Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere Ecological Values and Flow...

Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere Catchment Flow Review, Ecological Values and Flow Recommendations at Minimum Flow Sites.

Report No. R12/123 ISBN 978-1-927284-37-7 (print) 978-1-927284-38-4 (web) 978-1-927284-39-1 (electronic) Report prepared for Environment Canterbury by Golder Associates June 2012

Report No. R12/123 ISBN 978-1-927284-37-7 (print) 978-1-927284-38-4 (web)

978-1-927284-39-1 (electronic) PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Phone (03) 365 3828 Fax (03) 365 3194 75 Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940 Phone (03) 687 7800 Fax (03) 687 7808 Website: www.ecan.govt.nz Customer Services Phone 0800 324 636

This report represents advice to Environment Canterbury and any views, conclusions or recommendations do not represent Council policy. The information in this report, together with any other information, may be used by the Council to formulate resource management policies, e.g., in the preparation or review of regional plans.

June 2012

TE WAIHORA/LAKE ELLESMERE CATHMENT FLOW REVIEW

Ecological Values and Flow Recommendations at Minimum Flow Sites

REPO

RT

Report Number. 0978110119-002-R-Rev0

Distribution: Canterbury Regional Council

Submitted to: Canterbury Regional Council P O Box 345 Christchurch 8140

TE WAIHORA CATCHMENT ECOLOGICAL FLOWS

June 2012 Report No. 0978110119-002-R-Rev0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Report Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF MINIMUM FLOW SITES .............................................................................. 3

2.1 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Ecological Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 ECOLOGICAL MINIMUM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Recommended Minimum Flows ............................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Ecological State and Minimum Flows ..................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Priority Sites.......................................................................................................................................... 12

4.0 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING MINIMUM FLOW SITES ......................................................................................... 13

4.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Geographic Coverage ........................................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Reduction of Minimum Flow Sites .......................................................................................................... 16

5.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 18

TABLES Table 1: Summary descriptions of ecological values at minimum flow sites and overall stream catchments...................... 5

Table 2: Current and recommended minimum flows for existing minimum flow sites...................................................... 11

Table 3: Sites with permanent flow recorders and sites with flows correlated to recorder site flows. Adapted from Clark (2011). .............................................................................................................................................. 15

FIGURES Figure 1: Minimum flow sites in the Te Waihora catchment. ........................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Relationship between current and recommended minimum flows. Data points below the green diagonal line have current minimum flows that are lower than recommended for protection of ecological values. ......... 10

Figure 3: Current minimum flows expressed as a percentage of 7DMALF. Minimum flows below the dashed orange line are a moderate priority for increasing minimum flows, while bars falling below the solid red line indicate high priority sites. The left orange dashed line indicates flow-sensitive sites, while the lower dashed line indicates less flow-sensitive sites. .................................................................................... 13

Figure 4: Schematic showing minimum flow sites on smaller tributaries (Site "A") and different rivers altogether (Site "B") from the river where the flow recorder is located. Abstraction could result in adverse effects on river flow at these minimum flow sites if their flows are only monitored at the flow recorder site. ............... 16


June 2012 Report No. 0978110119-002-R-Rev0 ii

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Report Limitations

APPENDIX B Technical Panel Value Scores


June 2012 Report No. 0978110119-002-R-Rev0 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Canterbury Regional Council (CRC) is reviewing minimum flows and allocation limits for rivers in the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment. A minimum flow is the flow below which water abstraction from a river or hydraulically connected groundwater must cease, while allocation refers to the total volume or rate of water allocated for abstraction in a catchment. Existing minimum flows in the catchment were historically set via consent processes with little consideration of the cumulative effects of abstraction. The current flow review process is considering cumulative effects by modelling impacts of groundwater and surface water abstraction together. Figure 1 shows the location of existing minimum flow sites in the Te Waihora catchment.

Golder Associates (NZ) Limited (Golder) has been providing ecological input into the flow review for CRC, including a summary of aquatic ecological values and flow recommendations (Golder 2011). The Golder (2011) report provided general minimum flow recommendations that could be applied to rivers throughout the catchment. Minimum flow recommendations were indexed to seven day mean annual low flow (7DMALF1

), a common low flow statistic. The proportion of 7DMALF recommended as a minimum flow varied amongst stream types, with larger spring-fed streams (7DMALF>300 L/s) having a lower proportion of 7DMALF recommended as the minimum flow than either hill-fed streams or smaller spring-fed streams, which were considered more sensitive to low flows (Golder 2011). More recently, CRC hydrologists have used regression analyses between minimum flow sites with flow recorders and sites that lack recorders to estimate 7DMALF for the sites without recorders (Clark 2011).

1.2 Report Scope This report2

Summarise ecological values present at each minimum flow site.

covers the following tasks assigned by CRC:

Provide specific minimum flow recommendations for existing minimum flow sites.

Discuss the adequacy of existing minimum flow sites to protect aquatic ecology, and whether the number of existing minimum flow sites can be reduced.

A separate report (Golder 2012) describes the effect of different flow management scenarios on aquatic ecological values present at minimum flow sites in the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment.

1 Flows were naturalised by CRC prior to calculating 7DMALF. The naturalising process involved adding in known water takes to the flow record. 2 This report is subject to the limitations in Appendix A.

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

SH1

SH77

SH73

SH75

SH74

SH71

SH73

9

8

7

6

5

2

142 4139

38

3736

35

3433

32

31

29

26

25

24

23

22

21

1918

17

1615

141211

43

40

10

13

20

272830

2400000

2400000

2420000

2420000

2440000

2440000

2460000

2460000

2480000

2480000

5700

000

5700

000

5720

000

5720

000

5740

000

5740

000

5760

000

5760

000

Inform

ation

conta

ined i

n this

draw

ing is

the c

opyri

ght o

f Gold

er As

socia

tes (N

Z) Ltd

. Una

uthori

sed u

se or

repro

ducti

on of

this

plan e

ither

wholl

y or in

part w

ithou

t writt

en pe

rmiss

ion in

fringe

s cop

yrigh

t. ©

Gold

er As

socia

tes (N

Z) Lt

d.

MINIMUM FLOW AND ADDITIONAL SITES CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT 1JUNE 20120978110119

0 3 6 9 12 15Kilometres

S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2009\09781x\10xxx\0978110_119_ECan_EllesmereTribsEnvFlow\MapDocuments\Fig01_MinimumFlowSitesTeWaihora_GIS.mxd

¯

1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZMS Topo 250 Series, Copyright Reserved.2. Minimum flow sites sourced from Ecan.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.3. Drawn by: NP. Reviewed by: HG.

TITLE

PROJECT

Coordinate System: GD 1949 New Zealand Map Grid

Legend

1. Jollies Brook at Outlet to sea2. Lee at Temoana3. Halswell River at D/S of Knights Creek diversion4. Halswell River at Leadleys Rd5. Halswell River at Niels Rd6. Halswell River at Tobecks Bridge7. Knights Creek at Jamiesons Property8. Kaituna River at Kaituna Valley Rd9. L-II River at Moir's Property10. L-II River at Wolfes Rd11. Birdlings Brook at Leggs Rd12. Birdlings Brook at Lochheads Rd13. Boggy Creek at Lower Lake Rd14. Doyleston Drain at D/S The Lake Rd15. Halswell River at Hodgens Bridge16. Hanmer Rd Drain at Lower Lake Rd17. Harts Creek at Lower Lake Rd18. Irwell River at Leeston Christchurch Rd19. Irwell River at The Lake Rd20. Waikekewai Creek at Taumutu Beach21. Selwyn River at Rennie Property D/S of Intake22. Taumutu Creek at D/s Gulliver Intake23. Unnamed Drain at Pendergast Property24. Baileys Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd25. Hawkins River at Willows - Dalethorpe Rd26. Hororata River at Haldon water race bridge27. Miles Drain at Pannets Rd28. Selwyn River at Coes Ford29. Selwyn River at Whitecliffs30. Silverstream at Lincoln Leeston Rd31. Snake Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd32. SDC water race (Rakaia) at below Early's33. Halswell River at Branthwaites34. Halswell River at Ryans35. LII River at Pannetts36. McGraths Creek at Lincoln-Leeston Rd37. Silverstream at Selwyn R Confl.38. Prices Stream at Prices Valley Rd39. Parkin Drain at Taumutu Rd40. Lee River at Brooklands41. Tentburn at Beachcroft42. Jollies Brook at Bullocks Rd

#* Minimum flow and additional data sites



2.0 ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF MINIMUM FLOW SITES 2.1 Methods This section of the report draws on existing sources of information on water quality, periphyton (algae), macrophytes (aquatic plants), invertebrates, and fish to summarise ecological values at each existing minimum flow site. All of the various data sources and values identified for each minimum flow site were tabulated in a spreadsheet. The final output was a concise ecological description of each site, which is provided in the following section of this report. The spreadsheet containing all of the underlying ecological data was provided separately to CRC.

Key sources of information included CRC water quality and biological monitoring (invertebrates, habitat and periphyton cover), the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD), CRC technical reports, and evidence produced for the Central Plains Water hearing and the Rakaia-Selwyn and Selwyn-Waimakariri groundwater zone hearings. The names, locations, flow statistics and minimum flows (where one exists) for each site were provided by CRC.

Another useful source of general ecological information drawn upon was a series of unpublished draft CRC reports produced as part of an initial review of minimum flows for rivers in the catchment. The review used an Technical Panel assembled specifically for the catchment flow review process, with expertise in the areas of trout, native fish, general aquatic habitat, general amenity, indigenous vegetation, and Maori values. The Technical Panel visited streams during low flow conditions in summer 2003 and 2005, and ranked each waterway according to the values it supported. Each panellist then used their professional judgement to recommend the minimum flow required to sustain a given instream value. We converted panellist “value” scores to numbers from 1 to 5, with a “low” score receiving a 1, “moderate” receiving a 3, and “high” value receiving a score of 5 (see Appendix B). Occasionally no formal descriptive category was given, whereupon brief comments have been included.

CRC requested that streams be classified as to whether they were natural waterways or managed as drains. In the summary spreadsheet channel form was described based on aerial photography, and descriptions of the various streams found throughout the literature. It should be noted that while a stream may be described as having a natural form, this description simply denotes that the channel does not follow paddock boundaries, or roads, rather it wanders across such features. The description does not imply that the stream follows its natural course and is therefore unaltered by surrounding land-use activities. Similarly, management of the channel, either as a drain or not, was compiled based on descriptions in the literature and drainage map layers provided by the Selwyn District Council (SDC) and Christchurch City Council (CCC). It should be noted that sites labelled as a managed drain may be subject to aquatic plant clearance with variable periodicity; often on a ‘when needed’ basis. Sites not included in the drainage management network of the relevant council may also be periodically cleaned by local landowners or other authorities.

Fish community information was taken primarily from the NZFFD. Fish were recorded as being absent (0), present (1), or no records exist for the site (3). Records were only included within the information for each site if they occurred within 2 km. Further fish data was added from the general literature.

Invertebrate information was compiled primarily from CRC monitoring records. Actual values shown in the spreadsheet are means of all available records for each site. Only data collected during the last ten years and within 2 km along the stream are included. Further information was gathered from the general literature.

Trout spawning values were taken from Taylor & Good (2006) and represent a thorough assessment of the overall health of each waterway. In particular, brown trout require clean, cold water and gravels free of fine sediments to spawn, as well as physical access to any reach of the stream. Taylor & Good (2006) provide numbers of redds (spawning “nests”) and spawning fish, but only qualitative descriptions of spawning value. General habitat notes have also been included for each stream and site. Additional information was provided by a survey and GIS layer of salmonid distributions and habitats in the Canterbury region by Langlands & Elley (2000).



Water quality data has primarily been compiled from CRC records and consists of statistics derived from all the data available from each site. This information was augmented from the general literature and Golder (2011).

Section 6.0 includes a list of literature information sources used in compiling ecological values at each minimum flow site. Catchment-scale values (i.e., values present within a stream, but not specifically found at the minimum flow site) listed in the spreadsheet combine the most prominent ecological features of each stream into a broad overview based on the literature and various data sources described above.

2.2 Ecological Descriptions Table 1 below summarises ecological values at each minimum flow site and provides an overall description of ecological values present in the wider catchment for each waterway. Despite widespread habitat degradation and frequently elevated nutrient concentrations, most minimum flow sites support a range of native fish and trout, and may be considered to have at least moderate ecological value.

Sites with high ecological value include Prices Stream and Kaituna River, which drain Banks Peninsula and are characterised by stony beds, healthy invertebrate fauna, and the presence of threatened native fish such as longfin eel, inanga and lamprey. The hill-fed Selwyn River and its tributaries, the Hawkins and Hororata Rivers are also considered to have high ecological value, again due to the predominantly silt-free stony bed sediments, healthy invertebrate populations, and the presence of acutely threatened Canterbury mudfish populations in the upper catchment. Harts Creek is one of the few spring-fed lowland streams that is considered to have high ecological values, as it supports brown trout spawning and adult trout habitat, plus has a diverse native fish fauna, and has received substantial riparian enhancement and protection.

Minimum flow sites with relatively low ecological value include Baileys Stream, Snake Creek, Miles Drain, the Irwell River, and Doyleston Drain. All of these waterways have significant sedimentation and many have un-naturally low flows. Observations of silt-free gravels and brown trout spawning in many of these tributaries in the 1980s suggest that these waterways have previously been capable of supporting higher ecological values.

Some larger rivers, such as the L2 and Halswell Rivers, have multiple minimum flow sites along their length and ecological condition and value varies from site to site. For these waterways, minimum flows at degraded or lower value sites will need to be set to protect values present at less degraded and more highly valued sites.

It should be noted that at some locations the conclusions of the technical panel may contradict other information presented and the overall site conclusion. This occurs because the technical panel assessments were made in the absence of any formal specific ecological data and were based on a single visual inspection of the site. Therefore, although taken into account in this summary the findings of the technical panel may not be in accordance with the overall assessment.



Table 1: Summary descriptions of ecological values at minimum flow sites and overall stream catchments.

Site Easting Northing Minimum flow site ecological values Catchment scale values

Kaituna River at Kaituna Valley Rd 2485535 5719426

High ecological values. This is a natural river with large areas of native vegetation on steep hill country in the catchment. The river is subject to occasional destructive flooding. Includes moderate trout spawning values. Technical panel assessments suggest moderate values for indigenous vegetation and native fish, low values for general amenity and trout, but moderate to high values for natural character, Mahinga Kai and Mauri. Overall aquatic habitat value is low to moderate. According to the NZFFD seven species of fish are present including threatened longfin eel, inanga and lamprey. Adult trout are present. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are low and invertebrate communities are indicative of excellent water quality.

The Kaituna River catchment has high ecological values due to the occurrence of clean water invertebrate communities and threatened fish in the upper two thirds of the catchment.

Prices Stream at Prices Valley Rd 2486360 5714937

High ecological values. This is a natural river with large areas of native vegetation on steep hill country in the catchment. Moderate brown trout spawning values, with spawning observed in the mid-reaches of the river. Technical panel assessments suggest that trout and Mauri values are low, indigenous vegetation values are low-moderate and native fish, natural character and general amenity are moderate. Mahinga Kai values are high and overall aquatic habitat value is low. Based on NZFFD records four fish species are present and include threatened inanga. Goldfish are also present. There is limited water quality data available but invertebrate communities are indicative of good water quality.

Prices Stream has good ecological values due to the occurrence of clean water invertebrate communities and threatened fish. However, there is sparse information about water quality and fish communities

Hawkins River at Willows- Dalethorpe Rd

2416004 5758085

High ecological values. This is a natural waterway, but with some stock access. Trout spawning values are unknown. According to the NZFFD six fish species are present and include the threatened longfin eel. Brown trout and brook char are also present. Water quality data indicate that nitrogen levels are elevated and invertebrate communities are indicative of good water quality.

High ecological values. The Hawkins River is a major tributary of the Selwyn River. The lower reaches of the stream dry during summer, particularly below Deans Rd.

Hororata River at Haldon water race bridge

2429520 5736340

High ecological values. This a natural waterway with unknown trout spawning values. Invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality but according to the NZFFD five fish species are present and include the threatened longfin eel. Acutely threatened Canterbury mudfish are present in adjacent wetlands and ponds. Brown trout are present.

High ecological values due to the presence of Canterbury mudfish, which occur in adjacent wetlands and ponds. The stream is known to dry in the middle reaches.

Selwyn River at Whitecliffs 2420400 5749000

High ecological values. The upper Selwyn River is a natural waterway which retains permanent flow downstream to Scotts Rd. Trout spawning values are high although the adult population has declined dramatically in recent decades. According to the NZFFD four fish species are present and include threatened longfin eel. The acutely threatened Canterbury mudfish is known to occur in wetlands and tributaries. Brown trout are present. Water is cool, oxygenated and has low nutrient levels. Invertebrate communities are indicative of excellent water quality.

The upper Selwyn River has high ecological values due to the occurrence of a number of threatened fish species, high trout habitat potential and clean water invertebrate communities. Canterbury mudfish are present in the catchment.

Selwyn River at Rennie Property D/S of Intake

2464200 5722100

High ecological values. The lower Selwyn River is partially channelised and contained within flood embankments. Trout spawning values are high despite a significant decline in the fishery since the mid 1980's. Spawning gravels occur downstream until the bed becomes silted and sluggish at Selwyn Huts. According to the NZFFD seven fish species are present and include threatened lamprey, longfin eel and inanga. No brown trout were recorded from this reach but are known to be present. No water quality or invertebrate data is available for this reach.

The lower Selwyn River downstream of the intermittent reach has high ecological values and is an important habitat for native fish, invertebrates and brown trout. The Selwyn River is also a major tributary of Te Waihora/Ellesmere. The Lower Selwyn River is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels.

Selwyn River at Coes Ford 2462600 5723400

High ecological values. The lower Selwyn River has permanent flow at Coes Ford, is partially channelised and contained within flood embankments. Trout spawning values are high despite a significant decline since the mid 1980's. Spawning gravels occur downstream until the bed becomes silted and sluggish at Selwyn Huts. Technical panel assessments suggest that indigenous vegetation values are low, general amenity values are moderate, trout, native vegetation and natural character values are moderate to high and Mahinga Kai and Mauri values are high. Overall aquatic habitat values were moderate to high. Based on NZFFD records seven species of fish are present and include threatened longfin eel, inanga and lamprey. Brown trout are also present. Nitrogen levels are high, otherwise water quality is acceptable. Invertebrate communities are indicative of good water quality.

The lower Selwyn River downstream of the intermittent reach has high ecological values and is an important habitat for native fish, invertebrates and brown trout. The Selwyn River is also a major tributary of Te Waihora/Ellesmere. The Lower Selwyn River is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels.

Knights Creek at Jamiesons Property 2473800 5733600

Moderate ecological values. This appears to be a natural stream with a number of drains comprising the headwaters. At present has no trout spawning habitat which represents a decline since the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggest moderate values for trout, indigenous vegetation, general amenity, Mahinga Kai and Mauri, but low values for natural character and high values for native fish. Overall aquatic habitat value is moderate. According to the NZFFD six species of fish are present including threatened longfin eel and koura. Adult brown trout are present. No water quality data is available, however, a single invertebrate sample indicated poor water quality.

The Halswell River is one of the larger systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities. The Halswell River is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels. The Quaiffes Road Drain has a good population of koura




Halswell River at D/S of Knights Creek diversion

2473800 5733600

Moderate ecological values. This reach is a natural stream although subject to agricultural drainage and some urbanisation upstream. At present has no trout spawning habitat which represents a decline since the mid 1980's. According to the NZFFD six fish species are present including threatened longfin eel and koura. Adult trout are present. There is no data on invertebrate communities or nutrient concentrations. The bed is silt laden.

The Halswell River is one of the larger systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities. The Halswell River is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels. The Quaiffes Road Drain has a good population of koura.

Halswell River at Leadleys Rd 2474500 5733400

Moderate ecological values. This reach is a natural stream although subject to agricultural drainage and some urbanisation upstream. At present has no trout spawning habitat which represents a decline since the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggest moderate values for fish, vegetation, Mauri, general amenity, Wahi tapu & wahi taonga, but high Mahinga Kai values. Overall aquatic habitat value is moderate. According to the NZFFD six species of fish are present including threatened longfin eel and koura. Adult trout are present. Currently the stream bed is heavily silted. Water quality information at this location suggests that low dissolved oxygen levels may be deleterious to aquatic life and a single invertebrate sample suggests poor/fair water quality. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are high.

The Halswell River is one of the larger systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities. The Halswell River is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels. The Quaiffes Road Drain has a good population of koura

Halswell River at Branthwaites 2474100 5728400

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream reach. It has no trout spawning values but adult trout habitat throughout. The bed is heavily laden with silt. Technical panel assessments suggest indigenous vegetation values are low, natural character is moderate, but trout, general amenity, native fish and Mahinga Kai values are good to high. Overall aquatic habitat values are good. However, according to the NZFFD only two species of fish are present including threatened inanga. Two invertebrate community samples suggested that water quality is poor and phosphorus levels are moderate


Halswell River at Ryans 2473084 5727178

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream reach. It has no trout spawning values but adult trout habitat throughout. The bed is heavily laden with silt. Technical panel assessments suggest indigenous vegetation values are low, natural character is moderate, but trout, general amenity, native fish and Mahinga Kai values are good to high. Overall aquatic habitat values are good. According to NZFFD records only two fish species are present although threatened inanga were recorded. There is little water quality data for this site other than temperature, which can be elevated high enough to impair trout populations. There is no invertebrate community data for this site.


Halswell river at Tobecks Bridge 2470800 5726200

Moderate ecological values. This reach is an apparently natural stream with unknown trout spawning values. Technical panel assessments indicated low values for natural character and general amenity, moderate Mauri and natural vegetation values, but high Mahinga Kai, trout and native fish values. Overall aquatic habitat value is high to moderate. According to the NZFFD three species of fish are present including threatened longfin eel and inanga. There is no information about invertebrate communities. Elevated phosphorus levels are present.


Halswell River at Niels Rd 2473100 5723200

Moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream that has been channelised and straightened. No trout spawning values remain but adult fish are likely to be present. Technical panel assessments suggest moderate trout and native fish values, but low values for indigenous vegetation, natural character and general amenity. Mahinga Kai values are high. Overall aquatic habitat value is moderate. Currently the stream bed is heavily silted. There are no NZFFD or invertebrate sampling records available. Water quality data indicates high nitrogen and phosphorus.


Halswell River at Hodgens Bridge 2475400 5719500

Low to moderate ecological values. This reach of the Halswell River is channelised and contained within flood banks. The bed is heavily laden with silt and contains no trout spawning values. According to the NZFFD only two fish species are present - common bully and inanga - with the latter being threatened. Phosphorus levels are slightly elevated.


L-11 River at Moir's Property 2469100 5727900

Moderate to high ecological values. This a natural stream, although drains and stormwater do enter the upper reaches. It has good trout spawning values which have shown an improvement since the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggest low values for native fish, indigenous vegetation and Mauri, low to moderate values for trout and natural character, moderate values for general amenity and high values for Mahinga Kai. Overall aquatic habitat value is low. However, according to the NZFFD six species of fish are present including the threatened longfin eel, torrentfish and koura. Adult brown trout are present. Water quality data is not available but a single invertebrate community sample was indicative of fair water quality. The degree of siltation increases downstream in this reach

The L-11 River is one of the larger spring-fed systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities. The L-11 is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels.

L-11 River at Pannetts 2465710 5723465

Moderate ecological values. This a natural stream although the bed is heavily silt laden and there are no trout spawning values. Technical panel assessments indicated low values for indigenous vegetation, moderate values for natural character, general amenity and Mauri, while trout, native fish and Mahinga Kai values are high. Overall,

The L-11 River is one of the larger spring-fed systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities.




aquatic habitat had a high value. According to the NZFFD eight species of fish are present including the threatened longfin eel, torrentfish and koura. Introduced rudd (an unwanted fish species), goldfish and brown trout are also present. Water quality data indicates low DO levels are present and this may be deleterious to aquatic life. Nitrogen and phosphorus are elevated. There is no invertebrate community data.

The L-11 is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels.

L-11 River at Wolfes Rd 2465672 5721811

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream. It has no trout spawning values and according to the NZFFD only two species of fish are present: goldfish and rudd. Adult trout are likely to be present but not confirmed and threatened koura are present. No water quality or invertebrate data are available although the stream is known to be silt laden and occasionally stagnant.

The L-11 River is one of the larger spring-fed systems draining into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It contains some threatened native fish, but in general has a silt laden bed and impaired ecological communities. The L-11 is known to be habitat for a significant population of longfin eels.

Baileys Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd 2461400 5726000

Low ecological values. This is a channelised drain with significant siltation issues. Trout spawning values are low and have shown a significant decline since the 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggested that trout, indigenous vegetation, natural character and general amenity are all low, while Mauri and native fish values are moderate. No water quality data is available but invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality.

Low ecological values. This waterway is severely impacted by siltation for its entire length. The upper reaches are ephemeral

McGraths Creek at Lincoln-Leeston Rd 2460400 5725100

Moderate ecological values. This is a channelised stream/drain with limited and declining trout spawning values. The bed is silt laden at most locations. Technical panel assessments suggest that trout, indigenous vegetation, natural character and general amenity are low, native fish values are low to moderate. Mahinga Kai values are moderate while overall aquatic habitat values are moderate to high. According to the NZFFD four fish species are present including threatened longfin eel. Adult trout are present. No water quality is available but invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality.

Low to moderate ecological values. The creek suffers from low flows and siltation. There has been a significant decline in the health of this stream since the mid 1980's

Snake Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd 2460000 5724700

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a natural waterway that has been channelised. Trout spawning values are good, but have shown a significant decline since the 1980's due to silt accumulation. Technical panel assessments suggest that trout, native vegetation and general amenity values are low. Native fish values are low to moderate and overall aquatic habitat values are low. There is no available water quality data, but invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality.

Low ecological values. Snake Creek has retained some ecological values, despite siltation, due to the presence of some trout spawning. However, water quality in Snake Creek is low. There has been a significant loss of flow in the headwaters.

Silverstream at Lincoln Leeston Rd 2460798 5725564

Moderate ecological values. This is a channelised waterway with moderate trout spawning values and fish present, despite the occurrence of silt and stock access. There has been a significant decline in trout spawning value since the 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggested that native fish and indigenous vegetation values are low, trout values are low to moderate, native vegetation, general amenity and Mauri values are moderate, while Mahinga Kai values are high. Overall aquatic habitat values are low. According to the NZFFD five species of fish are present and includes threatened longfin eel and koura. Brown trout are also present. Water quality data is not available, but invertebrate communities are indicative of fair water quality.

Moderate ecological values. The Silver Stream has retained some ecological values, despite siltation, due to the presence of some trout spawning and native fish. Water quality in the Silver Stream is known to reduce the overall water quality of the Selwyn River below their confluence. There has been a loss of flow in the headwaters.

Silverstream at Selwyn River confluence.

2462119 5723522

Moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream with some channelised headwaters and good trout spawning values despite stock access and siltation. There has been a decline in trout spawning since the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggest that indigenous vegetation values are low, trout values are low to moderate, native fish, natural character and general amenity values are moderate, while Mahinga Kai and Mauri values are high and overall aquatic habitat value is low. According to the NZFFD three species of fish are present and include the threatened longfin eel. Brown trout have not been recorded but are likely to be present. There is no water quality data available but invertebrate communities are indicative of fair water quality.

Moderate ecological values. The Silver Stream has retained some ecological values, despite siltation, due to the presence of some trout spawning and native fish. Water quality in the Silver Stream is known to reduce the overall water quality of the Selwyn River below their confluence. There has been a loss of flow in the headwaters.

Miles Drain at Pannets Rd 2462975 5723540

Low ecological values. This waterway is a channelised drain, with limited water flow and stock access. At present has no trout spawning values which is a significant decline from the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggested that all values were low other than native fish values, which were moderate. There is heavy siltation throughout the drain.

Low ecological values. This waterway has been severely degraded over the last 20 years.

Unnamed Drain at Pendergast Property

2462100 5719500 Unknown ecological values. This is a channelised drain with very little ecological information available. Invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality. Largely unknown

Irwell River at Leeston Christchurch Rd

2457339 5719794

Low ecological values. The Irwell River has suffered considerably from low flows and siltation. Flow diversion upstream may be responsible for reduced flow downstream. The upper reaches are now ephemeral and trout spawning values have declined from historically good t to nothing. There are no NZFFD records or water quality data available for this site, but invertebrate sampling indicates very poor water quality.

Low ecological values. The Irwell River has been severally degraded over the last twenty years, and in particular has significantly reduced flow.




Irwell River at The Lake Rd 2459900 5717800

Low to moderate ecological values. The Irwell River has suffered considerably from low flows and siltation. Flow diversion upstream may have reduced flows in the lower reaches. The upper reaches are now ephemeral and trout spawning values have declined to nothing. The NZFFD indicates that at Lake Rd five species of fish are present although no threatened species. Adult trout have been recorded. Water quality data suggests that low DO levels are likely to impair biotic communities. Nitrogen levels are unusually low, likely due to high plant cover and low flows, and phosphorus is slightly elevated. Invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality.

Low ecological values. The Irwell River has been severally degraded over the last twenty years, and in particular has significantly reduced flow.

Hanmer Rd Drain at Lower Lake Rd 2459415 5717107

Moderate ecological values. This waterway is a road aligned drain which suffers from some siltation. There are good trout spawning values but these have declined since the mid 1980's. Four fish species have been recorded by KMA (2006). The drain is cleared by excavation. Water quality data show that nitrogen and phosphorus are high, while invertebrate community data indicates water quality is poor to fair.

Moderate ecological values. This waterway has good trout spawning and moderate native fish values. Stock access has been reduced but the system is subject to local authority drain management policies.

Boggy Creek at Lower Lake Rd 2458304 5715571

Moderate ecological values. This a channelised drain system that suffers from some siltation but has good trout spawning values which have shown a significant improvement since the mid 1980's due to habitat restoration work. According to the NZFFD five fish species are present which includes threatened longfin eel and inanga. Adult brown trout are also present. Water quality data suggests that low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels may impair ecological communities. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are high and invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality.

Moderate ecological value. Overall boggy creek is a drain which suffers from some siltation but has good trout spawning values which have shown a significant improvement since the mid 1980's due to restoration work. The upper reaches are ephemeral and nutrient levels are high.

Doyleston Drain at D/S Lake Rd 2457942 5714972

Low to moderate ecological values. Doyleston Drain is a road aligned waterway with moderate trout spawning values. According to the NZFFD three species of common native fish are present. However, acutely threatened Canterbury mudfish have been recently recorded in the drain, with larval fish likely sourced from tributary drains. Brown trout are not recorded in the NZFFD but are known to be present; Doyleston Drain historically supported a highly valued trout fishery. Habitat modification and altered drainage patterns may have impacted aquatic communities. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are elevated and there is potential for low DO to impair ecological communities.

Potentially high ecological values. Overall this waterway is impacted by silt on the bed and undergoes mechanical clearing by excavation. However, Canterbury mudfish populations are extremely rare in this region and should be protected.

Tramway Reserve Drain at Lake Rd 2456791 5713698

Low to moderate ecological values. The upper reaches have some natural channel form but are ephemeral. Trout spawning values are currently low. Technical panel assessments indicated that indigenous vegetation, natural character, general amenity and Mauri values are low, trout values are low to moderate and native fish values are moderate to high. A single NZFFD record indicated the occurrence of common bullies, but threatened longfin eels have also been observed. The drain suffers from siltation, channelisation and intermittent flow. There is no information on water quality or invertebrate communities.

Low ecological values in all but the lower reaches downstream of Lake Rd

Birdlings Brook at Leggs Rd 2454994 5712014

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream that has undergone some channelisation but also restoration over the last twelve years. Birdlings Brook had historically high trout spawning values, however these have declined since the mid 1980's. Overall, there is a lack of ecological data for this site. A single invertebrate community sample indicated poor water quality.

Moderate ecological values. Birdlings Brook is a major tributary of Harts Creek. Due to concerns about stock access and siltation several reaches were fenced from stock and planted with native vegetation in the late 1990's. However, despite bi-annual monitoring of invertebrates at Lochheads Rd there is little other evidence available about the ecological values of the entire system.

Birdlings Brook at Lochheads Rd 2454670 5712840

Moderate ecological values. This is a natural stream that has undergone some channelisation, but also restoration over the last twelve years. Birdlings Brook had historically high trout spawning values, however these have declined since the mid 1980's. Technical panel assessments suggest that indigenous vegetation, Wahi tapu and wahi taonga values are low to moderate, trout and Mahinga Kai values are moderate, natural character and general amenity values are moderate to high, while native fish and Mauri values are high. Twenty invertebrate community samples collected between 1999 and 2009 indicated good water quality.

Moderate ecological values. Birdlings Brook is a major tributary of Harts Creek. Due to concerns about stock access and siltation several reaches were fenced from stock and planted with native vegetation in the late 1990's. However, despite bi-annual monitoring of invertebrates at Lochheads Rd there is little other evidence available about the ecological values of the entire system.

Harts Creek at Lower Lake Rd 2456783 5712038

High ecological values. Harts Creek is a natural stream that has undergone restoration over the last twelve years although siltation is still a problem. Trout spawning values are high. Technical panel assessments suggest that indigenous vegetation values are moderate, natural character values are moderate to high, while trout, native fish, general amenity, Mahinga Kai and Mauri values are high. According to the NZFFD five fish species are present which includes the threatened inanga. Adult brown trout are also present. Water quality data showed that the water was cool, but nitrogen levels are elevated. A single invertebrate community sample at Lower Lake Rd indicated fair to good water quality and the same result was gained from nine samples collected close to the stream source at Hills Rd.

Overall, this waterway has good ecological values, being one of the healthiest plains spring-fed tributaries of Te Waihora. Siltation remains an issue.




Parkin Drain at Taumutu Rd 2458352 5705845

Low to moderate ecological values. This is a drain with unknown trout spawning values. Technical panel assessments suggested low values for trout, indigenous vegetation, natural character and general amenity. Native fish values are poor to moderate, Mauri is moderate and Mahinga Kai values are high. According to the NZFFD native fish diversity is low and limited to threatened inanga. There is no invertebrate or water quality data available.

Overall this drain has moderate ecological values due to occurrence of inanga which are likely to be spawning in the system. However, there is little information available.

Waikewai Creek at Taumutu Beach 2458306 5705440

Moderate ecological values. This is a natural waterway with some drains in the headwaters. Trout spawning values are thought to be low. Technical panel assessments suggest that trout values are low, indigenous vegetation and natural character values are moderate, general amenity is moderate to high and native fish, Mahinga Kai and Mauri values are high. According to the NZFFD eight species of fish are present and include threatened longfin eel and inanga. Brown trout and Chinook salmon are also present. No water quality data is available, but invertebrate communities suggest water quality is poor.

Overall the ecological values of this stream are moderate. Threatened fish are present but invertebrate communities are indicative of poor water quality. There is no information available for the upper reaches of the system.

Taumutu Creek at D/s Gulliver Intake 2458000 5705100 Unknown ecological values. This is a natural stream with very little ecological information available. Invertebrate

communities are indicative of poor water quality. Largely unknown

Lee River at Temoana 2452457 5706792

Moderate ecological values. An apparently natural stream with fenced banks in the upper reaches and riparian vegetation in the lower reaches. Includes limited trout spawning in a headwater tributary and adult habitat throughout. There are no sites in the NZFFD at this location. The Lee River is impacted by siltation for its entire length, but gravel substrate occurs in the Hei Hei tributary. There is no information on water quality or invertebrates

There is very little information available overall for this catchment. The mouth is open to the sea via a culvert so fish may have access from the sea. The Hei Hei tributary should be regarded as having potential high ecological values which should be investigated further.

Lee River at Brooklands 2452200 5705500

Moderate ecological values. Natural stream with fenced banks in the upper reaches and riparian vegetation in the lower reaches. Includes limited trout spawning in a headwater tributary and adult habitat throughout. There is one site in the NZFFD at this location and two species were present. The Lee River is impacted by siltation for its entire length, but gravel substrate occurs in the Hei Hei tributary. There is no information on water quality or invertebrates

There is very little information available overall for this catchment. The mouth is open to the sea via a culvert so native fish may have access. The Hei Hei tributary should be regarded as having potential high ecological values which should be investigated further.

Tent Burn at Beachcroft 2452540 5703873

Moderate ecological values. Natural stream with siltation throughout exacerbated by stock access. Technical panel assessments suggest moderate values for fish, vegetation, Mahinga Kai and Mauri, but low values for general amenity, Wahi tapu & wahi taonga. There are no records in the NZFFD but adult trout are likely to be present throughout. The Tent Burn suffers from siltation throughout and there is no information on water quality although a single invertebrate sample at BeachCroft suggested poor water quality.

There is very little information available overall for this catchment. The mouth is open to the sea via a culvert so native fish may have access.

Jollies Brook at Bullocks Rd 2450601 5703489

Moderate ecological values. Natural stream subject to mechanical clearing in the upper reaches. Includes limited trout spawning in the headwaters and adult habitat throughout. According to NZFFD three species of fish are present. Gravel substrate upstream, but significant siltation and stock access downstream. There is no information on nutrient concentrations.

There is very little information available overall for this catchment. Permanent mouth closure may prevent access for native fish.

Jollies Brook at Outlet to sea 2451435 5703063

Moderate ecological values. Natural stream subject to mechanical clearing in the upper reaches. Includes limited trout spawning in the headwaters and adult habitat throughout. According to NZFFD one species of fish are present. There is gravel substrate in the upper reaches, but significant siltation and stock access downstream. No information on nutrient concentrations

There is very little information available overall for this catchment. Permanent mouth closure may prevent access for fish from the sea.

SDC water race (Rakaia) at below Early's

2413990 5732920 Unknown ecological values. This an artificial water race with flow derived from the Rakaia River. Therefore, water quality is likely to be good, although siltation may be a problem. The only existing information is the presence of upland bullies recorded in the NZFFD.

The ecology of this water race is largely unknown, but in general stock water races in Canterbury may have moderate ecological values providing habitat to some generalist fish and invertebrate taxa.



3.0 ECOLOGICAL MINIMUM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Introduction Golder (2011) made the following ecological minimum flow recommendations for rivers in the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment. Flow recommendations were indexed to 7DMALF, with minimum flows of at least 90 % of 7DMALF recommended for flow-sensitive sites, and flows of 70 to 90 % of 7DMALF for less sensitive sites. The following summarises the Golder (2011) recommendations:

Minimum flows of at least 90 % of 7DMALF for:

Spring-fed rivers with 7DMALF ≤300 L/s

Hill-fed rivers – The upper Selwyn River and Banks Peninsula rivers

Canterbury mudfish sites – Hororata area and Waianiwaniwa Valley

Minimum flows of 70 to 90 % of 7DMALF for:

Spring-fed rivers with 7DMALF >300 L/s

The following section applies the Golder (2011) recommendations to each of the minimum flow sites, using the 7DMALF statistics recently calculated by CRC. Seventy percent of 7DMALF was used to calculate recommended minimum flows for larger spring-fed rivers, and 90 % of 7DMALF for the other, more flow-sensitive, river types. This was done for simplicity, in preference to showing a range of recommended minimum flows.

Note that 7DMALF was calculated from “naturalised” flow data, whereby known takes were added back into the flow record by CRC prior to calculating 7DMALF. Naturalised flows are used in preference to recorded flows in this report, so that the 7DMALF low flow statistic provides a baseline unaffected by abstraction, to compare with current minimum flows, and to calculate recommended minimum flows for protection of ecological values. If recorded 7DMALF was used as a baseline for setting minimum flows, then there could be a progressive reduction in minimum flows during each flow review, resulting in reduced low flows and progressive decline in aquatic ecosystem health.

3.2 Recommended Minimum Flows Figure 2 and Table 2 compare current and recommended minimum flows for existing minimum flow sites in the catchment. It is clear from Figure 2 that current minimum flows are lower than recommended for protection of ecological values at many sites in the catchment. Figure 2 also shows that this trend is most evident for larger rivers (7DMALF >200 L/s), with 14 of the 17 larger rivers having lower than recommended minimum flows. In contrast, only two of the eight smaller rivers (7DMALF ≤200 L/s) had lower than recommended minimum flows.

The pattern of current minimum flows being lower than recommended for larger rivers, but not smaller rivers, is the reverse of the pattern reported by Golder (2011) for rivers in the same catchment. Thus, Golder (2011) found that existing minimum flows represented 66 % of 7DMALF for smaller rivers and 78 % of 7DMALF for larger rivers. Closer inspection of the data indicates that 7DMALF estimates have changed considerably at a number of sites since the Technical Panel work was undertaken a decade ago. Large differences between Technical Panel and recent 7DMALF estimates are evident for the Halswell River at Niels (increase from 636 to 956 L/s), the Halswell River at Ryans (increase from 515 to 760 L/s), and Birdlings Brook at Leggs (increase from 345 to 637 L/s). According to CRC hydrologists, a likely reason for this discrepancy in 7DMALF estimates is that current flow statistics are based on a more extensive flow



gauging database than was available for the Technical Panel work, plus the earlier 7DMALF estimates were likely based on recorded data, rather than the naturalised data used here.

Other notable patterns include the following:

Current minimum flows are less than 50 % of 7DMALF for 12 of the 25 sites with current minimum flows and 7DMALF estimates.

The Hororata River minimum flow of 30 L/s is particularly low relative to 7DMALF of 424 L/s. This is apparently because of complex hydrology in the vicinity of the recorder site, with natural flow losses and an existing large stockwater take in the immediate vicinity, plus flow gains from springs further downstream.

Doyleston Drain has a minimum flow of 60 L/s, which is very high compared to the 7DMALF of 6 L/s. This means that abstraction currently ceases at flows well above natural low flows.

Halswell River minimum flow sites: Current minimum flows are very low (24-55 % of 7DMALF).

Figure 2: Relationship between current and recommended minimum flows. Data points below the green diagonal line have current minimum flows that are lower than recommended for protection of ecological values.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Cur

rent

min

imum

flo

w (L

/s)

Recommended minimum f low (L/s)



Table 2: Current and recommended minimum flows for existing minimum flow sites.

Site 7DMALF

(L/s)

Current minimum Flow

(L/s)

Recommended minimum flow

(L/s)

Kaituna River at Kaituna Valley Rd* 35 60 32

Hawkins River at Willows-Dalethorpe Rd* 37 35 33

Selwyn River at Whitecliffs* 792 550 713

Selwyn River at Coes Ford* 750 600 675

Hororata River at Haldon Water Race Bridge* 424 30 382

Knights Creek at Jamiesons Property* 253 64 228

Halswell River at Leadleys Rd 582 230 407

Halswell River at Ryans Bridge 760 – 532

Halswell River at Tobecks Bridge 934 280 654

Halswell River at Niells Rd 926 510 648

Halswell River at Hodgens Bridge 1157 280 810

L-II River at Pannetts Rd 1820 – 1274

L-II River at Wolfes Rd 1771 560 1240

Baileys Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd* 13 40 12

Silverstream at Lincoln Leeston Rd* 88 60 79

Snake Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd* 70 30 63

Miles Drain at Pannets Rd* 14 30 13

Irwell River at Lake Rd 910 300 637

Hanmer Rd Drain at Lower Lake Rd 369 100 258

Boggy Creek at Lower Lake Rd* 290 100 261

Doyleston Drain at D/S The Lake Rd* 6 60 5

Birdlings Brook at Lochheads Rd 685 200 480

Birdlings Brook at Leggs Rd 637 150 446

Harts Creek at Lower Lake Rd 1068 1000 748

Harts Creek at Timber Yard Rd 1370 – 959

Waikekewai Creek at Taumutu Beach* 38 100 34

Lee River at Temoana 935 700 655

Jollies Brook at outlet to sea 424 360 297

Notes: “–“ indicates sites with flow recorders that currently have no minimum flow. “*” indicates flow-sensitive sites, as defined in Section 3.1.



3.3 Ecological State and Minimum Flows Ecological flow recommendations typically take into account the significance of the ecological values present and the flows required to sustain those values (Beca 2008). It may therefore be tempting to provide lower levels of protection (i.e., lower minimum flows) for streams that have relatively low ecological value. For example, the Irwell River and Doyleston Drain are both considered to currently have relatively low ecological value, and it could be argued that they should therefore have a lower proportion of 7DMALF as the minimum flow. For such rivers, a multitude of factors likely influence their current ecological state, including flow, water quality and quality of instream and riparian habitat (Golder 2011). Therefore, one of the problems with assigning a low level of protection based on current ecological condition is that if other factors such as water quality and habitat quality are improved, but flows remain low, then it is possible that improved ecological health will become limited by low flow.

Another locally-relevant example can be drawn from the lowland tributaries of the Selwyn River, including Snake Creek and Baileys Creek. These streams have provided significant spawning habitat for brown trout in the 1980s, but more recent observations in 2005 indicated that the streams suffer from low flows and heavy bed siltation (Taylor & Good 2006). Riparian protection and enhancement in these small streams could substantially improve instream habitat quality, as has been observed in nearby Harts Creek and Boggy Creek. However, low flows could prevent the restoration goals being realised, if there is insufficient depth and stream flow to support key ecological values such as trout spawning and adult eel habitat.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) has goals for setting environmental flows and improving water quality and biodiversity values in lowland streams. For example, one strategic goal is to have nutrient limits and good or improved ecological health in all lowland streams in the region by 2040. It is considered inappropriate here to recommend low minimum flows for degraded waterways in the Te Waihora catchment, given that improved ecological health is a strong directive of the CWMS, and because low minimum flows could thwart attempts to improve ecological health via other activities such as reduced nutrient concentrations, and improved riparian condition and instream habitat quality.

In summary, lower minimum flows are not recommended for degraded rivers in the Te Waihora catchment, as it could thwart attempts to improve overall ecosystem health by means such as improving riparian condition and keeping stock from rivers. Providing minimum flows of at least 70 to 90 % of naturalised 7DMALF, depending on the river type and sensitivity to flow change (Section 3.1) is considered to provide an appropriately high level of protection for the aquatic values present in the catchment. It is also consistent with recommendations based on the Technical Panel, habitat modelling, and the draft NES.

3.4 Priority Sites Ecological minimum flows recommended by Golder (2011) were proposed as a method for protecting water quality and habitat for aquatic species. Therefore, sites with lower than recommended minimum flows are more likely to be impacted by low flows than other sites. In addition, minimum flows will not protect rivers from the effects of cumulative groundwater abstraction or stream-depleting groundwater takes that are not tied to minimum flow restrictions. The sites at greatest ecological threat from low river flows are those with the biggest gap between current and recommended minimum flows, and where groundwater abstraction is not being limited by minimum flow restrictions or a suitable allocation limit. Degraded physical habitat and water quality will also impact on these sites, but flow is an essential requirement for aquatic species.

With regards to protection of ecological values, it would be preferable for all sites to have minimum flows at or above levels recommended in this report. However, it is acknowledged that CRC needs to balance potentially competing demands for water, and that there is therefore a need to prioritise issues. Therefore, for the purposes of setting management priorities, we have classified minimum flow sites as follows:

High priority: Current minimum flows are less than 50 % of 7DMALF

Moderate priority: Current minimum flows are below recommended, but above 50 % of 7DMALF



Low priority: Current minimum flows are at or above recommended levels

Figure 3 summarises these recommendations and shows that many minimum flows sites are a high priority for increasing minimum flows, because they currently fall below 50 % of 7DMALF. Although many of those high priority sites are not considered particularly flow-sensitive (i.e., the minimum flow recommendation is 70 to 90 % of 7DMALF), minimum flows below half of 7DMALF are considered too low to protect ecological values at even these less-sensitive sites. The use of 50 % as the high priority cut-off is based on expert judgement, but is also supported by research and expert opinion that has found a high risk of deleterious ecological effects if more than 40 % of 7DMALF is abstracted, regardless of the river type (Beca 2008). If minimum flows are not increased at these high risk sites, ecological values could still be improved via habitat and water quality improvements, but there is considerable risk that habitat and water quality enhancements will be unsuccessful if minimum flows remain low.

Figure 3: Current minimum flows expressed as a percentage of 7DMALF. Minimum flows below the dashed orange line are a moderate priority for increasing minimum flows, while bars falling below the solid red line indicate high priority sites. The left orange dashed line indicates flow-sensitive sites, while the lower dashed line indicates less flow-sensitive sites.

4.0 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING MINIMUM FLOW SITES 4.1 Background Many of the minimum flow sites in the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment lack flow recorders and are infrequently gauged. This means that it is difficult for existing water users to know when they should cease taking water due to minimum flow conditions being triggered. Furthermore, there has been little scrutiny as to whether the location of existing minimum flow sites adequately protect the aquatic values present in the catchment, and CRC is interested to know whether the total number of minimum flow sites could be reduced.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Kaitu

na R

iver

at K

aitu

na V

alle

y Rd

Haw

kins

Riv

er a

t Will

ows-

…

Selw

yn R

iver

at W

hite

cliff

s

Selw

yn R

iver

at C

oes F

ord

Hor

orat

a Ri

ver a

t Hal

don

Wat

er …

Knig

hts C

reek

at J

amie

sons

…

Baile

ys C

reek

at L

inco

ln L

eest

on R

d

Silv

erst

ream

at L

inco

ln L

eest

on R

d

Snak

e C

reek

at L

inco

ln L

eest

on R

d

Mile

s Dra

in a

t Pan

nets

Rd

Bogg

y Cre

ek a

t Low

er L

ake

Rd

Doy

lest

on D

rain

at D

/S T

he L

ake

Rd

Wai

keke

wai

Cre

ek a

t Tau

mut

u …

Hal

swel

l Riv

er a

t Lea

dley

s Rd

Hal

swel

l Riv

er a

t Rya

ns B

ridge

Hal

swel

l Riv

er a

t Tob

ecks

Brid

ge

Hal

swel

l Riv

er a

t Nie

lls R

d

Hal

swel

l Riv

er a

t Hod

gens

Brid

ge

L-II

Rive

r at P

anne

tts R

d

L-II

Rive

r at W

olfe

s Rd

Irwel

l Riv

er a

t Lak

e Rd

Han

mer

Rd

Dra

in a

t Low

er L

ake

Rd

Bird

lings

Bro

ok a

t Loc

hhea

ds R

d

Bird

lings

Bro

ok a

t Leg

gs R

d

Har

ts C

reek

at L

ower

Lak

e Rd

Har

ts C

reek

at T

imbe

r Yar

d Rd

Lee

Rive

r at T

emoa

na

Jolli

es B

rook

at o

utle

t to s

ea

% 7

DM

ALF



Golder ecology staff met with CRC hydrology staff to discuss the results of recent hydrological investigations and to assess the adequacy of number and location of existing minimum flow sites. This initially involved hydrology staff scrutinising correlations between primary recorder sites and minimum flow sites without flow recorders to see whether flows at non-recorder sites could be represented or monitored by recorder sites. Then Golder ecologists looked at the distribution of minimum flow sites to evaluate whether they adequately covered the streams and associated ecological values present in the catchment.

4.2 Geographic Coverage Permanent flow recorders are present on three rivers in the upper catchment, six rivers in the lower catchment, and there is a flow recorder on one Banks Peninsula River (Table 3). Although there are numerous minimum flow sites with no permanent flow recorders, most of these sites have flows correlated to varying degrees with permanent recorder sites, as summarised in Table 3 below. Clark (2011) recommended that the degree of correlation between some sites was sufficient that minimum flows could be effectively managed from a recorder site on another river. For other rivers with a poorer correlation with a recorder site (typically an r² of <0.8), Clark (2011) recommended that the flow recorder could be used to indicate when flows are likely to approach the minimum flow, which would be verified by a physical gauging at the minimum flow site.

The only sites that were not correlated with recorder site were the L-II River at Moirs and the Lee River at Te Moana. Clark (2011) indicated that multiple inflowing spring sources between the flow recorder at Pannets Road and the minimum flow site was a possible reason for the poor correlation between the L-II Moirs Road site and the flow recorder. The Lee River at Te Moana has few gaugings over a narrow range of flows, which is the likely reason for its poor correlation with the flow recorder at Brooklands (Clark 2011). Further gaugings over a wider range of flows may improve the correlation between the Te Moana and Brooklands sites on the Lee River.



Table 3: Sites with permanent flow recorders and sites with flows correlated to recorder site flows. Adapted from Clark (2011). Recorder site Minimum flow sites correlated with recorder site R²

Upper catchment Selwyn River at Whitecliffs Hawkins River at Willows Hororata River at Mitchells Rd Hororata at Downstream of Haldon Intake 0.90 Lower Catchment

Halswell River at Ryans Bridge

Knights Creek at Jamiesons Halswell River at Tobecks Rd Halswell River at Leadleys Rd* Halswell River at Niells Rd*

0.85 0.88 0.81 0.70

L-II River at Pannets Rd L-II River at Wolfes Road 0.87

Selwyn River at Coes Ford

Irwell River at The Lake Rd* Halswell River at Hodgens* Miles Drain at Pannets Rd* Snake Stream at Lincoln-Leeston Rd* Silverstream at Lincoln-Leeston Rd*

0.81 0.85 0.77 0.89 0.92

Doyleston Drain at The Lake Rd

Boggy Creek at The Lake Rd Hanmer Rd Drain at The Lake Rd Baileys Creek at Lincoln-Leeston Rd* Taumutu Creek at Taumutu Beach*

0.92 0.88 0.77 0.63

Harts Creek at Timber Yard Rd Birdlings Brook at Lochheads Rd Birdlings Brook at Leggs Rd Harts Creek at Leeston-Lake Rd

0.89 0.92 0.98

Lee River at Brooklands Jollies Brook at piped outfall* Lee River at Te Moana (subject to further gaugings to confirm)*

0.63 Not

available Banks Peninsula Kaituna River Notes: * Indicates a relatively poor correlation with recorder site flows at the time of writing, particularly at low flows. The R² value indicates how close the relationship is. A R² value close to 1 indicates a close correlation, with little scatter, a value close to 0 indicates a weak correlation, with a great deal of scatter.

Overall, the existing flow recorders in the Te Waihora catchment provide good geographic coverage of the range of river types and ecological values present. Key ecological values in the upper catchment include Canterbury mudfish in the Hororata River area and brown trout in the Selwyn River, and both rivers have permanent flow recorders. The lower Selwyn River is particularly valued as a trout fishery and has a permanent flow recorder, whilst most lowland rivers are valued eel fisheries and many also provide trout habitat, including adult, juvenile and spawning habitat. Based on the flow correlations undertaken by CRC, flows at most minimum flow sites in the lower catchment can be predicted using existing flow recorder sites. It is therefore concluded that the range of ecological values present in the Te Waihora catchment is adequately covered by existing flow recorder sites, either directly or indirectly via correlation with a recorder site.



4.3 Reduction of Minimum Flow Sites Many minimum flow sites in the Te Waihora catchment do not have flow recorders and were historically seldom gauged, so CRC is interested in reducing the number of minimum flow sites. Based on the flow correlations summarised in Table 3, it is clear that flows at a number of sites without recorders can be represented by “core” minimum flow sites with flow recorders. However, while the use of “core” minimum flow sites would help monitor the cumulative effects of groundwater abstraction, it would not monitor localised effects of groundwater or surface water abstraction.

Golder (2011) suggested a dual minimum flow regime for the Te Waihora catchment, with core minimum flow indicator sites that have permanent flow recorders and that all sites with similar hydrological conditions are tied to, plus minimum flows for each river that does not have a permanent flow recorder. Under such a system, sites without flow recorders would have two minimum flows: one that is tied to a core site and one that is based on flows in the individual river. Clark (2011) suggested an alternative tiered approach, with minimum flow sites being moved to a recorder site if flows were closely correlated between the two sites. For sites with a weaker correlation to a recorder, Clark (2011) suggested that when flows at the recorder site get close to minimum flow conditions, this acts as a trigger for CRC staff to gauge the site without a flow recorder to check if it is at or approaching minimum flow conditions.

We recommend against significantly reducing the number of minimum flow sites in the catchment, and suggest that the regression equations provided by Clark (2011) can be used by consent holders to monitor flows at recorder sites and infer what the flow is likely to be at the minimum flow site closest to their water take. As flows approach minimum flow conditions based on correlation with the recorder site flows, this would trigger either CRC or the consent holder to gauge river flow at their minimum flow site, to ensure that the minimum flow condition is being complied with. Using the example shown in Figure 4, this approach would protect against abstraction reducing flows to unacceptably low levels in smaller tributaries (Site “A” in Figure 4) or separate waterways (Site “B”) from the flow recorder site. In contrast, if all sites with a correlation to a flow recorder were solely managed by flows measured at the recorder site, it is conceivable that localised effects of abstraction would be undetected, which could have consequences for river drying, water quality, and habitat.

Figure 4: Schematic showing minimum flow sites on smaller tributaries (Site "A") and different rivers altogether (Site "B") from the river where the flow recorder is located. Abstraction could result in adverse effects on river flow at these minimum flow sites if their flows are only monitored at the flow recorder site.

Lake

Flow recorder

Minimum flow site “B”

Minimum flow site “A”



The proposed approach to managing minimum flows means there would be no reduction in the number of minimum flow sites, and would in fact allow for additional minimum flow sites to be created if new takes occur on tributaries that currently lack a minimum flow site nearby. To protect ecological values, we recommend that minimum flows indexed to naturalised 7DMALF (see Section 3.1 above) are applied to any new surface or hydraulically connected groundwater takes from rivers that currently lack minimum flows. The consent applicant would need to undertake sufficient flow gaugings on the tributary to establish a relationship with a recorder site, so that 7DMALF can be estimated at the new site, and so that flows can be monitored by an existing flow recorder site.

5.0 SUMMARY This report has summarised ecological values present at existing minimum flows sites, recommended minimum flows for each minimum flow site, and has discussed the adequacy of existing minimum flow sites to protect aquatic ecology. The following bullet points summarise key points in this report:

Despite widespread habitat degradation and frequently elevated nutrient concentrations, most minimum flow sites support a range of native fish species and brown trout, and may be considered to have at least moderate ecological value.

Sites with high ecological value include Prices Stream and Kaituna River, which drain Banks Peninsula and are characterised by stony beds, healthy invertebrate fauna, and the presence of threatened native fish such as longfin eel, inanga and lamprey. The hill-fed Selwyn River and its tributaries, the Hawkins and Horarata Rivers are also considered to have high ecological value, again due to the predominantly silt-free stony bed sediments, healthy invertebrate populations, and the presence of acutely threatened Canterbury mudfish populations in the upper catchment. Harts Creek is one of the few spring-fed lowland streams that is considered to have high ecological values, as it supports brown trout spawning and adult trout habitat, plus has a diverse native fish fauna, and has received substantial riparian enhancement and protection.

Minimum flow sites with relatively low ecological value include Baileys Stream, Snake Creek, Miles Drain, the Irwell River, and Doyleston Drain. All of these waterways have significant sedimentation and many have low flows.

Current minimum flows are lower than recommended for protection of ecological values at many sites in the catchment. For example, minimum flows are less than 50 % of 7DMALF for 12 of the 25 sites with current minimum flows and 7DMALF estimates.

Sites with minimum flows less than 50 % of 7DMALF are considered priorities for increasing minimum flows.

It is considered inappropriate to recommend low minimum flows for degraded waterways in the catchment, given that improved ecological health is a strong directive of the CWMS, and because low minimum flows could thwart attempts to improve ecological health via other activities such as reduced nutrient concentrations, and improved riparian condition and instream habitat quality.

The range of ecological values present in the Te Waihora catchment is considered adequately covered by existing flow recorder sites, either directly (i.e., the minimum flow site has a flow recorder) or indirectly, via correlation with a recorder site.

We recommend against reducing the number of minimum flow sites in the catchment, now that it has been shown that most minimum flow sites have some degree of correlation with a recorder site. The regression equations provided by Clark (2011) can be used by consent holders to monitor flows at recorder sites and infer what the flow is likely to be at the minimum flow site closest to their water take.



6.0 REFERENCES Booker DJ, Graynoth E 2008. Instream habitat and flow regime requirements for Birdlings Brook, the Halswell River, Harts Creek, and the Lee River. Report prepared by NIWA for Environment Canterbury, Environment Canterbury Report No. U08/51.

Booker DJ, Graynoth E 2008: Instream habitat & flow regime requirements in the Lower Selwyn River. Report prepared by NIWA for Environment Canterbury, Environment Canterbury Report No. U08/8, February 2008.

Burrell GP 2007. Evidence of Gregory Peter Burrell in relation to resource consent applications to the Canterbury Regional Council for water permits to abstract groundwater from the Selwyn-Waimakariri Groundwater Zone, July 2007.

Clark D 2011. Rationalisation of minimum flow sites in the Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora catchment. Environment Canterbury memorandum from Dan Clark to Alastair Picken, August 2011.

Golder 2011. Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment: ecological values and flow requirements. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council. Golder Report No. 0978110119, May 2011.

Golder 2012. Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment: ecological impacts of increasing flow allocation. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council. Golder Report No. 0978110119, March 2012.

Jellyman D, Graynoth E 2010. The importance of tributary streams of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in maintaining populations of longfin eels. Prepared for Environment Canterbury, NIWA Report No. CHC2010-0, June 2010.

Kingett Mitchell Limited 2006. Central plains water enhancement scheme: effects of construction, damming, diversion and water use on benthic ecology. Report prepared for URS, Report No. URSNZ-CHC-004, September 2006.

Kingett Mitchell Limited 2006. Central plains water enhancement scheme: effects of construction, damming, diversion and water use on fish and recreation. Report prepared for URS, Report No. URSNZ-CHC-004, September 2006.

Kingett Mitchell Limited 2006. Leeston North subdivision AEE. Prepared for Connell Wagner, Report No. CONWA-CAN-002, September 2006.

Langlands P, Elley R. 2000. Survey of salmonid distribution and habitats in the Canterbury Region. Environment Canterbury Report U00/31.

Larned ST 2006. Statement of evidence of Scott Thomas Larned in relation to applications for water permits to take and use groundwater in the Rakaia Selwyn groundwater allocation zone.

Maw RK 2007. Planning report on the review of the environmental minimum flow and water allocation for Knights Creek, the Halswell River, the LII River, the Kaituna River and Prices Stream. Environment Canterbury Report U07/61.

Taylor M, Good M 2006. Brown trout spawning in the Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora) tributaries, and some surrounding catchments. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council. Report No. U06/79. 129p.


June 2012 Report No. 0978110119-002-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A Report Limitations



REPORT LIMITATIONS This Document has been provided by Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following limitations:

(i). This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no

responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.

(ii). The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject

to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.

(iii). Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was

retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.

(iv). In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided

in this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.

(v). Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published

sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

(vi). Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,

have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

(vii). The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder to

provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services and work done by all of its subconsultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golder’s affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.

(viii). This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional

advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document.



APPENDIX B Technical Panel Value Scores



Minimum Flow Site Trout Native fish

Indigenous vegetation

Natural character

General amenity

Mahinga kai Mauri Wāhi tapu & wāhi

taonga Aquatic habitats

Knights Stream 3 5 3 1 3 3 3 Present 3

Halswell R @ Leadleys 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 Present upstream 3 Halswell R @ Branthwaites 1 3 1 1 2 5 3 Present upstream 3 Halswell R @ Ryans 4 5 1 3 4 5

Present locally 4

Halswell @ Tobecks 4 5 2 1 1 5 3 - 4 Halswell R @ Neills 3 3 1 1 1 5

- 3

LII River @ Moirs 2 1 1 2 3 5 1 - 1 LII River @ Pannetts 5 5 1 3 3 5 3 Absent 5 Bailey's Ck @ Lincoln-Leeston Rd 1 3 1 1 1

3 1

McGraths Ck @ Lincoln-Leeston Rd 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 Not ranked 4 Snakes Ck @ Lincoln-Leeston Rd 1 2

1 1

Present 1

Silverstream Ck @ Lincoln-Leeston Rd 2 1 1 3 3 5 3 Present 1 Silverstream @ Selwyn R Confl. 2 3 1 3 3 5 5 Present 1 Selwyn R@Coes Ford 4 4 1 4 3 5 5 Present 4 Miles Dr @ Pannetts Rd 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Not ranked 1 Kaituna River 1 3 2 4 1 5 5 Not present 2 Prices Stream 1 3 2 3 3 5 1 Present 1 Birdlings Brook @ Locheads Rd 3 5 2 4 4 3 5 1

Harts Creek @ Timberyard Road 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 Present

Parkin Drain @ Taumutu Rd 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 Present downstream

Waikekewai Creek @ Marae 1 5 3 3 4 5 5 Present upstream

Taumutu Creek @ Beach 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 Present upstream

Lee River @ Brooklands 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 Present upstream



Minimum Flow Site Trout Native fish

Indigenous vegetation

Natural character

General amenity

Mahinga kai Mauri Wāhi tapu & wāhi

taonga Aquatic habitats

Tentburn @ Beachcroft 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1

Jollies Brook @ Bullocks Rd 3 5 2 2 3 5 3 Present downstream

The above table summary is adapted from a series of unpublished draft CRC reports produced as part of an initial review of minimum flows for rivers in the catchment. The review used an Technical Panel assembled specifically for the catchment flow review process, with expertise in the areas of trout, native fish, general aquatic habitat, general amenity, indigenous vegetation, and Maori values. The Technical Panel visited streams during low flow conditions in summer 2003 and 2005, and ranked each waterway according to the values it supported. Each panellist then used their professional judgement to recommend the minimum flow required to sustain a given instream value. We converted panellist “value” scores to numbers from 1 to 5, with a “low” score receiving a 1, “moderate” receiving a 3, and “high” value receiving a score of 5. Blank cells indicate where data was not collected for that site and value combination.

AfricaAsiaAustralia &New ZealandEuropeNorth AmericaSouth America

[email protected]

+ 27 11 254 4800+ 852 2562 3658

+ 61 7 3721 5400+ 44 356 21 42 30 20+ 1 800 275 3281+ 55 21 3095 9500

At Golder Associates we strive to be the most respected global company providing consulting, design, and construction services in earth, environment, and related areas of energy. Employee owned since our formation in 1960, our focus, unique culture and operating environment offer opportunities and the freedom to excel, which attracts the leading specialists in our fields. Golder professionals take the time to build an understanding of client needs and of the specific environments in which they operate. We continue to expand our technical capabilities and have experienced steady growth with employees who operate from offices located throughout Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America, and South America.

TAURANGA

Tel +64 7 928 5335 Fax +64 7 928 5336

78 Maunganui Road Tauranga 3116

PO Box 13611Tauranga CentralTauranga 3141

CHRISTCHURCH

Tel +64 3 377 5696Fax +64 3 377 9944

Level 1132 Tuam StreetChristchurch 8011

PO Box 2281Christchurch 8140

DUNEDIN

Tel +64 3 479 0390 Fax +64 3 474 9642

Level 9AJohn Wickliffe House265 Princes StreetDunedin 9016

PO Box 1087Dunedin 9054

NELSON

Tel +64 3 548 1707Fax +64 3 548 1727

Level 3295 Trafalgar StreetNelson 7010

PO Box 1724Nelson 7040

HAMILTON

Tel +64 7 928 5335Fax +64 7 928 5336

Ruakura AgResearch CentreRoom 31 in the HomesteadEast StreetHamilton 3214

PO Box 19-479Hamilton 3244

AUCKLAND

Tel +64 9 486 8068Fax +64 9 486 8072

Level 2Nielsen Centre129 Hurstmere RoadTakapunaAuckland 0622

PO Box 33-849Takapuna 0740

Document_back.ai 1 23/02/2012 3:49:37 p.m.

Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere Ecological Values and Flow...

Documents

Transcript of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere Ecological Values and Flow...