Canterbury water quality monitoring for contact recreation

Transcription

1

2 Canterbury water quality monitoring for contact recreation Annual Summary Report 2016/17 Report No. R17/43 ISBN (print) (web) Jarred Arthur Lesley Bolton-Ritchie Sian Barbour November 2017

3 Prepared by : Reviewed by : External review by: Approved by: Name Date Jarred Arthur; Lesley Bolton-Ritchie; Sian Barbour Surface Water Scientists Michele Stevenson Senior Ecology Scientist Matt Willoughby Community and Public Health Stefanie Rixecker Director Science Group 1/10/ /10/ /10/ /11/2017 Report No. R17/43 ISBN (print) (web) 200 Tuam Street PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Phone (03) Fax (03) Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940 Phone (03) Fax (03) Website: Customer Services Phone

4 Executive summary Environment Canterbury s recreational water quality programme monitors Canterbury s key contact recreation sites for faecal bacteria and benthic cyanobacteria cover. The presence of Escherichia coli and enterococci indicate the increased risk of pathogen presence in waters. These pathogens are detrimental for human health and can cause bathers to become ill. Benthic cyanobacteria grow on the beds of streams and rivers and can produce neurotoxins that are also harmful to humans and other animals. Planktonic cyanobacteria float in lake waters and can also produce neurotoxins that are harmful to animals, including humans. The monitoring programme follows the national microbiological water quality guidelines for marine and freshwater recreational areas (MfE & MoH, 2003) and the interim national guidelines for cyanobacteria in recreational freshwaters (MfE & MoH, 2009). Freshwater (stream, river and lake) and coastal (beach, bay and estuary) water sampling, and benthic cyanobacteria cover surveys, are conducted weekly between mid-november and early-march each year. Monthly water samples from selected lake sites are tested for phytoplankton throughout the year, with monitoring frequency increasing if alert and action trigger levels for cyanobacteria are exceeded. Weekly monitoring results are displayed via online media, and at-risk results are publicly notified by Community and Public Health as warnings. Five years worth of microbiological monitoring results, as well as an assessment of potential contamination risk from the surrounding catchment, contributes to an assessment matrix for determining a site s Suitability for Recreation Grade (SFRG). Sites are graded on a 5-point scale from very poor to very good. Sites with SFRGs of very poor or poor are considered unsuitable for primary contact recreation. Warning signs that recommend against swimming are erected and managed at these sites by territorial local authorities. Signage is also put in place at stream, river and lake sites that commonly experience cyanobacteria blooms over the summer. Faecal indicator bacteria, for the purpose of determining safe shellfish consumption, is monitored weekly at eight of the coastal recreation sites. The 2016/17 recreational monitoring results suggest which SFRGs should be adopted at Canterbury s recreational sites for the following 2017/18 summer bathing season. In total, 76% of freshwater sites, and 93% of coastal sites, are graded as being generally suitable for contact recreation (i.e. a grade of fair or better). A higher proportion of lake sites are graded as fair to very good (89%) than river sites (69%). Overall there has been an improvement in grades with the proportion of sites considered suitable for swimming increasing from 68% in 2015/16 to 76% in 2016/17. The majority of sites that are not recommended for primary contact recreation are located in the lower reaches of river catchments where high land use intensity, and in some cases large bird populations or unrestricted stock access, exist. All coastal beach, bay and harbour recreation sites have a SFRG of good or very good. The only coastal sites that are considered unsuitable for swimming are located in the Avon-Heathcote Estuary / Ihutai, which has a heavily developed urban catchment. Three out of eight monitoring sites exceeded guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Benthic cyanobacteria blooms were sporadic over the 2016/17 summer with 22 monitoring sites exceeding the MfE & MoH (2003) Action mode guideline for bed cover. Sites in the Timaru District were particularly affected, including 13 sites in the Opihi catchment. Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora and Lake Forsyth / Wairewa experienced prolonged planktonic blooms. Public warnings were issued for all river and lake blooms by Community and Public Health. Environment Canterbury Technical Report i

5 ii Environment Canterbury Technical Report

6 Table of contents Executive summary... i 1 Introduction and background Methods Microbiological water quality for recreation 2016/ National guidelines for recreational water quality Sampling sites Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC) Microbiological Assessment Category (MAC) Rainfall affected data Alert response framework Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) Monitoring for safe shellfish consumption Freshwater cyanobacteria monitoring 2016/ National guidelines Sampling sites Cyanobacteria monitoring and alert response framework Targeted investigations Catchment contamination investigations Faecal source tracking Results from the 2016/17 season Microbiological water quality Sanitary inspection categories (SICs) Microbiological results Freshwater Coastal Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) Freshwater Coastal Cyanobacteria monitoring and warnings Streams and rivers Lakes Summary Communication and notification Protocols and organisational coordination Land, Air, Water, Aotearoa (LAWA) Recommendations for 2017/ Monitoring site selection Warning signage Freshwater Coastal References Environment Canterbury Technical Report iii

7 Appendix 1: Description of Suitability for Recreation Grades Appendix 2: District summaries List of Figures Figure 2-1: Figure 3-1: Figure 3-2: Figure 3-3: Figure 3-4: Figure 3-5: Map of contact recreation sites monitored for microbiological water quality (E. coli and Enterococci) and cyanobacteria in Canterbury Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at all monitored freshwater sites in Canterbury Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at monitored lake (left), and stream and river (right) sites in Canterbury Percentage of freshwater sites considered suitable for contact recreation (i.e. sites graded as fair or better) at the conclusion of subsequent bathing seasons (2007/ /17) Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at monitored coastal sites in Canterbury Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at all monitored recreational water quality sites in Canterbury List of Tables Table 2-1: Table 2-2: Table 2-3: Table 2-4: Table 3-1: Table 3-2: Table 3-3: Table 3-4: Table 3-5: Table 3-6: Table 3-7: Table 3-8: Response modes for sampling results during the summer monitoring period (MfE & MoH, 2003)... 5 Suitability for Recreation Grading (SFRG) matrix for freshwater and marine sites adapted from MfE & MoH (2003)... 6 Alert-level framework adopted for the monitoring of and response to benthic cyanobacteria in Canterbury streams and rivers... 8 Alert-level framework adopted for the monitoring of and response to planktonic cyanobacteria in Canterbury lakes Summary of changes to Sanitary Inspection Categories (SICs) at freshwater recreation sites in Canterbury Summary of annual E. coli concentrations over the past five years at freshwater recreational sites in Canterbury /17 enterococci and E. coli concentrations above the MoH & MfE (2003) Alert and Action (red) trigger values for coastal bathing sites in Canterbury Faecal coliform concentrations at eight shellfish gathering sites between November and March 2016/ Summary of SICs, MACs, and recommended SFRGs for 2017/18 at freshwater sites in Canterbury Summary of SICs, MACs, and recommended SFRGs for 2017/18 at coastal sites in Canterbury Canterbury river sites where warnings for potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria were issued over the 2016/17 summer Warnings issued for potentially toxic planktonic cyanobacteria in Te Wairewa/Lake Forsyth and Pegasus Lake over the 2016/17 summer iv Environment Canterbury Technical Report

8 1 Introduction and background Pathogens in waterways can cause humans to become ill, especially when water is ingested during primary contact recreational activities such as swimming. Environment Canterbury s recreational water quality programme monitors and tests Canterbury s key recreational sites for bacteria that may indicate the presence of these harmful pathogens. The programme follows the national microbiological water quality guidelines for marine and freshwater recreational areas (MfE & MoH, 2003) 1, and involves the weekly collection of water samples between mid-november and the beginning of March. Microbiological monitoring results are then reported on Environment Canterbury s website, which is updated daily during the summer with any new information. This information is also passed onto Public Health agencies and Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs) at the end of each bathing season, or as soon as possible in the event that any faecal indicator bacteria concentrations become exceedingly and unacceptably high in regards to the guidelines for protecting human health. Cyanobacteria blooms in rivers and lakes can also pose a risk to human and animal health due the production of cyanotoxins. Cyanobacteria monitoring in Canterbury complies with the interim national guidelines for cyanobacteria in recreational freshwaters (MfE & MoH, 2009). Environment Canterbury has monitored phytoplankton (free-floating algae, including cyanobacteria) in lowland lakes for many years, but benthic cyanobacteria (which grow as mats on river stones) monitoring in rivers is a relatively recent occurrence having only been formally observed and recorded since 2007 (when the first dog deaths linked to toxin poisoning occurred in the region). Since the summer of 2010/11, Environment Canterbury, in collaboration with Public Health agencies and TLAs, has implemented monitoring and response protocols in accordance with the interim national guidelines. Surveillance monitoring occurs weekly over summer as bankside observations, but more intensive instream surveys are conducted if large cyanobacteria blooms occur. This summary report presents the results from the 2016/17 microbiological water quality monitoring for contact recreation programme, and summarises the warnings that were issued for potentially toxic cyanobacteria blooms in rivers and lakes during the bathing season. It covers the following aspects. Summaries of the national microbiological water quality and cyanobacteria guidelines for recreational health Sampling methods for the 2016/17 monitoring season Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC) assessment results Microbiological water quality sampling results for the 2016/17 bathing season Suitability for Recreation Grade (SFRG) assessment results River (benthic) and lake (planktonic) warnings for cyanobacteria over the 2016/17 season Summary of collaborative process between organisations and public communication Recommendations for the upcoming 2017/18 bathing season 1 Microbiological water quality results, and the way they are interpreted, are reported exclusively according to the MfE & MoH (2003) guideline. This excludes any interpretation of results according to attribute states in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (MfE, 2017) Environment Canterbury Technical Report 1

9 2 Methods 2.1 Microbiological water quality for recreation 2016/ National guidelines for recreational water quality Canterbury s recreational water quality monitoring programme follows national guidance provided by the Microbiological water quality guidelines for marine and freshwater recreational areas 2 (MfE & MoH, 2003). These guidelines address the microbiological quality of waterbodies, and any associated health risks to recreational water users, by outlining sampling and notification response protocols that are dependent on the results of weekly microbial sampling (Table 2-1). They also use a qualitative risk grading of a catchment (Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC)) supported by the direct measurement of appropriate faecal indicators (Microbiological Assessment Category (MAC)) to assess a bathing site s suitability for contact recreation. These two components combine to form an assessment matrix for assigning a site an overall Suitability for Recreation Grade (SFRG) (Table 2-2). Escherichia coli (E. coli) is used as the faecal indicator for freshwater sites, whereas enterococci is generally used at marine sites. Both E. coli and enterococci are measured in brackish waters (e.g., coastal lagoons) as either can persist in waters at high concentrations and fluctuate due to changing environmental conditions caused by events such as river mouth opening and closings Sampling sites Faecal indicator bacteria concentrations are monitored at 52 freshwater and 46 coastal sites throughout Canterbury (Figure 2-1). Monitoring sites generally remain consistent between sampling seasons, however in 2016/17 the site locations on the Waimakariri River were changed from those sampled during the previous summer. The Waimakariri River at Reids Reserve has become increasingly dangerous due to physical changes in the braided river bed characteristics at the site. The site is now considered unsuitable for swimming because it now has deep and swift flows. The monitoring site at Reid s Reserve has been relocated from the northern side of the river to the nearby Rock Spur site on the southern side. The second Waimakariri River site to be removed from routine recreational water quality sampling is at Stewarts Gully. The decision to remove this site was made by Environment Canterbury (in consultation with Community and Public Health (CPH) and Christchurch City Council (CCC)) due to the prioritisation of staff time and resources for sampling near the terminus of Thompsons Road (also known locally as The Willows ). The Waimakariri River at Thompsons Road has gained increasing popularity amongst recreational bathers. Its adoption as a sampling site offers an increased spatial representation of recreational water quality monitoring in the Waimakariri River given its location is situated upstream of the McLeans Island recreation area. 2 See the guidelines online at for full details on the recreational water quality monitoring framework including sampling methods, decision-making flowcharts, and reporting protocols. 2 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

10 Canterbury water quality monitoring for contact recreation Annual summary report 2016/17 Figure 2-1: Map of contact recreation sites monitored for microbiological water quality (E. coli and Enterococci) and cyanobacteria in Canterbury. Coastal recreation sites that are monitored for faecal coliforms, to determine health risks associated with shellfish consumption, are also included Environment Canterbury Technical Report 3

11 2.1.3 Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC) A SIC is a qualitative risk assessment of a waterbody s susceptibility to faecal contamination. The higher a SIC, the greater presence of significant contaminant sources in a catchment with potential to affect a site s microbial water quality. Full details of how SICs are generated are outlined in the MoH & MfE (2003) guidelines. A review of SICs for all freshwater sites was undertaken by Environment Canterbury staff according to national guidelines (MfE & MoH, 2003). Freshwater SICs were reassessed over the 2016/17 summer (the first time since 2011/12), while coastal SICs were reassessed in 2014/15. Staff made on-site risk assessments followed by a desktop review of potential source contributors of faecal contamination at sites. All SICs were internally peer-reviewed, finalised, and adopted for use during the assessment of individual recreation site SFRGs as detailed in Section of this report. Revised SICs will be discussed with relevant TLAs and Public Health agencies at meetings prior to the 2017/18 monitoring season Microbiological Assessment Category (MAC) The data collected over the 2016/17 summer was incorporated into each site s MAC calculation, which is based on 95 th percentile values for three to five years of weekly data. MACs were then used to determine provisional SFRGs. These grades are provisional because, according to the MfE & MoH (2003) guidelines, they are not based on a total of 100 samples collected per site. For the purpose of this report, only sites with three or four years of data are explicitly listed as being provisional. However, site SFRGs that are calculated from five years of data are also technically provisional according to the guidelines (because our monitoring programme spans a 15 week bathing season so MACs are calculated from 75 data points rather than 100). Sites with fewer than three years worth of data are considered to contain insufficient data for grading. For the 2016/17 bathing season, sampling took place between 14 November 2016 and the second week of March Each summer, a collection target of at least 15 samples per site is designated for the season. Sites were sampled by three university students who were employed by Environment Canterbury as water quality officers over the summer. Sites in the Kaikoura District were sampled by an Environment Canterbury staff member based in Kaikoura. In addition to weekly sampling, follow-up samples were collected when concentrations exceeded the Alert or Action mode guideline values (see Section 2.1.6) at sites with a SFRG of fair or better Rainfall affected data Many of Canterbury s river sites, particularly those that are sourced from the foothills and mountains, have reasonably good microbial water quality during base flows. However, moderate to intense rainfall events often increase bacterial concentrations in waterways for a short time due to increased runoff. MACs for river sites with poor grades, where rainfall is known to influence results, were calculated on a subset of data that had rainfall-affected results removed. The removal of rainfall-affected data was based on assessments of river flow data (if available), weather observations, and river condition at the time of sampling. It is assumed that people are unlikely to swim when it is raining (moderate to intense rainfall) or when the river is in flood (running high and turbid). The exclusion of data collected during these conditions allows an assessment of the water quality during times when swimming is most likely to occur. The criteria for removing rainfall-affected data aims to only remove data that match climatic/flow conditions that would deter people from swimming at a site. The criteria are: moderate to heavy rain on the day of sampling; river in flood, i.e. high flows (max. 2 days following peak flood); water turbid, i.e. still in flood. Sites that have a poor or very poor grade for the complete dataset, but a fair or better grade once rainfall-affected data have been removed, are assigned an overall grade based on a dataset with the rainfall-affected data removed. This is based on the expectation that the public will be made aware of any health risks through an informative process including signage at the site detailing the 4 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

12 risks of microbial contamination for at least 48 hours after significant rainfall. The Environment Canterbury website also includes this information for each site by using an affected by rainfall symbol on relevant maps Alert response framework Ongoing monitoring is an important component of bathing beach assessments. This is particularly important for those sites graded as good to poor, which tend to have variable water quality and contaminant risks. While the weekly monitoring results will not change the site grades during a bathing season, the data collected are important for monitoring unpredictable changes in water quality and determining if management intervention is necessary (e.g. erecting temporary warning signs). Ongoing seasonal monitoring also provides data for the reassessment of SFRGs at the end of each season. During a summer monitoring season, individual sample results are used to determine surveillance modes (Table 2-1). When a sample result exceeds the Alert (260 E. coli/100 ml) or Action (550 E. coli/100 ml) mode guideline values, the site is resampled as soon as possible. Some sites that have poor or very poor grades, and have permanent warning signage, are not resampled following a high result. The responsibility for various response actions falls to the different agencies involved (e.g., Environment Canterbury, TLAs and Public Health agencies). Prior to the start of each summer monitoring season, sampling and response protocols are established for each district between the agencies. Table 2-1: Response modes for sampling results during the summer monitoring period (MfE & MoH, 2003) Surveillance modes Single sample result Action Surveillance level (Green mode) 260 E. coli/100 ml 140 enterococci/100 ml Continue routine monitoring Alert level (Amber mode) E. coli/100 ml enterococci/100 ml Increase sampling frequency Identify and report on possible sources Action level (Red mode) > 550 E. coli/100 ml > 280 enterococci/100 ml Increase sampling Identify and report on possible sources Erect warning signs Inform public Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) A SFRG describes the general condition of a site at any given time, and the associated health risks that water quality at a site may pose to humans. It is calculated using an assessment matrix (Table 2-2) using two components: Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC); and, Microbiological Assessment Category (MAC). The risk of becoming sick from swimming increases progressively from sites graded as very good to very poor. Sites graded as very good, good and fair are considered suitable for contact recreation, although good and fair sites may at times not be suitable (e.g. after heavy rainfall resulting in high bacterial counts). Sites graded as poor and very poor are generally considered unsuitable for contact recreation. Public notification of this via permanent signage at sites and through the media is recommended (see Section 4). Appendix 1 provides a summary of what each of the grades means based on the MfE & MoH (2003) guidelines. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 5

13 Table 2-2: Suitability for Recreation Grading (SFRG) matrix for freshwater and marine sites adapted from MfE & MoH (2003) Microbiological Assessment Category (MAC) (95 th percentile of 5 years data) A B C D Freshwater 130 E. coli/100 ml E. coli/100 ml E. coli/100 ml >550 E. coli/100 ml Marine 40 enterococci/100 ml enterococci/100 ml enterococci/100 ml >500 enterococci/100 ml Very low Very good Very good Follow-up* Follow-up* Sanitary Low Very good Good Fair Follow-up* Inspection Moderate Follow-up* Good Fair Poor Category (SIC) High Follow-up* Follow-up* Poor Very poor Very high Follow-up* Follow-up* Follow-up* Very poor * Indicates unexpected results requiring investigation (e.g., reassess SIC and MAC) Monitoring for safe shellfish consumption Higher faecal coliform concentrations in marine waters indicate an increased risk of bacterial and viral pathogens being present. Shellfish are filter feeders and can bioaccumulate pathogens in their flesh. This presents a human health risk to those who forage and consume shellfish in our coastal waterbodies. Environment Canterbury does not routinely measure the concentration of faecal indicator organisms in shellfish flesh. Rather, faecal coliform concentrations in water overlying shellfish are used as a guide to the microbiological quality of shellfish. For shellfish to be safe for consumption, the median concentration of faecal coliforms in overlying water should not exceed 14/100 ml. The single sample concentration of 43/100 ml should not be exceeded in more than 10% of the samples (MfE & MoH, 2003). Over the 2016/17 summer faecal coliform concentrations were measured weekly at eight coastal sites (Figure 2-1). These were: Mangamaunu; Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street; Woodend Beach; Spencerville Beach; Scarborough Beach; Wainui Beach; Okains Bay Estuary; and, Rapaki Bay (Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupo). 6 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

14 2.2 Freshwater cyanobacteria monitoring 2016/ National guidelines The New Zealand Guidelines for Cyanobacteria in Recreational Fresh Waters: Interim Guidelines 3 (MfE & MoH, 2009) outlines a suggested monitoring and response framework for benthic and planktonic cyanobacteria in streams, rivers and lakes. It addresses the public health risks associated with bathing in recreational waters, but does not specifically address those associated with drinking water. The guidelines do not address the health risks that cyanobacteria has for animals (specifically dogs) that come into contact with or ingest it Sampling sites Benthic cyanobacteria (streams and rivers) monitoring takes place in all Canterbury streams and rivers where microbial water quality is monitored (Figure 2-1). Due to the potential health risks to secondary contact recreational users and animals, cyanobacteria cover is also monitored at popular secondary recreation sites (Figure 2-1). Many of these additional sites are where communities paddle, kayak, walk dogs, and fish. Most sites are monitored for cyanobacteria cover every summer, however some sites are monitored when unexpected seasonal blooms occur, or when Environment Canterbury staff become aware of areas susceptible to blooms either through notification from the public or other means. For example, 2016/17 monitoring included the Cust Main Drain after members of the public notified Environment Canterbury of potentially toxic cyanobacteria blooms. Environment Canterbury monitors planktonic cyanobacteria (lakes) in Wairewa/Lake Forsyth and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere (Figure 2-1). Todd Property Group contracts Golder Associates to monitor Lake Pegasus, who then communicate the data to Environment Canterbury for the purpose of reporting Cyanobacteria monitoring and alert response framework Cyanobacteria monitoring and response protocols for Canterbury have been formulated in a collaboration between Environment Canterbury, Public Health agencies and TLAs. Monitoring and alert procedures follow those outlined by the alert-level framework detailed in the MfE & MoH (2009) guidelines (Table 2-3). Environment Canterbury carries out surveillance monitoring at freshwater recreation sites for potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria growth weekly over summer. This involves bank side observations that assess maximum benthic cyanobacteria cover. More detailed monitoring, including instream transects, is undertaken if the specified conditions in the Alert-level framework have been triggered at a site (Table 2-3). If the Action mode is triggered by either the surveillance or Alertlevel monitoring, then response actions in the form of warning signage and media releases are initiated by the relevant Public Health agency and TLA. Information is also published on the Environment Canterbury and Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) websites and Facebook page when warnings are issued. Monitoring and response protocols for planktonic cyanobacteria in Wairewa/Lake Forsyth and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere have been established with CPH, CCC and Selwyn District Council (SDC) in accordance with the national guidelines (MfE & MoH, 2009) (Table 2-4). Cyanobacteria monitoring in Lake Pegasus follows similar procedures. Water samples are collected monthly throughout the year and the protocols outline further monitoring and response requirements if cell-count thresholds are exceeded and indicate a potential human health risk. The Alert-level framework is based on biovolume thresholds derived from both total cyanobacteria cell counts and potentially toxic cyanobacteria cell counts. The monitoring frequency is increased if either of the thresholds is exceeded. Signage, to warn the public of health risks, is erected if the Action trigger level is exceeded. A media release is also issued. 3 See the guidelines online at for full details on the cyanobacteria monitoring framework including sampling methods, decisionmaking flowcharts, and reporting protocols. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 7

15 Table 2-3: Alert-level framework adopted for the monitoring of and response to benthic cyanobacteria in Canterbury streams and rivers. As an added precaution, Environment Canterbury staff sometimes recommend warnings for sites with <20% benthic cyanobacteria cover, but with excessive amounts of detaching mats Alert Level Actions Surveillance level (Green mode) Up to 20% coverage of potentially toxic cyanobacteria attached to substrate. Alert level (Amber mode) 20-50% coverage of potentially toxic cyanobacteria attached to substrate. Action level (Red mode) Situation 1: Greater than 50% coverage of potentially toxic cyanobacteria attached to substrate. Situation 2: 20-50% where potentially toxic cyanobacteria are visibly detaching from substrate, accumulating as scums along river s edge or becoming exposed on the river s edge as the river levels drop. Undertake weekly bank-side observations between spring and autumn at representative locations in the water body where known mat proliferations occur and where there is recreational use. Notify the public health unit. Conduct quantitative transect surveys at least fortnightly. Recommend erecting an information sign that provides the public with information on the appearance of mats and the potential risks. Consider increasing the number of survey sites to enable risks to recreational users to be more accurately assessed. If toxic cyanobacteria dominate the samples, testing for cyanotoxins is advised. If cyanotoxins are detected in mats or water samples, consult the testing laboratory to determine if levels are hazardous. Immediately notify the public health unit. If toxic cyanobacteria are present in the samples, testing for cyanotoxins is advised. If cyanotoxins are detected in mats or water samples, consult the testing laboratory to determine if levels are hazardous. Notify the public of the potential risk to health this should include temporary warning signage and a media release. 8 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

16 Table 2-4: Alert-level framework adopted for the monitoring of and response to planktonic cyanobacteria in Canterbury lakes Alert Level Actions Surveillance level (Green mode) Situation 1: The cell concentration of total cyanobacteria does not exceed 500 cells/ml. Situation 2: The biovolume equivalent for the combined total of all cyanobacteria does not exceed 0.5 mm 3 /L. Alert level (Amber mode) Undertake weekly or fortnightly visual inspections and sampling of water bodies where cyanobacteria are known to proliferate between spring and autumn. Situation 1: Biovolume equivalent of 0.5 to < 1.8 mm 3 /L of potentially toxic cyanobacteria; or, Situation 2: 0.5 to < 10 mm 3 /L total biovolume of all cyanobacterial material. Increase sampling frequency to at least weekly. Notify the public health unit. Multiple sites should be inspected and sampled. Action level (Red mode) Situation 1: 12 μg/l total microcystins; or biovolume equivalent of 1.8 mm 3 /L of potentially toxic cyanobacteria; or, Situation 2: 10 mm 3 /L total biovolume of all cyanobacterial material; or, Continue monitoring as for alert (amber mode). If potentially toxic taxa are present, then consider testing samples for cyanotoxins. Notify the public of a potential risk to health. Situation 3: cyanobacterial scums consistently present. 2.3 Targeted investigations Catchment contamination investigations Two catchment-specific river investigations on contaminant sources for E. coli were conducted in 2016/17. These focused on the Hurunui River and Waihao River due to a history of periodically high faecal contamination events occurring at key recreational sites at each river. Each investigation targeted E. coli sampling on specific tributaries with an aim to narrow down any sub-catchments contributing disproportionately high loads of faecal contamination. Sampling in the Hurunui catchment focused on tributaries upstream of the State Highway 7 Bridge, while sampling in the Waihao River took place upstream of the Black Hole recreational water quality monitoring site (i.e. both in the south and north branches of the Waihao River). The results from each investigation will be presented in memorandums that were yet to be completed at the time of writing this report Faecal source tracking Faecal source tracking (FST) investigations took place over summer to determine the animal sources of faecal contaminants at key freshwater recreation sites. The recreation sites monitored were: Environment Canterbury Technical Report 9

17 Hurunui River at SH7 Hurunui River at SH1 Kaiapoi River at Boat Ramp Waimakariri River at Rock Spur Ashburton River at SH1 Waihao River at Black Hole Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird Lake Alexandrina Samples at each site were collected weekly under stable flow (i.e. low or sustained receding flow) conditions and sent to ESR (the Institute of Environmental Science and Research) for processing and storage. This involved the collection of separate 1 L and 4 L samples for PCR-marker and sterol analyses respectively. Only select samples with sufficiently high E. coli levels (i.e. those that exceeded MfE & MoH (2003) Action level guidelines or the highest concentration measured in the season) were analysed for the presence of animal source PCR-marker and sterol signatures 4. Analysis results will be summarised in an Environment Canterbury memorandum, however results are available on request from Environment Canterbury surface water quality and ecology staff 5. 3 Results from the 2016/17 season 3.1 Microbiological water quality Sanitary inspection categories (SICs) SIC assessment results for each site are included within the district summaries outlined in Appendix 2. Table 3-1 summarises the freshwater bathing sites where SIC values changed after the 2016/17 reassessment. Coastal bathing site SICs were previously reassessed in 2014/15 and did not change for the purpose of grading. Land owners permanently fenced one kilometre of the Waihi River upstream of the gorge bathing site in March This was in response to growing concerns over direct stock access to the river and its tributaries, which likely elevated E. coli levels at the recreation site in the past. As a result, the Sanitary Inspection Category (SIC) has changed at the site. The Waihi River at Geraldine is currently monitored for benthic cyanobacteria cover, but from 2017/18 onwards will also be monitored for E. coli in the township. This follows requests from the public and concerns over the health and safety of children paddling and swimming at the site. 4 For more information on FST and its associated methods, visit the ESR FST website 5 For 2016/17 FST results, contact the author jarred.arthur@ecan.govt.nz, or make a general enquiry to ecinfo@ecan.govt.nz. 10 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

18 Table 3-1: Summary of changes to Sanitary Inspection Categories (SICs) at freshwater recreation sites in Canterbury. Improvements are highlighted in green, while SICs that have degraded are highlighted in orange. Coastal sites were previously assessed in 2014/15 and therefore were not reassessed in 2016/17 Site Former SIC Revised SIC Reason Lake Rotokohatu Low Moderate Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Water craft mooring or use. Otukaikino Creek at Swimming Hole High Moderate Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Focal points of drainage as run-off from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment. Lake Hood at Main Swimming Beach Low High Elevated E. coli levels since the 2013/14 summer. Suspected to be the result of increased waterfowl numbers. Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Incidence and density of birdlife. Waihi River at Waihi Gorge High Moderate Te Moana River at Gorge Moderate Low Stock access has historically contributed to elevated E. coli concentrations. Land owners extensively fenced upstream of the site in March Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Focal points of drainage as run-off from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment. Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Potential faecal contamination by feral animals. Lake Opuha at Recreation Reserve Low Very low Low intensity agriculture, birdlife, and water craft use all likely to have minor effects on microbial water quality. Lake Tekapo at Camp Beach Low Very low Low intensity agriculture, urban stormwater, and water craft use all likely to have minor effects on microbial water quality. Lake Ruataniwha at Camping Ground Moderate Very low Low and high intensity agriculture, septic tanks, and birdlife all likely to have minor effects on microbial water quality. Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Rd (Dons Hole) High Moderate Primary factor influencing water quality changed to Focal points of drainage as run-off from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 11

19 3.1.2 Microbiological results Freshwater Table 3-2 presents seasonal median E. coli concentrations for the past five years and the percentage of samples that complied with the Action mode guideline value (<550 E. coli/100 ml) at each site. These statistics do not include the results of any follow-up sampling. Of the 34 river sites monitored in 2016/17 there were 16 river sites that had E. coli concentrations below the Action guideline value on all sampling occasions. Eight river sites had only one result greater than 550 E. coli/100 ml during the season, and five sites had no more than two exceedances. Some sites, that have been monitored for many years, had consistently high concentrations of E. coli. These sites are located on Lyell Creek/Waikōau in Kaikoura, and the Kaiapoi River in Kaiapoi. The water quality of lakes was generally better than that sampled in rivers and streams. Of the 18 lake sites sampled in 2016/17, 16 sites had E. coli concentrations below 550 E. coli / 100 ml on all sampling occasions. The remaining two lake sites (Lake Ellesmere at Lakeside Domain and Lake Hood at the main swimming beach) only exceeded the Action guideline value on a single occasion. A summary of results by district is outlined in Appendix 2 and provides further detail about specific 2016/17 season results and calculated MACs for individual sites. 12 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

20 Table 3-2: Summary of annual E. coli concentrations over the past five years at freshwater recreational sites in Canterbury Site name Median (MPN/ 100mL) 2012/ / / / /17 % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Kaikoura District Lyell Creek Lagoon % % % % % Kahutara River at SH % % % % % Hurunui District Hurunui River at SH % % % 76 87% % Hurunui River at SH % % % % 42 80% Waiau River at Waiau 27 93% % % % % Waipara River at Boys Brigade Camp % 93 93% % % % Waimakariri District Ashley River / Rakahuri at Gorge 11 93% % % % 23 93% Ashley River / Rakahuri above Rangiora-Loburn 9 93% % 5 100% % % Bridge Pegasus Lake at Motu Quay % 3 100% 4 100% Kaiapoi River (township) % % % % % Waimakariri River at Rock Spur^ % Waimakariri River at Thompsons Rd^ % Christchurch City Otukaikino Creek at swimming hole % % % % % Heathcote River at Catherine St % % % % % Avon River at Kerrs Reach % % % 32 80% 60 93% Lake Rotokohatu % % 5 93% 4 100% 3 100% Selwyn District Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Upper Huts % % % % 62 93% Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Coes Ford % % % % % Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Chamberlains Ford % % % % % Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Glentunnel % 60 80% % 58 93% % Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora at Lakeside 76 87% % 84 93% 34 93% 71 93% Domain Ashburton District Ashburton River / Hakatere at SH % % % % % Lake Hood at Bayliss Beach 4 100% % % 9 100% 9 100% Lake Hood at main swimming beach % % 51 87% 36 93% 45 93% Lake Clearwater west of huts 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 3 100% Lake Camp at beach 1 100% 2 100% % % 1 100% Environment Canterbury Technical Report 13

21 Table 3-2: (continued...) Site name Median (MPN/ 100mL) 2012/ / / / /17 % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Median (MPN/ 100mL) % <550 MPN/ 100mL Timaru District Orari River at Gorge 33 93% % % 32 93% % Waihi River at Gorge 81 87% 91 80% % 77 87% % Te Moana River at Gorge 64 87% 47 93% % % % Opihi River at Waipopo 42 93% % % % % Temuka River at SH % 91 93% % 43 93% 46 87% Opihi River at SH % % % % % Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge 81 93% 67 93% % % 57 93% Pareora River at huts 60 93% 43 80% 86 93% % % Pareora River at Evans Crossing 70 93% 49 87% % 96 93% % MacKenzie District Lake Opuha at Ewarts Corner Boatramp % % 3 100% % % Lake Opuha at Recreation Reserve 5 87% 4 100% % 1 100% 3 100% Lake Tekapo Beach 4 100% 2 100% 1 100% 3 100% 3 100% Lake Alexandrina at bottom huts 4 93% % 12 80% % 9 100% Lake Ruataniwha at camping ground 7 100% 5 100% 8 100% 3 100% 3 100% Twizel River at picnic area 59 93% 61 93% % % % Waimate District Otaio River at Gorge % % % % % Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge % 71 93% % 65 93% % Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Rd (Dons 99 80% 99 93% 89 93% 84 93% % Hole) Waihao River at Black Hole % % % % % Lake Aviemore at Waitangi % 4 100% % 6 100% 6 100% Lake Aviemore at Te Akatarawa Camp % 2 100% 5 100% 1 100% 3 100% Hakataramea River at SH % % % % % Waitaki District Lake Middleton at north end of lake 2 100% 2 100% 5 100% 3 100% 6 100% Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird 4 93% 4 100% 7 87% % % Lake Benmore at Sailors Cutting 8 100% 9 100% % % % Lake Benmore at Pumpkin Bay 4 100% 2 93% 3 100% 5 100% 4 100% % <550 MPN/100 ml is the percentage of samples with concentrations less than the MfE & MoH (2003) Action trigger value for E. coli. ^ denotes new 2016/17 monitoring sites. 14 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

22 Coastal Enterococci Over the 2016/17 season, enterococci trigger value exceedances occurred across eleven sites (Table 3-3). The concentration of enterococci in 97.8% of collected samples was below the Alert mode trigger value of 140 enterococci/100 ml. The Action mode trigger value of 280 enterococci/100 ml was exceeded in 0.9% of samples. Resampling was carried out upon the exceedance of the Alert mode trigger value at a site. The exceptions were at the Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt Pleasant Yacht Club and Humphreys Drive sites, where permanent signage warning of poor water quality is erected. The single trigger value exceedances that occurred at the four Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō sites on 12 December 2016 were attributed to a rainfall event. It was raining at the time of sampling and there had been 6 mm of rainfall in the hours preceding (based on rainfall data collected from the Lyttelton Port Company website). The single exceedances that occurred at the two Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō sites on 13 February 2017 may be attributed to the heaps of washed up seaweed on the beach (sampler comment). The single exceedance at the West Caroline Bay site (which is in proximity to the outflow of a stormwater pipe) on 7 February 2017 was attributed to rainfall. There was 11.6 mm of rain in Timaru (source NIWA, Cliflo) in the 13 hours prior to sampling at this site. The single exceedance at the Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street on 22 February coincided with an exceedance at the Mt Pleasant Yacht Club. There was no obvious weather event that caused these exceedances, however the source of the enterococci could have been river water, water fowl, dogs, stormwater, other runoff and/or stirred up seabed sediment or seaweed. The two enterococci exceedances that occurred at the Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary and Avon-Heathcote at Humphreys Drive sites coincided with E. coli exceedances. Information on the potential causes of these exceedances are described under the E. coli Section below. The two exceedances at the Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt. Pleasant Yacht Club site did not coincide with E. coli exceedances, but both exceedances are attributed to rainfall. The two exceedances at Scarborough Beach may have been the result of rainfall. E. coli E. coli concentrations were measured at Okains Bay Estuary, Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary, and five sites in the Avon-Heathcote Estuary. There were no E. coli exceedances in Okains Bay Estuary. At the Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary site, the E.coli Alert trigger value was exceeded once and the Action trigger three times (one of these resulted from a resample). Exceedances that occurred on 16 and 18 November 2016 were attributed to rainfall, while the other exceedances were not. The potential sources of E. coli for these exceedances were likely birds and/or the influence of Taranaki Creek water inflow. E. coli trigger values were exceeded at South New Brighton Park and Humphreys Drive in the Avon- Heathcote Estuary. The Alert trigger value was exceeded twice at Humphreys Drive, and the Action trigger value once. Two of these trigger value exceedances can be attributed to rainfall, while the remaining exceedance cannot. On that occasion, the source of E. coli could have been waterfowl and/or stirred up seabed sediment. At South New Brighton Park the Alert trigger value was exceeded three times. One of the exceedances occurred in a resample. Two of the trigger value exceedances can be attributed to rainfall, while the other cannot. On this occasion the source of the E. coli could have been waterfowl, stirred up sediment and/or Avon River / Ōtākaro water inflow. Faecal coliforms The guideline median concentration was exceeded at Penguin Street and Scarborough Beach. The single sample concentration of 43/100 ml was exceeded in more than 10% of the samples at Penguin Street, Scarborough Beach, Rāpaki Bay, Okains Bay Estuary and Wainui Beach. Results indicate that: shellfish from Mangamāunu, Woodend Beach and Spencerville Beach are safe to eat. shellfish from Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street, Scarborough Beach, Rāpaki Bay, Okains Bay Estuary, and Wainui Beach are not safe to eat. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 15

23 Table 3-3: 2016/17 enterococci and E. coli concentrations above the MoH & MfE (2003) Alert and Action (red) trigger values for coastal bathing sites in Canterbury Site Date sampled Enterococci (MPN/100 ml) E. coli (MPN/100 ml) 16/11/ Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary 18/11/16 (resample) /2/ /3/ /11/ Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South New Brighton Park 18/11/16 (resample) 327 1/2/ Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin St Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt. Pleasant Yacht Club Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Humphreys Drive Scarborough Beach Corsair Bay 22/2/ /11/ /2/ /1/ /2/ /2/ /12/ /1/ /12/ /2/ Rapaki Bay 12/12/ Sandy Bay 12/12/ Church Bay 13/2/ Diamond Harbour 12/12/ West Caroline Bay 7/2/ Environment Canterbury Technical Report

24 Table 3-4: Faecal coliform concentrations at eight shellfish gathering sites between November and March 2016/17. Red cells highlight median concentrations greater than 14 MPN/100 ml, and when greater than 10% of samples exceeded 43 MPN/100 ml Site Mangamaunu Woodend Beach Spencerville Beach Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street Scarborough Beach Rapaki Bay Okains Bay Estuary Wainui Beach < < < < < 1 < 1 < 1 < < 1 < < 1 17 Sample concentrations of faecal coliforms (MPN/100 ml) < < < < 10 < < < 1 20 < 1 2 < < < < 1 2 < Median (MPN/100 ml) Percentage > 43 MPN/100 ml < Environment Canterbury Technical Report 17

25 3.1.3 Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) Freshwater Overall, 76% of freshwater sites sampled over the 2016/17 summer (that had sufficient data for grading) were graded as being generally suitable for contact recreation (i.e. a grade of fair or better) (Table 3-5; Figure 3-3). Twelve sites (24%) were graded as being generally unsuitable for contact recreation (i.e. a grade of poor or very poor ). Most of these sites are located in the lower reaches of rivers where high land use intensity, and in some cases large bird populations or unrestricted stock access, can pose significant risks to recreational users. This is especially the case after rainfall events, however high concentrations of faecal indicator bacteria are also more common in lowland areas under base flow conditions. A higher proportion of lake sites were graded as fair to very good (89%) than river sites (69%) (Figure 3-2). No river site contained a SFRG of very good. Overall, the percentage of freshwater sites that are considered suitable for contact recreation has increased from 68% in 2015/16 to 76% in 2016/17. Updated SFRGs are to be forwarded to Public Health agencies and TLAs for their comment prior to the 2017/18 summer bathing season. Site grades for each district are summarised in Appendix Environment Canterbury Technical Report

26 Table 3-5: Summary of SICs, MACs, and recommended SFRGs for 2017/18 at freshwater sites in Canterbury. Highlighted SFRGs have either improved (green) or deteriorated (orange) from the previous year Site name n 95 th percentile* MAC SIC SFRG Kaikoura District Lyell Creek Lagoon D High Very poor Kahutara River at SH A Moderate Good Hurunui District Hurunui River at SH C Moderate Fair* Hurunui River at SH D Moderate Poor Waiau River at Waiau B Moderate Good (provisional) Waipara River at Boys Brigade Camp C Moderate Fair Waimakariri District Ashley River / Rakahuri at Gorge A Moderate Good* Ashley River / Rakahuri above Rangiora-Loburn Bridge C Moderate Fair Pegasus Lake at Motu Quay A Very low Very good (provisional) Kaiapoi River (township) D High Very poor Waimakariri River at Rock Spur^ Moderate Insufficient data Waimakariri River at Thompsons Rd^ Moderate Insufficient data Christchurch City Otukaikino Creek at swimming hole D Moderate Poor Heathcote River at Catherine St D High Very poor Avon River at Kerrs Reach D High Very poor Lake Rotokohatu B Moderate Good Selwyn District Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Upper Huts D High Very poor Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Coes Ford D Moderate Poor Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Chamberlains Ford B Moderate Good Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Glentunnel B Moderate Good* Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora at Lakeside Domain D Moderate Poor Ashburton District Ashburton River / Hakatere at SH D High Very poor Lake Hood at Bayliss Beach A Low Very good Lake Hood at main swimming beach D High Very poor Lake Clearwater west of huts A Very low Very good Lake Camp at beach A Very low Very good Environment Canterbury Technical Report 19

27 Table 3-5: (continued ) Site name n 95th percentile* MAC SIC SFRG Timaru District Orari River at Gorge C Moderate Fair Waihi River at Gorge C Moderate Fair* Te Moana River at Gorge C Low Fair Opihi River at Waipopo A Moderate Good Temuka River at SH C Moderate Fair* Opihi River at SH A Moderate Good Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge B Moderate Good* Pareora River at huts C Moderate Fair* Pareora River at Evans Crossing B Moderate Good* MacKenzie District Lake Opuha at Ewarts Corner Boatramp B Moderate Good Lake Opuha at Recreation Reserve B Very low Very good Lake Tekapo Beach A Very low Very good Lake Alexandrina at bottom huts C Moderate Fair Lake Ruataniwha at camping ground A Very low Very good Twizel River at picnic area A Moderate Good Waimate District Otaio River at Gorge B Moderate Good Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge B Moderate Good* Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Rd (Dons Hole) C Moderate Fair* Waihao River at Black Hole C Moderate Poor* Lake Aviemore at Waitangi C Moderate Fair Lake Aviemore at Te Akatarawa Camp A Moderate Good Hakataramea River at SH A Moderate Good Waitaki District Lake Middleton at north end of lake A Moderate Good Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird C Moderate Fair Lake Benmore at Sailors Cutting A Moderate Good Lake Benmore at Pumpkin Bay A Moderate Good n = number of samples; * rainfall adjusted where sample results collected under high flows are removed from the dataset; ^monitored but not assessed as less than three years of monitoring data. 20 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

28 Figure 3-1: Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at all monitored freshwater sites in Canterbury Lakes Streams and Rivers Figure 3-2: Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at monitored lake (left), and stream and river (right) sites in Canterbury Environment Canterbury Technical Report 21

29 Figure 3-3: Percentage of freshwater sites considered suitable for contact recreation (i.e. sites graded as fair or better) at the conclusion of subsequent bathing seasons (2007/ /17) Coastal The microbiological sampling over the 2016/17 season indicates that 93% of coastal sites are generally suitable for contact recreation (i.e. a SFRG of fair or better) (Table 3-6; Figure 3-4). The Avon- Heathcote Estuary at Humphreys Drive, South New Brighton Park and Penguin Street sites each contain a SFRG of poor and are considered unsuitable for contact recreation. Gooches Beach, Armers Beach, Scarborough Beach and West Caroline Bay all have improved SFRGs. This continues a trend of improving MAC and SFRG values at coastal sites (see SFRG tables for individual sites in Appendix 2). For example, at the conclusion of the 2013/14 summer, the proportion of SFRGs were: very good 20%; good 51%; fair 22%; and poor 7%. The improvement in the MACs and SFRGs could be a response to the three dry summers in a row. 22 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

30 Table 3-6: Summary of SICs, MACs, and recommended SFRGs for 2017/18 at coastal sites in Canterbury. Highlighted SFRGs have either improved (green) or deteriorated (orange) from the previous year Site name n 95 th percentile* MAC SIC SFRG Kaikoura District Mangamaunu A Low Very good Gooches Beach B Moderate Good Armers Beach B Moderate Good South Bay Beach A Moderate Good Peketa Beach A Moderate Good Hurunui District Gore Bay A Low Very good Motunau Beach A Low Very good Waimakariri District Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary^ Not assessed Insufficient data Waikuku Beach A Very low Very good Pegasus Beach A Very low Very good Woodend Beach A Very low Very good Pines Beach B Moderate Good Christchurch City Spencerville Beach B Very low Very good Waimairi Beach B Moderate Good New Brighton Beach A Moderate Good South Brighton at surf club A Moderate Good South Brighton at Caspian St B Moderate Good Sumner Beach B Moderate Good Scarborough Beach B Moderate Good Taylors Mistake A Low Very good Christchurch City (Avon-Heathcote Estuary) Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South New Brighton Park (E. coli) D Moderate Poor (provisional) Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street (E. coli) D Moderate Poor Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South Spit A Moderate Good Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Moncks Bay A Moderate Good Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Beachville Road A Moderate Good Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt. Pleasant Yacht Club C Moderate Fair Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Humphreys Drive (E. coli) D Moderate Poor Environment Canterbury Technical Report 23

31 Table 3-6: (continued ) Site name n 95th percentile* MAC SIC SFRG Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupo Corsair Bay B Moderate Good Cass Bay B Moderate Good Rapaki Bay B Moderate Good Sandy Bay (Governors Bay) B Moderate Good Paradise Beach A Low Very good Church Bay B Low Good Diamond Harbour Beach B Low Good Purau Bay B Low Good Banks Peninsula Okains Bay Estuary A Moderate Good Wainui Beach B Moderate Good Tikao Bay B Low Good French Farm A Low Very good Duvauchelle B Low Good Takamatua B Low Good Akaroa Main Beach B Moderate Good Glen Bay A Low Very good Timaru District West Caroline Bay B Moderate Good Caroline Bay B Moderate Good Timaru Coast Yacht Club B Very low Very good n = number of samples; * based on enterococci unless otherwise denoted as (E. coli) by site name; ^monitored but not assessed as less than three years of monitoring data. Figure 3-4: Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at monitored coastal sites in Canterbury 24 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

32 3.2 Cyanobacteria monitoring and warnings Streams and rivers Over the 2016/17 summer, there were 22 recreation sites that reached the Action mode requiring warnings to be issued due to cyanobacteria presence. Table 3-7 lists these sites, the dates when warnings were issued and removed, and the trigger criteria that were exceeded. In all cases media releases were issued by CPH to advise the public of the health risks to humans and animals (particularly dogs) from contact with potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria mats. As an added precaution, health warnings were sometimes issued when the percentage cover of potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria mats was below the Green Mode threshold (20 percent), but had an excessive amount of detaching mats. Table 3-7: Canterbury river sites where warnings for potentially toxic benthic cyanobacteria were issued over the 2016/17 summer. Sites denoted as warning removed N/A had active warnings at the end of the recreational water quality monitoring season. As an added precaution, warnings for sites with <20% benthic cyanobacteria, but with excessive detaching mats, were also issued Site Warning Date Reason Hurunui District Hurunui River at SH7 Hurunui River at SH1 Waimakariri District Cust Main Drain at Skewbridge Rd Selwyn District Selwyn River at Glentunnel Selwyn River at Whitecliffs Domain Alert 28/12/ % algae present Action 10/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed N/A >20% algae present at end of season Action 11/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 20/02/2017 <20% algae present Action 08/02/ % algae present Warning removed N/A >20% algae at end of season Action 22/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed N/A >20% algae at end of season Action 17/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 24/03/2017 <20% algae present Environment Canterbury Technical Report 25

33 Table 3-7: (continued ) Site Warning Date Reason Timaru District Pareora River at Huts Pareora River at SH1 Opihi River at Waipopo Opihi River at SH1 Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge Opihi River at Raincliff Bridge Opihi River at Fairlie Opihi River at Rockwood Opihi River upstream of Seddons Rd Ford Opihi River at SH8 Bridge Waihi River at Gorge Waihi River 500m downstream SH72 (Geraldine) Tengawai River at Tengawai Bridge Tengawai River at Oneils Rd Tengawai River at SH8 (Albury) Action 18/01/ % algae present, but detaching mats Warning removed 14/02/2017 <20% algae present Alert 24/11/ % algae present Action 2/12/ % algae present Warning removed 06/01/2017 <20% algae present Action 30/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Action 30/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Action 04/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Action 16/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Action 07/03/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Action 16/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed N/A Alert 16/02/ % algae present Warning removed N/A Alert 16/02/ % algae present Warning removed N/A Action 02/03/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Alert 17/02/ % algae present, some detaching mats Action 22/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed N/A 20% algae present on 17/03/17 to move site to Alert status, but no measures <20% Action 04/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 17/03/2017 <20% algae present Alert 16/02/ % algae present Warning removed N/A Alert 16/02/ % algae present Warning removed N/A Waitaki District Hakataramea at State Highway Bridge Action 10/01/ % algae present, detaching mats Warning removed 31/01/2017 <20% algae present Waimate District Waihao River at Bradshaws Road Action 07/02/ % algae present, detaching mats Alert 21/02/2017 <20% algae present, but detaching mats Warning removed N/A Detaching mats at end of season 26 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

34 3.2.2 Lakes There were public health warnings issued for both Wairewa/Lake Forsyth and Pegasus Lake over the 2016/17 summer (Table 3-8). Wairewa/Lake Forsyth experienced an Anabaena bloom from mid- to late- January 2017 until the end of March. A health risk warning was issued by the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) when an Anabaena bloom took place in Lake Pegasus in early February This health warning was removed by mid-april. As with the previous season, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere did not have a major ongoing Anabaena or Nodularia bloom this season. However, concentrations of potentially toxic picocyanobacteria remained greater than the 1.8 mm 3 /L threshold, and health warnings continue to be active. It is unknown whether picocyanobacteria pose any health risk from contact with lake water, however they are treated as potentially toxic due to their unknown toxicity levels. Environment Canterbury monitors Mata Kopae/St Annes Lagoon near Cheviot quarterly by helicopter after prolonged Anabaena blooms occurred in Permanent signs at this site inform the public of the potential health risks associated with cyanobacterial blooms in the lagoon. Lake Rotorua, near Kaikoura, is monitored quarterly and has consistent blooms of Anabaena and Microcystis. There is information about this on the Environment Canterbury website and signage at the access point to the lake warning of the public health risk associated with coming into contact with the lake water. Table 3-8: Warnings issued for potentially toxic planktonic cyanobacteria in Te Wairewa/Lake Forsyth and Pegasus Lake over the 2016/17 summer. An ongoing health warning has continued for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere Status Action Date Reason Te Wairewa/Lake Forsyth Action trigger first exceeded 17/01/2017 Visible cyanobacterial scums. Confirmed by lab analysis Anabaena/Dolichospermum cf. lemmermannii > 1.8 mm 3 /L Notified CPH & CCC 17/01/2017 CDHB media release 18/01/2017 Consecutive results below Action mode Lake Pegasus 27/03/2017* Notified CPH & CCC 10/05/2017 CDHB media release 10/05/2017 Anabaena < 1.8 mm 3 /L. Lab results delayed by approx 6 weeks Action trigger first exceeded 7/02/2017* Anabaena > 1.8 mm 3 /L Notified CPH & WDC 14/02/2017 CDHB media release 14/02/2017 Consecutive results below Action mode 20/03/2017 Visible signs of cyanobacteria absent 21/04/2017 Notified CPH & WDC 26/04/2017 CDHB media release 26/04/2017 * Note that these are sampling dates and results are received from the lab 5-10 working days later Warning remained in place due to presence of visible cyanobacteria in lake (Golder observations) Environment Canterbury Technical Report 27

35 3.3 Summary Recreational water quality sampling has found that the majority of Canterbury s monitored freshwater and coastal monitoring sites are suitable for primary contact recreation according to the MfE & MoH (2003) guidelines (Figure 3-5). Overall, 82 percent of sites are considered suitable for swimming, and other primary contact recreation activities, while 15 percent are not. Three percent of all monitored sites have insufficient data to calculate a SFRG at present. The microbiological water quality at lake sites is generally fair or better with most sites containing a SFRG of good or very good. The exceptions are Lake Hood at the main swimming beach, and Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora at Lakeside Domain, where swimming is not recommended. River sites in Canterbury show mixed results. Most river sites are considered suitable for contact recreation, however most that have an urban catchment have a SFRG of poor or worse. Some river sites with agricultural catchments are also prone to poor faecal bacteria results and are graded accordingly. Examples include the Hurunui River at State Highway 7, Selwyn River / Waikirikiri at Upper Huts and Coes Ford, Ashburton River at State Highway 1, and Waihao River at Black Hole. All coastal beach, bay and harbour recreation sites are generally characterised by low counts of faecal bacteria. As a result, each has a SFRG of good or very good. The only coastal sites that are considered unsuitable for swimming are located in estuary environments, specifically the Avon- Heathcote Estuary/Ihutai near Christchurch. River sites throughout Canterbury continue to cause concern in regards to periodically high levels of potentially toxic cyanobacteria. Blooms are sporadic over the summer, but are particularly a problem in many Timaru District waterways such as the Opihi River. Most of Canterbury s lake environments are not prone to cyanobacteria blooms with the exception of Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora and Lake Forsyth / Wairewa, which experience prolonged planktonic blooms. Figure 3-5: Proportion of Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at all monitored recreational water quality sites in Canterbury 28 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

36 4 Communication and notification 4.1 Protocols and organisational coordination Prior to the 2016/17 sampling season, discussions were held between organisations involved with Canterbury s recreational water quality monitoring and response programme. These organisations included: Community and Public Health (CPH) Public Health South Territorial local authorities (TLAs) Food and Health Standards (FHS) 2006 Ltd Environment Canterbury Discussions resulted in the following protocols being adopted: Regional protocol for recreational water monitoring in North Canterbury 2016/17. Regional protocol for recreational water monitoring in South Canterbury 2016/17. Monitoring and response protocol for benthic cyanobacterial blooms in Canterbury rivers 2016/17. Monitoring and response protocol for cyanobacteria (algal blooms) in coastal lakes in Canterbury 2016/17. Collectively, the protocols document information about: Roles and responsibilities of organisations Contact details of key personnel Legal obligations of organisations Annual meeting details Recreational monitoring site locations Routine and alert-response monitoring Recreation site gradings Public notifications, education and awareness Temporary and permanent signage of health risks at sites On the 10 April 2017, Environment Canterbury staff met with CPH, TLAs, Golder Associates and FHS 2006 Ltd to discuss the key points of the 2016/17 recreational monitoring season. A summary of these points is detailed below. The maintenance of warning signs is a key issue. Signs are being damaged, removed, or changed by the public. District Councils are required to check that both microbial and cyanobacteria signage is in place for the 2017/18 season. It is also the responsibility of TLAs to ensure that signage is maintained and up to date throughout the monitoring season. When Environment Canterbury staff become aware of any issues, they will notify the appropriate TLAs. E. coli exceedances on the Hurunui River have predominantly occurred due to high flows. Targeted sampling investigating source catchments of contamination have been undertaken upstream of the State Highway 7 Bridge. A report will be prepared and circulated when complete. FST investigations have been undertaken at several sites throughout Canterbury. These include the Waimakariri River at Rock Spur, Hurunui River at State Highway 1 and State Highway 7, Ashburton River at State Highway 1, Kaiapoi River at Boat Ramp, Waihao River at Black Hole, Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird, and Lake Alexandrina at Bottom Huts. A summary report or memo will be circulated once complete. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 29

37 SICs were previously assessed 5 years ago, and were therefore revised at the conclusion of the 2016/17 monitoring season. This has implications for SFRGs at some monitoring sites. Revised SIC assessment results will be included in the 2016/17 Canterbury Water Quality Monitoring for Contact Recreation report (this report). The River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) report (McNae et al., 2017) will be circulated once finalised. Questions were raised as to whether blue-bottle jellyfish numbers washing up on beaches should be monitored as part of the recreational monitoring programme. It was agreed that this would not be adopted due to various logistical and practical reasons. Informing the public about the recreational suitability of popular freshwater and marine sites is the joint responsibility of all the organisations involved. The Environment Canterbury website 6 and Canterbury Recreational Water Quality Facebook page 7 are key tools for notifying the public of SFRGs and weekly results. The website provides a background to the summer monitoring programme and a detailed explanation of what each grade means. The provisional grade for each site is presented via an interactive map. Each site has a graph that is updated throughout the sampling season with the weekly FIB concentrations (within 48 hours of the sample being collected). Prior to the start of each bathing season, website information is updated to accommodate any grade changes and information gaps. Any temporary health warnings about the risk from contact recreation at a site, are highlighted on the website and posted on the Facebook page. Field observations (e.g. wind and time of sampling) collected from the Estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers/Ihutai, are also provided on Facebook. Prior to each bathing season, Environment Canterbury publishes site grades in its bimonthly paper and issues a media release that is reported in the Press and other local newspapers. During the season, Public Health agencies take primary responsibility for media releases, while TLA environmental health staff are responsible for erecting signage. 4.2 Land, Air, Water, Aotearoa (LAWA) Prior to the beginning of the 2014/15 contact recreation season, the Land, Air, Water, Aotearoa (LAWA) website was launched to report the state of New Zealand s environment. LAWA includes a recreational water quality component to its reporting, which details faecal indicator bacteria monitoring results collected each week by Environment Canterbury 8 and other regional councils. Each bathing site has an overall risk classification for recreation. These are very low risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk/caution. Risk classes for each freshwater site are calculated using 95 th percentile E. coli and enterococci values obtained over the last three years of monitoring (i.e. 2014/ /17). The method for calculating risk classifications on LAWA differs from that used by Environment Canterbury to calculate MACs and SFRGs. This is because Environment Canterbury follows the MfE & MoH (2003) guidelines, which stipulate using five years of microbiological monitoring data instead of three. Furthermore, LAWA risk categories do not take into consideration the influence of rainfall-affected data. Numerous sites are therefore considered as high risk on LAWA, when they may in fact be suitable for primary contact recreation under base flow conditions. In Canterbury, SFRG calculations are often adjusted for sites where high rainfall and flows are associated with elevated E. coli concentrations Canterbury recreational water quality data can be found on the LAWA website at 30 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

38 5 Recommendations for 2017/ Monitoring site selection A review of recreational water quality monitoring site locations is recommended by Environment Canterbury during the 2017/18 season. This is in part due to the preliminary results of the RiVAS assessment 9, community opinion, and Zone Committee recommendations suggesting that popular recreational sites exist outside of the current monitoring network. An additional site in the Waihi River at Geraldine has already been added to the 2017/18 recreational water quality monitoring programme. This is because of the site s popular use and associated public demand for it to be included. The consideration of additional locations for benthic cyanobacteria surveillance monitoring for recreation also requires discussion, although resourcing for added monitoring will need to be considered. 5.2 Warning signage Freshwater The following monitoring sites are recommended to have permanent warning signage maintained to warn the public that swimming is not recommended: Lyell Creek Lagoon; Kaiapoi River at Boast Ramp; Otukaikino Creek at Swimming Hole; Avon River at Kerrs Reach; Heathcote River at Catherine Street; Selwyn River at Upper Huts; Selwyn River at Coes Ford; Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere at Lakeside Domain; Ashburton River at State Highway 1; and Waihao River at Black Hole. Additional signage warning that sites may be unsuitable for swimming up to 48 hours after rainfall are situated, and should be maintained, at: Hurunui River at State Highway 1; Selwyn River at Glentunnel; Pareora River at Evans Crossing; Pareora River at Huts; Temuka River at State Highway 1; Opihi River at Saleyards; and Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge. 9 An independent review of swimming values in Canterbury was undertaken in 2016 (McNae et al., 2017). The review utilised community survey data, expert panel opinion, and water quality information to identify priority swimming areas using the RiVAS methodology. Standardised criteria and significance thresholds were used to score swimming sites in terms of their relative importance for recreation. The results of the review were in a draft format at the time of writing this report, but will be used to inform decisions about monitoring site selection beyond the 2016/17 season. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 31

39 A number of recreation sites have had a change to their SFRG based on an updated SIC and/or MAC after the 2016/17 monitoring season. Many of these will require a change to on-site signage if they have moved from a swimmable to a non-swimmable grading, or vice versa. The following recommendations apply to sites for the 2017/18 monitoring season. The following monitoring sites require new signs to be erected warning the public to avoid swimming: Waimakariri River at Rock Spur (insufficient data but based on historic SFRG results at the nearby Reids Reserve site); Lake Hood at Main Swimming Beach. A number of monitoring sites have existing signage warning against swimming, but need signs to be updated to warn that swimming may be unsuitable for up to 48 hours after rainfall. These are: Waihi River at Gorge; and Waihao River at Dons Hole. Sites that are recommended to have warning signs removed are: Twizel River at Picnic Area; Lake Alexandrina at Bottom Huts; and Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird Coastal The following monitoring sites currently have permanent warning signs erected to warn the public that swimming is not recommended: Estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers/Ihutai (erected by Christchurch City Council) at: o Humphreys Drive; o Pleasant Point Yacht Club; and o Penguin Street. Ashley River/Rakahuri Estuary (erected by Waimakariri District Council) Additional signage warning that sites may be unsuitable for swimming up to 48 hours after rainfall are situated at: Okains Bay Estuary; and Akaroa Main Beach. Due to an increase in MAC, new signage should be erected to warn that swimming is not recommended at: South New Brighton Park in the Estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers/Ihutai. Signs warning that shellfish are not safe to eat are currently situated at: Scarborough Beach; Rapaki Bay; and Wainui Beach. Since the assessment of 2016/17 faecal coliform concentrations, signage should be erected at: Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street; and Okains Bay Estuary. 32 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

40 6 References McNae, E., Dynes, K., Dunlop, H., Arthur, J., Sheat, A., Manewell, L., Shaw, I. and Hughey, I. (2017). River and lake swimming in the Canterbury region: application of the river values assessment system (RiVAS). Draft report prepared for Environment Canterbury in collaboration with Lincoln University, New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health, Microbiological water quality guidelines for marine and freshwater recreational areas. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health, New Zealand Guidelines for Cyanobacteria in Recreational Fresh Waters Interim Guidelines. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health by SA Wood, DP Hamilton, WJ Paul, KA Safi and WM Williamson. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment (2017). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended August 2017). Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 33

41 34 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

42 Appendix 1: Description of Suitability for Recreation Grades A1.1 Very good Considered satisfactory for swimming at all times. As a result of this these sites may not require monitoring on a regular basis. Water quality tests and assessment of potential contamination sources indicate sites within this category are considered to have very good water quality. There may be some runoff from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchments, but there are not likely to be any significant sources of faecal contamination. A1.2 Good Satisfactory for swimming most of the time. Exceptions may include following rainfall. These sites are monitored regularly throughout the summer season and warning signs will be erected if water quality deteriorates. Water quality tests and assessment of potential contamination sources indicate sites within this category are considered to have generally good water quality. On occasions (such as after high rainfall) there may be an increased risk of contamination from runoff. Such sites receive runoff from one or more of the following sources and may contain animal or human faecal material: river discharges impacted by tertiary treated wastewater, wastewater overflows, intensive agricultural/rural catchments, feral bird/animal populations river discharges impacted by runoff from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment stormwater not contaminated by wastewater. A1.3 Fair Generally satisfactory for swimming, although there are many potential sources of faecal material. Caution should be taken during periods of high rainfall, and swimming avoided if water is discoloured. These sites are monitored weekly and warning signs erected if water quality deteriorates. Water quality tests and assessments of potential contamination sources indicate that sites within this category are considered to have generally fair water quality. Events such as high rainfall increase the risk of contamination levels from runoff. Such sites receive runoff from one or more of the following sources and may contain animal or human faecal material: river discharges impacted by tertiary treated wastewater, wastewater overflows, intensive agricultural/rural catchments, feral bird/animal populations river discharges impacted by run-off from low-intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment stormwater not contaminated by wastewater. A1.4 Poor Swimming should be avoided, particularly by the very young, the very old and those with compromised immunity. Permanent warning signs may be erected at these sites, or they may be monitored weekly and temporary warnings posted. Water quality tests and assessments of potential contamination sources indicate that sites within this category are considered to have generally poor water quality. These sites receive runoff from one or more of the following sources and may contain animal or human faecal material: tertiary treated wastewater Environment Canterbury Technical Report 35

43 urban stormwater, marinas or moorings, intensive agriculture river discharges containing untreated / primary / secondary treated wastewater or on-site waste treatment systems river discharges impacted by tertiary treated wastewater, untreated wastewater overflows, intensive agricultural/rural catchments, feral bird/animal populations. A1.5 Very poor Avoid swimming, as there are direct discharges of faecal material. Permanent signage will be erected at the site stating that swimming is not recommended. Water quality tests and assessments of potential contamination sources indicate that sites within this category are considered to have very poor water quality. These sites receive runoff from one or more of the following sources and may contain animal or human faecal material: untreated/primary/secondary treated wastewater on-site waste treatment systems tertiary treated wastewater urban stormwater, marinas or moorings, intensive agriculture river discharges containing untreated/ primary/secondary treated wastewater or on-site wastewater treatment systems. A1.6 To be followed up / Insufficient data This swimming site is currently under testing and has not had a swimming grade applied to it. 36 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

44 Appendix 2: District summaries Environment Canterbury Technical Report 37

45 A2.1 Kaikoura District Sites in Kaikoura District 2016/17 Recommended Suitability for Recreation Grades for 2017/18 Lyell Creek Lagoon Kahutara River at SH1 Mangamaunu Gooches Beach Armers Beach South Bay Beach Peketa Beach Very poor Good Very good Good Good Good Good 38 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

46 Sanitary Inspection Category assessments Freshwater sites Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: A. Kahutara River at Mouth B. Lyell Creek- Lagoon 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No No Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private 13 sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Site: Moderate High 8 8/10 Environment Canterbury Technical Report 39

47 Coastal sites Mangamaunu Gooches Beach Armers Beach South Bay Beach Peketa Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-23) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if rivers/streams/drains present, otherwise go to 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 3 and and 8 Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 22 Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 23 tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 10 8 and16 Recommended SIC Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 40 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

48 Lyell Creek Lagoon 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor Of the fifteen samples collected over the 2016/17 summer, fourteen exceeded the Action guideline value, while one fell within the Alert guideline range. As reported in previous years, exceedances did not appear to be strongly related to rainfall. Kahutara River at River Mouth 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ A Moderate Good Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values during the 2016/17 sampling season. In previous years rainfall has appeared to have had an influence E. coli concentrations, however dry conditions prevailed for much of the 2016/17 season. Consequently, no elevated E. coli concentrations were observed. Mangamaunu 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation and water quality meets the criteria for safe shellfish consumption. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 41

49 Gooches Beach 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The SFRG at the site has improved to good and it is considered suitable for primary contact recreation. Armers Beach 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The SFRG at the site has improved to good and it is considered suitable for primary contact recreation. Exceptions may include following rainfall and when there are strong winds. Strong winds stir up the sea and are associated with elevated enterococci concentrations at the site. A consequence of this is algal fragments and seabed sediment becoming suspended in the water column, which are the likely sources of the enterococci. South Bay Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. 42 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

50 Peketa Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. The site may be unsuitable for swimming after times following rainfall. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 43

51 A2.2 Hurunui District Sites in Hurunui District 2016/17 Recommended Suitability for Recreation Grades for 2017/18 Hurunui River at SH1 Hurunui River at SH7 Waiau River at Waiau Waipara River at Boys Brigade Camp Gore Bay Motunau Beach Fair (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Poor Good (provisional grade <5 years data) Fair Very good Very good 44 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

52 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Freshwater sites A. Waipara River at Boys Brigade Camp B. Hurunui River at SH1 C. Hurunui River at SH 7 D. Waiau River at Waiau Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site 2 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 7 Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) 8 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment 9 Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays 10 Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site Yes No Yes Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: 13 Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater 15 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 16 High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations 17 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment 18 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) No Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Site: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Environment Canterbury Technical Report 45

53 Coastal sites Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-23) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if rivers/streams/drains present, otherwise go to 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Motunau Beach Gore Bay Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on 19 microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated 23 w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Recommended SIC Low Low 46 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

54 Hurunui River at SH1 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were four exceedances of the Alert guideline value at the Hurunui River at SH1 site over the 2016/17 summer. Of these, the Action guideline value was exceeded once. When rainfall-affected data is removed, the SFRG is upgraded from poor to fair meaning that this site is generally suitable for contact recreation under normal flow conditions. It is recommended that signage is placed at the site informing the public of the human health risks present during rainfall and high flow events. Hurunui River at SH7 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ D Moderate Poor E. coli concentrations at the Hurunui River at SH7 site exceeded the Action guideline value on three occasions. Taking into account any rainfall-affected data, the SFRG remains poor meaning that this site is generally unsuitable for contact recreation. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 47

55 Waiau River at Waiau 2014/ Moderate Insufficient data 2015/ Moderate Insufficient data 2016/ B Moderate Good Rain-affected data removed 2014/ Moderate Insufficient data 2015/ Moderate Insufficient data 2016/ B Moderate Good This site was moved from a tributary stream within the river bed to the main stem of the river in November These two sites must be analysed separately as their flow sources are different and therefore likely to be influenced by different contaminant sources. There was one exceedance of the Alert guideline value during the 2016/17 season. Flow at this site was generally low and stable for the duration of the season and did not affect E. coli concentrations. This site has been given a provisional SFRG of good based on 3 years of sampling. Waipara River at Boys Brigade Pool 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair Monitoring during the 2016/17 season resulted in one exceedance of the Alert guideline value. The SFRG for the site remains fair indicating that the site is generally suitable for contact recreation. Gore Bay 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. 48 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

56 Motunau Beach 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good The access to the Motunau Beach sampling site was damaged by the November 2016 earthquake. This site was sampled at the very start of the season, but for health and safety reasons, sampling ceased until mid-february when the access was improved. All the samples that were collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 49

57 A2.3 Waimakariri District Sites in the Waimakariri District 2016/17 Recommended Suitability for Recreation Grades for 2017/18 Ashley River/Rakahuri Gorge Ashley River/Rakahuri above Rangiora- Loburn Bridge Pegasus Lake at Motu Quay Kaiapoi River (township) Good Fair Very good (provisional grade <5 years data) Very poor Waimakariri River at Rock Spur Insufficient data 10 Waimakariri River at Thompsons Road Insufficient data 11 Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary Waikuku Beach Pegasus Beach Woodend Beach Pines Beach Insufficient data Very good Very good Very good Good 10 The newly monitored Waimakariri River sites replace those previously monitored at Reids Reserve and Stewarts Gully. The 2015/16 SFRG of poor at Reids Reserve can be used as a proxy measure of recreational water quality for Rock Spur until a provisional grade can be established (i.e. once 3 years of data is collected). 50 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

58 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Freshwater sites A. Waimakriri River at Thompsons Rd B. Waimakariri River at Rock Spur C. Kaiapoi River at boat ramp D. Pegasus Lake E. Ashley River at Gorge F. Ashley River above Rangiora/ Loburn Bridge Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No No Yes Yes No Yes Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: 13 Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 8 8 7/ Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Site: Moderate Moderate High Very Low Moderate Moderate Environment Canterbury Technical Report 51

59 Coastal sites Woodend Beach Waikuku Beach Pines Beach Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n Pegasus township To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area 2 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 7 Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) 8 9 Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if rivers/ streams/drains present, otherwise go to 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent 13 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination 15 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 16 High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations 17 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) 18 Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use 19 Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated 23 Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? w astew ater into the area Recommended SIC Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate 52 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

60 Ashley River/Rakahuri at Gorge 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ C Moderate Fair Rain-affected data removed 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There was one exceedance of the Action guideline value over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG improved from fair to good after removing rainfall-affected data. The Ashley River/Rakahuri at Gorge site is generally suitable for contact recreation. Ashley River/Rakahuri above Rangiora-Loburn Bridge 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ C Moderate Fair The locations of flowing channels and excavated pools change in the Ashley River/Rakahuri from year to year. Therefore, the exact location of the sampling site near Rangiora needs to be flexible over time. Sampling will always be from flowing water in a main channel of the river. Over the 2016/17 summer, recreational water quality samples were collected from the same location as in the previous five seasons. This was from flowing water in the river above an excavated pool just below the Rangiora- Loburn Bridge. There was one exceedance of the Alert guideline value over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG decreased from good to fair, but the site is still considered to be safe for contact recreation. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 53

61 Pegasus Lake at Motu Quay 2014/ Insufficient data 2015/ Insufficient data 2016/ A Very low Very good Pegasus Lake at Motu Quay was new to the monitoring programme in the 2014/15 monitoring season. In the past, this site has been monitored privately by a consultant for the Pegasus Township property developers. All results were below the Alert and Action guideline values. This site has been given a provisional SFRG of very good based on 3 years of sampling. However, potentially toxic planktonic cyanobacteria blooms are an issue in this lake. During the 2016/2017 season, a bloom prevailed for some time over the midto-late summer period, with a subsequent health warning issued. Kaiapoi River (township) 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor Each of the 15 weekly samples collected during the 2016/17 summer exceeded the Alert guideline value for E. coli. Of these, eleven were above the Action guideline value of 550 E. coli/100 ml. The Kaiapoi River site continues to have a very poor grade reflecting a high contamination risk and consistently poor microbial water quality. Waimakariri River at Rock Spur Six out of fifteen weekly samples collected during the 2016/17 summer exceeded the Alert guideline value for E. coli. Of these, three were above the Action guideline value of 550 E. coli/100 ml. The Waimakariri River at Rock Spur replaces the former Reids Reserve site, which had a SFRG of poor. The 2016/17 season was the first that Rock Spur was monitored meaning that it does not contain enough data to assign it a grading. However, Reids Reserve is in close proximity to the Rock Spur site and can be used as a proxy measure for recreational water quality at the Rock Spur site. We recommend that a SFRG of poor is assigned to this site with signage erected to warn the public of the health risks associated with swimming. Waimakariri River at Thompsons Road Six out of fifteen weekly samples collected during the 2016/17 summer exceeded the Alert guideline value for E. coli. Of these, three were above the Action guideline value of 550 E. coli/100 ml. The Waimakariri River at Thompsons Road (also known as The Willows ) replaces the former Stewarts Gully site, which is located approximately 30 km downstream. The 2016/17 season was the first that Thompsons Road was monitored meaning that it does not have enough data to assign it a grading. 54 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

62 Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary The MfE & MoH (2003) enterococci and E. coli Alert trigger values were exceeded on numerous occasions over the 2016/17 summer (see figures below). The Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary site has now been sampled for two summers in total. Therefore an interim grade will not be calculated for this site until after sampling is undertaken over the 2017/18 summer E.coli/100 ml Action trigger value 0 Alert trigger value 12-Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May-16 9-Jun-16 9-Jul-16 8-Aug-16 7-Sep-16 7-Oct-16 6-Nov-16 6-Dec-16 5-Jan-17 4-Feb-17 6-Mar-17 5-Apr /17 enterococci (top) and E. coli (bottom) results for the Ashley River/Rakahuri Saltwater Creek Estuary. Both routine weekly and resample data are presented. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 55

63 Waikuku Beach 2012/ B Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ A Very low Very good 2015/ A Very low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Pegasus Beach 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ A Very low Very good 2015/ A Very low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Woodend Beach 2012/ B Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ A Very low Very good 2015/ A Very low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Water quality at the site also meets the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. 56 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

64 Pines Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Exceptions may occur following rainfall. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 57

65 A2.4 Christchurch City Sites in Christchurch City 2016/17 58 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

66 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Otukaikino Creek at swimming hole Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho at Catherine Street Avon River/Ōtākaro at Kerrs Reach Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho at Catherine Street Lake Rotokohatu Spencerville Beach Waimairi Beach New Brighton Beach South Brighton at surf club South Brighton at Caspian Street Sumner Beach Scarborough Beach Taylors Mistake Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South Brighton Park Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South Spit Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Moncks Bay Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Beachville Road Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt. Pleasant Yacht Club Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Humphreys Drive Poor Very poor Very poor Very poor Good Very good Good Good Good Good Good Good Very good Poor (provisional grade <5 years data) Poor Good Good Good Fair Poor Environment Canterbury Technical Report 59

67 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Freshwater sites Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: A. Heathcote River at Catherine St B. Avon River at Kerrs Reach C. Lake Rotokohatu D. Otukaikino Creek at Swimming Hole 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site 2 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 7 Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) 8 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment 9 Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays 10 Incidence and density of birdlife 11 Water craft mooring or use 12 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site Yes Yes No Yes Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private 13 sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater 15 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 16 High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations 17 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment 18 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 3/10 3/ Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Site: High High Moderate Moderate 60 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

68 Coastal sites Spencerville Beach Waimari Beach New Brighton Beach South Brighton at Surf Club South Brighton at Caspian St Sumner Beach Scarborough Beach Taylors Mistake Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet 2 onto/adjacent to bathing area 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal 7 effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) 8 Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) 9 Water craft mooring or use 10 Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use 11 Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent 13 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination 15 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 16 High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations 17 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) 18 Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use 19 Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 8? Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated 23 w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 3 8? 8? 3 10 Recommended SIC Very low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Environment Canterbury Technical Report 61

69 Avon-Heathcote Estuary sites Spit Tip Estuary at Penguin Street South New Brighton Park Humphreys Drive Mt Pleasant Yacht club Beachville Road Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n Monks Bay To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if streams/drains present, otherw ise go to question 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 8 3 and 8 8 and 16 8 and 16 Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 22 Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 23 tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 8 and 16 3 and 8 3 and 8 Recommended SIC Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 62 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

70 Otukaikino Creek at swimming hole 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Five of the 15 samples collected had E. coli concentrations that exceeded the Alert guideline value, with one also exceeding the Action guideline. The site s SFRG has improved to poor due to a recommended change in the SIC, but is still considered unsuitable for contact recreation. It is downstream of The Groynes Reserve where two sites were monitored on Otukaikino Creek in the past. These sites were also consistently graded as very poor. The SIC at the site has improved from high to moderate. This is because intensive agricultural was previously noted as the primary source of contamination in the catchment. This has since been more accurately revised to be a low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment. Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho Catherine Street 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor E. coli concentrations exceeded the Alert guideline value on six occasions, two of which were above the Action guideline. The SFRG remains very poor. Avon River/Ōtākaro Kerrs Reach 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor The Kerrs Reach site was sampled 15 times and on two occasions the E. coli concentration was above the Alert guideline value. One of those samples was also above the Action guideline value. The SFRG for the site remains very poor. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 63

71 Lake Rotokohatu 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ C Low Fair 2015/ B Low Good 2016/ B Moderate Good No samples collected during the 2016/17 summer exceeded the Alert or Action guideline values for E. coli. The SFRG for this site remains good and is considered suitable for contact recreation. The SIC at the site has increased from low to moderate. This is due to water craft mooring or use being revised as a more significant form of contamination in the lake. Spencerville Beach 2012/ A Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ B Very low Very good 2015/ B Very low Very good 2016/ B Very low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Waimairi Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. 64 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

72 New Brighton Beach 2012/ A Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. South Brighton at surf club 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. South Brighton at Caspian Street 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 65

73 Sumner Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Scarborough Beach 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good Two enterococci samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Water quality at the site does not meet the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Taylors Mistake 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. 66 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

74 Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South New Brighton Park Enterococci all weekly data 2016/ B Moderate Good E. coli all weekly data 2016/ D Moderate Poor This site has now been sampled for three summers, which means an interim grade of poor has been assigned. This grade is based on E. coli results and means that the site is considered not suitable for primary contact recreation. 2016/17 results found that three E. coli samples exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. Permanent warning signage advising the public that swimming is not recommended is advised. The site s grade will remain provisional until 5 summers of data have been recorded. Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Penguin Street Enterococci all weekly data 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good E. coli all weekly data 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor 2016/17 results found that one enterococci sample exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline value. Based on E. coli results, the site has an SFRG of poor meaning it is considered not suitable for primary contact recreation. Permanent warning signage advising the public that swimming is not recommended is advised. Water quality at the site does not meet the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 67

75 Avon-Heathcote Estuary at South Spit 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Moncks Bay 2012/ A Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Beachville Road 2012/ A Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Water quality at the site meets guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. 68 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

76 Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Mt. Pleasant Yacht Club Enterococci all weekly data 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair E. coli all weekly data 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair 2016/17 results found that one enterococci sample exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline value. Although the site has many potential sources of faecal contamination (e.g. birds and urban stormwater), it contains a SFRG of fair meaning it is considered suitable for primary contact recreation. Avon-Heathcote Estuary at Humphreys Drive Enterococci all weekly data 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair E. coli all weekly data 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor 2016/17 results found that one E. coli, and one enterococci, sample (each collected on the same date) exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline values. Based on E. coli results, the site has an SFRG of poor meaning it is considered not suitable for primary contact recreation. Permanent warning signage advising the public that swimming is not recommended is advised. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 69

77 A2.5 Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Sites in Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Corsair Bay Cass Bay Rapaki Bay Sandy Bay (Governors Bay) Paradise Beach Church Bay Diamond Harbour Beach Purau Bay Good Good Good Good Very good Good Good Good 70 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

78 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area 2 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent 7 (e.g., dairying, piggeries) 8 Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) 9 Water craft mooring or use 10 Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use 11 Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if rivers/ streams/drains present, otherwise go to 19 Purau Diamond Harbour Beach Church Bay Paradise beach Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n Sandy Bay Rapaki Bay Cass Bay Corsair Bay To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent 13 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination 15 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 16 High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations 17 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) 18 Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use 19 Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 23 tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? w astew ater into the area Recommended SIC Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Environment Canterbury Technical Report 71

79 Corsair Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good Two enterococci samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Cass Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Rapaki Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good A single sample, collected during the 2016/17 summer monitoring season, exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline value for enterococci. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Water quality at the site does not meet the guideline for safe shellfish consumption. 72 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

80 Sandy Bay (Governors Bay) 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good One enterococci sample, collected during the 2016/17 summer monitoring season, exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Paradise Beach 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Low Good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Church Bay 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Low Good 2015/ B Low Good 2016/ B Low Good One enterococci sample, collected during the 2016/17 summer monitoring season, exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 73

81 Diamond Harbour Beach 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good One enterococci sample, collected during the 2016/17 summer monitoring season, exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Action guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Purau Beach 2012/ C Low Fair 2013/ C Low Fair 2014/ B Low Good 2015/ B Low Good 2016/ B Low Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. 74 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

82 A2.6 Banks Peninsula Sites in Banks Peninsula 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Okains Bay Estuary Wainui Beach Tikao Bay French Farm Duvauchelle Takamatua Akaroa Main Beach Glen Bay Good Good Good Very good Good Good Good Very good Environment Canterbury Technical Report 75

83 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Okains Bay Estuary Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence 19 on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated 23 w astew ater into the area Y N? Okains Bay Estuary 8 Recommended SIC Moderate 76 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

84 Akaroa Harbour Wainui Beach Akaroa Beach Key (questions 1-18) Key (questions 20-21) 0 = not present Y = yes 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality N = no 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality? = not know n Tikao Beach French Farm Duvauchelle Takamatua Glen Bay To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if rivers/ streams/drains present, otherwise go to 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 22 Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 23 tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 8 8 Recommended SIC Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Environment Canterbury Technical Report 77

85 Okains Bay Estuary 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good, however rainfall is known to affect the concentration of microorganisms in the water. Permanent signage warning that swimming is unsuitable for up to 48 hours after rainfall is advised. Water quality at the site meets the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Wainui Beach 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Water quality at the site meets the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Tikao Bay 2012/ C Low Fair 2013/ C Low Fair 2014/ B Low Good 2015/ B Low Good 2016/ B Low Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. 78 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

86 French Farm 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Low Good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Duvauchelle 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Takamatua 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 79

87 Akaroa Main Beach 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good, however rainfall is known to affect the concentration of microorganisms in the water. Permanent signage warning that swimming is unsuitable for up to 48 hours after rainfall is advised. Water quality at the site meets the guidelines for safe shellfish consumption. Glen Bay 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. 80 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

88 A2.7 Selwyn District Sites in Selwyn District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Upper Huts Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Coes Ford Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Chamberlains Ford Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Glentunnel Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora at Lakeside Domain Very poor Poor Good Good (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Poor Environment Canterbury Technical Report 81

89 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment A. Selwyn River at Glentunnel B. Selwyn River at Chamberlains Ford C. Selwyn River at Coes Ford D. Selwyn River at Upper Huts E. Te Waihora/ Lake Ellesmere at domain Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No No Yes Yes Yes Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: 13 Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Sites: Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate 82 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

90 Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Upper Huts 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor During the 2016/17 monitoring season, there was one exceedance of the Action guideline value. Exceedances at this site are not directly related to rainfall. With a MAC of D, and a SIC of high, the SFRG remains very poor. Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Coes Ford 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor There were only 14 samples collected at this site over the 2016/17 season due to the river running dry during late February. Five exceedances of the Alert guideline value occurred, with two of these results above the Action guideline value. The SFRG for both the full dataset and with rain-affected data removed remains poor. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 83

91 Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Chamberlains Ford 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values for the 2016/17 season. The SFRG remains good for this site. Selwyn River/Waikirikiri at Glentunnel 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good During the 2016/17 summer, there were three samples greater than both the Alert and Action guideline values. Two of these samples were above the Action guideline value. These coincided with high rainfall and flow events. The SFRG calculated with the full five-year dataset remains poor, however with rainfall-affected data removed it improves to good. Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora at Lakeside Domain 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor There were two exceedances of the Alert guideline value for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere at the Domain in the 2016/17 summer, with one sample above the Action value. This site has a SFRG of poor and is not considered to be suitable for contact recreation. 84 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

92 A2.8 Ashburton District Sites in Ashburton District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Ashburton River/Hakatere at SH1 Lake Hood at Bayliss Beach Lake Hood at main swimming beach Lake Clearwater west of huts Lake Camp at beach Very poor Very good Very poor Very good Very good Environment Canterbury Technical Report 85

93 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment A. Ashburton River at SH 1 B. Lake Hood at Bayliss Beach C. Lake Hood at Main Swimming Beach D. Lake Clearwater West of Huts E. Lake Camp at Main Swimming Beach Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site Yes Yes No Yes No Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: 13 Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Sites: High Low High Very Low Very Low 86 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

94 Ashburton River/Hakatere at SH1 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor The Alert guideline value was exceeded on four occasions over the 2016/17 summer, two of which were greater than the Action guideline value. With 2016/17 rainfall-affected data removed, the MAC remains D and the SFRG very poor. The Ashburton River/Hakatere at SH1 is considered unsuitable for contact recreation. Lake Hood at Bayliss Beach 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Low Very good There were no exceedances of Alert or Action guideline values by samples collected over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG at this site remains very good. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 87

95 Lake Hood at main swimming beach 2012/ A Low Very good 2013/ A Low Very good 2014/ C Low Fair 2015/ C Low Fair 2016/ D High Very poor There was one exceedance of the Action guideline value over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG has declined from very good to very poor since 2013/14, and dramatic increases in E. coli levels are suspected to be sourced from an increase in the number of waterfowl at the site. The revised SIC grade now considers this, with an increase from low to the high category. Lake Hood is now considered to be unsuitable for contact recreation at the main swimming beach site. Lake Clearwater west of huts 2012/ A Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ A Very low Very good 2015/ A Very low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good E. coli concentrations remained very low for the entirety of the 2016/17 sampling season. No samples exceeded Alert or Action guideline values. The SFRG at Lake Clearwater west of huts is very good meaning that this site is suitable for contact recreational activities. Lake Camp at beach 2012/ A Very low Very good 2013/ A Very low Very good 2014/ A Very low Very good 2015/ A Very low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good The 2016/17 sampling of Lake Camp resulted in no E. coli counts greater than the Alert or Action guideline values. All samples were less than 41 E. coli/100 ml resulting in a SFRG of very good. 88 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

96 A2.9 Timaru District Sites in Timaru District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Orari River at Gorge Waihi River at Gorge Te Moana River at Gorge Opihi River at Waipopo Temuka River at SH1 Opihi River at SH1 Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge Pareora River at Huts Pareora River at Evans Crossing West Caroline Bay Caroline Bay Timaru Coast Yacht Club Fair Fair (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Fair Good Fair (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Good Good (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Fair (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Good (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Good Good Very good Environment Canterbury Technical Report 89

97 90 Environment Canterbury Technical Report Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Freshwater sites Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: A. Opihi River at Waipopo Huts 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private 13 sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 8 Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? B. Opihi River at SH 1 Bridge C. Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge D. Pareora River at Huts E. Pareora River at Evans Crossing F. Orari River at Gorge G. Waihi River at Gorge H. Te Moana River at Gorge I. Temuka River at SH 1 Bridge Suggested SIC for Sites: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Canterbury water quality monitoring for contact recreation - Annual summary report 2016/17

98 Coastal sites Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is the beach water quality affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age onto/adjacent to bathing area Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater outlet onto/adjacent to bathing area Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/other private sew age disposal systems (e.g., septic tank) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Incidence & density of birdlife (esp. w here lagoons/estuarine conditions exist) Water craft mooring or use Focal points of drainage from low intensity urban/rural land use Rivers, streams or drains Continue below if streams/drains present, otherw ise go to question 19 To what degree are these rivers, streams or drains affected or likely to be affected by: 12 Discharges of primary or secondary treated human effluent Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress High intensity agriculture, feral animal/bird populations Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Focal points of drainage from low intensity land use Of the factors listed 1-10 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on 19 microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: - 3? 3 20 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by 22 untreated/primary/secondary treated effluent or onsite w aste treatment systems into area Y N? Y N? Y N? tidal movement or onshore w inds that are likely to carry w ater polluted by tertiary treated 23 w astew ater into the area Y N? Y N? Y N? Timaru Yacht Club mid Caroline Bay West Caroline Bay Recommended SIC Very Low Moderate Moderate Environment Canterbury Technical Report 91

99 Orari River at Gorge 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were no exceedances of the Alert and Action guideline values over the 2016/17 summer. This site remains suitable for contact recreation and is graded as fair based on the full data set. Considering this, there is no need to remove rainfall-affected data. Waihi River at Waihi Gorge 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ C High Poor 2015/ C High Poor 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values in 2016/17. The issue of stock access at the Waihi Gorge site was raised with Environment Canterbury s monitoring and compliance team in the past, who visited the area and spoke with farm workers. In the 2014/15 and 2015/16 summers, an investigation was carried out upstream of the contact recreation monitoring site. Monitoring was carried out below tributary streams to pin-point dominant contributors of faecal contamination, with the aim to prioritise streams for fencing out stock. Elevated E. coli results were often related to the level of direct stock access to a tributary stream, i.e. stock entering the stream. In an effort to improve recreational water quality, land owners have since excluded stock by permanently fencing 1 km of the Waihi River upstream of the recreation site. After a review of SIC grades, the Waihi River at Waihi Gorge SIC has improved from high to moderate. In conjunction with improved E. coli concentrations over the 2016/17 season, the site has become suitable for contact recreation under normal flow conditions. Signage warning the public to avoid swimming 48 hours after rainfall is recommended. 92 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

100 Te Moana River at Gorge 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Low Fair No samples exceeded the Alert or Action guideline values for E. coli over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG for the Te Moana River at Gorge remains fair. The SIC has improved at the site from moderate to low. This is because low intensity agricultural/urban/rural land use was previously noted as the primary source of contamination in the catchment. This has since been more accurately revised to be feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off). Opihi River at Waipopo 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good Rain-affected data removed 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good No samples exceeded the Alert or Action guideline values for E. coli during the 2016/17 summer. The site is considered suitable for contact recreation without the need to adjust for rainfall-affected data. The SFRG at the site is good. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 93

101 Temuka River at SH1 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were two exceedances of the Action guideline value at this site during the 2016/17 summer. These exceedances coincided with high flow events. The full dataset MAC of D improves to C once rainfall-affected data is removed. The SFRG also improves from poor to fair with rainfall-affected data removed. Opihi River at SH1 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good Rain-affected data removed 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values during the 2016/17 sampling season. The SFRG using the full dataset has improved to good and the site can be considered suitable for primary contact recreation. 94 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

102 Opihi River at Saleyards Bridge 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good The 2016/17 summer had one sample that exceeded the Action guideline value. This sample coincided with an increase in river flow. The SFRG at the site improved to good from fair once rainfall-affected data was removed. Given the history of rainfall influencing poor grading at this site, it may be beneficial for signs to be in place to warn the public of the health risks associated with swimming during and after periods of rainfall. Pareora River at huts 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were two exceedances of the Alert guideline value during the 2016/17 summer. One sample exceeded the Action guideline value for E. coli. The SFRG with the complete five-year dataset is poor, but with rainfall-affected data removed it improves to fair. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 95

103 Pareora River at Evans Crossing 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good There were two exceedances of the Alert and Action guideline values over the 2016/17 summer. One sample exceeded the Action guideline value. This coincided with a high rainfall and flow event. With the complete dataset the SFRG is poor, but this improves to good once rainfall-affected data is removed. West Caroline Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ B Moderate Good A single enterococci sample, collected during the 2016/17 summer monitoring season, exceeded the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good, although rainfall is known to affect the concentration of microorganisms in the water. Permanent signage warning that the site is unsuitable for swimming for up to 48 hours after rainfall is advised. Caroline Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of good. Exceptions may include at times following rainfall. 96 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

104 Timaru Coast Yacht Club 2012/ A Very low Very Good 2013/ A Very low Very Good 2014/ B Very low Very Good 2015/ B Very low Very Good 2016/ B Very low Very Good All samples collected over the 2016/17 summer monitoring season were under the MfE & MoH (2003) Alert guideline value. The site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation with an SFRG of very good. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 97

105 A2.10 Mackenzie District Sites in Mackenzie District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Lake Opuha at Ewarts Corner Boatramp Lake Opuha at Recreation Reserve Lake Tekapo Beach Lake Alexandrina at bottom huts Lake Ruataniwha at camping ground Twizel River at picnic area Good Very good Very good Fair Very good Good 98 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

106 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment A. Lake Opuha at Ewarts Corner Boat Ramp B. Lake Opuha at Recreation Reserve C. Lake Tekapo at Camp Beach D. Lake Alexandrina at Bottom Huts E. Lake Ruataniwha at Camping Ground F. Twizel River at Picnic Area Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 20-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site Yes No No No No Yes Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: 13 Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Sites Moderate Very Low Very Low Moderate Very Low Moderate Environment Canterbury Technical Report 99

107 Lake Opuha at Ewarts Corner boat ramp 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values at this site during the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG for this site remains as good. Lake Opuha at Recreation reserve 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ B Low Good 2016/ B Very low Very good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values during the 2016/17 summer. The SIC has improved at the site from low to very low. The SFRG has improved to very good. Lake Tekapo Beach 2012/ B Low Good 2013/ B Low Good 2014/ A Low Very good 2015/ A Low Very good 2016/ A Very low Very good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values at this site over the 2016/17 summer. Consistently low E. coli concentrations have meant that the SFRG has remained at very good over the past three years. The SIC has improved at the site from low to very low due to the absence of any clear source of contamination for the lake. Lake Alexandrina at bottom huts 2012/ Moderate Insufficient Data 2013/ Moderate Insufficient Data 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values of the 2016/17 summer. Lake Alexandrina is shallow and susceptible to faecal contamination when the bed is stirred up by high winds. The SFRG at the site is fair and the site is considered suitable for primary contact recreation. 100 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

108 Lake Ruataniwha at camping ground 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Very low Very good No samples exceeded the Alert or Action guideline values over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG at Lake Ruataniwha has improved to very good. The SIC has improved at the site from moderate to very low. This is because focal points of drainage, as run off from low intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment is no longer considered to be a significant source of faecal contamination at the site. Twizel River at picnic area 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good Rain-affected data removed 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values during the 2016/17 summer. River flows remained low and stable for much of the season. The SFRG made a large improvement from poor in 2014/15, to good in 2015/16 using the full dataset. This means that the site is considered suitable for contact recreation regardless of whether rainfall-affected data is removed or not. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 101

109 A2.11 Waimate District Sites in Waimate District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Otaio River at Gorge Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Road (Dons Hole) Waihao River at Black Hole Lake Aviemore at Waitangi Lake Aviemore at Te Akatarawa Camp Hakataramea River at SH82 Good Good (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Fair (with information/signage of risks after rainfall) Poor Fair Good Good 102 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

110 Environment Canterbury Technical Report 103 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays Incidence and density of birdlife Water craft mooring or use Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No No Yes No No No No Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private 13 sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? 8 8 7/10 Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? A. Otaio River at Gorge B. Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge Suggested SIC for Sites: Moderate Moderate C. Waihao River at Black Hole D. Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Rd (Don's Hole) E. Lake Aviemore at Waitangi F. Lake Aviemore at Te Akatarawa Camp Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 G. Hakataramea River at SH 82 Bridge High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Canterbury water quality monitoring for contact recreation - Annual summary report 2016/17

111 Otaio River at Gorge 2012/ A Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good No samples exceeded the Alert or Action guideline values for E. coli during the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG at the Otaio Gorge remains good. Waihao River at Bradshaws Bridge 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ C Moderate Fair Rain-affected data removed 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ B Moderate Good There was one exceedance of the Alert guideline value during the 2016/17 summer. This coincided with high rainfall and flow conditions. With the removal of rainfall-affected data, the SFRG at the site improves to good. Signage warning that swimming should not take place up to 48 hours after rainfall is recommended. 104 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

112 Waihao River at Gum Tree Flat Road (Dons Hole) 2012/ High Insufficient data 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D Moderate Poor Rain-affected data removed 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ C High Poor 2015/ C High Poor 2016/ C Moderate Fair One sample exceeded the Alert guideline value over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG at this site is poor using the full dataset, however it improves to fair once rainfall-affected data is removed. The SIC has improved at the site from high to moderate. This is because low intensity agriculture is now deemed to be a more significant determinant of microbial water quality than nearby intensive agriculture. Signage warning that swimming should not take place up to 48 hours after rainfall is recommended. Waihao River at Black hole 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ D High Very poor Rain-affected data removed 2012/ D High Very poor 2013/ D High Very poor 2014/ D High Very poor 2015/ D High Very poor 2016/ C High Poor There were six exceedances of the Alert guideline value during the 2016/17 sampling season, but none exceeded the Action guideline value. Faecal source tracking showed results that suggest that avian contaminant sources can be an issue at the site. However, intensive agriculture is likely to be a more significant determinant of recreational water quality in the area. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 105

113 Lake Aviemore at Waitangi 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ C Moderate Fair 2016/ C Moderate Fair There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values at this site over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG remains fair. Lake Aviemore at Te Akatarawa Camp 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good Over the 2016/17 summer, there were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values. The SFRG is good, unchanged from the previous sampling seasons. Hakataramea River at SH82 Bridge Year No. samples 95%ile MAC SIC SFRG 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ B Moderate Good 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ B Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no guideline value exceedances over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG remains good and this site is deemed suitable for contact recreation. 106 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

114 Waitaki District Sites in Waitaki District 2016/17 Recommended grades for 2017/18 Lake Middleton at north end of lake Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird Lake Benmore at Sailors Cutting Lake Benmore at Pumpkin Bay Good Fair Good Good Environment Canterbury Technical Report 107

115 Sanitary Inspection Category assessment Key (questions 1-18) 0 = not present 1 = present, but unlikely to affect w ater quality 2 = present, and likely to affect w ater quality Key (questions 19-21) Y = yes N = no? = not know n To what degree is water quality at the bathing site affected, or likely to be affected by: A. Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird B. Lake Middleton at the North End C. Lake Benmore at Sailors Cutting D. Lake Benmore at Pumpkin Bay 1 Direct discharge of untreated sew age/animal w astes at/upstream of site 2 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination at/upstream of site 3 Urban stormw ater protected from sew age ingress 4 Discharges from on-site/private sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 5 Communal sew age disposal w ith primary or secondary treatment 6 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 7 Intensive agricultural landuse in immediate catchment & potential run-off of untreated animal effluent (e.g., dairying, piggeries) 8 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agricultural/urban/rural catchment 9 Unrestricted stock access to w aterw ays 10 Incidence and density of birdlife 11 Water craft mooring or use 12 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Stream, drain or w etland discharging into/upstream of site No Yes No No Continue below if streams/drains present, otherwise go to question 19 Is the water quality of the stream, drain or wetland affected or likely to be affected by: Discharges of untreated, primary or secondary treated human effluent, on-site/other private 13 sew age systems (e.g., septic tanks) 14 Stormw ater outlets w ith potential sew age contamination/combined stormw ater 15 Communal sew age disposal w ith tertiary treatment 16 High intensity agriculture/rural activities, density of feral animal/bird populations 17 Focal points of drainage, as run-off from low -intensity agriculture/urban/rural catchment 18 Potential for faecal contamination by feral animals (e.g., forest or bush run-off) Of the factors listed 1-12 & above, w hich factor has the primary influence on microbiological water quality of the site? Other influences: 19 Does rainfall trigger contamination events? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 20 Does microbial w ater data ever exceed action guidelines? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? 21 Have illnesses ever been notified from this area? Y N? Y N? Y N? Y N? Suggested SIC for Sites: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 108 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

116 Lake Middleton at north end of lake 2012/ C Moderate Fair 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ B Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good All samples collected during the 2016/17 summer remained below both Alert and Action guideline values. The SFRG for Lake Middleton continues to be good meaning it is suitable for contact recreation. Lake Aviemore at Loch Laird 2012/ D Moderate Poor 2013/ D Moderate Poor 2014/ D Moderate Poor 2015/ D Moderate Poor 2016/ C Moderate Fair Over the 2016/17 summer there was one exceedance of the Alert guideline value for E. coli. The SFRG has improved from poor to fair for this site. Lake Benmore at Sailors Cutting 2012/ A Moderate Good 2013/ A Moderate Good 2014/ A Moderate Good 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values at this site over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG remains as good. Lake Benmore at Pumpkin Bay 2012/ B Moderate Good 2013/ C Moderate Fair 2014/ C Moderate Fair 2015/ A Moderate Good 2016/ A Moderate Good There were no exceedances of the Alert or Action guideline values at this site over the 2016/17 summer. The SFRG remains as good and the site is considered to be suitable for contact recreation. Environment Canterbury Technical Report 109

117