mSLED AT HEARi

i.tiication:

. : . _,^,. <£?.c^=>. 4?2^/......the Hearing Pariel appointed by the

Canterbury Regional Council

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource ManagementAct 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER OF Applications CRC156319 andCRC156320 by BenmoreIrrigation Company

Supplementary Section 42A Officer's Reportof Philip Grove

INTRODUCTION

1.

2.

3.

1^ have prepared a supplementary report that should be read in conjunction withSection 42A Officers report dated May 2016.

The purpose of this report is to address the following matters:

. Highlight any amendments based on the changes made to the applicationand new information introduced by the applicant via expert witnesses;'

. Highlight key points of disagreement with the applicant's evidence;Provide comment on the conditions put forward by the applicant onSeptember 26th 2016;

' Re~state my. conclusions in fhe light of new information from the applicants,relevant submissions and supplementary reports of other EnvironmentCanterbury experts.

yv-i!h-,.re^dA0 new. infol"mation from the applicants, my supplementary report is

lTI?.?Lf, res^onse.t.0 ,the b^f-of evidence of Dr Graham Ussher dealing withterrestrial ecology, filed on 26 September 2016. I refer also to the "submissionevidence prepared by Nicholas Head for the Department of Conservation.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

4. I disagree with Dr Ussher's assessment of extent of ecologically significant sites thatwill be affected by proposed irrigation and associated land usemtensification. "Dr

^idn^c, -orlsid.era11 theeco!c>9ical values identified in the original AEE(fonk7nandjaylor 2015a) when .makin9 his assessments of ecological significance underCanterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) criteria. He" also'did not "considerindigenous non-vascular vegetation in his habitat descriptions orecological assessments.

5. Insufficient ecological survey for rare plants, native lizards, invertebrates and birdsduring the nesting season has been done within the application area to support manyof the conclusions in Dr Ussher's latest statement of evidence. He has also notdrawn on, or was perhaps unaware of, other existing sources of information whichcould have been used to help inform his assessments.

6. I also consider that, both from an apparent confusion of different CRPS ecologicalsignificance assessment criteria, and by not using Omarama Ecological District asthe context for assessment, Dr Ussher has not identified all significant ecologicalvalues within the application area.

7 Notwithstanding the recent changes to parts of the application area described in hisbrief of evidence, I still consider that the proposal could have greater or morewidespread adverse effects on significant indigenous vegetation and habitats ofindigenous fauna than are recognised by Dr Ussher.

8. The most widespread adverse effects of the proposed new irrigation will be onindigenous species and ecosystems of dryland habitats, especially those occupyingoutwash plains environments'. These habitats and the rare/threatened species theysupport have been identified as 'National Priorities for Protection'. The same prioritiesfor'protection are recognised in CRPS Policy 9. 3. 2. No measures are offered to'avoid, remedy or mitigate' direct adverse impacts on these dryland species andecosystems.

9. The mitigation actions suggested by Dr Ussher as proposed consent conditions donot deaf with direct effects on terrestrial ecological values of dryland habitats.Wetland and riparian fencing obviously relates to management of aquatic andwetland habitats, rather than terrestrial/dryland. Avoiding discharge of contaminantsto wetlands, and fencing of wetlands and riparian margins from adjoining irrigatedand/or intensively farmed land are in any case required under regional plan rules,and so cannot be regarded as 'mitigation'.

10. The wilding conifer control proposed as mitigation, while useful, is on morajnehabitats, with the exception of gecko salvage (which is also required under existingWildlife Act legislation), none of the suggested mitigation actions are directed towarddryland outwash plains ecosystems similar to those that would be most impacted bythe new irrigation. Proposed mitigation is not at a sufficient level either quantitativelyor qualitatively, to compensate for the ecological values that will be lost to irrigationdevelopment.

11 There is still considerable uncertainty over impacts of the proposed new irrigation onwater quality, as discussed by other Environment Canterbury witnesses. As aconsequence there is also uncertainty over impacts, and potential for adverse effectson, ecology of receiving wetlands downstream of irrigation areas, such as Ben OmarSwamp.

12. CPRS Policy 9. 3. 1 is that areas identified as significant will be protected to ensure nonet loss of indigenous biodiversity or indigenous biodiversity values as a result ofland use activities. BIC proposed consent conditions do little to address adverseeffects on terrestrial ecology, especially with respect to dryland outwash plainsecosystems. The BIC application as proposed will result in substantial net loss ofecologically significant indigenous biodiversity values.

NEW. _LNFORMATION INTRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT VIA EXPERT

Evidence of Graham Ussher- Terrestrial and wetland ecology

13.

14

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

?.r^s.s.h.̂ visitec!the aPPIication areas described in on 19 to 22 May 2014 to carry^!. ^a.s?ne^^lo. gical. surveXS> results ofwhich informed the original AEE (Tonk'in!rlJ^y-lor'20, 15^) and his s9^ response rePort (Tonkin and Taylor, 201 Sb). Byof^ background, Environment Canterbury's s92 request for further' information hadasked that terrestrial and wetland ecological values of the application~area"beassessed using the ecological significance criteria specified in the CRPS'andfollowing the application guidelines appended (Wildlands Consultants, 2013).Dr-ussher', s evldence of 26 sePtember 2016, tabled at this hearing, also incorporatesresults and observations from a further site visit on 14-15 September 2016(Section'5of Dr Ussher's evidence).

Questions around the "robustness" of the 2014 surveys in respect to rare plants andinvertebrates were raised as a matter by submitters (Section 50. 2 of DrOssher'sevidence). These questions related both to time of year that survey was undertakeras well as the level or intensity of survey effort. I would add that this was also not anappropriate time of year to survey for nesting birds. These limitations (short durationand.poor tlmingLfor survey/samPling for many species) were acknowledged by Dru^shenn.the AEE (e-g- section. 3.4,~p17) ands92 response (e. g.~Tonkina'nd~'Taylo"r,2015b; p^ 10), and reliance therefore also placed on existing information sources such^JL?^ ?°.̂ bi0^.?'database (for rare Plants) and Herpetofauna database" (forlizards) to assess "likely" occurrence of rare species in the application area (Tonkirand Taylor, 2015b; p10-17).

lrJ1ave. -not_carried out.. any ecolo9ical surveys of the application area myself.Therefore, in assessing the likely presence of rare plants, invertebrates, lizards andbird_s withln the a.PPl.ication areas, and in using this to help inforrri my'assessment'oftheir ecological significance I rely on both the information supplied by the'applicant(in. theoriginalA EE. ' the. s-92 response and Dr Ussher's brief of' evidence), "as'weiTasother existing (published and un-published) ecological information.

unfortunately'the timirt90f Dr Ussher's repeat visit (2 days in early spring) was also^J?^)ptlmal in ,ter^ms .of cc)mPrehensively surveying for and recording presence,distribution and abundance of many rare plant species as well as invertebrates.'lizards and nesting birds (e. g. Section 29. 5 of Dr Ussher's evidence/ Istill considerinsufficient ecological survey for rare plants, native lizards, invertebrates and birdsduring the nesting season has been done to support many of the conckjsions in"DrUssher's latest statement of evidence.

?)^ever'^OT., his recent VISK.' Dr.ussher was able to record changes to vegetationcover and habitats as a result of further agricultural development carried ouTwit'hinparts of the_application area over the last two years, these are described"'iriAttachments B and C of his brief of evidence.

A key area of disagreement between Dr Ussher and me remains the extent ofproposed irrigation area that could be considered ecologically significant "underCanterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) criteria. Tn Sectio"n"53~2" o'f'hisevidence, Dr Ussher states "Mr Grove considers "that the area of proposed Trrigation

that could be ecologically significant is at least 2, 640 ha". What I actually wrote was"My preliminary assessment, based on a review of the s92 response report, is thatthe total area of significant indigenous vegetation and/or habitats of indigenous faunaaffected could be closer to 2, 640 ha" (Appendix 3 s42A Officers Report; p. 92, para3).

20. Notwithstanding the changes to parts of the application area described by Dr Ussheras a result of further development (from his evidence I have quickly calculated theseto total about 140 ha for the sites we agreed were ecologically significant, and total ofabout 500 ha reduction/loss for 'disputed' sites), I still consider that the total area ofsignificant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna within theproposed irrigation area could considerably exceed the 1, 231 ha now posited by DrUssher (Section 14. 2 of Dr Ussher's evidence).

21 To a large extent, the basis for my disagreement is that many of the ecologicalvalues identified and described in the original AEE appear not to have beenconsidered in the subsequent ecological significance assessments (against CRPScriteria) as provided in Dr Ussher's s92 response and supplementary evidence.There is also other existing ecological information that Dr Ussher has not drawn on orwas perhaps not aware of in forming his assessments. I will comment on thesematters under the topic headings: indigenous vegetation and flora, native birds,lizards and terrestrial invertebrates.

Indigenous vegetation and flora22. No mention was made of non-vascular plants and lichens as a component of

vegetation cover in the ecological reports (AEE and s92 response) supplied by theapplicant or in Dr Ussher's brief of evidence. Moss and lichens, as a component ofindigenous vegetation cover and/or association of indigenous species, should alsohave been considered in the ecological significance assessment. They _are ofrelevance, for example, in relation to Representativeness criteria 1 and 2, Rarity /Distinctiveness criterion 6, Ecological Context criteria 8 and 10.

23. The Mackenzie Basin is known to support a large number of threatened plantspecies, with 81 recorded from basin floor moraine and outwash surface habrtats(Nicholas Head evidence, section 12. 10). I agree with the commentlntheDOCsubmission that Dr Ussher's species list for vascular plants seems limited, probablydue to a combination of poor survey timing and lack of systematic plot-basedsampling (Nicholas Head evidence, Section 14. 10) There is still insufficient surveyinformation provided to confirm presence and distribution of rare/threatened plantspecies within the application area, and therefore to support the conclusions of DrUssher with respect to extent of ecologically significant sites.

Native birds

24. The original AEE stated that the existing vegetation cover at all sites [within theproposed application area] provides habitat for native birds, including rare orthreatened species. Threatened banded dotterel (Nationally Vulnerable), pied oystercatcher and NZ pipit (both 'At Risk') were identified as using 'open ground sites' {e.g.depletedTgrasslands on outwash plains and river terraces) and short tussocklands forbreeding. Improved pasture and Jrrigated areas were identified as feeding habitat forthreatened black stilt, black-fronted tern, Caspian tern and pied stilt (Tonkin andTaylor" 2015a; Section 3. 2, p12-14). I generally agreed with this initial description ofbird habitat use and note that it is important to maintain distinctions between the

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

various species and their breeding and feeding habitats when assessing ecologkeffects or impacts.

The. Presence of a lar9e breeding population of banded dotterels, breeding SouthIsland pled oystercatchers and foraging habitat for other native birds"on "theneighbouring Ohau Downs outwash plains was recorded by Department ofconserya tion staff during survey in October 2013 (O'Donnell, 2013). This

habitat/landform extends onto adjoining BIC properties which would be expected tosupport similar bird populations during the breeding season.

ThisOhau Downs banded dotterel survey information was recognised andreferenced in the original AEE, which noted "Similar habitats exist at sites" BM4a~BM3, BM2, TD1a and TD2b at the least" (Tonkin and Taylor 2015a, p. 13).?-?!-?LK?in?1 ^E, ',

Dr ussher. described the proposed irrigation as potentiallyrepresenting "a total loss of useable [breeding] habitat in the order of 2, 500 ha" forthreatened banded dotterel and pied oystercatcher (Tonkin and Taylor 2015a; p 27,Para 4)- This helped inform my assessment of overall extent of ecologically

g_? ^J^eas'. a? !1abitate SUPPOrtin9 threatened fauna are ecologically significantunder CRPS rarity / distinctiveness criterion 4.

!,r_resPective of. th. e na{we of vegetation cover, if a site supports a threatened bird (or^zr?LCLOr irwT^ebrate^ SPecies it can be considered ecologically significant underCRPS rarity/distinctiveness criterion 4. This CRPS rarity/distinctiveness criteriondoe^norspecifically exclude intensively grazed exotic pasture" as repeatedly statedby Dr Ussher in Attachment C of his evidence. The "intensively" grazed exoticpasture" and "significant populations" qualifying phrases quoted by Dr Ussher in thissection of^his evidence relate to a separate CRPS criterion - 'Ecological Context'criterion 10. A site has only to meet one of the CRPS criteria to be consideredecologically significant (Wildland Consultants 2013).

I still consider that substantial parts of the application area beyond those identified assignificant by Dr Ussher in his latest evidence could be breeding habitat" forthreatenedband. ed,dottere1'Nz pipit and pied oystercatcher, and therefore significantunder CRPS rarity / distinctiveness criterion 4.

Native lizards

30.

31.

32.

l:iz.arc!^yvere discussedinsection3. 3ofthe original AEE. In this section of the reportpotential presence within the application area was assessed as 'Possible' for Greenskink, spotted skink and Mackenzie Basin skink; 'Likely' for common skink: and'Certain' for McCann's skink and Southern Alps gecko.

A taxonomic revision has seen what was 'common skink' (Oligosoma nigriplantarepolychroma) now recognised as comprising five taxonomically'distinct clad'es. Thelocal clade is now distinguished as the southern grass skink (Oligosoma aff.polychroma Clade 5 - Liggins et al. 2008; Hitchmough'"et al 2013). The'green'skinkspecies complex was also sub-divided with the local clade now known as the Lakesskink (Oligosoma aff. chloronoton "West Otago). Following taxonomic revision^southern grass skink and Lakes skink were also assigned threat status of 'At Risk -Declining' and 'Nationally Vulnerable' respectively (Hitchmough et al. 2013).Both Section 3. 3 of the original AEE and Section 3. 3 of the Section 92 responsereport went on to note that "habitat for skinks and geckos exists throughout the?^??ST^_ir. ri^atior^-?re.as ̂ -r1?-extends_throughout the adJacent and surroundingareas" (Tonkin and Taylor 2015a, p15; Tonkin and Taylor2015b, p15). I agree withthis general assessment of lizard habitat values; again, it helped inform my

assessment of overall extent of ecologically significant habitats within the applicationarea.

33. All of the lizard species listed above, with the exception of McCanns skink, andSouthern Alps gecko are considered threatened (Hitchmough et al 2013))^ I note thatin his brief of evidence, Dr Ussher recorded that only "two non-threatened species oflizard were found on the least modified of the [proposed] irrigation sites" (from twodays survey in early spring - Section 13.3 his evidence). Dr Ussher has revised hisearlier AEE evidence and now considers all of the threatened lizard speciespreviously mentioned "unlikely to be present" (Section 27. 5 of his evidence).

34 I disagree with this revised assessment. I agree with Dr Ussher's earlier comment, inthe s92 response report, that "Habitat for skinks and geckos exists throughout thecandidate irrigation areas" and his note that "High or moderate quality skink habitatwas found at" 15 of the candidate sites" (Tonkin and Taylor 2015b; p. 15, para 3).Recent lizard trapping data from a site on the northern margin of the application arearecorded captures of two threatened species - Lakes skink and southern grass skink- as well as Not Threatened McCann's skink and Southern Alps gecko (Lettink 2016).

35. The MacKenzie Basin is considered by herpetologists to be a difficult area forpositive skink identification: the colour morphology of the southern grass skink,typically striped in Otago, switches to a chequered/speckled morph in and around theM'acKenzie "Basin, meaning McCann's skink (Oligosoma maccanni) can easily beidentified as southern grassland skink, and vice-versa (Reardon and Tocher 2003). Alarge sample of lizards would need to be carefully scrutinised from each survey siteto be sure of the absence of southern grass skink.

36. Therefore I still consider threatened southern grass skink likely to be present acrossparts of the application area both within and beyond the sites identified as significantby Dr Ussher. 'lt is also likely that lakes skink could be present in suitable habitatwithin BIC properties, although potential lakes skink habitat is not proposed forirrigation. All habitats supporting threatened southern grass skink would beecologically significant under CRPS rarity / distinctiveness criterion 4.

Invertebrates

37. The original AEE (Section 3.4) noted "limited time and ability to sample broadlyacross "habitats so targeted areas or sites that supported a high diversity ofindigenous vegetation or a diversity of vegetation structural types". Elsewhere in theAEE (Appendix B), the invertebrate sample sites were described as "native grasslandthat has' been oversown with exotic grasses". From this limited field survey, DrUssher recorded only five invertebrate species "of note" from a total of 32 speciesgathered during sampling (Section 27. 6 of his evidence).

38. Dr Ussher goes on to state that "For most invertebrate species there is nocomprehensive understanding of distribution across the Mackenzie Basin; thereforeinferences of specific site importance based on limited sampling within BIG mayoverestimate site significance "(Section 53. 10). I disagree with this assertion, whichwas not supported by any data. In my opinion the very limited invertebrate samplingcarried out'within the application area seems rather to have resulted in anunderestimation of site significance.

39. I note that, with regard to the Tekapo ground weta, a critically endangered species(Trewick et al 2014) of which seven individuals were found from limited sampling atsite GB2a, Dr Ussher took the opposite position and speculated that further sampling

in other parts of the basin "may extend the potential distribution of this species tomany thousands of hectares of similar habitat" (Section 53. 1. 11).

40. There is other existing information, both published and unpublished, on MackenzieBasin invertebrates which could have been referred to. For example, a publishedbook, New Zealand tussock grassland moths (White 2002), records 446 mothspecies for the Mackenzie Basin. I was surprised to see only a single, relatively old,lepidoptera report by Mr Brian Patrick referenced in the AEE (Appendix B) and DrUssher's brief of evidence, as Mr Patrick has very extensive knowledge of MackenizeBasin invertebrates and native moths in particular. My understanding from Mr Patrickis that fifteen threatened moth species are likely to be present in the application area:five in dry/depleted grassland habitats; 10 in shrublands.

41 What is required is full invertebrate survey over the range of habitats present in theproject area at the appropriate time of year (within the period October-February) toconfirm species presence and distribution. As recommended in the original AEE(Appendix B), this invertebrate survey should include nearby comparison of similarhabitat that will not be affected by development.

42. At this stage, that is, in the absence of full survey information, I consider it likely thatthere will be significant terrestrial invertebrate values both within and beyond theareas identified as ecologically significant by Dr Ussher in his latest brief of evidence.

Application of ecological significance assessment criteria

43. In Section 28 of his evidence, Dr Ussher states that "After considering the variousbiodiversity values in aggregate, I considered that eight of the 39 sites supportedbiodiversity values that were 'moderate' through to 'high value'. " However, asubjective consideration of "biodiversity values in aggregate" is not the same as, orsubstitute for, an assessment of the ecological significance of these biodiversityvalues against the 10 CRPS criteria.

44. In Section 37 of his evidence, Dr Ussher appears to confuse two separate CRPSrarity/distinctiveness ecological significance assessment criteria. Criterion 3 refers toindigenous vegetation or habitat of indigenous fauna that has been reduced (byhuman influence) to less than 20% of its former extent in the Region, or relevant landenvironment (the "LENZ / TEC classification system") or ecological district. Bycontrast, Criterion 6 is triggered by presence of indigenous vegetation or associationof indigenous species on an originally rare or naturally uncommon ecosystem.Outwash gravel and moraine landforms present within the application area are both.

naturally uncommon ecosystems' which also have a threat ranking of 'CriticallyEndangered' and 'Vulnerable' respectively (Holdaway et al 2012). Some examples ofthese ecosystems are a/so rare due to human influence, that is, trigger both criteria 3and 6.

45. As discussed in section 28 above, it appears that with respect to threatened birdspecies, Dr Ussher may also have confused application of 'rarity/distinctiveness'criterion 4 with 'ecological context' criterion 10.

46. In addition, Dr Ussher did not provide the appropriate context for assessment ofCRPS 'Representativeness' criteria 1 and 2. The guidelines for the application ofecological significance criteria state that assessment of these criteria is undertaken atthe ecological district (ED) scale (Wildlands Consultants 2013) - OmaramaEcological District in this case.

47 Given the rate of recent land development in Omarama ED (e. g. as shown in theDepartment of Conservation's submission - Mr Head's evidence; Section 13.2 and

Appendix 3), consider that Dr Ussher should also have used Omarama ED (as wellas, or instead of, LENZ/TEC) as the context for assessing CRPSrarity/distinctiveness criterion 3. The Department of Conservation has recentlypublished its own national guidelines for assessing ecological significance. Theseemphasise the importance of maintaining biodiversity at the Ecological District level(Davisetal. 2016).

48. While I agree with Dr Ussher's overall assessment of significance for the four siteslisted in section 37 of his evidence, I am concerned that, from a combination oflimited source information, apparent confusion of different CRPS ecologicalsignificance assessment criteria, and by not using Omarama Ecological District asthe context for assessment, Dr Ussher has not identified all significant ecologicalvalues within the application area.

49. I still consider that the proposal could have considerably greater or more widespreadadverse effects on significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous faunathan are recognised in Dr Ussher's brief of evidence.

Assessment of effects on terrestrial ecology

50. I agree with the general assessment of effects as summarised in the applicant'soriginal AEE and the s92 response: the loss of existing biodiversity from areas withinthe proposed irrigation scheme will be "essentially absolute" (Tonkin & Taylor 2015b;p25, para 6).

51 I also agree with the original AEE that for species such as banded dotterel and piedoystercatcher that use relatively unmodified outwash plains and sparsely vegetated,open sites for breeding, the proposed irrigation may represent a total loss of useablehabitat in the order of 2, 500 ha (Tonkin & Taylor, 2015a; p26, para 4). At least partsof the BIC application area are known to be stronghold areas for breeding bandeddotterel(0'Donnell, 2013).

52. However, in the statement of evidence tabled at this hearing, Dr Ussher appears tohave revised his assessment of effects on native birds. He now considers that effectson birds that use proposed irrigation sites are "less clear" (Section 36. 2.2) and that"overall effects on birds... are likely to be either a negligible loss of habitat or a gain inhabitat" (Section 36. 2. 3).

53. I do not agree with this, in my opinion, both overgeneralised and selective re-assessment of effects: it does not clearly differentiate between the various birdspecies present or between nesting and feeding habitat requirements. Effects of theproposed new irrigation on native birds is quite clear: it will destroy many hundreds ofha of breeding habitat for a large population of threatened banded dotterel, and otherthreatened bird species, specifically South Island pied oystercatcher and NZ pipit. Allremaining breeding habitats are significant for sustaining these species. Given theamount of development of similar habitats in recent years, there are now limitedalternative sites available. This is a significant adverse effect for which no directmitigation has been offered.

54 Conversion to irrigated land will produce a "marginal benefit" by creating furtherfeeding habitat for those species, such as black stilt, tern and black-billed gulls, thatalready use these modified environments (Tonkin and Taylor 2015a, p. 27, para 3).But this will be a completely different type of different habitat and does notcompensate for loss of banded dotterel, pied stilt and NZ pipit dryland breedingareas.

55.

56.

57

As noted in my review of the original AEE and s92 response (Appendix 3 of s42aofficers report), I did not agree with Dr Ussher's assessment of effects'-in contexT(section, 4-3 ori9inal AEE; Section 4. 4 s92 response). In reviewing "those ea'riierreports, I commented that the author did not appear to recognise the substantiaFand?Lni!<?£Lla. n?I uselntensificatic)n and associated loss of indigenous biodiversity valuesthat have taken place over the last 15 years or so. This has been clearly illustrated'inthe Department of Conservation's evidence (Section 13. 1-13. 2, " Appendix";! ""MrHead's evidence).

Or Ussher does now appear more cognisant of the scale of agricultural land use?!n^_in the wid.er Mackenzie Basin (~e-9. Sections 18, 53. 4 ofh is" evidence)', anddescribes a number of recent examples from within the BIC application area.!S^V,er'_he, cc>rltin^,es to understate adverse effects of the proposal on indigenousdryland_vegetation, flora, invertebrates and lizards, as well as birds, in Section s'36"37 and 38 of his evidence. -,.. --. -..-,

I consider the total loss of indigenous dryland ecological values, whether from thel-??-h^^^ assessed by Dr Ussher, or from my assessment, a substantially?-r9er-2000~2600 ha area^(dePending on nature and extent of recent agriculturaldevelopment), to be a significant adverse effect.

Assessment of effects on wetlands

58.

59.

60.

61

62.

63.

Dr Ussher assessed potential indirect effects of irrigation on five wetland areas: BenOmar Swamp, Willowburn Wetland, Big Tarn, Barclay's Wetland"'and'WairWetland (Section 361. 1). To do so, he relied on the evidence on Mr Tom'Helle"r"whoin his turn was of the opinion that there would be no adverse changes to the'nutrientp^TS_of, i,e?ejyi rls. wat?rs ioithe above wet'ands as a result oflthe 'new'irrigatFon(Section 36. 1.4). Therefore Dr Ussher concluded that there willbeno "adve'rseerologiical effects on wetlands outside of the immediate irrigation parcels (S'ection

From site descriptions and photos in the original AEE, wetland habitats are alsopresent within^ irrigation parcels at sites GB1 and TD1B. Dr Ussher has provided noassessment of effects for these wetland areas.

My Environment Canterbury expert witness colleagues Hisham Zarour(?roundwater)' shirley Hayward (surface water) and Ognjen Mojsilovic'iovereeermodelling) all consider that the conclusions of Mr Heller'are still very uncertain~Mr^i°?!??yk :-hig_hligl1ted Problems with the Overseer modelling for Twizel "Dairy "andGlenbrook properties as of particular concern.

I cannot agree with Dr Ussher in his assessment of effects for wetlands outside of theirrigation parcels (withjhe exception of Big Tarn, which does not appear to "be aLr!.c?Yln^-wetlancl)' There isstiN uncertainty about effects on water quality "ondownstream or receiving wetlands, and therefore adverse effects' on "wetlandecology, such as those described in Section 36. 1. 2 of Dr Ussher's evidence, mavst'iiibe relevant to this project application.

There has been no assessment of effects on what appears to be a kettlehole wetlandadJoi.ning:Jmcl . im.mediately downstream of, candidate irrigation areas GB2a andGB2b (NZTM X:1358950 Y:5092781), and the mosaic o"f wetlands "inThe"draining to the north-east.

Wetland habitats within GB1 were described in the original AEE (Appendix 1, Section3.2. 1).These will be removed, together with adjoining significant terrestriaT habitats, if

the site is developed. This loss of wetland habitats and ecological values was notidentified in Dr Ussher's assessment of effects, and no mitigation for these effectsoffered.

64. Similarly, there is no assessment of effects on wetlands within TD1b. Thesewetlands are now proposed for exclusion from irrigation and fencing off fromadjoining irrigated land (Attachment B, Dr Ussher's evidence), as required byregional plan rules. However I consider ecology of these wetlands could still beadversely impacted by effects of adjoining land use intensification (i. e. changes tohydrology, nutrient inputs).

Proposed mitigation

65. In commenting on the ecological mitigation and compensation package proposed, Irefer to the 'good practice principles' outlined by Dr Ussher in Section 41 of hisevidence. While reducing irrigation area to avoid effects on kettleholes, wetlands,streams and terrace riser/hill slope native shrubland habitats has been proposed, themitigation and compensation package does not seek to avoid effects on significantdryland outwash plains ecosystems within the application area.

66. I note Dr Ussher's comments on 'additionality' - that actions proposed in themitigation package that generate beneficial ecological outcomes should not alreadybe required by legislation or regional/district plan rules (Section 41. 4, his evidence).The various 'primary mitigation' actions listed around fencing riparian margins,wetland areas; stock exclusion and removal of wetlands from the irrigation area onB 1C properties (Section 43, his evidence) appear to be just such examplesDischarge to wetlands is not a permitted activity under the CLWRP; similarly theregionalplan already requires that intensively farmed stock be fenced and excludedfrom waterways and wetlands.

67 Measures suggested to 'minimise effects' (gecko capture and relocation) are bothtentative ancuTmited (Section 41. 2 Dr Ussher's evidence), and were not followedthrough in the mitigation package as summarised in Section 48 of Dr Ussher'sevidence. As Dr Ussher notes in the original AEE (p27, para 5), the Wildlife Act 1953classifies all native lizards, (and most native birds) as protected species, and a permitis required from the Department of Conservation to destroy habitat or individualsThese Wildlife Act requirements apply regardless of species' threat status and areadditional to RMA Section 6c requirements around protection of significantindigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna.

68. Management of riparian margins can help avoid impacts of land use intensification onwetlands and streams, but the specifics of riparian management needed to avoidthese impacts will vary from site to site. A 20 m-wide riparian margin may besufficient'in some situations. However, this will not be adequate for more sensitivereceiving environments, such as kettlehole wetlands, where the wetland's wholecatchment needs to be carefully managed to avoid risk of increased nutrient loads tosurface and groundwater inflows.

69. For example, the "indicative fenced boundaries" of wetland areas A and B within siteTD1B (Dr'Ussher's evidence; Attachment B, Figure B2), do not appear_wide enoughto avoid effects of increased nutrient load from adjoining irrigated land. The indicativefence line for 'Area B' also does not include the wetland's inflow; in addition, most ofthe wider catchment of these wetlands is proposed for irrigation development (siteTD2). Given the general uncertainty around impacts of the new irrigation on waterquality, I do not consider the proposed mitigation actions for these wetlands sufficientto avoid adverse effects of irrigation development.

10

70.

71

The "associated mitigation" proposed in Section 44 of Dr Ussher's evidence does notaddress the direct loss of significant terrestrial ecological values because it will not becarried out on the same sort of landform or habitat. The proposed wilding conifercontrol area is 'moraine terrain', whereas much of the irrigated area is outwash plain.The proposed wilding conifer control mitigation is not" 'like for like" in terms ofecosystem type or overall area, and therefore does not follow the good practiceprinciple stated in Section 41.3 of Dr Ussher's evidence.

In summary, BIC proposed consent conditions do little to address adverse effects onterrestrial ecotogy especially with respect to direct effects on dryland outwash plainsecosystems. The BIC application as proposed will result in substantial net loss ofecologically significant indigenous biodiversity values.

Evidence of Peter Espie on behalf of Glenbrook Station

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77

I have read the evidence of Dr Peter Espie received on 6 October 2016. I agree thatvegetation and habitats on Glenbrook Station that are proposed for irrigation havebeen modified by the spread of exotic plant species. I agree that since the mid-1980smany parts of the Mackenzie Basin have shown a decline in fescue tussock coverand increase in cover of exotic mouse-ear hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum).However, I do not agree with Dr Espie's conclusion that "general deterioration informer fescue tussock grassland communities" is a "direct consequence of anincrease in mouse-ear hawkweed (Section 7. 1, Dr Espies' evidence). Monitoring ofpermanent vegetation transects in eastern South Island grasslands over 25 yearsshowed that broad-scale fluctuations in species richness and composition were notdriven by hawkweed invasion (Day and Buckley, 2013). The Mackenzie Basin hasalso been through several episodes of tussock loss and partial recovery sinceEuropean settlement (e. g. O'Connor 1982), well before the spread of hawkweed wasdocumented. I consider that other factors such as history of burning, overgrazing bystock and rabbits, and soil degradation can explain loss of tussock cover andcorresponding increase in exotic species such as hawkweed.

l^ote fromthe supplementary evidence of Mr Head (Section 10), that in the TekapoScientific Reserve, the presence of mouse-ear hawkweed has not been animpediment to recolonization of fescue tussock and associated native herbs, grassesand sub-shrubs (Walker et al. 2016).

Dr Espie states, in Section 6. 1. 1 of his evidence, that "Direct assessment ofecological properties (e. g. biodiversity, species composition, cover, habitat, soilcharacteristics)... has been used in this assessment as a superior method fordetermining biodiversity risk". However, I saw no description of currentvegetation/habitats, flora or other biodiversity values of Glenbrook proposed irrigationareas (i. e. results of his "direct assessment") in Dr Espie's evidence.

Land Environments of New Zealand (LENZ) is a system for classifying NewZealand's landscapes using a comprehensive set of climate, landform' and soilvariables (Leathwick et al. 2003). While these environmental parameters remainunderlying drivers of biological patterns, LENZ was not intended for "fine scalemodelling"_of "floristic and faunal differences in tussock grassland systems" (Section

1. l. Dr. E£>Pie's evidence). particularly where these biological patterns have beenmodified by human activity and introduced species.

LENZ and the Threatened Environments Classification System (TEC) are properlydescribed in Mr Head's evidence (Sections 8.4-8. 9). They are classification systems,

11

not 'models', and are used to provide a framework for assessing significantecological values (as identified from ecological survey/sampling) in New Zealand.The other main and widely-used assessment framework is the Ecological District(McEwen1987).

78. Dr Espie did not assess ecological significance of Glenbrook proposed irrigationareas under CRPS (or other) criteria. He describes these "outwash communities" as"tower conservation value, highly modified, adventive dominated flat weedassociation of hieracium and bare ground" (Section 6.2.6, Dr Espies evidence), butprovides no additional supporting information. This description and assessmentconflicts with that of Dr Ussher for BIC who stated "Sites that have received noirrigation, oversowing or regular fertiliser application support the greatest biodiversityvalues (despite also often supporting the greatest bare ground and invasivehawkweed cover)". (Section 29. 1, Dr Ussher's evidence).

79. I disagree with Dr Espies assessment of effects of irrigation development, inparticular his assertion that proposed Glenbrook irrigation areas contain only"common or non-threatened plant species" (Section 6. 3. 3, Dr Espie's evidence). Inote that Dr Ussher listed 12 threatened or rare plant species as likely to be presentin site GB1, six as likely to be present in Site GB2A and three species likely to bepresent in GB2B (Tonkin and Taylor 2015b, Sections 3. 2. 1, 3. 2. 2, 3. 2. 3).

80. I disagree with Dr Espie's conclusion that agricultural development will not result inloss of indigenous terrestrial biodiversity or conservation values in the MackenzieRegion.

MATTERS RAISED BY SUBMITTERS

81. I have read the statement of evidence of Mr Nicholas Head prepared for theDepartment of Conservation. I have also read the supplementary evidence of MrHead, prepared in response to the evidence presented by Dr Peter Espie on behalfof Glenbrook Station,

82. Mr Head's evidence gives useful context and background around the state of NewZealand's indigenous biodiversity, the framework for assessing ecologicalsignificance, and national priorities for protection of indigenous biodiversity. Heprovides an overview of the ecological values of the Mackenzie Basin, and describesthe loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats for indigenous fauna that haveoccurred particularly over the last 15 or so years.

83. Mr Head's main statement of evidence is largely a response to that of Dr Ussher forthe applicant. Mr Head disagrees with Dr Ussher's application of ecologicalsignificance assessment criteria, and considers that there are additional ecologicallysignificant sites within the BIC application area beyond those identified by Dr Ussher.

84 I agree with Mr Head's assessment of effects: that the BIC proposal will result in thepermanent loss of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna.This includes the loss of naturally rare ecosystems, threatened land environmentsand habitats for rare and threatened species (Section 15. 1, Mr Head's evidence). MrHead considers the total area of loss of significant ecological values is likely to besubstantially higher than the 1256 ha stated by Dr Ussher, and closer to 2500 ha(Section 15.4, Mr Head's evidence), and that these losses constitute a significantadverse effect (Section 15. 5, Mr Head's evidence).

12

85. I agree with Mr Head that the wilding pine control offered as mitigation, on 400ha ofmoraine land, does not provide for the permanent net loss of ecologically significantvalues that will occur as a result of the BIC project (Section 16.2 Mr Head'sevidence).

86. I agree with the opinion of Mr Head stated in Section 5 of his supplementaryevidence: Glenbrook Station candidate irrigation sites GB1, GB2a, GB2b and GB3support significant ecological values; irrigation of these sites will lead to loss of thesevalues; and this loss is a significant adverse effect.

13

References

Davis, M., Head, N.J., Myers, S.C., Moore, S. H. 2016. Department of Conservationguidelines for assessing significant ecological values. Science for Conservation 327.Department of Conservation, Wellington. 73 p.

Day, N.J., Buckley, H. L. 2013. Twenty-five years of plant community dynamics and invasionin New Zealand tussock grasslands. Austral Ecology 38; 688-699.

O'Connor, K.F. 1982. The implications of past exploitation and current developments to theconservation of South Island tussock grassland. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 17:41-46.

O'Donnell, C. 2013. The significance of Ohau Downs outwash plain, Mackenzie Basin, forbanded dotterel and other bird species. Department of Conservation internal report.

Hitchmough, R., Anderson, P., Barr, B., Monks, J., Lettink, M., Reardon J., Tocher, M. andWhitaker, T. 2013. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2012. New ZealandThreat Classification System Series 2. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Leathwick, J., Wilson, G., Rutledge, D., Wardle, P., Morgan, F., Johnsotn, K., McLeod, M.,Kirkpatrick, R. 2003. Land Environments of New Zealand. Nga Taiao o Aotearoa.David Bateman Ltd., Auckland.

Lettink, M. 2016. Lizard monitoring and management recommendations for two sites in theMackenzie Basin, Canterbury. Unpubl. report prepared for the Department ofconservation, Twizel, New Zealand. 9 pp. plus appendices.

Liggins, L, Chapple, D.G., Daugherty, C.H. and Ritchie P.A. 2008. A SINE of restricted geneflow across the Alpine Fault: phylogeography of the New Zeland common skink(Oligosoma nigriplantare polychroma). Molecular Ecology 17: 3668-3683.

McEwen M.W. 1987. Ecological Regions and districts of New Zealand. Department ofConservation, Wellington.

Reardon. J.T. and Tocher, M. 2003. Diagnostic morphometrics of the skink species,Oligosoma maccanni and O. nigriplantare polychrome from South Island, NewZealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Tonkin & Taylor 2015a. Benmore Irrigation Company Ltd. Terrestrial ecology assessment:Benmore Irrigation Scheme. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. January 2015. 32 pp plusappendices.

Tonkin & Taylor2015b. Terrestrial ecology assessment. Benmore Irrigation Scheme. Tonkin& Taylor Ltd. December 2015. 34 pp plus appendices.

Trewick, S., Johns, P. Hitchmough, R., Rolfe, J. and Stringer, I. 2014. Conservation status ofNew Zeland Orthoptera, 2014. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 16.Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Walker, S., Comrie, J., hlead, N., Ladley, K.J., Clarke, D. 2016. Hawkweed invasion does notprevent indigenous non-forest vegetation recovery following grazing removal. NewZealand Journal of Ecology 40(1): 137-149.

White, G. 2002 New Zealand tussock grassland moths. Manaaki Whenua Press.

Wildlands Consultants 2013. Guidelines for the application of ecological significance criteriafor indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna in Canterbury Region.Wildlands Consultants Contract Report No. 2289L

15