1. General Agenda Information
Meeting
Date:
Attended
By:
Apologies:
Thursday 29th
Location:
Ikawai Hall
January 2015
Kelly Palmer (Technical Staff, Ecan), Olivia Smith (Planner, Ecan), Nic Newman (Facilitator,
Ecan) Mary Aislabie (Planner, ECan), Michael Greer (Technical Staff, ECan), Helen Shaw
(Technical staff, ECan), Zeb Etheridge (Technical staff, ECan), Robin Murphy (Lower Waitaki
Zone Committee Chair), Maurice Hellewell, Digger McCulloch, Bruce McCulloch, Paul
Derum, Jane and Trevor Bailey, Simon Scott, Jim Waldie, Doug Hodder, James, Ron
Mansfield, Linn Koevoet, Simon McRae, Joy Burke, Mitchell Bragg, Peter McIllraith. Judith
Neilson, Jerry Hurst, Mark Hurst, Robert Smith, Peter Brown, Gert Vant Klooster, Shane
Lodge, Bruce McCabe, Alex Taylor, Dan Laming, Paul Henshaw, David Gordon, John Benn,
Tami Woods, George Hennessy, Paul Dee, Lindsay White, Bruce Murphy
Lionel Hume
John Stark
Organiser:
Olivia Smith/
Mary Aislabie
Meeting
Notes:
Mary Aislabie
Terry Cooney
2. Summary of Agenda Items
Item
Recap + Allocation Principles
Description

Olivia Smith asked the group if there are any nominations for Chair.
Maurice Hellewell said that Terry Cooney would like to put his name
forward for chair. Given Terry’s absence Olivia suggested that the group
confirm the chair position at the next meeting and reminded people that
they are welcome to put forward nominations.

Feedback was sought on the draft allocation principles that were
discussed at the previous catchment meeting on the 8th January. Olivia
reinforced how important it is that the principles reflect what the
community are trying to achieve in the catchment. There was a suggestion
that the word ‘overly’ be removed from “Not overly favour one particular
sector or interest group” however there was also a suggestion that this is
not appropriate given there is an existing dominant land use in the
catchment. The group were comfortable with retaining the principle
“Maximise economic returns from the catchment” as long as the principle
stating that “Environmental Outcomes must be met” is retained.
A community member also suggested that another principle be added
relating to ‘encouraging diversity’.

Kelly Palmer explained that the current total N load for the catchment is
530 Tonnes (load distribution details in presentation). Kelly explained that
the source load of 530 tonnes is calculated using a Lower Waitaki specific
lookup table, based on the Canterbury lookup table and the Upper
Waitaki lookup table, which take into account a number of variables, such
as the soil type, rainfall and land use, to determine an estimated N loss at
the root zone. The source load is modelling using a catchment based
model (GIS based) while the current instream load for streams was
calculated using actual instream measurements.

A group member suggested that the current source load is an
underestimate as it was determined using a model which assumes all land
use is at Good Management Practice when this may not currently be the
case. Helen Shaw explained that the purpose of the loads is to give us an
idea of what’s happening in the catchment, and to relate this back to
measured in-stream monitoring data. She continued to explain that it’s
the relative difference that’s key opposed to the exact number.

Robin Murphy mentioned an Otago University report completed for
Morven Glenavy Irrigation, which may have some useful information
regarding carbon and nitrogen retention in local soils.

Kelly explained the key water quality issues in the catchment (refer to
presentation). Key concerns relate to the high N concentrations in the
Waikākahi headwater springs and the relatively high N measured in a
number of groundwater wells. E.coli presence in groundwater is also an
issue. Kelly explained that instream water quality in Whitneys and
Waikākahi streams generally improves downstream. Kelly also noted that
the improved riparian management along Waikākahi stream (fencing and
planting) has resulted in stabilisation in E.coli and phosphorous levels
however N continues to increase. Kelly said that the acceptability of the
current water quality really is a decision for the community to make.
Tec
Technical
Summary: Current State
A community member asked what other indicators Environment
Canterbury monitor. Michael Greer explained that key contaminants
monitored include dissolved reactive phosphorus, nitrate (nitrate toxicity),
Ammonia (ammonia toxicity), E.coli, plant cover. Several community
members are concerned about the contaminants entering Whitneys Creek
from road runoff (particularly State Highway 1) in high rainfall periodsMichael said he will coordinate a monitoring assessment of potential sites
of concern.

Technical Summary: Border to
spray
Kelly explained that the technical team modelled a new scenario assuming
that all current border dyke irrigation (6000 ha) converts to spray. Kelly
explained that this resulted in an N load reduction of 100 tonnes across
the catchment however there are adverse impacts for WQ, particularly for
shallow groundwater quality.

Kelly explained that despite the reduction in N loading, the reduction in
aquifer recharge due to less water being applied results in elevated N
concentrations in shallow groundwater and similarly in surface water.
There was some discussion amongst the community regarding the
possible need for deeper wells and/or a revised community drinking water
scheme.

Kellyexplained that the change from border to spray is unlikely to result in
any improvements for instream values. Several people in the group
suggested that an environmental flow (adding water to streams) could
maintain/improve the dilution effect. The Nic and Kellyadvised that this
has also been suggested in several other areas and is a possible option to
discuss further.

There was concern from several members of the group regarding a
potential conflict between N limits and sound water management advice;
particularly that nitrogen limitsseem to ‘discourage people to convert
from border dyke to spray, when good water usage encourages the
conversion. The group agreed that this needs to be considered when
setting appropriate N limits.

Nic Newman recapped on the key messages from the technical
presentation. Nic explained that given the distribution of the load
along with the scale and source of key water issues perhaps it
would be logical to manage Water Quality separately in the areas
outlined in the below map: Whitneys, Waikakahi, Elephant
Hill/Waihuna and Waitaki River zone. There was consensus that
this seemed to be logical, however there was some debate
regarding the direction of groundwater flow from the Waihuna area

Nic explained that setting load limit is only one of many tools that
can be used to meet community water quality outcomes. He
explained that there are a range of non-statutory tools such as
wetland enhancement, riparian fencing and planting etc. that can
be implemented alongside nitrogen limits.

Nic then asked the community for feedback on the below ‘straw
man’ regime:
Solution Space Discussion
o
o
o
o
Whitneys - Current/Consented load? Other development? GMP for
all land-use? Non-stat?
Waikākahi Stream- current plus consented load limit, with maxcap and flexi-cap? (extend the non-stat programme)? No transfer
to the Elephant Hill/Waihuna
Elephant Hill/Waihuna– current plus consented load limit,
with max-cap and flexi-cap? (non-stat land management
and biodiversity actions at the springs)
. Waitaki river zone: GMP + flexi cap?

Next Steps
Several community members asked what Good Management
Practice actually isa set of numbers or practices. There was also
some confusion regarding what good management practice is for
different industries and how this would be monitored. Helen
explained that there is a project occurring at present called the
‘Matrix of Good Management’ which will help determine this, but
that other sub-regional plans have included a ‘schedule’ outlining
GMP definitions for their zone
The group suggested the focus be on working in smaller groups;
Waikākahi + Elephant Hill/ Waihuna, Whitneys & Waitaki river zone.
There was consensus that this may be the most effective & efficient
way forward. However staff made it clear that we cannot resource
three separate groups – but maybe have discussions on the three
sections within one meeting.
Olivia explained that the technical team can model the above regime
and we can discuss/refine this further at the next meeting. There was
also a suggestion that Environment Canterbury provide a way for
people to suggest ‘brainstorming’ ideas- these can emailed to
Mary.Aislabie@ecan.govt.nz
3. Proposed items for next meeting(s)
Description
Date
th
A further meeting is proposed for the 26 February. It is anticipated that this We are proposing
meeting will:
to hold the next
meeting on:

Discuss and identify non-statutory tools to help achieve the outcomes across the areas.

Identify the total load limit – for each area.

Discuss a simple framework that could apply across the Northern Fan – that recognises
different characteristics of the sub-catchments.
26 February
4-6pm
Glenavy Hall