Northland Bridges - Kaeo 9 August 2019 Revision: a Hydraulic Modelling Technical Specialist Report Reference: 254914 NZ Transport Agency Document Control Record

Northland Bridges - Kaeo 9 August 2019 Revision: A Hydraulic Modelling Technical Specialist Report Reference: 254914 NZ Transport Agency Document control record

Document prepared by: Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023 PO Box 9762 Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand

T +64 9 520 6019 F +64 9 524 7815 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version. b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report title +\GUDXOLF0RGHOOLQJTechnical Specialist Report

Document ID 5(3:' Project number 254914

File path

Client NZ Transport Agency Client contact Laura Devcich

Rev Date Revision details/status Prepared Author Verifier Approver by

A 9 August 2019 Draft IRU1=7$ 15&FRPPHQW M.Ho M.Ho R.Kelly D.Hughes

Current revision A

Approval

Author signature Approver signature

Name Marcia Ho Name David Hughes

Title Civil Engineer Title Technical Director

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Contents

1 Introduction 1 2 Project description 1 2.1 Project Background 1 2.2 Purpose of this Report 2 2.3 Existing Environment 2 3 Modelling Methodology 3 3.1 Model Scenarios 3 4 Results 5 4.1 Existing Scenario 7 4.2 Design Scenario 1 10 4.1 Design Scenario 2 14 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis 15 4.3 Results Summary 16 5 Conclusions 16 6 References 16 Figures Figure 1 Kaeo Bridge Project Location Plan 2 Figure 2 Locations of flood levels extracted from the modelling results. 6 Figure 3 Existing scenario 10-year ARI maximum water depth 8 Figure 4 Existing scenario 100-year ARI maximum water depth 9 Figure 5 Design scenario 1 10-year ARI maximum water depth 10 Figure 6 Design scenario 1 100-year ARI maximum water depth 11 Figure 7 Difference map between Design Scenario 1 and the Existing Scenario in 10 Year ARI 13 Figure 8 Difference map between Design Scenario 1 and the Existing Scenario in 100 Year ARI 14

Tables

Table 1 Summary of Model Scenarios 4 Table 2 Approximate property locations 6 Table 3 Other locations at which results were extracted for analysis 7 Table 4 Flood levels and depths at property locations – Existing Scenario 7 Table 5 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Existing Scenario 8 Table 6 Flood levels and depths at property locations – Design Scenario 1 12 Table 7 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 1 12 Table 8 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 2 14 Table 9 Flood levesls and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 2 15

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page i

Appendices Appendix A – Kaeo River Catchment Appendix B – Sub-model Development and Hydraulic Modelling Methodology Appendix C – Design Scenario 2 - Difference Maps Appendix D – Sensitivity Scenarios - Difference Maps Appendix E – Meeting record with Northland Regional Council

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page ii

Executive Summary

Aurecon has been engaged by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to design the realignment of State Highway 10 and a new two-lane bridge to replace an existing one-lane bridge across Kaeo River. Flood modelling has been undertaken to assess the impacts on flood levels as a result of the proposed bridge and embankment.

An existing hydrologic and hydraulic model of the Kaeo River Catchment, developed by GHD in 2008, received from Northland Regional Council in 2017, was used to develop a sub-model for this project.

This report discusses: The existing flooding extents in the 10-year and 100-year 12-hour duration ARI storm events; Modelled flooding scenarios for the Project in the 10-year and 100-year 12-hour duration ARI storm events and a summary of impacts of the Project on any affected habitable floors;

The proposed flooding and stormwater management measures for the Kaeo Bridge Project will cause an afflux of up to 200mm directly upstream of the bridge and embankment which decreases further upstream in the 100-year ARI 12 hour duration event. Impacts in a 10-year ARI 12-hour duration event are up to 80mm which is limited to upstream of the road embankment. Seven habitable properties were identified as potentially affected in the area. The largest impacts on existing dwellings is a 90 mm increase in water level at property 2 in a 100-year ARI 12-hour duration event and 40 mm increase in water level at property 3 in the 10-year ARI 12-hour duration event. In the existing scenario, or the base case, these particular properties are already affected by a flood depth of 1.0m at property 2 and 0.8m at property 3 in the 100-year ARI and 10-year ARI respectively. Four of the seven properties are already affected by flooding in the 10-year ARI event; and all properties are affected by flooding in the 100-year ARI. Considering that most of the properties are already affected by considerable flood depths (by 1 metre or more) in the existing scenario, increases in flooding at these properties of less than 100mm for the proposed bridge are considered less than minor. It is also noted that impacts less than 50mm are regarded to be within modelling error margins. Impacts less than 50mm are therefore considered to be less than minor. Survey of habitable floor levels of potentially affected properties is currently in process to confirm the flood impacts and consultation with key landowners is currently being undertaken. Model assumptions were discussed with Northland Regional Council prior to modelling of final scenarios. Further modelling of the design scenario in the 1000-year ARI and 25-year ARI will be required to obtain flood levels in accordance with the NZ bridge manual.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page iii

1 Introduction This report has been prepared as supporting information for the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) report for Resource Consent applications to Northland Regional Council (NRC) for stormwater and flood management associated with the improvement works.

2 Project description

2.1 Project Background SH10 is an important link in the Northland State Highway network and is part of the Paihia to Kaitaia section of the Twin Coast Discovery Route. The Kaeo bridge is a one lane bridge located along SH10 (asset reference 448), at the intersection with Whangaroa Road, crossing the Kaeo River. The bridge and the connecting sections of Whangaroa Rd and SH10 have been identified by the Transport Agency to have risks to driver safety. Refer to figure below for the bridge location. The Project proposes to improve driver safety in this area by realigning the state highway geometry, replacing the existing bridge with a two-lane bridge, and connecting the bridge to a new roundabout on Whangaroa Rd. The key elements of the Project include:

Realignment of SH10 through rural land, including constructing a new highway embankment to connect the highway to the new bridge; Construction of a two-lane road bridge over Kaeo River, including piles within the Kaeo River; Construction of a SH10 roundabout intersection with Whangaroa Road; Construction of cross culverts under SH10 and earthworks to improve resilience during flooding; and Decommissioning of the existing single lane Kaeo River bridge and western embankment

The Project will improve highway capacity and safety through:

Enhanced vertical and horizontal alignment; Increased sight distances on approach to the proposed bridge from SH10 and the Whangaroa Road intersection; and Introducing safety barriers along the length of the alignment.

A full description of the Project, including its components and construction, is contained in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) for the Project.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 1

Figure 1 Kaeo Bridge Project Location Plan

2.2 Purpose of this Report This report is one of a suite of technical reports that has been prepared to inform the AEE for the Project. The report outlines the flood modelling methodology, assumptions and parameters used and discusses the flood modelling results. The particular focus of this report is an assessment of the effects of the Project on stormwater flooding.

2.3 Existing Environment The Kaeo River catchment is approximately 11,560 hectares and typically slopes steeply down from its eastern and southern boundaries toward Kaeo River. Refer to Appendix A for the Kaeo River Catchment Boundary. The catchment, except for the Kaeo Township and its surrounding area, is generally covered by bush or plantation forestry with steep topography. The basin areas and valley bottoms typically comprise of pasture and rural land (GHD, 2013). The Kaeo River drains to the Whangaroa Harbour and is therefore influenced by tide levels. For a detailed analysis of the Kaeo River Catchment refer to the report ‘Kaeo River Catchment Flood Model Upgrade Report (GHD August 2013)’.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 2

3 Modelling Methodology A hydraulic model for the Kaeo River Catchment, developed by GHD in 2008 was received from NRC in 2017 to assist the flood modelling for this project. This model comprised a rainfall-runoff model with a one-dimensional MIKE 11 model of the Kaeo River and its tributaries coupled to a two-dimensional MIKE 21 hydraulic model of the floodplain. A sub-model, a simplified version of the original model, was created for this project. A detailed description of the sub-model development can be found in Appendix B.

The following key assumptions and parameters from the original model were assumed in the sub- model for all scenarios:

rainfall depths derived from HIRDS v3

2.1 C temperature increase due to climate change These assumptions were discussed with Northland Regional Council on 31 July 2019 with the condition of checking the sensitivity of results to other assumptions. Meeting minutes from this meeting can be found in Appendix E. Results from the sensitivity scenarios are discussed in Section 4.2.

3.1 Model Scenarios Table 1 summarises the scenarios set up for the hydraulic modelling to assess the impacts of the proposed bridge. All scenarios were modelled for the 100-year ARI 12-hour duration and 10-year ARI 12-hour duration event, identified as the critical duration in the GHD model build report. As described above a sub-model, a simplified version of the original model, was created for this project (a detailed description of the sub-model development can be found in Appendix B). The following sections outlines other key updates from the original GHD model and assumptions made in each scenario.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 3

Table 1 Summary of Model Scenarios Model Scenario Description Existing Scenario This scenario comprises the pre-upgrade model updated with recent topographic survey of the surrounding area. This model was used as base case to assess any impacts caused by the design scenarios. Design Scenario 1 This scenario comprised the post-upgrade model with a portion of the existing western road embankment removed, the eastern and western abutments and bridge removed. The proposed bridge, road alignment and embankment were included. The existing stopbank was also removed and a proposed stopbank at an assumed level of 1.55 mRL was included in the two-dimensional MIKE 21 surface. For all model modifications, refer to Appendix B. Design Scenario 2 This scenario is similar to the existing scenario but with the post-upgrade model modifications included. The existing road, bridge and abutments have not been removed and the modifications described in Design Scenario 1 was included. This scenario was set up to show any resultant flood impacts from the proposed bridge if the existing bridge and embankment were not removed. Sensitivity Scenario 1 As per Design Scenario 1, but with an increased constant tide level of 3.0mRL to test the sensitivity of the model to greater sea level rise. Sensitivity Scenario 2 As per Design Scenario 1, but with increased Manning’s n at the bridge and cross sections just upstream and downstream of the bridge to test the sensitivity of model results to an increased roughness due to landscaping/planting on the riverbanks. Sensitivity Scenario 3 As per Design Scenario 1, but with all inflow hydrographs increased by 20% to check the effects of climate change and/or increase in rainfall intensity.

3.1.1 Existing Scenario Recent topographic survey of the floodplain, river bed and existing bridge was used to update the sub- model to provide an improved base ‘existing scenario’ model for comparison to the proposed design. The existing bridge was included in the MIKE 11 model and coupled to the MIKE 21 model as a structure link. The sub-model assumes the single soffit level of 3.4 mRL based on a laser scan undertaken onsite. The cross sections at the Kaeo River includes topographic survey in the location of Kaeo Bridge.

3.1.2 Design Scenario The proposed bridge was included in the existing scenario in the MIKE 11 model and coupled to the MIKE 21 model as a structure link. The MIKE11 model of the proposed bridge assumes one level for the bridge soffit. The lowest soffit level of the proposed bridge design is 3.2 mRL at the left bank abutment and 3.8 mRL at the right abutment. The sub-model assumes the single soffit level of 3.3 mRL.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 4

Several other changes to the model were also made as shown in the annotated figure in Appendix B and detailed below:

The existing bridge and were removed from the MIKE 11 and MIKE 21 model. The existing stopbank near the western abutment was removed and the level of the floodplain upstream and downstream of the bridge were assumed to be 1.0 mRL, close to existing surrounding levels. Refer to Appendix A for the extent of stopbank removed and flood plain modified. The proposed stopbank was included in the model with a top level of 1.55 mRL, the average level of the existing stopbank which the new stopbank will tie into. Refer to Appendix B for the indicative alignment of the proposed stopbank.

3.1.3 Sensitivity Runs Three sensitivity runs were undertaken to check the sensitivity of updates and assumptions made:

Increased tide level - As per the Design Scenario, but with an increased constant tide level of 3.0mRL to test the sensitivity of the model to sea level rise. Increased Manning’s n – As per the Design Scenario, but the roughness of the MIKE 11 model of the bridge was increased by 0.01 to test for potential impacts of landscaping/planting on the riverbanks adjacent to the proposed bridge. Increased rainfall intensity - As per the Design Scenario, but with inflow hydrographs increased by 20% to test the impact of increase rainfall intensities.

4 Results The maximum water surface elevations depths were measured in the existing and design scenarios at locations of existing dwellings in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. Other locations were spot checked to analyse the effects on the road and river water levels. Figures 2 and 3 show the locations at which the flood results were extracted. Survey of floor levels is currently being undertaken to determine the exact level of affected dwellings.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 5

Figure 2 Locations of flood levels extracted from the modelling results. Table 2 below shows the approximate locations of properties and coordinates at which flood levels and depths were taken from the flood modelling results. Table 3 shows the other locations at which flood levels and depths were extracted for analysis.

Table 2 Approximate property locations Property Location Coordinates (approximate) Property 1 (1669072.488,6117367.774) Property 2 (1669707.489,6117369.361) Property 3 (1669653.514,6117183.623) Property 4 (1669764.64,6117142.348) Property 5 (1669897.99,6117218.548) Property 6 (1669755.115,6116783.572) Property 7 (1669896.932,6116461.838)

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 6

Table 3 Other locations at which results were extracted for analysis Locations Checked Coordinates Location A (Whangaroa (1669344.867,6117768.63) Road) Location B (State (1669269.924,6117564.636) Highway 10 - Existing Road Embankment) Location C (Kaeo River (1669500.905,6117315.133) Upstream of Bridge) Location D (State (1669518.302,6117466.078) Highway 10) Location E (Kaeo River (1669436.347,6117544.792) Upstream of Bridge)

4.1 Existing Scenario

4.1.1 Existing Flood Extent Tables 4 and 5 summarises the maximum flood depths and flood levels in the identified key locations. The following figures show the flood depths in the existing scenario for the 10-year ARI and the 100- year ARI. The tables and figures show that some habitable properties such as property 3, 4, 6 and 7 will have increases in maximum flood levels in the 10-year ARI event in the existing scenario where no modifications have been made. All properties are affected by flooding in the 100-year ARI event.

Table 4 Flood levels and depths at property locations – Existing Scenario 10-year ARI 100-year ARI Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Flood Flood Flood Flood Levels Depths Levels Depths (mRL) (m) (mRL) (m) Property 1 N/A N/A 3.33 0.19 Property 2 N/A N/A 3.97 1.06 Property 3 2.93 0.83 4.08 1.98 Property 4 3.2 0.03 4.39 1.22 Property 5 N/A N/A 4.49 0.45 Property 6 3.5 1.35 4.74 2.58 Property 7 3.9 0.12 5.32 1.54

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 7

Table 5 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Existing Scenario 10-year ARI 100-year ARI Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Flood Levels Flood Depths Flood Levels Flood Depths (mRL) (m) (mRL) (m) Location A (Whangaroa Road) N/A N/A 3.28 1.04 Location B (State Highway 10 - 2.37 0.59 3.34 1.55 Existing Road Embankment) Location C (Kaeo River 2.7 3.01 3.8 4.11 Upstream of Bridge) Location D (State Highway 10) 2.6 0.11 3.66 1.17 Location E (Kaeo River 2.53 2.85 3.62 3.94 Upstream of Bridge)

Figure 3 Existing scenario 10-year ARI maximum water depth

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 8

Figure 4 Existing scenario 100-year ARI maximum water depth

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 9

4.2 Design Scenario 1

4.2.1 Design Scenario 1 Flood Extent The following figures and tables shows the flood extent and depth in each key location in the 10-year and 100-year ARI.

Figure 5 Design scenario 1 10-year ARI maximum water depth

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 10

Figure 6 Design scenario 1 100-year ARI maximum water depth

4.2.2 Design Scenario 1 Flood Impacts Refer to Table 6 and 7 for a summary of the flood levels and impacts in each key location. Impacts in Figure 8 show an afflux of up to 200mm in a localised area upstream of the proposed embankment. The increase in water level is a result of the raised embankment across the western floodplain. The raised embankment prevents water from overtopping the road and therefore backs up behind the proposed embankment and bridge. Results in the 10-year ARI are similar in nature but to a lesser scale and magnitude. Results show an afflux of up to 80mm in a localised area upstream of the proposed embankment and decreases further upstream.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 11

Table 6 Flood levels and depths at property locations – Design Scenario 1 10-year ARI 100-year ARI

Maximum Difference from Maximum Difference from Flood Levels the existing Flood Levels the existing (mRL) scenario* (m) (mRL) scenario* (m)

Property 1 N/A N/A 3.32 0 Property 2 N/A N/A 4.06 0.09 Property 3 2.96 0.04 4.15 0.07 Property 4 3.21 0.01 4.44 0.05 Property 5 N/A N/A 4.53 0.05 Property 6 3.52 0.01 4.77 0.03 Property 7 3.91 0.01 5.33 0.02

*Impacts less than 50mm are regarded to be within modelling error margins and is shown for information only. Impacts less than 50mm are therefore considered to be less than minor.

Table 7 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 1 10-year ARI 100-year ARI Maximum Difference from Maximum Difference from Flood Levels the existing Flood Levels the existing (mRL) scenario* (m) (mRL) scenario* (m) Location A (Whangaroa N/A N/A 3.28 0 Road) Location B (State Highway 10 - Existing Road 2.27 -0.11 3.3 -0.03 Embankment) Location C (Kaeo River 2.76 0.06 3.91 0.11 Upstream of Bridge) Location D (State Highway N/A N/A 3.78 0.13 10) Location E (Kaeo River 2.59 0.06 3.73 0.11 Upstream of Bridge)

*Impacts less than 50mm are regarded to be within modelling error margins and is shown for information only. Impacts less than 50mm are therefore considered to be less than minor.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 12

Figure 7 Difference map between design scenario 1 and the existing scenario in 10 Year ARI

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 13

Figure 8 Difference map between design scenario 1 and the existing scenario in 100 Year ARI 4.1 Design Scenario 2

4.1.1 Design Scenario 2 Flood Impacts Refer to Table 8 and 9 for a summary of the flood levels and impacts in design scenario 2 in each key location. Results show a larger magnitude of impacts as a result of the Project with the existing bridge and embankment in place. Impacts show that having the existing bridge, abutments and embankment in place when the proposed bridge has been constructed will impact all properties in the 100-year ARI event. Refer to Appendix C for the difference maps.

Table 8 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 2

10-year ARI 100-year ARI

Maximum Flood Difference from the Maximum Difference from Levels (mRL) existing scenario* Flood Levels the existing (m) (mRL) scenario* (m) Property 1 N/A N/A 3.38 0.05 Property 2 2.94 N/A 4.18 0.20 Property 3 3.02 0.10 4.25 0.17 Property 4 3.24 0.04 4.51 0.12 Property 5 N/A N/A 4.60 0.11 Property 6 3.54 0.03 4.81 0.08 Property 7 3.92 0.02 5.36 0.04 *Impacts less than 50mm are regarded to be within modelling error margins and is shown for information only. Impacts less than 50mm are therefore considered to be less than minor.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 14

Appendix A – Kaeo River Catchment

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 17

d R

c La

a r rs

n O

R n

a Conifer St a d

h o a

a d a R

o t Ot

R r ive r

e u

t o s

a Waipapa Wes

T d

a o

ad SH 10 s o s e R N a

Ironbark Road Ironbark r

i d H

Roa

S d

Hauriri Road a o

oad R R a e oad ekur

Re n gaer O n Roa d ri n

ap Pu Noni Lane Noni C

Road

r o

oad

raire a

T Jay Road

Huia Road

re R i a i

Te Moari Road a

Herbert Road

e t

gh i

t i

h Turner Street

W d

ad a

o o R

p u

i o

D R

ohia

Road e a h

o w

SH 10 SH

a t

g a n M

Wh a

oad

r at

R d a

u a

m Jury Road ad O Copper Mine Road ber Ro We

Road a p

a aih d

W a

pa Ro pa

W a

g n

oad R

hapa

i ad

a o W Foley Road Foley R k noc ar Sh KAEO RIVER (& MAIN TRIBUTARIES) KAEO RIVER CATCHMENT BOUNDARY MAJOR CONTOUR (100m) MINOR CONTOUR (20m) 0

LEGEND BY A CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE. IMAGERY FLOWN 2010-2012 . SOURCE LINZ DATA SERVICE SCALE 1:30 000

300 600 1200m P:\254914\5 DELIVER DESIGN\CAD FOR AKL\254914-BASE.DWG FOR DESIGN\CAD DELIVER P:\254914\5

Appendix B – Sub-model Development and Hydraulic Modelling Methodology

Model Background

Northland Regional Council (NRC) commissioned GHD Limited in February 2008 to develop a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic model using MIKE FLOOD model (MIKE11 and MIKE 21) of the Kaeo River Catchment. The model was reviewed and upgraded in the following years, details of the development of this model including parameters and assumptions used can be found in the report ‘Kaeo River Catchment Flood Model Upgrade Report (GHD August 2013)’. The model upgrade report and model were received by Aurecon from NRC in 2017, this model was used to develop a sub-model for this project. The received model comprised a rainfall-runoff model with a one-dimensional MIKE 11 model of the Kaeo River and its tributaries coupled to a two- dimensional MIKE 21 hydraulic model of the floodplain. The vertical datum used for the hydraulic modelling is the One Tree Point datum and the local coordinate system used is the New Zealand Transvers Mercator (NZTM/NZGD 2000). This datum and coordinate system was used for NRC’s LiDAR data and was therefore used in the original GHD model.

Sub-Model Development

Significant stability issues were encountered when using the model developed by GHD. These were generally the result of the large number of complicated lateral links between the Mike 11 and Mike 21 models for the numerous tributaries. As this assessment focusses on a smaller section within the Kaeo River Catchment the original model was reduced in extent to increase the model stability and decrease run times. The cut down model still includes the Kaeo Township so impacts (if any) of the proposed new bridge can be measured at the township if required. To further reduce instabilities and increase the reliability and robustness of the model the Kaeo River channel was removed from MIKE 11 and instead burnt into the MIKE 21 topography. This eliminated the need for the lateral links between the models. As the Kaeo River is around x55m wide at the bridge location, the 5m grid size of the Mike 21 model provides a reasonable representation of the base flow channel. The existing bridge was included as a localised MIKE11 model coupled to the MIKE21 two- dimensional model as a structure link.

Sub-Model Hydrology Inflows were included in MIKE 21 in the new sub-model using the hydrographs generated from the original rainfall-runoff model developed by GHD. The hydrologic parameters were set in the original GHD rainfall-runoff model and were not revised. Refer to the ‘Kaeo River Catchment Flood Model Upgrade Report (GHD August 2013)’ for the hydrological parameters assumed. The upstream inflow for the sub-model was calculated as the sum of catchment hydrographs upstream of the new sub model boundary. This hydrograph was delayed by one hour as shown in Figure 3 to coincide with the peak flow of the original full model results at the new sub model upstream boundary location.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 18

Table 9 Flood levels and depths at other key locations – Design Scenario 2 100-year ARI 10-year ARI

Maximum Difference from Maximum Difference from Flood Levels the existing Flood Levels the existing (mRL) scenario* (m) (mRL) scenario* (m) Location A (Whangaroa 2.26 N/A 3.32 0.04 Road) Location B (State Highway 2.30 -0.07 3.35 0.01 10 - Existing Road Embankment) Location C (Kaeo River 2.73 0.19 4.05 0.24 Upstream of Bridge) Location D (State Highway N/A N/A 3.94 0.29 10) Location E (Kaeo River 2.86 0.15 3.91 0.29 Upstream of Bridge) *Impacts less than 50mm are regarded to be within modelling error margins and is shown for information only. Impacts less than 50mm are therefore considered to be less than minor.

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

4.2.1 Sensitivity Scenario 1 Design scenario 1 was run with a higher constant tailwater level, increased from 1.0mRL to 3.0mRL to check the potential impacts of sea-level rise. Refer to Appendix D for flood maps. As expected, the peak flood level increased for both the existing and design scenarios. However, compared to Design Scenario 1 the afflux has decreased; due to higher water levels more of the proposed design embankment is now being overtopped. Therefore, the existing tailwater condition set in the hydraulic model assuming a constant tide level of 1.0mRL is considered acceptable.

4.2.2 Sensitivity Scenario 2 An increased Manning’s n of 0.01 at the bridge location to test the sensitivity of results to additional planting at the project location showed that there were localised impacts of 12mm just upstream of the bridge. This impact is minimal and does not significantly affect the afflux further upstream, therefore planting proposed on the banks is not considered to have effects that are more than minor on habitable floor levels.

4.2.3 Sensitivity Scenario 3 A sensitivity check with 20% increase in inflows was undertaken to check any major effects to results from an increase of rainfall intensities due to climate change. Refer to Appendix D for flood maps. Results shows that there is a fairly minor increase in afflux. This shows the results are not overly sensitive to assumptions around climate change and the existing assumption of a 2.1 temperature increase due to climate change is therefore considered acceptable.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 15

It should be noted that the hydrology for the original model has the following key assumptions and parameters:

rainfall depths derived from HIRDS v3

2.1 C temperature increase due to climate change Hydrological parameters assumed shall be confirmed with NRC for future scenarios and runs going forward.

1400 Inflow Comparison

1200

1000 M21 Model Inflow

800 Cumulative Cacthment Hydrograph

Q (m3/s) 600

400

200

0 31/12/1999 21:36 1/01/2000 9:36 1/01/2000 21:36 Time Figure 3: Sub-model Inflow vs Rainfall-Runoff Catchment Runoff Hydrographs

Sub-Model Boundary Conditions

The original model had a time varying downstream boundary condition with a peak level of about RL 1.0m. The time varying downstream condition resulted in significant model instabilities. A constant downstream boundary condition of 1.0mRL was therefore applied. Figure 4 from the GHD report (GHD, 2013) suggests the tidal boundary condition should be adjusted for sea level rise by about 500mm. The appropriate downstream tidal water level will be confirmed with NRC.

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 19

4.3 Results Summary A number of scenarios have been modelled to assess the likely flood effects as a result of the Project. Results show properties 3,4,6 and 7 are already affected by flooding in the 10-year ARI rainfall event and all properties are affected by flooding in the 100-year ARI. Results have shown that the Project has the largest impact of a 90mm increase at Property 2 in design scenario 1 in the 100-year ARI event. In the existing scenario, where no modifications have been made, Property 2 already has a flood depth of 1m in the 100-year ARI. In the 10-year ARI, results show that the project has the largest impact of a 40mm increase at Property 3. In the existing scenario, Property 3 already has a flood depth of 0.8m in the 10-year ARI. In design scenario 2, a scenario with both the existing and proposed bridge shows that having both bridges in place will impact all properties in the 100-year ARI.

Scenarios were also undertaken to check the sensitivity of results to: an increased tailwater level, increased Manning’s n upstream and downstream of the bridge and a 20% increase in flow

The sensitivity scenarios show that results are not overly sensitive to the three parameters listed above. Therefore, the parameters used for the design model are considered robust.

5 Conclusions It is proposed to replace an existing one-laned bridge at Kaeo River, State Highway 10 with a new two-lane structure. State Highway 10 will be realigned and raised to allow the bridge to connect to a new roundabout on the eastern bank of Kaeo River. An existing model for the Kaeo River Catchment was modified and cut down to model the proposed bridge over the Kaeo River at State Highway 10. The key outcomes of this modelling are summarised below:

The proposed bridge and embankment causes an afflux of up to 200mm directly upstream of the bridge and embankment which decreases further upstream in the 100-year ARI. Impacts in a 10- year ARI are up to 80mm and with extents limited to upstream of the road embankment.

Considering that most of the properties are already affected by considerable flood depths (1 metre or more) in the existing scenario, increases in flooding at these properties of less than 100mm for the proposed bridge are considered less than minor.

Sensitivity checks were carried out to check assumptions taken from an existing hydraulic model developed for NRC by GHD. Results from these sensitivity checks show that effects on results are minor and therefore assumptions and model parameters assumed are acceptable.

Further modelling of the design scenario in the 1000-year ARI and 25-year ARI will be required to obtain flood levels in accordance with the NZ bridge manual. This will completed when the model parameters and assumptions have been accepted by Northland Regional Council.

6 References Kaeo River Catchment Flood Model Upgrade Report (GHD August 2013)

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 16

Figure 4: Time Series Tides used for Simulation for Design Storms in the Original GHD model (GHD, 2013)

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 20

REV 2 20 NUMBER

0 1 SCALE 1:500 51020m

DISC 40 TIE INTO EXISTING

PAVEMENT STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE TO WAIPAPA/ KERIKERI >>> KERIKERI WAIPAPA/ TO KAEO

SHEET 2

TYPE PROJECT EXTENTS PROJECT

NORTHLAND BRIDGES 60 WBS GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN

Roughness increased upstream and downstream of proposed bridge (proposed planting) 80 PROJECT No. 254914 3500 DRG RR 0102 A

PROJECT TITLE DRAWING No. 100 CONSTRUCT NEW DRIVEWAY DATE

SHOULDER TO BE NARROWED FROM PROJECT EXTENTS 1.5m TO EXISTING FROM CH100 120 . APPROVED PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 140 A1 SIZE Proposed stopbank included manually and set to 1.5mRL as per average level of existing stop bank. Alignment shown in shapefile. FILL SLOPE 1(V):2(H) M.ISLAM DRAWN

R.LAUREN

B L. DAVISON DESIGNED 1:500 REVIEWED 160 SCALE STORMWATER PIPE er

iv CONSTRUCT NEW STOP BANK TOPSOIL AND GRASS Riv

SIGNS AND LINEMARKING REMOVE EXISTING SINGLE LANE BRIDGE WARNING KKae 180 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DIAGRAM E REFER TO NZTA APPENDIX 5B, ACCESSWAY FOR STANDARD PROPERTY ACCESS DETAILS APPROVED Existing stopbank removed and flood plain set to 1.0mRL (close existing levels)

STOP BANK REMOVE EXISTING 200 CULVERT X

Topo updated to survey of surrounding area AVOID CUTTING INTO BANK TL-4 CONCRETE BARRIER TO 220

391 224

380 CULVERT X C

360 SPILL THROUGH ABUTMENT 0 1(V):2(H) SLOPE

340

3203 MATCHLINE JOINS SHEET 1 223

0 "WORK IN PROGRESS" REVISION DETAILS 220 3003

2802 DATE A FOR CONSENTING DESIGN ISSUED D.MACKINTOSH 0 REV 2602

200 240

ALIGNED STATE HIGHWA STATE ALIGNED EALIGNED STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE EALIGNED REALIGNED STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE REALIGNED

220 EO BRIDGE BRIDG 200 KAEO BRIDGE

1800 C

160

TN STAT STING EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE STAT EXISTING EXISTING e. CLIENT 16/ and 2014-16/ and 2014 and licence. 140 EXISTING TRAFFIC ISLAND TO BE REMOVED ABUTMENT TOPSOIL AND GRASS AROUND THE EXISTING ABUTMENT REMOVE EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERT KAEO BRIDGE DECK PROPOSED STOPBANK PROPOSED LIGHTING STOP BANK TO TIE INTO THE EXISTING EXISTING SINGLE LANE KAEO BRIDGE AND ABUTMENT TO BE REMOVED TOPSOIL AND GRASS AROUND THE EXISTING ABUTMENT REMOVE EXISTING ABUTMENT AND STOP GATES RETAIN EXISTING CULVERTS

120 PROJECT EXTENTS PROJECT Existing Embankment Removed

100 TIE INTO EXISTING PAVEMENT <<< TO WHANGAROA Existing bridge removed and proposed bridge and embankment included

80 SHOULDER TO BE NARROWED FROM 1.5m TO EXISTING Existing road embankment removed and interpolated to surrounding levels. DESIGN AT ISSUE DATE.

WHANGAROA ROAD 2. REFER TO RR-0400 DRAWING SERIES FOR PLAN AND LONG SECTIONS 3. STRUCTURAL, GEOTECH AND DRAINAGE FEATURES ARE SHOWN AS CURRENT Aerial Imagery sourced from the LINZ Data Service https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/88131-northland-04m-rural-aerial-photos-2014- 1. REFER TO RR-0200 DRAWING SERIES FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS NOTES licensed by Northland Aerial Imagery Consortium (NAIC) for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licenc

CUT SLOPE EXISTING SH10 DESIGNATION BOUNDARY PROPOSED ALTERATION DESIGNATION BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL BOUNDARY FILL SLOPE LEGEND

sign\503 CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-RR-0102.dwg CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-RR-0102.dwg sign\503 sign\503 De De Deliver Deliver Bridges\5 Bridges\5 Northland Northland - - pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 Filename: Filename: Auckland Auckland Office: Office: 14:11:00 14:11:00 2019-07-15 2019-07-15 Date: Date: Plot Plot

Appendix C – Design Scenario 2 - Difference Maps

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 21

Figure 1 – Difference map between Design Scenario 2 and the Existing Scenario in 10 Year AR

Figure 2 – Difference map between Design Scenario 2 and the Existing Scenario in 100 Year ARI.

Appendix D – Sensitivity Scenarios - Difference Maps

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 22

Figure 1 – Difference map between Sensitivity Scenario 1 and the Existing Scenario with the same parameters in 100 Year ARI

Figure 2 – Difference map between Design Scenario 3 and the Existing Scenario with the same assumptions in 100 Year ARI

Appendix E – Meeting record with Northland Regional Council

Project 254914 File Kaeo Stormwater Technical Specialist Report.docx 9 August 2019 Revision A Page 23

Aurecon New Zealand Limited T +64 9 520 6019 Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road F +64 9 524 7815 Newmarket Auckland 1023 E [email protected] PO Box 9762 W aurecongroup.com Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand

Meeting Record

Project number 254914 Meeting date 2019-07-31 Project name NZTA Northland Bridges – Kaeo Bridge Recorded by MH/DH Meeting/subject Kaeo Bridge Hydraulic Modelling Total pages 3

Name Organisation Contact details Present Apology Copy

;܆܆Laura Devich NZTA [email protected]

;܆܆Matt de Boer NRC [email protected]

;܆܆Joseph C NRC [email protected]

;܆܆Geoff Heaps NRC [email protected]

܆;܆Sher Khan NRC [email protected]

;܆܆David Hughes Aurecon [email protected]

;܆܆Marcia Ho Aurecon [email protected]

܆܆; Claire Cunningham Aurecon [email protected]

܆܆; Mohammad Uzair Islam Aurecon [email protected]

܆܆; David Greig NZTA [email protected]

܆܆; Jane Price NZTA [email protected]

܆܆; Daniel McKessar FH [email protected]

Action Action Item Topic Action by due complete Introduction/General: DH and LD gave an update on the project / design development to date and associated hydro modelling.

LD noted that NZTA required to provide legal access to Ian, the land owner north of the existing embankment.

LD noted that NZTA planning to buy land from 1 CC 2019-08-22 Select date owners adversely affected by impacts.

Pre-application meeting with NRC to take place as soon as possible, Claire to organise. Resource consent application planned to be lodged by the end of August. Geoff noted that he was away for a month from 22/08.

Project 254914 File Northland Bridges - Kaeo Bridge -Meeting Record 20190731.docx 2019-08-09 Revision 0 Page 1

Action Action Item Topic Action by due complete Hydraulic Modelling: DH and MH talked through the key model assumptions adopted from the original model i.e. temperature rise by 2.1 degrees and rainfall depths derived from HIRDS v3 accepted by NRC with the condition that a sensitivity check is undertaken with a 20% increase in flows

Noted the constant tide water level of 1.0mRL acceptable as a conservative approach. Sensitivity check shows a lower tide water has greater impacts. To be confirmed by NRC with review of the models. 2 MH/NRC 2019-08-09 Select date Discussed the realignment of the stopbank on the western river bank to increase flow conveyance. A scenario will be set up to test the sensitivity to the stopbank realigned to be more in line with the river bank.

NRC requested that the hydraulic model be reviewed by Sher Khan from NRC prior to lodgement. Sher is on leave until 12/08, but Aurecon to send models and report to NRC when all modelling is complete (expected 09/08).

Project Project number File Northland Bridges - Kaeo Bridge -Meeting Record 20190731.docx 9 August 2019 Revision 0 Page 2

Action Action Item Topic Action by due complete Hydraulic Modelling Preliminary Results: DH talked through prelim flood afflux maps tabled for Q10 and Q100, and indicated that the outcome of the refined design (compared to 2017 bridge option) has resulted in reduced flood level increases upstream of the proposed bridge. These are shown to be ~100mm in the immediate vicinity upstream of the bridge, and +/-50mm further up the catchment. DH noted that these minor increases are not shown on the maps due to being deemed negligible based on modelling accuracies – to be confirmed by NRC with review of the models.

Discussion amongst the group on the main reason for the afflux immediately upstream of the proposed bridge – being the result of the proposed western bridge approach / embankment being 3 MH/NRC Select date Select date higher than existing (and acting as a dam). NRC had a number of questions on this and were interested to see the models and results that demonstrate this.

LD noted that ongoing consultation was happening and that floor levels of affected habitable properties (within 100mm afflux areas) are required to assess the significance of flood impacts. NRC have previously provided habitable floor levels in the Kaeo catchment. NRC to check if existing records of floor levels are available.

Joe mentioned a flood event in 2007 which resulted in flooding of the tea room of the Haye property. Aurecon to cross check cross check with any available data from the 2007 flood event.

Other Items: Joe provided overview of recent hydro assessments undertaken by NRC, and in particular the diversion bunds constructed in Kaeo after the 4 2007 floods (stage 1) and planned stream N/A realignment at the confluence adjacent to Kaeo town (stage 2).

Project Project number File Northland Bridges - Kaeo Bridge -Meeting Record 20190731.docx 9 August 2019 Revision 0 Page 3

Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023 PO Box 9762 Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand

T +64 9 520 6019 F +64 9 524 7815 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com

Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, China, Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Macau, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

1RUWKODQG%ULGJHV.DHR 'HFHPEHU 5HYLVLRQ% 6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW 5HIHUHQFH 1=7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\

'RFXPHQWFRQWUROUHFRUG

'RFXPHQWSUHSDUHGE\ $XUHFRQ1HZ=HDODQG/LPLWHG /HYHO&DUOWRQ*RUH5RDG 1HZPDUNHW$XFNODQG 32%R[ 1HZPDUNHW$XFNODQG 1HZ=HDODQG

7 ( DXFNODQG#DXUHFRQJURXSFRP : DXUHFRQJURXSFRP

$SHUVRQXVLQJ$XUHFRQGRFXPHQWVRUGDWDDFFHSWVWKHULVNRI D 8VLQJWKHGRFXPHQWVRUGDWDLQHOHFWURQLFIRUPZLWKRXWUHTXHVWLQJDQGFKHFNLQJWKHPIRUDFFXUDF\DJDLQVWWKHRULJLQDOKDUG FRS\YHUVLRQ E 8VLQJWKHGRFXPHQWVRUGDWDIRUDQ\SXUSRVHQRWDJUHHGWRLQZULWLQJE\$XUHFRQ

'RFXPHQWFRQWURO

5HSRUWWLWOH 6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW

'RFXPHQW,' 3URMHFWQXPEHU ??DXUHFRQLQIR?VKDUHV?1=$./?3URMHFWV?%67?1RUWKODQG%ULGJHV''?'HOLYHU )LOHSDWK 'HVLJQ?(QJLQHHULQJ?6WRUPZDWHU?.DHR?3UHOLP'HVLJQ,QIR?0$%:RUNLQJ?.DHR 3URMHFW?6:'HVLJQ5HSRUW &OLHQW 1=7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\ &OLHQWFRQWDFW .DWKU\Q2 5HLOO\

5HY 'DWH 5HYLVLRQGHWDLOVVWDWXV 3UHSDUHGE\ $XWKRU 9HULILHU $SSURYHU

$ 'HFHPEHU 'UDIWIRU&OLHQWFRPPHQW - 0LOOHU - 0LOOHU ' +XJKHV ' +XJKHV

% 'HFHPEHU )RU&RQVHQW - 0LOOHU '+XJKHV ' +XJKHV ' +XJKHV

&XUUHQWUHYLVLRQ %

$SSURYDO

$XWKRUVLJQDWXUH $SSURYHUVLJQDWXUH

1DPH -RDQQD0LOOHU'DYLG+XJKHV 1DPH 'DYLG+XJKHV

7LWOH &LYLO(QJLQHHU7HFKQLFDO'LUHFWRU 7LWOH 7HFKQLFDO'LUHFWRU

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJHL

&RQWHQWV

,QWURGXFWLRQ 6FRSHRI6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ 3URMHFW%DFNJURXQG 6LWH'HVFULSWLRQ 'HVLJQ6WDQGDUGVDQG*XLGHOLQHV 'HVLJQ,QYHVWLJDWLRQV +\GURORJ\DQG&DWFKPHQW$QDO\VLV 6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ 'UDLQDJH1HWZRUN 6WRUPZDWHU&DSWXUHDQG0DQDJHPHQW &XOYHUWV 6WRS%DQN:RUNV %ULGJH6FRXU3URWHFWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW 6WDQGDUG'HVLJQ3UDFWLFH 'HVLJQ$VVXPSWLRQV 3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ 6DIHW\DQG0DLQWHQDQFHLQ'HVLJQ&RQVLGHUDWLRQV &RQFOXVLRQV 6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ&RQFOXVLRQ

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJHLL )LJXUHV )LJXUH3URMHFW/D\RXWDQG([WHQWV )LJXUH7UHDWPHQW7UDLQ$SSURDFK$GRSWHGIRUWKH3URMHFW )LJXUH3URSRVHG&XOYHUW/RFDWLRQV

7DEOHV

7DEOH'HVLJQUDLQIDOOLQWHQVLWLHV 7DEOH3URSRVHG&XOYHUW'HWDLOV

$SSHQGLFHV $SSHQGL[$±3UHOLPLQDU\6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ'UDZLQJV $SSHQGL[%±6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ&DOFXODWLRQV $SSHQGL[&±3UHOLPLQDU\%ULGJH6FRXU'HVLJQ&DOFXODWLRQV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJHLLL

,QWURGXFWLRQ $XUHFRQKDVEHHQFRPPLVVLRQHGE\:DND.RWDKL1HZ=HDODQG7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\ 1=7$ WRGHVLJQ RIWKHUHDOLJQPHQWRI6WDWH+LJKZD\ 6+ FRQQHFWLRQDW.DHR5LYHU WKH5LYHU ZLWK:KDQJDURD 5RDG WKH3URMHFW 7KHREMHFWLYHRIWKH3URMHFWLVWRLQFUHDVHVDIHW\DQGUHVLOLHQFHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH H[LVWLQJRQHODQHEULGJHDQGDVVRFLDWHGFDUULDJHZD\ 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVUHSRUWLVWRSURYLGHDQRYHUYLHZRIWKHSURSRVHGVWRUPZDWHUGHVLJQIRUWKH3URMHFW WRVXSSRUWWKH$VVHVVPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO(IIHFWV $(( IRUUHVRXUFHFRQVHQWDSSOLFDWLRQ

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

3URMHFW%DFNJURXQG 7KH3URMHFWLVSURSRVHGDVSDUWRI1RUWKODQG¶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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

)LJXUH3URMHFW/D\RXWDQG([WHQWV )XOOGHVFULSWLRQRIWKH3URMHFWLQFOXGLQJLWVFRPSRQHQWVDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQPHWKRGRORJ\SURJUDPPHLV FRQWDLQHGLQWKH$VVHVVPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO(IIHFWV $((

6LWH'HVFULSWLRQ 7KH3URMHFWH[WHQGVRYHUVHFWLRQVRI6+ZLWKLQDUXUDOVHWWLQJORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\NPQRUWK ZHVWRI.DHRWRZQVKLSDWWKHVRXWKHUQUHDFKHVRIWKH:KDQJDURD+DUERXU6+OLQNVDQXPEHURI WRZQVKLSVDORQJWKHHDVWFRDVWRI1RUWKODQGIURP3DNDUDNDWR$ZDQXLLQFOXGLQJ:DLSDSD.DHR 0DQJRQXL7DLSDDQG/DNH2KLD6+DOVRSURYLGHVDQLPSRUWDQWFRQQHFWLRQIRUGDLU\WDQNHUV FRPPHUFLDOIUHLJKWDQGWRXULVWVDVLWLVSDUWRIWKH7ZLQ&RDVW'LVFRYHU\+LJKZD\ &XUUHQWO\WKHUH¶VDSSUR[LPDWHO\PRILPSHUYLRXVDUHDZLWKLQWKH3URMHFW%RXQGDU\GLVFKDUJLQJ HLWKHUGLUHFWO\RULQGLUHFWO\WR.DHR5LYHU

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

HIIHFWLYHO\FDWHUIRUVWRUPZDWHUUXQRIIFROOHFWLRQFRQYH\DQFHRUWUHDWPHQWDQGDQ\SURSRVHG VWRUPZDWHULQIUDVWUXFWXUHZLOOEHDQLPSURYHPHQW

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± )+:$ +(& 86 'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUW -XO\ DQG +\GUDXOLF'HVLJQRI&XOYHUWV±)+:$+'686'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUW 'RFXPHQWVUHIHUHQFHGLQWKHGHVLJQDOVRLQFOXGH

1RUWKODQG2QH/DQH%ULGJHV3URMHFW.DHR3UHOLPLQDU\7HFKQLFDO5HSRUWWRLQIRUPWKH %XVLQHVV&DVH2SXV -XO\ 1RUWKODQG2QH/DQH%ULGJHV3URMHFW.DHR2SWLRQVDQG*HRPHWULFV'HVNWRS5HYLHZ2SXV -XQH &RDVWDO)ORRG+D]DUG=RQHVIRU6HOHFW1RUWKODQG6LWHV7RQNLQ7D\ORU 0D\ $XUHFRQ6WRUPZDWHU+\GUDXOLF0RGHOOLQJ7HFKQLFDO6SHFLDOLVW5HSRUW'HFHPEHUDQG $XUHFRQ*HRWHFKQLFDO,QWHUSUHWLYH5HSRUW *,5 6HSWHPEHU

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

'HVLJQ,QYHVWLJDWLRQV ,QYHVWLJDWLRQVKDYHEHHQFRQGXFWHGWRLQIRUPWKHSUHOLPLQDU\GHVLJQSKDVHRIWKH3URMHFW7KHLU ILQGLQJVDUHVXPPDULVHGDVIROORZV

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

)ORRGLQJ$VVHVVPHQW 7KH3URMHFWORFDWLRQLVZLWKLQ\HDUDQG\HDU$QQXDO5HFXUUHQFH,QWHUYDO $5, IORRG]RQH LQFOXGLQJSURYLVLRQVIRU&OLPDWH&KDQJH 0D[LPXPIORRGOHYHOLQ\HDU$5, P5/ 0D[LPXPIORRGOHYHOLQ\HDU$5, P5/ 7KH.DHR5LYHUGUDLQVWRWKH:KDQJDURD+DUERXUDQGLVLQIOXHQFHGE\WLGHOHYHOV

*HRWHFKQLFDO,QWHUSUHWLYH5HSRUW ,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHDERYHLQYHVWLJDWLRQUHSRUWVFDWFKPHQWDQDO\VLVZDVFRQGXFWHGWRLQIRUPWKH VWRUPZDWHUGHVLJQ

+\GURORJ\DQG&DWFKPHQW$QDO\VLV 7KH1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHRI:DWHU $WPRVSKHULF5HVHDUFK 1,:$ +,5'69GDWDEDVH¶VUDLQIDOOGDWD ZDVXVHGIRUVWRUPZDWHUFDOFXODWLRQVDVRXWOLQHGLQWKH1=7$6WDWH+LJKZD\6WRUPZDWHU 6SHFLILFDWLRQ 3

&OLPDWHFKDQJH 1=7$KDYHVHWDPLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWRIGHJUHHVZDUPLQJRIDQQXDOWHPSHUDWXUHSURMHFWHGWR $OWKRXJKWKLVFOLPDWHFKDQJHSURMHFWLRQLVDGHTXDWHIRU\HDUGHVLJQOLIHWKH3ULQFLSDO 5HTXLUHPHQWV 35V UHTXLUHGUDLQDJHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWREHGHVLJQHGIRUD\HDUGHVLJQOLIH7KLV UHVXOWHGLQIXUWKHUDVVHVVPHQWRIFOLPDWHFKDQJHIDFWRUVSDUWLFXODUO\WKHQHHGWRFRQVLGHUFOLPDWH FKDQJHRXWWR7KHDVVHVVPHQWZDVFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKWKHK\GURORJLFDODVVHVVPHQWXQGHUWDNHQ IRUWKHIORRGPRGHOOLQJDQGZDVFRQGXFWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH0LQLVWU\IRUWKH(QYLURQPHQW¶V &OLPDWH&KDQJH3URMHFWLRQVIRU1HZ=HDODQGQGHGLWLRQ DQG0I( $VHWRIIRXUIRUFLQJVFHQDULRVDOVRNQRZQDV5HSUHVHQWDWLYH&RQFHQWUDWLRQ3DWKZD\V 5&3V KDYH EHHQFRPSDUHGDJDLQVWWKH3URMHFWVWRUPZDWHUGUDLQDJHHOHPHQWVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHPRVWVXLWDEOH FOLPDWHFKDQJHIDFWRUWRDSSO\IRUHDFKHOHPHQW )ROORZLQJGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKWKH7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\DQGEDVHGRQH[SHULHQFHIRUVLPLODUSURMHFWVRIWKLV QDWXUHDQGVFDOHDFOLPDWHFKDQJHSDWKZD\RI5&3KDVEHHQDGRSWHGIRUWKH3URMHFW7KLVDOLJQV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

ZLWKWKHZLGHUFDWFKPHQWDVVHVVPHQWXQGHUWDNHQDVSDUWRIWKHIORRGPRGHOOLQJIRUWKHSURMHFWDQGLV FRQVLGHUHGWKHPRVWVXLWDEOHIRUWKHGHVLJQRIWKHQHWZRUNGUDLQDJHDQGFXOYHUWVIRUWKH3URMHFW7KH DGMXVWHG1,:$+,5'VYUDLQIDOOGDWDFDQEHVHHQLQ7DEOH

7DEOH'HVLJQUDLQIDOOLQWHQVLWLHV

5DLQIDOO,QWHQVLW\ PPKU 'HVFULSWLRQ \U$5, \U$5, \U$5, PLQ PLQ PLQ &XUUHQWVFHQDULR

$GMXVWHGWRIRU&OLPDWH&KDQJH 5&3

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ 7KHEDVLVRIWKHSURSRVHGVWRUPZDWHUGHVLJQKDVEHHQGHYHORSHGWRSURYLGHD%HVW3UDFWLFDEOH 2SWLRQ %32 WRDYRLGUHPHG\RUPLWLJDWHDGYHUVHHQYLURQPHQWDOHIIHFWV7KHSURSRVHGGHVLJQ DSSOLHVWKHIROORZLQJSULQFLSOHVWRSURYLGHPRVWHIIHFWLYHVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW

3URWHFWODQGVXUIDFHDQGULYHUEDQNIURPHURVLRQ $YRLGVHQVLWLYHDUHDVVXFKDVH[LVWLQJYHJHWDWLRQDQGK\GUDXOLFVWUXFWXUHV 'HVLJQWRPLPLFDQDWXUDOV\VWHPDVPXFKDVSUDFWLFDEOH PDLQWDLQQDWXUDOGUDLQDJHSDWKV $OORZIRUSURYLVLRQVIRUH[LVWLQJHFRORJ\LQWKHGHVLJQWRPLQLPLVHWKHOHYHORIGLVWXUEDQFH 7KHDERYHSULQFLSDOVDORQJZLWKWKHGHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVSURYLGHGE\WKH7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\KDYH SURYLGHGWKHIRXQGDWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ7KHSURSRVHGVWRUPZDWHUGHVLJQLVODUJHO\VHSDUDWHGLQWRIRXU PDMRUFRPSRQHQWVDQGGLVFXVVHGLQWKHIROORZLQJVHFWLRQV

'UDLQDJH1HWZRUN6HFWLRQ 6WRUPZDWHU0DQDJHPHQW 7UHDWPHQW 6HFWLRQ &XOYHUWV6HFWLRQ 6WRS%DQN:RUNV6HFWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHLVDQLPSURYHPHQWWRWKHFXUUHQWVLWXDWLRQZKHUHWKHUHDUHQRIRUPDO PHDQVRIVWRUPZDWHULQIUDVWUXFWXUHRUVWRUPZDWHUWUHDWPHQWLVSURYLGHGDQGVWRUPZDWHUIORZ GLVFKDUJHGLUHFWO\WRWKH.DHR5LYHU UHIHUWRVHFWLRQIRUH[LVWLQJVWRUPZDWHUGHWDLOV

'UDLQDJH1HWZRUN

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

2XWOHW3URWHFWLRQ 2XWOHWSURWHFWLRQDQGHQHUJ\GLVVLSDWLRQKDYHEHHQLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHGHVLJQWRPLWLJDWHHURVLRQDW WKHSRLQWRIGLVFKDUJH5LSUDSDSURQLVWKHSUHIHUUHGPHDQVIRUHURVLRQSURWHFWLRQDWDOOGUDLQDJH

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

QHWZRUNRXWOHWWRSURYLGHHQHUJ\GLVVLSDWLRQGXHWRSHUIRUPDQFHEHQHILWVWKHHDVHRIPDLQWHQDQFH DQGVSDFHDYDLODEOHIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQ

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

3DYHPHQW6XEVRLO'UDLQDJH 3DYHPHQWVXEVRLOGUDLQDJHV\VWHPVXQGHUNHUEDQGFKDQQHOV RULQDUHDVZKHUHLWLVQRWSRVVLEOHWR ³GD\OLJKW´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

6WRUPZDWHU&DSWXUHDQG0DQDJHPHQW

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

.HUEDQG&KDQQHO FDWFKSLWV 6ZDOH 5LYHU 5RDG5XQRII 3UHYHQWVGLUHFW 3URYLGHV 5HFHLYLQJ 6RXUFH GLVFKDUJHWRWKH WUHDWPHQW (QYLURQHPWQ HQYLURQHPWQ

)LJXUH7UHDWPHQW7UDLQ$SSURDFK$GRSWHGIRUWKH3URMHFW )XUWKHUGHWDLOVRIWKHSURSRVHGGUDLQDJHV\VWHPWUHDWPHQWWUDLQDSSURDFKWRFDSWXULQJDQGFRQYH\LQJ VWRUPZDWHUUXQRIIIURPH[LVWLQJDQGQHZLPSHUYLRXVDUHDVZLOOGHYHORSHGGXULQJWKHGHWDLOHGGHVLJQLQ FRRUGLQDWLRQZLWKWKH7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\DQGLZLSDUWQHUV

&XOYHUWV 7ZRQHZFXOYHUWVDUHSURSRVHGIRUWKHSURMHFWDVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH&XOYHUWVKDYHEHHQGHVLJQHG XVLQJ+<ZLWKD0DQQLQJ¶VURXJKQHVVRIIRUFRQFUHWHSLSHV7KHGHVLJQKDVWDNHQLQWR DFFRXQWWKHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVEDVHGRQWKHFXUUHQWLQIRUPDWLRQDYDLODEOHDWWKLVVWDJHRIWKH GHVLJQZKLFKZLOOEHGHYHORSHGIXUWKHUDWGHWDLOHGGHVLJQ

&XOYHUWVWRFDWHUIRUWKH\U$5,VWRUPHYHQWIORZVZLWKRXWDIIHFWLQJXSVWUHDPIORRGOHYHOV &XOYHUWVZLOOKDYHDPLQLPXPFRYHURIPXQGHUWUDIILFDEOHDUHDVDQGPXQGHUQRQ WUDIILFDEOHDUHDV &XOYHUWVZLOOEHFRQFUHWHSLSHVZLOODSUHFDVWKHDGZDOOLQVWDOOHGXSVWUHDPDQGGRZQVWUHDPDQG ZLOOEHGHVLJQHGWRKDYHDPLQLPXPJUDGLHQWRI

([LVWLQJFXOYHUWDQGQRQ UHWXUQJDWHWREHUHWDLQHG

&XOYHUW±&8

)LJXUH3URSRVHG&XOYHUW/RFDWLRQV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

%DVHGRQWKHGHVLJQSDUDPHWHUVDERYHWKHSUHOLPLQDU\FXOYHUWGHVLJQLVDVOLVWHGLQWKHIROORZLQJWDEOH

7DEOH3URSRVHG&XOYHUW'HWDLOV &XOYHUW5HI &XOYHUW6L]H 7\SH $SSUR[FRYHU &8 [PP',$ &RQFUHWH3LSH &ODVV P

&8 [PP',$ &RQFUHWH3LSH &ODVV P

2XWIDOOVDQG(URVLRQ3URWHFWLRQ 2XWIDOOSURWHFWLRQDQGHQHUJ\GLVVLSDWLRQKDYHEHHQLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHGHVLJQWRPLWLJDWHHURVLRQDW WKHSRLQWRIGLVFKDUJH5LSUDSDSURQVDUHSURSRVHGDWDOOFXOYHUWDQGQHWZRUNGUDLQDJHRXWOHWVWR SURYLGHHQHUJ\GLVVLSDWLRQZKLFKZLOOEHGHVLJQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK+(&IRUWKH\U$5,VWRUP HYHQW7KHRXWIDOORIWKHSURSRVHGQHWZRUNGUDLQDJHV\VWHPRQWKHQRUWKHDVWVLGHRIWKHQHZEULGJH ZLOOGLVFKDUJHWRWKHH[LVWLQJURFNDUPRXULQJXQGHUWKHH[LVWLQJ.DHR%ULGJHZKLFKZLOOEHSURWHFWHG DQGUHWDLQHGDVSDUWRIWKHSURMHFW±UHIHUWRGUDZLQJ'5*:'IRUGHWDLOV

)LVK3DVVDJH3URYLVLRQVIRU&XOYHUWV )LVKSDVVDJHSURYLVLRQVZLOOEHFRQILUPHGGXULQJGHWDLOHGGHVLJQLQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKHSURMHFW HFRORJLVW$Q\ILVKSDVVDJHSURYLVLRQVZLOOEHGHVLJQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH7UDQVSRUW$JHQF\)LVK 3DVVDJHJXLGDQFHIRUVWDWHKLJKZD\V $XJXVW

6WRS%DQN:RUNV 7KHUHLVDQH[LVWLQJVWRSEDQNORFDWHGDGMDFHQWWRWKHZHVWHUQDEXWPHQWRIWKHSURSRVHGEULGJHZKLFK ZLOOEHUHDOLJQHGDVSDUWRIWKHSURMHFWZRUNV,QGLFDWLYHGHWDLOVRIWKHVL]HDQGH[WHQWRIWKLVUHDOLJQHG VWRSEDFNKDYHPRGHOOHGLQWKHSURMHFWK\GUDXOLFDVVHVVPHQWWRDVVHVVHIIHFWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH EULGJHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGZLOOEHIXUWKHUUHILQHGDWGHWDLOHGGHVLJQLQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKHDGMDFHQW SURSHUW\RZQHUV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

%ULGJH6FRXU3URWHFWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW

6WDQGDUG'HVLJQ3UDFWLFH 0HWKRGRORJ\IRUVFRXUHYDOXDWLRQDQGSURWHFWLRQKDVEHHQHVWLPDWHGEDVHGRQWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOO\ UHFRJQLVHGGRFXPHQWµ+(&(YDOXDWLRQ6FRXUDW%ULGJHV¶E\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHV)HGHUDO+LJKZD\V $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ )+:$ DQGWKH0HOYLOOHDQG&ROHPDQERRN³%ULGJH6FRXU´DVUHIHUHQFHGE\WKH 1=7$EULGJHPDQXDO(URVLRQPHDVXUHVKDYHEHHQFRQVLGHUHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK³+(&%ULGJH 6FRXUDQG6WUHDP,QVWDELOLW\&RXQWHUPHDVXUHV´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

'HVLJQ$VVXPSWLRQV 7KHIROORZLQJDVVXPSWLRQVZHUHPDGHLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDSUHOLPLQDU\VFRXUDQDO\VLV

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

6DIHW\DQG0DLQWHQDQFHLQ'HVLJQ&RQVLGHUDWLRQV 6DIHW\LQGHVLJQLQWHJUDWLQJKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\ULVNKDVEHHQFRQVLGHUHGWKURXJKRXWWKHOLIHF\FOHRIWKH GHVLJQWRGDWH:KHUHHOLPLQDWLRQRIDULVNFRXOGQRWEHDFKLHYHGWKHULVNZDVPLQLPLVHGDVIDUDV UHDVRQDEO\SUDFWLFDEOH 6DIHW\DQGPDLQWHQDQFHLQGHVLJQHOHPHQWVKDYHEHHQLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHGHVLJQDVGHVFULEHG EHORZ

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH

&RQFOXVLRQV

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

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH $SSHQGL[$±3UHOLPLQDU\6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ'UDZLQJV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH A REV

2 260 2 x 600Ø RC NUMBER RRJ CLASS 3 1451

0 1 SCALE 1:500 5 10 20m

240 DISC

3.0 KAEO SHEET 1 TYPE

MATCHLINE JOINS SHEET 2 DRG WD 1.0

DRAINS TO REMAIN 220 EXISTING 4.0 NORTHLAND BRIDGES

2.0 WBS STORMWATER LAYOUT PLAN 4.0 3.0 2.0

3.0

1.0

TBC AT DETAILED DESIGN DETAILED AT TBC MANAGEMENT AREA MANAGEMENT 200 SW / WETLAND POSSIBLE

4.0 PROJECT No.

254914 3500 EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE EXISTING 4.0

2.0

TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL TRAPEZOIDAL SIDESLOPE: 3H:1V SIDESLOPE:

BASE WIDTH = 2.0m = WIDTH BASE SWALE-03 DEPTH = 1.0m = DEPTH

3.0

2.0

1803.0

1.0

PROJECT TITLE DRAWING No.

TO CONNECT INTO CONNECT TO

NEW SWALE DRAIN-01 SWALE NEW

EXISTING FARM DRAIN FARM EXISTING

TO SWALE DRAIN SWALE TO

PIPE FLUME DOWN EMBANKMENT DOWN FLUME PIPE KERB TURNOUT WITH 450dia CUT 450dia WITH TURNOUT KERB

REALIGNED STATE HIGHWAY 10 ( PROPOSED ) DATE

2.0

3.0

2.0

3.0 160 . APPROVED

1.0 CONSENT

2.0 N.HOLMAN

2.0

TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL TRAPEZOIDAL

SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V SIDESLOPE: BASE WIDTH = 2.0m = WIDTH BASE SWALE-05 DEPTH = 1.0m = DEPTH 140 A1

SIZE

TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL TRAPEZOIDAL

SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V SIDESLOPE: BASE WIDTH = 2.0m = WIDTH BASE SWALE-04 DEPTH = 1.0m = DEPTH

TO BE REMOVED AND LOWERED TO LOWERED AND REMOVED BE TO

FARM AREA, FARM LEVEL OF EXISTING SURROUNDING EXISTING OF LEVEL EXISTING SH10 ROAD EMBANKMENT ROAD SH10 EXISTING

2.0

1.0 2.0

2.0 DRAWN

120 D.HUGHES L. DAVISON 1:500 DESIGNED REVIEWED SCALE

C.CUNNINGHAM

SWALE DRAIN-01 SWALE

CONNECT INTO NEW INTO CONNECT EXISTING FARM DRAINS TO DRAINS FARM EXISTING

1.0

100

APPROVED

TO SWALE BELOW SWALE TO

DOWN GRASSED EMBANKMENT GRASSED DOWN ROAD SURFACE TO DISCHARGE TO SURFACE ROAD STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM RUNOFF STORMWATER

(* TO MATCH EXISTING FARM EXISTING MATCH TO (* TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL TRAPEZOIDAL DRAIN BEING REPLACED) BEING DRAIN

BASE WIDTH = 1.0m* = WIDTH BASE HEIGHT = 1.5m* = HEIGHT SIDESLOPE: 3H:1V* SIDESLOPE: SWALE-01 1.0

SWALE DRAIN-01 SWALE CONNECT INTO NEW INTO CONNECT

EXISTING FARM DRAINS TO DRAINS FARM EXISTING 1.0

60 SW

1.0 40 0.0

1.0 ISSUED FOR CONSENT - NOT CONSTRUCTION N.HOLMAN

REVISION DETAILS 1.0 20 DATE 16.12.19 A REV

1.0

PROPOSED STORMWATER PIPE PROPOSED OUTFALL / HEADWALL PROPOSED CATCHPIT MANHOLE PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED RIPRAP 0

1.0

CONNECT INTO NEW SWALE NEW INTO CONNECT

DRAIN-01 EXISTING FARM DRAINS TO DRAINS FARM EXISTING

-20

PROJECT EXTENTS PROJECT

OF ADJACENT FARM DRAINS FARM ADJACENT OF

EXTENT TO ENSURE CONNECTIVITY ENSURE TO EXTENT REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED BE AND REMAIN DURING WORKS ALONG FULL ALONG WORKS DURING EXISTING SH10 ROADSIDE DRAIN TO DRAIN ROADSIDE SH10 EXISTING e. CLIENT 16/ and

STORMWATER CULVERT PROPOSED FARM RACE PROPOSED KERB & CHANNEL PROPOSED SWALE DRAIN PROPOSED STOPBANK EXISTING DRAIN STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS DURING DETAILS DESIGN IS REQUIRED. SOME STORMWATER ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. BE FINALISED DURING DETAILED DESIGN.

2. LANDOWNER CONSULTATION / CONSENT IS NEEDED TO CONFIRM THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF 4. PROPOSED STOPBANK LOCATION IS SHOWN INDICATIVELY ONLY AND COORDINATION WITH 3. DESIGN IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REFINEMENT DURING CONSULTATION WITH IWI PARTNERS. Aerial Imagery sourced from the LINZ Data Service https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/88131-northland-04m-rural-aerial-photos-2014- NOTES 1. THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM (LOCATION AND SIZE) IS INDICATIVE ONLY WILL licensed by Northland Aerial Imagery Consortium (NAIC) for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licenc EXISTING SH10 DESIGNATION BOUNDARY PROPOSED ALTERATION DESIGNATION BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY KAEO BRIDGE DECK PROPOSED BRIDGE SCUPPER LEGEND

sign\503 CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-WD-1451.dwg CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-WD-1451.dwg sign\503 sign\503 De De Deliver Deliver Bridges\5 Bridges\5 Northland Northland - - pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 Filename: Filename: Auckland Auckland Office: Office: 21:11:00 21:11:00 2019-12-15 2019-12-15 Date: Date: Plot Plot 0 A REV

2 20 NUMBER 1452

0 1 SCALE 1:500 5 10 20m

DISC

40 STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE TO TIE KAEO SHEET 2 TYPE

DRG WD

SWALE-09 SWALE-09

ROADSIDE CHANNEL ROADSIDE INTO EXISTING INTO PROJECT EXTENTS PROJECT

NORTHLAND BRIDGES 60

WBS STORMWATER LAYOUT PLAN 80 PROJECT No.

254914 3500

V-SHAPE, PLANTED 1.00m = WIDTH TOP

SWALE-09 SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V SIDESLOPE: DEPTH = 0.25m = DEPTH

PROJECT TITLE DRAWING No.

100 3.0 2.0 1.0

DATE

3.0

4.0

3.0

3.0 120 . APPROVED 3.0 CONSENT

N.HOLMAN

3.0 A1 140 SIZE

2.0

3.0

V-SHAPE, PLANTED V-SHAPE, 1.40m = WIDTH TOP SWALE-08 SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V DEPTH = 0.35m DRAWN D.HUGHES PROPOSED STOPBANK REALIGNMENT TO TIE INTO EXISTING (LOCATION AND LEVELS) L. DAVISON

1:500 DESIGNED REVIEWED

SCALE 160 C.CUNNINGHAM

3.0 iv 2.0

Riv

3.0

KaeK

4.0 4.0 180

CULVERT CU-01 PROPOSED APPROVED

3.0

2 x 375Ø RC RRJ CLASS 4 CLASS RRJ RC 375Ø x 2

2.0 4.0

3.0 4.0

3.0

V-SHAPE, PLANTED 1.40m = WIDTH TOP

SWALE-07 SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V SIDESLOPE: DEPTH = 0.35m = DEPTH

4.0

200

4.0 3.0

5.0

TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL TRAPEZOIDAL

DRAIN BEING REPLACED) BEING DRAIN SWALE-02 SIDESLOPE: 3H:1V* DEPTH = 1.5m* FARM EXISTING MATCH TO (* BASE WIDTH = 1.0m* = WIDTH BASE

3.0

4.0 4.0

5.0

5.0 220 380

LOCATIONS BRIDGE DRAINAGE SCUPPERS DRAINAGE BRIDGE POSITIONED AT BRIDGE PIER BRIDGE AT POSITIONED CONCRETE BARRIER TO COLLECT AND CONVEY RUNOFF PROPOSED SWALE DRAINS TO BE LOCATED BEHIND FROM EXISTING EMBANKMENT SLOPE TO THE EAST TBC AT DETAILED DESIGN POSSIBLE WETLAND / SW MANAGEMENT AREA

CULVERT CU-02 PROPOSED 6.0

6.0 360 SW

6.0 6.0

6.0 340

STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM ROAD SURFACE TO DISCHARGE DOWN GRASSED

EMBANKMENT TO SWALE BELOW 6.0

320

6.0 5.0 MATCHLINE JOINS SHEET 1 2 x 600Ø RC RRJ CLASS 3

300

ISSUED FOR CONSENT - NOT CONSTRUCTION N.HOLMAN 6.0 220 REVISION DETAILS

V-SHAPE, PLANTED

TOP WIDTH = 1.00m = WIDTH TOP

SWALE-06 SIDESLOPE: 2H:1V SIDESLOPE: DEPTH = 0.25m = DEPTH 5.0 5.0

5.0 5.0 280

5.0 5.0 SW SW

DATE

5.0 16.12.19 5.0

5.0 5.0 260 A

5.0 REV SW REALIGNED STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE REALIGNED

5.0

SW 240 1.0 5.0

SW 200 3.0 5.0 2.0

PROPOSED STORMWATER PIPE PROPOSED OUTFALL / HEADWALL PROPOSED CATCHPIT MANHOLE PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED RIPRAP SW

220 5.0 4.0

5.0 1.0

SW 3.0 SW 0 200

SW 4.0 LEVELS) PROPOSED STOPBANK REALIGNMENT TO TIE INTO EXISTING (LOCATION AND 180SW 4.0

SW 3.0 2.0 4.0

4.0 160 EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE EXISTING e. CLIENT 16/ and

140

3.0 STORMWATER CULVERT PROPOSED FARM RACE PROPOSED KERB & CHANNEL PROPOSED SWALE DRAIN PROPOSED STOPBANK EXISTING DRAIN 3.0

STOP BANK TO REMAIN AND BE EXISTING OUTLETS THROUGH PROTECTED DURING WORKS PROJECT EXTENTS 120 PROJECT TO EXISTING ABUTMENT RIPRAP PROPOSED OUTFALL TO DISCHARGE AND BE PROTECTED DURING WORKS EXISTING DRAINS TO REMAIN

100

80 ADJACENT LANDOWNERS DURING DETAILS DESIGN IS REQUIRED. SOME STORMWATER ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. BE FINALISED DURING DETAILED DESIGN.

WHANGAROA ROAD

sign\503 CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-WD-1452.dwg CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-DRG-WD-1452.dwg sign\503 sign\503 De De Deliver Deliver Bridges\5 Bridges\5 Northland Northland - - pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 Filename: Filename: Auckland Auckland Office: Office: 21:11:00 21:11:00 2019-12-15 2019-12-15 Date: Date: Plot Plot 360 REV NUMBER 0

220 9m SCALE 1:250 2.5 5 10m DISC

340 KAEO 200 TYPE NORTHLAND BRIDGES SCOUR PROTECTION WBS POTENTIAL AREA OF EXTENDED RIP RAP NOTE 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO DRAWINGS BB-0003 AND BB-0004. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT WITH SCOUR RIP L C

EAST ABUTMENT

PROJECT No.

254914 3500 SKT CC 0006 A

2.660 360. KAEO RIVER 5.375

320 DIRECTION OF FLOW 2 LAYERS OF ARMOUR ROCK 800mm THICK MIN, D50 = 400mm EAST ABUTMENT 7%&$7'(7$,/(''(6,*1

PROJECT TITLE DRAWING No. 5.325 1.435 350. POTENTIAL AREA OF EXTENDED RAP 1.6m 5 . 1.5 1 1 DATE m

2.3m 5.1m 1 08

18000 1.

SPAN 4

5.275 -0.958 340. MHWS RL 1.08 m 2.7m . APPROVED

300 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PIER 2 PIER 3 L C L C

A1 -0.552 330. 5.225 SIZE S.LYNE S.LYNE DRAWN

DESIGNED 1:250 REVIEWED

SCALE D.DELAGARZA 5.175 -0.196 320. LEVEL RL 3.70 m 1/100 YEAR FLOOD WATER SURFACE INDICATIVELY DRAWN SCOUR DEPTH 30000

280 SPAN 3

5.125 -0.185 310. APPROVED PIER 1 PIER 2 L L C C

(;7(176

5.075 -0.208 300.

260 Q=3.0% 1:250 1:250 PLAN P=0.5% L=145.9

SCOUR PROTECTION

5.025 0.749 290. ,1',&$7,9( EXISTING SURFACE INDICATIVELY SHOWN 30000

SPAN 2

SECTION CUT ALONG BRIDGE CONTROL LINE

4.975 1.324 280.

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

7 7° 7

7° 2402424400

17° 1 1 17° 17° 17° 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 REVISION DETAILS WEST ABUTMENT 8m PIER 1 L L C C

DATE

4.925 1.300 270. 8m 11.33m A 19.12.19 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION D.HUGHES

REV

4.875 1.155 260. 30000 SPAN 1 220 SCOUR DEPTH 1.6m

1 1

4.825 0.965 250.

5.9m 2.85m 1 2 WEST ABUTMENT

L C

4.771 0.828 240. e. CLIENT D=260 16/ and

200 EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY 10 HIGHWAY STATE EXISTING CUT SLOPE FILL SLOPE INDICATIVE BRIDGE DECK SPILL THROUGH ABUTMENT 2 LAYERS OF ARMOUR ROCK 800mm THICK MIN, D50 = 400mm

180 RL = -7.0m VERTICAL ALIGNMENT HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT SUPER ELEVATION DESIGN EXISTING CHAINAGE

PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 10 Aerial Imagery sourced from the LINZ Data Service https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/88131-northland-04m-rural-aerial-photos-2014- licensed by Northland Aerial Imagery Consortium (NAIC) for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licenc 4.0

EXISTING SH10 DESIGNATION BOUNDARY PROPOSED ALTERATION DESIGNATION BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL BOUNDARY LEGEND

sign\503 CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-SKT-CC-0006.dwg CADD\Drawings\254914-3500-SKT-CC-0006.dwg sign\503 sign\503 De De Deliver Deliver Bridges\5 Bridges\5 Northland Northland - - pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_AUDC1_01\Documents\Projects\25xxxx\254914 Filename: Auckland Auckland Office: Office: 12:16:00 12:16:00 2019-12-19 2019-12-19 Date: Date: Plot Plot

160 Filename:

$SSHQGL[%±6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ&DOFXODWLRQV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH ,/Z^sϰ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇͲƵƌĂƚŝŽŶͲ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇZĞƐƵůƚƐ ^ŝƚĞŶĂŵĞ͗<ĂĞŽƌŝĚŐĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞƐǇƐƚĞŵ͗t'^ϴϰ >ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚĞ͗ϭϳϯ͘ϳϲϬϯ >ĂƚŝƚƵĚĞ͗Ͳϯϱ͘ϬϴϮϭ &DŽĚĞů WĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ͗ Đ Ě Ğ Ĩ ŐŚŝ sĂůƵĞƐ͗ Ϭ͘ϬϬϭϵϴϯϵ Ϭ͘ϱϮϯϱϯϮϳ ͲϬ͘ϬϮϱϬϳϱ ͲϬ͘ϬϬϮϭϬϯ Ϭ͘ϮϱϯϰϵϰϮ ͲϬ͘Ϭϭϭϭϭϭ ϯ͘ϮϬϳϮϯϭϯ ǆĂŵƉůĞ͗ ƵƌĂƚŝŽŶ;Śƌ Z/;ǇƌƐͿ ǆ Ǉ ZĂŝŶĨĂůůZĂƚĞ;ŵŵͬŚƌͿ Ϯϰ ϭϬϬ ϯ͘ϭϳϴϬϱϯϴ ϰ͘ϲϬϬϭϰϵϮ ϭϬ͘ϯϬϬϳϲϵ

ZĂŝŶĨĂůůŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚŝĞƐ;ŵŵͬŚƌͿ͗͗,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůĂƚĂ Z/ W ϭϬŵ ϮϬŵ ϯϬŵ ϭŚ ϮŚ ϲŚ ϭϮŚ ϮϰŚ ϰϴŚ ϳϮŚ ϵϲŚ ϭϮϬŚ ϭ͘ϱϴ Ϭ͘ϲϯϯ ϱϰ͘Ϯ ϰϬ͘ϲ ϯϰ Ϯϰ͘ϳ ϭϳ͘ϱ ϵ͘ϱϵ ϲ͘Ϯϳ ϯ͘ϵϰ Ϯ͘ϯϳ ϭ͘ϳϯ ϭ͘ϯϲ ϭ͘ϭϯ Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϱϵ͘ϯ ϰϰ͘ϰ ϯϳ͘Ϯ Ϯϳ͘ϭ ϭϵ͘Ϯ ϭϬ͘ϱ ϲ͘ϴϵ ϰ͘ϯϯ Ϯ͘ϲϭ ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘Ϯϰ ϱ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϳϲ͘ϵ ϱϳ͘ϳ ϰϴ͘ϰ ϯϱ͘Ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϭϯ͘ϴ ϵ͘Ϭϭ ϱ͘ϲϴ ϯ͘ϰϯ Ϯ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϵϳ ϭ͘ϲϯ ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϭ ϴϵ͘ϵ ϲϳ͘ϱ ϱϲ͘ϳ ϰϭ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ ϭϲ͘Ϯ ϭϬ͘ϲ ϲ͘ϲϵ ϰ͘Ϭϰ Ϯ͘ϵϰ Ϯ͘ϯϯ ϭ͘ϵϯ ϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭϬϯ ϳϳ͘ϲ ϲϱ͘Ϯ ϰϳ͘ϲ ϯϯ͘ϵ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϭϮ͘ϯ ϳ͘ϳϰ ϰ͘ϲϴ ϯ͘ϰϭ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϯ͘Ϯϯ ϯϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϯϯ ϭϭϭ ϴϯ͘ϲ ϳϬ͘ϯ ϱϭ͘ϯ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϮϬ͘Ϯ ϭϯ͘Ϯ ϴ͘ϯϳ ϱ͘Ϭϲ ϯ͘ϲϵ Ϯ͘ϵϮ Ϯ͘ϰϮ ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϬϮϱ ϭϭϳ ϴϴ ϳϯ͘ϵ ϱϰ ϯϴ͘ϱ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϭϰ ϴ͘ϴϮ ϱ͘ϯϰ ϯ͘ϴϵ ϯ͘Ϭϴ Ϯ͘ϱϱ ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭϮϭ ϵϭ͘ϯ ϳϲ͘ϴ ϱϲ͘ϭ ϰϬ ϮϮ͘ϭ ϭϰ͘ϱ ϵ͘ϭϴ ϱ͘ϱϲ ϰ͘Ϭϱ ϯ͘Ϯϭ Ϯ͘ϲϲ ϲϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϭϳ ϭϮϱ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϳϵ͘ϭ ϱϳ͘ϴ ϰϭ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘ϴ ϭϱ ϵ͘ϰϳ ϱ͘ϳϰ ϰ͘ϭϴ ϯ͘ϯϭ Ϯ͘ϳϰ ϴϬ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮ ϭϯϭ ϵϴ͘ϱ ϴϮ͘ϴ ϲϬ͘ϲ ϰϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϯ͘ϵ ϭϱ͘ϳ ϵ͘ϵϰ ϲ͘ϬϮ ϰ͘ϯϵ ϯ͘ϰϴ Ϯ͘ϴϴ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ ϭϯϱ ϭϬϮ ϴϱ͘ϳ ϲϮ͘ϳ ϰϰ͘ϴ Ϯϰ͘ϳ ϭϲ͘ϯ ϭϬ͘ϯ ϲ͘Ϯϰ ϰ͘ϱϲ ϯ͘ϲϭ Ϯ͘ϵϵ ϮϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬϰ ϭϱϯ ϭϭϲ ϵϳ͘ϰ ϳϭ͘ϰ ϱϭ Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭϴ͘ϲ ϭϭ͘ϴ ϳ͘ϭϲ ϱ͘Ϯϯ ϰ͘ϭϰ ϯ͘ϰϯ ZĂŝŶĨĂůůŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚŝĞƐ;ŵŵͬŚƌͿ͗͗ZWϲ͘ϬĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌŝŽĚϮϬϴϭͲϮϭϬϬ Z/ W ϭϬŵ ϮϬŵ ϯϬŵ ϭŚ ϮŚ ϲŚ ϭϮŚ ϮϰŚ ϰϴŚ ϳϮŚ ϵϲŚ ϭϮϬŚ ϭ͘ϱϴ Ϭ͘ϲϯϯ ϲϰ͘ϳ ϰϴ͘ϰ ϰϬ͘ϲ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϭϭ͘ϭ ϳ͘Ϭϵ ϰ͘ϯϵ Ϯ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϴϳ ϭ͘ϰϳ ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱ ϳϭ͘ϭ ϱϯ͘ϯ ϰϰ͘ϲ ϯϮ͘ϱ ϮϮ͘ϵ ϭϮ͘Ϯ ϳ͘ϴϰ ϰ͘ϴϰ Ϯ͘ϴϳ Ϯ͘Ϭϳ ϭ͘ϲϮ ϭ͘ϯϰ ϱ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϵϮ͘ϵ ϲϵ͘ϳ ϱϴ͘ϱ ϰϮ͘ϲ ϯϬ͘ϭ ϭϲ͘ϭ ϭϬ͘ϰ ϲ͘ϰ ϯ͘ϴ Ϯ͘ϳϱ Ϯ͘ϭϱ ϭ͘ϳϴ ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϭ ϭϬϵ ϴϭ͘ϵ ϲϴ͘ϴ ϱϬ͘ϭ ϯϱ͘ϱ ϭϵ ϭϮ͘Ϯ ϳ͘ϱϳ ϰ͘ϱ ϯ͘Ϯϲ Ϯ͘ϱϱ Ϯ͘ϭϭ ϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ϭϮϲ ϵϰ͘ϰ ϳϵ͘ϯ ϱϳ͘ϵ ϰϭ ϮϮ ϭϰ͘Ϯ ϴ͘ϳϳ ϱ͘Ϯϯ ϯ͘ϳϴ Ϯ͘ϵϳ Ϯ͘ϰϱ ϯϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϯϯ ϭϯϱ ϭϬϮ ϴϱ͘ϲ ϲϮ͘ϱ ϰϰ͘ϯ Ϯϯ͘ϴ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϵ͘ϱ ϱ͘ϲϲ ϰ͘Ϭϵ ϯ͘ϮϮ Ϯ͘ϲϱ ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϬϮϱ ϭϰϮ ϭϬϳ ϵϬ͘ϭ ϲϱ͘ϴ ϰϲ͘ϲ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϭϲ͘Ϯ ϭϬ ϱ͘ϵϳ ϰ͘ϯϯ ϯ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϴ ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭϰϴ ϭϭϭ ϵϯ͘ϳ ϲϴ͘ϰ ϰϴ͘ϱ Ϯϲ͘ϭ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϭϬ͘ϰ ϲ͘Ϯϯ ϰ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϱϰ Ϯ͘ϵϮ ϲϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϭϳ ϭϱϯ ϭϭϱ ϵϲ͘ϱ ϳϬ͘ϲ ϱϬ Ϯϳ ϭϳ͘ϰ ϭϬ͘ϴ ϲ͘ϰϯ ϰ͘ϲϲ ϯ͘ϲϲ ϯ͘Ϭϭ ϴϬ Ϭ͘ϬϭϮ ϭϲϬ ϭϮϬ ϭϬϭ ϳϰ ϱϮ͘ϱ Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭϴ͘ϯ ϭϭ͘ϯ ϲ͘ϳϲ ϰ͘ϴϵ ϯ͘ϴϰ ϯ͘ϭϳ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ ϭϲϱ ϭϮϱ ϭϬϱ ϳϲ͘ϲ ϱϰ͘ϯ Ϯϵ͘ϰ ϭϵ ϭϭ͘ϳ ϳ ϱ͘Ϭϳ ϯ͘ϵϵ ϯ͘Ϯϵ ϮϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬϰ ϭϴϴ ϭϰϭ ϭϭϵ ϴϳ͘Ϯ ϲϭ͘ϵ ϯϯ͘ϱ Ϯϭ͘ϳ ϭϯ͘ϰ ϴ͘Ϭϯ ϱ͘ϴϮ ϰ͘ϱϴ ϯ͘ϳϴ ĂƚĐŚŵĞŶƚ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ

ĂƚĐŚŵĞŶƚZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^tĚĞǀŝĐĞ ĂƚŚĐŵĞŶƚƌĞĂ;ŵϮͿ ĂƚĐŚŵĞŶƚƌĞĂ;,ĂͿ CA-01 Swale-01 ϱϱϰϮϬ ϱ͘ϱϰ

CA-01a Swale-0 ϰϬϵϰ Ϭ͘ϰϭ CA-0a Swale-0 ϭϯϲϴ Ϭ͘ϭϰ CA-0E Swale-0 ϲϰϭϱ Ϭ͘ϲϰ CA-0 Swale-0 ϭϯϲϭ Ϭ͘ϭϰ CA-0a Swale-0 ϲϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϲ CA-0 Swale-0 ϭϱϳϱ Ϭ͘ϭϲ CA-0a Swale-0 ϮϴϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϯ CA-0 Swale-0 ϭϮϬϴϳ ϭ͘Ϯϭ CA-0a Swale-0 ϯϯϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϯ CA-0 Swale-0 ϰϳϮϰ Ϭ͘ϰϳ CA-0 Swale-0 ϮϬϱϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ

ĂƚŚĐŵĞŶƚƌĞĂ EĞǁ^t/ ;ŵϮͿ ĂƚĐŚŵĞŶƚƌĞĂ;,ĂͿ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϭ ϱϱϰϮϬ ϱ͘ϱϰ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϮ ϰϬϵϰ Ϭ͘ϰϭ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϯ ϱϵϱϭϰ ϱ͘ϵϱ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϰ ϳϳϴϯ Ϭ͘ϳϴ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϱ ϭϵϴϭ Ϭ͘ϮϬ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϲ ϮϬϱϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϳ ϰϳϮϰ Ϭ͘ϰϳ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϴ ϭϮϰϮϬ ϭ͘Ϯϰ ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϵ ϭϴϱϳ Ϭ͘ϭϵ hͲϬϭ ϱϵϱϭϰ ϱ͘ϵϱ hͲϬϮ ϭϳϭϰϰ ϭ͘ϳϭ FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR KAEO BRIDGE PROJECT (Northland Regional Council) BY RATIONAL METHOD (Q = 2.78 CIA) @ WQV Runoff Catchment Intensity (I) Flow (Q)=2.78CIA Sr. No. Catchment Nos. Location No. Coefficient Area (A) (mm/h) (c) ha l/s m3/s 1.000 CA-01 Swale-01 0.500 0.000 5.542 0.000 0.000

2.000 CA-01a Swale-02 0.500 0.000 0.409 0.000 0.000

3.000 CA-02a Swale-04 0.950 10.000 0.137 3.613 0.004

4.000 CA-02b Swale-04 0.500 0.000 0.642 0.000 0.000

5.000 CA-03 Swale-05 0.500 0.000 0.136 0.000 0.000

6.000 CA-03a Swale-05 0.950 10.000 0.062 1.637 0.002

7.000 CA-04 Swale-09 0.500 0.157 0.000 0.000

8.000 CA-04a Swale-09 0.950 10.000 0.028 0.746 0.001

9.000 CA-05 Swale-08 0.500 0.000 1.209 0.000 0.000 10.000 CA-05a Swale-08 0.950 10.000 0.033 0.878 0.001 11.000 CA-06 Swale-07 0.500 0.000 0.472 0.000 0.000 12.000 CA-07 Swale-06 0.500 0.000 0.205 0.000 0.000

Notes: 1.5XQoIICoeIILFLeQt C taNeQas C 0.95 IoU,PSeUYLoXssXUIaFe C 0.50 IoU3eUYLoXssXUIaFeIUoP*'-01. 2.,QteQsLt\oIUaLQIall , taNeQIUoPN,:AB+,5':ebsLte.10

2.000 CA-01a Swale-02 0.500 109.000 0.409 62.024 0.062

3.000 CA-02a Swale-04 0.950 109.000 0.137 39.385 0.039

4.000 CA-02b Swale-04 0.500 109.000 0.642 97.195 0.097

5.000 CA-03 Swale-05 0.500 109.000 0.136 20.614 0.021

6.000 CA-03a Swale-05 0.950 109.000 0.062 17.848 0.018

7.000 CA-04 Swale-09 0.500 109.000 0.157 23.861 0.024

8.000 CA-04a Swale-09 0.950 109.000 0.028 8.129 0.008

9.000 CA-05 Swale-08 0.500 109.000 1.209 183.135 0.183

10.000 CA-05a Swale-08 0.950 109.000 0.033 9.575 0.010

11.000 CA-06 Swale-07 0.500 109.000 0.472 71.567 0.072 12.000 CA-07 Swale-06 0.500 109.000 0.205 31.075 0.031

Notes: 1. Runoff Coefficient (C) taken as (C 0.95) for ImperYious surface (C 0.50) for 3erYious surface from *D-01.

2. Intensity of rainfall (I) taken from NIWA_HIRD Website. 10 Years ARI (Return period) Considered for 10 minutes. Climate change factor already included in it. FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR KAEO BRIDGE PROJECT (Northland Regional Council) BY RATIONAL METHOD (Q = 2.78 CIA) @ 100 YEARS ARI Runoff Catchment Intensity (I) Flow (Q)=2.78CIA Sr. No. Catchment Nos. Location No. Coefficient Area (A) (mm/h) (c) ha l/s m3/s 1.0 CA-01 Swale-01 0.500 165.000 5.542 1271.058 1.271

2.0 CA-01a Swale-02 0.500 165.000 0.409 93.889 0.094

3.0 CA-02a Swale-04 0.950 165.000 0.137 59.619 0.060

4.0 CA-02b Swale-04 0.500 165.000 0.642 147.130 0.147

5.0 CA-03 Swale-05 0.500 165.000 0.136 31.205 0.031

6.0 CA-03a Swale-05 0.950 165.000 0.062 27.017 0.027

7.0 CA-04 Swale-09 0.500 165.000 0.157 36.120 0.036

8.0 CA-04a Swale-09 0.950 165.000 0.028 12.306 0.012

9.0 CA-05 Swale-08 0.500 165.000 1.209 277.222 0.277 10.0 CA-05a Swale-08 0.950 165.000 0.033 14.494 0.014 11.0 CA-06 Swale-07 0.500 165.000 0.472 108.336 0.108 12.0 CA-07 Swale-06 0.500 165.000 0.205 47.040 0.047

Notes: 1. Runoff Coefficient (C) taken as (C=0.95) for Impervious surface & (C=0.50) for Pervious surface from GD-01. 2. Intensity of rainfall (I) taken from NIWA_HIRD Website. 10 Years ARI (Return period) Considered for 10 minutes. Climate change factor already included in it. 3URSRVHG7UDSH]RLGDO6ZDOH

7UDSH]RLGDO XQV\PHWULFDO

G P P

Z EZ Z

4 $V Q3

) 4:J$

1RUPDO'HSWKIRUD7UDSH]RLGDO&KDQQHO Q V P P EZ 4 Z Z : $ 3 9 G GF ) )ORZ7\SH 6ZDOH,' PP P PV P P P P P PV PP PP ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϭ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϮ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϯ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϰ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϱ 6XEFULWLFDO

0DQQLQJ[OVP>7UDSH]RLGDO@ RI 3ULQWHG30 3URSRVHG9GUDLQ6ZDOH

9'UDLQ XQV\PHWULFDO

4 $V Q3 G P ) 4:J$ P

Z Z

1RUPDO'HSWKIRUD9'UDLQ Q V P P 4 Z Z : $ 3 9 G GF ) )ORZ7\SH 6ZDOH,' PP PV P P P P P PV PP PP ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϲ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϳ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϴ 6XEFULWLFDO ^ǁĂůĞͲϬϵ 6XEFULWLFDO

0DQQLQJ[OVP>9@ RI 3ULQWHG30 +<&XOYHUW$QDO\VLV5HSRUW

3URMHFW1RWHV 3URMHFW7LWOH .DHR%ULGJH 'HVLJQHU -RDQQD0LOOHU 3URMHFW'DWH 0RQGD\'HFHPEHU 1RWHV 3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ &XOYHUW

7DEOH&XOYHUW6XPPDU\7DEOH&XOYHUW

7RWDO &XOYHUW +HDGZDWHU ,QOHW 2XWOHW 2XWOHW 7DLOZDWHU )ORZ 1RUPDO &ULWLFDO 2XWOHW 7DLOZDWHU 'LVFKDUJH 'LVFKDUJH (OHYDWLRQ &RQWURO &RQWURO 9HORFLW\ 9HORFLW\ 7\SH 'HSWK P 'HSWK P 'HSWK P 'HSWK P FPV FPV P 'HSWK P 'HSWK P PV PV

1) 6W 6W 6I ))I ))I ))I ))I ))I ))I ))I

6WUDLJKW&XOYHUW

,QOHW(OHYDWLRQ LQYHUW P 2XWOHW(OHYDWLRQ LQYHUW P

&XOYHUW/HQJWKP &XOYHUW6ORSH

:DWHU6XUIDFH3URILOH3ORWIRU&XOYHUW&XOYHUW

&XOYHUW

7DEOH&XOYHUW6XPPDU\7DEOH&XOYHUW

1) 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q 6Q )XOO)ORZ+HDGZDWHUHOHYDWLRQLVEHORZLQOHWLQYHUW

6WUDLJKW&XOYHUW

,QOHW(OHYDWLRQ LQYHUW P 2XWOHW(OHYDWLRQ LQYHUW P

&XOYHUW/HQJWKP &XOYHUW6ORSH

:DWHU6XUIDFH3URILOH3ORWIRU&XOYHUW&XOYHUW

$SSHQGL[&±3UHOLPLQDU\%ULGJH6FRXU'HVLJQ&DOFXODWLRQV

3URMHFW)LOH.DHR%ULGJHB6WRUPZDWHU'HVLJQ5HSRUW5(9%GRF['HFHPEHU5HYLVLRQ%3DJH Ϯϱϰϵϭϰ<ĂĞŽWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ^ĐŽƵƌ^ƉƌĞĂĚƐŚĞĞƚ

ůŝĞŶƚ Ed ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ ^ĂƌĂŚ>ǇŶĞ ĂƚĞ ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϵ

,ϭϴƋƵĂƚŝŽŶϲ͘ϰWĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐͲůĞĂƌtĂƚĞƌĨŽƌWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ^ĐŽƵƌ ϭϬϬzƌ Śď ϯ͘ϵϱ Śƚ Ϭ͘ϱϲϱ ŚƵ ϰ͘ϱϭϱ Śǁ Ϭ t>ƌĞĂĐŚĞƐũƵƐƚĂďŽǀĞƐŽĨĨŝƚ ƚͬŚď Ϭ͘ϯϮϭϮϰϱ ƚ ϭ͘Ϯϲϴϵϭϳ ǇϮ ϱ͘ϯϳϰϮϰϭ ǇƐ Ϯ͘ϲϵϯϭϱϴ

$XUHFRQ1HZ=HDODQG/LPLWHG /HYHO&DUOWRQ*RUH5RDG 1HZPDUNHW$XFNODQG 32%R[ 1HZPDUNHW$XFNODQG 1HZ=HDODQG 7 ) ( DXFNODQG#DXUHFRQJURXSFRP :DXUHFRQJURXSFRP $XUHFRQRIILFHVDUHORFDWHGLQ $QJROD$XVWUDOLD%RWVZDQD&KLQD *KDQD+RQJ.RQJ,QGRQHVLD.HQ\D /HVRWKR0DFDX0R]DPELTXH 1DPLELD1HZ=HDODQG1LJHULD 3KLOLSSLQHV4DWDU6LQJDSRUH6RXWK$IULFD 6ZD]LODQG7DQ]DQLD7KDLODQG8JDQGD 8QLWHG$UDE(PLUDWHV9LHWQDP

ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL VALUES: NORTHLAND BRIDGES - SH10 KAEO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, OPTION 5

DECEMBER 2019

North Island Fernbird at SH10- Kaeo Bridge Site.

Consulting Biologists – Established 1972

P.O. Box 2027, Auckland 1140. New Zealand www.Bioresearches.co.nz

ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL VALUES: NORTHLAND BRIDGES - SH10 KAEO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, OPTION 5

PREPARED BY: BIORESEARCHES BABBAGE CONSULTANTS LIMITED 68 BEACH ROAD, AUCKLAND [email protected]

FOR: AURECON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

DATE: DECEMBER 2019

REFERENCE: BIORESEARCHES (2019). ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL VALUES: NORTHLAND BRIDGES – SH10 KAEO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, OPTION 5. REPORT FOR AURECON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED.

COVER ILLUSTRATION: NORTH ISLAND FERNBIRD, IN KAEO RIVER RIPARIAN VEGETATION (10 AUGUST 2017)

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

Assessment of Ecological Values: Northland Bridges – SH10 Kaeo Document title: Bridge Replacement, Option 5. Prepared for: Aurecon New Zealand Limited

Version: Version 5

Date: December 2019

Document name: 17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019

Treffery Barnett M.Sc. (Hons) Authors: Freshwater and Coastal Ecology

Mark Delaney M.Sc. (Hons)

Herpetology and Terrestrial Ecology Wayne Donovan Ph.D. Reviewer: Senior Consulting Scientist Chris Wedding M.Sc. (Hons) Approved for Release: Ecology Manager

REVISION HISTORY

Rev. No. Date Description Author(s) Reviewer Approved T. J. Barnett 1 16 October 2017 Version 1 Graham Don M. Delaney T. J. Barnett 2 24 October 2017 Version 2 T. Hurdley M. Delaney

3 12 December 2017 Version 3 T. J. Barnett Version 4 5 4 September 2019 T. J. Barnett Chris Wedding (Option 5) Version 5 6 19 December 2019 T. J. Barnett Chris Wedding (Option 5)

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

CONTENTS Page

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 SITE OVERVIEW ...... 3

2 ASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 5 2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 5 2.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA ...... 6 2.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO ...... 6 2.4 BIRDS / MANU MĀORI ...... 7 2.5 AQUATIC HABITATS ...... 7

3 EXISITING ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL VALUES...... 9 3.1 Introduction ...... 9 3.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA ...... 9 3.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO ...... 15 3.4 BIRDS / MANU MĀORI ...... 16 3.5 AQUATIC HABITATS ...... 18

4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL VALUES ...... 25 4.1 VEGETATION AND FLORA ...... 25 4.2 LIZARDS / HERPETOFAUNA ...... 27 4.3 BIRDS...... 27 4.4 AQUATIC HABITATS ...... 27 4.5 STORMWATER ...... 28

5 REMOVAL OF THE EXSITING SH10 KAEO BRIDGE ...... 29 5.1 ECOLOGICAL HABITATS ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT SH10 KAEO BRIDGE ...... 29 5.2 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF REMOVING THE CURRENT BRIDGE. ... 33

6 FLOOD MITIGATION...... 34 6.1 FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL ...... 34 6.2 ECOLOGICAL VALUES OF AREA IMPACTED BY FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL.34 6.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL ...... 35

7 OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID, REMEDY & MITIGATE FOR THE NEW BRIDGE & BRIDGE APPROACHES ...... 36 7.1 INTRODUCTION...... 36 7.2 FERNBIRDS ...... 36 7.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO ...... 36 7.4 NATIVE FISH ...... 37 7.5 RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND NATIVE SCRUB EAST OF SH10 ...... 37 7.6 SEDIMENT CONTROL & HABITAT DISTURBANCE ...... 38

8 REFERENCES...... 39 KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

9 APPENDICES ...... 41 Appendix I State Highway 10 Realignment Preferred Option 5 ...... 41 Appendix II Raw Macroinvertebrate Data For Kaeo Bridge Realignment ...... 42 Appendix III Freshwater Fish Database Forms ...... 43 Appendix IV Plant Species List ...... 45 Appendix V Conservation zone adjacent to Kaeo Bridge...... 47 Appendix VI Agreed boundary of the Coastal Marine Area ...... 48

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

1 INTRODUCTION

Bioresearches was commissioned by Aurecon New Zealand Limited to undertake an assessment of ecological values and an assessment of ecological effects of the preferred alignment for the Northland Bridges replacement of the State Highway 10 (SH10) one-lane bridge north of Kaeo Township. This report presents the results of the assessments with reference to Option 5 (the Project).

1.1 SITE OVERVIEW

The preferred alignment would replace the current one-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge, remove the hard right-angle turns on and off the bridge to the east with a roundabout, and realign the highway north and south of the proposed new intersection. The new double lane bridge would cross the Kaeo River approximately 20-40 south (upstream) of the existing bridge before re-joining the current SH10 via the new roundabout intersection.

From the west, the proposed alignment would cross through pasture, drained by artificial watercourses; the Kaeo River riparian management zone; the Kaeo River; the roadside drainage channels and a section of native vegetation east of SH10. As part of the flood mitigation works, the scope also proposes removal of the existing western stop-bank, which will be reconstructed further back, aligning with the bridge approaches. The indicative alignment is illustrated in Figure 1, with further detail provided in Appendix I.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Figure 1. Indicative Re-alignment of SH10 for the proposed two-Lane Bridge north of Kaeo – (Google Earth image and overlay supplied by Aurecon).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

2 ASSESSMENT METHODS

2.1 OVERVIEW

Site visits were carried out on four occasions between 23rd June and 29th September 2017 and on one occasion in May 2019. Two experienced ecologists undertook the ecological assessments of the preliminary alignment on 10th – 11th August, with additional assessments carried out on 28th -29th September 2017. Following the decision to proceed with Option 5 in 2019, an additional assessment was undertaken of the native scrub habitat within the footprint of the proposed roundabout. During the site visits, a botanical assessment was carried out on the habitats long the proposed alignment and opportunistic bird surveys took note of birds seen or heard within the duration of the visit. A hand-searching method was used to survey lizard fauna under any debris at potential habitat sites on the proposed alignment and all aquatic habitats were assessed for the presence of native fish and the ecological values of the habitats.

Ecological values are described in this report as being high, moderate, low or very low and the corresponding assessment of effects are described as high, moderate, minor or negligible. Table 1 provides generalised ecological descriptions that were used to assess values and associated impact scales.

Table 1 Generalised Ecological Descriptors and Corresponding Valuation

Vegetation / Habitat Description Ecological Value Descriptor Vegetation entirely or predominantly exotic pest plants may have some Very Low scattered common natives. Fauna - may support some habitat value to common native fauna (birds and Very Low lizards), though potential habitats are largely occupied by introduced fauna. Aquatic habitats have a combination of very low levels of: shading, hydrologic heterogeneity, aquatic habitat diversity, and riparian integrity. As well as Very Low potentially high levels of anaerobic processes.

Vegetation planted young (<20 years) native vegetation comprising common Low species. Vegetation is generally of small size (<15m tall) Fauna - potential habitat likely to support some common native fauna (birds Low and lizards). Aquatic habitats have a combination of low levels of: shading, hydrologic heterogeneity, aquatic habitat diversity, and riparian integrity. As well as Low potentially moderate to high levels of anaerobic processes.

Vegetation naturally regenerating kānuka/ broadleaf forest with understorey. Moderate Fauna - potential habitat likely to support common native fauna. Some Moderate Nationally 'At Risk' species may potentially occur.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Aquatic habitats have a combination of moderate levels of: shading, hydrologic heterogeneity, aquatic habitat diversity, and riparian integrity. As well as Moderate potentially moderate to low levels of anaerobic processes.

Vegetation naturally regenerating podocarp or broadleaved forest with mature High trees. Fauna - potential habitat likely to support common native and Nationally 'At High Risk' or 'Threatened' fauna. Aquatic habitats have high levels of shading, low levels of suspended sediments and high hydrologic heterogeneity, such as pools, riffles, runs, chutes and High cascades. Aquatic habitats likely to support (or has records for) a high diversity of fish species, including Nationally 'At Risk' species.

2.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA

Two specialist ecologists assessed the vegetation and potential fauna habitats within the Project area using a combination of desktop and field inspections. Site visits were undertaken of the entire Project area to ascertain the actual or potential presence of indigenous vegetation and fauna habitats.

2.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO

All indigenous lizards are protected under the Wildlife Act 1953. Nine species of native lizard (skink and gecko) could be expected within the Kaeo area based on historic distributions and the Department of Conservation’s Amphibian and Reptile Distribution Scheme (ARDS) database (Table 2).

Six of these species are classified as nationally “At-Risk” by the Department of Conservation, (Hitchmough et al. 2016).

One introduced species, the plague skink (rainbow skink, Lampropholis delicata), is classified as an “Unwanted Organism” by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) under the Biosecurity Act (1993).

Table 2 Threat classification of native lizards expected from the Kaeo Region. Species Threat Category Threat Status Copper skink (Oligosoma aeneum) Not Threatened Ornate skink (Oligosoma ornatum) At Risk Declining Moko skink (Oligosoma moco) At Risk Relict Shore skink (Oligosoma smithi)* Not Threatened Striped skink (Oligosoma striatum) At Risk Declining Common gecko (Woodworthia maculata) Not Threatened Forest gecko (Mokopirirakau granulatus) At Risk Declining Pacific gecko (Dactylocnemis pacificus) At Risk Relict Elegant gecko (Naultinus elegans) At Risk Declining *Strictly a coastal species Note - Threat category as per Hitchmough et al. (2016). KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Desktop evaluations were carried out involving a review of the Department of Conservation’s Amphibian and Reptile Distribution Scheme (ARDS) database as well as an analysis of aerial and topographic imagery for the presence of tracks and vegetation cover.

An assessment of the habitat values for native lizards along the proposed alignment was undertaken on 10th August 2017 and 24th November 2017 by an experienced and DOC-permitted herpetologist (Wildlife Authority 37604-FAU); and within the additional area of Option 5 native vegetation impinged by the proposed roundabout on 30 May 2019.

The alignment was assessed visually to determine the suitability of existing vegetation as potential habitat for native lizards. Where available, dense vegetation, log piles and debris, under which native lizards might shelter were searched for the presence of lizards.

2.4 BIRDS / MANU MĀORI

Birds utilising the survey area were recorded incidentally, and identified by either via their song or direct observation during the site visits and ecological assessments.

Surveys for additional cryptic wetland bird species that would potentially be present in the area were carried out by inspecting for the presence of signs (e.g. footprints, feathers) in the intertidal areas and wetlands on 10th August and 29th September and by using the relevant playback (lure) tapes for each species. Playbacks were conducted during early morning on 10th and 11th August, and again in September, when the birds are nest building, beginning to breed and more likely to respond to playback tapes. Each playback involved playing taped calls of banded rail, spotless crake, marsh crake and Australasian bittern.

All birds seen and/or heard were recorded.

2.5 AQUATIC HABITATS

2.5.1 Introduction Three broad types of aquatic habitat were present within and immediately either side of the proposed Option 5 alignment: x Farm drainage channels and roadside drainage channels – both artificial and modified natural watercourses; x Estuarine environment of the Kaeo River; and x Salt marsh habitats within the riparian management zone of the Kaeo River.

2.5.2 Methods A site inspection and walkover of all of the aquatic habitats within the designation was undertaken on 10th and 11th August 2017. Field notes, measurements and photographs were taken of the freshwater habitats. Only one site, Pahuhu Creek, which is no longer within the Project area, was

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

identified as meeting the criteria required to carry out a more detailed Stream Ecological Assessment (SEV).

Macroinvertebrates were sampled from a drainage channel in the centre of the main paddock of the new alignment, to obtain semi-quantitative data in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment’s current “Protocols for Sampling Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams” (Stark et al., 2001). Sampling was undertaken using protocol ‘C2: soft-bottomed, semi-quantitative’ in the paddock drainage channel. The macroinvertebrate samples were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol (ethanol), returned to the laboratory and sorted (using protocol ‘P3: full count with sub-sampling option’ (Stark et al., 2001)). Macroinvertebrates were then identified to the lowest practicable level and counted to enable biotic indices to be calculated.

Three biotic indices were calculated, namely the number of taxa, the percentage of Ephemeroptera (mayflies); Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) recorded in a sample (%EPT) and the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI). EPT are three orders of insects that are generally considered to be sensitive to organic or nutrient enrichment, but exclude Oxyethira and Paroxyethira as these taxa are not sensitive and can proliferate in degraded habitats. The MCI is based on the average sensitivity score for individual taxa recorded within a sample. Sensitivity scores for taxa in soft-bottomed (sb) streams (Stark & Maxted, 2007a) are used where the substrate is silt and mud- dominated, such as the farm drainage channels. MCI-hb and MCI-sb scores of: >120 are indicative of excellent habitat quality; 100 – 119 are indicative of good habitat quality; 80 – 99 are indicative of fair habitat quality; and < 80 are indicative of poor habitat quality (Stark & Maxted, 2007b). Semi-Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index (SQMCI) scores were also used and take into account the relative abundance of each scoring taxon. The raw macroinvertebrate data are presented in Appendix II.

To sample fish communities within the roadside drainage channels within the Option 5 designation and nearby streams and ponds; up to three fyke nets and six Gee’s minnow traps were deployed overnight, dependent upon the size and depth of the pond or watercourse. The nets and traps were baited with marmite, removed the following morning with minimal disturbance and all captured fish were identified, measured for length or size estimated and counted before being returned to their habitats.

Freshwater fish database forms were completed for each site and are presented in Appendix III.

In situ spot measurements of basic water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity) were undertaken in the roadside drains, nearby stream and the ponds, to ensure there was sufficient oxygen to enable the nets to be set without fish mortality from low concentrations of oxygen. Measurements were undertaken using a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) Professional Series combined dissolved oxygen/temperature/conductivity meter. The majority of the water quality measurements were collected in August and reflect the cooler conditions of winter.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

3 EXISITING ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL VALUES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The key ecological areas, as an outcome of the field surveys, and as discussed below are summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Key ecological habitats adjacent to the proposed Kaeo Bridge realignment.

The key ecological habitats as summarised in Figure 2 are x grazed pasture; x drainage channels and roadside drains (blue arrows showing direction of water flow); x Kaeo River; x riparian vegetation (green); x District Plan Conservation Zone (red); x long grass habitat; and x native scrub habitat.

3.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA

3.2.1 Introduction The bulk of the Project area was occupied by grazed pasture on the more extensive western side of Kaeo River, with patchy areas of native vegetation present adjacent to the Kaeo River, grasslands and

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

amenity plantings in the vicinity of the eastern bridge approaches on SH10 and an area of native scrub contiguous with a larger area of native vegetation to the east of SH10.

Overall, the majority of the existing environment is characterised by a highly modified rural setting. Consequently, with the exception of the riparian vegetation (adjacent to the river) and the small area of native vegetation within the footprint of the proposed roundabout, the ecological values are generally low.

3.2.2 Western Pasture and Roadside Drains From the west the proposed SH10 alignment is through pasture, including farm drainage channels and roadside drains, up to the riparian vegetation of the Kaeo River (Photo 1). The pasture was wet, stocked with cattle and heavily pugged south of SH10. With the exception of a single mature tōtara (Podocarpus totara) at the southern extent of the Project area, no native trees or shrubs were present in or near the alignment west of the Kaeo River riparian management zone.

Photo 1. Pasture habitat of proposed SH10 re-alignment through the main paddock.

The roadside drains and farm drainage channels were straight, open and contained a mix of macrophyte species in the slower moving or stagnant sections. The macrophytes were dominated by exotic weed species including water celery (Apium nodiflorum), parrots feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), ferny azolla (Azolla pinnata), starwort (Callitriche stagnalis), duckweed (Lemna disperma) and long strings of filamentous green algae. In addition the farm drainage channels south of SH10 contained small patches of areas of water pepper (Persicaria hydropiper) and the tall spike sedge or kutakuta (Eleocharis sphacelata). (Photos 2 and 3).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 2. Roadside drain – within the alignment west of bridge.

Photo 3. Typical pasture drain (west of bridge)

3.2.3 Kaeo River Riparian Zone and Upper Intertidal Vegetation The Kaeo River within the Project area is tidal.

The upper intertidal was characterised by a sparse cover of typical coastal species, with mangrove (Avicennia marina subsp. australasica), sea rush or wiwi (Juncus kraussii var. australiensis) and jointed rush or oioi (Apodasmia similis) grading up the bank to a narrow band of riparian vegetation comprised of mixed shrubs, rushes and wetland plants, and then into long pasture grasses on the

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

western embankment and a narrow riparian strip between the river and the road on the eastern embankment (Photo 4).

Sharp rush (Juncus acutus), saltmarsh ribbonwood or makamaka (Plagianthus divaricatus), mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), with occasional gorse (Ulex europaeus) and wattle (Paraserianthes lophanthaecies) formed a low (up to 1.5m tall) shrub zone adjacent to the river. In the low-lying, more open areas salt marsh dominated by mats of the herb bachelor’s button (Cotula coronopifolia), remuremu (Selliera radicans), shore primrose or mākoako (Samolus repens) and the slender club rush (Isolepis cernua var. cernua) link the riparian shrub vegetation and the saline river environment (Photo 5).

The Kaeo River channel runs close to the eastern bank and although mangroves are only occasionally present within the designation, turfing salt-marsh species are present throughout the roadside drain. On the crest of the eastern river bank the riparian vegetation comprised saltmarsh ribbonwood, flax (Phormium tenax), māpou (Myrsine australis), pohuehue (Muehlenbeckia complexa), kānuka (Kunzea robusta), and karamu (Coprosma robusta) , which occur with a patchy distribution, and several large pōhutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) adjacent to the existing bridge (Photo 6).

Exotic weed and pasture species; gorse, sharp rush, pampas (Cortaderia selloana), montbretia (Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora), woolly nightshade (Solanum mauritianum), and kikuyu (Cenchrus clandestinus) are also occasional or common within the narrow eastern riparian zone between the river and the road.

Photo 4. Low lying riparian vegetation at proposed Kaeo River crossing.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 5. Salt marsh habitat in the Kaeo River riparian zone (south of the proposed alignment).

Photo 6. Riparian habitat on eastern river bank

3.2.4 Grassland and Amenity Plantings East of the River

Immediately south of the proposed alignment the eastern bank riparian area widens forming a grassland and rushland floodplain between the river and the road. Native trees and shrubs on this floodplain immediately south of the alignment are occasional small pōhutukawa, mostly adjacent to

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

the river, kānuka, karamu, flax, hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium) and cabbage tree (Cordyline australis). All of which are common in the region.

3.2.5 Native Scrub East Of Sh10 The proposed roundabout and cut and fill batters south of the roundabout will impinge into the native scrub habitat east of SH10.

Immediately adjacent to the road the ground is low and comparatively level, and then within approximately 4m steps up forming a narrow platform before ascending steeply up the hill. The vegetation close to the road either forms part of the roadside drainage system or is dry and dominated by exotic weed species and grasses (kikuyu and mercer grass, Paspalum distichum), montbretia, blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.), privet (Ligustrum sinense), pampas, pine (Pinus species) with occasional native species comprised of flax hangehange, ponga and mamaku. The roadside drain includes patches of oioi, slender club rush, and raupō (Typha orientalis) to the south.

Away from the road, the exotic weed species were replaced by native trees, shrubs and ferns. The native trees and shrubs within and immediately adjacent to the works area were dominated by mānuka, kānuka, a variety of Coprosma species and tree ferns, ponga, mamaku, whekī (Dicksonia squarrosa) , with tānekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides), tōtara, and towai occasional, forming the canopy. A number of smaller native ferns and grasses were present in the understory, dominated by the palm leaf fern, kiokio (Blechnum novae-zelandiae), and including hound’s tongue fern, pāraharaha (Microsorum pustulatum), climbing thread fern (Icarus filiformis), fragrant fern (Microsorum scandens), paukarimu (Lycopodium deuterodensum) and Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. hirtellus. The vegetation was thick with a good recruitment of seedlings and saplings and the ground cover was spongy with decaying leaves and other vegetation. Despite the dominance of weed species in the initial 5-8m adjacent to SH10, the botanical value of this area of vegetation is considered moderate. As naturally regenerating kānuka/broadleaf forest with over 30 native species of trees, shrubs, ferns and grasses there was representation of various botanical tiers and therefore supported a good diversity of naturally occurring native vegetation.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 7. Native scrub within roundabout footprint

3.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO

On the western side of Kaeo River, within the Project area, the vast majority of the vegetation comprised grazed pasture, which is considered unsuitable habitat for native lizards.

The remaining vegetation within the western side of the Project area consisted of low riparian native shrubs, located within a boggy area that is either tidal or inundated regularly with floods, and therefore considered unsuitable habitat for native lizards.

A hand search of potential skink and non-arboreal gecko habitat was undertaken within the grasslands and dryer habitat areas. No native lizards or signs were observed.

East of the river, within the works footprint of the proposed roundabout, suitable habitat within the Project area was identified for skinks and arboreal geckos. There were rocky outcrops and the vegetation was variable and is contiguous with a much larger area of established native vegetation and trees. Although part of the area, particularly immediately adjacent to SH10 is low and is regularly inundated with floods, and a hand search of potential skink and non-arboreal gecko habitat observed no signs of native lizards, the vegetation transitions as the ground rises with a sub-canopy and larger trees that provide for favourable habitat (which is contiguous with the native vegetation on the upper slopes of the hill).

The habitat quality for native lizards within the Project area was considered ‘low’ to the west of the Kaeo River and ‘moderate’ to the east of the river.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

3.4 BIRDS / MANU MĀORI

Species of endemic, native and introduced birds recorded within the survey area during the field investigations are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Bird species recorded in the survey area during field investigations August & Sept 2017

Common name Scientific name Conservation Status Australian magpie Gymnorhina tibicen Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Australasian shoveler Anas rhynchotis Not threatened Native Black backed gull; karoro Larus dominicanus Not threatened Native Black shag*** Phalacrocorax carbo Naturally Uncommon Native Blackbird Turdus merula Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Common myna Acridotheres tristis Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Eastern rosella Platycercus eximius Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Fantail; pīwakawaka Rhipidura fuliginosa placabilis Not threatened Endemic Fernbird * Bowdleria punctata vealeae Declining Endemic Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Grey warbler; riroriro Gerygone igata Not threatened Endemic House sparrow Passer domesticus Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Introduced and Naturalised Introduced NZ kingfisher; kotare Todiramphus sanctus vagans Not threatened native Paradise shelduck Tardorna variegata Not threatened Endemic Pied shag ** Phalacrocorax varius varius Recovering Native pied stilt Himantopus himantopus Not threatened Native Pukeko Porphyrio melanotus Not threatened Native Shining cuckoo; Chrysococcyx lucidus lucidus Not threatened Native pīpīwharauroa Song thrush Turdus philomelos Introduced and Naturalised Introduced Spur-winged plover Vanellus miles novaehollandiae Not threatened Native Swamp harrier Circus approximans Not threatened Native Tūī Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae Not threatened Endemic novaeseelandiae Welcome swallow Hirundo tahitica neoxena Not threatened Native White faced heron Egretta novaehollandiae Not threatened Native * At Risk: declining ** At Risk: recovering *** At Risk: naturally uncommon

A total of 25 species were recorded utilising the survey area comprising five endemic species, fernbird, fantail, grey warbler, paradise shelduck, tūī; and twelve native species. Seven bird species recorded were introduced.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

The majority of the native and endemic species recorded in the survey area are not listed as “threatened” or “at risk” in the national context (Robertson et al. 2017). The North Island Fernbird, is listed as “At Risk: declining”, the pied shag as “At Risk: Recovering”, and the black shag as “At Risk: naturally uncommon”.

In addition, native or endemic species that have been recorded in the close vicinity of the survey area include morepork and kereru (personal observation), and little shag, little black shag, Australasian bittern, banded dotterel and royal spoonbill (Ornithological Society records, Table 4). Of these the ‘Nationally Critical’ Australasian bittern, was recorded over the Kaeo River mouth and ‘At Risk: Recovering’ Northern New Zealand dotterel at the river mouth (approximately 2500m downstream of the site). The “At Risk: naturally uncommon” little black shag and royal spoonbill have been recorded in the Upper Whangaroa Harbour.

Table 4. Native bird species recorded in the vicinity of the survey area.

Common name Scientific name Conservation Comments Status Australasian Botaurus poiciloptilus Nationally Native Kaeo River Mouth, bittern Critical Ornithological Society Records Little black shag Phalacrocorax Naturally Native Upper Whangaroa sulcirostris Uncommon Harbour, Ornithological Society Records Little shag Phalacrocorax Not Native Upper Whangaroa melanoleucos threatened Harbour, Ornithological Society Records Morepork; ruru Ninox novaeseelandiae Not Native Heard & observed in novaeseelandiae threatened nearby bush NZ dotterel Charadrius obscurus Recovering Endemic Kaeo River Mouth, Ornithological Society Records NZ pigeon; Hemiphaga Not Endemic Heard & observed in kereru novaeseelandiae threatened nearby bush Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia Naturally Native Kaeo River Mouth, Uncommon Ornithological Society Records

Of the bird species recorded utilising the survey area, the North Island fernbird, is the most vulnerable to the realignment of the Kaeo Bridge. Fernbird were recorded during every assessment on both sides of the Kaeo River; in the riparian vegetation and shrubs adjacent to the river (cover photo) and the low vegetation near the ponds on 253 SH 10. On the 29th of September, a bird was observed carrying material, assumed for nesting.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

3.5 AQUATIC HABITATS

3.5.1 Introduction The major aquatic habitats within the Project area comprise: x farm drainage channels and western roadside drains; x eastern roadside drains; and x Kaeo River, riparian zone and wetlands.

3.5.2 Farm Drainage Channels and Western Roadside Drains West of the current SH10 Bridge, the designation includes: x the southern end of farm drainage channels, running from the north to south, flowing into the north side SH10 roadside drain (Chainage 40 to 80); x the north side SH10 roadside drain(Chainage 40 to 100); x crossing and batters in the south side SH10 roadside drain (Chainage 10 – 220); and x approximately four farm drainage channels within the paddocks west of Kaeo River (which drain to the south side SH10 roadside drain).

The western roadside drains are managed with a tidal floodgate near the western abutment of the current bridge ensuring that there is no back flow from the tidal reaches of the Kaeo River.

The roadside drains and farm drains north of SH10 are straightened, open, unshaded drainage channels. The drains and channels ranged from 0.2 to 2m wide (approximately 1m wide on average), each formed a long run with no hydrologic variation (Photo 2). The substrate and banks were either soft (silt and clay) or where modified and stabilised for road protection or access, were hard with gravel, concrete, rip-rap rock or gabion baskets. Macrophytes were common, but patchy in distribution with dense areas dominated by exotic weed species (parrots feather, azolla, starwort) in the more stagnant areas of the drains on the north side of SH10 (Photo 8).

The roadside drain south of SH10, where the proposed alignment diverges from the existing alignment, was approximately 1m wide, straight, incised open and clear (Photo 2).

Within the main paddock along the SH10 realignment, the farm drainage channels formed open runs approximately 1 – 1.8m wide and up to 0.5m deep. The substrate was clay and silt and cattle had access throughout the area. There was no riparian vegetation providing shading and in patches where the flow was low, the substrate was anoxic (Photo 9).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 8. Northern roadside drain and northern farm drainage channel.

Photo 9. Typical farm drainage channel within the main paddock

A sweep sample for aquatic macroinvertebrates was collected from the largest of the farm drainage channels in the main paddock, in the vicinity of the proposed alignment.

The macroinvertebrates showed a low species diversity with eleven species recorded. The fauna was dominated by small ostracods (seed shrimps), 72%, and non-biting midges or bloodworms (Chironomus) 12%. No sensitive taxa with MCI scores greater than 8 were recorded and the MCI

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

score (and SQMCI scores were both very low, indicative of ‘poor’ quality habitat or habitat with “probable severe pollution” (Stark & Maxted, 2007b).

Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) were found in the farm drainage channels and throughout the roadside drains. Mosquitofish are an exotic fish species. They are small, aggressive and very tolerant of poor water quality. Their legal designation is “unwanted organism” (DOC, 2017).

The farm drainage channels and roadside drain within the designation were well maintained artificial watercourses. All the farm drainage channels and roadside drains that bisect the project area meet the Northland Regional Council criteria (NRC (2016), Consolidated Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland) for an artificial watercourse.

3.5.3 Eastern Roadside Drains The eastern roadside drains up to the proposed crossing were assessed for the presence of mudfish, specifically Northland mudfish (Neochanna heleios), even though the site is outside of the restricted area where they are found (DOC, 2014). Four Gee-minnow traps were set in the drains and left overnight. The river side road drain was tidal at the northern end (closer to the existing bridge) with an average width of 0.4m, average depth 0.3m and a maximum depth greater than 1.2m, adjacent to the culvert under SH10 (Photo 10). Turfing salt marsh vegetation, oioi and sea rush were common in the drain immediately south of the proposed alignment.

Two species of native fish, common bully (Gobiomorphus cotidianus) and redfin bully (G. huttoni) were caught in the traps. The exotic mosquito fish was also found in the roadside drain. Additional traps were set in the roadside drain on the opposite side of the road (eastern native scrub side), mosquitofish were abundant but no native fish were caught.

Photo 10. Eastern roadside drain at high tide (within the designation).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

3.5.4 Kaeo River, Riparian Zone and Wetlands The Kaeo River is tidal, flood prone and is known to overtop the banks.

The river forms a long run draining to the Whangaroa Harbour, about 2km downstream of the proposed alignment. At the midpoint of the alignment the river is 50m wide (Photo 11) and when water levels are low (i.e. low recent rainfall combined with low tide) gravel bars are exposed in centre stream (Photo 12).

The banks are clay, mostly vertical with up to a 1.5m drop to the river bed. In places the banks have been undermined by water flow. The substrate is a combination of silt and gravel, with the banks comprised of silt and loamy clay, the upper intertidal with a thick layer of fine silt over harder muddy sand and much of the river bed gravel (Photo 13).

The river showed clear zonation pattern between the low tide and high tide extents on the river bank with muddy intertidal and occasional mangrove, grading through a band of mud then a clear line of oioi (Photo 14) grading to other salt marsh plants (Section 3.2.3, Photo 4) and terrestrial vegetation .

Photo 11. Kaeo River at proposed bridge crossing at high tide

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 12. Kaeo River at proposed bridge crossing at low tide

Photo 13. Kaeo River western bank upper intertidal.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 14. Upper intertidal plant zonation –jointed wire rush oioi

The river bed was very mobile with gravel, making an undesirable habitat for edible shellfish. Hand searches for edible shellfish were carried out in the vicinity of the proposed crossing and downstream of the proposed crossing at low tide. No edible shellfish were found.

Kaēo, the freshwater mussel from which the town takes its name, are recorded in the freshwater habitats upstream of the Project area. Although searched for, kaēo were not found, and were not expected to be found, in the Project area as the river is tidal and periodically saline at this point, making the habitat unsuitable for the freshwater mussel. Any shell found in the tidal areas would have washed down from the upper catchment as the shellfish cannot survive outside of freshwater lakes and rivers.

Two species of native galaxid fish (inanga and banded kōkopu) are known from the catchment. These native fish are diadromous i.e. as part of their life-cycle they migrate between the river and the sea, and form the major component of the “whitebait” that migrate from the sea up the Kaeo River in early spring.

3.5.5 Ponds and adjacent aquatic habitat Immediately south of the proposed bridge, within the residential property at 253 SH 10, Kaeo, several large brackish ponds are linked to the Kaeo River via a steeply incised, somewhat sinuous channel, which allows some exchange of water at the top of the tide.

To investigate the presence of native freshwater fish, three fyke nets and six Gee’s minnow traps were left in the ponds overnight and retrieved the following morning. Five species of native fish were recorded from the ponds. Shortfin and longfin eel (Anguilla australis and A. dieffenbachii), including adults and juveniles, common and redfin bully, and inanga (Galaxias maculatus).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Longfin eel and inanga bully are listed on the NZ threat classification list as “At Risk: declining”. These species are diadromous (i.e. as part of their life-cycle they migrate between the river and the sea).

Records for native fish species that are present in the Kaeo River catchment were obtained from the NZ Freshwater Fish Database. Additional species recorded as present in the catchment included giant bully (Gobiomorphus gobioides, listed as “At Risk: naturally uncommon”), banded kōkopu (Galaxias fasciatus), and smelt (Retropinna retropinna).

3.5.6 Aquatic Habitat Summary The major aquatic habitats within the Kaeo SH10 bridge realignment designation comprise: x farm drainage channels and western roadside drains; x eastern roadside drains; and x Kaeo River, riparian zone and wetlands.

Immediately adjacent to the realignment were a series of brackish ponds within the property at 253 SH10, Kaeo, which provided additional information on the use of the area by diadromous native fish, specifically the presence of the “At risk species” longfin eel and inanga.

The farm drainage channels and western roadside drains provided poor quality aquatic habitat. The drainage channels were open, unshaded and most were exposed to stock.

The eastern roadside drain, immediately adjacent to the Kaeo River provides habitat for native freshwater fish. The water levels in the drains vary daily with the tides and fluctuate with rainfall in the catchment, and will back up to the area included in the designation boundary.

The Kaeo River and the Kaeo River riparian zone within the proposed alignment have high ecological value for fish migration, specifically for the diadromous native freshwater fish in the catchment, and as habitat for the ‘at risk’ fernbird which is nesting in the vicinity. On the western bank the riparian vegetation is narrow and patchy with areas of saltmarsh wetland and transitional riparian vegetation from the tidal margins of the Kaeo River, through mangroves and rushes to coastal terrestrial vegetation (salt-marsh ribbon wood, flax, mānuka), providing a variable and high value ecological zone between the river and the farmland. On the eastern bank, the riparian vegetation is narrower and weed species are more prevalent, but the presence of salt marsh habitat associated with the roadside channels, native freshwater fish within the channels and the ecological linkage provided by the riparian vegetation result in the aquatic habitat value assessed as moderate.

The brackish ponds on 253 SH10, Kaeo, adjacent to the proposed realignment contain a population of native fish including ‘at risk’ longfin eel and inanga.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL VALUES

4.1 VEGETATION AND FLORA

The vegetation within the Project areas to the west of Kaeo Bridge is predominant pasture and to the east of the river, is predominantly a combination of road side reserve and native scrub. The vegetation to the west has low botanical values, whereas the vegetation to the east of SH 10 and adjacent to the south-eastern abutment of the existing bridge have moderate botanical values.

The riparian zone of the Kaeo River, with mixed exotic and common coastal native vegetation have moderate values, but within the proposed designation the extent of the native vegetation in riparian area is patchy, weed infested and very limited in extent.

Land disturbance activities within the designation will result in the loss of vegetation in these areas. The extent of the proposed works is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. With the exception of the riparian vegetation and the potential loss of several mature pōhutukawa, towai and kānuka on the eastern side of SH10, the effect of the loss of the exotic vegetation within the designation will be less than minor.

Adverse effects of the project on the native vegetation on the eastern side of the river can be mitigated by avoidance of the pōhutukawa near the south eastern bridge abutment and replacement planting of ecosourced native trees and shrubs at a 1:1 ratio within the designation (or acquired land), abutting the Kaeo River riparian zone. The effect of the loss of the native bush vegetation will be less than minor in the context of the continuous bush habitat. The loss of bush will comprise about 350m² once the bridge is operational and about 1000m² during the construction phase (Figure 4). The contiguous area of bush is over 1400ha and the total impact area comprises less than 0.001% of the total habitat, two-thirds of which will be reinstated. The edge of the new road will be relocated to a maximum of 15m from the existing edge (at the roundabout). The flora and fauna of the newly established edge will likely be similar to the current edge, and with the replacement plantings and weed control there is potential for an improvement in the quality of the road edge habitats.

The ecological effects of the loss of the area of the riparian vegetation will be minor, due to the limited extent and the dominance by weed species, and could be reduced to less than minor with mitigation in the form of enhancement planting of the riparian area either side of the proposed bridge alignment, and on the new western flood control embankment.

The project area is zoned rural production and the only area with specific conservation zoning on the Far North Maps is the 2500m2 area on west bank immediately south of the existing bridge, protecting the 20m riparian area between the solitary tōtara and the roadside drain near the western bridge abutment (Appendix V).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Figure 3. Estimate extent of new bridge impact areas west of Kaeo River including a 5m offset (Aurecon, October 2019).

Figure 4. Estimate extent of new bridge impact areas east of Kaeo River including a 5m offset (Aurecon, October 2019).

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

4.2 LIZARDS / HERPETOFAUNA

The habitat quality for native lizards within the Project area to the west of the river was considered ‘low’ and no lizards were recorded from the habitat searches, indicating native lizards are absent or if present, native lizard abundance is likely to be very low. East of SH10, within the area of native scrub the habitat for herpetofauna is assessed as ‘moderate’, and although no lizards (skinks or geckos) were observed the potential for their presence is high. The potential adverse effects of the Project on native lizards and their habitat values are considered moderate, and will need to be mitigated.

4.3 BIRDS

Native and exotic birds utilise the habitats provided by the pasture, riparian vegetation and trees within the designation and wider area for foraging and roosting. Fernbirds utilise, and are likely to be nesting in the riparian vegetation within the designation.

Only part of these wider areas would be affected under the realignment and those areas affected by the works are mostly highly disturbed (by cattle and as a private residence) and only a very small portion of the available bird habitat. With the exception of the fernbird, the potential adverse effects of vegetation removal or disturbance (noise, vibration, dust) associated with the Project area, on the birds are negligible.

Construction effects that result in fernbird nest destruction or abandonment would be a significant adverse effect. These effects could be avoided by discouragement of birds from nesting in these areas prior to works. Fernbirds utilise dense wetland and low riparian vegetation and breed in spring and summer. Vegetation clearance of the preferred dense wetland and shrubby vegetation within the designation boundary, after the summer breeding season and before the end of July, after which time the birds begin prospecting for nest sites, would ensure that no nests are established in the project area during construction.

Replacement and/or enhancement planting of the riparian areas on both embankments within the designation, particularly with saltmarsh ribbon wood and/or mānuka with a ground cover of rushes and sedges, would provide additional suitable nesting habitat for fernbird in the long-term.

4.4 AQUATIC HABITATS

The principal activities associated with the construction of the Project that may affect freshwater and estuarine habitats and aquatic organisms are: x Roadside drain and pastoral drainage channels modification through filling or piping; x Loss of saltmarsh habitat; x Accidental petroleum hydrocarbon and other contaminant spills; and x Earthworks and associated water treatment and discharge.

Works close to Kaeo River have the potential to create sedimentation from disturbed soils. Stringent erosion and sediment controls should be implemented that minimise sediment discharge to the Kaeo KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

River. Measures should include minimising the footprint, stabilising exposed areas susceptible to erosion (using a geotextile membrane, hay or grassing), covering soil stockpiles and timing of works to limit soil exposure during heavy rain events.

The Kaeo River is prone to flooding and carrying high sediment loads during rain events, and provided stringent controls are utilised on the site, the aquatic ecological effects of sedimentation from the site on the river should be less than minor.

With the exception of the Kaeo River the watercourses within the designation are highly modified, maintained for flood control and have low ecological values. Provided the effects on native fish in the eastern drains are mitigated, the aquatic ecological effects of the modification, reclamation and /or realignment of these drainage channels will be less than minor.

Modification of the eastern roadside drain between the river and SH10 (which is directly connected to the Kaeo River) has the potential to adversely affect fish and fish habitat during the construction phase and operational phase. To mitigate the effects on native fish, native fish recovery and relocation should occur prior to any works being undertaken by a suitably qualified freshwater ecologist.

Kaeo River is highly mobile and flood prone. Movement of juvenile native fish from the sea in late winter to early spring could be adversely effected by construction of the bridge piles and batters if the works were to occur at this time. To mitigate the effects of the construction effects on the upstream whitebait migration, works within the river should be limited during the peak of the whitebait run, usually September to October.

There are fragmented patches of salt marsh habitat within the designation on both banks of the Kaeo River. The salt marsh vegetation is a mix of native species and the exotic sharp rush (Juncus acutus), a pest plant. Provided the reconstructed western embankment under and near the proposed bridge abutments are profiled to allow for the establishment of salt marsh and replanted with ecosourced, native salt marsh plants, the ecological effect of the loss of several small patches of salt marsh vegetation within the designation will be less than minor.

4.5 STORMWATER

The effects of stormwater on the ecology of the Projects area will be addressed in detail once the detailed design for the Project is available.

Stormwater discharges from roads have the potential to increase concentrations of contaminants in the streams downstream of stormwater discharges, primarily hydrocarbons and trace metals. The realignment of SH10 and widening of the bridge to two lanes should not result in an increase in these contaminants over and above the current levels. A thorough best practical option analysis will be undertaken to determine the best option for ensuring that any water quality effects are appropriately managed.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

5 REMOVAL OF THE EXSITING SH10 KAEO BRIDGE

5.1 ECOLOGICAL HABITATS ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT SH10 KAEO BRIDGE

The main ecological habitats surrounding the current bridge abutments comprises x Kaeo River; x Upper intertidal of the Kaeo River; and x Riparian management zone of the Kaeo River.

The SH10 Kaeo Bridge is tidal and provides the boundary for the Coastal Marine Area as agreed by Far North District Council, Northland Regional Council and DoC (refer Appendix VI).

At high tide the water flow is deep and runs from bank to bank (Photo 15). At low tide the western half of the river is shallow and can have extensive areas of the bed exposed (depending on upstream rainfall) (Photos 16 and 17). The majority of the low tide water flow runs from the middle of the bridge and to the east. The substrate is mobile and comprises silty gravel (Photo 18) with extensive areas exposed to the south of the bridge. Hand searches and visual inspection of the piles showed no evidence of edible shellfish resources. As discussed in Section 3.5.4 (Kaeo River) the river is tidal at this point and is therefore unsuitable for the kāeo, freshwater mussel, which is known to occur upstream in the freshwater habitats.

Photo 15. Kaeo River at high tide, view south from bridge, and tidal gate at western bridge abutment.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 16. Kaeo River at low tide near SH10 bridge, view south (upstream) from western bank and riparian Conservation Zone.

Photo 17. SH10 Kaeo Bridge western abutment.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 18. Gravel substrate on river bed.

The upper intertidal is soft and steep, showing a clear zonation of mudcrab (Helice crassa), with occasional patches of salt marsh plants dominated by Samolus repens on the western abutment (Photo 19) and oioi and sea rush near the eastern abutment Photos 6 and 20). Mangroves and mangrove seedlings are present in the upper intertidal of the western abutment.

Photo 19. Soft upper intertidal at base of bridge abutment.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Photo 20. SH10 Kaeo Bridge riparian vegetation at eastern abutment.

The riparian vegetation on the western bank was depauperate, dominated by gorse, which had recently been sprayed, and grasses. Several liquidambar had been planted on the top of stopbank immediately adjacent to the road. On the eastern bank, several pōhutukawa are established immediately south of the bridge, with rushes and flax immediately north of the bridge. The eastern riparian zone was very narrow, bounded by Whangaroa Road to the north and SH10 to the south.

Immediately south of the western bridge abutment is the channel for the tidal gate, for the roadside drains and farm drainage channels (Photos 15 and 21), and the riparian Conservation Zone (Appendix V, Photo 16).

Photo 21. Tidal gate at western bridge abutment – High tide

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

5.2 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF REMOVING THE CURRENT BRIDGE.

Removal of the bridge and abutments will result in the loss of a very limited area of low quality riparian vegetation. Removal of the abutments will require the reestablishment of banks of the river and ecological effects of the loss of the small area of vegetation would be minor and could be reduced to less than minor with replanting the banks and enhancing the existing riparian margin immediately adjacent to the works area.

Removal of the piles and the methodology for works in the river will be provided in the detailed design. Potential adverse ecological effects of the removal of the bridge on the river are similar to those from constructing the new bridge, refer Section 4.4, and are: x Increase in sedimentation; x Accidental petroleum hydrocarbon spills (and other materials) that could contaminate the water; x Avoidance behaviour by migrating whitebait species during the late winter to spring; x Loss or damage to habitats adjacent to the works area from the movement of heavy machinery; and x Deconstruction debris in the Kaeo River.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

6 FLOOD MITIGATION

6.1 FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL

As part of the flood mitigation it is proposed to remove the existing western embankment and move it back to the level of the proposed new bridge western abutment.

The proposal for flood mitigation is illustrated in Figure 5 and will require the widening of the river either side of the new bridge’s western abutment, which will result in: x removal of approximately 180m lineal of mangroves and riparian vegetation on the western embankment; x excavation of the approximately 4500m² of embankment and land behind the embankment on the western side of the river; and x reinstatement of the embankment after providing for a wider area within river flood plain.

Figure 5. Proposed flood mitigation works area (aqua).

6.2 ECOLOGICAL VALUES OF AREA IMPACTED BY FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL.

The dominant habitat types within the proposed flood mitigation area are illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 5 are: x Riverine - in the Kaeo River; x Intertidal - mangrove and salt marsh;

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

x Riparian – spike rush, salt-marsh ribbon wood, pasture grass with areas of salt marsh, rushes and sedges; x Terrestrial – pasture.

Although the embankments and land behind the embankments are currently predominantly vegetated by low quality vegetation, comprising pasture grasses and exotic rushes (spike rush), several higher quality vegetated habitat types are present: x Mangrove habitat; x Salt marsh habitat.

Immediately downstream of the current SH10 Bridge the intertidal is clearly saline, dominated by well-established mangroves interspersed with salt marsh plants. The band of mangroves varied in width from 0 to 10m wide, averaging 8m wide near the bridge, and is limited by the steep drop into the river channel (running close to the western side of the river at this point) and the farm flood embankment. The mangroves formed a canopy over low density, patchy salt marsh vegetation comprised of mangrove seedlings, three-ribbed arrow grass (Triglochin striata), mākoako, and slender club rush. Between the mangroves and the embankment a narrow band of spike rush, sea rush and/or oioi was occasionally present. Although this intertidal habitat is common in the wider area, it maintains good intrinsic ecological values. The embankment vegetation comprised pasture grasses and pasture extended west away from the river.

The intertidal habitats in the central section of the Project area proposed for flood mitigation works are described in Section 3.5.4 and 5.1.

6.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FLOOD MITIGATION PROPOSAL

The proposed flood mitigation measures, as outlined in 6.1 above, will result in the loss or modification of: x 160 lineal metres of intertidal and riverine habitat at the upstream extent of the CMA, including over 1,500m2 of mangrove, fernbird habitat, and salt marsh on the western embankment; and x 4000m2 of low quality riparian habitat, including Conservation Zone (all of which is pasture).

Works carried out in the river, excavation of the embankment on the both sides of the river and adjacent areas for flood mitigation, could result in significant sediment releases into, and resuspension of sediment in, the river.

Sustained use of machinery in the river and in the vicinity of the river on the embankments increases the risk of accidental petroleum hydrocarbon spills which would contaminate surface waters.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

7 OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID, REMEDY & MITIGATE FOR THE NEW BRIDGE & BRIDGE APPROACHES

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Project for the new bridge and bridge approaches has been designed, as far as practicable, to avoid impacting on high value ecological habitats. Where adverse impacts on valuable ecological habitats have not been able to be avoided, then the following recommendations, mitigation and/or compensation is recommended.

7.2 FERNBIRDS

To avoid and mitigate the adverse effects of the construction activity on the “at risk” fernbirds present in the vicinity of the alignment, and with reference to Figure 5:

x Within the works area, attractive nesting habitat (salt-marsh ribbon wood, rushes, mānuka) in the riparian area and near the Kaeo River should be cleared after the end of summer and before the end of the winter immediately prior to works commencing. If required resource consent should be sought for an early works package to remove the remnant riparian vegetation. x Access though the riparian area immediately south of the site, on the western river bank, should be prohibited during the nesting season spring–summer, to allow birds to nest and breed. x The loss of riparian vegetation on the river banks should be compensated for with reinstatement, enhancement planting and expansion of the riparian vegetation, specifically for fernbird habitat, on both the western bank north and south of the new bridge on the new embankment, and on the western bank between the river and SH10.

7.3 LIZARDS / MOKOMOKO

To mitigate the effects of the project on lizards in the native scrub to the east of SH10, the following condition of consent is recommended:

1. Prior to the commencement of any vegetation clearance on the eastern side of Kaeo River, within the area of native scrub, a Native Lizard Management Plan (NLMP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified herpetologist and submitted to the Council for certification. The NLMP shall be implemented as certified, unless otherwise agreed to by Council. The NLMP shall provide methods for capture-and-relocation for native skinks and geckos prior to and during vegetation removal. The NLMP shall be implemented only during favourable seasonal and weather conditions and include at least the following: a. Recommendations for salvage techniques and actions suitable for different lizard species; b. Identification of a suitable release site;

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

c. Details of suitable habitat enhancement measures, including any pest control to sustain any populations of resident and relocated lizards 2. All findings resulting from the implementation of the NLMP shall be recorded by the suitably qualified herpetologist on an Amphibian/Reptile Distribution Scheme (ARDS) Card (or similar form that provides the same information) which shall be sent to the Council Team Leader (Biodiversity).

7.4 NATIVE FISH

To mitigate the effects on native fish of the Project, recovery and relocation of native fish within the roadside drain where populations are present and affected by construction works, should occur prior to any works being undertaken and a suitable qualified freshwater ecologist should be onsite during dewatering to rescue and relocate native fish present. Native fish recovery and relocation can be detailed in a Native Fish Recovery Plan (NFRP) as a condition of consent.

Works within the Kaeo River, both construction and demolition of the bridge, should provide for unimpeded migration of native juvenile Galaxids (whitebait) within the river during the peak upstream migration period of August and September (inclusive). Works in the river can be staged or managed, for example working only on one side of the river at a time, working at low tide, providing a diversion channel, during this period.

Screens and velocity attenuation should be used at any pump intake when dewatering or pumping water out of areas where native fish are present to help prevent entrainment and mortality.

7.5 RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND NATIVE SCRUB EAST OF SH10

In addition to the riparian vegetation removal, the works for the roundabout would require the removal of moderate value indigenous coastal vegetation, including the removal of a mature towai. The loss of this comparatively small area of vegetation, while relatively young and regenerating, is reasonably diverse and the loss of this vegetation would represent a moderate level of adverse effect. Remediation and weed control of the works area in the vicinity of the roundabout would mitigate the level of effect in part, but the type of vegetation would be constrained to ensure unimpeded sightlines for access in and out of the roundabout. It is recommended that in addition, the native vegetation loss is mitigated with replacement plantings of ecosourced native coastal vegetation at a minimum of 1:1 (gain:loss) in the land acquired between the Kaeo River and SH10.

To provide surety to the mitigation of effects of the loss of riparian and coastal scrub vegetation, a planting plan should be prepared for the all the plantings and should include: a. Site preparation details including timing; b. Pest plant and animal control methodologies; c. Plant species, numbers and densities to be planted; d. Planting methodologies; e. Annual planting maintenance details; f. Eco-sourcing details; and

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

g. Maintenance programme for a minimum period of five years or until canopy closure of the planting is achieved.

7.6 SEDIMENT CONTROL & HABITAT DISTURBANCE

The detailed sediment control plan needs to provide methodologies to reduce the effects of additional sedimentation on the river both for works adjacent to the river and works within the river.

In addition to engineered controls, i.e. sediment retention ponds, clean water diversion, silt fencing; management controls such as minimising the open works areas, progressive stabilisation, stabilisation prior to heavy rain events, should be utilised to minimise the effect of erosion and sediment from the works area.

Although the design details and methodology of works within the Kaeo River have yet to be defined, consideration should be given to the use of turbidity curtains, to prevent sediment transport in the water, and the use of coffer dams were appropriate.

Additional habitat disturbance should be avoided by limiting the works area within the river and riparian zone to a minimum corridor and restricting all movement of machinery to the corridor. The use of machinery, particularly heavy machinery in and around watercourses carries the risk of surface water contamination by hydrocarbons. These effects can be mitigated by management of the machinery, which should include prohibiting access to the site of any vehicles or mobile equipment that leak oil, and locating standing areas for equipment and diesel storage at least 60m from the river or watercourses when not in use.

Loss of habitat and habitat disturbance can be mitigated by x avoiding the large pōhutukawa near the eastern bridge abutment; x avoiding the tōtara (and ensuring the works will not adversely affect the stability of the tree) on the western embankment; x design for variation in heights and slopes from the top of the new embankment to the intertidal, avoiding steep and/or uniform slopes on the new embankment, to provide for topography suitable for salt marsh to establish; and x the planting with native vegetation and reinstatement of levels to their natural state and slope (particularly banks), and as close to their natural substrate as practical.

Debris from the deconstruction of the current SH10 bridge should be managed is such a way to ensure no debris enters the river, or is removed immediately.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

8 REFERENCES

Department of Conservation (2017) Department of Conservation Website. Pests and threats. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pests/fish/gambusia/

Department of Conservation (2014) Marvellous mudfish. Northland/burgundy mudfish. Brochure. Department of Conservation, June 2014. https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/freshwater-fish/mudfish/northland- burgundy-mudfish/

Dunn, N.R., Allibone, R.M., Closs, G.P, Crow, S.K., David, B.O., Goodman, J.M., Griffiths, M., Jack, D.C., Ling, N., Waters, J.M. and Rolfe, J.R. (2018) Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fishes, 2017. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 24. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 15pp.

Hitchmough, R.; Barr, B.; Lettink, M.; Monks, J.; Reardon, J.; Tocher, M.; van Winkel, D.; and Rolfe, J. (2016). Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2015. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 2. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Northland Regional Council (2016) Consolidated Regional Water and Soil Plan as at 2014 – updated 2016. Northland Regional Council. https://www.nrc.govt.nz/resources/?url=/Resource-Library-Summary/Plans-and- Policies/Regional-plans/Regional-Water-and-Soil-Plan/

Robertson, H. A.; Baird, K.; Dowding, J. E.; Elliott, G. P.; Hitchmough, R. A.; Miskelly, C. M.; McArthur, N.; O’Donnell, C.J.F; Sagar, P. M.; Scofield, R. P; Taylor, G. A. (2017). Conservation Status of New Zealand Birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 27 p.

Stark, J. D., Boothroyd, I. K. G., Harding, J. S., Maxted, J. R. and Scarsbrook, M. R., (2001). Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams, For: the Ministry for the Environment, 57p.

Stark, J. D. and Maxted, J. R., (2007a). A biotic index for New Zealand's soft-bottomed streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 41, 43-61.

Stark, J. D. and Maxted, J. R., (2007b). A user guide for the Macroinvertebrate Community Index. Cawthron Institute for the Ministry for the Environment, 58p.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

Storey, R. G., Neale, M.W., Rowe, D.K., Collier, K.J., Hatton, C., Joy, M.K., Maxted, J.R., Moore, S., Parkyn, S.M., Phillips, N., Quinn, J.M., (2011) Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV): a method for assessing the ecological function of Auckland streams. Auckland Council Technical Report 2011/009. 66p.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

9 APPENDICES

APPENDIX I STATE HIGHWAY 10 REALIGNMENT PREFERRED OPTION 5

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

APPENDIX II RAW MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA FOR KAEO BRIDGE REALIGNMENT

CLASS: Taxa Taxa Drainage PHYLUM Order Family Taxa MCI hb MCI sb Pahuhu Stm Channel ANNELIDA OLIGOCHAETA Oligochaeta 1 3.8 24 MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA Hydrobiidae Potamopyrgus antipodarum 42.11 4 Melaniidae Zemelanopsis (Melanopsis) trifasciata 31.92 Physidae Physella fontinalis 30.1 28 Lymneaidae Lymnaea columella 31.2 56 ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA: Ostracoda Ostracoda 3 1.9 8 Herpetocypris pascheri 31.9 1340 Decapoda Paratya curvirostris 53.61 INSECTA: Odonata Zygoptera Xanthocnemis zealandica 51.2 28 Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae Ameletopsis perscitus 10 10 1 Leptophlebiidae Deleatidium spp 8 5.6 20 Acanthophlebia cruentata 79.611 Zephlebia spp 7 8.8 7 Plecoptera Gripopterygidae Acroperla trivacuata 55.13 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Oxyethira albiceps 21.2 52 Hydrobiosidae Psilochorema sp. 8 7.8 1 Leptoceridae Hudsonema amabile 66.51 Triplectides obsoleta 55.75 Conoesucidae Conoesucidae (not Pycnocentrodes )**1 Pycnocentrodes sp. 5 3.8 5 Diptera Hexatomini Paralimnophila skusei 67.41 Simuliidae Austrosimulium australense gp 3 3.9 7 Chironomidae Tanypodinae 56.51 60 Chironomus 13.4 232 Orthcladiinae (not Corynoneura )23.236 TOTALS: NO. TAXA 16 11 NO. EPT TAXA 10 1 NO. INDIVIDUALS 68 1868 CHORDATA VERTEBRATA Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis 16

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

APPENDIX III FRESHWATER FISH DATABASE FORMS

FRESHWATER FISH DATABASE FORM 1

Catchment Date 11/8/2017 River/Lake sy stem Kaeo Riv er surrounds 026.000 number Time 0900 Sampling locality 253 SH10, Kaeo Ponds Altitude Observer tj b Access 10 (m) NZMS 260 Distance Organisation bior P04 Coord.2580478 6679186 2 Map no. inland (km) Area fished (m2) Number of electric Fishing method ntc 9 Tidal water y or no. nets used f ishing passes HABITAT DATA

Water Colour g Clarity d Temp. 15.9 pH Average Average Maximum 40.0 1.4 2.0 Conductivity 54 width (m) depth (m) depth (m) Habitat Back- Still 0 0 Pool 100 Run 0 Riffle 0 Rapid 0 Casc. 0 type (%) water Substrate Fine Coarse Bed- Mud Sand Cobble Boulder type (%) gravel gravel rock Fish Macrophyte Instream Undercut Bank n n n y cover (y/n) debris bank veg. Catchment Native Exotic Urban Swamp 0 0 Farm 0 0 Scrub 50 50 Other 0 vegetation(%) for est forest zone land Riparian Native Exotic Grass Exposed Scrub Raupo 0 20 80 0 0 0 Other 0 vegetation(%) for est forest tussock bed willow flax Type of river/stream/lake scpomm

Water level h Downstream barrier n Pollution l Large invertebr ate Freshwater Koura u Paratya u n fauna mussel Bottom fauna u Predominant species group Permanent water y abundance FISH DATA Species Abundance Length Habitat/Comments Gobiomorphus cotidianus Common bully 21 (c) 21-81 poo Gobiomorphus huttoni Redfin bully 15 (o) 31-76 poo Anguilla australis Shortfin eel 11 (c) 130-800 poo Anguilla dieffenbachii Longfin eel 4 (o) 620-860 poo Galaxias maculatus Inanga 1 (r) 120 poo

Comments 17104 Ponds DO 64%, 6.43mg/L, salinity 0.3 ppt.

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

FRESHWATER FISH DATABASE FORM 2

Catchment Date 11/8/2017 River/Lake sy stem Kaeo Riv er surrounds 026.000 number Time 0830 Sampling locality Kaeo roadside drains, south of Bridge Altitude Observer tj b Access 15 (m) NZMS 260 Distance Organisation bior P04 Coord.2580304 6679549 2 Map no. inland (km) Area fished (m2) Number of electric Fishing method gmt 4 Tidal water y or no. nets used f ishing passes HABITAT DATA

Water Colour g Clarity d Temp. pH Average Average Maximum 0.4 0.3 1.2 Conductivity width (m) depth (m) depth (m) Habitat Back- Still 0 80 Pool 20 Run 0 Riffle 0 Rapid 0 Casc. 0 type (%) water Substrate Fine Coarse Bed- Mud 40 Sand 0 20 40 Cobble 0 Boulder 0 0 type (%) gravel gravel rock Fish Macrophyte Instream Undercut Bank n y n y cover (y/n) debris bank veg. Catchment Native Exotic Urban Swamp 0 0 Farm 40 20 Scrub 30 10 Other 0 vegetation(%) for est forest zone land Riparian Native Exotic Grass Exposed Scrub Raupo 0 0 100 0 0 0 Other 0 vegetation(%) for est forest tussock bed willow flax Type of river/stream/lake ftrssn

Water level n Downstream barrier n Pollution l Large invertebr ate Freshwater Koura u Paratya c n fauna mussel Bottom fauna u Predominant species group Permanent water u abundance FISH DATA Species Abundance Length Habitat/Comments Gobiomorphus cotidianus Common bully 5 (c) 40-66 poo Gobiomorphus huttoni Redfin bully 2 (o) 48-68 poo Gambusia affinis Gambusia a 18-32 gen

Comments Bullies only in roadside drain next to river, east side drain only with Gambusia

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

APPENDIX IV PLANT SPECIES LIST

Native Species Common Name Species Name jointed rush or oioi Apodasmia similis mangrove Avicennia marina subsp. australasica kiokio Blechnum novae-zelandiae shiny karamu Coprosma lucida rangiora Brachyglottis repanda twiggy coprosma Coprosma rhamnoides karamu Coprosma robusta cabbage tree, ti, ti kouka Cordyline australis tutu Coriaria arborea var. arborea bachelor’s button Cotula coronopifolia ponga Cyathea dealbata mamaku Cyathea medullaris wheki Dicsonia squarrosa tall spike sedge, kutakuta Eleocharis sphacelata hangehange Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium hebe Hebe species pigeon wood Hedycarya arborea climbing hard fern Icarus filiformis slender club rush Isolepis cernua var. cernua sea rush Juncus kraussii var. australiensis kanuka Kunzea ericoides manuka Leptospermum scoparium mingimingi Leucopogon fasciculatus paukarimu Lycopodium deuterodensum mahoe Melicytus ramiflorus pohutukawa Metrosideros excelsa paraharaha Microsorum pustalatum pohuehue Muehlenbeckia complexa mapou Myrsine australis baselt grass Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. hirtellus kiokio Parablechnum novae-zelandiae clubmoss Phlegmariurus varius harakeke, flax Phormium tenax tanekaha Phyllocladus trichomanoides saltmarsh ribbonwood or Plagianthus divaricatus makamaka totara Podocarpus totara kūmarahou Pomaderris kumeraho bracken, rahurahu Pteridium esculentus KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

nikau Rhopalostylis sapida shore primrose or mākoako Samolus repens remuremu Selliera radicans three-ribbed arrow grass Triglochin striata raupo Typha orientalis towai Weinmannia silvicola

Exotic Species Common Name Species Name agapanthus Agapanthus praecox onion weed Allium triquetrum water celery Apium nodiflorum ferny azolla Azolla pinnata starwort Callitriche stagnalis kikuyu Cenchrus clandestinus pampas Cortaderia selloana, C. jubata montbretia Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora wild carrot Daucus carota sharp rush Juncus acutus privet Ligustrum species parrots feather Myriophyllum aquaticum mercer grass Paspalum distichum paspalum Paspalum dilatatum water pepper Persicaria hydropiper pine Pinus species cherry Prunus speices blackberry Rubus fruticosus agg. woolly nightshade Solanum mauritianum gorse Ulex europaeus arum lily Zantedeschia aethiopica

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

APPENDIX V CONSERVATION ZONE ADJACENT TO KAEO BRIDGE.

Source: Far North Maps, District Plan Zones Layer

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

APPENDIX VI AGREED BOUNDARY OF THE COASTAL MARINE AREA

Northland Regional Council – The Cross-River Coastal Marine Area Boundary as agreed on by Far North District Council, the Department of Conservation and the Northland Regional Council. https://www.nrc.govt.nz/resources/?url=/Resource-Library-Summary/Plans-and-Policies/Regional- plans/Regional-Coastal-Plan/

Far North District River Mouth Boundaries Kaeo River Mouth and landward boundary of the Coastal Marine Area as defined 19 December 1994 https://resources.nrc.govt.nz/upload/1651/Far%20North%20District%20river%20mouth%20boundar ies.PDF Snips from the PDF:

KAEO BRIDGE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17104 Kaeo Ecological Assessment Dec2019.docx

SH10 Kaeo Bridge Project – Property Ownership

Street address Legal Certificate of Ownership per description1 description title certificate of title

134 – 402 State State Highway No title New Zealand Highway 10, Kaeo Far 10 Transport Agency North District Council parcel IDs 5263065, 5257330 and 5226838

393 State Highway 10, Pt Lot 6 NA105B/523 Keith William Kerr Kaeo 0479 Deposited Plan 32504

No address detailed Lot 1 NA68D/805 Keith William Kerr Deposited Plan 119867

No address detailed Lot 2 No title Local Purpose Deposited detailed Reserve (Esplanade) Plan 119867 Far North District Council

253 (& 286) State Pt Pahuhu 1B1 NA327/242 Gregory Hugh Wade- Highway 10, Kaeo Ferrell and Janit Marie 0478 Wade-Ferrell

1 As described by Far North District Council online mapping tool “Far North Maps” (http://apps.geocirrus.com/FNDC/index.html?viewer=farnorthmaps)

Alteration to SH10 Designation for construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of the State Highway network.

Requiring Authority: Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

Lapse date: 5 years after the date on which it is included in the Far North District Plan.

General Condition

GC.1 Works authorised by the designation shall be in general accordance with the Notice of Requirement dated dd month yy.

As soon as reasonably practicable following completion of construction works, the Requiring Authority shall give notice to the Council in accordance with Section 182 of the RMA for the removal of those parts of the Designation that are not required for the long-term operation, maintenance or mitigation effects of the Project.

Landscape Concept Plan (LCP)

LCP.1 A minimum of 10 working days prior to the commencement of construction works, the Requiring Authority shall submit a Landscape Concept Plan to the Council

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)

CNVMP.1 A CNVMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and submitted to Council a minimum of 10 working days prior to the commencement of construction works. The CNVMP shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Annex E2 of New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 ‘Acoustics – Construction Noise’ (NZS 6803:1999) and the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s State Highway Construction and Maintenance Noise and Vibration Guide (August 2019).

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

CTMP.1 A CTMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and submitted to the Council a minimum of 10 working days prior to the commencement of works.

CTMP.2 The purpose of the CTMP is to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on traffic and road-user (including cyclists and pedestrians) safety and efficiency resulting from the construction works.

CTMP.3 The CTMP shall describe the methods for avoiding, remedying or mitigating the local and network wide transportation effects resulting from the Project works, and shall address the following matters:

(a) Methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate the local and network wide effects of the construction of individual elements of the Project and the use of staging to allow sections of the Project to be opened to traffic while other sections are still under construction;

(b) Methods to manage the effects of the delivery of construction material, plant and machinery (including oversized trucks);

(c) The numbers, frequencies, routes and timing of construction traffic movements; (d) Traffic management measures to address and maintain traffic capacity and minimise adverse effects;

(e) The methodology for ensuring the continued access to all properties affected by the construction process for both vehicles and pedestrians;

Accidental Archaeological Discovery (AAD)

AAD.1 The Requiring Authority shall implement the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Minimum Standard P45 – Accidental Archaeological Discovery Specification. &4'2&3-'##& ) &/;<)* +

! " ! " # $ !%% &'#% ( "& )* + !)"# ),$ $ % & ' $-. ! # %% $$ $ # !%% # & ' $ ( " /$ ) $ # !%% # & ' $ ( " & 0 ! % $ & ' $-. 1 0& )*% ," #! # &'#% %% $ ( $ %% % ! % % % "$ $ $% & ' $% - $ ,$ 2$#% )**1 3 $4 *$ & )* + 5 3&67896#5

)* +: 0)