EIA FINAL

1
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Proposed Development-
Kuratau
An Environmental Impact Assessment (Screening and Scoping)
RED CAP CONSULTANCY
A report to fulfil the requirements of Assignment Two for 188.763 (Advanced
Environmental Management)
Attn: John Holland & Bob Stewart

2
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Executive Summary
Using the information and resources provided by the client, Red Cap Consultancy has assessed the
proposed development of a subdivision and a marina located alongside the Kuratau River in the
township of Kuratau. It is the view of Red Cap Consultancy that a full environmental impact
assessment should be carried out.
The proposed development faces a number of challenges in gaining resource consents, including,
but not limited to, development in a significant natural area, liquefaction issues and sediment levels
in the Kuratau River and its mouth. It also faces challenges from various stakeholders, a number of
whom have been vocal on other proposed developments in the Kuratau Township.
Red Cap Consultancy has been limited in the assessment of the impacts of this proposal due to
external resource constraints. While the requirements and depth prescribed by the screening and
scoping elements of an environmental impact assessment has been performed, this has not been
exhaustive.
There are a range of alternative developments that could occur if this proposal proves unviable for
economic, ecological, or other reasons. These include an alternative to the marina; for example a
boat ramp, a smaller subdivision area, lower subdivision density, or an alternative subdivision site.
We recommend that a full environmental impact assessment also investigates the alternative
development options if the current proposal fails to gain approval.
For these reasons we believe the potential impacts of this proposal are significant and more
information and data collection is required to fully understand and mitigate these. Therefore a full
environmental impact assessment needs to be carried out for the development as proposed.

3
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................9
Consultants ...........................................................................................................................................10
Table of Figures.....................................................................................................................................12
Table of Tables......................................................................................................................................14
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................15
1.1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................15
1.2 EIA Assumptions and Limitations................................................................................................16
1.3 Proposed Changes of Development............................................................................................17
1.4 Summary of Potential Development Impacts.............................................................................19
2.0 Background .....................................................................................................................................24
2.1 Kuratau........................................................................................................................................24
2.1.1 Overall Description of Kuratau and Community Profile ......................................................24
2.1.2 Proposed Development Area...............................................................................................25
2.2 Description of Biophysical Location............................................................................................30
2.2.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................30
2.2.2 Kuratau River........................................................................................................................30
2.2.3 Lake Kuratau and Hydroelectricity Generation ...................................................................31
2.2.4 Land and Soils.......................................................................................................................32
2.2.4.1 Elevation .......................................................................................................................32
2.2.4.2 Soils ...............................................................................................................................32
2.2.4.3 Geology .........................................................................................................................32
2.2.5 Flora and Fauna....................................................................................................................33
2.2.6 Erosion in the Kuratau River Catchment and Sedimentation in Lake Taupō.......................34
2.3 Ecological and Natural Significance ............................................................................................35
3.0 Institutions and Policy.....................................................................................................................37
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................37
3.2 Central Government - National Policy ........................................................................................38
3.2.1 Need for Resource Consent .................................................................................................38
3.2.2 Subdivision .........................................................................................................................39
3.2.3 Potential Conditions for Subdivisions ..............................................................................40
3.2.3.1 Conditions Due to Ground Type.................................................................................40

4
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.2.3.2 Condition to Create Esplanade...................................................................................40
3.2.3.4 Condition to Provide Future Measurements................................................................41
3.3 Central Government - National Environmental Standards.........................................................42
3.3.1 Discharges of Foul Water and Solid Waste..........................................................................42
3.3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................42
3.3.3 Soil Contamination...............................................................................................................43
3.3.4 Utility Networks ...................................................................................................................44
3.3.4.1 Power Supplies..............................................................................................................44
3.3.4.2 Water Supplies..............................................................................................................44
3.4 Waikato Regional Council ...............................................................................................................45
3.4.1 Protecting Lake Taupō Strategies ........................................................................................45
3.4.2 Lake Taupō Catchment Policy..............................................................................................46
3.4.2.1 Tangata Whenua Values and Interests.........................................................................46
3.4.2.2 Identification of Lake Taupō as an Outstanding Water Body in the Waikato Region ..46
3.4.2.3 Phosphorus and Water Quality.....................................................................................47
3.4.3 Approaches to Resource Management Policy- (Land and Soil)...........................................47
3.4.4 Approaches to Resource Management Policy- (Water Management)................................48
3.4.4.1 Management of Water Resources................................................................................48
3.4.4.2 Water takes...................................................................................................................48
3.4.4.3 Discharges.....................................................................................................................49
3.4.4.4 Wetlands.......................................................................................................................49
3.4.4.5 Non Point Source Discharges........................................................................................49
3.4.5 Waikato Regional Council's Consents..................................................................................49
3.4.5.1 Land Use Consents........................................................................................................49
3.4.5.2 Water consents.............................................................................................................50
3.5 Taupō District Council.................................................................................................................51
3.5.1 Taupō District Plan...............................................................................................................52
3.5.2 Taupō District Plan: Objectives and Policies........................................................................52
3.5.2.1 Residential Development..............................................................................................52
3.5.2.2 Supporting Infrastructure .............................................................................................53
3.5.2.3 Suitability of New Residential Environment .................................................................54
3.5.2.4 Land Development........................................................................................................55
3.5.2.5 Landscape Value ...........................................................................................................56

5
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.5.2.6 Natural Values...............................................................................................................57
3.5.2.7 Activities on the Surface of Water................................................................................57
3.5.3 Taupō District Plan: Rules and Standards ............................................................................58
3.5.4 Growth Management Strategy (TD2050) ............................................................................58
3.5.4.1 Policies ..........................................................................................................................58
3.5.4.2 Relevant Areas of Document ........................................................................................59
3.5.5 Southern Settlements Structure Plan ..................................................................................59
3.5.6 District Policies.....................................................................................................................60
3.5.6.1 Code of Practice for Development of Land...................................................................60
3.5.6.2 Development Contribution Policy.................................................................................62
3.5.6.3 Tree and Vegetation Policy...........................................................................................62
3.5.7 Specific Subdivision Applications and Consents ..................................................................63
3.6 Stakeholders ...............................................................................................................................63
3.6.1 Department of Conservation (DOC).....................................................................................63
3.6.2 Waikato Regional Council ....................................................................................................64
3.6.3 Taupō District Council..........................................................................................................64
3.6.4 Fish and Game......................................................................................................................64
3.6.5 Iwi.........................................................................................................................................65
3.6.6 King Country Energy Limited................................................................................................65
3.6.7 Existing Landowners ............................................................................................................65
3.7 Leopold Matrix............................................................................................................................67
3.8 Assumptions and Limitations......................................................................................................70
3.9 Summary.....................................................................................................................................71
4.0 Aquatic and Foreshore Ecology ......................................................................................................73
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................73
4.2 Background (Aquatic)..................................................................................................................76
4.2.1 Conditions ............................................................................................................................76
4.2.2 Aquatic Vegetation ..............................................................................................................77
4.2.3 Invertebrates........................................................................................................................78
4.2.4 Fisheries ...............................................................................................................................79
4.2.5 Native Fish Species...............................................................................................................80
4.3 Assessment of impacts................................................................................................................81
4.3.1 Physical Conditions ..............................................................................................................81

6
188.763, 2013, EIA.
4.3.2 Aquatic Vegetation ..............................................................................................................81
4.3.3 Invertebrates........................................................................................................................82
4.3.4 Fisheries ...............................................................................................................................83
4.3.5 Native fish species................................................................................................................86
4.3.6 Leopold Matrix (Part1: Aquatic Ecology) .............................................................................88
4.4 Background (terrestrial)..............................................................................................................91
4.4.1 Vegetation............................................................................................................................91
4.4.2 Invertebrates........................................................................................................................92
4.4.3 Bird Species..........................................................................................................................94
4.4.4 Other Significant Species .....................................................................................................95
4.5 Assessment of impacts................................................................................................................96
4.5.1 Vegetation............................................................................................................................96
4.5.2 Invertebrates........................................................................................................................96
4.5.3 Birds .....................................................................................................................................97
4.5.4 Other Significant Species .....................................................................................................98
4.5.5 Leopold Matrix (Part 2: Terrestrial) .....................................................................................99
4.6 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................102
4.6.1 Continued Monitoring and Improvement of Current Studies ...........................................102
4.6.2 Replacement of Vegetation and Creation of Corridors Between Remnant Patches.........103
4.6.3 Wetland Development.......................................................................................................103
4.6.4 Native Bat Roosting Areas..................................................................................................104
4.6.5 Ongoing pest control..........................................................................................................104
4.6.6 Regulation of dredging times.............................................................................................104
4.6.7 Boat number and activity regulations................................................................................104
4.7 Assumptions and Limitations....................................................................................................106
4.8 Summary...................................................................................................................................108
5.0 Infrastructure................................................................................................................................109
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................109
5.2 Existing Infrastructure...............................................................................................................110
5.2.1 Road Networks...................................................................................................................110
5.2.2 Telecommunications. Electricity and Stormwater Drainage .............................................112
5.2.3 Waste Management ..........................................................................................................115
5.2.4 Residential, Commercial and Recreational Infrastructure.................................................116

7
188.763, 2013, EIA.
5.2.5 Marine Infrastructure and Dredging Schemes...................................................................118
5.2.6 Soil Profiles.........................................................................................................................120
5.3 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................125
5.4 Marina Proposal........................................................................................................................132
5.5 Impacts......................................................................................................................................134
5.5.1 Road Networks...................................................................................................................134
5.5.2 Stormwater Drainage.........................................................................................................134
5.5.3 Telecommunication and Electrical Systems.......................................................................135
5.5.4 Dredging Schemes (removal of substratum) .....................................................................135
5.5.6 Marine Infrastructure ........................................................................................................136
5.6 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................138
5.6.1 Road Networks...................................................................................................................138
5.6.2 Stormwater Drainage.........................................................................................................138
5.6.3 Telecommunication and Electricity Systems .....................................................................139
5.6.4 Dredging Schemes (removal of substratum) .....................................................................139
5.6.6 Marine Infrastructure ........................................................................................................140
5.7 Leopold Matrix..........................................................................................................................142
5.8 Assumptions and Limitations....................................................................................................147
5.8.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................147
5.8.2 Limitations..........................................................................................................................147
5.9 Summary...................................................................................................................................149
6.0 Longitudinal Study ....................................................................................................................150
6.1 Construction Phase...................................................................................................................150
6.2 Operational Phase.....................................................................................................................151
6.3 Proposed 10 years Monitoring Programme..............................................................................152
6.3.1 Water Quality.....................................................................................................................152
6.3.2 Native Species of Fauna and Flora.....................................................................................152
6.3.3 Sediment Load ...................................................................................................................153
6.3.4 Wetland..............................................................................................................................155

8
188.763, 2013, EIA.
6.3.5 Wastewater........................................................................................................................156
6.3.6 Health and Safety...............................................................................................................156
7.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................157
References ..........................................................................................................................................159
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................165
Appendix 1: Proposed Southern Structure Plan- Kuratau Growth Area.........................................165
Appendix 2: Geology Map...............................................................................................................166
Appendix 3: Taupō District Plan Criteria for Significant Natural Area Identification in the Taupō
District 19 November 2010............................................................................................................167
Appendix 4: Application form for resource consent.......................................................................169
Appendix 5: Application Form for a Notice to Environment Court of appeal or inquiry on decision
or recommendation on application concerning restricted coastal activity, resource consent, water
permit, certificate of compliance, or esplanade strip.....................................................................172
Appendix 6: Example of Resource Consent Submission Form........................................................175
Appendix 7: Code of Compliance Certificate ..................................................................................177
Appendix 8: Building Consent Application......................................................................................179
Appendix 9: Aquatic Conditions and Invertebrate Communities...................................................182
Appendix 10: Bird Survey................................................................................................................184
Appendix 11: List of Plant Species Identified Within Potential Subdivision Area...........................185
Appendix 12: Pitfall and Intercept Traps ........................................................................................186
Appendix 13: Raw and Processed Data from Sonar Profiles of the Lake Taupō Lakebed..............187

9
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Acknowledgements
We would like to the following for their invaluable support and assistance in this project, without
them this project would not have been possible.
 Kevin Judd from Kevin O’Connor and Associates, for his assistance in the understanding of and
design of the subdivision and its requirements,
 Jerraldine Teng,
 Private Landowners,
 John Holland,
 Bob Stewart,
 Dr. Michel Dedual, fisheries scientist from Department of Conservation,
 Scott Devonport, Team Leader Development Liaison from the Taupō District Council.

10
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Consultants
This environmental impact assessment has been carried out by Red Cap Consultancy. A group of ten
post-graduate students at Massey University working to complete a paper in advanced
environmental management, under the guidance of Associate Professor John Holland.
The group of consultants comprises of:
Carla Muller- (Bachelor of Applied Economics (Massey Scholar), currently under taking a Bachelor of
Environmental Management (Honours)). Grew up in Tauranga. 20 years old and interested in natural
resource and environmental economics and policy, honours research based on economic value of
recreational fishing in the Far North.
Alana Bensemann- (Bachelor of Science in zoology, phyiology (majors) and ecology (minor).
Currently undertaking a Bachelor of Environmental Management (Honours)). Born in New Plymouth,
mostly grew up in Nelson. 22 years old and interested in native species conservation.
Jordan Ellmers- (Bachelor of Science in Geography and Environmental Science. Currently undertaking
a Bachelor of Environmental Management (Honours)). From the Hawkes Bay, 22 years old and
basing research on the rehabilitation of mine sites.
Brodie Rowse- (Bachelor of Science in Geography (major) and Environmental Science (minor) in
currently undertaking a Post Graduate Diploma in Environmental Management). From Hawera,
Taranaki. Research focus on nutrient budgets and losses on a river-estuarine system in Northland.
Sevasti (Sevi) Hartley- (Bachelor of Science in Geography (major) currently under taking a
Postgraduate Diploma in Geography). 21 years old, from Taranaki. Interested in physical geography
and environmental conservation and restoration.
Daniel Ryland- (Bachelor of Applied Economics (Massey Scholar), Postgraduate Diploma of Business
and Administration (Economics), Diploma of Science and Technology (mathematics and human
geography), Graduate Diploma of Science (mathematics and human geography. Currently
undertaking a Postgraduate Diploma of Arts (Geography)). Finished a study on homelessness and
housing insecurity in Palmerston North. 27 years old, grew up in Whanganui, interested in recycling,
corruption, religious incentive structures and transitional economies.
Nick Stewart- (Bachelor of Environmental Science in Geography (minor). Currently completing a
Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Management). Born in Whakatane but grew up in Raumati
Beach on the Kapiti Coast. 21 years old and interested in environmental management, soil and water
pollution and land reclamation.
Obakeng Modongo- (Bachelor of Science in Soil and Water Conservation Engineering and higher
Diploma in Agricultural Engineering. Currently undertaking a Masters in Environmental
Management). 29 years old, from a beautiful country in Southern Africa (Botswana), A nice
destination for tourists and investors in mining industry.

11
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Zachary (Zac) Milner- (Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science and Geography (majors).
Currently under taking a Bachelor of Environmental Management (Honours)). 21 years old, from
New Plymouth. Honours research looks at the management of New Zealand Falcon in commercial
pine plantations.
Hatthaphone (Ting) Sisouvong- (Bachelor of Environmental Management and Diploma of
Information Technology Management. Currently, under taking a Masters of Environmental
Management (New Zealand Asian Scholarship Student)). 26 years old from Vientiane Capital, Laos.
Worked for two years in Laos Institute for Renewable Energy as a Project Assistant and UNDP-DoF
for Rio Conventions Implementation Project as a Project Manager Assistant for one year. Interested
in environmental management, environmental technologies, environmental policy, renewable
energy, and natural resource management.
Source: (Stewart, B. 2013).
The Red Cap Consultancy: Front row from left: Ting, Zac, Brody, Carla, Alana, Sevi. Back row from
left: John, Daniel, Jordan, Nick, Obakeng.

12
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Area for Proposed Development...........................................................................................15
Figure 2: Proposed Development .........................................................................................................18
Figure 3: Land Titles in Proposed Development Area...........................................................................25
Figure 4: Comparison of Proposed Development areas in Kuratau .....................................................28
Figure 5: Kuratau District Plan ..............................................................................................................36
Figure 6: Taupō Airshed .......................................................................................................................43
Figure 7: Map showing TDC border ......................................................................................................51
Figure 8: South Facing on Huriwaka Street Showing Vegetated Roadside..........................................54
Figure 9: Map Showing Natural and Landscape Significance of Development Site .............................56
Figure 10: Locations of Invertebrate Trap sites and Stream Sampling Sites ........................................74
Figure 11: Location of Bird Observation Sites.......................................................................................75
Figure 12: View of Four River Sampling Sites........................................................................................77
Figure 13: Trout Habitat Suitability for Food Production .....................................................................85
Figure 14: Depth, Velocity and Substrate Size Preferences of the Common Bully...............................87
Figure 15: Near River Bank Vegetation Which Includes Numerous Species of Native Tree and Shrub.
..............................................................................................................................................................91
Figure 16: Wetland Vegetation Which Includes Numerous Flax, Grass And Some Native Tree Species.
..............................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 17: Intercept Trap Located Near River Bank..............................................................................93
Figure 18: Pitfall Trap Located Near River Bank ...................................................................................94
Figure 19: Map of Road Access to the Settlement of Kuratau ...........................................................111
Figure 20: Map of State Highway 41 on the South-Western Side of Lake Taupō...............................111
Figure 21: Photo of One of the Cul-de-sacs in a new Subdivision, Kuratau........................................112
Figure 22: Transmission Lines and Telecommunication Wire in Kuratau (230Volts per line)............113
Figure 23: Map Showing Services Around the Proposed Development Site......................................114
Figure 24: Stormwater Outfall at the End of Huriwaka Street ...........................................................115
Figure 25: Omori Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................................................................116
Figure 26: Recreational Structures in the Whiowhio Reserve............................................................117
Figure 27: Man-made Wetland in the Whiowhio Reserve .................................................................118
Figure 28: Kuratau Boat Ramp............................................................................................................119
Figure 29: Sedimentation in Lake Taupō from Kuratau River............................................................119
Figure 30: Locations of the Four Soil Profile Sites...............................................................................120
Figure 31: Site One Soil Profile............................................................................................................121
Figure 32: Site Two Soil Profile ...........................................................................................................122
Figure 33: Site Three Soil Profile.........................................................................................................123
Figure 34: Site Four Soil Profile...........................................................................................................124
Figure 35: Proposed Development Plan .............................................................................................125
Figure 36: Proposed Development Plan II ..........................................................................................126
Figure 37: The Operating Datum Range for Lake Taupō and Flood Range.........................................128
Figure 38: Proposed Location of Riprap..............................................................................................129
Figure 39: Proposed Marina Design (Not to Scale).............................................................................133
Figure 40: Bathymetry Profile of Lake Taupō .....................................................................................154

13
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Figure 41: Sonar Profile Headings.......................................................................................................155

14
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Table of Tables
Table 1: Combined Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime and Land Transformation and
Construction..........................................................................................................................................19
Table 2: Combined Leopold Matrix For Resource Extraction, Land Alteration, And Resource Renewal.
..............................................................................................................................................................21
Table 3: Combined Leopold Matrix For Changes In Traffic, Waste Emplacement And Treatment, and
Accidents...............................................................................................................................................23
Table 4: Land Title Details.....................................................................................................................26
Table 5: Kuratau Climate Data..............................................................................................................30
Table 6: Summary of flow statistics for the Kuratau River at mouth (m3
/s) November 1978-July 2010.
..............................................................................................................................................................31
Table 7: Institutional Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime and Land Transformation. ............68
Table 8: Institutional Leopold Matrix for Resource Extraction, Land Alteration, Resource Renewal,
and Waste Emplacement......................................................................................................................69
Table 9: Aquatic Ecological Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime, Land Transformation and
Resource Extraction..............................................................................................................................89
Table 10: Aquatic Ecological Leopold Matrix for Processing, Land Alteration, Resource Renewal,
Changes in Traffic, Waste Emplacement and Treatments, and Chemical Treatment..........................90
Table 11: Terrestrial Ecological Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime, Land Transformation, and
Resource Extraction............................................................................................................................100
Table 12: Terrestrial Ecological Leopold Matrix for Land Alteration, Resource Renewal, Changes in
Traffic, Waste Emplacement and Treatment, Chemical Treatment, and Accidents. .........................101
Table 13: Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Fish Survey Protocol Methods........................102
Table 14: Estimated Table of Costs.....................................................................................................131
Table 15: Infrastructure Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime and Land Transformation and
Construction........................................................................................................................................143
Table 16: Infrastructure Leopold Matrix for Land Alteration, Changes in Traffic, Waste Emplacement
and Treatment, Chemical Treatment and Accidents..........................................................................145

15
188.763, 2013, EIA.
1.0 Introduction
1.1. Introduction
A consortium of investors are considering developing a new subdivision, including a marina that can
accommodate a small number of large, high-value boats as well as typical lake boats. This
development is proposed at Kuratau, in the area identified on the adjoining map, the marina needs
to be between the red circles, with the area contained in the white border proposed for
development.
Figure 1: Area for Proposed Development
Source: Google Earth, 2013.
This report contains the screening and scoping elements of an environmental impact assessment
(EIA). An EIA is “an assessment of the impact of a planned activity on the environment” (UNECE, as
cited in Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick, 2005). Screening is the process of deciding, at the planning
stage, which of the developments proposed need further environmental consideration (Hanna,
2005). Screening can be partially determined by regulations in the host country. Scoping is the
process that follows a screening exercise and involves the EIA being focused on significant issues and
reasonable alternatives (Clarke & Harvey, 2012). Scoping is an ongoing process throughout the EIA.
The main outcome from a screening exercise of proposed developments is to determine if an EIA
needs to be carried out. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Evaluation: a Training Workshop
(1988) detail that the conclusion of a scoping exercise will therefore be one of the following:

16
188.763, 2013, EIA.
 environmental impacts are considered minimal and the project can go ahead without
further EIA;
 further preliminary assessment is needed as screening was inconclusive, or some impacts
have been identified;
 a detailed EIA is required as significant impacts are identified or preliminary assessment is
not sufficient.
Scoping helps to coordinate the environmental management of a project and promotes
communication among stakeholders (Carroll & Turpin, 2009). Glasson, et. al. (2005) describes
scoping as normally including the following:
 background information;
 information on key stakeholders and potential involvement with them;
 identification of important impacts, mitigation where necessary, alternatives where
appropriate and where further study is required.
Red Cap Consultancy will carry out the screening and scoping parts of an EIA for this proposed
development. In particular we will assess the potential impacts and interaction of this proposed
development on ecology, infrastructure and policy, with the aim of determining if a full EIA needs to
be carried out.
1.2 EIA Assumptions and Limitations
General assumptions of this EIA revolved around the understanding that we, as consultants would
be able to carry out the planned field tests when we were at the site.
General limitations of this EIA include:
 The hypothetical nature of the study, which constrains consultants to a desk top study with no
consultation of some of the key stakeholders, in particular Kuratau residents.
 The time constraints of this EIA limits consultants as we are unable to interact with all
stakeholders. This is particularly relevant as Kuratau has a large portion of holiday homes and
residents who are absent during this study period.
 Financial constraints limit Red Cap Consultancy from possessing all the gear required as well as
limiting the depth of study in terms of available resources.

17
188.763, 2013, EIA.
 Physical limitations of accessing the proposed development site. When arriving at the proposed
development site we found a number of our data collection methods where inappropriate as we
could not penetrate the bush cover of the site, nor walk fully around its boundary. This means
some data collection tools, including some global positioning satellite (GPS) mapping and
ecological data collection, are unable to be used.
 Census data is outdated which makes desk top community studies potentially inaccurate.
Each of the areas examined in this study, institutional, ecology and infrastructure, have unique
assumptions and limitations examined in their relevant sections (3.8, 4.8 and 5.7 respectively).
1.3 Proposed Changes of Development
The initial proposed development includes a subdivision (see figure 2) and a marina. Following the
EIA the proposed development, on a 13.3099 hectares site, includes a subdivision and instead of a
marina (due to reasons discussed in the body of this report) a boat ramp will be created.
The proposed development examined in this report contains 88 subdivided lots. These differ in size
from 600m2
to 1000m2
. Their prices will also be impacted by the placement, with the riverside
properties expecting to fetch more. There is also a wetland created as a stormwater buffer zone, this
will be in the existing Whiowhio Reserve providing aesthetic and ecological qualities. Adjacent to
this wetland area will be a parking area. This will service the wetland for recreational use, the
esplanade reserve for walking, as well as providing parking for the twentyfive meter boat ramp to be
established across the road from the wetland and parking space.

18
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Figure 2: Proposed Development
Source: Rowse, B., 2013.

19
188.763, 2013, EIA.
1.4 Summary of Potential Development Impacts
Table 1: Combined Leopold Matrix for Modification of Regime and Land Transformation and Construction.
Project Actions
Natural and Human
Envirionmental Elements
Modificationofhabitat
Alterationofgroundcover
Alterationofgroundwaterhydrology
Alterationofdrainage
Rivercontrolandflowmodification
Canalisation
Surfaceorpaving
Noiseandvibration
Urbanization
Industrialsitesandbuilding
Roadsandtrails
Channeldredgingandstraightening
Piersseawallsmarinas&s.terminals
Recreationalstructures
1. Earth Construction material
Soils
Landform
Unique physical features
2. Water Surface
Quality
Temperature
3. Atmoshere Climate
Temperature
4. Processes Floods
Erosion
Deposition
Solution
Sorption
Compaction and settling
Stress-Strain
Physical and
Chemical
Characteristics
LAND TRANSFORMATION
& CONSTRUCTION
MODIFICATION OF REGIME
1. Flora Trees
Shrubs
Grass
Microflora
Aquatic plants
Endangered species
Barriers
2. Fauna Birds
Land animals including reptiles
Fish and shellfish
Benthic organisms
Insect
Microfauna
Endangered species
1. Landuse Wetlands
Residential
2. Recreation Fishing
Boating
Swimming
Camping and hiking
Picnicking
3. Aesthetics and Human Scenic views and vistas
Interests Open space qualities
Landscape design
Parks and reserves
Rare and unique species or ecosystems
4. Cultural Status Cultural patterns
Health and Safety
Employment
Population density
5. Man-made facilities and Structures
activities Transportation network
Utility networks
Waste disposal
Eutrophication
Brush encroachment
such as: Food chains
Brush encroachment
Biological
Conditions
Cultural Factors
Ecological
Relationships

20
188.763, 2013, EIA.
LEGEND
3 Indicates a high negative impact 3
2 Indicates a medium negative impact 2
1 Indicates a low negative impact 1
3+ Indicates a HIGH positive impact 3+
2+ Indicates a medium positive impact 2+
1+ Indicates a low positive impact 1+

21
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Table 2: Combined Leopold Matrix For Resource Extraction, Land Alteration, And Resource Renewal.
Project Actions
Natural and Human
Blastinganddrilling
Surfaceexcavation
Subsurfaceexcavationandretorting
Dredging
Clearcuttingandotherlumbering
Erosioncontrolandterracing
Landscaping
Harbourdredging
Reforestation
Wildlifestockingandmanagement
Wasterecycling
Soils
Landform
2. Water Surface
Quality
Temperature
Temperature
4. Processes Floods
Erosion
Deposition
Solution
Sorption
Stress-Strain
Physical and
Chemical
Characteristics
LAND
ALTERATIO
N
RESOURCE
EXTRACTION
RESOURCE
RENEWAL
1. Flora Trees
Shrubs
Grass
Microflora
Aquatic plants
Endangered species
Barriers
2. Fauna Birds
Fish and shellfish
Benthic organisms
Insect
Microfauna
Endangered species
1. Landuse Wetlands
Residential
Boating
Swimming
Camping and hiking
Picnicking
Landscape design
Parks and reserves
Health and Safety
Employment
Population density
Utility networks
Waste disposal
Eutrophication
Brush encroachment
Brush encroachment
Biological
Conditions
Cultural Factors
Ecological
Relationships

22
188.763, 2013, EIA.
LEGEND

23
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Table 3: Combined Leopold Matrix For Changes In Traffic, Waste Emplacement And Treatment, and Accidents.
Project Actions
Natural and Human
Automobile
Trucking
Riverandcanaltraffic
Pleasureboating
Communication
Pipelines
Municipalwastedischarge+spirrig
Septictankscommercial&domestic
Stormwater
Explosions
Spillsandleaks
Operationalfailure
Soils
Landform
2. Water Surface
Quality
Temperature
Temperature
4. Processes Floods
Erosion
Deposition
Solution
Sorption
Stress-Strain
ACCIDENTS
WASTE
EMPLACEM
ENT &
TREATMEN
T
CHANGES IN TRAFFIC
Physical and
Chemical
Characteristics
1. Flora Trees
Shrubs
Grass
Microflora
Aquatic plants
Endangered species
Barriers
2. Fauna Birds
Fish and shellfish
Benthic organisms
Insect
Microfauna
Endangered species
1. Landuse Wetlands
Residential
Boating
Swimming
Camping and hiking
Picnicking
Landscape design
Parks and reserves
Health and Safety
Employment
Population density
Utility networks
Waste disposal
Eutrophication
Brush encroachment
Brush encroachment
Biological
Conditions
Cultural Factors
Ecological
Relationships
LEGEND

24
188.763, 2013, EIA.
2.0 Background
2.1 Kuratau
2.1.1 Overall Description of Kuratau and Community Profile
Kuratau is a small village located north of Omori and Turangi, on the western/south side of Lake
Taupō. Its coordinates are -38.889296S, 175.766652E. The Kuratau settlement is adjacent to the 1-
1.5km Kuratau River channel immediately upstream of Lake Taupō. According to Census data it is
home to approximately 132 permanent residents (Statistics New Zealand, 2006) spread over
approximately 600 houses. Kuratau is in the Turangi- Tongariro Ward, under the jurisdiction of
Taupō District Council (TDC), and Waikato Regional Council (WRC).
According to the New Zealand Census Data (Statistics New Zealand, 2006), Kuratau has 132 privately
occupied dwellings in 2006, this includes permanent rentals. These are on average three bedrooms.
Kuratau has 96 total families in private occupied dwellings in 2006, up from 93 in 1996, with a typical
family consisting of three members. For individuals, the mean annual income in 2006 was $27,100,
while mean total household income is $45,000. With over half of the usual residents employed in
agriculture and forestry professions. An approximate number of houses in the Kuratau area is 600.
When allowing for the time discrepancy (Census 2006 and house count 2013) there is an
approximate 140 permanent occupied dwellings, or around 25% of the permanent dwellings in
Kuratau, with the remainder being holiday homes. While Census data cannot indicate housing
growth, changes in occupied dwellings or population have been relatively stable over the 1996 -
2006 period. Significant changes in population may have occurred after 2006 as the Census data is
out of date, but no large jumps are anticipated.
Kuratau is as a prime spot for boating and fishing due to its proximity to Lake Taupō. Both of these
activities, along with walking and swimming, are dominant summertime recreational activities in the
locality. In winter this changes dramatically with use of the area as a base for access to Tongariro
National Park for skiing and other winter sports (KCE, 2000).
Kuratau, and neighbouring Omori, according to the TDC (2012a, pp. 27-28), are characterised by:
 steep topography;
 a relatively high percentage of multi-storey dwellings (which may be reflective of the
topography and ability to obtain lake views);
 buildings predominantly developed from the mid-1970s onwards;

25
188.763, 2013, EIA.
 significant areas of dense vegetation (predominantly indigenous species), both on private
and public land;
 uniform allotment sizes in the residential areas (average between 710m2
-718m2
);
 building coverage and plot ratio at an average of 14-16% and 19-21% respectively, which is
very low in comparison with the levels permitted by planning rules; and
 most servicing is underground.
There are benefits in maintaining and enhancing this by preventing overcrowding, maintaining
reserves and trees. Also if additional reserves are developed, in particularly along the river’s edge,
this will create additional recreational value.
Omori and Kuratau share all reticulated services. In terms of infrastructure (water, wastewater and
stormwater), TDC (2012a) believes that the networks have sufficient capacity, or are able to be
upgraded to allow for continued development. Spare headworks and resource consent (discharge)
capacity for projected growth TDC (2012a) projects 201 new lots in southern settlements before
2026) for more than 20 years is available, however some localised constraints may need addressing.
2.1.2 Proposed Development Area
The proposed development site (land based) covers four separate land titles. As shown in figure 3.
The separate land titles are detailed in table 4.
Figure 3: Land Titles in Proposed Development Area
Source: TDC, 2012b.

26
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Together these land titles cover 13.3099 hectares located at the north end of Kuratau; it is bordered
on the north by the Kuratau River and on the south by the paper road extension of Tukino Road.
Proposed development assessed in this report is shown on figure 4 as KPD.
Table 4: Land Title Details
A) 21 Tukino Road
Privately Owned
Legal Description: LOT 2 DP 69807 BLK III PUKETI
SD
Valuation Number: 0743230208
Certificate of Title: 38B/25
Property Area (Hectares): 7.9200
Nature of Improvements: None
Current Rating Valuation (2010-07-01):
- Land Value $570,000
-Improvements- $0
- Capital Value- $570,000
Rates: Current year (2012/13): $2,499.53
Previous year (2011/12) $2,871.82
Other: Significant Natural Area SNA 0664
Zoning: Residential
Subzone: New Residential
B) 12 Te Rae Street (Whiowhio Reserve)
Taupō District Council Owned
Legal Description: Sec 1 SO 364294
Certificate of Title: 316622
Property Area (hectares): 3.1584
Nature of Improvements: Fencing and
Other Improvements
- Land Value - $300,000
-Improvements - $3,000
- Capital Value- $303,000
Rates: $0
Other: Significant Natural Area SNA 0664
Zoning: Residential
C) 10 Te Rae Street
Privately Owned
Legal Description: Pt Pukawa D1 ML 5300
Certificate of Title: WN46C/692
Property (Hectares): 1.1515
Nature of Improvements: Dwelling,
Fencing and
Other Improvements
- Land Value - $540,000
- Improvements value - $210,000
- Capital Value - $750,000
Rates: Current year (2012/13): $3,380
Previous year (2011/12) $3,124.27
Zoning: Residential
D) Kuratau River Esplanade Reserve
Taupō District Council Owned
Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 69807
Certificate of Title: 38B/24
Property Area (hectares): 1.0800
Nature of Improvements: None
- Land Value - $8,000
- Improvements value - $0
- Capital Value - $8,000
Rates: $0
Other: Significant Natural Area- SNA 232,
Outstanding Landscape Area OLA11,
Foreshore Protection Area
Zoning: Rural
Subzone: Standard Rural
Source: TDC, (2012b).
There is growth in the area with Omori and Kuratau collectively experiencing the addition of 81 lots
over the timeframe 2004-2010 (TDC, 2012a).The existing Kuratau area is largely developed and a

27
188.763, 2013, EIA.
recent Environment Court decision has enabled further growth through the rezoning of a 19 hectare
block of land (KPD2 in figure 4) including, but not limited to, the proposed development area new
residential environment.
The TDC released in 2006 a Taupō District Growth Strategy (TD2050 Taupō District Growth
Management Strategy 2006) (TD2050). This, in conjunction with the Proposed Southern Settlements
Structure Plan (SSSP), lists Kuratau (and its nearest township, Omori) as “proposed future residential
growth areas” (TDC, 2012a and TDC, 2006). The TD2050 (TDC, 2006) details Kuratau as a well
established settlement that offers growth potential within the existing urban area. It looks at an area
in Kuratau (KPD2) that includes part of our proposed area (KPD) and extends to cover the vegetated
area adjacent to the south as stage one and the rough area identified in the SSSP as stage two.
The area identified as stage one (including the area proposed for this development) did not score
well as it is a significant natural area, but on the positive side it is included in the existing service
catchment, and is surrounded by residential development so is unlikely to have a significant
landscape effect (TDC, 2006).
It is still listed as proposed (in the SSSP) as submissions close on the 1st
of February 2013, and a final
report is not listed. This document proposes future development in Kuratau be concentrated south
of the development examined in this report. It describes an area accessed from Foxley Avenue,
immediately west of the existing urban area, bordered by the Omori Stream corridor to the south,
and Te Puke Road to the north (KLG1, KLG2, KFG1 and KFG2; the FG- future growth areas are
proposed to accommodate development within the next 20 or so years, with the LG- long term
growth areas accommodating growth beyond that period). This is shown in detail in appendix 1.
Kuratau is considered a prime lakeshore holiday destination within the Taupō District (TDC, 2012a).
The SSSP proposes development as KFG1 and KFG2 with E being a commercial hub and KLG1 and
KLG2 as long term growth areas in Kuratau.

28
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Figure 4: Comparison of Proposed Development areas in Kuratau
Source: TDC, 2012b.
The SSSP (TDC, 2012a, pp. 44) proposes that future development in Kuratau should consider:
 that development undertaken within the KPD2 block be sensitive to landscape and natural
area overlays with the retention of the integrated network of SNAs where possible;
 revegetation of gullies and steeper slopes creating an integrated open space network;
 provide strong street tree framework to reinforce the types of trees currently growing in
the area – such as olive, poplar, and liquidambar;
 ensure, where appropriate, streetscape treatment minimises the urban character, such as
no or minimal use of kerb and channel, sensitive street lighting, covenants on front
boundary fences (for low or no fences);
 orientate streets and planting to maximise and highlight lake views;
 create reserve corridor linkages throughout the terraces and re-vegetation of steep slopes
and ephemeral gullies;
 where possible enhance ecological corridors between Pukekaikiore and Lake Taupō; and

29
188.763, 2013, EIA.
 where there is there potential to view built structures against the skyline, ensure a backdrop
of vegetation is maintained and planted.

30
188.763, 2013, EIA.
2.2 Description of Biophysical Location
2.2.1 Climate
Kuratau lies within the northern cool temperate zone. The Kuratau climate is characterised by a
mean summer (November- April) temperature of 15.15 C and a mean winter (May- October)
temperature of 8.78C (Climate Data, n.d.) There is average summer rainfall of 105mm per month
(1260mm per year) at the township, with up to 167mm per month (2000mm per year) in the upper
catchment. For more detailed climate data see table 5. In winter snow can fall to 357 meters above
sea level (ASL), but normally settles above 500 meters (ASL).
Table 5: Kuratau Climate Data
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Min
Temp C
11.6 11.8 10.5 7.9 5.3 3.6 2.5 3.4 5.1 6.9 8.4 10.2
Max
Temp C
22.4 22.6 20.5 17.4 14.1 11.8 11.1 12 13.8 16 18.3 20.5
Mean
Temp C
17 17.2 15.5 12.6 9.7 7.7 6.8 7.7 9.4 11.4 13.3 15.3
Rain
mm
107 87 107 90 125 135 138 135 126 120 113 130
Source: Climate Data, n.d.
2.2.2 Kuratau River
The Kuratau River is one of two main tributaries in the Kuratau catchment. It flows generally
eastwards, draining the slopes of the Pureora Forest Park and Pukepoto Forest before turning
northeast towards Lake Kuratau. From there it flows east a further 5km before flowing into the
southwest of Lake Taupō, adjacent to the settlement of Kuratau. The Kuratau River is characterised
by long periods of relatively low flow, interspersed with short duration, but high magnitude, flood
events (KCE, 2000). Natural springs on the Kuratau River maintain a minimum residual flow in the
river during periods when the power station is not generating. According to King Country Energy
Limited (2000, pp. 20) overall water quality in the Kuratau River is “very good compared with New
Zealand rivers in general”. The Kuratau River is used for recreational uses including fishing,

31
188.763, 2013, EIA.
swimming, kayaking, boating (small, one private boat ramp and a few private moorings in low
reaches) and rafting (upper reaches).
The section of the river adjacent to the proposed development site and down to the river mouth has
a history of channel modification and sand bar variation. The proposed development section
contains an abandoned oxbow channel from when the river changed course. The Kuratau River is
influenced by control gates, on Lake Taupō, into the Waikato River, as well as regional rainfall which,
impacts on the level of Lake Taupō and in turn the level in the lower reaches of the Kuratau River.
A summary of flow statistics, presented by Environment Waikato & Taupō District Council, (2011) is
presented below.
Table 6: Summary of flow statistics for the Kuratau River at mouth (m
3
/s) November 1978-July 2010.
Site Minimum Mean Median Maximum Standard
Deviation
Coefficient
of Variation
Kuratau
River @
mouth
1.62 6.38 5.04 90.2 4.49 0.703
Source: Environment Waikato and Taupō District Council, (2011). Taupō District Flood Hazard Study:
Kuratau River.
The Kuratau River is a key trout fishery and spawning habitat. Between the power station and the
gorge (above the proposed development site) is the main trout spawning habitat in the river due to
the gravel bed, caused by river flows. This is also supported by zooplankton and algae which are a
consequence of Lake Kuratau’s characteristics. Below the gorge the river has a low gradient, slow
flows and sandy beds. This is not a trout spawning habitat but is part of the passage to spawning
grounds. The lower reaches of the river, in particular the river mouth, are good for rearing juvenile
trout as they provide a good transition zone into the Lake Taupō.
2.2.3 Lake Kuratau and Hydroelectricity Generation
Lake Kuratau is a manmade lake for hydroelectric power generation, it is located on the Kuratau
River and the dam was created in 1962. The King Country Energy Limited operates the Kuratau
Hydro Scheme. Every day the Kuratau Power Station generates around 72 megawatt hours of
electricity (King Country Energy Limited, n.d.) with a mean annual output of 29GWh. Up to 11,000
litres of water flows through the Kuratau Power Station every second, in flood the spillway gate can

32
188.763, 2013, EIA.
take an additional 11,000 litres per second. Damming the Kuratau River has modified the sediment
regime in the river (KCE, 2000).
2.2.4 Land and Soils
2.2.4.1 Elevation
Landcare Research (n.d) shows the elevation of the proposed development site between 360 and
3680 meters above sea level and relatively flat. The proposed development site is a river valley. The
majority of the Kuratau Township sits between 400 and 360 meters above sea level. The abandoned
oxbow from the Kuratau River in the development site is a significant elevation feature within the
proposed subdivision site.
2.2.4.2 Soils
According to Landcare Research (n.d) the proposed development area is 60% N_250f and 40%
Taupōf. N_250f (Landcare Research, 2013a) soils are well drained, sandy loam soils, with a rapid over
moderate permeability profile. They have a deep depth (diggability) class of over one meter with no
hard or soft rock in this range. This is a recent fluvial soil due to the location of the Kuratau River and
its associated floodplains. Taupōf (Landcare Research, 2013b) soils are also well drained, sandy loam
soils with a rapid permeability profile. These also have a deep depth (diggability) class of over one
meter with no hard or soft rock in this range. However they are not fluvial soils, but rather are
pumice based due to the presence of historic volcanic activity. Both of these soil types have
moderate available soil moisture content. As a result soils in this area have the ability to help
regulate flood flows during periods of intense rainfall.
2.2.4.3 Geology
The geology of the area is important because it affects the stability and safety of the site. This
information is required for resource consents as well impacting upon the subdivision design. The
Kuratau region lies within the Taupō Volcanic Zone, which is one of the most active volcanic zones in
the world.
The area is dominated by andesitic domes which were formed during volcanic activity in the region
(see appendix 2) (personal communication, Bob Stewart, 11th April, 2013). Historical lava flows from
this impact the landscape directly surrounding Kuratau. The townships of Kuratau, Omori and
Pukawa, are situated on two types of sedimentary material. Fluvial sediment has been deposited

33
188.763, 2013, EIA.
here from the Kuratau River on different terraces created over time as a result of varying lake levels
(ibid). Lake sediments are found directly adjacent to the lake.
These geological characteristics affect the proposed development location in a number of ways. The
Kuratau River is meandering which means that water course is constantly shifting to maintain
equilibrium and this erodes the banks of the river. The remnant oxbow exemplifies this dynamic
nature. Since the area being considered for development is comprised of sedimentary material, this
aspect of the fluvial processes significantly affects the development. The fact that this area is
comprised of fluvial deposits shows that this is a flood plain which has experienced constant flooding
and deposition in the past. The steep cliff on the true left of the river is not considered a hazard
because the stable nature of igneous rock.
2.2.5 Flora and Fauna
The Kuratau River is an important spawning area for migratory trout from Lake Taupō. Between
1996 and 2007 the average density of trout in the lower reaches of the river was approximately one
thousand five hundred fish per kilometre (DOC, 2012b). In particular trout spawn in the upper
reaches of the Kuratau River due to the gravel beds. The sand beds of the low reaches (adjacent to
the proposed subdivision) are not spawning grounds, but provide the route travelled by both brown
and rainbow trout on their way upstream. The river also hosts a number of native fish species
including the common bully which due to the habitat preference of native fish are often an indicator
of quality water. There are also exotic weeds presence in the river which expand along the shallows
as the silt levels increase (KCE, 2000).
Whiowhio Reserve hosts a cluster of large gum trees; which may provide a roosting habitat for short-
tailed bats (Personal communication, Scott Devonport, 8th
April, 2013). The main areas of vegetation
in the study area include wetland, bush and river bank vegetation with both exotic and native
species throughout. There is a range of native vegetation in the study site including; kohekohe, tawa,
pohutukawa, kanuka, manuka, cabbage tree, hebe, fiver finger, seven finger, kowai, and miro.
Willows and rushes are located along reaches of the river banks. There is also a number of pest
species often dominating the vegetation, this includes blackberry and broom.
Lake Kuratau supports a trout fishery, Canadian geese, black swan, mallard and paradise ducks.
Wetland on the northern edge of Lake Kuratau provides homes for some uncommon natives
including fernbird, bittern, and marsh crake. The Kuratau River lower reaches plays host to mallard

34
188.763, 2013, EIA.
ducks (including breeding pairs), scaup, occasional shags, grey herons and black swans and cygnets
(KCE, 2000). The entire study area has high numbers of native birds with tui and fantails been
abundant throughout all vegetation types.
2.2.6 Erosion in the Kuratau River Catchment and Sedimentation in Lake Taupō
The Kuratau River catchment, in particular the upper catchment, is characterised by unconsolidated
volcanic deposits, steep slopes, and high rainfall (Environment Waikato and Taupō District Council,
2011). Consequently there is a large potential volume of material which can be transported into the
river system. The Kuratau River therefore carries a relatively high sediment load.
In the lower catchment the river channel decreases in slope, this reduces flow velocity. As a result,
the energy of the river decreases and less sediment is transported. This means that a large volume
of sediment is deposited within Lake Kuratau, and on the lower flood plain. This sediment deposition
on the lower flood plain, and as such, in Lake Taupō, forms a delta.
The majority of the deposits of eroded material occur within the river mouth in Lake Taupō. This is a
natural process, however since the proposed development occurs on the adjacent river flats, and the
marina development occurs close to the river mouth, this sediment loading has a potential impact.

35
188.763, 2013, EIA.
2.3 Ecological and Natural Significance
As shown in figure 5 the proposed development site is classified in the TDC District Plan as a
Significant Natural Area (SNA) (brown overlay). As well as in the Kuratau River which is classified as
an Outstanding Landscape Area (OLA) (green dot overlay). According to the TDC (2010, section 7 pp.
3) the Kuratau River is an OLA (OLA40) because it is a “significant vegetated tributary running to Lake
Taupō. It is particularly highly regarded for its importance as a fishery resource, largely undeveloped
remote character and relatively easy access. Hydro electricity power generation located further up
the river corridor. Lower reaches particularly valued for scenic qualities”. There are 43 OLAs in the
district. SNAs are “areas of significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of
indigenous fauna that have been identified on the Planning Maps and listed in Schedule 7.8 of the
Plan” (TDC, 2012a, pp.22). OLAs and SNAs are important on a district wide scale. The criteria for
SNAs are attached in appendix 3.

36
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Figure 5: Kuratau District Plan
Source: TDC, 2007, Appendix A.
ALA 69 at Kuratau, (green hashed overlay on figure 5) is an area of approximately 6.5 hectares
partially adjacent to the proposed development site. The attributes of ALA 69, ‘Kuratau Bush Slope’
are described in the (TDC, 2007) as a "vegetated bush slope" and is to be protected because it is a
link in the natural history and geology of the region, and highlights amenity values of natural
vegetation and characteristics of Kuratau residential area.

37
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.0 Institutions and Policy
3.1 Introduction
The proposed development must conform to the policy framework present within New Zealand on
the national, regional, and district levels. The document which drives these ideas of sustainability is
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), with the Waikato Regional Council and the Taupō
District Council acting within these auspices according to their own environmental plans. Together
the resulting policies help ensure that resources are used efficiently in contemporary and future
periods such that social, economic, and cultural values are at least maintained, or preferably
enhanced.
The site considered for development currently includes natural features and characteristics that
have both ecological and cultural values. In addition, a portion is designated as a significant natural
heritage site. Thus, in order to perform some of the actions within the proposed plan, it is necessary
to submit consent applications to the local authorities. The goal of these being to thus ensure that
the activities are suitable given the ecological and political context for efficient resource use which
maintains, protects, and ensures a culture of stewardship (RMA, 1991, 7).
In order to submit a resource consent, it is required in the RMA (1991, 88:2:b) that an environmental
impact assessment is performed. This report provides the necessary preliminary scouting and
scoping that is required for this process and identifies where consents may be required. If there are
missing applications, the environmental consent process can be delayed (ibid, 91:1), so it is
important to include all applicable applications in the initial submission. The necessary forms for
both resource consents and building applications can be found in appendix 4 and 8 of this report.
The most applicable policies across the various levels are discussed throughout this section. First
drawing on Central Government requirements, followed by Region Council, and then the District
Council policies. Places where the proposal requires consents will be identified. Possible mitigating
actions that need to be involved in the plan, to maintain the natural and cultural characteristics, are
also identified. A final section identifies potential stakeholders with any preliminary contact.

38
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.2 Central Government - National Policy
3.2.1 Need for Resource Consent
The main policy document for resource management is the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
This provides the core policy through which sustainability operates within New Zealand; it defines
which activities require resource consent at a national level. The purpose is to “promote the
sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (ibid, 5:1) through rules and regulations
for their management while ensuring that individuals are capable of maintaining their social,
economic, and cultural well-being. Thus, any proposed developments may be required to take into
account the protection and preservation of the existing natural character of the land in question
(ibid, 6). In the case of Kuratau, this involves keeping, as much as possible, the ‘appearance of native
bush land,’ in particular maintaining the aesthetic value and indigenous habitat; and where possible
enhancing it.
The Kuratau proposal will result in impacts upon the available resources of the area through the
process of subdivision and changes in the river bed due to the alteration of boating facilities. These
impacts are seen in the various Leopold matrices shown in this document (sections 3.7, 4.3.6, 4.5.6
& 5.7). For instances which have a high probability of an adverse impact upon the environment, or a
highly adverse impact regardless of probability, a consent is required in order to ensure that the
activity is necessary, and if so, performed in a sustainable and efficient manner (RMA, 1991, 3).
Complicating matters is that the site considered for development has been declared a significant
natural area (SNA), requiring additional consideration around consents and access.
Due to the classification as a SNA, stewardship of this portion of Kuratau (and adjacent outstanding
landscape areas) is held by the Department of Conservation (DOC) through the Conservation Act
1987 section 6M. Thus, the land is managed foremost for the purpose of conservation, with
protection of the indigenous flora and fauna receiving priority, preventing any activities which could
disrupt these (ibid, 20:1). A potential outcome of this is that subdivision, vegetation clearing, and
water extraction upon a segment of the proposed development site is not currently viable. In order
to perform these actions, it is necessary to exchange stewardship from DOC to the developers. This
exchange is outlined in section 16A of the Conservation Act (1987), in which a piece of land of
superior ecological value may be provided to in trade. Such would remove the proposed site from
the jurisdiction of the Conservation Act (1987), allowing for activities that could potentially disrupt
the local habitat (RMA, 1991, 26:4).

39
188.763, 2013, EIA.
As the area is a SNA, additional costs can be incurred in the process of seeking resource consent
(RMA, 1991, 149ZD:1-4). The local authority and Minister overseeing the process may seek to
recover the costs of their activities through any court processes. However the developers have
access to additional advice and support beyond that in this report through the Environmental
Protection Agency. The extent of these costs cannot be estimated easily as they vary between
authorities, the length, and the complexity of the consents involved. They may however prove a
substantial additional cost to the estimates provided elsewhere.
While not necessary, it is possible to request a Certificate of Compliance for those activities which do
not require consents. The application form is supplied in appendix 7. As these count as consents, it is
recommended to acquire them to account for future potential changes in the policy environment in
order to minimise the risk of future amendments requiring significant alterations within a short time
frame. The cost of these is only an administration fee, which is determined by the local authority
(RMA, 1991, 139).
3.2.2 Subdivision
The main component of the proposed development is the subdivision of the existing land into
approximately 88 lots. The RMA (1991, 11:1) specifically prevents inappropriate subdivision that
could cause adverse impacts upon the natural and physical resources of a locality and the customary
rights of other individuals. Thus, consent is required in order to enact this portion of the proposal,
taking into account the various national environmental standards (Section 3.3), as well as regional
(section 3.4) and district plans (section 3.5.1) However upon acceptance, the resulting consent is
permanent, preventing the need for its renewal at a later date (ibid, 123:b). Not only will a
subdivision require consent, but also the survey plan provided in this report (section 5.3, figure 29) is
provided and approved by either the Registrar-General of Land or the Chief Surveyor (ibid, 11:1:a).
It must be noted that it is necessary that subdivision consent is acquired before approval of the
survey plan can occur (RMA, 1991, 223:1:a). There may be additional changes in the plan that occurs
as a result of this process that cannot be predicted or outlined suitably in this report.

40
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.2.3 Potential Conditions for Subdivisions
In order for the consent for a subdivision to be accepted, it is possible that additional conditions may
be imposed (RMA, 1991, 108:2). While it is assumed that these will not occur to significantly alter
the cost structure, potential conditions have been incorporated into the proposal to minimise these
unanticipated costs, these have been outlined in the sections below. However, there are additional
potential conditions that may be imposed by the Registrar-General of Land, Regional, or District
Council that are unknown at this time (ibid, 223:1:b), as such these values cannot be estimated. In a
similar vein, there is the potential for financial contributions to other projects, bonds, or the
provision of works in order to maintain, or improve the existing resource (ibid, 1991, 108:2).
3.2.3.1 Conditions Due to Ground Type
As the proposed development site is prone to erosion (personal communication, Devonport (TDC),
April 8th
, 2013), applications for subdivisions can be refused as the activity is likely to contribute to
erosion (RMA, 1991, 160:1). In addition to this, Building Regulations (1992, B1:3:7) prevent
construction where there is the possibility to generate additional ground loss through river
processes. These factors may provide other restrictions upon potential locations for the subdivision
to occur, or result in additional conditions being imposed on how the buildings may be constructed
in future.
The site also includes a high water table and consists of significant levels of silt which has made it
prone to liquefaction (personal communication, Devonport (TDC), April 8th
, 2013). Due to the
Building Regulations (1992, B1:3:1) in order for structures to be placed upon the plots in the future,
there must be a low probability of rupture, instability, collapse, or loss of equilibrium. This applies
not only during the initial construction process, but throughout the expected lifespan of the
structures themselves, incorporating the impact upon the surrounding amenities such as water,
power, and access (ibid, B1:3:2).
3.2.3.2 Condition to Create Esplanade
In the survey plan an esplanade and wetland reserve have been incorporated. These provide both a
continuation of the natural character along the river side, as well as public access throughout the

41
188.763, 2013, EIA.
area. As shown in section 5.3, this esplanade exceeds the twenty meter width required (RMA, 1991,
230:3). Thus, some compensation for the developer is available for any such area that exceeds this
requirement, with the developer receiving the interest upon the land thusly used (ibid, 237E; 237H).
In addition, the wetland reserve will also contribute to this financial compensation providing the
value of the land upon which it is situated. These will somewhat mitigate the costs involved in the
consent process.
With the creation of an esplanade, there are however, additional requirements imposed (RMA, 1991,
Schedule 10). It must be stipulated that individuals do not wilfully endanger, disturb, or annoy any
structure or user within the esplanade (ibid). Also that fire, firearms, camping, taking animals or
vehicles, removing plants, or laying poison outside of the Biosecurity Act 1993 is not permitted (ibid).
These are relatively simple matters to signpost and associated costs are anticipated to be negligible
3.2.3.4 Future Measurements
3.2.3.4 Condition to Provide Future Measurements
In order to assess whether or not the subdivision is conforming to the requirements set out in the
RMA (1991) or any other imposed conditions, it may be requested that information gathering
exercises continue after consent approval. As responsible developers, and as the proposal would
create a significant alteration of the existing environment, it is recommended that this monitoring
process is performed regardless. The necessary framework for this is set out in section 6.0 in the
form of a ten year longitudinal study.

42
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.3 Central Government - National Environmental Standards
Other initiatives regarding the environment from Central Government arise through the National
Environmental Standards. These standards provide the minimum levels of environmental protection
for resources. They are to be applied where no other local authority maintains more stringent
regulations, thus acting as a base from which Regional and District Councils build can from.
3.3.1 Discharges of Foul Water and Solid Waste
Under the RMA (1991, 15:1), discharges that may work their way into water are not viable without
consent. Fortunately, these can be subsumed within the existing urban structures, via the waste
management facilities in Omori (personal communication, Scott Devonport (TDC), 8th
April, 2013),
preventing the need for additional consent applications. There is however additional costs involved
in connecting to these networks as outlined in section 5.3. Whereas water discharged through
stormwater networks will be incorporated into the wetland area as described in section 5.3. There is
a chance however that this water could enter into the river, thus despite being a favoured addition
of DOC (personal communication, Michel Dedual (DOC), 9th
April, 2013), a consent application will be
necessary.
3.3.2 Air Quality
In considering the potential impact upon air quality for the area, Kuratau is not covered by the
Regional Council’s Taupō airshed. However, there are ambient air quality standards that must be
conformed to (Resource Management Regulations, 2004, 14:1). The airshed itself is located over the
Taupō and various portions of the surrounding area as displayed in figure 6. This airshed is
monitored for changes in quality, thus it is required to improve, or remain at its current, level of
pollution. It is unlikely that the potential future increase in population resulting from the Kuratau
development will result in any significant traceable changes in the Taupō airshed.

43
188.763, 2013, EIA.
Figure 6: Taupō Airshed
Source: Waikato Regional Council, 2012.
3.3.3 Soil Contamination
The surrounding area contains former sheep dips sites, which may have a negative impact upon the
capacity to develop as desired. In any instance in which any such site could be disturbed through the
process of landscaping and construction, additional consents will be involved (Resource
Management Regulations, 2011). It is therefore recommended that a soil test is carried out to
establish whether the development site has such contamination, yet this was not viable to perform
at the writing of this report. It is ultimately necessary that such a test occurs and the likelihood of an
impact upon human health thusly established (Ministry for the Environment, 2006, pp. 26). If no
such test occurs, a consent may be required for activities which would otherwise be permitted until
such time as one is carried out (ibid, 8:4).
Where soil contamination exists there is only a limited amount that may be disturbed without the
need of additional consents. This would require that less than 25m3
/500m2
of disturbance occurs
and all work is done within a two month period (Resource Management Regulations, 2011, 8:3:b-c,

44
188.763, 2013, EIA.
f). Otherwise a further consent is required to be processed, and the land be returned to an erosion-
resistant state within one month after any landscaping and construction has taken place.
3.3.4 Utility Networks
3.3.4.1 Power Supplies
The local power supplies are reportedly operating at full capacity, which may cause issues in
providing for additional development. If necessary proposed developments may be required to aid
King Country Energy Limited through financial assistance for the additional consents required to
cater for the added demand on power (Resource Management Regulations, 2009).
Where electricity transmission is necessary, the wires are to be passed underground so to avoid
negative impact upon the visual amenities of the area. This will also prevent the need to remove
vegetation for the purposes of running the new wires, thus saving the requirement for additional
consent being acquired (Resource Management Regulations, 2009, 30). However as the ground may
potentially be contaminated, additional consents may be needed to lay the power lines (ibid, 39).
3.3.4.2 Water Supplies
It is possible to link into the district water and waste systems as these are expected to have the
capacity to accommodate the additional population growth (personal communication, Scott
Devonport (TDC), 8th
April, 2013). These activities are allowed, requiring only permission from the
utility provider, with minimal alterations necessary. As this water is already potable, there are
neither additional facilities nor lines required.

45
188.763, 2013, EIA.
3.4 Waikato Regional Council
Waikato Regional Council (WRC) has created the Waikato Regional Plan to regulate all harmful
activities impacting on soil, air, and water (WRC, 2013a). This plan and its associated rules are aimed
to prevent specific activities that could have an adverse impact upon environmental standards in
order to protect the well-being of people and the environment. Waikato Regional Council holds the
main responsibility of monitoring, operating, and evaluating these harmful activities so that the
natural standard conditions meet the requirement and to minimise the effect on people, animal, and
habitats (ibid).
3.4.1 Protecting Lake Taupō Strategies
Partnerships and cooperation between various groups are crucial in protecting Lake Taupō (WRC,
2013b). As the lake and Kuratau are important destinations for sporting activities, holiday adventure,
and relaxation; therefore all users have a responsibility and role in protecting the Lake’s future.
Based on this recreational value, the WRC has created the regional strategy dealing with future
developments. All stakeholders should implement the 15 years strategy of Lake Taupō, which is
supported by promoting environmental education and regulatory backstops (ibid).
Lake Taupō and its catchment environment are changing due to uncertain future income,
employment, and future development projects. Thus, to prepare for this change: a) agencies and
community groups have structured partnerships and linkages to communicate effectively in the
exploration of new ideas and initiatives, b) ensure that sufficient time has been allowed for changes,
and c) all actions are supported by education, research, and advice (WRC, 2013b).
Partnerships exist between Environment Waikato, Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, Taupō District
Council, Taupō Lake Care, and other agencies and groups who cooperate to derive a sustainable
development plan and to minimise adverse impacts on the catchment (WRC, 2013b). So far,
progress has been made in establishing partnerships, improving local communication and creating
connections with new regulatory systems. Several different agencies are taking initiatives within the
Taupō District and Lake Taupō catchment in order to make the long-term sustainable development
of the catchment (ibid). These linkages may result in additional knowledge and interest groups than
those indentified in section 3.6, generating more submissions and potential opposition to the
proposed plan than would otherwise be anticipated.

46
188.763, 2013, EIA.
An Environmental Iwi Management Plan was created by Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, which
supports a range of activities in the management of the Lake. Moreover, Taupō District Council and
different community groups have prepared a statement for sustainable development of the District.
This statement operates within three areas, district economy, community vitality and natural
environment (WRC, 2013b). The proposed development must take into account each of these
factors in its implementation. As a result, the character of the local environment must be maintained,
while ensuring that the Kuratau community and wider Taupō area remain economically viable.
One of the negative impacts that the management plans incorporate is excess nitrogen from land
use activities. This nitrogen excess adversely impacts the ecosystem, economy, and community of
Lake Taupō; therefore, the WRC has a goal to achieve 20 percent reduction of nitrogen. This plan is
implemented for the long term and applies to rural and urban management. To achieve this goal, it
requires a consensus to monitor the economic impact and putting this strategy in place (WRC,
2013b). While the proposed development is not expected to have a significant impact on the
nitrogen levels flowing into the lake, the long term involvement may create a requirement for
additional measuring as outlined in section 6.0.
Environment Waikato supposes that this strategy will be achieved in the next 15 years. Ecosystem
and lake health is expected to get better, but there is a delay in nitrogen moving from land to lake
which may result in unfavourable movements arising. Therefore, prevention of the nitrogen loads is
vital to the success of the Waikato Regional Plan (WRC, 2013b).
3.4.2 Lake Taupō Catchment Policy
3.4.2.1 Tangata Whenua Values and Interests
The relationship between Ngati Tuwharetoa and the Lake is a key consideration in its protection.
Ngati Tuwharetoa is an owner of the Lake Bed and the catchment of the Lake, and they are a partner
with local and central government regarding Lake management. They must be incorporated into any
decision-making process regarding the Lake (WRC, 2012b). This Iwi maintains an interest in lake
developments by holding cultural values which must be considered within the RMA (6:e).
3.4.2.2 Identification of Lake Taupō as an Outstanding Water Body in the Waikato Region
The RMA emphasises the importance of natural features; the water body of Lake Taupō is an

47
188.763, 2013, EIA.
outstanding natural feature in the Region (WRC, 2012b). The values and characteristics listed in the
policy are exceptionally high in Lake Taupō and its surrounding margins, inflowing streams and
wetlands. In addition, the 2020 Taupō-nui-a-Tia Action Plan identifies the Lake and its catchment as
having a number of aspects highly valued by Ngati Tuwharetoa and the wider community. By
identifying Lake Taupō as an outstanding water body, an appropriate recognition can be afforded to
it in all aspects of management (ibid). Such may create more than anticipated consultation with
additional interest groups and potential opposition and consents needed due to the impact upon
social and cultural values.
3.4.2.3 Phosphorus and Water Quality
In addition to nitrogen levels, the plan includes controls on phosphorus so to minimise discharges
from land and not affect future water quality in Lake Taupō. At this time, phosphorus is not having
an adverse effect on water quality in Lake Taupō. Currently, phosphorus is managed by landowners
and agencies to protect riparian areas and control soil erosion which has reduced the immediate risk
of negative impacts upon the lake. However, there is an interrelationship between nitrogen and
phosphorus which means that an increase in phosphorus could threaten lake water quality (WRC,
2012b). Additional costs could thus be imposed upon the development in the future for phosphorus
control, so it is recommended that a Certificate of Compliance is acquired, as provided in appendix 7.
There is a wastewater standard applying to nitrogen and phosphorus should meet the requirement
of the Near-shore Zone. This is to ensure new work on site and the community domestic wastewater
system in Lake Taupō are protected and have no negative impact to algal slimes, weed growth and
health risks. The wastewater systems should also not located within 200 meters of the Lake edge
(WRC, 2012b). As wastewater is anticipated to be incorporated into the existing utility systems, this
is not anticipated to create additional restrictions upon the proposed development.
3.4.3 Approaches to Resource Management Policy- (Land and Soil)
The removal of vegetation has the potential to lead to accelerated erosion, which will require
management and monitoring by WRC. This policy specifically focuses on substances that could
contaminate soil or water. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 provides key
controls for use in the region. WRC requires that the effects of soil disturbance and vegetation

48
188.763, 2013, EIA.
clearance in high-risk erosion areas, such as the proposed development site, are minimal (WRC,
2012a). Moreover, this policy encourages appropriate land management practices through
environmental education, guidelines and incentives which may provide some more mitigation of
costs associated with the required consents.
3.4.4 Approaches to Resource Management Policy- (Water Management)
3.4.4.1 Management of Water Resources
Management of water bodies can assist a range of water use activities. The intent is to classify water
bodies based on their use values and maintain overall water quality. Natural character of lakes and
rivers receive priority for preservation and protection, shielding them from inappropriate use and
developments (WRC, 2012b). It also benefits communities that use the water resources and the
diversity of aquatic and riparian habitat. Native fish and existing aquatic ecosystem are maintained
and taken in to account by the Conservation Strategy (WRC, 2012b). Any development which would
alter these values will require consents to be acquired with potential consultation with interested
parties.
3.4.4.2 Water takes
The Council establishes and reviews water takes and minimum flows for surface water bodies which
will be used when assessing authorised water takes and resource consent applications from surface
water bodies. This policy requires the monitoring of any activities that contribute to degradation of
water quality regarding the contaminant assimilative capacity of water bodies (WRC, 2012b). This
policy also aims to protect wetlands and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of
indigenous fauna. The efficient take and use of water of reasonable domestic or municipal supply is
promoted for sustainable water use; access for the development should be possible through the
currently existing infrastructure network. These are confined however with the requirement of
minimum flows at water harvesting sites, setting allowable flows in order for effective water
management and efficient allocation. To draw additional water beyond this is not viable within the
existing framework, if necessary to extract water from elsewhere, an application for additional
consent will need to be undertaken.

EIA FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to EIA FINAL

Similar to EIA FINAL (20)

EIA FINAL