1

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an application by Wongan Hills Limited to transfer groundwater and take and use water (CRC193743, CRC193745 and CRC193748)

DECISION OF HEARING COMMISSIONER

EMMA CHRISTMAS

24 JANUARY 2019

2

DECISION

1. Under my delegated authority from the Canterbury Regional Council to hear and decide these applications I grant resource consents CRC193743, CRC193745 and CRC193748 to transfer water from groundwater permits CRC175707 and CRC191382 and amalgamate them with existing consent CRC191698, to authorise the taking and use of water for irrigation, stock drinking water supply and domestic supply, subject to the conditions outlined in this decision, with an expiry date of 5 September 2028.

THE HEARING

2. These applications were heard on 1 December 2019 at the Environment Canterbury offices in Christchurch. The following appearances were recorded.

For the applicant:

Mr Ben Williams, Legal Counsel

Mr Brent Thomas, Applicant

Dr Doug Edmeade, Soil Scientist

Dr Graham Ussher, Restoration Ecologist

Dr Anthony Davoren, Soil, water and irrigation management specialist

For Canterbury Regional Council:

Ms Mikaela Farr, Consent Planner

Mr Richard Purdon, Principal Consent Planner

Dr Philip Grove, CRC Terrestrial Ecologist and Science Team Leader

3. In addition, tabled evidence was received from Mr R. Lucas, dryland pasture specialist, for the applicant, and Dr Matthew Riddle, Senior Scientist Land Resources for the Council.

4. The hearing was closed on 16 December following receipt of additional information from the Council and a written right of reply from the applicant.

5. I undertook a site visit on 1 December accompanied by Mr Matt Iremonger, Farm Manager. I was shown Bayleys Road Farm, including the three irrigated blocks, dryland farming blocks, adjacent Department of Conservation reserve land, the fenced Muehlenbeckia astonii (shrubby tororaro) plot and the buffer areas and recent boundary planting. I also viewed the pivot irrigator on Paddock 7 and the control mechanism for managing shut off of the end gun and sprinklers.

BACKGROUND

3

6. Wongan Hills Limited (Wongan Hills) owns a 967 ha mixed cropping and sheep and beef property at Kaitorete Spit referred to here as Bayleys Road Farm. This is part of a larger farming operating which includes land in Prices Valley. Wongan Hills holds consent CRC191698 to irrigate up to 202 ha of Bayleys Road Farm with groundwater from three bores. The conditions of consent restrict irrigation to three parts of the property, Area A (Paddock 7), Area B (part of Paddock 9) and Area C (part of Paddock 10). There are no conditions restricting which parts of these three areas may be irrigated.

7. Consent for irrigation was initially granted in September 2018 (as consent CRC184921) with all water subject to an adaptive management regime. This regime meant that the reliability of supply would be relatively poor. In November 2018, Wongan Hills successfully applied to transfer an additional volume of groundwater that is not subject to adaptive management conditions. The initial consent and the new allocation together from the existing consent, CRC191698.

8. The current application seeks to transfer a further volume of groundwater, which is also not subject to adaptive management conditions. This will have the overall effect of providing Wongan Hills with 540,382m3 of groundwater per year that is not subject to adaptive management conditions, together with the original 815,195m3 that is subject to those conditions. There are no changes proposed to the irrigated area or daily rate of take for this application. The additional allocation is for the purpose of improving the reliability of the irrigation; however, the total volume is still insufficient to fully irrigate the 202 ha authorised under the consent.

9. The farm is located within an ecologically sensitive area with significant biodiversity values on and adjoining the property. The impacts of the proposed increase in water allocation on those biodiversity values was the key issue discussed in evidence at the hearing. The existing consent includes conditions requiring that buffer areas on the north and south of Area A, the north of Area B and the west of Area C are not irrigated. There are currently no other restrictions on the use of these buffer areas and they continue to be farmed (i.e. maintained in pasture or crop and grazed).

10. In addition, the existing consent requires a planted buffer of locally sourced species, at least 5m wide, close to the southern boundary of Area A, and shelterbelt plantings of pines along the northern boundary of Area B and the western boundary of Area C. The applicant proposes to reduce the planted strip to the south of Area A to 3m.

11. The proposal includes an amended vegetation, soil moisture and humidity monitoring programme to take place to the south of Area A and in a nearby control area, and additional humidity monitoring to take place to the north of Area A.

12. The applicant also holds consent CRC184922, to use land for farming activity, over the property. This sets a nitrogen loss limit of 15kg N/ha/yr. In addition, it holds certificate of compliance RMA/2018/1327 from the Christchurch City Council. This confirms that spraying of paddocks using agrichemicals, application of fertiliser, cultivation, irrigation and grazing can be undertaken as permitted activities in

4

terms of the Christchurch District Plan on various parts of the farm, including the three irrigated paddocks.

Consents sought

13. The following consents are sought:

• CRC191743: To transfer 28,303m3 per year of groundwater from CRC175707 (held by McPherson Developments Limited) to bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and BY23/0760. The remaining 28,303m3 per year of allocation on this permit will be surrendered.

• CRC191745: To transfer 189,257m3 per year of groundwater from CRC191382 (held by Garrison Development Limited) to bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and BY23/0760. The remaining 189,257m3 per year of allocation on this permit will be surrendered1.

• CRC193748: To take and use 1,355,577m3 per year of groundwater from bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and BY23/0760 for irrigation of 202 ha crops and pasture, stock drinking supply and domestic supply.

NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

14. The application was limited notified on 19 November to the Department of Conservation, Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu, Taumutu Rūnanga Society Incorporated and Wairewa Rūnanga Society Incorporated. One submission was received but was later withdrawn.

15. Despite there being no submitters on the application, the applicant chose to have the applications heard.

KEY ISSUES

16. There was only one issue on which the hearing and evidence focussed: the impact of the proposal on biodiversity values of the Kaitorete Spit. As discussed below, most other potential effects were agreed by the applicant and Council officers to be minor and were not discussed in evidence2.

17. In relation to effects on biodiversity, the key area of disagreement between the Council and the applicant was the size of buffers required between irrigated areas and significant natural areas, and the activities that may take place in those buffers, particularly in relation to Area A.

18. The applicant proposed the following buffers, which are the same as those on the existing consent and have been agreed by DoC:

1 CRC191382 has no annual volume limit. An annual volume of 378,514m3 was calculated by the applicant using Irricalc and confirmed as reasonable by the Reporting Officer. 2 The effects on cultural values of significance was considered to be more than minor by the Reporting Officer; however, little evidence focussed on this issue.

5

• Area A (Paddock 7) 50m southern boundary 10m northern boundary

• Area B (Paddock 9) 30m northern boundary • Area C (Paddock 10) 30m western boundary

19. The Council proposed the following buffers:

• Area A (Paddock 7) 100m southern boundary 100m northern boundary 30m western boundary

• Area B (Paddock 9) 30m northern boundary • Area C (Paddock 10) 30m western boundary

20. The applicant did not consider any restrictions on farming activity were necessary within the buffer areas (apart from no irrigation); the Council considered that for Area A (Paddock 7) only3, no irrigation infrastructure should be permitted within the buffer areas and the land be retired from farming and allowed to regenerate into dryland vegetation.

APPLICATION STATUS

21. There was no dispute between parties that both the applications for transfer of water and the new permit to take and use water are restricted discretionary activities under rules 11.5.38 and 11.5.33 respectively. Matters to which discretion is restricted are outlined in those rules. Of particular relevance is matter of discretion (5) of Rule 11.5.33, which is: “The proximity and actual or potential adverse environmental effects of water use on any significant indigenous biodiversity and adjacent dryland habitat”.

THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

22. The existing environment is described in both the application, the s42A Report and evidence by Dr Ussher and Dr Grove. The property was, until recently, largely a dryland farm with sheep grazing and an area (part of Paddock 10) where potatoes were grown. This area was irrigated for many years. Additional irrigation has recently commenced following grant of consent in 2018. Two pivots are installed in Area A and three in Area C. Area B is, or will be, irrigated by an Ocmis hard hose irrigator and a Briggs spray boom or equivalent.

23. The pasture on large parts of the property is of poor quality, with numerous weed grasses. The pasture on the majority of Area A and the irrigation areas on Areas B and C have been recently improved, with the existing vegetation sprayed off then sown in oats, followed by pasture grass. Mr Thomas described that the entire property had been farmed, including being burnt, grazed, fertilised, cultivated and oversown, for many years.

3 Council’s proposed condition 13(b). There are no equivalent conditions proposed for Areas B and C, although this distinction in management approach was not drawn in evidence.

6

24. Parts of the property are acknowledged as having high biodiversity values, with the farm having been surveyed in 2007 by DoC and in 2018 by Dr Ussher. The property is classified as ‘Schedule B’ in the Christchurch City Plan. Schedule B sites are privately owned properties with ecological values (at least on part) but that are not subject to the rules that apply to Sites of Ecological Significance (SES).

25. The south-western part of Area A has been fenced off from stock and is not farmed. This area, in Dr Ussher’s evidence, has values consistent with an SES and is excluded from cultivation in the CCC Certificate of Compliance. It supports a number of native species, including the threatened Muehlenbeckia astonii (shrubby tororaro).

26. Of most relevance to the issues before the hearing were the ecological values in land adjoining the irrigated areas, where buffers are required under the existing consent or proposed by the Council. Area A is bordered to the south by the Department of Conservation Kaitorete Scientific Reserve. This extends to the sea and includes dune land which supports rare and threatened plants, lizards and invertebrates, and has high ecological values. To the north is road reserve, and on the opposite side of the road is a narrow strip of land owned by Wongan Hills (Paddock 11). This land was described by Dr Grove as previously having ecological values, but it has recently been cultivated and those values are degraded over most of the site (a central ridge with indigenous matagouri shrubland vegetation remains uncultivated). The land to the north of the Wongan Hills farmland is Canterbury Regional Council reserve, described as Dr Grove as ‘ecologically significant’.

27. To the west of Area A is Paddock 6, which is farmed by Wongan Hills. There is a pine shelterbelt along the boundary between the paddocks. The vegetation in Paddock 6 is predominantly exotic pasture dominated by subterranean clover and weed grass species, with some native species. Within the 20m adjoining Area A there are occasional silver tussock and Muehlenbeckia complexa (scrub poehuehue). Dr Grove considered that this area had ecological values worth protecting, although Dr Ussher disagreed. There is also an area with high ecological values to the southern end of this paddock, adjoining the fenced area in Paddock 7. This has a number of Muehlenbeckia astonii and silver tussock and it is excluded from the CCC certificate of compliance. Dr Ussher assessed that the distance between this area and the irrigator on Area A to be at least 50m.

28. The northern boundary of Area B is road reserve and the land immediately across the road is owned by DoC (the Waihora Scientific Reserve). This is grazed by Wongan Hills. The DoC land is a relatively narrow strip, and to the north of that is Canterbury Regional Council reserve.

29. The western boundary of Area C is owned by another farmer, Mr Lewthwaite. The vegetation in this paddock, within 100m of Area C, was described as containing exotic Danthonia grasses and a few scattered Muehlenbeckia complexa and Carmichaelia australis (native broom). Scrub poehuehue and native broom are not threatened species, although they may support native lizards and invertebrates.

7

30. Dr Grove described both the Waihora Scientific Reserve and Kaitorete Scientific Reserve as nationally important.

31. Dr Ussher also noted that even where native species were relatively sparse, the presence of any one individual of a threatened or at risk species will determine that the area is considered significant in terms of the Regional Policy Statement framework. However, within areas deemed to be significant, the values, and the risk of damage to those values, varied.

Significance of the area to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu

32. Kaitorete Spit is highly significant to the mana whenua, Waiwera Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga. This reflects their long association with the area, its importance as a mahinga kai and as a nohoanga and ara tawhito (ancestral trail). Its significance is reflected in the high number of archaeological sites, including koiwi tangata, and it is recognised in the identification of the area as being within the Cultural Landscape / Values Management Area identified in the LWP. It is highly valued today for its biodiversity values, including the presence of taonga species.

Consented environment and scope of the application

33. Mr Williams’ submission covered the scope of the application and the existing environment, citing Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate Limited4. His view was that the existing environment, as determined under Hawthorn, includes the existing resource consent for irrigation and permitted (dryland) farming activities. He was critical of what he saw as the Council’s re-litigation of the existing consent, submitting that the appropriateness of the existing buffers was beyond the scope of the application.

34. The application includes combining (‘amalgamating’) the new allocation with the existing resource consent. Mr Williams’ observed that while this was done for administrative ease, this aspect of the application could be withdrawn and the transfer of water (and associated conditions) considered separately. He indicated in his closing submissions that if the Council’s position on management of the buffer areas prevailed, this course of action would be taken.

35. While I acknowledge this statement, no amendment to the application has been made to date, and I am obliged to decide the application as it is before me.

36. I agree that, considering Hawthorn, the existing environment includes legally authorised activities and their effects. In this case, that includes irrigation under the existing resource consent. While this application will replace that consent, the proposed expiry date is the same as under the existing consent (2028). If this consent is not granted, it is reasonable to assume that irrigation of the 202 ha of land would continue, under the existing conditions, until that time.

4 Queenstown Lakes DC v Hawthorn Estate Limited [2006] NZRMA para [84]

8

37. As a new application for take and sue of water, the effects which must be considered include the effects of taking and using the full volume of water. However, as the existing environment is one in which the current consent is operating, the focus must be on the effects of the additional allocation. The effects of the part of the allocation that is currently authorised under the current consent are already occurring and would continue to occur in the absence of grant of this consent.

38. It is also worth noting that the first consent was granted very recently (September 2018) and its replacement was granted in November 2018. I am advised that the consideration of the consent in September 2018 was thorough, and all relevant issues traversed. I understand that Dr Walker’s evidence to the Environment Court, which I discuss later and was a key part of Dr Grove’s evidence, was also considered through those processes. Mr Williams stated that5:

“it is noted that the technical material referred to by Dr Grove (and the various other ‘adverse’ material referred to) is exactly the same as was put forward as a part of the previous application process.

Accordingly, there is no new factual information that has arisen since the previous application processes that would favour stronger consent conditions or the decline of consent …”

39. The Council’s position is that the mitigation measures imposed through the earlier consent processes are insufficient to appropriately manage effects. In general, the applicant does not accept this, adopting in large part the existing conditions. Including the buffer areas. In the light of the existing consent, attaching more stringent conditions to this consent would only be justified if the effects of the increase in allocation are greater than the effects of the existing allocation to such a degree that additional mitigation is required.

40. The existing environment also includes the effects of dryland farming. The applicant holds CRC184922 to use land for farming. This covers the full extent of the property. Farming is not defined in the Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) but presumably covers all normal farming activities that are not subject to other rules in the LWRP, such as cultivation, grazing and harvesting of crops. In addition, Certificate of Compliance (RMA/2018/1327), issued by Christchurch City Council (CCC), certifies that various farming activities can be undertaken without resource consent being required from CCC on parts of the property. These activities are the use of agrochemicals, application of fertiliser, cultivation, irrigation and grazing. Some parts of the property are excluded, but over large parts of the property farming activities (excluding irrigation) can occur without the need for further authorisation.

What effects can be considered?

5 Synopsis of submissions of Wongan Hills Limited at [14].

9

41. The consent application is for taking and using water for irrigation, and of course the direct effects of water reaching dryland areas are relevant. However, the irrigation of water has the potential to allow other farming activities to occur more frequently or to a greater extent, and the effects of these activities must also be considered. The intent of irrigation is to increase pasture or crop growth, with a consequent increase in stocking rate or crop production. The adverse effects of an increase in these associated activities are adverse effects of the irrigation. Dr Grove referred to these activities as ‘associated farming practices’ and Dr Grove and Dr Riddle identified the following:

• application of fertiliser, which can be deposited or blown outside the target area. Fertilisation also increases the nutrient levels in the soil, which may then be lost to neighbouring areas

• cultivation, which disturbs the soil, making it more prone to windblown loss

• establishment and consequent spread of pasture weed species from the farmed area to neighbouring areas

• spread of pests and diseases from the farmed area to neighbouring areas

• grazing of stock, with the potential spread of nutrients from manure to neighbouring areas

• use of irrigation infrastructure, causing physical damage

• intensive winter gazing of stock fodder crops, which may leave areas of bare soil, making it more prone to windblown loss

42. The effects of these activities are within the scope of this application. The relevant consideration is the extent to which they increase as a result of the increased irrigation.

What is the scale of the increase in allocation?

43. The additional volume sought is 217,560m3. To put this into context, if the existing allocation (1,138,017m3) was used at the maximum weekly volume (72,576 m3), irrigation could occur for 15.6 weeks. The additional volume would allow an additional 3 weeks of full irrigation. Looked at another way, the existing allocation of 1,138,017m3 of water provides sufficient water to fully irrigate 142 ha, out of the total 202 ha6. Therefore, assuming that one hectare requires ~ 8,000m2 of water, the additional water would allow an additional ~27ha to be irrigated, an increase of approximately 20%.

44. However, it is worth noting that the existing consent does not limit the area to be irrigated, so any part of the 202 ha could be irrigated at any time. It is therefore

6 Evidence from Dr Davoren, cited in the s42A report at [107].

10

reasonable to assume that all of the 202 ha (apart from buffer areas) will be irrigated at some stage under the existing consent.

SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT

45. Section 104(1) requires that, subject to Part II of the Act, regard must be had to:

(a) any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of

(i) a national policy statement

(ii) a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement;

(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement;

(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant or reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section s104(1)(a) - Potential effects on the environment

Effects not in dispute

46. The following effects of the taking and use of water are discussed in the application and the s42A Report, and both parties agree that effects (with proposed mitigation where relevant) are minor and consistent with relevant plan provisions. Effects on:

(a) Aquifer stability. The aquifer is gravel based and not subject to subsidence.

(b) Groundwater quality from backflow and cross-connection of aquifers. Appropriate backflow prevention systems are required by conditions.

(c) Saltwater intrusion. Monitoring conditions are proposed to detect any saltwater intrusion, at which point abstraction must cease.

(d) Surrounding groundwater users as a result of well interference. Predicted interference effects are within the thresholds provided for by the LWRP and are considered minor.

(e) Surface water resources. Given the depths of the bores (all greater than 100m deep) and the low permeability strata, there will be no effects on surface water resources.

(f) The efficient use of water, including the need for the quantity sought and the ability to abstract and use that quantity. The bores are able to sustain the consented rate of take and the volume sought is

11

reasonable for the proposed use. The irrigation method to be used is efficient.

(g) The transfer of water on groundwater resources and other users. 50% of the annual volume of each consent to be transferred is to be surrendered, as required by LWRP Policy 11.4.25. The annual volume calculated for CRC191382 is reasonable. There are no reasonable alternative water supplies.

(h) Water quality, from use of water for irrigation. Land use consent is held for a farming activity. This limits the nitrogen discharge to 15 kg N/ha/year, which has been assessed as an acceptable maximum rate of loss.

Effects on significant indigenous biodiversity and adjacent dryland habitat

47. As noted, the scope of this application includes both the direct effects of irrigation on dryland ecosystems and the effects of associated farming activities that occur to a greater extent as a result of irrigation.

48. The technical evidence focussed on the degree to which the additional irrigation would cause ‘edge effects’. ‘Edge effects’ can be described in this context as adverse effects from farming activities on the ecological values of adjoining land, and can arise from both the direct incursion of water onto unirrigated areas, and from other farming practices, such as fertiliser and herbicide application. Edge effects can arise from both irrigation and dryland farming. Such effects may currently be occurring from existing dryland farming activities on the property; this application does not address those effects, but as discussed, they form part of the existing environment.

Research on edge effects

49. There is unfortunately relatively little research on the causes and extent of edge effects that is directly relevant to the Kaitorete Spit environment. Dr Grove discussed unpublished research in the Mackenzie Basin and Canterbury Plains by Dr Susan Walker of Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, which was included in evidence to the Environment Court in relation to an application for irrigation in the Mackenzie Basin7. This research recorded edge effects extending at least 200m from the irrigated areas at some sites in those locations.

50. Dr Walker’s evidence discusses edge effects from both dryland farming and irrigated land, and draws a distinction between the two. She considered that (in relation to sites in the Mackenzie Basin) under dryland cropping, the transfer of soil and nutrients occurs relatively infrequently and unpredictably, because they rely on chance coincidences of soil disturbance or fertiliser application with windy conditions, or rain events that cause overland or shallow subsurface flow of nutrient enriched water. Irrigation considerably exacerbates and intensifies edge

7 Statement of evidence of Dr Susan Walker on behalf of the Mackenzie Guardians Incorporated, dated 27 October 2017. ENV-2012-CHC-138, 139.

12

effects due to the addition of moisture through the growing season. This moisture is carried from the irrigators into the adjacent site by wind and / or in overland and shallow subsurface flow. Regular transgressions of moisture alter the naturally dry environment, allowing a far more complete invasion of open dry habitats by exotic species.

51. Dr Grove also referred to overseas research that indicated that the main risks to adjacent communities arose from the spread of nutrients (including through wind and water deposition of fertiliser, manure and feed from sheep), water, dust, herbicide, insecticide, weeds, pests and pathogens. In one study, modelling demonstrated that wind blown phosphorus could extend several hundred metres into remnant native vegetation. He also noted a small number of NZ studies that showed changes in soil biochemistry and floristic diversity in remnant native forest reserves surrounded by farmland. Dr Ussher provided a separate unpublished study8, also from the Mackenzie Basin but on a flat site, which showed fewer effects in species composition as a result of irrigation.

52. There was disagreement between Dr Grove and Dr Ussher on the relevance of the various studies, given differences in topography, humidity, soils, lack of buffer areas and irrigation set-up compared to Bayleys Road Farm. In particular, Dr Ussher highlighted the differences between two sites in Dr Walker’s Canterbury Plains study (Bankside Scientific Reserve and Eyrewell Reserve) and the Bayleys Road Farm situation.

53. There are clearly potentially significant differences between the various study sites and the situation at Bayleys Road Farm, and therefore little reliance can be placed on individual conclusions, including in relation to the distance over which edge effects may occur. What is not disputed is that irrigation can cause edge effects, the extent of these is likely to be dependent on the local circumstances (topography, soils, irrigation set-up etc), and that edge effects are also caused by dryland farming but to a lesser extent.

Size and purpose of buffer areas

54. As discussed above, there is little assistance in the research evidence to assist in determining the size of the buffer areas.

55. Dr Ussher’s opinion was that, in determining their size, the particular ecological values present in different areas are relevant. He considered that values of the vegetation assemblages within the DoC reserve within 50 to 100m of the boundary of Area A are low compared to other areas, with a dominance of exotic pasture and weed grasses and sparse areas of native grasses and woody indigenous vegetation. He did acknowledge, however, the need to preserve the future potential of the reserve area to support a restored indigenous grassland community. He also noted that this area provided a buffer for the parts of the reserve with higher ecological values to the south. Dr Ussher considered that the

8 Norton, D. A preliminary study of vegetation downwind from two centre-pivots, Mackenzie Basin. 19 April 2019.

13

50m buffer in Area A was precautionary, and the 100m proposed by the Council was not defensible or appropriate.

56. In relation to the proposed 100m buffer at the northern edge of Area A, he noted that the adjoining land is road reserve, then Paddock 11, most of which has recently been ploughed. Beyond this (80m from the Area A boundary) is Environment Canterbury reserve. Given the lack of indigenous vegetation values within 80m of the boundary, he did not consider that any buffer was necessary at this location. Likewise, he did not consider a buffer necessary to the north of Area B.

57. He did not consider there was ecological justification for the 30m buffer on the western edge of Area A, as the vegetation in the adjoining Paddock 6 was mainly exotic grasses9. Dr Grove, however, considered the values in this area were high.

58. Dr Grove did not discuss specific reasons for his recommendations on the size of the buffers, except to state that edge effects had been observed over greater distances (refer studies discussed above), and a precautionary approach was required.

59. The activities allowed in the buffer areas was also a point of contention between the applicant and the Council. The appropriate use of the buffers depends on their purpose. In response to a question at the hearing, both Dr Ussher and Dr Grove considered that their purpose was to manage the risk of additional effects caused by irrigation, as there is insufficient robust evidence to be certain of the extent of effects. In an earlier statement10, Dr Grove stated that ceasing farming activities would allow the buffers to:

“function effectively and avoid effects on adjoining dryland habitats. The buffer zone should be allowed to re-naturalise with dryland vegetation (obviously this will likely be a mix of native and introduced species)’.

60. This statement suggests that the concern is the impact of dryland farming activities within the buffers on adjoining significant natural areas. While I understand the concern, conditions can only be imposed if they relate to the effects of irrigation. The effects of dryland farming in the buffers cannot be managed through this consent. Restricting activities in the buffers would only be an acceptable response if the irrigation resulted in effects that were best mitigated by such a change in farming practice within the buffers.

61. I note that the buffers currently have no ecological values, having being sprayed and resown in oats or pasture. I do not think their purpose is for restoration to significant natural area status per se. That would only be justified if they were used as offset areas for loss of biodiversity values elsewhere. That was not proposed in evidence.

9 With the exception of an area to the south of the paddock, which is excluded from farming and more than 50m from the irrigation area.

10 P. Grove. Comment on applications CRC193743, CRC193745, CRC193748. 24 April 2019.

14

62. I draw a distinction here between the buffers and the fenced dryland area to the south of Area A. This area is excluded from permitted farming activities under the Certificate of Compliance, and is referred to in the applicant’s proposed conditions as a ‘dryland restoration area’. I gather that the intention for this area, which has higher biodiversity, is that it regenerates or is restored into a native dryland area.

Potential effects

63. The various effects that may occur as a result of increased irrigation on the property are discussed below.

Direct irrigation of neighbouring areas and lateral spread of water through or across soil

64. The pivot irrigation infrastructure, and in particular the measures taken to avoid direct application of water outside the designated irrigated area, were described by Dr Davoren. These include use of Komet sprinklers, which produce a large droplet size which is not susceptible to spray drift, turning the end guns off as the irrigators approach the boundary, and turning the end guns off at wind speeds of 6.95m/s or more. In addition, soil moisture probes are installed both under the irrigators and in the buffer area and are routinely monitored. Data presented at the hearing from the various probes showed no soil moisture response to irrigation within the buffer area (for example, there were no changes in soil moisture at the monitoring point 10m from the irrigated footprint).

65. The pivot irrigation design was reviewed by Water Strategies on behalf of the Council. The review concluded that there is a high degree of confidence that the irrigation design will avoid spray drift onto the DoC reserve to the south of Area A. This was based on the design factors noted above and the 50m buffer in place. The report also noted that the increase in annual volume sought would not increase the risk of spray drift as the risk factors have been addressed by consent conditions.

66. There was no evidence presented by either party in relation to the irrigation system used to irrigate Area B (Ocmis hard hose irrigator and a Briggs spray boom or equivalent). Presumably, the risk of overspray from these systems is not an issue.

67. The potential for lateral spread of irrigation water across or immediately beneath the soil surface was addressed by Dr Davoren and Dr Edmeades. Dr Edmeades’ evidence was that there was very little risk of run-off due to the flat topography, free draining sandy soils and (mainly) permanent pasture. Dr Davoren reiterated these points. The rate of vertical water movement is very high and water passing through the soil will enter the groundwater before lateral movement is possible. This lack of lateral movement is also indicated in the soil moisture monitoring data discussed above.

68. This evidence was not challenged by the Council. I conclude that there is a negligible risk of water extending beyond the irrigated area, and no risk of it extending beyond the buffer areas or into neighbouring reserves or parts of the

15

property with significant biodiversity values. There is no justification for increasing the size of the buffers to manage this effect.

Increase in humidity

69. This issue was raised by Dr Grove as a result of research work undertaken in dryland environments in the Mackenzie Basin, where humidity effects from irrigation in the very arid environments can alter local plant communities for a considerable distance.

70. The applicant provided a report by Emeritus Professor Andrew Sturman, an atmospheric scientist, noting that humidity at Kaitorete Spit is naturally high due to its proximity to both Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere and the Pacific Ocean. The local wind system alternates between onshore and offshore wind, moving air back and forth and enhancing vertical mixing. This disperses atmospheric moisture relatively quickly. At night there are more stable air conditions, but at this time, there tends to be cold air drainage offshore, which would move moist air over the ocean. Consequently, the irrigation will have little impact on atmospheric humidity.

71. This evidence was not disputed by the Council. Based on Professor Sturman’s evidence, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that effects from an increase in humidity will occur at Kaitorete Spit.

Application of fertiliser

72. The primary concern is direct application or the wind or water-borne transfer of fertiliser to non-target areas. Dr Davoren noted that fertiliser application on the property is managed under the Code of Practice for Nutrient Management 2007. This details guidance on application accuracy, application methods and best management practices for fertiliser spreaders. The applicant confirmed that Spreadmark-certified spreaders were used.

73. Dr Edmeades noted that the uniform particle size of modern fertilisers (i.e. they contain little dust) and tracking equipment used means that fertiliser can be accurately applied, hence avoiding the risk of fertiliser application or wind-blown loss beyond the property boundary. This evidence on particle size was disputed by Dr Riddle, who cited a 2014 study on particle size of superphosphate in New Zealand, which showed fine particles (<0.5 mm) ranging from 0.03% to 44% of the samples collected. Smaller particles can be carried by wind drift beyond their intended application area.

74. The Code of Practice for Nutrient Management notes that best management practice is to use fertiliser with larger particle sizes (mean size greater than 1mm and few or no fine particles). I note, however, that there is no requirement in either the proposed conditions for this application or the conditions attached to the existing land use for farming permit to comply with the Code of Practice for

16

Nutrient Management or the Spreadmark Code of Practice11. Since irrigation is likely to result in additional fertiliser application, it is reasonable to control its use through the water permit. The application of more water above that currently authorised may further increase the use of fertiliser. I have therefore attached a condition requiring that the fertiliser is applied in accordance with the best management practices identified in the Code of Practice for Nutrient Management and the Spreadmark Code of Practice. This formalises the existing practice and should ensure that fertiliser does not reach non-target areas. Consequently, no increase in buffer area is justified.

75. In relation to its application within the buffer areas, since there is no water applied (and so pasture growth will be less) the annual application rate should also be lower and in line with what would be applied under the (permitted) dryland farming scenario. Avoiding fertiliser use in the buffer zones is not a mitigation for any increase in fertiliser use that may arise as a result of irrigation within the irrigated area. Therefore I do not consider there is justification to restrict fertiliser use within these areas.

Cultivation

76. Cultivation disturbs the soil surface and can lead to wind-blown loss of nutrient enriched soil. Natural phosphorus levels on the Spit are low, and native plant communities are adapted to these low levels. An increase in soil fertility, particularly of phosphorus, can lead to a change in ecological community. The primary causes of soil disturbance are cultivation of potatoes and sowing seed for pasture renewal and forage crops.

77. The applicant’s evidence was that pasture renewal takes place through spraying the existing pasture or crop with herbicide then sowing seed through direct drilling or minimum tillage methods. Irrigation is then used to ensure adequate moisture for germination and reduce the potential for wind erosion. Dr Davoren explained that when crops are sprayed off, prior to drilling new pasture, the crop residue remains on the soil surface protecting it from being lost. Conversely, Dr Grove stated that he had observed bare soil associated with vegetation clearance and drilling new pasture.

78. Dr Davoren’s evidence was also that additional water to improve irrigation reliability would not increase the frequency of pasture renewal.

79. The exception to the minimal tillage approach is cultivation to establish the potato crop. Dr Davoren’s evidence was that this occurs in July when soil moisture is higher and evapotranspiration low. Irrigation is again used to keep the soil moist if necessary. I also note that potatoes have been grown in Paddock 10 for many years prior to the Thomas’ being granted consent to irrigate; hence

11 This is a requirement of land use for farming as a permitted activity in the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region (Rule 11.5.8) as this requires compliance with Schedule 24 of the LWRP, which references the Code of Practice. However, land use consent for farming is held by the applicant, and they do not rely on a permitted activity rule.

17

there is no additional impact of wind-blown soil loss from this activity as a result of irrigation.

80. There was little evidence on practices around growing winter feed crops or intensive winter grazing. Dr Grove stated that he has observed bare soil amongst crops as they were growing and as they were grazed. For the effects of additional irrigation to be relevant, there must be increased crops grown and increased exposed soil. There was no evidence provided on this; however, as increased pasture growth will allow an increased stocking rate, presumably there is also increased demand for winter feed. It is reasonable, therefore, to manage these practices to minimise exposed soil.

81. Given the management practices undertaken, I am satisfied that the risk of wind-blown soil loss in general is low, particularly since irrigation is used to dampen exposed soil. There will be no additional pasture renewal as a result of the increased irrigation. Pasture renewal also occurs on dryland areas (for example recently on Paddock 11) and so is part of the baseline environment. The only potential area of concern is a potential increase in cropping and intensive winter grazing of crops, which may increase exposure of bare soil. While I doubt that any increase will be significant, I consider it prudent to require that all practicable measures are taken to minimise the risk of loss of wind-blown soil.

Weeds

82. A statement was tabled from Mr Lucas, a dryland pasture scientist, in relation to the risk of spread of pasture species into non-pasture land. He noted that few species used in commercial agriculture escape as they rely on human intervention for seed harvest and sowing. In addition, species adapted to higher fertility farm environments are unlikely to survive in the adjacent low fertility, dry environment. The particular species likely to be used on the property (lucerne, plaintain, cocksfoot, annual ryegrass, subterranean clover and brassica crops) all require lime and fertiliser inputs and specific management, and will not encroach into dryland areas. Likewise annual crops such as potatoes are no threat to adjacent land.

83. This assessment was supported by Dr Riddle; however, he noted that should nutrient and moisture enrichment occur in neighbouring soils, through wind transferred fertiliser and irrigation, the germination of wind dispersed seed would increase. Weeds such as dandelion and thistle, if allowed to seed, may also disperse by wind and could become established in poor soil conditions in the reserve. He recommended that the buffer areas are frequently mown to prevent plants seeding. Dr Davoren confirmed that the buffer zone is grazed and, if necessary, topped to avoid seed production.

84. It has been established that there is almost no risk of moisture increasing beyond the irrigated area. This, along with evidence that the pasture species used do not spread and the grazing and topping of buffer areas as described by Dr Davoren, indicates that there is little risk of weeds establishing outside the property. I conclude that effects resulting from the irrigation will be no more than minor.

Spread of pests and diseases

18

85. This was mentioned by Dr Grove as an edge effect that has been noted in overseas research. No evidence was provided in relation to specific threats, either generally in New Zealand systems, or this ecological context specifically. In addition, no evidence was given that an increase in irrigation water would cause an increase in pests and diseases. There is therefore no justification for additional mitigation or management.

Grazing of stock

86. This was also noted by Dr Grove as a potentially significant effect in overseas research. The risk is wind blown spread of nutrients from dung, presumably as it dries and breaks down. As irrigation leads to increased pasture growth and therefore in stocking rate, this is a potential effect of the increased water allocation.

87. This was not discussed by the applicant. While stock will presumably locate where the feed is (in the irrigated areas rather than the buffer areas), the increased stocking rate and ability of stock to camp anywhere on the paddock mean that the spread of nutrients from this source into neighbouring areas could increase.

88. I have no evidence on which to determine if this is a real issue or not. However, the likely increase in effects that may arise from the increased irrigation (over and above the existing irrigation) are likely to be small, and I consider that on the information available to me, no additional mitigation is justified.

Use of irrigation infrastructure causing physical damage

89. The irrigation infrastructure is located within the applicant’s property. Through recent pasture management practices there are no ecological values remaining within the irrigated areas and the buffer areas. It is not clear whether the wheels of the pivots pass through the fenced dryland restoration area to the south of Area A. If so, this would also take place under the existing consent.

Conclusion on effects on biodiversity and appropriate buffer areas and management

90. Consideration of each potential effect of the irrigation shows that effects on biodiversity outside the three irrigation areas will be no more than minor. The irrigation design and buffers in place mean there is no risk of irrigation water travelling beyond the buffer areas. While the additional irrigation proposed may result in a minor increase in the scale of some associated farming activities, these activities are occurring to some extent anyway. Against this background, the increase in effect (if any) of the additional irrigation does not in general justify additional mitigation. The exception, I have decided, is the need to ensure that fertiliser is applied appropriately (as is already occurring) and that the farming practices are such that the risk of wind-blown soil loss is minimised.

91. The area of most concern is the southern boundary of Area A, which directly adjoins a reserve area. While there is no research to determine how big the buffer should be, a 50m buffer is in place under the current consent and there is no evidence that the increase in irrigation, particularly with the additional conditions in place, justifies an increase in the buffer to 100m.

19

92. I also note that the applicant has proposed to change the buffer such that it would be a 50m strip from the southern property boundary. This means that the buffer from the fenced ‘dryland restoration area’ would be much smaller than 50m, or even non-existent, in some areas. As discussed earlier, the intention appears to be to let this area regenerate. I do not see how significantly reducing or removing the buffer around it will protect it from the risk of spray drift and other potential effects. I have therefore retained the existing 50m buffer around this fenced area, which is consistent with the existing consent.

93. There is a CRC reserve north of Area A, however there is 80m separation between the irrigated area and the reserve. There is no evidence of an increase in effects from this application that would justify increasing the buffer to 100m and consequently the separation distance to 180m.

94. The remaining area of disagreement is the west of Area A. Dr Grove’s evidence was that there are significant ecological values in the adjoining Paddock 6, although Dr Ussher’s evidence was that it was ‘mainly exotic grasses’ within 10 to 20m of the boundary, with the implication that biodiversity values were relatively low. This paddock is currently farmed, and imposing a buffer to manage the effects of similar farming activities in Area A serves no purpose. The only reason for a buffer would be if there was a risk of the additional irrigation water extending into the paddock. Given the evidence on irrigation design and the row of pine trees between the paddocks, this seems unlikely. An additional buffer along this boundary is therefore not justified.

Monitoring regime

95. The monitoring programme to the south of Area A has been agreed with DoC and I do not consider from the evidence received that there is reason to amend it. I have however, adopted the Council officer’s terminology of an ‘Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan’ as this is what the monitoring aims to assess. If any changes in community composition do eventuate outside the irrigated area, they are likely to be from a combination of irrigation and the associated farming activities.

96. For this reason, it may be relevant to monitor soil nutrient levels as part of the monitoring programme, particularly phosphorus. This may reveal a change in nutrient status, and therefore an increased risk of a change in ecological community, before the establishment or loss of individual plants. Nutrient monitoring was not discussed in evidence and consequently I have not required it – there may be good reasons why this would not be practical or helpful. However, I have added a condition that requires consideration of whether this would be a useful addition to the monitoring programme.

97. Dr Grove also sought monitoring of the area to the north of Area A, although this was not included in the Council’s proposed conditions. As the CRC reserve is much further away from Area A (80m) than the DoC reserve to the south, and the land in between is dryland farmed with (now) relatively few biodiversity values (Paddock 11, recently cultivated), I am not convinced that monitoring in this area would provide useful data. Monitoring in the reserve may identify effects from dryland farming in Paddock 11; monitoring of Paddock 11 would be of little value

20

as this area has been sown in exotic species. In addition, any effects of irrigation, if they occur, are likely to be seen first in the area south of Area A, as it is closer.

Effects on mahinga kai, wāhi tapu or wāhi taonga within the cultural Landscape/Values Management Area

98. The Rūnanga withdrew their submission and the only comments from them provided to me are those included in the s42A report at [175]. A copy of a cultural impact assessment undertaken in relation to the original consent application (CRC 184921) was provided; however, advice from Kenya Calder of Maahanui Kurataiao Ltd (also provided) was that this could not be used in relation to the current application. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot therefore draw on any of the conclusions within it.

99. Discretion is restricted under Rule 11.5.33 to effects on mahinga kai, wāhi tapu or wāhi taonga within the Cultural Landscape/Values Management Area. This discretion encompasses physical effects on sites / species, loss of access and intangible effects such as inability to exercise kaitiakitanga over resources and sites of significance. The s42A report outlined the significance of Kaitorete Spit to mana whenua, and that it is considered wāhi taonga. The proposed conditions include a requirement for a cultural impact assessment to identify the location of wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and areas of cultural value or sensitivity within the three irrigated areas prior to commencing irrigation. The assessment must include recommendations on the future management of any identified significant areas, which must then be incorporated in the Farm Environment Plan. This condition is also on the existing consent and was proffered by the applicant in accordance with a side agreement reached with the Rūnanga as part of that consent process.

100. The s42A report notes that the Rūnanga are opposed to the transfer of water and treating water as a tradeable commodity, as it is inconsistent with tangata whenua perspectives on the sustainable management of water. Their view is that unused allocation should be surrendered to address the existing over-allocation of water. No mitigation would address their concerns.

101. I have concluded that the effects on biodiversity values, water allocation and water quality will be no more than minor. Given this, together with the proposed condition requiring a cultural impact assessment, I conclude that the overall effects on mahinga kai, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga will be minor.

Section 104(1)(b) - Policy Statements and Plans

102. Relevant planning instruments are identified in the s42A report, and appear to be common ground. These include:

• New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS)

• National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM)

• Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

• Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP)

21

• Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP)

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

103. The NZCPS applies to the coastal environment as defined in Policy 1 of that document12. This includes the reserves adjoining Bayleys Road Farm, and potentially includes the farm itself, although no evidence was presented on this.

104. Policy 11 of the NZCPS is to protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment, including by avoiding adverse effects of activities on various categories of indigenous ecosystems and taxa13. Some of the indigenous species and communities present on or adjoining the property fall into these categories.

105. This is a directive policy and possibly not fully implemented in current policies and plans (for example, there appears to be no provision in either the LWRP or Christchurch City Plan that manage edge effects from dryland farming). However, for the purposes of this application, consideration of effects on biodiversity in relation to taking and using water is included within the relevant LWRP rule.

106. As discussed above, with the mitigation proposed and the effects of the existing consent being part of the existing environment, I am satisfied that effects on indigenous biodiversity as a result of the taking and use of water from this application are likely to be no more than minor.

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

107. The NPSFM is included for completeness, although the effects on water quantity and quality were not at issue. The NPSFM promotes improved freshwater management by directing councils to manage water in a sustainable and integrated way, while providing for growth within set water quantity and quality limits. Freshwater quality within a freshwater management unit must be maintained, where community values are currently supported, and improved where they are not. Councils must establish objectives and set limits for freshwater management units in their plans to avoid over-allocation. At the heart of the NPSFM is managing freshwater in a way that considers and recognises Te Mana o te Wai – the integrated and holistic well-being of a freshwater body. Water users must provide for the health of the environment, waterbody and people.

108. The NPSFM is implemented through the LWRP, which sets both a groundwater (quantity) allocation limit for the Selwyn-Waimakariri allocation zone and a nitrogen load limit for the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region. The sub-region is over-

12 The coastal environment includes, of relevance: (c) areas where coastal processes, influences or qualities are significant, including coastal lakes, lagoons, tidal estuaries, saltmarshes, coastal wetlands, and the margins of these; (e) coastal vegetation and the habitat of indigenous coastal species; and (f) elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or amenity values.

13 For example, indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification system (Policy 11(a)(i)).

22

allocated in terms of both freshwater quality and quantity. To reduce over-allocation of groundwater, applications to transfer water within the catchment must surrender 50% of the annual volume. To improve water quality there is a permitted nitrogen loss rate of 15 kgN/ha/yr. The application is consistent with these policies and rules, and therefore appropriately provides for Te Mana o te Wai.

Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

109. The most relevant objectives and policies in the RPS are those relating to biodiversity (Chapter 9). Policies around water management are fully implemented in the LWRP provisions, but there is no policy in the LWRP on effects on terrestrial biodiversity from the use of water (see below). It is therefore appropriate to consider the RPS provisions. The objectives seek to halt the decline of Canterbury’s ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity, restore or enhance ecosystem functioning and indigenous biodiversity in appropriate locations, and protect significant indigenous vegetation and habitats.

110. Policy 9.3.1 seeks to protect significant natural areas, to ensure no net loss of indigenous biodiversity. Priority is given under Policy 9.3.2 to four types of environments; the coastal ecosystems on Kaitorete Spit adjoining Bayleys Road Farm meets three of these criteria for priority protection14.

111. Policy 9.3.4 is to promote ecological enhancement and restoration, in appropriate locations, where this will improve the functioning and long term sustainability of these ecosystems.

112. I am satisfied that the adjoining reserves and significant areas within Bayleys Road Farm will be protected insofar as there will no more than minor effects resulting from this application. The risk of loss of indigenous biodiversity as a result of this application, given the existing consent in place, is therefore low. The application is consistent with these policies.

Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP)

113. The RCEP was not discussed in evidence; however, it is relevant as the activities affect land located within the coastal environment covered by the plan. Kaitorete Spit is identified in Schedule 2 as an area of high natural, physical, heritage or cultural value, although the area over which these values apply is not mapped. The stated values are ‘areas adjacent to areas of significant conservation value15, Maori cultural values, ecosystems, flora and fauna habitats, historic places and coastal landforms and associated processes’. It seems likely that, at a minimum,

14 Specifically, indigenous vegetation in land environments where less than 20% of the original indigenous vegetation cover remains, areas of indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands, and habitats of threatened and at risk indigenous species.

15 There is an identified Area of Significant Natural Value within the coastal marine area on the south side of the Spit.

23

the DoC reserve adjacent to Bayleys Road Farm, and the CRC reserve to the north of the farm, fall into this category.

114. Objective 6.1 is to “protect, and where appropriate enhance ... areas listed within Schedule 2”.

115. Policy 6.2 is to: “seek to ensure that the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development of land in the coastal environment landward of the Coastal Marine Area, on the identified values of Areas of Significant Natural Value and on the identified values of areas of high natural, physical, heritage, or cultural value, are avoided, remedied or mitigated.”

116. Policy 6.3 is: “Environment Canterbury will encourage the restoration or rehabilitation of areas or sites within the coastal environment where this would: assist in maintaining or enhancing the integrity or functioning of sites of high natural, physical or cultural value and Areas of Significant Natural Value; contribute to the preservation of natural character; maintain the ecological functioning of the coast; or enhance intrinsic, cultural, heritage or amenity values.”

117. There are no rules associated with these policies.

118. Given my conclusions on the effects of the activities outlined earlier, I consider the application to be consistent with the RCEP.

Land and Water Regional Plan

119. The LWRP contains a suite of objectives and policies concerned with managing water and land use in order to maintain or enhance water quality and manage water quantity to maintain the intrinsic values associated with water bodies and their associated riparian margins and the ecosystems that they support. There are a number of relevant provisions related to the effects of taking and using water, which are identified in the application.

120. There are no directly relevant policies in the LWRP relating to protection of terrestrial biodiversity as a result of irrigation activities16; however rules, including Rule 11.5.33, include as a matter of discretion, “the proximity and actual or potential adverse environmental effects of water use on any significant indigenous biodiversity and adjacent dryland habitat”. These effects have been discussed earlier.

121. Policy 11.4.4 is relevant: “Manage the Cultural Landscape/Values Management Area:

(a) as one integrated freshwater mahinga kai system with outstanding values;

16 Objectives and policies (for example objectives 3.17 and 3.18, and policies 4.21, 4.44, 4.84, 4.85, 4.86, 4.95, 11.4.22, 11.4.33) relate to biodiversity values associated with water bodies and wetlands, and/or the effects of activities such as high country burning, damming, activities in riverbeds, riparian planting, aquifer recharge and water storage.

24

(b) to protect mahinga kai, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga;

(c) to restore the health of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere; and

(d) to recognise the cultural and ecological sensitivity of the Area to discharges of contaminants and the taking and use of freshwater.”

122. The Reporting Officer considered the application inconsistent with this policy.

123. As noted, the proposed conditions include a requirement for a cultural impact assessment to identify the location and appropriate management of areas of cultural significance. The land use permit for farming has a nutrient discharge limit and the transfer includes the surrender of 50% of the allocation. Both these requirements help to maintain, or enhance, water quality and quantity in this sensitive area. Consequently, I consider that the application is consistent with this policy.

124. Mr Purdon’s evidence was that while the application is “inconsistent with some policies”17, on balance the application meets the policy direction of the plan. I agree.

Section 104 (1)(c) - any other matters

Iwi management plans

125. There are two relevant iwi management plans, Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (MIMP) and the Ngāi Tahu Freshwater Policy Statement.

126. The Ngāi Tahu Freshwater Policy Statement focuses on restoring and protecting the mauri of freshwater resources, maintaining healthy mahinga kai populations and habitats and enabling kaitiakitanga.

127. The MIMP (relevantly) outlines issues and policy in relation to wai Māori, land use activities and restoration of indigenous biodiversity. Relevant policies were identified in the application and by the Reporting Officer. I have discussed matters relating to water and biodiversity above, and conclude that effects on these values will be minor. The s42A Report notes18 that Wairewa Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga consider the application to be inconsistent with a number of policies, including those relating to the need to match intensive rural land use to land capability and water availability, and addressing over-allocation of water, particularly by not allowing transfer of unused water allocation.

128. While the LWRP provides for transfer of water allocation as a restricted discretionary activity (and I note that the effect on cultural values is not a matter of discretion under the relevant rule, Rule 11.5.38), I acknowledge that this is of concern to mana whenua and affects their relationship with their ancestral land and waters. The application is inconsistent with these policies; however, they are

17 Policy 11.4.4 was the only policy identified by the Reporting Officer with which the proposal was inconsistent.

18 at para [174]

25

consistent with the LWRP, which was prepared having regard to this policy position.

129. I conclude that the application is inconsistent with some MIMP policies; however it is consistent with other RMA planning documents.

PART II OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

130. Consideration of an application under s 104 is ‘subject to Part 2’ RMA. In Davidson19 the Court of Appeal determined that:

(a) in contrast to plan change processes, RMA decision-makers should usually consider Part 2 when making decisions on resource consents (that is the implication of the words ‘subject to Part 2’ in s 104);

(b) where the relevant plan provisions have clearly given effect to Part 2, there may be no need to do so as it “would not add anything to the evaluative exercise”. It would be inconsistent with the scheme of the RMA to override those plan provisions through recourse to Part 2. In other words, “genuine consideration and application of relevant plan considerations may leave little room for Part 2 to influence the outcome”;

(c) use of conditional language (“may”) suggests a residual discretion to consider Part 2 RMA.

131. The Reporting Officer considered that the relevant planning documents had been prepared in accordance with Part 2, hence there was no requirement to consider it. However, she did so for completeness. I follow the same approach. Both the LWRP and RPS in particular are recent documents and there was no evidence that they are inconsistent with Part 2. While the RCEP is an older document, pre-dating the NZCPS, I have also considered that higher document.

Section 6, 7 and 8

132. Sections 6 and 7 identify matters that must be recognised and provided for, and matters to which particular regard should be had. Section 8 requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account. Of particular relevance are sections 6(c) – the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, 6(e) - the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu and other taonga, 7(a) - kaitiakitanga, 7(b) - the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, 7(d) - the intrinsic values of ecosystems, 7(f) - maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and Section 8.

133. The effects on biodiversity, the quality of the environment and the relationship of Ngāi Tahu with its ancestral lands, waters and taonga within the catchment, have

19 RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316

26

been discussed earlier. As noted, adverse effects on significant habitats and vegetation, and on cultural values, will be no more than minor. The proposal provides for the efficient use of the land resource.

134. The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management involves managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. However, the Act promotes the use and development of natural resources only while:

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

135. In light of my findings on effects, I consider that the activity meets the purpose of the Act.

DURATION

136. The applicant requested an expiry date of 5 September 2028, to align with the expiry of the existing consent CRC191698. The Reporting Officer considered this appropriate. I agree.

CONDITIONS

137. I have generally adopted on the applicant’s proposed conditions in relation to the management and monitoring of effects on biodiversity, with the exceptions of requiring the southern buffer on Area A to be measured from the fenced dryland restoration area and other changes discussed above.

138. However, the conditions in relation to Area A were somewhat repetitive in terms of areas excluded from irrigation. These have been re-configured, but (apart from the buffer area location) the intent is similar. As discussed earlier, the purpose of the dryland restoration area is presumably to allow restoration, so other farming activities should not occur. This is stated in the conditions to avoid confusion.

DECISION

139. For the reasons given above I grant consents to use transfer groundwater and to take and use groundwater, with an expiry date of 5 September 2028, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

DATED the 24th January 2020

27

Signed:

E Christmas, Chair

ANNEXURE A Conditions of Consent CRC193748 1 Water shall only be taken from:

a. Bore BY23/0755, 350 millimetres diameter and 130 metres deep, at or about map reference NZTM2000: 1563126 mE, 5147273 mN;

b. Bore BY23/0756, 350 millimetres diameter and 111.5 metres deep, at or about map reference NZTM2000: 1565221 mE, 5147699 mN; and

c. Bore BY23/0760, 350 millimetres diameter and 108 metres deep, at or about map reference NZTM2000: 1561013 mE, 5146708 mN.

The depth at which water is drawn into the bore shall be no less than 80 metres below ground level.

2 a. Water may be taken from:

i. Bore BY23/0755 at a rate not exceeding 120 litres per second; ii. Bore BY23/0756 at a rate not exceeding 80 litres per second; and

iii. Bore BY23/0760 at a rate not exceeding 120 litres per second b. The volume taken must not exceed:

i. 72,576 cubic metres in any period of 7 consecutive days; and ii. a base annual volume of 540,382 cubic metres between 1 July and the

following 30 June; and iii. an additional annual volume of 815,195 cubic metres between 1 July and the

following 30 June which is subject to adaptive management.

3 Water shall be used only for the purposes, as described in the application of:

a. stock drinking water supply; b. domestic supply on the property; and c. the irrigation of 202 hectares of crops and pasture for grazing stock on the areas of

land shown on Plan CRC193748A, Plan CRC193748C and Plan CRC193748D, attached to and forming part of this consent.

Provided, however, that this consent authorises the taking and use of water for the purpose of testing as required by this consent.

Adaptive Management

4 Adaptive Management Volume may only be taken between 1 September and the following

30 June. Between 1 September and the following 30 June (the season), the Adaptive Volume water may only be taken if the standing water level in bore M37/0463 is greater than 1.05 m a.m.s.l at any time between 1 September and 1 December of the season. Advice note: As the 1 September trigger is set to provide for the effects of the forthcoming irrigation season, this threshold can be used until 1 December.

Advice note: An alternative Trigger bore may be used should the trigger bore referenced become unavailable or data obtained from the bore becomes unsuitable. The alternative trigger bore and trigger levels will need to be agreed with the Canterbury Regional Council Advice note: The trigger well must be selected using the method in Schedule 1 (Appendix A).

Water Metering

5 The consent holder shall, before the first exercise of this consent, install an easily accessible

straight pipe(s), with no fittings or obstructions that may create turbulent flow conditions, of a length at least 15 times the diameter of the pipe, as part of the pump outlet plumbing or within the mainline distribution system.

6 The consent holder shall before the first exercise of this consent:

a. i. install a water meter(s) that has an international accreditation or

equivalent New Zealand calibration endorsement, and has pulse output, suitable for use with an electronic recording device, which will measure the rate and the volume of water taken to within an accuracy of plus or minus five percent as part of the pump outlet plumbing, or within the mainline distribution system, at a location(s) that will ensure the total take of water is measured; and

ii. install a tamper-proof electronic recording device such as a data logger(s) that shall time stamp a pulse from the flow meter at least once every 60 minutes, and have the capacity to hold at least one season’s data of water taken as specified in clauses (b)(i) and (b)(ii), or which is telemetered, as specified in clause (b)(iii).

b. The recording device(s) shall: i. be set to wrap the data from the measuring device(s) such that the oldest

data will be automatically overwritten by the newest data (i.e. cyclic recording); and

ii. store the entire season’s data in each 12 month period from 1 July to 30 June in the following year, which the consent holder shall then download and store in a commonly used format and provide to the Canterbury Regional Council upon request in a form and to a standard specified in writing by the Canterbury Regional Council; and

iii. shall be connected to a telemetry system which collects and stores all of the data continuously with an independent network provider who will make that data available in a commonly used format at all times to the Canterbury Regional Council and the consent holder. No data in the recording device(s) shall be deliberately changed or deleted.

c. The water meter and recording device(s) shall be accessible to the Canterbury Regional Council at all times for inspection and/or data retrieval.

d. The water meter and recording device(s) shall be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the consent in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

e. All practicable measures shall be taken to ensure that the water meter and recording device(s) are fully functional at all times.

Water level measuring in the Bore

7 a. The standing water level, relative to ground level, in bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756

and BY23/0760 shall be measured (where practicable to a precision of better than 0.01 metres) as follows:

i. once at the start of the irrigation season before pumping has commenced;

ii. once two days after the cessation of pumping at the end of the irrigation season;

iii. once within the first seven days of each calendar month. The consent holder shall measure the working water level in the well immediately before switch off. Pumping shall cease for at least 48 hours or until water level recovery is at least 90% complete prior to the standing water level measurement taking place. The time that each measurement is made shall be recorded together with the water level measurement.

b. All manual measurements of the standing water level and the date and time of measurement shall be recorded in a log book kept for that purpose, and supplied to the Council (Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance) each year during the month of June, or upon request.

c. Water level measurements can be undertaken using in situ instrumentation. Where these are used, the depth of placement shall be recorded. Data shall be downloaded from these instruments at least once per year and supplied to the Council (Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance), each year during the month of June, or upon request.

d. The taking of water in terms of this permit shall cease for a period of up to 48 hours on notice from the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance, to allow measurement of natural groundwater levels and the Canterbury Regional Council will provide not less than seven working days’ notice of its requirement to measure groundwater levels in accordance with this condition. The consent holder may refuse to allow measurement under this condition if the required notice has not been given.

8 Access to allow water level measurements to be taken in the bore(s) shall be established,

and maintained, via a bung and socket with a minimum diameter of 20 millimetres installed in the bore casing or headworks.

Certification of installation of rate/volume and level measuring devices

9 Within one month of the installation of the measuring or recording device(s) or any

subsequent replacement measuring or recording device(s), and at five-yearly intervals thereafter, and at any time when requested by the Council, the consent holder shall provide a certificate to the Council (Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and

Compliance) signed by a suitably qualified person certifying, and demonstrating by means of a clear diagram, that:

a. each measuring and recording device(s) is installed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications; and

b. data from the recording device can be readily accessed and/or retrieved in accordance with the conditions above.

Irrigation Efficiency

10 The consent holder shall take all practicable steps to:

a. Ensure that the volume of water used for irrigation does not exceed that required for the soil to reach field capacity; and

b. Avoid leakage from pipes and structures; and c. Avoid the application of any water into buffer areas; and d. Avoid the use of water onto non-productive land such as impermeable surfaces and

river or stream riparian strips.

Backflow Prevention

11 If the irrigation system is used to distribute diluted effluent, fertiliser or added

contaminants the consent holder shall ensure:

a. An effective backflow prevention device is installed and operated within the pump outlet plumbing or within the mainline to prevent the backflow of contaminants into the water source; and

b. The backflow prevention device is tested at the time of installation and annually thereafter by a suitably qualified or certified person in accordance with Canterbury Regional Council approved test methods for the device used; and

c. The test report is provided to the Canterbury Regional Council Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance, within two weeks of each inspection.

Advice Note: This is not authorisation to discharge fertiliser or other contaminants to land, water or air under section 15 of the Resource Management Act.

Irrigation Design

12 Prior to the commencement of irrigation authorised by this consent, including the

installation of any irrigation infrastructure and undertaking ancillary activities that may require ground disturbance on the land marked “Area A” “Area B” and “Area C” on Plan CRC193748A, Plan CRC193748C and Plan CRC193748D, the consent holder shall in consultation with Taumutu Rūnanga Society Incorporated and Wairewa Rūnanga Incorporated:

a. Commission a cultural impact assessment (CIA) for the purpose of:

i. identifying the location of mahinga kai, wahi tapu, wahi taonga and areas of cultural value and/or sensitivity within the land marked “Area A” “Area B” and “Area C” on Plans CRC193748A, Plan CRC193748C and Plan CRC193748D;

ii. assessing the cultural effects of irrigation infrastructure installation, irrigation, and all ancillary activities that may require ground disturbance within the land area “Area A” “Area B” and “Area C”; and

iii. providing recommendations in respect of the future management of the areas/values identified and effects assessed by the CIA.

b. Prepare and/or update the Farm Environment Plan to address all recommendations of the CIA in accordance with Resource Consent CRC193748.

Advisory note: Condition 12 is a condition that is proffered by the consent holder in accordance with a separate agreement reached with Taumutu Rūnanga Society Incorporated and Wairewa Rūnanga Incorporated.

13 The consent holder shall install and maintain a permanent fence at the location shown in

pink on plan CRC193748A. The area between the fence and the southern legal boundary (the “dryland restoration area”) shall:

a. include a 3 metre strip on the southern side of the fence to be planted in accordance with Condition 24 and only be irrigated with trickle irrigation for initial plant establishment; and

b. be retired from farming use and allowed to regenerate in dryland vegetation.

14 Without limiting Conditions 12 and 13, the irrigation system for “Area A” as shown on Plans CRC193748A shall be designed and managed to:

a. avoid effects from irrigation and spray drift on land located beyond the southern legal boundary of “Area A”; and

b. avoid effects from irrigation and spray drift on, and enable the protection or restoration of, any dryland habitats within the dryland restoration area to be provided under Condition 13; and

c. avoid effects from irrigation and spray drift on land located beyond the northern and western boundary of the “Area A” irrigation application area

by ensuring:

d. that irrigation of water does not occur within a minimum of the following areas, as shown on Plan CRC193748A:

i. the dryland restoration area to be provided under Condition 13, with the exception of any trickle irrigation necessary for initial plant establishment;

ii. a 50m buffer along the boundary of the fenced dryland restoration area area (“the southern buffer”);

iii. a 10m buffer along the northern boundary of “Area A” (“the northern buffer”);

e. No Centre Pivot irrigation infrastructure (including the Centre Pivot end guns) shall cross the legal boundary of the property; and

f. All Centre Pivot end guns are turned off when the wind speed exceeds 6.95 metres per second or 25 kilometres per hour when measured at a weather station located on the property; and

g. Only Komet or Komet equivalent sprinklers are used for the outer span of any centre pivot that are set at no more than 1.6m above ground and which are designed to produce droplets with a Volumetric Median Diameter of no less than 3000 microns (3.0mm) measured at 90% of the sprinkler radius as specified by the sprinkler company.

15 Without limiting Condition 12, the irrigation system for the “Area B”, as shown on Plan CRC193748C, shall be designed and managed to avoid effects from irrigation and spray drift beyond the boundary of the property by:

a. Ensuring there is no irrigation of water within a minimum of a 30m wide setback from the legal (road) boundary on the northern side of the “Area B” irrigation area; and

b. Using only an Ocmis Hard hose irrigator and a Briggs spray boom (or equivalent); and

c. Using only Komet or Komet equivalent sprinklers for the spray boom that are set at no more than 1.6m above ground and which are designed to produce droplets with a Volumetric Median Diameter of no less than 3000 microns (3.0mm) measured at 90% of the sprinkler radius as specified by the sprinkler company.

16 Without limiting Condition 12, the irrigation system for the “Area C”, as shown on Plan CRC193748D, shall be designed and managed to avoid effects from irrigation and spray drift beyond the boundary of the property by:

a. Ensuring there is no irrigation of water within a minimum of a 30m wide setback from the legal boundary on the western side of the “Area C” irrigation area; and

b. Using an Ocmis Hard hose irrigator and a Briggs spray boom (or equivalent) or Centre Pivot; and

c. Ensuring no Centre Pivot irrigation infrastructure (including the Centre Pivot end guns) shall cross the legal boundary of the property; and

d. Ensuring all Centre Pivot end guns are turned off when the wind speed exceeds 6.95 metres per second or 25 kilometres per hour when measured at a weather station located on the property; and

e. Using only Komet or Komet equivalent sprinklers for the spray boom that are set at no more than 1.6m above ground and which are designed to produce droplets with a Volumetric Median Diameter of no less than 3000 microns (3.0mm) measured at 90% of the sprinkler radius as specified by the sprinkler company.

17 At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of irrigation using the irrigation system specified in each of Conditions 14, 15 and 16, the consent holder shall provide irrigation plans to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance from a qualified expert with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in irrigation systems design that certifies that:

a. The irrigation systems authorised under this consent meet the requirements of Conditions 14, 15 and 16 (as might apply); and

b. That the irrigation system will avoid irrigation and spray drift into beyond the legal boundary of the property and into the dryland restoration area to be provided under Condition 13.

Within 20 working days of receiving the plans the Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance of the Canterbury Regional Council, shall confirm whether or not the irrigation plans meet the criteria detailed in this Condition 17. If the irrigation plans do not meet the criteria detailed in this Condition 17 the irrigation plans shall be revised and resubmitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance prior the commencement of irrigation.

18 The consent holder shall maintain the existing shelterbelt plantings along the areas shown

on Plans CRC193748A, CRC193748C and CRC193748D.

19 a. The consent holder shall, within four weeks of the commencement date of this

consent, prepare and submit an Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan. The objective of the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall be to describe and establish the annual monitoring that will be undertaken to confirm that effects from irrigation and spray drift are avoided, as required by Condition 14. The Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan, shall:

i. be prepared in consultation with the Department of Conservation, and any other relevant experts as required, by an appropriately qualified ecologist with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in ecological monitoring;

ii. identify the area(s) where and how ecological surveys should occur;

iii. provide for:

1. soil moisture and humidity measurements within the two areas marked on plan CRC193748B (being the area adjoining the southern boundary of “Area A” and a control area comprising similar vegetation types to the south of “Area A”); and

2. humidity monitoring within the area identified on plan CRC193748B (being the area to the north of “Area A”)

with the purpose of the monitoring being to identify any increases in soil moisture and humidity (as might apply) that are not connected to rainfall or climatic events;

iv. consider whether there is benefit in monitoring soil nutrient levels, and if so, identify where and how this monitoring should occur;

v. subject to any changes which may be approved in accordance with Condition 22, provide for ecological surveys of the two areas marked in red identified in plan CRC193748B with the purpose of each survey being to identify whether irrigation within “Area A” is having an effect on indigenous dryland habitat species dominance and structure, based any changes in species composition, growth or form that may be attributable to the effects of irrigation. The Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall further identify the time(s) of the year that ecological surveys are to be undertaken provided that, unless Condition 21 applies, ecological surveys will be undertaken within the period 1 December to 31 January at a minimum of:

1. once in the period 1 December 2019 to 31 January 2020; and

2. once in the period 1 December 2020 to 31 January 2021; and

3. once in the period 1 December 2021 to 31 January 2022; and

4. once in the period 1 December 2024 to 31 January 2025; and

5. once in the period 1 December 2029 to 31 January 2030.

b. The appropriately qualified ecologist shall certify that the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan meets the requirements of Condition 19(a)(i) to (iv). A copy of the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance.

c. Within 20 working days of receiving the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan, the Canterbury Regional Council shall confirm whether or not it accepts the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan meets the criteria detailed in Condition 19(a)(i) to (iv). If the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan does not meet the criteria detailed in Condition 19(a)(i) to (iv) the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall be revised and resubmitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance within 30 working days.

d. Monitoring shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan.

Advice note: Ecological monitoring as required by Condition (19) will require access permission from the Department of Conservation. If access is not forthcoming then the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan will need to provide for monitoring within the area identified in Condition (23). Advice note: Associated farming practices are any practices which occur to a greater extent than would occur under a dryland farming scenario, as a result of irrigation. This may include (but is not limited to) increased use of fertiliser and increased stocking rate.

20 a. The consent holder shall, by the 30 June following any ecological survey, provide a

report (a Survey Report) that sets out the results of the ecological surveys, soil moisture and humidity monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition (19), and which is prepared by the appropriately qualified person or persons, to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance. The report shall summarise the results of the soil moisture and humidity monitoring and identify any changes in species composition, growth or form that in the opinion of the appropriately qualified expert are as a result of irrigation in “Area A”, as shown on Plan CRC193748A.

b. Within 20 working days following submission of the Survey Report, the Canterbury

Regional Council shall confirm whether or not it accepts the Survey Report has been prepared in accordance with, and meets the requirements of, Condition (20)(a). If the survey report does not meet the criteria detailed in this Condition (20)(a), the Survey Report shall be revised and resubmitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance within 30 working days.

21 Should:

a. a Survey Report as required under Condition (20) and which has been accepted by the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention Regional Leader – Monitoring; or

b. the soil moisture and humidity monitoring as required by Condition (19)(a)(iii),

determine that irrigation within “Area A” is impacting on the species dominance and structure of the dryland habitats occurring on neighbouring land located beyond the southern legal boundary of “Area A”, then:

c. The consent holder shall cease the use of end guns within 100 metres of the southern boundary of “Area A” until such time as their continued use may be permitted by the recommendations set out in an Irrigation Effects Report to be prepared under Condition 21(d).

d. The consent holder shall develop and submit an Irrigation Effects Report. The Irrigation Effects Report shall:

i. be prepared in consultation with the Department of Conservation, by an appropriately qualified person or persons;

ii. include a full review of the irrigation system operating in “Area A”, including onsite observations of the irrigation system operating and the extent of any spray drift by an appropriately qualified person with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in irrigation system design; and

iii. make recommendations as to changes to the irrigation system and its operation, and / or changes to associated farming practices if appropriate, with the objective of ensuring that the requirements of Condition 14 are met. Those recommendations shall be adopted and implemented by the consent holder.

e. The ecological surveys and soil moisture, humidity and soil fertility monitoring as required by Condition 19(a)(iv) shall continue annually until such time as a Survey Report required under condition 20 determines irrigation within “Area A” is no longer impacting on the species dominance and structure of the dryland habitats occurring on neighbouring land located beyond the southern legal boundary of “Area A”.

A copy of the Irrigation Effects Report shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance and to the Department of Conservation.

22 The Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan required by condition (19) shall be reviewed by the consent holder in each 6 month period prior to 1 September 2023 and 1 September 2029. Each review shall:

a. be undertaken, in consultation with the Department of Conservation, by an appropriately qualified ecologist with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in ecological monitoring; and

b. consider the results of all ecological, soil moisture and humidity monitoring undertaken and received in accordance with the conditions of this consent; and

c. make any recommendations (including the timing of survey monitoring, and the location of any transects and survey plots) that in the opinion of the ecologist are necessary to ensure the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan is able to identify and assess the effects of irrigation and spray drift on the dryland habitats occurring on neighbouring land located beyond the southern legal boundary of “Area A” (including monitoring that may no longer be required because it is ineffective or not necessary in light of the monitoring data received prior to the review).

The appropriately qualified ecologist shall certify that any revisions to the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan continue to meet the requirements of Condition 19(a)(i) to (iv). A copy of the revised Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance and the Department of Conservation. Within 20 working days of receiving the revised Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan the Canterbury Regional Council, shall confirm whether or not it accepts the revised Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan continues to meet the criteria detailed in Condition 19. If the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan does not meet the criteria detailed in Condition 19 the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall be further revised and resubmitted to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance within 30 working days.

23 Notwithstanding Condition 19(a)(iii), in the event that the consent holder is unable to obtain access to the land identified in Condition 13(a)(i) then the Irrigation and Associated Effects Monitoring Plan shall instead include monitoring within the dryland setback identified in Condition 13(b).

24 The consent holder shall, by 1 June 2020 develop a planting plan for the 3 metre planted strip identified in Condition 13 (the Planting Plan). The Planting Plan shall:

a. Be developed in consultation with the Department of Conservation; and

b. Use locally sourced plants where possible and require the establishment of any planting as soon as practicable; and

c. Be based on some or all of the species described in Attachment 1; and

d. Ensure that planting will:

i. Assist in further preventing the physical movement of water into the dryland habitats occurring on neighbouring land located beyond the southern legal boundary of “Area A”; and

ii. Provide enhanced ecological outcomes as detailed in Attachment 1.

e. Detail the extent to which trickle hose irrigation (as may be required for initial plant establishment) will be permitted; and

f. Require, that once established, the plants will be maintained in a healthy living state.

Advice note: The requirement for locally sourced specimens may mean the propagation of cuttings or seed stock from the property or nearby areas. The intention of Condition 24 is that initial plant establishment occurs within 3 years of the commencement of irrigation within “Area A”.

25 The consent holder shall, as soon as practicable, establish and maintain a continuous shelter planting of Pinus radiata along:

a. the northern (road) legal boundary of “Area B”, as shown on Plan CRC193748C; and b. the western legal boundary of “Area C”, as shown on Plan CRC193748D.

The shelter planting shall comprise of two rows and trees and may be located either within the northern edge of the setback required by Condition 14(d)(ii) or the western edge of the setback as required by Condition 14(d(iii) or in each case be additional to it.

Saltwater Intrusion

26 The consent holder shall arrange conductivity samples of the groundwater from bores

BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and BY23/0760 to be analysed in milli Siemens per meter (mS/m) using a calibrated conductivity meter as follows:

a. Once within the last three working days of July each year; and b. Once within the last three working days of each calendar month during the

irrigation season; and

c. The results of the conductivity analyses and the date and time of sampling shall be recorded in a log book kept for that purpose, and supplied to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance, within 10 working days of the measurement being taken.

27 If any conductivity reading taken and recorded in accordance with Condition 22 is greater

than 135 milli Siemens per metre (mS/m), the sample shall be analysed at a laboratory accredited to a NZS/ISO/IEC Guide 17025 or equivalent and defined by an accreditation body recognised as operating to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for that analysis. Samples shall continue to be analysed by a laboratory until the measurements taken using the meter do not exceed 135mS/m.

28 The taking of water in terms of this consent from bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and

BY23/0760 shall cease following any samples of water from bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 or BY23/0760 having a measured conductivity of 150 mS/m or more. Water taken in terms of this permit may only recommence following two consecutive samples of water, taken at least one week apart, from both bores BY23/0755, BY23/0756 and BY23/0760 where all samples taken have a measured conductivity of less than 150 mS/m.

Monitoring Bore Condition

29 a. The consent holder shall, before the first exercise of this consent, identify or install

a monitoring bore that meets the following criteria: i. the monitoring bore shall have a minimum diameter of 50 millimetres; ii. the monitoring bore shall be located no less than 10 metres and no greater

than 50 metres from the pumping bore; iii. the monitoring bore shall be located between the pumping bore and the

closest adjacent surface water body; iv. Where a production bore is sited on a property boundary or is adjacent to a

surface water body, the monitoring well shall be sited at the closest practical location.

v. the monitoring bore shall be screened only in the uppermost water bearing strata.

vi. Where the consent holder has two or more production bores in the same aquifer, within or at 1000 metres separation distance from a proposed monitoring well site, the installation of a single monitoring well shall be sufficient for compliance with this condition.

b. Water levels in the monitoring bore shall be measured as per Condition 10. c. The monitoring bore shall not be used for any purpose other than water level

measurement or sampling for water quality analysis, (particularly nitrate analysis). d. Monitoring bores shall be drilled to sufficiently intercept groundwater so that

water level measurements can still be made during periods of peak or minimum groundwater levels, to ensure monitoring is able to take place.

If, in accordance with part (a) of this Condition 29, a monitoring bore is to be installed, a bore permit must be obtained prior to construction and the monitoring bore must be

installed to the conditions on the bore permit in addition to the criteria in part (a) of this condition.

Water User Group

30 Subject to Condition 2, water may be taken in excess of the adaptive management assessed

annual volume specified in Condition 4, provided that:

A Water User Group is in operation whereby the Consent Holder and the consent holder(s) of one or more resource consents to take and use groundwater within the area of land as shown in Plan CRC193748E which forms part of this consent, have determined to share their individual allocations in a manner that ensures that the volume of water taken does not exceed that available individually under their own individual resource consent (Water User Group ) and;

a. The Water User Group has prepared a water sharing roster that specifies how their individual annual allocations are to be shared;

b. The water sharing roster ensures that the combined volume proposed to be taken and used by all members of the Water User Group will not exceed:

i. the combined annual allocation able to be taken by all those consent holders who are members of the Water User Group; and

ii. their actual irrigation need; c. The water sharing roster has been provided to the Canterbury Regional Council no

less than one working day before it is implemented; and d. Each consent holder in the Water User Group that is taking groundwater is

recording the volume of water abstraction by tamper-proof electronic recording systems in a manner consistent with conditions 8 and 9 of this consent, and a record is made either on site or at a remote location via telemetry of the recorded abstraction volume.

Advice note: A Water User Group may be established in consultation with the Canterbury Regional Council among members holding resource consents to take water from both ground water and surface water sources; provided that the total combined groundwater take does not exceed the total groundwater that is authorised to be taken were the Water User Group not in place.

Farming activities

31 a. Fertiliser must be applied in accordance with the Code of Practice for Nutrient

Management 2007 and the Spreadmark Code of Practice 2014, having particular regard to best management practices in relation to particle size and applying fertiliser in such a way that avoids deposition outside the property boundary.

b. All practicable measures shall be taken to minimise the loss of wind-blown soil from Areas A, B and C.

Surrender of previous consent

32 Consent CRC191698 shall be surrendered prior to the first exercise of this consent.

Review

33 The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance,

shall be informed within five days of first exercise of this consent by the consent holder.

34 The Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader - Monitoring and Compliance,

may, once per year, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the following purposes:

a. dealing with any adverse effects of irrigation and associated farming activities on indigenous dryland coastal habitats adjoining the irrigation application area; or

b. without limiting Condition 21, to address any adverse effects following any survey report prepared in accordance with Condition 20 that identifies:

i. a deleterious change in species composition, growth or form in the vegetation within 200 m of the irrigated area ; or

ii. irrigation edge effects that extend to the southern' most edge of the property boundary of Area A, that may be attributable to the effects of irrigation within Area A; or

c. dealing with any other adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the farming activities associated with the exercise of the consent.

Lapse Date

F35 If this consent is not exercised before 30 December 2022 then it shall lapse in accordance

with section 125 of the Resource Management Act.

Plan CRC193748A

Fence ̴ 20 metres from

Legal Boundary

Fence ̴ 12 metres from

Legal Boundary (180

metres long)

Fence ̴ 10 metres from Legal

Boundary (190 metres long)

Fence ̴ 100 metres from Legal Boundary

Fence (3 metre

native planted

strip on southern

side)

Fence ̴ 80 metres from

Legal Boundary

Plan CRC193748A (Area A)

Dryland Restoration Area

Wetted Area

Southern Buffer ‘50 Metres’

Northern Buffer ‘10 Metres’ Fence Line

Plan CRC193748B

Map Created by Environment Canterburyon 27/01/2020 at 3:28 PM

´

0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6Kilometres

Information has been derived from various organisations,including Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Mapspartners. Boundary information is derived under licencefrom LINZ Digital Cadastral Database (Crown CopyrightReserved). Environment Canterbury and the CanterburyMaps partners do not give and expressly disclaim anywarranty as to the accuracy or completeness of theinformation or its fitness for any purpose.

Information from this map may not be used for the purposesof any legal disputes. The user should independently verifythe accuracy of any information before taking any action inreliance upon it.

Disclaimer:

Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/ 2020

Scale: 1:16,000 @A4

Line DrawingsMonitoring AreaMonitoring Area

Area DrawingsMonitoring AreaArea A Boundary

Legend note: if you have a large number of layers on the map,they may not all be visible in the legend.

Plan CRC193748B

Plan CRC193748C

Map Created by Environment Canterburyon 14/01/2020 at 10:38 AM

´

0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12Kilometres

Information has been derived from various organisations,including Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Mapspartners. Boundary information is derived under licencefrom LINZ Digital Cadastral Database (Crown CopyrightReserved). Environment Canterbury and the CanterburyMaps partners do not give and expressly disclaim anywarranty as to the accuracy or completeness of theinformation or its fitness for any purpose.

Information from this map may not be used for the purposesof any legal disputes. The user should independently verifythe accuracy of any information before taking any action inreliance upon it.

Disclaimer:

Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/ 2020

Scale: 1:3,100 @A4

Area DrawingsWetted Area B30 Metre Buffer AreaDouble Planted Pines Area C

Legend note: if you have a large number of layers on the map,they may not all be visible in the legend.

Plan CRC193748C (Area B)

Plan CRC193748D

Map Created by Environment Canterburyon 14/01/2020 at 10:43 AM

´

0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28Kilometres

Information has been derived from various organisations,including Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Mapspartners. Boundary information is derived under licencefrom LINZ Digital Cadastral Database (Crown CopyrightReserved). Environment Canterbury and the CanterburyMaps partners do not give and expressly disclaim anywarranty as to the accuracy or completeness of theinformation or its fitness for any purpose.

Information from this map may not be used for the purposesof any legal disputes. The user should independently verifythe accuracy of any information before taking any action inreliance upon it.

Disclaimer:

Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/ 2020

Scale: 1:7,000 @A4

Area Drawings30 Metre Buffer AreaDouble Planted Pines Area CWetted Area C

Legend note: if you have a large number of layers on the map,they may not all be visible in the legend.

Plan CRC193748D (Area C)

Plan CRC193748E

Information has been derived from various organisations, including Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Maps partners.Boundary information is derived under licence from LINZ Digital Cadastral Database (Crown Copyright Reserved). EnvironmentCanterbury and the Canterbury Maps partners do not give and expressly disclaim any warranty as to the accuracy orcompleteness of the information or its fitness for any purpose.

Information from this map may not be used for the purposes of any legal disputes. The user should independently verify theaccuracy of any information before taking any action in reliance upon it.

Map Created by Environment Canterbury on 14/01/2020 at 10:52 AM

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/

´0 4 8 12 16

Kilometres

Scale: 1:400,000 @A4

Plan CRC193748E

Appendix A – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT METHOD

This adaptive management methodology will be used prior to the commencement of each

irrigation season (typically September – May) to determine to what extent the consent may be

exercised in the forthcoming irrigation season (“the season”).

Definition of terms

The Environmental Flow Safeguard (EFS, Red Zone in Figure A1)

The Environmental Flow Safeguard (EFS) is the water level below which no water can be

abstracted by the consent holder.

The Environmental Flow Safeguard in each aquifer is defined as follows:

Aquifer 1 30 April 2004 water level (A1 consents)

Aquifer 2 30 April 2006 water level (A2 consents)

Aquifers 3-5 50% of the 2005-06 recession below 30 April 2006 water level (A3

consents)

The EFS applying to a particular consent depends upon whether that consent is subject to the

A1, A2 or A3 conditions. The A2 set of conditions applies to takes within Aquifer 2 where

Aquifer 1 is overhead. The master table Annexure 1 to the hearing decision specifies which

consents are subject to which conditions.

Groundwater Recession (the green and blue zones in Figure A1)

The groundwater recession is the sum of the Seasonal Environmental Discharge and the

Seasonal Abstractive Discharge. It is difference in water level between the spring high water

level (nominally 1 September) and the autumn low water level (nominally 30 April).

The groundwater recession is determined by either:

a) Using the water level record from an Canterbury Regional Council monitoring bore

(listed in Schedule 1 of this Annexure) or an appropriate and/or relevant observation

bore1 to calculate the difference in water level between the spring high water level

(nominally 1 September) and the autumn low water level (nominally 30 April); or

b) The Groundwater Recession is a fixed value. The groundwater recession is set for the

same irrigation season as the EFS; i.e.

Aquifer 1 – 2003-4 (A1 consents)

Aquifer 2 – 2005-6 (A2 consents)

Aquifers 3-5 – 2005-6 (A3 consents)

The Groundwater Recession applying to a particular consent depends upon whether that

consent is subject to the A1, A2 or A3 conditions. The A2 set of conditions applies to takes

1 Criteria listed in Schedule 1 of this Annexure

within Aquifer 2 where Aquifer 1 is overhead. The master table Annexure 1 to the decision

specifies which consents are subject to which conditions.

September 1 Water Level (the top of the grey zone in Figure A1)

The September 1 Water Level is the groundwater level which shall be measured annually by

Canterbury Regional Council on 1 September (or as close as practicable to) in the consent

holder’s trigger bore as per Schedule 1. Water level measurement must be made within 5

working days of 1 September.

Carrying Out the Assessment for Aquifers 1-6

The assessment requires determination of all the water depths shown in Figure A4. The

procedure is as follows:

a) Determine values for Environmental Flow Safeguard and Groundwater Recession for

the locality of the production bore.

b) Determine the measured 1 September water level from the consent holder’s trigger

bore. This figure will be measured in the trigger bore annually.

c) The result will be calculated; i.e.

• The adaptive portion of the consent can be exercised in full (the seasonal

cumulative effect is less than the depth of available water), or

• The adaptive portion of the consent cannot be exercised (the seasonal

cumulative effect cannot be reduced to less than the depth of available water).

Figure A1: Schematic of values (in violet) required for the assessment procedure

SCHEDULE 1 – REFERENCE BORE SELECTION

The criteria for reference bore selection are as follows:

1. Groundwater levels are currently monitored by Canterbury Regional Council as part of

their State of the Environment monitoring; and

2. Groundwater levels from a Canterbury Regional Council groundwater monitoring site

during the required historic periods (September 2004, September 2005 and April 2006)

were measured, or a strong correlation can be established between a Canterbury

Regional Council groundwater level monitoring site to calculate the historic

groundwater levels required to undertake an adaptive management assessment; and

3. Is the closest Canterbury Regional Council groundwater level monitoring site of a

similar depth to the consent holders production bore, or an alternative appropriate bore

where agreed with Canterbury Regional Council; and

4. Groundwater level does not display long-term impacts from the Canterbury Earthquake

sequence. Effects on groundwater levels were described in Rutter, 2017 and

Aitchison-Earl et al., 2018; and

5. Reference bore used for adaptive management is agreed to between the consent

holder and Canterbury Regional Council. Once the reference bore has been agreed to

it will not be subject to change unless the chosen reference bore is disestablished from

Canterbury Regional Council’s monitoring program, groundwater levels can no longer

be collected or if groundwater levels are impacted by unforeseen circumstances.