1. Fish Barriers

2. Fish Barrier Basics
Fish barriers only work if they prevent fish from being removed from the river.
ECAN are responsible for ensuring compliance for fish screens, not Fish and Game.
If you take something you should pay for it, or either return or replace it.
Irrigators and farmers are responsible for returning any fish taken.
A mechanism needs to be developed that allows FG to investigate fish barrier issues if they deem it necessary.

3. Fish Barrier Best Practice Standard
All native fish, salmon and trout should remain in the river. Any fish that are removed must be returned unharmed or replaced!
What is ECAN’s fish barrier policy

4. Fish Barrier Testing
The onus is on the consent holder to prove that the fish barrier actually works.
The science is known with ECAN, NIWA, IrrigationNZ, and Fish and Game all being involved since 2005.

5. Jamieson 2007 7 Guidelines. They apply to all fish barrier designs.
Each of the guidelines contributes / detracts from the fish barrier’s effectiveness.
All need to be achieved for an effective fish barrier.
The sweep velocity must be high enough to ensure that the fish are removed promptly from the fish barrier and returned to the river.

6. What’s the problem?
All the irrigation ponds and raceways are full off native fish, salmon and trout.
Consent conditions don’t stipulate a fish screen efficiency rating to be achieved and then maintained, except CPW’s consent.
There is absolutely no incentive for the irrigator / farmer to improve their fish barrier efficiency.

7. What’s the problem …….
There is no annual testing of high risk fish barriers.
Each zone has a different approach to fish barriers.
ECAN are the only authority that can enforce consent conditions and make improvements.
Farmers don’t want fish in their irrigation ponds and raceways.

8. RDR Original complaint.
ECAN did anglers a favour when they put an abatement notice on RDR Ltd.

9. The science on RDR Ltd’s fish barrier said

10. Rangitata Water Conservation Order states

11. What’s at stake on the RDR
Ryder Report 2015 ( for RDR Ltd) advised that “about 200,000 salmon smolt are entrained in RDR canal”.
60,000 smolt have been used for testing fish barrier efficiency since 2008.
Each salmon smolt has a cost value of $1.
Live fish testing to establish fish screen efficiencies has been documented since 2008.

12. CPW Fish Barrier
Rakaia River Intake – Fish Barrier: Ryder 17th December 2013
“Monitoring of galleries constructed to date has included the release of frozen peas and corn (as a model of juvenile fish) in front of the gallery”

13. CPW Ryder 17 December 2013
“We consider that the design specifications of the fish barrier generally satisfy Conditions 6 to 11 of Water Permit No. CRC137417, and will be adequate to achieve the performance objectives. Final confirmation that the performance objectives have been met can only be made via an appropriately designed and implemented monitoring programme once the intake and associated fish passage structures have been built and are operating.”

14. CPW
ECAN sign off 8th September 2016.

15. ECAN sign off

16. CPW
ECAN in December 2016 advised “The applicant and their consultants have attempted use of surrogate organic particles (frozen vegetables), although such methods are considered, at best, initial assessments rather than methods demonstrating definitive efficiency results”.

17. CPW If not mixed veges then what for testing?
“Therefore, there is no Canterbury based regulatory or policy advice on how such a condition is to be actioned or demonstrated. An agreed approach will therefore have to be developed specifically for this activity / consent.  A meeting will be held in early 2017 by Environment Canterbury, CPW and relevant parties to discuss options and an agreed methodology for the monitoring programme, and acceptable demonstration of this criteria.”

18. Rangitata Water / Rangitata South Irrigation Fish Barrier
Given the parties involved it should have been the shining example of best practice for fish barriers.
Not tested for fish screen efficiency.
Anglers had to put pressure on Fish and Game to test the fish barrier which is still yet to be done.
There is a gate on the fish bypass.

19. Requirements
Water volumes from the tributaries to the sea remain high
The spawning grounds remain silt and chemical free.
Farmers aren’t allowed to carry out major works in the spawning streams.
All fish remain in the river for down and upstream migration unless legally caught by anglers.
No fish are caught in trawler nets.
Anglers catch fish.

20. Loss of smolt
El Nino La Nina weather pattern, Red Cod stocks to high / too low, irrigators taking more smolt than they used to, too many or too few Kahawai, the loss of spawning stream capacity and productivity, the sea is less productive, the sea is too hot, the currents at sea have changed and so it goes on.
The only thing for sure is that the general for salmon has been downwards and since 2000 has dramatically dropped.

21. CSIFG February 2017 Historical Run Waimakariri 15,000 Rakaia 23,000
Ashburton 5,000
Rangitata 13,000
Waitaki 36,000

22. It’s time to break the irrigation paradigm!
We take We take ……. Now we want more!
It’s about time some respect was shown to the Water Conservation Orders on the Rakaia and Rangitata rivers and the intent behind them.
Who really benefits from water extraction?
Who is going to pay if the irrigators get it wrong?

23. What do I want?
Councillors to ask tuff insightful questions and challenge staff over compliance issues for what’s best for the environment and the people it affects.
ECAN to put the environment first.
Annual live fish testing for all high risk fish barriers with independent monitoring as per RDR Ltd.

24. Penalties to be put in place for continued non compliance issues.
Irrigators / farmers to return unharmed, or replace, any fish removed by them.
A standard set of requirements for all fish barriers applied across all zones.
An action plan to test all high risk fish barriers with councillors monitoring progress.