Coastal Aquifer Saltwater Intrusion Guidelines

Coastal aquifer
saltwater intrusion
assessment guidelines
Report No. R04/18
ISBN 1-86937-543-2
Revised version of U02/35
Philippa Aitchison-Earl
Marc Ettema
Carl Hanson
Shirley Hayward
Rebecca Larking
Russel Sanders
David Scott
Anna Veltman
November 2003
Report R04/18
58 Kilmore Street
PO Box 345
Christchurch
Phone (03) 365 3828
Fax (03) 365 3194
75 Church Street
PO Box 550
Timaru
Phone (03) 688 9069
Fax (03) 688 9067
Website: www.ecan.govt.nz
Customer Services Phone 0800 324 636
Coastal aquifer saltwater intrusion assessment guidelines
Executive summary
Saltwater intrusion is the migration of saltwater into a freshwater aquifer. It occurs when
there is a reduction in the freshwater head and flow at the sea water interface. This
commonly occurs when there is over pumping or insufficient groundwater recharge of an
aquifer in the coastal zone.
To date coastal aquifer saltwater intrusion in response to pumping has been observed at
only two sites in Canterbury, but there is potential for it to become more of an issue as the
volumes of coastal groundwater abstraction increase especially in response to rising
irrigation demand.
These guidelines provide guidance for situations where saltwater intrusion from the sea or
nearby brackish water bodies (e.g. estuaries, salty lakes, tidal rivers) may be a concern, and
to provide tools to assess the significance of the issue.
Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 3

4 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Table of Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................... 3
1 Background ........................................................................................ 7
1.1 The issue of saltwater intrusion.......................................................................7
1.2 Purpose of the guidelines................................................................................7
1.3 Structure of the guidelines ..............................................................................7
2 Types of saltwater intrusion.............................................................. 8
3 Water quality..................................................................................... 10
3.1 Chemistry of seawater and groundwater ......................................................10
3.2 Potential hazards of saltwater intrusion ........................................................11
3.2.1 Drinking water...................................................................................11
3.2.2 Irrigation............................................................................................11
3.2.3 Other uses ........................................................................................12
3.3 Determination of saltwater intrusion..............................................................12
3.4 Examples of saltwater intrusion in Canterbury..............................................14
3.5 Water quality summary..................................................................................16
4 Modelling saltwater intrusion.......................................................... 17

4.1 Interface position equations ..........................................................................17
4.1.1 Ghyben-Herzberg formula................................................................17
4.1.2 Glover equation ................................................................................18
4.2 Upconing equations.......................................................................................19
5 Screening criteria for consents ...................................................... 20

5.1 Distance ........................................................................................................20
5.2 Calculation of potential effect ........................................................................22
5.2.1 Unconfined aquifers..........................................................................22
5.2.2 Semi-confined and confined aquifers ...............................................23
6 Monitoring conditions ..................................................................... 24

6.1 Intrusion risk ..................................................................................................24
6.2 Monitoring types ............................................................................................24
6.2.1 Aquifer pressure monitoring .............................................................24
6.2.2 Water quality monitoring...................................................................25
6.2.3 Water usage monitoring ...................................................................25
6.3 Existing saltwater intrusion conditions ..........................................................25
7 References........................................................................................ 26
Appendix 1 Justification for maintaining a 1.5m piezometric head at the

coast ....................................................................................... 27

Appendix 2 Modelling potential effects of saltwater intrusion worked

examples of confined and unconfined aquifers ................. 31
Appendix 3 Examples of potential consent conditions based on risk

assessment ............................................................................ 35
Appendix 4 Summary of existing groundwater takes in Canterbury with

saltwater intrusion consent conditions ............................... 37
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Position of the salt-fresh water interface in unconfined and confined
aquifers (from Freeze and Cherry, 1979) ..........................................................8
Figure 2.2 Upconing and landward movement of the salt/fresh water interface
created by pumping ...........................................................................................9
Figure 2.3 Downwards seepage of saline water into an aquifer due to decreased
pressures in underlying aquifer..........................................................................9
Figure 3.1 Ideal mixing of groundwater and sea water.....................................................13
Figure 3.2 Relationship between electrical conductivity and chloride concentration........14
Figure 3.3 Conductivity values and groundwater levels from well J40/0042 near
Makikihi.. ..........................................................................................................15
Figure 4.1 Schematic diagram of variables used in saltwater intrusion/ upconing
equations. ........................................................................................................18
Figure 4.2 Flow pattern near the coast (modified from Glover, 1964) ..............................19
Figure 4.3 Upconing of interface in response to pumping (Domenico and Schwartz,
1990) ................................................................................................................20
Figure 5.1 Flow chart showing decision process for handling groundwater take
consents with potential saltwater intrusion issues ...........................................21
Figure 5.2 Example of wells above and below sea level ..................................................23
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Comparison of dissolved ions in sea water and groundwater .........................10
Table 3.2 Drinking-water standards for saline water .......................................................11
Table 6.1 Risk Factors in Saltwater Intrusion Assessment .............................................24
Acknowledgements
This report was reviewed by Peter Callander of Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, and Richard
de Joux of Environmental Consultancy Services.

1 Background
1.1 The issue of saltwater intrusion
Saltwater intrusion is the migration of saltwater into a freshwater aquifer. It occurs when
there is a reduction in the freshwater head and flow at the sea water interface. This
commonly occurs when there is over pumping or insufficient groundwater recharge of an
aquifer in the coastal zone.
To date coastal aquifer saltwater intrusion in response to pumping has been observed at
only two sites in Canterbury, but there is potential for it to become more of an issue as the
volumes of coastal groundwater abstraction increase especially in response to rising
irrigation demand.
There is an existing problem in the Woolston Heathcote area where localised pressure
reversal due to industrial and public supply pumping has caused groundwater levels to drop
below the high tide level. This has allowed downwards penetration of seawater from the
Avon - Heathcote estuary. A management regime is now in place to deal with this.
Irrigation pumping from a coastal well in an unconfined aquifer near Makikihi has resulted in
significantly raised chloride and conductivity levels in some summers. Water quality quickly
returns to normal levels over the winter months. The owner now has consent conditions that
allow for pumping restrictions at times when monitored water quality goes beyond a
threshold level.
1.2 Purpose of the guidelines

These guidelines have been prepared to provide guidance for situations where saltwater
intrusion from the sea or nearby brackish water bodies (e.g. estuaries, salty lakes, tidal
rivers) may be a concern, and to provide tools to assess the significance of the issue. To an
extent these guidelines provide methods to complement the saltwater intrusion policies
outlined in the discussion draft of the Natural Resources Regional Plan Water Quantity
chapter.
Although aquifer contamination can also occur in these coastal areas due to lowering of
pressures under contaminated sites (e.g. abandoned landfills) inducing downward
movement of contaminants this aspect is not dealt with in these guidelines.
1.3 Structure of the guidelines

The guidelines have been organised into the following sections:
Section 2: Types of Saltwater Intrusion

An outline and illustrations of the three major types of saltwater
intrusion
Section 3: Water Quality

A description of water chemistry and conductivity associated with salt
water intrusion
Section 4: Modelling of Saltwater Intrusion

A description of the methods and equations for determining the
position of the saltwater interface.

Section 5: Screening Criteria for Consents

An outline of how to determine if a groundwater abstraction is likely to
have an effect on saltwater intrusion.
Section 6: Monitoring Conditions

Examples of appropriate monitoring conditions to impose on
groundwater abstractions regarded as having potential saltwater
intrusion effects.
2 Types of saltwater intrusion

Saltwater intrusion is the movement of saline groundwater into aquifers; because saltwater is
denser than freshwater it can penetrate into coastal aquifers and underlie the fresh
groundwater. The interface is a term used to represent the transition from fresh to salt
water, and is not a line, but a diffuse zone of mixing.
There are three types of saltwater intrusion in the Canterbury region:
(a) Lateral movement of the fresh/salt water interface in aquifers connected to the sea
(Figure 2.1);
(b) Upconing of saltwater lying at depth within an aquifer (Figure 2.2); and
(c) Downwards migration of saline water in estuaries and the coastal margin of streams
(Figure 2.3).
i) Salt-fresh water interface in an unconfined aquifer under hydrostatic conditions (on left) and under
steady state seaward flow (on right)
ii) Salt-fresh water interface in a confined coastal aquifer under condtions of steady state seaward flow
(left) and seawater intrusion induced by pumping (right).
Figure 2.1 Position of the salt-fresh water interface in unconfined and confined
aquifers (from Freeze and Cherry, 1979)

Figure 2.2 Upconing and landward movement of the salt/fresh water interface
created by pumping
Static Water Pressure
Saline Estuary
essure
Water Pr
Pumped
AQUITARD
AQUIFER
Figure 2.3 Downwards seepage of saline water into an aquifer due to decreased
pressures in underlying aquifer.

3 Water quality
3.1 Chemistry of seawater and groundwater
The chemistry of sea water is very distinct from that of fresh groundwater, so the effects of
saltwater intrusion can be quite dramatic. The total concentration of dissolved ions in sea
water is about 35,000 milligrams per litre (mg/L), roughly 300 times that typically found in
fresh Canterbury groundwater (Table 3.1). Moreover, the ions dissolved in sea water are
dominated by chloride and sodium, whereas the ions in most Canterbury groundwater are
dominated by bicarbonate1 and calcium.
Table 3.1 Comparison of dissolved ions in sea water and groundwater

Ion or property Units Sea water1 Canterbury groundwater2
Anions
Cl- mg/L 20,000 7.9
SO42- mg/L 2,560 7.7
HCO3- (alkalinity) mg/L 132 53.0
NO3- mg/L 0.28 3.1
Cations
Na+ mg/L 11,000 9.7
Mg2+ mg/L 1,300 3.7
Ca2+ mg/L 420 15.0
K+ mg/L 410 1.0
Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 35,900 112
Electrical conductivity mS/m 4,800 17

pH 8.1 6.8
mg/L = milligrams per litre
mS/m = milliSiemens per metre
SOURCES:
1: analysis of a sea water sample collected from Brighton Beach, Christchurch (site CRC303779), in June 1997;
the values
agree well with published values in Drake et al. (1978), Drever (1997), Krauskopf (1979), and the Open
University (1989)
2: median values from 2001 annual groundwater quality survey of 243 wells in Canterbury
When a well begins to draw in seawater, the concentrations of all dissolved ions increase,
and chloride and sodium concentrations increase relative to bicarbonate and calcium
concentrations, respectively. The water becomes unpleasant to drink, or even unpotable,
and it may become unsuitable for irrigation or other uses as well.
1
Bicarbonate (HCO3- ) concentration is generally measured by titration and reported as alkalinity in
-
mg/L HCO3-. At the pH levels generally found in Canterbury groundwater, the bicarbonate (HCO3 )
ion accounts for virtually all of the measured alkalinity, so for the purposes of this paper, alkalinity
and bicarbonate concentraton are assumed to be synonymous. However, it should be noted that at
pH levels above 9 or 10, the carbonate ion (CO32- ) accounts for a significant portion of the alkalinity
measurement.

3.2 Potential hazards of saltwater intrusion

3.2.1 Drinking water
Saltwater intrusion can affect the suitability of groundwater for both drinking and irrigation.
Pure seawater is not potable, but there are no health guidelines for safe concentrations of
TDS or any of the major ions in seawater. However, the Ministry of Health has set guideline
values for aesthetic characteristics of water, mainly taste and corrosiveness (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Drinking-water standards for saline water
Ion / Property Guideline Value (mg/L) Comments
sodium 200 taste

chloride 250 taste, corrosion
sulphate 250 taste, corrosion
scale deposition, possible
hardness (Ca + Mg) 200
corrosion
TDS 1000 taste
If the groundwater described in Table 3.1 were contaminated with only 2% seawater (i.e. a
mixture of 98% groundwater and 2% seawater), the sodium and chloride concentrations
would exceed the Guideline Values listed in Table 3.2 (see Figure 3.2).
3.2.2 Irrigation
Irrigation with saline water can damage soils and crops. The main effects are salinity and
sodicity.
3.2.2.1 Salinity
In dry climates, where the evaporation rates are high relative to the amount of water that
leaches through the soil profile, irrigation with saline water can cause salts to accumulate in
the soils. Over time, the soils can become too saline to support plant growth. The long-term
development of saline soils through poor irrigation practices is probably not a threat in New
Zealand because winter rainfall is generally sufficient to leach any salts that might
accumulate over the summer irrigation season. However, irrigation with saline water could
damage the crops that are irrigated, depending on the salinity of the water and the salt
tolerance of the crops. A thorough assessment of the salt tolerances of different crops is
beyond the scope of these guidelines, and the reader is referred to other documents like the
ANZECC (2000) guidelines.
3.2.2.2 Sodicity
If soil pore water contains too much dissolved sodium relative to calcium and magnesium,
the sodium ions can replace calcium and magnesium ions that are adsorbed to the clay
particles in the soil. This can destroy the soil structure, making the soils difficult to cultivate
and reducing water availability in the soil profile (ANZECC, 2000). The ratio of sodium to
calcium and magnesium is commonly assessed by the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR):
SAR =
( NA )
+
(1)
(CA ++
) + (Mg )++

The median Canterbury groundwater in Table 3.1 has an SAR of 0.8, while seawater has an
SAR of 83. According to Handbook 60 (USSL 1954), an old publication of the United States
Department of Agriculture that is still widely cited, irrigation water with an SAR less than 10
poses a low risk to soils, though the risk increases somewhat with TDS ( measured by
electrical conductivity). In contrast, the ANZECC (2000) guidelines suggest that at low TDS
concentrations, water with SAR > 5 can cause soil structure problems, but the soil can
tolerate water much higher SAR values if the TDS concentration is high.
Soil type is an important factor in determining the vulnerability of soils to sodicity. Soils with
high clay content are the most vulnerable, while sandy soils can tolerate more sodic irrigation
water with little effect.
3.2.3 Other uses
Saltwater contamination can also affect the suitability of water for stockwater or
commercial/industrial uses. According to the ANZECC guidelines (ANZECC, 2000), stock
may be reluctant to drink water with total dissolved solids concentrations above 2,000 to
5,000 mg/L, though decline in health may only occur with higher concentrations (3,000 to
10,000 mg/L). Water quality limits for industries may vary widely depending on the type of
industry.
3.3 Determination of saltwater intrusion
When a well is affected by saltwater intrusion, there is a dramatic increase in the

concentration of dissolved solids in the well water, and the ratios of chloride:bicarbonate and
sodium:calcium increase. Figure 3.1 shows a simplified picture of how the chemistry of a
sample of typical Canterbury groundwater might change as it is contaminated with pure sea
water in a laboratory environment. Chloride and sodium concentrations increase dramatically
with even small amounts of seawater contamination, while bicarbonate and calcium
concentrations remain relatively unaffected. In the real world, the change in water chemistry
can be quite complex due to cation exchange processes and other processes in the aquifer,
but the general pattern will be similar to that shown in Figure 3.1.

1000
900
800
Concentration (mg/L)
700
chloride
600
500
sodium
400
300
200
alkalinity calcium
100
0
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Percentage of sea water in mixture
Figure 3.1 Ideal mixing of groundwater and sea water. Based on the concentrations
for groundwater and sea water given in Table 3.1. The graph represents
the results of mixing with no interaction between the water and the
surrounding aquifer material. On the x-axis, 0% indicates pure
groundwater, 100% would indicate pure sea water.
A relatively cheap and convenient way to screen for the effects of saltwater intrusion is to
monitor electrical conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of how well electricity is conducted
through a given distance of water, and it is directly related to the concentration of dissolved
ions in the water. Since saltwater contamination causes a sharp rise in total dissolved solids,
it will also cause a sharp rise in conductivity. It must be noted, however, that other
contamination can also cause conductivity to increase, so care must be taken when
interpreting conductivity results.
Environment Canterbury records conductivity in units of milliSiemens per metre (mS/m), but
other units are often used, so care must be taken when recording and interpreting
measurements. In fact, most field meters display measurement results in different units
depending on the magnitude of the result, so a user needs to be very careful when reading
the meter. Other units commonly in use for conductivity values include microSiemens per
centimetre (1 uS/cm = 0.1 mS/m) and deciSiemens per metre (1 dS/m = 100 mS/m).
For the range of values commonly measured in coastal Canterbury groundwater, the
relationship between conductivity and chloride concentration is almost linear (Figure 3.2),
and chloride concentration can be estimated from conductivity using the formula
y = 2.3x 33 (2)
where y is the chloride concentration in mg/L and x is the conductivity in mS/m. Based on the
data in Figure 3.2, the chloride concentration exceeds the aesthetic Guideline Value of 250
mg/L when conductivity exceeds about 100 - 120 mS/m. This is much higher than most
conductivity values measured in Canterbury groundwater.

500
450
400
MoH Guideline Value
250 mg/L
350
Chloride (mg/L)
300
250
200
y = 2.3x - 32.8
150 2
R = 0.9
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Electrical conductivity (mS/m)
Figure 3.2 Relationship between electrical conductivity and chloride concentration.

Based on data from 1320 samples collected from wells (220 total) within
2 kilometres of the Canterbury coast during the period January 1990
through June 2003. The linear regression equation is calculated using
only samples with conductivity values less than 200 mS/m.
A conductivity measurement is much cheaper than a full chemical analysis for major ion
concentrations, and it can even be made in the field using a portable meter. Such field
measurements are generally reliable, provided that the meter is maintained properly and
calibrated regularly. It is also good practice to collect periodic samples for laboratory analysis
as another quality control check.
Conductivity is affected by temperature, so measurements are typically corrected to 25C.

Most field instruments have the capability to do this. Conductivity is also affected by
pressure, but at the pressures of most groundwater samples, the variation is minor. Finally,
as mentioned above, care must be taken with field meters to record the conductivity values
in the correct units.
3.4 Examples of saltwater intrusion in Canterbury

An example of a well that is probably affected by saltwater intrusion is well J39/0042, a 7-
metre deep well in southern Canterbury that is located less than 400 metres from the coast
(this well was mentioned in Section 1.1 above). The well is part of Environment Canterburys
regular monthly monitoring programme. For much of the year, the conductivities in this well
are in the range of 20-40 mS/m, but in some late summer periods, when the well has been
pumped for irrigation, the conductivity rises to over 500 mS/m (Figure 3.3). The chloride
concentration rises to 1000-2000 mg/L at these times, whereas it is normally less than 50
mg/L. In contrast, the bicarbonate concentration remains between 40 and 60 mg/L. This
pattern is much like the ideal mixing pattern shown in Figure 3.1.

1000 0
900 -1
800 -2
Groundwater level (m)

Condcutivity (mS/m) 700 -3
600 -4
500 -5
400 -6
300 -7
200 -8
100 -9
0 -10
Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03
Date
conductivity groundwater depth
Figure 3.3 Conductivity values and groundwater levels from well J40/0042 near
Makikihi. Groundwater levels are shown such that more negative values
indicate deeper groundwater levels.
Sodium and calcium are only monitored quarterly in well J39/0042, and they have been
analysed during a high-conductivity event on only one occasion. Sodium concentrations are
usually in the range of about 20-40 mg/L, but on this occasion the concentration rose to 890
mg/L, while the calcium concentration, which is normally in the range of 10-40 mg/L, rose to
only 210 mg/L. The chemical data from the well are consistent with saltwater intrusion,
where prolonged pumping draws the saltwater/freshwater interface closer to the well.
Well M36/1159, located in the Woolston area of Christchurch, is another well affected by
saltwater intrusion. Samples from this well never have low conductivity values. Instead, the
values are generally in the range of 500 to 600 mS/m. Chloride concentrations are around
2000 mg/L and sodium concentrations around 400-500 mg/L, in contrast to bicarbonate
concentrations around 70 mg/L and calcium and magnesium concentrations each around
200-400 mg/L. The ion proportions are much more like those in sea water than in
groundwater, and they probably indicate persistent salt water contamination, in contrast to
the periodic saltwater intrusion seen in well J39/0042.
High conductivity values can be caused by other factors than saltwater intrusion. For
example, groundwater in limestone aquifers commonly has elevated concentrations of
dissolved calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate ions that can cause high conductivity
values. Wells O33/0061 and N33/0091, located in the Cheviot-Mina area in northern
Canterbury, consistently have conductivity values between 50 and 100 mS/m. They have
high sodium and chloride concentrations, but the concentrations of calcium and bicarbonate
are higher, and this reflects limestone and marine sediments in the aquifers rather than
saltwater intrusion.
Well J39/0259, located at Redruth just south of Timaru, has high conductivity values
(commonly in the range of 80-90 mS/m) and sodium concentrations much greater than
calcium, but the bicarbonate concentration is generally a bit higher than chloride
concentration, though both are high (bicarbonate is around 200-230 mg/L, chloride is around
160-180 mg/L). The well is located near Saltwater Creek, which is tidal, and the chemistry in
the wells may result from a combination of the infiltration of saline water from the creek,
together with interactions with the aquifer sediments.

Groundwater contamination from landfills and industrial sites can also cause increases in
dissolved ion concentrations. Well M35/3085, located in the Wigram area south of
Christchurch, is directly down gradient of a landfill. Conductivities have been measured in
the range from 73 to 146, but the ions are dominated by bicarbonate and calcium rather than
sodium and chloride. The well also has high concentrations of ammonia, iron, and
manganese, which are commonly indicative of landfill leachate.
Finally, there are situations where contamination by sea water or seawater salts may not be
due to saltwater intrusion. If aquifer sediments contain old sea water from the time of
sediment deposition (called connate water), a well penetrating these sediments will
produce saline water, even though it has not reached the saltwater/freshwater interface. If
the well is close to such sediments, prolonged pumping may eventually draw the saline
connate water into the well. Saline connate water can be found in inland basins as well as in
coastal areas.
Near the coast, rain water has higher concentrations of sea salts than it does further inland,
and this, combined with the deposition of sea spray, commonly increases the salt content of
soils near the coast. The salts are leached through the soils to the water table, and the
groundwater becomes slightly saline. The salinity is low, but since the ion proportions are
similar to those in sea water, the chemistry can be mistaken for early signs of saltwater
intrusion. However, the effect will probably be greatest when groundwater levels are high as
a result of high recharge; this is the opposite pattern to that seen in most cases of saltwater
intrusion.
Saline rainfall and sea spray have been suggested as part of the cause of elevated salinity in
the groundwater at the Amberley golf course (Moore, 1995, also Appendix 3), though
saltwater intrusion cannot be ruled out there. The effects of sea spray may also be
responsible for the salinity observed in a well at Woodend (M35/0527), where conductivities
decreased during a pumping test. It may be that at the start of pumping, the well was
drawing shallow groundwater that was contaminated by leached salt, and as the test
progressed, the well began to draw deeper water with lower salinity.
3.5 Water quality summary

In summary, the best evidence for saltwater intrusion is proximity to the coast and a distinct
rise in conductivity coincident with pumping or low groundwater levels. The rise in
conductivity would be accompanied by increasing ratios of chloride:bicarbonate and
sodium:calcium. Where a well has high conductivity values from the first time it is tested,
additional chemistry may provide clues as to whether the water is contaminated with sea
water, affected by interactions with soluble aquifer material like limestone or some volcanic
sediments, or affected by industrial contamination. Changes in chemistry with pumping can
also indicate whether a well is drawing in more sea water or more fresh water over time.

4 Modelling saltwater intrusion

4.1 Interface position equations
The fresh-salt water interface is a transitional zone caused by dispersion, however, often the
width of this zone is small compared to the aquifer thickness, and it is appropriate to assume
an abrupt interface approximation (Walton, 1991). The Ghyben-Herzberg and Glover
equations are such estimations, and are outlined below.
4.1.1 Ghyben-Herzberg formula
Initial studies of saltwater intrusion were independently undertaken by Ghyben, (1889), and
Herzberg (1901), who demonstrated that saltwater in coastal areas occurred at depths below
sea level equivalent to approximately 40 times the height of fresh water above sea level.
This is referred to as the Ghyben-Herzberg formula.
f
z= h f (3)

s f
Where z is the depth below sea level to a point on the interface, hf is the height of the fresh
water aquifer level above sea level, f is the fresh water density and s is the salt water
density (Figure 4.1). If the fresh and saltwater densities are taken as f = 1 and s = 1.025,
the formula is simplified as:
z = 40hf (4)
This suggests that if the water table in an unconfined aquifer is lowered by 1 m there will be
a 40 m rise in the saltwater interface. Consequently, relatively small water level decreases in
a fresh water aquifer may have relatively large impacts on the intrusion of saltwater into that
aquifer.
The Ghyben-Herzberg relationship is an equilibrium model and does not take into account
variables such as fresh water inflow and hydraulic gradient changes.

Groun
d leve
l
Water t
Well able
Depth hf Mean Sea level
SEA
Fresh Water
e
fac
i nter
r
z wate
d h
res Salt Water
alt-f
S
Figure 4.1 Schematic diagram of variables used in saltwater intrusion/ upconing

equations.
4.1.2 Glover equation
The Glover (1964) equation accounts for the effect of freshwater flow pushing the interface
to greater depths (Figure 4.2). Where:
2
2Q' x0 f
Q' f
z2 = + (5)
K ( s f ) K ( s f )
Q is the pumping rate

K is the hydraulic conductivity
0 is the distance from the shoreline
The greater the flow to the sea the deeper the interface. The Glover equation allows
calculation of the interface position at any point inland of the coast, allowing the geometry of
the saltwater wedge to be determined. Since Darcys law r3elates flow, conductivity and
gradient, Gloverss equation can be rewritten as:
2
2im im f
z = 2
+
( s f ) ( s f ) (6)
Where:
i is the freshwater hydraulic gradient, and
m is aquifer thickness

Seepage face
Land
surfac
e X0
Water tab
le
Ocean
Z0
fa ce
n ter
I
Fresh water
Saline water
Figure 4.2 Flow pattern near the coast (modified from Glover, 1964)
4.2 Upconing equations

Upconing of the interface can occur when the aquifer head is lowered by pumping at a
well(s) (Figure 2.2). An approximate analytical solution for upconing that calculates a new
equilibrium elevation of the interface is response to pumping is given by Schmorak and
Mercado (1969) (Figure 4.3) as:
Q f
z= (7)
2dK ( s f )
where:
z is the new equilibrium elevation (the distance between the upconed and original
interface)
Q is the pumping rate
This relationship only holds for very small rises in the interface and there exists a critical
elevation at which the interface is no longer stable and salt water flows to the well. Dagan
and Bear (1968) suggest that the interface will be stable where upconed heights do not
exceed one third of d which provides a basis for a maximum permitted pumping rate of:
s f
Qmax 0.6d 2 K (8)
s

Pumping
Upconed interface
d z
Original interface
Figure 4.3 Upconing of interface in response to pumping (Domenico and Schwartz,

1990)
Upconing can also occur in semi-confined aquifers where a well partially penetrates the
fresh-water zone, and is described in Motz (1992).
5 Screening criteria for consents

Suggested criteria for screening consent applications to determine the potential salt-water
contamination effect are outlined below, and summarised in a flow chart (Figure 5.1).
5.1 Distance
The first screening of potentially affected wells is a distance criterion. All wells within 1500m
of the coast, and all wells within 2000m of the coast that have a proposed pumping rate of
greater than 30 l/sec should be considered. These values have been selected in line with
the Ecans well interference guidelines (ECan, 2004) as the maximum distances that a
significant well pumping effect could be expected to propagate. In an area where cumulative
drawdown effects of pumping are already significant, or the applicants take is very large
(say in excess of 80 l/s), there may be grounds for extending the distance further.

Is well within 1500m of the

coast, or within 2000m and
pumping at > 30l/s?
No
Yes
Decide if aquifer is Confined or Unconfined.
Unconfined Aquifer Confined Aquifer

1) Use the most appropriate
1) Use Ghyben-Herzberg and/or method (e.g. Theis, Hunt
Glover equation to assess (2002)) to assess drawdown at
position of interface using the coast created by pumping
conservative water levels from the well.
(Section 4.1) 2) Assess whether this calculated
2) Assess the risk of upconing drawdown will maintain a 1.5m
using the Schmorak and aquifer head at the coast.
Mercado equation (Section 4.2): 3) If there are other groundwater
3) Decide if there is a potential for takes in the vicinity assess
upconing/landward movement of whether a 1.5m head will be
the interface. maintained at the coast in
4) Assess the cumulative impact of response to the cumulative
neighbouring bores, and of the impact of these and the
applicant. applicant.
5) Does previous monitoring 4) Does previous monitoring
suggest a potential saltwater suggest a potential saltwater
problem? problem
Is saltwater intrusion a potential? Is saltwater intrusion a potential?
Yes
Yes
No
Can saltwater intrusion effects be

mitigated?
No Does previous
monitoring suggest a
potential saltwater
Refuse Consent Yes risk?
No
Propose Consent Conditions
depending on assessed risk of saltwater
intrusion. Types of monitoring may
include:
Water quality/conductivity
monitoring
Aquifer pressure monitoring
Water usage monitoring.
Saltwater intrusion is
not an issue
Figure 5.1 Flow chart showing decision process for handling groundwater take
consents with potential saltwater intrusion issues

5.2 Calculation of potential effect
5.2.1 Unconfined aquifers
The position of the saltwater/interface should be initially modelled using the Ghyben-
Herzberg analysis. This requires knowledge of the elevation of the aquifers head above
mean sea level to be known. This data can be found using (in order or accuracy)
actual surveyed levels for the well in question
extrapolated data using wells in the immediate area with relative levels
estimated levels from topographic maps
The most conservative assessment of aquifer head must be made (i.e. the lowest number in
term of height above mean sea level) especially when the elevation of the well head is
estimated rather than measured.
The Glover solution may be used as a more refined estimation if the hydraulic conductivity,
or hydraulic gradient are known. Sources of transmissivity data are covered in Guidelines
for Well Interference (ECan, 2004). Hydraulic conductivity can be determined if the
thickness of the aquifer is known (where transmissivity = hydraulic conductivity times aquifer
thickness). Hydraulic gradients can be determined from piezometric contours.
Once the position of the interface is established, the potential for up-coning needs to be
estimated using the Schmorak and Mercado (1969) (Section 4.2). Upconing can only occur
when there is saline water within an aquifer underlying the pumping well. If the interface is
known to be greater than the base of the aquifer, then it is not appropriate to assess for
upconing. Input parameters required are: aquifer hydraulic conductivity; and the distance
from the bottom of the well to the interface position calculated using Ghyben-Herzberg (d).
Though pumping from one well may not create saltwater intrusion, pumping from a number
of wells in one area will move the position of the interface landward, and may potentially
create problems with saltwater intrusion. To assess the cumulative effect, all wells within
1500m (or 2000m if >30 l/sec) of the pumping well should be assessed. The distance to the
interface and the risk of upconing should be calculated for each well, factoring in the
cumulative drawdowns of all wells upon each other using Multiwell. The results of the
Multiwell assessment should be evaluated in light of the historical range of water level
fluctuations that occur in the area, to ensure that the calculation results are realistic. The
effect of the new take on the existing wells can then be calculated by re-assessing the
interface position and up-coning potential based on the additional drawdown created by the
new takes interference effect. The total effect for each well should not exceed one third of d
(Dagan and Bear, 1968).
Figure 5.1 illustrates two wells in an unconfined aquifer. Well A is shallower than sea level,
and Well B is deeper. Pumping from Well A is unlikely to lead to contamination of Well A,
but could lead to overall water level lowering, and thus movement of the salt-fresh water
interface. Pumping from Well B can result in movement of the interface, and contamination
of Well B. It would not be appropriate to require water quality or conductivity in Well A in
regard to monitoring conditions, as the well is unlikely to be contaminated as a result of its
own pumping.

Well A
Well B
Water ta
ble
Sea level
Ocean
Aquitard
Figure 5.2 Example of wells above and below sea level
A worked case example is included in Appendix 2.
5.2.2 Semi-confined and confined aquifers
Semi-confined and confined aquifers do not fit the conceptual model that is assumed in the
Ghyben-Herzberg and Dagan and Bear equations. The best way to prevent the potential
saltwater intrusion into a semi-confined or confined aquifer is to maintain water pressures at
the coast above mean sea level. A value of 1.5m above mean sea level (amsl) has been
selected as appropriate (for justification see Appendix 1). Coastal monitoring bores at
Woodend, New Brighton, Ellesmere and Seafield all currently record coastal first confined
aquifer pressures at above 1.5m amsl. For deeper aquifers, such as the second to fourth
aquifers in Christchurch, or deeper aquifers in the Rakaia-Ashburton Plains, maintaining an
upwards hydraulic gradient between aquifers at the coast is also important. There are a
relatively small number of wells in these aquifers, and it is recommended they are assessed
in consultation with ECans Groundwater Resources Section.
For a proposed groundwater take, a drawdown at the coast should be calculated using an
appropriate method (e.g. Theis). This calculated drawdown should then be superimposed
on the lowest measured water level at the coast in the same aquifer to ensure the proposed
new take will not reduce this level below 1.5m amsl. If data is available it may be reasonable
to use the 24 hour mean level on this lowest day (i.e. take account of tidal variation). If the
new take will theoretically lower the first aquifer pressure below 1.5m, then the option of
collecting further information such as aquifer testing to more accurately measure drawdowns
and obtain aquifer parameters exists. If the effect is still to lower the first aquifer pressure
below 1.5m, then consent conditions and mitigation options as discussed in Section 7 will be
required.
To assess cumulative effects all wells within 2000m of a point at the coast (determined in a
direct line from the well under application) should be assessed in terms of drawdown at the
coast. This is easily accomplished within Multiwell where a dummy well with co-ordinates at

the coastline is added. The total calculated drawdowns should not lower the aquifer
pressure below 1.5m amsl.
A worked case example is included in Appendix 2.
6 Monitoring conditions
6.1 Intrusion risk
Monitoring conditions should be imposed on abstractions that have been assessed as
having a potential risk of saltwater intrusion. The prescriptiveness of conditions will depend
on the perceived risk of intrusion. Table 6.1 outlines some examples of high and low risk
factors in saltwater intrusion.
Unconfined Aquifer Semi-confined to confined aquifer

Low Risk Low pump rate Low pump rate
Large distance between coast and well Large distance between coast and well
Shallow well No other wells between well and coast
Few nearby wells
High Risk High pump rate High pump rate
Small distance between coast and well Small distance between coast and well
Deeper well Other wells between the well and coast
Many nearby wells Water quality monitoring in past has
Water quality monitoring in past has indicated a risk.
indicated a risk
Table 6.1 Risk Factors in Saltwater Intrusion Assessment

Some examples of potential conditions based on risk factors are summarised in Appendix 3.
6.2 Monitoring types

The three main types of monitoring required are: aquifer pressure; water quality; and water
usage. All three types are outlined below.
6.2.1 Aquifer pressure monitoring
Monitoring aquifer pressures is an important means of checking that pressures are

maintained and do not permit saltwater intrusion to occur. It is essentially a preventative
measure, and is preferable to directly measuring water quality, which only detects intrusion
after it has already occurred. Aquifer pressures may be monitored at the pumping well itself,
or preferably at a Sentinel Well (a Sentinel Well refers to a well that would act as an early
warning of salt-water intrusion). A sentinel well should be located between the pumped bore
and the coast.
For consents that have a moderate to high risk of saltwater intrusion, monitoring water
pressures (and water quality) at a sentinel well is recommended. For consents with a low
risk of saltwater intrusion, monitoring pressures at the pumped well is acceptable. A pumped
well should generally be turned off for at least 24 hours before a water pressure is
measured.

6.2.2 Water quality monitoring
Water quality monitoring should be implemented where analysis indicates a risk of saltwater
intrusion/contamination. The level and frequency of monitoring required will depend on the
assessed risk. For low risk areas, annual or bi-annual samples of conductivity and chlorides
concentration may be sufficient. For higher risk takes more frequent monitoring and more
complete water quality measurements may be appropriate.
The frequency of monitoring will also be affected by the type of saltwater intrusion the aquifer
is at risk from. For landward movement of the salt/fresh water interface, longer term
measurements such as biannually will be sufficient to measure a trend, as the interface will
move slowly. For upconing it may be appropriate to have measurements at much more
frequent intervals, especially during the irrigation season as upconing can develop and
recede quickly.
Measurements from a sentinel well will be more appropriate for landward movements of the
interface, as any decrease in water quality will therefore be measured at this well before the
pumped well. For upconing however the greatest effect will be at the pumped well itself, and
measurements should be taken from this well.
6.2.3 Water usage monitoring
The total usage of groundwater in the coastal zone is very important from a management
perspective. Having actual usage figures in combination with groundwater modelling will
allow sustainable limits of groundwater usage to be set in coastal areas, to reduce the risk of
saltwater intrusion.
On a localised scale, knowing the total usage combined with water quality and pressure
measurements may allow a relationship between upconing and usage to be developed, so
that abstractors can manage their takes to levels that prevent the development of upconing.
Water usage monitoring is ideally through the installation of water meters, with the frequency
of measurements at a scale to suit the potential risk (e.g weekly measurements to detect
upconing, monthly for landwards intrusion).
6.3 Existing saltwater intrusion conditions

A summary of existing groundwater takes that have saltwater intrusion conditions is included
in Appendix 5. The conditions have often been non-standard, but there are now some
standard conditions, including WG010, WG011, WG012 that specifically relate to
conductivity measurement, as well as several water use and water level measurement
conditions.

7 References
ANZECC, 2000: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality, Volume 1, The Guidelines (Chapters 1-7). Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), Paper No. 4 -
Volume 1 (Chapters 1-7), October 2000, ISBN 09578245 0 5 (set), ISSN 1038 7072
.
Dagan, G., Bear, J., 1968: Solving the problem of local interface upconing in a coastal
aquifer by the method of small perturbations. Journal of Hydrological Research, v.6,
p. 15 44.
Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990: Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. John
Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.
Drake, C. L., Imbrie, J., Knauss, J.A., and Turekian, K.K., 1978: Oceanography. Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 445 pages.
Drever, J. I., 1997: The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Third edition. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey. 436 pages.
ECan, 2004: Guidelines for the auditing of well interference effects. Environment Canterbury
Unpublished Technical Report U03/7.
Freeze, R.A., Cherry, J.A., 1979: Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey.
Glover, R. E, 1964, The pattern of freshwater flowing in a coastal aquifer, in seawater in

coastal aquifers US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1613-C, p32-35
Hertel, I (1998): Groundwater contamination in the Heathcote/Woolston area, Christchurch,

New Zealand. University of Canterbury M.Sc. Thesis. June, 1998.
Krauskopf, K. B., 1979: Introduction to Geochemistry (2nd edition). McGraw-Hill, New York,
617 pages.
Moore, C.R., 1995: Groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer at Amberly Golf Course, North
Canterbury. Environment Canterbury report U94/19, file number PU1C/05207.
Christchurch.
Motz, L. H. 1992., Salt-water upconing in an aquifer overlain by a leaky confining bed

Groundwater Vol 30. No 2, p 192-198
Schmorak, S., and Mercado, A., 1969: Upconing of freshwater-seawater interface below
pumping wells. Water Resources Research, v5, p1290-1311.
The Open University, 1989: Ocean Chemistry and Deep-Sea Sediments. Oceanography
Series, Volume 5. Pergamon Press, Oxford, Sydney. 120 pages.
USSL (United States Salinity Laboratory) 1954: Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils. Agricultural Handbook 60, US Department of Agriculture, Washington
DC.
Walton, W.C., 1991, Principles of Groundwater Engineering., Lewis Publishers Inc,

Michigan.

Appendix 1 Justification for

maintaining a 1.5m piezometric head
at the coast
R Sanders
Introduction
Chapter 5 of the Canterbury NRRP Discussion Draft sets out a policy to manage
abstractions so that the groundwater level in the first confined aquifer is always maintained
at least 1.5 metres above mean sea level (Policy WQN7a). Discussions at a coastal aquifer
management workshop in Blenheim in April 2001 suggested that there was some consensus
among regional councils regarding a 1.5m level, but the most useful research to date
regarding levels in New Zealand has been in two main areas:
1. Research by a University of Canterbury Masters student in the coastal aquifers of
Christchurch (Hertel, 1998);
2. Wellington Regional Council have determined foreshore trigger levels for the
Waiwhetu Aquifer in the Hutt Valley based on groundwater monitoring and modelling
and Ghyben-Herzberg analyses.
The Canterbury Situation
The Christchurch research used a numerical model called SHARP to assess the position of
the freshwater/saltwater interface in the Christchurch confined aquifers. Hertel (1998)
estimated that the interface in the middle of the first confined aquifer (Riccarton Gravel) was
about 3.3 km offshore. She also used the Ghyben-Herzberg relationship to assess the
interface position as 3.1 km offshore. Her conclusion was that the Ghyben-Herzberg
relationship was suitable to estimate interface position in the confined aquifers and that:
to ensure that the freshwater/seawater interface does not migrate onshore the Ghyben-
Herzberg relationship should be applied to calculate sustainable water levels. For example, if
the aquifer (base) is 50m deep (below mean sea level), according to the Ghyben-Herzberg
relationship a freshwater hydraulic head of 1.25m should keep the interface offshore.
She went on to recommend that the value of head determined to keep the interface below
the base of the aquifer should be doubled so to provide a conservative minimum water level
at the coast. However, the Ghyben-Herzberg relationship is generally a conservative
estimate because it neglects the influence of freshwater flow which causes the interface to
occur at greater depths. On this basis it may be sufficient to set a minimum coastal water
level that keeps the predicted interface below the aquifer base. Table A1 shows the range
that these levels could be set at based on aquifer depths along the Canterbury coast.
It is apparent that the deeper the aquifer base the higher the water level needs to be relative
to sea level. The calculated range of values is between 0.7 and 1.52m amsl. If a default
figure to be used throughout Canterbury is to be chosen then it would be prudent to choose
a value at the upper end of this range (i.e. 1.5m) with some leeway to vary this if
hydrogeological conditions allow.
All of the tabulated coastal sites (Table A1) have lowest water levels above the 1.5m figure.
However Kaikoura, Woodend Beach, and Kaitorete Spit are close to these limits and a case
could possibly be made for having a lower figure for shallow aquifers (say 1m for Kaikoura or
Woodend Beach).

Table A1: Data related to selected Canterbury coastal monitoring sites (first confined
aquifer).
Location Base of First Piezometric Head at Coast Calculated Minimum

Confined Aquifer(m required to Keep Saltwater Groundwater Elevation
ECan below mean sea Below Base of Aquifer Measured at ECan
Monitoring level) (Ghyben-Herzberg) Coastal Monitoring
Well No. (m above mean sea level) Well
(m above mean sea
level)
Kaikoura 28 0.7 1.72
O31/0115
Woodend Beach 31.6 0.79 1.85
M35/7079
Christchurch 52.1 1.30 3.34
M36/5893 (Plover
St)
Kaitorete Spit 51 1.28 1.72
M37/0287
Ashburton- 61 1.52 2.97
Rakaia
L37/0693
The Wellington Example
The Wellington Regional Council (WRC) have produced a draft report on management of
saltwater intrusion in the Waiwhetu Artesian Aquifer, Lower Hutt. This alluvial aquifer (laid
down by the Hutt River) is the equivalent of the Canterbury first confined aquifers and is
subject to heavy abstraction for industrial use and Wellington public water supply. The
aquifer has been the subject of numerous studies related to saltwater intrusion dating back
to 1977 and is covered by a calibrated groundwater model. Aquifer throughflow is lost to the
sea:
1. where it intercepts the seabed near the entrance to Wellington Harbour;

2. through diffuse loss through the overlying aquitard (Petone Beds, equivalent to our
Christchurch Formation) within the Harbour; and
3. through large submarine springs that have been mapped as depressions in the
Harbour bed.
The latter have been of concern to the WRC since they provide a route for saltwater intrusion
if pressures in the springs fall below critical levels. Also of significance is that between 80
and 90% of the aquifers natural throughflow is captured by pumping.
Ingress of saltwater could occur either through causing the postulated existing saltwater
interface to move towards the shore, and/or through the backflow of harbour waters at
submarine discharge sites close to the foreshore. Should the lowermost part of the
Waiwhetu Aquifer contain saltwater in the vicinity of a major abstraction bore there would be
a serious risk of the bore becoming contaminated through upconing.
Pumping from the aquifer could cause critical aquifer conditions leading to saltwater
intrusion, including:
cessation of aquifer throughflow

cessation of submarine spring discharge
reversal of offshore groundwater gradients
foreshore water levels less than the calculated minimum Ghyben-Herzberg safe
level
offshore groundwater levels lower than harbour pressures at potential saltwater
entry sites.

WRC have found it most appropriate and practical to assess the critical saltwater intrusion
risk conditions in terms of foreshore water levels.
Table A2: Minimum Petone Foreshore Water Levels Associated With Saltwater
Intrusion Risk Aquifer Conditions
Aquifer Condition Critical Method of Determination

Foreshore
Level
m amsl (24
hour mean)
Cessation of aquifer throughflow at foreshore 2.5 Model + offshore flow gradients
Cessation of submarine spring discharge 2.3 Analytical assessment
Reversal of offshore hydraulic gradients 2.3 2.5 Monitored data
Ghyben-Herzberg minimum foreshore level 2.0 Ghyben-Herzberg analysis using

aquifer base (up to 80m below
mean sea level).
It should be noted that in this area the Ghyben-Herzberg level was not considered
conservative because throughflow is only about 10 20% of abstraction.
On the basis of the above figures the following tiered foreshore aquifer management levels
have been recommended (24 hour means):
Warning level: 2.5m amsl (start planning how to react to situation)

Critical level: 2.3m amsl (start reducing borefield pumping)
Minimum allowable foreshore level 2.0m amsl (all pumping ceases)
Interestingly these figures are proposed for inclusion in the WRC plan for the area. The
current level is 1.4m and this has never been met and saltwater intrusion to the borefields
has not been detected.
Conclusions
1. Based on our current limited knowledge of the Canterbury coastal aquifers it is

reasonable to use the Ghyben-Herzberg analysis to determine groundwater levels to
be maintained at the coast to ensure that saltwater intrusion into the first confined
aquifer does not occur.
2. Initially a blanket value of 1.5m amsl seems appropriate since for most first confined
aquifer depths (down to 60m below mean sea level) in Canterbury such a level
should keep the saltwater interface offshore.
3. There may be grounds for adjusting the 1.5m value at a later date if hydrogeological
knowledge suggests this or if saltwater intrusion appears
References
Hertel, I (1998): Groundwater contamination in the Heathcote/Woolston area, Christchurch,

New Zealand. University of Canterbury M.Sc. Thesis. June, 1998.
Phreatos Limited, 2001: Waiwhetu Artesian aquifer saltwater intrusion risk management
review. Draft report for Wellington Regional Council, April 2001.


Appendix 2 Modelling potential

effects of saltwater intrusion
worked examples of confined and
unconfined aquifers
Case Example 1: Unconfined Aquifer, Kaikoura
An assessment of the saltwater intrusion effects of pumping of O31/0331 near Peketa (south
of Kaikoura) has been undertaken. A key assumption is that this bore is tapping an
unconfined aquifer which a nearby well log suggests is likely.
The parameters used in this assessment are:
Distance of well from coast 230 m

Elevation of well 10 m amsl
Depth of well 24 m
Depth of well below msl 14 m
Lowest water level 9.1 m below top of well
Q (av. pumping rate of 30 l/s for 16 hrs/d) 1728 m3/d
1
K (aquifer hydraulic conductivity) 15 m/d
f (density of freshwater) 1 kg/l
s (density of saltwater) 1.025 kg/l
Total depth of O31/0331 24 m
Note: 1 Aquifer conductivity is based on conversion of five specific capacity values

for wells within 2 km of the applicant (including the applicants well) to transmissivity
(322 m2/d) and subsequent division by saturated thickness of 21 m (assume base of
aquifer is 30 m and subtract 9.1 m lowest water level).
Step 1: Assess approximate position of the unpumped saltwater interface using

Ghyben Herzberg Principle.
According to the Ghyben - Herzberg principle (Section 4.1.1, Equation (1))the freshwater -
saltwater interface would be at a distance z below mean sea level where:
In this case hf is 0.9 m amsl (10 m well elevation minus 9.1 m lowest water level) and hence
z is equal to 36m below mean sea level (bmsl) (refer to Figure 4.1 for schematic diagram of
parameters).
Step 2: Reassess the unpumped interface position using Glover equation if hydraulic
gradient data is available.
The Ghyben Herzberg principle assumes conditions of no flow through the aquifer.
Consequently it is generally a conservative assessment because freshwater flow causes the
interface to occur at greater depths as defined by the Glover equation (Glover, 1964). Where
the hydraulic gradient and transmissivity are known for the aquifer then an assessment of
interface depth can be made that accounts for this flow.
The position of the interface under O31/0331 using a conservative hydraulic gradient of
0.005 (i) and the transmissivity (T) of 322 m2/d. Using Darcys Law the flow (Q) through a
unit width of aquifer (w = 1m) can be derived thus:
Q = Tiw
Therefore: Q = 322 m2/d x 0.005 x 1 m = 1.6 m3/d

The Glover equation (Section 4.1.2, Equation (3)) can be applied where:
Q is the flow through the unit width of aquifer 1.6 m3/d

x is the distance from the coast 230 m
K is the aquifer hydraulic conductivity 15 m/d
Hence for the case in point the calculated value of z is 44.5 m, i.e. 8.5 m deeper than the
depth predicted by the Ghyben Herzberg method. This illustrates the conservative nature
of the latter.
Step 3: Use the method of Schmorak and Mercado (1969) to assess the degree of
upconing due to pumping.
The method of Schmorak and Mercado is used to assess the degree of upconing of the
interface that would occur in response to pumping from the well. In this case the z value is
different than in the preceding equations in that it refers to the size of the upconing.
Using Equation 5 (Section 4.2) where:
Q is the av. pumping rate 1728 m3/d

d is the distance between the bottom of the well screen
and the assessed unpumped interface 22 m (using Ghyben-
Herzburg)
30.5 (using Glover)
K is the aquifer hydraulic conductivity 15 m/d
Thus the upconing z is calculated as 33.3 m (using G-H interface) and 24 m (using the
Glover interface).
Step 4: Assess the significance of the size of the upconing.

Dagan and Bear (1968) suggest that the interface will be stable for upconed heights that do
not exceed one-third of d (Section 4.2). For both cases of d calculated in Step 3 the upconed
heights exceed one-third of d (Table B1) and so even at 30 l/s pumping there should be
saltwater intrusion conditions for this applicant.
Table B.1: Application of Dagan and Bear test to O31/0331.
Method of Upconing Depth of One-third of d Does z exceed

assessing d z interface below one third of d?
well
d
Ghyben
33.3 m 22 m 7.3 m Y
Herzberg method
Glover equation
24 m 30.5 m 10.2 m Y
Step 5: What pumping rate could be applied without being subject to saltwater
intrusion conditions?
Dagan and Bear also provide an equation (Section 4.2 Equation (6)) for calculating the
maximum pumping rate that will not lead to instability from a saltwater intrusion point of view.
The results are shown in Table B2.

Table B2: Assessment of maximum pumping rates that would allow exclusion from saltwater
intrusion conditions.
Method of Depth of Qmax Qmax

assessing d interface below m3/d l/s
well (16 hrs/d)
d
Ghyben
22 m 342 5.9
Herzberg method
Glover equation 30.5 m 657 11.4
Conclusion
The stepped assessment of saltwater intrusion potential based on a revision of consent
CRC021423 shows that cutting the consented pumping rate from 47 l/s to 30 l/s (16 hours
per day) still requires saltwater intrusion conditions to be imposed. This is the case whether
the more conservative Ghyben-Herzberg method or the Glover equation is used to assess
effects. The latter was based on assumptions of parameters and would only have been used
if the applicant had provided more details for assessment of hydraulic gradient (including
levels) and transmissivity.
Case Example 2: Semi-Confined Aquifer, Kyle, Ashburton-Rakaia Plains
L37/0976 has a proposed abstraction of 98 l/sec from an aquifer screened at 67.5-70.5m.

The well is located 840m from the coast (Figure B2). Transmissivity was estimated using the
TCalc program at 3200 m2/day and storativity at 0.0001 to represent a semi-confined aquifer.
A Theis drawdown at the coast generates a drawdown of 1.94m. A Multiwell analysis of the
additional 2 wells in the same aquifer within 2000m of the coast, (L37/0431 pumping at 90
l/sec and L37/0577 pumping at 70 l/sec) generated a total drawdown at the coast of 4.535m.
L37/0693 an ECan monitor well at the coast 6800m south-west of L37/0976 has a minimum
water pressure in the same aquifer of 3.119m above mean sea level.
Hence the individual effect of pumping at L37/0976 is to drop the aquifer pressure to 1.18m
amsl, and the cumulative effect of all three wells pumping is to drop the aquifer pressure to
1.46m amsl. This effect is greater than the minimum recommended aquifer pressure of 1.5m
amsl, and thus either further information needs to be provided to assess this effect, or
stringent monitoring conditions need to be imposed.
It is noted that wells near L37/0693, the ECan monitoring bore, are calculated to drop the
aquifer pressures to below mean sea level. This effect has not been seen in the monitored
data at L37/0693, and thus underlines how the Theis method is overestimating the actual
drawdowns.

840 m
Additional drawdown
at coast (1.94m)
New piezometric head = 1.18m
Piezometric head
at coast = 3.12m
ne
Drawdown Co
Aquif
er
Aquit Aquif
ard er
Transmissivity = 3200m2/day
Storativity = 0.0001
Figure B1 Schematic of Semi-confined aquifer for Case Example

Appendix 3 Examples of potential

consent conditions based on risk
assessment
Risk: Unconfined well with a low risk of upconing/landwards intrusion.
Proposed Conditions: Monthly water level measurement at the well

Monthly water usage measurements at the well
Biannual water quality measurements at the well
Risk: Unconfined well with high risk of upconing
Proposed Conditions: Weekly water level measurements at the well

Weekly water usage measurements at the well
Monthly water quality measurements at the well
Risk: Confined aquifer well with a calculated drawdown at the coast that will lower the water
level below 1.5m amsl.
Proposed Conditions: Install a sentinel well at the coast

Monthly water level measurements at sentinel well
Measure water quality if water level measurements indicate
coastal pressures dropping below 1.5m amsl
Monthly water usage measurements
Risk: Semi-confined aquifer with calculated drawdown at coast that will not significantly
lower the water level
Proposed Conditions No special saltwater related conditions


Appendix 4 Summary of existing

groundwater takes in Canterbury
with saltwater intrusion consent
conditions
CRC940557/8 Kaituna Valley
This consent is for spray irrigation of an orchard and pasture in the vicinity of the brackish
Lake Ellesmere. Consent conditions require that the abstraction cease whenever the
standing water level in three specified trigger wells (M36/1421, M36/0727 and M36/1436)
falls below a specified level and if conductivity of the water from the well is greater than 10
mS/m above the conductivity recorded during the preceding July. In addition the abstraction
must cease if the water level in the same three trigger wells falls below a specified level to
mitigate against potential well interference effects. Monitoring of these consents has
indicated compliance.
CRC010751 New Zealand King Salmon Company, Southbridge

The consent is for groundwater for salmon farming from three bores: M37/0130 (depth 46.5
metres), M37/0242 (depth: 19.6 metres) and M37/0131 (depth: 17.5 metres). Concern was
held for saltwater intrusion due to the size of the proposed takes and proximity to the coast
(350-400m). It was calculated that 1.4 metres of water above sea level would remain at the
coast after allowing for lowest water level and drawdown due to the effects of the 3 wells
pumping.
The consent has conditions restricting the maximum rate of take and the daily volume that
can be abstracted. A condition is attached allowing the applicant to apply to have the
saltwater intrusion conditions removed. The monitoring conditions include:
1. A sample of water shall be taken from either bore M37/0242 or bore M37/0131 where
any water has been taken via that bore in the preceding calendar month, in accordance
with the following schedule:
(a) At least once every calendar month throughout the year.
(b) All samples shall be analysed for conductivity.
(c) The laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a NZS/ISO/IEC
Guide 17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body recognised as
operating to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(d) The results of each analysis, and the date and time of sampling, along with the date
and time the sample is sent to the laboratory, shall be provided to the Canterbury
Regional Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the analytical result from
the laboratory.
2. Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from either bore M37/0242 or bore
M37/0131 indicates conductivity exceeding 100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of
water in terms of this consent from bores M37/0242 and M37/0131 shall cease, and
shall not recommence until analysis of a sample of water taken from the bore from
which the sample was taken where conductivity was measured above 100 millisiemens,
indicates conductivity is less than 100 millisiemens per metre.
CRC011915 Amberley Golf Club, Amberley Beach

This consent is for golf course irrigation from 4 bores (depths: 75, 7.6, 7.6 and 0 metres) at
a maximum rate of 23 L/s. Bore N34/0062 is situated less than 250 metres from the
coastline. Moore (1995)2 described saltwater intrusion at the Amberley Golf Club Saltwater
intrusion is not considered an immediate threat to water quality in the area. This report did
2
Moore, CR, 1995, Groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer at Amberley Golf Course, North Canterbury,
Environment Canterbury unpublished report U94(19)

comment that the conductivity of the water was elevated above normal, which could be
explained by one of the following; coastal precipitation, saltwater spray, and/or position in the
freshwater saltwater interface. It was noted that the water table often intersected the
ground level resulting in swampy areas.
Water quality information collected to date (from 1989) for the deep well does show
increasing levels of conductivity. The data from the shallow well also shows a slight increase
but the levels have been more erratic over the period monitored.
The Draft Saltwater Intrusion Guidelines3 were used to audit for potential adverse effects of
saltwater intrusion. Potential saltwater intrusion was calculated using two different methods,
for the three abstractions in the unconfined shallow aquifer, and for the single abstraction
from the deeper confined aquifer.
The shallow unconfined aquifer (0 to 7m)

The freshwater saltwater interface was calculated in this audit using the Ghyben
Herzberg equation. Depth to water was estimated to be 1.8m (using lowest water level data
from the abstraction wells) below ground level (3m2 1.8m = 1.2m above sea level). Thus
the depth to the interface was estimated at 48m (Z = 40hf = 40 x 1.2m = 48m).
The potential upconing (Z) was calculated using the Schmorak and Mercado (1969)
equationand was estimated to be 2.2 metres. Given d = 43.4 metres (48m (7.6- 3)), one
third of d = 14.5 metres. The results show that the potential upconing (Z) is significantly less
than 1/3 (d), the distance from the base of active wells to the freshwater saltwater interface.
Thus the potential for saltwater intrusion to result from the applicants proposed pumping
from the shallow unconfined aquifer is considered to be no more than minor.
The deeper confined aquifer (67.5 to 75m)

N34/0062, the deep well owned by Amberley Golf Club, has a static water level of
approximately 1m below ground level4. Only three wells between the Waipara and the Kowai
Rivers abstract from this aquifer, which is also assumed to be the first confined aquifer. The
transmissivity (400m2/day) within this aquifer was determined by an aquifer test for a
previous water permit for N34/0062.
Multiwell analysis of bore N34/0062 shows that when pumping at an average rate of 11.5
litres per second over a 100 day interval, approximately 1.38m of drawdown will be exhibited
at the coastline (see table below). This has the effect of lowering the aquifer pressure from
2m above sea level4 (asl) to 0.62m asl. This is below the 1.5m threshold recommended by
Policy 7 in the Draft NRRP Water Chapter and the draft Salt Water Intrusion Guidelines.
Well Discharge (Q)

Grid East Grid North Owner DDSUM
Number l/s
Amberley
N34/0062 2492800 5783100 11.5 Golf Club 0
N34/0000 2493026 5782928 0 Coast 1.38
*Multiwell analysis on closest coastline
Given the potential adverse effects of saltwater intrusion on both the potability of the
groundwater resource and on soil structure and pasture production if the water is used for
irrigation, the following conditions were appended to the consent when granted:
1. A sample of water shall be taken from bore N34/0062 in accordance with the following
schedule:
3
Aitchison-Earl, P, (2001), Draft Saltwater Intrusion Guidelines, Environment Canterbury unpublished report.
4
Taken from Ecan Report U94 (19). Note that this level is assumed to be at the abstraction site. No allowance has
been made for the change in gradient between there and the coast

(a) once a month during the period commencing on the last week in September and
ending the last week of April, except no sample need be taken where no water has
been taken from the bore during the preceding month.
Guide 17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body recognised as
operating to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(d) The results of each analysis, and the date and time of sampling, along wit the date
and time the sample is sent to the laboratory, shall be provided to the Canterbury
Regional Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the analytical result from
the laboratory.
2. Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from bore N34/0062 indicates
conductivity exceeding 100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of this
consent from the bore shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a sample
of water taken from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 100 millisiemens per
metre.
3. The pumping water level, related to mean sea level datum, in bore N34/0062 shall be
measured and recorded monthly in a lag kept for that purpose, except no measurement
need be taken where no water has been taken from the bore during the preceding
month. A copy of the records shall be provided before 31 may each year to the
Canterbury Regional Council.
CRC012590 Makikihi
This irrigation consent is for well J40/0042 (6.78m deep), 460m from the coast at Makikihi.
The well has monthly water quality measurements as part of an ECan sampling programme,
that indicated significantly increased chloride and conductivity levels in the summer months
of some years. The landowner had noticed that the problem began occurring in the drought
years of the last 1990s when pumping was sustained for much longer periods than in the
past. Water quality measurements quickly return to normal levels over the winter months.
This is a classic case of upconing in an unconfined aquifer, which should be able to be
managed though avoiding overpumping.
There is a very strong correlation between conductivity levels and concentration of both
chloride and sodium (R2 = 0.9944 & 0.9985 respectively) in the water sampled from the well.
It was recommended that in order to establish some sort of relationship between the chloride
levels and pumpage, it would be prudent to collect accurate usage data (preferably from an
installed water meter) in conjunction with regular monitoring of the chloride/conductivity, and
static water levels.
The highest recorded level of conductivity of the irrigation water pumped from well J40/0042
to date has been 660 mS/m or 6.6 dS/m. To determine if long term sustained application of
irrigation water with this level of salinity is likely to result in detrimental effects on soil
structure and pasture production, the ANZECC guidelines for determining the average root
zone salinity (ECse) have been used.
The average root zone salinity (ECse) can be estimated using the equation
ECse = ECi / 2.2 x LF
Assuming an average root zone Leaching Fraction (LF) for loam of 0.33, and the electrical
conductivity of irrigation water (ECi) of 6.6 dS/m, the ECse will be approximately 9.1 dS/m.
This level falls within the range 7.7 12.2 dS/m, which is considered a very high water or soil
salinity rating. Only very tolerant crops could be grown in this. The Guidelines indicate that
white clover, a major species in New Zealand pasture, if grown in a loam soil, can tolerate an
ECi of 1.4 dS/m, and has ECse threshold of 1 dS/m.
In order to address both of these potential adverse effects, a groundwater conductivity

trigger level of 100mS/m was set. This level corresponds to a chloride and sodium

concentration of 273 and 116 mg/L respectively (based on the regression curves from water
test results for the applicants well). This corresponds to a slightly higher than recommended
chloride level in the NZ Drinking Water Guidelines (GV = 250 mg/L), with the sodium
concentration being only half of the recommended concentration (GV for sodium = 200
mg/L).
The trigger level of 100 mS/m also corresponds to an ECse of 1.4 dS/m, which falls within
the range 0.95 1.9 dS/m considered a low soil salinity rating by the ANZECC Guidelines
and the threshold for white clover on loam soils. In addition, a conductivity reading of 100
mS/m is clearly above the general background levels of 10 55 mS/m and provides a good
indication that the well is beginning to draw saline groundwater.
The applicant has conditions restricting maximum rate at which water can be abstracted.
The applicant must install a water meter within 3 months of the commencement o f the
consent and must measure the rate and volume of water abstracted within 10% accuracy
once per month. The applicant has a condition allowing them to apply to have the saltwater
intrusion monitoring conditions removed. The saltwater monitoring conditions include:
1. (a) A sample of water shall be taken from bore X once every 14 days during the period
commencing on any of the last seven days in September and ending on any of the
last seven working days of April each year.
(c) The laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a NZS/ISO/IEC Guide
17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body recognised as operating to
ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(d) The results of this analysis, and the date and time of sampling, shall be provided to
the Canterbury Regional Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the
analytical result from the laboratory.
2. Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from bore X indicates conductivity
exceeding 100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of this consent from
the bore shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a sample of water taken
from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 100 millisiemens per metres.
CRC012749 Makikihi
The applicants bore is screened below sea level at 50 58 metre below ground level and
the bore is approximately 2,000 metres from the coast. A drawdown estimate of 2m at the
coast was made using the Theis equation.
Concern was raised because water quality monitoring carried out by Environment
Canterbury over the last three four years in the area between the applicants well and the
coast has shown that there are a number of shallow wells in the area that have had elevated
levels of conductivity, as well as elevated concentrations of chloride and sodium recorded.
These elevated levels tend to occur in low recharge years and following sustained pumping
in the summer period. The wells with these recordings are located between 1,000 1,500
metres east of the applicants well.
The applicant indicated that he had a water quality test carried out on a sample of the water
from the well and he provided these test results as further information. The test results show
that the conductivity was 136 S/cm (13.6 mS/m), while the chloride concentration was 9.9
g/m3. These levels are similar to other recordings for wells J40/0314 (depth: 42 metres) and
J40/0085 (depth: 69.5 metres), which have conductivity levels ranging between 23 32
mS/m, and chloride concentrations ranging between 22 40 g/m3. Based on this
information, water abstracted from the applicants well appears to have normal
concentrations of chloride at present.
The applicant has conditions restricting the maximum rate of take. The applicant must install
within 12 months of the commencement of the consent a water flow measurement device

that will measure the rate at which water is taken to within an accuracy of 10%. The
applicant must also record the rate and volume at which water is abstracted to within an
accuracy of 10%. A condition is attached allowing the applicant to apply to remove the
saltwater intrusions monitoring conditions. The saltwater intrusion monitoring conditions are
as follows:
1. (a) A sample of water shall be taken from bore X within the last seven days in
September and within the last seven working days of April each year.
Guide 17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body recognised as operating
to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(d) Each year, before the last working day of June, the results of the analyses of any of
the samples collected in the preceding ten months shall be provided to the
Canterbury Regional Council.
CRC020261 Birdlings Flat

This consent is for irrigation of pasture and draws on well M36/6816 (89m deep, 900m from
the brackish Lake Forsyth and 1800m from the sea). The applicant indicated in his
assessment of environmental effects that there will be no adverse effect from saltwater
intrusion, as the well has been test pumped and is located over one kilometre from the sea.
Given the well location, relative to both Lake Forsyth and the sea, there was considered to
be some potential for saltwater contamination. This was originally discussed with the
applicant, who then indicated a water sample from the well had been tested. The results
indicate a conductivity of 154 mS/m, and a chloride concentration of 499 mg/L. These levels
are considered high, and indicative of some saltwater contamination.
There are a number of factors that indicated potential for saltwater intrusion to occur as a
result of pumping from the applicants well. These factors include:-
there is no indication for a separate aquifer as water levels did not vary much as the well
was drilled deeper (owners own observations);
the main water body in the valley is Lake Forsyth, with brackish water of between 2000
4000 mg/L chloride concentration.
It is possible that there is fresh water floating on salty water layers, and that over time,
saltwater from Lake Forsyth could eventually be the main recharge source for the applicants
well.
The only water quality monitoring data available relates to two wells, M37/0094 (depth: 15.2
metres) and M37/0103 (depth: 15 metres). There are only two readings, taken in 1974 and
1989 respectively. These were 80 and 530 g/m3 chloride concentration respectively. The
conductivity was only available for well M37/0103, and was 198 mS/m when the chloride
concentration was 530 g/m3. This is considered insufficient information on from which to
determine ambient chloride concentrations or conductivity levels.
The New Zealand Drinking Water Standards set a level of 250 mg/L for chloride and 200
mg/L for sodium as the level when the water will be affected aesthetically for taste and odour
for drinking water purposes. Given the water sample test result indicates the chloride
concentration is 499 mg/L, this is already in excess of the Guidelines. Thus the existing
water quality is already unlikely to be suitable for potable use.
There are a number of areas on the Banks Peninsula where this has been found to be the
case. For example, on-going investigations to identify a reliable potable water source for
Akaroa, have included drilling deep wells in the vicinity of the township. However, none have
proved suitable, and this is due to the fact that the water has tested high for conductivity and
has elevated chloride concentrations.

Thus the water is already not suitable for potable use. Given this fact, the proposal is not
considered likely to have any further significant effect on water quality for potable use, and
no mitigation is specifically required.
The ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water5 state that salinity
(presence of soluble salts in or on soils) and sodicity (presence of a high proportion of
sodium ions relative to other cations in soil or water) of irrigation water can result in reduced
plant productivity and degradation of soil properties. This is because the soil becomes more
dispersible and erodible.
However the effects of irrigation water salinity and sodicity on land under irrigation depend
on a variety of interactive factors including irrigation water quality, soil properties, plant salt
tolerance, climate, landscape (including geological and hydrological features), as well as
water and soil management.
The only recorded level of conductivity of the irrigation water pumped from well M36/6816 to
date has been 154 mS/m or 1.5 dS/m. To determine if long term sustained application of
irrigation water, with this level of salinity, is likely to result in detrimental effects to soil
structure and pasture production, the ANZECC guidelines for determining the average root
zone salinity (ECse) have been referred to.
The Guidelines indicate that average root zone salinity (ECse) can be estimated using the
equation
ECse = ECi / 2.2 x LF
Assuming an average root zone Leaching Fraction (LF) for sandy loam of 0.4, and the
electrical conductivity of irrigation water (ECi) of 1.5 dS/m, the ECse will be approximately
1.8 dS/m. This level falls within the range 0.95 1.9 dS/m, which is considered a low water
or soil salinity rating. This is a moderately sensitive range, and is within the range tolerated
by white clover for sandy to loamy soils (1.4 2.5 dS/m).
The applicant is intending to irrigate pasture for sheep and beef grazing predominantly, and
has been advised to select salt tolerant pasture species by an environmental consultant. It is
likely that he will establish some of the area in lucerne, which is more tolerant of saline
conditions.
The soil type is Taumutu very gravely sandy loam, and as such can tolerate a higher level of
irrigation water salinity than a clay loam soil type. This is because soils with higher clay
content have a higher cation exchange potential, and are therefore more sensitive to cation
displacement that causes the soil structure to degrade.
The Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) for the irrigation water has been estimated as 9.5, using
the water sample analysis data supplied by the applicant and the ANZECC guidelines.
Given the relationship between the electrical conductivity and SAR of the irrigation water
(depicted in the Guidelines in Figure 4.2.2), the likelihood of soil structural problems will
depend on soil properties and rainfall. An SAR/ECi relationship estimated in this instance is
not predicted to result directly in soil structural problems. However, if the electrical
conductivity of the water was to increase over time, there is the potential for soil structural
problems to occur.
The rate of take and the volume of water abstracted during an 11 day return period has been
restricted. The applicant, within 3 months of the commencement of the consent, must install
a water flow measurement device that will measure the rate at which water is taken to within
an accuracy of 10%. The rate and volume of water taken shall also be measured to within
an accuracy of 10% and recorded monthly. A condition is attached allowing the applicant to
5
Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

apply to remove the saltwater monitoring conditions from consent. The saltwater intrusion
monitoring conditions include:
1. (a) A sample of water shall be taken from bore X every 33 days during the period
commencing on any of the last seven working days in September and ending on any
of the last seven working days in April each year.
Guide 17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body recognised as operating
to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(d) The results of each analysis, and the date and time of sampling shall be provided to
the Canterbury Regional Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the
analytical results.
2. Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from bore X indicates that
conductivity exceeds 300 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of this
consent from the bore shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a
sample of water taken from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 300
millisiemens per metre.
CRC020461 Dorie (Ashburton Rakaia Plains)

This consent has a high abstraction rate (96 L/s) and the proximity of the bore to the coast
(839 metres). The bore (L37/0976, depth: 70.5 metres) is located in the first confined aquifer
in the area. An audit was undertaken where water level at the coast was calculated after
allowing for lowest water level and drawdown at the coast due to the applicant pumping.
This concluded that the water level at the coast would drop below 1.5m amsl.
The applicant was asked to provide further information on the potential adverse effect. The
applicant employed a consultant who:
Reviewed existing depth to groundwater information in the Dorie area and discussed
amending the lowest water level measurements for tidal influences.
Commented that Cumulative abstractions of water at rates of up to 765 L/s within a
radius of 2.5 km from monitoring bore result in a recorded drawdown of up to 2 metres.
The consultant concluded that the effect at the coast of pumping bore L37/0976, either
by itself or combined with other abstractions will still retain the piezometric level within
the aquifer in excess of 1.5 metres above sea level.
Environment Canterbury staff concluded that a reasonable case had been made to exclude
the consent from saltwater intrusion restrictions.
CRC021423 Kaikoura (2.5km south of Kowhai River)

The applicants bore is approximately 230 metres from the coast, situated approximately 10
metres above mean sea level. The application falls into the high risk category due to its high
pump rate, low transmissivity, small distance between coast and well, deep well, and nearby
wells used for public water supply.
The depth of the interface between fresh and salt water using the Ghyben-Herzberg formula
was calculated as z = 36m, where the top of the applicants bore is assumed to be 10 metres
above sea level and the lowest water level in the area is assumed to be 9.1 mbgl.
It must be noted that the height of the applicants well above sea level has been assumed.
Even small changes in this figure can have a large effect on z and d.
The risk of upconing was assessed using Schmorak and Mercado (1969) where:
Q = 2707m3/day
K = 9 (based on a T value of 272 and an aquifer thickness of 30 metres)
s = 1.025
f = 1
d = 23.8 (using the assumption made for the Ghyben-Herzberg formual2)

Therefore, z = 50 metres From the calculations made it can be seen that z is more than
double d. The applicant accepted saltwater intrusion monitoring conditions which include:
1. A sample of water shall be taken from bore O31/0331, in accordance with the following
schedule:
(a) During the first two years after the first exercise of this consent, every 14 days during the
period commencing on the last week in September and ending the last week in April,
and
(b) Thereafter, once a month during the period commencing on the last week in September
and ending the last week or April.
(c) All samples shall be analysed for conductivity.
(d) The laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a NZS/ISO/IEC Guide
ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(e) The results of each analysis, and the date and time of sampling, along with the date and
time the sample is sent to the laboratory, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional
Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the analytical result from the laboratory.
2. Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from bore O31/0331 indicates
conductivity exceeding 100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of this
consent from the bore shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a sample
of water taken from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 100 millisiemens per
metre.
CRC010664.1 Alach Holdings Ltd, Doyleston

This consent was for a change of conditions to an existing consent. The applicant proposed
to deepen a shallow well, to avoid a minimum flow restriction on Doyleston Drain. As the
well as 1300m from the coast, the issue of saltwater intrusion was raised. The applicants
consultant conducted a drawdown assessment at the coast, that indicated artesian
pressures would be around 6m AMSL when the applicants bore was pumping, but the
cumulative effect of all users within 2000m of the coast was to lower the artesian pressure to
below the 1.5m AMSL guideline in the NRRP. However the potential for contamination was
considered low due to the lack of historical contamination, and the strong positive artesian
pressures in the area. The following condition was attached to the revised consent:
(a) A Sample of water shall be taken from bore M36/2634 once every month during the
period commencing on any of the last seven days in September and ending on any of
the last seven working days of April each year whenever irrigation has taken place
during the preceding month.
(b) All samples shall be analysed for conductivity
(c) A single water sample taken from bore M36/2634, during the time period specified in
condition 6(a), shall be analysed for the following: Calcium, magnesium, Sodium,
Potassium, Iron, Manganese, Sulphate, Chloride, Bicarbonate, Nitrate-Nitrogen,
Ammoniacal-Nitrogen.
(d) The laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a NZS/IOS/IEC Guide
IOS/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.
(e) The results of each analyses, and the date and time of sampling, shall be provided to the
Canterbury Regional Council within 10 workings days of the receipt of the analytical
result from the laboratory.
CRC031115 Middlemiss, Lower Waihao

The applicants bore was located 950m from the coast, taking from a shallow unconfined
aquifer. Existing one-off conductivity measurements from the bore and a nearby domestic
well were elevated at above 50 mS/m, which indicated potential contamination (although not
necessarily salt-water induced). The applicants consultant acknowledged the potential for
saltwater contamination, and proposed the following monitoring condition:
(4) (a) Samples of water shall be taken from bore J40/0188, in accordance with the following
schedule: During the first two years after the first exercise of this consent, once

every month during the period commencing the last week in September and ending
the last week in April, and All samples shall be analysed for conductivity. The
laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a NZS/ISO/IEC Guide
ISO/IEC. Guide 58 for those analyses. The results of each analysis, and the date
and time of sampling, along with the date and time the samples sent to the
laboratory, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional Council within 10 working
days of the receipt of the analytical result from the laboratory.(b) Whenever analysis
of any sample of water taken from bore J40/0188 indicates conductivity exceeding
100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of this consent from the bore
shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a sample of water taken
from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 100 millisiemens per metre.(c) The
standing water level, related to mean sea level datum, in the bore specified in this
consent shall be measured and recorded monthly in a log kept for that purpose and
a copy of the records provided before 31 May each year to the Canterbury Regional
Council.(d) The taking of water in terms of this permit shall cease for a period of at
least 24hours prior to recording the standing water level as required in condition
(4).(e) The consent holder may apply, once a year, on any working day during
January, to the Canterbury Regional Council, under Section 127(1) of the Resource
Management Act 1991, to change or cancel conditions (4)(a), (b), (c),(d) and (e) of
the consent.
CRC040053 Ashbourne Farm Limited Lower Otaio Valley

The applicants 138m deep bore is located 500m from the coast, hence an assessment of
saltwater intrusion effects was requested. There was uncertainty in the bore-head elevation,
and therefore of the height of water above sea level, making any drawdown assessment
upon the coast difficult. The applicant acknowledged the potential for saltwater intrusion,
and proposed conductivity monitoring on a monthly basis, and surveying of the bore head
elevation. As part of this consent the option of using a conductivity meter rather than the
more expensive monthly water samples previously required was raised. It was agreed by
ECan staff that 3-4 tests would be carried out over the irrigation season until the applicant
established how much drift occurred in the conductivity meter. The applicant also requested
the provision for a reduction in monitoring if results indicated little problem.
The following conditions were included in the consent granted:
(9) The conductivity of water abstracted from the bore(s) specified in this permit shall be
measured, using a calibrated measuring device, and recorded monthly in a log kept
for that purpose and a copy of the records provided before 31 May each year to the
Canterbury Regional Council. The consent holder shall ensure that a suitably
qualified person carries out the measurements.
(10) The consent holder may apply, once a year, on any working day during June or
November, to the Canterbury Regional Council, under Section 127(1) of the
Resource Management Act 1991, to change or cancel conditions (8) and/or (9) of
this consent.
and a standard monthly water level monitoring condition
CRC951480.1 Houston, Lower Orari

The consent application was for a change on conditions for an existing consent, with the
installation of a new bore, but no change in rate. Saltwater contamination effects had not
been considered in the original application, but were considered in the change of conditions.
The well is located around 1200m from the coast. The potential for saltwater contamination
had already been highlighted in the initial stages of CRC011012 (originally proposed to
abstract from a shallow well, around 600m north of the applicant). Analysis of the proposed
activity using these guidelines in draft format indicated that whether the aquifer was
considered as confined or unconfined, the potential for intrusion could not be ruled out. The

applicant therefore proposed to mitigate by the: monthly measuring of water levels;

monitoring of water use; and biannual conductivity samples, with the option to change the
conditions if monitoring results did not indicate any adverse effect. The IO proposed the
monitoring of conductivity to be monthly, and the following condition was appended to the
consent:
(6) The conductivity of water abstracted from the bore K38/1272 shall be measured,
using a calibrated measuring device, twice per year, once within five days of
commencement of the irrigation season for bore K38/1272 and the other in April of
each year. Measurements shall be recorded in a log kept for that purpose and a
copy of the records provided before 31 May each year to the Canterbury Regional
Council The consent holder shall ensure that a suitably qualified person carries out
the measurements.
CRC022024- Quinns Farming Co Ltd, Makikihi

This consent involved a 48.5m deep 613m from the coast a Makikihi, an area known to have
existing saltwater contamination issues (refer to consent above CRC012590). The applicant
acknowledged the take would be a high risk consent with regards to saltwater intrusion and
proposed mitigation of setting a trigger level of 100sS/m conductivity (as in CRC012590),
with the provision to cease sampling or change the trigger is monitoring indicated no adverse
effects. The following conditions were attached to the consent:
(2) A sample of water shall be taken from bore J40/0003, in accordance with the
following schedule:(a) During the first two years after the first exercise of this
consent, once every month during the period commencing the last week in
September and ending the last week in April, and(b) All samples shall be analysed
for conductivity.(c) The laboratory carrying out the analyses shall be accredited to a
NZS/ISO/IEC Guide 17025 or equivalent defined by an accreditation body
recognised as operating to ISO/IEC Guide 58 for those analyses.(d) The results of
each analysis, and the date and time of sampling, along with the date and time the
sample is sent to the laboratory, shall be provided to the Canterbury Regional
Council within 10 working days of the receipt of the analytical result from the
laboratory.
(3) Whenever analysis of any sample of water taken from bore J40/0003 indicates
conductivity exceeding 100 millisiemens per metre, the taking of water in terms of
this consent from the bore shall cease, and shall not recommence until analysis of a
sample of water taken from the bore indicates conductivity is less than 100
millisiemens per metre.
along with a standard measurement of monthly water levels condition.

Coastal Aquifer Saltwater Intrusion Guidelines

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coastal Aquifer Saltwater Intrusion Guidelines

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coastal aquifer

Report No. R04/18

Revised version of U02/35

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 3

4 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Executive summary ...................................................................................... 3

2 Types of saltwater intrusion.............................................................. 8

4 Modelling saltwater intrusion.......................................................... 17

5 Screening criteria for consents ...................................................... 20

6 Monitoring conditions ..................................................................... 24

Appendix 1 Justification for maintaining a 1.5m piezometric head at the

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 5

Appendix 2 Modelling potential effects of saltwater intrusion worked

Appendix 3 Examples of potential consent conditions based on risk

Appendix 4 Summary of existing groundwater takes in Canterbury with

6 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

1.2 Purpose of the guidelines

1.3 Structure of the guidelines

Section 2: Types of Saltwater Intrusion

Section 3: Water Quality

Section 4: Modelling of Saltwater Intrusion

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 7

Section 5: Screening Criteria for Consents

Section 6: Monitoring Conditions

2 Types of saltwater intrusion

There are three types of saltwater intrusion in the Canterbury region:

8 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Static Water Pressure

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 9

Table 3.1 Comparison of dissolved ions in sea water and groundwater

Electrical conductivity mS/m 4,800 17

10 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

3.2 Potential hazards of saltwater intrusion

Table 3.2 Drinking-water standards for saline water

Ion / Property Guideline Value (mg/L) Comments

sodium 200 taste

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 11

3.2.3 Other uses

3.3 Determination of saltwater intrusion

When a well is affected by saltwater intrusion, there is a dramatic increase in the

12 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 13

Figure 3.2 Relationship between electrical conductivity and chloride concentration.

Conductivity is affected by temperature, so measurements are typically corrected to 25C.

3.4 Examples of saltwater intrusion in Canterbury

14 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Groundwater level (m)

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 15

3.5 Water quality summary

16 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

4 Modelling saltwater intrusion

4.1.1 Ghyben-Herzberg formula

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 17

Figure 4.1 Schematic diagram of variables used in saltwater intrusion/ upconing

4.1.2 Glover equation

Q is the pumping rate

18 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

4.2 Upconing equations

Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 19

Figure 4.3 Upconing of interface in response to pumping (Domenico and Schwartz,

5 Screening criteria for consents

20 Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report

Is well within 1500m of the

Decide if aquifer is Confined or Unconfined.