Memo

Date 28 May 2019 To Environment Canterbury Planning Team CC From Jarred Arthur (Scientist – Water Quality and Ecology)

Proposed amendments to LWRP Schedule 17: Salmon Spawning Sites

Purpose

The Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) outlines several policies and rules that control activities in and adjacent to salmon spawning habitats of high value. These 32 ‘significant’ salmon spawning sites are listed in Schedule 17 of the plan. The advent of new spawning information means that Schedule 17 does not recognise a number of spawning sites important to maintaining Canterbury’s internationally recognised salmon fishery.

The following memo is prepared by the Environment Canterbury science team with support from the Central South Island and North Canterbury Fish and Game councils. It outlines a proposal to amend Schedule 17 of the LWRP including: • adding 31 new sites; o 22 established from new Fish and Game spawning habitat data and information. o nine situated in the Waimakariri River Catchment currently excluded from the current schedule due to the Waimakariri River Regional Plan (WRRP) controlling land and water activities in these areas. • updates to three site descriptions and coordinates for existing Schedule 17 sites – proposed change in length/area of the existing sites; • updates to ten site descriptions and coordinates for existing Schedule 17 sites – no resultant change in length/area of the existing sites; and • a revision of the LWRP Planning Maps to show the proposed amendments to existing spawning sites and newly recommended spawning sites.

Background

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are largely confined to Canterbury with only small populations found in Otago, the West Coast and Marlborough (Unwin, 2006). The region attracts large numbers of anglers due to its salmon runs, easy access to rivers, affordability to fish, landscape values and diverse angling experience. For these reasons, Canterbury’s chinook salmon fishery is highly valued not only locally, but nationally too (Unwin, 2006). Sockeye salmon (O. nerka), by contrast, are far less common and restricted to the upper Waitaki River catchment. This is the only self-sustaining population of sockeye salmon in the

Southern Hemisphere (Couper, 2018) with populations currently present in the catchments of lakes Pukaki, Ohau, Ruataniwha, Benmore, Aviemore, and Waitaki.

While New Zealand’s Chinook salmon are migratory and spend much of their adult life at sea, sockeye salmon are landlocked and occur only as freshwater residents. Both species lay their eggs in redds excavated by spawning fish in the clean, loose gravels of streams, rivers and occasionally lake margins. Many spawning sites are situated in smaller high-country spring- fed waterways, but spawning activity also occurs in the mainstems of larger rivers and in high quality lowland freshwater habitats. The protection of habitats where salmon spawn is critical to ensuring the maintenance of healthy, productive salmon populations and the sports fisheries they support.

Land and Water Regional Plan

Intensive land uses (e.g. heavy stocking), activities in the beds of rivers (e.g. contruction works and bed disturbance), and the abstraction of freshwater resources (e.g. water and gravels) places pressure on freshwater environments and the salmon spawning habitats they support. Objective 3.8 of the LWRP states:

“The quality and quantity of water in fresh water bodies and their catchments is managed to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems and ecosystem processes, including ensuring sufficient flow and quality of water to support the habitat and feeding, breeding, migratory and other behavioural requirements of indigenous species, nesting birds and, where appropriate, trout and salmon.”

The LWRP has one policy and several region-wide rules that make direct reference to Schedule 17 areas where salmon spawn in the Canterbury region. These provisions refer to specific salmon spawning sites identified as significant under Schedule 17 of the plan (Appendix 2).

Development of Schedule 17

The majority of listed salmon spawning sites in Schedule 17 were carried over from Schedule WQN14 in Chapter 5 of the now superseded Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP).

An initial draft of Schedule WQN14 of the proposed NRRP was founded based on an assessment of salmonid (trout and salmon) habitats in Canterbury by Langlands and Elley (2000). With the help of Fish and Game New Zealand (FGNZ), Langlands and Elley (2000) analysed a variety of data sources to create an exhaustive inventory of 523 salmonid sites. Each site was categorised by species and habitat use/type (e.g. spawning, rearing), and ranked by habitat value (low-high). Overall, 184 sites were identified as being valuable for salmon spawning (Unwin, 2006), 39 of which were considered as high value and compiled into a list. Following advice from North Canterbury Fish and Game (NCFG), Environment Canterbury internally reviewed the list of high value sites (ECan, 2004). The list was then used as a draft of Schedule WQN14, which contained salmon spawning habitats of importance for inclusion in the proposed NRRP (i.e. draft Schedule WQN14).

Page 2 of 77

For the purpose of developing a regional planning framework, Environment Canterbury defined a ‘significant’ spawning site as sites of national or regional importance to maintaining the regional salmon fishery. As such, the Langlands and Elley (2000) report, and therefore draft Schedule WQN14, contained a number of shortcomings as identified by Unwin (2006). Spawning sites were ranked solely on habitat value without reference to the angling value of the corresponding rivers or catchments they supported. This resulted in anomalies such as sites located in catchments with limited angling value being ranked above those which were of secondary habitat importance but situated in a major fishery (e.g. the Rakaia or Waimakariri rivers). Not all stream segments identified by Langlands and Elley (2000) as being highly valuable were selected entirely for the purpose of salmon spawning. In this case, salmon spawning habitat sometimes only comprised a subset of an entire site segment, whereas other salmonid species (e.g. brown trout) inhabited the remaining area. Some waterbodies identified were used by salmon in more of an opportunistic manner only when favourable conditions occur and are therefore not necessarily significant in regional or national context (Unwin, 2006).

Prior to the finalising the draft of Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP, Environment Canterbury commissioned Unwin (2006) to “critically review the list of salmon spawning sites in Schedule WQN14, and prepare a list of significant spawning sites that are essential to maintain the salmon fishery in the Canterbury Region”. To achieve this, Unwin (2006) focused on reviewing four key pieces of information: • the Langlands and Elley (2000) habitat database; • FGNZ documents detailing the most recent spawning surveys at the time; • databases on the angling usage of New Zealand rivers and lakes collected by FGNZ, NIWA and/or the predecessors of these two agencies; and, • recapture data of hatchery salmon after their return to freshwater from 2-3 years at sea.

Unwin’s (2006) review identified 48 significant salmon spawning sites, 34 of which were incorporated into the final version of Schedule WQN14 in the NRRP. Exceptions were several sites located in the Waimakariri, Rakaia and Ashburton/Hakatere river catchments (the reasons for which are explained later in the report). More recently, most of the Schedule WQN14 sites were adopted into Schedule 17 of the LWRP.

Existing salmon spawning sites in Schedule 17

Schedule 17 identifies 32 significant salmon spawning sites essential to maintaining the salmon fishery in Canterbury. In comparison, Unwin (2006) lists a total of 48 significant sites, while Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP identified 34. This highlights gaps in Schedule 17 with sites missing. In addition, it has become apparent that some sites are incorrectly described or referenced.

Page 3 of 77

The most notable exclusion from Schedule 17 are those sites situated in the Waimakariri River catchment, which is a river regarded as a nationally important salmon fishery (Unwin, 2006). An Environment Canterbury (2004) Section 32 report on the proposed NRRP states:

“The Waimakariri sites were not listed because the rules that apply there are either in the separate Transitional River Regional Plan or in the Proposed Waimakariri River Regional Plan”.

For this reason, ten Waimakariri River catchment salmon spawning sites were not adopted from Unwin (2006) into Schedule WQN14, or later into Schedule 17. The absence of Unwin (2006) sites from other catchments include tributaries of the Hurunui, Rakaia and Ashburton/Hakatere rivers. The Hurunui River North Branch and Landslip Creek were removed from Schedule 17 during the shift from the NRRP to the LWRP, however both sites remain protected as significant salmon spawning sites in Schedule 5 of the Hurunui-Waiau River Regional Plan (HWRRP) (ECan, 2013). Montrose Creek, a hatchery site in the Rakaia River, was never included in either Schedules WQN14 or 17. Three Ashburton/Hakatere catchment sites were removed from Schedule WQN14 in response to public submissions during the NRRP hearing process (ECan, 2010). In summary, Schedule 17 of the LWRP now contains 16 fewer sites than that originally listed in Unwin (2006). More detail on why sites were removed from relevant salmon spawning schedules is outlined in further sections of this report.

Recent Fish and Game spawning survey and observational data suggests that other important salmon spawning sites, not listed in Unwin’s (2006) assessment, are also missing from Schedule 17. During the submission process of Plan Change 4 to the LWRP, NCFG and Central South Island Fish and Game (CSIFG) submitted an amended schedule of spawning sites for inclusion in the LWRP (Pearson and Christensen, 2016). The amended schedule was not adopted because it was submitted at a stage when the public could not reasonably provide feedback on the detail of the proposed schedule. It is understood that NCFG and CSIFG continue to view the current Schedule 17 as incomplete and support the addition of further salmon spawning sites. Both agencies have worked with Environment Canterbury on developing the proposed amendments detailed in this report. These are based on the provision of their expert knowledge, field observations, and annual survey data on salmon spawning runs and redd counts from Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation (DOC)

Defining a ‘significant’ salmon spawning site

Unwin (2006) constructed detailed criteria for ranking spawning sites according to their local, regional or national importance towards sustaining the salmon fishery in Canterbury. These criteria were based primarily on habitat and fishery (angling) values, but consideration was also given to a spawning site’s importance in terms of hatchery (and therefore fishery) enhancement, restoration potential, angling diversity and scientific values. In such cases, a site of ‘local’ significance could be deemed as contributing ‘significantly’ overall to the wider fishery and therefore be worthy of protection under a planning schedule. Using the results of

Page 4 of 77

the criteria-based assessment, Unwin (2006) prepared a list of significant salmon spawning sites (as defined by Environment Canterbury) for inclusion in Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP (Appendix 3). The following section describes Unwin’s (2006) criteria for ranking spawning sites of national, regional, and local significance.

Habitat value

Salmon spawning habitat is ranked on a three-tier value-based system from low to high. Habitat value is dependent on the relative usage of a site by spawning salmon, and temporal fidelity for which a site is used each year (Table 1).

Table 1. Assessment criteria for assigning value to a salmon spawning habitat (Unwin, 2006).

Habitat value Temporal fidelity Spawning counts

Annual counts may fluctuate markedly between Spawning fish consistently years and may occasionally be low. Will generally High present in all years account for > 10% of spawning in catchments where total run strength can be quantified.

Annual counts will fluctuate markedly between Spawning fish present in most years and will sometimes be low. May sometimes Medium but not necessarily all years account for > 10% of spawning in catchments where total run strength can be quantified.

Spawning populations are Annual counts may represent a substantial ephemeral, highly variable, Low proportion of spawning fish in a catchment. Total and maybe absent for several run strength (if known) will rarely exceed 100 fish. consecutive years.

Fishery value

Quantitative information on effort or catch are traditionally coupled with indices of angling quality when determining the value of a fishery for angling. This allows low use but high-quality fisheries (remote ‘wilderness’ fisheries) to be ranked alongside those that are moderately used (‘scenic’ backcountry fisheries) or easily accessed with high use (‘recreational’ fisheries close to populous areas). Most salmon fisheries are situated in the lower reaches of their respective catchments and can be classified as ‘recreational’ fisheries. Unwin (2006) classifies recreational fisheries on a four-level scale based on information related to angling usage, proportion of usage devoted to salmon angling, and run strength (Table 2).

Page 5 of 77

Table 2. Assessment criteria for assigning angling value to recreational fisheries (Unwin, 2006).

Fishery value Run strength Angling usage

Salmon angling effort usually exceeds ten Annual spawning runs thousand angler-days per year and may be generally number in the considerably higher, and is distributed throughout National thousands, and exceed ten the length of the river. May attract significant thousand in some years. usage from anglers travelling from well outside their home FGNZ region.

Total angling effort usually between two and ten Annual spawning runs thousand angler-days per year, with salmon generally number a few Regional angling predominantly confined to the river mouth thousands, but rarely if ever and lower reaches. Mostly fished by anglers exceed ten thousand. travelling within their home FGNZ region.

Annual spawning runs rarely Total angling effort may be as high as ten exceed a few hundreds, and thousand angler-days per year but is dominated by may be almost absent in trout angling, with salmon angling largely an Local some years. Strays from episodic activity in response to runs which are other salmon-producing rivers intermittent at best. Salmon angling is restricted to may contribute significantly in the river mouth, and is almost entirely limited to some years. local anglers living within a few km of the river.

Salmon presence is an Occasional aberration, almost certainly No significance to the fishery. due to straying.

Overall spawning site value

An assessment matrix (Table 3) cross-references habitat (Table 1) and fishery (Table 2) values, as described above, to provide a conceptually simple framework for determining the overall value of a salmon spawning site. Overall spawning site value is represented in terms of significance with, for the most part, nationally and regionally significant sites deemed to meet the criteria for being essential to maintaining the salmon fishing resource in Canterbury (Table 4). Unwin (2006) notes, however, that the sites deemed regionally or nationally significant in the sense specified by Environment Canterbury remains partly subjective and not absolute, particularly for sites identified as ‘locally significant’ in the review. Unwin (2006) therefore moderated decisions using his own expert judgement and that of FGNZ staff.

Page 6 of 77

Table 3. Matrix assessment used for identifying spawning sites of national, regional or local significance (Unwin, 2006.

Habitat value Fishery Value High Medium Low

High value habitat in a Medium value habitat in a Low value habitat in a nationally significant. nationally significant fishery. nationally significant fishery. National Essential for maintaining Important for maintaining Possibly important for fishery. fishery. maintaining fishery.

High value habitat in Medium value habitat in a Low value habitat in regionally significant regionally significant regionally significant Regional fishery. Important for fishery. Possibly important fishery. Not important for maintaining fishery. for maintaining fishery. maintaining fishery.

High value habitat in a Medium value habitat in a Low value habitat in locally locally significant fishery. locally significant fishery. significant fishery. Local Possibly important for Not important for Incidental to maintenance of maintaining fishery. maintaining fishery. fishery.

Occasional Incidental to maintenance of fishery.

Table 4. Overall significance of salmon spawning sites for maintaining Canterbury’s salmon fishery (Unwin, 2006). Nationally and regionally significant sites generally meet the criteria for meeting Environment Canterbury’s definition of ‘significant’ whereas locally significant sites occasionally meet the criteria.

Spawning site value Narrative

High value sites in nationally significant fisheries. Essential for Nationally significant maintaining the salmon fishing resource.

High value sites in regionally significant fisheries, and medium value Regionally significant sites in nationally significant fisheries. Important for maintaining the salmon fishing resource.

High value sites in locally significant fisheries, medium value sites in regionally significant fisheries, and low value sites in nationally Locally significant significant fisheries. Significant for maintaining the local angling resource, and may be regionally significant on a case by case basis.

Medium value sites in locally significant fisheries, and low value sites Little significance in regionally significant fisheries. At best locally significant.

Low value sites in locally significant fisheries. Incidental to overall No significance maintenance of fishery.

Page 7 of 77

Other values

Other attributes contribute to the inherent value of spawning waters to Canterbury’s salmon fishery. These attributes do not fit directly into the habitat or fishery value criteria described above, but do require consideration to make an informed decision about the value of spawning sites. These intrinsic values, as obtained from Unwin (2006), are: • Enhancement: streams associated with salmon hatcheries, which contribute to the recreational fishery by collecting and spawning gametes from returning adults, and raising their progeny for subsequent release as fingerlings;

• Restoration: streams or rivers which currently sustain fisheries of low value, generally because of habitat degradation, but which could potentially contribute significantly to the fishery if appropriate restoration measures were implemented;

• Angling diversity: streams associated with lake (as distinct from river) fisheries, or species other than Chinook (e.g., sockeye) salmon, and hence contribute significantly to the diversity of the angling experience available;

• Scientific: streams associated with spawning populations of high scientific interest.

Proposed amendments to Schedule 17

The following section describes the proposed amendments to LWRP Schedule 17, based primarily on advice from CSIFG and NCFG, and references the significance criteria and other values outlined by Unwin (2006). Proposed site additions and other amendments are summarised catchment-by-catchment. A revised Schedule 17 of significant salmon spawning sites is detailed in Appendix 4 and includes updated coordinates of spawning reaches. Site maps detailing the locations of existing and proposed spawning sites are detailed in Appendix 5. These will be used to update LWRP planning maps of Schedule 17 sites.

Waiau Uwha River catchment

Unwin (2006) identified the Waiau Uwha River as a locally important fishery due, in part, to a relatively low angling effort on the river at the time (2,130 ± 420 total angler days in 2001/02 (Unwin, 2016)). However, angler surveys conducted since Unwin’s (2006) assessment have shown total angling effort in the catchment double with most recent surveys finding a high proportion of total angling effort concentrated on salmon (49% of a total 4,780 ± 1,270 angler days) (Unwin 2016). The increased angling effort on salmon means the fishery could now be considered as up to regionally significant with the occurrence of between two and ten thousand angler-days per year (Table 2). The tendency of the Waia Uwha to consistently provide a salmon angling resource each year (Unwin 2006) has resulted in three spawning sites (Henry River, Waiau River and Matagouri Point Stream) being included in the existing Schedule 17

Page 8 of 77

of the LWRP (Appendix 2). All three sites are of ‘high’ habitat value (Unwin, 2006) where spawning fish are consistently present in all years, and generally account for greater than 10% of spawning in the catchment (Table 1).

In addition to the three Waiau Uwha spawning sites currently recognised in Schedule 17, NCFG propose the inclusion of the Hope River up to the headwaters of Kiwi Stream, which feeds into it (Appendix 4). Fish and Game spawning records show that the spawning reach, located upstream of the Boyle River confluence, contains between 10-150 Chinook salmon every year. The temporal fidelity of the spawning site, as per Unwin’s (2006) significance criteria, is categorically consistent with the ‘high’ value for spawning habitat (Table 1). That is, spawning fish are consistently present in all years. It is unknown, however, what proportion of all spawning in the Waiau Uwha catchment the Hope River contributes. This report assumes that spawning counts at the site are most likely to be categorically consistent with a ‘medium’ value because annual counts are unlikely to account for greater than 10% of spawning in the Waiau Uwha River catchment for most years (Table 1).

In the past, to be considered significant for maintaining Canterbury’s salmon fishery, and worthy of inclusion in Schedule 17, the Hope River had to support spawning habitat of high value (Table 3). This was because Unwin (2006) identified the Waiau Uwha catchment as a locally important fishery. However, given the increase in salmon angling effort over the past 15 years, it can now be argued that the Waiau Uwha River is a regionally valued fishery. This being the case, the Hope River, which has medium-to-high value spawning habitat due to its temporal and spawning count classification, may be recognised as a regionally significant spawning site (Table 4). It is therefore proposed to be included in the revised Schedule 17 of the LWRP as per Appendix 3.

Hurunui River catchment

The Hurunui River sustains what is arguably the most important salmon fishery after the four nationally important rivers (Waimakariri, Rakaia, Rangitata and Waitaki) (Unwin 2006). It is regionally valued (Unwin 2006) and recent angler surveys show an increase in angling usage from 8,380 ± 990 days per year in 2001/02, to 11,370 ± 2,250 days per year in 2014/15 (Unwin 2016). Of this, 59% of angling effort is concentrated on salmon.

Both Schedule 17 of the LWRP and Schedule 5 of the HWRRP (ECan, 2013) contain lists of significant salmon spawning sites. The former recognises two spawning sites in the Hurunui catchment, while the latter identifies four. The four sites in Schedule 5 of the HWRRP are consistent with those identified in Unwin’s (2006) assessment of significant salmon spawning sites in Canterbury (and Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP). These sites are: • Hurunui River North Branch; • Landslip Stream; • Hurunui River South Branch; and • Homestead Creek.

Page 9 of 77

Despite Landslip Stream and the Hurunui River North Branch being included in the original draft of Schedule 17 for the proposed LWRP, they were eventually removed once the LWRP became fully operative in early 2017. As a result, the significant spawning sites identified in the LWRP and HWRRP are now inconsistent with each other.

The reason why Landslip Stream and the Hurunui River North Branch spawning sites were omitted from Schedule 17 are unknown to the author. A Section 42A report noted submissions on the proposed LWRP including that of the Lakes Station Partnership (LSP) (McCallum- Clarke et al. 2013). The LSP submission requested that the inclusion of both sites be removed on the basis that they were not significant enough, and that the benefits of stock exclusion policy 5.134 (which applies to Schedule 17 sites) are hypothetical and did not outweigh the very real costs associated with fencing and loss of access by stock to drinking water (McCallum-Clarke et al. 2013). In response to the submission, McCallum-Clarke et al. (2013) recommended to retain both sites in Schedule 17 on the basis that they still had regional value. Despite this, both sites were still removed from Schedule 17.

NCFG support the inclusion of the Landslip Stream and Hurunui River North Branch sites in Schedule 17. While the North Branch itself has few spawning sites, Landslip Stream has a good number. The offspring from these are likely to rear in Lake Sumner for up to two years, before migrating to sea, and form a significant proportion of returning salmon (S. Terry per comms.).

Email correspondence dated 5th June 2018 from Steve Terry (Fish and Game Officer, NCFG) to Environment Canterbury science staff provided the following evidence supporting the inclusion of the Hurunui sites:

“Annual salmon harvest phone surveys in the region regularly shows harvest greater than spawning escapement in the Hurunui River, a usually unsustainable ratio. However, the Hurunui does not show signs of decreasing harvest, even during periods of low spawning numbers. Staff have flown all tributaries in the Hurunui catchment during peak spawn and found only a handful of salmon spawning outside Landslip Stream in the North Branch and the main stem of the South Branch.

Staff believe that salmon perceived as landlocked in Lake Sumner and targeted by anglers during busy holiday periods, could be a significant proportion of the run. Lake Sumner has a productive salmon fishery during the main fishing season, with many salmon perceived as “landlocked” salmon caught by many anglers. However, staff believe these salmon being caught are juvenile sea-run fish that choose to remain in the lake for greater than a year before migrating to the ocean. They are likely to return at an older age than their stream-reared cousins, possibly as the early pre-Christmas run of larger four-year-old salmon. If salmon do remain for over 12 months in such a system, international research suggests their survival may be extremely high at around 25-30% (Dave Willis, Biologist at Department of Fisheries and Ocean, “Turning the Tide” Conference, December 2017).

Following the Sea-Run Salmon Symposium “Turning the Tide”, held in 2017, keynote speaker David Willis, a biologist from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, noted that if these ‘land-locked’ salmon did not migrate to the ocean, they would be the only population of

Page 10 of 77

Chinook salmon in the world that behaved in this way given the unobstructed opportunity down the Hurunui River. In support of D. Willis’ advice, Fish & Game staff have not seen these small salmon spawning, as we see in other land-locked populations such as Lake Coleridge.

Over the next few years, Fish & Game staff will be investigating whether these “land locked” salmon migrate to sea. If this proves to be the case, these fish have been extremely undervalued in the past, as we’ve effectively allowed harvesting three or four juvenile lake fish in place of one mature sea-run adult.”

In further correspondence with NCFG in 2018, NCFG estimates that around 25% of lake reared salmon in the Hurunui River catchment would return to spawn. This is opposed to 0.01 – 1% survival and return rate of smaller salmon migrating from systems without a lake (i.e. the case for most salmon rivers in New Zealand where salmon are ocean reared) (S. Terry per comms.).

The evidence provided by S. Terry highlights both the high and frequent occurrence of spawning in Landslip Stream, and the high amount of scientific interest associated with spawning populations within the Hurunui River North Branch catchment (e.g. Lake Sumner). Landslip Stream contains highly valued spawning habitat within a regionally valued catchment. It is therefore regarded a regionally significant spawning site (Table 4). The Hurunui River North Branch likely contains spawning habitat of a medium value, but is also commensurate with Unwin’s (2006) consideration of sites with high scientific value. Both sites are proposed to be included in Schedule 17 of the LWRP (Appendix 3).

Waimakariri River catchment

The Waimakariri River is a nationally valued salmon fishery with numerous significant spawning sites as identified in Unwin (2006) (Table 5). Waimakariri River spawning sites were not listed in Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP because the rules of the WRRP (ECan 2017) take precedence within the catchment. Unlike the HWRRP, the WRRP does not contain a schedule of significant salmon spawning sites. It therefore does not afford specific provisions for the protection of salmon spawning sites from activities that may impact these sites such as the take and use of water, discharge of contaminants, or earthworks in the beds of lakes and rivers.

Table 5 lists the ten Waimakariri catchment sites originally identified by Unwin (2006) for inclusion in Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP. Included are eight nationally important spawning sites (as identified by Unwin (2006)) deemed to be essential for maintaining the Canterbury region’s fishery. The two remaining sites, the Poulter River and Thompson Stream, were originally identified by Unwin (2006) as regionally and locally significant, respectively. Since then, aerial counts have found high numbers of spawning salmon in Thompson Stream, and its addition to Schedule 17 is proposed based on a revised spawning site value nationally significant (Table 5).

Page 11 of 77

The Poulter River catchment now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the wild salmon returns to the Waimakariri River each year (S. Terry per comms.). There are a number of spawning streams in the upper catchment, which is located in Arthur’s Pass National Park, and the habitat varies from beech forested streams, to open tussock streams, all of which have relatively good riparian zones (S. Terry per comms.). Both the Poulter River and Thompson Stream are prone to drying in some years, but historical runs in the Poulter River range between 100 and 1,600 fish (median approx. 550). The spawning reach of the Poulter River is identified by Unwin (2006) to occur between Casey Stream and the confluence with Thompson Stream (Appendix 3). NCFG have since identified that salmon spawn in a more expansive reach of the river ranging from Minchin Stream downstream to the confluence with the Poulter River East Branch (Appendix 4; Appendix 5). It is proposed that the more expansive reach identified by NCFG is listed in Schedule 17 of the LWRP.

Cass Hill Stream contains historical salmon returns that range from 100 to 1,300 fish (median approx. 200) and now accounts for approximately 15 percent of the Waimakariri wild salmon returns each year (S. Terry per comms.). It is sometimes referred to as Bullock Creek and for this reason it is suggested that both names are recognised in Schedule 17 (Appendix 3). Poulter Spring Creek 2 and Poulter Spring Creek 3 are identified as separate spawning sites in Unwin (2006). Each site shares the same channel at its lower extent but branches to become a network of small spring-fed channels upstream. Unwin (2006) identified both sites by the same downstream coordinates and upstream elevational extent. It is proposed to combine the sites as one (Poulter Spring Creek 1 and 2) for inclusion in Schedule 17 (Appendix 4).

NCFG supports the inclusion of all remaining sites as they are presented in Unwin (2006) (Appendix 3). Of these, only the Kaiapoi River/Silverstream is situated on the lowland plains. Unwin (2006) assessed the Kaiapoi River/Silverstream spawning reach as being of national significance (Table 5). This was largely due to the NIWA research hatchery located near Heywards Road, which was used for supplementing salmon stocks in rivers. Since then, the hatchery has been passed into private ownership, but it continues to supplement river stock through Fish and Game stocking programmes. Unwin (2006) argues that although a case can be made that the Kaiapoi River/Silverstream is not important for spawning as such, a pragmatic view should be taken to identify it as important in the sense defined by Environment Canterbury. This is particularly true when considering its enhancement value whereby the hatchery contributes to the collection of spawning gametes from returning adult fish. The hatchery enhancement is a significant contributor to salmon harvest from the Waimakariri River (approximately 3 – 30% each year) (S. Terry per comms.). Coupled with the low levels of “wild” spawning that occurs within the river, the Silverstream/Kaiapoi River is justified for inclusion in Schedule 17.

In addition to the sites identified by Unwin (2006), NCFG considers three additional spawning areas in the Waimakariri catchment as significant. These are: • Pūkio Stream; • Cox River/Poulter River East Branch; and • Otukaikino Creek and tributaries.

Page 12 of 77

Pūkio Stream is a north-western tributary of the Esk River. No spawning run data is available due to the limited funding available for Fish and Game aerial counts, but observational records note that salmon spawn extensively in the middle reaches below the gorge. Similarly, no data is available for the Cox River/Poulter River East Branch. Unwin (2006) included the East Branch of the Poulter River in an extensive list of minor spawning sites within the Waimakariri River catchment. Since then, NCFG has observed extensive spawning throughout the gorge of the river and through to the upper reaches of the Cox River. Unlike the more prolific spawning sites located in the alpine reaches of the Waimakariri Catchment, Otukaikino Creek is a lowland plains spring-fed stream. It is located on the opposite side (south) of the Waimakariri River to that of the Kaiapoi River/Silverstream spawning site (Appendix 5). Otukaikino Creek is not aerially surveyed, and although the spawning run is likely to have been limited over recent years, it has had historic runs (S. Terry pers comm.). The lower mainstem of Otukaikino Creek is currently in a degraded state with high sediment cover (Boffa Miskell, 2017), but this reach also contains extensive areas of visible gravels that are likely to support viable spawning populations of salmon with rehabilitation or flushing from a major storm event (S. Pearson pers comm.). Most of the tributaries of this stream are also considered important salmon spawning habitat. This is largely due to the proximity of the spring-fed streams to the mouth of the Waimakariri River, which makes accessibility for sea- run salmon favourable (S. Pearson pers comm.). Like that of Ashburton/Hakatere catchment spawning sites, listing Otukaikino Creek and its tributaries in Schedule 17 will provide added opportunity for salmon runs to return and spawn successfully.

Page 13 of 77

Table 5. Significant salmon spawning sites in the Waimakariri River catchment as identified by Unwin (2006). Parentheses indicate values revised since the Unwin (2006) assessment due to new information.

Significance Site name Fishery Habitat Overall

Kaiapoi River High National

Winding Creek High National

Poulter River Medium Regional

Poulter Spring Creek 1 High National

Poulter Spring Creek 2 High National National Poulter Spring Creek 3 High National

Thompson Stream *Low (High) *Low (National)

Cass Hill Stream High National

One Tree Swamp High National

Cora-Lynn Stream High National

* At the time of the Unwin (2006) assessment, Fish and Game were not conducting aerial counts on Thompson Stream. Since then, high numbers of salmon have been found to be spawning consistently over multiple years. S. Terry (Fish and Game Officer, NCFG) suggests a revised habitat significance of ‘high’ resulting in the site being classified as nationally significant overall as per the Unwin (2006) assessment criteria.

Heathcote/Opāwāho River

The Heathcote/Opāwāho River is considered, at best, to be a locally important fishery (Table 2) with annual spawning runs highly unlikely to exceed a few hundred, and a low angling effort of 100 angling days in 2014/15 (Unwin 2016). However, poor runs and low angling activity are largely attributed to the degraded state of the river. The bed of the Heathcote/Opāwāho River contains excessive sediment throughout much of its length. Clean, loose gravels suitable for salmon spawning are therefore uncommon. In addition to low fish numbers, poor water quality in the catchment (e.g. low clarity, and high dissolved metal and E. coli levels) is a deterrent for anglers.

NCFG has identified two main sites where Chinook salmon spawn most years: • approximately 1 km downstream of Hackthorne Road (between Barrington Street and Ernie Clark Reserve); and • approximately 200 m downstream of the Ferniehurst Street bridge.

Page 14 of 77

The value of these spawning habitats to the Heathcote/Opāwāho catchment is high due to the lack of suitable spawning gravels available elsewhere in the river. NCFG considers the Heathcote/Opāwāho salmon spawning sites as low value from an angling perspective, but they are a much-anticipated visual attraction for many who know where and when they spawn (S. Terry per. comms.). NCFG therefore supports the inclusion of the site in Schedule 17 of the LWRP.

The author believes it is unreasonable to regard the Heathcote/Opāwāho River to contain “significant spawning sites that are essential to maintain the salmon fishery in the Canterbury Region”. However, the review conducted by Unwin (2006) also noted four other values that require consideration when deciding about the value of spawning sites. Among these was restoration value; i.e., streams or rivers which currently sustain fisheries of low value, generally because of habitat degradation, but which could potentially contribute significantly to the fishery if appropriate restoration measures were implemented. Restoration works would likely have a significant improvement for spawning in the Heathcote/Opāwāho River given its current propensity to support small spawning runs of Chinook salmon in a heavily degraded environment. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to anticipate that the Heathcote/Opāwāho River could support much larger runs of fish. The river’s predominantly urban catchment means it is easily accessible to many who might wish to fish it given an improvement in water quality and aesthetic appeal. This suggests that restoration efforts resulting in increased spawning and fish densities could improve the overall value of the waterway as a fishery.

In summary, the Heathcote/Opāwāho River does not warrant inclusion in Schedule 17 on the basis of Unwin’s (2006) general criteria for classifying a significant salmon spawning site (Table 4). The site should only be considered for inclusion in Schedule 17 on the basis that: a.) it is worthy based on its restoration value as detailed in Unwin (2006); and b.) an exception is made to include a site that supports a unique population of salmon that spawn in a densely urban environment and provides high aesthetic value.

Rakaia River catchment

Significant spawning sites in the Rakaia River catchment for wild salmon are generally well represented in Schedule 17 of the LWRP. However, no spawning sites of importance to the captive rearing and enhancement of salmon stocks are currently included.

Montrose Creek is of critical importance to the maintenance and enhancement of New Zealand’s salmon sports fishery (S. Terry per comms.). The Montrose Hatchery (owned and operated by Fish and Game) is located immediately above the source of the creek, allowing salmon imprinting to occur when hatchery fish are released into the wild. At the top of the reach, hatchery grown salmon fry are released to swim down into the mainstem of the Rakaia River. They then migrate to the sea for their adult lifecycle before returning several years later with the intent of spawning at this location (S. Terry per comms.). A fish trap is located at the top of Montrose Creek, where the returning salmon (fin clipped for identification) are harvested for their eggs (ova) and sperm at the end of their lifecycle. This activity is vital for supplying the hatchery with salmon stock for the following year and for several important research

Page 15 of 77

purposes. This includes improving the understanding of threats and opportunities facing New Zealand’s currently struggling sports fishery (S. Terry per comms.). Montrose Creek is proposed for inclusion in Schedule 17 of the LWRP due to its enhancement value as per Unwin (2006).

A spawning tributary (Rakaia Spring 1) that flows into the Rakaia River approximately 1 km upstream of the Double Hill Stream – Rakaia River confluence is also recommended to be added to Schedule 17 by NCFG. Fish and game field staff observations note that spawning activity is common here each year. Additionally, minor amendments are proposed to the description of existing sites in the current version of Schedule 17. Several errors exist that confuse the site locations of Glenariffe Stream and Double Hill Stream. Specifically, the upper extent coordinates for Glenariffe Stream incorrectly references the true upper extent of Double Hill Stream. The lower half of the reach also overlaps that of Double Hill Stream, and narratives describing the upper extent of spawning reaches are inaccurate. The upper extent of the Double Hill Stream spawning site is proposed to be changed from 450 m to 480 m. This is based on NCFG observations and is required to be updated in Environment Canterbury’s GIS database. The planning maps also need improving to reflect spawning that occurs in the upper and lower branches of the spring-fed stream. Changes to the site description for the Ryton River are also recommended. These also include updating the upstream coordinates to improve consistency with the Environment Canterbury GIS database. All amendments are included in Appendix 4.

Rangitata River catchment

For the most part, Schedule 17 of the LWRP adequately protects significant salmon spawning in the Rangitata River catchment. However, one minor amendment is required to the narrative site description for the ‘Deep Creek complex - Mt Potts’ site. The Schedule 17 site description for the upstream extent of the site currently reads: “Approximately 2.3 km south west of Rabbit Hill to the 500 m contour”. CSIFG advises that there is no Rabbit Hill at the site. It is proposed that the upstream location description is amended to: “Approximately 2 km northwest of Mount Sunday” as per Appendix 4. CSIFG also claims that the upstream extent of spawning occurs up to 540 m above sea level (asl). The upstream grid reference for the ‘Deep Creek complex – Mt Potts’ is currently 530 m asl. It is proposed that the LWRP is amended to reflect this change in Schedule 17 as per Appendix 4.

Ashburton/Hakatere River catchment

Unwin (2006) found three sites in the Ashburton/Hakatere River catchment that contain spawning reaches of significance to Canterbury’s salmon fishery. Despite this, the Ashburton/Hakatere River sites were removed from Schedule WQN14 of the NRRP after a hearing process on the Proposed Variation 1 of the plan. Schedule WQN14 was later adopted (with amendments) to become Schedule 17 of the LWRP.

Page 16 of 77

Decisions Report 28 on Proposed Variation 1 of the NRRP (ECan, 2010) outlines seven submissions that objected to the inclusion of the Ashburton/Hakatere River catchment sites in the Schedule WQN14. Based on these submissions, the hearing committee decided to omit the sites citing that:

“they are only locally important, that the Ashburton River is generally regarded as highly degraded, and that the salmon fishery is currently well below the level required to justify its former status as locally important”.

The hearing committee assessment also noted that the sites “can be reinstated if the Ashburton River again becomes a highly rated salmon fishery in the future”.

CSIFG refutes the basis of the omissions and proposes that spawning sites in the Ashburton/Hakatere River catchment should be added as significant salmon spawning sites under Schedule 17 of the LWRP. Despite the Ashburton/Hakatere River’s classification as a locally significant fishery (Unwin, 2006), CSIFG firmly believe it to be important in a regional context. The 2014/15 National Angling Survey (Unwin, 2016) states 9,010 angler days (not differentiated between trout and salmon) for the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment (3.0% of the regional total), and the Ashburton/Hakatere River itself sustains 2,360 angler days. The number of angler days for the Ashburton/Hakatere River is down from previous surveys, but the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment as a whole is up on previous surveys (except the 2007/08 survey when it was 240 angling days less). Figure 1 illustrates the number of anglers and salmon caught for the Ashburton/Hakatere River each year since the early 1990’s. This shows that many anglers still fish for salmon in the catchment, despite the recently low catch rates.

Figure 1. Number of anglers and salmon caught in the Ashburton/Hakatere River annually (data supplied by CSIFG).

Page 17 of 77

CSIFG propose the following spawning sites for inclusion in Schedule 17:

• Bowyers Stream; • Maori Lakes outflow; and, • Spring Creek

Bowyers Stream and Maori Lakes outflow were both recognised as significant Chinook salmon spawning sites in Unwin (2006) under the criteria detailed in Table 4. Spawning runs in Bowyers Stream have been surveyed annually since 1973 with redd counts ranging between 0-57. These occur between the confluences of The Mill Creek and the South Branch of the Ashburton River, which differs from that detailed in Unwin (2006) (Appendix 3). Maori Lakes outflow has annual redd counts ranging between 0-30 and has been surveyed since 1979. Furthermore, the Maori Lakes are identified in Schedule 13.8 of the LWRP as a high naturalness waterbody with the outflows noted for its high habitat value for Chinook salmon spawning. The latter of the three Ashburton/Hakatere catchment spawning sites, Spring Creek, was not identified by Unwin (2006). Salmon redd counts range between 0-48 and the reach has been surveyed since 1981. A full record of annual spawning counts in the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment are detailed in Appendix 6.

The Ashburton River South Branch was also included as a significant site in Unwin (2006), but CSIFG does not propose its inclusion in Schedule 17. CSIFG does not consider the main stem of the Ashburton River South Branch to contain high value spawning habitat and it no longer meets the significance criteria as outlined in Table 3. Salmon can sometimes spawn in the South Branch but are more akin to the 'occasional' or 'no significance' criteria (A. Christensen pers. comms.). It is largely the tributaries to the river that provide spawning habitat.

The omission of the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment spawning sites from Schedule 17 of the LWRP on the basis that the Ashburton/Hakatere River is highly degraded ignores the potential value of the fishery if restored. This is reflected by Shutt (1985) who states the Ashburton/Hakatere River has the potential to return to its former status as one of the better salmon waters in the district. Unwin (2006) highlights restoration value as a key consideration for inclusion in a schedule of significant salmon spawning sites. Unwin (2006) states that:

“the Ashburton River is generally regarded as highly degraded, and that the salmon fishery is currently well below the level required to justify its former status as locally important (Teirney et al. 1987a, Unwin & Deans 2003). However, as recently as 1960 the fishery appears to have been at least as productive as the Hurunui River is today, with over 1000 salmon taken annually (Webb 2004)”.

There is little reason to believe that, at least in terms of water quality, the Ashburton/Hakatere River has improved since Unwin’s (2006) assessment. A 10-year trend analysis of four Ashburton/Hakatere Catchment river sites found that only the Ashburton/Hakatere North Branch at State Highway 72 showed significant decreases in dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) (Fraser and Snelder 2017). All other water quality variables at this site showed no significant change over time, whereas across other sites turbidity was increasing and other measures were remaining unchanged. Management

Page 18 of 77

plans have been developed in the past by CSIFG and include proposals aimed at restoring the fishery to its former status (Unwin 2006). Unwin (2006) included the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment spawning sites listed in the revised schedule to reflect the “latent potential” of the catchment to improve rather than the current status quo at the time. The report also noted that if improvements to the catchment did not eventuate, the value of the sites to the region’s salmon fishery would need to be reconsidered.

Although the state of the mainstem of the Ashburton/Hakatere River continues to be in a degraded state, three quarters of 2014/15 angling days in the catchment occurred outside of the mainstem (Unwin 2016). This includes areas of backcountry fishing where water quality, and perhaps fishery value, is likely to be much higher. Schedule 17 of the LWRP aims to protect spawning sites and their waterways from land use activities that affect their quality and function. CSIFG has data on the number of days the mouth of the Ashburton/Hakatere River was closed every spawning season since 2004 (available on request) and suspects this to be a limiting factor for salmon numbers in the catchment (albeit not the only reason) (A. Christensen per comms.). With a planned increase in the Ashburton/Hakatere River minimum flow set for 2023 via the LWRP, there is potential for the mouth to be open to the sea more frequently. This will provide increased opportunity for higher numbers of salmon to enter the river system, transition through the lower reaches, and spawn throughout the catchment. This is the subject of a proposed consent review.

CSIFG also notes that the overall decline in the salmon fishery on the east coast and the region-wide decline in salmon numbers witnessed recently illustrates just how important salmon fisheries, such as the Ashburton/Hakatere River, are (A. Christensen per comms.). Despite lower fish numbers now than in the past, there is an increased need to provide regulatory provisions and protection to enable developing salmon the best chance of surviving possible. The omission of the Ashburton/Hakatere Catchment from Schedule 17 therefore acts as a compounding factor that inhibits the improvement of the river and its value to contribute to Canterbury’s salmon fishery.

Orari River catchment

The South, Middle and North Branches of Ohapi Creek in the Orari River catchment are included as a significant salmon spawning site under the existing Schedule 17 of the LWRP. However, the extent of spawning habitat used by Chinook salmon in Ohapi Creek is more expansive than that currently scheduled, which protects sites from the Orari River confluence up to Guild Road. CSIFG spawning data indicate that the lower extent of spawning predominantly occurs further upstream of the lagoon starting at Milford-Clandeboye Road (Appendix 5). The upper extent of the spawning for each branch begins near the springheads, much further upstream of Guild Road. The revised coordinates for spawning in Ohapi Creek are detailed in Appendix 4.

Page 19 of 77

Waitaki River catchment

Six lakes in the Upper Waitaki Basin contain the only populations of sockeye salmon in the Southern Hemisphere. CSIFG believe that the key importance of the species is that juveniles provide an important food source to other sports fish (Graynoth et al., 1986; Couper, 2018). This significant food source serves an area that accounts for over 10 percent of the freshwater angling activity in New Zealand (Unwin, 2006). Sockeye salmon in streams have limited eating qualities but offer anglers a chance to catch a “new” species other than Chinook salmon, brown trout and rainbow trout. Larger jack fish that have “trophy” value, for example, would be sought after by anglers even if only for a photo. The species support a unique angling experience consistent with Unwin’s (2006) criteria for providing ‘angling diversity’ and serve an important function to Canterbury’s regional fishery. Spawning waters significant for maintaining sockeye salmon stocks should therefore be considered for inclusion in Schedule 17 of the LWRP.

The previous monitoring of sockeye salmon spawning has been largely based on labour- intensive ground surveys in only a few streams. As a result, CSIFG estimates of total spawning numbers have been rough for the hundreds of kilometres of potential spawning reaches in the Waitaki Catchment. Spawning populations are thought to be growing and distributions are spreading to new areas, therefore foot survey techniques are no longer sufficient. In early 2018, CSIFG completed the first year of a three-year helicopter monitoring programme of sockeye spawning in the Waitaki Lakes (Couper, 2018). This followed two seasons where multiple counts were conducted on Mint Stream (a tributary of the Lower Ohau River) to gain information on the run timing. The 2018 programme consisted of four flights of the Twizel and Lower Ohau rivers, in addition to walking key streams multiple times during the spawning season (peak spawning occurs in mid-March). Other tributaries of Lake Benmore that are expected to hold sockeye were also flown or walked once during the spawning season. Runs in tributaries of other lakes were walked or estimated. More intensive monitoring over the next three years will Fish and Game a better understanding of the sockeye run throughout the entire Waitaki catchment over the spawning season.

The tributaries of Lake Benmore, particularly the Haldon Arm, support the majority of spawning sockeye populations within the Waitaki Catchment (Table 6; Figure 2). Tributaries of the Lower Ohau River are particularly important with 2018 survey data showing the highest spawning occurring in the Twizel River (Couper, 2018) (Table 6). By comparison, the Ahuriri Arm tributaries of Lake Benmore supports significantly smaller populations. Tributaries of Lakes Ruataniwha, Aviemore and Pukaki also support generous numbers of spawning sockeye salmon (Table 6), while Lake Ohau tributaries support much smaller populations. Generally, spawning in the tributaries of lakes follow a coarse pattern of reduced density with increasing distance from the river mouth.

The Twizel River is the most significant spawning tributary of Lake Benmore, followed by the Lower Ohau River. Sockeye spawning runs number in their thousands at Fraser Stream and the Mary Burn. Most spawning in the Fraser River occurs near the confluence with the Twizel River, while 2018 survey data suggests that numbers in the Mary Burn were less than previous years (Couper, 2018). The Grays River, which feeds into the Tekapo River opposite the Mary Burn, supports less but still hundreds of spawning fish. Further south on the Haldon Arm of

Page 20 of 77

Lake Benmore, Shepherds Creek and Falstone Creek contain highly dense spawning within very short reaches of river. Other spawning occurs outside of these tributaries, but the sites mentioned are those considered as significant by CSIFG.

The most significant spawning tributary of Lake Aviemore is the Otematata River which contained an estimated 2,000 spawning sockeye in 2018 (Table 6). Spawning in the Otematata River predominantly occurs between the confluence with Clear Stream and its mouth. Deep Stream, which flows into the opposite side of the lake, traditionally holds reasonable numbers of sockeye salmon but the monitoring record is poor. Further surveys are intended for Deep Stream in the coming years, but between 100-200 sockeye are estimated to have spawned there during 2018 (Couper 2018). High numbers of spawning fish were recorded in Glentanner Stream in March 2018, a tributary of Lake Pukaki (Table 6). The spawning run was estimated to be 4,420 fish for the entire 2018 season and it is thought to have the highest spawning density in the Waitaki Catchment (per. comms. Angela Christensen, CSIFG). The Upper Ohau River is the only tributary of Lake Ruataniwha that has recorded sockeye spawning data for 2018.

Appendix 4 provides upstream and downstream descriptions and coordinates for all significant sockeye spawning proposed for inclusion in LWRP Schedule 17. It also details a number of amendments to current sites including the following: • Ohau Tributary 1 o rename to ‘Ohau Tributary 1 (Ohau C Stream)’. o amend upstream and downstream narrative descriptions and coordinates. • Ohau Tributary 2 o rename to ‘Ohau Tributary 2 (Mint Stream)’. o amend downstream narrative description, and upstream and downstream coordinates.

Table 6. 2018 sockeye salmon spawning data for Waitaki Catchment sites proposed to be included in LWRP Schedule 17 Tributaries in 2018.

Tributary name Estimated spawning run for sockeye salmon Lake Benmore Twizel River 17,440 Lower Ohau River 7,840 Fraser Stream 1,670 Mary Burn 1,440 Shepherds Creek 790 Falstone Creek 440 Grays River 290 Lake Pukaki Glentanner Stream 4,420 Lake Aviemore Otematata River 2,000 Deep Stream 150 Lake Ruataniwha Upper Ohau River 300

Page 21 of 77

Figure 2. Estimated peak sockeye spawning density of Haldon Arm tributaries (Ahuriri Arm tributaries are not shown). Spawning density reduces as distance from the mouth increases (Couper, 2018).

Page 22 of 77

Minor amendments to existing Schedule 17 sites

In addition to the site additions and amendments to existing sites recommended throughout this report, several minor changes are proposed for sites already defined in Schedule 17 of the LWRP. These reflect corrections to small inaccuracies contained within the schedule, or an improvement to the accuracy of site descriptions and/or coordinates to better represent spawning reaches. The following amendments are proposed: • Change all coordinate formats in Schedule 17 from NZ Topo50 to New Zealand Transverse Mercator (NZTM) projection. This format is more widely used, “modern” and user-friendly. Revised NZTM coordinates for all sites (as per Appendix 4) are more accurate than those detailed currently in Schedule 17 of the LWRP (Appendix 2). It is understood that updating coordinate formats is a component of the region-wide Plan Change 7 of the LWRP. • Rename ‘Waiau’ catchment to ‘Waiau Uwha’ to reflect official name change by the New Zealand Geographic Board, January 2018. • Rename ‘Ohapi Creek’ to ‘Ohapi Creek North, South and Middle branches’. • As per Appendix 4, change upstream narrative descriptions for the following sites: o Matagouri Point Stream o Glenariffe Stream o Double Hill Stream o Ryton River o Deep Creek – Mt Potts o Ohapi Creek o Ohau Tributary 1 (Mint Stream) • As per Appendix 4, change downstream narrative descriptions for the following sites: o Glenariffe Stream o Ohapi Creek o Waihi River o Tengawai River o Ohau Tributary 1 (Mint Stream) o Ohau Tributary 2 (Ohau C Stream) • Rename ‘Ashburton’ catchment to ‘Ashburton/Hakatere’. • Rename ‘Ohau Tributary 1’ to ‘Ohau Tributary 1 (Mint Stream)’ to reference spawning reach identified by CSIFG. • Rename ‘Ohau Tributary 2’ to ‘Ohau Tributary 2 (Ohau C Stream)’ to reference spawning reach identified by CSIFG.

Unless otherwise mentioned in this memo1, no amendment above results in a change to the length/area of existing sites. Modifications to the LWRP planning maps is recommended as per Appendix 5. Black Mountain Stream (Rangitata catchment), for example, is not currently represented in the planning maps and needs adding.

1 Sites that contain changing length/area to be protected are: Glenariffe Stream and Double Hill Stream (see p.16), and Ohapi Creek (see p.19). See proposed planning maps for more detail.

Page 23 of 77

Caveats

Protecting upstream reaches

Salmon spawning sites are vulnerable to the effects of activities that disrupt the bed and banks of upstream reaches. This is particularly true for those activities that generate sediment, which in stable spring-fed systems, is prone to settling out on the bed of the river. As fine sediments settle on stream beds, benthic habitats, spawning gravels and incubating redds can be smothered. Fish and Game suggests that the most utilised salmon spawning sites provide high levels of sub-gravel flow, which makes them especially vulnerable to sedimentation (Pearson and Christensen 2016). This situation is particularly true for spring-fed headwater streams, such as the Hydra Waters in the upper Rakaia Catchment, that have highly stable flows and very good water quality. Spring-fed streams are less resilient to the effects of heavy stock disturbance and other land-use activities that generate high sediment loads. This is because, unlike hill-fed rivers, they do not undergo large flood events to reset the river environment and flush out anthropogenically induced sediment (Pearson and Christensen 2016; Gray 2018).

Policy 4.31 of the LWRP states that the degradation of salmon spawning habitat is avoided by excluding stock from salmon spawning sites listed in Schedule 17, and the “waterbody bed and banks closely adjacent to and upstream of these areas”. “Closely upstream of these areas” is somewhat subjective and open to interpretation. Furthermore, many rules of the plan only control activities within Schedule 17 sites, but not upstream. For example, Rule 5.71 prohibits the use and disturbance of the bed (including the banks) of a lake or river by any farmed cattle, deer or pigs in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17. This provides scope for consented or permitted activities to degrade downstream salmon spawning sites that act as receiving environments. As a result, this could have long-lasting effects on the health and productivity of spawning reaches, and consequently the salmon fishery.

Evidence provided by NCFG and CSIFG highlighted this issue during the hearing process of Plan Change 4 of the LWRP (Pearson and Christensen, 2016). In reference to Policy 4.31, Fish and Game stated that: • “Closely upstream” did not adequately protect all of the various instream values associated with these waterbodies and that the intent of the policy is to improve the management of activities that may damage ecosystem and community valued sites. • The proposed Policy wording does not adequately protect salmon spawning sites from the potential upstream impacts of stock that may occur further upstream than “closely adjacent.” • The policy must adequately protect the upstream freshwater environment (beyond “closely upstream” or “closely adjacent” areas), from the effects of stock-induced erosion in the river bed and consequential sediment transport and deposition into the spawning area.

Page 24 of 77

As an alternative, Fish and Game proposed adopting wording in the policy that excludes stock from the bed and banks upstream of spring-fed salmon spawning sites in Schedule 17 for slope gradients up to three degrees.

While it is beyond the scope of this report to suggest any amendments to the wording of policy and rules in the LWRP, the author recognises the importance of strengthening the protection of spawning reaches from upstream land use activities. As it currently stands, there remains ample scope for spawning site degradation resulting from anthropogenically disturbed sediment upstream. It is recommended that subsequent plan changes examine, in more detail, the effect that upstream activities (upstream of the Schedule 17 sites) have on the health and productivity of spawning reaches downstream. It is anticipated that such a review would encourage the need for more provisions for upstream habitat protection.

Protecting salmonids vs native fishes

The provisions of the LWRP (Appendix 1) aim to protect both recreational and native fish populations. However, a situation may arise, in some instances, where the protection of one is at the expense of the other.

Brown trout (Salmo trutta), for example, generally spend their adult life in freshwater and voraciously feed on small native galaxiids (Woodford and McIntosh, 2013), bullies, insects, crustaceans and other species (McDowell, 1990). Sockeye and Chinook salmon, in contrast, are less likely to exert the same magnitude of predatory pressure on native freshwater fish populations. Sockeye salmon are filter-feeders that feed primarily on zooplankton in lake or river environments (Couper, 2018). Chinook salmon, as juveniles, mainly feed on small aquatic or terrestrial invertebrates (Sagar and Eldon, 1983) before migrating to sea for several years where they can feed on small pelagic fish as adults (James and Unwin, 1996). They stop feeding when mature adults (generally three years old) leave the sea to migrate to spawning grounds in freshwater (McDowall, 1990). It is possible that lake or “land-locked” stocks of Chinook salmon, that spend their adult lives in lakes rather than the ocean (e.g. Lake Coleridge), feed to some extent on small native lake fish. However, the distribution, biology and behaviour of these lake stock Chinook salmon populations in Canterbury are still not fully understood (see proposed amendments for Hurunui catchment). Likewise, it may be possible that sockeye and Chinook salmon feed on small and potentially threatened invertebrates, such as larval kākahi (juvenile native freshwater mussels). The habitat of threatened (‘at risk – declining’) kākahi populations (Grainger et al., 2018) include large Canterbury lakes (e.g. Lake Coleridge), and smaller streams and rivers that overlap with the known distribution of salmon. Therefore, these predatory pressures may impact the recruitment of juveniles and constrain adult numbers.

Another consideration is competition for resources and space between salmonids and native species. Although spawning adults do not generally feed once in river environments, juvenile salmon (parr and smolt) will feed on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (Sagar and Elgon, 1983; McDowell, 1990). These invertebrates are also a

Page 25 of 77

food source for native fish that share the same habitat. When large numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon emerge from gravel redds (nests) after hatching, a mass emigration of fry occurs out of smaller streams into bigger rivers (Unwin, 1986). Unwin (1986) argued that this occurs as the result of intense population pressure. It is therefore likely that these similar pressures would be felt by native fish communities.

The policies and rules of the LWRP (e.g. stock exclusion, disturbance in the bed etc.) are directed specifically at protecting the environmental integrity of physical freshwater habitats. Therefore, any given measure to protect one species habitat does not inadvertently disadvantage the other per se. On the contrary, if both native fish and salmon cohabit a site, then a measure to protect the habitat due to its significance to one species’ population will also indirectly protect the habitat in regard to the other.

References

Boffa Miskell Limited (2017) Otukaikino River catchment aquatic ecology: long-term monitoring of the Otukaikino River catchment. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for the Christchurch City Council.

Couper, J. (2018) Report on sockeye salmon spawning in Waitaki Catchment rivers and streams, 2018. Central South Island Fish and Game technical report.

Gray, D. (2018) High country spring-fed streams: effects of adjacent land use. Environment Canterbury technical report no. R18/32, February 2018.

Grainger N., harding J., Drinan, T., Collier, K., Smith, B., Death, R., Makan, T. and Rolfe, J. (2018) Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater invertebrates, 2018. New Zealand Threat Classification Series, 28. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Graynoth, E. (1987) Growth of landlocked sockeye salmon (Oncorynchus nerka) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 21:1, 15-30.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) (2004) Section 32 report variation 1: proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan for chapter 5: water quantity. Environment Canterbury report no. R04/16/5.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) (2010) Decision Report 28: WQN12 Water Quantity (Schedules WQN1, 11, 12, 14). Environment Canterbury report no. R10/103.

Environment Canterbury (ECan (2013) Hurunui and Waiau River Regional Plan. Prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991. Operative December 2013.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) (2017) Waimakariri River Regional Plan. October 2017.

Page 26 of 77

Fraser, C. and Snelder, T. (2018) Canterbury river water quality state and trend analysis: periods ending 30th June 2017. Land and Water People client technical report no. 2018-03, April 2018.

James, G.D. and Unwin, M.J. (1996). Diet of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Canterbury coastal waters, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 30:1, 69-78

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

McCallum-Clark, M., Harte, P., Whyte, P., Fenemor, A., Constantine, P., and Perpick, M. (2013) Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan: Section 42A report – volume 1 for Hearing Group 1. Environment Canterbury report no. R12/114.

McDowell, R.M. (1990) New Zealand freshwater fishes: a natural history and guide. Heinmann Reid, Auckland.

Pearson, S., and Christensen, A. (2016) Evidence in Chief of Scott Pearson and Angela Christensen on behalf of North Canterbury and Central South Island Fish and Game councils: in the matter of Plan Change 4 to the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan. Paper provided to the independent hearing commissioners, Christchurch, 29 January 2018.

Sagar, P.M. and Eldon, G.A. (1983) Prey preferences of a riverine population of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Journal of Fish Biology, 31:5, 661-673.

Shutt, P. (1985) Fishing in the Central South Island 4th Edition. Published by P. Shutt, Timaru, NZ.

Unwin, M.J. (1986) Stream residence time, size characteristics and migration patterns in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from a tributary of the Rakaia River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 20:2, 231-252.

Unwin, M.J. (2006) Assessment of significant salmon spawning sites in the Canterbury region. Environment Canterbury report no. U06/59 prepared by NIWA.

Unwin, M.J. (2016) Angler usage of New Zealand lake and river fisheries: results from the 2014/15 National Angling Survey. NIWA client report (no. 2016021ch) prepared for Fish and Game New Zealand, July 2016.

Woodford, D.J. and McIntosh A.R. (2013) Effects of introduced trout predation on non- diadromous galaxiid fish populations across invaded riverscapes. Science for Conservation 320. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Page 27 of 77

Duncan Gray Reviewed by: January 2019 Senior Scientist Tim Davie Approved for release: May 2019 Chief Scientist

Page 28 of 77

Appendix 1 The following Land and Water Regional Plan policy and region-wide rules (abridged) make direct reference to Schedule 17 Salmon Spawning Sites.

Policy number Narrative (abridged)

Damage to the bed or banks of water bodies, sedimentation and disturbance of the waterbody, direct discharge of contaminants, and degradation of aquatic ecosystems and inanga and salmon spawning habitat is avoided by: … 4.31 (b) excluding stock from within … salmon spawning sites listed in Schedule 17…; and the waterbody bed and banks closely adjacent to and upstream of these areas;…

Rule number Narrative

The discharge of solid animal waste (excluding any discharge directly from an animal to land), or vegetative material containing animal excrement or vegetative material, including from an intensive farming process or industrial or trade process, into or onto land, or into or onto land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water is a permitted activity, provided the following 5.29 conditions are met: … 3. The material is not discharged: … (d) within 20 m of … a surface waterbody not listed in Schedule 17 …; or (e) within 50 m of a surface waterbody listed in Schedule 17 …

The use and disturbance of the bed (including the banks) of a lake or river by any farmed cattle, farmed deer or farmed pigs and any associated discharge to 5.71 water is a prohibited activity in the following areas: 1. In a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The drilling, tunnelling, or disturbance in or under the bed of a lake or river and the installation, or removal of pipes, ducts, cables or wires is a permitted activity, 5.136 provided the following conditions are met: 1. The activity is not undertaken … in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The installation, alteration, extension, or removal of bridges and culverts, and the consequential deposition of substances on, in or under the bed of a lake or river, the excavation or other disturbance of the bed of a lake or river, and, in the 5.137 case of culverts, the associated take, discharge or diversion of water is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: … 4. The activity is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The installation, maintenance, use and removal of defences against water, including the associated deposition of substances on, in or under the bed of a 5.138 lake or river and excavation associated diversions and discharges of sediment or other disturbance of the bed of a lake or river is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: …

2. Other than for the use of defences against water the activity is not …within a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The use and maintenance of structures, excluding dams, on, in or under the bed of a lake or river are permitted activities, provided the following conditions are met: … 5.139 4. Except for bridges, culverts, pipes, ducts, cables and wires and their associated support structures the maintenance of that part of the structure within the bed of a lake or river is not undertaken within a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17….

Despite any other rule in this Plan, temporary structures and diversions associated with undertaking activities in Rules 5.135 to 5.139, military training activities, or artificial watercourses are permitted activities, provided the following 5.140 conditions are met: 1. The activity is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

Temporary discharges to water or to land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water associated with undertaking activities in Rules 5.135 to 5.140 or in relation to artificial watercourses are permitted activities, provided the 5.141 following conditions are met: … 2. The discharge is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The extraction of gravel from the bed of a lake or river including the deposition of substances on the bed and excavation or other disturbance of the bed of a 5.148 lake or river is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: … 9. The activity is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

Notwithstanding any other rule in this Plan, temporary structures and diversions associated with undertaking activities in Rules 5.147 to 5.150 or in relation to artificial watercourses are permitted activities, provided the following conditions 5.151 are met: 1. The activity is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

Temporary discharges to water or to land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water associated with undertaking activities in Rules 5.147 to 5.150 or in relation to artificial watercourses are permitted activities, provided the 5.152 following conditions are met: … 2. The discharge is not undertaken in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The introduction or planting of any plant, or the removal and disturbance of existing vegetation in, on or under the bed of a lake or river and any associated discharge of sediment or sediment-laden water in circumstances where 5.163 sediment may enter surface water is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: … 7. Vegetation clearance does not occur in a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17...

Page 30 of 77

The use of land for vegetation clearance outside the bed of a river or lake or adjacent to a wetland boundary but within: (a) 10 m of the bed of a lake or river or a wetland boundary in Hill and High Country land or land shown as High Soil Erosion Risk on the Planning Maps; or (b) 5 m of the bed of a lake or river or a wetland boundary in all other land not 5.167 shown as High Soil Erosion Risk on the Planning Maps or defined as Hill and High Country on the Planning Maps; and any associated discharge of sediment or sediment-laden water in circumstances where sediment may enter surface water is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: … 5. The vegetation clearance does not occur adjacent to a salmon spawning site listed in Schedule 17 …

The use of land for earthworks outside the bed of a river or lake or adjacent to a wetland boundary but within: (a) 10 m of the bed of a lake or river or a wetland boundary in Hill and High Country land or land shown as High Soil Erosion Risk on the Planning Maps; or (b) 5 m of the bed of a lake or river or a wetland boundary in all other land not 5.168 shown as High Soil Erosion Risk on the Planning Maps or defined as Hill and High Country; and any associated discharge of sediment or sediment-laden water in circumstances where sediment may enter surface water is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met: … 3. The activity does not occur adjacent to a salmon spawning area listed in Schedule 17 …

Page 31 of 77

Appendix 2

Land and Water Regional Plan: Schedule 17 Salmon Spawning Sites

Page 33 of 77

Page 34 of 77

Page 35 of 77

Appendix 3

Significant salmon spawning sites as identified by Unwin (2006).

Significance Downstream coordinates Upstream coordinates Upstream Catchment Site name Downstream location Upstream location Fishery Habitat Overall East North East North altitude Waiau Henry River local high Local 2472990 5873100 2468800 5873200 St James walkway bridge Approx 2 km above Anne River Waiau Waiau River local high Local 2477700 5876200 2482000 5889800 Ada River confluence Approx 2.5km above river gauge Waiau Matagouri Point Stream local high Local 2479000 5881100 2479000 5883600 790 Waiau confluence 790 m contour Hurunui Hurunui North Branch regional medium Local 2441400 5834050 2425710 5833130 Lake Sumner Camp Stream confluence Hurunui Landslip Stream regional high Regional 2431900 5834700 2429310 5834460 620 Hurunui confluence 620 m contour Hurunui Homestead Stream regional high Regional 2444800 5822700 2441500 5824700 700 Hurunui confluence 700 m contour Hurunui Hurunui South Branch regional high Regional 2447450 5821370 2429410 5827480 780 North Esk confluence Stream at 780 m contour Waimakariri Kaiapoi River national high National 2480400 5759260 2475770 5754430 Upper tidal limit (approx) South Eyre Road Waimakariri Winding Creek national high National 2714500 5782300 2411300 5786600 Former hut site Lake Pearson outflow Waimakariri Poulter River national medium Regional 2417760 5812260 2415880 5816690 Casey Stream Thompson Stream Waimakariri Poulter Spring Creek 1 national high National 2418580 5809900 2417790 5811600 600 Poulter confluence Approx 600 m contour Waimakariri Poulter Spring Creek 2 national high National 2418070 5812150 600 Poulter confluence Approx 600 m contour Waimakariri Poulter Spring Creek 3 national high National 2418070 5812150 600 Poulter confluence Approx 600 m contour Waimakariri Thompson Stream national low Local 2415900 5816700 2417640 5819130 Poulter confluence Top of first braided section Waimakariri Cass Hill Stream national high National 2416800 5792500 2413200 5796600 Waimakariri confluence Poorly defined Waimakariri One Tree Swamp national high National 2406800 5799900 540 Waimakariri confluence 540 m contour Waimakariri Cora-Lynn Stream national high National 2404000 5797500 580 Waimakariri confluence 580 m contour Rakaia Glenariffe Stream national high National 2378150 5765070 2372830 5766000 Rakaia confluence Pond on south side of Double Hill Rakaia Double Hill Stream national high National 2377600 5765800 450 Rakaia confluence 450 m contour Rakaia Manuka Point Stream national high National 2367900 5768000 540 Rakaia confluence 540 m contour Rakaia Hydra Waters national high National 2377100 5768400 480 Rakaia confluence 480 m contour Rakaia Montrose Creek national high National 2397580 5746280 2397000 5746980 Rakaia confluence ~300 m contour Rakaia Ryton River regional high Regional 2390500 5767800 2393170 5770100 Lake Coleridge Mount Hennah Rakaia Goat Hill national medium Regional 2378700 5774200 500 Wilberforce River 500 m contour

(continued...) Significant salmon spawning sites as identified by Unwin (2006).

Significance Downstream coordinates Upstream coordinates Upstream Catchment Site name Downstream location Upstream location Fishery Habitat Overall East North East North altitude Rakaia Hennah Stream regional high Regional 2391800 5769300 2391300 5771300 Ryton confluence Lake Evelyn outlet Rakaia Mellish Stream local high Local 2365600 5747000 2366480 5746020 Lake Heron 4WD track ~1.5 km upstream Ashburton Ashburton River S Branch local high Local 2407500 5701600 2392100 5717700 North Branch confluence Bowyers Stream confluence Ashburton Bowyers Stream local high Local 2389900 5720300 2384100 5727600 280 m contour Mill Creek confluence Ashburton Maori Lakes outflow local high Local 2362600 5733000 2363000 5735200 Ashburton confluence Maori Lakes outlet Rangitata Deep Stream (Mesopotamia) national high National 2346400 5724100 470 Rangitata confluence 470 m contour Rangitata Deep Creek (Mt Potts) national high National 2341400 5733900 530 Rangitata confluence 530 m contour Rangitata Brabazon Fan national medium Regional 2341200 5731200 500 Rangitata confluence 500 m contour Rangitata Black Mountain Stream national medium Regional 2334800 5737900 580 Rangitata confluence 580 m contour Rangitata Ealing Springs national low Local 2382400 5683100 2380440 5684860 Rangitata confluence 140 m contour Rangitata McKinnons Creek national high National 2389300 5670200 40 Rangitata confluence 40 m contour Orari Orari River local high Local 2382800 5661700 2377690 5667910 Orari River mouth. Orari River at Badham Bridge Orari Ohapi Creek local high Local 2382400 5661600 2376230 5664450 20 Orari confluence Guild Road / 20 m contour Opihi Opihi River regional high Regional 2375300 5659080 2336590 5676760 Temuka River confluence Fairlie (SH 79 bridge) Opihi Temuka River regional high Regional 2375200 5659300 2371400 5663400 Opihi confluence Ford at Oxford Crossing Road Opihi Waihi River regional high Regional 2371400 5663400 2371330 5670940 Oxford Crossing Road Beeby Road ford Opihi Opuha River gorge regional medium Local 2348200 5678900 2341200 5685800 Skipton Bridge Approximately 1.5 km below dam Opihi Tengawai River regional high Regional 2361000 5660600 2340600 5662200 Opihi confluence Albury Waitaki Waitaki River (Waitaki Dam–SH1) national high National 2359930 5584825 2306060 5610005 SH1 Waitaki Dam Waitaki Hakataramea River national high National 2310720 5605510 2325540 5630640 Waitaki confluence Cattle Creek Waitaki Larch Stream local high Local 2258100 5670000 540 Hopkins confluence 540 m contour Waitaki Stockyard Creek local high Local 2259800 5675140 555 Hopkins confluence Just below 560 m contour Waitaki Ohau tributary 1 local high Local 2286290 5647710 2285530 5648560 Lake Benmore Ponds beside Ohau C Waitaki Ohau tributary 2 local high Local 2280540 5652770 2278250 5654180 Ohau confluence Below power lines

Page 37 of 77

Appendix 4

Significant salmon spawning sites proposed for inclusion in Schedule 17 of the LWRP. Included are 32 existing sites (not highlighted) and 31 proposed new sites (highlighted in green). The site descriptions and coordinates for some existing sites have been amended to more accurately describe the site location (proposed amendments are underlined). The map references for all sites (existing and proposed) have been updated to the New Zealand transverse Mercator Projection (NZTM)) coordinate system.

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Approximately 2km above Henry River St James Walkway Bridge 1562940 5311470 1558765 5311575 Anne River

Approximately 15.3km Waiau River - Confluence of Ada River upstream Waiau River from 1567700 5314500 1572175 5328155 headwaters with Waiau River confluence with Ada River

Waiau Uwha Approximately 2.7 1 km upstream Matagouri Matagouri Point Confluence of Matagouri Stream from confluence 1569000 5319400 1569750 5319260 Stream Stream with Waiau River with Waiau River at 790 m contour

Confluence of Boyle River Hope River Headwaters of Kiwi Stream 1551745 5283405 1536960 5275325 and Hope River

Hurunui North Branch Lake Sumner Camp Stream confluence 1531400 5272400 1515700 5271500 Hurunui Landslip Stream Confluence of Landslip 620m contour 1521930 5272855 620 m 620 m Stream with North Branch

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing Hurunui River (just below Matagouri Point)

Stream confluence at 780 Hurunui South Branch North Esk River confluence 1537500 5259770 1519320 5265645 m contour

Confluence of Homestead Homestead Creek Creek with the Hurunui 700 m contour 1534835 5261015 1531500 5263100 River South Branch

Three river confluence with Kaiapoi Approx. 600 m upstream if Ohoka Stream and Cust 1570400 5197600 1565800 5192800 River/Silverstream Heywards Road Main Drain

Former hut site near Winding Creek confluence with unnamed Lake Pearson outflow 1504620 5220655 1501275 5224955 stream Waimakariri Confluence with Poulter Near confluence with Poulter River 1509800 5244800 1502400 5255000 River East Branch Minchin Stream

Confluence with Poulter Approximately 600 m Poulter Spring Creek 1 1508600 5248300 1507800 5250000 River contour

Poulter Spring Creek 2 Confluence with Poulter Upstream of 600 m contour 1508100 5250500 600 m 600 m and 3 River

Page 39 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Top of first braided section, Confluence with Poulter Thompson Stream approx. 600 m downstream 1505900 5255100 1507700 5257500 River of Morrison Stream

Cass Hill Stream Confluence with 500 m contour 1506800 5230900 1502450 5235465 (Bullock Creek) Waimakariri River

Confluence with One Tree Swamp 540 m contour 1496800 5238300 540 m 540 m Waimakariri River

Confluence with Cora-Lynn Stream 580 m contour 1494000 5235900 580 m 580 m Waimakariri River

Confluence with Camp Bottom of gorge at approx. Pūkio Stream 1521485 5243440 1519785 5247970 Stream 830 m contour

Cox River/Poulter Confluence with Approx. 500 m downstream 1509800 5244800 1515900 5260095 River East Branch Waimakariri River of Ellis Stream confluence

Otukaikino Creek and Confluence with Issacs Hatchery 1571295 5192889 1562410 5186951 tributaries Waimakariri River

Heathcote River - mid Heathcote/Opawaho Colombo Street Cracroft 1570700 5176800 1568715 5174875 reaches

Top of Glenariffe Stream Confluence of Glenariffe (approx. 4.8 3.5 km from 1468100 5203400 1462800 5204400 Rakaia Glenariffe Stream Stream with Rakaia Double confluence with Double Hill Hill Stream 1466015 5202745 1463140 5203025 Stream)

Page 40 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Approximately 3.6 5.5 km upstream Double Hill Confluence of Double Hill Stream from Double Hill Double Hill Stream 1468230 5203440 450480 m 450480 m Stream with Rakaia River Run Road Bridge of confluence with Glenariffe Stream

Confluence with Rakaia Rakaia Spring 1 Approx. 440 m contour 1467729 5203960 440 m 440 m River

Confluence of Manuka Manuka Point Stream Point Stream and Rakaia 540 m contour 1457900 5206400 540 m 540 m River

Hydra Waters, Titan Confluence of Titan Stream Stream, Chimera 480 m contour 1467100 5206800 480 m 480 m with Rakaia River Stream

Confluence of Montrose Approximately 300 m Montrose Creek 1487640 5184615 1487000 5185400 Creek with Rakaia River contour

Approximately 11 km upstream Ryton River from Entrance of Ryton River entrance to Lake Coleridge 1483100 5208500 Ryton River 1480285 5206150 into Lake Coleridge 1.8 km upstream of 1484430 5212865 confluence with Monckburn

Page 41 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Confluence with Goat Hill 500 m contour 1468710 5212450 500 m 500 m Wilberforce River

Confluence of Hennah Exit of Hennah Stream from Hennah Stream 1481765 5207515 1481300 5209700 Stream with Ryton River Lake Evelyn

Inlet of Mellish Stream to 4WD track 1.5 km Mellish Stream 1455630 5185360 1456565 5184410 Harrisons Bight, Lake Heron upstream

Confluence with South Spring Creek Walkhams Road 1489400 5150800 1491600 5147800 Branch Ashburton River

Confluence with South Ashburton Bowyers Stream The Mill Creek confluence 1482100 5156100 1474100 5165800 Branch Ashburton River

Confluence with South Maori Lakes outflow Maori Lakes Outlet 1452600 5171400 1453040 5173610 Branch Ashburton River

Approximately 500 m downstream Scour Stream Deep Stream Complex Confluence of Scour Stream from Rangitata Gorge Road 1436400 5162500 470 m 470 m - Mesopotamia with Rangitata River crossing to the 470 m Rangitata contour

Deep Creek complex - Confluence of Deep Creek Approximately 2.3 km 1431535 5172040 530540 m 530540 m Mt Potts complex with Rangitata south west of Rabbit Hill to River (approximately 3 km the 500 m contour 2 km

Page 42 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing west of Potts Road Bridge northwest of Mount over Potts River) Sunday

Unnamed tributaries of the Confluence with the Brabazon Fan Rangitata River to the 500 1431200 5169600 500 m 500 m Rangitata River m contour

Unnamed tributaries of the Black Mountain Confluence with the Rangitata River to the 580 1425110 5175955 580 m 580 m Stream Rangitata River m contour

Unnamed tributaries of the Confluence with the Ealing Springs Rangitata River to the 140 1472400 5121500 1470350 5123515 Rangitata River m contour

Unnamed tributary of the Confluence with the Rangitata River known as McKinnons Creek 1479300 5108600 40 m 40 m Rangitata River McKinnons Creek to the 40 m contour

Orari River - Lower Orari River at Badham Orari River mouth 1472920 5100010 1467700 5106300 Section Bridge

1466200 5102800 Orari Ohapi South, Middle and Ohapi Creek Confluence with the mouth North Branches at Guild Rd 1472400 5100000 1466300 5102900 North, South & of the Orari River Milford / 20 m contour Branch Middle Branches Clandeboye Rd 1468100 5100900 1467700 5104400 headwaters 1464100 5111300

Page 43 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing 1463590 5108030 1464100 5109745

Opihi River Temuka River confluence Fairlie at SH79 1465360 5097340 1426640 5115150

Confluence of Temuka River with Opihi River Ford at Oxford Crossing Temuka River (Approximately 3.5 km 1465360 5097340 1461400 5101800 Road downstream of SH1 Bridge over Opihi River)

Oxford Crossing Road 1461400 5101800 Waihi River Confluence with Temuka Beeby Road ford 1461390 5109335 Opihi River 1461435 5101520

Skipton (SH79 Bridge over Approximately 1.5 km Opuha River Gorge 1438210 5117235 1431615 5124305 Opuha River) below dam

Confluence of Tengawai River with Opihi River (Approximately 800 m Tengawai River Albury 1451400 5098670 1430680 5100545 upstream of Waitohi Pleasant Point Road over Opihi River)

Waitaki Lower Waitaki River SH1 Bridge Waitaki Dam 1450000 5023200 1396200 5048600

Page 44 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Confluence of Hakataramea Hakataramea River Cattle Creek confluence 1400800 5043900 1415600 5069000 River with Waitaki River

Larch Stream Hopkins confluence 540 m contour 1348100 5108400 540 m 540 m

Stockyard Creek Hopkins confluence 555 m contour 1349800 5113500 555 m 555 m

Ohau Tributary 1 Lake Benmore Ohau River Just below 560 m contour 1376300 5086100 1375500 5087000 (Mint Stream) confluence Below Old Iron Bridge Road 1370680 5091040 1368060 5092470

Ohau Tributary 2 Ohau confluence Lake 1370500 5091200 1368200 5092600 Ponds beside Ohau C Canal (Ohau C Stream) Benmore 1376440 5086050 1375500 5087000

Lower Ohau River Lake Benmore Below Ruataniwha Dam 1376900 5086000 1368000 5092100

Upper Ohau River Lake Ruataniwha Lake Ohau 1363255 5093635 1355800 5092000

Falstone Creek Lake Benmore Falstone Road 1376900 5080250 1376600 5080100

Confluence with L. Otematata River Clear Stream confluence 1378200 5057600 1375300 5048700 Aviemore

Confluence with Lower Twizel River Pukaki Canal 1375640 5087420 1368760 5100752 Ohau

Confluence with Twizel Fraser Stream Wetland 1368600 5096400 1363100 5099200 River

Page 45 of 77

Map reference (NZTM2000 or Topo50 map contour line) River, stream or Downstream location Upstream location River Catchment Downstream Upstream reach name description description Easting Northing Easting Northing

Confluence with Tekapo Mackenzie River Grays River 1387480 5096900 1400320 5104430 River Confluence

Confluence with Tekapo Confluence downstream of Mary Burn 1385800 5096000 1384155 5112070 River wetland

Confluence with L. Shepherds Creek 400 m contour line 1376910 5074050 400 m 400 m Benmore

Glentanner Stream Confluence with L. Pukaki 540 m contour line 1369665 5134430 1369000 5135800

Page 46 of 77

Appendix 5

Maps of new salmon spawning reaches proposed for inclusion in Schedule 17 of Land and Water Regional Plan.

Waiau catchment – Hope River and Kiwi River

Page 48 of 77

Hurunui catchment – Hurunui River North Branch

Page 49 of 77

Hurunui catchment – Landslip Stream

Page 50 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Kaiapoi River / Silverstream

Page 51 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Winding Creek

Page 52 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Poulter River

Page 53 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Poulter Spring Creek 1 and Poulter Spring Creek 2 and 3

Page 54 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Thompson Stream

Page 55 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Cass Hill Stream (Bullock Creek)

Page 56 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – One Tree Swamp

Page 57 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Cora-Lynn Stream

Page 58 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Pūkio Stream

Page 59 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Cox River / Poulter River East Branch in Gorge

Page 60 of 77

Waimakariri catchment – Otukaikino Creek and tributaries

Page 61 of 77

Heathcote-Opāwāho catchment – Heathcote River – mid reaches

Page 62 of 77

Rakaia catchment – Montrose Creek

Page 63 of 77

Rakaia catchment – Double Hill Stream, Glenariffe Stream, and Rakaia Spring 1

Page 64 of 77

Ashburton catchment – Spring Creek

Page 65 of 77

Ashburton catchment – Bowyers Stream

Page 66 of 77

Ashburton catchment – Maori Lakes outflow

Page 67 of 77

Orari catchment – Ohapi Creek North, South and Middle Branches

Page 68 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Lower Ohau River

Page 69 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Upper Ohau River

Page 70 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Falstone Creek

Page 71 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Otematata River

Page 72 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Twizel River and Fraser Stream

Page 73 of 77

Waitaki catchment –Grays River and Mary Burn

Page 74 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Shepherds Creek

Page 75 of 77

Waitaki catchment – Glentanner Stream

Page 76 of 77

Appendix 6

Annual count data for spawning salmon redds in the Ashburton/Hakatere catchment (provided by North Canterbury Fish and Game)

Maori Lakes Year Bowyers Stream Spring Creek Notes outlet 1962 - - - Recorded in Acclimatisation annual report that there were salmon present in fair numbers 1973 12 n/s n/s 1974 19 n/s n/s 1975 23 n/s n/s 1976 57 n/s n/s 1977 22 n/s n/s 1978 n/s n/s n/s 1979 16 15 n/s 1980 n/s 4 n/s 1981 n/s 6 6 1982 3 10 0 1983 35 0 2 1984 23 3 24 1985 4 2 2 1986 14 30 10 1987 3 4 4 1988 n/s 8 3 1989 n/s 8 n/s 1990 n/s 2 n/s 1991 n/s 1 n/s 1992 n/s n/s n/s 1993 n/s 4 n/s 1994 n/s 9 n/s 1995 n/s 0 n/s 1996 25 7 n/s 1997 43 4 n/s 1998 2 0 n/s 1999 34 21 n/s 2000 36 15 n/s 2001 0 0 n/s 2002 47 0 n/s 2003 - 0 n/s 2004 - n/s n/s 2005 53 0 n/s 2006 12 0 n/s 2007 1 2 n/s Bowyers had a recent fresh making redds hard to see. 10 live fish observed late april along with 30- 2008 2 0 n/s 40 redds 2009 n/s 0 5 Large floods in late May and high flows continued to June 2010 n/s 0 n/s 2011 2 2 4 Small flood mid-late May probably made spotting early redds difficult. 2012 35 2 15 2013 Flood 6 12 2014 Flood 5 48 2015 6 1 8 2016 2 0 3 Instream works from siphon to Taylors has likely damaged salmon spawning redds in spawning 2017 8 0 n/s season so number is probably an underestimate. 2 salmon carcasses found - 1 old, 1 fresh. 2018 3 2 n/s Recent flood events made it hard to detect redds Minimum 0 0 0 Maximum 57 30 48 n/s = not sampled Median 14 2 5 Average 19 5 10