hearing commissioner: hearing date: report author ... · report author: todd whittaker report: ......
Post on 06-Aug-2019
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
Hearing Commissioner:
Greg Hill - Independent Hearings
Commissioner
Hearing Date: 19 – 21 September
2018
Report Author: Todd Whittaker
Report: Supplementary s42A Planning Report on Publicly Notified Resource
Consent Application for the Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme Upgrade and
proposed cycleway.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Gisborne District Council (the applicant) has lodged an application to upgrade the
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme (WFCS) and to develop a cycleway for public
access along parts of the stopbank network.
2. A hearing was originally scheduled in December 2017, however, this was postponed
at the request of the applicant. The applicant has submitted additional information
to address the technical issues raised in submissions and the lead up to the original
hearing. The new information presents additional analysis of the flood model and
assumptions to achieve the 1% AEP design event including climate change to 2090.
This has led to a refinement of the stopbank design and in broad terms, it is necessary
for the stopbanks to be raised in order to achieve the proposed level of flood
mitigation.
3. The technical information has been subject to formal caucusing between flood
experts to test and confirm the veracity of the flood model and design levels. In
addition, the applicant has updated their assessment of effects, including specific
analysis of flood level effects on private property. The applicant has also addressed
the scope of the application.
4. In my original planning report, I provided the opinion that the upgrade of the WFCS
would provide a number of positive environmental, community and economic
outcomes. I also noted that there were a number of technical matters to resolve with
the flood model and stopbank design and that there were also a number of effects-
based issues to resolve through additional information and/or clarification of
mitigation measures.
5. In my opinion, the technical matters associated with the flood model and stopbank
design have largely been resolved. The matter of scope will need a determination
in the first instance. If this is determined to be satisfactory by the Commissioner, I
recommend that consent be granted for the WFCS upgrade and cycleway proposal
subject to appropriate conditions
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 2
REPORT STATUS
6. This report is a supplementary s42A Report to my original report dated 14
November 2017, both of which are prepared under the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA). The original and supplementary reports provide an
independent assessment and recommendations on the application by
Gisborne District Council for the upgrading of the Waipaoa Flood Control
Scheme (WFCS) and proposed cycleway. The supplementary report specifically
addresses the new information which has been submitted by the applicant since
the first hearing was postponed.
7. This report does not represent any decision on the application and it only
provides the professional assessment and opinions of the report author. It does
not have greater weight than any other material or submissions that may be
presented and considered by the Commissioner.
REPORTING AUTHOR
8. This report has been prepared by Todd Whittaker. I work as an independent
planning consultant and I am the Director of Planning Works Limited. I have a
Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning from Massey University, 1994
and I am a full member of New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI). I have 24 years
of professional experience in the resource management field and have
previously served on the Board of the NZPI.
9. I have read and complied with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses
contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 in preparing this report.
10. In preparing this report I have referred and taken into account the technical
reports and advice from the following technical experts:
Brian Kouvelis – Brian Kouvelis has over 45 year’s experience as a civil
engineer and has specialised in rivers engineering and
floodplain management throughout his career. Brian is a
Director of his own company.
Sarah
Thompson/Paul
Murphy
Sarah Thompson is a Senior Water and Coastal
Resources Officer, and Paul Murphy is the Team Leader
Water and Coastal Resource who are both employed
by the consent authority. Both Sarah and Paul are very
experienced with the assessment and consenting of
regional consents.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 3
Supplementary S.42A REPORT - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Supplementary S.42A Planning
Report................................................................Pages 1 - 18
APPENDIX 1
Supplementary Technical Memo - Mr Brian Kouvelis (Flood Modelling and
Design)
APPENDIX 2
Technical Review – Mrs Sarah Thompson and Mr Paul Murphy (Stream
Works and Earthworks)
APPENDIX 3
Proposed Amendments to Applicant’s conditions
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 4
1.0 NEW INFORMATION AND CHANGES TO APPLICATION
11. The applicant has provided a set of documents which provide new technical
information on the flood model and stopbank design including an updated
assessment of the effects for the proposed works. The new information is
contained within the following documents.
Further Report of Gisborne District Council (dated 17 August 2018),
Waipaoa River, Design Flood Hydrodynamic Analysis (dated July 2018),
Updated Planning assessment including Draft Conditions (dated 14
August 2018),
Updated Landscape assessment (dated 27 July 2018),
Effect of Flooding on Various land-Uses (dated December 2004) and
Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (dated June
2018)
12. It is notable that the changes to the proposal do not involve any new extension
to the design event (1% AEP including climate change out to 2090) which is
the ultimate design mitigation for the proposed upgrade. The new information
provides additional analysis of the flood model and assumptions which has
resulted in changes to the design of the stopbanks to achieve the design event
mitigation.
13. In summary, the changes to the application are;
The height of the stopbanks has been remodelled and a higher level of
stopbank is required to achieve the mitigation proposed for the design
event. The nature and degree of increase is discussed further in Section
2 of this report,
The amount of earthworks to form and modify the stopbanks is estimated
to increase from approximately 750,000m3 to 1.4 million m3 ,
The construction period will be affected given the change and scale of
earthworks,
Two modifications to the alignment of the stopbank have been
specifically included, being a new section of stopbank at Ormond and
a modification of the location of the stopbank alignment at Mulloolys
Bend, and
Under the new design, The WFCS will ‘hold’ more water in significant
flood events and this will have effects on the flood levels for upstream
properties and the Wi Pere Trust landholding.
14. The applicant has provided an assessment of the changes and has also
updated the proposed mitigation measures and conditions for the proposal.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 5
2.0 MATTER OF SCOPE
15. The applicant has provided an assessment of the changes to the proposal with
regard to the scope of the original application and any effects of the changes.
The Commissioner will need to be satisfied that the changes are within the
scope of the original application which will include an assessment of any
prejudice to any party who may be affected by the proposed changes. It is
anticipated that the scope matter will be subject to legal submissions and a
decision on scope will be made at the hearing.
16. A brief summary of the changes is set out below with the full discussion and
applicant’s assessment set out in the new information listed above.
2.1 Increase in Stop bank heights
17. The increase in flood bank height is difficult to precisely quantify across the
whole of the WFCS. In part, this is due to the nature and description of the
stopbank design in the original application and the varying nature and
condition of the existing stopbank profile. The original application describes a
generic increase and provides a ‘typical cross section’ to illustrate the
proposed works on the stopbank (refer Figure 1). This typical cross section
shows a 1m height increase and it is understood that this was also used in the
consultation material prepared by the applicant.
Figure 1. Concept Design of Stopbank Upgrade1
1 This diagram is sourced from the draft application documentation as the quality of the image in the final application does not allow for clear reproduction, The concept design is the same base diagram used in the final application.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 6
18. An appendix to the original application provides additional details of the
modelled flood and stopbank heights and shows a varying height differential
over the length of both the left and right stopbanks. This includes reference to
an increase in one section where the stopbank would be raised by 1.6m.
However, the vast majority of sections show an increase less than 1m and in
some sections very little increase is identified.
19. The new information and amended technical details show multiple sections
over 1m and a maximum increase in height up to 1.78m. A summary of the
height increases is provided in the Table 1.
# of cross
sections
# cross
sections
between
1m and
1.25m
increase
# cross
sections
between
1.26m and
1.5m
increase
# cross
sections
over 1.5m
increase
Max
increase
Original2
Application
Left bank 40 2 0 0 1.04
Right bank 36 0 1 1 1.6
New
Information3
Left bank 47 8 9 3 1.68
Right bank 47 10 10 5 1.78
Table1: Summary of stopbank heights and changes from original application.
20. Part of the variation in heights is due to the relative levels of the existing
stopbank which do not provide a level baseline contour. With the further
information, more details and information on the relative stopbank heights has
been presented. The applicant has as yet not undertaken detailed
topographical surveys such that there is also some further margin to be applied
to the new modelled heights.
2.2 Increase in earthworks from 750,000m3 to 1.4M3,
21. The increase in stopbank height will increase the magnitude of earthworks
based on a multiplier given the whole cross section of the stopbank profile has
to be widened from the base up to gain the additional height. The applicant
has assessed the volume of earthworks required to form the stopbanks at
approximately 1.4 million m3 compared to the original estimate of 750,000m3.
2 Source: Appendix 6 of original application, Technical Report May 2014, Table 3. 3 Source: New Information, Waipaoa River Flood Control Scheme July 2018, Table 2 and 3
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 7
22. This is a significant increase in the quantum of earthworks however the
application refers to an effective borrow area of 334ha which therefore
requires an average excavation depth of 0.42m. A maximum cut of 1m depth
has also been proposed as a mitigation measure. It is noted that there is an
assumption within the proposal that the borrow areas will contain appropriate
material for the construction and filling of the stopbanks.
2.3 Specific changes to sectional components of the WFCS.
23. Two specific changes are proposed. One is located at Ormond across the
Mahunga Stream, (the Ormond Bypass) where a new section of stopbank is
proposed to avoid the need to upgrade both earth and hard stopbank
structures along the property boundaries further upstream. A realignment at
Mulloolys Bend is also proposed which would ease the bend by realigning the
existing stopbank by up to 130m landward.
24. It is noted that the original application stated
“To ensure that continuous uninterrupted stopbank protection is
achieved, small areas of stopbank realignment may be required4’
25. The application did therefore anticipate that some realignment works were
likely although there is no further information provided on the scale or nature
of works that may be required. There is some discomfort within the technical
team regarding the Ormond Bypass and whether this can reasonably be
included within the scope of the original application.
2.4 Wi Pere Trust land and Upstream properties
26. The Wi Pere Trust is a submitter and the applicant has provided a significant
amount of information and assessment on the flood levels for the Wi Pere Trust
landholding. It is also notable that this landholding adjoins the Waipaoa River
however it is not currently protected by the WFCS. In short the new information
shows that the flood levels will increase flood levels on the landholding by up
to 0.5m, however the applicant contends that as the site will already be
flooded, then there is essentially no change in effect for the net flood risk or
potential damage.
4 Application for Resource Consent; Sage Planning dated June 2017, pg 15.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 8
27. As the proposed design levels will hold more water, there will be upstream
effects resulting from the higher flood levels and the applicant has identified
three dwellings where the new design model shows an increase between 0.2
and 0.35m.
28. Mr Kouvelis (refer Appendix 1) has reviewed the technical data and
assessment of the flood levels and is comfortable that the model is now ‘fit for
purpose’. Mr Kouvelis considers that there is an obligation on the applicant to
mitigate the additional effects of flood levels notwithstanding the return period
and that the sites will be subject to flooding under current conditions.
2.5 Comments on Scope
29. Again, I understand that the Commissioner will specifically consider the scope
issue, in light of the updated information received from the applicant and
submissions (including on the applicable legal principles) on behalf of the
applicant and submitters. In the meantime, in order to assist with that exercise,
I comment below on the applicant's updated information as relevant to
scope.
30. On face value, the changes in the application can be considered significant,
particularly with respect to the change in earthworks. There are, however, a
number of factors which are relevant to the assessment of scope and the
actual effects and impacts of the proposed changes. These include;
The stopbank landform once constructed will largely be a benign and
dormant structure. Some sections have been proposed for a cycleway
and specific mitigation measures are proposed to apply to those
sections,
The present stopbank forms part of the existing environment and the
upgrade works predominantly provide for works to, and on, an existing
structure,
The design objectives for the WFCS have not changed from the original
design event of 1% AEP with climate change to 2090,
The location of the site is mostly remote and rural in nature with some
house sites located close to the stopbanks where changes in height or
location will have more potential impacts,
The scale of the site is large and the works will be staged such that the
construction effects will not impact any one group of surrounding
landowners for an extended duration,
With the large borrow area, the impacts of works and changes in
landform are moderated,
The nature of the consent conditions will be applicable and directed to
the nature and location of the works, and are not necessarily dependent
on, or subject to change as a result of, the scale of the works or design
changes,
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 9
Where the stopbank is located on private property and subject to a
lease, then further engagement and negotiation will be required in order
for the applicant to undertake the works. Any changes in the scope and
location of the final stopbank will therefore be subject to further
negotiation with the directly affected landowners, and
The applicant has been proactive in undertaking further consultation
with stakeholders and landowners with respect to the amended design
31. In my view, the above context is important and it does provide an opportunity
to assess the change in scope as having similar effects to the application as
notified. I do not consider that the effects will be strictly the same and there
will be some sections of the stopbank works which are more sensitive to
changes in scale and intensity than others. These include sections within the
more significant ecological and landscape areas, sections which are located
closer to house sites, and landholdings which may be affected by any increase
in flood levels. In my opinion, these effects can be further mitigated through
conditions.
32. The change in scale of earthworks is significant and there are valid questions
regarding whether the change earthworks volume can be considered within
the scope of the original application. The technical memos attached to this
report contain reservations regarding this change and also whether or not the
quantity and quality of the fill material from the borrow areas can realistically
be achieved.
33. With regards to the Ormond Bypass, it may be preferable for this section to be
subject to a S.127 or new application process in order for specific assessment
of effects and conditions for this section to be considered.
Prejudice to Third Parties
34. Given the significant scale of the site works and that these have different
locational features and context, I have not been able to provide a specific
assessment of all landowners along the WFCS including an examination of all
house sites and associated land use.
35. In my opinion, there are potential matters with the new information that
adjoining landowners and other stakeholders who have not submitted on the
application may have an interest in. These include,
Change to final stopbank height in terms of visual effects relative to
house sites,
Change to final stopbank height in relation to any new cycleway,
New information and analysis of flood levels and backflow effects to
existing properties, and
Change to flood levels with respect to state highway and railway
bridges.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 10
36. While I consider that the macro scale of effects are moderated by the scale
and context of the site, and that conditions can provide further mitigation of
effects, I am not able to conclusively provide an opinion that there would be
no other parties who would consider themselves either affected, or who would
have a reasonable interest in the new details and design of the WFCS. These
are matters that the Commissioner may wish to explore further with the
applicant and the parties.
37. In my opinion, the additional flood levels on existing house sites including the
Wi Pere Trust land will need to be further considered. I understand that the
applicant is consulting further with the identified parties and that there may be
some opportunity to gain written approvals. If written approvals are obtained,
this would negate any scope or effects associated with these parties.
3.0 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
38. Assuming that the Commissioner is satisfied with the matters of scope, I have
prepared the following supplementary assessment to that which I have
completed and presented in my 14 November 2017 report. I have adopted
the same structure and headings to assist with aligning this updated
assessment with that presented in my earlier report.
Scope and Nature of Proposal
Effects of Flood Scheme Upgrades on property/assets
Landscape and Natural Character Effects
Earthworks
Ecological Effects – Vegetation Clearance and Sensitive Ecological
Areas
Works within Stream Beds
Heritage and Cultural Effects
Proposed Cycleway
Construction Effects
Tree planting
Network Utilities
Positive Effects
Assessment Criteria
Conditions and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Scope and Nature of Proposal
39. In my original report I commented on the generic nature of some of the
application details and that there were a number of technical matters to
resolve in order to have confidence in the flood model.
40. The additional information has provided more details on key aspects of the
proposal including the nature of effects on specific landholdings and other
matters such as sea level rise.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 11
41. The technical robustness of the flood model has been reviewed by the
applicant and has also be subject to technical caucusing between the flood
model experts. I am satisfied that there are no critical issues outstanding with
respect to the flood model.
3.2 Effects of Flood Scheme Upgrades on property/assets
42. The applicant has presented detailed analysis of the Wi Pere land holding and
upstream properties. Their conclusion based on the return period and the net
differential of flood effects between the status quo and the proposed WFCS
upgrade works is that any increase in flood levels will not materially worsen the
potential damage to buildings or land holdings.
43. In my opinion, the case put forward by the applicant with regard to the low
probability of a flood event and that the effects should be assessed against
the status quo situation have merit.
44. However, it is my opinion that to dismiss the additional effects outright is not an
appropriate response for those properties which will be affected by higher
flood levels. There are obviously variables with how the WFCS will perform in
any given flood event and there is also some margin of error which is inherent
in the model and final design heights. Therefore, some recognition of these
variables should be taken into account in addition to the theoretical increase
which may only be 200-300mm.
45. I also acknowledge and support the proposal as a positive means to mitigate
hazard risk and provide long term protection of land and assets for the broader
community and economic good of the region. However, this should not in my
opinion result in additional effects or flood risk to one or more group of
landowners.
46. The Wi Pere Trust will need to provide a response to the new information
presented by the applicant. I note that a large part of their original submission
was concerned with the landholding not being protected by the WFCS and
they submitted that the WFCS should be modified to protect and include their
landholding. Any mitigation has to be commensurate with the nature and
scale of effects. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to require a
modification to the WFCS as a mitigation measure. The mitigation measures
available for the Wi Pere Trust and the upstream properties could include the
raising of building foundations and/or localised bunding works.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 12
3.4 Landscape and Natural Character effects
47. In my opinion, the additional information and design changes to the WFCS will
have minor effects on landscape and natural character values. My reasoning
for this is set out in my original report and I consider that the new information
and design changes do not introduce any new or substantive changes to
landscape and natural character effects.
48. In forming this view I have taken into account the expert landscape
assessment presented with the application and that has been updated as part
of the new information. I also note that the lower sections of the WFCS which
are in the more sensitive landscape areas generally involve less works.
49. I note that there are new and realigned sections of the WFCS specifically
proposed within the new information. Given the nature and land use of the
existing environment that comprises an already modified landscape with the
existing stopbank formation, I am satisfied that the receiving area is a sensitive
landscape area and that the proposed new Ormond Bypass and Mulloolys
Bend realignment will have minor adverse landscape effects.
3.5 Earthworks
50. The original application sought consent to a substantial volume of earthworks
and the new information and stopbank design will require even more
earthworks.
51. I retain my original opinion whereby I consider the effects of the earthworks
can be mitigated to ensure that the off-site effects are no more than minor. A
robust set of conditions including a Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP) will be necessary to ensure that both environmental effects and
nuisance effects on neighbours are appropriately mitigated. The applicant
has developed a draft set of conditions which in my opinion are broadly
appropriate to the scale and nature of proposed works however these have
been amended and modified with the input of our technical team.
3.6 Ecological Effects – Vegetation Clearance and Sensitive Ecological
Areas
52. In my original report, I presented the view that effects of vegetation clearance
can be mitigated or avoided subject to explicit conditions regarding the
removal of indigenous vegetation and restricting the location of the borrow
areas away from the Coastal Environment Overlay.
53. The applicant has proposed conditions for staging plans of the proposed works
to be submitted. In my opinion, this mechanism is appropriate although I
consider some more explicit wording for the earthworks conditions is
appropriate.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 13
3.7 Works within Stream Beds
54. The new information and design of the stopbanks will not substantively change
the scale or nature of works in and around stream beds with the exception of
the proposed Ormond Bypass.
55. The potential effects and proposed conditions relating to works within the
stream beds and also fish passage have been addressed in the Technical
Memo by Sarah Thompson/Paul Murphy. (Refer Appendix 2). The technical
memo recommends a more explicit and comprehensive set of conditions for
the works and in particular further conditions are proposed around the nature
of mitigation measures and monitoring for fish passage.
56. If the Ormond Bypass section is determined to be within scope, there will also
have to be further conditions developed for this section of works.
3.8 Heritage and Cultural effects
57. I originally presented some reservations regarding the lack of certainty with
respect to cultural and heritage values given the lack of supporting or
objecting submissions from local iwi and hapu and that the applicant was still
undertaking a consultation process and finalising the scope and nature of
cultural protocols that could form part of the consent conditions. The need for
these mitigation measures had been highlighted in the consultation feedback
report by the applicant.
58. I note that the applicant has continued to engage with affected iwi and hapu
groups including Rongowhakaata, Te Aitanga Mahaki (including Te Whanau
Akai and Nga Ariki Kaiputahi) and Ngai Tamanuhiri and that reference is made
to agreed cultural protocols to be prepared and observed during earthworks.
59. I also note that the Wi Pere submission raised matters regarding cultural effects
and the Treaty of Waitangi and that the Wi Pere Trust will need to confirm and
clarify their final position on this matter at the hearing.
60. In my opinion, it will be necessary for the applicant to ensure that cultural
protocols are observed during earthworks and that ongoing consultation is
carried out during the construction works. Based on the evidence and
submissions I have reviewed, I am satisfied that there are no other outstanding
cultural matters which would impact on the determination of the application.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 14
3.9 Proposed Cycleway
61. The proposed cycleway component of the application has not been subject
to any new information or changes. The stopbank levels have been refined
and this potentially could influence the level of the stopbank crest which may
in turn have some bearing on the viewing catchment and interface of the
cycleway on properties immediately adjoining the alignment.
62. I am satisfied that appropriate consideration of the cycleway route and the
ability to align the cycleway along the riverside base of the stopbank can be
incorporated into the design and location of the cycleway to avoid any
amenity or nuisance aspect for existing house site and owners in close
proximity to the cycleway.
63. In my opinion, some certainty also needs to be given to the staging and future
options that the applicant can retain to develop the cycleway. In my opinion,
any consent should set a defined period for the applicant to finalise their plans
for the cycle network. This will provide long term certainty for the adjoining
owners as to whether a cycle way will be constructed on not.
3.10 Construction Effects
64. The construction timetable will be affected by the change in the scale of the
earthworks which will be required to form the stopbanks.
65. This may extend the length of time that any section of the stopbank is subject
to construction works however the staging and progress of the works along the
WFCS corridor will ensure that the construction works do not impact any one
group of surrounding landowners for an extended period of time.
66. I am satisfied that appropriate conditions regarding construction noise, dust
suppression, vibration and haul roads and be applied which will ensure that
any adverse effects are appropriately mitigated.
67. Mr Kouvelis has provided commentary around a risk matrix for the staging and
sequencing of the proposed works. I have therefore provided a condition to
this effect.
3.11 Tree plantings
68. The original report referred to the location of any willows within the ecological
areas and that these will be subject to detailed design and approval from a
Staging Plan or CEMP Plan.
69. This matter has been addressed through the staging plan conditions.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 15
3.12 Network utilities/Bridge Infrastructure
70. The original report identified the bridge and utility service infrastructure that
crosses the Waipaoa River.
71. There is existing risk associated with the WFCS and the railway bridge and SH2
bridge infrastructure. In significant storm events, there is already potential for
flood debris to collect under the bridge soffits and this may create issues of
washout or damage to the bridge structure.
72. The applicant has undertaken further consultation with the NZ Transport
Agency and Kiwirail and it is perhaps surprising that neither of these parties are
submitters to the application.
73. The structural integrity and performance of the bridge structures to withstand
significant flooding events have not been subject to structural engineering
assessment or evidence and therefore the degree and risk of structural
damage has not been quantified (apart from the relative flood levels under
the bridge). It would appear that there are only two mitigation measures
available to address any existing risk or future risk if the WFCS is upgraded. The
respective infrastructure agencies could carry out significant works to lift or
upgrade the bridge structures and/or the applicant could elect to provide a
dedicated spillway. It is not possible to bind a third party to works as part of the
consenting process and any spillway proposal would need extensive
consultation and community engagement and a critical analysis of private
and public benefits.
74. In my opinion, without submissions from the transport agencies and given that
there are existing risk profiles to the infrastructure from the existing WFCS, then
there is limited opportunity for the Commissioner to pursue mitigation measures
for the existing bridge infrastructure. It is anticipated that the applicant will
continue to engage with the agencies with respect to the WFCS project.
3.13 Positive Effects
75. My assessment of positive effects remains the same as outlined in my original
report. The proposed changes to the application with the Ormond Bypass will
also have some additional benefit in reducing some of the effects of the
original upgrade works along the Mahunga River.
3.14 Assessment Criteria and Performance Standards
76. The new material refers to the specific rule mechanisms that would apply to
the proposed new section of stopbank at Ormond referred to as the Ormond
Bypass. This attracts a Restricted Discretionary activity status.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 16
77. The original application was assessed as a full Discretionary Activity and
therefore this allowed for all aspects and effects of the proposed activity to be
assessed. In my opinion, the new information and design changes do not have
a material being on the assessment of the application under the Tairawhiti
Resource Management Plan (TRMP).
3.15 Conditions and Mitigation Measures
78. The applicant has proposed a series of conditions in the original application
material and additional mitigation measures have been developed through
the provision of subsequent reports and in response to some of the issues raised
by the consent authority and submitters.
79. I have reviewed the proposed conditions with input from Brian Kouvelis and
technical staff and have provide comments and proposed amendments to
the conditions in Appendix 3.
80. The proposed amendments in some instances reflect a proposed refinement
to the wording put forward by the applicant to provide more certainty and
specificity around the required scope and nature of the mitigation measures.
In some instances, the amendments place additional controls on the
proposed works and there are more comprehensive measures are proposed
for the mitigation of fish passage and monitoring. It is anticipated that the
conditions will be subject to further consideration and discussion by the
applicant and submitters.
4 TAIRAWHITI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (TRMP)
81. The TRMP is the primary planning instrument which sets out the planning
objectives, policies and rule mechanisms to help guide the management and
use of land and works within the region.
82. I have completed an assessment of the application in relation to the TRMP and
have reviewed my assessment in light of the additional information and
planning assessment provided by the applicant and also the planning
evidence which was originally submitted by the Wi Pere Trust.
83. The additional information and design changes which have been submitted
by the applicant do are not materially affect the views and assessment which
I have previously provided.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 17
84. I note that the planning evidence for the Wi Pere Trust5 identifies some rule
mechanisms that were not identified in the original application. The scale and
nature of the proposed works and the overlapping planning rule mechanisms
and reference to locational overlays makes any assessment of the planning
rule mechanisms a complicated task. In my view, the application material
provides sufficient detail on the nature and type of activities that a reasonable
understanding of the activities has been presented and the failure to identify
a specific rule mechanism is not fatal to the assessment and determination of
the application.
85. I also note that the application has been assessed as a Discretionary Activity
and therefore all effects of the activity can be considered.
86. The applicant6 has identified a new rule which is applicable to the Ormond
Bypass (Rule6.3.2 (16)). If the Ormond Bypass is accepted as within scope, then
I consider this additional rule mechanism can be catered for under the
assessment of effects as a Discretionary Activity.
5 PROPOSED GISBORNE REGIONAL FRESHWATER PLAN (PGRFP)
87. The planning evidence from the Wi Pere Trust and the applicant discuss
provisions of the PGRFP and specifically Policy 5.4.6 which refers to matters to
be considered in relation to solid or fertiliser discharge.
88. Sub-clause (k) of Policy 5.4.6 states that
When considering applications to discharge solid or fertiliser contaminants to land or
water, assessment criteria are:
..
k. The need to avoid exacerbation of any flooding risk; and
89. There is some difference of opinion from the applicant and Wi Pere planning
experts on the application and relevance of this particular policy. In my
opinion, the policy is not material to the assessment of the application for the
following reasons,
The context of the policy in general is ambiguous as it aligned with
contaminants and other matters not directly relevant to earthworks
and natural hazards,
There are other policy provisions which are directly concerned with
natural hazards and potential effects on property and assets,
Even if the policy is directly relevant, it only establishes an ‘assessment
criteria’ for considering applications, and it is not directive in setting a
particular environmental outcome, and
5 Gerard Willis, EIC - 28 November 2017. 6 Stella Morgan, Updated Planning assessment – 14 August 2018
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 18
The first part of sub-clause (k) refers to ‘The need to avoid …’. This again
appears to provide for some discretion on whether or not a need exists.
If the Policy was directive, it presumably would state that ‘Avoid
exacerbation of any flooding risk’.
6 OTHER PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
90. The RMA requires consideration of other statutory documents as part of the
assessment and determination of the application which I have also addressed
in my original planning report.
91. The new information and design changes do not affect the views and
assessment which I have previously put forward.
7 PART 2 OF THE RMA
92. My assessment of the proposed WFCS upgrade works and the proposed
cycleway remain the same as my original assessment.
8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
93. The applicant has provided new information on the flood model and stopbank
design to support the original application and assessment of effects. This in part
has been provided to address the matters raised in submissions and prior to the
original hearing which was postponed.
94. The new information includes additional technical data on the flood model
and this has been subject to formal caucusing by the flood experts who have
reached a general acceptance of the veracity of the model and design
levels.
95. The new information shows changes in the design levels and in broad terms,
the height of the stopbanks has been raised to achieve the 1% AEP with
climate change to 2090 design event. It is notable that the design event has
not changed.
96. The changes to the application including the increase in the quantum of
earthworks will first need a decision on scope. In my opinion, the scale and
effects of the works are moderated by the context of the site and by the
conditions of consent however there are principles around the scope of the
application which will require careful consideration. It is also difficult to
determine whether there are any other parties who may be prejudiced by the
changes to the application and this matter will be subject to legal submissions
and enquiry by the Commissioner.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 19
97. My overall assessment of the application has not materially changed since I
wrote the 14 November 2017 planning report. There are matters associated
with the additional flood effects on the Wi Pere land holding and the upstream
land owners which in my opinion require further consideration and mitigation.
98. Subject to a determination on scope, I recommend that the consents be
granted subject to appropriate conditions. In conjunction with my technical
advisors, I have prepared amendments to the applicant’s draft conditions and
I attached these as Appendix 3 for consideration by the parties to the hearing
and the Commissioner.
Todd Whittaker (MNZPI) Director Environmental Services and
Independent Planning Consultant Protection
27 August 2018 28 August 2018
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 20
APPENDIX 1
Technical Memo From Brian Kouvelis
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 21
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme Upgrade Consent Application Supplementary Technical Memorandum for Sec 42a Report Application Review based on the revised Design Report, the Applicant’s additional reporting and comments on the Technical Submissions 1. Introduction Sustainable Futures NZ Ltd has been engaged by the GDC Consent Authority team and their planning Consultant Planning Works to provide support on relevant technical aspects of the Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme Upgrade Consent Application. This supplementary technical memorandum forms part of the updated Sec 42A report prepared by Planning Works. SFNZ Ltd undertook an initial technical review of the application, provided initial comment on the relevant technical submissions and a draft Sec 42a Technical Memorandum for consideration by the Consent Authority and the Applicant prior to the original scheduled hearing date of 6th-8th December 2017. The Applicant decided that following a peer review of the original 1D hydraulic that it would be appropriate that a new “coupled” 1D/2D to be developed for the Waipaoa flood Control Scheme upgrade to give better accuracy around final stopbank design levels. This required rescheduling of the hearing date. Seven additional/updated reports have since been prepared by the Applicant. These are:
1. “WRFCS - Design Flood Hydrodynamic Analysis” incorporating “Waipaoa River Hydrodynamic Analysis – Calibration Report”
2. “Further report of Gisborne District Council as Applicant following completion of further modelling work and responding to request from Consenting Authority”
3. “Updated Planning Assessment following further refinement of modelling undertaken by the Applicant.”
4. “Updated Landscape Assessment” 5. ”The Affect of Flooding on Various Land Uses within the Whakatane
Catchment (Dec 2004) 6. “Draft Construction and Environmental Management Plan” (Draft CEMP)
Further to the above reporting technical caucusing was held on the 15th August 2018 between the Applicant’s technical adviser Craig Goodier, the Consent Authority’s technical adviser, Brian Kouvelis and the technical adviser to the Wi Pere Trust (submitters) Dave Peacock. Mr Peacock also originally submitted in his own right. General agreement was achieved on the technical items set out on the caucusing agenda. The agreements around the outcomes of caucusing meeting are attached to this supplementary technical memorandum.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 22
The above reports have been reviewed on behalf of the Consenting Authority. This supplementary technical memorandum provides comments on these reports and further comment on outstanding matters identified in the original technical memorandum and in the planning report which was prepared last year. The need to raise the banks further than indicated in the original application following the output from the revised modelling results has resulted in the Applicant undertaking a reassessment of environmental effects of the proposed Waipaoa Flood Control scheme upgrades works and programme. This reassessment is covered in the supplementary report provided by the Applicant. In general the report concludes that the revised scheme stopbank levels, the additional return banking for the tributaries and the two scheme design modifications namely, improvements at Mullooly’s bend and the improvements for the outlet of the Mahanga Stream tributary are “less than minor” in terms of RMA considerations. Following the review of the additional reporting and the caucusing, I am in general agreement with the conclusions from the additional reporting in terms of environmental effects. There are however some matters that require some additional comment in regard to the revised Application and the Applicant’s assessment of effects. These are set out below.
2. Final Design The Application indicates that the upgrade will be subject to final design and preparation of detailed construction plans. This is standard practice. However, it is likely that further consultation around land area, stop bank foot print and access will be required. Adequate time is needed to be allowed to finalise plans for the next season’s construction programme. This is likely to be more than is indicated in the original draft conditions.
There is precedence for the RMA process to grant consent subject to final design etc. through appropriate conditions. The conditions do typically include submission of design details and construction plans to the Consent Authority and affected land holders prior to construction. In such cases the general extent of upgrade or even new work is known from the original application and the final design will confirm actual height of stop banks and define actual location of the upgrade activities. However, in this case it will be very important that prior to the hearing that the Applicant resolves the issue of the Wi Pere Trust land being fully protected by the Scheme as raised in the Wi Pere Trust submission. It is understood that there is no proposal from the Applicant to include the Wi Pere Trust landholdings in the Scheme. The Application is specifically for upgrading the existing levels of protection to land holdings currently rated for flood protection under the Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 23
House properties immediately upstream of the stream were identified by Mr Peacock in his submission as being potentially affected by the Scheme upgrade. The revised modelling and scheme design does indicate some effects by way of raised water levels at and about design flood levels around three of these houses. The consideration of any mitigation of these effects would preferably be resolved in-principle between the Applicant and the owners of the respective properties prior to the hearing. In my opinion, there is an obligation on the Applicant to provide mitigation where there is any increase in the flood risk to private property. The expert caucusing statement (Item 4.6) noted additional modelling will be required at and around the bridge structures. In particular, given that the Matawhero Bridge is part of a lifeline structure as part of State Highway access into and out of Gisborne, it will be essential that the Applicant continues to liaise with NZTA regarding the Scheme upgrade works as stated in the original Application document Section 7.3, P.26. Additional modelling will also be required at and around the Waipaoa River mouth in order to finalise the design for actual construction plans between the river itself and the coastal dune system.
3. Construction Details 3.1 Construction Sequencing The construction aspects of the scheme upgrade seems to be generally pretty well covered in the Application and the draft conditions. It is accepted it is the Applicant’s call on this matter provided that “good practice” is adopted. The Applicant has previously forwarded a risk based matrix on which the construction sequencing has been based. It is noted that the river bank protection works did not appear to be included as a factor in the sequencing determination. It is suggested that this aspect be included in the revised risk matrix. It is also suggested that the Applicant provides an updated construction programme and revised risk matrix following the revised design report to take into account the additional works, any outcomes from the caucusing and discussions with submitters regarding any mitigation measures. If appropriate, then modify their current proposed sequencing accordingly as part their submissions to the hearing. 3.2 Construction Activities There are various construction activities which are considered to require further elaboration in the Applicant’s evidence. These mainly relate to clarification or additional explanation around the activities mentioned in the Application as well specific comment in regard to the increased volumes of earthworks now required
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 24
compared to the original Application. In general these can all be covered off by agreement or appropriate conditions for the Consent and I note that the Applicant has proposed conditions for a Staging Plan and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). It is noted there has been no additional geotechnical studies or soil testing reported by the Applicant in terms of suitability of material for the extra fill requirements within the existing borrow areas. These aspects include:
Vegetation and topsoil stripping from the existing bank and definition of associated stock piling areas
Definition of borrow areas taking into account the additional fill requirements. It is noted that these will typically be from the river side berm. Need a condition that provides some definition about this activity yet also gives some flexibility.
A condition will be required about proper reinstatement of these borrow areas.
Identification of sources for cycleway construction material and associated maintenance of the cycleway.
Source and stockpile areas of rock rip rap bank protection material.
Stop bank set back options if deemed necessary under final design considerations.
Access issues
3.3 Fish passage. There seems to be little discussion around fish passage provision associated with the culvert replacements and extensions. This aspect will need to be specifically addressed as part of the upgrade proposals. It is noted that some consultation with DoC representatives has already taken place. It is understood the assessment of environmental effects and any associated conditions to mitigate any effects on fish passage in regard culvert and flood gate installations are being covered separately and directly by the GDC Environmental Group in association with the Applicant.
4. Submissions Three specific technical submissions were received by the Consent Authority. These have been reviewed. Comments on each submission are set out below. 4.1 The Wi Pere Trust The Wi Pere Trust has made a significant submission in regard to the history of the original scheme and potential impacts of the upgrade proposals to the Trust landholdings. It is understood the Applicant is in consultation with the Trust regarding their submission. Apart from the primary question regarding the inclusion of the Wi Pere Trust land into the scheme as a whole, the other aspects of the submission are subject discussions between the Applicant and the submitters in regard to effects from the proposed scheme upgrade and any mitigation that might be required to ameliorate these effects.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 25
While I acknowledge the proposed 100 year return period with provision for climate change to 2090 for the design flood event and that the site will be subject to flood effects without any upgrade works, there will be some additional risk and flood risk which, in my opinion, the Applicant has an obligation to mitigate. 4.2 Mr David Peacock Mr Peacock has also made a significant submission relating the proposed upgrade Scheme. In regard to Mr Peacock’s Item 3, Flood hazard; Item 4, Sequence of Construction Works and Item 5 Stopbank Strength and Stability it is understood these matters have by and large been resolved between Mr Peacock and the Applicant. However, by way of comment on behalf of the Consent Authority, these aspects are largely the direct responsibility of the Applicant and need to follow what is accepted “best practice” in the industry. As noted above the Applicant provided a risk matrix table around the proposed construction sequence. As mentioned above a review of this table taking into account the proposed changes to the upgrade proposal would be appropriate prior to the hearing. The flood hazard and equal protection aspect of Mr Peacock’s submission was discussed at the caucusing. Refer to the caucusing Statement attached. It is considered that the stopbank strength and stability aspect as proposed by the Applicant does provide some future proofing of the Scheme, as well as better access, albeit, with some cost implications. 4.3 Mr Callum Thompson It is understood the revise plan for the outlet of the Mahanga Stream involving a shift of the flood gates downstream and slight rearrangement of Scheme stopbanks have satisfied Mr Thompson concerns raised in his submission regarding the matter of sufficient land available to undertake the original upgrade at and about his property.
5. Scheme Costs Although the scheme costs are not part of the consenting process some Scheme rough order costs were included in the Application as part of Appendix 4 in the original Application. It is understood these scheme costs has been revised and the Scheme upgrade programme and associated revised Scheme estimates have been included in the latest Gisborne District Council Long Term Plan (2018-2028).
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 26
6. Future Maintenance and Repair Works The question of ongoing maintenance and repair of the upgrade works which potentially impacts on the term of the consents was raised in the earlier Sec 42a technical memorandum. These may well be covered by separate consents or within the District Plans provisions. However it is considered the way the maintenance and repair aspects are covered should at least be referenced in the Application and /or covered off in the Applicant’s evidence.
7. Draft conditions Further review and input into the consent conditions will be undertaken before and throughout the hearing process.
8. Conclusions This supplementary technical memorandum is based on information set out in the original Application, meetings with the Applicant on the 19th and 20th October 2017, a site inspection on the 20th October 2017 along with reviews of the Applicant’s supplementary reporting and revised upgrade proposals. The conclusions from this assessment to date are: 1. By and large, it is considered the updated Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
proposed upgrade works and programme, based on the revised hydraulic modelling, is now fit for purpose, subject to a set of appropriate consent conditions.
2. There are some remaining issues as outlined above that require further comment or elaboration by the Applicant.
3. The Consent Authority maybe able to resolve a number of the above aspects in evidence to the Commissioner and through refinement and agreement of draft conditions.
4. The outcome of discussions between the Applicant and the Wi Pere Trust representatives around mitigation of effects on the Wi Pere Trust land have yet to be advised to the Consent Authority.
5. The outcomes of any agreements between the upstream owners affected by the upgrade works have yet to be advised to the Consent Authority.
Brian Kouvelis BE, Dip Mgt, FIPENZ Director, Sustainable Futures NZ Ltd 17th August 2018
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 27
APPENDIX 2
Technical Memo From Sarah Thompson
and Paul Murphy
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 28
Technical Report
TO: Todd Whittaker
FROM: Sarah Thompson/Paul Murphy
Date: 23 A 23 August 2018
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO UNDERTAKE WORKS TO EXISTING STOPBANKS
ALONG THE WAIPAOA RIVER AND TO DEVELOP SECTIONS OF THE
STOPBANK AS A PUBLIC TRAIL FOR WALKING AND CYCLING
The Gisborne District Council Rivers and Land Drainage Team application by Sage
Planning HB Ltd shall generally be taken as read.
Some technical discussion on the key issues arising from the application and how these
have been assessed is included in this memo. This should help to explain the approach
to the assessment and the heavy reliance on conditions and our level of comfort with
this approach.
This report therefore also provides comments on the proposed consent conditions put
forward by the applicant in relation to ‘Works in the bed of the River’ consent LR-2017-
107783-00 and ‘Land Disturbance’ consent LL-2017-107782-00, as well as some
additional conditions commonly used for similar works in the region.
Use of Management Plans
While it is the preference of the Water and Coastal Resources Team to have this
information up front, it is acknowledged that this would be very difficult given the long
term nature of this project (13-15 years). As a result the analysis of the assessment of
environmental effects takes a precautionary approach and the certification of all
proposed Management Plans is required 12 months prior to construction taking place.
The successful contractors and sub-contractors need to be made aware that the time
frames specified for each of the conditions below are mandatory and any non-
compliance with these will result in enforcement action being taken.
Earthworks
We consider the significant increase in earthworks volume goes beyond the scope of
the original project. We question whether there is sufficient competent material
available for the proposed extent of earthworks. We note no earthwork material testing
has occurred to assist in determining material competency. The increased extent of
earthworks will also require further engineering assessments and is likely to lead to
increased timeframes and the risk of importing material from greater distances than
originally anticipated.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 29
Ormond Stopbank Bypass
We consider that the addition of a stopbank bypass in the Ormond Township goes
beyond the scope of the original project. In our opinion a variation under S127 of the
RMA is required to include this feature in the project scope. The additional feature has
potential to create adverse effects beyond that described in the original consent
application.
It is noted the WRFCS Design Flood Hydrodynamic Analysis Report by Mr Craig Goodier
Page 46 states the relocation of the floodgate will negate the need to upgrade the
stopbanks upstream of the proposed new location of the floodgates. What is the long
term plan for the stopbanks upstream of the proposed new floodgate location?
A precautionary approach should be adopted where activities with unknown or little
understood effects are proposed or the effects on natural processes are difficult to
assess.
If the Ormond Stopbank Bypass is recommended to be granted as part of this
application additional consent conditions are recommended to be added to the
existing recommended consent conditions to manage potential environmental effects.
General conditions
It has been assumed that the general conditions will capture the standard Council
conditions that would normally appear on a regional water consent.
Further information on the adverse effects to be mitigated by the proposed consent
conditions:
Works in the bed of the River
In summary, proposed works within the Waipaoa River bed comprise small sections of
bank strengthening works at the river edge. Proposed culvert extension works are also
temporary and the applicants intention is that any culvert extension works will take
place during the summer months outside of the key fish migration and spawning season
(see notes on fish passage below). It is important to highlight at this point that the Lower
Waipaoa River and its tributaries are an additional key habitat for Longfin Eel.
There is also significant cross overs with the sections on ‘Sediment Control’ below in
terms of issues relating to Water Quality. These will not be repeated here.
The applicant has largely considered the areas of potential water quality effects as a
result of the construction activities. Additional consent conditions have been included
in the attached table.
Fish Passage
The applicant has offered the following condition in relation to fish passage:
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 30
Six weeks prior to each construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit to the
Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, details outlining the location,
design, timing and duration, and any mitigation for the following proposed works for
that construction season
i. earthworks;
ii. revetment work;
iii. culvert extensions;
iv. stopbank edge planting;
v. reinstatement works;
vi. Results of fish passage evaluation and appropriate mitigation design measures.
In addition to the consents for Works in the Bed of the River and Land Disturbance,
policy 6.1.2 of the Proposed Gisborne Regional Freshwater Plan requires the progressive
removal of barriers to fish passage. While the application was lodged when the
Proposed Plan was in effect, it is important to note that the ‘Decision Version of the
Freshwater Plan’ amended this policy slightly to include a date that barriers must be
identified by and that works to improve fish passage are best done at the time of any
infrastructure upgrades.
Policy 6.1.2
Improve Fish Passage in the Region by:
a. Progressively improve fish passage in priority areas (identified by 2020)
b. Avoiding the creation of future barriers to native fish passage by requiring the
use of appropriately designed, placed, installed and maintained structures
including the use of culverts and bridges for permanent river crossings rather
than permanently constructed fords
c. Recognise that the best time to remove fish barriers is often at times of
infrastructure renewal.
Numerous barriers to fish passage have been identified in the Desktop Assessment
carried out by Councils Water Quality Science Officer, Harriet Roil. This is attached as
Appendix 1 to this memo. Each structure identified will be required to be upgraded
during the applicable construction stages identified by this consent. Given that there
are also a number of individual culverts that will generally require a 10% increase in
length on the river side of the stopbank, it would be appropriate to enable fish passage
in parallel.
It is necessary that unimpeded fish passage is allowed for, and maintained throughout
intermittent and permanent waterways within the WFRCS upgrade scheme. With the
imposition of the attached conditions, effect on fish passage has the potential to be
significantly positive.
The attached table includes a list of conditions to be included in the consent.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 31
Sediment control
The scale of the project means that a relatively large area of land will be disturbed. The
applicant has provided a project wide Erosion and Sediment Control Plan E&SCP which
correctly identifies the key areas that will require further assessment through individual
site E&SCP’s. As outlined in the application, a comprehensive E&SCP should be
provided at each stage.
Erosion and sediment control will need to be maintained throughout the duration of the
construction works and maintenance period to ensure protection of the downstream
receiving environment from the adverse effects of sediment from the work area.
The timeframe for certification provided by the applicant is much too short and
Councils preference is to receive the stage specific E&SCP’s 6 months prior to
construction commencing. The proposed associated review conditions are sufficient,
however, the assumption that no written confirmation shall be taken as ‘confirmed’
(proposed condition 8) is not. This condition has been amended in addition to a number
of proposed additional conditions.
All other conditions proposed conditions relating to sediment control (including those
under the sub heading of ‘Water Quality’) shall be retained. The attached table
includes a list of conditions to be included in the consent.
Vegetation clearance and re-planting
There are no known areas of existing indigenous vegetation within the WFCS and the
upgrade will not result in significant riparian degradation. The stopbanks and borrow
areas will not impact on the Wherowhero Lagoon or Stream and the WFCS is generally
located in a highly-modified area. The project does not involve removal of any
vegetation other than pastoral grass and its removal will be temporary, with re-grassing
occurring during autumn at the end of each construction season.
A planting plan is required as a consent condition. The intention of this is to off-set the
adverse effects of construction on the instream habitat. Particular focus will be given to
the inanga spawning sites.
Hard Protection Structures
The application states: ‘In some sections of the stopbank where there is a high risk of
riverbank erosion, hard protection options may be required. Protection will be provided
using willow tree planting or rock revetments’. Each of these structures will need to be
assessed against the requirements of the Freshwater Plan. An advice note has been
included to draw the applicant’s attention to this.
Sarah Thompson Paul Murphy
Senior Water and Coastal Resources Officer Team Leader Water and Coastal
Resources
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 32
WAIPAOA FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME AND CYCLEWAY
Proposed Conditions 23 August 2018 as per Technical memo from
Murphy/Thomson
Proposed Conditions - Consent Authority 23 August 2018
CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CEMP)
1. At least 1 month prior to the first construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit to the
Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, a final Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced
person(s). The CEMP shall outline the environmental management and monitoring measures to
be installed prior to and maintained during construction works, demonstrating that construction
works can be carried out in such a way to minimize environmental effects, and shall address the
following matters:
(i) Noise & Vibration Management (to show compliance with conditions 18 and 19);
(ii) Dust Control;
(iii) Erosion & Sediment Control;
(iv) Water Quality;
(v) Site Remediation;
(vi) Provision for fish passage; and
(vii)Specific measure to manage the effects of construction works with ecological sensitive
areas
Construction activities shall not commence until the CEMP has been certified by the Consents
Manager, Gisborne District Council, and written confirmation from the Consents Manager,
Gisborne District Council has been received. The consent authority will endeavour to have the
certification process completed within 15 working days (excluding any periods where additional
information is sought from the consent holder)
2. The Consent Holder may amend the CEMP provided under condition XX, at any time by
submitting the amended plan for approval to the Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council,
for certification, following the same process outlined in Condition XX above. Construction
activities subject to the amendment shall not commence until the amendment has been
certified by the Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council.
Note: Can either link this next section of conditions to the above point (vi) if they are to be
included in the CEMP or have them as conditions of consent.
3. An assessment and report on native fish populations above and below the structures and their
migration shall be completed annually for the first three years after the commencement of this
consent. The assessments shall be completed by an appropriately qualified and experienced
professional freshwater ecologist and shall include field assessment of:
the effectiveness of fish passage through the structures
the native fish diversity, ages and populations upstream of the structures.
4. Field assessments shall be completed during upstream migration periods for any native fish not
currently known to be present within the Waipaoa River catchment. A report of the field
assessment data shall be provided to the Environmental and Science Manager. The
assessments and reports shall consider and recommend mitigation methods should the
migration of native fish be shown to be affected by the activities authorised by this consent.
Details of the field assessment methodologies shall be included in a monitoring plan prepared
by an appropriately qualified and experienced freshwater ecologist in consultation with the
Department of Conservation. This monitoring plan shall be provided to the Environmental and
Science Manager within two months of the commencement of this consent, including evidence
of consultation with the Department of Conservation, and shall be approved by the
Environmental and Science Manager. Following the collection of three years of field data, the
field data shall be analysed by an appropriately qualified and experienced professional
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 33
freshwater ecologist who shall prepare and submit a report with recommendations to either
continue with annual field data collection and reporting and or alter the frequency of field
data collection and reporting. The recommendations shall be reviewed by the consent
authority in conjunction with the Department of Conservation who will determine the frequency
of ongoing field data collection.
5. The consent holder shall conduct a fish passage assessment on all culverts within the project
area that are equal to or greater than 300mm in diameter:
If there is a barrier present
If the culvert is in a waterway that is permanent or intermittent
If there is more than one culvert at a site (e.g. four culverts under the stop bank at the same
place)
6. Each structure identified by condition XX as being a barrier to fish passage will be required to be
upgraded/retrofitted to enable fish passage during the applicable construction stages
identified by this consent.
7. The Consent Holder shall engage an appropriately qualified expert to undertake an Ecological
Assessment for each phase of construction, with a particular focus on the effects modification
of existing culverts and flood gates, and the addition of any new hard protection structures
identified in the detailed design.
8. The consent holder shall undertake pilot trials to establish fish passage options required to
achieve compliance with conditions xx.
9. Test results and design criteria arising from the pilot trials shall be provided to Council’s
Environmental and Science Manager as soon as practicable, and no later than one month
before installation.
10. The consent holder shall confirm the performance of the fish passage treatment within 6 months
of treatment.
11. The Consent Holder shall visually inspect the fish passage treatment annually.
12. All barriers to fish passage must be retrofitted by the end of each construction season.
The consent holder shall prepare and submit to Councils Environmental and Science Manager for
certification, a maintenance and monitoring plan.
ECOLOGICAL AND LANDSCAPE SENSITIVE AREAS
27 No borrow material will be taken from the estuary area below the rail bridge or within other
ecologically sensitive areas as shown on drawing [Drawing to be supplied].
28 Where works (including any access routes) are located within the identified ecological areas, the
CEMP and Staging Plan shall specifically identify the ecological and habitat values within these
areas and what construction methodologies have been adopted to ensure that any effects on
habitat or ecological values is less than minor. This may include provision for alternate access
routes, specific restrictions on the timing and location of work areas, restrictions over construction
noise and variations of construction methodology to reduce or avoid any ecological effects.
Works in the bed of the river
13. The Consent Holder shall take all practicable measures to limit the amount of sediment and
prevent contaminants from entering any water bodies during construction. Such measures shall
include (but not be limited to):
i. Any surplus soil or cleared vegetation or debris shall be removed and deposited at an
appropriate disposal site;
ii. The wash water from containers and tools shall not be discharged into any waterbodies
and the washing equipment shall not occur in any waterbodies;
iii. Fuelling and carrying out of machinery maintenance away from water bodies; and
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 34
iv. The installations of erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the
certified Construction and Environmental Management Plan, as required by condition
7.
v. No spoil or other debris shall be directly deposited into a permanently flowing water
body or deposited into a position where it can readily enter or be carried into a
permanently flowing water body.
14. No clearly discernible change in visual clarity of the water shall occur after reasonable mixing
downstream of the activity site more than 48 hours after any construction work commences
15. The Consent Holder shall take all practicable measures to prevent contaminants such as diesel
and oil entering any waterbodies in the event of a spill during construction.
16. Works within the streambed and banks shall only occur within 1 October and 1 March. Any
works within the streambed and banks outside of this period shall be approved by the consent
authority prior to any works occurring.
17. The consent holder shall comply with all notices and guidelines issued by Biosecurity New
Zealand (refer to www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo) in relation to avoiding the spread of the pest
organism Didymosphenia Geminata (known as ‘Didymo’) and other freshwater pests.
18. The consent holder shall notify, as soon as reasonably practicable, the registered drinking-water
supply operators concerned and the Manager, Gisborne District Council, if an event such as a
spillage of chemicals occurs which may have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the
water.
19. Where, by any cause, (accidental or otherwise), contaminants associated with the Consent
Holder’s operations escape to water, the Consent Holder shall:
i. Immediately take all practicable steps to contain and then remove the contamination
from the environment;
ii. Immediately notify the Council of the escape; and
iii. Report to Council within 7 working days, describing the manner and cause of the
escape, steps taken to control it and prevent its occurrence and steps taken to prevent
a reoccurrence.
20. The Consent Holder shall ensure that at the completion of the works, any newly established
surfaces, grassed slopes and vegetated areas that were cleared or damaged as a result of
construction, are revegetated in order to prevent sediment from entering the water.
21. No concrete shall be dumped into the bed of any waterbody.
22. The Consent Holder shall where practicable construct all structures using methods and materials
non-toxic to aquatic life.
23. Any vehicle or machinery used on the riverward side of the stop bank is to be kept to a single
access point and clear identified haul route(s) at each site.
24. No machinery used for the exercise of this consent, shall enter, operate or excavate within
water in the waterbodies during the exercise of this consent except for river crossings, which
shall be kept to a minimum and located at the upstream end of riffles where possible.
25. Any damage caused by the consent holder to any access way or other assets as a result of the
exercise of this consent shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the consent authority and at the
consent holders expense.
26. The consent holder shall ensure that any materials, machinery or equipment from the activities
authorised by this consent (including any temporary structures) are:
not stored in or on the bed of any watercourse;
removed after completion of the activity;
disposed of in an appropriate manner where it will not adversely affect the stream channel or
impede the flow of water.
27. Culvert bases shall be installed at a level which ensures natural streambed material has the
ability to settle in and move through the culverts.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 35
28. During culvert installation and maintenance operations streambed material shall be monitored
and maintained within and adjacent to the culvert to aid fish passage.
29. Culvert inlets, outlets and the bed and banks upstream and downstream shall be monitored at
a minimum frequency of quarterly and following heavy rainfall events. Any required
maintenance shall be undertaken as soon as practical.
30. Maintenance required by XX condition above shall be recorded in a logbook by the consent
holder. Records within the logbook shall be submitted to the Gisborne District Council
Environmental and Science Manager annually.
31. Photo points of the bed and banks shall be established at each culvert location. Photos shall be
taken at a minimum frequency of quarterly both upstream and downstream incorporating both
the bed and banks and the culverts. Photos shall be taken by the consent holder and recorded
in a logbook. Records within the logbook shall be submitted to the Gisborne District Council
Environmental and Science Manager annually for the first five years following completion of
each phase of construction.
32. The minimum diameter of any culvert conveying fish shall be the larger of:
i) 375mm, or
ii) 20% wider than the natural width of the stream plus 0.5m
33. Flow and/or fish passage upstream and downstream of the work sites shall not be impeded.
34. Within 3 months of the completion of each construction season and installation of the culverts
the consent holder shall provide a report to the Environmental and Science Manager which
confirms all culverts within this consent meet the requirements of Condition X above.
35. A review of culvert performance on identified fish value sites shall be undertaken by the consent
holder and reported to the consent authority in writing at least annually. The review shall assess
the performance of the crossings in regards to the following;
Effects on water flow and capacity of the stream;
Effects on fisheries and spawning;
The ability of the stream to carry floating debris;
Effects on stream bank erosion, bed destabilisation and hazard management.
Fish Passage
36. An assessment and report on native fish populations above and below the structures and their
migration shall be completed annually for the first three years after the commencement of this
consent. The assessments shall be completed by an appropriately qualified and experienced
professional freshwater ecologist and shall include field assessment of:
the effectiveness of fish passage through the structures
the native fish diversity, ages and populations upstream of the structures.
37. Field assessments shall be completed during upstream migration periods for any native fish not
currently known to be present within the Waipaoa River catchment. A report of the field
assessment data shall be provided to the Environmental and Science Manager. The
assessments and reports shall consider and recommend mitigation methods should the
migration of native fish be shown to be affected by the activities authorised by this consent.
Details of the field assessment methodologies shall be included in a monitoring plan prepared
by an appropriately qualified and experienced freshwater ecologist in consultation with the
Department of Conservation. This monitoring plan shall be provided to the Environmental and
Science Manager within two months of the commencement of this consent, including evidence
of consultation with the Department of Conservation, and shall be approved by the
Environmental and Science Manager. Following the collection of three years of field data, the
field data shall be analysed by an appropriately qualified and experienced professional
freshwater ecologist who shall prepare and submit a report with recommendations to either
continue with annual field data collection and reporting and or alter the frequency of field
data collection and reporting. The recommendations shall be reviewed by the consent
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 36
authority in conjunction with the Department of Conservation who will determine the frequency
of ongoing field data collection.
38. The consent holder shall conduct a fish passage assessment on all culverts within the project
area that are equal to or greater than 300mm in diameter:
If there is a barrier present
If the culvert is in a waterway that is permanent or intermittent
If there is more than one culvert at a site (e.g. four culverts under the stop bank at the same
place)
39. Each structure identified by condition XX as being a barrier to fish passage will be required to be
upgraded/retrofitted to enable fish passage during the applicable construction stages
identified by this consent.
40. The Consent Holder shall engage an appropriately qualified expert to undertake an Ecological
Assessment for each phase of construction, with a particular focus on the effects modification
of existing culverts and flood gates, and the addition of any new hard protection structures
identified in the detailed design.
41. The consent holder shall undertake pilot trials to establish fish passage options required to
achieve compliance with conditions xx.
42. Test results and design criteria arising from the pilot trials shall be provided to Council’s
Environmental and Science Manager as soon as practicable, and no later than one month
before installation.
43. The consent holder shall confirm the performance of the fish passage treatment within 6 months
of treatment.
44. The Consent Holder shall visually inspect the fish passage treatment annually.
45. All barriers to fish passage must be retrofitted by the end of each construction season.
46. The consent holder shall prepare and submit to Councils Environmental and Science Manager
for certification, a maintenance and monitoring plan.
EARTHWORKS
47. While borrow excavation is in progress, a sufficiently wide vegetated strip will be left between
the borrow excavation and the top of the riverbank for the purposes of sediment filtration.
48. The consent holder shall minimise the time the borrow area is exposed by minimising the number
of sites exposed at a time, and progressively exposing each borrow site only as needed. Before
further stripping of the batters, the newly reconstructed stopbank will be filled, compacted and
finished to the final design height. Multiple borrow areas supplying a long length of stopbank
upgrade will be similarly be reinstated in a progressive manner as the respective sections of
stopbank they provide material for are completed.
49. Earthworks activities including the stripping of the existing stopbank batter will not exceed 200m
in length at any one time to minimise the possibility of erosion in a flood event
50. The consent holder shall ensure that at the completion of the works, any newly established
surfaces, grassed slopes and vegetated areas that were cleared or damaged as a result of
construction, are revegetated in order to prevent sediment from entering the water.
51. The consent holder shall ensure that, where practicable, the borrow sites are appropriately
stabilised by 30 April of each year unless otherwise certified in writing by the Councils’
Environmental and Science Manager. Stabilisation shall be undertaken by providing adequate
measures (vegetative and/or structural and including, pavement, metalling, hydro-seeding, re-
vegetation and mulching) that will minimise erosion of exposed soil to the extent practical to
avoid sediment run off.
52. Sediment control measures shall be installed prior to works and shall remain in place until any
bare earth associated with the works has re-vegetated sufficiently to avoid sediment runoff.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 37
Planting
53. Where any vegetation is removed that includes exotic plants such as willow and pampas, it is
not to be disposed of in locations where such vegetation is not present. Exotic plants must be
disposed of at a location and in a manner where it will not cause the spread of exotic plants.
The disposal of exotic plants at a facility authorized to receive exotic vegetation will also satisfy
this condition.
54. The consent holder shall provide a planting plan, including an implementation timeframe, for
the identified inanga spawning sites. This plan is to be approved by Gisborne District Council.
55. The planting plan shall be implemented as outlined in condition XX.
Advice Notes
This consent does not provide for the discharge of liquid or solid waste material to land or water. All
contaminated material must be disposed of at a facility approved to receive the waste material.
The planting of willows within identified ecologically sensitive and landscape areas as shown on
drawing [Drawing to be supplied] will require details of the areas to be planting and the
management of any wildling willows. The details of these works will need to be submitted for
certification by the Consents Manager.
This consent does not provide for the installation of hard protection structures other than those included
in the general construction of the stopbanks.
The use of willow tree planting as erosion protection should be done in consultation with the Land and
Soil Team at Council.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 38
APPENDIX 3
Proposed Amendments to Conditions
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 39
These conditions show the proposed conditions attached to the Planning evidence of
Stella Morgan dated 14 August 2018 with amendments proposed by the consent
authority for discussion. Deletions are shown in strike through and additions in grey
highlight.
Proposed Consent Conditions
Gisborne District Council proposes a set of draft conditions to be attached to the
resource consents and coastal permit to manage the effects of the Waipaoa Flood
Control Scheme (WFCS). These conditions include a number of acronyms and terms
as explained in the following table:
Acronyms and Definitions
AEE Assessment of Effects on the Environment
CEMP Construction Environment Management Plan
Consent Holder Gisborne District Council (Infrastructure, Lifelines)
Council Gisborne District Council
Cycleway Trail Shared cycling and walking trail
Erosion & Sediment
Control Guidelines
Hawke’s Bay Waterway Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment
Control7or appropriate relevant guidelines as available
Left Bank Eastern side of Waipaoa River
Manager The Regulatory Manager of the Gisborne District Council or Councils’
Environmental and Science Manager
Minor Works Works that will take place outside of the main construction season (1
October to 31 June) as approved by Council’s Manager.
Project The upgrading, operation and maintenance of the Waipaoa River
Flood Control Scheme to improve the efficiency and robustness of
the Scheme and to future proof it against climate change; and
development, use and maintenance of cycleways along sections of
the stopbanks to provide for associated public access and
enjoyment.
Right Bank Western side of Waipaoa River
RMA The Resource Management Act 1991
WFCS Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Work Any activity or activities undertaken in relation to the construction
and operation of the WFCS and cycleway.
7 Note: In the absence of any local guidelines, GDC currently reference the HBRC guidelines.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 40
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The Consent Holder shall, subject to final design, undertake all operations in
accordance with any drawings, specifications, and all other information supplied
as part of this resource consent being:
<to be inserted as appropriate>
2. Where a conflict arises between any conditions of this consent and the application,
the conditions of this consent will prevail.
3. All works and structures relating to this resource consent shall be designed and
constructed to conform to the best engineering practices and at all times
maintained to a safe and serviceable standard.
4. (i) Pursuant to section 125(1) of the RMA, this consent for the stopbank works
shall lapse 20 years from the date of its commencement (pursuant to section
116(5) of the RMA) unless it has been given effect to at an earlier date.
(ii) Pursuant to section 125(1) of the RMA, this consent for the cycleway shall
lapse 5 years from the date of its commencement (pursuant to section 116(5)
of the RMA) unless for each section of the cycleway, either,
(a) the cycleway has been formed, or
(b) An approved Cycleway Network Plan has been prepared confirming all
sections of the WFCS which will be developed for public access.
NOTE: For clarity, this lapse date refers to both the stopbank upgrade and the
development of the cycle way.
5. This consent is granted by the consent authority subject to its servants and agents
being permitted access to the relevant parts of the site at all times for the purpose
of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or taking
samples.
6. Pursuant to Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the consent holder
shall pay the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the consent authority when
monitoring the conditions of this consent. The consent holder shall pay to the
consent authority any administration, inspection or monitoring charges fixed in
accordance with S36 (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, payable in
respect of this consent.
CONSTRUCTION SEASON, HOURS OF OPERATION
7. The construction season for this work shall be 1 October to 30 June of the following
year.
8. Minor works beyond the construction season detailed in condition 4 above may be
undertaken subject to the approval of the Manager, Gisborne District Council.
9. The hours of work for construction activities shall be limited to 6:00 am – 7:00 pm
Monday to Friday and 6:00 am to 12:00 pm Saturday. There shall be no work on
Sundays and Public Holidays.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 41
CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CEMP)
10. At least 1 month prior to the first construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit
to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, a final Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared by a suitably qualified and
experienced person(s). The CEMP shall outline the environmental management and
monitoring measures to be installed prior to and maintained during construction
works, demonstrating that construction works can be carried out in such a way to
minimize environmental effects, and shall address the following matters:
i. Noise & Vibration Management (to show compliance with conditions 22 and
23);
ii. Dust Control;
iii. Water Quality (to show compliance with conditions 24 - 30);
iv. Erosion & Sediment Control (to show compliance with conditions 39 - 44);
v. Site Remediation (to show compliance with conditions 53 - 55);
vi. Provision for Fish Passage;
vii. Specific measures to manage the effects of construction activities within
ecologically sensitive areas;
viii. Overview of Construction Programme and a Revised Risk Matrix for each
stage of the Construction Works;
ix. Nature and Procedures for ongoing maintenance works
Construction activities shall not commence until the CEMP has been certified by
the Manager, Gisborne District Council, and written confirmation from the
Manager, Gisborne District Council has been received. If a written response is not
received within 20 working days of the Consent Holder submitting the CEMP for
certification, the certification shall be deemed to be confirmed.
11. Construction activities shall not commence until the CEMP has been certified by the
Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council, and written confirmation from the
Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council has been received. The consent
authority will endeavour to have the certification process completed within 15
working days (excluding any periods where additional information is sought from the
consent holder)
12. The Consent Holder may amend the CEMP provided under condition 8, at any time
by submitting the amended plan for approval to the Manager, Gisborne District
Council, for certification, following the same process outlined in Condition 8 above.
Construction activities subject to the amendment shall not commence until the
amendment has been certified by the Manager, Gisborne District Council.
13. The Consent Holder shall supply as built engineering designs to the Consent
Authority annually as part of the pre-season construction meeting. Any future
maintenance of the Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme shall be in accordance with
these as built engineering plans.
PRE- SEASON CONSTRUCTION TEAM MEETING
14. At a date in August prior to each construction season, the Consent Holder shall hold
a meeting with GDC regulatory team representatives to outline the upcoming
season construction works including matters such as (but not limited to):
i. Stopbank design levels;
ii. Earthworks and borrow area location and extent;
iii. Number and location of culverts to be extended;
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 42
iv. Review of the CEMP; and
v. Review of proposed fish passage enhancements.
15. Except that for the first construction season, this shall happen within one month of
this consent being granted.
16. At least 2 weeks prior to each construction season the Consent Holder shall hold a
meeting with GDC regulatory team representatives and the primary Contractor. This
meeting shall form the basis for confirming communication channels and the details
of the Construction Methodology and proposed earthworks management and
associated methodologies, and shall ensure that all Contractors are aware of and
familiar with the proposed construction methodologies.
STAGING DETAILS (detailed works)
17. Six weeks prior to each construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit to the
Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, details outlining the location,
design, timing and duration, and any mitigation for the following proposed works
for that construction season, including (but not limited to):
i. earthworks;
ii. revetment work;
iii. culvert extensions;
iv. fish passage works;
v. stopbank edge planting; and
vi. reinstatement works.
The Staging Plan will need to demonstrate compliance with all relevant
conditions of this consent and the approved CEMP. It shall also address any
matters raised in the Pre-Season Construction meeting.
18. Construction activities shall not commence until the Staging Plan has been certified
by the Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council, and written confirmation from
the Manager, Gisborne District Council has been received. The consent authority
will endeavour to have the certification process completed within 15 working days
(excluding any periods where additional information is sought from the consent
holder)
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN & PUBLIC LIAISON
19. At least 1 month prior to the first construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit
to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, a Communications Plan
that sets out procedures detailing how the public and stakeholders will be
communicated with throughout the 10-year period of the construction works. As a
minimum, the Communications Plan shall include:
i. Details of a contact person available at all times during the works. Contact
details shall be prominently displayed at the site office so that they are
clearly visible to the public at all times;
ii. Methods to consult with surrounding landowners, occupiers, representatives
of Ngai Tamanuhiri, Rongowhakaata and Te Aitanga Mahaki, Te Whanau
Akai and Nga Ariki Kaiputahi iwi, the local residential and rural community
and utility operators, which may include:
Publications of a newsletter, or similar, and its proposed delivery
area;
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 43
Newspaper advertising;
Council website;
Notification of the owners and occupiers of properties located
adjacent to the stopbank corridor where and when construction
activities will take place;
Notification to public utility operators with utilities within the Project
Area, where and when construction activities will take place
iii. A register for recording any public or stakeholder feedback and any
incidents or non-compliance in relation to the construction of the Project,
including the outcome of any investigation or remedial action taken (in
compliance with conditions 13-15 of this consent).
iv. Monitoring and review procedures for the Communications Plan.
20. A copy of the register of feedback shall be provided to the Manager, Gisborne
District Council, annually at the end of each construction season or as requested
by the Manager, Gisborne District Council.
21. Construction activities shall not commence until the Communications Plan has
been certified by the Manager, Gisborne District Council, and written confirmation
from the Manager has been received. If a written response is not received within 10
working days of the Consent Holder submitting the Communications Plan, the
certification shall be deemed to be confirmed.
22. The Consent Holder may amend the Communications Plan provided under
condition 10, at any time by submitting the amended plan for approval to the
Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, following the same process
outlined in Condition 11 above. Construction activities subject to the amendment
shall not commence until the amendment has been certified by the Manager,
Gisborne District Council.
FEEDBACK & INCIDENTS
23. At all times during construction works the Consent Holder shall maintain a register of
any public or stakeholder feedback received and any incidents or non-compliance
noted by the Consent Holder’s contractor, in relation to the construction of the
Project. The register shall include:
i. The name and contact details (as far as practicable) of the person providing
feedback or contractor observing the incident / non-compliance;
ii. Identification of the nature and details of the feedback/ incident; and
iii. Location, date and time of the feedback/incident.
24. The Consent Holder shall promptly investigate any adverse feedback, incident or
non-compliance. This shall include, (but is not limited to):
i. Recording weather conditions at the time of the event (as far as is
practicable), and including wind direction and approximate wind speed if
the adverse feedback or incident relates to dust;
ii. Recording any other activities in the area, unrelated to the Project that may
have contributed to the adverse feedback/incident/non-compliance, such
as non-Project construction, fires, traffic accidents or unusually dusty
conditions generally (if applicable);
iii. Investigating other circumstances surrounding the incident.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 44
25. In relation to Condition 14 17 and 18 above, the Consent Holder shall:
i. Record the outcome of the investigation in the register;
ii. Record any remedial action or measures undertaken to address or respond
to the matter in the register; or
iii. Respond to the initiator, in closing the feedback loop, if practicable; and
iv. Where the adverse feedback or incident was in relation to non-compliance
with a condition of resource consent, the Manager, Gisborne District
Council, shall be notified in writing of the matter within 5 working days of the
non-compliance, and informed of the remedial actions undertaken.
ECOLOGICAL AND LANDSCAPE SENSITIVE AREAS
26. No borrow material will be taken from the estuary area below the rail bridge or
within other ecologically sensitive areas as shown on drawing [Drawing to be
supplied]
27. Where works (including any access routes) are located within the identified
ecological areas, the CEMP and Staging Plan shall specifically identify the
ecological and habitat values within these areas and what construction
methodologies have been adopted to ensure that any effects on habitat or
ecological values is less than minor. This may include provision for alternate access
routes, specific restrictions on the timing and location of work areas, restrictions
over construction noise and variations of construction methodology to reduce or
avoid any ecological effects.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND CULTURAL PROTOCOLS
28. At least 1 month prior to commencing construction on the left bank, the Consent
Holder shall submit to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, a copy of an
Archaeological Survey for the left bank, prepared by a suitably qualified and
experienced person(s). The survey shall outline the likelihood of damage,
modification or destruction of any archaeological site(s), and whether
Archaeological Authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is required.
29. At least 1 months prior to commencing construction on the right bank, the Consent
Holder shall submit to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, a copy of an
Archaeological Survey for the right bank, prepared by a suitably qualified and
experienced person(s). The survey shall outline the likelihood of damage,
modification or destruction of any archaeological site(s), and whether
Archaeological Authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is required.
30. In the event of any site, waahi tapu, taonga or koiwi being discovered during the
works authorized by this consent, the Consent Holder shall immediately cease work
at the affected site and secure the area. The Consent Holder shall contact the
Council to obtain contact details of the relevant hapu and /or marae. The consent
holder shall then consult with the appropriate tribal entities and Heritage New
Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and shall not recommence works in the area of the
discovery until the relevant Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and
appropriate tribal entity approvals (including associated affected party approvals)
to damage, destroy or modify such sites have been obtained.
Advice Note: The proposed works may affect archaeological sites. Work affecting
archaeological sites is subject to obtaining an authority under the Heritage New
Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. An authority from Heritage New Zealand –
Pouhere Taonga must be obtained for the work prior to commencement of
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 45
construction. It is an offence to damage or destroy a site for any purpose without
an authority. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 contains
penalties for unauthorized site damage.
31. The Consent Holder shall establish and agree written protocols in relation to any
cultural practices to be observed during earthworks and specifically in relation to
the accidental discovery of heritage artefacts and/or koiwi. The protocols shall be
made available to the consent authority at least 10 working days prior to each stage
of the earthworks.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
32. All noise from construction shall comply with the following criteria for long term
construction activities:
i.
Time period Average Maximum Noise
Level (dBA)
L95 L10 LMAX
Monday – Saturday
0600 – 1800 hours
60 75 90
Monday - Saturday
at all other times
55 45 70
Sound levels shall be measured in accordance with New Zealand Standard
NZS6801:1999 “Acoustics: Measurements of Environmental Sound” and assessed in
accordance with NZS6802:1991 “Assessment of Environmental Sound”.
ii. Emission of construction noise shall not exceed 168 calendar days per site in
any 12 month period.
33. All vibration from construction shall comply with the following vibration criteria:
The maximum weighted vibration level (Wb or Wd) arising from construction, when
measured at or within the boundary of any site, or the notional boundary of any
adjacent dwelling shall not exceed the following limits:
General
vibration
Time Ma Maximum
Weighted Vibration
Level (Wb or Wd)
0600- 1800 hours
Monday to
Saturday
45mm/s2
Construction
Vibration
Time Ma Maximum
Weighted Vibration
Level (Wb or Wd)
0600-1800 hrs
Monday –
Saturday
60mm/s2
At all other times 15mm/s2
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 46
WORKS IN THE BED OF A RIVER
Water Quality
No borrow will be taken from the estuary area below the rail bridge.
34. The Consent Holder shall take all practicable measures to limit the amount of
sediment and prevent contaminants from entering any water bodies during
construction. Such measures shall include (but not be limited to):
i. Any surplus soil or cleared vegetation or debris shall be removed and
deposited at an appropriate disposal site;
ii. The wash water from containers and tools shall not be discharged into any
waterbodies and the washing equipment shall not occur in any
waterbodies;
iii. Fueling and carrying out of machinery maintenance away from water
bodies; and
iv. The installations of erosion and sediment control measures in accordance
with the certified Construction and Environmental Management Plan, as
required by condition 10.
v. No spoil or other debris shall be directly deposited into a permanently
flowing water body or deposited into a position where it can readily enter or
be carried into a permanently flowing water body
35. No clearly discernible change in visual clarity of the water shall occur after
reasonable mixing downstream of the activity site more than 48 hours after any
construction work commences
36. The Consent Holder shall take all practicable measures to prevent contaminants
such as diesel and oil entering any waterbodies in the event of a spill during
construction.
37. Works within the streambed and banks shall only occur within 1 October and 1
March. Any works within the streambed and banks outside of this period shall be
approved by the consent authority prior to any works occurring.
38. Where, by any cause, (accidental or otherwise), contaminants associated with the
Consent Holder’s operations escape to water, the Consent Holder shall:
i. Immediately take all practicable steps to contain and then remove the
contamination from the environment;
ii. Immediately notify the Council of the escape; and
iii. Report to Council within 7 working days, describing the manner and cause
of the escape, steps taken to control it and prevent its occurrence and steps
taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
39. The Consent Holder shall ensure that at the completion of the works, any newly
established surfaces, grassed slopes and vegetated areas that were cleared or
damaged as a result of construction, are revegetated in order to prevent sediment
from entering the water.
40. No concrete shall be dumped into the bed of any waterbody.
41. The Consent Holder shall where practicable construct all structures using methods
and materials non-toxic to aquatic life.
42. Any vehicle or machinery used on the riverward side of the stop bank is to be kept
to a single access point and clear identified haul route(s) at each site.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 47
43. No machinery used for the exercise of this consent, shall enter, operate or excavate
within water in the waterbodies during the exercise of this consent except for river
crossings, which shall be kept to a minimum and located at the upstream end of
riffles where possible.
44. Any damage caused by the consent holder to any access way or other assets as a
result of the exercise of this consent shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the
consent authority and at the consent holders expense.
45. The consent holder shall ensure that any materials, machinery or equipment from
the activities authorised by this consent (including any temporary structures) are:
not stored in or on the bed of any watercourse;
removed after completion of the activity;
disposed of in an appropriate manner where it will not adversely affect the
stream channel or impede the flow of water.
46. Culvert bases shall be installed at a level which ensures natural streambed material
has the ability to settle in and move through the culverts.
47. During culvert installation and maintenance operations streambed material shall be
monitored and maintained within and adjacent to the culvert to aid fish passage.
48. Culvert inlets, outlets and the bed and banks upstream and downstream shall be
monitored at a minimum frequency of quarterly and following heavy rainfall events.
Any required maintenance shall be undertaken as soon as practical.
49. Maintenance required by 40 condition above shall be recorded in a logbook by
the consent holder. Records within the logbook shall be submitted to the Gisborne
District Council Environmental and Science Manager annually.
50. Photo points of the bed and banks shall be established at each culvert location.
Photos shall be taken at a minimum frequency of quarterly both upstream and
downstream incorporating both the bed and banks and the culverts. Photos shall
be taken by the consent holder and recorded in a logbook. Records within the
logbook shall be submitted to the Gisborne District Council Environmental and
Science Manager annually for the first five years following completion of each
phase of construction.
51. The minimum diameter of any culvert conveying fish shall be the larger of:
i) 375mm, or
ii) 20% wider than the natural width of the stream plus 0.5m
52. Flow and/or fish passage upstream and downstream of the work sites shall not
be impeded.
53. Within 3 months of the completion of each construction season and installation
of the culverts the consent holder shall provide a report to the Environmental and
Science Manager which confirms all culverts within this consent meet the
requirements of Condition X above.
54. A review of culvert performance on identified fish value sites shall be undertaken
by the consent holder and reported to the consent authority in writing at least
annually. The review shall assess the performance of the crossings in regards to
the following;
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 48
Effects on water flow and capacity of the stream;
Effects on fisheries and spawning;
The ability of the stream to carry floating debris;
Effects on stream bank erosion, bed destabilisation and hazard management.
55. The consent holder shall comply with all notices and guidelines issued by
Biosecurity New Zealand (refer to www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo) in relation to
avoiding the spread of the pest organism Didymosphenia Geminata (known as
‘Didymo’) and other freshwater pests.
56. The consent holder shall notify, as soon as reasonably practicable, the registered
drinking-water supply operators concerned and the Manager, Gisborne District
Council, if an event such as a spillage of chemicals occurs which may have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the water.
FISH PASSAGE
Six weeks prior to the first construction season, the Consent Holder shall submit to
the Manager, Gisborne District Council, for certification, a fish passage assessment
prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person, identifying those culverts
within the WFCS where:
i. Fish passage improvements will be required;
ii. Fish passage improvements will not be required; and
iii. Further detailed assessment is required to determine whether or not fish
passage improvements will be required.
For those culverts where further assessment is required, the results of that
assessment shall be provided to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, for
certification, prior to any works commencing on those culverts.
Six weeks prior to each subsequent construction season, the Consent Holder shall
submit to the Manager, Gisborne District Council, a list of culverts requiring fish
passage mitigation retrofitting for that construction phase. Fish passage will be
provided where it is practical, cost effective and does not interfere with the primary
function of flood control.
The consent holder shall confirm the performance of the fish passage treatment
within 6 months of treatment.
Each culvert identified by condition 34 as being a barrier to fish passage, shall be
upgraded/retrofitted to enable fish passage by the end of the relevant
construction season.
Note: Guidance is provided in Desktop Analysis of Fish Passage Barriers in the
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme Upgrade’ by Harriet Roil, Water Quality
Science Officer, Gisborne District Council, dated 30 September 2017.
The Consent Holder shall prepare and submit to the Manager, Gisborne District
Council, for certification, a fish passage maintenance and monitoring plan
(including annual visual inspections) as part of the long-term maintenance plan for
the WFCS.
An annual report shall be provided by the Consent Holder, to the Manager,
Gisborne District Council reporting the outcome of its fish passage maintenance
and monitoring plan for the duration of the construction of the upgrade to the
WFCS.
57. An assessment and report on native fish populations above and below the
structures and their migration shall be completed annually for the first three years
after the commencement of this consent. The assessments shall be completed
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 49
by an appropriately qualified and experienced professional freshwater ecologist
and shall include field assessment of:
the effectiveness of fish passage through the structures
the native fish diversity, ages and populations upstream of the structures.
58. Field assessments shall be completed during upstream migration periods for any
native fish not currently known to be present within the Waipaoa River
catchment. A report of the field assessment data shall be provided to the
Environmental and Science Manager. The assessments and reports shall
consider and recommend mitigation methods should the migration of native fish
be shown to be affected by the activities authorised by this consent. Details of
the field assessment methodologies shall be included in a monitoring plan
prepared by an appropriately qualified and experienced freshwater ecologist in
consultation with the Department of Conservation. This monitoring plan shall be
provided to the Environmental and Science Manager within two months of the
commencement of this consent, including evidence of consultation with the
Department of Conservation, and shall be approved by the Environmental and
Science Manager. Following the collection of three years of field data, the field
data shall be analysed by an appropriately qualified and experienced
professional freshwater ecologist who shall prepare and submit a report with
recommendations to either continue with annual field data collection and
reporting and or alter the frequency of field data collection and reporting. The
recommendations shall be reviewed by the consent authority in conjunction with
the Department of Conservation who will determine the frequency of ongoing
field data collection.
59. The consent holder shall conduct a fish passage assessment on all culverts within
the project area that are equal to or greater than 300mm in diameter:
If there is a barrier present
If the culvert is in a waterway that is permanent or intermittent
If there is more than one culvert at a site (e.g. four culverts under the stop
bank at the same place)
60. Each structure identified by condition 2139 as being a barrier to fish passage will
be required to be upgraded/retrofitted to enable fish passage during the
applicable construction stages identified by this consent.
61. The Consent Holder shall engage an appropriately qualified expert to undertake
an Ecological Assessment for each phase of construction, with a particular focus
on the effects modification of existing culverts and flood gates, and the addition
of any new hard protection structures identified in the detailed design.
62. The consent holder shall undertake pilot trials to establish fish passage options
required to achieve compliance with conditions xx.
63. Test results and design criteria arising from the pilot trials shall be provided to
Council’s Environmental and Science Manager as soon as practicable, and no
later than one month before installation.
64. The consent holder shall confirm the performance of the fish passage treatment
within 6 months of treatment.
65. The Consent Holder shall visually inspect the fish passage treatment annually.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 50
66. All barriers to fish passage must be retrofitted by the end of each construction
season.
67. The consent holder shall prepare and submit to Councils Environmental and
Science Manager for certification, a maintenance and monitoring plan.
ADVICE NOTES:
a) This consent does not provide for the installation of hard protection structures
other than those included in the general construction of the stopbanks.
b) This consent does not provide for the discharge of liquid or solid waste
material to land or water. All contaminated material must be disposed of at
a facility approved to receive the waste material.
c) Any additional consents for the discharge of contaminants etc will also
consider the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for
Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007.
EARTHWORKS
68. While borrow excavation is in progress, a vegetated strip of at least two metres
wide will be left between the borrow excavation and the top of the riverbank for
the purpose of sediment filtration. Any exemption to this minimum requirement
will require pre-approval.
Note: This will provide a sediment detention barrier that is intended to minimise
sediment discharge into the nearby watercourse. In some cases, the vegetated
strip will be less than 2 metres when there is insufficient space to enable this. An
individual borrow area will typically remain open from two weeks on small jobs,
through to 10 or 12 weeks on larger jobs if rain delays work.
69. The Consent Holder shall minimise the time the borrow area is exposed by
minimising the number of sites exposed at a time, and progressively exposing
each borrow site only as needed. Before further stripping of the batters, the newly
reconstructed stopbank will be filled, compacted and finished to the final design
height. Multiple borrow areas supplying a long length of stopbank upgrade will
be similarly be reinstated in a progressive manner as the respective sections of
stopbank they provide material for are completed.
70. Earthworks activities including the stripping of the existing stopbank batter will not
exceed 200 500m in length at any one time to minimise the possibility of erosion
in a flood event.
71. The Consent Holder shall ensure that at the completion of the works, any newly
established surfaces, grassed slopes and vegetated areas that were cleared or
damaged as a result of construction, are revegetated in order to prevent
sediment from entering the water.
72. The Consent Holder shall ensure that, where practicable, the borrow sites are
appropriately stabilised by 30 April May of each year unless otherwise certified in
writing by the Councils’ Environmental and Science Manager. Stabilisation shall
be undertaken by providing adequate measures (vegetative and/or structural
and including, pavement, metalling, hydro-seeding, re-vegetation and
mulching) that will minimise erosion of exposed soil to the extent practical to
avoid sediment run off.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 51
73. Sediment control measures shall be installed prior to works and shall remain in
place until any bare earth associated with the works has re-vegetated sufficiently
to avoid sediment runoff.
PLANTING WORKS
Where any vegetation is removed that includes exotic plants such as willow and
pampas, it must be disposed of in a manner where it will not cause the spread of
exotic plants and in a location, that is approved by the Manager, Gisborne District
Council.
74. Where any vegetation is removed that includes exotic plants such as willow and
pampas, it is not to be disposed of in locations where such vegetation is not
present. Exotic plants must be disposed of at a location and in a manner where
it will not cause the spread of exotic plants. The disposal of exotic plants at a
facility authorized to receive exotic vegetation will also satisfy this condition.
75. The consent holder shall provide a planting plan, including an implementation
timeframe, for the identified inanga spawning sites. This plan is to be approved
by the Consents Manager, Gisborne District Council.
76. The planting of willows within identified ecologically sensitive and landscape
areas as shown on drawing [Drawing to be supplied] will require details of the
areas to be planting and the management of any wildling willows. The details of
these works will need to be submitted for certification by the Consents Manager.
77. The planting plan shall be implemented as outlined in conditions 70 and 71.
PRIVATE LANDHOLDING MITIGATION
78. [Measure for the Wi Pere Trust Land]
79. [Measure for the upstream property owners]
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 52
CYCLEWAY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
80. A Cycleway Network Plan shall be provided to show the sections of the WFCS which
will be developed and promoted for public access. This plan does not require
construction details and is only required to show the proposed network and public
access points. The Cycleway Network Plan will be accepted as a means of given
effect to the consent in terms of S.125 of the RMA and in accordance with condition
4(ii) of this consent.
81. Prior to the construction of any cycleway trail within the WFCS, the Consent Holder
shall submit for approval of the Manager, Gisborne District Council, a Cycleway
Construction Plan plan outlining development of the trail within the WFCS. The Plan
shall include the following details:
i. Route to be developed.
ii. Materials to be used for cycleway trails.
iii. Results of any consultation with adjacent landowners including
identification and mitigation of any potential effects on these landowners.
Anticipated mitigation measures include the realignment of the cycleway
off the crest of the stop bank if privacy issue exist and also the provision of
landscape mitigation and/or screening outside the stop bank structure. For
clarification, this condition will requires consultation with all directly
adjoining landowners to the proposed cycleway and the consent holder
must provide a full account of any feedback and response from adjoining
landowners to the proposed works.
82. Fencing will be provided along property boundaries adjacent to the stopbank
where cycleway trails are developed, unless there is a private agreement with the
adjacent landowner to waive this requirement. Any private agreement for this
purpose shall be kept on the relevant council property files.
83. Signage will be provided at trail entry points outlining cycle trail users’ responsibilities.
This will include (but is not limited to):
i. Exclusion of private motor vehicle, motorcycle or moped;
ii. No dogs unless leashed;
iii. No littering or leaving of any rubbish;
iv. No leaving the trail to enter into private land; and
v. No lighting fires or camping overnight.
84. The consent holder shall maintain a register on any incidents or complaints which
have been notified to Gisborne District Council regarding the use of the
cycleway. The register shall record the nature of the incident, the engagement
with the complainant and the actions or steps undertaken to resolve or address
the matters associated with the incident. This register shall be made available to
the consent holder upon request and may be utilised as part of any information
and material utilised to inform a Section 128 review of consent conditions.(refer
condition 85).
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 53
POST – CONSTRUCTION
85. All waste material shall be removed from the site on completion of the works and
the shape of the streambed shall be reinstated to the predevelopment streambed
profile or to a profile agreed to by the Manager, Gisborne District Council.
86. The works shall remain the responsibility of the Consent Holder and shall be
maintained so that any erosion, scour or instability of the stream bed or banks that
is attributable to the works carried out as part of this consent is remedied by the
Consent Holder within ten (10) working days.
87. The consent holder shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
culverts, stopbank and associated works and shall replace any parts of the works
that may be dislodged through naturally occurring events; particularly should this
compromise the integrity of the culvert, stopbank or impede access to the river or
stream flow.
MONITORING AND REVIEW
88. Council may, at any time after granting the consent, initiate a review of the
conditions of consent pursuant to section 128 Resource Management Act 1991 to:
i. Assess the adequacy of, and if necessary changes to, the conditions controlling
activities on the site,
ii. Deal with any significant adverse effects on the environment that may arise from
the exercise of the consent,
iii. Initiate a review of conditions that may allow for new conditions to be applied
to the consent, and
iv. Review the provisions of the CEMP
ATTACHMENTS
Schedule One: Hawke’s Bay Waterway Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control;
and
Schedule Two: Gisborne District Culvert Construction Guidelines for Council
Administered Drainage Areas.
ADVICE NOTES
a) To avoid doubt; except as otherwise allowed by this resource consent, all
activities must comply with all remaining standards and terms of the applicable
RMA Plans. The proposal must also comply with the Building Act 2004, and
Council’s Engineering Code of Practice. All necessary consents and permits shall
be obtained prior to construction commencing.
b) This consent does not provide for the discharge of liquid or solid waste material
to land or water. All contaminated material must be disposed of at a facility
approved to receive the waste material.
c) This consent does not provide for the installation of hard protection structures
other than those included in the general construction of the stopbanks.
Consent Authority – Supplementary S.42A Report 27 August 2018
Waipaoa Flood Control Scheme
Page 54
d) The use of willow tree planting as erosion protection should be done in
consultation with the Land and Soil Team at Council.
e) Any additional consents for the discharge of contaminants etc will also consider
the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of
Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007.
top related