Report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation on a notified resource consent application
Summary of application
Activity: Earthworks, stream piping, stream reclamation and soil disturbance associated with the harvesting of 44.3 ha of pine forest.
File Reference: WGN110347
Applicant: Pauatahanui Forest 346 Paremata Haywards Road Judgeford Porirua 5381 Attention: Wendy and Graham Bugden
Address for service Forest Owner Marketing Service PO Box 96 Fielding 4740 Attention: Paul van der Voort
Consents sought: [31252] Discretionary Activity Discharge permit to discharge stormwater contaminated with sediment, originating from areas of bulk earthworks exceeding 0.3 hectares, into water, and onto land where it may enter water, from sediment control and treatment measures;
[31254] Discretionary Activity Water permit to dam and divert the full flow of a tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream through a pipe
[31048] Non complying Activity Land use consent to place a pipe and associated disturbance and deposition in the beds of a tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream in association with the logging of pine forest
[31255] Discretionary Activity Land use consent for disturbance of and deposition on the beds of a tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream in association with the cable hauling logs.
[31253] Discretionary Activity Land use consent to disturb soil in association with constructing roading and tracking with an upslope batter greater than 2 metres extending for a length greater than 200 metres.
[31345[ Discretionary Activity Land use consent to reclaim a ten metre section of stream bed of an unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream.
Location: 346a Paremata Haywards Road, Judgeford, Porirua
Map Reference: Between approximate map references NZTM 1763145.5445413, 1763288.5445043, 1763889.5444836, 1763958.5445265 and 1763553.5445724
Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 89065
Recommendation: I recommend that the above consent be granted, subject to conditions, for the reasons outlined in this report.
Decision report Andrew Dooney Resource Advisor, by: Environmental Regulation
Decision peer Michelle Consultant, reviewed by: Conland Environmental Regulation Decision peer Sonia Baker Team Leader, reviewed by: Environmental Regulation
Decision Alistair Cross Manager, approved by: Environmental Regulation
Contents
1. Purpose 1
2. Background 1
3. Description of Activities 2 3.1 Harvesting 2 3.2 Track upgrades and construction 3 3.3 Skid site and hauler pad construction 3 3.4 Pipe crossing 4
4. Erosion and sediment control measures 4 4.1 Track and skid site/hauler pads 4 4.2 Slash control measures 5
5. Monitoring 5
6. Statutory Reasons for requiring consents 6 6.1 Track construction 6 6.2 Discharge of sediment laden water 6 6.3 Harvesting 7 6.4 Piping and stream reclamation 7 6.4.1 Permanent diversion of stream flows 7 6.4.2 Placement of a pipe in the stream bed and associated reclamation 7 6.5 Overall activity status 7
7. Consultation 8 7.1 Consulted Parties 8 7.2 Issues raised 8
8. Notification and submissions 9 8.1 Notification 9 8.2 Submissions 9 8.3 Issued raised by submissions 9
9. Further information and meetings 10 9.1 Further information 10 9.2 Prehearing meeting 10 9.3 Further negotiations 10
10. Environmental effects 11 10.1 Existing environment 11 10.1.1 Application site 11 10.1.2 Recognition of receiving environment 12 10.2 Effects of erosion and scour 13 10.3 Effects on aquatic environment 13 10.3.1 Effects of sediment discharge on water quality 13 10.3.2 Effects of harvesting 14 10.3.3 Effects on fish passage and migration 15 10.3.4 Loss of habitat 16
10.4 Effects of flooding risk 16 10.5 Summary 17
11. Statutory Criteria 17 11.1 Resource Management Act 1991 17 11.1.1 Section 105 17 11.1.2 Section 107 18
12. Objectives and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104 (1) (b) 19 12.1 National Planning Instruments 19 12.1.1 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 19 12.2 Regional Planning Instruments 20 12.2.1 Regional Policy Statement 20 12.2.2 Proposed Regional Policy Statement 22 12.2.3 Regional Plans 23 12.3 Other relevant matters 25 12.3.1 National Environmental Standard 25 12.3.2 Other regulations 25
13. Part 2 of the Act 25 13.1.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance 25 13.1.2 Section 7 – Other Matters 26 13.1.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi 26 13.1.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles 27
14. Conclusion and recommendation 27 14.1 Duration of consent 28
15. Monitoring 28
16. Suggested consent conditions 29 16.1 General conditions 29 16.2 Earthworks Conditions for WGN110347 Discharge Permit [31252] and Land Use Consent (Soil Disturbance) [31253] and [31255] 31 16.3 Water Permit Conditions (Dam and divert water) WGN110347 [31254] 36 16.4 Land Use Conditions (Pipe and Reclamation) WGN110347 [31048] and [31345] 37
1. Purpose This report provides an analysis of the resource management issues in respect of Pauatahanui Forest Limited application WGN110347 [31048], [31252], [31253] [31254], [31255] and [31345] for resource consent to undertake various works associated with the harvesting of 44.3 ha of exotic forestry at 346a Paremata Haywards Road, Judgeford.
The applicant has also lodged an application for land use consent with the Porirua City Council (PCC) as the proposal falls within their jurisdiction also and requires consent under their District Plan (Ref RC6131 (LU128/11). The notification is being undertaken as a joint process between GW and PCC on this basis.
2. Background Pauatahanui Forest Limited (the applicant) has applied to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW) to undertake earthworks, stream piping, stream reclamation and soil disturbance associated with the harvesting of 44.3 ha of pine forest. They have done so using Forest Owner Marketing Services (FOMS) as their agent. The location of the site can be seen in Figure 1 below:
P
a
P u a u a
a t ta a h h a a n n
u u
i i
S S
t t r r e e
a a Judgeford Golf Course m m
/ / C C
a a
t t c c h h m m
e e
n n
t t
P a u a ta h a n u i S t r e a m /C a tc hm e nt
Figure 1: The application site is outlined in red. Intermittently and permanently flowing tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream are shown in blue
On 20 May 2011, the applicant lodged a consent application for the proposed harvest and subsequently GW made the decision to notify the consent as the effects were deemed to be more than minor. This decision is outlined in my memo dated 28 June 2011 (Appendix 1) which states the criteria involved with this decision.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 1 OF 39
To enable harvesting, the applicant needs to undertake the following works within the application site (shown in Figure 1):
Construct new and upgrade existing access tracks including the installation of a 10m pipe crossings of an unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream; and
Construct skid sites and cable hauler pads; and
Cable haul logs across the bed of an unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream.
A description of these activities is provided in Section 3, below.
The operation is expected to take 2-3 years with the operation commencing as soon in 2011 as possible in the event that consent is granted. Works will be undertaken to construct and upgrade the roading and skid sites over the summer months of 2011-2012. Harvesting will then occur in the summer months of 2012-2013.
3. Description of Activities 3.1 Harvesting The applicant proposes to use both a cable hauler and ground based methods to harvest the forest. The cable hauler will be used over the majority of the site, particularly in steeper terrain, as it generally results in a smaller network of roads and landings, and therefore less soil disturbance. Ground based methods are proposed to be used on gentler terrain and in isolated pockets of the site where using a hauler is not practical.
As shown in the Harvest Plan, attached in Appendix 2 of this report, the applicant proposes to fell and pull logs away from watercourses and gullies where practical. However, there are significant areas where logs will be pulled across permanently flowing streams to reach a skid site/pads 2, 4 and 5. This has been reduced, however, following negotiations with DoC as part of the hearings process. This is also been included in Appendix 2.
The alternative to hauling logs across the streams would require additional tracks to be constructed in close proximity to the streams. This could, in the opinion of the applicant, substantially increase the amount of soil disturbance and therefore the amount of sediment-laden runoff. Runoff from tracking may be difficult to control in the base of gullies, near watercourses.
There is an area of forest that is not able to be harvested by a cable hauler and is proposed to be harvested by shovel logging. This is located on the western bank of stream C in the vicinity of the proposed pipe. This is a process where an excavator crosses the stream by placing a log in the stream then drives across it. This is designed to minimise stream bank damage. Once the excavator has crossed the log will be removed. Once the logs are harvested by ground based methods they will be moved in stages by the excavator over and above the stream to the adjacent road.
PAGE 2 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
The applicant proposes to replant the forest in pine trees within 18 months of harvesting with a 5m buffer on both sides of the stream.
3.2 Track upgrades and construction Currently all access to the site is either over a bridge or via a ford consented under WGN080209 [26545]. The applicant has proposed to upgrade the bridge so that it can safely take logging trucks, negating the need for trucks to use the ford. Large machinery such as bulldozers and the cable hauler will use the ford.
Existing tracking provides access to the edge of the forest from two separate routes from the Paremata Haywards Road. One accesses the site on the northern side of the block which currently provides access to a cleanfill on site and is 600m in length. The other accesses the south eastern side of the site and is currently used to access pylons on the property. This track is 1,200m in length. Due to their current uses these tracks are relatively well formed and maintained. At the property entrance at the road entrance a bridge will be used for all truck movements. These tracks will require maintenance to make them suitable for logging truck access. The pylon track does have one corner that will require earthworks to straighten out the road as logging trucks will not be able to safely turn. The proposal is to cut the bank and fill below the track to widen the road and create a suitable turning curve for logging trucks.
Within the site new proposed tracks will be required totalling a combined length of approximately 1,860m. These will be based on existing farm tracks that will require significant earthworks to upgrade them and gain a width and grade that is suitable for truck movements. Several corners along the farm track will require additional earthworks to straighten them out to allow them to take logging trucks. At the proposed stream crossing the road level is proposed to be lifted using cut to fill from a steep section of track above the crossing. A length of track to the north of the proposed stream crossing will be formed adjacent to a permanently flowing unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream.
All roads are proposed to have water table drains, sediment controls and culverts installed to control surface water run-off.
3.3 Skid site and hauler pad construction The applicant proposes to undertake earthworks to construct seven skid sites to process the felled trees at. Each of these will vary in size due to the terrain but the largest may be up to 2,400m² in area. The Harvest Plan, attached in Appendix 2, shows that the skid sites where possible will be formed on relatively flat areas and as far away from watercourses as practical. However, several skid sites will require cut to fill to create a level working surface for harvesting equipment. Some of the sites will also be used to base a cable hauler only. As part of their construction the sites will have erosion and sediment controls measures put in place.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 3 OF 39
The cut and fill material will be balanced to form the skid sites and pads. Erosion and sediment controls are proposed to treat stormwater run off from site.
3.4 Pipe crossing As part of the proposed roading and tracking there will be a ten metre pipe installed to replace the existing 3m long, 1.5m diameter culvert. Refer to the harvest plan in Appendix 2 to see the location of the crossing within the site and the diagrams in Appendix 3 showing the pipe construction.
The catchment above the existing culvert is assessed as 65ha. On this basis the applicant calculates the pipe can maintain the current 1.5m size and will convey flood flows for a 1:50 year event. The pipe design has been discussed with James Flanagan of GW Flood Protection. The design is seen as appropriate apart from the proposed angle of the pipe. James feels that a diffuser would be necessary to prevent erosion at the outlet.
The applicant advises that the culvert will be designed to maintain fish passage through the use of baffles and by placing the invert of the pipe below the current stream bed depth. The current gradient of 6% will be maintained. However, this will result in significant energy being
The pipe construction methodology involves the creation of a working platform for an excavator to get elevated access to the area where the pipe is to be installed. The applicant also proposed to temporarily dam and divert the flows of the stream while the pipe is being placed to minimise sedimentation. The applicant proposes to undertake the following measures to minimise sediment entering the stream flow:
Works will be carried out during summer and therefore during low flows The flow will be diverted around the area of works, and Works will be undertaken in the minimal time possible
4. Erosion and sediment control measures 4.1 Track and skid site/hauler pads The FOMS Erosion and Sediment Control Plan found in the Pauatahanui Forest Limited – Report section of the application and The Pauatahanui Forest Limited – Updated Erosion and Sediment Control Plan describes the erosion and sediment control measures proposed. In summary, these include, but are not limited to:
Water tables will be constructed on the inside of tracks to control water flows
Road culverts or cut off drains will be located at intervals along tracks. These will have grit traps at their inlets and discharges will be flumed to stable ground to prevent scouring. Where fluming is not possible to natural ground the culvert inlets will have additional measures such as silt socks to provide additional treatment
PAGE 4 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
Placement of stumps and logging residue away from watercourses
Temporary damming and diversion of the unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream when piping and reclaiming works take place
Additional treatment of sediment laden water originating from the slope immediately above the proposed pipe. This involves the use of a decanting bund
Use of silt fences where earthworks relating to track construction come within 5 metres of the unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream
End hauling of material when constructing road next to the streams
Use of sediment controls on landing and skid sites to intercept sediment laden runoff
Use of hydroseeding, mulching or slash to stabilise batter slopes and stream banks where disturbed
Monitoring of sediment and erosion controls after rainfall events to conduct maintenance works
Stabilisation of formed track surfaces with gravel/aggregate
4.2 Slash control measures The applicant has stated that slash from the harvesting operation will be managed through the following measures:
Slash will be stored on skid sites. Where skid sites/pads are located in steep terrain, benches will be constructed to store material
Installing appropriate erosion and sediment control measures around skid sites/pads to prevent water building up behind slash piles
All slash material over 100mm in diameter will be removed from watercourses, and
A proposed debris arrestors will be installed across the unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream above the pipe to catch slash and debris that is washed down the stream and to prevent erosion and flooding of the pipe
5. Monitoring The applicant proposes to undertake monthly site audits to identify areas where maintenance needs to be carried out and to document the corrective action.
The monthly site audits include monitoring of erosion and sediment controls measures including grit traps and silt fences.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 5 OF 39
The applicant has also proposed to continue monitoring of controls to ensure integrity until GW is satisfied the catchment is stable.
6. Statutory Reasons for requiring consents Section 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) states that no person may use land in a manner that contravenes a rule in a regional plan unless that activity is expressly allowed by a resource consent or section 20A (certain existing lawful uses allowed)
6.1 Track construction Rule 1 of the Regional Soil Plan (RSP) provides for roading and tracking activities located in Area 21 which will result in a road or track having a continuous length of new upslope batter extending for greater than 200 metres, with a height of greater than 2 metres measured vertically as a restricted discretionary activity. A resource consent is therefore required for any new tracks that fall under these parameters.
The matters over which GW has restricted its discretion to when considering applications under Rule 1 are attached in Appendix 4 of this report.
6.2 Discharge of sediment laden water Under section 15 of the Act no person may discharge any contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan or a resource consent.
The discharge of sediment-laden water will occur as a result of the proposed track upgrade/construction and skid site/pad construction.
Rule 2 of the Regional Freshwater Plan (RFP) provides for the discharge of stormwater as a permitted activity provided that the listed conditions are met. As the proposed discharge originates from an area of bulk earthworks greater than 0.3ha, the requirements of this rule cannot be met.
The applicant proposes to discharge treated sediment laden water to unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream. As such, any proposed discharge directly to water falls for consideration under Rule 5 of the RFP, which provides for all remaining discharges to fresh water, as a discretionary activity.
Rule 1 of the Regional Plan for Discharges to Land for the Wellington Region (RPDL) permits the discharge of any contaminant onto or into land provided that the discharge will not result in the contaminant entering water in any water body. The applicant proposes to direct some discharges to land; however, there is the possibility that the discharges will enter watercourses. The proposed discharge will therefore fall for consideration under Rule 2 of the RPDL, which
1 The land to which this application relates to is defined as ‘Area 2’ in the RSP
PAGE 6 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
provides for the discharge of contaminants not allowed by Rule 1, as a discretionary activity. A resource consent is therefore required.
The discharge mentioned above is proposed to take place within the Pauatahanui Stream catchment recognised in Appendix 2 of the RFP as having a High Degree of Natural Character.
6.3 Harvesting Under section 13 of the Act no person may, in relation to the bed of any river, use, erect or place any structure in the bed of any river; or excavate or otherwise disturb the bed; or reclaim by depositing a substance in or on the bed unless expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan or a resource consent.
The proposed harvesting methodology will require logs, once felled, to be cable hauled through an unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream. This will result in the disturbance of the stream bed and the deposition of sediment to the same.
The associated disturbance from this harvesting technique is not specifically provided for in Rules 22 to 48 of the RFP and will therefore be considered under Rule 49 of the RFP as a discretionary activity.
6.4 Piping and stream reclamation Section 13 of the Act also applies to the proposal to pipe and reclaim the bed of the unnamed tributaries in the Pauatahanui Catchment.
6.4.1 Permanent diversion of stream flows Section 14 of the Act states that no person may divert any water unless the diversion is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan or a resource consent
As a result of the proposed culvert, an associated consent is required to divert the water from its natural flow path through the pipe. This activity falls for consideration under Rule 16 of the RFP, which provides for diversion of water which cannot meet the requirements of any other rules in the Plan, as a discretionary activity.
6.4.2 Placement of a pipe in the stream bed and associated reclamation The proposed 10m pipe in the unnamed stream requires the complete reclamation of this section of stream bed. The reclamation and associated disturbance is not specifically provided for in Rules 22 to 48 of the RFP and will therefore be considered under Rule 50 of the RFP. This provides for the reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of any river that is included in Policy 4.2.10 (which includes all streams in the Pauatahanui Stream catchment) as a non-complying activity.
6.5 Overall activity status In summary, resource consents are required from GW for:
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 7 OF 39
Constructing new tracks Discharging sediment-laden water to land where it may enter water and to water Harvesting the exotic pine forest Constructing skid sites/pads Placing pipe structures within stream beds and reclaiming a section of stream bed, and Diverting the flow of the permanently flowing stream
While most of these activities are given either a restricted discretionary or discretionary status, reclamation of the stream bed in the Pauatahanui Stream catchment is considered a non-complying activity. Based on the principles of consent bundling, I consider that the overall activity status for the consents applied for from GW should be non-complying. Consent bundling is appropriate for this activity as the reclamation is inextricably linked with the other consents, particularly the stream works for placing the culverts (Tairua Marine Limited v Waikato Regional Council, High Court, CIV-2005-485- 1490).
7. Consultation 7.1 Consulted Parties Prior to lodging the application, the applicant undertook consultation with the following parties:
The Department of Conservation (DoC)
The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
Judgeford Golf Course
Residents of 346 Haywards Paremata Road
7.2 Issues raised In regards to issues within GW’s jurisdiction, the following lists the issues discussed between the parties:
The harvesting methodology and local effects
The potential effects on the Pauatahanui Stream and Inlet and fish species present
Input from DoC as to what would be a preferable harvest method to gain their consent as an affected party
Traffic considerations relating to truck movements along the shared access and into the Haywards Paremata Road
PAGE 8 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
8. Notification and submissions 8.1 Notification The application was publicly notified in the Kapi-Mana News on 16 August 2011. Notice of the application was also served to 14 affected/interested parties on 16 August 2011, including:
Adjoining landowners/occupiers Local iwi authorities DoC Wellington Regional Council (Policy) Fish and Game New Zealand NZTA Pauatahanui Residents Association Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust Pauatahanui Inlet Community Trust
8.2 Submissions At the close of submissions, at 4.30pm on 13 September 2011, 6 submissions had been received; 4 of these were in opposition and 2 in support. All submissions and a summary of submissions have been provided in the information pack sent to submitters and the hearing panel prior to the hearing.
8.3 Issued raised by submissions The key concerns raised by submitters, and of relevance to the jurisdictional functions of GW, are summarised below:
The effects of sediment discharges to the stream and inlet system. Specifically the endangered species present in the Inlet. Also the alterations to the stream channel on site resulting from the activity
Insufficient information provided regarding the actual and potential effects of the sediment discharges to determine is effects are more than minor and whether mitigation measures are adequate
Insufficient information provided regarding the proposed pipe’s allowance for fish passage
Insufficient information provided regarding monitoring of the impacts from the site
The activity is non complying and therefore might not meet the gateway test of s104D of the Act
Granting of consents would be contrary to Part 2 (principles and purpose) of the Act, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and objectives and policies of the Proposed RPS, RFP and RCP
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 9 OF 39
Sedimentation and debris will have impacts on the stream on the neighbouring property
Some submitters have requested the application be declined unless the proposal addressed their concerns and appropriate conditions be put in place.
9. Further information and meetings 9.1 Further information GW requested further information under s92 of the Act after the closing of submissions. The information requested related to:
The monitoring and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls
How the proposed pipe design will cater for fish passage
The proposed methodology for the removal of the existing culvert and pipe placement
Confirmation of the distance from the toe of fill sites relating to road construction to the unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream
This information was provided by the applicant on 7 October 2011.
9.2 Prehearing meeting A prehearing meeting was held on Thursday 13 October 2011 at the Council Chamber, PCC. Representatives from GW, PCC, the applicant and all those who made a submission were in attendance apart from NZTA. The meeting minutes summarise the discussion that took place.
The outcome of the discussion at the meeting is that, of those submitters wishing to be heard, only DoC and Terry Doran and Jaqcui Lally have issues that require resolving. As Terry Doran and Jaqcui Lally’s issues related to PCC maters only the DoC concerns are outstanding in terms of this assessment. The applicant requested the consent be placed on hold under section 37 hold to provide time for the remaining matters to be discussed and to attempt to reach agreement with the parties.
9.3 Further negotiations The remaining issue that DoC had with the proposal revolved around how the effects of the harvesting activity would monitored. DoC proposed a set of monitoring conditions that, in the opinion of the applicant, would involve the use of an ecologist. In an effort to address this, the applicant hired their own ecologist to propose a monitoring regime acceptable to them. This significantly delayed the proposal and ultimately resulted in the amendment of the harvesting plan and ESCP. DoC have reviewed these amendments and accepted them. The updates have been listed in condition one and therefore now form part of the proposal.
PAGE 10 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
Aside from the above DoC still requested monitoring of water quality be undertaken relating to the effects of the harvest. However, they acknowledged their request relates specifically to the permitted activity of harvesting exotic forest. In order to address these concerns a monitoring proposal has been made by the GW Environmental Monitoring and Investigations (EMI) team. They have offered to undertake a water quality and sediment deposition monitoring programme that ties in with their work in the catchment. This proposal will meet DoC’s objectives which they have acknowledged. As this monitoring relates to a permitted activity it falls outside what is able to be conditioned. Therefore, no consent conditions have been included to address this.
On the basis of the updated harvesting plan and ESCP and the proposed monitoring by EMI, DoC have withdrawn their right to be heard on 23 April 2012. This resolved the outstanding submitter issues in terms of GW jurisdiction for the proposal. Additionally, PCC resolved the concerns from Terry Doran and Jaqcui Lally; therefore, all submitters have withdrawn their right to be heard and a hearing will no longer be required.
10. Environmental effects 10.1 Existing environment 10.1.1 Application site The topography within the site ranges from slopes which are gentle, to moderately steep to very steep. Steeper slopes range from 20-40 degrees. The entire northern area of the site is steep or moderately steep apart from a narrow flat section which follows the stream for approximately 200 metres.
The midsection of the site, generally east of skid site two, is the steepest area of the site. Here the stream runs at the base of a steep sided forested ravine.
Further up the catchment in a southerly direction the site plateaus into a basin area. On the harvest plan this is the south eastern area of the area that forms Area 02. The topography is more level in this part of the block with slopes of no more than 10 degrees.
Two permanently flowing unnamed tributaries of Pauatahanui Stream flow through the property in a general south to north direction which merge before flowing out of the property into Judgeford Golf Course. The streams are labelled in Appendix 2 as Stream A, B and C for ease of identification.
Stream A flows into the block in the south western corner and merges with Stream B just below the location of the proposed pipe. The upper catchment of this stream is in pasture with no riparian margin. The stream was observed within the site and is stony bottomed and in moderate to good condition. It is likely that the upper catchment being in pasture lowers the water quality as stock access is permitted. The topography surrounding Stream A within the site is moderate to steep.
Stream B flows through the block from the south eastern corner. The upper catchment of the stream outside the site has relatively intact riparian margins.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 11 OF 39
Where the stream flows into the site the topography is flat to rolling in the form of a basin. Beyond this the stream cuts down steeply through the terrain into a steep sided cutting before levelling out upstream of the proposed pipe. The existing culvert is approximately three metres long and provides a crossing for the current farm track. It is also perched at its inlet and is a barrier to fish passage.
Stream B is stony bottomed and of good quality. The fact that its catchment is almost entirely vegetated in pine forest or intact riparian vegetation as opposed to open pasture has contributed to its high degree of natural character and ecological value.
Stream C is the section of unnamed tributary below the confluence of streams A and B. Stream C is also stony bottomed and flows at a less acute angle as it is lower in the catchment. It flows for approximately 100m before exiting the site. On Stream C’s true left bank the topography is steep as the site climbs to the east beyond the 3-4m wide existing track that follows the stream for approximately 100m. The true right bank is also steep and planted in pine trees. There appears to be some stream bank erosion along the banks of stream C from flood flows but in general it is in good condition.
There are several other intermittently flowing streams throughout the site which all feed into the permanently flowing streams. These can be seen in Figure 2 below using a GW predictive stream tool:
Figure 2: Prediction of permanent and intermittently flowing streams within site
10.1.2 Recognition of receiving environment The Pauatahanui Stream and its tributaries (including the tributaries within the application site) are listed in the following appendices of the RFP:
PAGE 12 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
Appendix 2 – Wetlands, Lakes and Rivers and their Margins, with a High Degree of Natural Character, under Part B: Surface Water to be Managed for Aquatic Ecosystem Purposes, and
Appendix 3 – Part A: Water bodies with Nationally Threatened Indigenous Fish Recorded in the Catchment (species recorded are Shortjawed Kokopu, Giant Kokopu and Banded Kokopu)
The Pauatahanui Stream flows into the Pauatahanui Inlet. The Pauatahanui Inlet is recognized in Appendix 2 of the Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region for its ecosystem components, in particular, waterfowl and wading-bird habitat, threatened fish species and endangered vegetation. The site is approximately 400m from the Pauatahanui Stream and 3.5km from the Inlet itself.
10.2 Effects of erosion and scour A structure placed in the bed of a stream has the potential to cause erosion and/or scour of the stream bed and banks. The applicant has proposed to embed the invert of the pipe below the existing level of the stream bed and install concrete structures around the pipe inlet and outlet. The stream flows through a bend approximately three to four metres upstream of the proposed pipe. There is increased risk of bank erosion as higher water flows are anticipated once the trees have been logged. A concrete block wall structure is proposed to reinforce the true left bank upstream of the inlet structure to prevent erosion from taking place.
I consider that the applicant has taken appropriate steps to avoid erosion and scour of the stream bed, and that if any such effects do occur that they will be no more than minor. Nonetheless, I have recommended a condition of consent that requires the consent holder to repair any erosion or scour that is attributable to the works.
10.3 Effects on aquatic environment 10.3.1 Effects of sediment discharge on water quality Sediment has the potential to be discharged into tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream during the construction activities of the forestry operation (e.g. track and skid site/pad construction, pipe placement) and during day to day operational activities (e.g. harvesting, vehicle movements on the tracks).
Increased sediment and turbidity can cause the following adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems:
Smothering of aquatic life by a build-up of sediment in the stream bed causing changes to community structure Reduction of habitat quality and diversity due to deposition of sediment on the stream bed Disruption of juvenile upstream migration and smothering of eggs Avoidance of waters with high suspended solids by invertebrates, fish and aquatic birds
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 13 OF 39
Clogging of gills and loss of function of fish and invertebrates Destroying of spawning grounds by smothering with sediment, and Reduced feeding rates and growth rates
In addition, increased sediment and turbidity may cause adverse effects on downstream water takes. There is a surface water take in the Judgeford Golf Course which is used to irrigate the golf course.
The measures that the applicant proposes to undertake to minimise the adverse effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity are outlined in Section 4.1 of this report. However, it should be noted erosion and sediment control measures will be difficult to implement where roading is to run next to a permanently flowing tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream. There is inadequate space to locate robust erosion and sediment control measures such as a silt retention pond or decanting earth bund given the terrain. It is unavoidable that treated sediment laden water will be discharged directly to water in this location. The total amount of sediment that could be discharged and deposited on the beds of watercourses within the block and in the wider receiving environment and its effects from this proposal is hard to ascertain with certainty. Sediment may originate from harvesting activities that are permitted under the RSP which makes it difficult to ascertain what the activities requiring consent will contribute in terms of sedimentation and its effect.
In addition to the measures that the applicant proposes to undertake, I recommend a number of conditions of consent, including a condition whereby the applicant is not to side cast material during track and skid site/pad construction in areas where the spoil can slide down a slope and enter a watercourse. I also recommend that a 5m riparian buffer either side of the permanently flowing streams to be retained where trees are not re-planted. This is outlined in the Addendum to Erosion and Sediment Conservation Plan submitted by the applicant on 14 March 2012. This will mitigate the effects of harvesting in future as the buffer will work to minimise sediment entering the unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream.
I consider the effects on water quality to be potentially significant. However, provided that the applicant undertakes operations in accordance with the consent application and recommended conditions then these effects can be minimised to an acceptable degree.
10.3.2 Effects of harvesting The proposed harvesting methodology will result in logs being cable hauled though the permanently flowing streams A and B. This method will mean the bottom end of logs will be pulled through the stream bed. This is likely to result in sediment being deposited on the stream bed from disturbance of the stream banks and disturbance of the stream bed as the logs are dragged across. This effect on the aquatic environment is difficult to avoid as the alternatives, (tracking and ground based extraction) have been highlighted by the applicant as having an even greater adverse effect.
PAGE 14 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
It is also likely that slash and debris will be dragged by logs and deposited in the stream. The applicant proposes to remove slash that is larger than the size permitted in the RSP. I recommend that a consent condition be included that requires a debris arrestor structure to be placed and maintained as per drawing 5 above the pipe to reduce the amount of slash that could migrate downstream which would adversely impact on the Pauatahanui Stream and Inlet.
The applicant also proposes to place a log in stream C a short distance below the proposed pipe. This is designed to allow excavator access to the true right hand bank of stream C without building a crossing or causing significant damage to stream banks. The effects of this method will be the temporary disturbance of the stream banks and bed including any aquatic species present. There is also likely to be some sediment deposited on the stream bed from the proposal from tracking across the stream and any damage to the stream banks. These effects are likely to be temporary in nature given the placement of the log will only be undertaken to allow the excavator to cross the stream. The log is proposed to be removed immediately after access is gained to the opposite bank.
10.3.3 Effects on fish passage and migration GW and Massey University have developed a model2 that predicts the freshwater fish that are likely to be present in river and stream reaches in the Wellington region. The model relies on fish presence data from field surveys and on environmental information taken from the nation-wide River Environment Classification (REC). The model gives the following probability of finding the below species within the site:
Short finned eel (17%) Giant Kokopu (30%) Banded Kokopu (37%) Non Migratory Bully (30%) Red Bully (17%) Brown Trout (89%)
The existing culvert is approximately 3m in length and has a drop off of approximately 30cm at the inlet. This inlet design has the potential to act as a barrier to fish passage.
While the increased length of piping to 10m is not ideal for encouraging fish movement, the proposed pipe will have baffles in place to aid fish passage. Consequently, the effects of the proposed pipe may not significantly affect fish passage. I have recommended conditions of consent to ensure that the pipe continually provide for fish passage throughout its lifetime.
Downstream of the site, at the point where the unnamed tributary flowing from the site meets the Pauatahanui Stream, the values found by the model shows a predicted increase in fish probability. The probabilities are:
2 Joy M. K, & Death R.G. (2004) Predictive modelling and spatial mapping of freshwater fish and decapod assemblages using GIS and neural networks. Freshwater Biology, 49, 1036-1052.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 15 OF 39
Short finned eel (67%) Long fined eel (97%) Inanga (51%) Lamprey (10%) Non Migratory Bully (28%) Giant Bully (53%) Red Bully (99%)
The effects of sedimentation on aquatic species are outlined in Section 10.3.1. There is potential for the proposed activity to discharge significant amounts of sediment into the unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream which will then affect the Pauatahanui Stream and Inlet. This could disrupt native and exotic fish species present at the time. However, it is anticipated that effects will be short in duration and therefore will not have significant ongoing effects.
10.3.4 Loss of habitat Small headwater streams, such as those in the application site, are often overlooked but provide a number of important ‘ecosystem services’ to the overall catchment. Small streams help to attenuate rainfall and runoff3 and as the natural stream bed is rough and bumpy they slow the passage of water. Friction produced by stream bed substrate, leaf litter and other organic debris also slows the water as it moves downstream. Slower moving water facilitates groundwater recharge and also reduces the erosive power of the water. Headwater streams also trap sediment and modulate the amount of sediment transported downstream as well as retaining and transforming excess nutrients into forms able to be processed by downstream fish.
Placing the pipe structure and reclaiming areas of stream bed will result in a permanent loss of stream bed habitat. For reasons outlined in Section 10.3.2 above, I do not consider that there will be significant adverse effects on fish habitat. However, the habitat loss will affect invertebrate species that are present, reducing their habitat extent.
Given the small section of stream that is proposed to be piped and reclaimed, I consider the effects on habitat loss to be no more than minor.
10.4 Effects of flooding risk The proposed pipe, to be placed within the permanently flowing tributary, has been designed to accommodate a 1 in 50 year return period flood. The current culvert is 1500mm in diameter. The applicant has used the Modified Talbot Formula which has confirmed a 1400mm diameter culvert is required for the catchment above the site.
As outlined in Section 3.4, Flood Protection has been approached with regards to the design of the pipe. On this basis I consider this design to be appropriate for its location within the site, away from neighbouring properties, and that the effects of flooding from the works to be no more than minor.
3 Meyer et al. (2003). Where rivers are born: The scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands.
PAGE 16 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
There is also a risk that slash and other log debris could accumulate in the stream forming a dam. Also there is the potential for the culvert to block given this debris. The resulting build up of water could create flooding issues if water was suddenly released. To counter this risk the applicant is proposing to install a debris arrestor on site above the pipe. The location of the debris arrestor can be seen drawing 5, Appendix 3.
I recommend a condition be included that requires the debris arrestor be maintained to avoid accumulation of slash material during and after the operation.
10.5 Summary On balance, I consider that, for the reasons given in the preceding sections, the potentially adverse effects of the activities associated with the proposed harvesting operation on the environment will be adequately avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into consideration the concerns raised in submissions received.
11. Statutory Criteria 11.1 Resource Management Act 1991 Part 2 (section 5) of the Act defines its purpose as the promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Part 2 define the matters a consent authority shall consider when achieving this purpose.
11.1.1 Section 105 Section 105(1) of the Act states that when considering an application for a resource consent which would contravene section 15 or section 15B, a consent authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to –
(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and
(b) the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and
(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.
The nature of the discharge will be stormwater, contaminated with sediment, derived from roading/tracking and earthworks areas. The stormwater will have been treated with approved sediment control devices prior to being discharged.
The receiving environment will be the Pauatahanui Stream and unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream. There will also be areas where the discharge will be to land in the first instance before potentially entering watercourses. A direct discharge of untreated runoff to water, or land where it may enter water, may cause an adverse effect. I consider that the proposed
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 17 OF 39
discharge, after being appropriately treated and reasonably mixed, will have no more than minor adverse effects on the freshwater receiving environment.
The reason the applicant proposes to discharge to water, and to land where it may enter water, is because in conjunction with the proposed sediment control devices these are the best practicable options for management of the stormwater discharging from the site during construction.
The applicant has not outlined any alternative methods of discharge, or discharging into other receiving environments, as they consider that the option outlined in the application is the best practicable option to mitigate the potential adverse effects. The applicant did, however, consider three other layouts for roading and skid sites and decided that the proposed option was likely to result in the least effects of the waterways.
I have assessed the erosion and sediment control measures that will be used on site. I consider that, provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with in full, the discharge will result in no more than minor effects on Pauatahanui Stream, or the unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream.
11.1.2 Section 107 Section 107 of the Act places restrictions on the granting of certain discharge permits. A consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit allowing the discharge of a contaminant into water or onto land in circumstances where the contaminant may enter water, if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters, as outlined in section 107(1):
The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials;
Any conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity;
Any emission of objectionable odour;
The rendering of the water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; and
Any adverse effects on aquatic life.
Erosion and sediment control measures together with conditions of consent have been designed to ensure that the effects of the treated sediment discharge will be no more than minor. The discharge therefore, should meet section 107(1) of the Act during and following a rainfall event equivalent to a return event of two years or less and as such will not result, after reasonable mixing, in any of the above effects.
The discharge resulting from rainfall events in excess of the two year return period may not meet section 107(1). However, these discharges will be infrequent and can be considered to be of a temporary nature in accordance with section 107(2) of the Act. Section 107(2) states that a consent authority
PAGE 18 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
may grant a discharge permit to do something that may allow any of the effects described in subsection (1) if it is satisfied that the discharge is of a temporary nature. Furthermore, once the works are completed and the site stabilised, sediment laden stormwater will no longer be discharged from the site as part of the resource consent.
12. Objectives and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104 (1) (b) Section 104(1)(b) of the Act outlines the matters a consent authority must have regard to. These matters include any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity, relevant National Environmental Standard(s), other regulations, relevant objectives, policies and rules of a Regional Plan, the Regional Policy Statement and proposed Regional Policy Statement4, and any other matter considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
12.1 National Planning Instruments 12.1.1 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFW) took effect on 12 May 2011.
The purpose of the policy statement is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Act in relation to the freshwater environment of New Zealand. It includes general principles and policies, rather than specific directives, for the management of the natural and physical resources within New Zealand’s freshwater environments.
The NPSFW sets out policies on freshwater issues including the protection of freshwater quality, life supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species as well as interactions between freshwater and the coastal environment.
I have reviewed the NPSFW in relation to this application. There are a number of policies that are relevant to this application. The main objectives and policies of interest, and the direction of these, are identified below.
Objectives:
Objective A1: To safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems of fresh water, in sustainably managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants.
Objective A2: The overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or improved while:
a) protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies
4 The proposed RPS was notified on 21 March 2009
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 19 OF 39
b) protecting the significant values of wetlands and
c) improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated.
Objective B1: To safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems of fresh water, in sustainably managing the taking, using, damming, or diverting of fresh water
Objective B4: To protect significant values of wetlands.
Objective C1: To improve integrated management of fresh water and the use and development of land in whole catchments, including the interactions between fresh water, land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment.
Policies:
Policy C1 By every regional council managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way, so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects.
Overall, I consider that the proposed activity will be consistent with the objectives and policies of the NPSFW provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with.
12.2 Regional Planning Instruments The relevant regional planning instruments are the RPS, PRPS, the RFP and RSP. All plans are operative, with the exception of the PRPS which is currently subject to appeal. The applicant’s proposal has been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies contained within the RPS, PRPS, the RFP and RSP.
12.2.1 Regional Policy Statement The operative RPS outlines the resource management issues of significance to the region and provides a framework for managing the natural and physical resources of the region in a sustainable manner. Further to this, the RPS identifies objectives, policies and methods which are designed to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region. As some parts of the PRPS are under appeal, the objectives and policies of the operative RPS remain relevant.
The chapters of the RPS relevant to this application are Chapters 4 - The Iwi Environmental Management System, Chapter 5 – Freshwater, Chapter 6 – Soils and Minerals, Chapter 9 – Ecosystems, Chapter 10 – Landscape and Heritage. I have summarised relevant parts of these chapters below:
PAGE 20 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
(a) Chapter 4 - The Iwi Environmental Management System Chapter 4 of the RPS provides objectives, policies and methods which address the relationship that GW and other regulatory authorities have with the tangata whenua of the region and with the Treaty of Waitangi.
In particular, Objective 2 provides for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be taken into account in resource management. policy 2 emphasises the active participation of tangata whenua in the development and implementation of resource management policy and plans, and in the resource consent granting process. Policy 4 states that GW is to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.
Accordingly, I consider the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 4 of the RPS.
(b) Chapter 5 – Freshwater Chapter 5 contains objectives, policies and methods that address activities in the beds of rivers and streams and water quality issues in terms of both the character of the water, encompassing the health and other values of ecosystems, and the sediments or contaminants that may be carried in or deposited by that water.
In particular Issue 8 recognises the protection required for various aspects of freshwater including quality, natural character and fisheries and other amenity values.
Policies 6 and 11 seek to ensure that effects of contaminants contained in point source discharges on the quality of freshwater and aquatic ecosystems are avoided remedied or mitigated and, specifically that water in the coastal marine area are not rendered unsuitable for any purpose specified in a Regional Coastal Plan. In Section 10 of this report, mitigation of the effects on fresh water has been considered. I conclude that if consent conditions are adhered to then adverse effects should be adequately avoided or mitigated.
(c) Chapter 6 - Soils and Minerals Chapter 6 recognises the economic and ecological value of the Region’s soil and mineral resources, the competing demands on these resources and effects of different uses and consequences for other resources.
Issue 7 recognises that vegetation clearance relating to forestry operations have the potential to create erosion as soil is more exposed to rapid weathering and therefore sediment loads to water. It also recognises the effects this can have on ecosystems and water supplies.
Policy 8 seeks to ensure that land management activities do not lead to soil erosion and associated detrimental impacts on assets, land and water quality.
I have concluded in Section 10 of this report that, provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with, in particular those relating to erosion
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 21 OF 39
and sediment control the effects on the soils of the site will be adequately avoided or mitigated. As such, I consider the proposed activity will be consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 6 of the RPS.
(d) Chapter 9 – Ecosystem Chapter 9 contains the objectives, policies and methods, which address ecosystems (any system of interacting terrestrial or aquatic organisms within their natural and physical environment) and generally addresses the sustainable management of ecosystems.
Policy 4 seeks to ensure that duties under the Act to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on the environment are undertaken in a way that protects ecosystems and their life supporting capacity.
Method 2 states that GW, as a consent authority, shall consider applying resource consent conditions which require consent holders to monitor ecosystems which may be affected by the activity allowed by granting of the resource consent.
I have concluded in Section 10 of this report that the effects on ecosystems, including those effects identified by some submitters, will be adequately avoided or mitigated provided the recommended consent conditions are complied with. Accordingly, I consider that the proposed activity will be consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 9 of the RPS.
I consider that the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in the application together with the recommended consent conditions will ensure that any adverse effects of the forestry harvesting operations in the short and long term are mitigated. Therefore, I consider the application is consistent with the policies in Chapter 4, 5, and 9 of the RPS.
12.2.2 Proposed Regional Policy Statement The PRPS was notified on 21 March 2009. Decisions on submissions on the proposed RPS were approved by GW on 18 May 2010 and notified on 22 May 2010. There have been 8 appeals on various sections of the PRPS, some of which cover the PRPS in its entirety. All appeals need to be resolved before the PRPS can become operative.
The provisions in the PRPS must be considered pursuant to section 104(1)(b)(iii) of the Act; however, they carry less statutory weight than the operative RPS at this stage. Section 4.2 of the proposed RPS contains the relevant regulatory policies to be given particular regard when assessing and deciding on resource consent applications. Policies of particular relevance to this application and their intent include:
Policy 36: Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of coastal ecosystems
Policy 39: Maintaining and enhancing aquatic ecosystem health in waterbodies
PAGE 22 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
Policy 40: Minimising the effects of earthworks and vegetation disturbance
Policy 42: Protecting aquatic ecological function of waterbodies
I have considered the consistency of the proposed activity with the policies of the PRPS. Overall, I consider that, provided the activity is carried out in accordance with the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal will be consistent with the policies of the PRPS.
12.2.3 Regional Plans The following polices of the RSP, RFP and RPDL are relevant to this application. I have assessed the proposal against these key policies.
(a) Regional Soil Plan Policy 4.2.14 seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of vegetation disturbance by promoting factors such as the maintenance and enhancement of vegetation in erosion prone areas; riparian management; and compliance with industry recognised standards and procedures.
The applicant has advised that a riparian buffer will be maintained five metres either side of the permanently flowing unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream to mitigate the effects of future harvesting of the site. I have recommended a condition of consent whereby a larger riparian buffer of ten metres either side is put in place to further minimise effects of harvesting in future.
Policy 4.2.15 seeks to regulate soil disturbing activities to ensure that they are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the listed factors, including erosion rates, water quality, stream crossings and aquatic ecosystems.
Policy 4.2.16 seeks to ensure that recognised erosion and land rehabilitation techniques are adopted to remedy or mitigate any adverse effects from soil disturbing activities. Specific matters listed within this policy include implementing sediment retention works, stabilising exposed areas, and inspecting and maintaining sediment retention works.
I have outlined the measures that the applicant proposes to implement in Sections 4 and 5 of this report. I consider that provided that the applicant adheres to these measures and the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal will be consistent with Polices 4.2.15 and 4.2.16.
(b) Regional Freshwater Plan I have considered the proposed discharge to land, which will ultimately enter surface water, under both the RFP and the RPDL. The proposed discharge falls for consideration under the RPDL; however, the RFP gives more direction as it specifically addresses the direct effects of activities on surface water.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 23 OF 39
Policy 4.2.10 seeks to avoid adverse effects on rivers and their margins identified in Appendix 2 (such as the tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream), when considering the protection of their natural character from the adverse effects of subdivision, use, and development.
The explanation of the policy goes on to state that to “avoid adverse effects” means that only activities that are no more than minor will be allowed in the water bodies identified. As outlined in Section 10.3.3 of this report, the effects of the proposed pipe are no more than minor and as such, are consistent with this Policy.
Policy 4.2.11 seeks to avoid remedy or mitigate adverse effects on waterbodies, rivers and lakes by having regard to the maintenance of key aspects of aquatic environments to maintain life supporting capacity
Policy 5.2.6 seeks to manage the water quality for all surface water bodies in the region for aquatic ecosystem purposes.
I consider that the proposed erosion and sediment control measures for the track/skid construction and pipe placements as well as the recommended conditions of consent will ensure that the proposed works will meet this policy.
Policy 5.2.14 Encourages the use of devices to treat stormwater to reduce adverse effects.
Policy 5.2.13 encourages users to discharge to land instead of water where possible as this potentially has less adverse impacts on the land.
Policy 6.2.15 allows the diversion of water provided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The diversion of flow of the permanent tributary through the pipe structure is consistent with this policy.
Policy 7.2.1 allows structures for transportation purposes provided that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
I consider that the applicant has outlined appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of the pipe structures (i.e. placing inlet and outlet protection structures to avoid erosion and scour around the pipe structure).
Policy 7.2.15 only allows reclamation of a river bed when there are no practical alternatives, the reclamation provides significant benefits to the community and the reclamation in consistent with policy 4.2.10.
I consider that there are no practical alternatives, the reclamation will provide significant benefits to the community (through employment and the proposed plan of re-vegetating the site with native vegetation) and that the reclamation is consistent with Policy 4.2.10.
PAGE 24 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
(c) Regional Discharges to Land Plan Policy 4.2.19 allows the discharges of liquid contaminants to land which are not likely to have adverse effects on soil, water quality and amenity values, particularly where the effects of the contaminants would be greater if they were discharged directly into water.
I consider that the proposed erosion and sediment control measures for the track/skid construction as well as the recommended conditions of consent will ensure that the proposed works will meet this policy. In addition, I consider that discharging directly to water would result in greater effects. This is because the applicant proposes to discharge across vegetated areas where possible which will have a degree of treatment on the discharge.
(d) Summary I have assessed the application against all of the relevant Polices and Objectives of the RSP, RFP and RPDL (the key Policies of these plans are outlined above). Overall, I consider that the proposal is consistent with the Polices and Objectives of the RSP, RFP and RPDL.
12.3 Other relevant matters 12.3.1 National Environmental Standard There are no National Environmental Standards that are relevant to this application.
12.3.2 Other regulations There are no other regulations that are relevant to this application.
13. Part 2 of the Act Consideration of an application under section 104 of the Act is subject to Part 2. “Subject to” gives primacy to Part 2 and is an overriding guide when applying the provisions of the Act.
Part 2 of the Act sets out the purpose of the Act, which is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and in sections 6, 7 and 8 sets out matters that consent authorities should consider when exercising their functions under the Act.
13.1.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance In exercising its powers and functions under the Act, GW is required to recognise and provide for the matters of national importance listed in section 6 of the Act. I have not identified any matters to be of relevance to this application. I have addressed the effects of the proposal in Section 10 of this report based on this.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 25 OF 39
13.1.2 Section 7 – Other Matters The other matters to which GW must have particular regard in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources are listed in section 7 of the Act.
Section 10 of this report (assessment of environmental effects) generally addresses the relationship of the harvesting operation to a number of these matters, namely:
Section 7(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources
Section 7 (d) The intrinsic values of ecosystems
Section 7(f) The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
I do not consider that the other matters listed in section 7 are of relevance to this application.
I consider that the proposed activity, as modified by the recommended conditions of consent, will achieve the efficient utilisation of the timber resource in a manner which acknowledges the effects on water quality and the maintennace of the quality of freshwater environment in the Pauatahnui Catchment.
13.1.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Section 8 of the Act requires GW to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) when considering applications for resource consent. The Waitangi Tribunal and Courts continue to establish the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it is recognised that the principles are continuing to evolve. The two key principles that are of relevance to this application are active protection of Mäori interests and consultation.
The principle of active protection has been described as a “guarantee to Maori to continue a relationship with resources that was as much about their use as about their conservation” NZ Cooperative Dairy Company Limited v Commerce Commission (1991). In the context of this application, active protection must be taken into account when considering the tangata whenua relationship with their ancestral land, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.
The general requirements of ‘consultation’ have been well established by the judiciary and Courts both within and outside the Act. Consultation should facilitate tangata whenua understanding of the effects of a proposal on their relationship with the area in question to a point where the applicant can consider how those effects might be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Greater Wellington requires this kind of information to be able to assess how the Council can meet its statutory responsibilities. Greater Wellington directly notified Ngati Toa Rangtira of the application but did not receive a submission.
PAGE 26 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
13.1.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles Section 5 defines “sustainable management” as:
“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while-
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”
In assessing the effects of the proposal in Section 10 of this report, I have taken into account the purpose and principles of the Act and the matters identified in Section 5. I consider that the proposal, as modified by the recommended conditions of consent, will achieve the required balance of enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing whilst ensure the adverse effects associated with that activity are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
On balance, provided that the activities are undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions of consent, I consider the proposed logging operation will meet the purpose and principles of the Act.
14. Conclusion and recommendation Overall, in making my recommendation to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, I have considered the potential effects on the environment of the activity, the concerns raised by submitters and the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant.
I have also considered the matters of Part II and sections 104 and 108 of the Act, and the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS, PRPS, RFP and RSP. I consider that the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant policy documents and other relevant legislation.
In reaching a conclusion about the overall effects of the proposal on the environment, the potential impacts on the Pauatahanui Stream and it’s unnamed tributaries are the most difficult to determine with certainty. Other effects of the activity, such as impacts on important habitats and species and reclamation in the unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream are easier to assess.
It is certain that habitat will be lost and sediment laden water will be discharged into the aquatic environment from this activity. However, there is less certainty about whether the harvesting activity will cause adverse effects to
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 27 OF 39
the Pauatahanui Stream and unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream flowing through the site. The term of the effects needs to be acknowledged in the scope of forest harvest timeframes. Any adverse effects will be short term in nature. On this basis the proposed erosion and sediment control protection measures and considerations relating to the piping of the stream will adequately avoid, remedy and mitigate the effect of the activity.
Given the above it is my recommendation that consent be granted subject to the attached consent conditions.
14.1 Duration of consent The applicant has not requested a specific duration of consent; however, they have stated that harvesting is expected to take 2 years to complete.
For land use consent WGN110347 [31048] and [31345] for the piping and reclamation of stream bed I consider a maximum term of 35 years to be appropriate as the reclamation and structure are permanent in nature. For the associated water permit WGN110347 [31254], I consider that a duration of 35 years, which is the maximum allowable under section 123(c) of the Act, is appropriate as the diversion is of a permanent nature.
For the remaining consents WGN110347 [31252], [31255] and [31253] a 5 year term is appropriate. Though works are proposed to take place over two summer periods a longer terms will allow for any unforeseen delays in works being undertaken.
15. Monitoring An ongoing monitoring programme of the works will be undertaken in accordance with the Resource Management Charging Policy (2011).
Application lodged: 14/04/11 Application officially received: 14/04/11
Application stopped: 19/09/11 Application started: 29/09/11
Section 37 extn: Pre advertisement 31/05/11 27/06/12 Pre hearing 17/10/11 27/05/12
Applicant to be notified of decision by: 15/06/12 Applicant notified of decision on: 15/06/12
PAGE 28 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
16. Suggested consent conditions General conditions for all WGN110347 consents
16.1 General conditions
1. The location, design, implementation and operation of the activity shall be in general accordance with the consent application and its associated plans and documents lodged with the Wellington Regional Council on:
14 April 2011 (application) 4 May 2011 (s88 response further information) 20 May 2011 (s88 additional response further information) 7 October 2011 (s92 further information) 14 March 2012 (Amended harvest plan and addendum to erosion sediment control plan)
For the avoidance of doubt, where information contained in the application is contrary to conditions of this consent, the conditions shall prevail.
Where there may be contradiction or inconsistencies between the application and further information provided by the applicant, the most recent information applies. In addition, where there may be inconsistencies between information provided by the applicant and conditions of the consent, the conditions apply.
Note: Any change from the location, design concepts and parameters, implementation and/or operation may require a new resource consent or a change of consent conditions pursuant to section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2. The Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, shall be given a minimum of two working days (48 hours) notice prior to the works commencing.
Note: Notifications can be emailed to [email protected]. Please include the consent reference WGN110347 and the name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the proposed works.
3. The consent holder shall provide a copy of this consent and any documents and plans referred to in this consent to each operator contractor the undertaking works authorised by this consent, prior to the works commencing.
4. The consent holder shall ensure that a copy of this consent and all documents and plans referred to in this consent, are kept on site at all times and presented to any Wellington Regional Council officer on request.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 29 OF 39
5. The consent holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting prior to the commencement of any work authorised by this consent. The following people must be invited, with a minimum of 10 working days notice:
The consent holder, or representative of The compliance officer Greater Wellington Regional Council A representative from each contractor undertaking the works under this consent
The matters to be covered in the pre-construction meetings are provided on the pre-construction meeting checklist (http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Our- Environment/Land%20and%20soil/Earthworks-page-Pre- constructionMeetingChecklist.pdf).
6. All works affecting the unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream including tidy up on completion of the works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
7. The consent holder shall ensure that:
a) All machinery is thoroughly cleaned of any vegetation, seeds or contaminants (such as sediments and mud) away from the works site prior to entering or exiting the works site. Cleaning shall be undertaken in an area where the wash water does not enter the stream;
b) No contaminants (including but not limited to oil, petrol, diesel or hydraulic fluid) shall be released into water from equipment being used for the works;
c) All contaminant storage or re-fuelling areas are bunded or contained in such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants;
d) All machinery is regularly maintained in such a manner so as to minimise the potential for leakage of contaminants (including but not limited to fuels, hydraulic fluids and lubricants); and
e) No machinery is stored or refuelled within 10 metres of any ephemeral or permanent watercourse.
General review conditions
8. Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this consent by giving notice of its intention to do so pursuant to section
PAGE 30 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, within six months of the first, second, third and fourth anniversaries of the commencement of this consent, for any of the following reasons:
a) To review the adequacy of any plan and/or monitoring requirements, and if necessary, amend these requirements outlined in this consent;
b) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of this consent; and which are appropriate to deal with at a later stage;
c) To require the implementation of Best Practicable Options, in respect to new methodologies for the undertaking of works to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effect on the environment arising from the works;
d) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any National Environmental Standards.
The review of conditions shall allow for the deletion or amendment of conditions of this consent; and the addition of such new conditions as are shown to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on the environment.
9. The Wellington Regional Council shall be entitled to recover from the consent holder the costs of any review, calculated in accordance with and limited to the Council’s scale of charges in force and applicable at that time pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Note: For the purposes of this condition the “exercise of the consent” is deemed to be once the works authorised by this consent have commenced
16.2 Earthworks Conditions for WGN110347 Discharge Permit [31252] and Land Use Consent (Soil Disturbance) [31253] and [31255]
Erosion and sediment control
10. This consent shall be exercised in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (17 March 2011) and Addendum to Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (14 March 2012). Any amendments to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to Wellington Regional Council prior to being implemented, and shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
11. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 31 OF 39
Guidelines for the Wellington Region, September 2002 unless written approval has been obtained from the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
12. Notwithstanding the requirements of the other conditions of this consent, the consent holder shall at all times take all practicable steps for preventing erosion and/or minimising the suspended solids content of any discharge that has the potential to enter water. This shall include, as a minimum:
Establishing clearwater diversion drains/bunds to divert clean water away from exposed areas Installing water-table drains along upgraded and new roads Installing appropriate measures to treat sediment-laden water from and within water table drains Installing water-table drains around the perimeter of skid sites and/or pads, and/or grit traps as required Creating and maintaining cut-off drains on exposed areas to direct runoff to sediment treatment devices Maintaining silt fences where tracking is within 5 metres of any stream Directing all discharges from sediment control devices to vegetated or stable ground. Where this is not possible, installing additional erosion and sediment control measures Undertaking surface roughening; placing slash, topsoil, grass seed or mulch over fill batters to protect from erosion
13. The consent holder shall ensure that all sediment-laden runoff from the site is treated by sediment control measures detailed in the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. This obligation shall cease to apply in respect of any particular site or area of any site once that site is stabilised. No erosion or sediment control measures shall be removed without prior approval of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
Note: For the purposes of conditions of this consent, “stabilised” in relation to any site or area means inherently resistant to erosion or rendered resistant, such as by using indurated rock or by the application of basecourse, colluvium, grassing, mulch, or another method to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and as specified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region, September 2002. Where seeding or grassing is used on a surface that is not otherwise resistant to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once, on reasonable visual inspection by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, an 80% vegetative cover has been established.
PAGE 32 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
14. The erosion and sediment control measures required under condition 10, 11 and 12 shall be implemented prior to the commencement of each area of bulk earthworks and as the upgrade and/or construction of tracks, skid sites and/or pads progresses.
15. The consent holder shall take all practicable to prevent material which is side-cast during track, road and skid site and/or pad construction, from entering any watercourses within the site. This may require, but not be limited to, the following measures:
Compacting side cast material so that it is stable Securing slash material downslope to retain side cast material above it, and Hydroseeding or grassing of downslope batter Not side casting material onto areas which are unstable or in the vicinity of watercourses including end carting
Winter works conditions
16. No works authorised by this consent shall undertaken during the period of 1 June to 30 September each year unless approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
17. All disturbed areas shall be stabilised between 1 June to 30 September each year unless a later date is approved in writing by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Stabilisation is to be completed by 1 June.
Note: For the purposes of this condition, “stabilised” in relation to any site or area means inherently resistant to erosion or rendered resistant, such as by using indurated rock or by the application of basecourse, colluvium, hydroseeding, grassing, mulch, or another method to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and as specified in Wellington Regional Council’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region, September 2002. Where seeding or grassing is used on a surface that is not otherwise resistant to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once, on reasonable visual inspection by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, an 80% vegetative cover has been established.
Monitoring
18. The consent holder shall ensure that the site is audited on a monthly basis to ensure that the erosion and sediment control methods are being maintained in accordance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 33 OF 39
The monthly audits shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
Date Name of auditor Site condition Weather conditions Sediment management (including identification of problem areas that are not being treated by sediment control measures, and any measures put in place to treat these areas) Runoff control (check of diversion channels and check sediment retention ponds) Condition of sediment control measures, including silt fences, contour drains and sediment retention ponds Maintenance required and the date this will be completed by Maintenance undertaken since the last audit The contractor responsible for the maintenance, and General comments
19. The consent holder shall check and maintain each sediment retention device following rainfall events in excess of 20mm in a 24 hour period (if they occur) during the bulk earthworks phase of the works. Maintenance shall take place within 24 hours of the rain event occurring. All maintenance results shall be recorded and maintained in a log on site and shall be made available to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council on request. 20. The consent holder shall ensure the results of the monthly audits as required by condition 17 are forwarded to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within five working days of the audit ([email protected]).
Debris Arrestor
21. Prior to logging commencing in the catchment, the consent holder shall install a debris arrestor above the pipe as described in Drawing 5 – “Upgrade of existing culvert” included in the application.
22. The consent holder shall inspect the debris arrestor on a weekly basis and immediately following rainfall events and remove slash and dispose of appropriately and make any repairs necessary. Any works involving the debris arrestor shall not involve the operation of machinery in the wetted channel of the stream.
23. The debris arrestor shall remain in place and be the responsibility of the consent holder until the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council is satisfied that there is no potential for adverse environmental effects to arise from the effects of slash entering watercourses. Once approval is given the consent holder shall remove the debris arrestor and remediate the area disturbed.
PAGE 34 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
General works conditions
24. The consent holder shall take all practicable steps to ensure that, after a reasonable mixing zone, stormwater discharged will not give rise to any of the following effects in the receiving waters:
a) The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials, or
b) Any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity, or
c) Any emission of objectionable odour, or
d) The rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals, or
e) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life
For the purpose of this consent, the mixing zone will be no greater than 30 metres downstream of where each discharge enters an unnamed tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream.
For the purpose of this consent, all practicable steps shall include, but not be limited to:
Installing, operating and maintaining the control and treatment measures in the erosion and sediment controls approved under conditions 10 and 11, or any subsequent approved amendments Maintaining all erosion control and sediment treatment measures to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Dispersing the flow from the discharge points away from gullies wherever practicable Adding any additional erosion control and sediment treatment measures that will ensure this condition is complied with
Note: In determining compliance with this condition, the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council will consider the design specification of any and all sediment treatment measures as specified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region, September 2002.
25. If koiwi, taonga or other archaeological material is discovered in any area during the works, work shall immediately cease and the consent holder shall contact Te Ati Awa Ki Whakarongotai, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the Wellington Regional Council straightaway. If human remains are found, the New Zealand Police shall also be contacted. The consent holder shall allow the above parties to inspect the site and in consultation with them, identify what needs to occur before work can resume. Evidence of archaeological
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 35 OF 39
material may include burnt stones, charcoal, rubbish heaps, shell, bone, old building foundations, artefacts and human burials.
16.3 Water Permit Conditions (Dam and divert water) WGN110347 [31254]
Temporary diversion conditions
26. The consent holder shall ensure that the construction activities are separated from flowing water by diverting the full flow of the streams around the construction works area prior to the commencement of stream reclamation works.
27. The consent holder shall ensure that the stream is temporarily diverted though pipes unless otherwise approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
28. The consent holder shall undertake the construction works in a manner that ensures that fish passage is maintained during the period from 1 August to 31 December (inclusive) as a minimum, unless otherwise approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
29. The discharge from the temporary diversion pipes shall be controlled so as to prevent scour at the outlets.
30. The consent holder shall take all practicable steps to minimise sedimentation and increased turbidity of the tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream during the works, including:
a) Completing all works in the minimum time practicable;
b) Avoiding placement of construction material or excavated material in the flowing channel; and
c) Separating construction activities from flowing water.
31. The consent holder shall ensure that:
a) All machinery is thoroughly cleaned of any vegetation, seeds or contaminants (such as sediments and mud) away from the works site prior to entering or exiting the works site. Cleaning shall be undertaken in an area where the wash water does not enter the stream;
b) No contaminants (including but not limited to oil, petrol, diesel or hydraulic fluid) shall be released into water from equipment being used for the works;
c) All contaminant storage or re-fuelling areas are bunded or
PAGE 36 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
contained in such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants;
d) All machinery is regularly maintained in such a manner so as to minimise the potential for leakage of contaminants (including but not limited to fuels, hydraulic fluids and lubricants); and
e) No machinery is stored or refuelled within 10 metres of any ephemeral or permanent watercourse.
Post construction conditions
32. The works shall remain the responsibility of the consent holder and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council so that:
a) 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 repaired by the consent holder, and
b) The structural integrity of the diversion structures remains sound.
Note: Maintenance does not include any works outside of the scope of the application. Any additional works (including structures, reshaping or disturbance to the bed of the watercourse) following completion of the construction works as proposed in the application, may require further resource consents
33. The consent holder shall ensure that fish passage is maintained at all times the unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream on completion of the construction works authorised by this consent.
16.4 Land Use Conditions (Pipe and Reclamation) WGN110347 [31048] and [31345]
Winter works conditions
34. No works authorised by this consent shall undertaken during the period of 1 June to 30 September each year unless approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
35. All disturbed areas shall be stabilised between 1 June to 30 September each yearunless a later date is approved in writing by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Stabilisation is to be completed by 1 June.
Note: For the purposes of this condition, “stabilised” in relation to any site or area means inherently resistant to erosion or rendered
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 37 OF 39
resistant, such as by using indurated rock or by the application of basecourse, colluvium, hydroseeding, grassing, mulch, or another method to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and as specified in Wellington Regional Council’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region, September 2002. Where seeding or grassing is used on a surface that is not otherwise resistant to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once, on reasonable visual inspection by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, an 80% vegetative cover has been established.
General works conditions
36. The consent holder shall take all practicable steps to minimise sedimentation and increased turbidity of the tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream during the works, including:
a) Completing all works in the minimum time practicable,
b) Avoiding placement of construction material or excavated matter in the flowing channel,
c) Not operating machinery from the wetted channel
d) Separating construction activities from flowing water, and
e) Installing and maintaining appropriate erosion and sediment control measures.
37. The consent holder shall ensure that:
a) All machinery is thoroughly cleaned of unwanted vegetation (e.g. weeds), seeds or contaminants prior to entering the site;
b) No contaminants (including but not limited to oil, petrol, diesel, hydraulic fluid) shall be released into water from equipment being used for the works;
c) All contaminant storage or re-fuelling areas are bunded or contained in such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants;
d) All machinery is regularly maintained in such a manner so as to minimise the potential for leakage of contaminants; and
e) No machinery is cleaned, stored or refuelled within 10 metres of any watercourse.
PAGE 38 OF 39 WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1
38. The consent holder shall ensure that any excess material from the construction and implementation of the works shall be removed from site and disposed of in an appropriate manner.
39. The consent holder shall ensure that structures are installed in accordance with best engineering practice and to the manufacturer's specifications.
40. The consent holder shall ensure that no wet concrete or concrete washwater enters any watercourse during, or as a result of, the works. The Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council shall be notified immediately (within 12 hours) if any wet concrete or concrete washwater enters any watercourse.
Maintenance conditions
41. The pipe and associated structures authorised by this consent shall remain the responsibility of the consent holder and be maintained so that:
a) Any erosion or scour 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
b) The structural integrity of the structure remains sound, and
c) The structures remain substantively clear of debris.
Note: Maintenance does not include any works outside of the scope of the application. Any additional works (including structures, reshaping or disturbance to the bed of the watercourse) following completion of the construction works as proposed in the application, may require further resource consents.
WGN_DOCS-#964278-V1 PAGE 39 OF 39
Appendix 1
File No: WGN110347 [31252], [31254], [31048], [31255] and [31253] PO Box 11646 30 June 2011 Wellington 6142 142 Wakefield St New Zealand Pauatahanui Forest Ltd T 04 384 5708 c/- Forest Owner Marketing Services F 04 385 6960 W www.gw.govt.nz PO Box 96 Greater Wellington is the promotional Fielding 4740 name of the Wellington Regional Council
For: Paul van der Voort
Dear Paul
Notification decision on resource consent application WGN110347
Applicant: Pauatahanui Forest Ltd Proposals: [31252] - Discharge permit to discharge stormwater contaminated with sediment, originating from areas of bulk earthworks exceeding 0.3 hectares, into water, and onto land where it may enter water, from sediment control and treatment measures.
[31254] – Water permit to dam and divert the full flow of a tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream through a culvert.
[31048] - Land use consent to place a culvert in the bed of a tributary of the Pauatahanui Stream and to undertake disturbance and disposition of material associated with the harvesting of pine forest.
[31255] - Land use consent to disturb and deposit material in the beds of unnamed tributaries of the Pauatahanui Stream associated with the hauling of logs across and through a stream.
[31253] Land use consent to disturb soil associated with constructing roading and tracking with an upslope batter greater than 2 metres extending for a length greater than 200 metres. Location: 346a Paremata Haywards Road, Judgeford 5381 Resource Discharge permit (x1), Water permit (x1), Land use consent consents (x3) required:
WGN_DOCS-#939319-V1
After due consideration of your application, further information supplied to us, and the actual and potential adverse effects associated with your application, we consider it necessary to publicly notify your consent under section 93(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act (1991).
Notification
We will get back to you regarding the specific details of notification.
Pre-hearing meeting
It is our usual practice to hold a pre-hearing meeting to enable submitters to discuss their concerns with you and to explore the possibility of negotiating consent conditions. Pre-hearing meetings are not mandatory but, in our experience, they can often avoid the need to hold a full hearing, thereby minimising costs and time associated with obtaining a resource consent. I have enclosed a brochure explaining the nature of pre-hearing meetings; we can talk about whether one will be useful for your application later on.
A formal hearing is only necessary if either:
a submitter has requested to be heard; or you request to be heard; or Greater Wellington officers consider that a hearing is necessary.
If a formal hearing is not required, your application will be decided by the Manager, Environmental Regulation Department, acting under delegated authority.
Notification fee
We require a deposit of $5,250.00 (excl. GST) to cover the cost of the advertisement and around 20 hours of staff time. Your application will be on hold until the deposit has been received. As it is likely the actual and reasonable costs incurred in the assessment and processing of your application will exceed your deposit, I will invoice you 1) prior to the hearing and 2) after the hearing, for the difference after all work on your application is completed. To assist you, I will provide an initial estimate of the likely costs shortly, assuming that submissions are received, and both a pre-hearing meeting and hearing are held. If you wish, I will be able to revise this estimate once the submissions period had closed.
WGN_DOCS-#939319-V1 PAGE 2 OF 3
Please feel free to contact me on 04 830 4139 if you wish to discuss any aspect of your consent.
Please note any reference to Greater Wellington in this letter is deemed to be a reference to the Wellington Regional Council.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Dooney Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation
WGN_DOCS-#939319-V1 PAGE 3 OF 3
Appendix 2
ah n' S
(
)
N i\ Cl P.radiata 1 - \ SE11,Ny to~'bPl<1. ~::~t:a::y ~ ~E1> \lOI\0 Pa u atahan ui (j) -';> ® /V Compartment Bd;\. t11J~f}1R{fb1Ai1J1 . F t [;'f.'"t~ ~~ ~ RfTM /./ Stand Bdy -- DltJ.:o:;t(e,J t7F _\\iLL 0 res ~-tIlZ~ ",...." Forest Road "fc:::il.- E!:.f-7:/J.;.A-c.t fbIV /"" Forest Track -:--""'> £;"f7'Z#~;"((o+J Auv W Scale 1:6 000 ~ . ~ /:X\ Sealed Public Road ~ S-c./.J:;---A:tU . ' 0 60 120 m ~ - / ~ Photography Reference: Mapping Accuracy: +/-3% ~ Metal Public Roa ~O ?Q.oc.Ci>-:? ~c1E ' I t t ti'f-1.()Jt<--( Ac:/JojS Manawatu Aerial Photo Services 27/08/10 -S -
Appendix 3
. .f7 'C^,,,,,,,,
o0. ytv) Q}^c^I-I *I^(!;.^,^I"""I '71, !I , ,,,,,, .,;?457'1 1,071';1,23<'^0? <:1:3:>! ~>.'?947^Z' .^'221
^^
I~~~"'~~
I-. .~=.--.
* \ I ~ _,-11. --^ ~^-----.-,I, ,__,, ~/., t. __I, __--::---^ -----~~' c;,.^'?^?^^. 2:12'\610q*g? I ?, z, ,^^>{ \~O
I 15)?/_r> Q 1.3'/!{},
S~<;(\,',<*,\< I^"9/1. YO?2? I^' Q ' ';" 1.7EjO???? _/,,//I. ^?>2, ? 1:3'<,,,/,,,,,, ,...... , ... -...... *. . .~,. . ^ , . ,...."... ~~...... ~*-. ,~...,~,, .".~...... ^. .., ., , .~.~, ^.~..~~., ,.~~.
^. , I' ^,:x. PC-,*,, o2 ~--'~ . I. 15' "'~ I ''"""";7:-, ""1~ ,; ,2:2;' I'LL1:6cA, I a;;,"a;;, ', 4, .,,**,. ,,, , "'IQ*{>^, I^\:) 93 IA c< 6 67^ 141^; I'-f o, c
I\. Z:,^^,^,;,,^I ~*- is. ,,. j;^,.*^^"-+ ^.^A1. I ..^.. \! I ^."",, t"' ,"' I,I, I,II ,,,.,,,04, 10,I^!;';,, -4'^,. ,_,, oo F'~'
?* f ,:.,
I o 13, *., \ I I \'if\~.,.. , I
to^, elf ^-...-,.-...... - ..- \ \ ^:, I~.- ' ~'~ "*"I ..=~~. ^";:^^It^ ..
I .
\-~.- ~~--.~~
I ~~.- I\
"- 'I^ 6< > ,,;"I:' '1'0 ;I;-<.,<. 1 c, > ^!^ O~11, ;;;.'70, .
\\ :;~ ';I^^. r^11.0^:: \