 8.13).



MCI scores for ten of the sites were indicative of ‘excellent’ quality, four were indicative of ‘good’ quality, and a single site was indicative of ‘fair’ quality.



QMCI scores for 11 sites were indicative of ‘excellent’ quality, two of ‘good’ quality, and two were indicative of ‘fair’ quality.

Notably, the nereid polychaete worm (N. tiriteae) was not present in samples analysed for either the August 2018 or the January 2019 macroinvertebrate collection rounds. The Horizons One Plan includes a specific MCI target of 120 for the Turitea Stream system. Mean MCI scores at Sites 4, 5, 7, 8 and 13 were below this target on both sampling occasions. These sites either drain agricultural (or recently retired) catchment areas or downstream of the Turitea Reservoir.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Table 3.13: Summary of macroinvertebrate metrics. Values presented are means and standard error for the four replicates collected at each site Site name

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Sampling period

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Sampling date

29/8/18

16/1/19

29/8/18

16/1/19

29/8/18

16/1/19

27/8/18

15/1/19

28/8/18

17/1/19

28/8/18

17/1/19

Total number of taxa

20.5 ± 1.2

27.0 ± 1.1

25.3 ± 1.4

28.5 ± 0.6

30.0 ± 2.6

26.5 ± 1.2

18.0 ± 1.3

19.5 ± 0.6

17.3 ± 1.9

24.3 ± 2.5

19.0 ± 1.6

23.0 ± 1.8

MCI score

144.8 ± 2.9

126.3 ± 1.5

137.4 ± 5.2

129.4 ± 1.9

129.3 ± 2.4

134.3 ± 2.6

105.6 ± 5.0

111.1 ± 4.7

101.9 ± 4.8

103.5 ± 3.1

138.9 ± 6.2

129.9 ± 2.1

QMCI score

8.0 ± 0.1

7.8 ± 0.1

7.4 ± 0.2

7.2 ± 0.0

7.8 ± 0.1

4.3 ± 0.3

5.2 ± 0.3

5.0 ± 0.4

4.3 ± 0.1

7.5 ± 0.1

7.6 ± 0.1

% EPTtaxa richness

68.3 ± 4.5

48.1 ± 3.1

61.8 ± 3.0

51.7 ± 1.6

60.1 ± 2.0

57.6 ± 1.4

45.1 ± 4.0

39.8 ± 3.7

42.6 ± 5.7

39.4 ± 3.3

67.1 ± 4.5

55.4 ± 1.7

Site name

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

Site 11

Site 12

Sampling period

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Sampling date

28/8/18

17/1/19

28/8/18

17/1/19

28/8/18

17//1/19

28/8/18

17/1/19

27/8/18

15/1/19

27/8/18

15/1/19

Total number of taxa

16.8 ± 0.6

23.5 ± 0.3

17.5 ± 0.9

21.0 ± 1.7

21.5 ± 0.6

28.8 ± 1.3

21.0 ± 1.9

27.8 ± 2.9

20.8 ± 1.7

30.0 ± 2.0

27.0 ± 1.7

27.3 ± 2.1

MCI score

92.8 ± 4.0

93.2 ± 1.5

102.6 ± 2.8

103.8 ± 1.7

131.6 ± 1.5

131.6 ± 2.1

134.9 ± 2.8

132.1 ± 3.0

132.5 ± 2.3

128.6 ± 2.5

138.6 ± 1.9

138.9 ± 1.5

QMCI score

4.2 ± 0.1

4.0 ± 0.0

6.6 ± 0.1

6.0 ± 0.3

7.5 ± 0.0

7.3 ± 0.3

8.1 ± 0.1

7.4 ± 0.3

7.4 ± 0.1

6.9 ± 0.3

8.1 ± 0.1

28.6 ± 3.3

27.6 ± 0.9

33.0 ± 1.5

35.7 ± 3.8

55.7 ± 2.0

51.4 ± 1.1

60.0 ± 2.6

52.4 ± 2.0

59.2 ± 1.6

52.3 ± 4.0

65.3 ± 2.9

61.4 ± 2.6

Substrate (HB = Hard bottom.)

% EPTtaxa richness

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Site name

Site 13

Site 14*

Site 14

Site 15

Sampling period

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

Summer

Sampling date

27/8/18

15/1/19

16/1/19

27/8/18

15/1/19

Total number of taxa

21.5 ± 2.0

23.8 ± 1.1

23.0 ± 0.6

25.5 ± 1.8

27.0 ± 1.4

MCI score

115.9 ± 3.4

115.0 ± 2.0

124.7 ± 2.4

123.2 ± 2.1

122.5 ± 1.2

QMCI score

7.2 ± 0.2

6.2 ± 0.1

6.1 ± 0.2

5.3 ± 0.5

5.1 ± 0.3

% EPTtaxa richness

54.2 ± 4.5

46.3 ± 1.7

46.9 ± 2.7

48.2 ± 2.6

44.4 ± 1.4

Substrate (HB = Hard bottom.)

*Site 14 was not sampled during the winter sampling round due to lambing occurring and concerns from the landowner regarding this, access to the site was not granted by the landowner.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Summary and construction monitoring recommendations

This section provides our recommendations in regard to modifications to the construction phase monitoring as set out in the approved AEMP and monitoring triggers for use in the AEMRP.

4.1

Rainfall

Our review of the continuous water quality monitoring data and comparison against rainfall data recorded at the Ngahere Park and Pahiatua rainfall stations has shown that: a

b c

The above points highlight the need for on-site, telemetered rainfall stations to be established within the northern and southern turbine clusters as appropriate. This will ensure accurate rainfall data can be collected and will reduce the incidence of false alarm responses and missed events. In terms of triggers. The lack of hourly rainfall data limits our ability to develop a site specific rainfall intensity trigger. We therefore recommend that the draft triggers as set out in the AEMP are adopted as a starting point and with reference to a site specific, telemetered rain gauge. These are: ď&#x201A;ˇ

A rainfall event with an intensity equal to or greater than 6 mm/hr, and

ď&#x201A;ˇ

20 mm total rainfall over any 24 hour period.

Triggers should be adjusted through the course of construction phase as necessary and as more data become available.

4.2

Water quality

Consent conditions require continuous (diurnal) monitoring of temperature, pH and DO during key phases of construction. The baseline monitoring has shown that pH, temperature and DO are comparatively insensitive to elevated stream flow conditions, show only minor deviation from baseline and rapidly return. This is consistent across all of the six key monitoring sites. We suggest that continuous monitoring of temperature, pH and DO is undertaken to meet the consent requirement but at a reduced number of sites (i.e. only at Sites 1 and 5 in the northern cluster and Sites 4 and 6 in the southern cluster) and will not be necessary for the whole length of construction in any particular catchment. Turbidity shows more of a response, particularly at upper catchment sites and will generally be the key contaminant of concern. As set out in the approved AEMP turbidity should be the key parameter for monitoring construction effects on waterways, and event based trigger levels for further construction effects monitoring and investigation should be based on turbidity. We recommend that continuous turbidity monitoring is undertaken at all Sites 1 to 6 as determined by the construction programme. It will only be necessary to have turbidity loggers in place at sites that are potentially impacted by construction works at any particular time.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

24 A preliminary turbidity trigger was proposed in the AEMP as a level 20 % higher than the established maximum from the baseline data. We consider this trigger is appropriate given that rainfall triggered monitoring will occur post rainfall events and the rapid return to baseline NTU following peaks observed in the continuous data. On this basis we consider that as the starting point for the construction programme the trigger and should apply to the established maximum from the baseline grab sample data which are generally indicative of wet weather conditions. The continuous turbidity data have shown that peak turbidity reduces significantly between paired sites on Turitea Stream (Sites 1 and 2) and Little Turitea Stream (Sites 3 and 4). Sites 2 and 3 are also more remote and take much longer to access so are less useful for event based monitoring. We recommend for these catchments that the 20 % trigger is applied primarily at Sites 1 and 4 on the Turitea and Little Turitea streams respectively with the cascade of water quality sampling and investigations undertaken generally as set out in the AEMP. The AEMP states that logger data will be obtained after 48 hours of the turbidity trigger to establish if deposited sediment monitoring should occur. Rather than linking responses to the above grab sample trigger, we recommend that if logged turbidity data remains generally elevated above prevailing turbidity pre-event for more than 24 hrs, then sediment deposition monitoring should be undertaken.

4.3

Deposited sediment

The AEMP includes preliminary triggers for in an assessment of remedial and/or mitigation measures. Following the baseline monitoring we consider that the visual monitoring method will be more appropriate for event based triggered monitoring (although will also be undertaken for routine monitoring). The results of the Quorer sampling appear somewhat comparable between sampling occasions but the method cannot be used at all sites. We suggest that it would be more appropriate as part of the routine monitoring programme. The baseline monitoring has shown that existing deposited sediment levels are low in most site streams, particularly in winter, and generally well below guideline levels to manage adverse ecological effects. We therefore recommend that appropriate deposited sediment triggers would be a 20 % increase relative to the highest of the baseline values. Modified trigger recommendations are as follows: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Event based monitoring: An increase in the mean visual sediment coverage of 50 % or more relative to the highest baseline visual estimate for that site.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Routine monitoring: An increase in the mean visual sediment coverage of 20 % or more relative to the highest baseline visual estimate for that site that persists for two or more consecutive quarterly monitoring occasions.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Routine monitoring: An increase in sediment coverage or re-suspendible sediment of 20 % or more relative to the highest measurement from baseline monitoring that persists for two or more consecutive quarterly monitoring occasions.

Exceedances of the above deposited sediment triggers will result in an assessment of ecological effects and potentially remedial/mitigation measures.

4.4

Periphyton

We consider that periphyton monitoring is best undertaken as part of routine monitoring, but could form a discretionary part of an investigation of the ecological effects of a discharge. For the later this would be triggered by deposited sediment or water quality results from the event based monitoring or in response to a contaminant discharge.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

25 The visual assessment of periphyton coverage will be most useful for on-going monitoring given that many of the sites had high a proportion of the ‘clean’ and ‘film’ categories. There were small, if any, proportions of nuisance periphyton types. For the routine monitoring programme we consider that if visual periphyton suggests a deviation from baseline conditions, then quantitative sampling should be conducted to further investigate a potential change. We recommend that a suitable trigger for quantitative sampling would be an increase in nuisance periphyton coverage of 10 % compared to the highest recorded value in the baseline monitoring programme. Nuisance periphyton being: 

Algal mats: the combined percent cover of thick mat and sludge, and



Filamentous algae: combined percent cover of coarse and slimy filaments.

For the routine quarterly monitoring we recommend that exceedances of the following trigger results in an assessment of the cause of the effect including an assessment of any remedial and/or mitigation measures. 

4.5

An increase in nuisance periphyton coverage of 10 % compared to the highest recorded value in the baseline monitoring programme that persists for two or more consecutive quarterly monitoring occasions.

Macroinvertebrates

As per periphyton we consider that macroinvertebrate monitoring is best undertaken as part of routine monitoring, but could form a discretionary part of an investigation of the ecological effects of a discharge. For the later this would be triggered by deposited sediment or water quality results from the event based monitoring or in response to a contaminant discharge or spill. Macroinvertebrate communities appear to be generally stable seasonally, with few sites exhibiting significant variation between the August 2018 and January 2019 sampling rounds. Macroinvertebrate metrics should therefore provide appropriate means for assessing the effects of any sediment or contaminant releases into the receiving environment. However, given that the data are limited to two sampling occasions, it is reasonable to apply a margin of uncertainty when comparing to these data. For the routine quarterly monitoring we recommend that exceedances of the following triggers result in an assessment of the cause of the effect including an assessment of any remedial and/or mitigation measures. 



A decline in the mean % of EPT taxa richness of 10 % or more compared to baseline monitoring scores that persists for 2 or more quarterly monitoring occasions.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Conclusion

This report provides a mostly factual summary of the water quality and in-stream ecology monitoring data collected as part of a comprehensive baseline monitoring programme for the Turitea Windfarm project. The report provides site specific information in regard to monitoring locations and methods to update the approved monitoring plan as well as statistical summaries of the data. Overall, the receiving environments within the Turitea Reserve are characterised by high water quality and in-stream ecological health. Some comparatively lower in-stream ecology conditions are apparent in streams where contributing catchments are influenced by agriculture (or recently retired). Of note with respect to aquatic ecology monitoring consent conditions is that the locally rare Nereid polychaete worm (Namanereis tiriteae) was not encountered in any of the macroinvertebrate samples collected. The baseline monitoring has included representative sites in all catchments potentially impacted by discharges as a result of the project. Because the immediate receiving environments are headwater catchments upstream control sites are not available for construction monitoring. The preconstruction data therefore provide the baseline for which to compare construction phase monitoring data and assess effects should discharges occur. We have used the baseline data to provide recommendations in regard to the construction phase monitoring on the basis of site specific characteristics and access constraints. We have also used the data to provide recommendations on rainfall, water quality and in-stream ecology monitoring triggers for use in adaptive aquatic ecology management response and erosion and sediment control monitoring.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Applicability

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Mercury NZ Limited, with respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Report prepared by:

Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

pp ..........................................................

...........................â&#x20AC;Ś.......â&#x20AC;Ś...............

Steve Pratt

Peter Cochrane

Ecologist

Project Director

Technical review completed by Dean Miller, Principal Freshwater Ecologist. SSP p:\1006301\secure2021\issueddocuments\baseline report\20190612.ssp.baselinereport.final.docx

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

Appendix A:

Monitoring site location plan

Site 14

h ! !

Site 1

! ! !

Site 3

Site 5

Site 2

Site 7 Site 8

Site 9

! !

Site 10

Site 13

! ! Path: T:\Hamilton\Projects\1006301\Secure2021\WorkingMaterial\GIS\TT_Map\1006301_FigureB1.mxd Date: 10/05/2019 Time: 12:18:55 PM

Site 4

! !

Site 12

Site 6

Site 15

Text

Site 11

LEGEND

h !

Monitoring Sites Turbines

Turbine Zones Site Road

Notes: Aerials: Sourced from the LINZ Data Service and licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand license Locations of turbines, streams, turbine zones, site road and wind farm site boundary supplied by Mercury NZ Ltd

A3 SCALE 1:2,000,000 40

100 (km)

Wind Farm Site Boundary Streams DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED

ARCFILE

MERCURY NZ LTD

DRML May.19 DWM Jun.19 DCM Jun.19

TURITEA WIND FARM AQUATIC ECOLOGY MONITORING PLAN

1006301_FigureB1.mxd

SCALE (AT A3 SIZE)

Location Plan

Level 5, 711 Victoria Street, Hamilton 3240

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

1:2,000,000 PROJECT No.

1006301

FIGURE No.

Figure B1.

Rev.

Appendix B:

Monitoring site details

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Monitoring site coordinates

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Monitoring site access notes

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Monitoring site photographs

Appendix B Table 1:

Survey site co-ordinates and brief site access notes.

Name

Easting

Southing

Access notes

Site 1 US

175° 41’ 55.3”

40° 25’ 12.3”

Site 1 DS

175° 41’ 53.8”

40° 25’ 13.4”

Accessed from the downstream direction by following the central ‘Turitea Stream Track’ from Site 2.

Site 2 US

175° 40’ 57.8”

40° 25’ 42.3”

Accessed using PNCC reservoir boat or overland via ‘Spiker Head Track’

Site 2 DS

175° 40’ 57.5”

40° 25’ 43.9”

Site 3 US

175° 40’ 15.7”

40° 26’ 22.6”

Site 3 DS

175° 40’ 18.5”

40° 26’ 21.2”

Site 4 US

175° 38’ 34.1”

40° 27’ 46.7”

Site 4 DS

175° 38’ 35.1”

40° 27’ 48.0”

Site 5 US

175° 44’ 19.1”

40° 25’ 44.7”

Site 5 DS

175° 44’ 20.7”

40° 25’ 46.2”

Site 6 US

175° 37’ 22.4”

40° 28’ 57.4”

Site 6 DS

175° 37’ 20.8”

40° 28’ 58.7”

Site 7 US

175° 39’ 41.3”

40° 25’ 51.1”

Site 7 DS

175° 39’ 39.4”

40° 25’ 49.1”

Site 8 US

175° 39’ 36.1”

40° 25’ 50.2”

Site 8 DS

175° 39’ 37.2”

40° 25’ 50.2”

Accessed by continuing overland, following the PNCC pest control track identified for Site 7.

Site 9 US

175° 42’ 55.3”

40° 26’ 09.7”

Located upstream of the stream crossing point for PNCC pest control track.

Site 9 DS

175° 42’ 55.7”

40° 26’ 10.5”

Site 10 US

175° 42’ 36.6”

40° 26’ 34.4”

Site 10 DS

175° 42’ 37.6”

40° 26’ 34.4”

Located upstream of the stream crossing point for PNCC pest control track on near the boundary with NZDF land.

Site 11 US

175° 39’ 38.8”

40° 28’ 57.1”

Accessed using PNCC pest control track.

Site 11 DS

175° 39’ 39.1”

40° 28’ 58.8”

Site 12 US

175° 38’ 33.8”

40° 28’ 51.2”

Site 12 DS

175° 38’ 33.5”

40° 28’ 53.0”

Accessed using PNCC reservoir boat. Accessed via 4wd track crossing on Browns Flat. Accessed from roadside, Makomako Road. Survey reach located immediately above the Sledge Track wooden boardwalk crossing Ross Creek. Located downstream of the stream crossing point for PNCC pest control track. Macroinvertebrates were collected from riffles on both sides of the large midstream gravel bar.

Assessed from South Range road by taking the PNCC track linking to the ‘Platinum Track’.

Name

Easting

Southing

Access notes

Site 13 US

175° 37’ 17.0”

40° 26’ 57.1”

Survey reach is situated upstream of the large boulder with the gauging station attached.

Site 13 DS

175° 37’ 17.6”

40° 26’ 56.5”

Site 14 US

175° 41’ 54.9”

40° 24’ 37.9”

Site 14 DS

175° 41’ 54.5”

40° 24’ 36.2”

Located immediately upstream of the boundary fence of Poff’s property. Accessed by travelling overland from Site 1 and following the boundary fence.

Site 15 US

175° 40’ 07.0”

40° 28’ 34.8”

Accessed using PNCC pest control track.

Site 15 DS

175° 40’ 08.0”

40° 28’ 35.5”

Photograph Appendix B.1: Site 1 Turitea Stream, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.2: Site 2 Turitea Stream, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.3: Site 3 Little Turitea Stream, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.4: Site 4 Browns Flat, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.5: Site 5, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.6: Site 6 Ross Creek, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.7: Site 7, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.8: Site 8, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.9: Site 9, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.10: Site 10, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.11: Site 11, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.12: Site 12, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.13: Site 13 Kahuterawa Stream, looking upstream.

Photograph Appendix B.14: Site 14, looking downstream.

Photograph Appendix B.15: Site 15, looking downstream.

Appendix C:

Water quality grab sampling summary tables

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Appendix C Table 1: Water quality field measurements summary statistics

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Appendix C Table 2: Water quality laboratory testing summary statistics

Appendix C Table 1: Site

Summary statistics for spot water quality meter readings collected between 19 June 2018 and 17 January 2019

Dissolved oxygen

Temperature

Electrical conductivity

(% saturation)

(mg/L)

(Ë&#x161;C)

(Âľs/cm)

Mean

Min

Max

Mean

Min

Max

Mean

Min

Max

Mean

Min

Max

Mean

Min

Max

Site 1

96.3

95.2

101

10.9

9.9

12.2

9.9

7.3

13.6

98.6

73.5

111.1

6.9

6.7

7.1

Site 2

97.2

96.2

100

11.0

9.93

12.2

10.1

14.5

107.3

96.5

114.0

6.8

6.6

7.2

Site 3

99.0

96.6

105

11.1

10.1

12.3

10.2

8.0

14.9

81.6

62.4

95.9

6.8

6.3

7.7

Site 4

86.3

75.3

9.6

8.1

10.7

10.6

7.6

17.6

58.7

43.2

71.0

6.9

6.56

7.4

Site 5

97.2

93.8

104

10.3

8.4

11.9

12.2

7.4

22.0

77.3

55.9

90.2

6.7

6.2

7.4

Site 6

96.7

93.9

100

10.9

11.4

9.9

8.0

13.7

70.2

52.6

87.8

6.9

6.5

7.1

Site 7

98.7

93.8

105

10.7

8.94

11.9

8.0

19.8

85.8

61.5

100.1

6.7

6.3

7.31

Site 8

97.4

93.1

102

10.5

9.24

11.7

11.9

9.3

16.9

100.7

69.3

127.4

6.8

6.1

7.37

Site 9

97.2

93.8

104

11.0

9.69

12.4

9.8

7.5

13.4

77.6

51.8

97.1

6.8

6.5

7.21

Site 10

97.2

93.4

109

11.0

9.75

12.9

9.9

7.8

13.9

82.8

55.1

98.2

6.8

6.4

Site 11

94.2

92.4

97.6

10.9

9.85

11.9

8.9

6.8

12.4

77.4

59.2

87.9

6.9

6.6

7.1

Site 12

94.4

92.5

96.5

10.9

9.85

11.7

9.0

6.8

13.5

61.2

48.1

71.2

6.9

6.6

7.1

Site 13

100.0

97.4

104

10.8

9.25

11.7

11.9

9.2

20.6

72.1

53.1

82.7

7.1

6.7

7.5

Site 14

98.8

97.2

101

10.7

9.58

12.2

11.9

7.3

16.1

85.5

74.1

97.1

6.8

7.3

Site 15

92.3

89.9

95.6

10.8

9.67

11.6

9.0

7.2

12.7

87.0

68.1

102.4

6.8

6.5

6.9

Escherichia coli (MPN / 100mL)

Oil and Grease (g/m3)

Dissolved CBiochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) (g O2/m3)

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (g/m3)

Nitrate-N (g/m3)

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Total Ammoniacal-N (g/m3)

Total suspended solids (g/m3)

Summary statistics for laboratory results from all grab samples collected between 19 June 2018 and 28 November 2018.

Turbidity (NTU) Site 3

Site 2

Site 1

Appendix C Table 2:

Mean

2.9

7.2

3.0

0.005

0.05

0.37

0.38

0.010

4.67

15.25

0.95

0.24

2.42

0.14

0.13

0.003

4.62

17.33

Median

2.8

7.2

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.38

0.39

0.011

2.0

7.5

Maximum

4.6

7.7

8.0

0.005

0.05

0.54

0.013

10.0

41.0

Minimum

1.6

7.0

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.16

0.17

0.006

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

3.2

7.3

2.9

0.006

0.05

0.28

0.29

0.011

2.00

11.25

1.02

0.12

1.86

0.002

0.00

0.11

0.002

0.00

6.29

Median

3.1

7.3

2.0

0.005

0.05

0.30

0.011

2.0

10.0

Maximum

5.3

7.5

6.0

0.010

0.05

0.43

0.013

2.0

20.0

Minimum

2.2

7.2

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.10

0.008

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

2.0

7.3

2.4

0.008

0.05

0.07

0.008

2.70

6.00

0.57

0.19

1.49

0.003

0.00

0.03

0.04

0.002

1.30

2.24

Median

1.9

7.2

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.008

2.0

5.0

Maximum

2.9

7.6

5.0

0.011

0.05

0.12

0.13

0.011

5.0

10.0

Minimum

1.3

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.007

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Italicised text indicate where most testing results were below the laboratory reporting limit and are therefore presented as half the reporting limit.

Escherichia coli (MPN / 100mL)

Oil and Grease (g/m3)

Dissolved CBiochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) (g O2/m3)

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (g/m3)

Nitrate-N (g/m3)

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Total Ammoniacal-N (g/m3)

Total suspended solids (g/m3)

Turbidity (NTU) Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Mean

3.3

6.8

7.0

0.006

0.05

0.07

0.08

0.002

4.20

79.00

1.52

0.19

6.83

0.002

0.00

0.06

0.08

0.000

3.21

154.41

Median

2.9

6.8

5.0

0.005

0.05

0.002

2.5

10.0

Maximum

5.4

7.0

21.0

0.010

0.05

0.20

0.25

0.002

9.5

355

Minimum

1.1

6.4

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.002

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

6.8

7.2

10.1

0.013

0.05

0.55

0.011

5.60

319.25

4.38

0.28

10.62

0.004

0.00

0.39

0.006

3.52

208.60

Median

6.4

7.2

9.0

0.013

0.05

0.60

0.012

320.5

Maximum

15.8

7.6

33.0

0.018

0.05

1.17

0.020

9.5

573

Minimum

2.3

6.9

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.002

2.0

Sample No

Mean

6.5

7.1

7.0

0.006

0.05

0.13

0.14

0.022

11.13

850.20

3.67

0.13

4.36

0.002

0.00

0.07

0.08

0.025

17.92

1822.56

Median

5.3

7.1

6.0

0.005

0.05

0.13

0.14

0.013

2.25

Maximum

12.6

7.3

16.0

0.011

0.05

0.23

0.25

0.078

4110

Minimum

2.8

6.9

4.0

0.005

0.05

0.010

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Italicised text indicate where most testing results were below the laboratory reporting limit and are therefore presented as half the reporting limit.

Escherichia coli (MPN / 100mL)

Oil and Grease (g/m3)

Dissolved CBiochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) (g O2/m3)

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (g/m3)

Nitrate-N (g/m3)

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Total Ammoniacal-N (g/m3)

Total suspended solids (g/m3)

Turbidity (NTU) Site 7 Site 8 Site 9

Mean

3.6

7.3

2.8

0.006

0.05

0.13

0.006

1.0

2.7

15.3

1.49

0.15

3.06

0.003

0.00

0.06

0.07

0.001

0.00

1.15

12.66

Median

3.2

7.2

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.15

0.006

1.0

2.0

12.5

Maximum

6.3

7.5

9.0

0.012

0.05

0.20

0.008

1.0

4.0

31.0

Minimum

2.1

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.005

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

8.5

7.4

5.8

0.005

0.05

0.48

0.49

0.011

1.0

2.2

477.3

6.17

0.22

4.45

0.000

0.00

0.34

0.36

0.006

0.00

0.29

412.50

Median

5.6

7.4

4.5

0.005

0.05

0.47

0.009

1.0

2.0

322.0

Maximum

20.0

7.7

14.0

0.005

0.05

0.98

1.04

0.022

1.0

2.5

1086.0

Minimum

4.2

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.008

1.0

2.0

179.0

Sample No

Mean

2.3

7.3

2.9

0.005

0.05

0.15

0.16

0.007

1.0

3.1

11.3

1.66

0.15

2.13

0.000

0.00

0.07

0.002

0.00

1.93

10.97

Median

1.6

7.3

2.3

0.005

0.05

0.17

0.008

1.0

2.3

5.0

Maximum

5.5

7.5

7.0

0.005

0.05

0.24

0.008

1.0

6.0

24.0

Minimum

1.0

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.004

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Italicised text indicate where most testing results were below the laboratory reporting limit and are therefore presented as half the reporting limit.

Escherichia coli (MPN / 100mL)

Oil and Grease (g/m3)

Dissolved CBiochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) (g O2/m3)

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (g/m3)

Nitrate-N (g/m3)

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Total Ammoniacal-N (g/m3)

Total suspended solids (g/m3)

Turbidity (NTU) Site 10 Site 11 Site 12

Mean

2.2

7.2

2.4

0.008

0.05

0.18

0.008

1.0

2.0

5.0

1.62

0.19

2.25

0.005

0.00

0.04

0.002

0.00

Median

1.5

7.2

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.19

0.009

1.0

2.0

5.0

Maximum

5.4

7.5

7.0

0.017

0.05

0.21

0.23

0.010

1.0

2.0

5.0

Minimum

1.1

6.9

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.11

0.005

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

2.1

7.3

3.2

0.006

0.05

0.005

1.0

3.0

5.0

0.61

0.19

1.44

0.003

0.00

0.002

0.00

1.73

0.00

Median

2.1

7.2

3.5

0.005

0.05

0.005

1.0

2.0

5.0

Maximum

3.1

7.6

5.0

0.012

0.05

0.008

1.0

5.0

Minimum

1.2

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.002

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Mean

2.3

7.1

2.1

0.005

0.05

0.06

0.004

1.0

2.0

5.0

1.66

0.14

1.43

0.000

0.00

0.02

0.002

0.00

Median

1.9

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.004

1.0

2.0

5.0

Maximum

5.5

7.3

5.0

0.005

0.05

0.11

0.006

1.0

2.0

5.0

Minimum

0.8

7.0

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.002

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Italicised text indicate where most testing results were below the laboratory reporting limit and are therefore presented as half the reporting limit.

Escherichia coli (MPN / 100mL)

Oil and Grease (g/m3)

Dissolved CBiochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) (g O2/m3)

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (g/m3)

Nitrate-N (g/m3)

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Nitrite-N (g/m3)

Total Ammoniacal-N (g/m3)

Total suspended solids (g/m3)

Turbidity (NTU) Site 13 Site 14 Site 15

Mean

9.0

7.3

8.6

0.008

0.05

0.15

0.17

0.006

1.0

8.0

510.0

10.47

0.19

11.63

0.005

0.00

0.08

0.10

0.004

0.00

9.53

900.28

Median

5.2

7.2

4.0

0.005

0.05

0.13

0.14

0.006

1.0

2.5

74.5

Maximum

30.0

7.6

32.0

0.015

0.05

0.27

0.31

0.012

1.0

19.0

1860.0

Minimum

2.8

7.1

1.5

0.005

0.05

0.002

1.0

2.5

31.0

Sample No

Mean

5.9

7.4

7.3

0.005

0.05

0.52

0.53

0.006

1.0

2.2

1630.5

0.56

0.28

2.36

0.000

0.00

0.33

0.34

0.002

0.00

0.29

2021.62

Median

6.1

7.5

8.0

0.005

0.05

0.54

0.005

1.0

2.0

1630.5

Maximum

6.4

7.7

9.0

0.005

0.05

0.87

0.90

0.009

1.0

2.5

3060.0

Minimum

5.1

7.1

4.0

0.005

0.05

0.14

0.005

1.0

2.0

201.0

Sample No

Mean

11.4

7.3

21.7

0.005

0.05

0.005

1.0

2.0

6.3

7.57

0.12

15.11

0.000

0.00

0.002

0.00

2.50

Median

9.0

7.3

18.5

0.005

0.05

0.006

1.0

2.0

5.0

Maximum

26.0

7.4

50.0

0.005

0.05

0.007

1.0

2.0

10.0

Minimum

5.5

7.1

8.0

0.005

0.05

0.002

1.0

2.0

5.0

Sample No

Italicised text indicate where most testing results were below the laboratory reporting limit and are therefore presented as half the reporting limit.

Appendix D:

Quantitative chlorophyll a laboratory transcripts

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Turitea Wind Farm - Aquatic Ecology Baseline Monitoring Report Mercury NZ Limited

June 2019 Job No: 1006301

NIWA CHRISTCHURCH LABORATORY CLIENT : Dean Miller/Caleb Sjardin Tonkin and Taylor, Ltd. PO Box 9544 Hamilton

CLIENT Job : PO # 1006301

NIWA ID

Site

Project Code : CH19LAB Lab LogReg : 1035BW

CHECKED : KR APPROVED : KR REPORT DATE : 21/09/2018

Aug-18

Date sampled

DW mg/sample

AFDW mg/sample

Chl a mg/sample

BT1

Site 1

29/08/2018

79.56

41.33

0.20

BT2

Site 2

29/08/2018

61.20

27.60

0.13

BT3

Site 3

29/08/2018

510.00

186.00

2.19

BT4

Site 4

27/08/2018

4032.00

726.00

1.74

BT5

Site 5

28/08/2018

93.33

16.00

0.07

BT6

Site 6

28/08/2018

62.87

19.1

0.23

BT7

Site 7

28/08/2018

431.67

108.3

0.29

BT8

Site 8

28/08/2018

111.67

20.0

0.06

BT9

Site 9

28/08/2018

221.33

42.7

0.09

BT10

Site 10

28/08/2018

146.67

53.3

0.29

BT11

Site 11

27/08/2018

242.00

54.0

0.09

BT12

Site 12

27/08/2018

116.67

58.3

0.12

BT13

Site 13

27/08/2018

730.00

122.0

0.59

BT14

Site 15

27/08/2018

277.78

76.7

0.20

Summary of methods used and detection limits. Parameter Ash Free Dry Weight (AFDW)

Filtration, drying at 105°C, ashing 400°C for 4 hours

Detection Limit 0.5

Method Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Dry Weight (DW)

Filtration, drying at 105°C, ashing 400°C for 4 hours

0.5

Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Chlorophyll a (Chla)

Blend, filter, boil 5 min in eth@78°C, 24h extr, spec meas

Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Samples are held at the laboratory for three months after reporting of results. After this date they are discarded unless otherwise advised by the submitter. These samples were analysed as received at the laboratory.

NIWA CHRISTCHURCH LABORATORY CLIENT : Dean Miller/Caleb Sjardin

Project Code : CH19LAB Lab LogReg : 1035BW

Tonkin and Taylor, Ltd. PO Box 9544 Hamilton

CLIENT Job : PO # 1006301

CHECKED : KR APPROVED : KR REPORT DATE : 20/02/2019

Jan-19 AFDW mg/sample

Chl a mg/sample

165.33

77.33

0.82

306.67

141.33

2.38

16/01/2019

282.00

112.00

0.89

Site 4

15/01/2019

1072.00

218.00

0.31

BW28

Site 5

17/01/2019

1010.00

423.33

2.99

BW29

Site 6

17/01/2019

74.67

20.0

0.10

BW30

Site 7

17/01/2019

386.67

156.7

1.15

BW31

Site 8

17/01/2019

56.67

30.0

0.12

BW32

Site 9

17/01/2019

226.67

61.7

0.35

BW33

Site 10

17/01/2019

180.00

56.0

0.46

BW34

Site 11

15/01/2019

413.33

144.0

0.35

BW35

Site 12

15/01/2019

176.67

108.3

0.38

BW36

Site 13

15/01/2019

346.67

120.0

0.40

BW37

Site 14

16/01/2019

118.33

46.7

0.19

BW38

Site 15

15/01/2019

803.56

188.4

0.53

NIWA ID

Site

Date sampled

DW mg/sample

BW24

Site 1

16/01/2019

BW25

Site 2

16/01/2019

BW26

Site 3

BW27

Summary of methods used and detection limits. Parameter Filtration, drying at 105°C, ashing 400°C for 4 hours

Detection Limit 0.5

Method Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Dry Weight (DW)

Filtration, drying at 105°C, ashing 400°C for 4 hours

0.5

Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Chlorophyll a (Chla)

Blend, filter, boil 5 min in eth@78°C, 24h extr, spec meas

Biggs & Kilroy(2000)

Ash Free Dry Weight (AFDW)

Appendix E:

Macroinvertebrate results

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Arachnocolus Austroclima Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

Site 1 Site 1 Site 1 Site 1 Site 2 Site 2 Site 2 Site 2 Site 3 Site 3 Site 3 Site 3 a b c d a b c d a b c d 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18 29-Aug-18

MCI score

MCI-sb score

7 10 8 9 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 8.1 6.5 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

13 75 70 2 6

1 12 58 76 2 7

1 1 4 44 80 3 4 4

2 2 1 15 47 77 5 15 13

2 34 93 1 2 3

5 66 52 1 5 2 1

1 4 15 93 2 8 4 4

3 12 91 1 1 2 4

1 8 19 85 1 21 1

23 34 46 16 12

1 11 14 72 9 1

18 44 31 2 15 5

5 9 9 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

13 2 5 2

6 3 1 3 4

4 4 1

20 10 3

26 3 1 1 5

23 11 2 1

27 4 1 1

30 6 1 1

19 10 3 2 2

29 3 1 2

15 8 8 2 1

24 6 3

7.3

6 8 8 8

7.2 6.7 7.1 6.4

6 4 1 -

3 5 1 -

5 2 -

3 2 -

9 8 3 -

3 7 -

10 12 -

13 16 1 -

1 14 1

2 7 -

2 17 -

4 6 -

1.2

5 3 3 3 9 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 5 5 3

5.6 3.9 6.2 5.4 7.5 4.7 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.1

1 2 -

1 -

1 1

1 1 -

1 1 3 -

1 1 1 6 -

1 1 4 1

1 1 1 4 1 4 1 -

2 1 1 1 1 15 6 1 4

8 1 1 8 1 1

5 1 1 3 16 1 2 1

10 3 8 3 1 -

6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

6 13 -

1 2 4 -

1 21 9 -

1 1 5 3 7 -

1 1 5 1 -

1 2 5 1 -

1 2 4 4 1 -

1 2 1 1 -

1 1 2 1 2 8 1 1

10 4 1 4 1 -

1 3 1 2 2 2 3 15 1 1 -

1 1 10 4 6 2 5 2 -

5 3 5 5 5 1 3 6

0.7 1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

1 1 -

1 -

1 1

1 2 -

1 -

1 1 -

1 -

3 3 4 3 3

2.4 0.1 2.1 1.8 1.6

1 -

2 -

1 -

100.0 20 0 245 137 129 7.98 6.89 55.00 84.49

100.0 19 0 198 147 150 8.13 6.87 73.68 90.91

66.7 19 0 201 151 152 8.17 6.88 73.68 90.05

100.0 24 0 247 144 139 7.83 6.85 70.83 91.90

50.0 24 2 211 144 144 7.63 6.44 62.50 84.83

62.5 22 1 209 148 147 7.78 6.94 68.18 85.17

30.0 27 2 216 127 134 7.24 6.24 62.96 81.48

90.0 28 1 216 131 141 7.10 6.21 53.57 72.69

30.0 34 7 239 135 138 7.22 6.32 58.82 79.08

25.0 25 1 225 123 130 7.30 6.59 56.00 82.67

50.0 35 4 230 129 134 7.22 6.33 60.00 75.22

75.0 26 1 219 131 137 7.26 6.75 65.38 81.74

Stoneflies Acroperla Austroperla Megaleptoperla Spaniocerca Stenoperla Taraperla Zelandobius Zelandoperla Dobsonflies Archichauliodes Beetles Elmidae Hydraenidae Ptilodactylidae Scirtidae Damselflies & Dragonflies Xanthocnemis True Flies Aphrophila Austrosimulium Ceratopogonidae Empididae Eriopterini Harrisius Hexatomini Maoridiamesa Mischoderus Molophilus Orthocladiinae Paradixa Paucispinigera Polypedilum Psychodidae Stictocladius Stratiomyidae Tanypodinae Tanytarsus Caddisflies Alloecentrella Beraeoptera Costachorema Helicopsyche Hydrobiosella Hydrobiosis Hydrochorema Hydropsyche - Aoteapsyche Hydropsyche - Orthopsyche Neurochorema Olinga Oxyethira Polyplectropus Psilochorema Pycnocentrella Pycnocentria Pycnocentrodes Triplectides Zelolessica Crustacea Cladocera Ostracoda Paranephrops Talitridae Mites Worms Flatworms Springtails Snails Ferrissia Physa Potamopyrgus Proboscis worms Coelenterates Percentage Counted Number of taxa Number of rare taxa Number of individuals MCI MCI-sb QMCI QMCI-sb %EPT richness (excl. Hydroptilidae) %EPT abundance (excl. Hydroptilidae)

9 8 7 10 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 2 8 8 9 7 5 5 10

4.2 6.5 4.5

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.9 1.2 8.1 7.8

Samples processed by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Mandy Bryant, & Liam Holland (Stark Environmental Ltd) Data entry and index calculation by John Stark Data entry check by John & Yvonne Stark

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Arachnocolus Austroclima Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

Site 4 Site 4 Site 4 Site 4 Site 5 Site 5 Site 5 Site 5 Site 6 Site 6 Site 6 Site 6 a b c d a b c d a b c d 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18

MCI score

MCI-sb score

7 10 8 9 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 8.1 6.5 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

27 1 17 3

40 2 4 1

10 4 -

20 6 -

7 39 -

48 -

56 -

2 47 -

1 8 34 59 3 2

15 85 57 3 3

4 12 112 1 1 1 2

11 82 1 14

5 9 9 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

41 1 3

11 1 1

6 -

24 2 -

3 1 -

1 -

2 -

1 1 1 2

3 2 1 7 3

2 3 2 2 1

2 3 1

7.3

6 8 8 8

7.2 6.7 7.1 6.4

15 -

59 1 -

16 -

110 1 -

1 -

1 3 -

11 -

4 -

1.2

5 3 3 3 9 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 5 5 3

5.6 3.9 6.2 5.4 7.5 4.7 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.1

14 9 42 1 -

12 2 1 77 -

6 3 92 1 -

16 10 100 1 1

2 3 30 3

2 1 22 2

10 1

1 10 2

2 1 2

4 2 -

1 -

6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

3 10 -

3 1 1 3 1 1

1 2 2 1 -

1 1 6 2 -

1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 -

1 2 1 4 -

2 1 2 -

1 4 2 1 1 -

2 4 3 -

2 1 9 1 1 -

3 6 -

1 2 -

5 3 5 5 5 1 3 6

0.7 1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

9 8 2

2 1

1 8 -

1 1 -

65 3 -

1 56 5 3

11 5 -

2 21 3 1

1 1 1 1 -

2 1 -

3 3 4 3 3

2.4 0.1 2.1 1.8 1.6

7 -

30 -

11 -

10 -

27 1 -

23 -

11 2 -

9 -

11 -

22 -

48 -

11 -

100.0 19 0 206 111 110 4.99 4.82 42.11 46.60

70.0 21 1 211 116 118 4.75 4.51 57.14 31.75

100.0 15 0 163 103 109 3.71 4.16 40.00 14.72

80.0 17 0 205 93 102 3.94 4.24 41.18 29.27

70.0 21 0 215 109 107 3.98 4.32 57.14 30.70

75.0 17 1 232 102 103 4.51 4.88 29.41 24.14

100.0 12 0 118 88 88 5.73 4.85 41.67 52.54

100.0 19 0 227 108 105 5.66 5.98 42.11 26.43

100.0 22 0 142 127 127 7.71 6.23 59.09 85.21

100.0 21 0 226 147 142 7.84 6.60 71.43 85.40

100.0 18 0 214 152 144 7.18 5.30 77.78 71.03

100.0 15 0 137 129 128 7.44 5.98 60.00 85.40

9 8 7 10 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 2 8 8 9 7 5 5 10

4.2 6.5 4.5

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.9 1.2 8.1 7.8

Samples processed by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Mandy Bryant, & Liam Holland (Stark Environmental Ltd) Data entry and index calculation by John Stark Data entry check by John & Yvonne Stark

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Arachnocolus Austroclima Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

Site 7 Site 7 Site 7 Site 7 Site 8 Site 8 Site 8 Site 8 Site 9 Site 9 Site 9 Site 9 a b c d a b c d a b c d 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18

MCI score

MCI-sb score

7 10 8 9 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 8.1 6.5 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

1 -

2 1 1 -

2 4 -

4 3 -

12 2 56 1

4 1 65 -

1 2 70 -

1 3 98 -

1 17 105 11

1 1 7 84 3

1 19 102 2 1 17

1 2 17 85 3

5 9 9 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

21 1

32 -

52 -

38 -

8 -

29 -

41 -

50 -

1 1 11 1

1 2 3 -

16 3 5

1 1 23 6

7.3

6 8 8 8

7.2 6.7 7.1 6.4

1 -

1 1 -

1 6 -

3 3 1 -

1 2 -

6 7 -

9 -

15 1 2 -

16 5 -

16 3 -

1.2

5 3 3 3 9 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 5 5 3

5.6 3.9 6.2 5.4 7.5 4.7 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.1

1 1 2 3 1

8 2 3 1 2

1 4 13 5 9

2 6 3 12 5

1 1 2 2

3 3 1 1 2 2 -

2 1 3 4 2 -

3 1 1 2 2

1 3 2 2 3

1 1 1 4 2

2 1 1 3 11

1 3 4 1

6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

1 1 -

1 3 -

1 1 11 -

1 5 -

2 -

1 3 -

2 -

1 1 1 -

6 1 22 1 -

4 14 -

8 1 2 27 -

9 1 1 24 -

5 3 5 5 5 1 3 6

0.7 1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

1 1 7 1

1 -

7 1 6

1 3 5

2 2

2 -

1 1 -

2 -

1 1 -

2 1 -

3 3 4 3 3

2.4 0.1 2.1 1.8 1.6

16 150 -

9 78 -

6 1 90 -

3 83 1 -

1 12 1 -

5 -

7 1 -

1 -

15.0 18 5 214 88 92 4.06 2.72 22.22 11.21

100.0 17 0 152 105 110 4.34 3.49 35.29 26.32

50.0 15 0 202 91 87 4.11 3.40 33.33 29.70

100.0 17 0 181 88 79 4.23 3.24 23.53 25.41

100.0 19 0 124 103 105 6.79 5.37 31.58 65.32

100.0 19 0 145 108 115 6.59 5.59 31.58 71.03

100.0 16 0 149 95 108 6.31 5.41 31.25 77.85

100.0 16 0 188 104 115 6.80 5.68 37.50 81.91

75.0 21 4 201 133 138 7.63 6.47 57.14 88.56

100.0 20 0 151 129 143 7.46 6.35 50.00 79.47

70.0 23 2 246 135 139 7.52 6.54 56.52 82.93

100.0 22 0 207 129 138 7.49 6.70 59.09 84.06

9 8 7 10 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 2 8 8 9 7 5 5 10

4.2 6.5 4.5

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.9 1.2 8.1 7.8

Samples processed by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Mandy Bryant, & Liam Holland (Stark Environmental Ltd) Data entry and index calculation by John Stark Data entry check by John & Yvonne Stark

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Arachnocolus Austroclima Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

Site 10 Site 10 Site 10 Site 10 Site 11 Site 11 Site 11 Site 11 Site 12 Site 12 Site 12 Site 12 a b c d a b c d a b c d 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 28-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18

MCI score

MCI-sb score

7 10 8 9 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 8.1 6.5 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

30 69 80 4 13

6 71 50 1 1 2

9 62 34 2

8 103 30 6

7 21 41 1 2

16 44 81 1 9

9 15 58 3 3

12 25 93 2

28 12 55 13 12

13 41 69 1 1 15 1

11 38 59 11 -

18 9 54 13 2

5 9 9 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

12 2 1 1 8 8

3 2 1 15

3 1 11

1 1 2 15 3

1 6 8 6

2 1 15 26

21 6 16 7

1 2 6 6

9 4 1 2

3 1 2 1 7

12 2 10 3

4 1 2 3 2

7.3

6 8 8 8

7.2 6.7 7.1 6.4

21 1 -

13 1 -

6 2 1 -

12 1 -

4 1 2 -

16 4 -

9 1 18 -

4 1 -

6 8 -

23 1 2 -

2 3 -

12 14 3 6

1.2

5 3 3 3 9 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 5 5 3

5.6 3.9 6.2 5.4 7.5 4.7 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.1

1 1 2 5

1 4 1 3

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 3 -

16 5

1 1 2 4 14 3

1 1 1 6 11 1 8

1 1 29

1 -

1 1 11 -

4 1 2 1 1

1 3 1 2 -

6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

6 4 1 1 25 2

1 1 1 28 -

3 46 1

27 -

22 1 -

1 1 3 35 2 2

1 2 41 -

2 15 1

1 1 42 2 2 1 16

1 17 1 1 2 1 8

1 18 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 14

45 1 1 1 3 1 1

5 3 5 5 5 1 3 6

0.7 1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

12 1 -

1 2 -

2 -

1 -

1 2 -

1 -

1 1 -

2 1 -

1 1

1 1 -

1 1 1 -

3 3 4 3 3

2.4 0.1 2.1 1.8 1.6

4 -

11 -

2 -

1 -

2 -

75.0 26 2 315 137 135 7.83 6.84 65.38 84.76

40.0 22 6 209 134 141 8.21 7.22 63.64 87.56

100.0 18 0 197 141 130 8.30 6.99 55.56 87.31

60.0 18 0 217 128 139 8.14 7.48 55.56 90.32

100.0 18 0 147 139 140 7.37 6.90 61.11 78.91

100.0 25 0 287 130 135 7.68 7.00 60.00 83.28

75.0 22 0 239 133 140 7.22 6.73 54.55 76.15

60.0 18 2 203 129 127 7.35 6.18 61.11 81.28

75.0 22 1 221 137 129 8.38 6.94 72.73 90.95

62.5 29 4 231 144 139 7.97 7.01 65.52 80.52

50.0 28 1 208 136 125 8.01 6.73 64.29 91.83

40.0 29 7 208 137 136 8.18 6.98 58.62 77.40

9 8 7 10 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 2 8 8 9 7 5 5 10

4.2 6.5 4.5

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.9 1.2 8.1 7.8

Samples processed by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Mandy Bryant, & Liam Holland (Stark Environmental Ltd) Data entry and index calculation by John Stark Data entry check by John & Yvonne Stark

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Arachnocolus Austroclima Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

Site 13 Site 13 Site 13 Site 13 Site 15 Site 15 Site 15 Site 15 a b c d a b c d 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 27-Aug-18

MCI score

MCI-sb score

7 10 8 9 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 8.1 6.5 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

2 5 122 -

4 2 99 5 1

2 3 103 -

7 5 146 1 -

1 1 12 29

13 40 32

3 3 4 20

2 2 9 18

5 9 9 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

1 -

4 4

1 1 2

1 1 1 1 36 -

1 3 15 3

1 1 21 -

1 1 8 -

7.3

6 8 8 8

7.2 6.7 7.1 6.4

5 6 -

10 -

15 1 -

14 1 -

2 -

4 1 -

3 8 10 -

1 9 -

1.2

5 3 3 3 9 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 1 2 5 5 3

5.6 3.9 6.2 5.4 7.5 4.7 6.7 4.9 5.9 6.3 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.0 6.1

2 1 1

1 5 3

2 1 3 8 2

1 2 1 3

1 2 7 1 52 1 55

6 1 10 33

1 1 1 2 22 12 3

1 2 1 2 18 1 4 1 116

6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

1 1 2 5 1 3 -

2 5 1 1 3 1 26 -

1 1 2 4 8 -

1 5 3 1 1 1 1 7 -

9 1 1 3 1 1

4 2 1 28 -

8 1 16 1

1 1 1 10 1 -

5 3 5 5 5 1 3 6

0.7 1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

1 -

10 1 1

1 1 -

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 -

1 1 1 1

1 -

1 1 1 3 1

3 3 4 3 3

2.4 0.1 2.1 1.8 1.6

1 2 -

11 -

4 1 -

8 -

7 1

6 -

17 -

2 -

100.0 18 0 162 111 110 7.62 5.74 55.56 88.27

100.0 22 0 200 124 119 6.81 5.41 63.64 79.00

100.0 19 0 163 109 105 6.98 5.52 42.11 76.07

50.0 27 6 219 119 121 7.31 5.68 55.56 83.56

25.0 28 5 231 128 129 4.73 6.58 53.57 42.86

100.0 22 0 207 121 127 6.38 6.49 50.00 68.60

100.0 23 0 160 125 129 5.83 6.81 47.83 49.38

30.0 29 5 220 119 128 4.42 5.73 41.38 25.00

9 8 7 10 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 2 8 8 9 7 5 5 10

4.2 6.5 4.5

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 7.9 1.2 8.1 7.8

Samples processed by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Mandy Bryant, & Liam Holland (Stark Environmental Ltd) Data entry and index calculation by John Stark Data entry check by John & Yvonne Stark

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Austroclima Austronella Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

MCI score

MCI-sb score

Site 1 a 16-Jan-19

Site 1 b 16-Jan-19

Site 1 c 16-Jan-19

Site 1 d 16-Jan-19

Site 2 a 16-Jan-19

Site 2 b 16-Jan-19

Site 2 c 16-Jan-19

Site 2 d 16-Jan-19

Site 3 a 16-Jan-19

Site 3 b 16-Jan-19

Site 3 c 16-Jan-19

Site 3 d 16-Jan-19

7 10 9 7 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 6.5 4.7 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

4 19 56 7 6 16

3 62 41 4 27

1 4 48 41 6 4 10

17 61 28 1 21

1 3 1 32 77 1 8

5 6 90 1 3 8

1 3 8 93 1 2 8

2 23 54 1 5 15

12 5 77 3 15

21 7 50 3 1 20

34 23 28 1 3 48

19 7 45 1 19

5 9 9 5 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 5.7 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

4 1 -

16 1

13 2 1

2 26 2

7 1 10

1 4 3 5

5 2 5

4 1 12

1 2 20

2 1 1 29

9 17

7 20

Stoneflies Acroperla Austroperla Megaleptoperla Nesoperla Spaniocerca Stenoperla Taraperla Zelandobius Zelandoperla Dobsonflies Archichauliodes Beetles Berosus Elmidae Hydraenidae Hydrophilidae Ptilodactylidae Scirtidae Staphylinidae Water Bugs Anisops Microvelia True Flies Aphrophila Austrosimulium Ceratopogonidae Dolichopodidae Empididae Ephydridae Eriopterini Hexatomini Limonia Lobodiamesa Maoridiamesa Molophilus Muscidae Neocurupira Nothodixa Orthocladiinae Paradixa Polypedilum Psychodidae Stictocladius Tanypodinae Tanytarsus Thaumaleidae Zelandotipula Caddisflies Beraeoptera Costachorema Helicopsyche Hudsonema Hydrobiosella Hydrobiosis Hydrochorema Hydropsyche - Aoteapsyche Hydropsyche - Orthopsyche Neurochorema Oeconesus Olinga Oxyethira Plectrocnemia Psilochorema Pycnocentria Pycnocentrodes Triplectides Zelolessica Crustacea Ostracoda Paranephrops Talitridae Mites Worms Flatworms Springtails Snails Ferrissia Latia Lymnaeidae Physa Potamopyrgus Sphaeriidae Proboscis worms Percentage Counted Number of taxa Number of rare taxa Number of individuals MCI MCI-sb QMCI QMCI-sb %EPT richness (excl. Hydroptilidae) %EPT abundance (excl. Hydroptilidae)

7.3

5 6 8 5 8 8 5

7.2 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.2

10 10 1 1

2 11 2 1

8 6 2 -

3 3 -

1 15 1 -

16 17 3 -

11 21 1 -

6 18 -

8 8 -

5 14 1 -

5 1 -

7 20 1

5 5

2.2 4.6

5 3 3 3 3 4 9 5 6 5 3 5 3 7 5 2 4 3 1 2 5 3 9 6

5.6 3.9 6.2 8.6 5.4 1.4 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.7 4.9 6.3 1.6

2 2 2 3 -

4 1 1 3 1 2 -

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

1 1 4 1 1 3 -

1 1 1 1 1 1 -

1 2 1 3 8 1 4 -

1 1 12 1 1 2 3 -

4 13 5 1 1 1 -

7 1 7 1 5 -

3 1 3 2 -

5 1 1 -

4 1 1 1 2 7 2 -

8 7 10 6 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 9 2 8 8 7 5 5 10

7.0 7.2 8.6 6.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.4 7.9 1.2 6.6 7.8 6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

3 6 4 7 1 1 -

7 3 3 -

1 2 1 19 -

1 12 2 9 2 1

2 2 14 1 1 -

1 3 2 -

6 1 5 4 3 -

1 4 5 10 1 1 1 -

1 1 9 9 8 1 1 -

1 1 6 12 10 1 1

1 1 5 16 4 1

1 1 3 3 2 8 16 2 -

3 5 5 5 1 3 6

1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

5 1 -

1 1 2 -

1 1 2 1

1 1 2 -

1 1 -

2 4 -

1 2 1

1 1 1 -

1 -

2 2 1 -

1 2 -

1 -

3 3 3 3 4 3 3

2.4 6.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.8

2 -

1 -

10 -

5 -

11 -

4 -

1 -

1 6 -

4 -

80.0 26 1 210 129 132 7.35 6.88 53.85 64.29

30.0 25 4 211 126 128 7.82 7.25 40.00 79.15

20.0 30 4 214 127 131 7.87 7.20 46.67 71.50

30.0 27 5 216 122 122 8.00 7.27 51.85 85.65

30.0 28 4 211 132 134 7.87 6.62 53.57 76.30

40.0 27 1 207 124 131 7.12 6.30 48.15 63.77

15.6 30 4 218 131 134 7.30 6.23 50.00 67.43

15.0 29 3 212 131 133 7.17 6.51 55.17 66.04

20.0 25 3 209 136 132 7.52 6.52 60.00 78.95

15.0 29 6 212 138 132 7.94 7.01 58.62 78.77

30.0 24 5 218 137 133 7.89 7.29 58.33 87.61

20.0 28 3 212 126 131 7.70 6.98 53.57 72.64

9.3 3.2 8.5 8.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 8.8 3.6

Samples sorted by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Karen Trethowen & Liam Holland Taxa without MCI-sb values have been omitted from MCI-sb and QMCI-sb acalculations

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Austroclima Austronella Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

MCI score

MCI-sb score

Site 4 a 15-Jan-19

Site 4 b 15-Jan-19

Site 4 c 15-Jan-19

Site 4 d 15-Jan-19

Site 5 a 17-Jan-19

Site 5 b 17-Jan-19

Site 5 c 17-Jan-19

Site 5 d 17-Jan-19

Site 6 a 17-Jan-19

Site 6 b 17-Jan-19

Site 6 c 17-Jan-19

Site 6 d 17-Jan-19

7 10 9 7 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 6.5 4.7 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

57 32 2

33 1 27 2

37 22 1

40 22 1 -

3 5 -

8 31 -

1 17 -

4 1 10 1

20 49 36 14

22 41 49 2 14

35 48 66 1 4

20 48 46 1 15

5 9 9 5 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 5.7 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

2 1

1 1

1 -

1 1

4 2 4

1 3 6

2 1 1 11

2 1 7

7.3

5 6 8 5 8 8 5

7.2 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.2

1 4 -

1 -

2 1

1 -

20 1 -

17 1 -

25 1 -

1 18 1 -

1 5 -

1 -

1 3 -

2 1 -

5 5

2.2 4.6

1 -

5 3 3 3 3 4 9 5 6 5 3 5 3 7 5 2 4 3 1 2 5 3 9 6

5.6 3.9 6.2 8.6 5.4 1.4 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.7 4.9 6.3 1.6

11 20 33 -

12 25 41 1 4 1 -

8 12 25 1 -

9 39 30 1 -

1 43 1 -

4 1 1 1 13 2 -

1 1 1 1 1 48 2 -

2 1 2 1 50 1 3 -

1 2 7 25 -

1 19 6 1 2 1

1 5 1 7 2 -

1 1 4 1 1 -

8 7 10 6 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 9 2 8 8 7 5 5 10

7.0 7.2 8.6 6.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.4 7.9 1.2 6.6 7.8 6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

3 2 1 10 1 -

1 5 1 13 -

3 3 23 2 -

5 4 32 1 -

1 1 1 2 1 1 14 -

1 2 2 5 1 1 19 -

1 4 3 1 1 2 9 -

2 1 3 6 1 1 21 -

4 1 18 -

1 13 1 19 -

1 11 1 12 1 1 -

1 19 4 1 14 1 -

3 5 5 5 1 3 6

1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

3 -

1 5 -

1 1 5 5 -

1 2 6 -

4 1 -

1 13 1 -

6 1 -

1 1 2 1

1 -

1 1

1 -

1 2 2 -

3 3 3 3 4 3 3

2.4 6.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.8

13 -

26 -

1 43 -

12 -

1 114 -

1 102 1

88 2

1 84 1

12 -

16 -

18 -

45.0 19 1 211 122 117 5.97 5.11 47.37 47.87

45.0 21 1 211 112 119 4.94 4.52 42.86 34.12

50.0 20 0 201 99 106 5.00 4.16 30.00 33.83

30.0 18 0 212 111 112 4.82 4.34 38.89 34.91

5.0 19 4 216 106 104 4.06 3.29 47.37 13.43

10.0 24 6 231 98 94 4.68 3.67 33.33 28.14

10.0 23 6 220 99 102 4.20 3.74 34.78 17.27

12.5 31 11 226 111 112 4.28 3.77 41.94 23.45

60.0 18 2 206 129 133 7.28 6.89 55.56 73.79

35.0 23 4 222 127 127 7.35 6.39 52.17 77.48

40.0 25 6 234 136 140 7.88 6.55 60.00 83.76

40.0 26 7 216 128 128 7.75 6.60 53.85 83.33

9.3 3.2 8.5 8.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 8.8 3.6

Samples sorted by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Karen Trethowen & Liam Holland Taxa without MCI-sb values have been omitted from MCI-sb and QMCI-sb acalculations

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Austroclima Austronella Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

MCI score

MCI-sb score

Site 7 a 17-Jan-19

Site 7 b 17-Jan-19

Site 7 c 17-Jan-19

Site 7 d 17-Jan-19

Site 8 a 17-Jan-19

Site 8 b 17-Jan-19

Site 8 c 17-Jan-19

Site 8 d 17-Jan-19

Site 9 a 17-Jan-19

Site 9 b 17-Jan-19

Site 9 c 17-Jan-19

Site 9 d 17-Jan-19

7 10 9 7 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 6.5 4.7 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

1 -

1 2 -

1 1 -

4 3 42 2

7 5 91 1

7 1 77 -

4 5 101 1 3

2 19 63 6 17

1 1 5 17 54 10 20

2 2 18 33 1 11 16

1 13 43 1 3 19

5 9 9 5 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 5.7 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

1 1 -

2 2

2 -

3 1 1 -

1 2 4 1 -

1 1 3 -

1 1 3 1

7.3

5 6 8 5 8 8 5

7.2 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.2

3 2 -

4 6 -

5 4 -

3 2 -

8 11 -

11 21 1

18 22 1

19 21 1

8 1 1 -

15 4 3 -

12 1 1 1 -

5 5 -

5 5

2.2 4.6

5 3 3 3 3 4 9 5 6 5 3 5 3 7 5 2 4 3 1 2 5 3 9 6

5.6 3.9 6.2 8.6 5.4 1.4 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.7 4.9 6.3 1.6

5 1 1 4 5 9 3 -

1 2 2 18 1 19 6 5 -

1 3 1 1 1 1 -

3 1 3 1 1 2 6 -

11 1 6 5 1 2 2 -

11 3 2 1 -

14 2 9 7 1 -

10 1 1 3 -

1 1 6 1 12 -

1 2 7 3 1 8 -

1 2 2 1 4 2 8 1 -

1 1 17 18 30 -

8 7 10 6 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 9 2 8 8 7 5 5 10

7.0 7.2 8.6 6.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.4 7.9 1.2 6.6 7.8 6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

1 1 15 5 1 -

1 9 47 1 1 3 -

1 34 2 1 -

4 48 1 3 2 -

34 1 1 -

17 -

22 -

29 1 1 -

1 17 6 38 1 -

1 7 6 1 39 -

4 6 1 63 1 -

12 1 1 29 2 -

3 5 5 5 1 3 6

1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

2 5 -

2 6 -

3 4 -

5 -

5 1 1 -

6 1 -

4 1 3 -

4 7 -

1 1 -

1 3 1 1

3 2 -

1 1 2 1 1 -

3 3 3 3 4 3 3

2.4 6.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.8

27 154 1

5 155 3

14 1 2 193 3

14 1 154 1 1

53 1 1

29 1

2 40 -

20 -

1 -

2 -

100.0 23 0 252 97 104 3.96 3.06 26.09 9.13

50.0 24 4 303 90 96 3.95 3.58 29.17 21.45

37.5 23 5 283 91 94 4.06 2.97 26.09 14.13

25.0 24 3 265 95 95 4.10 3.42 29.17 23.02

50.0 26 3 206 101 109 5.32 4.87 34.62 43.20

100.0 19 0 223 105 111 6.43 5.38 36.84 56.05

50.0 19 2 241 101 107 5.91 5.17 26.32 44.81

100.0 20 0 246 108 114 6.41 5.56 45.00 59.76

50.0 25 6 210 132 142 7.59 6.78 52.00 83.33

75.0 30 3 221 128 138 7.46 7.00 53.33 76.92

50.0 31 2 208 137 140 7.70 7.09 48.39 78.37

37.5 29 3 217 129 134 6.40 6.46 51.72 60.37

9.3 3.2 8.5 8.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 8.8 3.6

Samples sorted by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Karen Trethowen & Liam Holland Taxa without MCI-sb values have been omitted from MCI-sb and QMCI-sb acalculations

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Austroclima Austronella Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

MCI score

MCI-sb score

Site 10 a 17-Jan-19

Site 10 b 17-Jan-19

Site 10 c 17-Jan-19

Site 10 Site 11 d a 17-Jan-19 15-Jan-19

Site 11 b 15-Jan-19

Site 11 c 15-Jan-19

7 10 9 7 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 6.5 4.7 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

12 35 13 2 33

1 5 55 21 1 26

3 47 28 3 21

2 1 2 43 25 1 1 1 43

5 9 9 5 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 5.7 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

1 3 1 1

1 1 1

3 -

Site 11 Site 12 d a 15-Jan-19 15-Jan-19

Site 12 b 15-Jan-19

Site 12 c 15-Jan-19

Site 12 d 15-Jan-19

2 32 18 1 39

13 37 25 1 26

17 48 38 5 43

1 14 64 20 1 23

1 1 23 45 64 4 4 23

26 58 58 28 4

21 70 64 14 13

48 22 64 30 10

2 1 2 1 3 2

1 1 2 1 21 1

3 1 1 8 1

1 6 1

1 4 3 6

3 1 1 3 2

1 3 2

4 1 1 5 3

2 1 2 -

7.3

5 6 8 5 8 8 5

7.2 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.2

9 1 1 -

8 1

16 1 -

20 1 1 -

2 3 1 5 1

11 1 2 -

4 4 4 -

2 3 1 -

4 3 1 -

2 8 -

11 7 1 -

17 14 1 -

5 5

2.2 4.6

5 3 3 3 3 4 9 5 6 5 3 5 3 7 5 2 4 3 1 2 5 3 9 6

5.6 3.9 6.2 8.6 5.4 1.4 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.7 4.9 6.3 1.6

1 1 17 25 1 -

1 1 1 1 3 7 6 -

3 4 -

1 8 5 2 2 -

5 2 1 10 13 1 31 -

1 1 6 14 2 28 -

1 2 1 1 1 1 7 8 1 1 15 -

2 10 4 15 -

1 1 1 1 3 1 -

1 2 1 -

1 1 2 2 -

1 1 2 6 1 -

8 7 10 6 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 9 2 8 8 7 5 5 10

7.0 7.2 8.6 6.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.4 7.9 1.2 6.6 7.8 6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

4 8 1 26 -

1 7 6 49 4 -

1 7 6 1 53 2 -

4 1 26 3 -

1 1 1 10 2 -

1 4 1 25 2 -

2 4 4 3 21 3

1 1 2 24 1 2 1

1 8 4 2 1 2 1 2

1 3 1 2 2 1 2

1 7 2 4 3 1 1

9 1 3 2 2 2

3 5 5 5 1 3 6

1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

1 5 3 1 -

1 5 1 -

6 1 1

1 4 2 2 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 -

1 1 -

2 1 2

1 1 1

2 -

1 1 -

1 2 -

3 3 3 3 4 3 3

2.4 6.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.8

1 -

2 -

3 -

2 -

1 -

2 -

1 -

2 -

1 1 -

50.0 27 0 208 127 136 6.71 7.20 48.15 67.31

37.5 28 1 220 131 134 7.69 7.32 50.00 81.36

62.5 21 2 211 141 135 7.89 7.29 57.14 82.94

30.0 35 8 219 129 134 7.26 7.30 54.29 74.89

37.5 35 4 216 127 131 6.25 6.92 45.71 62.04

50.0 26 3 217 129 140 6.72 6.96 57.69 68.66

100.0 31 0 252 123 133 7.23 7.06 45.16 77.78

50.0 28 2 211 135 133 7.49 7.09 60.71 80.09

40.0 33 3 216 139 142 8.02 7.03 63.64 90.74

50.0 23 5 209 136 131 8.33 7.04 65.22 91.87

62.5 27 2 244 143 136 8.14 7.11 62.96 88.11

75.0 26 1 246 138 130 8.01 6.80 53.85 80.49

9.3 3.2 8.5 8.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 8.8 3.6

Samples sorted by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Karen Trethowen & Liam Holland Taxa without MCI-sb values have been omitted from MCI-sb and QMCI-sb acalculations

1006301 P2 rare taxa Mayflies Acanthophlebia Ameletopsis Austroclima Austronella Coloburiscus Deleatidium Ichthybotus Neozephlebia Nesameletus Zephlebia

MCI score

MCI-sb score

Site 13 a 15-Jan-19

Site 13 b 15-Jan-19

Site 13 c 15-Jan-19

Site 13 Site 14 Site 14 Site 14 Site 14 Site 15 d a b c d a 15-Jan-19 16-Jan-19 16-Jan-19 16-Jan-19 16-Jan-19 15-Jan-19

Site 15 b 15-Jan-19

Site 15 c 15-Jan-19

Site 15 d 15-Jan-19

7 10 9 7 9 8 8 7 9 7

9.6 10.0 6.5 4.7 8.1 5.6 9.2 7.6 8.6 8.8

27 8 25 1 4

2 2 81 1 -

1 2 5 46 1 -

9 4 45 -

36 35 7 5

41 1 21 2 5

30 2 44 1 3 5

30 1 20 1 2 10

4 3 12 38

2 7 27

1 6 2 45

1 1 2 12

5 9 9 5 8 10 7 5 10

5.1 8.4 7.3 5.7 8.8 9.1 8.3 7.4 8.9

1 -

1 22 -

1 3 8 -

1 1 1 16 -

1 1 3 10 -

7.3

5 6 8 5 8 8 5

7.2 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.2

34 5 -

43 5 -

50 4 -

56 21 -

31 3 1 -

21 1 1 -

35 5 1 -

61 3 1 -

1 2 -

2 1 1 1

8 1 -

1 5 3 -

5 5

2.2 4.6

5 3 3 3 3 4 9 5 6 5 3 5 3 7 5 2 4 3 1 2 5 3 9 6

5.6 3.9 6.2 8.6 5.4 1.4 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.7 4.9 6.3 1.6

2 2 1 1 5 16 -

4 3 1 2 14 1 -

1 1 1 4 8 2 1 -

4 1 1 1 6 17 1 -

1 1 1 1 1 -

1 4 1 -

1 3 -

1 3 1 13 1 -

1 1 1 15 11 53 -

1 2 10 11 1 1 106 -

1 2 1 1 5 19 49 -

2 1 3 5 14 119 -

8 7 10 6 9 5 9 4 9 6 9 9 2 8 8 7 5 5 10

7.0 7.2 8.6 6.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 6.0 6.4 7.9 1.2 6.6 7.8 6.8 3.8 5.7 6.5

3 41 1 4 1 -

9 26 1 1 4 -

1 4 42 1 1 1 9 -

2 26 1 1 2 3 -

7 1 1 21 1 1

3 1 24 1 1

2 1 2 21 1 1

2 1 9 1 1

14 5 2 9 -

8 4 1 13 1 3 -

11 4 25 1 -

6 1 1 18 1 1 -

3 5 5 5 1 3 6

1.9 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 0.9 5.3

1 -

1 1 1 -

1 2 3 -

1 1 -

1 -

1 1 2 2 -

2 1 -

1 3 1 -

1 7 3 1

1 3 1 1 1

2 1 3 1 1

1 1 3 1 1

3 3 3 3 4 3 3

2.4 6.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.8

23 -

4 -

16 -

9 -

47 -

1 109 -

1 63 -

38 -

1 -

2 -

3 -

17 -

100.0 22 0 223 120 122 6.01 5.89 50.00 55.16

75.0 23 2 221 110 112 6.36 5.97 43.48 63.35

30.0 27 3 228 115 120 5.88 5.91 48.15 53.95

100.0 23 0 239 115 115 6.37 6.19 43.48 47.28

20.0 22 4 208 127 125 6.49 5.59 45.45 55.29

20.0 24 5 250 123 120 5.62 4.51 45.83 40.40

15.0 22 4 230 130 128 6.17 5.26 54.55 49.13

15.0 24 5 208 119 119 6.00 5.66 41.67 37.02

50.0 23 2 208 123 128 5.34 6.36 43.48 52.88

30.0 29 7 224 123 125 4.75 5.84 41.38 34.82

40.0 27 3 212 119 133 5.63 6.81 44.44 53.77

25.0 29 5 236 125 127 4.49 5.46 48.28 25.00

9.3 3.2 8.5 8.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 8.8 3.6

Samples sorted by Yvonne Stark, John Stark, Karen Trethowen & Liam Holland Taxa without MCI-sb values have been omitted from MCI-sb and QMCI-sb acalculations

Appendix E - Adaptive Aquatic Ecology Management Response Plan

Appendix F - Environmental Incident Form

Environmental Incident Form Name of site area: Nature of incident: (circle)

Critical

(significant effects beyond boundary)

Serious

(significant effects within the site)

Minor

Person involved/witness: Describe incident:

Describe actions taken post incident: (Including any photos taken)

APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT FORM

pg. 1

Project Environmental Controls: Verify that the following actions or procedures were followed: Environmental information discussed (and documented) in works plans; Environmental Risk Register read and understood prior to starting works; Toolbox talks included site specific environmental topics/risks; Project induction included a description on project environmental procedures and controls; Training on environmental aspects was provided; and Regular site inspections are carried out and recorded. Prevention: (what actions will be taken to prevent recurrence) Action

By Whom

When

Have the environmental hazards been controlled (avoided, remedied or mitigated) and sent on to the Environmental Manager to update the environmental risk register?

Yes

Additional Information:

Incident Form completed by:

Date:

Project Manager signature:

Date:

Copy sent to: (circle)

Electrix Project Manager Electrix Project Leadership Team Electrix Project Coordinator Electrix Environmental Manager Mercury Project Manager

APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT FORM

Electrix Construction Manager Electrix Project Engineer Mercuryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Team Mercury Project Co-ordinator

pg. 2

Appendix G - Complaints Form

Complaint Form Name of site area: Complaint source: (circle)

Client

Electrix Project Team member

Resident

Regulatory Authority

Complainant’s name: Complainant’s address:

Complainant’s email and phone number:

Complaint received by:

Nature of complaint:

Wind and weather at the time:

Activity occurring on the site at the time:

Describe any remedial actions undertaken:

Details of whether the compliant was or was not able to be verified:

APPENDIX G: COMPLAINT FORM pg. 1

Prevention: (what actions will be taken to prevent recurrence) Action

By Whom

When

Have the environmental hazards been controlled (avoided, remedied or mitigated) and sent on to the Environmental Manager to update the environmental risk register?

Yes

Additional Information:

Complaint form completed by:

Date:

Project Manager signature:

Date:

Copy sent to: (circle)

Electrix Project Manager Electrix Project Leadership Team Electrix Project Coordinator Electrix Environmental Manager

Electrix Construction Manager Electrix Project Engineer Mercuryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Team Mercury Project Co-ordinator

Mercury Project Manager

APPENDIX G: COMPLAINT FORM pg. 2