Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee

A g e n d a

3.00pm, Monday, 11 December 2017 10am – Zone Committee Field Trip 

12.30 – Biodiversity Working Group Workshop 

1.15pm – Zone Committee Only Briefing Workshop 

Cheviot Community Centre, 3 Caverhill Road, Cheviot

           Community Partnership in Growth and Wellbeing 

HU

RU

NU

I-W

AIA

U Z

ON

E C

OM

MIT

TEE

Committee Membership: John Faulkner (Chairperson) Mayor Winton Dalley (Hurunui District Council) Cr Vince Daly (Hurunui District Council) Cr Cynthia Roberts (Canterbury Regional Council) James Costello  Ben Ensor (Deputy Chairperson) Michele Hawke Ken Hughey James McCone  Makarini Rupene (Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga) Dan Shand Representative to be advised (Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura) 

Quorum: 

The quorum of the meeting consists of: 

• half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even; or  

• a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd. 

Committee Secretary – Michelle Stanley 

********************************************** 

The purpose of local government: 

(1)  The purpose of local government is— (a)  to enable democratic local decision‐making and 

action by, and on behalf of, communities; and (b)  to meet the current and future needs of communities 

for good‐quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost‐effective for households and businesses. 

(2)  In this Act, good‐quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are — (a)  efficient; and (b)  effective; and (c)  appropriate to present and anticipated future 

circumstances. 

(Local Government Act 2002 – Amendment Act 2012) 

 

 

HURUNUI – WAIAU ZONE COMMITTEE  

WORKSHOP & MEETING 

Monday, 11 December 2017,  

Cheviot Community Hall, Cheviot 

 10.00am    Zone Committee field trip – mahinga kai and farm practices (Parnassus) 

12.30pm    Zone Committee lunch (Cheviot) 

12.30pm – 1.15pm  Biodiversity subcommittee working lunch (Cheviot) 

1.15pm – 2.45pm  Committee‐only briefing workshop  

AGENDA   3.00pm  Zone Committee Meeting commences with karakia and formal order of business 

Apologies 

Announced urgent business 

Interests register (changes or updates) 

Confirmation of minutes –  20 November 2017 

Matters arising 

   4 5‐16  

1  3.15pm  Confirmed meeting schedule 2018 Ian Whitehouse and Michelle Stanley 

17 

2  3.15pm  Zone Committee Workshops and Briefings Michelle Stanley and Graham Sutherland, Hurunui District Council 

18‐20 

3  3.20pm  Update on Regional Committee Winton Dalley and Michele Hawke 

 

4  3.25pm  Update from Zone Committee members on activities and meetings attended that relate to the Committee’s outcomes for the zone 

 

5  3.30pm  Public Contribution   

6  3.35pm  Update organisations wishing to speak   

7  3.40pm  Update from Zone Delivery including St Anne’s Lagoon Leanne Lye, Environment Canterbury 

21‐33 

8  4.00pm  Proposed region‐wide approach to resolving issues with river‐bed lines (paper to be tabled) 

Environment Canterbury 

 

  4.20pm  BREAK   

9  4.40pm  Initial results from research into potential impact of permitting dryland farming Josh Brown, Hurunui District Landcare Group 

34‐48 

10  5.10pm  Establishing a subcommittee to progress discussions with AIC on further deferring a consent review in relation to HWRRP minimum flows Ian Whitehouse, Environment Canterbury 

49‐51 

11  5.35pm  Additional technical information relating to consideration of deferring a review of water take consents: 

i. Advice on whether implementing HWRRP minimum flows could be deferred on consents currently being renewed. Lisa Jenkins, Environment Canterbury 

ii. On‐farm impacts of irrigation restrictions Peter Brown and Andrew Barton, AIC 

iii. Comparison of reliability of supply for irrigation schemes in Canterbury (paper to be tabled) Jeanine Topelen, Environment Canterbury; 

   52   53‐65 

12  6.10pm  Wilding conifer strategy and action in the zone Alan Tinnelly, MPI 

66‐68 

13  6.25pm  Zone Facilitator’s report   Ian Whitehouse, Environment Canterbury 

69 ‐75 

  6.30pm  Meeting concludes   

Register of Interests for the Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee 

Committee Member  Interests 

James Costello  Farm owner – sheep in the Hurunui Catchment 

Water Resource Consent to take water from the Waitohi River 

Shareholder in Hurunui Water Project 

Possibly an affected landowner by infrastructure of Hurunui Water Project 

Dryland Farmers Committee member 

Ben Ensor  Land owner in the coastal hills, Jed and lower Waiau catchments. 

Managing director of Seaward Stock Company Ltd, comprising sheep, beef and cropping enterprises. 

Consent holder to take water for irrigation from a stream hydraulically connected to the Waiau River. 

Member of the Hurunui Waiau Landcare Group (Dryland Farmers Group). 

John Faulkner   Dairy farm owner in the Amuri Basin. 

Irrigation water supplied by Amuri Irrigation Company Ltd (Shareholder). 

Dairy Support block owner, consent to take water from a gallery. 

Member of the independent irrigators Group. 

Michele Hawke  Nil 

Dan Shand  Land owner Hurunui and Waiau catchments 

Dry land farmer 

Member of the Hurunui/Waiau Landcare Group 

Mayor Winton Dalley  Register of Interests lies with the CEO of the Hurunui District Council.  

Ken Hughey   Professor of Environmental Management, Lincoln University (2 days per week) 

Chief Science Advisor, Department of Conservation, Wellington (3 days per week) 

Board member Waihora Ellesmere Trust 

Board member Hanmer Springs Conservation Trust 

Member Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 

Member Royal Society of NZ 

Member NZ Geographical Society. 

Occasional contract water‐related research work including for Environment Canterbury. 

Makarini Rupene  TBC 

James McCone  Dry Creek Dairy Ltd‐ AIC Balmoral scheme 

Kinloch Dairy Ltd‐ AIC Waiau Scheme 

Amuri Irrigation Company Director 

Committee Member Upper Waiau Independent Irrigators 

Informal interest in potential emu plains irrigation 

Councillor Vince Daly  Farm owner ‐ mixed cropping and livestock farm  

Water resource consent to take water from unnamed lake in Jed catchment 

Cynthia Roberts  Register of Interests is held by Environment Canterbury. 

 

4

   

 

Meeting  Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee 

Date and Time  20 November 2017, 3.00pm 

Venue  Waiau Community Hall, Waiau 

Agenda  http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/20‐November‐2017‐HWZC‐Agenda‐WEB.pdf  

Members Present  John Faulkner (Chair), Mayor Winton Dalley, Cr Vince Daly, Cr Cynthia Roberts, James Costello, Ben Ensor, Michele Hawke, Ken Hughey, James McCone, and Dan Shand. 

In Attendance  Environment Canterbury (ECan) – Ian Whitehouse (Zone Facilitator), Michael Bennett, Leanne Lye, Andrew Parrish, Lisa Jenkins, Stephen Bragg, Ned Norton, Caroline Hart, Hamish Graham, Jeanine Topelen and Peter Taylor 

Amuri Irrigation – Andrew Barton, David Croft 

Cheviot Irrigators Group – Robb MacBeth 

Hurunui Water Project – Christina Robb and Chris Pile 

Emu Plains irrigators – Brian Ellwood 

Fish and Game New Zealand – Scott Pearson. 

Hurunui District Council – Cr Nicky Anderson 

Rainer Irrigation – Neville Brightwell. 

Rural Advocacy Network – Jamie McFadden 

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRONT) – Lisa Mackenzie and Matt Dale 

Ryder Consultants – Gavin Kemble and Greg Ryder 

Committee Secretary – Michelle Stanley. 

Recording Device  A recording device was in use for the accuracy of the minutes.  

Karakia  Stephen Bragg led the Karakia. 

Apologies  Apologies were received from Makarini Rupene. 

THAT THE APOLOGIES BE ACCEPTED. 

Faulkner/Costello  CARRIED 

Conflict of Interest Declarations 

James McCone to forward to Michelle Stanley, Secretary, a change to the Interests Register.  

Urgent Business  Nil. 

   

5

   

Minutes  THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 16 OCTOBER 2017 ARE CONFIRMED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 

Page 5, Members Present, Change ‘Chair’ to Ben Ensor.  

Page 5, In Attendance, include Matt Dale in Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRONT). And exclude Lesley Shand from the minutes now and for all other meetings.   

Page 7, second to last bullet point, change reference to Rural Advocacy Group to Landowner. 

Page 8, Item 1, third bullet point, change to read “…but not directly into the target river system.” 

Page 9, Item 4, change to Amuri Irrigation Company. (misspelling). 

Page 9, item 2, change to read: “ECan had advised that they were working on their Long Term Plan and that the CWMS and biodiversity were their highest priorities in the Long Term Plan.” to replace “The emphasis is on the Long Term Plan process at this stage.  The CWMS process, biodiversity and Biosecurity were discussed.”  

Page 10, Item 6, change heading to “technical evaluation of…”  

Page 10, Item 6, fourth bullet point, change ‘rational’ to ‘rationale’. 

Page 11, Item 6, fifth bullet point, change to read: “A query was raised on the possibility of delaying the renewal date of the Phoebe Plains consent due to linkage with improving the flows in St. Anne’s Lagoon.  They will be affected by the new minimum flow rules.” 

Page 12, second bullet point, change ‘complied’ to ‘compiled’. 

Page 12, third bullet point, change to “it was queried as to why Waiau needs storage when the new reliability would be similar to the current Balmoral reliability.”  

Faulkner/Costello  CARRIED 

Matters Arising: 

Matters Arising – Item 8, Braided River Biodiversity Management (page 6) 

Ken Hughey tabled a document outlining the general conditions related to the HWP consent condition to implement a Trust.   

As the Trust has not yet been established, there are no foreseeable issues to extending the mandate and scope of the Trust to cover the interests of all the Hurunui irrigation companies, like HWP, AIC, Ngai Tahu Property and, if water does go into the Waipara River from the Hurunui River, the Waiau River and Waipara Rivers as well.   

Ken noted that the Biodiversity flagship program is very similar to what was envisaged to be the purpose of the HWP Trust.  

It was decided that members would read through the information and come prepared for discussion at a future meeting.   

Ken to report back with a step‐by‐step plan on achieving this.   

 

 

 

6

   

Item 2, Update from Zone Committee members (page 9) 

John Faulkner and Mayor Winton Dalley have been to visit David Bedford and reported that he is open to visitors now if anyone wishes to visit.   

Ian Whitehouse delivered all the notes and cards to him.   

Item 9, Input to Environment Canterbury (page 13) 

Ken Hughey will follow up on the swimming opportunities.   

Zone Facilitators Report ‐ Initiatives (Page 14) 

Ken Hughey to follow up on the before and after photos about the Hurunui Conservation Trust Wetlands Project.   

Zone Facilitators Report – Proposed further water quality (E.coli) monitoring (Page 15) 

Ned Norton and Ken Hughey had a meeting last week and they are both happy with the outcome.  It is still a work in progress and ECan have had two trips to the River since that meeting.  Staff are working to pinpoint exactly where the sources of E. coli are.   

Item 4, Update from HDLG and other organisations (Page 10) 

It was reported that four FEP auditors attended the training day run by AIC.   

Discussions at the training day were held around how the audit process goes beyond what they are required to do.  An auditor will assess far more than the required checklist and will make suggestions to a farmer that they are not obliged to do, but will help them to function better.   

There will be another field day in the Autumn on this topic.  

Correspondence  John Faulkner tabled a memo received from Philip Burge, Principal Consents Advisor ECan, on the ‘Number of Land Use consents related to riverbeds and their margins in the Hurunui‐Waiau Canterbury Water Management Strategy zones’.  A total of 44 applications are recorded as being received and decided since 11 August 2012.  All decided applications were granted on a non‐notified basis.  This does not include applications currently in process.   

The applications of decided land use consent applications related to flood protection, structures, stock grazing and clearance of riverbed and riparian vegetation in riverbeds and riparian zones, in the Hurunui‐Waiau CWMS Zone, (excluding gravel extraction and bores).   

Letter from ECan regarding Riverbed Lines 

The letter was taken as read.  Discussion was held on the ECan’s return letter.  The following was noted: 

It was felt that this reply was predictable.  

It was commented that what ECan are proposing to do is good but not fast enough.   

Bill Bayfield, ECan CEO, has committed to coming back to the Committee in December with their proposed process for resolving the riverbed line issue across Canterbury including specific work in the Hurunui‐Waiau.  It was noted that Bill Bayfield attended the zone 

7

   

committee only workshop before the October Zone Committee meeting.  It was noticed by the public gallery that he did not stay for the Public Meeting.   

The Zone Committee made it clear that they are not happy with the response to its letter and the timeframe given for resolution of the riverbed issue.   

Jamie McFadden reiterated that whilst this discussion is happening, the mapping is still continuing as is the issue of the how that information is being used.  He would like those databases to be removed as the validity of the gathered information is in question.  

Jamie McFadden said that while assurance from ECan that those techniques of entering landowners properties without permission has been stopped, this is still happening.  It is requested that any evidence of this occurring be forwarded onto the Zone Committee to act upon accordingly.   

Proposed Meeting Schedule 2018 

The 2018 proposed meeting schedule was considered.  Discussion was held around the venues through winter.  It was requested that the Committee Secretary and Ian Whitehouse relook at the venues and come back to the Zone Committee with some warmer venues through the colder months of the year.   

Ian Whitehouse to send out invitations to the meetings and workshops.  

1. Update on Regional Committee 

No update was given due to there being no scheduled meeting since the last Zone Committee meeting.   

2. Update from Zone Committee members on other activities and meetings attended that relate to the Committee’s outcomes for the Zone.  

Cr Cynthia Roberts attended the Kaikōura Commemorate Ceremony and opening of the marina.  She noted that it was a great and thoughtful ceremony.   

The Pest Management Plan review is in the final stages and is on the website.  The submission process has closed but it is still open for technical input.  It is shaping up to be a very good plan.   

It was noted that many submissions were submitted to the Plan. Mayor Winton Dalley felt that there was not a lot of consideration given to submissions on the counterproductive lack of cost sharing especially incentivising landowners to follow the Plan.  

Turi McFarlane and has been awarded a Nuffield scholarship and will be studying Ecosystem services and various international agricultural systems and how they can be applied to the New Zealand system.  This is great for Turi but also for Hurunui as he is a big part of the Hurunui District Landcare Group.   

Mayor Winton Dalley spoke to the media on the ECan announcement to the swimming quality downgrade on the Hurunui River.  He was asked to respond to the announcement to which he responded that according to the discussions that the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee have had, the grade is likely due to the natural sources of E.Coli up‐stream and until there is some certainty around the source of the E.Coli, then there is not a lot that can be reported.  

8

   

3. General Public Contribution 

The Zone Committee notes the handout on issues of water and pollution by WADE, from a member of the public.  To be taken and read.  

REPORTS, SPEAKERS AND PRESENTATIONS 

4. Update from Hurunui District Landcare Group, HWP and any other organisations wishing to speak 

Chris Pile, HWP, noted that HWP have two major resource consents in progress.  The first one is the nutrient discharge consent for the Waipara catchment which has been lodged.  He noted the discharge consent application is to quantify the load that HWP is already entitled to, as part of their previous consent to take irrigation off a farm, but as that part of the plan changed between the original consent and currently, it is no longer a permitted activity so needs clarification to give farmers certainty to invest.   

The other consent, which is yet to be applied for, is for the on‐plains storage that is proposed for the north side of the Hurunui River.  They are working together with Ngāi Tahu and Amuri Irrigation to build a facility on the Ngāi Tahu Balmoral Forestry in the north west corner.  They are estimating that the consent application will be submitted early 2018. 

A member of the public asked what had been looked into regarding crossing the Mandamus and understood that it was not acceptable at the Glenrae storage.  John Faulkner clarified that a presentation was given a few meetings ago on the options for storage.  This was a hypothesised scenario and it was noted that the Glenrae storage option, whilst the most attractive, would require a Plan change so unlikely to happen.   

Hurunui District Landcare Group are still working on the dryland farming research and are on track to present it to the December Zone Committee meeting.  

AIC, Andrew reported that the piping project is finished and successful.  Quite a few farmers are enjoying the quietness of the new gravity driven centre pivot system rather than the whirring of a pump.   

Works are progressing in other areas namely the Waireka Scheme, which is a small 400 hectare border dyke scheme.  They are putting in a pipe beside the open race as part of a process to change from border to spray irrigation in a manner that gives the farmers the lead in the process.  This is the focus for next year.  

5. Progress Report on Zone Delivery Leanne Lye, ECan  

Leanne Lye spoke on the progress of the zone delivery team.  The following was noted: 

Michael Bennett will be spending approximately thirty percent of his time working in the earthquake recovery project team led by Beef and Lamb New Zealand. 

The Zone Team are adopting a programme of focussed monitoring on high priority consents in line with regional programme.  High‐risk consents/consent holders have been/will be identified and assigned an individual monitoring plan.   A small number of farmers who need 

9

   

consents in the Waipara and Conway catchments have also been spoken to and are being assisted through the process.  

There has been a ‘farming at GMP’ campaign targeting farmers that are not in a collective.  These farmers have been contacted and are being supported.   

Quarterly meetings with industry and environmental groups have been scheduled for December. 

124 consents were monitored in the last quarter and 89 have complied. 

AIC, CIG and HDLG are instrumental in ensuring that farmers are operating at GMP.   

Immediate steps Biodiversity funding for Lansdowne Farm in Waipara has been signed off.  

It was requested that when communication regarding the Hurunui‐Waiau Zone is put into the media, a link/notification is sent to the Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee.   

The Waiau River at Waiau township has been given a grade of ‘good’ for contact recreation. This is the first time that the new site on the main channel at Waiau township has been given a grade as several years of monitoring are needed before a site is graded.   

The Zone Team need to identify at least two projects to enhance Mahinga kai in the zone.  It was agreed that the St Annes Lagoon is a good project for this.  It was acknowledged that Robb Macbeth, Phoebe Irrigation, has been instrumental in looking at an options for keeping the water in this lagoon in dry years and Robb indicated that they would still be willing to help in the future.  

Discussion around how to fix the St Annes issue was held.  Leanne Lye to come back to a future meeting with some more detailed information on the issue and possible long term solutions.   

This report to include Jeanine’s high‐level feasibility study modelling looking at storage, precipitation and evaporation data to sustain ecological health.  Also to include funding options, source of the water and issues of mixing water.   

Discussion was held around modelling the excavation that Cr Vince Daly had done at his farm pond and whether a hole could be excavated at St Annes.  It was discussed and supported by Hamish, Hydrologist, that the sediment at St Annes Lagoon will not support digging out a deeper hole for the eels as it is quite silty and a hole would fill back in.  A suggestion was made that Cr Vince Daly’s pond is looked at via a site visit.  

It was agreed that the St Annes Lagoon become the Zone Teams next Mahinga kai project.   

   

10

   

6. Cost of on‐farm water storage or other mitigating strategies to offset increase in minimum flow.  

6a. Cheviot Irrigators – On‐Farm Cost to Offset Increases in Minimum Flow Robb Macbeth, Cheviot Irrigators Group 

Robb Macbeth spoke to the Zone Committee on the cost of on‐farm water storage and other mitigating strategies to offset increase in minimum flow.   He noted that his presentation was a simplistic analysis of the new minimum flow impact and the modelling is based on Phoebe Plains.   

He concluded that on‐farm storage is unlikely to be an economical option and farmers would struggle to receive funding to build on‐farm storage.  Community storage could potentially be more economic but would be difficult to consent, difficult to fund and many years away.  Seasons with significant irrigation restrictions will have a significant impact on profitability. The environmental impact of farming system change is difficult to quantify and requires further work.   

Discussion was held and the following was noted:  

AIC and CIG are working broadly together but do not see any integration options for storage at this stage.  It was asked if CIG see the deferment of minimum flows as a way to encourage integration between CIG, AIC, HWP and Emu Plains.  There is potential for this to happen but the issue at the present time is that CIG farmers are right in the midst of the consent renewal process as there are a number of consents due for renewal in the next 12 to 18 months and the new consents will have the new minimum flows.  CIG felt that, simplistically, if the new minimum flows were deferred they would have more time and more investment capability to progress an integrated storage solution.   

Whilst the Zone Committee are aware that this is just a brief summary it was noted that more data on reliability would lead to a more informed discussion.   

Discussion on deferring the consent process to allow time to work on an integrated storage system was held.  Andrew Parrish stated that a time‐period cannot be extended/changed on a consent and would require a Plan change to do so.  It was suggested that a consent is granted with the existing minimum flows but this then inhibits the health of the river and the moving to minimum flows.    

It was reminded that it has always been the Zone Committees view that there would be no minimum flow increase until storage is achieved.  If the Committee is still determined to work on and give opportunities for integrated storage then it needs to be careful to not force an individual consent holder into an expensive process to take care of their own storage when there will quite likely be a community storage option coming.  

Andrew Parrish and Lisa Jenkins to look into options that would encourage a pragmatic short‐term solution and report back to the Committee on the results.  

It was suggested that ECan do some cross referencing between the on‐farm costs presented and the evidence presented to the HWRRP Hearing, as the profit losses presented in the Plan hearings seem lower 

11

   

than the costs reported by Phoebe Plains.  AIC noted that they are still looking to provide information on the impact of reliability of supply on farm cost from the 2014/2015 season.   

Would like more farm specific information to give the Zone Committee a greater degree of comfort.  Andrew Parrish to report on this at a future meeting.     

Scott Pearson proposed that Fish and Game New Zealand would be interested in funding an alternative farm model over a five year time period.  This would be looking at different reliability of supply on irrigated dairy farming systems comparing the current farming model with an alternative farming model on the same farm 

This model is already in place in a number of other farms in New Zealand therefore it was felt that there would be no reduction in profitability for a farmer who would choose to trial Fish and Game’s alternative model.  Scott Pearson suggested bringing in a farm model expert in to explain it further.   

The Zone Committee were in favour of finding out more about this offer.   

Discussion was held around the worry that what was being discussed was more around efficiency rather than reliability.  Whilst it is certain that farms will increasingly become more water efficient, this does not fix the reliability of water flows in a dry season.  If a farm becomes more efficient in its practices and subsequently decides to relinquish the unneeded water take from its consent to save paying for it every year, then it will still have the same issues with reliability in a dry period under minimum flow restrictions.   

Andrew Parrish noted that there are currently plan change processes underway in the OTOP Zone and the Waimakariri Zone and there will be some technical information from these on reliability of supply of other irrigation schemes.  He will ask staff to bring the results to the Zone Committee.  

6b. AIC’s proposal for more action to improve water quality and biodiversity 

Andrew Barton, AIC 

Andrew Barton presented to the Committee on AIC’s proposal for more actions to improve water quality and biodiversity.   

Andrew spoke on the background of AIC.  AIC proposed to deliver ASM and FEPs across irrigators and the Zone Committee recommended that ECan delay consent reviews which ECan adopted.  Minimum flow increases will have an economic impact on AIC and its shareholders and storage comes at a significant cost, focus and resources.  They feel that better outcomes can be achieved by further delaying consent reviews. 

They are focusing on the fish screen review, hapua monitoring, mid‐river jetboat access, riverbed bird habitat, mahinga kai outcomes on farms exploration, understanding how to improve braided rivers through farming practices, periphyton and water quality monitoring, managed aquifer recharge, project management potential, and storage options. 

AIC farmers have improved Pahau River water quality and AIC has met the FEP and audit targets previously agreed to.   

12

   

AIC’s next steps will be to get Zone Committee feedback, appointing a project manager, a consultation process and finally a formal proposal to be submitted to the Zone Committee. 

Discussion was held and the following was noted: 

AIC will not be pursuing a constructed/enhanced wetland in the lower reaches of St Leonard’s Drain due to the high cost and an unwilling seller and therefore will be looking at tributary pumping.   

Michael Bennett spoke on some of the trial work of the Kaikoura plains recovery project that could be worth looking at.   

It was noted that the report supplied by AIC was modelled on the take utilising the consents that AIC hold.  Eventually that saved water would be utilised for example Emu Plains Irrigators would be able to use the extra A allocated water instead of having to put in on‐plains storage. 

Andrew agreed that independent irrigators in the lower Hurunui River, whose restrictions are based on the flows monitored at State Highway 1, might not be very happy to know that the river will be half a cumec lower in the middle of the summer.   He felt that their reliability would still be superior than anyone who had minimum flows based on the flows recorded at the Mandamus site.    

Andrew noted that AIC wish to speak to the affected landowners before coming to the Zone Committee with numbers and a benefit vs impact analysis to see if the nitrate‐nitrogen concentration decrease at State Highway 1 would be worth the decrease in reliability during minimum flows.   AIC felt that the decrease in reliability would be small being only 1‐2% and would still be higher than the reliability on the Waiau River.   

Andrew noted that they are trying to reduce the concentration of nitrate‐Nitrogen at State Highway 1 by pumping nitrate‐rich water from St Leonard’s Drain. To do that they would need to delink the Pahau Drain and St Leonards Drain’s minimum flows from the main stem minimum flow.   

In the approach being proposed, AIC would not pump water in a major flood as this would have a minute effect of nitrate‐nitrogen reduction.  They noted that it would be more beneficial to the river to pump in the recession of a flood.   

There is an opportunity cost on the water that is not being used plus the price of pumping.   

A lot of the shareholders also subscribe to Amuri shares in order to protect themselves against reliability.   

They have a consent to take water from St Leonards Drain and do not have to drop water back into the St Leonards but they do. 

AIC asked if the River was better off having more water in it with higher nitrate concentrations or lower water flow with less nitrate concentrations.  It was agreed that in the short term it was better to have more water in the drain and that AIC’s pumping would improve the health of St Leonards Drain.  

13

   

AIC is doing some investigation into the reasons why nitrogen levels are so high in the St Leonards Drain.  It is a work in progress.  

It was noted that there is some confusion around what AIC thought ECan was offering in terms of support for AIC’s desire for a plan change to enable water storage in Zone B.  Clarification was needed.  

Zone Committee members expressed its frustration with the continued discussion of storage options without any on ground action and no integrated solution originally requested by the Zone Committee.  AIC said they have put all of the plans and paperwork in place but are hindered by the Plan which does not allow storage in Zone B .  AIC are committed to putting storage in.  

There is a concern that maintaining the current minimum flows will have a detrimental effect to the health of the river.  The Committee agreed that the minimum flows must increase sooner rather than later (i.e. implement the HWRRP minimum flows).   

A member of the public reminded the Committee of some of the gains that have been made with Farm Environment Plans and Good Management Practice and that it is not all about storage.   

It was noted that the Zone Committee has not yet received information from developers supporting a plan to enable major storage in Zone B and so could not assess if this was something that should be part of the plan changes to be notified in mid 2017. 

The Zone Committee thanked Andrew for presenting and agreed that there is still more discussion to be held on this topic of deferring minimum flows and storage options. 

Break  The meeting adjourned for a break at 5.00 pm and reconvened at 5.05 pm.   

7. AIC’s approach to Nitrogen Accounting Peter Brown, AIC 

Taken as read.   

Please email any questions through to Ian Whitehouse.  

8. Progress on Technical Matters 

8a. Dryland Farming related information  

Ned Norton 

Ned Norton spoke briefly on the Technical Progress update on Dryland farming related information and the deferral of water takes review issue.  He took the information as read and spoke to a presentation that is briefly outlined below: 

Dryland Farming related information  

1) Work by the Hurunui District Landcare Group is progressing with plans to present to the December Zone Committee meeting.  This work will inform what is normal dryland development and typical nutrient increases expected from that.  

2) Estimating the potential for dryland forage cropping. A GIS approach has been used to provide an “upper bound” estimate of the area that could be used for winter grazing on fodder crops. This upper estimate needs to be refined by considering climatic and other factors that limit the actual area of winter grazing on fodder crops. 

14

   

3) Sources of “manageable” phosphorus loss.  Available information, while uncertain, provides a level of comfort that gains from the most manageable sources of phosphorus loss could help to achieve catchment phosphorus limits while permitting “normal dryland development”. 

To be discussed more at a further meeting when further information is available.    

8b Assessment of likely impact of climate change on the assessment of environmental values at risk if minimum‐flow consent review is deferred.  

Suzanne Gabities and Jeanine Topelen, ECan  

1) The report was taken as read and the Zone Committee were accepting of the information.  The key finding was that taking into account the impacts of climate change, the environmental effects of delaying implementation of HWRRP minimum flows are expected to be similar or slightly worse in the next 15 years compared with the assessment presented last month. 

 

Deferral of water takes review – outstanding questions 

2) The Cawthron flow‐setting research adds to the existing basket of assessment tools.  If used as part of a full review of HWRRP minimum flows today, would likely result in biophysical assessment that higher flows would increase carrying capacity for trout.  Process then subject to all usual consideration of implication s across all values.   

9. Updated Zone Committee work Programme 

The updated work programme was taken as read.  It was noted that the Zone Committee might need to have another meeting at some stage to work on the deferred minimum flows issue.  This is not a set work programme and can evolve as needed.  

THAT THE ZONE COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGE THE 2018 WORK PROGRAMME.   

Hughey/Ensor  CARRIED  

10. Early draft Zone Committee’s 2017 Annual Report  

The Early draft of the Zone Committee’s 2017 Annual Report was discussed.  The following changes and additions were suggested:  

It was suggested that the Ngāi Tahu trial plots of apricots, apples and hazelnuts down by the milk factory would be a great addition. Ian Whitehouse to follow up on this.  

key Achievements  

o Water on Balmoral 

o The Zone Committee is still working regularly tackling the big issues.  Relationships are stronger than 12 months ago and there are good constructive working relationships with all the groups.   

o The Ministry for Primary Industries fund for earthquake  

o Emu Plains lodged their consent, raised some capital and are an incorporated society.  Ian Whitehouse to include. 

 

15

   

Recreational ‐ Waiau River has been graded ‘Good’ for swimming.  It was noted that the testing site was shifted to a new site on the Waiau River.  It was suggested that it would be worthwhile shifting the testing site on the Hurunui River as well.   

Ongoing Challenges – this heading was a suggested addition where it would encourage transparency and honest reporting.  Email Ian Whitehouse with any issues.  

Ken Hughey to send some suggestions.   

Opportunities – Auditing numbers from AIC. 

Michael Bennett to give Ian Whitehouse some information on the earthquake statistics and achievements in that space.  

The impact of Immediate Steps funded project illustrated with pictures.  Do some before and after.  If have images please send them through.   

Braided river issue.  Michele Hawke to send some words on braided rivers to Ian Whitehouse.    

Amuri Irrigation Company Piping Project (page 2) – change second paragraph to read “it is estimated previously that about 30% of the water was lost from the open races.”  

Zone Committee Membership 2017 (page 4) – change to read “Dr Cynthia Roberts (Environment Canterbury, Councillor)” 

It was noted that the website which the annual report is on gets a good number of hits and is well read.  There are a large number that also ask for a print out of it as well.   

It was suggested that in the future it might be good to publicise the Zone Committees KPIs each year.   

Urgent Business  Nil 

Meeting concluded 

The meeting concluded at 6.38pm. 

Next meeting  11 December 2018 – Cheviot. 

 

16

AGENDA ITEM NO:  1 

 

SUBJECT MATTER: 

2018 meeting schedule 

REPORT TO: 

Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee 

DATE OF MEETING: 

11 December 2017 

PREPARED BY:  

Ian Whitehouse and Michelle Stanley 

ACTION: 

For information  

2018 HWZC meeting schedule 

Following discussion at the November meeting over concerns about the winter venues for the zone 

committee’s meetings the 2018 meeting schedule is: 

19 February Cheviot 

19 March Waikari Hall 

26 March Amberley (if required) 

16 April Culverden 

21 May Greta Valley 

18 June Balcairn Hall 

16 July Amberley 

20 August Amberley 

17 September Rotherham 

15 October Hawarden 

19 November Waiau 

10 December Amberley 

 

17

AGENDA ITEM NO: 2  SUBJECT MATTER: 

Zone Committee Workshops and Briefings 

REPORT BY:  Michelle Stanley and Graham Sutherland, Hurunui District Council Secretaries 

DATE OF MEETING:  11 December 2017 

Action required 

Zone Committee members note the information and agree to the recommended approach below with respect to the conduct and management of Zone Committee workshops: 

 a) That preceding a scheduled workshop, an item be included in the agenda whereby the 

Zone Committee recommend the workshop or briefing be open to the public or not. 

b) Where possible, the explanation of an upcoming workshop or briefing be included in the previous month’s meeting agenda. 

c) Workshops have sometimes been held to enable the Zone Committee to debate issues without the inclusion of public contribution.  It may be helpful to permit public attendance at workshops or briefings, however the privilege of public contribution may not be extended in the workshop or briefings where the public is permitted to attend. 

d) Any workshop/briefing prior to a public meeting is briefly summarised by the Chair as a regular agenda item. 

e) Confidential information from workshops or briefings is not shared publicly. 

f) A record is provided at the conclusion of settling on a position, that the position was supported by the workshop or briefing. 

 

Background

Members‐only or “Public excluded” workshops The Zone Committee has recently held members‐only workshops (referred to as “public excluded” on the agenda coversheet) prior to its normal public meetings.  This has led to some comment from the public about the use of workshops and meeting processes.  This report discusses the rules and obligations of the Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee as a joint committee of ECan and the Hurunui District Council, acting under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and specifically the Standing Orders and meeting conventions of the Hurunui District Council. 

Status of Workshops Workshops are a common tool used by councils and are a legitimate part of the governance process.  Generally, a Council or a committee may hold a workshop in the early stages of drafting a position or direction on a policy or planning matter.  The result is that officers then feed that discussion and information into a report that would eventually make its way back for open discussion, debate and decision making in a formal meeting.  Some councils also hold briefings, which is more of a one‐way information sharing process for officers to inform members of matters that may not yet be public, which may be confidential for a variety of reasons or to convey detailed information to enable the decision makers to be better prepared when considering complex matters.  Another common approach is the use of smaller working groups, which are in the same way an informal meeting, but for a specific purpose or project.  The Hurunui District Council for example, currently has eight working groups that meet as required and are working on a number of different issues.  The Council 

18

provides a basic summary of progress on each of these at every Council meeting.  Eventually the work of these sub‐groups will feed into a public decision making process.   

Workshops, briefings and working groups do not fall under the requirements of LGOIMA or Council Standing Orders, as they are not formal meetings and no decisions are allowed to be made at these meetings.  It is generally accepted practice that workshops are not a substitute for open debate on issues that are matters of public interest.  As these are not formal meetings, it is the prerogative of the Committee to decide whether or not to make them open to the public and indeed whether there is any public notification of them.  At the Hurunui District Council, individual members are encouraged to always scrutinise and challenge if necessary, any decisions to hold public excluded meetings and by extension, members‐only workshops. 

The key point to note is that there is no obligation for workshops or briefings to be open to the 

public as they have no formal status as a meeting.  Therefore there are no set rules about how they 

operate, but a Council or Committee is obliged to still ensure that good process is followed and to 

be mindful of the purpose of local government which is clearly stated in the Local Government Act 

as being, among other things, to enable democratic local decision‐making and action by, and on 

behalf of, communities.  It is important that the Committee does not substitute workshops for 

meetings where the matter can realistically be discussed in an open meeting.  Where there is a 

members‐only workshop notified on a public meeting agenda, a good approach is for the 

Committee to provide an explanation of the subject, who is attending, the reasons for it being 

members‐only and at a later stage, some form of report back or summary of the discussion, subject 

to any confidential information being withheld.  As there are no decisions made in workshops or 

briefings, there is no requirement for minutes or notes to be taken and generally there are no 

meeting secretaries in attendance, so any report back would be a summary by an officer or perhaps 

the Chairperson or a Committee member. 

Public Perception As with many situations, it is not only the rules that committee members need to be mindful of but the matter of public perception.  If there is a members‐only workshop prior to a meeting and it is discussing the same matter that is on the meeting agenda, then it can appear to the public that what should be a public discussion is happening behind closed doors and the Committee meeting itself then just becomes a rubber stamp process, which can be seen to undermine the integrity of the democratic decision‐making process and the purpose of local government. 

Public Excluded Rules and Procedures It may be useful to reiterate that the Zone Committee can resolve to hold public excluded discussions as part of its formal agenda business and to do so it must apply one or more of the clearly defined reasons in LGOIMA.  The more common reasons used for the Zone Committee would be to protect the privacy of individuals being discussed or for reasons of commercial sensitivity.  It is important to note that “free and frank discussion” is not an applicable reason for holding a public excluded meeting.  It is acknowledged that the terminology used for recent workshops as being “public excluded” may not be the best approach as this infers that the Committee is relying on the formal public excluded reasons for excluding the public from a meeting.  A better way to refer to these workshops are as members‐only workshops or briefings.  There is also no obligation on the Committee to publicly notify these workshops, but the current practice of including it on the meeting agenda coversheet is for the benefit of members to ensure they are fully notified of the schedule for that day.  This creates a situation of effectively publicly notifying the workshop and triggers the need to at least inform the public about the subject and reasons for it.    

19

Zone Committee Operating Philosophy The Zone Committee has a commitment to openness, transparency and collaboration that is reinforced through its Terms of Reference and the Code of Conduct for members.  The Zone Committee has in the past held many workshops that it has made open to the public and only holds members‐only workshops where good reasons exist, like for example to speed up the delivery of solutions to complex problems, to allow members to be exposed to a variety of perspectives that may not be forthcoming in a public meeting and to identify and resolve potential conflicts that may be hindering progress being made on key outcomes.  The Zone Committee has a very inclusive approach to its meetings and allows participation from the public gallery, which is a privilege that is not allowed for in normal Committee and Council meetings, where public participation is strictly controlled by Standing Orders.  It is clear that there is no intention from the Zone Committee to be closed and deliberately seeking to exclude public involvement in its processes. 

Recommended Approach It is accepted that holding workshops, some of which may be members‐only, is a normal way of operating and of working through complex and sometimes sensitive issues.  It is recommended that in future the terminology used will be as “members‐only” rather than “public excluded” workshops.  It is acknowledged that finding time when all members are available is difficult, so holding workshops adjacent to formal meetings is sensible for reasons of expediency.  In general the Committee should avoid holding a members‐only workshop prior to a meeting where there is an agenda item on the same matter.  Where this is considered unavoidable due to timing or scheduling constraints, it is recommended that at the beginning of the public meeting the Chairperson or Zone Committee Facilitator provide a brief oral summary of the workshop, ensuring that any confidential matters are not discussed.  This would assist in the Committee being as open and transparent as possible.  If the matter is not being discussed at the meeting immediately following, then a summary of the workshop can be provided in two ways, as part of a formal report on that matter to a subsequent meeting, or as a specific update item, with a brief summary provided, but once again, ensuring that no confidential information is shared.  When a members‐only workshop is effectively publicly notified on an agenda coversheet, the subject matter, the reasons for it being members‐only and who is attending should be explained. 

20

AGENDA ITEM NO:  7 

 

SUBJECT MATTER: 

Mata Kopae / St Annes Lagoon 

REPORT TO: 

Hurunui‐Waiau Zone Committee 

DATE OF MEETING: 

11 December 2017 

PREPARED BY:  

Leanne Lye (Acting Zone Manager) 

ACTION: 

For decision  

  Purpose The Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee have committed to implementing 2 mahinga kai projects in the district  through  its  5  year  objectives.  This  is  an  opportunity  to  determine  if  the  committee  are interested in pursuing a Mahinga Kai project at Mata Kopae/ St Annes lagoon and the best option to enhance this work.   Cultural Values Mahinga kai properly refers to Ngāi Tahu interests in traditional food and other natural resources and the places where those resources are obtained.  Mata Kopae is rich in tuna (eel) and waterfowl. It is home to a range of indigenous wetland species and shrubs. It is an important site for Te Rūnanga o Kaikoura.   Background  Due to the impact of the drought in Hurunui over 3 years, Mata Kopae commonly known as St Annes lagoon dried out earlier this year. St Annes lagoon is situated north of Cheviot and is the responsibility of Hurunui District Council.  The drought had a detrimental impact on the eel habitat and in February a group of concerned locals and  staff  from  Environment  Canterbury,  Department  of  Conservation  and  other  organisations organised an eel rescue.    A concerned Hurunui District Councillor approached the Zone Team asking what could be done and the suggestion that digging a hole in the lagoon would keep enough water in the lagoon to prevent the  eel  habitat  being  compromised. With  the  impact  of  global warming  there  is  a  high  chance of increased droughts on the east coast and this will have a negative impact on the eel habitat.  Environment Canterbury has used its science team to look at 2 mitigation options. The first option was to deepen the lagoon by digging a hole. Core sampling was undertaken at different sites to get a better understanding of the soil type. The report concluded that removing the sediment layer would not have any long‐term benefit to the eel habitat (report attached). The next option was to look at augmenting water into the lagoon. A high‐level report (attached) shows that this is a feasible option but would require the cooperation of several different parties. 

21

 To date a meeting has been held with Robb MacBeth & James Paterson, they have given their support if we wanted to look at water augmentation and are keen to work on this collaboratively.   A meeting  is  scheduled with Cr Vince Dally on Friday 8th December to  investigate the work he has completed on his lagoon.  An  initial discussion with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu  (TRONT) has been held,  this was positive and a meeting will be held within the next week to discuss further.  Options  Option 1 – status quo Do nothing and let nature run its course. When the lagoon runs dry there may be a need for the local community to band together and rescue eels when required. Does not unnaturally disturb the lagoon. No costs associated with this.   Option 2 – deepen the lagoon Dig a hole in the lagoon which will hopefully hold and ensure enough moisture is retained in the lagoon in a drought. This would disturb the bed of the lagoon. A resource consent from Environment Canterbury for work in a waterway would be required. Evidence suggests there is no long term benefit to doing this. No guarantee how long this would work for. Costs for consent approx. $2,000 Costs for sediment removal $1‐$2,000 approx   Option 3 – water augmentation Augment water from the Waiau river utilising the existing piping infrastructure of Phoebe irrigation. This would make it a collaborative project with Hurunui District Council, Environment Canterbury, the local  community,  Phoebe  Irrigation.  This  would  require  resource  consents  from  Environment Canterbury for water abstraction and water discharge. This is the costlier option of the 3 but has the best long‐term benefits.  Robb MacBeth  from  Phoebe  Irrigation  and  James  Paterson,  adjoining  land  occupier  have  already signaled their willingness to work with the Zone Committee on this option. Long term it provides a level of comfort knowing that there is the opportunity to augment water ito the lagoon prior to the irrigation season in readiness of a dry summer. Costs for consents approx. $5,000 Cost for installing Water level reader $6,000 (there maybe other cheaper options we could look at) ongoing costs of maintenance ($6,000) Costs for pumping water approx. $0.06 ‐ $0.10 / m3   Recommendation  Without having the opportunity to consult with all parties due to the close turnaround time between Committee meetings but based on the initial information supplied that the zone committee decide on an option that they feel has the best outcomes for Mahinga kai outcomes at Mata Kopae. 

22

    

  St Annes lagoon – March 2017    

  St Annes lagoon – June 2017 

23

Memo

Mata Kopae/St Anne’s Lagoon is a small, shallow lake and associated wetland, located just north of Cheviot in North Canterbury. The ‘lagoon’ is approximately 0.15km2 and the contributing catchment area is about 2.3km2. It is located in the headwaters of a tributary of Caroline Stream, which feeds into the lower Waiau River. The surrounding landscape is eroded pastoral hill country with an average annual precipitation of approximately 700mm. The small lake is solely reliant on rainfall runoff to maintain its water level.

Mata Kopae/St Anne’s Lagoon has high amenity/cultural values, is rich in tuna and waterfowl and home to a range of indigenous wetland species and shrubs. It is a significant site to Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, with strong mahinga kai associations. In recent years projects have been undertaken to restore the lake and wetland.

In February 2017 after three years of lower than average precipitation Mata Kopae/St Anne’s Lagoon dried up for the first time in nearly 50 years. According to anecdotal evidence the last time the lake dried up was in the early 1970’s. Concerns were raised about the drying of the lagoon and we were asked to investigate what could be done to avoid this from happening again and to consider possible mitigation measures.

Two mitigation options were suggested:

- Deepening of the lagoon

- Flow augmentation into the lagoon

Deepening of the lagoon:

Work undertaken in April 2017 by Hamish Graham (ECan Hydrogeologist) indicates deepening the lagoon is not feasible. This work was presented at one of the Zone Committee meetings earlier this year.

Augmentation flow into the lagoon:

As a first stage, a high-level feasibility assessment has been carried out. A basic water balance model, using storage, precipitation and evaporation data, was set up to work out flow augmentation requirements to maintain water levels within a range to sustain the ecological health of the lagoon. The main assumptions and input data used are:

- Precipitation and Evapotranspiration data (VCSN and data from a weather station at

Cheviot) from January 1971 to July 2017;

- Profile Available Water (PAW) and loss rate based on soil data (Landcare Research

s-map database);

Date 17 November 2017

To Leanne Lye

From Jeanine Topélen

24

- Lagoon area and storage volume at different lake levels (lagoon survey carried out by

Envirolink), maximum storage is 180,000m3;

- Critical storage level is 72,000 m3 (0.4 * maximum storage level to maintain life

supporting capacity for tuna);

- Trigger storage level to start flow augmentation into the lagoon is 135,000m3;

- Robb MacBeth (Phoebe Irrigation Ltd) is willing to allow the flow augmentation to be

supplied via the existing infrastructure of Phoebe Irrigation Ltd. To ensure that the

reliability of supply for Phoebe Irrigation Ltd is not affected flow augmentation of the

lagoon will only occur if the critical storage level is breached in the month

September. No flow augmentation will occur in other months of the year. Water

available for augmentation will only be unused consented Phoebe Irrigation LTD

water and we have assumed we will be allowed to continuously discharge into the

lagoon at maximum rate. The cost to use the existing infrastructure will be $0.10 per

m3 (pers. comm. Robb MacBeth);

- The cost to install and maintain a water level recorder, for monitoring and

management purposes, in the lagoon will be approximately $6,000 for the

installation and $6,000 for ongoing maintenance (pers. comm. Phil Downes, ECan).

The results of modelling the lagoon storage are shown in the figure below. The figure shows two hydrographs; lagoon storage over time without augmentation (blue) and lagoon storage over time with augmentation when required (grey). The critical storage level is shown as the orange line.

The critical storage level would have been breached in five years over the modelling period, so flow augmentation would have been required five times. The indicative costs associated with this flow augmentation based on $0.10 per m3 is shown in the table on the next page.

25

It is noted that the above assessment is only a high-level assessment to provide an indication of feasibility and cost of flow augmentation into the lagoon. Should any of the assumptions change, flow augmentation requirements and associated costs are likely to change as well.

water year Indicative flow augmentation costs ($)

1971 0

1972 0

1973 0

1974 0

1975 0

1976 0

1977 0

1978 0

1979 0

1980 0

1981 0

1982 0

1983 0

1984 0

1985 0

1986 0

1987 0

1988 0

1989 0

1990 0

1991 0

1992 0

1993 0

1994 0

1995 0

1996 0

1997 0

1998 5624.64

1999 0

2000 0

2001 0

2002 0

2003 0

2004 0

2005 0

2006 0

2007 2410.56

2008 0

2009 0

2010 0

2011 803.52

2012 0

2013 0

2014 0

2015 4821.12

2016 4821.12

26

Memo

Subject: Mata Kopae/St Annes Lagoon subsurface investigation

1 Background

In February 2017 Mata Kopae/St Annes Lagoon ran dry. The lagoon has an abundance of eels living in the waters/mud. An eel rescue effort was subsequently undertaken during which over 2000 eels were rescued from the muddy lagoon bottom.

At this time it was suggested by a Hurunui District councillor that a hole be dug in the lagoon to provide refuge for aquatic life for next time the lagoon goes dry. One of the biggest potential concerns with undertaking this is that digging a hole could in fact drain the lagoon faster by opening a conduit to any freely draining gravels underlying the muddy lagoon bottom. As such, the Groundwater Science team undertook an investigation of the subsurface geology below the lagoon to better understand what is there and whether the proposal will drain the lagoon quicker.

2 Methodology

To understand the subsurface geology a series of exploratory holes (up to 4 m below the lagoon bottom) were hand augured into the bed of the lagoon. The primary focus of this was around an island at the southern end of the lagoon. The location of the island and hand augur holes can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Location map of hand augur locations

Date 6 April 2017

To Leanne Lye

cc

From Hamish Graham, Hydrogeologist

27

3 Results/Discussion

The bore logs from the hand auguring can be seen in Appendix 1. BH1, BH2 and BH5 were drilled around the island at the southern end of the lagoon. This is the proposed location of the hole. The auguring found a top layer of lagoon deposit (brown silty sand with some organic material) with a thickness of up to 1.25 m. This unit is the “mud” that the eels had burrowed into and were subsequently rescued from. At the time of drilling this unit was unsaturated and the only water in the vicinity was a small amount of ponding from recent rainfall. There was minimal water in the lagoon deposit with the water that was present related to recent rainfall. Below this layer to the termination depth of 4 m (this was as far as we could augur with the equipment) there was a hard clay unit with containing varying amounts of silt. This unit was unsaturated and hard to augur through.

If a hole were to be dug in the close vicinity of the island (a trench around the lagoon for example), then as long as it was less than 4 m deep then there should not be a risk of draining the lagoon quicker. However, during auguring there was no apparent groundwater in either the top lagoon deposit layer or the clay/silt layers. Therefore, any water that does pond in the hole is likely to evaporate relatively quickly. It is unlikely that the eels will be able to burrow into the hard clay.

BH3 (western lagoon extent) and BH4 (northern lagoon extent) were drilled to help understand the subsurface geology across the lagoon. These two holes encountered different geology to that encountered around the island, with more sand present in BH4 and more water in BH3. This variability means that the greater than 4 m to gravel conclusion should only be considered in the near vicinity of the island.

28

Appendix 1: Bore logs

BU26/0017 (BH1)

29

BU26/0018 (BH2)

30

BU26/0019 (BH3)

31

BU26/0020 (BH4)

32

BU26/0021 (BH5)

33

1

HHurunui District Landcare Group Memorandum

3rd December 2017 To Ned Norton – Environment Canterbury From Joshua Brown – Hurunui District Landcare Group Subject: Interim results from research into potential impact of permitting dryland farming Status: DRAFT

1. Key findings Key conclusions from the survey of 66 predominately dryland farms were:

Surveyed farms showed an increase of 7.4% in wintered Relative Stock Units (RSUs) over the last 10 years (2007 to 2017).

This equates to an average historic rate of change of +0.74% per year in RSUs Surveyed farmers intended over the next 10 years to increase RSUs by +10% (+1%/yr).

Key conclusions from the 10 case study dryland farms were:

Current rootzone losses from dryland farms range from 8 kgN/ha/yr to 26 kgN/ha/yr. The average loss was 12kg-N/ha/y for the total farm area. Excluding ineffective areas (e.g. native

bush) the average loss was 16 kg-N/ha/y. The historical change in nitrogen rootzone loss for all 10 farms, was an increase of +0.17%/yr At a farm scale this ranged from -10% over a 16 year period(-0.63%/yr) to +56% over a 14 year

period (+4%/yr)

The summary conclusion is that the rate of change of dryland farming systems (over long periods) is much slower compared with the rate of change that can occur with the introduction of irrigation. While stock numbers can fluctuate from year to year in response to climate variability, over the longer term the carrying capacity and land use options are fundamentally limited by the unpredictable, erratic dry climate. Dryland farming has occurred in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments for the last 160 years. Over this period changes have generally been slow and incremental. Over the next 6 years (until 2023 when the HWRRP is reviewed) it seems quite unlikely that there would suddenly be a large step-change in the rate of change. The low rate of change on a catchment scale infers dryland farming will likely have a very minor impact on Hurunui and Waiau mainstems nitrogen loads for the foreseeable future.

1. Scope Environment Canterbury asked the Hurunui District Landcare Group (HDLG) to assess the potential nutrient impact if dryland farming were made a permitted activity in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments. The two key questions were:

What is plausible dryland farm development? What is the likely impact of permitting dryland farming?

HDLG undertook two main pieces of work to answer these questions - a survey of 83 dryland farms, and a more detailed nutrient assessment for 10 of these farms. The general survey provides insight into what plausible development is likely at a catchment scale. The case study assessments were used to estimate what this plausible development would likely mean for nutrient losses reaching the

34

2

Hurunui and Waiau River mainstems. This memorandum focuses on rates of change and the case study results. Further results from the analysis of the research is to come as outlined in section 6.

2. Background Hurunui District Landcare Group The HDLG is an incorporated society with a committee of 15 farmers and a current membership of 120 predominantly dryland farmers. The members cover 111,000 hectares in the Hurunui / Waiau zone which represents approximately 20% of the farmed land.

Item 1. Aerial photos of the Hurunui and Waiau Catchments

35

3

3. Methodology Survey The HDLG undertook a survey (Appendix 1.) of its members to get an understanding of their members farming practices, where they had come from and where they are heading. The analysis in this memorandum focuses on the questions regarding historic, current and predicted stock numbers. I have included a short section on winterfeed, however this section has yet to be fully analysed with supporting industry data.

In total 83 farms were surveyed. 6 responses were excluded due to outlying results and another 11 were excluded due to having a large (>50ha) area of irrigation. This left 66 farms for analysis. These farms covered an area of 70,000ha in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments with a total of 61,000 effective hectares. This represents 24% of the total area in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments below the Mandamus and Marble Point.

Farmers were asked their wintered stock numbers by stock class for 10 years ago, current where they think they will be in 10 years’ time. Stock numbers were converted to RSUs and summed. This conversion is in table 2 below. These numbers were then aggregated to give an overall picture of change in stock units.

conversion factor Sheep Cattle Deer

1.1 5 1.9 Table 1. Stock number to Relative Stock Unit (RSU) conversion factor1

Case studies 10 HDLG farms had historical changes modelled in OVERSEER to quantify the impact of dryland farm development on nitrogen loss. Each farm had a nutrient budget generated for a time in the past and current day. The information for the historical nutrient budgets varied from being 6 – 45 years ago with the average period being 24 years ago. I compared stocking rates and rate of change from the case study farms and found them similar to the wider survey.

The case study farms were also spatially modelled in a GIS program for a comparison between OVERSEER root zone losses, the in-river nitrogen load layer (P.Brown, 2017) and Environment Canterbury’s nitrogen rootzone loss layer. This work and the methodology for this is presented in the comparisons section.

1 The same conversions are used in Beef + Lamb NZs economic service data

36

4

4. Results Rate of change While there was variation on individual farm RSUs changes from -19% to +75%, the overall trend showed that on a catchment scale, changes happen at an incremental pace. Variation on individual farms also show remnants of the drought, with many responses showing present RSUs being down but past and future RSUs to be constant.

Past (2007)

Present (2017)

Current farmer

intentions (2027)

Relative Stock Units (RSU)

336234 363275

399720

% change +7.4% +10.0% Table 2. Shows summary of change in change in stock units from survey results

There has been a slight shift in stock type ratios with a downward trend in sheep and upward trend in cattle and deer. This trend is also predicted to continue. This put in conjunction with the slow rate of change however still shows the incremental shifts that happen on dryland farms.

Wintered Stock

Past (2007)

Present (2017)

Current farmer

intentions (2027)

Sheep 71.9% 70.1% 66.5%Cattle 26.3% 28.0% 31.2% Deer 1.8% 1.9% 2.3%

Table 3. Shifts in stock type ratios

Putting these shifts in comparison in changes in the market, such as dairy pay out, beef price and lamb price, it shows that even when opportunities are present in any given year, on a catchment scale, the change is still very gradual.

These results show that the rate of change in RSUs has only been about 0.9% per annum and is likely to be similar over the next 10 years.

Note:

Beef + Lamb NZ Economic Service data shows a long term decline in RSUs in the Hurunui. The reasons for this trend difference have not yet been fully explored. This does however indicate that results and trends from the HDLG survey are likely to be overestimating an increase in RSUs rather than underestimating. The reasons and impact of the differences here will be explored in reports to come.

37

5

Nitrogen root zone loss increases The nutrient budgets showed:

An overall increase of 4.1% in nitrogen root zone loss with a 14.7% increase in RSU’s across the 10 farms.

Nitrogen root zone loss varied from 8kgN/ha/yr to 26kgN/ha/yr the current day nutrient budgets. The weighted average by farm area nitrogen loss was 12kgN/ha/yr

Variation in % change in nitrogen loss was -10% over a 16 year period (-0.6%/yr) to +56% over a 14 year period (+4.0%/yr).

Variation in % change in stock units was -22% over 40year period (-0.6%/yr) to +47% over 14year period (+3.6%/yr).

Topography Rainfall kgN/ha/yr Total

RSU

% change

RSU

%change nLoss

Change Period (years)

Farm1 current Flat 769 18 3411 4.99% -10% 16 Farm1 historic Flat 769 20 3249 Farm2 current Flat 716 17 6635 -9.12% 0% 27 Farm2 historic Flat 716 17 4323 Farm3 current Easy Hill 993 15 8151 -6.90% -6% 20 Farm3 historic Easy Hill 993 16 8755 Farm4 current Easy Hill 801 22 3407 11.74% 5% 6 Farm4 historic Easy Hill 801 21 3049 Farm5 current Easy Hill 628 14 11019 47.49% 56% 14 Farm5 historic Easy Hill 628 9 7471 Farm6 current Rolling 597 15 5078 38.33% 7% 20 Farm6 historic Rolling 597 14 3671 Farm7 current Rolling 815 12 5875 15.15% 20% 20 Farm7 historic Rolling 815 10 5102 Farm8 current Steep Hill 1328 8 5247 -22.39% -11% 40 Farm8 historic Steep Hill 1328 9 6761 Farm9 current Easy Hill 954 26 8375 1.11% 24% 30 Farm9 historic Easy Hill 954 21 8283 Farm10 current Easy Hill 765 12 3876 49.54 20% 45 Farm10 historic Easy Hill 765 10 2592

Table 4. Case Study OVERSEER modelled results

Farm 8 covered 1/3rd of the total case study area. Separate analysis of the results, excluding farm 8 showed:

An overall increase of 19.6% in nitrogen root zone loss and a 20.1% increase in RSUs. A weighted average by farm area in nitrogen loss of 16.2kgN/ha/yr

The case studies outline the likely range of nutrient losses and the rate of change in nutrient loss. This, plus the survey results shows that while there is variation on individual farm scale, the overall impact from dryland farming change is likely to be very low.

38

6

A summary of the types of development options employed by these farms and the associated nutrient change is a work in progress.

Winter Crop Farmers were asked in the survey for winter crop area for cattle, sheep and deer. The interim results from this work showed:

An average winterfeed area of 2.7% of the total farm area with a maximum area of 12.5% and a minimum of 0%.

1.1% average winter crop area for cattle grazing 1.6% average winter crop for sheep grazing Excluding those that had no winterfeed there was an average area of 16ha for cattle and 24.5ha

for sheep Note that there is likely a cross over between areas grazed by sheep and areas grazed by cattle

Further analysis of dryland winter crop area in the Hurunui and Waiau is being done and will be presented in the new year.

39

7

5. Comparisons In the Hurunui and Waiau there have been two other methods, other than OVERSEER, used to estimate the nutrient losses from dryland farming. These methods have been outlined below and compared with the OVERSEER estimates from the 10 case study farms.

Ground truthing ECan nitrogen loss layer for dryland farms Environment Canterbury presented a draft GIS nitrogen loss ‘lookup table” earlier in 2017. This method spatially represented previous modelling done through the MGM project.

Item 2. ECan Draft GIS nitrogen loss estimate layer

It relies on information that is publicly available such as satellite imagery, Land Cover Database and AgriBase survey data. The HDLG was asked to ground truth the dryland component of land-use layer and associated nitrogen loss layer. while AIC would provide verification for the irrigated areas.

While difficult to do on an individual farm scale the land-use layer on a catchment scale seems relatively consistent with farm land-use. I did compare case study farms for a detailed comparison and found these to be roughly similar to actual land use. More work is to be done on this to compare this layer at a finer scale.

40

8

HDLG was also able to draw on the OVERSEER budgets done as a part of the dryland research and compare these with ECans MGM Nloss layer. The summary is provided in table 5 & 6.

In-river (kgN/ha ECan

mgm Nloss

OVERSEER kgN/ha/yr

ECan vs Overseer

difference

Farm1 Flat 18.5 18 -2.6% Farm2 Flat 18.3 17 -7.6% Farm3 Easy hill 10.2 15 31.7% Farm4 Easy hill 10.5 22 52.3% Farm5 Easy hill 2.7 14 80.7% Farm6 Rolling 10.8 15 28.2% Farm7 Rolling 16.0 12 -33.1% Farm8 Steep hill 3.2 8 59.7% Farm9 Easy hill 16.8 26 35.4%

Farm10 Easy hill 7.1 12 40.8% Average 6.6 12.0 -45%

Table 5. ECan MGM compared to OVERSEER on dryland farms

The key conclusions from this are:

On flatter topography there is a correlation between ECan mgm nitrogen rootzone loss estimates and OVERSEER nitrogen root zone loss estimates.

On extensive hill country there was a significant difference between ECan Mgm rootzone losses and OVERSEER rootzone losses.

Further work is needed to fully explore this difference in rootzone loss estimates on extensive hill country.

Extensive hill country component

Nloss

ECan MGM loss (kgN/ha/yr)

OVERSEER (kgN/ha/yr)

Factor difference

Farm3 0.5 10 20.0 Farm4 6.5 23 3.5 Farm5 2 10 5.0 Farm7 1 12 12.0 Farm8 0.5 11 22.0 Farm9 0.5 7 14.0

Table 6. Comparison of extensive hill country areas on the case study farms showing the difference between the ECan mgm nitrogen loss estimates for that area and OVERSEER estimates

41

9

In-river nitrogen load layer I compared the case study OVERSEER results with the in-river nitrogen load calculators prepared by Peter Brown (Brown, 2017, 2015, 2014). Peter Brown used water quality samples from numerous sites in the Hurunui and Waiau to estimate contributions of nitrogen from differing land classes. These land classes were then spatially mapped. This method was presented several times to the Hurunui/Waiau science stakeholders group and nutrient working group.

Item 3. Brown (2017) in-river load layer

To compare the OVERSEER results, I clipped the in-river load layer to the spatially mapped case study farms. Then using the nitrogen loss table below (Brown, 2017) I summed the in-river attributed load.

Class Load Description 1 29.0 Irrigation 2 3.5 Dryland<15° (tractor country) 3 1.4 Dryland>15° (high country) 4 0.3 Exotic forest & scrub 5 0.3 Non-agricultural (e.g. Native forest, alpine)

Table 7. (Brown, 2017) in-river nitrogen load attribution to land-use

To allow for the variation in total area (due to farm boundary differences), I converted both results to kgN/ha to allow for a direct comparison.

42

10

The results from this comparison are displayed in the tables below:

InRiver

ECan Mgm nloss

OVERSEER

Area (ha) 13020 13076 13570 Total kgN 18525 85562 162634 kgN/ha 1.4 6.5 12.0

Comparison Factor 4.6 8.3 Estimated % of below root zone Nloss likely to reach

maintstem of river from this method

22% 12%

Table 8. Comparison between aggregated OVERSEER estimated below rootzone nitrogen loss from case study farms and the in-river nitrogen attribution from P.Browns in-river load layer.

Notes:

For this process, case study farm 10 was excluded as the in-river load layer did not cover its area. The small variation in in-river area verses ECan nloss area is due to a 56ha block off one of the

case study farms that was outside the catchment and not covered by the in-river layer. The OVERSEER area difference is due to farm ownership boundaries varying from actual farmed area. These variations make negligible difference to the overall difference in the comparison.

As discussed earlier, farm 8 was a large portion of the total case study areas. As such I have also calculated the comparison excluding farm 8 & farm 10:

InRiver

ECan Mgm nloss

OVERSEER

Area (ha) 6163 6219 6622 Total kgN 15806 63437 110057.0 kgN/ha 2.6 10.2 16.6

Comparison Factor 4.0 6.5 Estimated % of below root zone Nloss likely to reach

maintstem of river from this method

25% 15.4%

Table 9. Comparison calculation excluding farm 8 & 10

43

11

6. In-progress There are several pieces of work from the dryland farm research that are currently progressing towards presentation for the HWZC in the new year. These include:

An analysis of winterfeed trends in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments and the parameters that constrain future dry land development.

A summary of the types of development options available to dryland farmers and their impact on nutrient loss.

An analysis of the Good Management Practice question results from the survey and the potential the results imply for associated nutrient loss reductions

7. References Brown, P. (2014). “Statement of evidence of P Brown for Ngai Tahu Properties consent application

CRC144606”, 20 May 2014

Brown, P. (2015). “Hurunui River nutrient modelling: impact of dryland intensification”. Memorandum dated 15 March 2015. Prepared for the Hurunui, Waiau and Jed Nutrient Working Group.

Brown, P. (2017). “Hurunui and Waiau catchment nutrient calculators”. Memorandum dated 6 November 2017. Prepared for Ned Norton

44

12

Appendix Dryland Farm Survey

Question Answer Rating HDLG Number

Farm Name

Farmer

Contact Number

Email

Farm Block Address 1

Farm Block Address 2

Farm Block Address 3

Farm Block Address 4

Total Farm Area Effective Farm Area Irrigated Area Winter Crop for Cattle Area Winter Crop for Sheep Area Winter Crop for Deer Area Summer Crop Area

Farm Environment Plan completed for the Farm. (How often do you look at it)

Nutrient Budget completed for the farm

Effective land area 10 years ago Current wintered sheep numbers Wintered sheep numbers 10 years ago 10 year prediction of sheep numbers Current wintered Cattle numbers Wintered Cattle numbers 10 years ago 10 year prediction of Cattle numbers Current wintered Deer Numbers Wintered Deer numbers 10 years ago 10 year prediction of wintering Deer Do you have soil moisture measuring tools (ie soil moisture tapes, probes) that you use to decide when to turn on the irrigators

Rainfall records are kept and rainfall forecasts monitored and used in decision making

45

13

Full pre-season maintenance checks undertaken on irrigators

Bucket test done on all irrigators within the last 3 years

Bucket tests showed adjustments needed to be made

Adjustments were made to fix the issue found in bucket tests

Staff have been trained in irrigation procedures

Do you use conventional fertiliser

Are you aware of the spreadmark certification program for fertiliser spreader operators

Are spreadmark certified spreaders available in your area

Contractors used for fertiliser spreading are spreadmark certified

Do you spread your own fertiliser

Is your own fertiliser spreading equipment calibrated according to manufacturer’s recommendations

Intensive land area that receives nitrogen fertiliser annually

Average annual application rate of nitrogen on intensive land

Extensive/hill area that receives nitrogen fertiliser annually

Average annual application rate of nitrogen on extensive/hill country

Intensive land area that receives Phosphorus fertiliser annually

Average annual application rate of phosphorus on intensive land

Extensive/hill country area that receives phosphorus fertiliser annually

46

14

Average annual application rate of phosphorus on extensive/hill country

Fertiliser is not applied when the soil temperate is less than 10 degrees

GPS technology is used for precise application of all fertiliser spread (e.g. Proof of placement)

Stock are excluded from permanently flowing waterways in intensively grazed areas

Cattle and deer are excluded from waterways on paddocks with average slope less than 15 degrees

Over what proportion of your extensive/hill country do you rely on surface water for stock drinking

What is your preferred method of cultivation (direct drilled, minimum tilled, conventional tillage)

Do you leave gullies and swales uncultivated on rolling down country (refer photo)

Uncultivated buffer strips of at least 2m on flat land and wider on sloping land are left to filter any runoff

Deer are provided with out of creek wallows

Effective measures are taken to prevent fence line pacing (very little fence line pacing)

How many sediment traps/dams do you have? (Mark on map)

Riparian plantings are established in gullies

Riparian planting programme prepared

Do you actively protect vegetation biodiversity and wetlands

how many km of fencing for above

47

15

Area of Pest Trapping for above

Area of weed control for above

How many km of permanently flowing waterways do you have

Do you actively protect permanently flowing waterways

How many km of fencing for above

Can you describe the change in biodiversity on your property over the last generation (area and predator control)

Additional Comments (Anything that you do that you believe protects or enhances the environment)

48

 

 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 10  SUBJECT MATTER: 

Establishing a subcommittee to progress discussions with AIC on further deferring a consent review in relation to HWRRP minimum flows 

 

AUTHOR: Ian Whitehouse, Environment Canterbury 

DATE OF MEETING: 11 December 2017 

 

Action required 

1. Establish a subcommittee to progress discussions with AIC on further deferring a consent 

review in relation to HWRRP minimum flows; 

2. Agree the Terms of Reference for the subcommittee; 

3. Appoint zone committee members to the subcommittee. 

 

Background 

As part of addressing the key water issues for the zone the committee will be making 

recommendations at the end of March 2018 to Environment Canterbury on the timing of a review of 

consents in relation to the HWRRP minimum flows.  

The committee is considering whether further deferring a consent review could lever more action to 

improve water quality and biodiversity. 

 AIC has told the committee that implementing the HWRRP minimum flows would impose significant 

cost to the irrigation company and its shareholders to construct water storage and through dairy 

farmers having to purchase additional feed. 

AIC has shared with the committee their thoughts on projects that could improve biodiversity or 

water quality. 

The committee is at the stage where it wishes to have further discussions with AIC on what could be 

achieved if a consent review was further deferred (noting that the committee wants the minimum 

flows to be implemented sooner rather than later).  

The committee believes these discussions are best led by a small subcommittee working closely with 

the full committee. 

A draft Terms of Reference for the subcommittee is attached. 

 

49

HWZC Consent Review Subcommittee 

Draft Terms of Reference (04 December) 

Purpose 

The subcommittee will lead the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee’s discussion with Amuri Irrigation 

Company (AIC) on the timing of a review of water take consents to fully implement the Hurunui 

Waiau Rivers Regional Plan (HWRRP) minimum flows. 

Background 

The HWRRP became operative in December 2013 and introduced new minimum flows.  

The Zone Committee wants the HWRRP minimum flows to be implemented sooner rather than later. 

The HWRRP minimum flows only apply for existing water takes when consents are renewed unless 

there is a consent review. 

AIC is one of the largest water‐take consent holders for both Hurunui and Waiau Rivers. Their water 

take consents are to 2033. 

Following the HWRRP becoming operative AIC and their shareholders told the Zone Committee that 

a consent review would divert resources from activities to improve nutrient management.  

In an exchange of letters with Environment Canterbury the Zone Committee recommended that a 

consent review be deferred until at least the end of 2017 with the expectation AIC would complete 

specified activities relating to audited farm environmental plans. These activities have largely been 

completed. 

As part of addressing the key water issues for the zone the committee will be making 

recommendations at the end of March 2018 to Environment Canterbury on the timing of a review of 

consents in relation to the HWRRP minimum flows.  

The committee is considering whether further deferring a consent review could lever more action to 

improve water quality and biodiversity. 

 AIC has told the committee that implementing the HWRRP minimum flows would impose significant 

cost to the irrigation company and its shareholders to construct water storage and through dairy 

farmers having to purchase additional feed. 

AIC has shared with the committee their thoughts on projects that could improve biodiversity or 

water quality. 

The committee is at the stage where it wishes to have further discussions with AIC on what could be 

achieved if a consent review was further deferred (noting that the committee wants the minimum 

flows to be implemented sooner rather than later).  

The committee believes these discussions are best led by a small subcommittee working closely with 

the full committee. 

50

Subcommittee membership 

The subcommittee will comprise those committee members appointed by the zone committee. 

Subcommittee scope 

The subcommittee will lead discussions with AIC on behalf of the zone committee. 

The subcommittee cannot make decisions on behalf of the committee. Recommendations or 

decisions arising from the discussions with AIC require consensus agreement from the zone 

committee. 

The focus of the discussions with AIC will be: 

The timing of a consent review (noting that the committee wants the minimum flows to be 

implemented sooner rather than later); 

The actions that AIC would achieve if a consent review was deferred for a specified period 

(say 2 years, five years).

The discussions will not include a requirement of a plan change to make major water storage easier. 

While the committee is open to such a plan change and for it to be included in changes to the 

HWRRP to be notified in 2018, the committee considers AIC needs to provide such a plan change, 

with the technical evidence necessary to ensure it is widely supported. 

The subcommittee will work with the Zone Committee to develop guidance for the discussions with 

AIC including bottom lines and desired outcomes. This guidance will be revised and updated with the 

zone committee as required and could include dollar values to mitigations that will be considered. 

Timetable 

The committee will make recommendations on the timing of a consent review to Environment 

Canterbury at the end of March 2018.  The subcommittee will endeavour to reach agreement with 

AIC by mid‐March on the timing of a consent review and the actions that AIC will undertake. 

 The zone committee expects to still make a recommendation to Environment Canterbury on a 

consent review even if no agreement has been reached with AIC. This recommendation is likely to be 

to review consents in 2021/22. 

Subcommittee reporting to Zone Committee 

The subcommittee will keep zone committee members fully informed of the discussions with AIC.   

Subcommittee meetings 

The subcommittee will schedule discussions with AIC. 

Support for the Subcommittee  

The subcommittee will, should it wish, be provided with independent support from a person 

experienced in helping negotiate and resolve conflicts. This person will not lead the discussions.  

The subcommittee will, should it wish, be provided with help from the zone facilitator to set up 

meetings and take notes. 

The subcommittee will be able to request information from the Environment Canterbury technical 

team. Such information will be provided where possible noting the tight timetable.  

51

AGENDA ITEM NO: 11 (i)  SUBJECT MATTER: 

Advice on whether implementing the HWRRP minimum flows could be deferred on consents currently being renewed 

AUTHOR: Lisa Jenkins, Environment Canterbury  DATE OF MEETING: 11 December 2017 

 

Action required  

1. The Zone Committee notes that implementation of HWRRP minimum flows cannot be deferred for resource users with consents which will expire prior to a comprehensive review of all water take consents.   

 Discussion  The Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee are considering whether to recommend the review of water‐take consents so that minimum flows identified in the Hurunui Waiau Rivers Regional Plan (HWRRP) are implemented within the life of the Plan.  Some water‐take consents already implement the HWRRP flow regime, while other consents will not expire until after the HWRRP is reviewed in 2023.    When a consent is renewed, the new HWRRP minimum flows must be applied.  The water supply becomes less reliable for irrigators subject to the new minimum flow regime.  This creates a situation where some irrigators have a less reliable water supply than others.    At the 20 November 2017 Zone Committee meeting, the Committee asked if it is possible for resource consent renewals to be deferred so that irrigators are not subject to the HWRRP minimum flow regime until all consents are reviewed.  Once a consent is expired, the activity for which the consent was in place must cease until a new resource consent is granted.  If a consent expires and is not renewed, the resource becomes available for other users to seek consent for on a first come first serve basis. Deferring renewals would not be possible as water users would be contravening the Resource Management Act if they continue to take water without consent.   

52

MEMORANDUM

From Peter Brown

Reviewer(s)

To Andrew Barton

Date 4 December 2017

Subject On-farm impact of irrigation restrictions

Status DRAFT

Overview • I have modelled how changing from AIC’s current minimum flows, to HWRRP minimum flows

would affect restrictions and soil moisture on-farm.

• These results have been used by Mr Mark Everest to estimate the on-farm economic impacts of

changing minimum flows.

• I have compared Mr Everest’s production loss estimates to my 2012 HWRRP hearing estimates,

and have found the two models are producing similar results.

• The main difference with the 2012 work is with the ‘status quo’ scenario for the Waiau Irrigation

Scheme. My 2012 evidence presented a generic A-Block reliability and did not model the

specifics of Amuri Irrigation’s Waiau Irrigation Scheme consent, which has higher reliability.

53

River flow and restriction modelling River flow modelling and reliability given AIC’s current consents and HWRRP minimum flows, are

described in my memorandum titled “Hydrological change from implementing HWRRP minimum

flows” and dated 25 September 2017. These calculations have been reviewed by Environment

Canterbury.

Soil moisture modelling I modelled soil moisture using a FAO 56 soil water balance model. This is an internationally accepted

method for estimating irrigation water requirements and soil moisture levels. The model was

calibrated to align with previous AusFarm soil water balance modelling. I modelled two rainfall

stations, and two soils (a total of four scenarios) to capture a range of climate and soil conditions. The

two climate scenarios were Culverden (mean annual rainfall = 640mm/y) and the average of Riverside

and Waiau township (mean annual rainfall = 730mm/y). Potential evapotranspiration data was from

Culverden (annual average = 850mm/y). The period of simulation was 1 June 1960 to 31 May 2017.

Key parameters are summarised in Table 1. The soil moisture for every day of the 57 years of

simulation were provided to Mr Everest. Mr Everest used these estimates to predict the production

loss due to soil moisture stress.

Table 1. Key soil water balance model parameters

Parameter Soil 1 Soil 2

PAW (mm) 65 80

Crop coefficient 0.95 0.95

Water stress point (% PAW) 50% 50%

Application depth 20.8 20.8

Trigger soil moisture level (% PAW) 0.54 0.57

Application efficiency 80% 80%

System capacity (mm/d) 5.20 5.20

Effective application depth 16.64 16.64

54

HWRRP Hurunui River hearing evidence In my supplementary evidence presented at the hearing on 5 December1, Scenarios 1 represents

Amuri Irrigation’s current consent (CRC951326.1), while Scenario 4 is very close to the current Hurunui

A-Block. These scenarios are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Hurunui scenarios modelled

ID 2012 Scenario HWRRP Table

1 1 4

Name Amuri HWRRP post-

storage Hurunui A-

Block

Block size 5.00 6.20 6.47

Flow sharing No No No

Minimum flow by month

Jan 12.0 15.0 15.0

Feb 12.0 15.0 15.0

Mar 12.0 15.0 15.0

Apr 12.0 15.0 15.0

May 12.0 12.0 12.0

Jun 12.0 12.0 12.0

Jul 12.0 12.0 12.0

Aug 13.0 12.0 12.0

Sep 15.0 15.0 15.0

Oct 19.0 15.0 15.0

Nov 18.0 15.0 15.0

Dec 13.5 15.0 15.0

I have extended reliability modelling to include the last 5 years. River flows, and consequently

reliability over the last 5 years has been below the long-term average. This means the average

reliability for the period 1960 to 2017 (Table 3) is slightly lower than my 2012 estimates, which were

for the period 1960 to 2012. Table 3 illustrates that reliability for Scenario 4 (2012) and the current

HWRRP Hurunui A-Block, are almost identical2.

Table 3: Hurunui A-Block reliability (expressed as % available) from 1 June 1960 to May 2017

Scenario Average year 1 yr in 10 Worst year

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

2012 Scenario 1 (Amuri) 95.8% 96.0% 88.3% 88.5% 60.5% 63.4%

2012 Scenario 4 (HWRRP post-storage) 90.8% 91.0% 78.5% 77.8% 55.8% 57.7%

HWRRP final 90.8% 91.0% 78.5% 77.8% 55.8% 57.7%

1 Brown (2012). “Statement of evidence of Peter Derek Brown for Canterbury Regional Council dated 5 December 2012. Supplementary evidence for the Hurunui and Waiau Regional Plan”. 65pp. Refer Paragraph 6. 2 The difference between the two scenarios is 0.01%.

55

When HWRRP minimum flows are applied to AIC’s Balmoral consent, average

supply reliability will reduce from 96.0% to 91.0% (Oct-Mar)

In my 2012 evidence I estimated the production loss due to water stress as a percentage of average

annual production. Key results are reproduced in Table 4. To convert from this metric to kg-DM/ha,

the percentages should be multiplied by the annual production. Mr Everest has estimated that

average annual pasture growth will range from 12.5 t-N/ha to 15.2 t-N/ha, depending on the amount

of nitrogen applied. Table 5Table 4 and Table 6 present the production impacts in kg-DM/ha, using

these annual production estimates.

Most of this loss will occur during, and shortly after, the period of restriction. So, while on an annual

basis the percentage lost production may appear quite low, the reduction in growth during the period

of restriction will be significantly greater.

My 2012 production loss estimates are similar to Mr Everest’s 2017 estimates. Generally, my

modelling indicated a greater impact in areas with low rainfall and light soils (particularly during dry

years), but a lesser impact on heavier soils. Overall however the two modelling approaches are

indicating a similar scheme level impact.

Table 4: Hurunui production impacts (from Brown 2012, paragraph 18)

Scenario

Farm 1 Farm 2

Average 1 yr in

10 3 worst years

Average 1 yr in

10 3 worst years

AIC CRC951326.1 (2012 Scenario 1) 1.3% 2% 15% 0.90% 1% 13%

HWRRP (2012 Scenario 4) 3.6% 11% 19% 1.30% 3% 23%

Table 5: Hurunui production impacts in kg-DM/y (Farm 1 – light soil, low rainfall)

Average 1 yr in 10 3 worst years

Annual growth (kg-DM/ha) 12500 15200 12500 15200 12500 15200

AIC current (2012 Scenario 1) 163 198 250 304 1875 2280

HWRRP (2012 Scenario 4) 450 547 1375 1672 2375 2888

Change 288 350 1125 1368 500 608

Table 6: Hurunui production impacts in kg-DM/y (Farm 2 – heavier soil, higher rainfall)

Average 1 yr in 10 3 worst years

Annual growth (kg-DM/ha) 12,500 15,200 12,500 15,200 12,500 15,200

AIC current (2012 Scenario 1) 113 137 125 152 1625 1976

HWRRP (2012 Scenario 4) 163 198 375 456 2875 3496

Change 50 61 250 304 1250 1520

56

HWRRP Waiau River hearing evidence In my 2012 hearing evidence, Scenarios 1 (status quo) is the closest to represents Amuri Irrigation’s

current consent (CRC951304), while Scenario 3 (HWRRP 18cu) is very close to the current Waiau A-

Block.

Scenario “status quo” approximately describes the average reliability of the Waiau Bands 1-7 that

existed in 2012. Bands 1-7 together had a total allocation of about 18 m3/s. Bands 1-7 consents all

share the same minimum flows, but because of variations in consent conditions there are a range of

different reliability levels within this “A-Block”. AIC’s consent CRC951304 conditions can be

interpreted in different ways. In analysis I have used the interpretation from ECan’s compliance

department (refer Brown 20113). I have rerun the reliability analysis for the period 1960 to 2017 (refer

Table 7). In my 2012 evidence the period of analysis was 1968 to 2012. These two periods have slightly

different long-term reliability.

Table 7: Waiau A-Block reliability (expressed as % available) from 1 June 1960 to May 2017

Scenario Average year 1 yr in 10 Worst year

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

Sept-Apr

Oct-Mar

2012 Scenario 1 (status quo) 95.7% 96.9% 88.7% 90.6% 73.2% 82.4%

2012 Scenario 3 (HWRRP 18cu 94.7% 94.8% 85.6% 85.6% 69.5% 73.9%

HWRRP final (Waiau A-Block) 94.8% 94.9% 85.7% 85.8% 69.7% 74.0%

AIC (CRC951304) 97.8% 98.8% 93.7% 96.6% 80.2% 90.1%

Table 7 illustrates that there is a reasonable difference between my 2012 Scenario 1 (status quo) and

AIC’s consent CRC951304, with the latter have higher reliability.

When HWRRP minimum flows are applied to AIC’s Waiau consent, average

supply reliability will reduce from 98.8% to 94.9% (Oct-Mar)

Production loss estimates from my 2012 evidence are not directly comparable, because of the

differences between Scenario 1 and AIC’s consent CRC951304. Indicatively, production losses for

CRC951304 [due to restrictions] will be one third of Scenario 1. Results are presented below. As with

the Hurunui, the results align reasonably closely with Mr Everest’s production modelling.

3 Brown (2011). “Waiau River Irrigation Reliability”. Report prepared for Environment Canterbury by Aqualinc Research Ltd. April 2011.

57

Table 8: Waiau production impacts (from Brown 2012, paragraph 29)

Scenario

Farm 1 Farm 2

Average 1 yr in

10 3 worst years

Average 1 yr in

10 3 worst years

2012 Scenario 1 (status quo) 1.1% 4% 6% 0.20% 1% 1%

AIC CRC951326.14 0.4% 1.3% 2.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%

HWRRP & 2012 Scenario 3 2.1% 6% 14% 1.00% 3% 9%

Table 9: Hurunui production impacts in kg-DM/y (Farm 1 – light soil low rainfall)

Average 1 yr in 10 3 worst years

Annual growth (kg-DM/ha) 12500 15200 12500 15200 12500 15200

AIC CRC951326.1 46 56 167 203 250 304

HWRRP & 2012 Scenario 3 263 319 750 912 1750 2128

Change 217 263 583 709 1500 1824

Table 10: Hurunui production impacts in kg-DM/y (Farm 2 – heavier soil, higher rainfall)

Average 1 yr in 10 3 worst years

Annual growth (kg-DM/ha) 12,500 15,200 12,500 15,200 12,500 15,200

AIC CRC951326.1 8 10 42 51 42 51

HWRRP & 2012 Scenario 3 125 152 375 456 1125 1368

Change 117 142 333 405 1083 1317

4 Not in 2012 evidence. Assumed to be 1/3 of Scenario 1

58

IRRIGATION RELIABILITY

Prepared for: Amuri Irrigation Company

By: Mark Everest

Date: 4 December 2017

1. Introduction This analysis has been prepared as requested by Andrew Barton and Peter Brown of Amuri Irrigation Company (AIC) to assess the potential on farm impacts of changing minimum flows in the Hurunui and Waiau rivers under the HWRRP. The report looks only at pasture impacts of varied minimum flow takes. The two pastoral types considered are “Dairy” and “Non-Dairy”, used to represent very intensive and intensive land uses respectively.

2. Summary The average loss of yield forecasted for dairy is:

Hurunui river: 203kgDM/ha/year (at an average cost of $97/ha/year) Waiau river: 108kgDM/ha/year (at an average cost of $52/ha/year) The worst seasons are likely to see a reduction in yield that would cost $323/ha/year on the Hurunui River and $435/ha/year on the Waiau River. (approximately 10% of the EBITDA on a very well run, property).

The average loss of yield forecasted for non-dairy is:

Hurunui river: 196kgDM/ha/year (at an average cost of $78/ha/year) Waiau river: 105kgDM/ha/year (at an average cost of $42/ha/year) The worst seasons are likely to see a reduction in yield that would cost $323/ha/year on the Hurunui River and $351/ha/year on the Waiau River. (approximately 20% of the EBITDA on a very well run property).

The average increase of regrassing required due to water-limited death of pastures is forecasted to increase by: Hurunui river: 6.8% of farm area (at an average cost of ($123/ha/year) Waiau River: 4.6% of farm area (at an average cost of ($83/ha/year)

The worst seasons are likely to see irreparable damage to pastures that would cost an average of $583/ha on the Hurunui River and $566/ha on the Waiau River. (approximately 14% of the EBITDA on a very well run dairy property, or 26% of the EBITDA on a very well run non-dairy property).

59

Grain feeding:

To cost of installing grain feeders is estimated at approximately $347/ha, with an annual interest and depreciation cost of $39/ha. This would only apply to those farmers that don’t already have in-shed grain feeding facilities. We estimate that 30% of properties would need to install in-shed grain feeding facilities.

When looking at the results it is important to consider that while the average of the time period does not incur significant cost relative to the worst seasons, 41% of the time in the Hurunui River catchment, and 14% of the time in the Waiau River catchment will incur pasture damage greater than 5% more than the current low flow regime If is not the hard years alone that cost, but also the psychological effect on farmers ability to perform at historical in subsequent seasons. The stress of having to feed much more and re-grass more of the farm, bring in more feed, and in all reality drop production and profitability, in my experience often leads to a more conservative operator for the two subsequent seasons. Feed costs assumed are long run average. While some operators would hold feed on hand awaiting a time when it is required, most will go to the market at the time which can cause inflated costs, especially in a semi-isolated area like the Amuri. This can mean silage cost can increase to 25c/kgDM standing in the paddock and grain may increase in cost by a further $50/t.

3. Process Using soil moisture models as provided by Peter Brown, I have looked at the effects on growth rate of pasture on a daily time step model across both Waiau and Hurunui rivers, and assessed the river flow regimes across two soils (65mm profile available water and 80mm profile available water) and rainfall zones (Culverden and Riverside/Waiau). The time period assessed is from 1960 to 2017. The daily time step model calculates potential growth based on expected pasture growth (from an internal MRB data set and external industry data) assuming no irrigation restriction, plus nitrogen effect, less soil moisture stress impact on pasture production. Growth rate and nitrogen assumptions are below:

Un-boosted N units N Boosted

June 8 0 8

July 4 0 4

August 12 7 15

September 23 29 35

October 39 35 52

November 65 14 69

December 74 0 74

January 63 0 63

February 51 35 65

March 38 24 47

April 22 6 24

May 18 0 18

TOTAL 12,531 149 14,221

PASTURE GROWTH - PASTORAL (non dairy)

un boosted N units N Boosted

June 8 0 8

July 4 0 4

August 12 14 18

September 23 28 34

October 39 39 53

November 65 36 77

December 74 28 83

January 63 28 72

February 51 33 64

March 38 27 48

April 22 15 28

May 18 0 18

TOTAL 12,531 247 15,218

PASTURE GROWTH - PASTORAL (dairy)

60

Once the lost potential feed was calculated (on an annual basis), the cost to the business was calculated. It is assumed that the “dairy” would buy in grain and baleage to replace pasture not grown. PKE was excluded from analysis as the amount that is permitted to be fed currently is only 3kgDM, also there is risk that it will become a banned product for use in some markets in future. The replacement feed costs for the “dairy” type systems are detailed below:

It is assumed that the “non-dairy” represents other enterprises including beef fattening, lamb finishing, dairy grazing and silage sales. These enterprises would likely employ a combination of selling stock that they could have added more weight to, not trading stock as they don’t have the feed, and buying in feed. The bought in feed would be all pasture silage except some grain for breeding ewes or lambs, which would free up pasture for other grazing cattle. The replacement feed costs and finishing/grazing margin reductions for “non-dairy type systems are detailed below:

Grain: $380 /t delivered

86% dry matter

$442 /tDM delivered

$20 /tDM to crush and feed

98% ulilisation

$471 /tDM consumed

Baleage: $180 /tDM standing

$144 /tDM mow, bale and wrap ($46/320kgDM)

$31 /tDM to cart ($10/320kgDM)

$56 /tDM to feed ($18/320kgDM)

85% ulilisation

$484 /tDM consumed

AVERAGE $478 /tDM consumed

FEED COSTS - PASTORAL (dairy)

Grain: (20%) $380 /t delivered

86% dry matter

$442 /tDM delivered

$20 /tDM to feed

80% ulilisation

$577 /tDM consumed

Baleage: (40%) $180 /tDM standing

$144 /tDM mow, bale and wrap ($46/320kgDM)

$31 /tDM to cart ($10/320kgDM)

$56 /tDM to feed ($18/320kgDM)

85% ulilisation

$484 /tDM consumed

Lost Margins: (40%) $180 /tDM Lamb Finishing

$278 /tDM Calf Trading

$197 /tDM R2 Finishing

$218 /tDM consumed

AVERAGE $396 /tDM consumed

FEED COSTS - PASTORAL (non dairy)

61

4. Results Non-Dairy - Pasture Yield

The MAX yield represents the best year in the data set from 1960 to 2017, the MIN yield represents the worst year (the most expensive year for a farmer under the HWRRP regime in comparison to current) and the AVERAGE yield is the average of all of the seasons.

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Minimum flow Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP

MAX Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,427 14,429 14,429

(HWRRP % Currrent) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 0 0 3 0

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $0 $0 $1 $0

MIN Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 12,019 11,327 12,108 11,449 12,080 11,444 12,161 11,592

(HWRRP % Currrent) 94.2% 94.6% 94.7% 95.3%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 691 659 637 569

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $274 $261 $252 $225

AVERAGE Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 14,190 13,968 14,239 14,041 14,227 14,032 14,265 14,095

(HWRRP % Currrent) 98.4% 98.6% 98.6% 98.8%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 222 197 195 171

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $88 $78 $77 $68

HURUNUI RIVER - PASTORAL (non-dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Minimum flow Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP

MAX Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,429 14,427 14,429 14,429

(HWRRP % Currrent) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 0 0 3 0

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $0 $0 $1 $0

MIN Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 13,992 12,892 14,113 13,269 14,071 13,196 14,152 13,424

(HWRRP % Currrent) 92.1% 94.0% 93.8% 94.9%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 1100 844 876 728

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $436 $334 $347 $288

AVERAGE Yield (KgDM/ha/yr) 14,302 14,182 14,334 14,230 14,326 14,216 14,351 14,264

(HWRRP % Currrent) 99.2% 99.3% 99.2% 99.4%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 120 104 110 87

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $48 $41 $43 $34

WAIAU RIVER - PASTORAL (non-dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

62

Dairy – Pasture Yield

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Minimum flow Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP

MAX Yield 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,447 15,450 15,450

(HWRRP % Currrent) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 0 0 3 0

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $0 $0 $1 $0

MIN Yield 12,985 12,249 13,072 12,378 13,041 12,364 13,119 12,522

(HWRRP % Currrent) 94.3% 94.7% 94.8% 95.5%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 736 694 677 597

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $352 $331 $323 $285

AVERAGE Yield 15,201 14,971 15,253 15,048 15,240 15,038 15,282 15,105

(HWRRP % Currrent) 98.5% 98.7% 98.7% 98.8%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 230 204 202 176

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $110 $98 $97 $84

HURUNUI RIVER - PASTORAL (dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Minimum flow Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP Current HWRRP

MAX Yield 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,450 15,447 15,450 15,450

(HWRRP % Currrent) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 0 0 3 0

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $0 $0 $1 $0

MIN Yield 14,999 13,852 15,118 14,252 15,079 14,171 15,163 14,438

(HWRRP % Currrent) 92.4% 94.3% 94.0% 95.2%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 1147 866 908 725

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $548 $413 $434 $346

AVERAGE Yield 15,316 15,192 15,351 15,244 15,341 15,228 15,369 15,280

(HWRRP % Currrent) 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.4%

(Yield Loss kgDM/ha/yr) 124 107 113 89

(Cost of bought in feed/ha/yr) $59 $51 $54 $42

WAIAU RIVER - PASTORAL (dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

63

Increased Regrassing The MAX increased regrassing represents the worst year in the data set from 1960 to 2017 (the most expensive year for a farmer under the HWRRP regime in comparison to current), the MIN increased regrassing represents the best year, and the AVERAGE yield is the average of all of the seasons. The cost of regrassing includes the cost of supplementary feed bought in to replace the pasture not growing at the time of regrassing (assumed at 60 days from first spray out to first grazing). The pasture not grown is assumed as the average growth rate over that time, less the dry matter made available to first grazing in the new grass.

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Years % area Years % area Years % area Years % area

HWRRP more than Current regrassing 31 54% 30 53% 30 53% 30 53%

MAX increased regrassing 32% 32% 32% 33%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $577 $569 $583 $602

MIN increased regrassing 0% 0% 0% 0%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $0 $0 $0 $0

AVERAGE increased regrassing 7% 7% 7% 7%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $118 $127 $123 $124

HURUNUI RIVER - PASTORAL (Regrassing Required - non-dairy and dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

Rainfall

Soil PAW (mm)

Years % area Years % area Years % area Years % area

HWRRP more than Current regrassing 22 39% 26 46% 24 42% 24 42%

MAX increased regrassing 29% 30% 33% 33%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $521 $547 $601 $593

MIN increased regrassing 0% 0% 0% 0%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $0 $0 $0 $0

AVERAGE increased regrassing 4% 5% 5% 5%

Estimated cost (per ha in worst year) $72 $91 $87 $82

WAIAU RIVER - PASTORAL (Regrassing Required - non-dairy and dairy)

Culverden Riverside and Waiau

65 80 65 80

64

Cost of Grain Feeding The cost of retrofitting a rotary dairy shed (60 bail) with a grain feeding system (180t silo, mill, hopper silo, PLC, and feed bins is approximately $80,000. This would be suitable for a 230ha or 800 cow farm, making the capital cost approximately $347/ha in capital. There would be: an interest bill on the borrowed money at 7.25%: $25/ha/year

depreciation over a 25 year lifespan: $14/ha/year TOTAL $39/ha/year

This cost if farm specific – it does vary greatly by property and would only affect the farmers that do not already feed grain in milking sheds.

65

 

 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 12  SUBJECT MATTER: 

Wilding conifer strategy and action in the zone 

AUTHOR: Ian Whitehouse, Environment Canterbury 

DATE OF MEETING: 11 December 2017 

 

Action required 

1. Note the Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030 (copies will be available at the 

meeting); 

2. Note the South Island Wilding Conifer Programme 2016/17 and 2017/2018 (attached); 

3. Alan Tinnelly, Ministry for Primary Industries, will brief the committee on the strategy and 

wilding conifer programme in the zone. 

 

Background 

The National Wilding Conifer Control Programme is looking to liaise with bodies such as the Zone 

Committees to support greater awareness of the wilding problem and the national control 

programme. This issue is most significant in, but not restricted to, the central high‐country tussock 

grasslands of New Zealand.  

Losses for NZ’s primary production, water availability, tourism and environment is significant if 

wildings are not controled. Wildings impact on our valuable water yields. In small catchment studies 

water yields can be reduced by over 50% when native tussock is replaced by conifers. A study at 

Glendu identified that water yields were reduced by 42%. A further study undertaken by NIWA on 

the Waitaki River catchment estimated a reduction of up to 50 cumec if conifers were left 

uncontrolled. This reduction would severely reduce on the number of days farmers could irrigate, 

less water yield with constant contaminant discharges which would potentially lower water quality. 

A reduction in power generation and as bigger areas of dense wilding conifers the impacts of wild 

fires also increases.  

Wilding conifers are a serious and increasing pest issue for New Zealand. Over 2 million hectares, 

around 6% of New Zealand, have already been affected to some extent by these unwanted trees. 

Wilding conifers are continuing to increase in area at an average compounding rate of approximately 

5‐6% per year. At this rate of spread within 20‐30 years wilding conifers will have invaded (and have 

reached at least medium densities) approximately 5.9 million hectares (22% of New Zealand’s total 

land area) of at risk land. In addition, a proportion of indigenous forests, including beech forest and 

Manuka/Kanuka forests, which represent an additional 24% of total land cover, will be invaded over 

a longer period of time. 

Wilding conifers are an issue that can only be addressed by landowners, forest owners, community 

groups, industry researchers, local and central government working together. The New Zealand 

Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015‐2030 (the strategy) aims to support effective 

66

 

 

collaboration between land occupiers, researchers, regulators and communities to address the 

critical overarching issues facing wilding conifer management. 

As part of the strategy’s implementation Government announced in Budget 2016 a contribution of 

$16 million over 4 years for a collaborative national wilding conifer control programme.  

The allocation of funds for each programme year is agreed at a national Governance Group level. 

The regional steering groups, of which the regional fund‐holder (ECan in Canterbury) is a member, 

are responsible for providing oversight of the operational programme in their respective region(s). 

The 2016 / 2017 operational programme made a significant dent in targeting outlying infestations of 

over 1.2 m/ha of affected land covering 14 management units though out the country. The focus for 

operational control over a 3 year programme is depicted in the attached map. 

 

67

U:\2017\C17070J_PCa_Wilding_Conifer_Mgmt_Unit_Mapping\GIS\C17070_003_A3P_SouthIsland_Affecte

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

( (

(

(

(

(

Northern Eyre

Mid Dome

St Mary-Ida

Remarkables

Five RiversLammermoor

Ohau

Tekapo East

Tekapo West

Kawarau

Godley

Craigieburn

Dunstan

Four Peaks

Lewis

Molesworth

Hakatere

Porters

SouthlandRegion

Otago

Region

CanterburyRegion

West CoastRegion

TasmanRegion

MarlboroughRegion

NelsonRegion

TaranakiRegion

Te WaipounamuSouth Island

AotearoaNew Zealand

INVERCARGILL

Queenstown

Balclutha

OAMARU

Waimate

TIMARU

Hokitika

Greymouth

ASHBURTON

Reefton

Akaroa

Kaikoura

NELSON

Motueka

BLENHEIM

Picton

Opunake

Hawera

NEW PLYMOUTH

DUNEDIN

CHRISTCHURCH

WELLINGTON

NATIONAL WILDING CONIFER PROGRAMME

Legend

Regional Council Boundary

Management Unit Commenced 2016/17

Management Unit Commenced 2017/18

Wilding Conifer Affected Areas

°Data AcknowledgementMaps contain data sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright Reserved

0 100 km

1:2,400,000 @ A3

South Island Management Units

Management Unit Unit ID Area (ha)

Molesworth MU41-01 231,610Lewis MU35-01 298,757Craigieburn MU34-02 201,291Porters MU34-01 200,799Hakatere MU32-03 345,978Godley MU32-02 137,921Four Peaks MU32-01 39,725St Mary-Ida MU24-01 355,638Dunstan MU23-02 108,102Kawarau MU21-03 56,046Remarkables MU21-02 111,061Northern Eyre MU21-01 107,237Five Rivers MU11-01 9,853TOTAL 2,204,018

Tekapo West MU32-07 91,720Tekapo East MU32-06 108,716Ohau MU32-04 309,518Lammermoor MU23-01 258,430Mid Dome MU11-02 64,064TOTAL 832,448

Management Unit Commenced 2017/18

Management Unit Commenced 2016/17

68

AGENDA ITEM NO: 9  SUBJECT MATTER:  Zone Facilitator’s Report  

 REPORT BY: Ian Whitehouse, Environment    Canterbury 

 DATE OF MEETING: 16 October 2017 

 Action required 

1. Identify and prioritise, if required, existing/new initiatives and/or work programmes that the 

Committee considers should be provided for in the Environment Canterbury 2018‐2028 Long 

Term Plan (LTP). 

2. Identify  what  should  be  included  in  the  “Key  achievements  2017”  section  of  the  Zone Committee Annual Report 2017 and the projects/initiatives that could feature on page 2 of the report. 

3. Note the proposed water quality (E. coli) monitoring programme for 2017/18 summer above SH7 on Hurunui River. 

4. Note the publication of the CWMS Targets Progress Report 2017.   1  Input to Environment Canterbury LTP Environment  Canterbury’s  Long  Term  Plan  (LTP)  sets  out  the  Council’s  service  priorities,  work programmes  and  resource  requirements  such  as  expenditure  and  funding  for  a  10‐year  period.  A new  Long‐Term  Plan  is  produced  every  three  years,  which  incorporates  the  Annual  Plan  for  that year.  In  June  2018  a  new  LTP  (for  2018‐2028)  will  be  adopted  by  the  Environment  Canterbury Council.  Environment  Canterbury  is  currently  seeking  input  from  stakeholders  on  the  strategic direction of Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury is inviting feedback from all 10 zone committees.   A clear message has been given to Environment Canterbury that the priorities for the coming years must be water management and native biodiversity.  The  zone  committee  has  written  to  Environment  Canterbury  (see  “Correspondence”)  asking  for some of the savings from the targeted approach in Hurunui Waiau to be redirected to on‐the‐ground work  programmes  in  the  zone  including,  though  not  limited  to,  conservation  management  of braided river beds.  What existing/new solutions does the Committee consider should be provided for in the Environment Canterbury  2018‐2028  LTP  to  deliver  on  the  Freshwater management  and  Indigenous  biodiversity priorities in the Hurunui Waiau Zone?   2 Zone Committee’s 2017 Annual Report The committee’s Annual Report for 2017 will be signed off at the first meeting in 2018. The Annual Report  forms  the basis  for  the Chair  reporting  to Hurunui District  councillors  and  to  Environment Canterbury councillors. The 2016 Annual Report is attached.  Committee members are asked to identify the things that they believe should be included in the “Key achievements 2017”  section  (for  example AIC piping, allocating over $300,000 of  Immediate  Steps Biodiversity funding to braided river projects).  

69

Committee members are asked to suggest the projects/initiatives that will feature on page 2 of the Zone Committee’s 2017 Annual Report.  3 Further water quality (E. coli) monitoring in Hurunui River above SH7 Results  from  the monitoring  in 2016/17  summer were presented and discussed at  the September meeting.  The committee asked Environment Canterbury  to  come back with a proposal  for  further monitoring in the 2017/18 summer. The proposed monitoring is described in the attached paper.  4 CWMS Targets Progress Report 2017 

The ten CWMS target areas and the specific goals within these for 2015, 2020 and 2040 are a critical 

part of implementing the CWMS. Environment Canterbury has provided progress reports, since 

2012, on the achievement of the targets. 

The CWMS Targets Progress Report 2017 has just been completed – see 

https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your‐region/your‐environment/water/measuring‐progress/ 

Printed copies will be available at the meeting. 

   

70

Attachment to Zone Facilitator’s Report 

Proposed further water quality (E.coli) monitoring in Hurunui above SH7 for summer 2017/18 

Following the discussion of results from E.coli monitoring at multiple sites in the Hurunui River above 

SH7 at the last Zone Committee meeting (18 September 2017), the Committee asked the 

Environment Canterbury technical team to come back with options to further investigate this issue 

over the coming 2017/18 summer. The Committee was particularly interested in now narrowing the 

investigation to try and identify what might be causing the consistently elevated E.coli results found 

in the lower part of the study reach (i.e., around Lower River Rd and at SH7). In response the 

technical team suggest a three‐pronged approach for the coming summer season: 

1. A one‐day visual survey (on foot) of the reach of riverbed between Hocking Rd and SH7 

during October‐November 2017 to identify presence and type of bird colonies and any other 

potential sources of E.coli evident from the riverbed. 

2. A weekly E.coli sampling programme similar to the 2016‐17 Hurunui programme (i.e. 

coinciding with ECan’s regular recreational water quality programme) but narrowing in on 

the Lower River Rd site and up to two other sites in addition to the regular SH7 site. The 

additional sites will be selected following the foot survey mentioned above. 

3. Sub‐samples from each location and date will be stored (frozen) until the end of summer to 

retain the option of sending some high E.coli yielding samples to the ESR lab for faecal 

source tracking analysis, to try and distinguish between animal sources. 

In addition, Mayor Winton Dalley asked if staff could confirm whether the high flow event seen on 

14 February 2017 coinciding with high E.coli concentrations in the results presented for last summer 

was the result of rain in the hills, on the plains or both. The graph below shows river flow and rainfall 

around 14 February 2017 and confirms that the high flow event was an alpine‐fed event apparently 

without significant contribution from rain on the plains. This raises the question of what sources 

caused the high E.coli results on 14 February 2017 at all sites below Morrisons Rd and whether rising 

water levels may have contributed by washing faeces from bird colonies. However, this idea does 

not explain the consistently elevated E.coli results throughout the summer at low flows at the Lower 

River Road site or the poor quality measured at SH7 which is only graded under stable flow 

conditions. The results to date show that both ruminant animals and birds contribute to E.coli 

measured at SH7 but the exact source location(s) and relative proportions of these contributions 

remain unclear.      

River flow and rainfall patterns will be taken into account in analysing the results from the proposed 

summer 2017/18 study described above. 

 

71

72

 

 

Waiau river bird survey 2017 summary   The Waiau River is known to be a habitat of outstanding significance for threatened native birds. It has been shown to support the northern‐most known breeding population of wrybill as well as internationally significant populations of black‐fronted terns and black‐billed gulls, and a regionally significant population of banded dotterel.  This is the sixth year of surveying. In 1975 the sections from Twin Bridges to Sandersons Road were covered (our sections 4‐8), and in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2016 the survey has covered the river from Waterfall Stream to the river mouth (15 sections), see Map 1 below. Typically the braided river bird surveys are undertaken in three‐year blocks, scheduled to repeat every five years. The survey scheduled to happen in 2015 was postponed until 2016, meaning that there is one year of surveying to occur in 2018 to complete this cycle. In support of the Hurunui‐Waiau Braided Rivers Flagship Immediate Steps Project an additional three years of surveying is proposed and it is also proposed that this is led by Environment Canterbury, how this will occur is still yet to be confirmed.   In 2017 the Environment Canterbury led bird survey of the Waiau River ran over four days from October 17th to 20th. Thirty participants took part in the survey, covering over 100KM of riverbed from the Waterfall Stream starting point, through the gorges to the river mouth. Conditions were generally good, with only one day having some rain in the morning. This winter’s high rainfall has cleared the river up quite a bit, but this also meant the river flow was quite high and the cloudiness of the water made it difficult for the boat drivers to assess depth so they had to take extra care in choosing pick up and drop off points.   Data from the survey will be shared with the local braided river bird advocacy group BRaid and the Department of Conservation, who collates all braided river bird count datasets. These datasets provide important information on the use of the river by the bird species, informing river management decisions and agency resourcing of conservation activities.   Key observations from 2017  

Numbers were slightly lower than last year for wrybill, banded dotterel and black fronted tern, however, the black billed gull numbers were higher than they have been since 2008. 

One black billed gull colony of around 1000 birds was found. This was in section 8 which is dark green on the map.  

As with last year, a colony of about 100 black‐fronted terns was located at the Shark’s Tooth upstream of Twin Bridges (section 3 = orange on the map).  

Black‐backed gulls were still high but slightly less than last year. 

Black‐fronted dotterel were seen again this year. Last year was the first time they had been recorded on the Waiau although they are often seen to the south at Mata Kopae / St Anne’s Lagoon and paddocks around Cheviot. 

Sections 1 (red on the map), 4 (yellow) and 12 (orange) of the river seem to be favoured by river birds with these sections having the highest overall number of birds seen.  

Wrybill, banded dotterel, black‐billed gull, black‐fronted tern, South Island pied oystercatcher and pied stilt are all on the threatened species list.  

   

73

 

 

  Figure 1: Maps illustrating the total number of Southern black‐backed gull, black billed gull, banded dotterel, black‐fronted tern, South Island pied oystercatcher and wrybill observed during the Waiau river bird survey over five survey years.  

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

Black‐billed gull

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

Southern black‐backed gull

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

Black‐fronted tern

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

Wrybill

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

Banded dotterel

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2016 2017

South Island pied oystercatcherNumber of braided

 river birds observed

 

74

 

 

 Figure 2: River flow data, the survey occurred from the 17th‐20th October. The river showed evidence of recent high flows with areas of bank being washed away in some areas. The cloudiness of the water was also evidence of recent high flows.  

 Map 1: Showing the sections of the river that we covered. The different colours denote a day’s work (therefore, red and orange are day one for the two survey groups, yellow and green are day two etc).          

75

Terms of ReferenceThe area of the Hurunui Waiau Water Management Zone is shown on the attached map.

Establishment

The Committee is established under the auspices of the Local Government Act 2002 in accordance with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy 2009.

The Committee is a joint Committee of Environment Canterbury (the Regional Council) and Hurunui District Council (the Territorial Authority).

Purpose and Functions

The purpose and function of the Committee is to:

• Facilitate community involvement in the development, implementation, review and updating of a Zone Implementation Programme that gives effect to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in the Hurunui Waiau area; and

• Monitor progress of the implementation of the Zone Implementation Programme.

Objectives

1) Develop a Zone Implementation Programme that seeks to advance theCWMS vision, principles, and targets in the Hurunui Waiau Zone.

2) Oversee the delivery of the Zone Implementation Programme.

3) Support other Zone Implementation Programmes and the Regional Implementation Programme to the extent they have common areas of interest or interface.

4) Ensure that the community of the Zone are informed, have opportunity for input, and are involved in the development and delivery of the Hurunui Waiau Implementation Programme.

5) Consult with other Zone Water Management Committees throughout the development and implementation of the Hurunui Waiau Implementation Programme on matters impacting on other zone areas.

6) Engage with relevant stakeholders throughout the development of the Hurunui Waiau Implementation Programme.

7) Recommend the Hurunui Waiau Implementation Programme to their respective Councils.

8) Review the Implementation Programme on a three yearly cycle and recommend any changes to the respective Councils.

9) Monitor the performance of Environment Canterbury, Hurunui District Council, and other agencies in relation to the implementation of the Hurunui Waiau Implementation Programme.

10) Provide Environment Canterbury and Hurunui District Council with updates on progress against the Zone Implementation Programme.

Hurunui Waiau Zone Water Management Committee

Brought to you by Environment Canterbury working with

76

Limitation of Powers

The Committee does not have the authority to commit any Council to any path or expenditure and its recommendations do not compromise the Councils’ freedom to deliberate and make decisions.

The Committee does not have the authority to submit on proposed Resource Management or Local Government Plans.

The Committee does not have the authority to submit on resource consent matters.

Committee Membership

The Zone Committee will comprise:

1) One elected member or Commissioner appointed by Environment Canterbury;

2) One elected member appointed by each Territorial Authority operating within the Zone Boundary;

3) One member from each of Tūāhuriri and Kaikōura Rūnanga;

4) Between 4-7 members appointed from the community and who come from a range of backgrounds and interests within the community;

5) Environment Canterbury and Hurunui District Council will appoint their own representatives on the Committee. Tūāhuriri and Kaikōura Rūnanga will nominate their representatives and the appointments will be confirmed by Environment Canterbury and Hurunui District Council.

Selection of Community Members

To be eligible for appointment to a Zone Committee the candidate must either live in or have a significant relationship with the zone. Recommendations on Community Members for the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee will be made to Environment Canterbury and Hurunui District Council by a working group of representatives from Environment Canterbury, Hurunui District Council, Tūāhuriri and Kaikōura Rūnanga. The recommendations will take into account the balance of interests required for Hurunui Waiau, geographic spread of members and the ability of the applicants to work in a collaborative, consensus-seeking manner. Environment Canterbury and Hurunui District Council will receive the recommendations and make the appointments.

Quorum

The quorum at a meeting consists of:

(i) Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even; or

(ii) A majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Chair and Deputy Chair

Each year, the Committee shall appoint the Chair and Deputy Chair from the membership by simple majority. There is no limit on how long a person can be in either of these positions.

Term of Appointment

Members of Committees are appointed for a term of three years. To coincide with Local Government Election processes terms shall commence from January each year, with each Committee requiring confirmation of membership by the incoming Council. The term for community members will be staggered so that one third of the community members is appointed (or reappointed) each year. There is no limit on the number of consecutive terms.

77

Financial Delegations

None

Operating Philosophy

The Committees will at all times operate in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and will observe the following principles:

1) Give effect to the Fundamental Principles, Targets and goals of the CWMS;

2) Be culturally sensitive observing tikanga Maori;

3) Apply a Ki uta ki tai (from the mountains to the sea) approach;

4) Work with the CWMS Regional Committee to support the implementation of the CWMS across the region as a whole;

5) Give consideration to and balance the interests of all water interests in the region in debate and decision-making;

6) Work in a collaborative and co-operative manner using best endeavours to reach solutions that take account of the interests of all sectors of the community;

7) Contribute their knowledge and perspective but not promote the views or positions of any particular interest or stakeholder group;

8) Promote a philosophy of integrated water management to achieve the multiple objectives of the range of interests in water;

9) Seek consensus in decision-making where at all possible. In the event that neither unanimous agreement is able to be reached nor a significant majority view formed, in the first instance seek assistance from an external facilitator to further Committee discussions and deliberations. Where the Committee encounters fundamental disagreements, despite having sought assistance and exhausted all avenues to resolve matters, recommend that the respective Councils disband them and appoint a new Committee.

Meeting and Remuneration Guidelines

1) The Committee will meet at least eight times per annum and with workshops and additional meetings as required. At times, the workload will be substantially higher. Proxies or alternates are not permitted.

2) Any Committee may co-opt such other expert or advisory members as it deems necessary to ensure it is able to achieve its purpose. Any such co-option will be on a non-voting basis.

3) Remuneration for members will be paid in the form of an honorarium currently set at the following levels:

a. Appointed members - $4,000 pab. Deputy Chair - $5,000 pac. Chair - $6,000 pa.

Staff or elected members of Territorial Authorities or the Environment Canterbury shall not be eligible for remuneration.

Mileage will be reimbursed.

Committee Support

The Committee shall be supported staff from the Territorial Councils and Environment Canterbury, primarily through the Committee Secretary and the Zone Facilitator.

78

Map showing Hurunui Waiau Water Management

Brought to you by Environment Canterbury working with

79