Hearing Commissioner: Hearing Date: Report Author ... · Report Author: Todd Whittaker Report: ... Thompson/Paul Murphy Sarah Thompson is a Senior Water and Coastal Resources Officer,

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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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,



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



Page 20

APPENDIX 1

Technical Memo From Brian Kouvelis



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.



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.



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



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.



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).



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



Page 27

APPENDIX 2

Technical Memo From Sarah Thompson

and Paul Murphy



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.



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:



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.



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



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



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



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.



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:



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



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 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.


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.



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.



Page 38

APPENDIX 3

Proposed Amendments to Conditions



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.



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.



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;



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;



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.



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



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



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.



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;



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



Page 49

by an appropriately qualified and experienced professional freshwater ecologist

and shall include field assessment of:



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 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.




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.



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]



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).



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.



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.

Documents

Hearing Commissioner: Hearing Date: Report Author ... · Report Author: Todd Whittaker Report: ... Thompson/Paul Murphy Sarah Thompson is a Senior Water and Coastal Resources Officer,