Before the Commissioners appointed by Canterbury
Regional Council
IN THE MATTER OF
The Resource Management Act
1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
Application
CRC071786
by
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
for a Water Permit to take & use
surface water.
Section 42A Officer’s Report of Maria Bartlett
Date of Hearing:
21 September 2009
1.
This report should be read in conjunction with the report prepared for application
CRC071785 lodged by Lilybank Station Holdings Limited.
2.
This report should also be read together with the introductory s42A report which gives
an overview of all applications presented at this hearing (Report 1), the planning and
technical reports on hydrology and minimum flows (Report 2A and 2B), the planning
report outlining annual allocations (Report 3) and the reports on cumulative landscape
and water quality effects in the catchment (Reports 4 and 5).
INTRODUCTION
3.
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited (the applicant) has applied for a resource consent
to:
divert, take and use surface water from Station Stream at a maximum rate not
exceeding 100 L/s, and a volume not exceeding 60,480 cubic metres in any period of
seven consecutive days, and 1,032,000 cubic metres between 1st July and the
following 30th June, between map references NZMS 260: I36:132-215 and I36: 133219 for spray irrigation of up to 172 hectares of crops and pasture for grazing stock,
excluding milking dairy cows, and a links type golf course, at Lilybank Station,
Lilybank Road, Lake Tekapo.
4.
See Attachment One for a map of the location of take and irrigation areas.
5.
The applicant engaged Ms Haidee McCabe of Irrigation Resource Solutions to
prepare the application and assessment of environmental effects.
6.
A duration to 30 April 2025 is sought.
7.
This is an application for a new activity.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 1 of 31
8.
A site visit was carried out on 26 January 2009, by Maria Bartlett of Canterbury
Regional Council, with Haidee McCabe of Irrigation Resource Solutions and Ian Ward
of Lilybank Station. See Attachment Two for photos taken on the site visit.
Background
9.
The application was lodged by Lilybank Station Limited on 14 December 2006 and
proposed to irrigate land north of Lilybank Swamp, including the foothills adjacent to
Station Stream and between the stream and Lilybank lodge. The intention of the
applicant was to develop a links style golf course on the foothills and irrigate crops
and pasture on the flats.
10.
Subsequent to notification, on 4 April 2008, the applicant advised that the irrigation
command area would extend to include an area adjacent to the Macauley River,
although no more than 172 hectares would be irrigated with the extended command
area (totalling approximately 407 hectares). Re-notification was not undertaken
because it was considered that there were no adversely affected persons likely to
submit on the amended application who had not already submitted.
11.
On 11 July 2008 Lilybank Station Limited went into liquidation. The application was
transferred to Lilybank Station Holdings Limited, effective from 21 December 2007.
Since the change in ownership, there has been a greater focus on agricultural
irrigation rather than development of the golf course, although the option to proceed
with a golf course has been retained.
12.
The applicant has additional applications in process for a micro-hydroelectricity
scheme on Station Stream. Those applications are not proceeding to this hearing. In
the event that this application for irrigation water is unsuccessful, the microhydroelectricity scheme will operate as a stand alone activity, but if this application is
successful, an integrated scheme will result. The applicant intends to use the microhydroelectricity intake and part of the flow taken into the micro-hydroelectricity
scheme to supply irrigation water, as proposed in this application. At the time of
lodging this application, the applicant lodged CRC071785 for installation of a
submerged gallery intake (see Report 24b), which may not be required if the microhydroelectricity scheme related application to install a submerged gallery intake is
granted.
Notification
13.
Details of the notification and wording are contained in Appendix 4 of the introductory
s42a report (Report 1). This application was notified on 4 August 2007 with over 200
other applications to dam, divert, take and use water in the Waitaki Catchment;
however, an error was found in the August notification wording, and as such, the
application was notified again on 29 September 2007, which is considered the date of
public notification.
Submissions
14.
In the 2007 public notification, 16 submissions in total were made on this application.
Of these:
(a)
2 were in support;
(b)
13 in opposition; and
(c)
1 neither supported nor opposed the application.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 2 of 31
15.
As noted above, the application was re-notified on 29 September after an error was
found in the original notification on 4 August. Many of the submissions are equivalent
to submissions made in response to all applications notified on 4 August, and as
such, the summary of submissions content contained in Report 1, Appendix 5 is
relevant. Overall, the key effects of concern to submitters in the 4 August 2007
notification include effects on: ecosystems, water quality, allocations, minimum flows,
natural character and landscape, efficiency and cultural values.
Submitter
Issues
S Mahon & A Erikson
Support/
Neutral/
Oppose
Protect the quality of river water feeding Lake Oppose
Tekapo, and monitor lakeside irrigation
enterprises
Fish & Game New Zealand
Need better flow statistics before granting
Oppose
– Central South Island
consents in tributaries; Station Stream has
Region
clear water and high flows in spring/early
summer attractive to trout
Meridian Energy Limited
Need MIC shares & to comply with tranching
Oppose
arrangement; water quality effects; water
metering; contrary to Part II of the RMA
Table 1: Summary of submissions on application CRC071785 & CRC071786
To be
heard
Yes
Yes
Yes
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
16.
The applicant proposes the following:
a) To divert, take and use surface water from Station Stream at a maximum rate
not exceeding 100 L/s, and a volume not exceeding 60,480 cubic metres in
any period of seven consecutive days, and 1,032,000 cubic metres between
1st July and the following 30th June, between map references NZMS 260:
I36:132-215 and I36: 133-219 for spray irrigation of up to 172 hectares of
crops and pasture for grazing stock, excluding milking dairy cows, and a links
type golf course;
b) To reduce abstraction to 75 L/s when the flow in Station Stream reaches 395
L/s at the water level recorder site, situated at or about map reference NZMS
260 I36:127-212;
c) To reduce abstraction to 50 L/s when the flow in Station Stream reaches 370
L/s at the water level recorder site, situated at or about map reference NZMS
260 I36:127-212;
d) To reduce abstraction to 25 L/s when the flow in Station Stream reaches 345
L/s at the water level recorder site, situated at or about map reference NZMS
260 I36:127-212;
e) To cease abstraction when the flow in Station Stream falls at or below 320 L/s
at the water level recorder site, situated at or about map reference NZMS 260
I36:127-212;
f)
To ensure the gross application rate is less than half the water holding
capacity of the soil in each irrigation return period;
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 3 of 31
g) To increase stocking rates from 4 stock units to no more than 15 stock units
per hectare;
h) To install a submerged gallery intake that meets the criteria for effective fish
exclusion outlined in the ‘Fish Screening: good practice guidelines for
Canterbury’, NIWA Client Report: CHC2007.092, October 2007;
i)
To utilise gravity feed from the intake to downgradient areas of irrigation,
while booster pumping will be used for higher areas;
j)
To install a suitable water metering device at the intake;
k) To fence off Station Stream and the Godley River from stock access;
l)
To include a buffer zone between the proposed irrigation area and both
Station Stream and the Godley River;
m) To include a buffer of 20-30 metres from the Macaulay River margin,
approximately 600 metres from the main stem;
n) To include a buffer from small streams adjacent to the Godley River and
Macaulay River, as part of a farm management plan;
o) To undertake water quality sampling as part of a farm management plan,
using baseline data already collected for comparative analysis;
p) To continue to provide access to game hunters for the purpose of controlling
Canada goose populations on the property;
q) To institute a farm management plan and additional measures to mitigate
against effects of irrigation on surface water and groundwater, as indicated by
the Mackenzie Water Research Limited study;
r) To abide by standard conditions assigned by Mackenzie Irrigation Company
Limited.
LEGAL AND PLANNING MATTERS
Consent Requirements
17.
The consent requirements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), Transitional
Regional Plan, Proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan (PNRRP) and Waitaki
Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan (WCWARP) for water permit applications
are outlined in the introductory s42A report (Report 1). A summary of the
requirements for these applications are provided below:
WCWARP
Rule 2, clause (1) – The applicant proposes to take up to 100 litres per second, which
is approximately 31% of the mean annual low flow of Station Stream of 312 litres per
second (Table 3, row (i)), exceeding the allocation limit of 10% of mean annual low
flow.
Rule 6 – The proposed annual volume of 1,032,000 cubic metres is within the annual
allocation limit of 275 million cubic metres for agricultural activities upstream of
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 4 of 31
Waitaki Dam; and is within the annual allocation limit of 8 million cubic metres for
agricultural activities upstream of Lake Tekapo outlet.
Rule 16 – Classifying rule, due to non-compliance with Rule 2.
18.
In summary, the proposed water permit is a non-complying activity and requires
consent under Section 14 of the RMA.
Priority
19.
In terms of instantaneous allocation under Rule 2, there are no other users of Station
Stream and no other applications in process for consumptive takes from the stream.
20.
For Rule 6, annual allocation, refer to Report 3 for a full list of all existing consent
holders and all applicants in priority order. The application is within the annual
allocation to agricultural and horticultural activities upstream of Lake Tekapo outlet
and upstream of Waitaki Dam.
21.
In summary, there are no issues of priority in relation to the application.
Derogation Approval
22.
Meridian Energy Limited has not provided approval to derogate from its consent at
the time of writing this report.
CONSULTATION
23.
The applicant has discussed the fisheries values of Station Stream with Fish and
Game New Zealand. The applicant has also undertaken consultation with Department
of Conservation, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and Te Runanga o Arowhenua. All these
parties have visited the site to discuss plans for the property.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
24.
A description of the values of the Mackenzie Basin in general are provided in the
introductory s42A report (Report 1).
25.
Station Stream – description & hydrology
a) The applicant states:
i.
Station Stream is approximately 22 kilometres from the Main Divide and drains
the Razor Back Range and Sibbald Range, with a catchment area of 17.2km2,
a stream length of approximately 8 kilometres, and is confined for much of its
length by steep valley sides.
ii.
The stream is a tributary of the Godley River, joining the river approximately 4
kilometres upstream of the Macaulay River confluence.
iii.
The final 1.5km reach of the stream is braided, and contained by a stop bank
(located approximately 800 metres upstream of the Godley River confluence)
to protect farmland adjacent to the true left bank.
iv.
High stream flows occur in spring and early summer as a result of snowmelt,
and during north-westerly rain events.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 5 of 31
v.
Low stream flows occur in winter as a result of freezing, although stream flows
are continuous due to the steepness of terrain.
vi.
Mean annual low flow is 312 L/s, mean flow is 910 L/s, and the 5 Year 7 Day
low flow is 262 L/s.
vii.
There are no other users of water from Station Stream.
viii.
There is an existing culvert in Station Stream approximately 1.3km upstream
of the Godley River confluence, which is the proposed minimum flow
monitoring site.
ix.
Station Stream is defined as a High Natural Character waterbody in the
WCWARP.
b) I note that:
26.
i.
The proposed location of abstraction from Station Stream appears on GIS to
be within the boundary of the Godley Macaulay Conservation Area
administered by the Department of Conservation, Section 2 SO 19991, but
this section is part of the pastoral lease, confirmed by reference to tenure
review documents.
ii.
Station Stream joins the Godley River approximately 8 kilometres upstream of
the head of Lake Tekapo.
Property Location – Lilybank Station
a) The applicant states:
i.
Lilybank Station totals 2,246 hectares, of which approximately 500 hectares is
gently sloping flat land, and 400 hectares of which has been cultivated.
ii.
Current land use includes crops and pasture for grazing sheep, beef and deer.
iii.
There is no existing irrigation activity within the catchment of the Macaulay
River or the Godley River.
b) I note that:
i.
27.
There are no consented activities, for water abstraction or any other activity,
upstream of Lilybank Station among the headwater catchments of Lake
Tekapo, including the Godley River and Macaulay River.
Climate
a) The applicant states:
i.
Mean annual rainfall between 1950 and 1970 was 1140mm, based on data
gathered by the Meteorological Service rainfall station at Lilybank (no longer
operating)
ii.
The closest rainfall recorder site is operated by Meridian Energy Limited at Mt
Gerald Station (located approximately 8 kilometres downstream at the head of
Lake Tekapo), but no data has been obtained.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 6 of 31
iii.
The ‘Waitaki Water and soil resource management plan’ (1982) rainfall maps
indicate annual rainfall of approximately 2600mm.
iv.
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is estimated as 850mm per year, based on
comparison with Meteorological Service data for Mt Cook (829mm) and Tara
Hills (863mm).
v.
Average daily PET is estimated to be 5mm in the December/January period
b) I note that:
Part IV of the Second Schedule of the 1980 Land Improvement Agreement for
Lilybank Station notes that mean annual rainfall at the homestead is 1160mm
annually, with the lowest rainfall months being January, February and March,
and the highest rainfall occurring in September, October and November.
28.
Soils and Vegetation
a) The applicant states:
i.
According to Trevor Webb, soils on the property are divided into four units, as
follows:
Unit 1, northwest of Station Stream consists of Cass & Craigieburn soils with
an average PAW of 90mm (range 50-120mm).
Unit 2, in the middle of Unit 1, adjacent to the foothills, consists of Dobson
soils with an average PAW of 100mm (range 60-150mm).
Unit 3 adjacent to the Godley River, immediately upstream and downstream
of Station Stream, consists of Tasman & Dobson soils with an average PAW
of 50mm (range 25-90mm).
Unit 4 covers the proposed irrigation area adjacent to Macaulay River, which
is approximately 170ha, consists of Tasman soils with an average PAW of
40mm (range 25-60mm).
ii.
Wind erosion and frost heave are likely to promote soil erosion in locations
with sparse vegetation, shallow and friable soils.
iii.
Vegetation adjacent to the proposed Station Stream intake location is
predominantly native tussock and matagouri.
b) I note that:
i.
29.
Part IV of the Second Schedule of the 1980 Land Improvement Agreement for
Lilybank Station states that there is low risk of soil erosion on the southern
area of the property around the homestead and short distances up the Godley
River valley and the Macaulay River valley, which are areas within the
proposed irrigation command area1.
Landscape, recreation and amenity
1
There are two Land Improvement Agreements binding the property to particular stocking rates and activities
until 2013 and 2019 respectively.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 7 of 31
a) The applicant states:
i.
A public 4WD track passes through Station Stream and the proposed area of
irrigation to access the Godley Valley for recreationalists
ii.
Station Stream has low recreational fisheries value, but provides spawning
and juvenile rearing habitat for trout.
b) I note that:
30.
i.
Access to Lilybank Station is by ford across the Macaulay River.
ii.
Recreational fishing is likely to occur in the Godley River and Macaulay River2.
iii.
The Aoraki/Mt Cook Regional Park is at the head of the Godley Valley, and
the 4WD track through Lilybank Station is one of two vehicle routes to the park
(the other being State Highway 80).
iv.
Game hunting, including thar, chamois and deer, is associated with Lilybank
Station and the Godley River catchment area.
v.
The Godley River has high scenic and natural appeal, high water quality, and
is valued as a tramping and sightseeing destination, as well as a location for
off-road vehicular activities.
vi.
The Macaulay River also has high scenic and natural appeal, high water
quality, and is valued as a tramping and sightseeing destination, as well as a
location for jet boating, kayaking, and off-road vehicular activities.
Surface water
a) The applicant states:
i.
There are watercourses located within the area of irrigation, but the only
wetland on the property is fenced from stock access (Lilybank Swamp).
b) I note that:
31.
i.
Stock currently have access to streams within the proposed area of irrigation.
ii.
The Godley River is eroding the Lilybank flats, including fenced and cultivated
areas adjacent to the proposed area of irrigation.
iii.
The Godley and Macaulay Rivers are identified as areas of national
significance.
iv.
Lake Tekapo is a Statutory Acknowledgement Area under the Ngai Tahu
Claims Settlement Act (1998).
Groundwater
a) The applicant has not identified depth to groundwater on the property.
2
Waitaki Catchment Recreation & Tourism Activities, report prepared by Leisure Matters (2004)
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 8 of 31
b) I note that:
i.
32.
In 2008 the applicant installed two galleries approximately 4 metres deep
within the proposed irrigation areas, which intercepted groundwater at 1 metre
and 0.9 metres below ground level, indicating a shallow groundwater presence
within the irrigation command area (see Attachment Five).
Ecology
a) The applicant states:
i.
Rainbow trout, koaro and Canterbury galaxias are known to be present in
Station Stream, and upland long-jaw galaxias, alpine galaxias, common bullies
and upland bullies are likely to be present.3
ii.
The lower reach of Station Stream provides habitat for black stilt.
iii.
Station Stream is described as having cool water temperatures, low specific
conductance, pH close to neutral and relatively high water clarity.
iv.
Periphyton communities in Station Stream indicate good water quality.
v.
Macroinvertebrate communities in Station Stream indicate excellent water
quality above the proposed intake site, with comparably lower quality in the
downstream reach.
b) I note that:
i.
Spawning and rearing of Canterbury galaxias can be expected to occur in
spring and early summer, September to December, while koaro spawn in
autumn, March to May4.
ii.
Brown trout spawn from May to July, while Rainbow trout spawn July to
October, with fry rearing May to December inclusive5
iii.
The Godley River, its delta, tributaries (including the Macaulay River) and
associated wetlands provide important habitat for waterfowl and waders,
including blue duck, black stilt, wrybill, banded dotterel, black-fronted tern and
marsh crake6.
iv.
The Godley River is known to support populations of alpine galaxias,
Canterbury galaxias, upland long-jaw galaxias, koaro, upland bully, common
bully, long-finned eels, and brown and rainbow trout7, although the river is a
low quality trout habitat.
3
Crown Pastoral Land Tenure Review, Lilybank PT002, Due Diligence Report – Part 6, available on LINZ
website as part of pre-tenure review documentation.
4
Advice from CRC Surface Water Quality Scientist Adrian Meredith, provided in relation to Lilybank Station
abstraction from Station Stream at the head of Lake Tekapo (CRC093265)
5
Fish and Game New Zealand – Central South Island Region, pers.comm August 2009
6
Working papers about the Natural and Physical Resources of the Waitaki Catchment by locality, Keller &
Pfulger (2005)
7
Inventory of Instream Values of Rivers & Lakes of Canterbury New Zealand, Daly (2004)
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 9 of 31
v.
The Macaulay River is known to support populations of alpine galaxias,
Canterbury galaxias, upland long-jaw galaxias, koaro, upland bully, common
bully, long-finned eels, and provides a medium quality habitat for trout.
vi.
Trout will tend to congregate in spring-fed side streams of these unstable,
flood prone rivers8.
vii.
Water quality data is available for the Macaulay River from sampling
undertaken during the period December 1983 to November 1984.
ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
33.
The proposed water permit is a non-complying activity and must be considered in the
context of s104 of the RMA.
34.
Section 104(1) outlines matters that the consent authority must have regard to when
considering an application for resource consent, including any actual and potential
effects on the environment, any relevant statutory provisions, and any other matter
the consent authority considers relevant.
Assessment of actual and potential effects (s104(1)(a))
35.
The effects that have been considered for this type of activity (surface water
abstraction) are presented in the introductory s42A report (Report 1). That report
includes the presentation of the relevant planning provisions which direct us to
consider these effects. A summary table regarding the assessment of individual
effects for this application is provided below and a detailed discussion of those
outstanding matters or areas of concern is provided in the following sections.
Adverse
Effects
Ecosystems
Other
users
water
People,
communities &
amenity values
8
Applicant’s assessment
Minimum flow regime sufficient
to protect aquatic species; risk
of flat-lining in the shoulder
seasons is low due to low
demand; flow variability
maintained by stepped
reduction; submerged gallery
intake will exclude fish to NIWA
guideline standards; fencing
stock from Station Stream and
Godley River, and buffers from
small streams and Macaulay
River
No other water users in the
catchment
Positive impact on community
from increased production;
tourism benefits from proposed
golf course; recreational anglers
provided for by proposed flow
IO assessment
Conclusion
Hydrological data shows some
risk of sustained low flows but
agree that risk is low; flow
variability provided for to an
extent but not 1:1 sharing; flow
regime dependent on applicant
monitoring the minimum flow
site; proposed gallery will meet
recommended guidelines for
fish exclusion; effects on
riparian margins and aquatic
habitat of small streams and
Macaulay River yet to be
addressed, pending farm
management plan
Agree
Effects uncertain
Acknowledge positive effects;
golf course may not proceed
and would involve visual
change on the foothills; Station
Stream not known for
Effects minor
Effects minor
Keller & Pfulger (2005)
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 10 of 31
regime
Landscape
Intake not visible from 4WD
track; irrigation area either side
of 4WD track is on land already
cultivated
Inefficient use
Applicant is requesting MIC
share annual volume of
1,032,000m3 based on 600mm
per hectare; lack of certainty
around rainfall data, required to
undertake reasonable use test
as per Policy 16(c)(i); some
gravity feed; piped system with
combination of centre pivots on
light soils and hard hose guns
on medium soils; metering
proposed
Water quality
Soil water holding capacity not
exceeded; centre pivot use on
light soils; buffer zones to
Station Stream, Godley River,
Macaulay River and streams
within irrigation command area;
farm management plan to
address local and cumulative
effects
Tangata
Minimum flow will protect mauri
Whenua
and ecosystems; sites of wahi
values
tapu & wahi taonga not
identified; applicant has
consulted with runanga
Table 2: Summary of Assessment of Effects
recreational angling; access for
recreation provided
Centre pivot irrigators will be
new addition to the landscape,
and
sustained
greening;
provided irrigation is on flat
land, rather than foothills, as
proposed, change can be
absorbed
because
the
command area is already
developed
Reasonable use assessment
using Policy 16(c)(ii) method
indicates annual volume
requirement of 731,000m3, or
425mm per hectare
Effects may be more
than minor if irrigation
occurs on the foothills
Effects more than minor,
requested volume
exceeds reasonable use
assessment
Shallow groundwater present
within irrigation command area
under light soils; Policy 32
requires existing water quality
to be maintained; farm
management plan unavailable
at time of writing this report
Effects may be more
than minor, depending
on results of MWRL
report and additional
mitigation proposed.
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu have
submitted in opposition
Effects uncertain
36.
The applicant has provided a report from Dave Boraman on the hydrology of Station
Stream and a report from Dean Olsen of Cawthron Institute on a survey of ecological
values in Station Stream, which together form the basis of discussion regarding
effects of proposed abstraction on Station Stream.
37.
The hydrological information is supported by Dave Stewart of RainEffects (on behalf
of CRC), as outlined in the hydrology report, Report 2b. There is no dispute regarding
the data to be used.
38.
There is no requirement for a minimum flow in Rule 2, Table 3 of the WCWARP. The
rule specifies an environmental flow and level regime for high natural character water
bodies, which states that there be no flow sharing regime. The proposed activity does
not comply with this rule, and seeks to institute a minimum flow, and stepped
reduction in abstraction, for the purposes of mitigation.
39.
Policy 32 is the guiding policy with respect to protection of ecological values in high
natural character waterbodies. The policy requires that abstraction have no more than
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 11 of 31
a minor adverse effect on natural flow variability, mauri and ecosystems of indigenous
species, habitats of birds and fish, spawning sites of salmonids and existing water
quality.
40.
The applicant is proposing a minimum flow of the mean annual low flow to mitigate
potential adverse effects of the activity. The mean annual low flow is assessed as
312L/s, but has been rounded to 320L/s to be conservative. The applicant proposes a
stepped reduction in abstraction as the minimum flow is approached. When the flow
in the river at the downstream minimum flow site is at 420L/s, the full 100L/s will be
taken. From 395L/s the applicant will reduce abstraction in 25L/s steps. The intention
of adopting a stepped approach is to maintain some flow variability in the stream in
times of low flow.
41.
The applicant identifies that low flow periods are typically going to be reached, and
potentially sustained, in the shoulder seasons of September and April (1 in 2 years)
and argues that because this is a low demand period for irrigation, risk to the stream
of sustained low flows, and therefore loss of natural flow variability is low. I agree that
risk of flat-lining can be considered low in these shoulder seasons. I note that 1 in 7
years there is a risk of sustained low flows in April and 1 in 10 years a risk in October,
based on hydrological data provided by Dave Stewart (see Report 2). The stepped
reduction in abstraction will mitigate against potential adverse effects at such times.
42.
The Policy 32 requirement is for no more than a minor effect on natural flow
variability. At times when the flow is within 100L/s of the mean annual low flow,
natural variability will not be maintained, but provision has been made for some
variability. The infrequent occurrence of these flows in the high demand period for
irrigation means that natural flow variability can be expected to be retained through
the irrigation season.
43.
When low flows are approached, monitoring of the minimum flow site will be critical to
adherence with the proposed flow regime. I note that flow measurement in Station
Stream is proposed to take place downstream of the intake, at or about map
reference I36:1259-2119, where a staff gauge and Trutrack automatic water level
recorder have been in place since 13 April 2006. A flow rating curve has been
established in relation to those gaugings. Regular flow gaugings will ensure ongoing
accuracy of water level recording at the site, in relation to a calculated flow rating
curve, and will be necessary for compliance with the proposed flow regime. A flow
level recorder with telemetry capability is the preferred option for monitoring the
minimum flow site.
44.
The minimum flow site is approximately 1.2 kilometres downstream of the abstraction
site, so flows at that point will represent the natural flow minus abstraction.
Hydrologists Dave Stewart and Dave Boraman are in agreement that there are no
losses or gains in the reach of Station Stream between the intake and minimum flow
monitoring site.
45.
Regarding effects on aquatic species in Station Stream as a result of the proposed
abstraction, Dean Olsen has identified that a reduction in flows as proposed will not
adversely affect juvenile salmonids, which are likely to inhabitat the stream, and some
reduction in average water velocity may be more favourable to such juveniles. Lower
velocity may also be favourable to invertebrates.
46.
Mr Olsen states that the stream experiences high flow events and considerable
variability that reduces its attractiveness to salmonids, but provides suitable habitat
for native species. These characteristics of flow variability, coupled with velocity and
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 12 of 31
turbulence resulting from the high gradient within the catchment, also protect against
nuisance periphyton proliferation, and contribute to good water quality as a result of
constant aeration. Cool water temperatures due to the high-altitude origins of the
water also protect against reduced flows warming water to temperatures that may be
lethal to aquatic species.
47.
CRC Surface Water Quality Scientist Adrian Meredith has provided comment on the
needs of native species present in the stream and notes that Canterbury Galaxias is
likely to spawn in spring, October to December inclusive. In the same period, koaro
can be expected to return from Lake Tekapo to the upper reaches of the stream, with
spawning in autumn, March to May. Hydrological data indicates low risk of reduction
to the minimum flow during these periods, and low risk of sustained low flow, which
will provide sufficient habitat for these species.
48.
The submerged gallery intake is designed to comply with guidelines in the NIWA Fish
Screening: good practice guidelines for Canterbury, and the recommendations of
CRC for construction of gallery intakes, and as such effects on fish and fish fry at the
intake will be minor. The applicant has application CRC071785 in process to disturb
the bed and banks of Station Stream for the purpose of reinstating gravel over the
gallery after a high flow event, which will be crucial for maintaining the fish exclusion
design of the gallery that relies on larger grade gravels at the intake pipe, with finer
gravels towards the bed surface, and main channel flow over the intake.
49.
DOC have raised concerns about an increase in stocking rates affected unfenced
riparian margins, with risks being disturbance of breeding birds and trampling of
nests, decreased riparian stability due to stock trampling and reduced riparian
vegetation, increase in sedimentation as a result of stock trampling, decreased water
quality as a result of nutrient inputs, reduction in indigenous plant communities due to
browsing and trampling, and increased weed invasion. Fencing stock from adjacent
waterways would reduce these potential adverse effects on ecological values. The
applicant has proposed to fence off Station Stream and the Godley River from stock
access. If the Macaulay River and small streams within the proposed irrigation area
are also fenced off, effects identified by DOC would be mitigated. The applicant may
propose this as part of a farm management plan, which the applicant intends to
provide at this hearing, but which is unavailable at the time of writing this report.
50.
In light of the above, I conclude that natural flow variability of Station Stream, and
ecological values dependant on that variability, will not be compromised to a more
than a minor extent, provided that the minimum flow site is appropriately monitored;
however, there remains uncertainty regarding effects of the proposed activity on
ecological values of riparian margins and aquatic habitats.
51.
I acknowledge that there may be positive effects on the local community as a result of
the proposed activity, due to increased production.
52.
I note that it is unlikely the proposed golf course will proceed in the short term as the
current owners of Lilybank Station are focussed on agricultural production. Increased
tourism benefits resulting from the golf course, as identified in the original application
may not eventuate.
53.
There is no suggestion that the proposed irrigation will affect public access through
Lilybank Station by way of the 4WD track.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 13 of 31
54.
The applicant has acknowledged that users of the public access 4WD track through
Lilybank Station will pass through the proposed area of irrigation. I note that the area
will also be visible by recreational users of the Godley River, and by air.
55.
I agree that the area is already extensively cultivated, as stated by the applicant,
however the introduction of irrigation infrastructure will further alter the landscape, in
an area valued for its high scenic and natural appeal. An increase in stocking rates as
a result of irrigation will also increase the visual impact of development in this
location.
56.
Assessment in Report 5, undertaken by Chris Glasson, concludes that the risk of
adverse visual effects would be greatest from development of irrigation on the
foothills, which may be seen from a considerable distance, and his recommendation
is to limit irrigation to the flats. He also recommends a buffer distance of up to 500
metres from river margins, or use of shelter belts. While the applicant has indicated a
buffer of 600 metres from the main stem of the Macaulay River, the buffer extends
only 20-30 metres from the river margin and there is no existing shelter belt. Buffer
distance to Godley River is unspecified, but the irrigation area has been pulled back
from the river due to erosion. Regarding shelter belts, consideration should be given
to suitable indigenous species, including shrub species, which have the potential to
contribute to natural character on the river margins.
57.
I note that irrigation on the foothills has been associated with establishment of a golf
course, rather than irrigation for intensive pastoral use. Chris Glasson has identified
the foothills as visually sensitive. I acknowledge that visual effects of establishing a
golf course in this location will be different than intensive grazing, however, it is not
clear that such effects will be minor, without certainty about mitigation measures to be
employed.
58.
Until the applicant confirms plans with regards to irrigation on the foothills, and
mitigation adjacent to the Godley River and Macaulay River, I cannot be satisfied that
the adverse effects on natural character and landscape will be minor.
59.
Regarding delivery of water from Station Stream, the applicant states that the
proposed system will utilise gravity feed to low lying areas, which represents efficient
and sustainable energy use, while using booster pumps on higher gradients. The
system will be entirely piped to reduce losses.
60.
The applicant has an existing stockwater system and is not seeking consent for
stockwater, which is taken in accordance with Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA.
61.
Regarding management of the abstraction to ensure compliance with stated
efficiencies, the applicant proposes to install a suitable water metering and recording
device at the intake to measure the rate and volume of abstraction. This is
recommended as a condition of consent.
62.
With regard to irrigation management on the property, the applicant states that
flexibility is required and strategic watering will be employed, with irrigated areas
rotated from year to year. The stated intention is to use centre pivot irrigators on the
lighter soils, with an average of 40-50mm PAW, adjacent to the Macaulay River and
Godley River, to ensure that half the average water holding capacity is not exceeded.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 14 of 31
The medium soils north of Lilybank Swamp and Station Stream are more suited to
irrigation with hard hose guns, which will be employed there.
63.
The applicant proposes to take water at a rate not exceeding 100 L/s, and use up to
1,032,000 cubic metres of water per year for irrigation of 172 hectares, within a
command area of approximately 400 hectares. The irrigation volume has been based
on share allocation issued by Mackenzie Irrigation Company to allow application of
600 millimetres per hectare per year.
64.
The applicant has undertaken an assessment of seasonal irrigation demand using the
method outlined in Policy 16(c)(ii). Assumptions about the proposed activity have
been made as follows:
land use = intensive pasture
average PAW of soils = 75mm
total seasonal demand = 815mm/ha/yr
effective rainfall (based on NRRP map) = 390mm/ha/yr
annual allocation required = 731,000m3 or 425mm per hectare
65.
The applicant has indicated that 425mm per hectare may be insufficient, and that the
alternative, included in Policy 16(c)(i) of the WCWARP, of basing annual volume on
soil-moisture measurements, local rainfall and evapotranspiration modelling for the 1in-5 year dry season will be explored to contribute to establishment of an appropriate
annual volume. I am in agreement with the Policy 17(c)(ii) assessment of the
applicant, as the full 172 ha may be irrigated on light soils, and consider that 600mm
per hectare is likely to be in excess of requirements, given proximity to the main
divide and indicative rainfall patterns from the data available. I note, also, that if the
golf course is pursued, water requirements may differ. Assessments have been done
on the basis that 172 hectares will be irrigated for agricultural purposes, as the
applicant has indicated intention to irrigate the full number of hectares for intensive
pastoral use.
66.
Details of soil-moisture measurements, local rainfall and evapotranspiration modelling
necessary to determine an alternative annual volume have not been provided. Until
such time as the information is made available to CRC, and the accuracy of data and
modelling has been assessed by CRC, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed annual
volume of 1,042,000 represents an efficient and effective use of water.
67.
Policy 32 requires that there be no more than a minor adverse effect on existing water
quality as a result of the use of water, and is the basis for the following discussion. I
note also that there are a number of submissions which identify water quality as a
result of land use intensification as a concern, including from Meridian Energy
Limited, Department of Conservation, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and
Fish and Game New Zealand.
68.
The applicant is yet to clarify mitigation with respect to protection of waterways within
the irrigation command area, through fencing or buffer zones, and has not identified
an irrigation plan that will ensure half the water holding capacity of soils is not
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 15 of 31
exceeded. I acknowledge that centre pivot irrigators only will be employed on the
lighter soils, and hard hose guns will be confined to medium soils on the property.
69.
With respect to groundwater, a shallow groundwater presence has been identified
within the irrigation command area beneath light soils the property. This increases the
risk of contamination of groundwater from increased stocking rates, and as a result of
irrigation in excess of soil water holding capacity. Without details of the farm
management plan I cannot be certain that the risk to existing water quality is
adequately mitigated.
70.
I acknowledge that the applicant has undertaken baseline sampling, and indicated an
intention to undertake ongoing water quality sampling, which is likely to form part of
the management plan for the property. Such sampling will be most useful if tied to a
condition prescribing actions to be taken, or restricting activities, if deterioration in
water quality is detected. Given that there are no upstream areas of irrigation, it could
be expected that any identified reduction in water quality would be attributable to
intensification of land use on Lilybank Station. As stated in paragraph 66, Policy 32
requires that there be no more than a minor effect on existing water quality. The
applicant has yet to establish that there will be no more than a minor effect.
71.
With regards to cumulative effects, the applicant intends to provide a farm
management plan, resulting from the results of the MWRL study, to address
cumulative effects on water quality. This matter is addressed in greater detail in
Report 4.
72.
In summary, there is uncertainty around mitigation measures proposed to limit
adverse effects of irrigation on surface water and groundwater quality. Until such time
as the applicant provides a farm management plan for the property, I cannot be
satisfied that localised effects on existing water quality, or cumulative effects on water
quality, will be no more than minor.
73.
With regard to s104(1)(a), the actual and potential effects of the proposed activity
have been discussed above. For this application, I am not satisfied that under
s104(1)(a), the actual and potential effects of the proposed activity in its current form
are minor. In particular, there remains uncertainty regarding effects on ecosystems,
landscape and water quality, and effects of inefficient use of water.
Relevant Statutory Provisions (s104(1)(b))
Regional Policy Statement (RPS)
74.
Under Section 104(1)(b)(iii) of the RMA, the consent authority shall have regard to
any relevant regional policy statement. The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement
has been operative since 26 June 1998.
75.
Of significance to this application is Chapter 9, which relates to the management of
the Region’s water resources. The WCWARP and PNRRP take into account policies
in the RPS and address the issues outlined in more detail. Any assessment of effects
has been made using these documents and therefore I have had regard to the RPS
throughout this assessment.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 16 of 31
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan (WCWARP)
76.
The objectives and policies of the WCWARP that are relevant to each potential
adverse effect have been identified in the introductory s42A report. A table of all those
objectives and policies considered to be applicable to this application is appended in
Attachment Six. A discussion of the objectives and policies which are particularly
relevant to this application is provided in the following paragraphs.
77.
Objectives 1 and 2 are key objectives in relation to the proposed taking of water. I
have considered whether Objective 1 can be met in terms of sustaining the quality of
the river and surrounding environment. While the proposal may not entirely be
consistent with Objective 1 and the associated policies (particularly policy 13
regarding water quality, and policies regarding the reasonable use of water), it is
difficult to determine if the inconsistencies are significant enough to make the
proposal contrary to Objective 1.
78.
The proposed activity will impact on the matters outlined in Objective 1, particularly
(a), (b) and (c). There have been a wide range of people who have submitted against
the proposed activity due to concerns about impacts on these values. I therefore
cannot determine whether the proposed activity is contrary to these values at the time
of preparing this report.
79.
Objective 4 aims to achieve a high level of technical efficiency in the use of water.
The applicant proposes to utilise gravity feed, where possible, and a piped scheme
supplying a combination of centre pivots and hard hose guns. While hard hose guns
are not as efficient as centre pivots, they are proposed to be used on medium soils.
Additional use of available technology, including use of soil moisture probes, would
assist in addressing this objective, which may form part of a farm management plan.
80.
Policy 2 identifies tributaries of Lake Tekapo as having a high natural character
worthy of a high level of protection, because they are in a largely unmodified part of
the catchment and/or contain rare or important species and habitat or habitat
assemblages. Station Stream is subject to some modification at present as a result of
the installation of a stop bank and culvert within the final 1.5 kilometre reach, although
is untouched at the proposed upstream intake location. The stream provides habitat
to threatened species, including the upland long-jaw galaxias and black stilt.
81.
The applicant has argued that Policy 2 affords a degree of protection greater than is
warranted by the values of Station Stream. I consider that this stream has the value of
providing habitat to rare species, including black stilt, although partially modified, and
is within the generally natural state Godley River catchment.
82.
Policy 3 provides for the setting of environmental flow and level regimes in
waterbodies, other than high natural character waterbodies listed in Policy 2. Setting
environmental flow and level regimes for high natural character waterbodies is not
specifically provided for in any other policy, but there is an environmental flow and
level regime set in Rule 2 for such waterbodies. This application does not comply with
Rule 2, and is not covered by Policy 3.
83.
Policy 4 identifies 18 matters that must be considered when setting an environmental
flow and level regime for a water body. These matters have been addressed by the
applicant, and discussed in the assessment of effects. I am unable to conclude that
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 17 of 31
the application is consistent with this policy given uncertainty about applicability of the
policy to high natural character waterbodies.
84.
Policy 13 deals with water quality issues resulting from land use intensification and
enables the consent authority to have regard to the water quality objectives in the
PNRRP. The WCWARP incorporates by reference Objectives WQL1, 2 and 3 of the
PNRRP which contain particular outcomes to be achieved in the regions waterbodies.
Report 4, by Dr Mike Freeman, addresses water quality matters in more detail,
particularly on the cumulative scale. Until the applicant provides details of the farm
management plan, and given the conclusions in Dr Freeman’s report, I cannot be
certain that the application is consistent with this policy at the time of writing this
report.
85.
Policies 15 – 20 deal with efficient and effective use and all are applicable to this
application.
86.
Policy 15 requires that the rate and volume of abstraction be reasonable for the
intended use. I am not satisfied that the requested annual volume is reasonable for
the intended use.
87.
Policy 16 provides guidance for determining reasonable and efficient use for
agriculture activities. As discussed in the assessment of effects, I am not satisfied that
the requested volume meets the reasonable use test in this policy.
88.
Policy 18 requires that allocation reflect the actual quantity required to undertake the
activity. I am not satisfied that the requested volume of water is required.
89.
Policy 27 gives priority in times of low flow to integrated schemes. The applicant
intends to operate an integrated microhydro and irrigation scheme, although there are
no other users of Station Stream for whom priority may be an issue.
90.
Policy 31 discourages the taking of water for irrigation purposes from the tributaries of
Lake Tekapo identified in Policy 2. The application is contrary to this policy.
Alternative sources of water for irrigation of Lilybank Station include the Godley River,
Macaulay River, shallow groundwater (likely to be connected to the main stem river
flows) or Lake Tekapo. Only abstraction from the lake would be consistent with this
policy.
91.
Policy 32 provides for the possibility of granting consent to take and use water from
waterbodies listed in Policy 2, provided that the activity will have no more than minor
effect on a number of values, including natural flow variability, natural character and
landscape, and existing water quality. I cannot be certain at this time that effects on
existing water quality will be no more than minor, and as such, the proposed activity
may be contrary to this policy.
92.
With regard to s104(1)(b), the relevant provisions of the RPS and WCWARP have
been considered above. I cannot be satisfied, at this time that the application is
consistent with policies regarding the setting of environmental flow and level regimes,
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 18 of 31
policies for high natural character waterbodies, Policy 13 regarding water quality, and
Policies 15 and 16 regarding efficiency of water use.
Other Matters
93.
With regard to s104(1)(c), the consent authority can consider any other matter
relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the applications. I consider that the
high court decision Aoraki Water Trust and Others v Meridian Energy Limited9 is
relevant to this application (see discussion in Report 1).
Part II Purpose and Principles
94.
Under Section 104, the consent authority must consider applications “subject to part
II” of the RMA. The purpose of the RMA (Section 5(1)) is to:
“promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”
95.
The proposal will allow the development of land to occur, which may provide for the
economic and social well-being of the community. The applicant however has not
proposed a full set of mitigation measures to “avoid, remedy or mitigate” the potential
impacts on water quality and landscape values as required in Section 5(2)(c).
96.
Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (e) of Section 6 of the RMA are particularly relevant to this
application. The proposal will include development on the margins of natural state
rivers, a change in visual character in an area of outstanding natural landscape, and
adversely affect habitats of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna. Further
mitigation is required regarding development on the river margins. With respect to
indigenous species, the applicant proposed mitigation with respect to flows in Station
Stream, but is yet to provide full details of mitigation regarding water quality.
97.
The applicant has not assessed impacts on cultural values at the time of writing this
report, and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has submitted in opposition to the application. I
note, however, that the applicant has advised that an onsite meeting was arranged
with runanga, providing for full consultation regarding plans for development on
Lilybank Station, which occurred prior to completion of this report.
98.
In achieving the purpose of the RMA, the consent authority is directed to have
particular regard to a number of matters as set out in (a) – (j) of Section 7.
99.
Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) are relevant to this application.
Kaitiakitanga, or good stewardship, is represented by measures proposed to provide
flow variability in Station Stream, and providing for buffer zones to waterways. Details
of the farm management plan will be relevant to good stewardship.
100.
Section (b) relates to the efficient use of water and, as discussed above, the
requested annual volume cannot be considered an efficient use of water.
9
[2004] NZMRA 251
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 19 of 31
101.
Section (c) relates to maintenance or enhancement of amenity values. Containing
development to flat land, establishing buffer zones to waterways and sheltering
development from view would address this matter.
102.
Section (d) refers to intrinsic values of ecosystems, which is addressed by the
proposed flow regime, although confirmation of management of the flow regime is
required.
103.
Section (f) refers to maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.
The farm management plan, with associated mitigation to protect existing water
quality, is unavailable at the time of writing this report, but should seek to maintain
water quality on the property and downstream of the property.
104.
Section (h) refers to protection of habitat of trout and salmon, which is addressed by
the proposed flow regime.
105.
Section (i) refers to the effects of climate change. A consent duration of 15 years is
proposed, and data gathering of recorded flows in Station Stream is recommended, to
enable response to effects of climate change.
100.
Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The site lies within the rohe
Arowhenua and Te Runanga o Waihao. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
opposition to the application. Consultation has occurred between
runanga.
into account the
of Te Runanga o
have submitted in
the applicant and
RECOMMENDATION
Grant or Refuse
106.
Section 104B applies to any application which is a discretionary or non-complying
activity and states that the consent authority may grant or refuse the application and
may impose conditions under s108.
107.
Section 104D details particular restrictions for non-complying activities, including the
requirement that the consent authority may grant a resource consent for a noncomply activity only if it is satisfied that adverse effects will be no more than minor, or
that the application will not be contrary to objectives and policies of the relevant plan
or proposed plan.
108.
The application proposes to establish irrigation over 172 hectares of Lilybank Station
within a command area of approximately 407 hectares, using centre pivot irrigators on
light soils, implementing a flow regime on Station Stream sufficient to protect stream
values, and metering abstraction. Some mitigation has been proposed with respect to
water quality effects.
109.
There are however, a number of outstanding issues associated with this proposal as
listed below:
(a)
Natural character and landscape – Adverse visual effects of the proposed
activity on the foothills and adverse effects on natural character of the river
margins;
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 20 of 31
110.
(b)
Efficient and reasonable use – The proposed annual volume is not considered
reasonable and efficient;
(c)
Water quality –uncertainty regarding localised and cumulative adverse effects
on water quality.
Given that the application may be considered contrary to policies regarding the
setting of environmental flow and level regimes, and policies specific to high natural
character waterbodies, Section 104D requires that potential adverse effects of the
activity will need to be no more than minor if the application is to be granted. Without
further mitigation from the applicant to address effects on natural character and
landscape, efficiency of water use, and effects on water quality, I cannot be certain
that effects of the proposed activity will be minor and I am therefore unable to
recommend that the application be granted in its current form, in accordance with
Section 104D of the RMA.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
111.
Comments on the mitigation proposed by the applicant for each application are
provided earlier in this report.
112.
If the Commissioners decide to grant this application, a list of conditions that are
usually included in a water permit, and explanation for their inclusion, are provided in
Appendix 6 of the introductory s42A report. A list of conditions for this application can
is included below. The italicised conditions are shorthand, with the full condition listed
against the unique identifier in Appendix 6.
113.
It should be noted that the investigating officer is not satisfied that these conditions
would adequately mitigate that adverse effects that are of key concern, particularly
with respect to adverse effects on water quality as a result of land use intensification.
CRC071786 – To take and use surface water
1. WP01
Water shall only be taken from Station Stream, at surface water abstraction point I36/0004,
between map references NZMS 260 I36:132-215 and I36:133-219, at a maximum rate of 100
litres per second, with a daily volume not exceeding 8,640 cubic metres, a volume not exceeding
60,480 cubic metres in any period of ten consecutive days, and with a total volume not exceeding
731,000 cubic metres between 1st July and the following 30th June.
2. WP04
Water shall be used only for: (i) spray irrigation of crops and pasture for grazing sheep, beef
cattle, deer or non-milking dairy cows; and (ii) irrigation of a links style golf course; such that a
combined total of no more than 172 hectares is irrigated, as described in the application, on the
area of land shown in attached plan CRC071786, which forms part of this consent.
3. WP05 Avoid wastage of water
4. WP06 Backflow prevention
5. WP07
Whenever the flow (expressed in litres per second) in Station Stream as estimated by the
Canterbury Regional Council from measurements at the Station Stream recorder site, map
reference NZMS 260 I36:1259-2119:
a) is equal or greater than 420 litres per second, the maximum rate at which water is taken
shall not exceed 100 litres per second;
b) is equal to or less than 395 litres per second, and greater than 370 litres per second, the
maximum rate at which water is taken shall not exceed 75 litres per second;
c) is equal to or less than 370 litres per second, and greater than 345 litres per second, the
maximum rate at which water is taken shall not exceed 50 litres per second;
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 21 of 31
d) is equal to or less than 345 litres per second, and greater than 320 litre per second, the
maximum rate at which water is taken shall not exceed 25 litres per second;
e) is equal to or less than 320 litres per second, abstraction shall cease.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Install and maintain minimum flow recorder site – Station Stream, NZMS 260 I36:1259-2119
ME01 Installation of accessible straight pipe
ME02 Cease abstraction for CRC to measure flows in Station Stream
ME04 Metering condition
ME05 Certification of recording device
AD03 Review
AD04 Lapse
Signed:
Date:
28 August 2009
Maria Bartlett
Consents Investigating Officer
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 22 of 31
REFERENCES
Canterbury Regional council 2004. Proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan – Chapter 4:
Water Quality.
Canterbury Regional Council 1998. Regional Policy Statement. Report No R98/4. ISBN 186937-337-5.
Canterbury Regional Council 1991. Transitional Regional Plan. October 1991.
Keller, J & Pfluger, Y. 2005. Working papers about the Natural and Physical Resources of
the Waitaki catchment by locality. Report provided to the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation
Board.
Land Improvement Agreement for Lilybank Station, 1980, Part IV of the Second Schedule,
attachment to Crown Pastoral Land Tenure Review Due Diligence Report (May 2009)
prepared by Land Information New Zealand
Ministry for the Environment, 2006. Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan.
Te Maire Tau, Anake Goodall et al., 1990. Te Whakatau Kaupapa: Ngai Tahu Resource
Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. ISBN: 0-908925-06-9.
The Resource Management Act 1991. Consolidated version including the Resource
Management Amendment Act 1995. August 2005.
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board 2006. Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation
Regional Plan. ISBN: 0-9582620-7-1.
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board 2006. Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation
Regional Plan, Material Incorporated by Reference. ISBN: 0-9582620-6-3.
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board 2006. Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation
Regional Plan, Annex 1 – Decision and principal reasons for adopting the Plan provisions.
ISBN: 0-9582620-4-7.
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board 2006. Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation
Regional Plan, Section 32 Report. ISBN: 0-9582620-5-5.
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 23 of 31
ATTACHMENT ONE – LOCATION MAPS
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 24 of 31
ATTACHMENT TWO – PHOTOS OF IRRIGATION AREA & INTAKE
SITE
Photos taken by Maria Bartlett during site visit on 4 February 2009.
Photo 1 – location of the proposed Station Stream intake site (on the true left bank midground),
photo taken from an adjacent ridge
Photos 2-3 – Station Stream downstream of the proposed intake site
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 25 of 31
Photos 4-5 - View of Lilybank flats and Godley River delta looking generally southwards across the
proposed irrigation area, around the middle of the extent of the command area
Photo 6 - Looking roughly northeast from the margins of the Godley River (at approximately NZMS
260 I36:1224-1952) to proposed areas of irrigation adjacent to Station Stream, which is not visible but
runs from the far right ridge generally following the upper tree line
Photo 7 - View of spring-fed streams running parallel to the Godley River, looking roughly northwest
across the upstream extent of the proposed irrigation area
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 26 of 31
Photo 8 – a view of the Lilybank Swamp area through deer fencing, looking roughly south towards the
head of Lake Tekapo
Note – there are no photos of the proposed area of irrigation adjacent to the Macauley River
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 27 of 31
ATTACHMENT THREE – SOILS INFORMATION
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 28 of 31
ATTACHMENT FOUR – GALLERY LOCATIONS
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Page 29 of 31
ATTACHMENT SIX – OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
Objective /
Policy
Description
Assessment
Objective 1
To sustain the qualities of the
environment of the Waitaki River and
associated beds, bans, margins,
tributaries, islands, lakes, wetlands and
aquifers.
Provide water for different activities.
Submissions concerned about values in
Objective, cannot determine that application
is consistent with these values.
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Objective 5
Policy 1
Policy 2
Policy 3
Policy 4
Policy 11
Policy 12
Policy 13
Policy 15
Policy 16
Policy 19
Policy 20
Policy 21
Policy 23
Recognise that there are beneficial and
adverse effects on the environment at a
national and local scale.
Achieve a high level of technical
efficiency in the use of water.
Provide for practical and fair sharing of
allocated water during times of low
water availability.
Recognising connectedness between all
parts of the catchment
Recognising high natural character
water bodies worthy of a high level of
protection.
Setting of environment flow and level
regimes for all activities in Objective 2
and consistent with Objective 1,
excluding water bodies identified in
Policy 2.
Outlines a number of matters that must
be considered when setting an
environmental flow and level regime
Consider effects on Tangata Whenua
values, local and national effects when
allocating water to activities
Outlines matters that must be
considered when establishing allocation
limits.
Addresses water quality objectives in
the NRRP
Ensuring take and use of water is
reasonable for its intended use
Requiring irrigation applications to meet
the specified reasonable use test
By encouraging the piping or otherwise
sealing of water distribution systems
Encourage integration of multiple uses
of water
By requiring the installation of water
measuring and recording devices
Restricting water use in times of low
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
Activity is within allocation limit for
agricultural activities upstream of Lake
Tekapo outlet and upstream of Waitaki Dam
These factors have been considered in the
assessment of effects.
Hard hose guns are less efficient than centre
pivots, use of soil moisture probes would aid
technical efficiency through management of
irrigation, to ensure consistency with this
objective.
No other users of Station Stream
Matters related to cumulative effects have
been considered
Station Stream is a tributary of Lake Tekapo
and therefore considered a high natural
character water body
The applicant proposes an environmental
flow and level regime to mitigate effects of
the proposed activity, which may be
inconsistent with this policy
These matters have been taken into
consideration regarding the proposed flow
regime for Station Stream, however it is not
clear that the policy applies to high natural
character waterbodies
Runanga have been consulted and Te
Runanga o Ngai Tahu have submitted in
opposition to the proposal
The allocation limit is set for agricultural
activities upstream of Lake Tekapo outlet
and upstream of Waitaki Dam and the
application is within these limits
Water quality effects on rivers, lakes and
groundwater are uncertain
Applicant is requesting water above what
may be reasonably required
Requested
annual
volume
exceeds
estimated reasonable use requirements.
Water is proposed to be an entirely piped
supply
The applicant intends to operate an
integrated microhydro and irrigation scheme
The applicant proposes appropriate metering
A minimum flow is proposed to restrict
Page 30 of 31
Policy 27
Policy 29
Policy 31
Policy 32
Policy 33
water availability, except for reasonable
domestic and stockwater needs
Provides for priority to integrated
schemes in times of low water
availability
Discourages cumulative allocation to
activities from high natural character
waterbodies
Discourages abstraction for irrigation
from tributaries of Lake Tekapo
Requires that adverse effects be no
more than minor on a number of values
with regard to high natural character
water bodies
Avoid concentration of effects in one
high natural character water body
Report 24A:
Lilybank Station Holdings Limited
File No:
CO6C/23950-2
Consent No:
CRC071786
abstraction in times of low water availability
There are no other users of Station Stream
who may be affected by priority given to the
intended integrated scheme
The proposed activity is within the annual
allocation limit for agricultural activities
upstream of Lake Tekapo outlet
The proposed activity is inconsistent with
this policy
The applicant has not established that
existing water quality will be affected to a
less than minor extent
There are no other consumptive abstractions
from Station Stream
Page 31 of 31