Submission on the Draft Selwyn Waihora Zone Implementation Programme On behalf of North Canterbury Fish and Game Council 3 Horatio Street Christchurch Contact: Tony Hawker Email: [email protected] Ph: 03 366 9191 General comment Fish and Game (F&G) have been heavily involved in the CWMS. Particularly in the later stages, with the development of the guiding principles and targets. We have also been involved with the formulation of the Hurunui/Waiau ZIP. The Selwyn Waihora Zone is of significant importance to the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council. It currently has the two most fished rivers in New Zealand – the Waimakariri and Rakaia. The zone is also blessed with many high country lakes which also boast popular fisheries. Unfortunately the lowland brown trout fisheries in the zone have suffered a dramatic collapse. The Selwyn for example used to be described as a world class fishery and contained 65,000 spawning fish in 1949. The decline as been continuously monitored throughout the decades and concludes with only 257 spawning fish trapped in 2007. The long term location of the trap had to be shifted downstream in 2007 because there simply was not enough water for fish passage. Anglers have suffered huge losses in this zone as a result of land use activities such as water takes, nutrient discharges, stock damage to waterways and wetland drainage. Despite this the zone still contains some outstanding angling and recreational opportunities. However, all of these are potentially at risk from further intensified land use or inappropriate water storage and flow regimes. We therefore take great interest in the recommendations contained in this ZIP. F&G are largely supportive of the content of this ZIP. The biodiversity and restoration recommendations are of sufficient detail to offer some real guidance to local and regional authorities and landowners alike. The ZIP also covers many target areas of the CWMS. Our only real criticism of the ZIP is two issues which we don’t believe is being adequately addressed: •
•
Nutrient management Funding structure for all the restoration projects, research and trials. Nutrient management Unfortunately unless nutrient discharge is capped immediately there is going to be irreversible damage occurring by intensified land use in the Zone. We are on the eve of two very large irrigation schemes getting processed (CPW and TP). The consenting of these schemes would allow tens of thousands of hectares of additional intensified land use. The lowland streams in the zone already have elevated levels of nitrogen beyond what is recommended for ecosystem protection. Many lowland streams are now unsuitable for contact recreation. Even the popular Coes Ford picnic area on the Selwyn River is off limits for swimming most summers because of phormidium outbreaks as a result of high concentrations of nitrogen and reduced flows. What is most concerning is the deteriorating state of our waterways today, is a result of past land use activity because of the lag phase between applying nutrients in the upper plain and the nutrients leaching into waterways at the bottom of the catchment. In some areas we are looking at nutrient levels as a result of land use activity form 30 years ago. Once we see the nutrient discharge coming through from the recent dairy boom there may be little chance of restoring our lowland waterways or Te Waihora. It is obvious that an immediate cap needs to be placed on any further land use intensification as a first step to try and reduce nutrient loads. The Selwyn Waihora Zone simply cannot allow the proposed irrigation schemes to go ahead without first introducing nutrient limits that are sustainable. Although F&G support many of the restoration initiatives in the ZIP, many of them will be pointless unless current land use practices are addressed and no new intensified land use takes place. Funding structure for restoration projects. The ZIP has a detailed set of recommendations in relation to research, trials and restoration projects. While most of this is viewed as positive from F&G, we submit that it is totally unrealistic to expect the ratepayers to front up for the costs to implement these recommendations. There is no mention in the ZIP of funding methods. We submit that the ZC needs to investigate some sort of resource rental for water use that would allow adequate funding to undertake the restoration projects. Ratepayers should not be asked to fund projects to restore waterways that have deteriorated as a result of effects caused by one sector of society. F&G have also become aware of the difficulty the Environment Canterbury (ECan) is going to have trying to enforce NRRP rules on stock exclusion because of their funding structure. Currently ECan’s enforcement staff only have the capacity for reactionary matters, mainly resulting from complaints through the pollution hotline. The requirement for landowners to fence stock out needs to be handled proactively, with prioritisation of catchments according to their values. F&G would like the ZC to consider an implementation plan on how the stock exclusion rules are going to enforced as it seems that ECan currently don’t have the capacity to do this under the current structure. Specific comments on sections of the ZIP 2.1 Water Resources For the Selwyn River the description states that the lower reaches is popular for swimming, camping and picnicking. This is not a reflection of the state of the Selwyn for the last 13 years. This river used to be popular for those activities. However, phormidium outbreaks have rendered the Selwyn River unsuitable for contact recreation in most summers. The Waimakariri and Rakaia River sections have no mention of their importance nationally as salmon fisheries. It is because of the outstanding fishery in the Rakaia that anglers and hunters successfully applied for and gained a Water Conservation Order (WCO). The paragraph in relation to the stock water races does not make sense. Please clarify what is meant by “This network also faces pressure from others such as recreational, fisheries, and wildlife users”. Are you meaning that the races are used by these groups or that these groups want the races shut down? Also please explain what is meant by “wildlife users”. Recommendations Nutrient Management Recommendation 1.13 Support the prosecution of significant non‐compliance and/repetitive non‐compliance, that is financially meaningful and cost effective to carry out. F&G oppose this recommendation. Prosecutions should be sought on offences that cause significant or repetitive adverse effects on the environment. Prosecution is a deterrent for non‐compliance. The cost is irrelevant. Relief sought: Amend recommendation 1.13 as follows: Support the prosecution of significant non‐compliance and/repetitive non‐compliance, that is financially meaningful and cost effective to carry out. F&G are disappointed that the ZIP does not offer enough guidance to ECan in regards to nutrient limits. Almost all of the lowland streams in the zone have nitrogen levels many times over the recommended eco‐toxicity limits for 95% of protection of aquatic species (1.7mg/L). It is obvious that the Zone cannot support any further increase in intensified land use, yet the ZIP does not recommended any measures to address this. There needs to be an immediate cap placed on the current nutrient load and an implementation plan to reduce the amount of nutrients entering the lowland streams. F&G also recommend that the ZC identify some outcomes that they seek from the nutrient levels that will be set over the next 12 months. The following is some examples that would define what the limits should be: •
•
•
•
All streams in the zone to have nitrogen levels below the level required for 95% protection of aquatic species (1.7mg/L). All streams in the zone to be suitable for contact recreation (as per MFE guidelines) at all times. No toxic algae outbreaks on any streams in the zone All streams in the zone to comply with the NRRP periphyton limits Water supply Recommendations 2.4 and 2.5 F&G support the concept that surface water would first be used to replace inappropriate groundwater takes. F&G request that it is made explicit that any new irrigation will have to comply with nutrient loads. Recommendation 2.7 F&G support this recommendation. However, the reality is far different. Trustpower are proceeding with a scheme that does not meet First Priority Principles under the CWMS. The process has been very unsatisfactory and stakeholders and NGOs remained sceptical about the the effectiveness of Zone Committees while developers are allowed to proceed in an adversarial way. Recommendations 3.1 ‐ 3.4 F&G support these recommendations but would like to include “controls on land use” to recommendation 3.2. The continuation of unregulated land use that we see currently will undermine what the ZC is trying to achieve. Recommendation 3.5 F&G do not support this recommendation. Despite some good riparian planting these streams remain severely degraded. Both have eco‐toxic levels of nitrogen that effect the incubation period of sports fish and indigenous species. Initial studies by F&G indicate that survival rates of trout alevin in Boggy Creek maybe affected by water quality. Recommendation 3.6 F&G support this but would also request the considering of restoration to the river substrate (eg. silt removal) to be added. Recommendation 3.7 F&G would like to see an amendment to this recommendation to reflect the need to restore more natural flow regimes to our lowland streams. Suggested amendment: Support the maintenance of the natural flow regime and character in smaller tributaries and the enhancement of flows where they have been degraded to unacceptable levels. Recommendation 3.8 F&G support this recommendation. However, the NRRP rules do not apply to the Waimakariri catchment. This is because the Waimakariri catchment is covered by the Waimakariri River Regional Plan (WRRP). Unfortunately the WRRP does not have rules preventing stock entering waterways. This needs to be rectified to ensure that the Selwyn/Waihora Zone has consistent rules across the zone. Also, the NRRP rules do not have any guidance on an appropriate buffer or riparian zone for fencing out stock. F&G submit that this needs to be added to the NRRP rule when the Land and Water Plan is developed. Braided Rivers, High Country, Upper Plains Recommendation 4.1 F&G fully support this recommendation Recommendation 4.2 F&G request that salmonids are also included in this recommendation. This would be consistent with the CWMS target around protection of salmon spawning sites. Also most of the advocacy and restoration in high country waterways is undertaken by F&G. This has had benefits to both native and introduced species. Recommendation 4.3 F&G support this recommendation but would also like to request that it does not just apply to lakes but also high country streams. It also needs to be clearer what is meant by “manage land use”. It may actually be more appropriate to have another recommendation specifically managing high country spring creeks and controls on land use to manage fertiliser run off, stock access, drainage and sediment control. Recommendation 4.8 F&G are pleased to see this recommendation but submit that it needs clarification. For example most of our work plan is opposing irrigation schemes such as CPW and Trustpower. The current wording suggests that the ZC would support this opposition. F&G consider that for matters of habitat improvement and fisheries enhancement, it would be appropriate to have ZC support Recommendation 4.11 F&G support his recommendation but fear it will be undermined unless the Trustpower variation to the WCO is stopped immediately. Recommendation 4.12 F&G oppose this recommendation. The Rakaia River mouth should not close. If closures do become more frequent then there is a problem with the abstraction and flow regime that would have to be resolved. This could best be achieved by ensuring prolonged periods of low flow are made no worse than what occurs presently. We would not support consents to artificially open the mouth as a means to mitigate mouth closures. Recommendations 4.14 & 4.16 F&G support this recommendation. Biodiversity Recommendation 5.6 F&G support this recommendation. However, the NRRP rules do not apply to the Waimakariri catchment. This is because the Waimakariri catchment is covered by the Waimakariri River Regional Plan (WRRP). Unfortunately the WRRP does not have rules preventing stock entering waterways. This needs to be rectified to ensure that the Selwyn/Waihora Zone has consistent rules across the zone. Recommendation 5.12 F&G support this recommendation Fish and Game would like to thank the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee for their effort to date and the opportunity that Fish and Game has had to engage with the ZC and provide formal comment. We look forward to working with the ZC in the near future. Tony Hawker Environment Officer North Canterbury Fish and Game Council