Responses to information requests

1759C - Letter dated 20 December 2019 requesting information on herbicide use in public places and areas controlled by Council.

The Canterbury Regional Council (CRC) owns land across the Canterbury Region, which is primarily endowment land for the purposes of Soil Conservation and Rivers Control. These areas include both the beds of rivers, and land in the river margins or flood plains.

Some of this land is leased for farming, some land is leased for recreational purposes while other areas are managed for conservation values and as Regional Parks including the Ashley Rakahuri Regional Park, Waimakariri River Regional Park and the Lake Tekapo Regional Park. Riverbed land is also maintained for the purposes of flood protection and erosion control.

Apart from the leased land, the land owned by the Council is freely publicly accessible, and public do have access to certain recreational leases.

One of the questions posed in the request relates to areas that children can play. There are no dedicated playgrounds within the non-leased CRC-owned land, however the regional parks are recreational spaces that children can play within, and McLeans Island has recreational spaces such as Orana Park and Steam Scene that have playgrounds.

Recreational and Farming Lessees are responsible for meeting biosecurity and weed control obligations within their lease blocks. We do not have any specific data on the means for carrying out this weed control and by whom.

Within the conservation areas, CRC engages contractors to carry out weed control to protect and preserve conservation values. This has been discussed further below. There are three sections (or their contractors) within the CRC who apply herbicides onto CRC-owned land – The River Engineering Section, the Regional Parks Section and the Asset Services Section. River Engineering are responsible for managing flooding and erosion within river rating districts, some of which include CRC-owned land. The Regional Parks section are responsible for the operation of the three Regional Parks in Canterbury, and the Asset Services section are responsible for managing the CRC land that is leased. The response to the questions has been split across these three sections for clarity.

1. What guidelines does the Council use for the application of glyphosate-based herbicide (eg Roundup products) on Council owned land, by both council staff and contractors?

ENGINEERING: The River Engineering section uses glyphosate-based herbicides to control weed growth in riverbeds and berms. The use of glyphosate is governed by Resource Consents CRC981580 and CRC041535. Copies of these resource consents are available on the Environment Canterbury website. One requirement of these consents is that spray operations are carried out in accordance with the conditions of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for the substance under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and in accordance with a spray handbook. A copy of the spray handbook has been attached, and the conditions of approval by the EPA for Glyphosate can be found on the EPA website (https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/hazardous-substances/rules-for-hazardous-substances/controls-for-hazardous-substances/).

PARKS: All operations adhere to manufacturer’s specifications and additional care taken around wet areas with herbicide application kept >2m back from waterways and no direct application except in situations where a permit has been gained to treat macrophytes.

ASSET SERVICES: Spraying on reserve land to control plant pests is contracted to a suitably qualified and experienced contractor.

2. Does the Council limit the use of glyphosate in areas that children play?

ENGINEERING: Engineering use of glyphosate is in riverbeds and berms which would not be considered high use areas for children to play, therefore we do not specifically limit glyphosate use in these areas.

PARKS: Yes, our public areas are mowed with minimal spraying. This includes bollard fencing, park benches and tables which are line-trimmed. There is some spraying around park infrastructure, but this is minimised. We do not have playgrounds.

3. Has Council formally considered a spray-free streets and parks policy in the last 5 years? If so, what was considered and what decision was made?

PARKS: No. most of our space is not ‘public recreation’ focused but rather wild space with open access. Weed control is minimal and we are mowing as much as we can afford currently. ‘Spray free’ would not be an option economically.

4. Does the Council use steam weeding, hot water/foam, ‘natural’ spray products, and/or mechanical alternatives to glyphosate-based herbicides, and if so what percentage of weed control by each of the alternatives is used?

ENGINEERING: No, we do no use steam weeding or hot water/foam. We have recently transitioned away from an organosilicon surfactant to a canola oil-based surfactant. We have also used mulching or mowing more than spraying around our willow and poplar nurseries and along some drain banks near mahinga kai sites. We do not have an accurate figure of the percentage of areas treated by the alternative methods as the overall areas to be managed will fluctuate year to year across the Region and not specifically on just CRC owned land. However, it will be a very small percentage of the total area over which we are managing vegetation across the Region.

PARKS: No, we do not use steam weeding or hot water/foam. Majority of weed control is via mechanical means as opposed to chemical means.
ASSET SERVICES: No, we do not use steam weeding or hot water/foam.

5. Does the Council or its contractors have the equipment to carry out steam, hot water/foam weeding? What is owned by Council and what by its contractors?

No, Engineering, Parks and Asset Services, do not have this equipment and nor do any of their contractors.

6. Does Council keep records of pesticides including herbicide volumes used annually, if so, could these be supplied. If more comprehensive records are not maintained, what quantity of glyphosate-based herbicides does the Council and its contractors use each year on Council owned land?

ENGINEERING: Supplied is the record of the quantities of herbicide procured for our spray programme. These full amounts are assumed to have been used over the course of the year for which they were ordered. HOWEVER, this is for all areas that Engineering operate within over the Canterbury Region, the quantity of herbicide used on Council owned land will be a small proportion of this total amount.

PARKS: CRC maintenance season runs between September and February. Over this period 10L of Glyphosate and 500mls of Organosilicon will is typically used.
The Weed Control contract uses:

• Drill & inject pest tree control, approx. 48L p.a. (it uses around 2L per hour of tree kill work)
• Spraying regrowth patches, approx. 10L p.a.
• Cut and paste, approx. 5L p.a. gel-based herbicide usually ‘Kiwicare’ glyphosate for cut stump treatment.

The planting maintenance contract uses:

• 30L between August and November
• 20L between January and March

ASSET SERVICES: This information is not kept.

7. Does Council differentiate vegetation control methods between areas open to the public and other Council owned land?

ENGINEERING: All areas that Engineering control vegetation are open to the public.

PARKS: Not really- we mow the public high-use space but spray plantings etc in a consistent manner between the public high-use and wider areas.

ASSET SERVICES : Lease holders are responsible for carrying out any maintenance on their leased land and we have no direct oversight as to whether there is a difference between the publicly accessible land vs farmed leases that are not publicly accessible.

8. Does Council use glyphosate-based herbicides for aquatic and surrounds vegetation control? What other herbicides are used in aquatic and surrounds vegetation control?

ENGINEERING: Yes glyphosate, triclopyr, diquat + surfactants are used to control vegetation in and around waterways in accordance with the conditions of our resource consents which authorise their use around waterways.

PARKS: Not regularly as a parks team. More likely to use mechanical control or offset control until the dry period between January-February.

ASSET SERVICES: Yes, glyphosate is used for spraying around restoration planting areas, not typically near water but may occasionally include spraying near watercourses where riparian planting has occurred.

9. What monitoring of herbicides residues is undertaken by Council or other agencies in public residential areas, aquifers, drinking-water source points and water supplies controlled by Council? Please supply results of all such monitoring.

Regional groundwater quality monitoring

The CRC carries out a regional survey of pesticides in groundwater about every ten years. Around 100 wells across the region are tested for a broad suite of pesticides and herbicides (not specifically just drinking water supply points). Our latest survey occurred between Oct 2018 and March 2019, where we sampled 77 wells. A brief memo summarising the results of this survey has been provided (see document C19C/154983 (PDF File, 683.67KB)). The report summarising the results of the previous survey in 2008 are provided (see document C08C/88949 (DOC File, 2.34MB)). The surveys are spaced so far apart because we never find more than a few detections, and generally at very low concentrations, so more frequent surveys aren’t warranted.

The CRC also participates in a national survey of pesticides in groundwater every four years. We contribute six wells to the survey each time. The latest survey was in 2018, and a report on that survey has been provided (see document C19C/165943 (PDF File, 1.54MB)). Crown Research Institute ESR coordinates this national survey, so further data or reports on the national pesticide survey can be obtained from ESR.

In addition to the regional and national pesticide surveys, the have been other ad hoc tests of groundwater. The data from the CRC’s well monitoring data from the last five years along with the regional survey data has been provided in the attached spreadsheets (“Copy of 2008 Pesticide Results” and “Copy of Pesticide Survey 2019 lab results”).

Regional Surface Water Monitoring

There is currently no routine programme for pesticide testing in surface water bodies. In the past (> 5 years ago) there had been where five sites were analysed per year. However, this programme was disestablished given the cost of analysis of these samples, and results were predominantly below detection limits. The development of monitoring guidelines for Emerging Organic Contaminants of Concern clearly raises he expectation that Councils broaden their focus regarding these more “unusual” contaminants. This is something the CRC will be thinking about regarding upcoming Long-Term Plan discussions.

The CRC has conducted a monitoring project in relation to environmental concerns raised about herbicide use. The results of this 2019 soil and water sampling project are attached (XLSX File, 10.04KB).

1660C - Referring to discussion on 24 July 2019 requesting information on wetlands mapping, as well as subsequent clarification of a request in an email dated 6 August 2019, and further questions in emails of 6 August and 15 August.

Question 1: That the indicative wetlands mapping be removed from the open publicly accessible database to stored files where it is only available when a public information request seeks it.

We have considered the request and advise that the map will remain publicly available on Canterbury Maps. We have however improved and updated the annotation that supports this information, to remove any ambiguity about the difference between the ground and aerial surveyed wetlands.

Environment Canterbury has an obligation to identify and protect wetlands (under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan) along with a commitment under Environment Canterbury’s Long-Term Plan, to raise awareness and understanding of wetlands. The mapping helps the community to be better informed about the extent of wetlands and helps both Environment Canterbury and landholders work towards improved stewardship of these important assets.

We are also committed to a policy of open and transparent data; to withdraw this layer would be contrary to these principles.

We have an established review process if landowners disagree with the details held on the map. This process will be further explained in a fact sheet that will be available on our website next week.

Question 2: That a caveat applies to the database that it cannot be used for any RMA purposes.

The details tab on the map layer clearly states that the wetlands mapping is not a schedule in a plan, nor has it been through a statutory planning process. We are in the process of making additional changes to the mapping and to our website to make it clear to landowners and consent applicants that we do not rely on the mapping for regulatory decision-making purposes. For these reasons, Environment Canterbury does not consider a further caveat to be necessary.

Question 3: Whether the indicative wetlands mapping was used in consent processes:

As we set out in our response of 17 July 2019, Environment Canterbury does not use the indicative wetland layer for regulatory decision making (including for consents).

We have set out below how we use the mapping information, along with other relevant information and the processes we apply. We do not use the aerial-surveyed wetlands information for regulatory decision-making as part of RMA processes. It is used to inform an environmental scan of relevant matters for consideration as part of the consenting process. This scan considers multiple sources of information relevant to a piece of land, a location or an activity that may be relevant to the regional rules that apply. The purpose of this scan is to determine the receiving environment of the activity in order to properly apply relevant rules.

To further explain, a consent planner will refer to a large amount of potentially relevant information while assessing what matters are relevant to a consent application. In some cases, this will not result in any further action, but in other cases it may prompt a conversation with the consent applicant. For example, if there was the potential for a wetland (as defined under the relevant plan rules) to be impacted by an activity, then we would ask for further information and evidence before concluding that an area was a wetland (as determined by the relevant rules).

This information is likely to be by way of an ecologist’s report – either the landowner’s own or one provided by Environment Canterbury. If relevant, this information may be recorded in a Section 42A report, which details the reasons for granting or declining a consent application. However, it is not mandatory to include sources of information that did not have a significant bearing on the outcome of the decision.
As we have set out, we are in the process of updating our website to further clarify this information to assist landowners.

Question 4: [With reference to the indigenous freshwater species habitat layer], with all other sites in Hurunui District, can you please outline whether the landowners have been consulted and how the sites came to ECan’s attention.

The location of the sites for fish and macroinvertebrates was derived from the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database, online surveys conducted by Environment Canterbury staff, and other data provided by universities, Crown research institutes, consultancies and landowners. Please find the technical report (PDF File, 698.25KB) (s32 supporting report) providing information on the identification and mapping of the habitats.

Planning provided papers to the Zone Committees advised on Plan Change 7 (PC7), Part A (Omnibus) topics, including this ‘habitats of indigenous freshwater species’ topic on three occasions over the past year. 

The Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee meeting dates for these papers were Monday 18 June 2018, Monday 19 November 2018 and Monday 15 April 2019. The April 2019 paper outlined potential policy direction for the indigenous freshwater species habitat topic, which included “identification of certain indigenous freshwater species habitat and their protection from activities that may damage these areas”.

Consultation on the indigenous freshwater species habitat sites throughout the Canterbury region is currently being undertaken as part of the PC7 process, which includes proposed planning maps of these habitat sites. Submissions are encouraged and can be made up until 13 September 2019. We encourage everyone with an interest to do so.

Question 5: With the following site (map provided in email) marked on Dry Stream, Culverden can you please confirm how ECan came to obtain the knowledge of the existence of this Dry stream site and who gave ECan this information?

As above, the indigenous freshwater species information for Dry Stream was gathered using one or several of the following sources of information: the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database, online surveys conducted by Environment Canterbury staff, and other data provided by universities, Crown research institutes, consultancies and the landowner/land manager.

1242C - We received an information request regarding pest control operations for the past 30 years.

General summary – Regional Parks pest management

The areas Environment Canterbury actively manages for recreation purposes are our region’s three Regional Parks, which you can read about on our website.  These parks have all opened since 2006. Prior to their management as parks, the land (including riverbed) was used by the public for recreation.

The main active animal pest control on this land has been directed at rabbit control.  Rabbit control and history in the Waimakariri River Regional Park and Ashley Rakahuri Regional Park can be grouped together, with Lake Tekapo Regional Park having quite a different history.  Note that rabbit control is explained further in a separate section below.

There has also been periodic low-level trapping for possums carried out in the Waimakariri River Regional Park and the Ashley Rakahuri Regional Park.  However, numbers have always been low and trapping has been more about monitoring than control.

Additionally, in the past 10 years there has been trapping of predator ground species around braided river bird species to assist their breeding in the Waimakariri and Ashley Rivers. Species protected have been mainly black billed gulls, wrybill, banded dotterels and white fronted and black fronted terns.  Species trapped are mainly mustelids and hedgehogs. Overall, the numbers trapped are low.

In the last four years control operations have been extended to southern black backed gulls in the Waimakariri River, again to protect braided river birds from predation and habitat loss.  The poisoning agent used is alphachloralose, and is applied in baits.

Rabbit Control – Waimakariri River and Ashley Rakahuri Regional Parks

The areas covered are Waimakariri River, from the coast inland to the gorge bridge, and Ashley Rakahuri, from the coast inland to the Okuku River confluence.
From the late 1980s to 1997, rabbit numbers tended to be patchy and were controlled periodically using 1080 carrot baits. Control was often triggered by the need to reduce numbers to allow tree seedling survival. Control was ground based apart from one large aerial operation in the Waimakariri riverbed about 1990.

Since Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) was illegally released in 1997, rabbit control has mostly not been required. Rabbit numbers have built up in patches since circa 2007 but then have collapsed before control is necessary.

Rabbit Control – Lake Tekapo Regional Park

The Land Management Programme ran from 1989 to 1995. During this time there were comprehensive control operations where 1080 carrot was flown on to the forest and surrounding land. In 1997 RHD was released and no further rabbit control was required until about 2007.  From 2007 to 2013, control was undertaken about every two years using pindone carrot (ground applied). Control after each operation was short lived as re-infestation rapidly re-occurred from surrounding land, especially the village. From 2013 to present day, control has been undertaken on an ongoing basis using pindone pellets in bait stations. The budget for this work has been $5,000 to 8,000 per annum.

1250C - We received an information request for copies of any reports/ memos/briefings prepared on the existence of asbestos in water infrastructure prepared in the last two years. It was also specified that this should include any material prepared following the discovery of asbestos in Temuka’s water supply in December 2017.

Environment Canterbury does not hold any reports, memos or briefings on this topic.  With regards to the discovery of asbestos in Temuka’s water supply in December 2017, this would be a local council matter rather than a regional council matter.

Below are the relevant reports: 

1. Remote sensing of river plumes in the Canterbury Bight. Stage II: Final report (author NIWA John Zeldis dated April 2010)

2. Sediment Quality at Muddy Intertidal Sites in Canterbury (authors Lesley Bolton-Ritchie & Patrick Lees dated December 20120

3. Freshwater Dilution and transport in Canterbury Bight (authors NIWA Mark Hadfield & John Zeldis dated June 2012)

4. Assessment of the potential effects of dams on selected South Canterbury rivers on sediment movement and coastal nourishment (authors NIWA Maurice J Duncan & D. Murray Hicks dated October 2001)

5. Sediment budgets for the Canterbury coast : a review, with particular reference to the importance of river sediment (author NIWA D Murray Hicks dated February 1998)

6. Modelling historical and future change of the Washdyke Opihi shoreline (author NIWA D Murray Hicks dated October 1994)

7. Central Canterbury bight stage 2 report model predictions (author Tonkin & Taylor dated February 1996)

8. Canterbury open-coast wave refraction & longshore transport study (authors NIWA Richard Gorman, Murray Hicks & Jeremy Walsh dated June 2002)

The State of the Environment (SOE) marine program has been established to monitor the state and long term trend of water quality in the marine environment, and to assess the influence of the river discharges on the marine environment. In this regard, it is not a program for which we produce yearly reports.

The monitoring for the marine SOE program has produced a significant dataset that will allow a comprehensive consideration of the marine environment in this area. We do have current data available but a report is not currently planned this year – the reports we do have and the current data are listed below.

9. Coastal Water Quality – Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora to the Waitaki River Mouth (author Lesley Bolton-Ritchie dated June 2006)

10. Timaru Harbour water quality – September 1998 to June 2005 (author Lesley Bolton-Ritchie dated May 2006)

11. a, b & c. Data – South of Timaru Water Quality – author Lesley Bolton-Ritchie

1025C - Information request for information about wilding conifer control in Canterbury.

The table below shows the amount of funding that has been allocated to control wilding conifers from ECan’s budget for the last five years, broken down by year:

Year	Budget
2016/17	$319,689
2015/16	$296,858
2014/15	$267,934
2013/14	$266,389
2012/13	$248,924

Environment Canterbury has not received any Central Government grants for wilding conifer management over this time.

However, Crown agencies such as the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand and the New Zealand Defence Force do fund wilding control on land that they administer. Environment Canterbury does seek and receive funding from philanthropic sources, as outlined in the table below:

Year	Funding	Source
2016/17	$100,000	Community Partnership Fund (DoC)
2015/16	$100,000	Community Partnership Fund (DoC)
2014/15	$100,000	Community Partnership Fund (DoC)
2013/14	$100,000	Lotteries Heritage and Environment
2012/13	$100,000	Lotteries Heritage and Environment

Approximately 850,000 hectares across Canterbury have wilding conifers present. We propose to prevent further wilding spread and progressively reduce or contain existing wilding infestations.

The estimated land area that is treated varies greatly with topography, tree density and tree age. While every infestation we control is mapped, different control methods and associated costs apply to each situation, and the area that is controlled each year varies. The total annual figure is not measured, but we estimate that the average area covered each year is approximately 10,000 hectares.

1510C - We received an information request for information following the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee meeting on 10/12/18 relating to NIWA braid plain mapping.

The BRIDGE project was created to identify if a clearer definition of the ‘bed of a braided river’ for regulatory purposes was possible in order to provide clarity on the management of riverbed areas either as riverbed or margin. It is widely acknowledged that the current Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) definition lacks clarity when trying to be applied to the Canterbury braided rivers and has resulted in legal challenges and a loss of braided riverbed environment across the region.

The project timeframe was set out so that if a definition could be developed then it would be included in the Omnibus Plan Change in June 2019 for full public notification and ratification if agreed through the planning process.

The BRIDGE project has been working with four river reach groups at four different river reaches across the region to discuss what possible approach could be taken to develop a definition and what if any changes to existing rules may be needed. At the present time the approach of using historical images and maps is being examined as a potential method for identifying the bed of the river. This is one of the methodologies that was identified by NIWA in the Braidplain Delineation Methodology report (PDF File, 6.69MB).

As is the current state of play there are no lines defining riverbed that have a regulatory authority (for example, have been through an RMA planning process) and any existing lines are only indicative (draft) and are a starting point for discussion to determine what is or is not riverbed on a case by case basis. This current situation does not provide certainty or clarity for those looking to carry out activities in river areas and the BRIDGE project aims to address this.

Any lines being mapped at this time are for consultation purposes as the project plan is to have a ‘draft’ approach mapped on some example rivers in order to see what the impacts of any possible definition may be and to discuss these with neighbouring landowners and other stakeholders. This mapping work is still ongoing and until it is complete for consultation purposes is not yet available. All mapping being completed is for information and consultation purposes only and cannot and will not have any legal, regulatory or statutory impact until it goes through an RMA publicly notified planning process (possibly the Omnibus plan change in June 2019).

There are existing rules within the Canterbury Land and Water plan that already manage the activities within and adjacent to rivers and at this time and until further consultation and discussion occurs there is no fixed view as to whether any new rules or adjustments to existing rules are needed.

1592C - requesting information on beach profile data, such as recent surveys and a report on the profile monitoring programme.

Please find attached the data for profiles:

1671C - We received a request for information about actions taken since we declared a climate change emergency.

Environment Canterbury was the first Council in New Zealand to declare a climate change emergency. While this declaration under New Zealand law does not carry statutory or legal weight for future Council decisions or policy; recognising a ‘climate emergency’ provided an opportunity for Council to further highlight that we take climate change seriously and that we have long acknowledged the importance of, and urgent need to address, climate change issues. We include consideration of climate change in all that we do, and have worked over an extended period towards:

• robustly and visibly incorporating climate change considerations into Council work programmes and decisions
• providing strong local government leadership in the face of climate change, including working with regional partners to ensure a collaborative response
• advocating strongly for greater Central Government leadership and action on climate change
• increasing the visibility of our climate change work
• leading by example through monitoring and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Steps taken in response to climate change

While much of our climate change related work is engrained within our ongoing work programmes, some examples of specific and/or notable steps are listed below:

Steps taken
Climate Change Integration programme established through the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 with the purpose of ‘supporting our communities to become more risk literate and resilient to climate change’.
New climate change webpages on the ECan website to better highlight climate change issues in Canterbury and our work to address the likely effects.
Commissioned organisational carbon emissions reporting.
Achieved a 26% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per staff member since June 2010.
Installed a 114 panel, grid tied solar system on the roof of our Tuam Street office, with the potential to generate over 34.2kWh of electricity per year.
Leasing of five electric vehicles.
Through the Regional Public Transport Plan, the Council agreed a target to, as far as practicable, transition the bus fleet to carbon zero by 2030, with all new vehicles zero emissions by 2025.
The Council submission in July 2018 on the Our Climate Your Say: Zero Carbon Bill consultation acknowledged “the importance of and urgent need to address climate change for the benefit of current and future generations”. It also called for a strong framework and a net zero target approach to all gases.
The Council signed the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration in 2018.
Conducted a literature review of relevant climate change impacts to the Canterbury Region – this was finalised since the declaration and is being presented to various stakeholders and our Territorial Authorities.
Assisted local councils in developing adaptation plans for areas that are expected to be significantly impacted by climate change in the future.
Through the Mayoral Forum - established a Regional Climate Change Working Group, and associated Steering Group (first meeting held in July).

Further reading:

• No known solution for escalating Patiti Point erosion
• Healthier Homes Canterbury

Steps ongoing in response to climate change

Steps ongoing	Achievement since declaration?
Long term monitoring to support climate change science, including for the coastal environment, water, land and river flow rates – this also includes the recently completed Halswell scheme review that showed significant climate change related impacts.	Yes – including work regarding Patiti Point
Conducted modelling in the coastal zone of climate change induced hazards, including modelling historic rates of coastal erosion future projections, coastal screening and advice provision to Territorial Authorities.	Yes, as above
Supported the Canterbury Region to adapt to the effects of climate change through building high quality flood protection (stop bank) schemes, such as recently completed Whakam?riri Flood Protection Scheme (WFPS).	Yes - completed the WFPS that protects over $8billion worth of assets
Leading a bid to Government for $1.3 billion in public transport investment to help grow patronage, thereby reducing the reliance on cars and associated greenhouse gas emissions.	$2m funding has been secured to develop this business case
Support the transition to more efficient home heating, with the Canterbury Air Regional Plan rules and subsidies requiring and supporting households to upgrade to Ultra Low Emission Burners and heat pumps.	Yes, including through ongoing work with Healthier Homes Canterbury
Aim to purchase our own electric vehicles starting 2019-20, and to achieve 50% of our passenger vehicles being pure electric by 2022.
Travel reductions by encouraging our staff to share taxis or use buses where appropriate; and video conferencing as an alternative to face-to-face meetings where possible.	Yes, ongoing
Assisting local councils in developing adaptation plans for areas that are expected to be significantly impacted by climate change in the future.	Yes – including work regarding Patiti Point as above
Conduct ongoing organisational emissions reporting every three years to track progress and inform further action.	First report published with subsequent work continuing

Further reading:

• Positive emissions report sets tone for behaviour change

Steps underway/planned in response to climate change

Steps underway/planned	Achievement since declaration?
Review existing processes to better ensure that climate change is robustly and visibly factored into Council decision making.	Yes, including initiating a pilot of a new decision-making process to ensure climate change is visibly and fully incorporated into our work
Undertake an initial regional climate change risk assessment by June 2020.	Yes – a request for proposal has been issued in collaboration with our regional partners
Identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport across Canterbury.
Continue to advocate firmly to Central Government for urgent action in the face of climate change, including progressing the Zero Carbon Bill and implementing the recommendations from the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group’s Final Report.	Yes, we submitted at the select committee for the Zero Carbon Bill
Increase the visibility of our climate change work, including providing quarterly updates on key matters.

The Waimakariri flood protection scheme will significantly improve the resilience of Christchurch City, Waimakariri and Selwyn districts to impacts from flooding, including from events exacerbated by climate change. More information regarding this scheme and our other climate change related initiatives can be found on our website.

Further reading:

• Submission on Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill
• Climate Change
• Waimakariri Flood Protection Project

1741C - We received an email dated 3 December 2019, subsequently refined on 9 December 2019 requesting information on water assets and associated consents.

Please find attached provided a list of all consents held by Territorial Authorities for water supply and wastewater treatment (XLSX File, 38.53KB).

1735C - We received an email dated 21 January requesting information on the costs charged to applicants for categories of consent applications in 2018.

Requested, for the calendar year of 2018:

• The most expensive price charged to an applicant; and
• The least expensive price charged to an applicant,

for the three categories of applications; non-notified, limited-notified and publicly notified, for the following activities:

1. Discharge permits for dairy effluent
2. An application to enhance, restore or create a wetland
3. Use land for farming activity
4. Take use groundwater for irrigation
5. Take and use surface water for irrigation.

The attached table sets out the cost passed on to the applicant for all applications in these categories on which there was a decision between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018.

The information was taken from data we report to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) as part of the National Monitoring Standards reporting. While the information is available on the web for previous years, the second half of the 2018 calendar year information has not yet been published by MfE as this will appear in the 2018/2019 data.

 

Activity type	Outcome	least expensive price charged	most expensive price charged
Discharge permits for dairy effluent	Publicly notified Limited notified Non notified	N/A N/A $1,592.00	N/A N/A $6,533.69
An application to enhance, restore or create a wetland	Publicly notified Limited notified Non notified	N/A N/A $0.00	N/A N/A $14,084.63
Use land for farming activity	Publicly notified Limited notified Non notified	N/A N/A $132.25	N/A N/A $12,368.54
Take use groundwater for irrigation	Publicly notified Limited notified Non notified	N/A $23,573.34 $434.13	N/A $23,573.34 $44,242.86
Take and use surface water for irrigation	Publicly notified Limited notified Non notified	N/A N/A $1368.50	N/A N/A $2277.00

1763C - We received an request for information Resource consents for public water supply (abstraction) issues by Council in the past 2 years.

Response to email dated 9 January 2020 requesting copies of any public water supply (abstraction) resource consents issued by Council in the past two years.

Attached is a list of public water supply resource consents (XLSX File, 19.6KB) issued by Environment Canterbury in the last two years.

1739C - We received an request for information on Section 88 checklist - supporting info docs supplied to consent planners and contractors to assist filling in checklist, re Planning Provision and Plan Change 7.

Response to email dated 29 November 2019 requesting the information Environment Canterbury provides to its Consent Planners and Contractors to help them fill in the section 88 checklist, especially with regards to the Planning Provision and Plan Change 7.

Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides the information requirements for resource consent applications. Schedule 4 clearly details what information is required for a resource consent application and Environment Canterbury relies on this when assessing an application under section 88.

Additionally, the attached resources are provided to Consents Planners to assist them in undertaking an assessment that the application contains the information as required by the regulations:

1. S88 presentation (PDF File, 2.21MB)
2. Perform s88 check- ProMapp (PDF File, 722.31KB)

1764C - We received an Email dated 9 January 2019 requesting the number of farming land use consent applications received and approved by Environment Canterbury in 2019.

In the period 1 January to 31 December 2019:

1. 244 Land use (s9) Farming applications were lodged;
2. 238 Land use (s9) Farming consents were granted. 146 of these were lodged in 2019.

1729C - Request for information on Data used to measure alleged Washdyke odour. When complaints logged. What did ECan do and when. Assessment methodology/ instrument used. Qualifications/ experience of staff involved in measurement.

Four complaints were made on 13 November 2019 alleging offensive and objectionable odour from South Canterbury By-products located at 122 Aorangi Road. The complaints were logged through customer services at 2:52pm, 2:57pm, and 3:33pm. Also, an email was sent to Incident Response Officer (IRO) Michael Nolan at 3:38pm with the same complaint. IRO Ray Hermens also received a voice message from one of the complainants at 2:48pm alleging the odour present was very strong.

Please note that we are unable to provide the details of who made these complaints, in order to protect the privacy of individuals pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA.

The Pollution Event notification was logged with another Resource Management Officer at 3:40pm, who was unable to attend, however other Environment Canterbury staff, Ray and Michael conducted a site visit from 3:49pm that included a drive through of Randwick Place and Meadows Road where no odour was detected. A ten-minute odour assessment was completed by Ray at the corner of Meadows and Aorangi Roads (SCBI assessment) with the result of ‘little or no odour detected’. This was followed up by a drive through of Meadow Road, Seadown Road, and Randwick Place (Randwick assessment). A second ten-minute odour assessment was completed at one of the complainant’s house alongside them, with the result that no odour was detected by the IROs or the original complainant.

The odour assessments were completed and recorded using the Survey123 Odour Assessment application on Ray’s cell phone. Ray assessed the odour impression by smell every ten seconds for ten minutes and recorded the result on a scale of 0-6 including descriptions of the odour characteristics.
The odour assessment application uses MfE guidelines for assessing odour. It shows an every 10 second odour assessment over 10 minutes on a scale from 0-6
(0=no odour, 6 = extremely strong odour) in various locations to ascertain the source of the odour. Also noted is the characteristic of the odour, based on MfE guidelines, the hedonistic tone and other factors such as climatic conditions. Attached is a paper version of the application. This is the standard practice for assessing odour used by all councils within New Zealand and is based on the German method VDI 3940 “Determination of Odorants in Ambient Air by Field Inspections.”

The raw data and result of these assessments is attached. It shows a 10-minute assessment consists of 60 x 10 second assessments - this means at every 10 second mark, we assess the odour. The results show:

• Randwick assessment (XLSX File, 12.85KB): Over the 10 minutes assessment, at one 10 second assessment, odour was rated at 1 and characteristic of dead animal. Final assessment – no odour;
• SCBI assessment (XLSX File, 12.95KB): Over the 10-minute assessment, 5 of the 10 second assessments had characteristics of dead animal. Final assessment – odour detected but would not consider offensive or objectional over any time period.

The staff carrying out the assessments have the necessary expertise to do so.

1727C - Request for information on consents team structure including reference to Erin Krivian's position

Please find attached a diagram showing the structure of our consents team (Office Open XML Document, 80.6KB).

The location of the consents planning team in South Canterbury, means the reporting line differs to officers located in Christchurch. The Consents Planning team report directly to the Operations Manager, with an indirect reporting line to the Regional Leader Consents Delivery. This is due to the different location and the need for an on-site line manager.

1733C - We received an email on 17 October requesting information on Halswell River weed.

The enquiry relates to the section of the Halswell River from River Road up to just below the main road going to Akaroa, just below Halswell, where it’s believed about 14km to 15km has had all the weed removed by some chemical substance. Also reference to some of the other creeks running into Lake Ellesmere getting the same treatment with little to no aquatic plant life.

Questions asked:

• What is being done to discover who and what is destroying the aquatic weed; and
• How many consents have been given by Environment Canterbury for waterways for Diquat or Endothall or chemicals similar in the last three years in North Canterbury?

Aquatic weed

Environment Canterbury maintains and operates the Halswell Drainage Scheme and the Halswell River is part of this scheme. Environment Canterbury does not control weed growth on the Halswell River with any herbicides, rather the excess weed growth is removed by a weed cutter boat. The stretch of the river referred to is subject to weed cutting only.

There will be extra weed upstream and downstream of this main stretch of the river, because in some areas the weed boat cannot access the river as it is too narrow or shallow or there are parts of the river system we do not remove weed from – for example the Old Course down around Seabridge Road.

The only herbicide used to control weeds is within the tributary lateral drains, and this spraying only occurs when there is no water in the drain.
The river will continue to scour out where sediment builds up as we are unable to remove fine sediment at present (a resource consent to authorise the activity is needed).

The river runs dirty for months after a rainfall until the river clears itself and of course as it scours it takes out the vegetation from the bed. This process may be a contributing factor to the level of weed in the river at any given time.

We do not expect any other person is likely to control the weed in the Halswell drainage network, this is what the landowners pay their rates to Environment Canterbury to do.

The Selwyn District Council also has responsibility for maintaining other drainage networks which flow into Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. Further, there are private drains which individual landowners will be maintaining. There are rules around agrichemical discharges to waterways in the Land and Water Regional Plan which such landowners would need to comply with.

The investigation (set out in an email dated 2 October 2019) did not provide any further information on a potential offender spraying weed adjacent to the stream next to River Road. There was nothing to evidence that any breach to the Resource Management Act 1991 or Regional Rules (i.e. chemical spraying) had occurred in the area to require any further investigations.

Consents

Please find attached a spreadsheet (XLSX File, 17.62KB) with the three resource consents issued in North Canterbury for discharge to waterways with a consent condition including the word “Diquat”, “Endothall” or “herbicide”. Further information about each consent can be found by using Environment Canterbury’s Consent Search.

1457C - We received an email requesting for the draw from CRC180265 as of 3 October 2018.

As this is a consent to drill a deep bore (approx.170m), not a water take consent, there is no requirement to submit data.
However, Cloud Ocean also has a water take consent – CRC182813 – which allows them to take water from their shallow bore (approx. 33m). The total water take from 1 August to 31 October under this consent, is 14,811m3.

1665C - Email dated 6 August 2019 requesting information on Cloud Ocean Water Limited’s (Cloud Ocean) water consumption and fees under its resource consents.

How much does Cloud Ocean pay yearly for acquiring water consumption and how much they are taking from each bore or overall takings.

Cloud Ocean hold three active resource consents for water abstraction, as set out in the table below.

Consent Number	Status	Client Name	Activities	Monitoring charges for 18/19 financial year	Actual vol. water taken	Consented water volume
CRC190624	Issued - Active	Cloud Ocean Water Limited	To take water for dewatering purposes	$227.70
CRC190698	Issued - Active	Cloud Ocean Water Limited	to take groundwater, at or about map reference M35:8077-5092, for fellmongery uses and effluent dilution purposes.	$156.53	18/19 - 795m3, 17/18 - 8866m3	2000m3 per day
CRC192153	Issued - Active	Cloud Ocean Water Limited	To take and use water	$2,133.36	18/19 - 120771 m3; 17/18 - 34537m3	4,320m3 per day and; 1,576,800m3 between 01 July and the following 30 June

CRC190624 is for the purpose of dewatering (i.e. taking water to lower the water table while earthworks are undertaken).

Note that the Resource Management Act 1991 does not give Environment Canterbury the ability to charge consent-holders for the amount of water taken, but we are able to recover costs incurred as a result of the ongoing monitoring of a resource consent. We have therefore listed the monitoring charges associated with the consents.

More information about resource consents held by Cloud Ocean can be found by searching “Cloud Ocean Water Limited” under Environment Canterbury consent search.

1670C - Email dated 21 August 2019 requesting information on the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) compliance with resource consents relating to its sewerage and stormwater systems in 2019.

Sewerage system
For the period 01 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, there were no abatement notices, infringement notices, enforcement orders or convictions issued to the CCC in relation to its resource consents for discharge from its sewage system.

Stormwater system
For the period 01 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, there were no abatement notices, infringement notices, enforcement orders or convictions issued to the CCC in relation to its resource consents for discharge from its stormwater system.

Additional information requested
No significant non-compliances were recorded for the CCC within the 2018-19 financial year in relation to their resource management consents regarding the treatment and disposal of sewage and stormwater systems.

1665C - Email dated 6 August 2019 requesting information on Cloud Ocean Water Limited’s (Cloud Ocean) water consumption and fees under its resource consents.

How much does Cloud Ocean pay yearly for acquiring water consumption and how much are they taking from each bore or overall takings?

Cloud Ocean hold three active resource consents for water abstraction, as set out in this table. CRC190624 is for the purpose of dewatering (i.e. taking water to lower the water table while earthworks are undertaken).

Note that the Resource Management Act 1991 does not give Environment Canterbury the ability to charge consent-holders for the amount of water taken, but we are able to recover costs incurred as a result of the ongoing monitoring of a resource consent. We have therefore listed the monitoring charges associated with the consents.
More information about resource consents held by Cloud Ocean can be found by searching “Cloud Ocean Water Limited” on the Environment Canterbury consents search https://ecan.govt.nz/data/consent-search/.

1649C - Email dated 18 July 2019 requesting a list of all the resource consents for discharges from large-scale fuel burning devices under Rules 7.21 - 7.24 and 7.30 of the Canterbury Air Regional Plan.

• Download a list of both issued and terminated consents granted under Rules 7.21 - 7.24 and 7.30 of the Canterbury Air Regional Plan (XLSX File, 20.13KB)

Also requested for each consent; the date of issue, date of expiry, the fuel source for the combustion, and the power in kW or MW (if known) or maximum combustion rate (e.g. in tonnes per hour, if known). Conditions limiting combustion rates and power vary between consents, and consents may cover multiple boilers.

Where possible, we have included this information in summarised format in the table, however to review the more detailed information via the full consent, click the link included in the spreadsheet.
Note that this summary only covers consents issued under the rules specified in the request, and consents issued under previous planning documents have not been included.

The Council supports industry to transition to better environmental practices. The Canterbury Air Regional Plan encourages industry to adopt the best practicable option to minimise effects of air pollution, and they must identify this in the consenting process. The primary focus of the Plan is air pollutants that affect primary health, such as PM10.

1655C - Email dated 19 July 2019 requesting information on the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) resource consents.Request for a summary list of all issued or in-process resource consents only.

Please find attached a spreadsheet containing the detail on 64 DOC consents, including the conditions for each consent (each condition is listed as a separate entry). The spreadsheet also contains a link to the resource consent search results for that consent on Environment Canterbury’s website.

1634C  – We received an information request for complaints against CRC174170 for Southern Horticultural Products Ltd's composting site on Main South Road

Request for complaints relating to consents CRC174170 and CRC156387 (replaced by CRC174170), back to the commencement of CRC156387 as well as odour reports listed under CRC157111
(as this Land Use consent also has an odour condition).

• Download an excel spreadsheet for the odour complaints recorded against CRC174170, CRC156387 and CRC157111 for SHP’s composting site on Main South Road (XLSX File, 12.64KB)

CRC156387 Commenced 10 September 2015, therefore the spreadsheet contains information from that date until 4 July 2019. We have received 10 reports of odour over this time in eight Pollution Events (two Events had two reports of odour.

1618C - We recieved an information request on gravel authorisations and consents in the Canterbury Region.

Request for details of all consents (gravel authorisations and gravel consents) granted by Environment Canterbury concerning the extraction of aggregates, specifically gravel, in the Canterbury region:

• The names of those persons (natural and otherwise) to whom those resource consents have been granted;
• The life of those consents (start-end dates);
• The amount that is been approved/consented for extraction by each person;
• The amount extracted to date by each consented person.

Please find attached two spreadsheets with the requested information.

• All Gravel Extraction Sites by Catchment all Canterbury (XLSX File, 287.24KB) - lists all resource consents and gravel authorisations recorded in the Environment Canterbury consents database. The content is grouped into rivers (north to south of the region) detailing the consent number, consent holder, consent type, its status, start and end dates and consented volumes associated with each consent (per site, per year and over consent life). Please note that land-use consent relates to consents granted under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Gravel Authorisations relates to Permitted Activities.
• All Gravel Returns by Catchment - Canterbury (XLSX File, 1.01MB) - details the volumes of extracted material recorded against each consent/gravel authorisation. This information supplied to Environment Canterbury monthly. This information has been grouped into each river (north to south of the region) and then each consent.

1606C  – We received an information request for all correspondence between Environment Canterbury and North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery (NCTIR).

Requested:

1. a copy of File Note C19C/64525 and all other correspondence, including all meeting notes, letters, emails, phone conversations and file notes, between NCTIR and ECan pertaining to the applications for resource consent CRC194077; CRC194413; and/or CRC194598; and
2. a copy of all correspondence, including all meeting notes, letters, emails, phone conversations and file notes, between NCTIR and ECan pertaining to my Client’s applications for resource consents, including CRC192717; CRC194436; CRC193658; CRC193933; and/or CRC194463.

Please find attached:

1. a copy of File Note C19C/64525 (PDF File, 260.97KB), which is an email chain containing correspondence from NCTIR sent to Environment Canterbury via Road Metals Company Limited (Road Metals); and
2. a further email (PDF File, 174.35KB) containing correspondence from NCTIR sent to Environment Canterbury via Road Metals.

1598C  – We received an information request for All submissions for Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan.

1101C - We received an information request for records of the Lake Coleridge Hydroelectric Power Scheme for:

1. stored water within Lake Coleridge;
2. stored water that has been discharged from Lake Coleridge, and
3. water (including stored water) being diverted into any canal from Lake Coleridge.

Environment Canterbury does not hold TrustPower’s data, but Environment Canterbury does access it from time to time to determine compliance with the Conservation Order and with resource consents that relate to the take of Lake Coleridge stored water.
All of TrustPower’s information related to the storage of water is regarded as commercially sensitive, as it relates to contractual arrangements between TrustPower and its customers. As such, it is not available to the public. Accordingly, Environment Canterbury has decided to withhold this information pursuant to section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) as its disclosure would prejudice TrustPower’s commercial position. We do not consider that the public interest outweighs this reason for withholding.
However, Environment Canterbury can provide TrustPower data relating to the operation of the Coleridge Hydro Electric Power Scheme, as the submission of the data is a requirement as part of the resource consent. Data for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 (the most recent data we hold) is attached. This data includes:

• Highbank pump data (m3/s)
• Coleridge lake level (m)
• Wilberforce canal flow (m3/s)
• Oakden canal flow (m3/s)
• Coleridge penstock flow (m3/s)
• Acheron canal flow (m3/s)

Please note that due to amount of information included we are unable to put the above data on our website. If you would like to view a copy please contact us at 

1382C  – We received an information request for information relating to the Rakaia Island Dairies’ flood protection work on the Rakaia River bed.

You ask for the consent conditions for Rakaia Island Dairies’ flood protection work in the Rakaia River bed.
Please note that Rakaia Island Limited is the current name of the company formerly known as Rakaia Island Dairies Limited. The following consents relating to flood protection works in the Rakaia River under the name ‘Rakaia Island Limited’ have been identified:

• CRC052103 – Land use consent to disturb the bed and margins of the Rakaia River, remove and place material, and modify structures and remove and plant plants.
• CRC054650 – Water permit to divert water in and adjacent to the Rakaia River at Rakaia Island

Decision documents for these consents

• LGOIMA 1382C - Surface Water Quality of small springfed tributaries that arise from the floodplain of the lower Rakaia River_Final (PDF File, 1.34MB)
• LGOIMA 1382C - Copy of Rakaia Island Sites (XLSX File, 104.34KB)
• LGOIMA 1382C - CRC052103 and CRC054650 Decision documents (PDF File, 475.03KB)

You ask for monitoring of the consent conditions of the above.

Please note that resource consents CRC052103 and CRC054650 are linked, whereby, as per Condition 1 of CRC054650: “The diversion of water shall only occur in association with carrying out river protection works under CRC052103.”

CRC052103 - Two Resource Management Officers (RMOs) conducted a site visit on the 11th of January 2018. The site visit was in response to a number of incident response calls relating to protection works undertaken between 25 December 2017 and 1 January 2018. As a result of this visit, a short Compliance Monitoring Report grading Condition 15 was produced.

At this time, the RMO spoke with the consent holder and the contractor responsible to ensure they were both aware of the time restrictions under Condition 15.

1381C  – We received an information request regarding Simons Pass for Copies of correspondence for applications on CRC176720 & CRC186087, plus ecology reports re Baseline Survey.

We refer to your email dated 05/07/18 requesting information relating to the processing of Simons Pass applications CRC176720 and CRC186087. Your request has been referred to me to reply.

You ask for copies of any correspondence in relation to the processing of the above resource consent applications. Please find attached as requested.

You also request any ecology reports in relation to the Baseline Survey provided by Simons Pass in April 2018, which was required by Condition 86, CRC082311. Please also find these documents attached.

Please note that information has been redacted in order to protect the privacy of individuals and in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between officers pursuant to section 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(f)(i) of LGOIMA.

Requested documents

• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of letter to Simons Pass Ltd 12 July 2018 (PDF File, 155.91KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of letter to ECan (PDF File, 119.24KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of internal email re workflow (PDF File, 50.08KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of internal email re workflow 2 (PDF File, 37.43KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of email re CRC176720 re compliance (PDF File, 22.55KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of correspondence re CRC186087 (PDF File, 1.93MB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Copy of correspondence re CRC176720 (PDF File, 602.36KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Simons-Pass_baseline_bird_survey-Nov-2017-18-03-10 (PDF File, 4.32MB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Simons Pass Lizard Report Final (PDF File, 1.36MB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - DRA baseline vegetation report December 2017 (PDF File, 2.99MB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - C17112_003a_Baseline_Survey_report_20180326 (PDF File, 1.92MB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Appendix Two Simons Pass Station entomological report (PDF File, 82.38KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Appendix Three Summary of conditions relating to Landscape Management Plan Dryland Plan - Copy (PDF File, 266.42KB)
• LGOIMA 1381C - Appendix One Review of dryland baseline surveys (PDF File, 468.53KB)

1580C – We received an information request regarding a riverbed boundary result of Dewhirst decision. Photos, who put lines/photos together, copy of presentations, confirmation of 18 Dec 2018 request on riverbed lines sent to Zone Committee members.

“At a recent visit to our area ECan chairman Steve Lowndes showed us a photo of a riverbed that had lines drawn representing what the Dewhirst High Court decision means in terms of the boundary of riverbed. A similar photo was shown by Cynthia Roberts at the Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee this week. Can we please have:

1. Copies of all photos (& a description of which river & where on that river) that have been circulated to ECan councillors to outline the riverbed boundary as a result of the Dewhirst decision?
2. Have these lines been ground truthed & who has put these photos/lines together i.e. which consultants or ECan staff?
3. A copy of the ECan presentations to the Waihou BRIDGE meeting this week - Wednesday 20th March. Also a copy of all information circulated to Waihou BRIDGE members prior to this meeting.
4. Can you please confirm our request on December 18 2018 was actioned i.e. the riverbed lines was sent to all Canterbury Zone Committee members as requested.”

Question 1

Copies of all photos (& a description of which river & where on that river) that have been circulated to ECan councillors to outline the riverbed boundary as a result of the Dewhirst decision?

Please find attached a copy of a map that has been completed as an ‘interpretation’ of the High Court decision on the Dewhirst matter which details a methodology for defining the bed of a river. The interpretation was completed on a stretch of the Ahuriri River as a single example. The map attached has been used as an example of the High Court definition for information purposes only.

Question 2

Have these lines been ground truthed & who has put these photos/lines together i.e. which consultants or ECan staff?

Regarding question 2, you ask if the interpretation has been ground-truthed. If you mean this to be that someone has completed a physical assessment at that site, then no that has not occurred. As an interpretation for example and information purposes only, the level of detail available on mapping imagery is sufficient for that purpose. If the information were to be used for any legal, consenting, planning or enforcement purpose then a more detailed assessment of extent of the river bed would be needed, which may include a physical assessment at the relevant site. This interpretation was completed by Environment Canterbury River Engineering and Planning team staff.

Question 3

A copy of the ECan presentations to the Waihou BRIDGE meeting this week - Wednesday 20th March. Also a copy of all information circulated to Waihou BRIDGE members prior to this meeting.

Also attached is a copy of the presentation given to the Waihao river reach group on the BRIDGE project and the Dewhirst decision on 20 March 2019. This presentation has also been given to the Ahuriri and Ashburton river reach groups, and to the Waiau/Uwha river reach group on 29 March 2019. A copy of the email sent to the Waihao river reach group ahead of the meeting on 20 March is also attached.

Question 4

Can you please confirm our request on December 18 2018 was actioned i.e. the riverbed lines was sent to all Canterbury Zone Committee members as requested.

Your request of 18 December 2018 was actioned by Environment Canterbury in part; the information contained in your email of 18 December 2018 was circulated to Environment Canterbury Councillors but not to zone committees.

1576C – We received an information request regarding information on consented coal consumers, which was not to be limited to the top 20 consumers.

A list was sent to the respondent of all currently consented discharges to air from coal burners.

The commencement date is when the consent was issued, and the expiry date is when the consent expires.

Where consent status is listed as “active”, Environment Canterbury has been told the consent is being used. Where it is listed as “inactive”, we have not received confirmation that the consent has been exercised.

Where the consent status is listed as being “s124 continuance”, this means an application has been received to replace the original consent (which may have expired), and that the applicant is permitted under the Resource Management Act 1991 to continue to use their existing consent until such time as their new application is decided.

1569C - We received an information request regarding riverbeds: Loss of riverbed land to farming - full report and decision information. Braid river correspondence between Forest & Bird and Fed Farmers

We received an information request regarding several water quality questions including the way they are measured. Below are the queries from the requestor and our responses.

1564C - Request for information regarding chicken farming operation applications.

1. any applications for new chicken farming operations of any kind from 1 July 2018 until 27 February 2019;
2. any applications for extensions of existing chicken farming operations of any kind from 1 July 2018 until 27 February 2019; and
3. any application to replace or rebuild damaged or aged chicken farming operations of any kind with new buildings from 1 July 2018 until 27 February 2019.

Environment Canterbury does not specifically regulate chicken farms, except where they use a resource (for example, water) or affect the environment (for example, discharges). We therefore regulate the effects of those activities, rather than the chicken-farming operation itself. We have provided a list of all consent applications that mention chickens or poultry. Environment Canterbury does not regulate buildings, these questions should be referred to the respective Territorial Authority.

Consent Number	Client Name	Consent Location	State	Consent Description	Consent Type	Activities	Lodgement Date	Expiry Date	Decision
CRC192491	Mr R S & Mrs K R Jones	3307 South Eyre Road, Oxford	Issued - Active	To take and use groundwater	Water Permit (s14)	Take Groundwater	20/12/2018	26/06/2025	Granted
CRC182443	Highway Holdings Limited	2316 Rakaia Highway, Rakaia	Issued - Active	To discharge contaminants to land	Discharge Permit (s15)	Discharge Contaminant into Land to Water	4/05/2018	29/03/2033	Granted
CRC182742	Highway Holdings Limited	2316 Rakaia Highway, Rakaia	Issued - Active	To use land for the collection, storage and treatment of animal effluent	Land Use Consent (s9)	Use Land	4/05/2018	29/03/2033	Granted
CRC193716	Leamington Downs Limited	294 Stockgrove Road, Glasnevin	Application Incomplete	To discharge to air	Discharge Permit (s15)	Discharge Contaminant into Air	28/02/2018	N/A	N/A
CRC193088	Clarence Harvest Limited	1059 Poyntz Road, Courtenay-Cust	Application in Process	To discharge contaminants to air	Discharge Permit (s15)	Discharge Contaminant into Air	17/07/2019	N/A	N/A

This list does not necessarily capture all poultry operations as many of the chicken egg and meat farms in Canterbury are able to operate as permitted activities under the Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) and Canterbury Air Regional Plan (CARP) subject to meeting conditions that address their environmental effects. These farms will not have resource consents from Environment Canterbury.

Where resource consent is required, the CARP separates Intensive Farming (meaning the keeping, rearing or breeding of 10,000 or more birds) and “free-range” farming in order to manage the effects on the environment. Intensive poultry farms that existed prior to 1 June 2002 can be undertaken as a permitted activity under Rule 7.65 of the CARP, provided there is no increase in scale. Any new intensive farms after 2002, or ones that have increased in scale they will require an air discharge resource consent. These are contained in the attached list. “Free-range” farms require an air discharge permit under Rule 7.3 of the CARP.

Consents may also be required for the discharge of effluent and the taking and using of water, depending upon the individual operation. Where these consents exist for chicken farms, they are included in the attached list.

1561C - Request for all consents and consent decisions in the Selwyn Waihora catchment that have been granted under Rule 11.5.9 – 14 of the Canterbury Land and Water Plan in the last year.

The rule you refer to covers Land Use (farming) consents. Please find attached a list of Land Use (s9) “farming” consent numbers for the Selwyn Waihora Zone from 1 March 2018 to 28 February 2019.

Access to specific details of each consent, including decision documents can be made in our consent search by searching for the consent number provided in the spreadsheet below. 

Download document: LGOIMA 1561C - All consent conditions and consents - Selwyn District (XLSX File, 22.64KB).

1535C  – We received an email dated 16/01/19 requesting information on the quarrying of Lime at Castle Hill.

Request for information about conditions imposed on any consent to quarry lime from the area and whether compliance with any conditions, if they are in place, is enforced in any way. You have also asked if the consents are to come up for renewal at any time.

We have identified one relevant consent (CRC182853). This consent is for the discharge of contaminants (fugitive dust) to air.

The most recent consent number relates to a change of conditions to a consent originally granted in 2003 (CRC031025) and taken over by the current holder through an administrative transfer (i.e. a change in name with no ability to decline) in 2016 (CRC166265).

It appears from the most recent s42A report that the original discharge permit had approval from the previous owner of the site, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, and the Department of Conservation. The s42A report is the report prepared (under s42A of the RMA) by our planner setting out a recommendation to the decision maker on an application. It typically contains background to the application, consideration of the planning framework, the effects etc.

The most recent application was required as the consent holder wished to increase their rate of extraction, and therefore the potential discharge of dust. We are only able to consider the effects of the dust discharge and the effects of the discharge of dust did not meet the requirements for notification given the current owner of the Station provided written approval.

Any wider quarrying and amenity issues would presumably be dealt with under any consents issued by the Selwyn District Council and/or the mining permit issued under the Crown Minerals Act by Central Government in 2005.

1513C  – We received an information request for the following:

• All instances of chicken egg laying farm resource consent applications.
• All instances of chicken meat bird farm resource consent applications.

Environment Canterbury does not specifically regulate chicken farms, except where they use a resource (for example, water) or affect the environment (for example, discharges). We therefore regulate the effects of those activities rather than the chicken-farming operation itself, and therefore cannot break down the chicken operations by egg or meat production. We have therefore provided a list of all consent applications that mention chickens or poultry.

• LGOIMA 1513C - Chicken Farm Consents (XLSX File, 22.76KB)

This list does not necessarily capture all poultry operations as many of the chicken egg and meat farms in Canterbury are able to operate as permitted activities under the Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) and Canterbury Air Regional Plan (CARP) subject to meeting conditions that address their environmental effects. These farms will not have resource consents from Environment Canterbury.

Where resource consent is required, the CARP separates Intensive Farming (meaning the keeping, rearing or breeding of 10,000 or more birds) and “free-range” farming in order to manage the effects on the environment. Intensive poultry farms that existed prior to 1 June 2002 can be undertaken as a permitted activity under Rule 7.65 of the CARP, provided there is no increase in scale. Any new intensive farms after 2002, or ones that have increased in scale they will require an air discharge resource consent. These are contained in the attached list. “Free-range” farms require an air discharge permit under Rule 7.3 of the CARP.

Consents may also be required for the discharge of effluent and the taking and using of water, depending upon the individual operation. Where these consents exist for chicken farms, they are included in the attached list.

A number of the listed applications relate to applications to change the conditions of an original consent, or to change the consent holder name. In these circumstances, the original consent is listed as Terminated – Replaced, while current active consents are listed as Issued – Active.

1519C  – We received a request for information regarding applications, grants, and rejections of applications for water consents in the 2006 to 2013 period, including:

1. A full list of applicant entities
2. A full list of water consents granted with details of the amount of water allocated in the consent, and
3. A full list of those who were unsuccessful in water consent applications.

Please find attached a spreadsheet of all the water permit applications between the specified dates, including applicant names and whether the consent was granted, declined, or withdrawn.

• Consent Count Water permit data (XLSX File, 394.24KB)

Please note that a number of consents in the spreadsheet will be ‘double ups’ of the same water take. A new CRC number is allocated for changes to a consent, replacements or renewals of a consent for a water take. This means there can be more than one CRC representing the same water take.

Under ecan.govt.nz/data/consent-search, you can search any of the consent numbers to access the details of that consent, including the consent holder, location, conditions and the water allocation for that consent.

1730C - Request for information relating to Robotic Process Automation tender process.

This process was conducted via a tender through the Government Electronic Tender System (GETS) in line with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) best practice guidelines, including the oversight of an independent third party. The tender was advertised on 24 May 2019 and closed on 14 June 2019.

The tender was conducted as a two-envelope process, with the submitted proposal without any price information in one envelope, and the pricing information in the second.

The evaluation team evaluated the non-pricing aspects first, with no exposure to pricing information, to create a shortlist. The evaluation team was then given the pricing information to further inform the decision-making process. Part of this evaluation process was to assess the skills and ability of each suppliers’ nominated personnel, and the number of years of experience they had in delivering RPA solutions to the New Zealand marketplace, and in particular to Local Government. Company incorporation dates were not material to the service being procured so weren’t included as part of the non-price attributes evaluation criteria.

Environment Canterbury received 11 responses to the tender, shortlisting three.

The short-listed suppliers were asked to present to the evaluation team so any questions arising from the evaluation could be clarified.

Virtual Blue was successful in being awarded the project, ranking the best in both the non-price and pricing evaluation.

All unsuccessful suppliers were invited to attend a one-on-one debrief session to get feedback, if they wished.

Environment Canterbury was assisted in this process by MB Associates to ensure the process was robust, had some independent input and the solution was fit-for-purpose. MB Associates are Members of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (MCIPS) qualified procurement experts and specific business advisory specialists, with a record of delivering quantitative and qualitative efficiencies and improvements.

Since this tender process took place, our first robotic process has been successfully implemented.

1705C - We received a request for information on remuneration exceeding $250K.

The number of employees whose remuneration is exceeding $250,000 is one. The relevant information is already publicly available in our annual report – we refer you to note 19 on pages 65-66 of our 2018/2019 Annual Report.

1702C - We received a request for information for fines issued to Orion NZ.

There have been no infringements issued or prosecutions proceedings commenced in the name of Orion NZ Ltd, by Environment Canterbury during the period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019.

1545C - We received an information request on unused untenanted neglected buildings

Concerns regarding practices within Environment Canterbury around unused and untenanted, neglected buildings

Environment Canterbury staff were spread across several office sites after the Canterbury earthquakes. Where possible, lease terms were negotiated to coincide with the construction schedule of Tuam Street, however we were left with two final legacy leases in Burnside, which was common during this period. Real estate agents were actively advertising these offices for sublease, although this was challenging given the timing of the regeneration of the CBD and the low demand for fringe space. Environment Canterbury ultimately agreed to surrender these leases back to the landlords in 2017 on market terms, we did not pay the full rental remaining on the leases as implied.

These two remaining large office areas were not appropriate for the small Selwyn­ Waihora Zone team, as the aim of this new way of working was to give a physical presence within the respective community. Our first preference for this Zone team was to co-locate within Selwyn District Council, however they did not have any available space. Innovation Park at Templeton was then deemed the next most suitable office space available at the time by the organisation and was only 1km from the Selwyn boundary. This agri-business hub met the needs of our organisation in terms of positioning our Zone team in an accessible area for the community they serviced in terms of accessibility and parking, and the space itself required very little physical work, we only added soft furnishings and ECan specific IT equipment. It did not cost a considerable amount of money to outfit it as stated.

Regarding the concern about the residential houses, all but two of our residential houses are currently tenanted and are maintained to an acceptable condition. These two properties that you have referenced are situated on land zoned 'Heavy Industrial' and are scheduled for demolition/removal as part of the Kainga area upgrade. The cost to bring the two houses up to standard is not warranted given our future for the specific site and surrounding area.

1489C - We received an information request about Koru Club memberships

Request for:

1. the total amount spent on Koru Club membership for the 2017/18 financial year;
2. the total number of memberships paid for; and,
3. the term of the memberships.

In November 2016, Environment Canterbury made a decision to cease the renewal of Koru Club memberships. As a result, the final membership paid for Environment Canterbury expired on 31 July 2017.

The response to the questions summarised above is therefore:

1. no amount was spent on memberships in the 2017/18 financial year;
2. no memberships were paid for; and
3. there are no terms to report on.

1225C - We received an information request on alcohol expenditure and policy.

Since 2016 Environment Canterbury’s hospitality policies have provided that the Council will not pay for alcoholic beverages for staff carrying out their day to day business (for example, when travelling). The policies have, however, allowed the Chief Executive or Chair to approve the purchase of alcoholic beverages for special occasions where “it will benefit the organisation and not put at risk the wellbeing of staff and guests”.

Read the current Hospitality, Business and Travel Expenses Policy.

The table below shows the purchases of alcohol since November 1, 2016.

Event/Reason	Date of purchase	Cost	Notes	Payment Type	Number of Attendees
Director farewell	4/07/2017	$181.86		Purchase card	90
Lunch w/Councillors and Ex-chair following resignation	16/10/2017	$107.70		Reimbursement	15
Director farewell	28/11/2017	$135.92		Purchase card	45
End of year function for members of Chief Executive/Policy/Operations/Corporate forums	29/11/2017	$94.93		Purchase card	45
Employee farewell	10/05/2017	$244.00		Reimbursement	28
Kaikoura Earthquake Crew Thank you Gifts Hampers (containing one bottle of wine or beer per hamper)	10/02/2017	$753.93	Total hamper price (alcohol was only a part but we don't have individual prices)	Reimbursement	6

1205C - We received an information request for the 2016 / 2017 financial years on the total external legal spend, breakdown for each provider, internal legal spend and some overall organisational figures.

Category of costs	For year ended 30 June 2016	For year ended 30 June 2017
1. Total external legal spend	$2,174,840 (includes $89,488 in secondment charges for acting General Counsel)	$1,711,587
2. Amount incurred with each legal services provider (over $10,000)
Wynn Williams	$2,083,544	$1,645,229
Adderley Head	$16,314	$17,848
Bell Gully	$15,969
Buddle Findlay	$13,272
McPhail Gibson	$13,196
Raymond Donnelly		$12,880
3. Internal legal resources
Legal staff numbers - headcount	3	3
Non-legal staff headcount	0	0
4. Total internal legal spend	$415,775	$527,931
Direct total spend	$286,800	$396,975
Indirect costs including overhead	$128,975	$130,560
5. Rateable properties	259,143	263,182
6. Total staff numbers
Total employees	579	605
FTEs	545	573

1198C - We received a request for Environment Canterbury’s current Chief Executive salary.

The current Chief Executive salary (excluding vehicle costs) is $385,153.  Additionally, find the job description for our Chief Executive.

1138C - We received an information request for the number of full-time equivalent staff positions and the number of scientific and technical advisors at Environment Canterbury.

 

Gender	Count of employee code
Female	303
Male	298
Grand Total	601

 

Salary range	Female	Male	Grand Total
<60,000	104.5	78	182.5
<60,000-79,999	105	104	209
<80,000-99,999	57	64	121
<100,000-119,999	20	33	53
<120,000-139,999	4	12	16
<140,000- 159,999	5		5
<160,000- 179,999	4	5	9
<180,000- 219,999	1		1
<220,000- 299,999	2	1	3
>400,000		1	1
Grand Total	302.5	298	600.5

 

1131C - We received an information request for the number of full-time equivalent staff positions and the number of scientific and technical advisors at Environment Canterbury.

The below staffing numbers are based on information as reported on 1 July 2017.

1. Full-time equivalent staff members – 600.5
2. Full time equivalent scientific or technical advisor – 59.17

The requestor defined scientific or technical advisor positions as below:

This number should be understood to include academic and technical disciplines as conventionally understood, such as: agricultural science, air quality science, biology, chemistry, contaminated land assessment and management, earth science, ecology, environmental science, environmental risk assessment, freshwater science, geochemistry, hydrology, soil science, economics, sociology, civil engineering, and geographic information science (where practiced as a science), but exclude staff whose primary roles relate to the use and maintenance of information technology systems (ITS staff), policy development, or planning.

The number should not be based on a staff member’s qualifications, but on their operational role including a significant component as a scientific or technical advisor.  Also excluded would be staff that support sample collection or field or laboratory analysis leading to the provision of environmental data, unless they are also involved in the technical reporting or interpretation of such monitoring results.

1107C - We received an information request regarding how rate funding is being spent. The requestor’s specific questions and our responses are outlined below.

The Canterbury Water Management strategy promotes active facilitation of parties with existing and proposed water infrastructure towards the 10 target areas of the CWMS. Environment Canterbury leads a lot of this facilitation, particularly where better water use or environmental improvement outcomes are possible.  This work is complementary to, and should not be confused with, the work of other agencies including the Community and Public Health division of the Canterbury District Health Board through the Drinking Water Assistance Programme (DWAP), the Ministry for Primary Industries and Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd.

In 2016/2017 Christchurch ratepayers are funding $286,000 of CWMS infrastructure facilitation.

The remuneration and allowances for all Councillors (both elected and appointed) is governed by a Determination of the Remuneration Authority. Environment Canterbury's Determination is available at. http://remauthority.govt.nz/clients-remuneration/local­govemment-elected-officials/.

The Determination provides a per-kilometre allowance for Councillors and sets out the rules around how the allowance is calculated (see clause 10). In addition to the per-kilometre allowance, there is a travel time allowance for Councillors, at clause 1 OA.

These allowances are standard to all local authorities across New Zealand.

Paeroa Reserve Project - Urban Waterways Initiative - Goods and Services

• 2014/15- $6,484
• 2015/16 - $61,398

Paeroa Reserve Project - Immediate Steps Fund

2015116 - $2,930 of Immediate Steps money (approximately $1,000 having been spent so far) (ex GST}
Total spent on Paeroa Reserve Project- $70,812 (ex GST)
Dudley Creek is a Christchurch City Council project and no Environment Canterbury money has been spent on this from a Zone Delivery/Zone Committee perspective.

Environment Canterbury has been mandated by all 11 members of the Mayoral Forum to collect via a regional rate the resources required to provide support to the Mayoral Forum and its associated committees. The total budget for these services for 2017/18 is $280,772 (excl. overhead allocations). Based on Environment Canterbury's general rate collection ratio for Christchurch, approximately $150,000 would come from Christchurch City ratepayers.

The table below records every journey as defined by each individual trip on the 100 bus.

January 2016	February 2016	March 2016	April 2016	May 2016	June 2016
28,686	43,587	47,586	40,416	47,760	44,381

July 2016	August 2016	September 2016	October 2016	November 2016	December 2016
39,739	47,142	43,042	43,055	43,409	35,778

Due to the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee being set up, how much in additional rate funding is that organisation costing Christchurch ratepayers next year?

The Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee is a joint committee of four local authorities, plus NZTA, established to promote a more coordinated approach of the five agencies involved in funding and providing the infrastructure that supports public passenger transport throughout the Greater Christchurch area.

Environment Canterbury has been mandated by the five members of the joint committee to collect via a regional targeted rate the cost of an independent chair. The total budget for these services for 2017/18 is $27,500. Fifty-one percent of the $27,500 is funded by NZTA grants, leaving 49% to be funded by the general rates.

1095C - We received a request for information about Communications section spending for the 2010/2011 and 2015/2016 financial years. 

Functions covered by communications departments in different organisations vary greatly, so we have included some explanatory notes about what is included in our Communications and External Relations department. Also noted is what expenditure has and hasn’t been included in the figures below.

The Environment Canterbury Communications & External Relations section had 22 FTEs in 2010/11 and 22.6 in 2015/16 at year-end. These staff covered the following functions:

• web design and management and digital platforms
• graphic design and print production (including production of RMA Plans, corporate documents, council agendas etc.)
• youth engagement (including Enviroschools facilitation)
• internal communications
• external communications (education and awareness) for Environment Canterbury functions (including CWMS/water, biodiversity and biosecurity, public transport, air quality, hazards and emergency management response, navigation safety, annual and long-term planning)
• media liaison
• marketing and behaviour change campaigns (eg air quality/home heating and public transport) and
• industry/stakeholder engagement.

Environment Canterbury is the regional council covering the country’s largest geographical area. As you will appreciate, water management is a high priority in the region. As the result, in 2015/16 the number of communications staff within the Communications & External Relations section was:

• five in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) and biodiversity/biosecurity team
• two who look after the other portfolios of air quality, consents & compliance, hazards, transport and regional leadership
• two in internal communications

So of the total seven communications staff, five of them focused on external communications.

The total figures are shown in Table 1 below

2010/11	($)	2015/16	($)
Labour	1,119,365	Labour	1,322,033
Goods & Services	1,068,253	Goods & Services	2,601,528
Overheads	1,231,044	Overheads	1,671,603
Plant	4,065	Plant	25,227
Total	3,422,727	Total	5,620,391

These total figures include expenditure in all the following areas of expenditure:

• communications advice
• collateral design and production
• printing and advertising
• web development
• photography & video
• media monitoring
• market research & behaviour change
• sponsorship & community events
• operational expenses such as travel, phones, learning and development, stationery

The expenditure for ‘external Public Relations’ has been extracted from the total figure as noted below. This includes expenditure for one-off pieces of communications work or for specialised skills when required.

The total figures are shown in Table 2 below

2010/11	($)	2015/16	($)
External resources	38,085	External resource	147,626

Note: this does not include expenditure on additional external resource for web development, contracted market research and other such activities. These are included in the overall figures noted above in Table 1.

It is worth noting that the scope of the work undertaken has changed between the 2010/11 year and the 2015/16 year, and so the figures cannot be used to make a direct comparison between the years. For example, during that time significant progress has been made on developing and implementing a new planning framework within both the water management and air quality areas. This has led to new work programmes and initiatives within the communications function to support these changes.

In addition, it is worth noting that the 2010/11 financial year was an unusual one because of the Canterbury earthquakes. We had the Darfield earthquake in Sept 2010 which took most the communications team out for 2-3 weeks doing public information management (PIM) duties in Civil Defence. Then the Christchurch earthquake occurred in Feb 2011. Business as usual took a back seat during this period. It was not until April/May that most staff reconnected with Environment Canterbury work programmes, and started to pick up work interrupted by civil defence duties.

1088C - We received a request for information government funding of product stewardship schemes in New Zealand.  

Environment Canterbury does not directly fund any product stewardship schemes. We do however provide relevant services, investigations and officer time associated with product stewardship.

The following activities relate to product stewardship:

Canterbury Waste Joint Committee – contributing member 2008-2010, Environment Canterbury provided 25% funding of the committee’s contestable fund, of which an estimated 20% related to product stewardship investigations, pilot programmes and services. Average annual contribution: $20,000-30,000.

• Type of funding: direct (contestable fund – ongoing contribution)
• Total contribution to Product Stewardship investigations: $20,000
• Total contribution to implementation/ ongoing support – Nil
• Total waste – N/A

Agrecovery – agrichemical funding for legacy and brand specific chemicals not included in the voluntary product stewardship scheme.

• Type of funding: direct (collection and disposal costs)
• Total contribution to Product Stewardship investigations – Nil
• Total contribution to implementation/ ongoing support: $130,000 (2011-16)
• Total waste: 9,363kg Agricultural chemicals - 984 containers (estimate)

Advocacy/officer time – While Environment Canterbury does not directly deliver, coordinate or otherwise fund product stewardship schemes it is estimated that approximately 100hrs/year ($120/hr) are dedicated to advocacy around product stewardship related activity. This includes participation in the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee above.

• Type of funding: labour – advocacy (salary and overheads)
• Total contribution to investigation/implementation/ongoing support: $96,000 (2008-16)

1066C - Media request for information about how much money Environment Canterbury spent on advertising in the last financial year.

The total advertising spend for the organisation for last financial year (01/07/2015 - 30/06/2016) is $813,050. This figure includes the cost of creating the advertisement graphic and publishing them.

A significant amount of our advertising is due to our obligations under the Local Government Act to give public notice of bylaws, public meetings, tenders, etc. in local newspapers. The other significant contribution to our advertising costs revolves around engaging the community with council activities such as Canterbury Water Management Strategy, Air Quality initiatives, and Public Transport campaigns.

The remainder of the advertising falls under recruitment costs, signage (for example: birds nesting in this area/fire danger), Yellow pages, and various other collateral items such as brochures or information sheets.

Environment Canterbury has only invested in Facebook advertising which equalled to $531.81 in the last financial year. This consisted of ‘boosting’ Facebook posts which allow a larger amount of our audience to view that post. No money was spent on YouTube or Google advertising.

1049C - Public transport information was requested as follows:

1. Public passenger transport costs since 2008/2009 including the most recent financial year with totals, broken down by amount covered by users, ratepayers and the New Zealand Transport Agency

2. What were the levels of demand for public passenger transport for each of the financial years to date since 2008/2009

3. How much was the cost of public passenger transport fares for each of the financial years to date since 2008/2009

4. What percentage of public passenger transport fares for each of the financial years to date since 2008/2009 went towards user contributions to cover public passenger transport costs

The information requested is attached.

1055C - Media request for information about Environment Canterbury’s external legal services spend for the years previous to 2015/16.

The information requested is attached. Each year Environment Canterbury’s legal requirements can vary considerably, covering such things as hearings, employment advice and property matters. The legal firms used, and the amount spent with each depends on particular needs in any given year. 

1043C - Information request regarding Environment Canterbury-leased grazing land and income allocation.

The figures provided below have been extrapolated from the current reserves land database as at November 2016. Our records do not record the exact data that your bespoke request has asked for so the information below has been manually taken from the database and from staff knowledge of the farming operations. The replies below correspond to the five numbered questions submitted.

1. How many hectares of land is ECan currently leasing to farmers for grazing farm animals?

The area of Environment Canterbury reserve land currently under farm lease or grazing licence totals 10816 hectares.

2. Where is the land located that is currently being leased to farmers for grazing farm animals?

These leases and licences are located throughout the Canterbury region from Kaikoura in the north to the Waitaki River in the south. The land is mainly river protection reserve land associated with the main Canterbury rivers. Most of the land is related to the Waimakariri and lower Rakaia Rivers. All leases include requirements to comply with current legislation and our planning rules.

3. How much of the land leased is to farmers who are grazing dairy cows and dairy support?

The total area of land under lease or grazing licence for dairy or dairy support farming is 5509 hectares.

4. How much money does Ecan receive per hectare from the leasing of land to farmers for grazing? If it not leased out on a per hectare basis, how much in total did Ecan receive in 2015 from leasing land to farmers for grazing farm animals?

The current total annual rent for farm leases and grazing licences for the 10816 hectares is $1,480,000. Rentals vary depending on the location, type of soil (mostly very stony river berm), access, risk and productivity. These factors mean there is significant variability in rental on a per hectare basis.

5. Is the money received from this practice allocated to any specific funds or areas of work?

The vast majority of the farm tenancies are within river rating areas and any rentals received are paid into the specific river rating account to help pay for river protection works like stopbanks, protection tree planting and the maintenance of these works. This endowment income from leasing the land helps offset public rating to fund these works. Legislation, for example, the Waimakariri River Improvement Act of 1922, sets out how these funds are to be used and where.

Environment Canterbury inherited this land from former authorities as a result of the 1989 local government reorganisation. As stated earlier, either local legislation or special rating districts determine where income from this land should be spent. The general principle, however, is that the land was endowed or vested in Environment Canterbury for two purposes: 1) to provide for flood prevention infrastructure 2) to provide income to assist funding flood prevention.

988C - We received a letter dated 21/06/2016 requesting information on:

• The annual budget allocated for enforcement actions under the RMA for each year for the past 5 years (with each year to run from 1 July to 30 June, so that the most recent year will end in June 2015)
• The number of Full-Time Equivalent ("FTE") staff working for the Council to undertake enforcement actions under the RMA each year for the past 5 years information request regarding Environment Canterbury-leased grazing land and income allocation.

The figures below provide this information relating to staff and budgets relating to all RMA enforcement. 

FTE Environment Canterbury staff employed to undertake enforcement action Year (1 July to 30 June)	Full Time Equivalents
2010/11	32.71
2011/12	26.22
2012/13	30.48
2013/14	34.92
2014/15	33.17

Council's Budget for RMA Enforcement Actions - last 5 years	Budgets
2010/11	$5,846,477
2011/12	$6,334,325
2012/13	$5,889,436
2013/14	$5,670,467
2014/15	$6,089,823

The RMA compliance team monitors over 24,000 consents. Of these, there are 5900 consents for water takes. Groundwater abstraction consents had the highest rate of significant non-compliance. Surface water abstraction and agricultural discharges followed close behind. 

Overall, during the 2014/15 year, Environment Canterbury issued 81 abatement notices and 36 infringement notices with $50,500 worth of fines.

Three successful prosecutions were concluded, including one that led to lnterflow ltd contributing $80,000 towards the remediation of a stream on Banks Peninsula. The compliance team's aim is to achieve a high level of voluntary compliance by working with individuals and the community, but if unsuccessful Environment Canterbury has several enforcement tools it can use to make sure rules are complied with.

Compliance is also undertaken by third party providers who, through real time monitoring of water, can immediately alert consent holders to water take consent breaches. Independent auditors also provide us with assurance that Farm Environment Plans are in place and provide information on whether they are up to standard (there will be 5000 farm plans in place by 2020). This compliance activity requires no Environment Canterbury expenditure.

987C - We received a request for information on:

• The full spend and break down of costs for ECan of compliance over the 2014/2015 financial year, and
• The full spend and break down of costs of communications for ECan over the 2014/2015 financial year

The table below shows the information requested.

14/15 Year - Environment Canterbury	Labour	Vehicle Usage	Good & Services	Corporate & Section Overhead Costs Allocated	Total Costs
Communications	$310,943	$2,467	$532,848	$375,902	$1,222,160
Monitoring & Compliance	$2,130,371	$196,663	$476,155	$3,182,240	$5,985,429

It is important to note the two business groups – compliance and communications – have completely different functions and it is difficult to compare the budgets between the two.

The compliance team monitors over 24,000 consents with a prime focus on water use. Groundwater abstraction consents had the highest rate of significant non-compliance. Surface water abstraction and agricultural discharges followed close behind. The cost of our compliance activities is largely met by either the user of the resource, or the polluter.

Overall, during the year Environment Canterbury issued 81 abatement notices and 36 infringement notices with $50,500 worth of fines. Three successful prosecutions were concluded, including one that led to Interflow Ltd contributing $80,000 towards the remediation of a stream on Banks Peninsula. The compliance team’s aim is to achieve a high level of voluntary compliance by working with individuals and the community, but if unsuccessful Environment Canterbury has several enforcement tools it can use to make sure rules are complied with.

Compliance is also undertaken by third party providers who through real time monitoring of water can immediately alert consent holders to water take consent breaches. Independent auditors also provide us with assurance that Farm Environment Plans are in place and provide information on whether they are up to standard (there will be 5000 farm plans in place by 2020). This compliance activity requires no Environment Canterbury expenditure.  The Communications team works across the whole organisation, supporting its work. It provides communications and media advice to staff, provides direction and oversight of Environment Canterbury’s extensive website, and commissions design, advertising and publishing for council initiatives.

You can find further information about costs and budgets for both compliance and communications in Environment Canterbury’s annual report which is located here.

1135C - We received an information request on Immediate Steps funding on Flock Hill over the past 5 years and subsequent biodiversity outcomes.

Three projects have been supported on Flock Hill over the past five years from 2010 to 2015.  The majority of these were initiated, managed, and/or delivered in collaboration with Fish & Game North Canterbury without Flock Hill receiving any money.  Details of these three projects are as follows:

Winding Creek fencing and weed control

• Initiated, managed and delivered by Fish & Game North Canterbury (FY2010/11)
• Total value $93,700 including contribution from Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury and Fish & Game delivered over several stages
• Project aimed to fence the creek to reduce the amount of sedimentation within Winding Creek and to reduce disturbance within the adjacent wetland area, which will support maintaining a healthy stream with clear gravels, healthy populations of native plants, fish, invertebrates, and thriving native riparian vegetation. In addition, removal of weeds was undertaken
• Project outcomes monitored: effective fence line placement and delivery of wide stream buffer area

Winding Creek wetland and weed control

• Landowner initiated and delivered in collaboration with Environment Canterbury and Fish & Game (FY 2012/13)
• Total project value $31,900 shared 50-50 with landowner to protect wetland
• Previously stock-grazed land fenced off and retired for 63.7 ha of wetland and connected to previous Winding Creek protection project
• Protection of wetland habitat and stream habitat, which is known to be of high value to spawning salmon. Weed control was undertaken by Fish & Game
• Project outcomes monitored: fence was delivered and Fish & Game have completed the weed control

Craigieburn Stream and Lake Pearson

• Initiated by landowner together with Fish & Game (FY 2011/12)
• Total project value $48,000 with contributions from Environment Canterbury, Department of Conservation and the landowner
• Fenced off 2200 m of the Craigieburn Stream and eliminated cattle access to Lake Pearson to improve water quality.  Eliminated cattle grazing from the lower Craigieburn Stream through fencing, to improve water quality (sheep grazing only along the very weedy stream margins).  Eliminated all stock grazing from the lake margin between the Craigieburn Stream fan and the Winding Stream exit point. (no sheep, cattle and deer).

In order for Immediate Steps funding to be successful the Zone Committee relies on willing landowners to approach and work with Environment Canterbury and our biodiversity officers.  Environment Canterbury staff lead the initial project scoping, project drafting, and proposal pitch.  Terrestrial and freshwater ecologists peer review all project proposals and provide a recommendation to the Zone Committee for decision making.  This recommendation takes into account whether the project objectives are achievable and deliver the envisaged biodiversity outcomes.  The biodiversity outcomes under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) are long-term goals and therefore some expected results from projects will take time to eventuate.

1104C - We received an information request for Information about allocation of Immediate Steps Biodiversity Fund to a project on Cave Stream on Flock Hill Station. 

The requester asked many questions regarding Cave Stream on Flock Hill Station. All of the questions and their answers can be found below.

What is the purpose of the fence?

The purpose of the fence is to protect Cave Stream from stock access through the agricultural areas adjacent to Stage one and two of the proposed fencing. The proposed fencing goes beyond what is required by farmers in the high country in regards to stock exclusion from water ways.

Where is the proposed fence going to be located?

The attached map shows the location of the proposed fence and the stages of the fencing.

Does it include the natural Eco tone from wetland-terrace riser shrubland to dryland terrace?

The main stem of the stream and surrounding wetlands is a naturally rare ecosystem, with >30% left but less than 10% protected. The cave and karst features in Stage three of the proposed fencing are regionally significant, and according to Department of Conservation, nationally significant.

How does the fencing of the adjoining terraces which are proposed for cultivation, meet the objectives of Environment Canterbury's plans and policies to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity and protect ONLs?

The fences on both sides of the stream (Stage one) will provide a protected freshwater biodiversity corridor, which was previously accessible by stock, and was weed and pine infested. The riparian area has a minimum buffer of approximately 20m on either side and overall 80-100m combined buffer on average. Stage two and three protect Cave Stream and therefore no second fence line is needed as it borders onto the road where there is already a fence installed.

The fenced off area will now be under weed control management and therefore protect current, and enhance existing, biodiversity values.

What ecological assessment was carried out to support the funding decision, and further, was it included an assessment of the landscape impacts of a fence and the proposed changes in vegetation that will occur in an area with “regional and national significant landscape features”. Also requested was a copy of the ecological and landscape assessments.

In relation to the ecological assessment:

The Immediate Steps (IMS) Biodiversity Fund was set up to support on-the-ground actions to improve freshwater-related biodiversity. IMS funding is allocated to each zone and the Zone Committee decides which projects receive IMS funding.

The biodiversity assessment for Immediate Steps funding for projects are based on the following criteria (and in accordance with the Wildlands - Guidelines For The Application Of Ecological Significance Criteria For Indigenous Vegetation And Habitats Of Indigenous Fauna In Canterbury Region):

• Existing ecological values of the proposed project site (representativeness, rarity or distinctiveness, diversity/pattern, ecological context, protection of threatened environments and naturally rare or distinct habitat)
• Potential ecological values of the site (10-15 years’ time) based on likely change (effectiveness/key threats, potential positive impact ecologically, value for money)
• Other criteria such as non-ecological or cultural (legally protected, education)
• Immediate steps criteria based on the Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP)

The ecological assessment score was peer reviewed by a terrestrial and freshwater ecologist.

Summary:

Overall Assessment Scores

Criteria	Score	Comments
Ecological Assessment Score (Existing and Potential) /39	31	This assessment is related to the fencing and ongoing wildling pine and weed control along the spring fed cave stream; this project links up with the fully fenced Cave Stream Reserve downstream. This project has 3 stages and will safeguard the complete Cave Stream system running through the Station.
Cultural	Medium
Other Criteria Overall Rating	Medium
Immediate Steps Rating	High

In relation to the landscape assessment:

The Zone Committee recognises the high landscape values in the surrounding area, but consideration of the potential visual impact of the fence does not currently form a part of the formal Immediate Steps framework biodiversity assessment. However, these values can be considered in the general discussion of projects with the biodiversity subcommittee, the full Zone Committee and by community members at the meeting. The landscape values in question, and the project’s potential impact on these, were discussed at both the Zone Committee Biodiversity Subcommittee meeting and the full Zone Committee meeting.

The meeting agenda for the latter was publicly available on Environment Canterbury’s website one week before each meeting and sent out to a number of interested and relevant partners, organisations and individuals.

Is the landowner committed to ongoing weed control within the fenced area?

The Ministry for Primary Industries, Department of Conservation and Flock Hill Station Limited have a combined commitment to weed control across the project area for the next three years. Flock Hill is committed to maintain weed control after this period, and the station will continue with maintenance as the ecological cost of discontinuing weed control would be high within the fenced off area.

Would the funding have been better spent to fence off the flats below the Cave stream gorge?

The flats below the gorge are not part of this project. The Zone Committee and Environment Canterbury are open to further Immediate Steps applications from Flock Hill Station and other high country properties to assist with the protection of freshwater-related biodiversity.

Why did the Committee not wait for a decision on the SDC resource consent application before making a decision on the fence?

As mentioned above, Flock Hill Station has withdrawn its resource consent application with Selwyn District Council (SDC). The Station is currently not pursuing any further action or application regarding this matter.

Is the fence part of an Overseas Investment obligation?

No, the fence is not part of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) obligation.

The requestor stated that “Flock Hill Station lease is now 100% American owned”, and asked if the Committee could not foresee possible PR problems with assisting Flock Hill owners to fence the property with public money and help “pursue a dramatically revised method of farming” as outlined in the Overseas Investment Office consent dated 7 April 2016.

The land area in question is owned by the University of Canterbury and leased long-term by Flock Hill Station Limited. Therefore, the conditions from an Overseas Investment Office consent for Flock Hill Station Limited are unrelated to the site in question as the ownership and lease agreement are a separate issue. The method of farming is not a dramatically revised method of farming. It is a return to the farming long established in the past and operating until the invasion of wilding pines in the last 20 years.

2049C - Request for information regarding activities funded by the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) - request copy of staff recommendations regarding proposed activities and total UAGC per property.

Email 1

Kia ora Jamie

Please find attached our response to your LGOIMA enquiry.

I have one additional document which I will send separately as response B, as it is around 30Mb — please advise if you don’t receive it.

Ngā mihi, Margaret

Email attachments

 LTP Council Briefing Presentation - Public Transport - Scenario 4 - Communications and Engagement - Revenue and Financing Policy 201125_Redacted (PDF File, 4.81MB)

 LGOIMA 2049C Jamie McFadden - 10-05-21 (PDF File, 55.69KB)

 Revised scenarios 25 NOV 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 1.26MB)

 LTP update 3 Dec 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 4.62MB)

 LTP UAGC scenarios LTP (PDF File, 395.43KB)

 LTP Revenue review 14 Oct 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 2.7MB)

 LTP Financial framework - Redacted (PDF File, 3.18MB)

Email 2

As stated in my previous email, here is the remaining document.

Margaret

Email attachment

 Revised scenarios 18 Nov 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 30.82MB)

Email 3

Dear Jamie

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA):
Request for Information

I refer to your email dated 11 April 2021 requesting information on the proposed funding by Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). Your request has been referred to me to reply.

You requested a copy of Environment Canterbury staff recommendations in relation to activities proposed to be funded by UAGC, and total UAGC per property. Please find the requested information attached. Please let us know if you require further information, this same topic is covered in other working or presentation documents but we believe that to be a duplication of the information contained within these documents provided.

We have redacted the authors of the reports on the basis of privacy of those staff under s7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA.

You will be aware that if you are not satisfied with this response, you are able to refer this matter to the Office of the Ombudsman under s27(3) of the LGOIMA.

Please be advised that we now put LGOIMA responses that are in the public interest onto our website. No personal details of the requester are given, but we do summarise the essence of the request alongside the response.

Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Margaret Meehan in the first instance (margaret.meehan@ecan.govt.nz or 03 367 7440).

Yours sincerely

David Perenara-O'Connell
Acting Director Strategy and Planning

Email attachments

 LTP Revenue review 14 Oct 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 2.7MB)

 LTP update 3 Dec 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 4.62MB)

 Revised scenarios 18 Nov 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 30.82MB)

 Revised scenarios 25 November 2020 - Redacted (PDF File, 1.26MB)

 UAGC scenarios LTP (XLSX File, 330.14KB)

1708C - Request for information of the gender of the elected members during the period 1989 to 2001. Women are indicated in the table with a (W).

This table shows the names of Elected Members and the date of their terms for the period/elections between 1989 to 2001:

Also asked to be provided with the ethnicity of the named members during this period. This information has never been recorded by the Council.

Question whether the Canterbury Regional Council utilised the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) or First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system during this period, and if the Council used STV, when this commenced.

1716C - We received an information request for information regarding hiring and contracts of Executive Staff.

• The Chief Executive is employed by the Councillors for a fixed term as defined by the Local Government Act. All employment matters including appointment and assessment of performance are conducted by the Councillors under the leadership of the Chair. 
• The Chief Executive is the employer for all Council staff including all Directors and other executive team members. Contracts are usually for permanent employment although there are some occasions where staff are employed on a fixed term basis to deliver a specific project or outcome with a defined timeframe.
• All disciplinary decisions are made by the Chief Executive in accordance with employment agreements and employment law provisions.

1125C - We received an information request regarding the ethical code of conduct that Councillors follow in New Zealand.

1. What are the main systems and processes for governing ethical conduct in your council?

Legislation, Standing Orders, Members Code of Conduct and peer support, training and advice.

2. What legislation, codes and protocols govern ethical conduct for councillors and officers?

• Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
• The Office of the Auditor General has a website with Good Practice Guides including "Guidance for members of local authorities about the local authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968"; and "Managing conflicts of interest: Guidance for public entities"
• Standing Orders
• Local Government Act 2002
• This has a legal requirement for each local authority to adopt a code of conduct for its elected members.

3. What are behaviours are expected of councillors and officers in order to uphold good ethical conduct?

As above

4. What support is in place to encourage/develop those behaviours?

• As above and peer support
• In addition there may be training provided by way of national courses e. g. for decision making on resource consent applications and plan making. Both Councillors and staff with delegations to make decisions for resource consent matters attend this training.
• There is advice available to Councillors from staff and external advisors on what is confidential, or commercially sensitive information in terms of how they conduct meetings and make decisions.
• There is advice on avoiding: serious offence to tikanga Maori; and disclosure of the location of waahi tapu (places sacred to Maori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual or mythological sense).
• There is advice and training available for recognition of what constitutes bias, conflict of interest and pre-determination.

5. What is the process if someone falls short of expected behaviours? When it is a councillor, who decides they have fallen short?

As per standing orders.

6. What are the sanctions and systems in place for addressing poor behaviour?

As per standing orders.

7. What effect have the ethical governance processes you've got in place had on principles like openness, fairness, integrity, transparency, mutual respect but also public confidence?

The legislation and standing orders have been in place for many years. I am not aware of any document that records any such changes over time.

1090C - We received an information request for information on Environment Canterbury councillors subject to any enforcement action and each councillor's register of interests.

Please find below the information we hold on Environment Canterbury councillors as requested.

Claire Elizabeth McKay

Date	Incident	Action taken	Officer	Reference
13 December 2016	Response to hotline call on 13 December 2016 about effluent ponding from a spill of the effluent wedge	21 December 2016, two abatement notices issued for ponding effluent, in the name of Mr Baggot/Ms McKay and Lyn Baggott	Marco	CRC990910.4

 John Sucknell

Date	Incident	Action taken	Officer	Reference
22 February 2017	Irrigator spraying on the road	Phone call to John Sucknell, he has contractors booked in to fix the problems, currently waiting on parts.	Teaghan	PE173899

Read all Councillors’ entries from the Councillor declaration of interest register.

2172C - Request for information in relation to swing moorings and the levy implemented following the adoption of our Long Term Plan.

I refer to your email dated 17 September 2021 requesting information on swing moorings and the recent levy implemented following the adoption of our Long-Term Plan.

Please find our response below.

As you are aware during the process of setting the Annual Plan for 2019/20, Councillors at Environment Canterbury agreed that swing moorings needed to be a user-pays service and therefore fully cost-recovered. Upon the adoption of the Annual Plan on 20 June 2019 the moorings fee was set at $200 + GST to ensure this service remained user-pays. This fee change came into effect from 1 July 2019. Prior to this, swing moorings were not operating at a full-cost recovery model.

The recently applied levy of $50 +GST has been implemented following the adoption of our Long-Term Plan 2021-31, which took effect from 1 July 2021. This levy is specifically to aid in the recovery/removal of wrecked or abandoned vessels and applies to all 650 (approximately) of the swing mooring holders.

This levy is being collected, and while not held in a separate bank account, it is identified and assigned to a specific cost code and reserve for the purposes of vessel recovery/removal. It will only be used for this purpose.

The financial position of this cost code and reserve can be provided on request to swing moorings holders at the end of each financial year. This will detail the levy collection income and expenditure as well as a closing reserve balance.

Environment Canterbury has an obligation to ensure our harbours are made safe, and in the event of an incident requiring wreckage or vessel removal, we often incur costs to remove any hazards first and recover costs later. The registered vessel owners are invoiced for any associated charges (where we can identify the owner). If payment is not forthcoming, then debt recovery is pursued.

We will ensure that the use of the levy funds for vessel or wreckage recovery/removal are only used once all other options of debt recovery have been exhausted.

Akaroa harbour

Details of vessel	Year	Cost	Recoverable Y/N	Abandoned/Wreck	Owner Identified	Cost recovery	Full payment (FP)/Payment Arrangement(PA)/Remains Debtor(RD)
Launch 8.3m	2015	$2,355.53	N	Abandoned/wreck	N	Y	FP
Sloop 8.5m	2017	$5,276.35	N	Abandoned/wreck	N	N
Multihull 8m	2019	$3,355.14	Y	Wreck	Y	N	RD

Whakaraupō / Lyttelton harbour area

Details of vessel	Year	Cost	Recoverable Y/N	Abandoned/Wreck	Owner Identified	Cost recovery	Full payment (FP)/Payment Arrangement(PA)/Remains Debtor(RD)
Launch	2014	$12,383.60	Y	Wreck	Y	Y	PA/FP
Yacht 7.8m	2015	$2,004.6$	U	Wreck	U	N
Launch 9.6m	2015	$18,365.01	Y	Wreck	Y	U
Ex-Ship's Lifeboat	2016	$2,500.00	N	Abandoned	N	N
Launch 10m	2019	$8,943.35	Y	Wreck	Y	N	RD
Keeler	2019	$1,585.48	Y	Abandoned	N	Y	FP
Keeler	2019	$586.50	N	Abandoned	Y	Y	FP
Unknown from Purau	2020	$5,623.50	N	Abandoned/wreck	N	N
Unknown from Cass	2020	$4,404.39	N	Wreck	N	N
Yacht (LOA unknown)	2020	$6,871.02	N	Abandoned/wreck	N	N
Unknown from Akaroa	2022	$5,000.00	Y	Abandoned	N	N
Catamaran- Cass Bay	2022	$12,257.00	Y	Wreck	Y	N
Unknown	2022	$16,281.00	Y	Wreck	Y	Y
		$107,792.47	Cost total for both areas
		$16,911.11	Recovered for both areas

We have had several official information requests about the mooring fee towards the removal of wrecks/abandoned vessels from swing moorings.

As required by the Maritime Transport Act 1994, funds from the fee towards removal of wrecks/abandoned vessels from swing moorings are only used when we need to deal with wrecked, stranded or abandoned vessels that are at, or have come adrift from, swing moorings.

Any funds unspent in a financial year are placed in a dedicated reserve for use in a future year in addition to any fees paid in that year if expenditure exceeds the sum of that year’s fee total.

Find out more about our fees for moorings.  You can find information on ways to pay on our contact page. Further information on fees can be found in the Navigation Safety Bylaw.

Our response

Shouldn’t the wrecks’ owners arrange and pay for recovery?

The cost of recovery and disposal of a sunk or stranded boat is the responsibility of the boat’s owner. We only become involved when there is no identifiable owner or when there is a compelling navigation safety reason to do so. When we do take action, we try to recover costs from the boat owner.

I keep my boat in good condition. Why am I paying towards the removal of wrecks?

In cases where there is no identifiable owner or where the owner has no means to pay, costs cannot be recovered from an individual. In the past, these costs have been covered by Canterbury ratepayers.

It is more reasonable for these costs to rest where the greatest risks and benefits exist. The boats most at risk from a sunk or drifting boat on/from a swing mooring are other boats on swing moorings. Therefore, the greatest benefits from recovery of sunk/drifting boats is to the owners of other boats on swing moorings.

How many wrecks does the Harbourmaster’s Office deal with each year?

From 2015-2021, at least 12 wrecks or derelict vessels from swing moorings have sunk or required removal, requiring direct action by the HMO that incurred costs. Only two of these had the costs eventually fully paid by the owner; the others either had no identifiable owner or were written off as bad debt due to demonstrable inability to pay.

How much does the Harbourmaster’s Office spend dealing with wrecks and abandoned vessels?

Between 2014 and 30 June 2023, we spent $130,904.47+GST removing wrecked and abandoned vessels. Of that total, we recovered $16,911.11 from the vessels’ owners.

We spent $23,112 on wreck removals during the 2022/23 Financial Year. There is $21,431 remaining in the reserve fund as of 1 July 2023.

Why don’t you require proof of insurance?

In New Zealand, there is no requirement for private vessel owners to hold insurance for their vessels. Even if a vessel is insured, no one can require the insurance holder to make a claim; nor is there any guarantee of a claim being accepted or paid by an insurer (claims are sometimes refused); nor can anyone else, including a regulatory body, claim on that insurance.

There would be an administrative cost to checking, noting and filing 650 insurance certificates each year. This would increase mooring administration costs.

Why can’t you identify all vessels’ owners?

As there is no formal compulsory registry of private vessels in New Zealand, Environment Canterbury has only our own records to rely on as to who may own any particular vessel. The Bylaw requirement to have vessels identified is not a registry and so does not serve as a record of ownership.

1087C - Environment Canterbury has adopted the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code). The principles of the Code are used in the management of navigation safety throughout the region.

We were unable to provide information to most of these queries, and have outlined below why. Specifically the following was requested:

1. A copy of the Harbour Safety Management System for the Port of Timaru.

Timaru Port is a single port operation and does not lie within a harbour. This means the only operations being undertaken are those of a single port company and associated operations and therefore does not require a harbour safety management system.

2. Documents relevant to berthing plans, any consultation that took place with Environment Canterbury as Harbourmaster and copies of the final plans developed by the Port.

The Port Safety Management System serves as the management document for the operations of that Port. This is not a single document but made up of many procedures, practices, assessments and manuals. Environment Canterbury does not hold copies of these documents.

PrimePort consult with the Harbourmaster on many matters. The discussions and review of documents take place at our meetings with PrimePort on site in Timaru. The discussions are those relating to amendments to existing documents rather than new documents. As such, the discussions are focused on those matters and any changes, amendments or improvements are made at the time, or are reviewed again at a subsequent visit. Environment Canterbury has adopted this process in order to provide a prompt review and response to port company documents. We do not hold copies of the PrimePort documents.

3. A copy of all documents relevant to the setting of wind limit guidelines pursuant to clause 6.3(4) of Harbourmaster’s Direction 16-1.

Harbourmaster’s Direction 16-1, clause 6.3(4) requires that “Every commercial port shall, in consultation with the Harbourmaster, set and operate agreed wind limit guidelines for that port.” These limits will be found within the Port Safety Management System. These documents are reviewed and approved as described above. No copies are held by Environment Canterbury.

4. Any documents that relate to Harbourmaster’s approval of cruise ship visits to Port of Timaru.

The Harbourmaster’s Direction 16-1 sets out the maximum size of vessels that may navigate within the port of Timaru under the Port Safety Management System. This is based on the operational limitations of the port and its infrastructure, and their ability to safely handle those ships, rather than a vessel type. Any vessel in excess of those sizes requires individual approval of the Harbourmaster. There is no separate approval for cruise ships.

1140C - We received a number of questions, most of which we have answered in the table below. 

We could not answer the requestor’s following queries because we do not compile data about the specific low income evidence supplied and it has only been since December 2016 that the low income eligibility criteria has been expanded to include a wider range of low income evidence than a Community Services Card.

• Number of applications from those who own a rental property and have tenants (Until recently we have not compiled data about owner occupied and rented properties.)
• Number of applications for subsidies from those who had a community services card
• Number of application for subsidies from those who had a combined SuperGold card and community services card
• Number of applications for subsidies from those who just missed out on being eligible for a community services card by $5,000 or less
• Number of applications for subsidies from those who receive a rates rebate for the current financial year
• Number of applications for subsidies from those who receive a disability support pension

It is also important to note that the subsidy programmes have been amended over the years, with the main changes to the amount available and the eligibility criteria.  The home heating subsidy started at $500 (until June 2013) and then increased to $1000 (until June 2014) with no Community Services Card requirement.  At that time $1000 was made available towards a wood burner or $2000 towards a heat pump and a requirement for a Community Services Card (until Dec 2016).  Now the eligibility criteria has been expanded further and provides up to $5,000.

1562C - A request has been made in regards to the Hurunui Waiau zone risk map associated with nitrates in drinking water. Below are the three answers to the following questions relating to a risk map associated nitrates in drinking water:

1. Has the map linked below been updated since December 2017? View map.
2. If it has not been updated, can you let me know when the Council plans to update this map?
3. If the Council does not plan to update this map, can the Council provide an explanation why?

This map version is the latest we hold on record. The maps are scheduled to be revised every two years and our next update is planned for late in 2019.

1538C - We received an email dated 16/01/19 requesting information about the September 2018 AIC groundwater report.

Please note that AIC's consent includes strict requirements for land and water uses to limit nitrogen losses and improve irrigation efficiencies and environmental outcomes.

To ensure its water allocation is being used efficiently, AIC has transitioned from a border dyke system to a spray irrigation system – the former uses more water than is needed and as a result dilutes nutrients moving to groundwater.

As part of transitioning to the more efficient spray irrigation system, increases in nitrate concentration will happen due to reduced dilution. However, the consent sets some strict nitrogen loss limits based on AIC’s existing activities.

These limits cannot be exceeded. The transition to good management practice and efficient irrigation is intended to reduce total nitrogen leaching. Without the Hurunui Waiau Rivers Regional Plan and consent being in place, the company could have continued what it was doing without the controls or mitigation measures mentioned above.

Monitoring shows AIC has already achieved nitrogen loss reductions of 3% and 1.6% in the Waiau and Hurunui catchments respectively.

To address the potentially increasing concentration from reduced nitrate dilution, AIC’s consent requires the company to take action when there are any exceedances to ensure any environmental impacts are addressed and any health risks are dealt with appropriately. This includes advising residents of the exceedance and where there are vulnerable people living in the property, ensuring a safe supply of drinking water is available.

Questions referring to the above report:

1. Concern that averages are not the same as quarterly sampling. AIC should be required to provide all 4 values so that the Council can see how the nitrate concentrations have changed over time, and so that the Council can verify that the average value provided is correct. We would like to see the Council request the individual data points as part of the consent conditions and provide those data points.

Please find the relevant (nitrate) data in the table below.

Site	Sample type	Date	NO3-N (g/m3)
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	11/01/2017	0.52
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	12/04/2017	0.82
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	19/07/2017	0.45
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	11/10/2017	1.56
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	17/01/2018	0.53
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	11/04/2018	0.53
N32 / 0139	Rotherham Stream	11/07/2018	1.46
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	23/11/2016	0.47
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	14/12/2016	0.9
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	11/01/2017	0.89
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	12/04/2017	1.25
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	19/07/2017	1.07
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	11/10/2017	1.58
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	17/01/2018	1.09
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	11/04/2018	1.04
N32 / 0277	Rotherham Stream	11/07/2018	2
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	23/11/2016	1.12
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	15/02/2017	1.07
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	17/05/2017	1.66
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	16/08/2017	1.93
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	15/11/2017	2.2
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	17/01/2018	2.2
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	11/04/2018	1.74
N32 / 0267	Rotherham Stream	11/07/2018	1.77

Note that while we are unable to change consent conditions without an application to change conditions, or a review of consent to address an environmental effect (or update to be consistent with a plan)”, in this case condition 11(e) states:

1. Specify annual reporting requirements including as a minimum:

• the results of the quarterly sampling, including any increase in nitrate-nitrogen concentration from that measured above the baseline period; and
• an assessment of the relationship between any changes in measured groundwater quality and recorded increases in irrigation area...

Condition 12 states: “Any nitrate-nitrogen concentrations as measured in accordance with condition 11, exceeds 9 grams per cubic metre, the consent holder shall…”. In other words, not an average exceedance; it is any single sample.

2. Satisfied with the Council’s response in bullet point #2 stating that the Sept 2017 report served as a baseline report and therefore there was no action to be taken. In regards to the Sept 2018 report which has shown a substantial increase in nitrates, and most values exceeding the 11.3 g/l MAV... Outside of the consent conditions, what actions will the council take to remedy the pollution or what actions will the council take to find a third party responsible to remedy this pollution? Noting that the levels detected are dangerous to human and ecosystem health. Are there any protocols in place to address nitrate pollution in groundwater in Canterbury?

There is no requirement for further compliance action. The limits in the consent require, when exceeded, further testing and communication with landowners. This has happened. Nitrate concentration in localised areas are expected to increase due to the introduction of efficient irrigation and loss of dilution from piping the scheme – see also the background, above.

The maximum nitrate discharge in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments is capped in the consent at 956 and 722 tonnes respectively. The reported total annual nitrate discharge is decreasing, as noted in table 2.2 in the 2017 and 2018 annual reports. AIC complies with this consented discharge.

Regarding the second part of the question, Canterbury has some of the strictest land-use rules in New Zealand to protect the region’s water quality.

Farmers must adhere to strict water quality limits, obtain consents to farm, and implement good management practices. Stock exclusion rules are in place.

Fences and buffer strips are encouraged at the edges of rivers and streams to prevent animal waste entering the water.

All these steps will ensure that over time less nitrate will enter Canterbury’s water. In the meantime, private well owners are advised to take precautions. There are treatment options they can implement.

3. The groundwater report supplied appears to be incomplete. Can the Council supply an updated version of this report and explain where and why any information is withheld?

The groundwater report is complete. The two headings refer to sections of the annual monitoring report and are not interpretation and discussion or conclusion relating to this groundwater monitoring plan.

4. Request for the GPS locations or coordinates of the 41 domestic bores. The Council responded that this relates to personal information and that the public interest does not outweigh the grounds for withholding it. Given that there are a health risks associated with nitrate contaminated drinking water and the second report (Sept 2018) confirms that the concentrations are higher than the safe levels and higher than the baseline report, the year before. Forest & Bird believes there is a strong public interest to know where groundwater nitrate levels are above legal standard levels (i.e. potentially harmful levels). Especially given that some women may become pregnant and not be aware that they are pregnant until the 4th or 8th week of pregnancy. We seek that the location of the 41 domestic bores are released or at least the location of the bores that have been shown to have contaminated drinking water (i.e. above 11.3 g/l) in the report 2 (Sept 2018).

AIC communicates with landowners where nitrate levels exceed the MAV as required in its consent conditions. See also the above summary and the response to the next question.

5. The link provided in the response to question 5 does not contain the 41 domestic bores or the bores in report 1 or report 2 and only contains one common bore to the data provided in the response to question 6. In other words, this map does not contain all the information requested.

The Canterbury Maps website contains a Wells and Bores layer that will provide information on all bores in Canterbury. All Hurunui bores are included in this dataset. 

All the bores contained in the AIC annual report, the groundwater report provided and the bores in response to question 6 are visible. This was verified on the external ‘public’ website through the search function.

6. The data provided excludes 24 of the 25 bores locatable on the link provided in the response to question 5. (canterburymaps.govt.nz) The 25 bores referred to are those that are in the Hurunui and classified as ‘active’. We would like to request the nitrate measurements for all 24 of the bores (see attached for a list of bore numbers and the layer associated – ‘Hurunui Bores – Active’ and ‘Wells and Bores.zip).

The data provided in response to question 6 in the LGOIMA response 27 July 2018 is all the Environment Canterbury-gathered nitrate data. We do not monitor all bores in Hurunui.

1254C - We received an information request related to Conditions of Consent No. CRC062867 to take and use water for irrigation on Simons Pass Station, in particular Conditions 86 and 87 of the Dryland Recovery Management Plan (Area G). The requestor’s questions and our responses are outlined below.

Has the regional council received a copy of the Baseline Survey due April 2017 and the Dryland Recovery Management Plan that was to be prepared by October 2017?

Simons Pass have not completed the baseline survey nor developed the Dryland Recovery Management Plan as per the requirement of condition 86 and 87 of CRC062867.

If the Baseline Survey and Dryland Recovery Management Plan have not been completed, what action the council has taken?

The action Environment Canterbury has taken has resulted in the consent holder applying for a change of consent conditions, since the timeframes in the existing conditions can no longer be complied with.

That application is currently in process.

1180C - We received an information request regarding water use for irrigation purposes from 2000-2015.

• View all data

Below is an explanation of the columns in the spreadsheet.

Date	End date of the water year (e.g. 30/06/2015 refers to the 2015-2015 water year)
Take Type	Differentiation is made between groundwater and surface water
Usage	The amount of water used for irrigation purpose in m3, for consents Environment Canterbury received water use data for
Total allocation of measured water takes	Allocation for consented water use for irrigation in m3, for consents Environment Canterbury received water use data for
% usage of measured allocation	The amount of water used in m3 divided by the amount of water allocated for irrigation purposes that is measured (times 100)
Total allocation across all irrigations water takes	Total allocation for all irrigations consents
Percentage of measured allocation vs total allocation	Ration of measured allocation/total allocation (times 100)
% of water usage recorded against total allocation	The amount of water used divided by the total amount of water allocated for irrigations purposes (times 100)

1070C - We received an information request regarding irrigation schemes. The requestor’s specific questions and our responses are outlined below.

What projects have been funded using the Environmental Management Fund, and if there is any information regarding the projects?

The requestor was inquiring after the Central Plains Water (CPW) Environmental Fund. This fund is not administered by Environment Canterbury.  However, CPW have confirmed that they received one application from Te Ara Kākāriki for a Hororata planting project and funded it. 

Details about the project from the original application include the following:

Te Ara Kākāriki intend to work with at least ten landowners in 2017 and have already identified thirteen who have shown interest in receiving our assistance, of which four would be new projects in the CPW area and two are partially established restoration sites in the CPW area that we would like to assist in growing.  The rest of the sites are within the Selwyn Waihora Zone.  However, we are just about to make a call out for more interested landowners to work with, and we would be open to take on your suggestion for sites near the Hororata and Selwyn Rivers – concentrating our efforts more in one area for the coming year.

In addition to assisting landowners with restoration plans, plants, and maintenance advice, we coordinate large volunteer planting days in which volunteers locally and from Christchurch city are coordinated to help plant. We have over 500 people on our volunteer list, of which we expect 150 to 200 will participate. With their help, we intend to help landowners plant 6,000 native plants in the 2017 Spring Season. We require funding to make this happen.

The Environment Canterbury Selwyn-Waihora Zone Team has identified the Hororata area as a priority for Immediate Steps projects, and has begun discussions with CPW to collaborate on future projects. These projects would be signed off by the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee before they can commence.

What mechanisms Environment Canterbury uses as the zone team to encourage farmers to reduce their ground water abstraction within the Selwyn-Waihora zone.

This information sheet outlines the Selwyn-Waihora groundwater allocation and role of Central Plains Water.  This includes details about the package of actions being undertaken by Environment Canterbury to encourage farmers to reduce their ground water abstraction.

The Land and Water Regional Plan (through Plan Change 1) addresses over-allocation of water in the Selwyn-Waihora catchment in the longer term by:

• Prohibiting new surface and groundwater water takes

The plan is written on the basis that the catchment is already over-allocated for groundwater and surface water quantity.  Rules prohibit new water takes where allocation limits are exceeded.  This prohibition is in place now.

Introducing consented Central Plains Water Limited (CPWL) ‘alpine water’ into the catchment

This encourages the replacement of groundwater takes in the upper plains (above SH1) with CPWL-supplied surface water from the alpine rivers, thereby leaving more groundwater in the aquifer.  This transition is in progress and may take some time for the benefits to be fully realised.

CPWL have completed their Stage 1 in the area between the Selwyn and Rakaia rivers above SH1. Indicative dates are for construction of Stage 2 (includes large area north of the Selwyn River above SH1) to start in early 2017 with completion by September 2018. More information can be found here.

Please note that CPWL provided an update on the Scheme to the Zone Committee on 1 November 2016, in which they advised that in Stage 1 in 2015/16, 75% or 60 million cubic meters of groundwater was not abstracted as farmers switched to CPWL.  The following is a link to the minutes from the meeting on 1 November 2016 which contain a summary of the update from CPW on pp5-6.

Read the full agenda paper for the 1 November 2016 meeting (CPW Agenda Item 2 p13)

Restrictions on transfer of water take permits

The plan prohibits CPWL Irrigation Scheme shareholders from transferring their ‘no longer required’ permits to take and use groundwater, so water is not simply abstracted elsewhere and used by somebody else. In all other cases 50% of any transferred water is required to be surrendered. This restriction is in place now.

1099C - We received an information request for communications between Rangitata South Irrigation Limited and Environment Canterbury in relation to irrigation in South Canterbury. Below are several documents that show our communications.

1. Email from Olivia Smith, Zone Facilitator. This correspondence provides context and background to the OTOP Zone Committee process and recommendations which lead to the Water Resource Modelling project.
2. Email from Brett Painter, Project Leader CWMS. This correspondence includes details of a public meeting on 17 October 2016, which was attended by Ian Morton and includes a copy of Mr Painter’s presentation at the public meeting (also attached).
3. Presentation by Brett Painter on 17 October 2016 at the Waihi Lodge, Geraldine.
4. OTOP ZC Agenda 4 July 2016 (refer to page 22)
5. OTOP ZC Agenda 21 November 2016 (refer to items on pages 15 & 17)
6. Geraldine Water Solutions presentation on 21 November 2016
7. Presentation from Brett Painter to the Zone Committee on 21 November 2016

1098C - Any information requests from Rangitata South Irrigation Limited (or its representative), Environment Canterbury’s response to these requests, and any further correspondence arising from the request.

There were approximately 50 attachments associated with this LGOIMA, due to the large number we cannot display them here but if you are interested in viewing the documents please contact us at LGOIMA@ecan.govt.nz.

1093C - We received an information request for information about the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) resource consent. The requestor’s specific questions and our responses are outlined below.

We received an information request for information about the Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) resource consent. The requestor’s specific questions and our responses are outlined below.

In relation to consents that RDR currently hold, is all of the irrigable land within the existing command area is being irrigated.

In short, no. Further details are supplied answering the requestor’s second question below.
Does Environment Canterbury have breakdowns of what can be irrigated in relation to what is in fact irrigated, and a total overall command area as per consents.

Consent CRC121664 authorises the use of water for irrigation of up to 94,486ha in the Expanded Command Area. The RDRML Compliance Report of 24 November 2016 shows that the total area irrigated by RDRML sourced water is 79,028 ha. This comprises:

• 75,000 ha of Existing Irrigated Area, and
• 4,028 ha of New Irrigated Area.

The definitions of areas are included below to provide clarity in terms of this consent and the associated compliance reporting:

• Existing Command Area: are the three (3) areas indicated on Plan CRC121664A coloured brown, orange and green, and labelled Mayfield/Hinds, Valetta and Ashburton/Lyndhurst respectively. The Existing Command Area totals 94,486 ha.
• Existing Irrigation Area: are the areas of land within the Existing Command Area that had water supply agreements in place with the consent holder (or its agents) and were being irrigated prior to December 2013.
• Expanded Command Area: is the area bounded by the Rakaia River, the Rangitata River, the foothills of Mt Taylor and Mt Hutt and the Pacific Ocean (refer to Plan CRC121664A as above).
• New Irrigation Areas: are any area(s) of land within the Expanded Command Area that did not have a water supply agreement in place with the consent holder (or its agents) or were not being irrigated prior to December 2013 but are, or will be, irrigated under this consent.
• Water Supply Consents: are any, or all of the existing water permits held by the consent holder being resource consent numbers: CRC011237, CRC011245, CRC134808 and CRC133962 (or their subsequent respective replacements).

Is there is an application lodged to expand any irrigable area or the command area itself?

Environment Canterbury has not received any applications to expand the irrigable or command areas (as of 3 April 2017).

1079C - We received an information request regarding if we are going to issue a water shortage direction under the Resource Management Act to stop irrigators taking water from Selwyn River aquifers.

Environment Canterbury has used s329 of the RMA in the past in drought conditions in South Canterbury and we are prepared to do so again when and where appropriate. We are cognisant that we have experienced our third consecutive dry winter and therefore need to explore all available tools at our disposal to protect the Selwyn River.

To this effect, we are meeting with the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee to affirm the need for direct interventions. Utilisation of s329, a Water Shortage Direction, is one tool we will consider whether to deploy. Other interventions, such as those discussed at the recent Zone Committee workshop e.g. consent reviews, are also being explored. In short, we are actively assessing direct intervention.

We currently also have restrictions in place that help stream flows. For any water take that is likely to have a direct, short-term impact on stream flows, the resource consent contains conditions that restrict the rate of take either partially or fully when stream flows drop below a set trigger level. Given the low flows we are currently experiencing in many streams, these trigger levels have largely been reached and restrictions took effect some time ago.

In addition to the tools noted above, we also have longer-term planning rules in place that will over time see improvements in water quality and quantity. With the Selwyn-Waihora catchment being over-allocated, the Land and Water Regional Plan (through Plan Change 1) addresses over-allocation of water in a number of ways. There is already in place a prohibition on new surface and groundwater water takes, and a restriction on the transferring of water take permits. More detailed information about these rules can be found in the attached appendix.

Environment Canterbury has deployed a number of short and longer term measures to address water quality and quantity in the Selwyn River and in recognition of the ongoing decline of the Selwyn River's flow we are now preparing to deploy further measures commensurate with our rules.

1044C - Information request regarding declarations of interest & Irrigation NZ, specifically:

• A copy of the conflict of interest declarations of the commissioners from the years 2010 until 2016
• A copy of the conflict of interest declarations of CEO Bill Bayfield from the years 2011 until 2016
• A list of the times, dates, locations, minutes and attendees of all meetings between Environment Canterbury staff or commissioners and Irrigation NZ representatives since 2010

The information requested is attached.

1042C - We received a request for information on irrigation practices in Canterbury.

We were asked if Environment Canterbury or any bodies associated with us have invested in, funded or part funded the development of the following irrigation projects, including feasibility studies and other reports: Central Plains Water, Hunter Downs or Hurunui Water Project.

We responded by informing the requester that irrigation infrastructure in Canterbury is developed, owned and operated by the private sector. However, Environment Canterbury in its role of facilitating infrastructure that addresses all CWMS targets has undertaken strategic assessments of Central Plains Water Ltd (CPWL) and other water concepts across Canterbury. We attached reports relevant to CPWL, Hunter Downs Irrigation Ltd (HDIL) and Hurunui Water Project Ltd (HWPL).

We were asked if we have commissioned or undertaken any research into land uses and/or farming practices that would minimise the demand for irrigation in Canterbury in the last 15 years. We have not. This is because a number of private sectors, educational, research and industry organisations with appropriate skills and expertise have been undertaking this work with their own funding sources.

We were asked if the farmers in Stage 1 of Central Plains Water surrendered their groundwater consents, and if so, whether or not they are being monitored. There is no immediate regulatory requirement for farmers in CPWL Stage 1 to give up their groundwater consents.

However, there are incentives to reduce or remove pumping capacity, as the costs of electricity to pump deep groundwater and the ‘capacity charge’ to maintain a connection for a pump, whether or not it is used, are significant.

Environment Canterbury is monitoring the situation through the annual compliance report from CPWL, water consumption information from water meters, and by liaising with Orion Group to gain an appreciation of the scale of reduction in irrigation pumping activity and connected capacity.

Attached is an email from Orion that confirms irrigation pump disconnections. Please note that actual water use fluctuates from season to season depending on climatic conditions, so we will get a clearer picture of the scale of the reduction in groundwater use over the next few seasons.

We were asked for copies of any peer reviewed scientific evidence held by Environment Canterbury which suggests that CPWL, Hunter Downs and/or Hurunui Water Project will recharge groundwater and/or have any other positive environmental impacts. Technical reports are available which cover the environmental effects of CPWL, HDL and HWPL. If you are interested in viewing this information please contact LGOIMA@ecan.govt.nz

While these are the main reports on the topics identified there may be additional information of interest in other reports. Therefore please be aware that all reports used as part of the consent process for CPWL, HDIL and HWPL can be found on the Environment Canterbury website at the following links:

• Central Plains Water hearing decision
• Hunter Downs hearing decision
• Hurunui Water Project

Current land use and expected land use changes in the command areas for HDIL and HWPL can be found in the consent applications by these companies, as above. An update from HWPL, given at the August Hurunui Waiau Zone Committee Meeting, is attached.

1026C - Information request regarding irrigation on the Canterbury plains. Specific answers are located under the numbered questions below.

1. If there are now almost 6000 permitted water takers, what is the combined volume of water taken annually in the Canterbury Plains region?

The total volume of water taken annually from the Canterbury Plains varies year on year. We now have water meters in place for all takes greater than 10 litres per second which accounts for an estimated 90% of the total volume extracted. For the year 2014/15, July-June, the total measured water volume extracted was 3,194,759,406 m3. To place this volume in context, this is 4% of Canterbury’s average rainfall.

2. Is there a ceiling for water usage and has the science been done to quantify this?

Yes, allocation limits have been set all across Canterbury. There has been a huge amount of science done on what allocation limits are applicable for groundwater and surface water, based around the effect of taking the water on the surrounding environment. For groundwater, the annual allocation limit is based on what is sustainable for lowland streams in the long-term. For surface water, the instantaneous limit is to ensure what remains in the stream is enough to sustain life in the stream, and the total limit is to ensure rivers maintain natural highs and lows (i.e. a naturally variable hydrograph rather than a flat line). However, two important points need to be made:
a) Fundamentally the decision on how much water is allocated is a value based decision supported by science. Science can help inform the community to protect the values that are important, but it won’t tell you how much water should be allocated; that will depend on what the stream is valued for.
a) There is always natural variation in climate and during a dry period (ie drought) all values including irrigation reliability will suffer.

3. Why, during one of our driest summers, was irrigation allowed to continue unabated and for such an extended period into winter?

There were more irrigation restrictions this last summer than any time during the past ten years. Where irrigation continued, it was sourced from either alpine rivers via big schemes like the Rangitata Diversion Race (which maintained good flows with a lot of nor west rain) or groundwater, which is managed through annual limits. The annual limits give a total amount that can be used during a year and that can happen at any time. There was reasonable rainfall in January that meant many people stopped irrigating and therefore, their annual volume wasn’t used up until later in the season.

4. Following on from that, given this extended usage, surely permitted allocations had been exhausted months previously.

No. Preliminary analysis suggests that there were more people that used their full allocation in 2014-15 than in 2015-16 (for reason above).

5. Are there instances of irrigators having to establish new bores because their original bores have been exhausted?

Yes, although ‘exhausted’ is probably a misleading term. The deeper aquifers give better certainty of water supply.

6. Why is irrigation permitted to continue when surrounding waterways become dry and river levels drop to unsustainable levels?

See explanation on water sources above. Any water take from streams/rivers or groundwater near to streams, are subject to minimum flows where irrigation must cease. In these cases, there is no abstraction from the stream and if the river level drops further it is due to natural variation.

7. Why have consents been issued without the relevant compliance mechanisms in place and signed off?

Consents are not being issued without relevant compliance mechanisms. All consents for water takes have specific conditions on them to limit the effects and make sure water is managed sustainably. These conditions limit such things as the annual total volume to make sure water is used efficiently, the rate of take it can be pumped to make sure surrounding water users are not affected, low flow limits requiring irrigators to cease taking when rivers are too low, metering and the supply of records to make sure we know limits are being met. It is an offence under s14 of the RMA to breach any resource consent and we can and do enforce these limits when necessary. We monitor all metered takes and we serve numerous Abatement Notices, Infringement Notices and take prosecutions when we have sufficient evidence and deemed necessary. You can now see the list of the latest enforcement actions being taken on our website at http://ecan.govt.nz/our-responsibilities/consents-compliance/monitoring-compliance/Pages/enforcement-tools.aspx#enforce and also see historical compliance reports at http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Pages/annual-incident-enforcement.aspx. For the 2014-15 year see http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Pages/compliance-reports.aspx. Our latest report for the 2015-16 year is being prepared at the moment and will be released within the next few months.

8. If there is not sufficient replenishment of water resources this winter, will irrigation be restricted accordingly for the coming season to prevent an exacerbation of the water crisis?

Yes. Irrigation restrictions are already in place for many streams across Canterbury. Further details are available by searching under ‘irrigation restrictions’ on the Environment Canterbury website.

1024C - Information request from B Raid regarding water extractors of the Ashley Rakahuri River, including abstractions directly from the river as well as aquifers associated with the river. The requestor also asked to be supplied with the conditions by which the consent holders are abstracting water.

Attached is a map of surface water takes and groundwater takes which are stream depleting.

Also attached is a list of consents shown on the map, along with relevant consent conditions. A consent inventory is underway as part of the Waimakariri Land and Water Solutions Programme and we are able to supply that once it is completed.

1728C - we recieved a request for information on our planning staff’s membership with professional bodies. We responded as follows:

Membership of the NZ Planning Institute (NZPI) is not a prerequisite to employment with Environment Canterbury (nor is any other professional body membership). Any staff member may choose to be a member of the NZPI, but their membership is neither recorded, nor paid, by Environment Canterbury. As we do not hold details on how many staff are members of the NZPI, this part of your request is refused pursuant to section 17 of the LGOIMA.

You have asked, in relation to professional planners on staff:

Does Canterbury Regional Council support staff retaining professional status in any particular field by meeting the costs of

a) membership of a professional body;

b) funding continuing professional development activities necessary for members of professional bodies that enable them to retain their professional status?

• Environment Canterbury does not have a specific policy on membership of the NZPI. We have a Learning and Development Policy, containing guidelines and procedures. Relevant to this inquiry is the following passage from the guidelines and procedures mentioned above:
• Staff are encouraged to hold professional memberships where appropriate. However, the organisation does not pay for individual professional memberships.
• The exception is where staff are required to maintain a professional membership to fulfil the duties of their role.

As noted above, Environment Canterbury does not require its planners to hold membership with any professional body.

1669C - We recieved a request for information relating to meeting minutes and attendees of NZ Parliament and European Parliament meetings held in 2000 where Dr Neil Cherry presented on “Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic.”

Confirmation that Environment Canterbury does not have any information relating to meeting minutes or who was in attendance at those presentations; either to the New Zealand Parliament in May 2000 or the European Parliaments of Austria, Italy, Ireland or Brussels in June 2000. 

1645C - We received an information request regarding information relating to Environment Canterbury hiring/utilising a helicopter or helicopters over the past two years.

Request for answers to the following questions:

1.1 Over the past two years, has Environment Canterbury hired/utilised a helicopter or helicopters for the purpose of ascertaining, maintaining or improving the water quality/condition at Canterbury freshwater sites and beaches/oceans?

• 1.1.1. If so, for what purpose?
• 1.1.2. If so, on what dates?
• 1.1.3. If so, what is the total cost (itemised)?

Environment Canterbury conduct three main types of sampling via Helicopter: high country lakes; coastal sampling; and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere openings.

High country lakes

Canterbury’s numerous high-country lakes are sampled monthly through the summer (total of five times). We sample between 30-33 lakes from Lake Aviemore in the south up to Lake Sumner in the north of Canterbury. This is to calculate Trophic Lake Index (TLI) and inform on state and trend.

Coastal sampling

The coastal sampling is long term and is done four times per year from off the Waitaki River to off the Waiau River, including several sites around Banks Peninsula. This is to inform on state and trend of Canterbury’s near coastal waters.

Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere openings

The lake openings are part of consent conditions and we try to do that once a year. We take six samples, three at fixed coastal sites, and three more at varying distances in the direction of the plume of lake water.

The table below itemises the total costs over the past two years:

Run	Date	Cost
Te Waihora opening	10/07/2017	$4,485.00
Te Waihora opening	2/05/2018	$2,616.25
	Total	$7,101.25
Coastal sampling	14/09/2017	$6,440.00
Coastal sampling	20/09/2017	$5,836.25
Coastal sampling (half run)	4/12/2017	$3,823.75
Coastal sampling	5/12/2017	$5,704.00
Coastal sampling (half run)	7/12/2017	$3,018.75
Coastal sampling	14/03/2018	$5,880.00
Coastal sampling	28/03/2018	$6,440.00
Coastal sampling	15/06/2018	$4,600.00
Coastal sampling	21/06/2018	$8,050.00
Coastal sampling	5/09/2018	$7,446.25
Coastal sampling	11/09/2018	$5,520.00
Coastal sampling x2	7/12/2018	$12,753.50
Coastal sampling x2	6/03/2019	$13,150.25
Coastal sampling	19/06/2019	$7,659.00
Coastal sampling	21/06/2019	$5,520.00
	Total	$101,841.75
High Country Lakes	14/12/2017	$10,465.00
High Country Lakes	29/01/2018	$11,471.25
High Country Lakes	23/02/2018	$11,471.25
High Country Lakes	8/03/2018	$12,075.00
High Country Lakes	13/04/2018	$11,068.75
High Country Lakes	21/12/2018	$11,914.00
High Country Lakes	24/01/2019	$12,339.50
High Country Lakes	13/02/2019	$13,190.50
High Country Lakes	19/03/2019	$12,126.75
High Country Lakes	17/04/2019	$12,126.75
	Total	$118,248.75

Environment Canterbury uses several Helicopter companies within the Canterbury region which were selected using the MBIE Procurement guidelines. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Helicopter services was put out early in 2018. The RFP covered all of Canterbury, covering seven service types. This resulted in a panel arrangement with a number of Helicopter providers, which was awarded mid-2018, and has a duration of three years until mid-2021.

1487C - We received an information request for all reports and correspondence between ECan and ORC in the past three years relating to council operations along, and the management of, ECan's southern boundary with the Otago Regional Council, including the Lower Waitaki River boundary with regard to operation of the flood protection scheme.

Please also supply a summary of how the legislative responsibilities along the boundary work with regard to the operation of the flood protection scheme.

The date of reply was extended for this requested information under section 14 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) 1987 to 25 January 2019 instead of the originally stated 17 December 2018.

Following a discussion, the request was refined to the following: “all reports and correspondence between ECan and ORC in the past three years relating to council operations along, and the management of, ECan’s southern boundary with the Otago Regional Council, including the Lower Waitaki River boundary with regard to operation of the flood protection scheme. Supply a summary of how the legislative responsibilities along the boundary work with regard to the operation of the flood protection scheme.

The documents requested were emailed to the requestor. They are no longer electronically accessible. 

The Asset Management Plan for the Lower Waitaki Scheme has been included for reference which includes details of scheme objectives, funding and expenditure. The day-to-day management of the flood protection scheme is delegated to Environment Canterbury for the entire area within the scheme (both ORC and CRC area). The work programme is discussed between the Councils annually at a liaison committee meeting with community representatives, Fish and Game, Meridian, DOC, Bridge Managers and Councillors present. CRC and ORC collect rates independently, noting that 40% of the scheme costs are paid by Meridian Energy.

ORC transfer the collected rates from their region to CRC. Setting the budget and expenditure within the scheme is the responsibility of the CRC and is informed by the liaison committee. Physical assets located within each region are protected separately under independent Bylaws. CRC is in the process of obtaining resource consent off ORC for the work that is carried out in the ORC area not directly authorised by ORC Permitted Activity rules.

Separate to the management of the flood protection scheme, anyone wishing to carry out activities in the Waitaki River must apply to either the CRC or ORC for permission (if resource consent or Bylaw Authorisation is required). Permissions are issued independently by each Council and compliance monitoring of those activities is also carried out independently.

1258C - We received an information request regarding long-term infrastructure planning for Christchurch City and the surrounding towns. Please find below the relevant information.

We received an information request regarding long-term infrastructure planning for Christchurch City and the surrounding towns. Please find below the relevant information.

Local Government Act 2002 requirements

Section 101B of the Local Government Act 2002 stipulates that ‘a local authority must, as part of its long-term plan, prepare and adopt an infrastructure strategy for a period of at least 30 consecutive financial years’.

Long-term plans for 2015–25 are available on council websites. Councils are currently developing and consulting on draft long-term plans for 2018–28.

All-of-region planning and collaboration

The Canterbury Local Authorities Triennial Agreement 2017–19 is a requirement of Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Agreement details arrangements for communication, co-ordination and collaboration between local authorities within the region, and mandates the work of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and Chief Executives Forum.

The Canterbury Policy Forum, Corporate Forum and Operations Forum and a number of regional working groups report through to Chief Executives and Mayors. Of particular relevance to your request, a Climate Change Working Group reports to the Policy Forum; a Natural Hazards Working Group, a Drinking Water Reference Group, a regional Stormwater Forum and the Canterbury Engineering Managers Group report to the Operations Forum.

Spatial planning and growth management

Environment Canterbury, as a member of the Greater Christchurch Partnership, works with other councils, government agencies and local iwi on planning for growth and development in the Greater Christchurch area, which includes Christchurch City and the surrounding towns in Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts.

In 2007 the Partnership adopted the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS). The UDS sets out a vision for Greater Christchurch to 2041, and details the key actions required to deliver this vision – including co-ordinated planning of urban areas through the provision of housing, transport, social, health and recreational facilities. The original Strategy and Action Plan was updated in 2016.

The Land Use Recovery Plan 2013 (LURP) is a statutory document prepared under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. Its purpose is to provide for residential and business land uses, and support recovery and rebuilding in Greater Christchurch through to 2028. The LURP provided a policy and planning framework for the sub-region after the earthquakes, including identifying the infrastructure needed to support residential, business and community activities.

The LURP directed changes to resource management documents, including the insertion of Chapter six to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.  Chapter six provides a resource management framework for Greater Christchurch to guide future growth through to 2028. Map A (page 6-27) identifies the location and extent of urban growth within Greater Christchurch, based on planned infrastructure within Christchurch City, Selwyn, and Waimakariri Districts.  The City and District councils are required to give effect to Chapter six and plan for urban growth (including the infrastructure required to support this growth) through their own district plans. For information on the detailed district and city-wide long-term infrastructure planning undertaken for Christchurch City, Selwyn District, and Waimakariri District please contact these authorities directly.

The Greater Christchurch Partnership recently commenced a review of the long-term settlement planning approach reflected in the UDS. This review will include an assessment of the infrastructure needed to support the levels of growth expected over a 30-year period to 2048. A draft settlement pattern document is expected to be published by the Partnership for community feedback in 2018.

Transport infrastructure

The Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–2025 sets the direction for the Canterbury transport system for the next 30 years. The Canterbury Regional Public Transport Plan 2014 sets out objectives and policies for delivering public transport in Canterbury. Both plans are currently being reviewed.

AECOM Consulting has been appointed by the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee to undertake a programme business case process on future public transport in Greater Christchurch for the next 30 years. This process will be incorporated in the revision of the Regional Public Transport Plan, due in 2018. Further information about this process, and other public transport projects, is available on the Environment Canterbury website.

1080C - We received a request for information on whether ECan were undergoing negotiations with Alliance/SOL Quarries regarding their lease of an access track to Guys Road. 

Environment Canterbury can confirm that the block of land in question is a farm lease occupied by Alliance Group Ltd on a 5 year lease expiring on 31/12/19 but in the current lease there is no right of renewal. Alliance, with Environment Canterbury's consent, have entered into an access agreement with SOL to allow vehicle access across the farm lease to their freehold quarry on adjacent land. This access agreement expires when the lease expires and would be up for reconsideration/re-negotiation when the future of any farm lease is considered.

A granting of any new lease is at the discretion of Environment Canterbury as lessor. Usually six months prior to expiry we will consider any granting of a new lease and have discussions with the lessee, Alliance Group.

To date, Environment Canterbury staff have had no discussions or correspondence with either Alliance or the SOL Company about any new lease, extension of the current lease or renewal of any access agreement.

1022C - Media request for information regarding information on any external help for media management, crisis and issues management and help with managing government relations that Environment Canterbury (including commissioners) has undertaken since 30 March 2010. The advice (if any) the company/person and the cost is also outlined below.

Environment Canterbury has not sought external assistance for media management, crisis and issues management since 2010. However, in the last three years, we have contracted external suppliers to provide training for our staff spokespeople so they understand how media organisation work, the importance of deadlines, and the importance of talking about technical science and planning matters using everyday language.

Since 2014 we have contracted an external consultant to provide this training.

Year	Provider	Cost	Number of staff trained
2014	Brett Solvander	$370 (for reimbursement of expenses)	24
2015	Jo Malcolm	$4,080	48
2016	Jo Malcolm	$5,775	50

In terms of managing government relations, Commissioners are appointed by Government and as such regularly communicate with Ministers. They do this without external help.

1077C - We received an information request for original submissions from Ngāi Tahu for various plan changes.

We supplied the below copies of submissions from Ngāi Tahu in relation to the following:

• The Ngāi Tahu submission on Plan Change 3 (South Coastal Canterbury)
• The submission by Ngāi Tahu on Plan Change 5 (Nutrient Management & Waitaki)
• The further submission by Ngāi Tahu in respect of other primary submissions on Plan Change 5

Ngāi Tahu presented evidence and legal submissions at the hearings for both Plan Change 3 and 5. In respect of PC3, the Council’s decision records the outcome from that submission, the legal submissions and evidence.

There is not yet a Council decision in respect of the submissions on PC5 because the hearing commissioners are still deliberating.

1374C - We received an information request for details of complaints made regarding Winstone Aggregates

As we advised in our letter of 13/07/18 Environment Canterbury is in the process of assembling information on all complaints that we have received relating to quarries in Canterbury and we will be posting that information on our website by mid-August. That information will cover all quarries and will be for the period from at least 2014 to the present (with some data going as far back as 2008).

We believe that this information will address many of the queries you have raised. However, we note that you have asked for extensive details about each complaint. We do not ordinarily collect and keep all of that information with our complaint records.

Accordingly, providing all of the information you have requested would require substantial collation and research, totalling weeks of staff time.

We have considered whether fixing a charge or extending the time limit for responding would enable the request to be granted. We have also considered whether consulting with you would help you to make the request in a form that would remove the reason for the refusal. We do not believe that taking those steps would achieve this and have therefore decided to withhold the information you have requested under section 17(f) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

However, as noted above, we are confident that providing the complaint data on our website will be useful. We will write to you again as soon as that information is available and would be happy to discuss whether you require further information after you have had the opportunity to review that data.

Please find below a spreadsheet setting out the information as requested. 

• LGOIMA 1640C - Fulton Hogan submitters list summary (XLSX File, 17.81KB)

1629C - Requesting for information on the appointment of hearings commissioner John Iseli for consents RMA/2017/2011 and CRC181274.

Request for copies of the above information related to two separate areas:

1. That related to the deliberations by CRC staff and Commissioner Sarah Dawson on potential conflicts-of-interest for John Iseli as stated in paragraph 11 of the Decision of Hearings Commissioners (dated 16 May 2018) for resource consent RMA/2017/2111 and CRC181274; and
2. That related to any assessment of real or perceived conflicts-of-interest between John Iseli's role as a hearing commissioner and the activities of the company Specialist Environmental Services Limited, which John Iseli is both a director and shareholder of, acting in a commercial capacity in the immediate area that resource consent RMA/2017/2111 and CRC181274 pertained to or Specialist Environmental Services Limited acting for any associated business or affiliated party to the applicant of resource consent RMA/2017/2111 and CRC181274, Road Metals Limited or owner Murray Francis, over the five years prior to the date of the lodging of resource consent RMA/2017/2111 and CRC181274 . This includes any minuted Declarations-of-Interest made by John Iseli to CRC to ensure that CRC's own standards related to real or perceived conflicts-of-interest with hearings commissioners are met, i.e. "It is a conflict of interest of the hearings commissioner if they have worked with or for, or previously known an applicant/consultant/submitter."

View LGOIMA 1629C - Hearings Commissioner Contract (PDF File, 22.64MB)

• The hearings decision on RMA/2017/2111 and CRC181274 which at paragraph 11 discussed the matter of whether there was any conflict of interest;
• Email correspondence both internal and external on the question and process around potential conflicts of interest, including providing Environment Canterbury’s Hearing Policy;
• Signed contracts between Environment Canterbury and John Iseli as hearings commissioner, setting out how conflicts of interests are to be managed and including at schedule 6 a declaration of no conflict being present in this instance.

We do not have any emails to John Iseli or Sarah Dawson on the topic of a possible conflict. Environment Canterbury’s hearings manager would have verbally advised them that the question had come in, and it was subsequently addressed by the commissioners and noted in the decision.

As the information will further confirm, the fact that a commissioner has heard and granted/declined and/or conditions are changed, on an application for consent does not preclude hearing commissioners from being appointed to hear similar types of applications in the future. It is also not deemed to be a conflict of interest of the hearing commissioner if an applicant is an owner of one or more businesses requiring consent. It is a conflict of interest of the hearing commissioner if they have worked with or for, or personally know an applicant/consultant/submitter.

More information on this topic in the Hearing Policy.

1631C - Request for information on quarry activity in the Yaldhurst area - Any complaints in the last three years, dates complaints filed, methodology used to monitor quarry activity and any resulting breaches, any evidence Ecan holds as to exceedances in air quality as a result of smoke from a nearby fire, all internal and external communication relating to Yaldhurst in the last three years, from 2014.

1. Any complaint made about quarrying related activity in the last three years in and around the Yaldhurst area. This includes but is not limited to air quality, water quality, and potential consent breaches.

1a. The date the complaint was filed, what response was made to the complaint and any outcomes or consequences as a result of the complaint. This includes what efforts were made to investigate complaints such as the date and time of any onsite visit.

• Please find attached a spreadsheet with the information requested.
• Please note that information has been redacted in order to protect the privacy of pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA.

2. The methodology ECan uses to monitor quarry activity and any resulting breaches in accord with this monitoring. This includes how and what ECan does to ensure that quarrying activity is done in accordance with resource consents.

Quarrying is a consented activity and as with any consented activity, Environment Canterbury assigns a Resource Management Officer (RMO) responsible for completing a quarterly, half yearly, yearly or bi-yearly inspection of the site to complete a compliance report. If for any reason a part of the consent is non-compliant the RMO will work with the individual/business to address the issue. If, after investigating, there is an unsatisfactory explanation or reason for the non-compliance the RMO may take enforcement action.

Environment Canterbury’s Incident Response Team assesses complaints received. As a first step, it assesses the likely duration of the effects and seriousness of the event being complained about, and whether an immediate response is appropriate – if the complaint was about dust blown from a single vehicle, we would be unlikely to attend as the event would be unlikely to be ongoing when they arrived. Complaints about operations at a quarry site or a recurring issue are more likely to be attended.

When staff do attend, if they observe dust or other contaminants of concern, they will speak with the person responsible to highlight the issue and assess what steps have been taken to mitigate those effects and may suggest additional options. They also always consider whether it would be appropriate to take more formal enforcement action.

2a. Any evidence ECan holds as to exceedances in air quality determined to be the result of smoke from a nearby fire and was done to reach this conclusion.
Environment Canterbury, the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury District Health Board engaged Mote Limited to run an ambient air monitoring programme from November 2017 to June 2018.

This shows that in May there was an exceedance caused by a neighbouring fire, as evidenced in the independent final month of reporting. The relevant excerpt from Mote’s report is at the bottom of this letter.

The report showed the time, and date of the exceedance along with the concentration level as recorded from data pulled from Mote’s monitors, and what Mote determined was the cause for the high readings.

It is noted in their summary that these events were confirmed via landowners or Mote staff observations. Find out more about the Mote ambient air monitoring programme. Download the Mote Report.

As the programme was run independently, these exceedances were recorded and analysed by Mote. Environment Canterbury received no complaints regarding dust, or open fires on these dates and therefore holds no records or information relating to these exceedances.

3. All internal and external communication relating to the Yaldhurst quarries in the last three years, from 2014. This includes any form of communication where operations of existing quarries and/or future quarrying activity is mentioned/discussed

Due to the substantial amount of work that would be required to research and collate this information, we are refusing this part of your request under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA.
The scope of this request is so wide that it would require the review of well in excess of 10,000 emails.

This is the case even if we were able to formulate accurate search parameters around those emails which would capture all emails only on the topic of Yaldhurst quarries, which we are unable to do without including a lot of emails outside the scope of the request regarding other quarries.

We are unable to search in a way that captures only correspondence related to the Yaldhurst quarries, and because of the substantial volume of correspondence that exists, the time required to find and bring all this information together would have a detrimental impact on Environment Canterbury’s other operations and is not achievable.

We also considered whether charging or extending the timeframe for responding to the request would help, as required by section 17A of the LGOIMA, but determined it would not, for similar reasons.

1622C - Requesting information on dust mitigation at quarries in the Yaldhurst area.

Reference to Environment Canterbury’s network of dust monitoring equipment installed on quarry boundaries. To clarify, Environment Canterbury does not have monitors installed on quarry boundaries, monitors are commissioned and operated by the quarry operators at Environment Canterbury’s request.

Also pointed out was that a review of results is due in June 2019. That review update is due shortly, to ensure the monitors are configured and recording correctly.

There are nine quarry operators in and around the Yaldhurst area, all of whom use a variety of techniques to suppress dust. These include the use of water carts, sealing haul roads, restricting vehicle movement and speed, using pea gravel and polymer. Each quarry operator uses some or all these options to suppress dust, depending on the quarrying operation.

The cost of any dust mitigation is met by the quarry operator and this is not information Environment Canterbury holds. We can comment that obviously costs vary with each measure in place and further that we are satisfied with the response from the quarry industry in that they are continually looking at options to improve their sites.

It is not a requirement of any of the quarrying consents to use misting as a dust mitigation measure. Where misting is used Environment Canterbury staff have not observed any fugitive dust emissions. All the quarry operators generally use some form of dampening down of material when at the operations phase of crushing, be it fine mist, watering stockpile before crushing or sprinkles on conveyer belts.

Observations from staff have also indicated that all the quarry operators’ processing sites are within the quarry floor, in the centre of the site, away from the boundaries.

The use of covers on the crushing machinery is not considered viable because of the potential for over-heating the machinery. Some quarry operators use shielding panels which are strategically placed to mitigate dust discharges. Using dampening down of the material and situating the plants in the pit, as dust mitigation measures has eliminated much of the dust from the crushing plants.

The quarry operators are working closely with Environment Canterbury and the community to ensure dust is not causing any effects on the surrounding environment. They are continuously exploring new dust mitigation techniques. Quarry operators have also begun to initiate liaison groups with communities, to allow the public to be better involved with the industry.

1614C - Request for information for Emails dated 20 May 2019 and 5 June 2019 requesting communication relating to the Templeton Quarry Project .

Request for copies of all communication between ECAN and Fulton Hogan and to include any companies representing Fulton Hogan (including but not limited to internal and external reports, memos, recommendations, emails, minutes, letters) that pertain to the Templeton Quarry Project (6 May 2018 - 31 July 2018).

Please note that we have withheld one email from an Environment Canterbury staff member on the basis that it contains personal information about that staff member, in terms of section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA. We do not believe that the public interest in disclosing this information outweighs the grounds for withholding it.

This information contains all of the relevant communication and documentation on the Project as per the request. However, we are aware that there may be some further ancillary correspondence which is not within our online files, as we do not for example, file every piece of internal correspondence or duplicate emails/meeting requests in our online filing system. In order to provide every piece of communication requires an exercise we would be unable to undertake in this case, as it requires a substantial amount of work to collate, which is particularly problematic given the timeframe for the response requested.

We are refusing this part of the request under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA as the time required to find and bring all this information together would have a detrimental impact on Environment Canterbury’s other operations, and work within Environment Canterbury on the Project itself.

We also considered whether charging or extending the timeframe for responding to the request would help, as required by section 17A of the LGOIMA. However, given the sheer number of emails and the complexity in establishing which emails relate to the Project, charging or extending would not help.

It is for this reason that we rely on our online filing system to hold all the relevant information and communication on the Project. We note this simply for transparency and completeness, but we do not expect there is any information missing in terms of the information requested in order to prepare the submission on the Project.

1526C - Request for information regarding air quality in the Yaldhurst area. Copies of all recorded data collected by MOTE 1 Jan 2016 - 31 Dec 2018. All official communication & recommendations between Mote/Environment Canterbury.

Environment Canterbury extended the date of reply for this requested information to 26 February 2019 under section14(1)(a) of LGOIMA 1987.

Request for: “all copies of all recorded data which was collected by MOTE under contract to Environment Canterbury from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018”.

The most recent summary reports on the PM10, PM2.5 and respirable crystalline silica data collected under that study are available on our website at ecan.govt.nz/quarries

Also requested: “all official communication between MOTE and Environment Canterbury to include, but not exclusive to, emails, texts, minutes from meeting and telephone conversation, letters and formal documentation, including any and all recommendations made by MOTE or any of MOTE’s representatives, in their capacity as contracted air quality specialists”.

Almost all correspondence between Environment Canterbury and MOTE was by email, and all those emails for the period requested were sent to the requestor. No minutes of any meetings or phone conversations held with MOTE were recorded, as these discussions focused on revising the work proposal – which resulted in revised drafts of MOTE’s proposal being sent. 

Please note that information has been redacted from some emails and from MOTE’s proposal, to remove MOTE’s pricing information. MOTE has asked us not to disclose this information as it is commercially sensitive (potentially disclosing MOTE’s pricing to its competitors). We therefore consider that withholding the information is necessary to protect that information where making it available would unreasonably prejudice MOTE’s commercial position, in terms of section 7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA. We do not believe that the public interest in disclosing this information outweighs the grounds for withholding it.

1456C - Request for information regarding Yaldhurst quarry monitoring - various requests for breakdowns of 12 instances of local burning exceedances.

Reference to the Environment Canterbury website, specifically this page and update 30 which references 12 exceedances from the Yaldhurst monitoring period. Asked for detailed information relating to each of these exceedances.

The monitoring programme, which was commissioned by Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Canterbury District Health Board and Worksafe NZ, was independently run by Mote and Emission Impossible. It was agreed to share all results online on a monthly basis. These results were updated online after the programme completion as we wanted to collect the additional data for the respirable crystalline silica monitor that was tampered with, to ensure the full three months data for all sites. We felt it important to have further data to compare this against, so continued with monitoring at all sites for this additional month. The data covers all sites that were included in the full programme, previously noted in the results in ‘Update 29. 22-06-2018’ under Working together to solve quarry dust issues.

The below summary was extracted from the independent final month of reporting from Mote and Emission Impossible. It shows the time, and date of the exceedance along with the concentration level as recorded from data pulled from Mote’s monitors, and what Mote determined was the cause for the high readings. It is noted in their summary that these findings were also based on land owner/s or Mote staff observations.

As the programme was run independently, these exceedances were recorded and analysed by Mote. Environment Canterbury received no complaints regarding dust, or open fires on these dates and therefore holds no records or information relating to these exceedances.

A map on page two of the summary report of the site locations. The report is under ‘Update 29’ under Working together to solve quarry dust issues and is called YAQMP Summary Report (PDF File, 1.46MB).

1445C - Request for information regarding Quarry practices and responsibilities: Monitoring, investigation, administer and full range of sanctions over and above cease and desist, minimum/maximum fines available.

Environment Canterbury is responsible for monitoring the resource consents that it has granted to quarry companies. It is also responsible for monitoring any effects on the environment caused by the quarries, so far as they relate to discharges of contaminants to land, air and water; and to water quality. Within Environment Canterbury, the Christchurch West Melton and the Selwyn Waihora zone teams are responsible for monitoring quarries’ consents within the Christchurch and Selwyn districts respectively.

Other agencies, including Christchurch City Council, the Christchurch District Health Board and WorkSafe also have responsibilities in relation to monitoring the quarries within their own areas of expertise.

2. Which body or department is responsible for the investigating of reported incidents or consent breaches in relation to quarry operations within the quarries within the Christchurch/Selwyn districts?

Environment Canterbury’s Christchurch West Melton and the Selwyn Waihora zone teams are responsible for investigating reported incidents or consent breaches within the Christchurch and Selwyn districts.

3. Which body or department is responsible for the administering of sanctions to quarry companies who are in breach of any legislation or regulation (environmental laws, local bylaws etc), or are in breach of consent conditions? Can you please list the full range of sanctions that can be applied over and above ‘cease and desist’.

Environment Canterbury has some responsibility for administering sanctions for breaches of the Resource Management Act (RMA) or resource consents by quarry companies. These sanctions include:

• Formal warnings;
• Abatement notices, which can require a person to take specific action or to stop taking action in order to prevent breaches of resource consents or the RMA – it would seem likely that these notices are what you have referred to as “cease and desist” orders; and
• Infringement notices, which impose a financial penalty for breaches of resource consents or the RMA.

There are other sanctions provided for in the RMA, as listed below. Environment Canterbury can, where appropriate, apply to the Environment Court for any order to use any of these, but cannot use these sanctions without the Court’s authorisation.

The full range of such sanctions is as follows:

• Enforcement Order
• Interim Enforcement Order
• Search warrants
• Prosecutions

For further information on response and enforcement procedures please see investigations and enforcement.

4. Where fines can be administered, can the minimum and maximum fines available please be shown?

Breaching a resource consent or the requirements of the RMA can amount to serious criminal offending and matters are heard in the Environment Court. The maximum penalties include imprisonment for up to two years and fines of up to $300,000 for an individual or $600,000 for a company.

This information is also available through the link provided above.

1639C - Email dated 3 July 2019 requesting information on the consultation process for the rating allocation for the Rakaia Double Hill River Rating District.

Email dated 3 July 2019 requesting information on the consultation process for the rating allocation for the Rakaia Double Hill River Rating District.

Community consultation on the formalisation and appropriate form of the Rakaia Double Hill Rating District has been ongoing for a number of years. This has included full Rating District meetings where all land owners are invited as well as individual meetings where requested. Rating District Meeting Notes from 30 March 2017, 13 April 2018 and 22 March 2019 are included in the information supplied.
Environment Canterbury’s document on best practice for community consultation titled “briefing notes – how to set up a rating district” dated October 2018 is also included.

Regarding the steps taken by Environment Canterbury to verify the factual accuracy of third-party statements included in or supporting the draft recommendations on rating allocation; Dougal Smith spoke to various members of the community as part of his independent report. Further, we have planned the additional processes and verification steps outlined below in order to ensure there are no questions on the robustness of the final recommendations.

The community consultation process to be adopted by Environment Canterbury for the rest of the rating allocation process will be:

1. A pre and post Scheme works flood and erosion hazard assessment will be undertaken for the Twin Waters Bach property by an Environment Canterbury Hazards Analyst.
2. Dougal Smith and Ian Heslop of Environment Canterbury will meet with and interview Alistair Ensor regarding behaviour of historical floods in the Twin Waters area.
3. Dougal and Ian will review the current proposed rating classification giving regard to the hazard assessment, the Ensor interview, and professional engineering knowledge and experience.
4.  A draft review report will be prepared by Dougal and Ian and circulated to rating district members for information & comment. This report will include a statement of the ongoing benefit offered to Twin Waters relative to the other ratepayers, the hazard assessment report and Ensor interview notes, and a statement of the weighting placed on the Ensor interview and other factors.
5. Feedback on the draft report will be summarised, included in, and considered before updating the report.
6. The updated report will be circulated to ratepayers prior to holding a special ratepayer meeting to discuss, and vote for or against, the report’s new rating recommendations.
7. Glenfalloch, Manuka Point, Twin Waters, Glenaan, Glenariffe, and Double Hill will all have the opportunity to attend and vote at the meeting.
8. The meeting will be Chaired by an Environment Canterbury Councillor or Director, and it will not proceed unless there is a quorum of at least three ratepayers. Proxy votes will be accepted, and we will send a form to allow this.
9. If there is adequate community support for the recommendations, the new rating classification will be included in Environment Canterbury’s Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan. An 80% or better majority vote will be taken as adequate community support.
10. If there is inadequate community support for the recommendations, there will be no basis for striking a Scheme rate for 2020/21, and the Council executive will reconsider the situation.
11. Submissions for the Draft Annual Plan, including support for or opposition to the proposed rating classification, will be invited when it is notified (this is likely to be in early 2020).
12. The Council will make a decision on a new rating classification which will be implemented from 2020/21 onwards.

1747C - We received a request for information on passenger statistics by stop & route, provision of facilities at stops for last calendar year

Response to email dated 10 December 2019 requesting information on Passenger Statistics by Stop and Route, Provision of Facilities at Stops.

Please find attached an excel spreadsheet (XLSX File, 199.38KB) showing the total number of passenger boardings at each given stop for the 2019 calendar year. The data includes all recorded passenger boardings for all Christchurch bus routes and the Diamond Harbour Ferry. It does not include data for school bus routes, as boardings at each bus stop are not recorded for these services. It also does not include any special events services. It should be noted that if the ticket machines experience any issues, location data can default to the first stop on the route, meaning that data for these locations is sometimes inflated.

We do not currently hold readily available data on passenger boardings at each given stop broken down by route, or statistics on passenger boardings on each given day in the last calendar year.

As advised by letter on 19 December 2019, a request for information showing which stops have seats, shelters, bus arrival boards, and trash cans (or other amenities) has been transferred to the relevant Territorial Authorities who administer this information.

1710C - We received a request for information on future planning of the Orange Line bus route in Halswell.

Environment Canterbury consulted the local community of the Longhurst and Knights Stream subdivision about the current Orange Line bus route throughout September 2016. The current route of the Orange line was approved in November 2016 by the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee. The route has now been operational along Murphys Road for three years.

The south west of Christchurch has seen, and will continue to see, high residential growth. However, it is not always possible to change bus routes when one section of a new subdivision opens. We need to consider a range of factors such as what roading connections are available, the residential catchment, what other options will become available in the future, and the impact on existing users of bus services.

In this case an extension to the Orange Line such as the one you have suggested is not currently possible as the roads are not yet connected. It will be necessary to consider the whole bus network in the area, rather than piecemeal changes to one service, and Environment Canterbury will do this through a full-service review in the future.

1687C - We received a request for information on the Free Bus Weekend of 21 and 22 September.

There were 71,622 free bus trips and this cost $62,577.

The weekend promotion was funded through Environment Canterbury’s public transport marketing and promotions budget.

Funding for this budget is derived from targeted public transport rates and NZTA grants.

1642C - Request for information on public transport - Why can't the management of the public transport system go back to Christchurch City Council?

It is not possible under the current legislative framework for Environment Canterbury to transfer public transport management to the Christchurch City Council (CCC).
Environment Canterbury currently holds the statutory responsibility for public transport in Canterbury.

The only way that the CCC could take over management of public transport in Christchurch would follow a transfer of responsibilities from Environment Canterbury to the CCC.

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) under section 17 permits the transfer of responsibilities between regional councils and territorial authorities, but the term “responsibilities” is defined to exclude duties and obligations conferred by another statute.

Public transport responsibilities arise under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. They therefore do not fall within the definition of “responsibilities” in the LGA, and therefore cannot be transferred between councils.

Even if it were legally possible for a transfer to happen - which, as noted above, it is not - Environment Canterbury and the CCC would need to follow a process of consulting with the public and deciding whether the benefits of any transfer outweighed any negative impacts of it. This process would obviously require significant work and consideration before any transfer could be progressed.

1534C - Request dated 15/01/19 for information relating to public transport.

“What changes (new or changed routes, trials etc) happened to public transport in Christchurch between 1989 and 1999?”

We have conducted an extensive search through our database for relevant files and have been unable to find anything of relevance to the question.

This is most likely because our current records management platform was not in place at the time, meaning records including marketing collateral were not saved into it. While paper copies may have been retained in some form, this information was not preserved post-earthquake.

We are not able to guarantee the information requested is not held anywhere, but extensive investigations have been unable to locate it either in physical or electronic form. We are therefore declining the request under section 17(e) of LGOIMA.

1596C - We received an information request regarding relating to all correspondence about on-demand public transport service proposal for Timaru - all briefing papers, correspondence with TDC & NZTA, costings of project so far, results of community engagement & prototype testing.

Request for all correspondence about the on-demand public transport service proposal for Timaru, including: all briefing papers, internal correspondence, and external correspondence with Timaru District Council and NZTA, costings of the project so far, project costs for the project, and results of community engagement and prototype testing.

Please find the following documents regarding community engagement and prototype testing:

1. Timaru On-Demand Public Transport Project: Current State Research of Timaru Public Bus Service (December 2018);
2. Timaru On-Demand Public Transport Project: Summary of prototyping & testing phase (March 2019);
3. Community Engagement – Summary of Activities to-date including List of media releases;
4. The Innovate Conference – Employer Engagement; and
5. Copy of e-mail to update members of our Passenger Transport Advisory Group (PTAG).

Please note that some information has been redacted in order to protect the privacy of individuals pursuant to section 7(2)(a), and in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between officers as well as confidentiality, in formulating potential brand names and taglines, pursuant to sections 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(f)(i), of the LGOIMA.

Due to the substantial amount of work that would be required to research and collate the remainder of the information requested, we are refusing the request under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA. An initial search of emails on the parameters requested, returned over 6500 emails and we believe there may be substantially more. The time required to find and bring all of this information together would have a detrimental impact on Environment Canterbury’s other operations, and in particular delivery of this Project.

We have considered whether charging or extending the timeframe for responding to the request would help, as required by section 17A of the LGOIMA. However, given the sheer number of emails in an initial scoping exercise, charging or extending would not help.

1542C - Request dated 28/01/19 for information regarding public transport drivers.

Why do bus drivers speak their own language?

The answer to the question is – because they can.

In order to gain a bus licence, drivers require a reasonable standard of English, and we expect them to communicate clearly with passengers. The ability to speak another language is of particular benefit when dealing with a multi-cultural public, some of whom do not speak English well, and instructing drivers not to speak their own language would impinge on their freedom of expression, which is protected by law.

It is commonplace for employers to encourage diversity among employees. There are numerous examples of organisations encouraging their staff to speak a multitude of different languages in order to better serve their customers, ranging from hospitality and tourism, social agencies and airlines.

1498C - We received a request for:

A shape file of all the bus routes in a specific district containing the following information:

• Charter or agent
• Route number of name
• Patronage of route

We do not have the shape file that has been requested. 

Please find a spreadsheet which contains the patronage data by route for the period December 2017 to November 2018:

• Patronage Dec 17 to Nov 18 (XLSX File, 9.33KB)

A shape file of the above five years ago

We do not have the shapefile or GTFS data for the network five years ago.

A summary of successful tenders over the last five years for bus services

A spreadsheet of successful tenders:

• Copy of ECan tender result (XLSX File, 9.83KB)

We will be re-tendering our network this year.

Please find attached a spreadsheet which details the average and scheduled travel times between timing points (1st tab) and for each trip (2nd tab) for each year back to Dec 2015. This includes weekends as well as on and off-peak Monday to Friday.

• Quality of Service Delivery (XLSX File, 36.86KB)

1531C - Request for Public Transport monthly patronage data.

We do not accept that the 11 December 2018 email was a request for information - rather, it was a continuation of the LTP submission asking that this information be made available on our website. It was expressed that this was not an official information request. However, the email was treated as a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act (LGOIMA).

1495C - We received an information request regarding the cost of Canterbury’s public transport services under the new PTOM contracts.

Requested copies of:

• “the monthly fare revenue for each bus route or each bus PTOM unit for each month since the bus services were taken over by various bus operators under PTOM contracts”;
• “the bus ticket sales by ticket type and ticket type revenue for each bus route or each bus PTOM unit for each month since the bus services were taken over by various bus operators under PTOM contracts”; and
• “the monthly bus PTOM contract operating cost paid to bus operators for each PTOM bus unit for each month since bus services were taken over by various bus operators under PTOM contacts”.

As advised in an email dated 29 November, we are not currently running fully PTOM compliant contracts. Furthermore, as our fare revenue data per route has been materially influenced by significant disruptions from the Canterbury earthquakes, we have only included the data requested from July 2014 onwards.

Please find attached a spreadsheet containing the information requested.

• Monthly fare revenue (XLS File, 894KB)

There are some grey cells in the spreadsheet where there is no information for a specific category. For example:

• Where there has been a route change during the period of the information provided (for example route 45);
• Where a particular ticket type is not used on a route (for example, complimentary tickets in Timaru; and Supergold tickets on school routes);
• Where some routes are consolidated (for example route 89 and 99 are the clockwise and anti-clockwise routes that together form the Orbiter route).

Bus route contract costs are withheld, as these are covered by commercial contracts and releasing this information would unduly prejudice Environment Canterbury’s pending procurement process and the contracted operators. We believe that withholding this information is necessary to protect the information as making it available would prejudice Environment Canterbury’s commercial position as well as the relevant bus company’s commercial position (in terms of section 7(b)(ii) of LGOIMA). We do not consider that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the grounds for withholding it.

1500C - We received an information request regarding the use of vapers and e-cigarettes on all public transport.

Question: “Do vapers and e-cigs have different regulations than smoking” and “can they be used on public transport?”

The use of e-cigarettes or “vaping” devices is prohibited on public transport vehicles in Canterbury.

See more about rules and regulations on metroinfo.co.nz

1505C - We received an information request regarding relating to the age of buses software.

How long have the bus machines and software been around?

ConnexioNZ RTI software was implemented in 2000 and supports ‘bus finder units’ installed in bus stops across the network. The plan is to go to the market to refresh this system early next year.
INIT on-bus Ticketing Machine system was implemented in 2010.

Environment Canterbury is part of a national project led by NZTA to procure and implement a new ticketing system across New Zealand. It is anticipated this system will be implemented in Canterbury sometime between 2020 and 2022.

1455C - We received an information request regarding routes and services around Dallington

Why is there a lack of routes and services around Dallington?

Prior to the 2010 and 2011 earthquake events, the area around the Dallington bridge and adjacent suburbs was serviced by three bus routes:

• the 83 Hei Hei/Burwood route which travelled via Gloucester St, Gayhurst Rd, McBratneys Rd and Fleete St;
• the 84 Russley/Avondale route that travelled via Patten St, Retreat Rd, Keller St, Morris St, Avonside Dr, Torlesse St, Holland St and Dunarnan St; and
• the Orbiter route which travelled via Gayhurst Rd, Gloucester St and Woodham Rd.

The earthquakes caused significant damage in this area of Christchurch and many streets became unsuitable for bus services. Many properties were damaged beyond repair and much of the area was subsequently designated as residential red zone, with the houses being removed. Significant damage was caused to the Dallington Bridge which meant it was unsafe and closed to heavy vehicles.

This necessitated a reconfiguration of our Metro bus services to and through the area. The eastern parts of the 83 and 84 routes were discontinued and the Orbiter was diverted away from the Dallington Bridge onto the Stanmore Road bridge.

A shuttle service using smaller vehicles was introduced through Avondale, Dallington and Avonside (south of the river) and a link service ran from McBratneys Rd/Gayhurst Rd through to The Palms.

While the Shuttle service proved less successful as housing was demolished and the number of people in the area reduced, the link to McBratneys/Gayhurst continues to this day and, since the central city has been re-opened for business, this route has been included as part of the 44 route from The Palms into the CBD.

The subsequent replacement of the Dallington Bridge provided an opportunity to restore the Orbiter to its former route; however by this time (2015) the current route via Stanmore Road had proven very popular, so the decision was made to make this route permanent. Many of the regular users of the Orbiter in this area are associated with Avonside Girls’ High School and Shirley Boys’ High School, which will relocate to QEII Park in April 2019. The move of these schools may provide an opportunity for this decision to be revisited.

As you will be aware, consultation on the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) has recently concluded. Once the final RPTP has been adopted there will be a detailed review of all bus routes, including those in the Dallington area. This will include public consultation, and it is anticipated this will take place in the first half of 2019.

1453C - We received an information request regarding information relating to the provision of free bus services on World Car-free Day on 22 September 2018 across Greater Christchurch and Timaru

Free travel on the Metro public transport network for World Car-free Day was an outstanding success, with an additional 15,672 trips on the network - a 60% increase compared to Saturdays at the same time last year.

The free buses were provided as a way of starting a conversation about the future focus of plans for transport in the region and gave us the opportunity to reach a wide range of people. It was also a chance for people to try their local service, leave the car at home for the day, and to think about the sort of public transport system needed in Canterbury.

What is the total cost for making buses free for the day, and for a breakdown of the cost?

The operational cost for making the buses free across was approximately $36,000. This is based on the average amount of revenue received for Saturdays in the same period last year.

How much was spent on the wider campaign, and for a breakdown of the costs involved?

The costs for the advertising/campaign development and execution to promote free buses across Greater Christchurch and Timaru were as follows:

• The media cost was $23,464.14 (excluding GST); and
• The campaign cost (including strategic development, illustration and execution) was approximately $6,000 (excluding GST).

The promotion of free buses was a combined message with the launch of the Regional Public Transport Plan consultation.

How many submissions were made on the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP)?

More than 700 submissions have been received to date, and they are still being processed.

1459C - We received a request for the true rate/tax payer subsidy per passenger per year on public transport in Canterbury, including overhead costs that would not exist if, for example, public transport was outsourced.

The total rate plus tax payer subsidy per passenger trip for the 2018/19 fiscal year (that is, funding from rates plus government grants) for public transport bus and ferry services in Canterbury is $2.87 excluding GST.

 

1453C - We received an information request regarding the breakdown of total cost of Metro's Free Bus Day, and how many submissions have been made on the public transport plan.

Free travel on the Metro public transport network for World Car-free Day was an outstanding success, with an additional 15,672 trips on the network - a 60% increase compared to Saturdays at the same time last year.

The free buses were provided as a way of starting a conversation about the future focus of plans for transport in the region and gave us the opportunity to reach a wide range of people. It was also a chance for people to try their local service, leave the car at home for the day, and to think about the sort of public transport system needed in Canterbury.

The total cost for making buses free for the day, and for a breakdown of the cost.

The operational cost for making the buses free was approximately $36,000. This is based on the average amount of revenue received for Saturdays in the same period last year.

How much was spent on the wider campaign, and for a breakdown of the costs involved.

The costs for the advertising/campaign development and execution to promote free buses across Greater Christchurch and Timaru were as follows:

• The media cost was $23,464.14 (excluding GST); and
• The campaign cost (including strategic development, illustration and execution) was approximately $6,000 (excluding GST).

The promotion of free buses was a combined message with the launch of the Regional Public Transport Plan consultation.

How many submissions were made on the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP).

More than 700 submissions have been received to date, and they are still being processed.

1453C - We received an information request regarding the breakdown of total cost of Metro's Free Bus Day, and how many submissions have been made on the public transport plan.

Free travel on the Metro public transport network for World Car-free Day was an outstanding success, with an additional 15,672 trips on the network - a 60% increase compared to Saturdays at the same time last year.

The free buses were provided as a way of starting a conversation about the future focus of plans for transport in the region and gave us the opportunity to reach a wide range of people. It was also a chance for people to try their local service, leave the car at home for the day, and to think about the sort of public transport system needed in Canterbury.

The total cost for making buses free for the day, and for a breakdown of the cost.

The operational cost for making the buses free was approximately $36,000. This is based on the average amount of revenue received for Saturdays in the same period last year.

How much was spent on the wider campaign, and for a breakdown of the costs involved.

The costs for the advertising/campaign development and execution to promote free buses across Greater Christchurch and Timaru were as follows:

• The media cost was $23,464.14 (excluding GST); and
• The campaign cost (including strategic development, illustration and execution) was approximately $6,000 (excluding GST).

The promotion of free buses was a combined message with the launch of the Regional Public Transport Plan consultation.

How many submissions were made on the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP).

More than 700 submissions have been received to date, and they are still being processed.

1259C - We received an information request regarding public transport operations. Please find below the requestor’s specific queries and our responses. Note that the figures are GST exclusive.

How many buses are under contract for public transport services excluding school buses, mobility services and any other specialist contracts?

Greater Christchurch (excluding schools and ferry): 208 (plus 10% back-ups)
Timaru (excluding school) & Timaru to Temuka: 6 (plus 10% back-ups)

What is the total cost of contracting buses for public transport services (excluding school and mobility contracts)?

Below is the total cost for the 2016/17 financial year:

Operating costs (excluding school and ferry services)

Greater Christchurch: $51,041,794
Timaru and Temuka: $985,538
Total: $52,027,332

Administration costs – contract management, administration, monitoring, tendering and reviews (excluding mobility contracts but including schools and ferry)

Total: $1,359,590

What is the total revenue received from fares?

Below is the total revenue for the 2016/17 year:

Greater Christchurch (excluding schools and ferry)

• Metrocard: $12,032,263
• Cash: $5,514,144

Timaru (excluding school)

• Metrocard: $59,553
• Cash: $77,194

What is the total cost recovery from subsidies?

Below is the total cost recovery for the 2016/17 financial year (excluding mobility contracts but including school and ferry services):

a) City councils: $0

b) Environments Canterbury (rates and reserve)

• Greater Christchurch Bus Services: $15,765,518
• Timaru and Temuka Bus Services: $400,816
• Ferry Services: $277,572
• Total: $16,443,907

c) New Zealand Transport Agency (including Super Gold Card revenue)

• Greater Christchurch Bus Services: $18,874,998
• Timaru and Temuka Bus Services: $427,057
• Ferry Services: $304,038
• Total: $19,606,093

Please note that as we have (as requested) excluded school services from some of these sums but included them in others (including NZTA subsidies, as we do not calculate subsidies for school services separately), these numbers will not add together.

What is the total number of Metrocards currently active in each city?

The number of unique Metrocards presented from 1 January to 31 December 2017 are as below:

• Greater Christchurch: 111,770
• Timaru: 1300

1252C - We received an information request regarding the holder of the TMP at Akaroa. 

Challenge Events is the current holder of the TMP in Akaroa on behalf of the cruise ship agent ISS Mckay.

Copies of all correspondence, notes, memos and content of telephone calls between Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council (CCC) were also requested.

Please find those documents here.

1252C - We received an information request regarding the holder of the TMP at Akaroa. 

Challenge Events is the current holder of the TMP in Akaroa on behalf of the cruise ship agent ISS Mckay.

Copies of all correspondence, notes, memos and content of telephone calls between Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council (CCC) were also requested.

Please find those documents here.

1170C - We received an information request regarding SuperGold Cards.

1. How do the trips used by the SuperGold Card get paid?

Trips made on public transport services in Canterbury by SuperGold Card holders during off-peak periods are funded 100% by Central Government but at a capped annual figure. Off-peak periods are from 9.00am to 3.00pm and from 6:30pm to the end of service on weekdays, and any time on weekends and public holidays.

Trips made on public transport services in Canterbury by SuperGold card holders during peak periods are paid for by the customer at normal adult fares.

2. What is the total paid for fares using the SuperGold Card in the 16/17 financial year?

The total funding by Central Government for off-peak SuperGold travel in Canterbury for the year Jul 2016 – June 2017 was capped at $2,956,485 excluding GST.

1109C - We received an information request regarding whether or not we have looked into providing mobile payment support on our public bus services.

Environment Canterbury has not looked into the specific requirements of providing true mobile payment support, as such technologies are not able to be supported by our current ticketing system. However, we will be reviewing our ticketing system, including various payment technologies such as mobile payment, when the current system reaches the end of life around 2020/2021.

As a public entity, asset investment lifecycle and the maturity of technologies are very important considerations influencing our decisions at the time of evaluation. We consider that mobile payment technology is relatively immature in its implementation in New Zealand. Environment Canterbury does not see itself as an early adopter of technology solutions, given that we are using public funds and that there is an inherent risk associated with this sort of developing the technology.

The requestor also asked if we would consider talking with Google about supporting Android Pay.

As the current ticketing system will not support Android Pay, a discussion with Google may not represent value for either party at this point in time. Environment Canterbury will certainly consider talking with Google closer to the time of replacement of the current ticketing system.

1023C - We had a request from a university student for information about our public transport language support services for people with limited English proficiency.

How does Ecan manage interpretation and translation?

The public transport team at ECan has only used a translation service for one customer who is profoundly deaf. The translation service is provided through I-Signs who have a list of interpreters they use. The interpreter has typically been employed by Workbridge.

Does your transport department have access to the same translation and interpretation
services as the wider regional Council?

Our transport team has access to the same translation and interpretation services as the wider regional council. However, to date, these services have not been used.

How much money has Ecan spent on interpretation and translation services?

In relation to public transport, there has been only one occurrence of the public transport team paying for translation services as the remainder have been met by the customer. This occurrence was in May 2016 and the cost was $161.

Public transport brochures are not translated. Across Environment Canterbury, we provide translated services as required, such as using the Department of Internal Affairs’ Chinese
translation services for our Selwyn HAIL (Hazardous Industries and Activities List) project, to cater to the ethnic makeup of the area.

For the wider Environment Canterbury organisation, there have been a few occasions when deaf people have called with prearranged hearing services.

Does Ecan have metrics for tracking language services?

ECan does not use metrics for tracking language services.  

Does Ecan have any other specific policies for reaching out to ethnic/CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) communities?

For visually impaired travellers, large format timetables are available from Metroinfo and on the website www.metroinfo.co.nz We have tactile pavers to lead visibility impaired people to buses, bus bays numbered on columns in Braille, and push buttons for audio door number announcements.

1603C - We received an information requesting information on the volume of water take in the Kaikoura Zone.

On 6 September we provided a response to an earlier LGOIMA request on the measure water take in the Kaikoura Zone for the 2017/2018 year. The follow-on request to that was:

How and why has rural water take almost doubled to 2,064,050m3 in 2017/18 since 2016/2017?

Where does ECan collect the data from and is Kaikoura District Council water sources/consumption included in the count?

1. In November 2016 Kaikoura experienced a large earthquake that destroyed a large number of farms’ infrastructure. This earthquake collapsed bores and destroyed pipes and equipment. As this earthquake occurred at the beginning of the irrigation season, there was little water used until all the repairs could be finished; and
2. We are seeing continual improvement in the number of meters and the quality of data we are receiving. This in turn improves the accuracy of reporting.

In response to the question on where Environment Canterbury collects its data, we can confirm that Kaikoura District Council’s data was not included in the calculations provided. Water usage data is provided from the meters and dataloggers associated with each water abstraction point associated with the consents. This data is provided to Environment Canterbury in line with the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 and is sourced through third party data providers.

1524C - We received an information request regarding several water quality questions including the way they are measured. Below are the queries from the requestor and our responses.

Do you measure water quality? Do you measure river water quality? if so;

• what locations to you measure? latitude/longitude
• what do you measure? ie. what elements
• how do you measure? ie. fixed meter or physical sample?
• how often do you measure, by site?

In answer to the above, yes, we do measure water quality throughout the Canterbury region and we have this spreadsheet which provides the subsequent details that were requested.

1439C - We received an information request relating to 20 Station Road and 66 Belfast Road. Below are the queries from the requestor and our responses:

20 Station Road – All records held by Environment Canterbury in respect to water taken by Cloud Ocean Water Limited or otherwise from the above site, from 21 December 2017 to present.

Please find attached the water data graphs for Cloud Ocean’s water take from CRC182813 for the period 13 August to 8 October 2018.

Any data previous to this was so distorted as to be unusable due to the following:

1. Electrical interference with the data logger and flow meter providing highly inaccurate, rogue readings 2. Issues with the data logger communicating with the host server has meant that there is some missing data.

However, we have attached two photos, one from 24 August 2018 which confirms minimal amount of water used since December 2017 when the flow meter was installed. The external flow meter attached to the well (photo 152836) indicated a reading of 10,534,244l used or 10,534.244m3.

We were able to match this to an internal flow meter which is attached to the same line and a photo of this meter taken on 4 September (see attached) shows a reading of 10244.937m3. The difference exists as the flow meter was used during well testing phases when it hadn’t been connected up to the factory line. There could also be a difference in the percentage error of the two flow meters. There is no requirement for Cloud Ocean to have the internal flow meter recording correctly. The external flow meter is the device which provides data to the data provider and Environment Canterbury.

66 Belfast Road - All records held by Environment Canterbury in respect to water taken by Rāpaki Natural Resources Limited or otherwise from the above site, from 21 December 2017 to present.

File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/1439C

Water takes at 66 Belfast Road are currently inactive. Hence, we do not hold any water data for these takes.

Prior to these takes becoming active, the consent holders will need to comply with their consent conditions which includes installing a flow meter and data logger on each bore, as well as exercising their consents and ensuring data is being sent to us. The site at 66 Belfast road is currently a demolition site.

Any contamination reports, including site investigation reports, site management reports or similar, relating to either of the above sites.

20 Station Road is included on the LLUR in relation to two HAIL land uses: • A17 – Storage tanks or drums for fuel, chemicals or liquid waste • A16 – Skin or wool processing

66 Belfast Road is not included on Environment Canterbury’s Listed Land Use Register (LLUR) in relation to hazardous activities and industries list (HAIL) land uses. There is therefore no file managed for that physical address. This does not mean hazardous activities or land uses we don’t know about have never occurred there.

1243C - We received a request for information regarding the “decision by Environment Canterbury to allow Cloud Ocean Water … using a 20-year-old permit … to remove up to 4.32 million litres per day for bottling”. The requestor’s specific queries and our responses are outlined below.

How does the decision by Environment Canterbury represent the best interests of the environment?

Environment Canterbury’s purpose under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is to facilitate sustainable management of our natural resources.  To do this, we are legally required to process resource consent applications in line with the statutory tests outlined in the RMA, and clarified via caselaw developed by the Environment (and higher) Courts.

Under the RMA, Environment Canterbury is not able to consider who an applicant is (other than to ensure they are a legal entity under New Zealand law) or the merits of why they wish to use a natural resource (in this case water) for a particular purpose.  Given that, we have no ability to consider the nationality of the shareholders in Cloud Ocean Water Ltd, nor whether water bottling is a better use of water than irrigation or wine making etc., in our processing of the application.  Rather we must make decisions on the basis of the effects of a proposal on the environment.

In determining the significance of those effects, we have to look at the environment against which the activity will occur.  In terms of the RMA, the Courts (via caselaw) have determined that the environment includes the effects of existing consents.  We are therefore limited to only looking at effects over and above those that are already consented to occur.  As the effects of taking water out of the aquifer were already consented to the Kaputone Wool Scour in 1997, and as there was no change in the rate or volume at which water was to be taken (from what was already consented), those effects could not be reconsidered as part of the application in front of Environment Canterbury which was simply to use water already consented to be taken for a different purpose.

“It appears to me that Environment Canterbury is not representing the environment in this case so who is please?”

Environment Canterbury is performing its statutory function in accordance with the limits imposed upon it via the Resource Management Act and relevant caselaw.

What consultation did Environment Canterbury undertake with this bottling decision?

Environment Canterbury sought comment on the proposal from Tuahuriri Rūnanga, Christchurch City Council, the North Canterbury District Health Board, and the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council.  An email response was received from the Christchurch City Council (CCC) expressing concerns around the potential for water to be taken from a deeper bore. As the application did not propose to take water from a deeper bore this could not be considered.  If an application to take water from a deeper bore is received, then the effects of that deeper take (including the effects on CCC) will be considered as part of that proposal.  None of the other contacted parties provided any comment on the application.

Correspondence was also received from Linwood Law, and the matters raised in that letter were considered by the Council officers in the recommendation and subsequent decision (which are attached to this response).  Consideration was also given to the petition that was circulating requesting that Environment Canterbury rescind the consent on the basis of climate change and public feeling.  The ability to rescind the existing consent is not within the powers provided to Environment Canterbury under the RMA.

Why was there not reasonable consultation about this issue?

Environment Canterbury must make a determination on the environmental effects of a proposal prior to public notification. Where these are considered more than minor, then applications are publicly notified.  As discussed above, this proposal was simply to use water already consented to be taken, and Environment Canterbury could not reconsider the effects of taking that water.  The effects of the new use of that water were not considered to meet the requirements for public notification.  This is discussed fully in the Officer’s Report and accompanying decision.

Who holds ECan to account for this apparent blatant mis-representation of the Canterbury environment? And how is this accountability exercised?

Accountability for Environment Canterbury’s administration of the RMA sits with the Environment, and higher, Courts.  This accountability is exercised via appeals to the Environment Court (where applications have been notified; which is not the case here), or via Judicial Review in the High Court of the process followed by Environment Canterbury.

How can residents hold ECAN accountable for mismanagement of the environment?

Residents may seek a Judicial Review of Environment Canterbury’s decision-making process via the High Court.  This review is of the process undertaken in reaching a decision, rather than the decision itself.  If the High Court finds that the process followed was flawed, then it typically sends the application back to be reconsidered.

How can residents make change to local government (ECan in particular)?

Residents are encouraged to provide input into any publicly notified process via written submissions and can also be heard in support of their submissions.  This includes the proposed Long Term Plan (LTP), proposed RMA plans or plan changes, and any notified resource consent applications.  Publicly notified processes are advertised in newspapers, on our website and, in the case of the proposed LTP and RMA plans and plan changes, in the Living Here newsletter that is delivered to all residents in Canterbury.

Residents may also use their democratic right to vote for Councillors who represent their interests in Local Government elections. The next election is in 2019.

ECan says it is “facilitating sustainable development in the Canterbury region”; how does this decision reflect that?

As noted above, Environment Canterbury is unable to consider the “merits” of who or why a person or company wishes to use water; they can only consider whether the effects are acceptable, and the consistency of the decision with national and regional policy. In this instance, there is no national or regional policy regarding water bottling, and the effects of taking the water were considered when the original consent was granted to the Kaputone Wool Scour in 1997.  As explained above, the effects of taking water form part of the existing environment and could not be reconsidered.

The cumulative effects of abstraction from the aquifer (i.e. how much water can be sustainably taken from the aquifer) was also considered as part of the public process that developed the operative Land and Water Regional Plan. That process concluded that, in the Christchurch West Melton area, maintaining the existing consented level of abstraction (including the existing take consent, now held by Cloud Ocean Water Ltd) was sustainable.  It limited any further takes to be solely for community supply or non-consumptive uses.  As this application was simply to enable already consented water to be used for an alternative purpose, it will not have any cumulative effect on the sustainability of Christchurch’s aquifers over what is already allowed to occur.

1216C - We received an information request for each water allocation area in Canterbury, the year in which those areas reached 100% allocation (and the current % of allocation in each area).  Also, how many water consents have been granted or renewed since those areas reached 100% allocation

We provided the requestor with the current percentage (as at 8 December 2017) of allocation in each area for:

1. Surface Water
2. Groundwater

We have two different spreadsheet tables because Groundwater and Surface Water are accounted for separately.  This is because they have different management triggers.

• Surface water has minimum flows in the river at which irrigation must cease and river flow trigger levels at which flow rates must reduce.
• Groundwater doesn’t have minimum flows attached but is managed on an instantaneous take rate and annual total.
• Groundwater takes that are considered hydraulically linked (i.e. taking their water directly affects river flows because they are so close to a river) are considered surface water takes.

We manage the water as a single resource (combined groundwater and surface water) but for the sake of accounting for takes and how they are restricted we maintain different tables.
Commentary was also requested regarding water allocation and we advised the following:

Within Canterbury there is a comprehensive suite of resource management plans to manage the take and use of water.  Many of our largest catchments, including the Hurunui, Waiau, Waimakariri and Waitaki, along with the Waipara, Opihi and Pareora Catchments have their own flow and allocation plans which list the Minimum River Flow and an allocation regime which determines how much water can be allocated.

Some of our Alpine rivers, including the Rangitata and Rakaia have water conservations orders which contain similar restrictions.

The Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) is the most modern of Canterbury’s plans, with its final parts becoming fully operative in early 2017. It contains minimum flow and allocation limits for all other rivers and streams in the region, and allocation limits for groundwater throughout the region.  This plan provides the strongest direction possible to ensure that allocation limits are not exceeded by any new takes, expressly prohibiting any applications for new takes if they would breach limits.  You will see that some of the water management areas are over 100% allocated; this is a historical result of consents granted before the planning framework was put in place.  Under the LWRP, where consent is sought to continue existing abstractions in overallocated catchments, the plan provides direction that those existing takes should be reduced to phase out overallocation.

Whether a river is managed under a Resource Management Plan or Water Conservation Order they all have a similar management approach.

Anyone wishing to take and use water must apply for resource consent. Consent will only be granted if there is space available within the allocation block.  Consents are granted with conditions including a requirement to cease taking water when the minimum flow is reached.  Most takes for irrigation now have an annual volume (i.e. a total amount of water which can be taken over a year). Most consents, and in practice all large consents, to take and use water now have a water meter which allows us to monitor accurately water use across the region.

1148C - We received a request for information on all active water bottling consents issued in Canterbury.

Please find below a table of all active water bottling consents issued in Canterbury.

Table of active water bottling consents

1152C - We received an information request for the Hurunui Water Project (HWP) Ltd consents and if there were revisions to existing consents in 2016 and 2017.  Revisions to existing consents held by HWP have been: a notice of partial transfer of the nutrient load that was authorised under CRC153349, to Ngai Tahu Farming Limited.  

The notice of transfer resulted in a land use consent held by Hurunui Water Project Limited (HWP, CRC153349) being partially transferred to Ngai Tahu Farming Limited as CRC172781, and the part retained by HWP being CRC172780.

The consent application documents and emails surrounding the application were also requested which can be found below, including an email which explains the conditions required.

• CRC172780 - Annexure maps
• CRC172780 - Annexure soil leaching table
• CRC172780 – Conditions of consent
• CRC173278 – Draft conditions
• CRC172780 - General conditions signed
• CRC153349 – Email regarding HWP partial transfer
• CRC172780 – Schedule one
• CRC172780 – Annexure drainage table
• CRC172780 – Nutrient management area plan
• CRC172780 and CRC172781 – Partial transfer memo
• CRC153349 and CRC172780 – Transfer decision documents 
• CRC172780 – HWP partially transferred document
• Email regarding Balmoral consent applications

1132C - We received a further request for information following our response to LGOIMA - 1117C regarding information on the Cloud Ocean Consent which can be found above. The requestor’s additional queries on the Cloud Ocean Consent are outlined below.

 

1. Information on the allocation of the aquifer over the term of Cloud Ocean’s consent (in relation to capacity), allowing for population growth.

The Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) (Chapter 9) states that:
In general no additional water is to be allocated from the Christchurch West-Melton groundwater allocation zone - except for group or community supply as set out in Rule 5.155 or for non-consumptive taking and use as set out I Rules 5.131 and 5.132.

This is because the Christchurch West-Melton aquifer is treated as fully-allocated, at around 160 million cubic metres allocated per year. This 160 million cubic metres includes the full consented allocation to Ocean Cloud water.

Similar provisions regarding the fully-allocated aquifer were included in the Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP), which was notified in 2004. Prior to the NRRP there were no groundwater allocation limits calculated for this aquifer.

2. What was the level of the aquifer over the last 10-20 years?

Data is not available on the level of the aquifer overall.  The attached map here shows groundwater level monitoring bores within 10km of the Cloud Ocean site, and data on groundwater levels for those bores is here.

Water level data and graphs can be accessed on Canterbury Maps using the well search function.  The bore numbers can be entered and graphs generated from the water level graphs tab and the water level data can be downloaded from this page.

The excel sheet attached above shows bore numbers, eg. M36/xxxx, date of data reading and the depth to groundwater measured from a reference point for that well.  The measuring point varies by well.  The depth to water references the measuring point which may be above, below or at ground level depending on the well.  Also, please note that the well details search on our website at www.ecan.govt.nz includes a plot showing water levels relative to ground level.

The positive numbers indicate the water level is above the measuring points, which may or may not be ground surface.  Positive values generally indicate artesian condition, but you would have to check the measuring point elevation relative to the ground elevation.  This information is available on the well summary which is available from our website.

3. Provide a summary of complaints received from water users.

There are no records of complaints in our database relating to availability of groundwater in this area.

4. What is Environment Canterbury’s position regarding reviewing the consent?

Environment Canterbury has the right to review the conditions of this resource consent to deal with adverse effects on the environment that are best dealt with at a later stage.

We can review a resource consent for the following reasons:

• If a new or unforeseen adverse effect occurs or one that is beyond that which was consented
• For any purpose specified in a consent
• If a new rule comes into force in a new plan that requires something which is not addressed in an existing old consent
• If a new national environmental standard comes into force
• If we were misled or there were inaccuracies in a consent application

We have not considered whether there are any such adverse effects in relation to this resource consent.

1096C

- We received an information request regarding how we classify water takes, how many industrial water take consents there are currently and how much revenue we raise from the consents.

Environment Canterbury classifies water takes by the purpose of the use to which the water will be put. Water take and use classifications include industrial, farming, mining, public water supply, hydroelectric power generation and frost protection.

Attached is a table of all active industrial water takes in Canterbury: 99 consents, and a total of 67,719,793 m3 allocated per year.

The Council recovers its costs of processing these applications and of monitoring consent holders’ compliance with their resource consents; however, we do not raise revenue from these consents.

990C - We received a request for information on generic letters sent out regarding water metering.

See below the attached four letters:

• Letter one is the reminder sent to approximately 500 users with a water take of 10 litres per second or more, and where we did not have a record of the installation of their water measuring device.
• Letter two is a follow up letter asking for immediate action to install their water measuring device. When the device has been installed and verified, a copy of the certificates must be submitted to Environment Canterbury.
• Letter three is another reminder that we had not been provided with the installation and/or verification certificate on the water measuring device.
• Letter four is a response letter after we have been informed that the owner no longer intends to use the bore or does not require the full allocation of water.

This is part of a strategic program of work that Environment Canterbury started in April of this year. If no response is received or we are not satisfied with the response that we receive from the addressees of these letters, then we will determine the appropriate enforcement response, which may involve the issuing of an Abatement Notice requiring compliance and then an Infringement Notice for non-compliance if that is the outcome and, for the most significant breaches, under the Resource Management Act is available.

Farming water use practices are changing

In 2009 the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) was launched. An initiative of the region's Mayoral Forum, it set out a shared vision, which was developed over many years via extensive public engagement. This vision reflected the community's desire to work differently, in a collaborative manner, around water management.

As a result, Environment Canterbury has adopted a strong collaborative and supportive approach to getting the right environmental outcomes for the community. In terms of water measurement/metering this has meant Environment Canterbury has worked with water take consent holders to move water management towards a self-audited approach where we can work together collaboratively to ensure that compliance is achieved.

As rules for water metering were introduced, in 2011 Environment Canterbury began a five year staged process to ensure that all water-take consent holders (for 5 1/s or more) had installed a water measuring device. It is a farmer's responsibility to manage their resources to achieve water efficiency. From a water measurement perspective, when the process started few meters were in place and so a huge effort has been made by Environment Canterbury's compliance team to get farmers on board with this process.

Daily monitoring and telemetry has been installed on most Canterbury farms to measure water use over the last four years. This has involved significant technological change for farmers and for Environment Canterbury, ensuring all large water takes are being measured, monitored and reported, and ensuring water use is within the allocated amount set by consent.

90% (4900/5400) of water takes are now metered and reported, most of them daily. Canterbury has three times the number of water takes than any other region.

A range of different tools as set out under the Resource Management Act 1991 can be used to ensure compliance with water take consent conditions. Environment Canterbury's first priority is to work with farmers so that they comply voluntarily. Where consents holders haven't complied, we have taken the following staged approach:

• Formal written warning - notice of an offence (often minor)
• Abatement notice - formal notice to take action or cease an activity that may have an adverse environmental effect or breaches the Resource Management Act
• Infringement notice - formal notice of an offence which includes payment of a fine.
• Prosecution - for offences so serious that they warrant proceedings through the courts.

Environment Canterbury is now reaching the end of the five year process. In April this year, we started implementing new enforcement measures designed to address the small overall percentage of non-compliant water take consent holders. For those who have not taken action we have begun to issue abatement notices - which will lead to appropriate enforcement action (such as an infringement notice and fines). Since April, we have issued 45 abatement notices for non-compliance with water metering and have many more in the pipeline. We believe by next year the whole region will be compliant in terms of water metering. Our focus now is on cracking down on anyone who still does not have a water meter, low flow breaches during times of water restriction then dealing with breaches exceeding consented volumes.

Generic letters attached here.

989C - We received a request for information regarding the number of FTE staff working on water metering responses since 2012, whether the responses were acceptable, and whether further resources and actions are planned to comply with regulations; also the number of total permitted water takes and information.

Questions

1) Back in 2012 Ecan advised that a dedicated team of 3 fulltime staff had been working with water users to promote meter use since 2008;

a) how many staff have been working on this since June 2012?

From June 2012 to October 2013 there were three full time staff as part of the Extension’s team who were working with industry and water users. After October 2013 there has been two full time staff from this team. In addition a large number of other staff from across the Council have also been working with water users to promote water measuring devices. This includes staff from compliance monitoring, zone delivery, CWMS facilitators, planners and Customer Services.

b) given Ecan's efforts since 2008, do you believe the outcomes reported recently are acceptable?

Canterbury also has three times the number of water takes than any other region. The approach Environment Canterbury has taken since the national regulations were introduced has been very successful in achieving the outcomes sought.

The main outcomes were to improve water efficiency and ensure the fair and equitable allocation of water resources.  This approach has gone beyond what is required under the regulations by working with consent holders and industry towards daily measurement and telemetry to enable real time monitoring of water use. This has benefits both in terms of enabling the consent holder to manage water more efficiently and for the broader community.

There has been a huge effort by both consent holders and industry and the project has involved significant technological change. The council has a formal process for taking enforcement action when we believe offences against these regulations may be taking place. This process is focused on achieving compliance and includes the following staged approach:

1. Warning letter

2. Abatement notice

3. Infringements

4. Prosecution

Over the past four years 90% (4900/5400) meters of water takes are now metered with a majority of these (3,800) now using daily telemetry reporting water use. We are constantly reviewing our processes and have in April this year started implementing new measures designed to address the small overall percentage of non-compliances by taking a stronger approach.

The priority has been to address those who have failed to comply with installing meters and then in August (following the end of the irrigation season) any non-compliance with water takes.

We have heard our community and are satisfied enough time has elapsed for water users to now understand their obligations. As a consequence, we will be ramp-up the pressure on compliance over the next few seasons and look to take stronger action when warranted.

c) what further resources and actions does Ecan plan to take to ensure regulations in effect since November 2010 are fully complied with?

We are constantly reviewing our processes and progress made. In April this year the council kicked off a water measurement compliance campaign. This campaign has three priorities addressing missing meters, addressing missing information and addressing any overtakes. At the beginning of this campaign, there were 500 missing meters. Now all of these have now been contacted.

Enforcement action is being pursued for those that haven’t taken action. After July the focus will shift assessing compliance with consented allocations. We have heard our community and we are satisfied consent holders have had sufficient time to implement the regulations. We will be taking stronger action when warranted.

2) The last Canterbury Region Water Use Report we are aware of was for the 2013/14water year;

a) is there to be a report published for the 2014/15 and subsequent water years with similar data and tables?

No. We have moved away from publishing a specific water report as we transition to reporting at a zone level on a range of matters of importance to community including water. We can however provide an analysis of the total water used in the context of the total amount of water allocated.

3) Can Ecan please advise the total permitted water takes;

a) for all existing water users consented to take 10 litres or more per second, who still do not have water meters installed?

At the beginning of April there are approximately 500 takes ≥10l/s that required a water measuring device(s). However, all of these consent holders have now been contacted and have either taken action or we are pursuing enforcement action against.

There are 5,400 takes that are now measured (90% of water takes) with 4,600 of these being taken that are equal to or greater than 20 litres per second.  This effectively equates to 97% of water allocation in Canterbury now being measured and reported.

b) for all existing water users consented to take 10 litres or more per second who have meters installed but are not consistently supplying useable data?

Environment Canterbury received data from approximately 3,648 consents in the 2014/2015 Water Year. Of those approximately 327 were not consistently supplying useable data due to a variety reasons such as:

• No data due to battery failure;
• Loggers incorrectly configured (if at all);
• Gaps in data record – data spikes (electric fence) or magnetic interference by Variable Speed
• Drive pumps, cables disconnected etc.; and
• Inability to download data from loggers.

Requesting data daily from takes that are telemetered will ensure onsite issues are dealt with in a timely manner thus ensuring useable data is submitted consistently. Environment Canterbury is currently receiving data daily from approximately 3,800 takes.

4) We are aware of several information bulletins produced by Ecan similar to the attached, dated July 2011 could you please advise;

a) was this and other information sheets sent to all water consent holders and when?

Since July 2011 there has been a comprehensive programme in place to ensure that water take consent holders understand their obligations and know what to do to comply.

This has included letters, brochures and a range of compliance communications and actions. In addition there have also been a number of field days, media campaigns, and one on one phone calls.

b) how many water consent holders contacted Ecan to advise that they did not understand water metering regulations?

Since July 2011 1,402 people have contacted Customer Services to discuss their water measuring requirements.

1097C -  Information was requested around publicly excluded water zone management committee meetings, were non-notified in the past council term, any decisions made in publicly excluded meetings, how many items were discussed at each meeting which excluded the public and a list of workshops and topics.

Information was requested for:

• How many Environment Canterbury council, water zone management committees and committee meetings, including extraordinary meetings, minor matters etc., were non-notified in the past council term and the current term, and why?
• Any decisions made in publicly excluded meetings in the past and current term.
• A breakdown on how many times items were discussed at each council/committee/community board meetings - which excluded the public.
• A full list of workshops, and topics, in the past term as well, and any that are planned for the current term.

The agendas and minutes for all Council and committee meetings (including all Zone Committee meetings) that have been held in the current term and in the previous term are provided on Environment Canterbury's website at Council and Committee Meetings.  All of those meetings were duly notified in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) therefore there were no non-notified meetings in the past or present council term.

Also available on our website are those occasions when matters were discussed in publicly excluded parts of the meetings and also the grounds for the public being excluded. As noted (and as required by LGOIMA), the resolution to move into a publicly excluded session is always passed in an open meeting, the grounds for exclusion of the public are provided as part of the resolution and all are recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

There are numerous informal gatherings held between Councillors, staff and others for a variety of purposes, including to discuss current issues, to provide Councillors with information and to share ideas. It is impossible to maintain any list of such meetings.

Workshops and briefings, at which no resolutions or decisions are made, are not "meetings" for the purposes of LGOIMA and accordingly none of the formal notice, agenda and minute keeping requirements of that Act apply. This is entirely appropriate since otherwise Councillors and staff would not be able to hold unscheduled or informal gatherings unless public notice of them had previously been provided.

1644C - Requesting all the available data for the following in the Akaroa area, Groundwater quality, Surface water quality including healthy streams data, Surface water gauging site data and Rainfall monitoring sites.

Please find attached the following documents which provide the data requested:

1. Groundwater Quality (XLSX File, 11.92KB)
2. Surface water quality including healthy streams data - Surface water quality including healthy streams data #1 (XLSX File, 1.35MB) and Surface water quality including healthy streams data #2 (XLSX File, 195.77KB)
3. Surface water stream flow data (XLS File, 687KB) , including Surface water stream flow data Terms and Conditions (PDF File, 163.26KB)

Please note Environment Canterbury does not measure rainfall in the Akaroa area, although NIWA does have a rain gauge that it maintains on behalf of CCC. You will need to approach NIWA or CCC for those data.

1610C – We received an information request to provide historical water well readings

Request for historical water well readings for the following wells:

1. M36/4191
2. M36/4239
3. M36/8331
4. BX23/0419
5. M36/0265
6. BX23/0833
7. BX23/0834
8. BX23/0835
9. BX23/0836
10. M36/4238
11. BX23/0098
12. M36/0257
13. M36/2743

All the water level data, along with comprehensive well details, strata details and water quality data, can be found on Environment Canterbury’s website using the “Well Search” function. Water level data can also be downloaded for use. These links will provide access to the general Well Search function.

We only hold groundwater level data for two of the wells listed, M36/0257 and BX23/0419. The data set for both is limited and for M36/0257 mostly quite
old. There are also initial groundwater levels for some of the other wells. These are water levels measured by the driller at the time the well was completed. They are indicative of water level at that time but can often be influenced by the process of establishing a well, so are not particularly reliable.

View data for M36/0257 and BX23/0419.

1573C – We received an information request regarding Canterbury well water take data on metered, compliant, monitored, usage and the way they are measured. Website info for reports on consent monitoring.

We received an information request regarding several water quality questions including the way they are measured. Below are the queries from the requestor and our responses.

1. The number of water takes that the wells have to be metered.
2. The number of these that are metered and the meter is compliant.
3. The number that are sending to ECan the water usage.
4. The number of data sent that is good and is monitored.
5. Where on ECan’s website you can find reports on consents monitoring.

Background

Canterbury has the largest number of water consents (5,090) and water abstraction points (7,922) in New Zealand, twice the number of Hawke’s Bay region (2,489). Environment Canterbury’s approach to implementing the requirements of the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 has been progressive implementation, recognising the level of investment required by consent holders to install both meters and data loggers and contract third party providers to monitor this data. The purpose of these requirements is to improve measurement of water in order to improve water use efficiency.

There are a number of aspects of compliance including:

• Installation of meters;
• Verification of meters every 5 years;
• Installation and calibration of data loggers.

Therefore, levels of compliance across the 5,090 water consents in Canterbury varies. It is not possible for Environment Canterbury to monitor compliance with each of these consents and water abstraction points each year, so each year we focus on a different aspect of compliance.

Over the last 5 years in implementing this approach, compliance levels across all these aspects has increased (for example, the percentage of metered water takes has increased from 50% to 89%) and there has been no significant instance of taking too much water identified.

The average actual annual water use, as a percentage of the consented volume of water allocated in Canterbury, is 50 to 60%, so generally less water is taken for use than has been allocated.

1. The number of water takes that the wells have to be metered

After consultation, the request was refined to “All consents over 5l/s requiring a meter as per the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 (the Regulations)”.

Please see below the table setting out this information.

Consented Water Volume	Consent Count	WAP Count
Between 5 and 10 Litres/second	651	693
Between 10 and 20 Litres/second	808	888
Between 20 and 100 Litres/second	2749	3858
Over 100 Litres/second	882	2483
Total	5090	7922

Table 1 – detail of the number of consents and the rate of take bracket they fall into. The WAP count is the number of “Water Abstraction Points” which can include a well or a surface water abstraction point.

2. The number of these that are metered and the meter is compliant

Please see the table below which sets out the meters that are verified as accurate as required in the Regulations.

Consented Water Volume	WAP Count	Inactive WAP	Waiver	Installed	Verified
Between 5 and 10 Litres/second	693	20	9	304	189
Between 10 and 20 Litres/second	888	40	69	736	574
Between 20 and 100 Litres/second	3858	185	338	3205	2186
Over 100 Litres/second	2483	115	148	2064	1568
Total	7922	360	564	6309	4517
Percent	100.0	4.5	7.1	79.6	71.6

Table 2 – detail of the number of the WAP’s detailed in part 1 including the number of these WAP’s that are status “Inactive”, have a waiver (not requiring metering now), or have a meter installed. Verified column is the number of WAP’s with meters that have a current verification as required in the Regulations. The %age here is against the total installed. 

3. The number that are sending to ECan the water usage.

Please see below a table setting out the number of wells which Environment Canterbury receive data for.

Consented Water Volume	WAP Count	Installed	Missing data	Incompleted data	Completed data
Between 5 and 10 Litres/second	693	304	177	20	133
Between 10 and 20 Litres/second	888	736	160	59	523
Between 20 and 100 Litres/second	3858	3205	534	314	2391
Over 100 Litres/second	2483	2064	321	154	1650
Total	7922	6309	1192	547	4677
Percent	100.0	79.6	18.9	8.7	74.1

Table 3 – Number of required and installed WAP’s and the status of data for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018. As we are still within the current reporting year, we do not have the stats for 2018/2019 as data may be submitted up until 1 August 2019. Missing data means no data or less than 100 days data. Incomplete data means 100-300 days data, complete data means greater than 300 days data. This was to ease reporting for this LGOIMA as there are very complex processes to create these reports. The thresholds for compliance are much stricter, where missing data over 2 days in the irrigation season is non-compliant and will require action.

4. The number of the data sent that is good and is monitored.

After consultation this request was refined to be the data on “compliant” consents monitored for water use data, and the outcomes of inspections on monitored water takes.

Row Labels	Count of Inspections
Complies	1337
Non-compliance No action required	177
Non-compliance Action required	216
Significant non-compliance	34
Grand Total	1764

Table 4 – To compare the grades as compliance officers issue to the online reporting, Complies is A, Non-compliance no action is B, Non-compliance action required is C, and Significant non-compliance is D.

5. Where on ECan’s website I can find reports on consents monitoring.

• Annual Reports
• Monitoring consents