s42A Beds of lakes and rivers - GWpnrp.gw.govt.nz/...Report-Beds-of-lakes-and-rivers.pdf · 6.2...

13/03/2018

Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region

Section 42A Hearing Report For Hearing Commencing 9 April 2018

Report Dated: 12 March 2018

Report on submissions and further submissions

Topic: Beds of Lakes and Rivers

Report prepared by:

Pam Guest

Heidi Andrewartha (Activity rules – Issue 4)

Paul Denton (NES Plantation Forestry – Issue 5)

Contents

1. Executive summary 2

Key issues and responses 2 Overlapping topics 2

2. Introduction 3

3. Code of conduct 3

4. Scope of hearing report 3

5. Statutory framework for managing the beds of lakes and rivers 8

6. Background 8

6.1 Definition of river, lake and the bed of a lake or river 8 6.2 Beds of lakes and rivers – attributes and values 9 6.3 Overview of the issues 13 6.4 Operative plans 14

6.5 Overview of the policy framework of the proposed Plan 14 6.6 Implementation of the proposed Plan 17

6.7 Overview of submissions received 19 6.8 Key issues raised in submissions 20 6.9 Pre-hearing meetings 20

7. Submissions and Evaluations 21

Maintenance of Drains and Highly Modified Rivers .................... 21

Reclamation (Policy P102, Rules R127 and R128, Definition of reclamation) ................................................................................................ 56

Policies P103, P104, P106 ............................................................. 78

Beds of lakes and rivers activity rules (excluding rules R121, R122, R127, R128) ................................................................................ 87

Implications of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry ....................................................................................... 185

8. References 196

9. Appendix A – Officers’ Statement of Experience 197 9.1 Pam Guest 197

9.2 Paul Anthony Denton 198 9.3 Heidi Andrewartha 198

10. Appendix B – Statutory and non-statutory documents 200

12. Appendix C: Higher order planning instruments and linkages between objectives and other plan provisions .......................................... 209

13. Appendix D – Common Format Submitters 211

14. Appendix E – Pre-hearing meeting notes 216

15. Appendix F – Technical Evidence 217

16. Appendix G – Recommended decisions on submissions and section 32AA assessment 218

17. Appendix H – Recommended amendments 219

17. Appendix I – Recommended amendments clean copy 220

18. Appendix J: Recommended decisions on each submission point 221

List of tables

Table 1: List of abbreviations ............................................................................................ i

Table 2: Provisions covered by this report ....................................................................... 3

Table 1: List of Farmer Common Format submitters ................................................... 211

Table 2: List of Wairarapa Water Users Common Format submitters ......................... 213

Table 3: List of Land Matters Common Format submitters ......................................... 214

Table 4: List of Craig Dairy Farms Common Format submitters ................................ 215

Table 1: List of abbreviations

List of abbreviations

Coastal marine area CMA

Cultural impact assessment CIA

DairyNZ and Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited DairyNZ and Fonterra

Kāpiti Coast District Council KCDC

Masterton District Council MDC

National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management NPS-FM

New Zealand Transport Agency NZTA

Ngā Taonga Nui a Kiwa NTNAK

Porirua City Council PCC

Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region

proposed Plan

Operative Regional Coastal Plan Coastal Plan

Operative Regional Freshwater Plan Freshwater Plan

Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region RPS

Resource Management Act 1991 RMA

Wellington Regional Council Council or WRC

Section 42A Report Significant Areas and Sites for Mana Whenua

PAGE 2 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

1. Executive summary

This report considers submissions on the proposed Natural Resources Plan on

provisions related to the Beds of lakes and rivers.

The report outlines recommendations in response to the issues that have emerged from

submissions on the Beds and lakes and rivers topic. There were around 150 submission

points made on provisions relevant to Beds of lakes and rivers. Of these, around 60

were in a common format prepared by a Land Matters submitter.

Key issues and responses

I have organised the submissions on the provisions related to Beds of lakes and rivers

into the following key topics. The submissions and evaluations are set out in Section 7

of this report:

Issue 1 - R121 Maintenance of drains and highly modified water courses

and R122 Removing vegetation

Issue 2 – Reclamation: Policy P102, Rules R127, R128

Issue 3 - Policies P103, P104 and P106

Issue 4 – Beds of lakes and rivers activity rules (excluding rules R121,

R122, R127, R128)

Issue 5 – Implications of the National Policy Statement – Plantation

Forestry

Overlapping topics

Some of the submissions on Beds of lakes and rivers are interrelated with matters

addressed in the following section 42A officers’ reports:

Areas and sites of significance to mana whenua: Objectives and policies to

protect and restore significant sites and policies that manage activities that

impact on these sites

Water quality: Objectives that set outcomes for aquatic ecosystem health,

policies and rules that manage activities that affect water quality

Wetlands and Biodiversity: Objectives and policies to protect and restore

aquatic ecosystems and their biodiversity

Discharges to land: Objectives, policies and rules that manage discharges

Land use and riparian margins: Objectives, policies and rules

Natural form and function: Objectives and policies that manage the natural

character of the coastal marine area, rivers, lakes, natural wetlands and

their margins, and that manage the integrity of natural processes.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 3 OF 221

2. Introduction

1. The report has been prepared by the following authors:

Pam Guest (Issues 1, 2, 3, 4: 5.5.4 General conditions, Rule R123)

Heidi Andrewartha (Issue 4: Rules R112-R120, R124 -R126, R129-R135)

Paul Denton (Issue 5: NES – Plantation Forestry)

2. Introductions and statements of experience are included in Appendix A.

3. Code of conduct

3. All authors have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witness contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note and agree to comply with it. Individual

statements in respect of the code of conduct are included in Appendix A

alongside the author’s introduction.

4. Scope of hearing report

4. This report is prepared in accordance with section 42A of the RMA. This

report considers submissions and further submissions (submissions) that were

received by the Council in relation to the provisions relating to Beds of lakes

and rivers within the proposed Plan.

5. Table 2 lists the provisions assessed in this report, the issue that the provision

has been assessed under in this Section 42A report, and which Section 32report

evaluated the provision.

Table 2: Provisions covered by this report

Provision/Chapter Section of this report where submissions are assessed

Relevant RMA S32 Evaluation Report (if relevant)

Chapter 2 - Interpretation

Active bed (rivers and streams) Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Artificial farm drainage canal Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Beach recontouring (beds of rivers)

Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers


PAGE 4 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716



Catchment based flood and erosion risk management activities


Drain Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Ephemeral flow path Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Highly modified river or stream Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Reclamation Issue 2 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Vegetative bank edge protection Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

Chapter 4 - Policies

P102 Reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers


P103 Management of gravel extraction


P104 Effects of catchment-based flood and erosion control activities


P106 Management of plants in the beds of lakes and rivers


Chapter 5 – Rules

5.5.4 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers - general conditions


R112 Maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of existing structures (excluding the Barrage Gates)


R113 Diversion of flood water by existing structures


R114 River crossing structures Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R115 Culverts Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R116 Establishing a small dam and existing dams


R117 New structures Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 5 OF 221



R118 Removing or demolishing structures


R119 Clearing flood debris and beach recontouring


R120 Minor sand and gravel extraction


R121 Maintenance of drains Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R122 Removing vegetation Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R123 Planting Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R124 Entry or passage over bed (excluding livestock)


R125 Structures within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua)


R126 Placement of a dam in an outstanding water body


R127 Reclamation of the beds of rivers or lakes


R128 Reclamation of the bed of an outstanding lakes and associated diversion


R129: All other activities in river and lake beds


R130: Diversion of groundwater Issue 4 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

R131: Damming or diverting water within or from rivers


R132: Damming or diverting water within or from rivers


R133: Damming or diverting water within or from natural lakes


R134: Damming or diverting water within or from natural lakes, Lake Kohangatera or Lake Kohangapiripiri


Rule R135: General rule for taking, use, damming and diverting water



PAGE 6 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716



Chapter 6 Other Methods

M14 Maintenance of drains Issue 1 Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes & Rivers

6. Section 5 of this report sets out the statutory and non-statutory framework

relevant to the management of Beds of lakes and rivers.

7. Section 6 of this report outlines the key issues and the planning background

relevant to the management of Beds of lakes and rivers.

8. Section 7 of this report is an analysis of the submissions and further

submissions for Beds of lakes and rivers.

9. Appendix A sets out the Officer’s statement of experience

10. Appendix B sets out the statutory framework for managing the beds of lakes

and rivers.

11. Appendix C sets out the higher order documents relevant to the beds of lakes

and rivers Topic.

12. Appendix D provides a list of common format submitters on this Topic.

13. Appendix E contains the notes from the pre-hearing meetings.

14. Appendix F provides the technical evidence that support this Section 42A

report.

15. Appendix G provides the Section 32AA assessment.

16. Appendix H provides a track change version of the recommended amendments.

17. Appendix I provides a clean copy of the recommended amendments.

18. Appendix J provides the accept/reject table in relation to individual submitters.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 7 OF 221

19. As submitters who indicate that they wish to be heard are entitled to speak to

their submissions and present evidence at the hearing, the recommendations

contained within this report are preliminary, relating only to the written

submissions.

20. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be emphasised that any conclusions

reached or recommendations made in this report are not binding on the Hearing

Panel. It should not be assumed that the Hearing Panel will reach the same

conclusions or decisions having considered all the evidence to be brought

before them by the submitters.

21. This report is intended to be read in conjunction with the RMA section 42A

Reports: Part A – Introduction and procedural matters, which contains

procedural background information, statutory context and administrative

matters pertaining to the regional plan review and the proposed Plan; Part A:

RMA section 32 and consultation; and Part A: Overall framework of the

proposed Plan. The three ‘Part A’ RMA section 42A Reports are common to

all topics whereas the Part B reports are specific to each topic and address the

submissions and further submissions relevant to that particular aspect of the

proposed Natural Resources Plan.

22. This report and the associated hearing addresses submissions lodged on the

provisions of the proposed Plan relating to Beds of lakes and rivers.

23. Some of the issues addressed in this report are interrelated with matters

addressed in the section 42A officers’ reports: ‘Part A: Overall framework of

the proposed Plan’: Integration of Māori values into the framework of the

proposed Plan; ‘Wetlands and biodiversity’, ‘Beds of Lakes and Rivers’ and

‘Water quality’.

24. I have read and concur with the evidence of:

Dr Michael Greer – Maintenance of Drains

Dr Michael Greer and Mr Dave Grimmond (joint report) – The

environmental and economic costs and benefits of the pNRP stream piping

provisions


PAGE 8 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

which are attached to this report in Appendix F.

5. Statutory framework for managing the beds of lakes and rivers

25. The statutory and non-statutory documents relevant to the management of the

beds of lakes and rivers are set out in Appendix B.

6. Background

6.1 Definition of river, lake and the bed of a lake or river

26. The RMA definition of a river is that it

27. “means a continually or intermittently flowing body of fresh water; and

includes a stream and modified watercourse; but does not include any artificial

watercourse (including an irrigation canal, water supply race, canal for the

supply of water for electricity power generation, and farm drainage canal)”.

28. The definition is very broad and includes any permanently or intermittently

flowing body of water. This is significant as the restrictions on the use of river

beds in section 13 of the RMA apply to everything from headwater ephemeral

water courses through to large rivers.

29. The RMA excludes artificial watercourses from the definition of river, but

artificial watercourses have been narrowly defined by case law. Only

constructed watercourses meet this exclusion. Any watercourse that was once

natural, or has its headwaters in a natural river meets the RMA definition of

river. This can cause confusion as some highly modified watercourses, such as

drains or water races, which appear to be artificial actually fall within the

definition of river and therefore the restrictions for rivers in the RMA apply to

them. This is discussed further under Issue 1.

30. The RMA definition of lake is likewise very broad and is defined as:

31. “a body of fresh water which is entirely or nearly surrounded by land”.

32. The bed of a river is defined in the RMA as “the space of land which the

waters of the river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its banks”. The

bed of a lake is defined as “the space of land which the waters of the lake cover


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 9 OF 221

at its highest level without exceeding its margin.” In some rivers and lakes the

banks and margins are easily defined and a relatively small and obvious area of

land can be considered the ‘bed’. For other rivers and lakes the bed can

potentially be very wide, e.g., braided rivers and/or and less easily defined,

e.g., lakes with wide seasonal fluctuations.

6.2 Beds of lakes and rivers – attributes and values

Characteristics of the beds of lakes or rivers

33. The physical character of the bed of a river or lake determines the availability

and quality of the habitat available to aquatic plants and animals. The plant and

animal communities a river or lake bed can support is dependent on its shape,

the diversity and size of the bed substrates, deposited fine sediment cover, the

number and size of different habitat types it provides and the availability of

woody debris. Consequently, activities that alter the structure and function of

river and lakes beds can have a significant effect of aquatic ecosystem health,

even when water quality and quantity is near pristine.

Main threats to the beds of lakes and rivers

34. As a nation New Zealand, including Wellington, has a long history of

conducting works on the beds of rivers and, less frequently lakes, to modify the

path, and behaviour of waterbodies in ways that are beneficial to people, but

detrimental to aquatic ecosystems.

35. It is a common practice in New Zealand to channelize, realign and stop bank

rivers to prevent river migration, increase the availability floodplains upon

which infrastructure can be developed and control flood risk. Many rivers in

the Wellington Region have been subjected to this sort control, including the

Hutt, Otaki and Waikanae Rivers. Although, beneficial to humans, these

works alter the natural form of rivers including their width, gradient, depth,

sinuosity, and bed structure. These changes can in turn erode the banks of the

river and increase deposition of sediments downstream. The result is that the

availability and diversity of habitat provided by the river bed is reduced.

36. Small streams that run through pastoral areas (commonly called drains) are

frequently excavated to remove sediment and aquatic plants that reduce

drainage outfall. In addition to degrading water quality and directly impacting


PAGE 10 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

plants and animals living in the stream, excavation has a detrimental effect on

the structure of the bed and the habitat it provides to aquatic communities.

Mechanical excavation smooths the beds and banks of the stream, removes

pool-run-riffle sequences, and eliminates key sources of cover, like woody

debris and aquatic plants. This homogenisation of the stream bed, limits the

number of individuals and species the stream can support.

37. The reclamation and piping of streams to improve the transport of storm water

and increase the availability of land for development is another activity

commonly conducted on the beds of rivers, particularly small headwaters. In

the period between 2003 and 2008 alone 12.79 km of stream was piped in the

Wellington Region, over 60 percent of which was headwater systems. Burying

a stream in a pipe effectively removes all existing habitat provided by the

natural bed and the riparian zone. The new habitat tends to be homogenous,

both in terms of physical structure and flow. This lack of diversity limits the

number of species that the piped reach can support. The net effect is a loss of

biodiversity both within the piped sections, and in the reaches upstream and

downstream.

38. Structures, like dams, culvert, weirs and tide gates are regularly installed in

rivers and streams, and there are many of these structures in the Wellington

Region. While these structures generally only modify the bed over a short

distance, they can have a disproportionate effect on habitat availability if they

are designed in a way that impedes fish passage. A significant proportion of

New Zealand’s native fish species (including eels and the whitebait family)

migrate between the sea and freshwater as part of their life cycle. Poorly

designed structures impede these migrations, preventing fish from freely

accessing the different habitats required to develop, grow and reproduce. The

result is that impacted fish species are unable to utilize areas upstream of

structures that act as barriers and are restricted to downstream areas where

access to the sea is retained. This can have significant impact on the

availability and quality of fish habitat with in a catchment, especially when the

barrier is located at the bottom.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 11 OF 221

The need to manage all river types, including drains and headwater streams

39. Rivers and streams differ in their catchment, geology and flows, which results

in natural variation in the bed structure of different systems, and, consequently,

the aquatic communities they support. It is for this reason that different aquatic

ecosystem health objectives are set in Objective O25 for the different river

classes pictured in Figure 1. If regional biodiversity is to be protected, the

effects of activities in the beds of lakes and rivers must be managed in all river

types, including those water bodies that have historically been perceived as

“low value”, such as headwater streams and drains.

40.

Figure 1: Examples of the different river classes present in the Wellington Region

Drains

41. The waterways people perceive to be drains are important aquatic habitats. The

majority of New Zealand’s migratory fish species use drains as corridors for

movement between other important freshwater habitats and the sea, and these

watercourses likely provide particularly important temporary habitats for eels

and members of the whitebait (Galaxiid) family. Drains also provide

permanent fish habitat, particular where more natural habitats have been lost or

degraded. More than 20 native fish species have been found to utilise drains


PAGE 12 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

and they are particularly important to ‘at risk’ wetland species, like the giant

kokopu and brown mudfish, as they often represent the only aquatic habitat

available in catchments where wetlands have been extensively drained and

converted to pasture. Drains also provide habitat for a wide range of aquatic

invertebrate species. Invertebrate communities in drain ecosystems frequently

contain over 30 species, often at high densities, and can include important like

koura.

42. Because drains are often thought of as man-made, it is assumed that if they

were not constructed the habitat they provide would not exist and that even

with regular human disturbance the mere existence of these waterways is

actually having a positive environmental effect. However, most of the

waterways referred to as drains are actually highly modified natural water

courses and represent the last remnants of historical wetland complexes or

spring-fed streams. If the aquatic values that were historically supported by

these waterbodies are to be preserved or restored, the protection of drains and

the management of drain clearing is required, as often they are the only

remains of what were once thriving ecosystems.

Headwater streams

43. The ecological importance of ‘headwater’ (≤2nd order) streams is often

overlooked, due to the small size of these systems, often intermittent flows, and

the fact that many are zero-order streams, meaning that they are not depicted

on topographic maps. However, headwater streams play an important role in

ecosystem function, habitat availability and diversity, and biodiversity. The

sheer number and length of headwater streams within a catchment means they

also comprise a significant proportion of the available habitat. Little is known

about the total length of headwater streams in the Wellington region, as there

has been no attempt to quantify the length of zero order streams. However, the

River Environment Classification, specifically classifies 49% of the river

network in the Wellington Region as headwater streams. Headwater streams

not only provide a great deal of habitat in river networks due to their

contribution to river length but contribute to habitat diversity. Between

landscapes, headwater streams differ due to climatic, geological and biological

variation and even at the sub-catchment level, habitats provided by headwater


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 13 OF 221

streams can differ based on flow permanence, hydrology, morphology, and

riparian cover. Given the importance of headwater stream to overall habitat

availability and diversity, it is important that they are protected and activities

that pose a risk to these systems, like stream piping, are managed.

6.3 Overview of the issues

44. The operative Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington region (Freshwater

Plan) identifies the following issues regarding the use of the beds of rivers and

lakes:

a) The structural integrity and safety of structures in these locations can

be adversely affected by erosion and flooding, and

b) Poorly sited or designed structures can exacerbate the risks of flooding

and erosion, and undermine the effectiveness of flood protection

structures downstream.

c) Locating structures and carrying out other activities in river and lake

beds can adversely affect the natural and amenity values of a water

body, including the permanent loss of habitat and changes in the flow

regime through diversion or the restriction of river flows.

d) Reclamation is a significant resource management issue in the region,

as it can damage and in some cases remove aquatic habitat, reducing

species diversity and the ability of aquatic ecosystems to be self-

sustaining.

e) The planting or introduction of exotic or indigenous plants in lake and

river beds requires careful management to avoid adverse effects such

as the smothering of native species and alteration of the water table.

45. Activities in the beds of rivers and lakes that are not well managed can have

adverse effects on the natural character, mahinga kai and ecosystem health and

function of rivers and lakes. The natural character of rivers and lakes includes

such factors as dynamic natural and physical processes, landscapes and

geological features.


PAGE 14 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

6.4 Operative plans

46. The Freshwater Plan permits a range of activities in the beds of rivers and

lakes, such as the maintenance of existing structures; culverts, weirs, fords and

small bridges in intermittently flowing streams; small dams; and the laying of

pipes, ducts and cables across intermittently flowing streams subject to

performance criteria and conditions. These conditions are intended to ensure

that such works minimise the release of sediment and contaminants into the

water body, and result in less than minor environmental effects. Reclamation is

a discretionary activity in the region, except for the reclamation of the beds of

lakes and rivers of high natural character (as identified in operative Policy

4.2.10 and Appendix 2 of the Freshwater Plan) which is classified as a non-

complying activity. The reclamation of Lake Wairarapa is a prohibited activity

in the Freshwater Plan.

6.5 Overview of the policy framework of the proposed Plan

47. Section 13 of the RMA imposes restrictions on the uses of beds of lakes and

rivers. Certain activities such as erecting, or demolishing any structure in, on,

under or over the bed, are not permitted unless there is a rule in a regional plan

or resource consent allowing the activity to take place. This means that the

proposed Plan needs a comprehensive framework for activities in the beds of

rivers and lakes to identify areas where controls are, or are not, necessary to

protect freshwater values and to ensure that users are not subject to

unnecessary restrictions.

48. Figure 2 shows the framework of provisions within the proposed Plan to

manage activities within the beds of lakes and rivers. The values of the beds of

lakes and rivers are provided for by a wide range of objectives, such as O5

Fresh and coastal water, O14-16 Māori relationships, O17 Natural character,

O19 Natural processes, O20 Risk from natural hazards, O25-O30 Biodiversity,

aquatic ecosystem health and mahinga kai, and O31-O35 Significant site

objectives. There is no one objective that is specific to this topic.

49. There are four activity-based policies which provide specific direction on the

following beds of lakes and river activities:

Reclamation or drainage (Policy P102)


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 15 OF 221

Management of gravel extraction (Policy P103)

Catchment-based flood protection and erosion control activities (Policy

P104)

Management of vegetation (Policy P106).

50. Direction is also provided for these, and the other activities carried out in the

beds of lakes and rivers, by other policies of the proposed Plan (for example,

those that manage ecosystem health and mahinga kai (Policies P31-42), natural

character and natural processes (Policies P25 and P26), sites with significant

values for mana whenua (Policies P44 and P45).

51. The proposed objectives and provisions generally establish an enabling

management framework supported by performance standards either set in the

rule or in a set of general conditions (5.5.4 Beds of lakes and rivers general

conditions). These standards are based on local, regional and national evidence,

developed in line with industry best practice

52. The Regional Freshwater Plan (Freshwater Plan) has been operative since

December 1999. Where experience with implementing this plan has shown that

the rule framework has been appropriate for protecting ecosystem health (i.e..

there has been no evidence of cumulative adverse effects arising from the

permitted framework and associated conditions which limit the size and scale

of activities in the beds of rivers and lakes), the conditions of the rules have

been repeated in the proposed Plan. Where this has not been the case, the

proposed Plan provides further direction in policies as to what activities are

appropriate, or has amended the activity status and/or the conditions associated

with the permitted activity rules.

53. Other Methods M14 Drain maintenance and M28 Development of good

management practice guidelines are of particular relevance to activities within

the beds of lakes and rivers. Both of these work with landowners and other

stakeholder groups to develop and support the implementation of improved

practice for a range of activities.


PAGE 16 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716 54.

Objectives in other s42A reports (O2, O3, O4, O5, O12, O14, O17, O19, O20, O25 O27, O29, O30, O31, O33, O35)

Reclamation and drainage

P102 Reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers

General conditions Section 5.5.4

Rule R127

Rule R128

Rule R129

Method M28

Catchment-based flood and erosion control activities

P104 Effects on catchment-based flood and erosion

control activities


Rule R120

Method M28

River bed structures and other activities

policies in other s42A reports: P31-P38, P39-P47, P97, P105,

P138


Rules R112

Rule R113

Rule R114

Rule R115

Rule R116

Rule R117

Rule R118

Rule R119

Rule R124

Rule R125

Rule R129

Method M21

Method M28

Gravel extraction

P103 Management of gravel extraction


Rule R120

Rule R129

Method M28

Management of vegetation

P106 Management of plants in the beds of lakes and rivers


Rule R121

Rule R122

Rule R123

Rule R129

Method M14

Section 42A Report Beds of lakes and rivers

NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 17 OF 221

6.6 Implementation of the proposed Plan

55. The proposed Plan was notified on 31 July 2015 and its provisions have had legal

effect since that date. The Hearing Panel has requested feedback on experience with

implementing the proposed Plan. The following matters may assist the Hearing

Panel in considering both the effectiveness of the proposed Plan’s provisions and the

appropriateness of any recommended amendments.

56. Feedback from Council staff is set out below.

Drain maintenance

57. The Council has received a lot of negative feedback on proposed Rule R121, with

regards to the difficulty of identifying whether a watercourse is a drain or a highly

modified river or stream, as well as confusion and concern with the practicality of

the rule conditions. These concerns are addressed in Issue 1.

Reclamation and stream piping

58. Reclamation of a river bed where a stream is covered and piped continues to be a

subject of concern within the Council.

59. In reviewing the operative FWP, the Freshwater Evaluation Report stated that

conversations with consents staff in particular expressed concern that the existing

policy approach was too weak a tool against which to assess applications for, or

involving, reclamation and drainage of the beds of rivers and lakes, and with which

to prevent adverse effects, such as the complete loss of habitat, natural character,

mauri and other values associated with water bodies. The report concluded that

continuing loss of stream habitat indicates that the operative policy and rules

structure are not achieving the desired outcome and an alternative approach should

be considered. It is recorded that between 2003 and 2008 the Council consented the

piping of 12.79 km of streams, with over 60 percent of these being small headwater

streams.

60. Policy P102 of the proposed Plan provides a new framework for managing

reclamation and piping, providing a strong “avoid” policy, but also providing

exceptions for a number of activities, including development for special housing

areas and urban growth areas associated with a growth or development strategy.


PAGE 18 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

61. Despite this new policy and rule framework, there continues to be concern about the

effects of reclamation and drainage as most reclamation is associated with urban

growth within special housing and urban growth areas. Since notification of the

proposed Plan a number of consents have been granted for stream piping associated with

urban development. For example, stream piping associated with subdivisions at Silverstream

Rd, Woodridge, and Kelson Heights has resulted in the collective loss of 2,360m of streams

within the last 2.5 years (since the proposed Plan was notified). Environmental science

staff have raised significant concerns about the cumulative effects that this level of

piping is having, including the loss of rare habitats in certain areas.

62. Consents staff advise that Policy P102 does not provide a helpful framework with

which to assess the appropriateness of stream piping at anything other than a site-

specific scale. For example, where a proposed reclamation is of a stream that has

significant biodiversity values listed in Schedule F, Policy P102 identifies the

importance of providing for urban growth, but provides no guidance as to how to

balance/resolve this with the biodiversity protection policies. Staff also note a

mismatch with Policy P8: Beneficial activities which recognises activities as

beneficial and generally appropriate, including Policy P8(c) to daylight streams and

Policy P8(b) to restore features that buffer development from natural hazards.

63. I do note, however, that the new policy framework has made some difference to the

occurrence of stream piping as consents staff report that a number of proposals for

stream piping were not lodged due to advice provided at the pre-application stage

that the activity was unlikely to meet the non-complying activity test of “no more

than minor” adverse effects. However, these were for the activities that are

not provided for by the Policy P102 exclusions. This issue is discussed further under

Issue 2: Reclamation.

Providing for flood flows

64. Council staff in the Flood Protection Team have raised several issues they are

constantly coming up against in terms of requiring adequate flood flow capacity in

river crossing structures and culverts. They have suggested the inclusion of two new

conditions in Rule R114 to address this issue and the rewording of condition (k) in

Rule R115, as follows:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 19 OF 221

Rule R114:

1) the soffit (underside of the bridge beams) of any bridge shall be at least 0.5

metres higher than the top of the banks of the river bed, or at least 0.5 metres above

the one percent annual exceedence probability (1 in 100 year) flood, whichever is

the lowest, and

2) the bridge shall be fixed in place or constructed to prevent it being washed

away in the event of a flood, and

Rule R115

(k) (i) for urban areas, the culvert shall be constructed to allow the flow from a 1%

annual exceedence probability (100 year return period) flood event without

overtopping,

(ii) for rural areas the culvert shall be constructed to allow:

a) the flow from a 5% annual exceedence probability (20 year return period) flood

event without overtopping, unless the overtopping flows to a specifically designed

spillway, and

b) the flow from a two year return period flood event without any flow impediment,

and …

65. Ideally these additional conditions should be made to these rules, however this is

outside the scope of the submissions to these rules.

6.7 Overview of submissions received

66. There were around 987 submission points made on provisions relevant to Beds of

lakes and rivers from approximately 184 submitters. Of these, around 608

submission points were in a common format. A list of all common format submitters

who submitted on provisions relevant to this topic is included in Appendix D of this

report.


PAGE 20 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

67. Individual submitters who used a common format are generally represented in the

evaluations by reference to one relevant submission point so as to avoid unnecessary

repetition.

6.8 Key issues raised in submissions

68. I have organised the submissions on the provisions related to Beds of lakes and

rivers into the following key topics. The submissions and evaluations are set out in

Section 7 of this report.

Issue 1 – Managing drains and highly modified water courses; Removing

vegetation: Rule R121 and Rule R122. Definitions for artificial farm drainage

canal, drain, and highly modified river or stream.

Issue 2 – Reclamation: Policy P102, Rules R127, R128. Definition for

reclamation.

Issue 3 - Policies P103, P104, P106, need for new natural character provisions.

Issue 4 – Beds of lakes and rivers activity rules (except for Rules R121, R122,

R127, R128).

Issue 5 – Implications of the National Policy Statement – Plantation Forestry.

6.9 Pre-hearing meetings

69. A pre-hearing meeting was held to discuss Rule R121 Drain maintenance and the

associated definitions for drain, artificial water course and highly modified river or

stream. The pre-hearing meeting minutes are attached in Appendix E.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 21 OF 221

7. Submissions and Evaluations

Maintenance of Drains and Highly Modified Rivers

70. This section addresses the following provisions:

Definitions: drain; artificial farm drainage canal; highly modified watercourse

Rule R121: Maintenance of drains – permitted activity

Method M14: Maintenance of drains

Background:

The regional drainage network

71. Across the Wellington Region is a large network (hundreds of kilometres) of

waterbodies that are managed for the purpose of land drainage and, in some cases,

flood protection. The regional drainage network includes artificial drains (channels

constructed specifically for the purpose of land drainage) and natural rivers, streams

or wetlands that have been highly modified (straightened and channelled) and which

are often considered to be ‘drains’ rather than natural features.

72. Most of the waterways that people consider to be artificial ‘drains’ contain a natural

base flow that would have originally existed in a natural stream bed, lake or wetland.

The construction of drains has not resulted in new waterways, but rather has

concentrated the existing natural freshwater habitat into highly modified, yet still

natural, watercourses. ‘Drains’ are not isolated systems but are linked both

physically and ecologically to the wider catchment. The functioning of drains is

affected by upstream and adjacent activities and, in almost all cases, drains

eventually flow into natural steams that connect to larger aquatic systems (rivers,

wetlands, lakes and estuaries).The impact of activities within drains and the quality

of water within them affect the quality of water in downstream water bodies and the

habitat value of the catchment as a whole.

73. While there is some confusion over whether waterbodies considered to be artificial

drains are subject to controls under the RMA, case law (refer to legal submissions)

makes it clear that a waterbody meets the definition for a river under the RMA, and

is subject to the controls of this Act, if it forms part of a natural stream network.

Diverting natural waters through an artificial channel does not cause the river to

cease to be a river, nor does the course then become an artificial watercourse.


PAGE 22 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Maintenance of drains and highly modified rivers and streams

74. Sediment and nutrients accumulate in these water courses over time due to runoff

from adjacent and upstream land and inputs from eroding stream banks. As a result

they can become blocked with sediment and excessive weed growth and regular

maintenance is carried out to maintain outfall and hydrological efficiency. Drain

maintenance is carried out by either private landowners or their contractors or,

within rated drainage or flood protection schemes, the regional council. The main

methods are mechanical excavation of sediment and weeds and/or the use of

herbicides.

75. In many areas effective drainage is critical for continued agriculture, for agricultural

productivity and/or the protection of rural and adjoining urban areas from flooding.

The challenge is how to enable this while also protecting and restoring ecosystem

health and function.

The ecological values of drains and highly modified water courses

76. The ecological values of drains and highly modified water courses are discussed in

the evidence of Dr Michael Greer:

77. ‘Drains’ provide important habitat for aquatic fauna, with the diversity of

invertebrates and fish in drains often comparable to that in nearby more natural

waterways. More than 20 native fish species have been found to use drains and they

are particularly important to ‘at risk’ wetland species, like the giant kokopu and

brown mudfish, as they often represent the only aquatic habitat available in

catchments where wetlands have been extensively drained and converted to pasture.

78. The majority of New Zealand’s migratory fish species use drains as corridors for

movement between other important freshwater habitats and the sea, and these

watercourses likely provide particularly important temporary habitats for eels and

whitebait species.

79. Invertebrate communities in drain ecosystems frequently contain over 30 species,

often at high densities.

80. Until recently there has been a widespread perception that drainage networks are of

low ecological value, and there has been limited attention given to minimising the


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 23 OF 221

ecological impact of drain management practices. However, there is increasing

recognition that drainage networks are now the predominant spring-fed lowland

waterway environment in many parts of New Zealand, with significant ecological

values. The way in which drains are managed has a significant impact on local and

downstream water quality and habitat.

The effects of drain maintenance activities

81. Dr Greer discusses the effects of drain maintenance activities including the

following.

82. Mechanical clearance of sediment from the bed of a watercourse can remove all

available habitat, strand fish and invertebrates in the material deposited along the

stream bank, and result in significant increases in suspended sediment which can

deoxygenate the water column, killing fish,

83. Drain clearing also smoothes the sides and floor of the water course further reducing

the range of available habitats,

84. Studies have found that mechanical excavation of aquatic plants and sediment

significantly reduce native fish abundance.

85. Dr Greer concludes that the multitude of effects of drain clearing and the ecological

value of drains means that it is vital that the effects of this activity are managed.

Submissions and Assessment

Definitions

86. The proposed Plan includes three definitions relevant to Rule R121: Maintenance of

drains:

a) artificial farm drainage canal

b) drain

c) highly modified river or stream.

87. Artificial farm drainage canal is defined in the proposed Plan as:


PAGE 24 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

An open (not piped) artificial watercourse, that is designed and constructed for the

purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water and does not form part of a

natural stream network. Channels designed and constructed to convey water only

during rainfall events and which do not convey or retain water at other times (e.g.

swales) are excluded from this definition.

Note: maintenance of channels excluded from the definition of artificial farm

drainage canal because they only convey water during rainfall events and do not

convey or retain water at other times (e.g. swales) is not controlled by rules in the

Plan.

88. Kaiwaiwai Dairies (S119/005; /006) and Neville Fisher (S12/012) request an

amendment to specifically exclude water races from the definition of ‘artificial farm

drainage canal’ as these are often confused. Kaiwaiwai Dairies (S119/007) new

definition for "River" as per the RMA.

89. Beef and Lamb (S311/004) requests that this definition is deleted and incorporated

into an amended definition of ‘drain’.

90. Federated Farmers (S352/018) requests that the definition excludes the clause “and

does not form part of a natural stream network” for clarity and practical application.

91. Wairarapa Regional Irrigation Trust (S127/002) queries what is controlled by the

proposed Plan – swales or artificial farm drainage canals? The submitter requests an

amendment to clarify the purpose of the ‘Note’.

92. Drain is defined in the proposed Plan as:

Any artificial watercourse, open or piped, designed and constructed for the purpose

of land drainage of surface or subsurface water. Channels designed and constructed

to convey water only during rainfall events and which do not convey or retain water

at other times are excluded from this definition.

Only for the purpose of Rule R121 (drain clearance) a drain also includes a highly

modified watercourse or river and is channelled to such an extent that it has the

characteristics of a farm drainage canal.

93. Jamie Fallon (S373/046) supports the definition for drain as proposed.

94. Wellington Water (S135/012) requests that the clause “only during rainfall events”

is deleted as, in an urban context, drains do not convey water only during rainfall

events. The submitter requests an amendment to indicate that a drain may convey

water at times other than during rainfall. A definition for ‘natural watercourse’ is


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 25 OF 221

also requested, recognising that they are part of a stormwater network in an urban

context.

95. Several submitters, e.g., Kaiwaiwai Dairies (S119/005), MDC (S367/032) and

SWDC (S366/032), request specific exclusion of water races from the definition of

‘drain’ for clarity.

96. Beef and Lamb (S311/003) considers that the definition is confusing as it makes

reference in the last sentence to a ‘farm drainage canal’, but there is no definition for

a ‘farm drainage canal’, only an ‘artificial farm drainage canal’. The submitter asks

whether the distinction between being an open or piped drain is needed and, if so,

requests a more intuitive naming system. They also consider that reference to a

highly modified river or stream for the purposes of R121 only is confusing, as it

appears to duplicate the definition for ‘Artificial farm drainage canal’.

97. Sustainable Wairarapa (S167/018) is confused by reference to tile drains.

98. HCC/UHCC (S85/028) requests revision of the definition of ‘drain’ to improve its

clarity.

99. Federated Farmers (S352/023) requests that the definition refer to any permanently

flowing artificial watercourse and that these are shown on maps within the proposed

Plan. This is opposed by Rangitāne o Wairarapa (FS74/010) who consider this

change would reduce the effectiveness of rules controlling discharges.

100. Highly modified watercourse is defined in the proposed Plan as:

For the purposes of Rule R121 only, means a river or stream that has been modified

and channelled to the extent that it has the characteristics of (in form or function) an

artificial farm drainage canal. For the purposes of this definition, the characteristics

of a farm drainage canal are considered to include that; it has been channelled into

a single flow, the channel is straight, with no ‘natural curves’, the channel is

mechanically formed with straight or steeply angled banks, it is maintained to keep

the water table at least 0.3m below the root zone of the surrounding pasture, and

that it exhibits these characteristics for at least its entire length through the property

in which the watercourse is being assessed.

101. A number of submitters (e.g. Kyle Wells, S360/023; Hiwi Trust, S332/023) request

that the definition is changed to include all streams that have been modified by

human activity - straightening, deepening, channelling.


PAGE 26 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

102. Wellington Water S135/020 considers that the definition should be applicable to the

urban stormwater networks that include large numbers of watercourses and open

drains, including intake structures. These typically are not ‘straight channels with no

natural curves’. The definition needs to work with relevant rules to allow clearance

of debris to prevent flooding as a permitted activity.

103. Beef and Lamb requests that this definition be deleted and incorporated into the

definition for a ‘drain’.

104. Federated Farmers (S352/032) requests that the definition be restricted to the first

sentence and that these watercourses are mapped and shown within the proposed

Plan. This is opposed by Rangitāne o Wairarapa who considers that the extent of

highly modified water courses is unlikely to be effectively mapped and a map will

not show newly modified watercourses over time. The Minister of Conservation also

opposes this in part because, for the purposes of Rule R121, the definition should

ensure that rivers or streams with ecological values that may be adversely affected

by drain maintenance are excluded from the permitted activity rule.

105. A large number of these submissions (e.g. Jamie Falloon S373/025) also request the

provision of high resolution maps to clearly show the drains and highly modified

streams covered by Rule R121 to provide certainty to landowners.

106. Staff from across Council departments have also expressed concern over the

complexity and lack of clarity associated with the three definitions provided to

describe the type of watercourse to be captured by Rule R121.

107. I also note that there has been some confusion over whether waterbodies considered

to be artificial drains are subject to controls under the RMA. As discussed above and

included in legal submissions, case law makes it clear that a waterbody meets the

definition for a river under the RMA if it forms part of a natural stream network.

Diverting natural waters through an artificial channel does not cause the river to

cease to be a river, nor does the course then become an artificial watercourse.

108. I agree that these three definitions as proposed are obviously confusing, and

therefore unhelpful, and I recommend a number of amendments to simplify these as

far as possible. I also note that Council made a deliberate decision not to include


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 27 OF 221

definitions for terms (such as a ‘river’) in the proposed Plan where these have

already been defined in the RMA.

109. The intent of Rule R121 is to manage activities used to maintain open, unpiped

watercourses commonly referred to as drains, but which include natural streams that

have been highly modified over decades; straightened and channelled to the extent

that they resemble and are managed as part of the drainage network.

110. It is not the intent of Rule R121 to manage water races, or devices that meet the

definition within the proposed Plan for ‘stormwater network’, or artificial channels

that only convey water during rainfall events (e.g., swales). The proposed Plan

provides a definition for ‘stormwater network’ and this network is managed by

dedicated provisions in the proposed Plan (refer to the Section 42A Report:

Stormwater).

111. These three definitions were discussed at the drains pre-hearing meeting (refer to the

meeting notes attached in Appendix E). At this pre-hearing meeting there was

general agreement to make the following amendments:

Artificial farm drainage canal

112. Delete the use of this term in Rule R121 and delete its definition in Section 2

‘Interpretation’ as it is not used elsewhere in the proposed Plan.

Drains

Amend the definition for drains to clarify that a drain is Any artificial

watercourse, open or piped watercourse, designed and constructed for the

purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water.

Clarify that drains that form part of a stormwater network are excluded

from Rule R121.

Use a ‘Note’ to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that a drain does not

include water races or artificial channels that only convey water during

rainfall events.

There was some agreement that a ‘Note’ explaining that “Many

watercourses that are considered to be drains are actually natural

watercourses that have been highly modified, often over many decades,


PAGE 28 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

and include channels dug to drain natural wetlands” could provide helpful

clarification. I consider that this Note would be helpful to raise awareness

of the nature of these water courses and recommend that it be included in

the definition for a ‘drain’.

Highly modified river or stream

Accept suggested edits to simplify this definition including:

Delete the criterion “is maintained to keep the water table at least 0.3m

below the root zone of the surrounding pasture” and replace this with the

same clause used in the definition for a drain being it is “designed and

constructed for the purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface

water”

Replace “has no natural curves” with has been straightened

There was a mixed response to the suggestion to amend the last clause to

read that “it exhibits these characteristics for at least its entire length

through the property in which the activity is being carried out and

downstream to the next confluence.” While there was acceptance of the

intent of this clause, being that Rule R121 should not be used to ‘clean’ a

short length of straightened watercourse in an otherwise highly natural

water course, concern was raised by landowners that this clause could be

difficult to interpret on the ground. The counter view is that readily

available technology such as Google maps makes it easy to identify the

downstream form of a water course.

Maps to provide clarity about what meets the definition for a drain or highly modified

water course

113. I have discussed the feasibility of developing maps that will enable landowners to

identify the difference between a drain and highly modified water course and a more

natural stream that would not be subject to Rule R121 with Council’s hydrology and

GIS staff. I have been advised that this would be a significant piece of work, given

the extensive nature of the region’s drainage network, covering many hundreds of

kilometres, and the need for a reasonable amount of ground truthing. However, the

availability of high resolution mapping data for the Wellington region means that it


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 29 OF 221

is possible to provide a region-wide map at the scale of accuracy required to provide

certainty at a property-scale.

114. While mapping of these waterways would be a significant project, I recommend that

a new method be added to the proposed Plan that Council will work to develop a

map layer that identifies drains and highly modified rivers or streams at a property-

scale to aid the implementation of Rule R121.

Recommended Changes to the Definitions relating to Rule R121

115. Delete the definition for ‘Artificial farm drainage canal’ from Section 2:

Interpretation.

Artificial farm drainage canal:

An open (not piped) artificial watercourse, that is designed and constructed for the

purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water and does not form part of a

natural stream network. Channels designed and constructed to convey water only

during rainfall events and which do not convey or retain water at other times (e.g.

swales) are excluded from this definition.

Note: maintenance of channels excluded from the definition of artificial farm

drainage canal because they only convey water during rainfall events and do not

convey or retain water at other times (e.g. swales) is not controlled by rules in the

Plan.

116. Amend the definition for a ‘Drain’ as follows:

Any artificial watercourse, open or piped watercourse, designed and

constructed for the purpose of land drainage of surface or subsurface water

and, for the purpose of Rule R121 only, excluding any ‘device’ included

within the definition of stormwater network. Channels designed and

constructed to convey water only during rainfall events and which do not

convey or retain water at other times are excluded from this definition.

Only for the purpose of Rule R121 (drain clearance) a drain also includes a

highly modified watercourse or river and is channelled to such an extent that it

has the characteristics of a farm drainage canal.


PAGE 30 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Note:

For the avoidance of doubt, this definition does not include water races or

artificial channels or swales that only convey water during rainfall events.

Many watercourses that are considered to be drains are actually natural

watercourses that have been highly modified, often over many decades, and

include channels dug to drain natural wetlands.

117. Amend the definition for a ‘Highly modified river or stream’ as follows:

For the purposes of Rule R121 only, means a river or stream that has been modified

and channelled for the purpose of land drainage of surface or sub-surface water and

has the following characteristics: to the extent that it has the characteristics of (in

form or function) an artificial farm drainage canal. For the purposes of this

definition, the characteristics of a farm drainage canal are considered to include that;

it has been channelled into a single flow, and

the channel has been straightened is straight, with no ‘natural curves’, and

the channel is mechanically formed with straight or steeply angled banks,

and

it is maintained to keep the water table at least 0.3m below the root zone

of the surrounding pasture, and

that it exhibits these characteristics for at least its entire length through the

property in which the activity is being carried out watercourse is being

assessed.

Note:

Artificial channels that only convey water during rainfall events, water races and

the stormwater network are not Highly modified rivers or streams

118. Amend the title for Rule R121 for clarity to read: ‘Maintenance of drains and highly

modified rivers and streams’.

119. Consequential changes will be required to Rule R121 as a result of these

recommended amendments to the definitions. In most cases I recommend


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 31 OF 221

amendments to refer to watercourse, with the beginning of Rule R121 referring to a

drain or highly modified river or stream. These changes are shown in the

amendments recommended on a clause by clause basis in the next section Rule

R121.

120. Add to Chapter 6: Other Methods

Method M14A: Mapping of drains and highly modified rivers and streams

Wellington Regional Council will develop a map layer that identifies drains and

highly modified rivers or streams to assist with the implementation of Rules R121

and R122.

Rule 121: Maintenance of drains – permitted activity

General Support

121. Fish and Game (S308/125) and Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/203) support Rule

R121 as proposed.

Change to Whole Rule

122. Kaiwaiwai Diaries (S119/036) requests that Rule R121 be replaced with Rules 17-20

from Horizons’ One Plan.

123. Rules 17-20 of Horizons’ One Plan set permitted activity conditions for minor

activities involving artificial watercourses. Examples of conditions are: no discharge

of contaminants, provide for safe fish passage, limits where refuelling is allowed.

124. These permitted activity conditions are similar in effect to the general conditions set

out in the Section 5.5.4 of the proposed Plan “Activities in the beds of lakes and

rivers general conditions”. Rule R121 is specifically tailored to manage the effects

of drain maintenance activities and provides more specific guidance than the One

Plan rules. For this reason I do not recommend replacement of Rule R121 with the

Horizon’s One Plan rules.


PAGE 32 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Clause (e) Compliance with beds of lakes and rivers general conditions

125. Federated Farmers (S352/229) states that it is not clear why Rule R121 excludes

condition (g) of the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions, which manages

sediment discharge, and recommends that it be included.

126. As explained in the evidence of Dr Greer, the sediment condition (g) of the general

conditions for activities in the beds and lakes of rivers (Section 5.5.4) was excluded

from clause (e) of Rule R121, as it is extremely unlikely that it can be met during

normal drain clearing operations. Extreme and persistent increases in suspended

sediment are common side effects of drain clearing. Therefore, inclusion of

condition (g) of Section 5.5.4 would render the permitted activity status of drain

clearing redundant. However, elevated sediment is clearly a significant issue

associated with drain management and it is important that other conditions should be

included in Rule R121 to ensure that as much sediment as possible is trapped and

removed from the water course (refer to discussion of clauses (i) and (k) below). I

also recommend the addition of a new condition to ensure that an intact vegetation

cover is retained on the banks of the watercourse to help to reduce bank erosion (an

additional source of sediment to the watercourse) and to assist with the trapping of

sediment along the margins of the watercourse.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (e)

127. (e) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions

specified above in Section 5.5.4, except condition (g) (sediment condition), with all

reference to a river or lake being read to also include drain (as well as a highly

modified river or stream) artificial farm drain, and

128. Add a new clause:

(x) an intact vegetation cover shall be retained on the banks of the watercourse, and

Clause (f) Drain cross-section

129. Wellington Water (S135/168) is concerned that clause (f) is not workable for real

live maintenance, which may require a regrade of a stream bed. The submitter

requests clarification of the intention and meaning of the clause "original grade or

cross section” and re-wording it to make it reflect practical work operations.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 33 OF 221

130. Dairy NZ/Fonterra (S316/121) consider that (f) as worded, perversely interferes with

good drain management practices which require regrading of drains greater than 45

degrees in slope, to 45 degrees or less, thereby ensuring reduced bank slumping,

improving clarity, oxygenation and temperature whilst restricting weed growth in-

channel.

131. Sustainable Wairarapa (S167/030) considers that the rule as written is impractical

and requests that clause (f) is amended to allow drains to be changed from the

classic U shape to a V.

132. As explained in the evidence of Dr Greer, the purpose of clause (f) is to ensure that

detrimental changes to the shape of the bed and banks are avoided. The removal of

macrophytes and deposited sediment decreases water depth, increases current

velocity and increases channel depth. However, repeated clearing can

over widen and deepen channels, slowing water movement, and detrimentally

altering the structure of aquatic habitat. Furthermore alterations to the shape of the

beds and banks decreases bank stability, this increases the risk of bank collapse.

133. Sustainable Wairarapa (S176/30) requests that clause (f) provides for the

construction of fish refuges, sediment traps and livestock drinking bays and that it

applies to modified watercourses and not just drains.

134. The characteristics of highly modified streams/rivers mean that the construction and

use of stock drinking areas would result in significant disturbance of the bed which

should be subject to a resource consent. Fish bays require a cut into the side of the

watercourse, rather than access from the top of the bank. They have a positive

environmental value by providing a refuge for fish and, as long as the activity meets

the general conditions set out in Section 5.4.4, would also involve less disturbance of

the bed.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (f)

135. Amend Rule R121(f) as follows:

(f) any works to alter the depth or width of a drain the watercourse shall not

excavate any deeper or wider than the original grade or cross section of the drain


PAGE 34 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

channel, unless the widening or deepening is for the purpose of constructing or

maintaining a sediment retention trap or a fish refuge bay, and

Clause (g) Weed bucket

136. Wellington Water (S135/168) requests clarification that aquatic vegetation includes

grass and weeds around intake structures. There should be an economic justification

for the use of a fish friendly digger bucket for all routine permitted maintenance,

which includes a quantitative assessment of impacts on fish from such minor routine

activities, and the financial impacts on conducting such widespread, routine

maintenance activities for three waters regionally significant infrastructure. The

submitter requests that clause (f) specifies where use of fish-friendly digger buckets

are necessary.

137. Sustainable Wairarapa (S352/229) considers that the rule as written is impractical

stating that a slotted bucket will let some of the eels get back in to the water but also

a percentage of the material that you are trying to get out. A large number of

submitters (e.g., Sandra Shivas S361/087) consider that specification of the bucket is

too descriptive; this type of bucket is not generally available and is made on special

order and is only used by a few contractors as it is inherently weak in design and

needs constant repair and cannot be tilted. A standard wide bucket can be modified

to do the same job. Other submitters (e.g. Kaiwaiwai Dairies S119/031) also

consider that the specified method is one of many options, and that the rule should

allow the operator to select the best tool for the job. Some of these submitters

consider that as condition (h) addresses the return of native species to the drains that

clause (g) should be deleted.

138. Beef and Lamb (S311/039) considers that requirement for a weed bucket with a

curved flat base is unclear as ‘curved’ and ‘flat’ appear to be contradictory and that

it risks the loss of pest plant material in a manner that is likely to cause it to spread.

139. As explained in the evidence of Dr Greer the purpose of clause (g) is to reduce the

rate at which fish and invertebrates are stranded during drain clearing. Weed rakes

(rake type excavator buckets with a slatted back) allow fish and invertebrates caught

in the spoil to escape back into the channel. However, weed rakes are inefficient at

removing sediment and are not appropriate for use in operations where silt removal


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 35 OF 221

is a primary objective. If large amounts of fine sediment are present in the channel,

the use of a weed rake may actually be detrimental, because re-suspension of

sediment will smother fish habitat, reduce clarity and deplete oxygen supply.

Consequently, the use of weed rakes should be limited to gravel bed streams or

drains with very little deposited fine sediment on the bed.

140. It is noted that most of the watercourses covered by Rule R121 have a sediment bed

and, as the purpose of the activity is to remove sediment, clause (g) is inappropriate

and I recommend deleting it.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (g)

141. Delete Rule R121(g):

(g) if mechanically clearing aquatic vegetation, the machinery must use a weed

bucket with a curved flat base, and a slatted back that permits the easy drainage of

water and fish back into the drain, and

Clause (h) Return of fish and koura

142. A number of submitters (e.g., Kawaiwai Dairies S119/032) state that cleaning is

expensive and needs to be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible. It would

be more practical for operators to do this at their scheduled breaks. These submitters

request amendment using language such as "Every effort to replace..." or

replacement of R121 (h) with All reasonable steps shall be taken to return any

stranded native fish back into the drain.

143. Beef and Lamb (S311/039) is concerned regarding the potential spread of pest

species and requests a specific exclusion to exempt the return of “all pest animal

species.”

144. The Minister of Conservation (S75/154) supports the requirement to return fish to

the water and requests addition of kākahi (freshwater mussels) and a condition

requiring that drain maintenance works are not undertaken during peak upstream

migration times for fish species present in the catchment. This is because drain

maintenance and macrophyte removal typically causes the release of large amounts

of sediment and migrating juvenile fish are particularly sensitive to high suspended

sediment loads.


PAGE 36 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

145. As discussed in the evidence of Dr Greer, the purpose of clause (h) is to reduce the

mortality rates of fish and kōura removed from drains during clearing. Searching the

banks for stranded fish and invertebrates and returning them to the waterway

significantly reduces the population level effects of mechanical drain clearing. Fish

and invertebrate recovery is particularly important in areas known to contain species

like longfin eels that utilise aquatic plants for cover, and in areas where rare or

threatened species are present.

146. In waterways where high levels of silt are present, recovered fish should be returned

upstream of the targeted section of waterway to ensure they are not subjected to

lethal water quality conditions or recaptured by the excavator. Ideally fish should be

returned to the water way immediately (or at the most within an hour of removal).

Where this is not possible they should be placed into a tank of cool water so that

they can be returned in an ‘unstressed’ condition by the end of the day.

147. Dr Greer supports the addition of kākahi to clause (h).

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (h)

148. Amend Rule R121(h) as follows:

(h) any fish (except identified pest species), kākahi and kōura removed from the

drain watercourse during maintenance works shall be returned to the watercourse at

a site upstream of the works in an ‘unstressed’ condition drain as soon as

practicable, and no later than one hour after removal from the drain, and

Clause (i) Spread of sediment

149. A number of submitters (e.g., Alexander Haddon Webster S274/045) consider that

clause (i) is confusing, in that spreading sediment onto adjoining land may mean that

there is no chance for fish to re-enter the water on their own.

150. Beef and Lamb (S311/039) is concerned about the potential for the spread of pests

and requests the following amendment: (i) any sediment or bed material, or plant

material especially any pest plant material, removed from the drain.

151. As discussed in the evidence of Dr Greer, the purpose of clause (i) is to reduce the

risk of the sediment removed from drains during clearing re-entering the waterway.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 37 OF 221

Placing spoil away from the waterway prevents sediment removed by the excavator

falling back into the channel during floods or re-entering through surface run-off. It

is important to note that spoil should not be placed further from the waterway than is

necessary to prevent re-entry, since this may reduce the number of stranded eels that

are able to return themselves to the channel. To increase the chances of stranded eels

returning to the waterway spoil should be placed the minimum distance from the

waterway required to ensure it does not re-enter the channel during heavy rain.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (i)

152. Amend Rule R121(i) as follows:

153. (i) any sediment, bed or plant material removed from the drain watercourse shall be

placed and spread on adjoining land in a position that allows trapped fish and koura

to re-enter the water and in such a way that it cannot slump and be washed back into

the watercourse drains, or other waterbodies, including wetlands, and…

Clause (j) Limit to extent of drain clearing

154. Condition (j) is supported by the Minister of Conservation (S75/154).

155. A number of submitters (e.g. Kawaiwai Dairies S1119/033) request that condition (j)

is deleted and replaced by reference to implementing good practice guidelines

developed with landowners and industry as agreed in Method M14. These submitters

request that the timeframe for implementation of new conditions be extended from

2017 to 2020.

156. Wellington Water (S135/168) considers that condition (j) is not practicable - most

drains can only be accessed from one side and are so small that fragmented cleaning

would be impracticable and inefficient. The submitter comments that most of our

drains dry up in the summer months therefore maintenance is generally a planned

activity.

157. Dairy NZ/Fonterra (S316/121) consider that condition (j) is overly prescriptive, and

should allow for clearing at any time after 3 months from initial works.

158. As discussed in the evidence of Dr Greer, the purpose of clause (j) is to ensure that

refuge areas are provided in cleared reaches, so that fish and invertebrates do not


PAGE 38 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

have to leave the water course in order to find cover. Plants provide important

habitat for invertebrates and fish in soft bottomed streams, and maintaining part of

the plant bed minimises the impacts of drain clearing on aquatic fauna. Where

restoration of hydraulic capacity is of the utmost importance, refuges can be

provided by limiting plant removal to one side, or just the centre of the channel, so

that a strip of vegetation is left along one or both banks. However, where high value

species are present and full restoration of hydraulic capacity is not required, leaving

entire sections of waterway undisturbed at regular intervals along the length of the

channel is likely to be most beneficial.

159. In response to land owners concerns about the practicality of clause (j), I have

redrafted to make it clear that it provides several options for providing fish refuge

(these are discussed in the evidence of Dr Greer). These options are:

1. The retention of entirely un-cleared sections at regular intervals along the targeted

reach. This approach can significantly reduce the impacts of drain clearing on fish

abundance, and there is evidence that it may actually improve habitat quality for

certain fish species like giant kokopu, as it provides both the open water habitats

they prefer to feed in and the plant cover they prefer to shelter in when they are not

active.

Further research is needed to determine what proportion of the stream should be left

undisturbed to significantly reduce the ecological effects of drain clearing. However,

Dr Greer considers that, until scientifically robust guidelines become available, a

clause stipulating that 10 m of stream should be left un-cleared every 200 m is

appropriate. This would ensure:

The retention of at least 5% of the available cover;

That the distance between refuge areas does not exceed what

species like giant kokopu can or will travel in a 24 hour period;

and

That the retained plants do not pose a significant hindrance to

drainage.

2. The construction of fish refuge bays filled with artificial habitat (linked to clause

(f)). Fish habitat lost during drain clearance can be replaced with artificial refuge


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 39 OF 221

structures (for example, made of PVC piping, concrete masonry units or bogwood)

and, in my experience, cover-loving species like giant kokopu may even prefer these

structures to natural sources of cover such as macrophytes. Consequently, the

presence of artificial refuge structures after drain clearing is likely to reduce the

number of fish that leave, and allowing for the construction of these refuges in

clause (j) may help minimise the effects of drain clearing.

Research into the design and benefits of artificial refuge structures in New Zealand

is in its early stages, and further research is needed to establish optimal design

criteria and installation rates. However, it is my opinion that, until scientifically

robust guidelines become available, a clause stipulating that a refuge bay measuring

at least 1m ×1m be installed every 200 m is appropriate. This would ensure:

That the availability of in-stream cover is not reduced by 100%;

and

That the distance between refuge areas does not exceed what

species like giant kokopu can or will travel in a 24 hour period.

160. I note that constructed fish refuges in Schedule C (mana whenua) sites would require

consent under Rule R129, as they would not be a permitted activity under R117 New

structures (f) and I recommend a consequential amendment to Rule R117 to provide

for the construction of fish refuges as a permitted activity (subject to general

conditions), recognising the environmental benefits that these offer.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (j)

161. Amend Rule R121(j) as follows:

(j) two years after the date of public notification of the Proposed Natural Resources

Plan (31.07.2015), where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of the

watercourse a drain, To provide fish refuge areas either:

(i) where the watercourse is sufficiently wide, only one side of the drain shall be

cleared at any one time, and the other side of the drain may only be cleared at least

three months following completion of the initial works, or only the middle of the

drain shall be cleared, and an uncleared margin of at least 30% of the width of the

drain, but no less than 0.3m, shall be left uncleared on each side of the drain, and


PAGE 40 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(ii) for every 200 metre length of watercourse cleared either:

1. at least a 10 metre length of intact aquatic vegetation cover is retained

(and may not be cleared for at least three months); or

2. a constructed fish refuge that is at least 1m2 is provided, and

162. Make a consequential change to Rule R117:

(f) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua),

excluding adding pipes or cables to an existing structure or providing for fish refuge,

and

Clause (k) Direction of clearance

163. A large number of submitters e.g. Wellington Water (S135/168) question why the

direction of clearance is specified, noting that downstream vegetation clearance will

act as a silt arrestor and that the digger driver will not be able to see what they are

doing, and request that condition (k) is deleted.

164. Kaiwaiwai Dairies (S119/032) report that drain cleaning operators report that

starting at the bottom is best because it allows better grade, depth and width control.

If starting from upstream and working down, water builds up pushing weed in front

of it making the cleaning more difficult and time consuming.

165. As discussed in the evidence of Dr Greer, the purpose of clause (k) is to ensure that

drain clearing is conducted in such a way that short sections of aquatic plants are left

at the downstream end of cleared reaches to trap sediment. Plant material and the

sediment retained within these sections can then be removed at the end of drain

clearing operations in one go, thereby limiting the potential for downstream

ecological effects caused by sediment. However, in the notified version of the

proposed Plan, the wording of clause (k) does not align with its intent. Clearing in a

downstream direction is logistically difficult, as it means there is limited visibility

for the operator. Furthermore, it is not necessary to work in an upstream to

downstream direction to provide natural sediment traps.

166. Best practice guidelines recommend that an un-cleared section of aquatic plants

should be left, or a sediment retention device installed, at the downstream end of the


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 41 OF 221

cleared reach until works are complete to catch sediment and minimise the potential

for downstream sediment transport.

167. Further research is needed to determine the length of un-cleared stream required to

significantly reduce downstream sediment transport. However, Dr Greer’s opinion is

that, until scientifically robust guidelines become available, a requirement to retain

an un-cleared section at least seven times the width of the watercourse is

appropriate. This reflects the mixing zone definition in the proposed Plan, and will

ensure that the potential for natural sediment traps to reduce sediment concentrations

downstream of this zone is maximised.

168. Clause (k) could also be improved by allowing for a range of different methods to be

used to trap sediment released during drain clearing operations. As the intent of the

clause is to minimise the downstream transport of sediment, it is my opinion that, in

addition to natural sediment traps, it should also allow for the installation of artificial

sediment retention devices, such as filter fabrics, straw bales or constructed sediment

traps. The use of these devices has also been recommended in a number of existing

good management practice documents.

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (k)

169. Amend Rule R121(k) as follows:

(k) where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of a drain, the activity shall

commence at the most upstream point of the length of drain to be cleared and move

downstream, sediment shall be trapped at the downstream end of the cleared reach

by either installing a sediment trap or a sediment retention device, or retaining a

length of intact aquatic vegetation that is at least seven times the width of the

watercourse until, at least:

(i) the end of each working day where the reach has been cleared working upstream,

or

(ii) otherwise the end of the following working day, and


PAGE 42 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Clause (l) Woody debris

170. A large number of submitters (e.g. Jim Hedley S340/007) consider that condition (l)

is impracticable and should be deleted.

171. In discussion with Dr Greer, it is my understanding that this condition recognises

that woody debris located on the bed of a drain provides valuable aquatic habitat for

fish and invertebrates. Removing this debris therefore further reduces the amount of

instream habitat available. This clause also recognises the importance of allowing

this material to be removed in situations where it poses a risk to flooding or erosion.

For these reasons, I do not recommend any change to this clause, apart from those

associated with the change in definitions

Recommended Amendments to Rule R121 (l)

172. Amend Rule R121(l) as follows:

(l) any maintenance works in the bed of the watercourse a drain shall not remove

any woody debris with a diameter greater than 0.2m from the watercourse drain

unless it is causing, or has the potential to cause a flood or erosion threat, or a threat

to infrastructure, and …

New Conditions

173. Beef and Lamb (S311/039) requests a new condition to require compliance with the

Biosecurity Act as a matter of best practice: Insert the following new condition:

(XX) all tools and mechanical devices used for drain clearing must be inspected and

if necessary cleaned to remove any pest plants or fragments of pest plants, or pest

animals before and after use, to prevent the spread of pests.

174. Requirements for the cleaning of equipment required under the Biosecurity Act are

administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries. While clean equipment is

important to prevent the spread of pests or unwanted organisms this is not a function

of Council and as such should not be a requirement of this permitted activity rule.

However, I consider that it could usefully be included as a note to remind those

carrying out works under Rule R121 of their obligations under other legislation.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 43 OF 221

Add to the existing Note to Rule R121

Note

The application of agrichemicals over surface water bodies or over lake or river

beds is covered in Section 51.13.

Cleaning and inspection of all equipment, machinery, or operating plant may be

required under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to prevent the spread of “pests” or

“unwanted organisms”.

Rule R121: Summary of recommendations

175. Rule R121: Maintenance of drains and highly modified rivers or streams – permitted

activity

The mechanical removal of vegetation or bed material and associated sediment from

any drain or any highly modified river or stream, including any associated:

(a) disturbance of the drain bed, and

(b) deposition on the drain bed, and

(c) diversion of water in the drain, and

(d) discharge of sediment to water

is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met:

(e) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general

conditions specified above in Section 5.5.4, except condition (g) (sediment

condition), with all reference to a river or lake being read to also include

drain (as well as a highly modified river or stream) artificial farm

drain, and

(f) any works to alter the depth or width of a drain the watercourse shall not

excavate any deeper or wider than the original grade or cross section of the

drain channel, unless the widening or deepening is for the purpose of

constructing or maintaining a sediment retention trap or a fish refuge bay,

and

(g) an intact vegetation cover shall be retained on the banks of the watercourse.


PAGE 44 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(h) if mechanically clearing aquatic vegetation, the machinery must use a weed

bucket with a curved flat base, and a slatted back that permits the easy

drainage of water and fish back into the drain, and

(i) any fish (except identified pest species), kākahi and kōura removed from the

drain watercourse during maintenance works shall be returned to the

watercourse at a site upstream of the works in an ‘unstressed’ condition drain

as soon as practicable, and no later than one hour after removal from the

drain, and

(j) any sediment, bed or plant material removed from the drain watercourse shall

be placed and spread on adjoining land in a position that allows trapped fish

and koura to re-enter the water and in such a way that it cannot slump and be

washed back into the watercourse drains, or other waterbodies, including

wetlands, and

(k) two years after the date of public notification of the Proposed Natural

Resources Plan (31.07.2015), where the activity involves the mechanical

clearance of the watercourse a drain, To provide fish refuge areas either:

(i) where the watercourse is sufficiently wide, only one side of the drain

shall be cleared at any one time, and the other side of the drain may

only be cleared at least three months following completion of the initial

works, or only the middle of the drain shall be cleared, and an

uncleared margin of at least 30% of the width of the drain, but no less

than 0.3m, shall be left uncleared on each side of the drain, and

(ii) for every 200 metre length of watercourse cleared either:

1. at least a 10 metre length of intact aquatic vegetation cover is

retained (and may not be cleared for at least three months); or

2. a constructed fish refuge that is at least 1m2 is provided, and

(l) where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of a drain, the activity

shall commence at the most upstream point of the length of drain to be cleared

and move downstream, sediment shall be trapped at the downstream end of the


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 45 OF 221

cleared reach by either installing a sediment trap or a sediment retention

device, or retaining a length of intact aquatic vegetation that is at least seven

times the width of the watercourse until, at least:

(i) the end of each working day where the reach has been cleared working

upstream, or

(ii) otherwise the end of the following working day, and

(m) any maintenance works in the bed of the watercourse a drain shall not remove

any woody debris with a diameter greater than 0.2m from the watercourse

drain unless it is causing, or has the potential to cause a flood or erosion

threat, or a threat to infrastructure.

Note

The application of agrichemicals over surface water bodies or over lake or river

beds is covered in Section 51.13.


required under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to prevent the spread of “pests” or “unwanted

organisms”.

176. Consequential change to:

Rule R117: New Structures – permitted activity

(f) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua),

excluding adding pipes or cables to an existing structure or providing for fish refuge,

and

Method M14A: Mapping of drains and highly modified rivers and streams

Wellington Regional Council will develop a map layer that identifies drains and

highly modified rivers or streams to assist with the implementation of Rules R121

and R122.


PAGE 46 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Method M14: Maintenance of drains

177. A number of submitters (e.g. Wellington Water S135/189, Kaiwaiwai Dairies

S119/043) support Method M14. Dairy NZ and Fonterra (S316/076) supports

Method M14 in principle and requests that it specifically refers to including good

management practices developed by industry.

178. Federated Farmers (S352/246) requests amendment to refer to developing good

practice guidelines with landowners and industry as soon as possible and prior to the

implementation of Rule R121. They also request that this also extends to providing

support for Rule R122.

179. A large number of submitters (e.g. Hiwi Trust S332/026) oppose Method M14 but

request that Method M14 is “fast-forwarded” to develop agreed good practice for

drain clearing prior to the hearing.

180. Method M14 is an important adjunct to Rule R121 and R122. Working in

collaboration with others (e.g. landowners, relevant industry groups and other

stakeholders) is a key focus for the Council and should be elevated in the Method. It

is important that good practice guidelines not only address the way in which drain

maintenance activities are carried out, but should extend to good riparian and land

management practices which, by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into

waterways, will ultimately reduce the extent and frequency of drain maintenance

activities. Method M14 will work with the new method recommended in paragraph

120 to map the different water body types (drains / highly modified water courses

and more natural streams and rivers) to assist landowners to implement both Rules

R121 and R122 – this should extend to raising awareness of the associated

ecological values.

Method M14: Summary of recommendations

Method M14: Maintenance of drains and highly modified rivers or streams

Wellington Regional Council, in collaboration with landowners, industry, and other

relevant organisations, and stakeholders, will develop and implement an education

programme, including good management practice guidelines, procedures and tools,

in collaboration with industry, other relevant organisations, and stakeholders to


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 47 OF 221

support the implementation of Rule R121: Maintenance of drains and highly

modified rivers or streams and R122: Removing vegetation.

The aim of this programme is to:

assist landowners to identify the different types of waterways on their

properties (drains / highly modified rivers or streams and natural

streams), and be aware of their ecological values, and

reduce the extent and frequency of maintenance activities associated with

drains and highly modified rivers or streams, including by

implementing riparian and land management practices that minimise

inputs of sediment and nutrients to waterways, and

support the uptake of good management practice maintenance activities

for drains and highly modified rivers or streams.

Rule R122: Removing vegetation – permitted activity

181. Rule R122 is:

The trimming or removal of vegetation (including weeds) from the bed of any river or lake,

and any associated sediment or bed material attached to the roots of the vegetation being

removed, including any associated:

(a) disturbance of the lake or river bed, and

(b) deposition on the lake or river bed, and

(c) diversion of water, and




conditions specified above in Section 5.5.4, and

(f) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) vegetation removal shall not occur during the

critical period identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or Schedule F2b

(birds-lakes) if the named birds are identified at the work site, and

(g) the activity shall not cause any increase in flooding on neighbouring

properties, and

(h) if mechanically clearing aquatic vegetation from an area of river or lake

bed covered in water, the machinery must use a weed bucket with a curved


PAGE 48 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

flat base and a slatted back that permits the easy drainage of water and

fish, and

(i) any fish (except pest species) and koura removed from the river or lake bed

during works shall be returned to the river or lake as soon as practicable,

and no later than one hour after removal, and

(j) floating debris and plant material shall be prevented from drifting away

and causing obstructions to the river or lake bed, or spreading pest plants

(as listed in the Greater Wellington Regional Pest Management Strategy

2002-2022), and

(k) where the activity involves the removal of an area of contiguous woody

vegetation from the banks of a river, that extends for a length of river bed of

greater than 100m, either:

(i) a length of river bed of 10m shall be left with intact woody

vegetation as a refuge area for every 200m of cleared river bed.

The vegetation in the refuge area must be left for at least three

months following completion of the main works, or

(ii) where there is contiguous woody vegetation on both sides of the

banks of the river, vegetation is only removed from one side of the

river, and the vegetation is not removed from the opposite for a

period of 12 months,

(l) where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of aquatic vegetation

from a river, either:

(i) only one side of the river shall be cleared at any one time, and the

other side may only be cleared three months following completion

of the initial works, or

(ii) only the middle of the river shall be cleared, and an uncleared

margin of at least 30% of the width, but no less than 0.3m, shall be

left uncleared on each side, and

(m) any clearance works in the bed of a river or lake shall not remove any

woody debris with a diameter greater than 0.2m unless it is causing, or has

the potential to cause a flood or erosion threat, or a threat to

infrastructure, and

(n) no excavation of the bed, or widening or deepening of the bed is permitted

by this rule.

Note The spray application of agrichemicals over water bodies or over river and lake beds is

covered in Section 5.1.13.

Condition (k) does not apply to lopping and cabling of willows for vegetative bank edge

protection works.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 49 OF 221

Rule R122 Submissions and Evaluation

General

182. A number of submitters (e.g. Best Farms S149/010) consider that the meaning of

‘bed’ in Rule R122 is unclear.

183. Bed is defined in the RMA – it was a Council decision not to repeat RMA

definitions in the proposed Plan and for this reason I recommend no change.

184. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/204) requests that Rule R122 is amended to permit the

taking and removal of vegetation from the beds and banks of water bodies for

cultural and traditional uses, and as mahinga kai.

185. Rule R122 does permit the taking of vegetation from the beds and banks of water

bodies for cultural and traditional uses, so long as the method of removal meets the

conditions of this rule. In my opinion, usual methods of cultural harvest will not

breach any of the conditions of Rule R122 which are set to protect aquatic habitat

and for this reason I recommend no change.

Clauses (e), (f), (g), (n) – No submissions were received.

Clause (h): Weed bucket

186. A number of submitters (e.g. Federated Farmers S352/230) consider that

specification of the weed bucket is too detailed and request an amendment to refer to

use of a weed bucket that reduces the likelihood of pest plant material being spread

through the river. A number of submitters (e.g. Neville Fisher S12/027) request that

clause (h) be deleted as it is unworkable for small drains.

187. Wellington Water (S135/169) considers that use of a fish-friendly digger bucket

should only be required where necessary. They consider that there should be an

economic justification for use of a fish friendly digger bucket for all routine

permitted maintenance, which includes a quantitative assessment of impacts on fish

from such minor routine activities, and the financial impacts on conducting such

widespread, routine maintenance activities for three waters regionally significant

infrastructure.


PAGE 50 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

188. As discussed with respect to Rule R1221 (g) a bucket that enables the release of fish

is only appropriate where the watercourse has a predominantly gravel bottom.

However, unlike Rule R121, Rule R122 applies to streams and rivers that have not

been highly modified and in many instances will have gravel beds. In these cases a

provision to use a weed bucket that enables the return of sediment and fish to the

water is appropriate and I recommend an amendment to clarify this.

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122 (h)

(h) if mechanically clearing aquatic vegetation from an area of river or lake bed

covered in water that has a predominantly gravel bottom, the machinery must use a

weed rake bucket with a curved flat base and a slatted back that permits the easy

drainage of water and fish, and

Clause (i): Return of fish

189. The Minister of Conservation (S75/155) considers that kākahi (freshwater mussels)

should be included within this provision. Also, due to the potential for high sediment

inputs, a condition should be included requiring that works are not undertaken

during peak upstream migration times for fish species present in the catchment.

190. The inclusion of kākahi in this clause is supported. As discussed with respect to the

Beds of Lakes and Rivers General conditions, fish spawning occurs throughout the

year and an exclusion period to provide for this would mean that there was no period

within which works can be carried out. For this reason, I have not recommended an

amendment related to peak migration times.

191. Beef & Lamb (S311/040) would like this clause amended to read ( except identified

including all pest animal species) and koura ...

192. I note that this amendment would provide for pest species to be returned to the river

which is obviously inappropriate and likely due to misinterpretation on behalf of this

submitter.

193. Kawaiwai Dairies (S119/035) requests that the period for returning fish be increased

to two hours.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 51 OF 221

194. Neville Fisher (S12/027) is concerned that it may not be possible to locate and return

all fish and suggests an amendment so that “All reasonable steps shall be taken to

return any stranded fish back into the drain".

195. My response as set out with respect to Rule R121 (h) applies here (refer paras 145

and 146) and I recommend the same amendment.

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122 (i)

(i) any fish (except identified pest species), kākahi and kōura removed from the river

or lake bed during maintenance works shall be returned to the watercourse at a site

upstream of the works in an ‘unstressed’ condition drain as soon as practicable, and

no later than one hour after removal from the drain, and

Clause (j): Floating debris

196. Beef and Lamb (S311/040) request an amendment to refer to pest plants listed as an

Unwanted Organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993).

197. My response as set out to the same submission made with respect to Rule R121

applies here (refer to paragraph 174) and I recommend the same amendment.

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122

198. Add the following to the Note under Rule R122:




Clause (k): Refuge areas – woody vegetation on the banks

199. A number of submitters (e.g. Jim Hedley S340/082) consider that condition (k) is

impractical and request that it be deleted.

200. PF Olsen/Southern North Island Wood Council (S100/08) considers that (k) is not

practical for forest harvest operations to adhere to these conditions without

encouraging adverse environmental impacts through large quantities of timber

falling into riparian areas as a result of changes to the structural integrity of

surrounding forest. These areas then become a health and safety risk to manage


PAGE 52 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

201. I have discussed the purpose of clause (k) with Dr Greer. He considers that while

woody bank material can provide shading for a stream, he does not consider that

leaving a 10m length of woody vegetation every 200 m provides significant benefits

for aquatic habitat in rivers large enough for such vegetation to grow on the bed.

202. I consider that there are two main activities that are likely to involve the removal this

amount of woody vegetation from the bed of a river – these are plantation forestry

and the removal of invasive willow species. Plantation forestry is now addressed

through the NES-PF (refer to Issue 11) and the removal of invasive plants is a

beneficial activity and it would be undesirable to leave a 10m strip every 200m. For

these reasons, I consider that Rule R122 (k) is not necessary and that any benefits

would not outweigh the disadvantages of extra operational requirements. For these

reasons, I recommend that Rule R122 (k) is deleted.

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122 (k)

203. Delete Rule R122 (k).

(k) where the activity involves the removal of an area of contiguous

woody vegetation from the banks of a river, that extends for a

length of river bed of greater than 100m, either:

(i) a length of river bed of 10m shall be left with intact woody

vegetation as a refuge area for every 200m of cleared river

bed. The vegetation in the refuge area must be left for at least

three months following completion of the main works, or

(ii) where there is contiguous woody vegetation on both sides of

the banks of the river, vegetation is only removed from one

side of the river, and the vegetation is not removed from the

opposite for a period of 12 months,

Clause (l): Refuge areas – aquatic vegetation in the river

204. A number of submitters (e.g. Alexander Haddon Webster S274/045) consider that

condition (l) is impractical and request that it be deleted.

205. Wellington Water (S135/169) considers that condition (l) is not practicable and

request that it be deleted, as most drains can only be accessed from one side and are

so small that fragmented cleaning would be impracticable and inefficient. Most of

our drains dry up in the summer months therefore maintenance is generally a

planned activity.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 53 OF 221

206. I note that Rule R122 applies to ‘unmodified’ rivers and lakes and does not apply to

‘drains’, highly modified rivers or streams, or artificial channels constructed as part

of the stormwater network, which comprise many of the waterways of interest to

Wellington Water.

207. This clause is the equivalent to Rule R121(j) and my response set out there also

applies to this rule (refer to paras 158 and 159 ), except for the option of

constructing a fish refuge bay which is inappropriate to provide for as a permitted

activity within an unmodified water body. I recommend an amendment to Rule

R122 (l), as in Rule R121 (j) but excluding clause (ii)(2) .

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122 (l)

(l) where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of aquatic vegetation from a

river, to provide fish refuge either:

(i) where the river is sufficiently wide, only one side of the river shall be

cleared at any one time, and the other side may only be cleared at least three

months following completion of the initial works, or

(ii) only the middle of the river shall be cleared, and an uncleared margin

of at least 30% of the width, but no less than 0.3m, shall be left uncleared on

each side, for every 200 metre length of watercourse cleared at least a 10

metre length of intact aquatic vegetation cover is retained (and may not be

cleared for at least three months).

Clause (m): Woody debris

208. Rule R122 (m) is the same as Rule R122 (l). Submitters (e.g. Jim Hedley S340/082)

have raised the same concerns that condition (m) is impractical and request that it be

deleted.

209. My response in paragraph 171 with respect to Rule R121 (l) also applies here and I

do not recommend any change to this clause.

Recommended Amendment to Rule R122 (m)

210. No change recommended.


PAGE 54 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Summary of changes recommended to Rule R122


The trimming or removal of vegetation (including weeds) from the bed of any river or

lake (excluding a highly modified river or stream) and any associated sediment or

bed material attached to the roots of the vegetation being removed, including any

associated:






(e) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions

specified above in Section 5.5.4, and

(f) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or Schedule

F2b (birds-lakes) vegetation removal shall not occur during the critical period

identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) if the

named birds are identified at the work site, and

(g) the activity shall not cause any increase in flooding on neighbouring

properties, and

(h) if mechanically clearing aquatic vegetation from an area of river or lake bed

covered in water that has a predominantly gravel bottom, the machinery must

use a weed rake bucket with a curved flat base and a slatted back that permits

the easy drainage of water and fish, and

(i) any fish (except identified pest species), kākahi and kōura removed from the

river or lake bed during maintenance works shall be returned to the

watercourse at a site upstream of the works in an ‘unstressed’ condition drain


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 55 OF 221

as soon as practicable, and no later than one hour after removal from the

drain, and

(j) floating debris and plant material shall be prevented from drifting away and

causing obstructions to the river or lake bed, or spreading pest plants (as listed

in the Greater Wellington Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2022),

and

(k) where the activity involves the removal of an area of contiguous woody

vegetation from the banks of a river, that extends for a length of river bed of

greater than 100m, either:

(i) a length of river bed of 10m shall be left with intact woody vegetation as

a refuge area for every 200m of cleared river bed. The vegetation in the

refuge area must be left for at least three months following completion

of the main works, or

(ii) where there is contiguous woody vegetation on both sides of the banks

of the river, vegetation is only removed from one side of the river, and

the vegetation is not removed from the opposite for a period of 12

months,

(l) where the activity involves the mechanical clearance of aquatic vegetation

from a river, to provide fish refuge areas either:

(i) where the river is sufficiently wide, only one side of the river shall be

cleared at any one time, and the other side may only be cleared at least

three months following completion of the initial works, or

(ii) only the middle of the river shall be cleared, and an uncleared margin of

at least 30% of the width, but no less than 0.3m, shall be left uncleared

on each side, and for every 200 metre length of watercourse cleared at

least a 10 metre length of intact aquatic vegetation cover is retained

(and may not be cleared for at least three months).


PAGE 56 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(m) any clearance works in the bed of a river or lake shall not remove any woody

debris with a diameter greater than 0.2m unless it is causing, or has the

potential to cause a flood or erosion threat, or a threat to infrastructure, and

(n) no excavation of the bed, or widening or deepening of the bed is permitted by

this rule.

Note

The spray application of agrichemicals over water bodies or over river and lake beds

is covered in Section 5.1.13.

Condition (k) does not apply to lopping and cabling of willows for vegetative bank

edge protection works.




Section 32AA assessment of Issue 1

211. An assessment of my recommended changes to the provisions covered in Issue 1

pursuant to section 32AA of the RMA is attached in Appendix G.

Reclamation (Policy P102, Rules R127 and R128, Definition of reclamation)

Reclamation - Background

212. Land reclamation in its broadest sense is the creation of dry useable land from an

area that is a wetland, the bed of a lake or river, or part of the CMA. Reclamation

occurs in both urban and rural settings, and can vary in extent from partial

reclamations, such as establishing rock groynes along a river bank for erosion

control or flood protection purposes, to installing small culverts to provide a vehicle

or stock crossing, through to covering and piping long lengths of stream for new

subdivisions or large-scale roading projects.

213. Reclamation and drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers or streams can have

significant and usually permanent adverse effects, transforming areas of water body


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 57 OF 221

into dry land. Reclamation and drainage usually occur progressively around the

margins of lakes and the headwaters of rivers or streams, with direct physical effects

on the immediate area, as well as cumulative effects on the overall values of lakes,

rivers and wetlands and their margins, including:

Loss of habitat

Restricted fish passage and the isolation of fish populations

Changes in catchment hydrology

Changes in water filtration and sedimentation

Loss of natural character

Interference with public access and access to mahinga kai by iwi

Loss of spiritual values, such as the mauri of a site.

214. While piping a single short reach of river may have a relatively minor effect at the

catchment scale in terms of overall water quality, hydrology, habitat and community

composition, the cumulative effects of many short reaches of many streams being

piped may be considerable

215. The significance of adverse effects associated with reclamation is influenced by a

number of factors, including the scale and design of the reclamation, the values

associated with the water body and the cumulative effects of many small-scale

reclamations across a catchment or sub-catchment.

216. In the Freshwater Plan (FWP), reclamation is:

i. prohibited with respect to Lake Wairarapa

ii. non-complying in rivers of high natural character

iii. otherwise it is a discretionary activity

217. The Freshwater Plan Evaluation report (WRC 2006) commented that the policy in

the plan did not provide guidance on the piping of streams and did not distinguish

between streams of differing biodiversity value. The report concluded that an

approach that provides better policy guidance with a corresponding rule structure

that treated streams differently according to their values is desirable.


PAGE 58 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

218. As noted in para59, in reviewing the FWP, concerns were expressed that “the

existing policy is too weak a tool against which to assess applications for, or

involving, reclamation and drainage of the beds of rivers and lakes, and with which

to prevent adverse effects, such as the complete loss of habitat, natural character,

mauri and other values associated with water bodies. The continuing loss of stream

habitat indicates that the operative policy and rules structure are not achieving the

desired outcome and an alternative approach should be considered.”

Policy P102: Reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers

219. Policy P102 is:

The reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers and natural wetlands

shall be avoided except where the reclamation or drainage is:

(a) partial reclamation of a river bank for the purposes of flood prevention or

erosion control, or

(b) associated with a qualifying development within a special housing area, or

(c) associated with a growth and/or development framework or strategy approved

by a local authority under the Local Government Act 2002, or

(d) necessary to enable the development, operation, maintenance and upgrade of

regionally significant infrastructure, or

(e) associated with the creation of a new river bed and does not involve piping of

the river, and

(f) in respect of (a) to (e) there are no other practicable alternative methods of

providing for the activity, or

(g) the reclamation or drainage is of an ephemeral flow path.

For the purpose of this policy the piping or covering of a stream for a distance

greater than that required to form a reasonable crossing point is considered to be

reclamation of the river bed.

Policy P102 - Submissions and Evaluation


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 59 OF 221

Support Policy

220. A number of submitters (e.g. Meridian S82/022, Transpower S165/012, and

Wellington Chamber of Commerce S277/008) support Policy P102 as proposed.

Remove wetlands

221. Waa Rata Estate (S152/030) requests that natural wetlands are removed from Policy

P102 to ensure that naturally wet areas are not captured by this policy. The submitter

considers that the policy needs to enable appropriate access and management of

naturally wet areas to maintain access for both stock and people or that the definition

for natural wetland needs to be clarified so that areas of wet pasture dominated by

exotic species are not captured.

222. The definition for a natural wetland in the proposed Plan is based on the RMA

definition for wetlands, referring to a natural ecosystem of plants and animals, but

with an extra clause that specifically excludes wetted pasture. For this reason I

consider that the concerns of this submitter are already addressed.

Exclude significant sites

223. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/135) and Atiawa ki Whakarongotai (S398/022) are

concerned that Policy P102 does not recognise the protection required for

outstanding water bodies or for sites of significance to mana whenua and request an

amendment so that the exclusions of Policy P102 do not automatically apply to sites

listed in Schedules A-F in the proposed Plan. I note that in their submission on Rules

R127 and R128 these submitters only pursue prohibited activity status for Schedule

A and Schedule C sites, therefore I restrict my assessment here to those two

schedules.

Schedule A sites

224. Schedule A sites are the crème de la crème of the region’s water bodies. Objective

O31 of the proposed Plan is that “Outstanding water bodies and their significant

values are protected.” I note that, under Rule R111 the reclamation of all or part of

an outstanding natural wetland identified in Schedule A3 is a prohibited activity; and

under Rule R128 the reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of a lake

identified in Schedule A2 (outstanding lakes) is also already a prohibited activity.


PAGE 60 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Logically, as Objective 031 applies to all Schedule A water bodies, this same level

of protection would also be appropriate for the other Schedule A water bodies

identified in the proposed Plan, being rivers with outstanding indigenous ecosystem

values (Schedule A1).

225. Schedule A1 includes only three rivers being:

Te Awa Kairangi/Hutt River, upstream of a point 20 metres above the Kaitoke

Dam

Ōtaki River, upstream of, and including,the confluence with the Pukeatua River

Wainuiomata River, upstream of a point 20 metres above the Wainuiomata

Water Supply Intake

226. The Section 32 Report: “Beds of Lakes and Rivers” provides no rationale for

applying a different activity class to Schedule A1 water bodies merely noting:

“In respect of outstanding rivers the operative plan has no direction. The preferred

approach for rivers is that all reclamation is a non-complying activity. This

approach recognises their outstanding values.”

227. I note that the three Schedule A1 rivers are all located within either forest parks or

water supply protection areas. While two of these river sites are close to water

supply dams, the Schedule A designation starts at points upstream of this

infrastructure. I can see no reason for not managing these rivers in the same way as

the other Schedule A water bodies and I recommend an amendment to provide for

this. I consider that this amendment should be made to rules R127 and R128, as

Policy P102 already sets the strong policy direction to avoid the reclamation or

drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers and natural wetlands (refer to paras 239 and

240Error! Reference source not found.).

Schedule C sites

228. Mana whenua have long expressed their opposition to reclamation of the beds of

rivers, lakes, wetlands and the coastal marine area. Reclamation has destroyed many

significant sites for iwi, including traditional kai moana beds and food sources. The

Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes and Rivers states:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 61 OF 221

“Sites with significant mana whenua values are different (from the Schedule F sites

with significant biodiversity addressed in the previous paragraph) as the sites are

discreet in nature and the value is attributed to that specific area. The kaitiaki group

has recommended that reclamation is prohibited within these sites as reclamation

effectively destroys the site.”

229. The report goes on to state:

“A prohibited activity status recognises and provides for mana whenua values but

provides no option for appropriate reclamation to gain consent. The social and

economic costs of prohibiting reclamation in sites with significant mana whenua

value are considered to be far too high to justify adopting this approach in the

proposed Plan. However, a discretionary activity status may result in an

unacceptable cultural cost within a site with significant value. Hence, the preferred

option is a non-complying activity status for all reclamation in sites with significant

mana whenua values. This sends a strong message that reclamation in these sites is

discouraged but provides an avenue for appropriate activities to gain resource

consent.”

230. The Section 32: Maori Values report states that:

“Schedule C sites have been specified because of mana whenua concern that they

require additional protection and or restoration from the impacts of land use, works

in the beds of lakes and rivers and direct and non-point discharges. Schedule C sites

are supported by policies, rules and methods that will enable values to be protected

or enhanced.”

231. This Section 32 Report also records that:

“the scheduling of sites of significance in Schedule C represents a marked shift in

the stance of iwi as the identification of these sites is a matter of great sensitivity to

mana whenua who, in the past, have taken a very conservative approach to having

sites recorded in public documents.”

232. I consider that this is an issue which requires further discussion and evaluation

through the hearing of submitters’ evidence. I see merit in prohibiting reclamation

within Schedule C sites. As stated clearly by the kaitiaki group, reclamation


PAGE 62 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

effectively destroys a site and the values associated with it. Also, as recognised by

Policy P45 which precludes the use of offsetting in sites of significance to mana

whenua, cultural and spiritual values cannot be replaced by the use of offsets.

233. However, I also recognise that a prohibited activity status is a very strong policy

approach that requires careful evaluation. While the statement in the Section 32

Report (Beds of Lakes and Rivers – para 229 above) raises concerns that “The social

and economic costs of prohibiting reclamation in sites with significant mana whenua

value are considered to be far too high to justify adopting this approach (a prohibited

activity) in the proposed Plan”, I could find no considered evaluation of these costs.

234. Schedule C sites are generally very discrete and are restricted to locations within the

bed of a lake or river, a wetland or the CMA. Key questions are: What are these

significant costs and what are the significant benefits of the activities that would

justify allowing the total loss of the cultural values associated with a Schedule C

site?

235. In the meantime, the costs fall to mana whenua who are placed in the position of

having to continue to respond to proposals for reclamation in their significant sites,

even though it is clear that these activities will destroy the cultural values associated

with that site.

236. The scheduling of significant sites was anticipated to result in greater protection of

their values. Since the proposed Plan was notified there have been a number of

applications for activities to be carried out within Schedule C sites, requiring iwi to

respond to these applications. For these reasons, I consider that a stronger policy

approach is needed if these sites are to receive the protection that was anticipated by

iwi when they acted in good faith to identify these sites for inclusion in the proposed

Plan.

237. I accept that in some limited instances there may be activities which are of

significant benefit to the wider community, essentially those associated with

providing regionally significant infrastructure where there are no practicable

alternatives, where an opportunity should be provided to assess the costs and

benefits of these activities. For example, where the alignment of a major highway

means that a significant deviation would be required to avoid a significant site. For


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 63 OF 221

these reasons, I consider that a prohibited activity status for reclamation in Schedule

C sites is appropriate, but consider that an exclusion for activities associated with

regionally significant infrastructure may also be justified.

238. While I recommend an amendment to the proposed Plan to provide stronger

protection for Schedule C sites, I consider that this amendment should be made to

rules R127 and R128 as Policy P102 already includes the strong direction to avoid

the reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers and natural wetlands.

239. Amend Rule R127 as follows:

Rule R127: Reclamation of the beds of rivers or lakes – non-complying activity

The reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of a river or lake:

(a) associated with the piping of a stream, or

(b) in a site identified in Schedule A1 (outstanding rivers), or

(c) in a site identified in Schedule A (outstanding water bodies) or Schedule

C (mana whenua) where the reclamation is necessary to enable the

operation, maintenance or upgrade of regionally significant

infrastructure.

is a non-complying activity.


Rule R128: Reclamation of the bed of an outstanding lakes and associated

diversion

The reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of:

a) a river identified in Schedule A1 (outstanding rivers), or

b) a lake identified in Schedule A2 (outstanding lakes), or

c) a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua)


PAGE 64 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

and any associated diversion of water, is a prohibited activity, except as

provided for by Rule R127.

Delete Policy and the exceptions provided in Policy P102

241. Fish and Game (S308/069) requests that Policy P102 be deleted because they

consider that all reclamation should be prohibited as it is contrary to sustainable

management and the protection of natural character.

242. Even if the proposed Plan was to classify all reclamation as a prohibited activity,

there would need to be a relevant policy which the rule is to implement. Policy

P106 provides the context for the rules that manage reclamation activities (R127 and

R128) and therefore is a legitimate part of the policy framework. However, the key

question raised by Fish and Game is whether Policy P102 provides for sustainable

management and the protection of natural character. As Policy P102 is to avoid

reclamation and drainage, which clearly provides for sustainable management, I

consider that the matters in question are whether the exclusions to Policy P102

provide for sustainable management of water bodies?

243. In a review of the environmental and economic costs and benefits of stream piping,

the conclusions reached by Greer et al, 2018 concluded:

“While piping a single short reach of river may have a relatively minor effect at the

catchment scale in terms of overall water quality, hydrology, habitat and community

composition, the cumulative effects of many short reaches of many streams being

piped may be considerable.”

244. The results of the economic assessment suggest that:

“Piping of streams incurs a substantial environmental cost, with financial benefits

being concentrated around involved property developers and purchasers” and that

“There exists a market failure that will result in higher levels of stream destruction

in urban residential developments than is likely to be socially optimal. Although

buyers of sections for residential use are likely to be prepared to pay a premium for

proximity to stream corridors, and although developers are likely to have lower

costs due to lower requirements for preparatory earthworks, it seems that these


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 65 OF 221

benefits will very rarely be sufficient as to encourage the type of low impact

developments that will protect the natural form of streams.”

245. In my opinion the exclusions in Policy P102 (b) and (c) for urban development

provide a perverse incentive for reclamation and piping, as these are the activities

that pose the greatest risk to the permanent loss of small streams across the region.

While we do not know the actual length of stream loss across the region, we do

know that around 12.8 km of predominantly headwater streams were lost within

only a five year period (2003-2008), mostly as a result of housing development, and

that more than 2km have been lost to just three subdivisions in the time since the

proposed Plan was notified.

246. I understand that Policy P102 (b) and (c) were included in the proposed Plan in

response to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA)

legislation and in anticipation of the National Policy Statement on Urban

Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) which expressed the government’s desire for

local government to provide for urban development capacity. With regards to

providing for housing capacity I note the statement in the NPS-UDC that it “does not

anticipate development occurring with disregard to its effects1.”

247. There are many examples, in both New Zealand and around the world, that show

that well-designed urban development can provide for both housing capacity and a

healthy water environment, but this requires more strategic and innovative

development design and technology, such as the use of water sensitive urban design.

These approaches recognise the significant values provided by retaining the natural

stream network within a development, including ecological values, benefits for

hazard mitigation, retention of cultural values and also amenity values for the local

community. These values are further discussed in Greer et al, 2018. Rather than

building over the top of streams, development strategies can focus on providing for

development capacity in urban environments using measures such as policy

incentives that promote the efficient use of land, such as infill housing, medium-

1 NPS Urban Development Capacity page 4


PAGE 66 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

density development, smaller lot sizes and reducing the requirements for road

widths.

248. For these reasons, I consider that the exceptions provided for in Policy P102 (b) and

(c) are inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of sustainable management

and I recommend that they are deleted.

Develop a new policy framework that recognises the different values of streams

249. WCC (S286/020) requests that an assessment of stream systems within identified

growth areas (in conjunction with district councils) be undertaken to identify the

values and level of modification of streams. This should inform the development of

a hierarchy of policies and rules to recognise the values of different streams and use

this as basis for identifying where and when the reclamation of stream beds may or

may not be appropriate.

250. I agree with the submitter that a strategic approach to managing stream piping would

be to develop a policy framework that manages streams according to their values.

However, in my opinion this approach essentially supports the continued

reclamation of streams, inferring that because streams are of a lower value that

reclamation is appropriate. This is inconsistent with the philosophy of the RMA

which requires that the values of all water bodies are managed to achieve sustainable

management. As discussed in Greer et al, the cumulative effects of piping a number

of small headwater streams, that may be individually insignificant, can be

considerable. “For instance burying a 200 m section stream in a pipe may have no

measurable impacts on nutrient processing. However, when this is conducted in

isolation 100 times in the upper reaches of the same catchment, the minor adverse

effects of each activity may accumulate, and drastically alter nutrient concentrations

and load lower down in the catchment.”

251. I also note that the approach would not recognise mauri, ki uta ki tai or the

connectedness of the whole catchment. For example, reclamation of lower value

sites in the lowlands could adversely affect sites with significant values in the

headwaters.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 67 OF 221

252. The intent of Policy P102 was to provide a strong discouragement for this activity,

providing for piping and reclamation only in exceptional circumstances. I note that

RPS Policy 8(e) is to “discourage the reclamation, piping, straightening or concrete

lining of rivers.”

253. In my view, taking a value-based approach to stream protection is likely to continue

to result in the cumulative loss of large areas of stream, particularly in critical

headwater areas. I note that the loss of these headwater streams has significant

implications for ecology and ecosystem services, as well as for natural character,

cultural and amenity values.

Reduce the strength of Policy P102 and provide further exceptions to this policy

254. PCC (S163/075) supports the recognition of growth and development strategies but

is concerned that Policy P102 on its own is inadequate and the exclusions are not

provided for in the rules. The submitter requests that the proposed Plan recognise

and provide for urban growth strategies in a more comprehensive manner. The

submitter states that, “The proposed Plan applies non-complying activity status to a

range of activities that are required for, or could be reasonably expected, within an

urban environment. When combined with a policy framework that seeks to “avoid

adverse effects” these activities are going to be extremely difficult to justify through

the consenting process.” The submitter notes the lack of policy guidance when

assessing resource consent applications.

255. Wellington Water (S135/101) considers that the list of qualifying urban growth areas

is restrictive and should be expanded to include growth areas identified in a District

Plan or council-approved structure plan. Spencer Homes (S273/009) and

Woodridge Homes (S105/009) request that (c) apply to all land zoned urban in a

district plan. Best Farms et al (S149/004) request a new clause to provide for “land

within an Urban Development Area and land covered by a structure plan in a District

Plan where the areas of highest ecological significance have been identified, and

where these significant areas are not affected by reclamation.”

256. I consider that my response set out in paras 245 to 248 addresses these submissions

by explaining why I consider the existing exceptions set out in Policy P102 to be

inappropriate and this reasoning applies to providing even further exceptions.


PAGE 68 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Define upgrade

257. Wellington Water (S135/101) supports P102(d) as long as “upgrade” is defined so

that infrastructure is brought up to “community decided levels of service” not

“current standards” so that infrastructure can accommodate growth.

258. Upgrade is defined in the proposed Plan as:

“Use and development to bring existing structures or facilities up to current

standards provided that the effects of the activity are the same or similar in

character, intensity and scale as the existing structure and activity.”

259. The submitter does not explain why a change in the definition is needed to provide

for “community decided levels of service”. P102 (d) already provides for the

development of regionally significant infrastructure which would meet the

submitter’s request to enable infrastructure to accommodate growth. For these

reasons I do not consider that there is any reason to amend the definition for

“upgrade”.

Provide a pathway for new infrastructure

260. HCC (S84/019) and UHCC (S85/051) request that the threshold set by the term

'avoid' is reduced to provide a pathway for new infrastructure reasonably needed to

support existing or planned future development.

261. I consider that the exception provided by Policy P102 (d) to “enable the

development, operation, maintenance for regionally significant infrastructure”

provides a pathway for new infrastructure as requested by the submitter.

Provide for maintenance and access to existing infrastructure

262. A number of submitters (e.g. Waa Rata Estate, S152/030) request a new sub-clause

to enable the maintenance of existing drains, or to repair or maintain existing roads,

tracks or infrastructure.

263. MDC (S367/093) and SWDC (S366/093) request an addition to P102 (d) to provide

for access to maintain regionally significant infrastructure. These submitters also

request that the threshold set by the term 'avoid' is reduced to provide a pathway for


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 69 OF 221

new infrastructure reasonably needed to support existing or planned future

development.

264. Vector Gas (S145/049) requests an amendment (d) necessary to enable the safe,

efficient and effective use, development.

265. The proposed Plan recognises that there could be an element of reclamation in a

wide range of minor activities. Where reclamation could reasonably occur when

undertaking one of the permitted activities, the relevant rule permits the associated

reclamation. Examples of this are the construction of a vehicle or stock crossing and

the construction of a small dam. Reclamation that is not permitted by these rules

requires consent as a discretionary activity under Rule R129. I consider this to be an

appropriate approach to enable the costs and benefits of a specific activity to be

assessed and do not recommend any amendments.

Definition of Regionally significant infrastructure

266. HCC and UHCC (S85/051) request that solid waste disposal is included as

regionally significant infrastructure. GBC Winstone (S66/010) request either

specific addition of quarry activities and major cleanfills to (d), or inclusion of these

matters in the definition for regionally significant infrastructure.

267. The definition of ‘Regionally significant infrastructure’ in the proposed Plan has

already been addressed in the Section 42A report and Right of Reply of Paul Denton

for Hearing Stream 1 and I do not see any value in discussing this further in this

Topic Report the need to address this further.

P102 (f) No practicable alternative

268. NZTA (S146/124) and Vector Gas (S145/049) request that clause (f) is amended so

that the method selected is the “best practicable option to provide for that activity”,

deleting the clause that there are no other practicable alternative methods.

269. Kapiti Coast Airport (S99/011) requests the following term be added: “…no other

reasonable or practicable alternative methods of providing for the activity…”

270. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘practicable’ as able to be done or put into practice

successfully.’ Reasonableness incorporates a cost component to the assessment of


PAGE 70 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

alternative methods. ‘Best Practicable Option’ has a specific meaning and

application in the RMA. The RMA only uses the term ‘best practicable option’

when managing noise and the discharge of contaminants to water, or to land where it

may enter water. Including the best practicable option in Policy P102(f) changes the

focus from requiring that there be no other practicable option to requiring that the

activity is the best practicable option. In my opinion, using the term ‘best practicable

option’ to apply to reclamation and/or drainage is inappropriate, and that both of the

alternatives in the submissions reduce the strength of clause (f).

271. I consider that clause (f) is a key clause in Policy P102 as the premise of the policy

is that reclamation is considered to be inappropriate, while recognising that in

limited circumstances, where there are significant benefits to the community (e.g.

the provision of regionally significant infrastructure) and there are no other

practicable options, it may be appropriate. As discussed in the supporting document

“The environmental and economic costs and benefits of the pNRP stream piping

provisions2” reclamation has significant costs for the environment and for broader

ecosystem services and should only be contemplated in special circumstances, where

all other “practicable” options have been exhausted.

272. In my opinion, the current wording is the most appropriate for implementing the

objective given that the intent of the policy is to send a strong message that

reclamation is to be discouraged. For these reasons I do not support any amendment

to Policy P102 (f).

273. Amend Policy P102 as follows:

Policy P102: Reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers

The reclamation or drainage of the beds of lakes and rivers and natural

wetlands shall be avoided except where the reclamation or drainage is:

(a) partial reclamation of a river bank for the purposes of flood prevention

or erosion control, or

2 Greer et al, 2018


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 71 OF 221

(b) associated with a qualifying development within a special housing

area, or

(c) associated with a growth and/or development framework or strategy

approved by a local authority under the Local Government Act 2002, or

(d) necessary to enable the development, operation, maintenance and

upgrade of regionally significant infrastructure, or

(e) associated with the creation of a new river bed and does not involve

piping of the river, and

(f) in respect of (a) to (e) there are no other practicable alternative methods

of providing for the activity, or

(g) the reclamation or drainage is of an ephemeral flow path.

For the purpose of this policy the piping or covering of a stream for a distance

greater than that required to form a reasonable crossing point is considered to be

reclamation of the river bed.

Rule R127: Reclamation of the beds of rivers or lakes – non-complying activity

274. Rule R127 is:

The reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of a river or lake:

(a) associated with the piping of a stream, or

(b) in a site identified in Schedule A1 (outstanding rivers), or

(c) in a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua)


Submissions and Evaluation: Rule R127

Support for Rule R127


PAGE 72 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

275. Rule R127 is supported by the Minister of Conservation (S75/156), Sophie

Mormede (S68/004), and Friends of Taputeranga Marine Reserve Trust (S69/006).

Oppose Non-complying status - Reduce Activity Class

276. PCC (163/124) has significant concerns with Rule R127 as they consider that a non-

complying status for reclamation associated with the piping of a stream, particularly

within specified development areas, is extremely onerous. The submitter considers

that the proposed Plan does not respond adequately to strategic growth and

development areas. In these areas the submitter considers that the effects of cut and

fill subdivision (essential in Porirua's hilly terrain to enable urban growth to occur)

will already have been comprehensively assessed. The submitter requests that,

within an Urban Development overlay area where a comprehensive development

plan has been approved, the piping of streams should be a controlled activity and,

where a comprehensive development plan has not been approved, it should be a

restricted discretionary activity.

277. QEII Trust (FS96/095) opposes the amendment proposed by PCC. The further

submitter disagrees that the effects of cut and fill subdivision will necessarily have

been comprehensively assessed, citing the case of the development of Benge Farm

(for example) where the scale and effects have not yet been exposed to a

comprehensive and meaningful assessment in terms of the relevant matters under the

RMA. That assessment cannot be achieved via a non-statutory process under the LG

Act 2002. QEII is opposed to any change in the rule that would exclude certain

activities that may affect significant or outstanding wetlands. QEII notes that Taupo

Swamp has been significantly degraded with incremental and detrimental work in its

catchment, in particular changes to the hydraulic regime of its catchment. There is

no justification for activities associated with residential growth areas being given

leniency at the expense of section 6 matters. A consenting regime that allows

potentially significant effects on sites with outstanding natural values to be

comprehensively assessed is appropriate and will promote the purpose of the RMA.

278. HCC (S84/024) is concerned at the use of non-complying activity status generally

across the plan with policies that solely seek the avoidance of an effect or activity.

The submitter considers that it will be very difficult for activities to pass the


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 73 OF 221

“gateway test” and this approach does not allow for activities to be assessed on their

individual merits, such as consideration of the need for a particular activity and the

benefits that such activities could deliver and the ability to mitigate or reduce

particular effects. The submitter considers that the activity status for development

should be based on the actual effects of development, rather than the type of

development. That is, rather than the identification of seawalls as generally

inappropriate, that development with significant effects be identified as

inappropriate instead. The appropriateness of certain types of infrastructure should

be judged on a wider range of criteria, that goes beyond the type of development

proposed.

279. Wellington Water (S135/170) is concerned that Rule R127 does not match the

assessment criteria in Policy P102 and it is more restrictive than the policy. The rule

needs to allow for the planned and anticipated urban growth areas, where some

drainage of streams is likely to be necessary in practice. The submitter states that the

rule does not recognise the difference in context between the urban and rural

environment and requests a new rule with a discretionary activity to manage those

activities within urban growth areas, including within a qualifying development

within a special housing area; or associated with a growth area or development

framework or strategy approved by a local authority under the Local Government

Act 2002 or contained within a District Plan as a discretionary unrestricted activity.

The submitter also requests that Policy P102 and Rule R128 are consistent in terms

of reclamation with other provisions for temporary damming and diversion of rivers

or lakes.

280. A number of other submitters, e.g. Best Farm Limited (S149/011), GBC Winstone

(S66/022), Woodridge Homes Limited (S105/008), Spencer Holmes Ltd (S273/008),

Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd (S276/024), request that the piping of all streams be a

discretionary activity. Holcim states that “As is, consents, even high in catchment

and modified areas would be very difficult (if not technically impossible) to

achieve.”

281. Ian Benge and Martin Benge (S83/002) request that piping is discretionary (within

identified growth areas). NZTA (S146/182) and Kiwi Rail Holdings (S140/064)

request that piping is discretionary for reclamation associated with regionally


PAGE 74 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

significant infrastructure. This amendment is supported by Transpower (FS22/041)

and GBC Winstone (FS51/023) as it provides clarity to the activity status and

opposed by Forest and Bird (FS43/003&011) and QEII Trust (FS96/002, 019,

&067). QEII state that they are opposed to any change to the rule that would exclude

certain activities that may affect significant or outstanding wetlands, such as Taupo

Swamp. QEII notes that Taupo Swamp has been significantly degraded with

incremental and detrimental work in its catchment and in particular changes to the

hydraulic regime of its catchment. There is no justification for activities associated

with regionally significant infrastructure being given leniency at the expense of

section 6 matters. A consenting regime that allows potentially significant effects on

sites with outstanding natural values to be comprehensively assessed is appropriate

and will promote the purpose of the RMA.

282. I consider that my response set out in paras 245 to 248 addresses these submissions

by explaining why I consider the existing exceptions set out in Policy P102 to be

inappropriate and this reasoning applies to providing even further exceptions within

the rules framework.

Increase Activity Class

283. Forest and Bird (S353/155) supports R127 in part but requests that the damming or

reclamation of all outstanding water bodies should be prohibited as there is no

justification for distinguishing between outstanding rivers and outstanding lakes.

This submission is opposed by:

GBC Winstone (FS51/024) as it is unreasonable and impracticable.

Dairy NZ and Fonterra (FS84/046) as there may be circumstances when the

effects of a dam can be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated thereby

allowing the activity through a non-complying activity consent would best

promote the purpose of the Act.

CDC (FS85/222) to the extent that it relates to the CDC community drinking

water supply abstraction point in the Kaipatangata Stream.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 75 OF 221

TBase2 Ltd (FS87/022) as the relief sought may be unnecessary and/or

counter-productive for achieving positive outcomes for the natural

environment in this area.

284. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/207) considers that Rule R127 creates an anomaly

through inconsistency in provisions for lakes and rivers and does not provide for

mana whenua values. The submitter requests that piping of streams listed in

Schedule A1 (outstanding rivers) and Schedule C (mana whenua) sites be prohibited

activities. This is opposed by TBase2 (FS87/021) as they consider the relief sought

to be counter-productive for achieving positive environmental outcomes.

285. I have addressed the concerns raised in this submission in paras 224 to 240, with

associated recommended changes to Rules R127 and R128.

286. I do not consider that further changes are required to Rule R127.

Rule R128: Reclamation of the bed of an outstanding lake and associated diversion –

prohibited activity

287. Rule R128 is:

The reclamation of the bed, or any part of the bed, of a lake identified in Schedule

A2 (outstanding lakes) and any associated diversion of water is a prohibited activity.

Submissions and Evaluation – Rule R128

288. Forest and Bird (S353/156) supports Rule R128 as proposed. CDC (FS85/223)

requests that the submission point is disallowed to the extent that it relates to the

CDC community drinking water supply abstraction point in the Kaipatangata

Stream.

289. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/208) supports prohibition of reclamation for Schedule

A2 lakes and would like this protection to be extended to apply to Schedule A1

(Rivers with outstanding indigenous ecosystem values) and Schedule C (Sites with

significant mana whenua values). This is opposed by T Base 2 Ltd (FS87/023 &

024) who considers the relief sought may be unnecessary and/or counter-productive

for achieving positive outcomes for the natural environment in this area.


PAGE 76 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

290. As discussed with respect to the submission of Rangitāne o Wairarapa on Policy

P102, I recommend the extension of the prohibited activity class to all Schedule A

sites and Schedule C.

291. NZTA (S146/183) requests an exclusion to Rule R128 to provide for reclamation

associated with infrastructure of regional significance.

292. Given that the recommended change to Rule R128 will introduce a number of new

waterbodies to the prohibited activity class, it seems reasonable to ensure that this

new rule does not unnecessarily constrain regionally significant infrastructure, but

with a requirement that there are no practicable alternatives. I consider that the

amendments that I have already recommended to Rules R127 and R128 will provide

for this.

293. I do not consider that further changes are required to Rule R128.

Definition of Reclamation

Background

294. Reclamation is defined in the proposed Plan as follows:

Reclamation in the coastal marine area means the creation of dry land and does not

include coastal or river mouth protection structures such as seawalls or revetments,

boat ramps, and any structure above water where that structure is supported by

piles, or any infilling where the purpose of that infilling is to provide beach

nourishment.

Submissions and Evaluation: Definition of Reclamation

295. Wellington Water (S135/101 and /170) and Transpower (S165/066) note that the

definition for reclamation is restricted to the coastal marine area and request that it

be amended to clarify its meaning in relation to the bed of a lake or river.

296. I agree that, as there are provisions that manage reclamation in areas that are outside

of the CMA, it seems unusual that the definition for reclamation is restricted to the

CMA. I recommend an amendment to broaden this definition beyond the CMA.

297. Transpower (S165/066) requests that R127 apply only when reclamation of a stream

covers a distance greater than necessary to form a reasonable crossing point.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 77 OF 221

Woodridge Homes (S105/010) requests that the proposed Plan includes a definition

for culvert, reclamation and pipe in the interpretation section.

298. I agree that clarification is needed to explain when piping is considered to be

reclamation and when it is just the use of a culvert to provide a crossing. I note that

Policy P102 already includes the following statement:

“ For the purpose of this policy the piping of a stream or covering of a stream for a

distance greater than that required to form a reasonable crossing point is

considered to be reclamation of the river bed.”

299. To assist plan users I recommend that this statement be included in a revised

definition for reclamation within Section 2 Interpretation.

300. UHCC/HCC (S85/065) requests that the definition of "reclamation" does not include

coastal protection structures, such as seawalls or revetments, and requests that the

definition is amended to clarify whether the presence of a path or other useable

space on top of coastal protection structures would constitute "reclamation".

301. In my opinion, if the primary purpose of the structure has been provided for in the

definition then there is no need to complicate the definition by adding exclusions for

secondary uses, such as walking paths. For this reason I do not recommend a

change.

Definition of Reclamation – Recommended Amendment

Reclamation Reclamation in the coastal marine area or the bed of a river, lake, or wetland means the creation of dry land. and

In the coastal marine area, reclamation does not include coastal or river mouth protection structures such as seawalls or revetments, boat ramps, and any structure above water where that structure is supported by piles, or any infilling where the purpose of that infilling is to provide beach nourishment.

The piping or covering of a stream for a distance greater than that required to form a reasonable crossing point is considered to be reclamation of the river bed.


PAGE 78 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716




Policies P103, P104, P106

Policy P103 Management of gravel extraction

Policy P103 is:

The extraction of gravel, sand or rock from the beds of rivers shall be managed so that:

a) the extraction does not result in an increase in flooding or erosion either at the

site of extraction or across the wider river catchment, including any erosion of

existing structures, and

b) the flow of sediment and gravel to the coast is not reduced to the extent it

would contribute to coastal erosion, and

c) the rate of gravel extraction does not exceed the natural rates of gravel

deposition, unless this is required to manage aggradation.

Support for Policy P103

303. A number of submitters (MDC S367/094, SWDC S366/094, Forest and Bird

S353/109, Powerco S29/033 and Friends of the Paekakariki Streams S112/075)

support Policy P103 as proposed.

Clarify intent

304. Wellington Water (S135/102) requests clarification of whether the intent of Policy

P103 is to address removal of gravel from the river system. Wellington Water

sometimes needs to protect infrastructure by moving river gravel to stop erosion of

infrastructure, but this gravel is not removed from the river.

305. Policy P103 does only manage the extraction of material from the river. I consider

that this is already clear and no amendment is required.

Recognise link between river bedload and coastal erosion

306. Coastal Ratepayers (S93/060) and Joan Allen and Rob Crozier (S175/046) are

concerned that Policy P103 does not adequately address the flow of gravel, sand or


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 79 OF 221

rock to the coast and the need to protect coastal areas and properties against

excessive and inappropriate extraction from rivers. They request that the title of

Policy P103 is changed to refer to gravel, sand or rock.

307. I consider that the three clauses of Policy P103 clearly work together to ensure that

the extraction of gravel, sand or rock does not cause adverse effects both at the site

of extraction or across the wider river catchment, including at the coast. I do not

consider that any amendments are required to the clauses of Policy P103 but agree

that the title should be broadened to refer to the other materials specifically

addressed.

Provide protection for sites of significance, in particular for mana whenua

308. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/136) is concerned that Policy P103 does not provide

adequate protection for sites of significance for mana whenua and requests

amendment of the policy and associated rules to avoid adverse effects of extraction

activities on sites in Schedules A-F, including by avoiding activities in or near sites

of significance to mana whenua in the first instance.

309. I understand that the effects of flood protection activities and gravel extraction on

matters such as river ecology, ecosystem processes, mahinga kai, natural character

and places with important spiritual values are an issue of particular concern for iwi.

For example, the Section 32 Report: Beds of Lakes and Rivers (pg. 4) provides

examples of issues raised by iwi during consultation on the development of the

proposed Plan, including concerns regarding the effects of bulldozers in rives on

river hydrology and the habitat for fish and whitebait.

310. In my opinion the relief requested by the submitter is already provided by the

policies of the proposed Plan. Policy P41 is about the protection of ecosystems and

habitats with significant values and Policy P45 is about the protection of within

significant mana whenua values identified in Schedule C. Both of these policies

state that, in the first instance activities should avoid these sites and, if they cannot

be avoided, set out the mitigation hierarchy of first avoiding adverse effects, then

minimising them, and then remedying them (refer to the Section 42A Report:

Wetlands and Biodiversity for an explanation of the mitigation hierarchy and its use

in the proposed Plan).


PAGE 80 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

311. I consider that if explicit provision was included in Policy P103 to avoid certain

adverse effects of extraction activities on significant sites, then this would also need

to be added to a number of other activity focused policies across the proposed Plan

and that this is inconsistent with the intent of the integrated plan.

312. For these reasons, I do not consider that an amendment is required to Policy P103 as

requested by the submitter, but that the other policies of the proposed Plan can be

relied on to address their concerns. I also note that there are a number of

recommendations made in the Section 42A report to exclude Schedule C sites from

permitted activity rules R114, R115, R116, R117, R119 and Rule 120 because it is

considered that the significant values of these sites are not adequately protected by

the general conditions

Add the word materials

313. GBC Winstone (S66/011) generally supports Policy P103, but requests several

amendments to improve the clarity of the policy:

i) Add "materials" after "gravel, sand or rock" in the

introduction to the policy.

ii) In (b) replace "sediment and gravel" with "material".

iii) Remove the word gravel from clause (c).

314. Use of the word “material” broadens Policy P103 significantly; it could be used to

justify the removal of many different types of material from the bed of a river. This

is not the intent of this policy and, rather than provide clarity, it introduces

unintended scope as to what Policy P103 seeks to manage. For these reasons I do not

accept the requested changes.

Recommended Amendment Policy P103


Policy P103: Management of gravel, sand or rock extraction

The extraction of gravel, sand or rock from the beds of rivers shall be managed so

that:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 81 OF 221

a) the extraction does not result in an increase in flooding or erosion

either at the site of extraction or across the wider river catchment,

including any erosion of existing structures, and

b) the flow of sediment and gravel to the coast is not reduced to the

extent it would contribute to coastal erosion, and

c) the rate of gravel extraction does not exceed the natural rates of gravel

deposition, unless this is required to manage aggradation.

Policy P104 Effects of catchment-based flood and erosion control activities


More than minor adverse effects on structures that are part of catchment-based

flood and erosion risk management activities shall be avoided, unless those

activities are carried out by or on behalf of the owner of the structure.

317. There were two submissions in support of Policy P104 as proposed; both Forest and

Bird (S353/110) and Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/137).

318. Wellington Water S135/009 seeks clarification on how ‘catchment-based flood and

erosion risk management activities’ relate to stormwater networks and management.

‘Catchment-based flood and erosion risk management activities’ pertains to flood

protection activities only and not stormwater management and networks. I consider

the existing definition in the proposed Plan to be adequate as it specifically states the

activities should be in accordance with a river management scheme or flood plain

management plan.

Recommended Amendment: Policy P104

319. No change to Policy p104

Policy P106 Management of plants in the beds of lakes and rivers


321. The introduction to and removal of plants from the beds of lakes and rivers shall be

managed so that:


PAGE 82 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

a) pest plants are not introduced and their removal is enabled, and

b) indigenous plant species are encouraged to be planted where they are

appropriate and their removal is only enabled where it is necessary to

manage flooding and erosion, and

c) the introduction or removal of plants does not increase flooding and

erosion either at the site of introduction or removal, or across the

wider river catchment, and

d) the introduction or removal of plants does not adversely affect

significant biodiversity values of the site.

Support for Policy P106

322. Forest and Bird S353/112 and Friends of Paekakariki Streams S112/076 support

Policy P106 as proposed.

Ecological appropriateness

323. The Minister of Conservation S75/099 requests an amendment to clarify that any

indigenous plant species planted should be appropriate to the ecology of the site.

324. I understand that clause (b) refers to the active encouragement of the use of

indigenous plants where they are “appropriate”. Appropriateness here refers to

where the plants are appropriate for the purpose (e.g. for riparian protection,

biodiversity, and in some cases for erosion protection/control) and I agree with the

submitter that this should also refer to the plants being appropriate ecologically. I

note that, in the Wetlands and Biodiversity Section 42A report, I have recommended

a change to Rule R105 to refer to plants that are typical of the area and I recommend

a similar amendment to Policy P106(b).

Mitigation approach

325. Hammond Ltd S132/022 requests that Policy P106 is amended so that (d) any

adverse effects on significant biodiversity values of the site from the introduction or

removal of plants does not adversely affect significant biodiversity values of the site

are remedied or mitigated.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 83 OF 221

326. Management of the adverse effects of activities in sites with significant biodiversity

values will be managed through Policies P40-P42. Policy P41 sets out the mitigation

hierarchy that will be applied, therefore I do not consider that an amendment as

requested by this submitter to Policy P104 is appropriate.

Provide for Maori customary use

327. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/139) is concerned that Policy P106 does not support

mahinga kai and Maori customary use and requests an amendment to Policy P106

and associated rules to provide for Maori to gather plants from the beds of lakes,

rivers and wetlands for cultural and traditional purposes and mahinga kai to occur

and protect plant species that are important to those values and traditions from being

removed.

328. I support the changes requested by the submitter to enable cultural harvest, as this is

consistent with Objective O5 (b) which is to manage freshwater bodies and the

coastal marine area to provide for Māori customary use, and Objective O11 which is

to recognise, maintain and improve opportunities for Māori customary use of the

coastal marine area, rivers and lakes and their margins and natural wetlands for

cultural purposes, and I recommend an amendment to Policy P106 (b) and addition

of a new wetland activity rule to provide for this.

329. Rule R122 specifically addresses the removal of vegetation from the bed of any river

or lake. The removal of plants for cultural and traditional purposes, including

mahinga kai, is permitted so long as the method used to remove these plants meets

the best practice conditions specified by the provisions of this rule. I consider that

this is appropriate and that no amendment is required to Rule 122.

330. In relation to wetlands, Rule R105 manages vegetation planting and the removal or

control of pest plants as a permitted activity. Under Rule R107, the clearance of

indigenous wetland vegetation is a discretionary activity (emphasis by italics is

mine). In my opinion, neither of these rules applies to cultural harvest as obviously it

is neither pest control nor vegetation clearance, rather the selective removal of

special plants. As cultural harvest will be governed by tikanga, in my opinion it

should be provided for as a permitted activity. For this reason I propose a new

permitted activity rule in the wetlands activity rules to enable the selective removal


PAGE 84 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

of wetland plants for the purpose of customary harvest. I consider that this activity

should be limited to the selective removal of plants by hand, with a condition to keep

disturbance of vegetation and the wetland bed to a minimum.

Recommended Amendment: Policy P106


332. The introduction to and removal of plants from the beds of lakes and rivers shall be

managed so that:

a) pest plants are not introduced and their removal is enabled, and

b) indigenous plant species are encouraged to be planted where they are

appropriate for the purpose and are typical of the area and their

removal is only enabled for the purpose of Māori customary use or

where it is necessary to manage flooding and erosion, and

c) the introduction or removal of plants does not increase flooding and

erosion either at the site of introduction or removal, or across the

wider river catchment, and

d) the introduction or removal of plants does not adversely affect

significant biodiversity values of the site.

333. Add new rule x to the Wetlands Activity Rules as follows:

Rule 105a: Removal of wetland plants for Māori customary use

The selective removal of plants from a natural wetland, a significant natural wetland

or an outstanding natural wetland for the purpose of Māori customary use is a

permitted activity provided that:

a) the activity is carried out by hand, and

b) the vegetation and the bed of the natural wetland shall not be

disturbed to a depth or an extent greater than that required to

undertake the activity.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 85 OF 221

New objectives, policies and rules to protect natural character?

334. Fish and Game (S308/039) is concerned that the proposed Plan fails to ensure that

flood protection and river management activities are sustainably managed and are

undertaken in a manner consistent with safeguarding the life supporting capacity and

ecological health and processes of freshwater habitats and protecting natural

character.

335. The submitter requests new objectives, policies and rules to ensure that flood

protection and river and lake management activities are undertaken in a manner that

recognises and protects the natural character of freshwater bodies and achieves the

natural character index freshwater objectives set in table 3.4. [See original

submission p38 for suggested wording of new objective].

Need for a new objective?

336. Objective O17 is that:

“The natural character of the coastal marine areas, rivers, lakes and their margins

and natural wetlands is preserved and protected from inappropriate use and

development.”

337. In my opinion Objective O17 addresses the submitter’s concerns and a separate

objective that specifically provides for the protection of natural character from the

effects of flood protection and river and lake management activities is unnecessary

and would be inconsistent with the approach taken across the objectives of the

proposed Plan.

Need for a new policy?

338. Policy P25 Natural character is that:

“Use and development shall avoid significant adverse effects on natural character

in the coastal marine area (including high natural character in the coastal marine

area) and in the beds of lakes and rivers, and avoid, remedy or mitigate other

adverse effects of activities, taking into account:


PAGE 86 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

a) the extent of human-made changes to landforms, vegetation,

biophysical elements, natural processes and patterns, and the

movement of water, and

b) the presence or absence of structures and buildings, and

c) the particular elements, features and experiential values that

contribute significantly to the natural character value of the area, and

the extent to which they are affected, and

d) whether it is practicable to protect natural character from

inappropriate use and development through:

i) using an alternative location, or form of development that

would be more appropriate to that location, and

ii) considering the extent to which functional need or existing

use limits location and development options.”

339. As per my response to the submitter’s request for a new objective, in my opinion

Policy P25 addresses the submitters concerns and a separate policy to specifically

address the effects of flood protection and river and lake management activities on

natural character is unnecessary and inconsistent with the approach taken across the

objectives.

Need for new rules?

340. The request for new rules to ensure that flood protection and river management

activities are carried out in way that protects natural values, including natural

character and ecosystem health, is addressed in paragraphs 406-407 and 444-445 of

this report.3




3 This is also addressed in the s42A Report: Natural form and function, and Supplementary evidence of Ms

Yvonne Legarth.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 87 OF 221

Beds of lakes and rivers activity rules (excluding rules R121, R122, R127, R128)

5.5.4 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers – General conditions

General submissions

Support for 5.5.4 General Conditions

342. A number of submitters, e.g. Forest and Bird (S353/148), Rangitāne o Wairarapa

(S279/193), Cuttriss Consultants (S104/007), support the general conditions.

Provide for Emergency works

343. Federated Famers (S353/220) also supports the general conditions, but requests that

exceptions are included to provide for emergency maintenance and repairs.

344. This same request has been made with respect to Rules R112, R117, and R119. The

response in paragraph 416 of this report also applies to the general conditions and as

such I recommend no change with respect to this submission point.

Provide for regionally significant infrastructure

345. Wellington Water (S135/226), supported by PCC (FS27/013), considers that the

proposed Plan lacks adequate recognition of the benefits of, and protection for,

regionally significant infrastructure. The submitter requests that the majority of

network-related maintenance activities in the beds of streams and rivers be permitted

activities with conditions appropriate to the temporary nature of works and scale of

environmental effects.

346. The proposed Plan includes a suite of permitted activity rules. I note that the

proposed rules are generally more permissive than those in the Freshwater Plan.

They seek to facilitate the building and maintenance of structures, such as bridges,

which have tangible social and environmental benefits when properly constructed

and maintained without imposing an unnecessary regulatory framework and

associated costs on resource users. In situations where regionally significant

infrastructure cannot meet the permitted activity rules then these activities will be of

reasonable scale and extent and, as such, it is appropriate that they should be subject

to the considered assessment of a resource consent process. Policies P12, P13 and

P14 in the proposed Plan recognise the benefits of regionally significant

infrastructure and will be part of this assessment framework.


PAGE 88 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Provide for log extraction

347. Southern North Island Wood Council (S100/007), Forest Enterprises Growth Ltd

(S275/010) and PF Olsen Ltd (S131/010) are concerned that currently there is no

provision for extracting logs over (not through) beds of rivers during harvest, despite

Rule R102 Plantation forestry harvesting on erosion prone land - permitted activity.

The submitter requests that extracting logs via cable hauling across streams/rivers,

including associated stream bed disturbance is a permitted activity on the provision

all conditions under Rule R102 are met.

348. The submitters’ concerns are addressed by the introduction of the NES-PF

Regulations 2017. Section 68 of these regulations provides for the harvesting and

extraction of trees and the Beds of Lakes and Rivers provisions of the proposed Plan

will not apply. Mr Denton provides an analysis of these regulations and recommends

amendments to the proposed Plan to clearly identify which provisions do or do not

apply to plantation forestry (refer to Issue 5).

349. Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions – new

350. No new clauses recommended for the general conditions in 5.5.4

Clause (a) Discharge of contaminants

351. PCC (S163/120) requests that clause (a) either specifies what contaminants can and

cannot be discharged or a definition of "contaminant" be added to the Interpretation.

Also, as already raised by this submitter with respect to the Wetlands general

conditions, the submitter considers that the wording of clause (a) implies that the

discharge of some contaminants is acceptable if they are already inherent in the bed.

352. I agree that clause (a) can be read to imply that certain contaminants can be added or

discharged to the bed of a waterbody if they are already present in the bed and I

agree that this is inappropriate. On questioning Council staff I understand that the

intent of this clause is to recognise that the activities provided for as permitted

activities under rules R112, R114, R115, and R117-R124 may result in a disturbance

of bed material (comprising sediment and other materials present in the sediment)

and cause an associated “discharge”. The intent of clause (a) is not to provide for the


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 89 OF 221

addition of contaminants and I recommend an amendment to clause (a) to clarify

this.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (a)

353. Amend clause (a) to read:

“except where the discharge is expressly allowed by the activity description of a rule

in this chapter, there shall be no discharge of contaminants (including but not limited

to oil, petrol, diesel, paint, or solvent, heavy metals or other toxicants) to water or

the bed, except where this is the result of the disturbance of other than sediment and

other materials inherent to already existing in the water or bed, but excluding any

discharge of heavy metals or other toxicants, and”

Clause (b) Cleaning and refuelling

354. PCC (S163/120) requests that clause (b) define the locations where fuel storage can

occur or set standards for fuel storage that would enable it to generally occur in most

locations.

355. This submitter raised the same concern with respect to the Wetlands general

conditions and my response there stands being that it is inappropriate for fuel to be

stored anywhere within the bed of a lake or river. I note that:

a) the NES–PF (s104(2)(ii)) requires that, as a condition of a permitted

activity, fuel must not be stored, machinery must not be refuelled, and

oil must not be changed in any location where fuel can enter water,

including within 10m of a wetland; and

b) the Good practice guidelines prepared by Worksafe New Zealand

“Above ground fuel storage on farms” state that fuel must be stored

so that spills will not pollute streams, lakes or waterways.

356. Consequently, I recommend amendments to specify that fuel cannot be stored within

the bed of a river or lake and to extend the general requirement that fuel cannot enter

water to the cleaning and refuelling of machinery or equipment, with a minimum

requirement for these activities to be at least 10m from the edge of a river or lake

bed. Council staff have also raised that reference to ‘fuel’ should be extended to oil

or lubricants to fully address the potential hydrocarbon contaminants and I


PAGE 90 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

recommend a change accordingly. I consider that this is a minor amendment that can

be made relying on clause 16(2) of the First Schedule to the RMA.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (b)

357. Amend clause (b) to read:

“no cleaning or refuelling of machinery or equipment, or storage of fuel shall take

place on any area in, or within 10m of, a river or lake bed, nor will fuel storage

occur or at any location where fuel can enter a water body, and…”

Clause (d) Fish passage

358. PCC (S163/120) requests an exemption for short-term cleaning of stormwater pipes.

359. Dairy NZ and Fonterra (S316/115) consider that subclause (d) is overly restrictive in

requiring even the installation of structures to maintain fish passage at all times and

request that ‘installation’ is removed from this condition.

360. NZTA (S146/172), supported by Wellington Water (FS25/044) and PCC

(FS27/012), and Wellington Water (S135/160) requests that maintenance operations

relating to short term stormwater networks are permitted. Could cleaning stormwater

intakes be restricting fish passage for a short time? The short term nature of the

works, the importance of clearing such structures which are regionally significant

infrastructure for flood protection and the less than minor effect on fish passage

should make it a specified permitted activity.

361. Kiwi Rail (S140/060) seeks amendment to allow for short term diversions and to

also recognise that some works occur in dry watercourses and therefore no fish

passage is available at the time of the works, meaning no benefit is gained from

providing it while the works occur.

362. I discussed the option of allowing for temporary obstructions to fish passage in the

Beds of Lakes and Rivers general conditions with Council’s freshwater fish expert,

Dr Michael Greer to provide for maintenance and construction works. He considers

that, although structures can pose a major threat to native fish when they pose a

barrier to passage frequently or over sustained periods of time, the temporary

restriction of fish passage during the installation and maintenance of small structures

is unlikely to have a substantive effect on native fish abundance or diversity. He


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 91 OF 221

considers that allowing activities to restrict fish passage for a period of less than 48

hours to allow for the installation and maintenance of small structures is unlikely to

pose a significant ecological risk, and is acceptable to provide for in a permitted

activity. I therefore proposed an amendment to provide for this short term

exemption.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (d)

363. Make the following amendment to the Beds of lakes and rivers general condition (d)

364. “structures are designed, installed and maintained, and activities are carried out in a

manner to ensure that fish passage is maintained at all times, unless a temporary

restriction of no more than 48 hours is required for construction or maintenance

activities. This shall include…”

Clause (e) Inanga spawning

365. (e) in any part of the river bed identified as inanga spawning habitat in Schedule F1

(rivers/lakes), no bed disturbance, diversions of water or sediment discharge shall

occur between 1 March and 31 May, and

Support for clause (e)

366. Fish and Game (S308/117) supports clause (e)

Exclusions to clause (e)

367. Transpower NZ Ltd (S165/057) seeks an exclusion to condition (e) for emergency

works necessary for the ongoing use, operation or maintenance of the National Grid,

in any part of the river bed identified as inanga spawning habitat. PowerCo

(FS56/078) supports this and requests a similar exclusion for the operation and

maintenance of distribution networks for gas and electricity.

368. Wellington Water (S135/160) requests amendment to exclude applicability for

clearing damage and debris in the stormwater network after a storm, due to the

immediate need for flood protection and the temporary and beneficial nature of the

work (including removal of sediment from entering sensitive receiving

environments). This submission point also refers to clause (f) (I note that my

response both responds to both clauses).


PAGE 92 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

369. PCC (S163/120) requests an exemption for essential maintenance and emergency

works such as clearing damage and debris after a storm. This submitter also

considers that clause (e) should refer to Schedule F1 (b).

370. RMA s330 already provides for emergency works to be undertaken – this would

apply to all of these submitters being local authorities and network utility providers.

I do not consider that exemption should be provided for general maintenance works

as clause (e) only applies for a period of three months leaving ample time to

schedule general maintenance activities.

Referenced schedules and time period

371. The Minister of Conservation (S75/151) requests the following wording changes to

permitted activity condition (e) so:

372. (e) in any part of the river bed identified as inanga spawning habitat identified in

Schedule F4 (coastal sites) and Schedule F5 (coastal habitats), no bed disturbance,

diversions of water or sediment discharge shall occur between 1 January 1 March

and 31 May, and

373. Mr Perrie addresses the question of spawning periods in his technical evidence. He

notes that the spawning times for inanga listed in Schedule F1a range from February

to July, with a peak period of March to May and states:

374. “I believe the range and peak spawning times presented in Schedule F1a for inanga

capture the “main range” and the “main peak” spawning periods that are appropriate

for the purpose of this schedule and are based on current scientific understanding

relevant to the Wellington Region.”

375. I note that clause (e) refers to Schedule F1which specifically lists reaches of rivers

with inanga spawning habitat. This is the correct reference for these rules as they

relate to the management of activities in the beds of lakes and rivers, including

reaches with tidal influence. Schedules F4 and F4 specifically refer to sites only in

the CMA – activities in these areas are governed by rules in the Coast Chapter.

376. For these reasons, I do not recommend any change to clause (e)


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 93 OF 221

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (e)

377. No amendment to 5.5.4 (e)

Clause (f) Fish spawning

378. Fish and Game (S308/117) supports clause (f)

379. Wellington Water (S135/160), (as for clause (e)), requests amendment to clause (f)

to exclude applicability for clearing damage and debris in the stormwater network

after a storm, due to the immediate need for flood protection and the temporary and

beneficial nature of the work (including removal of sediment from entering sensitive

receiving environments).

380. Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general condition (f)

381. No amendment to 5.5.4 (f)

Clause (g) Generation and release of sediment

382. Wellington Water (S135/160) is concerned that the scale of sediment discharge

provided for in clause g (i) (sediment can be discharged for five consecutive days,

up to 12 hours per day) is far in excess of what is normal in clearing stormwater

structures.

383. I have discussed the concerns of Wellington Water with Dr Michael Greer (Council

Senior Freshwater Scientist) He has reviewed general condition (g) and advises the

following:

“As erosion and scour is controlled through condition (j) the potential for new

sediment to enter streams during works on the beds and lakes and rivers is low, and

general condition g (i) is not necessary to limit the sediment input.

Sediment released during most of the activities conducted on the beds and lakes and

rivers will primarily be from within the river (providing condition (j) is met).

Therefore, the sediment related effects that need to be controlled for in condition (g)

are those related to elevated suspended sediment concentrations downstream of the

works. It is my opinion that condition g (i) does not adequately control for these

effects. Having the clarity limits g (ii) come into force 24 hours after works have


PAGE 94 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

finished allows for sustained periods of elevated and potentially detrimental

suspended sediment levels, and is not in line with the point source discharge

conditions, such as Rule R42 and breach RMA s70. In my opinion the clarity

standards should apply at all times.”

384. Relying on Dr Greer’s evidence, I recommend a change to clause (g) to ensure that

the discharge of sediment complies with RMA s70.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general condition (g)

385. Amend general condition (g) to read:

“all reasonable steps shall be taken to minimise the generation and release of

sediment from the activity, and the discharge of any sediment to water from any

activity in, on, over or under the bed of a river or lake must comply with the

following:

i. the release of sediment associated with the activity must not be undertaken for

more than five consecutive days, and for more than 12 hours per day, and

ii. there must not, after reasonable mixing, result in be any conspicuous change in

the colour of water in the receiving water or a change in horizontal visibility of

greater than 30%, more than 24 hours after completion of the activity, and

Clause (k) Conveyance of flood flows

386. Wellington Water (S135/160) considers that condition (k) is unclear. Stormwater

intake structures are designed to catch debris, and it is then removed as part of

normal operations and needs to be provided for as permitted.

387. Clause (k) refers to managing flood debris so that it does not reduce the ability of the

river to convey flood flows. In the example provided by Wellington Water, debris

caught by a stormwater intake structure should be regularly cleared so that it does

not provide a flood risk. Presumably this is the aim of their normal maintenance

operations and if this is the case it is provided for a permitted activity. In my opinion

the wording of clause (k) is clear and no amendment is required.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (k)

388. No amendment to 5.5.4 (k)


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 95 OF 221

Clause (l) Natural course of the river

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (l)

389. No amendment to 5.5.4 (l)

Clause (m)

390. PCC (S163/120) requests that clause (m) is reviewed to state how much disturbance

is acceptable, regardless of the activity.

391. In my opinion it would be difficult to state how much disturbance is acceptable in

clause (m) as best practice for different activities will vary. Some of the rules set

specific amounts of allowable disturbance e.g., 10m2 and 20m2 are common

thresholds set in the rules. Beach recontouring however has no area given so,

theoretically, it could cover a large area. As there is a wide range of activities, I do

not think it is appropriate to identify an area that is acceptable for disturbance.

Recommended Amendments: Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (m)

392. No amendment to 5.5.4 (m)

5.5.5 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers – Submissions and Assessment

Rules 112-119: Common submissions

Management of temporary structures

393. WCC (S286/050), HCC and UHCC (S85/038, 040-046), and Wellington Water

(S135/161, 162-166) request clarification of whether temporary stream damming

and diversion required for instream structure works (Rules R112- R119) are covered

by Rules R112-R119 (i.e. included in 'associated' works). If the temporary damming

or diversion of water is not included, they seek that it be made a permitted activity

subject to appropriate conditions. These submissions are supported by South

Wairarapa District Council (FS26/125 & 126), Masterton District Council

(FS30/100 & 101), Porirua City Council (FS27/018 & 021), Vector Gas Ltd

(FS35/012) & NZ Transport Agency (FS60/026).

394. Temporary stream damming and diversion is often required to create a dry work area

for maintenance and upgrade works, for construction of new structures and to ensure

separation of clean water runoff from waste disposal areas and for stream crossings.

The submitter considers that it is unclear whether these are included in the list of

'associated' activities for maintenance works or new structures, or if the separate


PAGE 96 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

damming and diversion rules apply and notes that, as these activities are limited to

the duration of the associated works, it is appropriate for them to be permitted,

subject to reasonable conditions.

395. Often water is dammed behind sand bags and water redirected around an area of

works, to keep the works area out of flowing water, which reduces the amount of

sediment being released within the watercourse. This may also include complete

damming with over-pumping to the other side of the works area. In my opinion

temporary stream damming and diversion would be an associated activity for

instream structure works (Rules R112-R114, R115, R116, R117, and R118). All

such works would still be required to meet the conditions in Section 5.5.4 and the

specific rule conditions.

396. Rule R119 does not state that diversion is an associated activity. Beach recontouring

works must be undertaken outside of the wetted channel, and as such, diversion

would not be necessary. The removal of flood debris is also unlikely to require a

diversion of water. Damming and diversion would not be necessary or appropriate

with respect to activities carried out under Rule R119.

397. The submitters stated above also consider that rules for the beds of rivers should be

aligned with the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) rules which provide for temporary

structures. Another example of this is the submission from Joan Allin and Rob

Crozier (S175/060) and Coastal Ratepayers United (S93/075) who request an

amendment to Rule R119 to make it more consistent with equivalent rules – they

request consideration should be made on why Rule R119 is a permitted activity, but

Rule R192 is a controlled activity. They also state beach recontouring in Rule R119

for the bed of a lake or a river refers to ‘discharge…associated with the clearing of

flood debris’. However Rule R192 (beach recontouring for coastal restoration

purposes includes as an associated activity, ‘discharge of contaminants’. They

request that the rules are made appropriately consistent.

398. With respect to the aligning of rules with the CMA rules, it is noted the Section 32

Report: Beds of Lakes and Rivers, states that the general conditions (in Section

5.5.4) approach has also been used in the wetlands rules and the coastal rules. The

general conditions between these three sets of rules have been drafted to provide for


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 97 OF 221

as much consistency as possible between the three sections, which will make the

conditions more effective and more efficient to use and enforce. However it is

important to note that the CMA includes more significant sites compared with the

beds of lakes and rivers. These require a higher level of protection under the

proposed Plan, which is why CMA activities are usually more controlled compared

to similar activities in the beds of lakes and rivers which may be permitted. For

example beach recontouring works in the CMA have a higher likelihood of causing

erosion than in the beds of lakes and rivers, due to the softer sediments in the CMA.

As such, Rule R192 beach recontouring in the CMA requires a restoration plan and

the activity is controlled, in comparison to R119 being a permitted activity for beach

recontouring in beds of lakes and rivers.

399. I note that the Coastal Management Chapter has a number of specific rules

pertaining to temporary structures (Rules R154 and R155), whereas the Beds of

Lake and Rivers Chapter does not. This is primarily because the New Zealand

Coastal Policy Statement requires structures to be made available for public use or

multiple use wherever practical (Policy 6(2)(e)(i). As such, separate rules were

considered appropriate in the Coastal Management Chapter. I consider that

temporary structures are adequately provided for in the existing rules in the beds of

lakes and rivers chapter.

400. I note that Rule R119 (c) pertains to the discharge of sediment to water associated

with the clearing of flood debris. Flood debris is permitted to be removed from the

wetted channel under this rule, and there may be sediment release during this

process. However beach recontouring must be undertaken outside of the wetted

channel and as such, there would be no sediment release. The discharge of sediment

is therefore not considered to be an associated activity for beach recontouring works

on a river beach.

Exemptions from Schedule C sites

401. There are several submissions (David Hume S341/034, Dairy NZ and Fonterra

S316/117-120, Federated Farmers S352/223, 225, 226) requesting rules R114, R115,

R116, R117 are amended to read that “the activity does not occur within those sites

identified in Schedule C (mana whenua), which specifies the need for site specific

restrictions on new structures/river crossing structures”. They require that a proper


PAGE 98 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

assessment of restrictions proposed for mana whenua sites is undertaken and is not

left to a resource consent process at land owner cost.

402. I note that Schedule C has not been developed to specify activities that risk

adversely affecting the values of each. It would be a lengthy and onerous process to

identify a list of activities that pose a risk to the values for each of the 163 sites listed

in Schedule C. As such, I do not consider this to be appropriate.

403. There are also a number of submissions pertaining to the conditions in Rules R114,

R115, R116 and R117 which prohibit new structures within Schedule C mana

whenua sites. The submitters question why more stringent controls are required for

Schedule C sites when in other significant sites, the permitted activity rule is

considered sufficient to address adverse effects. They consider the exclusion of these

permitted activity rules from Schedule C sites to be unnecessarily stringent.

Submitters include DairyNZ and Fonterra (S316/117), USNZ (S349/092 & 093).

404. Rules R114, R115, R116 and R117 all have the same condition which restricts new

structures within Schedule C mana whenua sites. As such, new structures within

Schedule C sites generally fall under Rule R125 as a restricted discretionary activity

if all other permitted conditions can be met. The only matter for discretion would be

potential effects on significant mana whenua values. This is because the presence of

a structure in, on, under or over the bed of a river or lake may have adverse effects

on the particular sensitivity of these sites cultural values for which the site was

identified, and it is possible that the structure would not be appropriate. Mana

whenua values are discrete in nature and not readily quantifiable. Schedule C sites

have a wide range of values associated with them which should be protected in line

with Objective 14 of the proposed Plan (Maori relationships with air, land and water

are recognised, maintained and improved) and Objective O33 (that sites with mana

whenua values are protected and restored). These values are included in Schedule C

including a values glossary to help guide consent applications. It is therefore not

considered appropriate to allow some permitted activities in Schedule C sites when

some level of assessment is required to assess the effects on mana whenua values.

Each structure would require a case by case assessment. It is also noted that I

consider Rules R119 and R120 should also have exclusions for Schedule C sites –

these are discussed in more details below in the relative section.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 99 OF 221

405. Other Scheduled sites are not listed in the above rules for new structures. This is

because Schedule I sites are adequately protected by condition (f) in Section 5.5.4,

Schedule F sites are adequately protected by conditions (d), (e) and other more

general conditions pertaining to minimising sediment release and discharge of

contaminants. All rivers and lakes listed as outstanding in Schedule A are also listed

in Schedule F and as such are considered adequately protected. In general, the scale

of the structures permitted by the above rules would be small and the effects less

than minor when undertaken in accordance with conditions. As such, they are not

considered to have adverse effects on sites within other schedules. As there are a

wide range of different values associated with Schedule C mana whenua sites, it is

my opinion that effects on these values are adequately assessed through the resource

consent process for new structures.

Protection of natural character

406. Fish and Game (S308/113, 114, 116, and 127) have opposed rules R114, R116,

R117, R119. They state that they consider that activities which impact on riparian

margins and on the beds of rivers, lakes, and wetlands should be managed to

recognise and protect natural character. Activities which either on their own or

cumulatively may have any more than minor impacts on natural character should not

be permitted. The submitter requests that the rules are amended so that the natural

character of rivers, lakes, and wetlands and their beds is protected [according to list

of principles in original submission p66]. They consider these rules should be for a

discretionary activity due to effects on natural character.

407. Policy P254 states that use and development shall avoid significant adverse effects

on natural character and that the presence or absence of structures, the extent of

human made changes to landform, natural processes and the movement of water,

should be taken into account. In my opinion, structures permitted under Rules R114,

R117, and beach recontouring works and the removal of flood debris permitted

under Rule R119, will have less than minor effects on the natural character of rivers

and lakes, as the existing conditions both within the Rule itself and within section

4 Policy 25 is considered in s42A Report: Natural form and function. In particular I note the supplementary

evidence from Ms Yvonne Legarth, “Chapter 5 Rules” dated 8 Decemeber 2017.


PAGE 100 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

5.5.4 will limit the scale of the structures, the works undertaken and the effects they

will have on the environment, including natural character. I do not consider the

removal of flood debris to impact on the natural character of the area, especially

given that the debris was not there prior to a flood event. Beach recontouring works

are minor in scale as no material is permitted to be removed from the bed (condition

(k)). As such, structures and activities permitted under these rules and controlled by

conditions, will be of small enough scale as to have less than minor effects on

natural character.

Natural course of a river

408. Transpower NZ Ltd (S165/058, 059, 061) requests exemptions to condition 5.5.4(l),

for activities such as river crossing structures which ultimately by their nature, alter

the course of a river. Wording requested for rules 112, 114 and 117 is as follows:

409. (e) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions

specified above in Section 5.5.4 except condition (l) (not altering the natural course

of the river), and …

410. In my opinion, if a structure is altering the natural course of a river, the effects are

potentially more than minor and would need to be assessed in more detail as part of

a resource consent process. Changing the course of a river may potentially result in

erosion and flooding issues downstream, or have effects on downstream aquatic

habitats. As such, I do not consider that river crossing structures should be exempt

from Section 5.5.4(i). Rules R112, R114, R117 allow for small/minor

structures/works only, which generally have no effect on the natural course of a

river. Any de minimus changes in the natural course of a river would be acceptable

(for example water flowing around a bridge pier).

Exemption for Rule R125 for National Grid activities

411. Transpower (S165/059, 060 &061) also seeks that when activities including stream

works are proposed/associated with the operation, maintenance or upgrade of the

National Grid, and when they comply with all of the conditions/standards for a

permitted activity, that these also be exempt from Rule R125. They request the

following amendment to clause (f) of rule R117:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 101 OF 221

412. (f) except for river crossing structures associated with the operation, maintenance or

upgrade of the National Grid, the activity does not occur within a site identified in

Schedule C (mana whenua), excluding adding pipes or cables to an existing

structure, and…

413. Although National Grid structures are of national importance, new structures and

their maintenance still have the potential to adversely affect cultural values of a site.

As such, in my opinion, a resource consent should still be required to assess whether

cultural values are affected. If a structure is going to be located in a Schedule C site,

it therefore requires further assessment as a restricted discretionary activity under

Rule R125 and there is no resource management reason to provide an exemption for

National Grid structures from this.

Exemptions for emergency works

414. Federated Farmers of New Zealand (S352/221, 226, 227) requests amendments to

Rules R112, R117, R119 to include provisions for emergency works:

415. ‘……is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met except in the

case of emergency works:’

416. I do not consider this to be appropriate as the RMA only allows emergency works to

be undertaken in specific circumstances (section 330) and by specific entities (a

person financially responsible for a public work, a local authority, a network utility

operator, or lifeline utility). These entities generally protect a greater good or

important infrastructure. Allowing individuals to undertake emergency works may

result in large areas of beach recontouring works or flood debris removal or large

numbers of works including sediment retention weirs carried out in an uncontrolled

nature which could have wide ranging effects. It is noted that Rule 42 in the

Freshwater Plan (Urgent Works), has similar restrictions in terms of who could

undertake urgent works.

Provide for existing damming

417. Wellington Water (S135/163 & 164) (supported by PCC FS27/015 & 022 and

Federated Farmers FS54/089) considers that the proposed Plan needs a similar

provision as Rule 8 of the Freshwater Plan "The damming and diversion of water by


PAGE 102 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

a structure that was existing and lawful on 25 January 1997 is a Permitted Activity."

Without this rule the submitter would need to obtain resource consents for their

weirs and dams, including unused structures. The Macaskill Lakes have permanently

diverted a few small streams. It would be a waste of public money to have to apply

for a resource consent for the diversions. These allow weirs, small bridges and

pipelines over streams with a small catchment area. A lot of the Wellington Regional

Council bulk water structures and pipelines are on streams and rivers with a

catchment area > 200ha. They suggest resource consents should not be required for

their existing road and foot bridges and pipeline stream crossings that existed prior

to notification of the proposed Plan.

418. The submitters seek to allow for "The damming and diversion of water by a

structure that was existing and lawful on the date of notification of this Plan as a

Permitted Activity" or similar.

419. It was not considered appropriate to allow for the damming of water by an existing

lawful structure in the proposed Plan as requested by the submitters. This is due to

the potential for existing dams being dangerous. While most existing dams meet

appropriate dam safety requirements under the Building Act 2004, some existing

dams do not meet these safety requirements. By permitting all existing dams,

Council would need to consider the extent to which they are responsible when a dam

failure occurs resulting in damage to life or property. For this reason, an equivalent

rule to rule 8 in the Freshwater Plan has not been repeated in the proposed Plan.

Provide for existing structures

420. NZTA (S146/173) and First gas S145/065, supported by further submissions from

Transpower NZ Ltd (FS22/038), Wellington Water (FS25/043), PowerCo

(FS56/077) and NZ Defence Force (FS64/027) request a new rule to provide for

existing structures in all rivers and lakes as a permitted activity as follows:

421. Existing permitted or otherwise lawfully established structures in any river or lake

existing at the date of notification of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan, and the

use of those structures, is a permitted activity.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 103 OF 221

422. Section 13(1) of the RMA states that no person may use any structure on the bed of

a lake or river unless expressly allowed by a rule or resource consent. Therefore

unless there is a rule allowing use of the structure, once the resource consent for the

structure expires (maximum term of 35 years), a new resource consent would be

required for its ongoing use. The structure itself, would not require consent as it was

lawfully established. I therefore consider the submitters request to have merit.

423. However I note that Rule R112 allows for the use of existing structures as a

permitted activity subject to the specified conditions. As such, I do not consider

there needs to be a new rule pertaining to this issue as the submitter requests.

Instead, I consider the Rule R112 should be amended to clarify the issue (refer

wording below). Furthermore, I do not consider that the use of a dam should be

included in this rule. As stated in paragraph 419 above, while most existing dams

meet appropriate dam safety requirements, some existing dams do not. By

permitting existing dams, Council would need to consider the extent to which they

are responsible when a dam failure occurs resulting in damage to life or property.

424. I therefore propose that Rule R112 is amended to clarify that it also pertains to the

use of existing structures (refer wording below).

Protect indigenous bird habitat

425. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/197) submitted that Rule R115 permitted activity for

culverts, should not apply in Schedules F2a and F2b to protect their significant

values. This is also similar to other submission by them stating that some rules do

not provide sufficient protection for sites listed in Schedule F1 (Rule R115, R116,

R117, R119 and R120) - refer below for further discussion on this. These

submissions refer in generally to Schedule F sites which include Schedules F2a and

F2b.

426. With regards to Schedules F2a and F2b (habitats for indigenous birds in the beds of

rivers and lakes), it is noted that Rule R117 (new structures) condition (g)

specifically protects birds. Both culverts permitted under Rule R115 and river

crossing structures permitted under Rule R114, do not have this condition. In my

opinion these rules should be consistent, especially as they all permit structures. All


PAGE 104 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

other permitted activity rules in the proposed Plan should also be consistent with

each other with respect to the protection of indigenous bird habitat (Objective O35

and Policy P36). I consider this to be in the scope of the submissions from Rangitāne

o Wairarapa. I therefore consider that an additional condition should be placed in

Section 5.5.4 stating the following:

(n) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) the structure shall not be constructed, or the activity shall

not take place, during the critical period identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) if the named birds are identified at the work site.

427. This would also necessitate a consequential amendment to other rules in the

proposed Plan, namely, the removal of this condition from Rules R117, R119, R120

and R122.

Protection of Schedule F sites

428. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/197, 198) have submitted on a number of Rules with

respect to them not providing sufficient protection for sites listed in Schedule F1

(Rule R115, R116). They consider that these permitted activities should not apply in

sites in Schedule F1 to protect their significant values.

429. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/199, 201 & 202) has also submitted on Rules R117,

R119 and R120 and request that these rules exclude sites listed in Schedules A1-3

and F. However further submitter T Base 2 Limited (FS87/019) opposes this as it

considers that the relief sought is unnecessary and/or counterproductive for

achieving positive outcomes in the natural environment in this area.

430. I have already addressed Schedule F2a and F2b sites above I consider that the

significant values of Schedule A and Schedule F1 sites will be adequately protected

by the general conditions in Section 5.5.4 and the conditions within Rules R115,

R116, R117, R119 & R120 themselves. It is noted that Schedule A sites, are also

listed in Schedule F.

431. The general conditions control discharges, fish passage, disturbance of inanga

spawning habitat, release of sediment, duration of diversions and disturbance of the

bed as well as covering the effects of activities that impact on water quality and


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 105 OF 221

habitat quality to the detriment of indigenous fish. The permitted activity conditions

in Rule R115, R116, R117, R119 & R120 govern the size of culverts, dams and

other structures, and allow for small structures to be constructed which are deemed

to have less than minor effects on the environment, including on Schedule F and A

sites. They also allow for small scale beach recontouring, flood debris removal, and

gravel extraction which will have less than minor effects on the environment. The

removal of flood debris is important for the purpose of flood and erosion control.

Adherence to all conditions will ensure that ecological values are not undermined

through the permitted activities under these rules.

432. The rules are considered an appropriate way to allow for small structures and small

works (e.g. clearance of flood debris) that help people and communities provide for

their well-being with minimal regulatory costs, while being effective at providing in-

stream benefits to the river environment that are anticipated by the objectives of the

proposed Plan.

Catchment size, culvert diameters, dam volumes in Rule R114-R116

433. A number of submitters, including Egon Guttke (S14), Land Matters Limited (S285)

and Beef and Lamb New Zealand (S311), NZ Deer Farmers’ Association –

Wairarapa Branch S434/025), Dairy NZ and Fonterra (S316/117) question the origin

of specific catchment and river crossing structure sizes in the conditions for

permitted activities relating to river bed structures, culverts, and small dams (Rules

R114–R116) and why this is not explained in Council’s evaluation reports. Of

particular concern is why a 50ha catchment limit applies above river crossing

structures on the western side of the Ruamāhanga River compared to the 200ha

catchment limit on the eastern side Carter Family S295/090 and Waa Rata Estate

(FS1/116).

434. Generally the numbers used in the proposed Plan’s rules are the same as those used

in the Freshwater Plan. For example, the 50ha catchment limit permitted above the

river crossing structures on the western side of the Ruamāhanga River compared to

the 200ha catchment limit on the eastern side in Rule R114 is the same as that

currently used in Rule 25 of the Freshwater Plan. These catchment sizes are based

on the average rainfall in the region. On the western side of the Ruamāhanga River

rainfall is generally higher due to the Tararua Ranges, whereas in the eastern hill


PAGE 106 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

country rainfall is generally significantly less. Ultimately the permitted activity rules

seek to permit structures in small streams rather than big rivers (due to the level of

effects). Catchments on the eastern side of the Ruamāhanga River can therefore be

larger as they have less rainfall, resulting in smaller watercourses. These catchment

sizes have worked well in existing policy and have therefore been carried across to

the proposed Plan.

435. Generally all the other figures used in the proposed Plan’s rules are the same as

those used in the Freshwater Plan. These figures have been operating well in existing

policy and as such have been continued. For discussion of rationale behind the

numbers that are not the same as those in the operative plan, please refer to the

individual rules below.

Recommended Amendment:

436. It is proposed to amend Rule R112 as follows:

The maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of a structure or a part

of a structure (excluding the Barrage Gates and any dam structure) that is fixed

in, on, under, or over the bed of a river or lake, including any associated:

(a) disturbance of the river or lake bed, and

(b) deposition on the river or lake bed, and






(f) the resulting structure is contained within the form of the existing

structure, or

(g) the resulting structure, excluding any cable, pipe or duct and

including any deposition, adds no more to the existing structure than

whichever is the lesser of:

(i) 5% of the plan or cross-sectional area of the structure in the river

or lake bed, or

(ii) 1m in horizontal projection and 1m in vertical projection

measured from the structure as it was on the date of public

notification of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (31.07.2015)

in the river or lake bed, and

(h) Any existing structure was lawfully established on the date of public

notification of the Proposed Natural Resource Plan (31.07.2015).


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 107 OF 221

Note: Dam structures do not include earth dams for the purposes of this rule.

437. It is proposed to amend Section 5.5.4 by adding in an additional condition as

follows:

(n) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) the structure shall not be constructed, or the activity shall

not take place, during the critical period identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) if the named birds are identified at the work site.

438. It is proposed to amend Rule R117, R119, R120 and R122 by deleting the conditions

pertaining to birds in Schedule F2, for each Rule:

Condition (g) of Rule R117

Condition (j) of Rule R119

Condition (i) of Rule R120

Condition (f) of Rule R122.

Proposed new rules for Section 5.5

439. Beef and Lamb NZ (S311/036) requests that a new permitted activity rule is

included in this section of the proposed Plan, to allow for pest plant control and pest

animal control in the beds of lakes and rivers. They state that the wetland chapter has

such a rule (Rule R105).

440. The wetlands section of the proposed Plan addresses planting and pest plant control

in Rule R105. I consider that this is because wetlands require more specific controls

with relation to these matters. Rule R122 allows for the removal of plants (including

weeds) from the bed of any river or lake. The note at the bottom of this rule states

that the spray application of agrichemicals over waterbodies or over river or lake

beds is covered in Section 5.1.13. Specifically, this section contains Rules R36 (the

use of agrichemicals as a permitted activity) and Rule R37 (the use of agrichemicals

over water as a permitted activity). I consider these three rules (R122, R36 and R37)

are sufficient to address the submitters concerns. I do not consider a separate

permitted activity rule needs to be inserted into Section 5.5.5.


PAGE 108 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

441. GBC Winstone S366/024 requests a new rule in Section 5.5 for river bed gravel

extraction for flood protection purposes. They suggest this should be similar to Rule

R201 (dredging for flood protection purposes or erosion mitigation inside sites of

significance, in the CMA, as a discretionary activity). They state that at present,

river bed gravel extraction for flood protection purposes would be a discretionary

activity under Rule R129. They state that ancillary discharges may make the activity

non-complying in many areas where such activities are undertaken under Rule 67

(discharges inside sites of significance – non-complying activity). They therefore

request a new rule for river bed gravel extraction for flood protection purposes,

which includes associated activities such as takes and discharges.

442. Gravel extraction in the bed of a river for flood protection purposes and within a

scheduled site, would fall as a discretionary activity. However the associated

discharge of sediment, would be a non-complying activity under Rule 67. This

would make the overall activity, non-complying, when assessing the consent.

443. I consider the applicants request for a new rule similar to Rule R201 to have merit.

This would allow the rules to align with each other within the two chapters. A new

rule would encapsulate the associated activities, allowing the activity to take place in

scheduled sites, as a discretionary activity.

444. Fish and Game S308/116 request a new rule for flood and river management

activities undertaken by the Wellington Regional Council, that would include

requirements to operate under a code of practice for river management which

establishes best practices. They also require such activities to maintain or improve

natural character, recognise and provide for trout habitat, recreational values and

indigenous fish values.

445. I do not consider a new rule is required for flood and river management activities, as

they would fall as a full discretionary activity under Rule R129. As such, all the

elements the submitter wanted considered, would be considered under this rule. As

such, I consider a new rule pertaining to these activities is not required.

Recommended amendments

446. I propose a new discretionary activity rule in Section 5.5.7 as follows:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 109 OF 221

Rule R129A: Gravel extraction for flood protection purposes or erosion mitigation

inside sites of significance – discretionary activity

Destruction, damage or disturbance associated with gravel extraction dredging for

flood protection purposes or erosion mitigation inside a site or habitat identified in

Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule F4 (coastal sites) or Schedule F5 (coastal

habitats) in the bed of a lake or river, including any associated:

(a) deposition on the river or lake bed, and

(b) discharge of sediment to water, and

(c) diversion of water

is a discretionary activity.

Rule R112: Maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of existing structures (excluding the Barrage Gates) – permitted activity

447. Rule R112 is:

The maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of a structure or a part

of a structure (excluding the Barrage Gates) that is fixed in, on, under, or over

the bed of a river or lake, including any associated:








(f) the resulting structure is contained within the form of the existing

structure, or

(g) the resulting structure, excluding any cable, pipe or duct and

including any deposition, adds no more to the existing structure than

whichever is the lesser of:

(i) 5% of the plan or cross-sectional area of the structure in the

river or lake bed, or

(ii) 1m in horizontal projection and 1m in vertical projection

measured from the structure as it was on the date of public


PAGE 110 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

notification of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan

(31.07.2015) in the river or lake bed.



448. A number of submitters, e.g. Powerco (S29/045), Wellington Electricity Lines

Limited (FS73/015), Dairy NZ and Fonterra S316/116, Forest and Bird S353/149,

Kiwi Rail Holdings Limited S140/062 support Rule R112 as proposed.

General rule

449. PCC (S163/121) considers that the title and/or 'root' of this rule should explain

where the Barrage Gates are located, for ease of interpretation. Amend to read as

follows: "...(excluding the Barrage Gates located at ...)..."

450. I consider this to be appropriate and propose the following wording of the rule:

‘The maintenance, repair…..of a structure (excluding the Barrage Gates

located in the lower Wairarapa Valley)...’

451. Spencer Holmes (S273/006) requests clarification that the rule applies to overhead

structures. They seek to retain conditions (g)(i) and (g) (ii)

452. Rule R112 does apply to overhead structures as the beginning of the rule specifically

refers to structures that are fixed in, on, under or over the bed of a river.

453. Spark NZ (S98/025) and Chorus New Zealand Limited (S144/026) seek an

amendment so that Rule R112 specifically provides for the repair, replacement,

upgrade or use of telecommunication lines as a permitted activity.

454. In my opinion such an amendment is not required. This is because the rule states it

applies to structures fixed in, on, under or over the bed of a river.

Telecommunication lines are predominantly over the bed of a river/lake, and as

such, the repair, replacement and maintenance works of them would fall under this

Rule.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 111 OF 221

Condition (f)

455. Vector Gas Ltd (S145/066) generally supports Rule R112 but seeks an amendment

to exclude any cable, pipe or duct from condition (f) as it is not possible for them to

be contained within the form of the existing structure.

456. It is noted that condition (g) allows small extensions to an existing structure.

However any such extension is likely to be outside the form of the existing structure.

I therefore consider condition (f) should be deleted from the rule as it makes

condition (g) irrelevant.

Condition (g)

457. Wellington Regional Council (S133/014) notes that both clauses (i) and (ii) of

condition (g) are intended to only allow an increase in relation to the structure as at

the date of public notification of the proposed Plan and requests an amendment to

clarify this. A further informal comment by Wellington Regional Council staff

clarifies this further by stating, the way condition (g) is written, it could be construed

that the date the structure is measured from (as it was on the date of public

notification of the proposed Plan 31/07/2015 in the river/lake bed), only applies to

clause (ii).

458. To help clarify this rule, I propose to amend condition (g) to how it is read in the

Freshwater Plan (refer below).

459. Best Farm Limited, Hunters Hill Limited and Stebbings Farmlands Limited

(S149/008) requests that the meaning of 'cable, pipe and duct' in R112(g) is clarified.

460. An informal comment from the Council staff expands on this by stating that the use

of ‘cable, pipe or duct’ in condition (g) is confusing, especially as culverts are

arguably pipes. Council staff have suggested that clarification of the intent of the

rule is outlined in the rule, for example, gas pipes.

461. The terms cable and pipe and duct have been carried over from the operative

Freshwater Plan. They refer to items such as electricity/telecommunication cables,

gas pipes, water pipes, telecommunication cables or pipes in which one or more

cables are conveyed. I consider the addition of examples of these structures should

be added within the rule as suggested in the recommended amendments below.


PAGE 112 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

462. Wellington Water (S135/161), supported by Federated Farmers (FS54/088),

considers that conditions (g), (i) & (ii) can restrict minor low impact improvements

such as rip-rap around stormwater outlets to mitigate scour. The % description does

not clarify the extent of what is permitted. It is confusing and difficult to interpret

and apply, e.g. where in the structure is the cross-sectional area measured? Greater

flexibility is required, for example, to be able to use gabion baskets for preventative

maintenance. The submitter requests that the percentage descriptor is not used in the

rule, or if it is to be used, it should be clarified. They also request an increase to the

projection dimensions to allow for reasonable protection by rip-rap. Finally, they

request that the rule should allow for preventative maintenance procedures such as

the use of gabion baskets.

463. In my opinion, erosion protection structures added onto existing structures to protect

them, would be considered a new structure, rather than maintenance of that

structure, and should therefore be considered under Rule R117. Rule R117 does not

include any size related conditions, except for condition (h), that the new structure

does not occupy a bed area greater than 10m2. Condition (h) allows for a reasonable

amount of rip-rap, gabion baskets to be undertaken as a permitted activity. I consider

that the percentage description and cross-sectional area is adequate for the purpose

of Rule R112.

464. Woodridge Homes Limited (S105/007) considers that that wording of R112 is

confusing and requests clarification to make the extension of cables, ducts and pipes

a permitted activity. This could include deleting the words "excluding any cable,

pipe or duct" from permitted activity condition (g). Alternatively the wording could

be amended to read "excluding any overhead cable, pipe or duct" to better align it

with R28 of the Freshwater Plan.

465. An informal comment by Council staff also states the purpose of condition (g) is to

exclude from the calculation of the 'size' of the structure any 'cable, pipe or duct', but

grammar means this isn't clear.

466. Extensions of cables, ducts and pipes would be permitted under Rule R112 if they

are for the purpose of maintenance, repair, replacement or upgrade. Any new cables,

ducts or pipes would be assessed under Rule R117. I do not consider the word


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 113 OF 221

‘overhead’ should be added in front of cable as some cables are not over a river, they

could be under it. However I propose to reword condition (g) to make the exclusion

of pipes/cables/ducts from the size measurement clearer.

467. Spencer Holmes (S273/006) supports retention of R112(g)(i) and (g) (ii).

Informal issues raised by Wellington Regional Council

468. An informal comment by Council staff, is that the 5% cross-sectional area condition

seems to capture activities easily such as an upgrade to a pipe that crosses a stream

(e.g. increasing overall size of the pipe). This would mean that an activity with less

than minor effects would then fall as a discretionary activity under catch-all rule

R129 if it failed to meet the 5% test. Another example used by Council staff, was

possible replacement/repair of an existing culvert. Staff stated that if it did not meet

condition (g) size requirements, it would then fall as a discretionary activity – even

though it may meet all the conditions in Rule R115 (permitted activity rule for

culverts).

469. In my opinion, if a pipe was going to be replaced with a bigger pipe over the size

requirement rule in Rule R112, it could be assessed as a new structure under Rule

R117, before falling into the discretionary activity rule. I also consider this to be the

same for the culvert example. It is noted that Rule R115 does not specifically say it

is for ‘new culverts’. I consider the 5% cross-sectional area to be adequate as it

protects adverse effects on watercourses from resulting structures becoming too

large.

470. An informal comment was raised by Council staff pertaining to the use of existing

structures. Rule R112 covers the use of existing structures, however condition (e)

requires compliance with all general conditions including 5.5.4 condition (d) - fish

passage, (j) - erosion, scour, flooding & (k) - flood flows. There are many existing

structures which would be impossible to bring into line with these conditions (e.g.

culverts that are two small to convey flood flows, do not provide fish passage or are

badly installed causing erosion at inlet or outlet). As the rule currently stands the

Council would currently have an obligation to require the upgrade of all these non-

complying structures.


PAGE 114 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

471. In my opinion the conditions in Section 5.5.4 would only pertain to the works being

undertaken, not the whole structure.

Recommended Amendment: Rule R112


‘The maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of a structure or a part of a

structure (excluding the Barrage Gates located in the lower Wairarapa Valley) that is

fixed in, on, under or over the bed of a river or lake, including any associated:…’…

473. It is proposed to delete condition (f) of Rule R112.

474. It is proposed to amend condition (g) of Rule R112 as follows:

‘the resulting structure, excluding any cable, pipe or duct (for example gas pipes,

electricity cables or ducts) attached to the structure and including any deposition,

adds no more to the existing structure than whichever is the lesser of;

(i) 5% of the plan or cross-sectional area of the structure in the river or lake bed, or

(ii) 1 m in horizontal projection and 1 m in vertical projection measured from

the structure as it was on the date of public notification of the Proposed Natural

Resource Plan (31.07.2015) in the river or lake bed.

measured from the structure as it was on the date of public notification of the

Proposed Natural Resource Plan (31.07.2015) in the river or lake bed.

Rule R113: Diversion of flood water by existing structures – permitted activity

475. Rule R113 is:

The diversion of flood water by a structure or stopbank outside the bed of a river or

lake that was in existence on the date of public notification of the Proposed Natural

Resources Plan (31.07.2015) is a permitted activity, provided the following condition is

met:

(a) the structure or stopbank causing the diversion shall not increase by more

than 5% of the plan or cross-sectional area from the date of public

notification of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (31.07.2015),

provided the increased size does not cause flooding on any neighbouring

property.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 115 OF 221


Support Rule R113

476. A number of submitters (e.g. Forest and Bird S353/150, Federated Farmers

S352/222 and Fish and Game S308/119) support Rule R113 as proposed.

Amendment

477. MDC (S367/118) and SWDC (S366/118) assume that Rule R113 provides for an

existing road structure but are unsure whether it would apply equally to a road

upgrade required to alter the alignment or elevation or a road structure in a manner

which may technically exceed the permitted activity standard at Rule R113 (a)

which provides for a 5% increase in cross sectional area.

478. These submitters request confirmation that Rule R113 applies to diversion of flood

waters by a road structure and propose a new permitted activity standard following

R113 (b) “where the structure is Regionally Significant Infrastructure or a local

authority road, the structure may be increased in size or realigned and/or relocated

where that increase shall not exacerbate the risk or potential effects of flooding on

any neighbouring property.”

479. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (FS74/287) partly supports the submission of MDC; the

submitter considers that the first part of the requested amendment provides

clarification and certainty for plan users which is beneficial, however is not sure that

a new condition (b) is necessary.

480. Rule R113 seeks to address the diversion of water (flood flows) which occurs from

existing structures that are not built in the beds of lakes and rivers. The structures

themselves would not require consent as they are outside of the river/lake bed,

however the diversion of flood waters from these structures would normally require

a diversion of water consent.

481. Rule R113 allows for the diversion of water from structures existing at the time of

the proposed Plan’s notification date. I note that any new structure built outside of

the bed of a lake or river, that would divert flood waters, would require consent for

the diversion of flood waters under Rule R135.


PAGE 116 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

482. The submitters seek clarification on whether a road upgrade which technically

exceeds the permitted activity standard at Rule R113 (a), would also be a permitted

activity under Rule R113. In my opinion, the upgrade/realignment of a road structure

which exceeds the requirements in condition (a), would require consent for the

diversion of water under Rule R135. This is because the increased size may cause

the flood waters to divert in a different direction and cause flooding on neighbouring

property. Although the submitters suggest that a new condition could be added to the

effect that any increase in size does not exacerbate the risk or potential effects of

flooding on a neighbouring property, I do not consider this would be appropriate.

Who would assess the effects of the diversion and the potential for exacerbating

flooding to determine it has no effects? Furthermore, who would enforce this

proposed condition?

483. The best way to assess the effects of any increased size of a structure beyond what is

provided for in the condition, is through a resource consent process for the diversion

of water. The relevant experts would assess the level of effects through this

consenting process. To clarify this rule, I consider that a note should be added to the

end of Rule R113,that states that the diversion of flood waters by any new structures

outside the beds of lakes and rivers that does not meet the conditions of Rule R113,

would be assessed under Rule R135.

484. Wellington Water (S135/162) considers that the 5% description does not clarify the

extent of what is permitted. They request that the 5% percentage descriptor in the

rule is not used, or, that its use is clarified.

485. In my opinion some type of comparison between the existing and ‘altered’ structure

is required to ensure the existing structures do not increase in size thereby causing

the diversion of water to also change in nature. I consider that the 5% description

can easily be determined or measured from aerial photos of the existing structure

(plan view), and or measurements taken on land (height and width for cross-

sectional area). The submitter has also not put forward any alternative ways of

measuring size increases.


486. I propose a note to be added after Rule R113 as follows:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 117 OF 221

487. Note: The diversion of flood waters by any new structure constructed outside the

bed of a lake or river, or any upgraded structures that do not meet condition (a) of

Rule R113, would fall under Rule R135.

Rule R114: River crossing structures – permitted activity

488. Rule R114 is:

The placement or use of a river crossing structure, including, but not limited to,

weirs, fords and small bridges, excluding culverts and a river crossing that dams a

river, that is fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river including any associated:







conditions specified above in section 5.5.4, and

(f) the river crossing that has any part of the structure fixed in or on the bed

has a catchment area above the crossing of not more than:

(i) 200ha in any catchment in the region on the eastern side of

the Ruamāhanga River, or

(ii) 50ha in any catchment in the region on the western side of

the Ruamāhanga River, and

(g) the formed crossing shall be no wider than what is required for the purpose

of the crossing and the total area of the structure in or on the bed of the

river shall not exceed 20m2, and

(h) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua).


Support Rule R114

489. A number of submitters, e.g. Powerco (S29/046) and Forest and Bird (S353/151),

support Rule R114 as proposed.

Activities covered by Rule R114

490. NZTA (S146/175) (supported by PCC FS27/016) seeks certainty that the

‘construction’ of crossings is enabled by the rule and also seeks deletion of the word

‘use’ as once it is constructed the Transport Agency does not consider it appropriate

to regulate the on-going use.


PAGE 118 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

491. Amend Rule 114 The placement or construction or use of a river crossing structure,

including, but not limited to, weirs, fords and small bridges, excluding culverts and a

river crossing that dams a river, that is fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river

including any associated:

492. I can confirm that the construction of river crossing structures is permitted under the

rule subject to the necessary conditions. To make the rule clearer I consider the word

construction should be added as indicated below. However I do not agree that the

‘use’ of such a structure should be deleted. This is because the RMA Section 13

places restrictions on the ‘use’…of any structure in, on, under, or over the bed. The

proposed rule therefore follows the wording in the RMA pertaining to proposed river

structures. The submitter also requests the deletion of the word ‘small’, referring to

small bridges. I note Rule 31 in the Freshwater Plan also refers to ‘small bridges’.

Condition (g) of Rule R114 helps clarify a small bridge by allowing a structure

which does not exceed 20m2. I consider the use of the word ‘small should remain in

the rule to provide additional clarification and guidance. I propose the following

wording at the start of Rule R114:

493. The placement, construction and use of a river crossing structure, including, but not

limited to, weirs, fords and small bridges, excluding culverts and a river crossing

that dams a river, that is fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river including any

associated:

Provide for temporary crossings or structures

494. Forest Owner Marketing Services Ltd S435/012 request that Rule R114 provides for

temporary crossings with specific conditions so that when material/crossing needs to

be removed, that erosion and sediment controls are installed. This is opposed by

Rangitāne o Wairarapa (FS74/322) as they consider that the activity is likely to

result in adverse effects on the rivers and these adverse effects should be avoided,

remedied or mitigated through the resource consent process.

495. Temporary river crossings are provided for under Rule R114. Temporary river

crossings can have similar effects to permanent river crossings and as such, they

should be subject to the same conditions listed in Section 5.5.4 and in Rule R114.

These conditions will ensure the temporary structure has less than minor effects on


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 119 OF 221

the river environment. I consider the existing conditions in Section 5.5.4 should

adequately address the effects of the placement and removal of a temporary river

crossing, for example, conditions (g) removal of sediment and condition (j)

pertaining to erosion and scour.

496. The NZ Defence Force (S81/033) (supported by PCC FS27/019) requests

clarification of the definition for a "small bridge" and provision for temporary

structures in river beds, for consistency with other regional plans across the country.

497. Temporary river crossings would be provided for in this rule subject to the relevant

conditions. With regards to defining ‘small bridges’, this is governed to some extent

by condition (g) which requires that the total area of the structure in or on the bed of

the river shall not exceed 20m2.

Increase catchment size and ford/bridge size

498. A number of submitters (e.g. NZ Deer Farmers' Association - Wairarapa Branch,

S434/025) request that the size for fords and bridges be increased from 20m2 to

100m2. A number of these submitters think that the proposed Plan should limit the

width of the ford and not the length or overall areas.

499. The 20m2 limit of the area a river crossing structure can have in or on the bed of the

river was based on a reasonable carriage way for a vehicle and stock crossing. The

Freshwater Plan does not have a limit on area of a river crossing structure occupying

the bed of a river, however this was considered necessary to ensure there are

minimal effects.

500. It is also noted that the Freshwater Plan only permitted river crossing structures as a

permitted activity in intermittent streams. Rule R114 allows river crossing structures

in permanent flowing streams, and as such, is more permissive, but there needs to be

some kind of control over the size of these structures.

501. The rule seeks to encourage installation of permanent structures rather than fords

and seeks to encourage stock out of water bodies. The area of 20m2 was considered

to allow for an adequately sized structure for a vehicle or stock crossing which

would have less than minor effects on the river environment. It is also noted that

Rule 47 in the Freshwater Plan for river crossing structures - a controlled activity,


PAGE 120 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

limited the volume of disturbance to 20m3. It is considered that 20m2 is more

permissive than 20m3.

502. DairyNZ and Fonterra (S316/117) state that while this rule permits the construction

of river crossing structures, there appears to be no rule that permits their use for

stock crossing.

503. Rule R114 specifically states ‘the placement or use of a river crossing structure…’.

As such, stock crossing would fall under this rule. However it is also noted that

Rules R97 and R98 also pertain to access across the beds of lakes and rivers by

livestock (in limited circumstances).

504. Federated Farmers S352/223 request amendment of Rule R114 to enable river

crossing structures, supported by Land Management advisory support as per M1 and

M11.

505. g) the formed crossing shall be no wider than what is required for the purpose of the

crossing and the total area of the structure in or on the bed of the river shall not

exceed 20m2 50m2 for bridges and 100m2 for fords.

506. Jamie Falloon (S373/050) requests that the size for bridges is increased to 50m2 and

that fords of up to 100m2 are permitted where a bridge would be cost prohibitive.

507. The 20m2 limit of the area a river crossing structure can have in or on the bed of the

river is discussed above in paragraph 501.

Condition (h) Mana whenua

508. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/196) seeks retention of the exclusion of sites with

significant mana whenua values contained in Schedule C as stated in (h).

Issues raised informally by Wellington Regional Council staff

509. The word ‘weir’ should be removed from the rule as this is included in the Dam

definition and the rule specifically excludes anything that dams a river.

510. To avoid confusion with other legislation, it would be beneficial if the word ‘weir’

was removed from the rule. However this is outside the scope of the original

submissions for this rule.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 121 OF 221


511. It is proposed to amend the Rule R114 as follows:

‘The placement, construction or use of a river crossing structure, including, but not

limited to, weirs, fords and small bridges, excluding culverts and a river crossing

that dams a river, that is fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river including any

associated:…’

512. It is proposed a consequential change is made to Rule R114 by adding an additional

condition as follows (this is discussed in further detail at 604):

(i) A river crossing structure shall not be placed within a site identified in Schedule

F1b (inanga spawning habitat).

Rule R115: Culverts – permitted activity

513. Rule R115 is:

The placement or use of a culvert that is fixed in, or on, the bed of a river including

any associated:






(e) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions

specified above in Section 5.5.4, except condition (l) (not altering the natural

course of the river), and

(f) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua), and

(g) where multiple culverts are placed side by side, the total cross-sectional area

of the multiple culverts shall not be less than that of a single culvert which

complies with this rule, and

(h) the culvert, associated fill and culvert placement shall comply with the

following dimensions:

(i) a maximum culvert length of 20m, and


PAGE 122 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(ii) for circular culverts a culvert diameter of 0.3m to 1.2m (inclusive),

and

(iii) for non-circular culverts a width and height of 0.3m to 1.2m each

(inclusive), and

(iv) a culvert diameter, or width that is at least as wide as the river bed at

the point at which the culvert is installed (and which complies with

(h)(ii) and (h)(iii) above)

(v) a maximum fill height of 2m above the top of the culvert unless a

spillway is constructed to enable the passage of a 5% annual exceedence

probability (20 year return period) flood event without the fill being

overtopped, and

(i) a minimum culvert installation depth below the bed of 20% of the width of the

culvert, and

(j) the culvert shall be positioned so that its alignment and gradient are the same

as the river, and

(k) the culvert shall be constructed to allow:

(i) the flow from a 5% annual exceedence probability (20 year return

period) flood event without overtopping, unless the overtopping flows to

a specifically designed spillway, and

(ii) the flow from a two year return period flood event without any flow

impediment, and

(l) the culvert inlet and outlet shall be protected against erosion, and

(m) all practicable steps shall be taken to minimise the release of sediment during

construction, and

(n) the culvert shall be constructed and maintained to avoid any aggradation or

erosion of the bed, including any erosion at the inlet and outlet of the culvert,

and

(o) the culvert shall be constructed and maintained to avoid causing any flooding

on any neighbouring properties.

Submissions and assessment


514. Forest and Bird (S353/152), Fish and Game (S308/120), Egon Guttke (S14/039)

support Rule R115 as proposed.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 123 OF 221

Condition (g) Multiple culverts

515. The Minister of Conservation (S75/152) considers that provisions (g) and (h):

providing for multiple barrel and battery culverts can cause issues for fish passage.

The provisions should be amended to align with current national best practice for

providing fish passage.

516. An informal request has also been made by Council Flood Protection staff in respect

to this condition. It has been suggested that the wording is changed as follows:

517. (g) where multiple culverts are placed side by side, the total cross-sectional area

capacity of the multiple culverts shall not be less than that of a single culvert which


518. It is noted that in April 2018 a document will be released pertaining to fish passage –

NZ Fish Passage Guidelines 2018. This document mentions that multiple barrel

culverts and battery culverts will be the least desirable option to use in a watercourse

when it comes to designing culverts. However in some situations, these types of

culverts are required and I consider it inappropriate to disallow their use in the

proposed Plan. The Fish Passage Guidelines have not yet been released. I consider

that condition (d) of Section 5.5.4 will adequately address any fish passage issues for

the purposes of the plan. This condition specifically states that structures are

designed, installed and maintained to ensure that fish passage is maintained at all

times. Any such structures that do not meet this condition, would need to be

remedied.

519. With regard to the informal request by Council, I consider this minor amendment

clarifies the condition and therefore agree with the request. The proposed change

will not change the meaning of the rule and I therefore rely on clause 16(2) to make

this change.

Condition (h) Culvert dimensions

520. MDC (S367/119), SWDC (S366/119) and CDC (S301/063) request that the length

of the culvert in (h)(i) provide for a culvert of up to 30m in length, where the culvert

is associated with a public road. The current permitted activity standard limits

culverts to 20m in length. This length will have limitations on rural roads, where a


PAGE 124 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

road corridor can typically be 20m in width, and some extension on either end is

required to ensure effective operation of the culvert.

521. Woodridge Homes (S105/005) requests that the term culvert be defined in the

proposed Plan. The submitter considers that the max length of 20m is too restrictive

and should be replaced with the wording ' the formed culvert crossing shall be no

wider/longer than necessary for the crossing' .

522. A number of submitters (e.g. Bell Camp Trust S297/101, Carter Family S295/066,

Waa Rata Estate FS1/117, NZ Deer Farmers Association- Wairarapa Branch

S434/025), The Mansell Family (FS68/022) consider that R115(h)(ii) and (iii)

should just refer to the minimum size limit of 0.3m diameter but remove any

maximum size, as an upper limit for culvert diameter seems counter intuitive to the

purpose of the culvert. The submitters request that the Council provide advice to

landowners regarding the appropriate culvert sizes to achieve the above condition to

provide a better outcome and design and avoid rules. These submitters do support

the condition that the culvert be constructed to allow for 20 year flood events.

Rangitāne o Wairarapa (FS74/340) oppose this submission.

523. Kaiwaiwai Dairies Limited (S119/030) and Neville Fisher (S12/024) request that

condition (h)(iv) be deleted as the culvert size should reflect the flow rate rather than

the bed width, and this is covered in R115 (k) (i) & (ii).

524. Beef and Lamb (S311/038) request that (h)(i) and (h)(ii) be replaced with a clause

requiring a culvert size that will meet or exceed the 20-year return period flows.

525. Federated Farmers (S352/224) requests that condition (h) is deleted.

526. Allan Smith (S35/018) requests that Rule R115 condition (h)(ii) be amended to

increase the maximum diameter to 1.65m; and amend condition (h)(iii) by an

equivalent amount. The submitter considers that Rule R115 permits a preferred

means of small waterway crossing which will benefit water quality. However the

maximum pipe diameter is too small to provide adequate margin for heavy rain

events in this (foot hills of the Kāpiti Coast) relatively high rainfall area (average

annual rainfall in the last 20 years 1700mm but with variation ranging from 1100mm


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 125 OF 221

to 2400mm). A slightly larger pipe tolerance is to be preferred to an overtopping

flow.

527. It is noted that there are no specific dimensions given for culverts in the Freshwater

Plan. As such, the figures given in condition (h) are all new. All the dimensions and

flood event probability figures given in condition (h) are drawn from good practice

guides for installing culverts and providing for fish passage. It is noted that they

were included in Horizons Regional Council’s ‘One Plan’ and refined through that

hearing process as well.

528. With regard to the maximum culvert length, this needs to be limited so that streams

cannot be piped under the culvert permitted activity rule. In my opinion, 20m is a

reasonable width for a crossing. The minimum culvert width is linked to the

requirement to have the culvert below the bed of the stream to provide for adequate

fish passage. It is not considered practical to fulfil this requirement with a culvert

width of less than 0.3m. The maximum culvert width in combination with clause (iv)

making it at least as wide as the stream, limits the maximum size of stream that can

be culverted as a permitted activity. This replaces the maximum catchment size

condition from the Freshwater Plan.

529. The bigger the culvert, the more effects there will be on the watercourse, as such, a

limit is required so large culverts require consent where all effects can be

considered. Clause (iv) also ensures the culvert does not narrow the watercourse and

increase velocity which can be an impediment to fish passage.

530. Clause (v) makes the maximum fill (including that beside the culvert) less than

3.2m. This minimises the risk in the event of a culvert blocking of creating a dam,

and subsequently failing. This is in line with the requirements for small dams in

Rule R116. In my opinion the figures given in condition (h) should not be amended

as they protect watercourses from more than minor adverse effects, which should be

fully assessed as part of a resource consent process. It also allows for the

consideration of alternatives, such as whether a bridge should be constructed instead.


PAGE 126 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Condition (i) installation depth

531. Forest Owner Marketing Services Ltd (S435/013) requests that Rule R115(i) be

aligned with the NES-PF. Rule R115(i) stipulates a minimum culvert installation

depth below the bed of 20% of the width of the culvert while the NES-PF stipulates

"... culvert invert is at least 100 mm below the level of the bed of a river or lake".

Rangitāne o Wairarapa (FS74/323) oppose this submission.

532. The proposed Plan cannot be in conflict or duplicate provisions in the NES-PF

except where NES-PF regulation 6 applies (refer paragraph 827 in Issue 5 below). In

this case regulation 6 does not apply, so the NES-PF prevails. As such, any culverts

constructed for plantation forestry purposes under the NES, would not have to

accord with the proposed Plan rule. As discussed in Issue 5 further in this report, it

is proposed that Rule R115 is amended to exclude activities regulated by the NES-

PF (refer paragraph 0 in Issue 5 below).

Condition (j) Alignment and gradient

532.1 NZTA (S146/176) supported by Porirua City Council (FS27/020) considers that

condition (j) be reworded; “the culvert shall be positioned so that its alignment and

gradient are generally the same as the river”.

532.2 The issue with adding the word ‘generally’, is that it is difficult to quantify and open

to interpretation. From a practicality point of view, I do not think the wording should

be changed. The use of qualifiers in provisions of the proposed Plan is addressed in

several other s42A reports (i.e., Wetlands and biodiversity), and the same evaluation

to the use of qualifiers applies here. I do not support their use.

Delete Rule R115 or specific clauses

533. Michael Slater (S113/004) considers that Rule R115 should be deleted as he

considers culvert pipes should not have restrictions on them. He considers that

culvert sizes are not helping the environment and that the sizing of culverts should

be considered on a case to case basis.

534. Derek Neale (S278/022) considers that Rule R115 conditions h), i), and j) should be

deleted as culverts may be placed on low country near Lake Wairarapa or on steep

hill country near the head waters of the Whangaehu. Clearly the optimal placement


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 127 OF 221

requirements will vary with the site and their designed use. The rules as written are

too prescriptive and not allowing flexibility to achieve the desired aims of each site.

These rules need to be measured up against the partnership concept with land

owners to maintain and improve water quality.

535. I do not consider that any amendments should be made as suggested by these

submitters. The conditions are in place to permit small culverts in small

watercourses where the effects have been deemed to be less than minor. Larger

culverts outside of the condition requirements, or culverts in larger watercourses, or

culverts that are positioned so that their alignment is not the same as the

watercourse, are likely to have more than minor adverse effects on the watercourse.

The effects of these culverts should be fully assessed through the resource consent

process.

Recommended Amendments: Rule R115

536. I propose condition (g) is amended as follows:

(g) where multiple culverts are placed side by side, the total cross-sectional area

capacity of the multiple culverts shall not be less than that of a single culvert which


537. It is proposed a consequential change is made to Rule R115 by adding an additional

condition as follows (this is discussed in further detail at 604):

(p) A river crossing structure shall not be placed within a site identified in

Schedule F1b (inanga spawning habitat).

538. No other proposed amendments other than those recommended in Issue 5 below.

Rule R116: Establishing a small dam and existing dams – permitted activity, and interpretation of ephemeral flow path and active bed

539. Rule R116 is:

The placement of a new small dam, or use of a small dam, that is fixed in, on, or

under the bed of a river including any associated:




PAGE 128 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716


(d) damming of water, and

(e) discharge of sediment to water, and

(f) reclamation associated with the dam structure, and

(g) the damming of water outside the bed of a lake or river by a dam structure


(h) where the small dam occurs in the bed of a lake or river, the activity shall

comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general conditions specified above

in Section 5.5.4, except condition (l) (not altering the natural course of the

river), and, where the activity occurs in an ephemeral flow path, condition

(d) (fish passage), and

(i) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua), and

(j) the small dam is not located in and does not cause water to pond in, a

significant natural wetland identified in Schedule F3 (significant wetlands)

or an outstanding water body identified in Schedule A (outstanding water

bodies), and

(k) the small dam shall not impound more than 20,000m3 of water, and

(l) the small dam has a maximum water depth of less than 3m (measured from

the natural ground level at the downstream toe of the dam structure), and

(m) any new small dam does not have a catchment area above the dam of more

than 20ha, and

(n) the water impounded by the small dam does not encroach onto adjoining

properties, and

(o) a spillway or overflow pipe is constructed to prevent the dam from

overtopping in a 5% annual exceedence probability (20 year return period)

flood event, and connects or discharges to the downstream watercourse,

and

(p) any new small dam in a permanently flowing river shall maintain a flow out

of the dam at all times including during filling of the dam.

Note

If a dam retains 3m or more depth or holds 20,000m3 of water or more, then a

building consent is required in accordance with the Building Act 1991. This rule

does not permit the taking of water from behind the dam structure. This is controlled

by other rules in the Plan.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 129 OF 221



540. Forest and Bird (S353/153) supports Rule R116 as proposed.

Interpretation of ephemeral flow path and active bed

541. Wellington Water (S135/015) requests the following amendments to the definition

for an ephemeral flow path: (a) Amend "does not have an active bed" to be

consistent with other definitions. (c) Amend to "only conveys water during, and

immediately following a significant rainfall (> than x mm per hour)” or similar

effect.

542. Wellington Water (S135/002) also considers that the definition for ‘active bed’ is

confusing and different to that in the RMA. It is not clear what "at least frequent

flows" means. Change the definition to be consistent with the RMA and the

extensive relevant case law.

543. Hutt Valley Angling Club (S344/004) requests replacement of the illustration for an

active bed with the one provided by the submitter, as they consider it is lacking in

information on the components that contribute to a river bed.

544. Although river bed is defined in the RMA, active bed is not specifically defined. The

reason why active bed has been defined in the proposed Plan, is because the Council

wanted to differentiate between the bed of a river (the space of land which the

waters of the river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its banks), and the

average flows of a river. Sometimes there would be effects on the whole ‘bed of a

river’, while other times there may only be effects on the active bed of a river (where

at least frequent flows are, or average water flows). I therefore consider that the

definition of ‘active bed’ is sufficient and does not require amending.

545. However, I consider that the ‘active bed’ definition with the wording of ‘at least

frequent flows’ could be open to different interpretation leading to confusion in the

interpretation of ephemeral flow path. I therefore do not consider that the reference

to ‘not having an active bed’ is necessary for the definition of an ephemeral flow

path and that it should be removed from the definition of ‘ephemeral flow path’.


PAGE 130 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

546. With regard to conveyance of water after significant rainfall, in my opinion these

amendments should not be made. I do not consider it appropriate to put a figure for a

significant rainfall event as this will limit what an ephemeral flow path is.

Ephemeral flow paths will have water running through them not just after significant

rainfall events, but after heavy rainfall events as well.

547. Beef and Lamb (S311/006) would like the definition of ephemeral flow path to refer

to a stream as well as to a river.

548. I do not consider this to be necessary given that the RMA has a specific definition of

‘river’ which includes streams.

549. Federated Farmers (S352/025) requests the following addition to the definition of

ephemeral flow path for clarity: “An ephemeral flow path excludes a valley floor”.

550. I do not consider this to be appropriate given that many ephemeral flow paths are

located on or within valley floors, and this may lead to inaccurate interpretation of

the rules.

551. NZTA (S146/015) requests minor amendments to reflect that ephemeral flow paths

may also retain water in some instances, albeit temporarily, and that it is not deemed

a surface water body:

552. ‘A river that: (a) does not have an active bed, or (b) has a bed that is predominantly

vegetated, and (c) only conveys or retains water during or immediately following

heavy rainfall events, and (d) does not convey or retain water at other times. Note:

an ephemeral flow path is not a surface waterbody.’

553. I note there is a difference between ephemeral and intermittent. The definition of

‘river’ in the RMA includes intermittently flowing bodies of fresh water, but does

not include ephemeral bodies of water. Rivers that dry up over summer months

would be intermittent, whereas ephemeral watercourses, are those that only flow

during or after rainfall. I consider the proposed changes are acceptable with the

addition of the word ‘temporarily’ retains, and will help to clarify the interpretation

of an ephemeral flow path, e.g.,


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 131 OF 221

554. ‘A river that: (a) does not have an active bed, or (b) has a bed that is predominantly

vegetated, and (c) only conveys or temporarily retains water during or immediately

following heavy rainfall events, and (d) does not convey or retain water at other

times. Note: an ephemeral flow path is not a surface waterbody.’

Rule R116 to apply only to existing small dams

555. Fish and Game (S308/126) supported by Minister of Conservation (FS61/053)

requests that this Rule R116 only apply to existing small dams, with new small dams

to be subject to consent so that the effects on natural character can be assessed.

Furthermore, new dams may not be appropriate in Scheduled sites. Porirua City

Council (FS27/023) opposes this submission.

556. I have addressed the concerns about natural character previously (refer to paragraph

407 above). I consider the dams permitted under this rule will have less than minor

effects on natural character due to their size/scale. With regards to the effects of

dams on scheduled sites, it is noted that Schedule A & C sites are excluded from this

rule. I also consider Schedule F sites will be adequately protected through the

existing conditions in Section 5.5.4 and the conditions in Rule R116 itself (e.g.,

condition (p) requiring a flow out of the dam at all times).

Clause (i)

557. Clause (i) is supported by Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/198).

Clause (j)

558. Federated Farmers (S352/225) requests deletion of outstanding water bodies from

clause (j).

559. Clause (j) is supported by Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/198).

560. Outstanding water bodies have very high ecosystem values, for high

macroinvertebrate health, indigenous fish diversity, threatened fish species, aquatic

plants and /or wildlife habitat. Objective O31 requires that outstanding water bodies

and their significant values are protected. Policy P39 requires the adverse effects of

the use and development on outstanding water bodies and their significant values are

avoided. Due the outstanding values of these particular water bodies, I consider it is


PAGE 132 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

appropriate that they be excluded from Rule R116, and that condition (j) should

remain.

Clause k

561. Federated Farmers (S352/225) requests that this clause be restricted to the

impoundment of water where this is above natural ground level

562. Egon Guttke (S14/040) requests amendment of (k) by restricting the volume of the

retained water to significantly below 20,000m3 and use a limit of, around 5,000m3.

563. The 20,000 m3 figure given in condition (k) has been taken from the Building Act

2004 to make the proposed Plan consistent with this piece of legislation. The

Building Act 2004 has a definition for large dams as follows:

564. ‘a dam that has a height of 4 or more metres and holds 20,000 or more cubic metres

volume of water or other fluid.’

565. A large dam under the Building Act requires consent, whereas small dams still need

to be constructed in accordance with the building code, but do not require consent –

just like a permitted activity. The larger the amount of water impounded, the larger

the risk downstream, should there be an uncontrolled release of water. In my opinion

condition (k) should remain as it is to ensure consistency between the Building Act

and the proposed Plan.

566. With regard to the impoundment of water below natural ground level, it is noted that

clause (b) of the Building Act measurement definition states:

567. ‘…the height of a dam is the vertical distance from the crest of the dam and must be

measured, - (b) in the case of a dam not across a stream, from the lowest elevation at

the outside limit of the dam;…’

568. In my opinion, in regards to dams, the proposed Plan should be consistent with the

Building Act as a minimum standard, and as such, I agree with Federated Farmers.

Furthermore, in terms of risk, if water is impounded below the natural ground level,

it is unlikely to pose a risk if the embankment above the ground level was to fail (as

obviously the water would remain in place). I therefore consider condition (k)

should be amended to the following:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 133 OF 221

569. ‘the small dam shall not impound more than 20,000m3 of water above natural

ground level, and…’

Clause m

570. Federated Farmers (S352/225) requests deletion of clause m.

571. Egon Guttke (S14/040) supported by The Carter Family (FS67/013) and the Mansell

Family (FS68/023), requests that the size limit is changed from a 20ha catchment

limit to a 200ha catchment limit. He considers that Rule R116 is in itself inconsistent

and is too restrictive. For example, he states that given the maximum capacity of

20,000 m3, a 20 ha catchment limit does not make sense. He considers the catchment

restraints mean a small dam could only be built in the headwaters of rivers.

Elsewhere a 200 ha catchment has been used and he considers this would be more

appropriate. He states that no justifications have been provided in the section 32

report for catchment limits. Mr Guttke considers small dams can improve water

quality, reduce sediment downstream, and provide a necessary water supply for

firefighting.

572. The Freshwater Plan also has a 20ha catchment limit for small dams. Plan

effectiveness reports conclude this has been an appropriate limit and adequately

allows for small farm dams for the provision of stock water which was the intent.

Above this catchment limit, I consider effects will be minor or more than minor and

these should be fully assessed as part of the resource consent process.

573. Damming of a stream in the lower reaches of a catchment is likely to have greater

effects as the ecological values would be higher (from having more water in the

stream and therefore potentially more aquatic fauna/plants). The 20ha catchment

limit restraint essentially means small dams can be built high up in the catchment

where ecological effects are likely to be less. This is the intent of using a 20ha

catchment limit restraint, as well as allowing for small farm dams to provide for

stock water.

574. It is also noted that the Freshwater Plan has the same catchment limit in place and

this has worked well in controlling the effects of dams in the past. A higher

catchment limit would allow dams to be constructed further down in the catchment


PAGE 134 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

where ecological values are higher. Furthermore, there is also a greater risk of dams

further down a catchment failing, due to higher inflows. In my opinion a resource

consent should be required to adequately determine the effects of dams in larger

catchments.

Informal issues raised by Wellington Regional Council staff

575. Council staff have recommended the figures in this rule need to be revised to reflect

the updated Building Act 2004, as well as the note below the rule. Most specifically

they consider the maximum water depth in condition (l) requires amending to 4m, as

follows:

‘the small dam has a maximum water depth of less than 3m 4m (measured from the

natural ground level at the downstream toe of the dam structure), and’

576. It is also requested the note below Rule R116 should be amended as follows:

‘If a dam retains 3m or more depth or holds 20,000m3 of water or more, then a

building consent is required in accordance with the Building Act 1991…’

577. ‘If a dam has a height of 4m or more and holds 20,000m3 or more water or other

fluid, then a building consent is required in accordance with the Building Act

2004…’

578. I consider it would be beneficial if the rule was updated to align with the Building

Act 2004, however this is outside the scope of the original submissions.

Recommended Amendment: Rule R116, ephemeral flow path and active bed

579. I propose an amendment to the definition of ephemeral flow path in the

Interpretation section of the plan as follows:

‘A river that:

(a) Does not have an active bed, or

(b) Has a bed that is predominantly vegetated, and

(c) Only conveys or temporarily retains water during or immediately following heavy

rainfall events, and


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 135 OF 221

(d) Does not convey or retain water at other times.

Note: An ephemeral flow path is not a surface waterbody.

No change to the definition of active bed.

580. Condition (k) of Rule R116 should be amended as follows:

‘the small dam shall not impound more than 20,000m3 of water above natural

ground level, and…’

Rule R117: New structures – permitted activity

581. Rule R117 is:

The placement or use of a new structure, including but not limited to sediment

retention weirs, pipes, ducts, cables, hydrological and water quality monitoring

equipment, fences, and structures associated with vegetative bank edge protection

except a structure permitted by Rules R114, R115, and R116 that is fixed in, on,

under, or over the bed of any river or lake, including any associated:








(f) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua), excluding adding pipes or cables to an existing structure and

(g) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or

Schedule F2b (birds-lakes) the structure shall not be constructed during the

critical period identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) or Schedule F2b

(birds-lakes) if the named birds are identified at the construction site, and

(h) the structure does not occupy a bed area any greater than 10m2, except for

where the structure is associated with vegetative bank edge protection, or a

pipe, duct, fence or cable which is located over or under the bed where no

bed occupancy limits apply, and

(i) the catchment upstream of any sediment retention weir is not greater than

200ha, and


PAGE 136 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(j) the height of any sediment retention weir from the upstream base to the

crest of the weir shall be no more than 0.5m, and

(k) any water monitoring equipment may divert up to 30m³ of water per day for

the purpose of measuring water quality or quantity provided the water is

returned to the water body within 50m of the diversion point, and the

quality of the water where it is returned to the water body is the same or

better than the receiving water body.


Support Rule R117

582. A number of submitters, e.g. Spencer Homes (S273/007), Wellington Electricity

Lines (S126/029), Chorus New Zealand Limited (S144/027), Spark NZ (S98/026)

(supported by PowerCo (FS56/080) (FS56/081) and (FS56/082), support Rule R117

as notified.

Interpretation

583. PCC (S163/035) is concerned that the definition for ‘Vegetative bank edge

protection’ only refers to anchored willows and poplars and excludes other plants

that may be appropriate to stabilise banks for erosion prevention. The submitter

requests an amendment to include the use of other plants (such as appropriate

natives) to vegetate banks for erosion prevention.

584. The definition for ‘vegetative bank edge protection’ was included so that vegetation

structures are excluded from requiring consent, as it was unclear if these structures

were caught by the rule as worded. Planting plants along a river bank for erosion

control purposes is different from vegetative bank edge protection. Planting of

natives along a river bank would fall under Rule R123 as a permitted activity.

Vegetative bank edge protection specifically refers to the use of anchored willows or

poplars– this includes burying the willows and placing gravel on top. While I agree

with the submitter that native plants can also be used for erosion protection

purposes, these would still be permitted under Rule R123.

585. I do not consider the definition of vegetative bank edge protection should be

amended.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 137 OF 221

Clause (f)

586. Wellington Water Ltd (S135/165) requests an exclusion in condition (f) for

maintenance, operation and upgrade of three waters regionally significant

infrastructure. They consider that by excluding Schedule C sites from the rule, huge

areas of routine work would not be permitted, such as any works within the whole of

the Hutt River.

587. I note that maintenance, operation and upgrade of significant infrastructure would

fall under Rule R112, and these activities are not restricted in Schedule C sites. If an

upgrade of a structure does not meet the conditions in Rule R112, it may fall under

Rule R117. As discussed in paragraph 404 above, structures may have an adverse

effect on the wide range of values attached to Schedule C sites. As such, in my

opinion this needs to be assessed fully through the resource consent process in line

with objectives O14 and O33 of the proposed Plan. It is noted that these rules would

also apply to Wellington Regional Council Flood Protection structures.

Erosion protection structures

588. New Zealand Defence Force (S81/034) and further submitters South Wairarapa

District Council(FS26/127) and Masterton District Council (FS30/102), Wellington

Water Limited (S135/165), Wellington City Council (S286/049) and Roading, Parks

and Gardens and Solid Waste departments of Hutt City Council and Upper Hutt City

Council (S85/039) request Rule R117 be amended to specifically provide for in-

stream erosion protection structures, stormwater outlets and debris arrestors (these

stop woody debris, rocks and household debris from blocking pipes). There is no

specific policy directing their appropriateness and as they are common and

important structures, they should be provided for.

589. All the structures outlined by these submitters would be provided for under Rule

R117. In my opinion, listing every single structure that could fall under Rule R117

would result in an unnecessarily long-worded rule, and could unintentionally

exclude certain structures which could be missed from inclusion in a list. However

as there are several submissions about different types of erosion protection

structures, I consider the rule should be amended to clarify it provides for them.

Furthermore, it appears as though there may be some confusion over whether some


PAGE 138 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

of these structures would fit within Rule R112. In my opinion new erosion

protection structures should be assessed under Rule R117. I suggest the following

wording to make the rule clearer:

590. ‘The placement or use of a new structure, including but not limited to sediment


equipment, fences, erosion protection structures, and structures associated with …

591. Carterton District Council (S301/064) requests that Rule R117 is amended to

provide for maintenance of stream alignment to protect essential infrastructure

(roads, wastewater pipes and water supply reticulation).

592. In my opinion, if stream alignment cannot be maintained through proposed rule

R119 (clearing flood debris and beach recontouring), or through erosion protection

structures under Rule R117, resource consent should be required as there are likely

to be more than minor effects on the natural course of the river and also potential for

erosion on downstream land owners. Erosion protection structures for the purposes

of protecting stream alignment, and essential infrastructure would fall under Rule

R117. There is a danger in allowing for many ad hoc structures in a stream which

may have cumulative adverse effects on the natural course of a stream.

593. NZ Transport Agency (S146/177) is generally supportive of Rule R117 subject to

amendments to clarify that all protective structures are provided for. They request

the following amendment:

594. ‘The placement or use of a new structure, including but not limited to sediment


equipment, fences, rip-rap, gabion baskets and structures…’

595. Further submitter Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (FS96/066) is neutral to this

request. However they are opposed to NZTA not seeking amendments to the rule

giving greater protection to section 6 of the RMA matters. This is specifically in

regard to Taupo Swamp, which they consider should be an outstanding wetland in

Schedule A3. QEII requests a revised Rule R117 which incorporates specific

provisions relating to activities located within the catchment of Taupo Swamp.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 139 OF 221

596. Protective structures such as rip-rap and gabion baskets are provided for under Rule

R117. As stated above, listing every single structure that could fall under Rule R117

would result in an unnecessarily long-worded rule and may unintentionally exclude

some structure. However rip-rap and gabion baskets are considered to be erosion

protection structures, and I have recommended that the Rule be amended to

specifically say these structures are provided for.

597. With regards to the further submission from Queen Elizabeth II National Trust

(FS96/066) on Taupo Swamp, it is noted that Taupo Stream and all its tributaries are

listed in Schedule F1. The minor structures permitted under Rule R117 are deemed

permitted as they are considered to have less than minor effects. As such, there

should also be less than minor effects on the downstream Taupo Swamp which is

listed in Schedule F3 as a significant natural wetland. I also note however, that

Taupo Swamp is also recommended to be added to Outstanding wetlands in

Schedule A3 – refer to the Section 42A Wetlands Report. In my opinion, new

structures permitted under Rule R117 in the catchment of Taupo Swamp, would

have less than minor effects on the wetland. There are also specific provisions in the

plan pertaining to the wetland itself (Rules 104 to R111).

Condition (h)

598. Wellington Water Limited (S135/165) considers that the logic for using 10m2 as a

threshold in condition (h) is not clear, and therefore should be refined and justified.

For example some of the stormwater network structures have multiple components

which are not physically attached. How the dimensions are described should be

reconsidered.

599. The 10m2 limitation is used in other rules of the plan (e.g., the wetland rules). This

figure is used to ensure consistency between rules. This was determined by the

Council to be an appropriate figure to use for identifying a minor structure. Minor

structures 10m2 in area are deemed to have less than minor effects on the

watercourse. Structures bigger than this will have more effects which need to be

assessed fully as part of the consent process.

600. The Minister of Conservation (S75/153) requests an amendment to condition (h) to

ensure inanga spawning habitat is protected. New structures that occupy a bed area


PAGE 140 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

of 10m2 and are located in inanga spawning habitat have the potential to have

permanent adverse effects through loss of habitat, particularly given the restricted

locations at which inanga can spawn. The Minister requests the following

amendment to condition (h):

601. h) the structure does not occupy any bed area within inanga spawning habitat

identified in Schedule F1b, and elsewhere does not occupy a bed area any greater

than 10m2…..

602. Policy 33 requires the protection of inanga spawning habitat. Section 5.5.4(e) would

not protect the inanga spawning habitat from loss of habitat from the occupancy of a

structure. I therefore consider the proposed amendment should be made. This will

mean any structure proposed in an inanga spawning habitat identified in Schedule

F1b, would require a resource consent. The resource consent process will allow for

adequate assessment to ensure the loss of habitat is considered fully and will have

less than minor effects, if granted.

603. I note that the F1b scheduled inanga spawning habitat areas are very limited in

extent (shown on Map 14). Therefore, these areas should be offered protection in

order to protect and restore these habitats and give effect to Objective O35 as

notified.

604. The Minister of Conservation’s submission specifies that the occupation of

structures in inanaga spawning habitat would result in a loss of habitat, which I

concur with. I consider that the scope of this submission would also apply to the

rules pertaining to other structures. River crossing structures and culverts would also

result in a loss of habitat through occupancy. For this reason, I also consider the

proposed amendment should also be made in the Rules pertaining to river crossing

structures (R114) and culverts (R115). This will also mean the rules are consistent

with each other. These will be consequential changes.

605. NZ Transport Agency (S146/177) request the following amendment to condition (h):

606. h) the structure does not occupy a bed area any greater than 10m2, except for where

the structure is associated with vegetative bank edge or structure protection, or a

pipe, duct, fence or cable which is located……


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 141 OF 221

607. I do not consider this to be appropriate. Condition (h) is in place as structures which

occupy a bed area of over 10m2 are likely to have minor or more than minor effects

for a number of reasons including altering the natural course of a river, or potentially

causing erosion or flood risks downstream/upstream. Structures put in place to

protect other man- made structures are in the same position (would have the same

level of effects), as any other man made structure and are just as likely to have minor

or more than minor effects. As such, I consider they should be assessed under the

same rules, and the wording of the rule should not change.

608. An informally raised issue by Council staff also states that the 10m2 restriction will

not prevent harmful structures being placed. For example, concrete blocks with a

bed coverage within this limit can still be harmful in terms of environmental and

flood protection effects. It is suggested that the rule be worded so as not to

encompass bank protection structures like concrete blocks.

609. In my opinion the rule should not be reworded so as to exclude bank protection

structures. Bank protection structures are important to protect infrastructure such as

roads. This rule allows small structures to be built that help people and communities

provide for their well-being with minimum amount of regulatory costs. Furthermore,

section 5.5.4(j) specifically states that any new structure permitted under Rule R117

shall not result in erosion or scour of the river banks or shall not result in flooding of

any neighbouring property.

Condition (i)

610. Carterton District Council (S301/064) and Federated Farmers of New Zealand

(S352/226) request the deletion of Rule R117 (i).

611. It is noted that the catchment limit of 200ha has been carried over from the operative

Freshwater Plan. No evidence has been provided by the submitter to show there

would be less than minor effects on the catchment if sediment retention weirs are

placed in streams with catchments over 200ha. The catchment limit of 200ha is

deemed important as larger catchment areas generally have larger streams and more

aquatic habitat. Furthermore, larger catchments also have a higher risk of the weir

failing during freshes or flood events as there are significantly larger flows in

streams with bigger catchments. I therefore consider there is potential for more wide


PAGE 142 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

reaching effects should sediment retention weirs be constructed in an area with an

upstream catchment of more than 200ha, These effects should be assessed as part of

a resource consent process.

Condition (j)

612. Wellington Water Limited (S135/165) considers it is not clear what the 0.5m

dimension means, especially when weirs fill up or are buried. It is not clear if the

upstream or downstream side is to be measured, and whether it is to be measured at

the time of installation or later when the original depth is uncertain. The 0.5

dimension should therefore be described in greater detail.

613. It is noted that condition (j) has been carried over from the operative Freshwater

Plan. To help clarify this condition, I propose to state that this should be measured at

the time of construction, as follows:

614. ‘the height of any sediment retention weir from the upstream base to the crest of the

weir at the time of construction, shall be no more than 0.5m, and…’

615. The measurement is from the base of the structure on the upstream side, to the crest

at the time of construction.

Condition (k)

616. Wellington Water Limited (S135/165) considers the intent of condition (k) is not

clear, as discharged water is unlikely to be better than the receiving water by just

going through monitoring equipment. They request the wording of condition (k) be

reconsidered and refined to indicate how the water quality could be better or

ascertained.

617. In my opinion this condition could be made clearer by amending the condition such

that the water quality in the receiving water body should not be of reduced quality

once the diverted water has been returned to it. The wording should therefore be

amended as follows:

(k) any water monitoring equipment may divert up to 30m3 of water per day for the

purpose of measuring water quality or quantity provided the water is returned to the

water body within 50m of the diversion point, and the quality of water where it is


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 143 OF 221

returned to in the receiving water body is the same or better that the receiving water

body after the diverted water is returned, is maintained.

Issues raised informally by GW

618. As Rule R117(f) is written it requires consent for minor activities, such as those to

provide for fish passage (e.g. placement of a few boulders to enable access), if the

activity is in a Schedule C site. Minor activities should therefore be permitted,

however this should not enable more significant works to take place.

619. This issue is similar to the submissions raised pertaining to not allowing new

structures in Schedule C sites. As discussed above (paragraph 401), Schedule C sites

have a wide range of differing values. It is considered that some structures may not

be appropriate in these areas. No assessment has been undertaken to define which

structures would have an effect on Schedule C sites. As such, in my opinion, a

resource consent should be required for all structures within Schedule C sites to

adequately assess the effects on mana whenua values.

620. Rule R117 does not differentiate with pipelines as to what they carry (e.g., could be

effluent or water). The operative Freshwater Plan Rule 28 only permits pipelines

carrying water or natural gas.

621. Rule R117 pertains to the structures themselves, in the beds of lakes and rivers, it

has no control over what is carried in those pipes. Pipes carrying effluent are no

different to pipes carrying water as long as the pipes are adequately maintained.

Potential issues may arise if there is a leak in a pipe resulting in an illegal discharge

to a watercourse. The discharge would require a separate discharge permit. In my

opinion Rule R117 should not control what is carried in the pipes, it should only

control the structure itself. Any potential discharges would be dealt with under

separate discharge rules or through enforcement action. However I consider that all

structures built under the permitted activity rules should also be adequately

maintained to pre-empt any potential problems such as leaking of effluent from a

pipe into a water course, or fixing erosion protection structures that have failed. This

is not addressed in any of the existing conditions in Section 5.5.4, although it is

noted that condition (k) requires structures to be maintained so as to not reduce the


PAGE 144 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

ability of the river to convey flood flows). Ideally a new general maintenance

condition should be added to Section5.5.4 as follows:

Any structure shall be maintained so the structural integrity remains sound, and so

that any erosion, scour or instability of the river bed or banks that is attributable to

the works undertaken, is remedied.

622. However this is outside the scope of the original submissions.

623. An informal comment by Council staff states that the words ‘not limited to’, should

be removed from the rule as they are not required. It was also suggested that this rule

could unintentionally permit significant structures because the scope of the rule as to

what structures are covered is unlimited.

624. I consider the words ‘not limited to’ are not required in the wording of this rule. I do

not agree that the rule could unintentionally permit significant structures because the

conditions of the Rule only allow for small structures to be installed (no more than

10m2 of bed area). I propose to delete the words ‘not limited to’ in line with clause

16(2).



‘The placement or use of a new structure, including but not limited to sediment


equipment, fences, erosion protection structures, and structures associated with

vegetative bank edge protection …’

626. It is proposed to amend condition (h) of Rule R117 as follows:

‘the structure does not occupy a bed area any greater than 10m2, except for where

the structure is associated with vegetative bank edge protection, or a pipe, duct,

fence or cable which is located over or under the bed where no bed occupancy limits

apply, and any bed area within inanga spawning habitat identified in Schedule F1,

and elsewhere does not occupy a bed area any greater than 10m2, except for where

the structure is associated with vegetative bank edge protection, or a pipe, duct,


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 145 OF 221

fence or cable which is located over or under the bed where no bed occupancy limits

apply, and’

627. In line with the above amendment and to ensure the rules are consistent, it is

proposed to consequentially amend Rule R114 by adding an additional condition as

follows:

(i) A river crossing structure shall not be placed within a site identified in Schedule

F1b (inanga spawning habitat).

628. In line with the above amendment and to ensure the rules are consistent, it is

proposed to consequentially amend Rule R115 by adding an additional condition as

follows:

(p) A culvert shall not be placed within a site identified in Schedule F1b (inanga

spawning habitat).

629. It is proposed to amend condition (j) as follows:

‘the height of any sediment retention weir from the upstream base to the crest of the

weir at the time of construction, shall be no more than 0.5m, and…’

630. It is proposed to amend condition (k) as follows:

‘any water monitoring equipment may divert up to 30m3 of water per day for the

purpose of measuring water quality or quantity provided the water is returned to the

water body within 50m of the diversion point, and the quality of the water in the

receiving water body after the diverted water is returned, is maintained. where it is

returned to the water body is the same or better than the receiving water body.

Rule R118: Removing or demolishing structures – permitted activity

631. Rule R118 is:

The removal or demolition of a structure or a part of a structure that is fixed in, on,

under, or over any river or lake bed, including any associated:




PAGE 146 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716






(f) the removal or demolition of the structure disturbs less than 10m3

of the bed of the river or lake, and

(g) it results in the complete removal of the structure from the river or

lake bed, or the complete removal of that part of the structure

requiring removal from the river or lake bed, and

(h) no explosives shall be used in the demolition of the structure, and

(i) the removal or deposition shall not result in the diversion of water

from a natural wetland.



632. A number of submitters support Rule R118 as notified e.g., Transpower (S165/062),

Fish and Game (S308/121) and Powerco (S29/048).

Exclude Schedule E sites

633. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/200) requests that all sites identified in Schedule E be

excluded from Rule R118 as the rule does not provide protection for historic

heritage. This is opposed by T Base 2 Limited (FS87/012). Carterton District

Council (FS85/001) oppose this submission in part as it does not clarify the basis for

inclusion of all tributaries of the Ruamāhanga in Schedule A. Carterton District

Council opposes the default non-complying activity rule status created by the rule

framework for activities within Scheduled sites and notes that the proposal would

introduce another ground for triggering that status. Establish the evidence-based

rationale for inclusion of all tributaries of the Ruamāhanga River in Schedule A or

disallow the submission point.

634. Under Section 30 of the RMA, the Council has limited ability to regulate land use

activities outside of the CMA. This has significance for historic heritage structures,

as Section 30 does not allow the Council to control the use of beds of rivers and

lakes for the purpose of protecting historic heritage. This view has been confirmed


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 147 OF 221

by legal advice. As such, sites identified in Schedule E cannot be excluded from

Rule R118 to allow for their protection.

635. Parts of the further submission from Carterton District Council does not appear to

relate to the original submission, and it is noted that the Ruamāhanga River is not

listed in Schedule A.

Clause f

636. Kiwi Rail (S140/063) and NZTA ( S146/178) request that the reference to bed

disturbance should be amended to the least amount possible rather than an arbitrary

threshold of 10m3.

637. An informal comment by Council staff also states that condition (f) should refer to

10m2 rather than 10m3. Other rules in the plan (e.g., R107, R109 and R110) refer to

a figure of 10m2 rather than 10m3 when pertaining to the size of a structure in a

watercourse.

638. The 10m3 has been carried over from the permitted activity Rule 33 in the operative

Freshwater Plan. However it is considered that the figure should actually say 10m2

to be in line and consistent with other rules in the proposed Plan which pertain to the

size of a structure in the watercourse. For example, the 10m2 corresponds with Rule

R117 condition (h) which allows new structures that do not occupy a bed area

greater than 10m2. Works that disturb more than 10m2 of the bed of the river/lake

may have more than minor effects, which should be adequately assessed through the

resource consent process. It is noted that no justification from the submitter has been

provided as to why this should be amended. I therefore consider that condition (f)

should be amended to 10m2 rather than 10m3, and rely on clause 16(2) for this

amendment.

Clause i

639. Kiwi Rail (S140/063) and NZTA (S146/178) request deletion of R118 (i) because

activities in wetlands are managed and regulated by other rules (e.g. rule 104). The

Minister of Conservation (FS61/054) oppose this submission as the diversion of

water from a natural wetland should not be a permitted activity, as the effects could


PAGE 148 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

be significant and need to be considered as part of a consent process including any

options to avoid, remedy and mitigate.

640. Although there are other rules in the proposed Plan that pertain to wetlands (e.g.,

Rule R104), none of them have any provisions for the demolition or removal of

structures. Furthermore, the wetland suite of rules do not control the removal of

structures in upstream watercourses. As such, I consider that condition (i) should

remain to ensure natural wetlands are adequately protected by ensuring water is not

diverted from them.


641. It is proposed to amend Rule R118 condition (f) as follows:

642. ‘the removal or demolition of the structure disturbs less than 10m3 10m2 of the bed

of the river or lake, and…’

Rule R119: Clearing flood debris and beach recontouring – permitted activity

643. Rule R119 is:

The clearing of flood debris on the bed of a river or lake, and beach recontouring of

the bed of a river (including, but not limited to, beach ripping), including any

associated:



(c) discharge of sediment to water associated with the clearing of

flood debris


(d) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general

conditions specified above in Section 5.5.4, excluding condition (f)

(trout spawning) if the activity is solely for the purpose of

removing flood debris from the inlet or outlet of a culvert or

stormwater discharge pipe, or to remove flood debris from against

the supporting structures of a bridge, and if in the case of both of

these exceptions, the removal is necessary to maintain the

immediate integrity and safety of the affected structures, and

(e) the removal of flood debris shall be for the purposes of flood or

erosion control or to maintain the integrity of a structure, and


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 149 OF 221

(f) any beach recontouring operation shall not occur on any part of

the bed covered by water at the time of the bed disturbance, and

(g) the beach recontouring shall not extend below a level greater than

0.1m above the water level adjacent to the extraction site and the

beach recontouring shall not extend to a depth greater than 1m,

and

(h) any moved or extracted river bed material or flood debris shall not

be placed in the bed of the river in such a way as it forms a mound

or causes the natural course of the river to be altered in a flood

event, and

(i) any beach recontouring shall only be for the purposes of

mitigating the adverse effects of flooding or erosion, and

(j) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers)

clearing of flood debris and beach recontouring shall not occur

during the critical period identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers)

if the named birds are identified at the work site, and

(k) there is no removal of any sand, shingle, rock, gravel or other

natural material from the bed, other than what is permitted in Rule

R120.


Interpretation

644. WCC (S286/044), Wellington Water Limited (S135/166) and Roading, Parks and

Gardens and Solid Waste departments of Hutt City Council and Upper Hutt City

Council (S85/047 & FS59/001) requests the Plan includes a definition for ‘flood

debris’ that covers a wide range of materials that can build up and cause blockage

during a flood.

645. I note that the Freshwater Plan included a definition of flood debris as follows:

646. Means material deposited on the river or lake bed as a result of wreckage or

destruction resulting from flooding. Flood debris can include trees, slip debris,

collapsed banks, and the remains of structures but does not include the normal

fluvial build-up of gravel.

647. It is noted that condition (k) of Rule R119 specifically states that no removal of

sand, shingle, rock or other natural material from the bed is permitted under this

Rule, other than what is permitted in Rule R120. As such, these materials are not


PAGE 150 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

deemed to be flood debris (this is also discussed in the Section 32 Report: Beds of

lakes and river). Although the inclusion of condition (k) could be considered

sufficient in determining what flood debris comprises, in my opinion, a full

definition would make it clear. I therefore propose a definition of flood debris should

be included in the proposed Plan (wording as shown below).

648. Wellington Water Limited (S135/166), WCC (S286/044) and Roading, Parks and


Council (S85/047, S85/048, FS59/001) request that the definition of ‘beach

recontouring’ should be amended to include all river bed materials (not just gravel).

649. It is noted that in the Freshwater Plan, the definition of Beach Recontouring includes

sand, shingle, rock, gravel or other natural material. It is also noted that in the

proposed Plan, beach recontouring in the CMA includes ‘in-situ, natural beach

sediments’. In my opinion, the definition of beach recontouring for beds of rivers

should be amended to the following:

‘The movement of gravel in-situ natural river beach sediments (including gravel,

rock, sand) on a river beach to remove obstructions to flow or to move material to

protect an eroding bank edge and includes beach ripping…’

650. WCC (S286/044), Wellington Water Limited (S135/166) and Roading, Parks and


Council (S85/047, FS59/001) request the proposed Plan include a definition for

‘river beach’ that includes material build-up around culverts and bridge piers. Joan

Allin and Rob Crozier (S175/007) consider reference to a “river beach” and “beach”

to be problematic and perhaps should also include reference to “bed”.

651. In my opinion a definition of river beach which includes material built up around

culverts/bridge piers is not required, as the removal of flood debris from around

these structures is permitted under Rule R117. This would include the removal of

woody debris and trees, but not gravels. Condition (d) specifically refers to

removing flood debris from around supporting piers of a bridge and the inlet/outlet

points of a culvert.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 151 OF 221

652. The term ‘river beach’ in used in the definition of ‘beach recontouring’ in the

Interpretation section of the proposed Plan. In my opinion a definition of this term

would be useful to help clarify what beach recontouring works are. I propose that the

definition of beach recontouring is amended to clarify that a river beach is part of the

bed of the river not covered by water.

Condition (d)

653. Wellington Water Limited (S135/166) requests an amendment to condition (d) to

include preserving the flood protection function of the stormwater structure to

enable pro-active maintenance.

654. In my opinion, pro-active maintenance of a stormwater structure would fall under

Rule R112, not Rule R119. As such, I do not consider the requested change to be

necessary.

Condition (f)

655. Wellington Water Limited (S135/166), Wellington City Council (S286/045) and

Roading, Parks and Gardens and Solid Waste departments of Hutt City Council and

Upper Hutt City Council (S85/047) state that condition (f) requires the operation to

occur on those parts of the river bed not covered by water. They state that there often

needs to be a small amount of works carried out in the flowing channel to ensure

effective recontouring that pre-empts future obstructions. They request that

condition (f) is amended to permit a reasonable amount of recontouring in the

flowing channel.

656. Bed recontouring works within the wetted channel has the potential to result in more

than minor effects on ecological values and cultural values, especially through

sediment release. For this reason, I do not consider it appropriate to allow

recontouring in the flowing channel. Recontouring within the flowing channel

should be subject to a resource consent so adequate assessment can be made of the

proposed disturbance to the bed and to determine the level of effects.

Condition (g)

657. Wellington Water Limited (S135/166), Wellington City Council (S286/045) and

Roading, Parks and Gardens and Solid Waste departments of Hutt City Council and


PAGE 152 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Upper Hutt City Council (S85/047) state that condition (g) appears to relate to the

depth of excavation. If this is the intention, they request an amendment to Rule R119

to clarify it relates to the depth of excavation.

658. Condition (g) does refer to the depth of excavation. I consider the condition would

be made clearer if it was worded as such:

(g) depth of excavation for the beach recontouring activities shall not extend below a

level greater than 0.1m above the water level adjacent to the extraction site and the

beach recontouring shall not extend to a depth greater than 1m, and’

659. Wellington Water Limited (S135/166) request that the cut-off is changed from 1

metre to 1.5 metres as this would encompass a greater proportion of routine

maintenance activities for regionally significant infrastructure.

660. Wainuiomata Rural Community Association (S164/007) requests an amendment to

Condition (g) to provide for situations where build-up of debris as a result of a flood

event is greater than 1 metre. They request rewording: to a depth no greater than it

was prior to the flood event.

661. The 1m depth limitation is considered to be adequate depth in which to undertake a

reasonable amount of beach recontouring works without adversely affecting the

watercourse in terms of erosion and flooding potential downstream or altering the

course of the river. Beach recontouring works at greater than 1m in depth have the

potential to have such adverse effects and therefore should be more fully assessed as

part of a resource consent process. The issue with allowing beach recontouring to a

depth no greater than it was prior to the flood event, is that it would be difficult to

determine what the pre-flood level was, and who would determine it? This may

result in people taking advantage of a flood event to undertake extra work which

could be detrimental to the watercourse. There would be inadequate level of control

on this process. I note however that this only pertains to beach recontouring works,

however the submitter talks about build-up of flood debris. There are no limits on

the amount of flood debris that can be removed (this does not include gravels etc.).

Flood debris does not include the materials listed in condition (k).


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 153 OF 221

Oppose Rule R119

662. Masterton District Council (S367/120) and South Wairarapa District Council

(S366/120) states that the extraction of gravel from Wairarapa’s aggrading rivers in

accordance with a flood management plan, would require a resource consent as a

discretionary activity under the default Rule R129, as it would not fit within Rule

R119. They therefore request an amendment to Rule R119 which provides for the

following: The excavation or disturbance of the bed of a river, including the removal

of excavated material, in accordance with an approved GWRC Flood Management

Plan is a permitted activity.

663. Should Rule R119 not be amended as per submissions S376/120 and S366/120,

Masterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council request a new rule

enabling flood management practices as a permitted activity similar to the

framework adopted in the Hawkes Bay Regional Council, including relevant and

reasonable conditions.

664. I consider that the removal of material from the bed of the river would not fall under

Rule R119 – this should more specifically be addressed through Rule R120. I have

therefore addressed these submissions in Rule R120 below. In summary however, in

my opinion the requested amendments should not be made.

665. Woodridge Homes Ltd (S105/006) oppose condition (k). They state that the

inclusion of (k) effectively prevents the removal of sand, shingle, rock which in the

majority of cases, is what is causing the blockage of the stream/stormwater system.

They request that condition (k) is either deleted, or amended to allow for the

removal of this material down to natural bed level.

666. Under the Freshwater Plan it was unclear as to whether gravel could be considered

as flood debris, and this lack of clarity has led to large volumes of gravel being

removed without consent. As such, condition (k) has been put in place and it is noted

that the removal of some gravel is permitted under Rule R120. I do not consider

sand, rock, shingle or gravel ‘flood debris’. Removal of this material in the wetted

channel is likely to result in more than minor effects to biodiversity values, cultural

values etc., due to the release of sediment and the potential changes to the river bed

itself. As such, consent should be required for the removal of gravel if it does not fall


PAGE 154 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

within the scope of Rule R120 – that is, if it is within the wetted channel. I note that

the removal of gravels which are blocking structures would also fall under Rule

R112 as maintenance works. I do not consider it appropriate to make this proposed

amendment.

Inclusion of exclusions

667. Rangitāne o Wairarapa Inc. (S279/201) requests an amendment to Rule R119 as they

consider the rule status does not provide for protection of Rangitāne o Wairarapa

Inc. and other significant values. They request that the rule excludes sites listed in

Schedules B, C and E. They request bed recontouring within these sites should be

managed through, as a minimum, a restricted discretionary resource consent process

with matters of discretion providing for the management of adverse effects on the

characteristics and values associated with the sites listed in the schedules.

668. I consider that the significant values of Schedule C sites are not adequately protected

by the general conditions (refer paragraph 404 above). I therefore consider that

Schedule C sites should be excluded from Rule R119 in line with their exclusion

from Rules R114, R115, R116 and R117.

669. With regard to the significant values of Schedule B sites, it is noted that these sites

are listed at a catchment level, rather than a site specific level. As such, Schedule B

sites include large waterbodies including entire rivers and lakes. As such, many

activities permitted under Rule R119 would require consent if Schedule B sites were

excluded from the rule. As part of the development of the proposed Plan, kaitiaki

acknowledged that, while they would like areas identified in Schedule B to be

pristine and protected in the proposed Plan in the same way that outstanding water

bodies are protected, this is not practical or achievable during the life of the

proposed Plan. In the short term, kaitiaki considered Schedule B to provide a list of

priorities for restoration, particularly for the whaitua committees to develop more

detailed management provisions. This is compared to Schedule C sites which

provide a list of more discrete sites that are significant to mana whenua and which

require additional protection from works in the beds of lakes and rivers. As such, the

proposed Plan takes a non-regulatory approach for Schedule B sites, compared to a

regulatory approach with regards to Schedule C – please refer to Section 42A Report

on Sites with Mana Whenua Values for further information.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 155 OF 221

670. I consider that site specific mana whenua sites will be adequately protected from

their exclusion from Rule R119 as proposed above. As the sites listed in Schedule B

are more generic sites, I consider their values will be adequately protected by the

general conditions in Section 5.5.4 and the conditions in Rule R119 itself. This is

due to the minor nature of the works permitted under this rule (e.g. condition (k)

requiring there is no removal of any sand, gravel, shingle, rock or other natural

material from the bed and condition (f) requiring no beach recontouring works to

occur on any part of the bed covered by water at the time of disturbance). I consider

that Rule R119 is an appropriate way to allow for reasonable management of flood

debris, with a minimum amount of regulatory costs, while being effective at

providing in-stream benefits to the river environment.

671. With regard to Schedule E sites, as discussed above, the Council has limited ability

to regulate land use activities in the beds of lakes and river. This has significance for

historic heritage structures, as Section 30 does not allow the Council to control the

use of beds of rivers and lakes for the purpose of protecting historic heritage. This

view has been confirmed by legal advice. As such, sites identified in Schedule E

cannot be excluded from Rule R119 to allow for their protection.

Diversion of water to be included as associated activity

672. Joan Allin and Rob Crozier (S175/060) request an amendment to Rule R119 to

allow the diversion of water to be included as an associated activity.

673. Diversion of water has been specifically excluded from the beach recontouring

works rule as this activity must take place outside of the river bed covered by water.

As such, no diversion of water would be necessary for this activity. The removal of

flood debris from the bed of a river, would also not require a diversion of water to

take place.

Condition (e) - clearing of debris in the bed of a river

674. NZ Transport Agency (S146/179) supported by a further submission from

Wellington Water Ltd (FS25/045), support Rule R119 in part but request a small

amendment to enable the removal of debris around piers in the bed of a river which

may technically be deemed not to be ‘on’ the bed (e.g. if in the flow). They request a

change to the wording as follows:


PAGE 156 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

675. ‘The clearing of flood debris in or on the bed of a river (including, but not limited to,

beach ripping), including any associated:…(e) the removal of flood debris shall be

for the purposes of flood or erosion control or to maintain the integrity or

functioning of a structure….’

676. The removal of debris around piers in the bed of the river is acceptable under this

rule, as can be seen in condition (d) which specifically refers to removal of flood

debris from against supporting structures of a bridge. Furthermore, the bed of a river

is defined in the RMA itself, as meaning the space of land which the waters of the

river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its banks. As such, I consider this

amendment does not need to be made. However to clarify the rule further, I propose

that the beginning of the rule is amended to state that it refers to the ‘removal’ of

flood debris, rather than the ‘clearing’ of flood debris.


677. An issue raised by Council staff with regards to this rule, it that deposition of non-

natural materials should be excluded.

678. I assume this is referring to part of a structure that may have been washed down a

river. Condition (h) allows flood debris to be placed on the bed of the river in such a

way that it does not form mounds. Part of a structure may therefore be left on the

bed of a river. I therefore consider that the deposition of non-natural materials

should be excluded and rely on clause 16(2) for this amendment. I propose clause

(b) of the rule should be amended to state:

679. (b) deposition of natural material on the river or lake bed, and

680. Another issue raised by Council staff pertains to Condition (k). Staff state condition

(k) should be amended to ‘…of any sand, shingle, rock, gravel or other natural bed

material from the bed…..’, otherwise vegetation may not be removed as would be

considered natural material.

681. I rely on clause 16(2) and propose this amendment should be made to clarify this

condition and to allow for the removal of vegetation which could be considered as

natural material.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 157 OF 221

682. Council staff consider when a flood occurs it is necessary for flood debris to be

removed from the bed. An issue was raised that the language about ‘clearing’ and

‘removing’ the flood debris indicates that it shall be removed from the river system,

which is often necessary so as to not cause the issues that condition (h) is trying to

avoid. However condition (k) then seems to contradict this. It is suggested that

condition (k) should say material shall not be removed for the act of beach

recontouring, but it needs to allow the removal of flood debris material.

683. The intent of Rule R119 is to allow the removal of flood debris from the bed of a

river, but not allow the removal of material during beach recontouring works. I

consider this is clear in the wording of the existing rule.


684. It is proposed to add a definition for ‘flood debris’ as follows:

means material deposited on the river or lake bed as a result of wreckage or

destruction resulting from flooding. Flood debris can include trees, deposited

vegetation, and the remains of structures but does not include the normal fluvial

build-up of gravel.


‘The clearing removal of flood debris on the bed of a river or lake, and beach

recontouring of the bed of a river (including, but not limited to, beach ripping),

including any associated:

a) Disturbance of the river or lake bed, and

b) Deposition of natural material on the river or lake bed, and…’

686. It is recommended that the definition of ‘beach recontouring (beds of rivers)’ should

be amended as follows:

‘The movement of gravel in-situ natural river beach sediments (including gravel,

rock, sand) on a river beach (part of the bed of the river not covered by water) to

remove obstructions to flow or to move material to protect an eroding bank edge and


PAGE 158 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

includes beach ripping to loosen the upper surface (armour) layer of the beach to

encourage gravel movement.’

687. It is proposed to amend condition (g) of Rule R119 as follows:

‘depth of excavation for the beach recontouring activities shall not extend below a

level greater than 0.1m above the water level adjacent to the extraction site and the

beach recontouring shall not extend to a depth greater than 1m, and’

688. It is proposed to amend Rule R119 by adding another condition to the rule as

follows:

(l) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua).

689. It is proposed to amend condition (k) of Rule R119 as follows:

(k) there is no removal of any sand, shingle, rock, gravel or other natural bed

material from the bed, other than what is permitted in Rule R120.

Rule R120: Minor sand and gravel extraction – permitted activity

690. Rule R120 is:

The excavation or other disturbance of the bed of a river for the purpose of

extracting gravel or other bed material, including any associated:

(a) deposition on the river or lake bed


(b) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general


(c) extraction in any 12 month period shall be limited to whichever is the lesser

of:

(i) 15m3 for an individual’s needs, or

(ii) 50m3 for use on the property on which the river bed occurs or is

adjacent to, or

(iii) 1m3 where the material is removed from Te Awa Kairangi/Hutt

River, which must be collected by non-mechanical means, and

(d) the extraction site is not covered by water at the time of extraction, and


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 159 OF 221

(e) the extraction shall not extend to a level deeper than whichever is the

greater of the following:

(i) 0.1m above the water level adjacent to the extraction site, or

(ii) 0.5m below the original height of the beach where the extraction is

occurring, and

(f) no machinery shall operate in the area of the river bed covered in water,

except for crossings to access and haul gravel. River crossing for this

purpose shall be limited to one crossing point at each gravel extraction

location, and

(g) there shall be no stockpiling of extracted gravel on the bed of the river, and

(h) the extraction site shall be set back more than 150m upstream from any

established water level recorder, more than 50m upstream from any

established weir, ford, culvert, bridge, dam, surface water intake structure

or network utility pole or pylon, and more than 50m upstream or

downstream from any existing flood control structures located in the bed of

the river, and

(i) in any part of a river bed identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers)

extraction shall not occur during the critical period identified in Schedule

F2a (birds-rivers) if the named birds are identified at the construction site,

and

(j) the extraction site shall be groomed upon completion of the extraction so

that there are no mounds, depressions, steep cut banks or edges left on the

river bed.



691. Fish and Game (S308/122) support Rule R120 as notified.

Condition (c)

692. Wellington Water Ltd (S135/167) states that the amount of material to be taken

based on the intended purpose of using the material is not effects based, and

therefore request this is amended. Condition (c) (ii) which limits extraction to 50

m3/year is adequate for most of their operations.

693. Federated Farmers of New Zealand (S352/228) and Alexander Haddon (S274/040)

request an amendment of the permitted take volumes listed in condition (c). The

changes requested are as follows:


PAGE 160 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(c) extraction in any 12 month period shall be limited to whichever is the lesser of:

(i) 15m3 50m3 for an individual’s needs, or

(ii) 50m3 150m3 for use on the property on which the river bed occurs or is

adjacent to, or up to 300m3 with the agreement of the Wellington Regional Council

River Operations Manager….

694. Allan A Smith (S35/019) supported in part by Waa Rata Estate (FS1/074) also

requests an amendment of the permitted take volumes listed in condition (c) (i) and

(ii), as he considers the limits set are too low for larger properties. He has suggested

amended limits of (c)(i) 30m3 and (c)(ii) 100m3.

695. Charlie Matthews (S320/003) opposes the limits set in condition (c) on gravel

extraction from Wairarapa rivers. He states that many of these rivers are filling far

too fast with gravel and hence cause flood damage in adverse weather events. He

states that gravel extraction should be encouraged not limited.

696. As stated in the Section 32 Report: Beds of Rivers and Lakes, a more complicated

permitted activity regime was considered on the basis of permitting small amounts

of gravel to be extracted from small rivers, and larger amounts from the bigger rivers

in our region (where more is required to be extracted to manage the flood and

erosion profile of the water body). However there was insufficient information to

generate a policy that would result in the desired environmental outcomes.

Furthermore, it was considered unnecessary to incur the cost, time and resources in

collating and analysing the data that would be necessary to develop such an

approach given that the current policy is considered to be working well and in

accordance with anticipated environmental outcomes of policy P103. It is noted that

Rule 38 in the operative Freshwater Plan has the same 15m3 and 50m3 limits

imposed and that this has been carried across to the proposed Plan as it has been

working well.

697. The Section 32 Report also states that the development of specific guidance

establishing sustainable gravel takes was considered on some of the region’s bigger

rivers to manage the river in terms of flood and erosion control and other values

(e.g., directing that a certain amount of gravel be available from the Waiohine River,


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 161 OF 221

after which the threshold is reached, no more extraction can take place). The

Council’s Flood Protection Department manages gravel extraction in rivers it

manages for flood and erosion control purposes. Typically, Flood Protection holds

global gravel extraction consents for a whole river and licenses others to undertake

the extraction. They were consulted on this approach, but considered an allocation

policy was not required as the consenting regime in operation under both the

Freshwater Plan and the proposed Plan provides a framework for management of

gravel extraction.

698. I therefore consider that an increase in the amounts of gravel to be taken under

condition (c) is not appropriate. The current rule of allowing small amounts of gravel

extraction, from a cumulative effects perspective, appears to be working well. No

evidence has been provided to show that allowing greater extractions limits would

not cumulatively result in potentially more than minor effects on flooding and

erosion risk further downstream, on aquatic ecosystem health, mahinga kai or result

in changes to the natural form of a river. Where extraction is required for flood

protection purposes, the Council obtains resource consents. Land owners will also

need to obtain consent for extraction required for flood protection purposes.

Condition (h)

699. Transpower NZ Ltd (S165/063), supported in part by Powerco (FS56/083) seeks an

amendment to Rule R120 so that minor sand and gravel extraction is to be setback

more than 50m upstream or downstream from a National Grid support structure (in

addition to network utility pylons or poles which are already included in the rule

(condition (h)). This would assist in protecting existing support structures from

potential damage. They request the following amendment to condition (h):

700. (h) the extraction site shall be set back more than 150m upstream from any

established water level recorder, more than 50m upstream or downstream from any

established weir, ford, culvert, bridge, dam, surface water intake structure or

National Grid support structure, network utility pole or pylon, and more than 50m

upstream or downstream from any existing flood control structures located in the

bed of the river, and…


PAGE 162 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

701. I consider this amendment is not necessary given that network utility poles and

pylons are already covered under the condition (h). This should cover most of the

National grid structures that are within river beds. This is unless Transpower can

clarify what the difference is between a support structure and a pole/pylon.

Oppose Rule R120

702. Masterton District Council (S367/123) and South Wairarapa District Council

(S366/123) oppose Rule R120. They request that provision should be made for the

extraction of gravel from Wairarapa’s aggrading rivers in accordance with an

approved flood management plan. This should be undertaken as a permitted activity.

These submissions are similar to submissions made under Rule R119 above.

703. Rule R120 allows small amounts of gravel to be extracted as a permitted activity as

there will be less than minor effects. Large amounts of gravel extraction are likely to

have more than minor effects, and as such would require resource consent under

Rule R129 as a discretionary activity.

704. Even if gravel was to be extracted in accordance with a Floodplain Management

Plan, a full assessment of effects would be required and this is not provided for in a

Floodplain Management Plan. A full assessment of these effects is best addressed

through a resource consent process, where all effects will be taken into account.

705. A Floodplain Management Plan is a non-statutory document pertaining to the

management of flood risk. They provide a co-ordinated response by the community

and the Council to reduce the impact of flooding by understanding the processes

affecting a river/stream and its flood plain within a wider catchment. In this regard

they are beneficial and are acknowledged in policies P15, P16 and P104 of the

proposed Plan. However a Floodplain Management Plan is not a consent and does

not address all issues that a resource consent would. For example, who would

control the effects of gravel extraction, the amount and the location?

706. A Floodplain Management Plan does not cover issues such as what controls are in

place, who the work is being carried out by and for what purpose, how it is

monitored etc. Furthermore, it does not fully address the effects on aquatic habitat,

biodiversity, cultural effects etc. It is noted that the Council also has to apply for


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 163 OF 221

consents for activities listed in Floodplain Management Plans (so all effects are fully

assessed). Ultimately, despite a Floodplain Management Plan being important from

a communities perspective, it would not address all potential effects from large

gravel extraction, whereas a resource consent would. I therefore consider no change

should be made as suggested by the submitters.

Provide protection for Schedule C sites

707. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/202) considers that the permitted activity for minor

sand and gravel extraction should not apply in sites in Schedule C to protect their

significant values.

708. I consider that the significant values of Schedule C sites are not adequately protected

by the general conditions (refer paragraph 404 above). I therefore consider that

Schedule C sites should be excluded from Rule R120 in line with their exclusion

from Rules R114, R115, R116, R117 and R119.


709. Rule R120 condition (f) does not (and should) limit the number of vehicle crossings

of the watercourse during the gravel extraction process.

710. It is noted the permitted gravel extraction amounts are small scale, and this is turn

will correspond to a small number of crossings over the 12 month period of

extraction permitted. I therefore consider the number of vehicle crossings over the

watercourses will be limited by the small amounts of gravel permitted to be taken.

711. Rule R120 allows for excavation, disturbance and deposition but explicitly does not

mention diversion of water. However general condition 5.5.4 (i) appears to allow

diversion during works even though R120 does not explicitly permit this.

712. I consider that diversion of water has not been specifically mentioned as being

permitted in Rule R120 because gravel extraction must only occur in areas not

covered by water at the time of extraction (condition (d). As such, diversion of water

would not be necessary, and is therefore not deemed to be an associated activity.

Although general condition 5.5.4 (i) does refer to diversion, this specifies the

condition for rules in which diversion of water is specified as associated works.

Diversion of water is not an associated activity for gravel extraction.


PAGE 164 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716


713. It is proposed to amend Rule R120 by adding another condition to the rule as

follows:

(k) the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua).

Rule R123: Planting – permitted activity

Rule R123 is:

The deliberate introduction or planting of a plant in the bed of a river or lake, including any

associated:





but excluding the deliberate introduction or planting of:

(e) crack willow (Salix fragilis) and grey willow (Salix cinerea), other than

where they are already predominant but excludes the following areas where

they are predominant (to be developed), and

(f) an introduced, submersed aquatic plant, and

(g) a species listed in the Greater Wellington Regional Pest Management

Strategy 2002-2022.


(h) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general


(i) only native plants shall be used in a site identified in Schedule A

(outstanding water bodies), Schedule C (mana whenua) and Schedule F

(indigenous biodiversity), and

(j) no planting shall be undertaken in an identified river management scheme

area, unless it is undertaken in accordance with the planting programme

specified in the relevant river management plan.

Rule R123 - Submissions and Assessment


714. Fish and Game (S308/123) supports Rule R123 as notified.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 165 OF 221

New Definitions

715. PCC S163/122 requests the addition of definitions and guidance relating to "river

management schemes" and "river management plans". They also request that the

definition of ‘catchment based flood and erosion risk management activities’ is

moved into alphabetical order in the definitions section of the proposed Plan.

716. I agree with the submitter that the definition of ‘catchment based flood and erosion

risk management activities’ should be moved into alphabetical order within the

Interpretation section of the Plan.

717. A river management scheme refers to a scheme set up under the Soil Conservation

and Rivers Control Act 1941 and run on behalf of property owners or the wider

community (or both) by the Council for the purpose of erosion control and flood

management. I have been advised by Council Flood Protection staff that Council

produces floodplain management plans, not river management plans, to detail the

work to be carried out to provide erosion control and flood management, usually on

behalf of these catchment schemes. Both ‘river management scheme’ and

‘floodplain management plan’ are included in the definition for “Catchment based

flood and erosion risk management activities”.

718. I do not consider that a definition of these terms is needed in Section 2 Interpretation

as these terms are not used elsewhere in the proposed Plan. However I propose

minor amendments to clause (j) to provide clarification that a river management

scheme is a scheme managed by the Council in order to provide erosion protection

and flood management and to refer correctly to a floodplain management plan,

rather than a river management plan.

Invasive Plants

719. Southern North Island branch of the National Beekeepers Association (S108/002)

would like contractors or Council staff doing willow clearance to be able to help

identify invasive willows so that no invasive willows can remain where they are

causing a problem. The submitter also requests that the Council replace some with

those willows recommended in the Winning with Willows booklet and to discourage

the planting of tutu as it is poisonous to stock and can produce poisonous honey dew

when the sucking insect scolypopa australis feeds on it.


PAGE 166 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

720. Rule R123 relates only to the planting, not the removal of plants. Removal of crack

willows would be covered under rule R122. Rule R123 does not state or require that

crack willow and grey willow need to be removed, it just states that they should not

be planted, except in certain circumstances.

721. With regards to amending condition (e) to exclude tutu from the permitted activity,

while I understand that tutu is a concern because of its toxicity to stock, a regional

plan can only have rules if they relate to the functions of a regional council under the

RMA (e.g. restricting the planting of crack and grey willow because of their invasive

nature and environmental effects). Protecting stock from a toxic plant is not an RMA

matter and for this reason, I do not support this amendment.

722. With regards to amending condition (e) to exclude tutu from the permitted activity,

while I understand that tutu is a concern because of its toxicity to stock, a regional

plan can only have rules if they relate to the functions of a regional council under the

RMA (e.g. restricting the planting of crack and grey willow because of their invasive

nature and environmental effects). Protecting stock from a toxic plant is not an RMA

matter and for this reason, I do not support this amendment.

723. Beef and Lamb NZ (S311/041) is concerned that crack willow and grey willow are

Unwanted Organisms (UOs) under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and any planting is a

breach of the Act, regardless of whether they are already present. Any actions that

allow the spread of UOs, including seeding and / or vegetative spread also breaches

the Act. The submitter notes that the introduction of any UO into the bed of a river

of lake, or a submerged aquatic UO species is also unlawful, whether or not it is

listed in an RPMS, and requests the following amendment:




(f) any introduced, submersed submerged aquatic plant, and

(g) a species listed in the operative Greater Wellington Regional Pest

Management Strategy 2002 - 2022 or any Unwanted Organism under the

Biosecurity Act 1993.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 167 OF 221

724. I agree that, as crack willow and grey willow are Unwanted Organisms in the

Biosecurity Act, they should not be allowed to be planted just because they are

already present and predominant. I understand that, not only has their use by Council

for flood protection and erosion control been discontinued (with other non-invasive

cultivars used instead), but that they are also being actively controlled under the

Council’s Key Native Ecosystem Programme. For these reasons I agree with the

amendment sought to Rule R123 (e) by this submitter. I also support the

amendments sought to clause (f), to correct a spelling mistake. With respect to

including reference to any Unwanted Organisms under the Biosecurity Act I note

that, as these plants are already managed by the Biosecurity Act, then is no need for

the proposed Plan to address them further. For this reason I also recommend that

clauses (e) and (f) are deleted as these address plants that are already listed as

Unwanted Organisms and their planting is already unlawful.

Provide for erosion control plantings

725. Federated Farmers (S352/231/&232) requests amendments to Rule R123 to allow

poles and willows for erosion control to be used in Schedule C and Schedule F sites .

726. Wellington Regional Council (S133/015) has also requested amendment to Rule

R123 to permit the planting of appropriate non-native species in Schedule F sites for

identified purposes such as flood protection and erosion control

727. It is my view that planting in the bed of a river or lake when it is in a Schedule C

site as a permitted activity should be restricted to native plantings. If non-natives are

needed then this should be subject to consultation with mana whenua.

728. I agree, due to the reasonably extensive nature of Schedule F sites and the generally

superior nature of some exotic plants for erosion protection (due to factors such as

ease of establishment and development of root mass), that the use of appropriate

non-native plants should be permitted in Schedule F sites for the purpose of flood

protection and erosion control.


729. I propose that the definition of ‘catchment based flood and erosion risk management

activities’ , should be moved into its correct alphabetical order in the Interpretation

chapter of the proposed Plan.


PAGE 168 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716





(f) an introduced, submersged aquatic plant, and

(g) a species listed in the Greater Wellington Regional Pest Management

Strategy 2002-2022.


(h) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general


(i) only native plants shall be used in a site identified in Schedule A

(outstanding water bodies), or Schedule C (mana whenua). and In a site

identified in Schedule F (indigenous biodiversity) only native plants shall

be used, except where appropriate non-native species are required for flood

protection or erosion control, and

(j) no planting shall be undertaken in an identified Wellington Regional

Council river management scheme area, unless it is undertaken in

accordance with the planting programme specified in the relevant

floodplain river management plan.

R124 Entry or passage over bed (excluding livestock)

731. Rule R124 is:

The entry or passage across the bed of a river or lake that is not associated with any

use of the river or lake bed specified in Rules R112 to R123, which is not for the

purpose of livestock access covered by Rules R97 and R98 is a permitted activity

provided the following condition is met:

(a) the activity shall comply with the beds of lakes and rivers general

conditions specified above in Section 5.5.4, except if the entry or

passage is associated with an activity with an existing resource

consent granted prior to the date of public notification of the

Proposed Natural Resources Plan (31.07.2015).


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 169 OF 221

Note Entry or passage across the bed of a river or lake is permitted by Rule R124 but

does not permit other uses of river or lake beds that are identified in Section 13 of

the Resource Management Act 1991. Other uses of river and lake beds such as

disturbance, deposition, and reclamation require resource consents unless they are

permitted by a rule in the Plan.

Entry or passage across the bed of a river or lake associated with a permitted

activity is not restricted by this rule.



732. A number of submitters, e.g. Waa Rata Estate (S152/083) and Fish and Game

(S308/124) support Rule R124 as notified.

Amendments

733. New Zealand Transport Agency (S146/180) supports Rule R124 in part, but seeks

that associated activities also be enabled. They seek to amend Rule 124 to be

inclusive of other uses of rivers and lakes such as disturbance and deposition which

cannot be avoided when driving over the river bed. Further submissions were

received from Powerco (FS56/087) and Porirua City Council (FS27/024) supporting

this view. They state that disturbance and deposition occur on a river bed when

driving over it, and that Rule R124 should provide for this.

734. A similar issue has also been raised informally by Wellington Regional Council

staff. As Rule R124 is written, it only specifies that ‘entry and passage’ are

permitted, it does not specify any other associated activity such as discharge,

diversion, deposition etc. The note following Rule R124 specifically states that other

uses of the river bed such as disturbance, deposition and reclamation require further

resource consents unless permitted by a rule in the plan.

735. In my opinion Rule R124 should not be amended. This is because entry and passage

over the bed of a river or lake is permitted under this rule if it accords with the

conditions specified in Section 5.5.4. These conditions allow sediment release and

disturbance while crossing the river as long as it is minimal and accords with

conditions (g) and (m). Any disturbance/deposition on the bed which does not meet

these conditions, would require resource consent. Although the note following Rule

R124 literally states that disturbance and deposition require further resource consent,


PAGE 170 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

this is not referring to the activity of crossing the river itself and its associated

disturbance/deposition. In summary, I consider Rule R124 allows driving over the

river bed as long as it accords with Section 5.5.4.

736. Porirua City Council (S163/123) supported by further submitter Powerco

(FS56/086) seeks to amend Rule R124 to provide an exemption for essential

maintenance and emergency works to occur between March and May within inanga

spawning habitats (5.5.4 general conditions). This Rule as it stands could restrict

maintenance and capital works projects.

737. It is noted that emergency works, as set out by these submitters, would be covered

under Section 330 of the RMA. I do not discuss this matter any further.

738. Maintenance works would generally fall under Rule R112 and vehicle crossings of

the river associated with this activity would fall under Rule R112 as well.

Maintenance works carried out under Rule R112 needs to accord with the conditions

in Section 5.5.4, including that no bed disturbance, diversions of water or sediment

discharge take place within inanga spawning habitat between 1 March and 31 May.

Inanga spawning habitat only occurs in specific places within the region and must be

protected in line with Objective O35 and Policy P33. I consider that essential

maintenance work should not have any exemptions to condition (e) in Section 5.5.4

as these works may result in more than minor effects to the inanga population.

739. In my opinion a resource consent should be required for any maintenance works

during the inanga spawning season in inanga spawning habitat so as to adequately

assess the effects on the population/habitat. Maintenance works in inanga spawning

areas will need to be planned for times around the spawning season.

740. Alan Jefferies (S97/006) states Rule R124 is not clear that it permits entry and

passage across but not along the river. He seeks to amend the rule to state that the

rules do not permit access along a river bed. The word ‘directly’ should precede the

word across.

741. In my opinion, adding the word ‘directly’ into this rule will lead to issues as often

crossing a river may need to be done on an angle as these will be the easiest places

to cross with more stable ground (and less sediment release). The use of the word


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 171 OF 221

‘directly’ insinuates that you may only pass in a horizontal angle straight across the

river. I consider that this rule is specifically for going ‘across’ the river. Driving

along one side of the river only would not be permitted. It is acknowledged that

occasionally one may need to drive along the river for a small distance before a

crossing can be made. This would be acceptable under this rule as long as the river is

actually crossed. However this will need to accord with all the conditions in Section

5.5.4 including condition (g) on sediment release, and condition (j) on not resulting

in erosion and scour of the river banks.


742. No change to Rule R124.

Rule R125: Structures within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua) – restricted discretionary activity

743. Rule R125 is:

The placement of a river crossing structure, a culvert, new small dam, or other small

structure that that is fixed in, on or under the bed of a river within a site identified in

Schedule C (mana whenua), including any associated:


(k) deposition on the river or lake bed, and

(l) diversion of water, and

(m) damming of water, and

(n) discharge of sediment to water, and

(o) reclamation associated with the dam structure, and

(p) the damming of water outside the bed of a lake or river by a dam structure

is a restricted discretionary activity, provided the following conditions are met:

(q) any small river crossing (other than a culvert) must meet the conditions of

Rule R114, except condition (h), and

(r) any culvert must meet the conditions of Rule R115, except condition (f), and

(s) any new small dam structure, must meet the conditions of Rule R116, except

condition (i), and

(t) any other small new structure must meet the conditions of Rule R117 except

condition (f).


PAGE 172 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Matters for discretion 1. Effects on sites with significant mana whenua values

Rule R125 - Submissions and Assessments


744. Atiawa ki Whakarongotai S398/040 supports Rule R125 as notified. They request

retention of reference to Schedules B and C, mahinga kai and Maori customary use

in Rules R51, R125, R153, R155, and R165.

745. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/205) supports retention of R125 as notified.

Extend protection to schedule B sites 746. Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (S309/040) considers that Rule R125 does not protect Nga

Taonga Nui a Kiwa (Schedule B) and requests that it is amended to apply to

Schedule B.

747. With regard to the significant values of Schedule B sites, I note that Schedule B

includes a large number of entire rivers and lakes across the region. If Rule R125

was amended to apply to both Schedule B and C sites, resource consent would be

required for most permitted activities in the Beds of Lakes and Rivers Chapter of the

proposed Plan. As stated in paragraph 669 above, the proposed Plan takes a non-

regulatory approach for Schedule B sites, compared to a regulatory approach with

regards to Schedule C – please refer to Section 42A Report on Sites with Mana

Whenua Values for further information. As the sites listed in Schedule B are more

generic sites, I consider that their values will be adequately protected by the general

conditions in Section 5.5.4 and the conditions within each of the permitted activity

rules. This is due to the minor nature of the works permitted under each of the rules,

which would allow for less than minor effects. This rule is considered an

appropriate way to allow for reasonable management of activities in the beds of

lakes and rivers, with a minimum amount of regulatory costs, while being effective

at providing in-stream benefits to the river environment.

Objection to addressing mana whenua values in resource consent

748. A number of Federated Farmers common submitters (e.g. NZ Deer Farmer’s

Association S434/027) request that a proper assessment is carried out of the

restrictions proposed for mana whenua sites within the proposed Plan. They consider


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 173 OF 221

this should not be left to a consent process at landowner cost - this creates more

uncertainty as to who is appropriate and qualified to undertake an assessment.

749. Schedule C sites have a wide range of values associated with them which should be

protected in line with Objective 14 of the proposed Plan (Maori relationships with

air, land and water are recognised, maintained and improved) and Objective O33

(that sites with mana whenua values are protected and restored). These values are

included in Schedule C including a values glossary to help guide consent

applications. I note that Schedule C has not been developed to specify activities that

risk adversely affecting the values of each site. It would be a lengthy and onerous

process to identify a list of activities that pose a risk to the values for each of the 163

sites listed in Schedule C. As such, I do not consider this to be appropriate.

RDA too stringent

750. Dairy NZ and Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd (S316/122) considers that a

restricted discretionary activity to manage all culverts, river crossing structures,

small dams or other small structures within these sites, even those that meet the

conditions of Permitted Activity Rule R115, is overly stringent as not all sites may

warrant the restriction of these activities

751. Rules R114, R115, R116 and R117 all have the same condition which restricts new

structures within Schedule C mana whenua sites. As such, new structures within

Schedule C sites generally fall under Rule R125 as a restricted discretionary activity

if all other permitted conditions can be met. The only matter for discretion would be

potential effects on significant mana whenua values. This is because the presence of

a structure in, on, under or over the bed of a river or lake may have adverse effects

on the particular sensitivity of the cultural values for which the site was identified,

and it is possible that the structure would not be appropriate.

752. Mana whenua values are discreet in nature and not readily quantifiable. Schedule C

sites have a wide range of values associated with them which should be protected in

line with Objective O14 of the proposed Plan (Maori relationships with air, land and

water are recognised, maintained and improved) and Objective O33 (that sites with

mana whenua values are protected and restored). As such, it is not considered

appropriate for structures to be a permitted activity when some level of assessment is


PAGE 174 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

required to assess the effects on mana whenua values. Each structure would require a

case by case assessment which would be done through the resource consent process.

Exemption for Regionally Significant Infrastructure

753. Transpower (S165/065) seeks that stream works that comply with all of the

conditions/standards for a permitted activity, associated with the operation,

maintenance or upgrade of the National Grid are exempt from Rule R125.

754. Although National Grid structures are of national importance, stream works, new

structures and their maintenance still have the potential to adversely affect cultural

values of a site. As such, in my opinion, a resource consent should still be required

to assess whether cultural values are affected. If a structure is going to be located in

a Schedule C site, it therefore requires further assessment as a restricted

discretionary activity under Rule R125.

755. NZTA (S146/181) generally supports the rule subject to amendments which

recognise the need to recognise and provide for regionally significant infrastructure.

The submitter requests the following amendment:

756. The placement or construction and subsequent use of a river crossing structure, a

culvert, new small dam, or other small structure that that is fixed in, on, over or

under the bed of a river within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua),

including any associated:. . . . (l) unless the structure and use is associated with

the use, operation, maintenance, upgrade or development of regionally significant

infrastructure in which case (h) - (k) do not apply. Matters for discretion: 1. Effects

on sites with significant mana whenua values. 2. The functional need and operational

requirements of regionally significant infrastructure.

757. Although regionally significant infrastructure is important, stream works, new

structures and their maintenance still have the potential to adversely affect cultural

values of a site. As such, in my opinion, a resource consent should still be required

to assess whether cultural values are affected. If a structure is going to be located in

a Schedule C site, it therefore requires further assessment as a restricted

discretionary activity under Rule R125. Policy P12 and P13 recognise the benefits of

regionally significant infrastructure and would be relevant policies to be considered

during the assessment of such a resource consent application.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 175 OF 221


758. No amendments recommended.

Rule R126: Placement of a dam in an outstanding water body – non complying activity

759. Rule R126 is:

The placement or use of a dam that is fixed in, on, or under the bed of an

outstanding water body identified in Schedule A2 (outstanding lakes) or Schedule A1

(outstanding rivers), or the damming of water that encroaches on an outstanding

water body including any associated:



(c) discharge of sediment to water, and

(d) reclamation associated with the dam structure, and

(e) and the damming of water outside the bed of a lake or river by a dam

structure


Rule R126: Submissions and Assessment

Support for R126

760. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/206) support Rule R126 as notified.

Change to prohibited activity status

761. Forest and Bird (S353/154) support Rule R126 but request that the activity status is

changed to prohibited.

762. The non-complying activity status is a very strong test which is reserved for

activities that have a high risk of causing significant adverse effects and which

should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances (or where effects are no more

than minor). I consider the non-complying activity status is adequate for this activity

as there are circumstances where a small dam may be required in an outstanding

watercourse. As such, I do not consider the request to be appropriate.

Clarification

763. Transpower (S165/084) requests an amendment to add “Except as provided for in

Rules R156a and R160a” at the beginning of Rule R126


PAGE 176 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

764. Rules R156 (navigational aids) and R160 (motor vehicles inside the Cook Strait

Cable Protection Zone), pertain to structures and disturbance in the coastal marine

area and are separate activities to those proposed in Rule R126. I therefore consider

the requested amendment should not be made.

765. Hamish Trolove (S31/012) requests that provision be made for removal of silt from

dams in order to refurbish them or lengthen their life. He considers that refurbishing

an old dam and lengthening the life of a dam is better than building a new one. He

requests a statement is added to the rule about the suitability of silt removal from old

dams as part of refurbishment or dam maintenance.

766. The removal of silt from an existing dam would not fall under Rule R126, it would

fall under Rule R112 as maintenance works and all conditions in Section 5.5.4

would need to be complied with for it to be considered a permitted activity.

However I also note that if the existing dam is not lawful, it would require consent

under Rule R129 as a discretionary activity unless it met the requirements in Rule

R116. The removal of silt from around dam structures helps to maintain the

structure itself. I do not consider any further statements need to be made in the rules

as requested by the submitter.

Rule R126: Summary of Recommendation

767. No changes recommended.

Rule 129: All other activities in river and lake beds – discretionary activity

768. Rule R129 is:

All other activities, except for damming and diverting of water, in river and lake

beds that is not permitted or restricted discretionary by Rule R112 to Rule R125 is a

discretionary activity except for those activities that are non-complying or

prohibited under Rule R126, Rule R127 or Rule R128.

Rule R129 - Submissions and Evaluations


769. NZTA (S146/184) and Vector Gas (S145/067) support Rule R129 as notified.

Provide for strategic development areas

770. PCC (S163/125) requests a lower activity class for activities that are carried out

within strategic development areas. The submitter requests that:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 177 OF 221

771. “Small river crossings, culverts, small dams and small structures within an Urban

Development overlay area, in respect of which a comprehensive development plan

has been approved, is a controlled activity. Small river crossings, culverts, small

dams and small structures within an Urban Development overlay area, in respect of

which a comprehensive development plan has not been approved, is a restricted

discretionary activity.”

772. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC)

expresses the government’s desire for local government to provide for urban

development. However I also note that it does not anticipate development occurring

with disregard to its effects. As such, I consider that Rule R129 should not be

amended as suggested by the submitter. A full assessment of all potential effects is

therefore considered appropriate for small river crossings, culverts, small dams and

small structures within the bed of a river/lake that do not meet the permitted activity

standards. I consider these activities should be discretionary activities. Furthermore,

I note that the NPS-UDC would need to be taken into account in any such

application under this rule.

Provide for erosion protection structures

773. Cuttriss Consultants Limited (S104/009) requests a new rule to provide for new

structures for erosion protection, rather than have them default to a catch-all

discretionary activity status.

774. I note that erosion protection structures are provided for in Rule R117. It is

recommended elsewhere in this report, that Rule R117 includes the words ‘erosion

protection structures’ to make this clearer.

Rule R129 - Recommendations


Rule R130: Diversion of groundwater – permitted activity

776. Rule R130 is:

Diversion of groundwater is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions

are met:

(a) there shall be no flooding or erosion of any neighbouring property, and


PAGE 178 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

(b) there shall be no lowering of water levels in any river, lake, or natural

wetland, and

(c) there shall be no lowering of groundwater levels on any neighbouring

property.



777. Powerco (S29/049), the Oil Companies (S55/058) and Transpower (S165/067)

support Rule R130 as notified

Rule R130 – Recommendation

778. No Changes recommended.

Rule R131: Damming or diverting water within or from rivers – discretionary activity

779. Rule R131 is:

The damming or diverting of water within or from a river that does not meet Rules

R112, R114, R115, R116, R117, R118, R119, R121, R122 and R123 and R140 is a

discretionary activity, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) the damming or diverting of water shall not result in river flows falling

below minimum flows in chapters 7 to 11 of the Plan, and

(b) the damming or diverting of water is not in any outstanding river identified

in Schedule A1 (outstanding rivers).



780. Transpower (S165/068) supports Rule R131 as notified

Provide for strategic development areas

781. PCC (S163/126) requests a lower activity class for activities that are carried out

within strategic development areas. The submitter requests:

782. "The damming or diverting of water within or from a river within an Urban

Development overlay area, in respect of which a comprehensive development plan

has been approved, is a controlled activity. The damming or diverting of water

within or from a river within an Urban Development overlay area, in respect of

which a comprehensive development plan has not been approved, is a restricted

discretionary activity."


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 179 OF 221

783. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC)

expresses the government’s desire for local government to provide for urban

development. However I also note that it does not anticipate development occurring

with disregard to its effects. As such, I consider that Rule R131 should not be

amended as suggested by the submitter. A full assessment of all potential effects is

therefore considered appropriate for the damming and diverting of water within or

from a river that do not meet the permitted activity standards. I consider these

activities should be discretionary activities. Furthermore, I note that the NPS-UDC

would need to be taken into account in any such application under this rule.

Provide protection for Schedule C sites

784. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/209) considers that the rule does not provide adequate

protection for Schedule C sites and requests:

785. “Amend the rule to ensure that rivers identified in Schedule C are afforded

protection from damming and the diversion of water as a non-complying activity by

including a condition in Rule R131 stating the that damming and diversion is not

within a river or site identified in Schedule B or C.”

786. I consider that Schedule B and C sites will be adequately protected through Rule

R131 as a discretionary activity. All activities that require consent under this rule

would require a full assessment of the effects on mana whenua values and cultural

values and the policies in the plan pertaining to these (P17 to P21, P44, P45). I

therefore consider the rule provides for adequate protection of Schedule B and C

sites.

Replace with Freshwater Plan Rule 8

787. Wellington Water (S135/171) is concerned that without Rule 8 of the Freshwater

Plan a consent will be needed for all existing dams and weirs, which “is not an

efficient use of resources, particularly as all the effects will now be established and

well known. Policy P8 (h) and P13 recognises that these structures are beneficial

and generally appropriate but there is not a rule that permits the existing

structures.”

788. The submitter requests that Rule 8 is replicated in the proposed Plan.


PAGE 180 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

789. It was not considered appropriate to allow for the damming of water by an existing

lawful structure in the Proposed plan as requested by the submitter. This is due to the

potential for existing dams being dangerous. While most existing dams meet

appropriate dam safety requirements, some existing dams do not meet these safety

requirements. By permitting all existing dams, the Council would need to consider

the extent to which they are responsible when a dam failure occurs resulting in

damage to life or property. For this reason, an equivalent rule to rule 8 in the

Freshwater Plan has not been repeated in the Proposed plan.

Restricted activity status

790. Federated Farmers (S352/233) requests that the rule is a restricted discretionary

activity and the rule refers to an operative Freshwater Plan minimum flows, rather

than those set in chapters 7-11 and that clause (b) is deleted

791. With regards to the proposal to delete condition (b) of Rule R131, outstanding water

bodies have very high ecosystem values, for high macroinvertebrate health,

indigenous fish diversity, threatened fish species, aquatic plants and /or wildlife

habitat. Objective O31 requires that outstanding water bodies and their significant

values are protected. Policy P39 requires the adverse effects of the use and

development on outstanding water bodies and their significant values are avoided.

Due the outstanding values of these particular water bodies, I consider they should

not be excluded from Rule R131.

792. With regards to the submitters view on using operative Freshwater Plan minimum

flows, rather than those set in Chapters 7-11, I disagree with this. I note that many of

the minimum flows in Chapters 7-11 have been carried across from the Freshwater

Plan. However some chapters have not listed minimum flows for specific rivers and

have stated that the minimum flows for rivers, is 90% of the seven-day mean annual

flow. The minimum flows within Chapters 7-11 are based on the most current and

accurate information the Council has on each catchment and has been used in order

to safeguard the aquatic ecosystem health and mahinga kai in fresh water bodies. I

therefore consider this information would supercede that of the Freshwater Plan

which is based on older information on each catchment. It is also noted that the

minimum flows utilised in Chapters 7-11 will be subject to change (by plan changes

or variation) through recommendations of the various Whaitua committees.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 181 OF 221

Rule R131 – Recommendation


Rule R132: Damming or diverting water within or from rivers – non-complying activity

794. Rule R132 is:

The damming or diverting of water within or from a river that does not meet

conditions in Rule R131 is a non-complying activity.


795. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/210) support Rule R132 as is.


796. No change to Rule R132.

Rule R133: Damming or diverting water within or from natural lakes – discretionary activity

797. Rule R133 is:

The damming or diverting of water within or from a natural lake other than Lake

Kohangatera and Lake Kohangapiripiri is a discretionary activity provided the

following conditions are met:

(a) in Lake Wairarapa, the minimum water levels in chapter 7 of the Plan are

met, and

(b) in natural lakes, other than Lake Wairarapa, there is no change in the

natural minimum lake level.


798. Rangitāne o Wairarapa Inc. (S279/211) opposes Rule R133 as they consider that it

does not provide protection for Rangitāne o Wairarapa Inc. values at sites and areas

of significance scheduled in the proposed Plan. They request:

799. “Amend the rule, and make associated consequential changes, so that damming or

diverting of water from Wairarapa Moana, Lake Pounui, Hapua Korari and the

Hidden Lakes, other than damming and diversion that is necessary for ecological or

biodiversity enhancement purposes, is a non-complying activity”

800. It is my opinion that Rule R133 is written to be consistent with Rule R131. Both

rules require minimum river flows/lake levels to be maintained and the exemption of


PAGE 182 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Schedule A sites. There are only three Schedule A lakes listed in the Proposed plan

(Lakes Kohangatera and Kohangapirpiri and Lake Wairarapa). Lakes Kohangatera

and Kohangapirpiri have been excluded from Rule R133 in line with Schedule A

sites being excluded from Rule R131.

801. However Lake Wairarapa has not been excluded from Rule R133. This is because

specific minimum water levels have been identified in Chapter 7 of the Proposed

plan in order to give effect to the National Water Conservation Order (Lake

Wairarapa) recognising the outstanding wildlife habitat associated with the lake).

802. The National Water Conservation Order states the wildlife habitat created in part as

a consequence of the natural fluctuations of water levels, particularly over the

eastern shoreline, is an outstanding feature of Lake Wairarapa. The order prohibits

the diversion of water within (emphasis mine) Lake Wairarapa.

803. Following the order, lake level management guidelines were developed by the Lake

Wairarapa Co-ordinating Committee. The committee comprised all the key statutory

authorities (Wellington Regional Council, South Wairararpa District Council and the

Department of Conversation) and interested groups involved in, or affected by, the

management of the lake, including iwi, recreational users, landowners, commercial

fishers and environmental groups. Since they were issued, the guidelines have been

used as the basis for managing water levels in Lake Wairarapa to achieve sustainable

management (identified in Chapter 7 of the Proposed plan).

804. I consider that Schedule B and C sites will be adequately protected through Rule

R133 as a discretionary activity. All activities that require consent under this rule

would require a full assessment of the effects on mana whenua values and cultural

values and the policies in the plan pertaining to these (P17 to P21, P44, P45). I

therefore consider the rule provides for adequate protection of Schedule A, B and C

sites.




NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 183 OF 221

Rule R134: Damming or diverting water within or from natural lakes, Lake Kohangatera or Lake Kohangapiripiri – non-complying activity

806. Rule R134 is:

The damming or diverting of water within or from natural lakes that do not meet the

conditions in Rule R133 or within or from Lake Kohangatera or Lake

Kohangapiripiri is a non-complying activity.


807. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society S353/157 support this rule in part. They

consider that the damming and diversion of water in outstanding rivers and lakes

should be a non-complying activity.

808. The damming and diversion of water is a non-complying activity in all outstanding

rivers and lakes except for Lake Wairarapa. The damming and diversion of water in

Lake Wairarapa is a discretionary activity under Rule R133 if the minimum water

levels in chapter 7 of the Plan are met. I consider this to be appropriate given that

Lake Wairarapa is subject to a National Water Conservation Order (refer paragraphs

802 and 803 above).

809. Rangitāne o Wairarapa (S279/212) oppose Rule R134 as they consider that it is

inconsistent and does not provide for Rangitāne o Wairarapa sites/areas of

significance. They request that Wairarapa Moana, Lake Pounui, Hapua Korari and

the Hidden Lakes be included in R134 to state that the damming and diverting of

water is a non-complying activity.

810. As stated above, Rule R133, would require a full assessment of the effects on mana

whenua values and cultural values and the policies in the plan pertaining to

Rangitāne o Wairarapa sites/areas of significance (P17 to P21, P44, P45). As such, I

do not consider the specified lakes mentioned by the submitter need to be exempt

from Rule R133 and moved to Rule R134.



Rule R135: General rule for taking, use, damming and diverting water – discretionary activity

812. Rule R135 is:


PAGE 184 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

The damming or diverting of water that would otherwise contravene sections 14(2)

or 14(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and is not permitted, controlled,

restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying or a prohibited activity is a

discretionary activity.



813. NZTA (S146/186) supports Rule R135

Make Rule R135 restricted discretionary

814. A number of submitters (e.g. Wairarapa Water User's Inc. Society S124/013) request

that Rule R135 become restricted discretionary as the investment in infrastructure by

users is significant and making this rule restricted discretionary gives consent

holders more certainty.

815. I consider that the damming and diverting of water should be a discretionary activity

as there is the potential for wide ranging effects that are more than minor. All effects

need to be fully assessed as part of a discretionary activity consent application.

816. HCC /UHCC (S85/075) requests that consideration needs to be made for authorising

stormwater diversion in the stormwater discharge rules in section 5.2.3 of the NRP

(i.e. rule bundling).

817. The submitter states that stormwater drains have the function of diverting surface

water runoff, and are therefore restricted by s14(2) of the RMA. The proposed Plan

does not specifically address stormwater diversion, and so it would presumably fall

under the general rule for taking, use, damming and diverting water as a

Discretionary Activity under Rule R135 which appears unnecessary. This could

possibly be addressed by authorising the diversion in the stormwater discharge rules

in section 5.2.3 of the NRP (i.e. rule bundling).

818. This issue has been addressed in the Section 42A Hearing Report for Stormwater

(12/01/2018) -refer paragraphs 462 & 463. Essentially, the definition of stormwater

captures the diversion aspect. Legal Counsel also supports this interpretation. As

such, I do not consider the requested amendments are necessary.




NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 185 OF 221

820. Section 32AA assessment of Issue 4



Implications of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry

Background

822. The National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) has been

released and will come into force on 1 May 2018.

Rules that duplicate or are in conflict with the NES-PF

823. Section 44A of the RMA outlines how the Council is required to recognise National

Environmental Standard and what it must do with rules in the proposed Plan that

duplicate or are in conflict with provisions in a national standard. The local authority

must remove any duplication or conflict in a proposed Plan or existing plan.

824. As presented in Mr Denton’s Right of Reply for Soil Conservation on the 14th

September 2017 (page 19) and the Supplementary Right of Reply for Soil

Conservation on the 22nd November 2017 (page 13), any duplication or conflict with

the NES-PF and the proposed Plan for specific plantation forestry rules have been

identified and deletions recommended to the Panel (see Right of Reply Soil

conservation, Appendix B).

825. The following section examines where proposed Plan rules maybe more stringent

than the NES-PF for certain activities in wetlands.

Where rules may be more stringent than the NES-PF

826. The provisions in the NES-PF are generally expected to be sufficient to manage the

adverse effects from plantation forestry activities, without any further additional

controls. However, it is recognised in the NES-PF that there will be specific

situations where conflict with other national direction needs to be avoided and

situations where there needs to be flexibility for council rules to protect locally

significant and sensitive environments (MPI, 2017).

827. Regulation 6 of the NES-PF outlines specific circumstances where plan rules may be

more stringent:


PAGE 186 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

National instruments

(1) A rule in a plan may be more stringent than these regulations if the rule gives effect

to—

(a) freshwater objective developed to give effect to the National Policy Statement

for Freshwater Management:

(b) any of policies 11, 13, 15, and 22 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement 2010.

Matters of national importance

(2) A rule in a plan may be more stringent than these regulations if the rule recognises

and provides for the protection of—

(a) outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use

and development; or

(b) significant natural areas.

(3) A rule in a plan may be more stringent than these regulations if the rule manages

any—

(a) activities in any green, yellow, or orange zone containing separation

point granite soils areas that are identified in a regional policy statement,

regional plan, or district plan:

(b) activities in any geothermal area or any karst geology that are

identified in a regional policy statement, regional plan, or district plan:

(c) activities conducted within 1 km upstream of the abstraction point of

a drinking water supply for more than 25 people where the water take is from

a water body:

(d) forestry quarrying activities conducted over a shallow water table

(less than 30 m below ground level) that is above an aquifer used for a human

drinking water supply.

(4) The areas and geology referred to in subclause (3)(b)—

(a) may be identified in a policy statement or plan by any form of

description; and

(b) include only areas and geology where the location is identified in the

policy statement or plan by a map, a schedule, or a description of the

area or geology.

828. A rule is more stringent than a NES if it prohibits or restricts an activity that the

NES permits or authorises (RMA s43B(2)).

829. The Ministry for Primary Industries (2017) provides some examples of a more

stringent rule and includes:

830. Where a plan requires a resource consent for a plantation forestry activity that is

permitted under the NES-PF, and


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 187 OF 221

831. Where the plan rule has a more stringent activity status (e.g., discretionary activity)

for a plantation forestry activity compared to the activity status under the NES-PF

(e.g., controlled activity), and

832. A plan rule that includes more stringent permitted activity conditions for a plantation

forestry activity than the conditions of the same activity permitted under the NES-

PF.

Activities in the beds of lakes and rivers and the NES-PF

833. The following is an assessment of duplication or conflict and stringency with the

NES-PF in Section 5.5.4 (Activities in beds of lakes and rivers general conditions)

and Section 5.5.5 (Activities in beds of lakes and rivers).

834. In relation to the requirements of the RMA s43B and s44A and the NES-PF I have

considered the following:

835. Whether any of the rules in Section 5.5.4 (Bed of Lakes and river general

conditions) and Section 5.5.5 (Activities in beds of lakes and rivers) are in conflict

or duplicate rules in the NES-PF regulations, and

836. Whether there are any rules may be more stringent than the NES-PF regulations.

837. Table 3 below is an assessment of the conflict, duplication and stringency for rules

in Section 5.5.4 (Activities in beds of lakes and rivers general conditions) and

Section 5.5.5 (Activities in beds of lakes and rivers).

Table 3: Assessment of duplication or conflict and stringency with the NES-PF and in the beds of lakes and rivers rules

National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) regulations

Proposed Plan provisions for beds of lakes and rivers

Assessment of duplication (RMA s44A(2)(b)), conflict (RMA s44A(2)(a)) and stringency (s43B(2)), and recommendations for the proposed Plan

Difference in Definitions between the proposed Plan and the NES-PF

Perennial river Bed of a lake or river

There is a difference between how rivers and lakes are defined between the proposed Plan and the NES-PF. In the NES-PF perennial river means a river that is a continually or intermittently flowing body of freshwater.


PAGE 188 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716




Whereas in the proposed Plan a bed of a lake or river is not defined. The meaning of a river or stream is taken from the meaning in the RMA for bed of a river of lake. The proposed Plan defines ‘Active bed’ to take into account intermittently flowing rivers or streams. Active bed is not part of the Beds of lakes and rivers (Section 5.5.4 or 5.5.5). The differences in the definitions do not require any change to how the provisions should be administered between the NES-PF and the proposed Plan.

Section 5.5.4 Activities in beds and lakes general conditions (a) to (m)

Regulation 39, 40, 41, 44, 97, and 104.

Beds of Lakes and Rivers general conditions: (a) to (m)

The beds of lakes and rivers general conditions: (a) to (m) duplicates NES-PF regulations 39, 40, 41, 44, 97, and 104. The beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (a) and (m) covers activities for other users of beds of lakes and rivers that are not part of plantation forestry, therefore the beds of lakes and rivers general condition remains. I recommend inserting a new sub-clause (n) into Section 5.5.4 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers general conditions indicating that the general conditions do not apply to the NES-PF. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.

Section 5.5.5 Activities in the beds of lakes and rivers

Section 37 to s46 Permitted activity: regional council

Rule R112: Maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of existing structures (excluding the Barrage Gates)

Proposed Rule R112 duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulations 37-46). Rule 112 controls maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of existing structures (excluding the Barrage Gates) for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R112. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 189 OF 221




Section 39 Permitted activity: regional council

Rule R113: Diversion of flood water by existing structures

Proposed Rule R113 duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulation 39). Rule 113 controls river crossing activities for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R113. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.

Section 39 Permitted activity: regional council


Proposed Rule R114(a)-(h) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulation 39). Rule 114 controls river crossing activities for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF (plantation forestry users). I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R114. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.


Rule R115: Culverts

Proposed Rule R115(a)-(o) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulation 37-46). Rule 115 controls culverts for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R115. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.

Rule R116: Establishing a small dam and existing dams

Small dams and existing dams are not regulated by the NES-PF. Therefore, there is no conflict, duplication or stringency assessment required.


Rule R117: New structures

Proposed Rule R117 (a)-(k), except (g) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulation 37-46). Rule 117 controls new structures for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF.


PAGE 190 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716




Rule R117 (g) requires that the activity of new structures does not occur within a site identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) site. Schedule F2a (birds and rivers) is more stringent compared to regulation 102. Schedule F2a includes birds that are prioritised against RPS Policy 23 criteria that are more stringent than Regulation 102 criteria (A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region, February 2015). I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-P, except (g) at the beginning of Rule R117. I recommend inserting a note at the base of Rule R117 indicating that Rule R117 (g) is more stringent than regulation 102 of the NES-PF. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G


Rule R118: Removing or demolishing structures

Proposed Rule R118 (a)-(i), duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (regulation 37-46). Rule 118 controls removing or demolishing structures for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R118. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.

Section 83 Permitted activity: regional council slash traps

Rule R119: Clearing flood debris and beach recontouring

Proposed Rule R119 (a)-(k), except (j) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 9 – Ancillary services. Rule 119 controls new clearing flood debris and beach recontouring for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. Rule R119 (j) requires that the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) site.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 191 OF 221




Schedule F2a (birds and rivers) is more stringent compared to regulation 102. Schedule F2a includes birds that are prioritised against RPS Policy 23 criteria that are more stringent than Regulation 102 criteria (A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region, February 2015). I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF, except (j) at the beginning of Rule R119. I recommend inserting a note at the base of Rule R119 indicating that Rule R119 (j) is more stringent than regulation 102 of the NES-PF. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.


Rule R120: Minor sand and gravel extraction

Proposed Rule R120 (a)-(j), except (i) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River Crossings (regulations 37 and 46). Rule 120 controls minor sand and gravel extraction for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. Rule R120 (i) requires that the activity does not occur within a site identified in Schedule F2a (birds-rivers) site. Schedule F2a (birds and rivers) is more stringent compared to regulation 102. Schedule F2a includes birds that are prioritised against RPS Policy 23 criteria that are more stringent than Regulation 102 criteria (A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region, February 2015). I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF, except (i) at the beginning of Rule R120. I recommend inserting a note at the base of Rule R120 indicating that Rule R120 (i) is more stringent than regulation 102 of the NES-PF. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.


PAGE 192 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716




Rule R121: Maintenance of drains

Maintenance of drains is not regulated by the NES-PF. Therefore, there is no conflict, duplication or stringency assessment required.


Rule R122: Removing vegetation

Proposed Rule R122 (a)-(n), except (f) duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River Crossings, (regulations 37 and-46). Rule 122 controls removing vegetation for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF (plantation forestry users). Schedule F2a (birds and rivers) is more stringent compared to regulation 102. Schedule F2a includes birds that are prioritised against RPS Policy 23 criteria that are more stringent than Regulation 102 criteria (A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region, February 2015). I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF, except (f) at the beginning of Rule R122. I recommend inserting a note at the base of Rule R122 indicating that Rule R122 (f) is more stringent than regulation 102 of the NES-PF. This change is recommended below and assessed in Appendix G.

Rule R123: Planting Planting in the beds of lakes and river is not regulated by the NES-PF. Therefore, there is no conflict, duplication or stringency assessment required.


Rule R124: entry or passage over bed (excluding livestock access)

Proposed Rule R124 duplicates NES-PF Subpart 4 – River crossings (s37-s46). Rule 124 controls entry or passage for other users of rivers that are not covered by the NES-PF. I recommend inserting the phrase ‘excluding activities regulated by the NES-PF at the beginning of Rule R124. This change is recommended below and assessed in


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 193 OF 221




Appendix G.

Rule R125: Structures within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua)

Structures within a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua) are not regulated by the NES-PF. Therefore, there is no conflict, duplication or stringency assessment required.

Recommendations on activities in beds of lakes and rivers

838. It is recommended the following amendments are made to Section 5.5.5 Activities in

beds of lakes and rivers as follows:

5.5.4 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers general conditions Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions for activities in the beds of lakes and rivers

that apply as specified in Rule R112 to R125:

…

(n) Beds of lakes and rivers general conditions (a) to (m) that apply as specified in Rule

R112 to R125 do not cover any activities regulated by Sub-Part 4 – River crossings and

Sub-Part 10 – General provisions in the Resource Management (National

Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017.

5.5.5 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers Rule R112: Maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of existing structures (excluding the Barrage Gates) – permitted activity The maintenance, repair, replacement, upgrade or use of a structure or a part of a

structure, excluding activities regulated by the Resource Management (National

Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017 (excluding the

Barrage Gates) that is fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river or lake, including

any associated:…

Rule R113: Diversion of flood water by existing structures – permitted activity

The diversion of flood water by a structure or stopbank outside the bed of a river or

lake that was in existence on the date of public notification of the Proposed Natural

Resources Plan (31.07.2015) excluding activities regulated by the Resource

Management (National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry) Regulations

2017 is a permitted activity, provided the following condition is met:…


PAGE 194 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716


The placement or use of a river crossing structure, including, but not limited to, weirs,

fords and small bridges, excluding culverts and a river crossing that dams a river, that is

fixed in, on, under, or over the bed of a river excluding activities regulated by the

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry)

Regulations 2017 including any associated:…

Rule R115: Culverts – permitted activity

The placement or use of a culvert that is fixed in, or on, the bed of a river excluding

activities regulated by the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards

for Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017 including any associated:…

Rule R117: New structures – permitted activity

The placement or use of a new structure, including but not limited to sediment retention

weirs, pipes, ducts, cables, hydrological and water quality monitoring equipment,

fences, and structures associated with vegetative bank edge protection except a

structure permitted by Rules R114, R115, and R116 that is fixed in, on, under, or over

the bed of any river or lake, excluding activities regulated by the Resource


2017 except Rule R117 (g), including any associated:…

… Note

Rule R117 (g) prevails over the Resource Management (National Environmental

Standards for Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017.

Rule R118: Removing or demolishing structures – permitted activity

The removal or demolition of a structure or a part of a structure that is fixed in, on,

under, or over any river or lake bed, excluding activities regulated by the Resource


2017, including any associated:…

Rule R119: Clearing flood debris and beach recontouring – permitted activity

The clearing of flood debris on the bed of a river or lake, and beach recontouring of

the bed of a river (including, but not limited to, beach ripping), excluding activities

regulated by the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for

Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017 except Rule R119 (j), including any

associated:…

… Note

Rule R119 (j) prevails over the Resource Management (National Environmental



NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 195 OF 221

Rule R120: Minor sand and gravel extraction – permitted activity

The excavation or other disturbance of the bed of a river for the purpose of extracting

gravel or other bed material, excluding activities regulated by the Resource


2017 except Rule R120 (i) including any associated:

… Note:

Rule R120 (i) prevails over the Resource Management (National Environmental



The trimming or removal of vegetation (including weeds) from the bed of any river or

lake, and any associated sediment or bed material attached to the roots of the

vegetation being removed, excluding activities regulated by the Resource


2017 except Rule R122 (f) including any associated:

… Note

Rule R122 (f) prevails over the Resource Management (National Environmental


Rule R124: Entry or passage over bed (excluding livestock access) – permitted activity

The entry or passage across the bed of a river or lake that is not associated with any

use of the river or lake bed specified in Rules R112 to R123, excluding activities

regulated by the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for

Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017, which is not for the purpose of livestock

access covered by Rules R97 and R98 is a permitted activity provided the following

condition is met:


PAGE 196 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

8. References

Greer, M.J.C.; Grimmond, D. 2018: The environmental and economic costs and benefits

of the pNRP stream piping provisions. Greater Wellington Regional Council

Technical Report.

Ministry for Primary Industries (2017) Resource Management (National Environmental

Standards for Plantation Forestry) Regulations 2017 – Guidance. 4 Sight Consulting.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 197 OF 221

9. Appendix A – Officers’ Statement of Experience

9.1 Pam Guest

839. My name is Pam Guest. I work as a Senior Policy Advisor in the

Environmental Policy Department.

840. I have been employed in planning roles in central and local government for

over 20 years. I have led the preparation of regional plans at regional and

catchment scales for both the Waikato and Canterbury regional councils,

specialising in issues related to the management of land and water. I prepared

s42A reports for the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan focusing on

water quality and land use issues. Working as a private consultant, I assisted

the Minister of Conservation to prepare strategic wetland management plans

for a number of nationally significant wetland catchments across New Zealand.

This included working on “Living Water” a joint programme between the

Department of Conservation and Fonterra to improve the natural habitats of

five key waterways in significant dairying regions around New Zealand.

841. I was employed by the Wellington Regional Council (Council) after the

proposed Plan was notified, specifically to assist with the preparation of the

section 42A officers’ reports.

Code of conduct

842. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witness contained in

the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it.

843. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that

might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is

within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the

evidence of another person.

844. I am authorised to give this evidence on the Council's behalf

845.


PAGE 198 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

9.2 Paul Anthony Denton

846. My name is Paul Anthony Denton. I am employed by the Council as a senior

policy advisor. I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Science from the

University of Canterbury and Master of Environmental Studies from the

University of Melbourne.

847. I have been employed in planning roles in central government and local

government for over 20 years. I have been employed by Council as a policy

advisor since 2000, in regional plan implementation and regional plan

development.

848. My background with the preparation of the proposed Plan was from 2010 when

I lead the development of the air, earthworks, vegetation clearance, plantation

forestry, hazardous substances and contaminated land provisions.

Code of conduct







851. I am authorised to give this evidence on the Council's behalf.

9.3 Heidi Andrewartha

852. My name is Heidi Andrewartha. I am a reource management consultant

contracted by the Environmental Policy Department of the Wellington

Regional Council.

853. I have a Master of Science in Resource Management from Lincoln University.

I have over 20 years experience working in resource management in local

government and planning consultancies in New Zealand and overseas.

854. I was contracted by the Wellington Regional Council (Council) to assist with

the preparation of this section 42A officers’ report.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 199 OF 221

Code of conduct







857. I am authorised to give this evidence on the Council's behalf.


PAGE 200 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

10. Appendix B – Statutory and non-statutory documents

Resource Management Act 1991

Definitions

859. The RMA defines river, bed and lake which are directly relevant to the

management of activities in the beds of rivers and lakes.

860. The RMA definition of a river is that it “means a continually or intermittently

flowing body of fresh water; and includes a stream and modified watercourse;

but does not include any artificial watercourse (including an irrigation canal,

water supply race, canal for the supply of water for electricity power

generation, and farm drainage canal)”.

861. The definition is very broad and includes any permanently or intermittently

flowing body of water. This is significant as the restrictions on the use of river

beds in section 13 of the RMA (discussed later in this section) apply to

everything from headwater ephemeral water courses through to large rivers.

862. The RMA excludes artificial watercourses from the definition of river, but

artificial watercourses have been narrowly defined by case law. Only

constructed watercourses meet this exclusion. Any watercourse that was once

natural, or has its headwaters in a natural river meets the RMA definition of

river. This can cause confusion as some highly modified watercourses, such as

drains or water races, which appear to be artificial actually fall within the

definition of river and therefore the restrictions for rivers in the RMA apply to

them.

863. The RMA definition of lake is likewise very broad and is defined as “a body of

fresh water which is entirely or nearly surrounded by land”.

864. The bed of a river is defined in the RMA as “the space of land which the

waters of the river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its banks”.

865. The bed of a lake is defined as “the space of land which the waters of the lake

cover at its highest level without exceeding its margin.”

866. In some rivers and lakes the banks and margins are easily defined and a

relatively small and obvious area of land can be considered the ‘bed’. For other


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 201 OF 221

rivers and lakes the bed can potentially be very wide, e.g., braided rivers and/or

and less easily defined, e.g., lakes with wide seasonal fluctuations.

Restrictions in the use of beds of lakes and rivers

867. Section 13 of the RMA identifies restrictions in relation to the use of beds of

rivers and lakes. This section has two parts, the first identifies the activities that

nobody may do unless specifically allowed by a rule in a plan. This section is

often referred to as the ‘restrictive’ section. The second part identifies activities

that may be undertaken unless restricted by a rule in a plan. This section is

often referred to as an ‘enabling’ section.

868. Section 13 ‘restricts’ a person’s the ability to: (a) use, erect, reconstruct, place,

alter, extend, remove or demolish any structure or part of any structure in, on,

under, or over the bed; or; or (b) excavate, drill, tunnel, or otherwise disturb the

bed; or (c) introduce or plant any plant or any part of any plant (whether exotic

or indigenous)in, on or under the bed; or (d) deposit any substance in, on, or

under the bed; or (e) reclaim or drain the bed.

869. The second part of section 13 of the RMA ‘enables’ entering onto or passing

across the bed of a lake or river and damaging, destroying, disturbing, or

removing a plant or a part of a plant or habitat of plant or animal, whether

exotic or indigenous, in, on, or under the bed of a lake or river. If the WRC

wishes to provide for any of the activities in the ‘restrictive’ section, it must

provide for them specifically in the proposed Plan, otherwise a resource

consent is required under the RMA. This is particularly important in relation to

the use of structures, even existing structures such as bridges, which must be

specifically allowed for by the proposed Plan or else a resource consent is

required.

870. The WRC need only address the matters in the second section if it wishes to

restrict them to manage some kind of adverse effect, as they are allowed under

the RMA by default.

Functions of regional councils

871. The functions of a regional council under the RMA are contained in section 30

of the RMA. Section 30(1)(c) contains a provision for regional councils to


PAGE 202 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

control the use of land for certain purposes including the beds of rivers and

lakes. These include soil conservation, the maintenance and enhancement of

the quality of water and ecosystems in water bodies and the avoidance or

mitigation of natural hazards.

872. Section 30(1)(g) provides further functions specifically in relation to the bed of

a water body, and allows the regional council to control the introduction or

planting of any plant in the bed for soil conservation, water quality and natural

hazard reasons (the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems is not

provided for in relation to controlling planting). The council may not impose

rules in relation to activities in river and lake beds for other purposes, for

example cultural, heritage aesthetic or public access reasons. The council may

employ other methods, such as policy guidance for discretionary activities or

non-regulatory methods to achieve its goals in these areas.

Summary

873. The definitions of river, lake and bed, combined with the wide restrictions put

in place by the RMA to control activities means that the WRC needs to give

some thought to the areas where controls are or are not necessary to protect

freshwater values, and carefully define these areas. The WRC needs to

consider which activities identified in section 13 it wishes to enable or control

in relation to beds of lakes and rivers, and to which rivers and lakes (defined by

type or geographically) the controls should relate.

874. Not defining these restrictions and locations carefully risks having a plan

framework which is either too restrictive (applies to too many activities or

locations) or which allows inappropriate effects (by too narrow a definition of

water bodies) of concern.

875. In addition, when drafting the rules that are deemed necessary the WRC may

only do so for the purposes of soil conservation, maintaining and enhancing

water quality and ecosystems, and avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards.

Settlement legislation and statutory acknowledgements

876. There are three Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Acts that apply in the

Wellington Region:


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 203 OF 221

877. a) Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whenua ki the Spook o Te IA) Claims

Settlement Act 2009

878. b) Ngai Toa Rangier Claims Settlement Act 2014

879. c) Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act

2017

880. A statutory acknowledgement is an acknowledgement by the Crown that

recognises the mana of an iwi in relation to identified sites and areas;

particularly in relation to the cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional

associations with a site or area.

881. These acknowledgements relate to defined ‘statutory areas’ only over Crown

land, and may apply to land, rivers, lakes, wetlands, a landscape feature, or a

particular part of the coastal marine area (CMA). Councils must consider

statutory acknowledgements when making decisions about who to involve in

resource consents and hearings and whether an iwi will be adversely affected

by a resource consent application.

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014

882. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) is of

particular relevance as it supports improved freshwater management in New

Zealand by directing regional councils to establish objectives and set limits for

fresh water in their regional plans. Recent amendments to the NPS-FM give

regional councils specific direction on how this should be done.

883. Objective A1 of the NPS-FM is to safeguard the life-supporting capacity,

ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated

ecosystems, of fresh water and the health of people and communities, at least

as affected by secondary contact with fresh water. To achieve this objective,

the NPS-FM sets national bottom lines for two compulsory values – ecosystem

health and human health for recreation – and minimum acceptable states for

other national values. The NPS-FM also acknowledges iwi and community

values by recognising the range of iwi and community interests in fresh water,

including environmental, social, economic and cultural values.


PAGE 204 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

884. Objective A2 is, in part, to protect the significant values of outstanding

freshwater bodies and to protect the significant values of wetlands.

885. Policy C1 of the NPS-FM is clear that the government expects regional

councils to manage land use as one of the methods to maintain and improve

water quality including, to achieve the national bottom lines, where these are

currently not achieved.

886. WRC is implementing the NPS-FM principally through the whaitua process,

based on a catchment-specific collaborative process with the community

(GWRC 2015b). The provisions in the proposed Plan for livestock access,

break-feeding and cultivation will also help implement aspects of the NPS-FM

across the Wellington Region.

887. In particular, the provisions will help safeguard the life-supporting capacity,

ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated

ecosystems, of fresh water and the health of people and communities. The

provisions for livestock access also specifically protect outstanding freshwater

bodies and the significant values of wetlands.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

888. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) has one objective

and two policies that specifically recognise

889. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) is to be given effect

to by the regional coastal plan. NZCPS acknowledges that diffuse sources of

contamination can result in poor and declining coastal water quality. NZCPS

Policy 22 requires that sediment loadings in runoff to the CMA be reduced by

controls on land use activities.

890. The definition of surface waterbody in the proposed Plan includes estuaries,

which are within the CMA. The lowest reach of a river that flows to an estuary

or the coast may also be within the CMA. In the proposed Plan, Objectives O27,

O44 and O45, Policies P99 and P100, and Rules R96, R97, R98 and R99 are identified

as applying in both coastal marine area and landward area. As notified, Rules R94,

R95 are not identified as applying in the CMA.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 205 OF 221

Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013

891. The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013 (RPS)

identifies the following significant resource management issues for iwi

authorities:

892. lack of involvement in resource management decision-making;

893. loss of mauri, particularly in relation to fresh and coastal waters;

894. continuing loss of quality, quantity, and access to mahinga kai and natural

resources used for customary purposes; and

895. degradation and destruction of places, sites and areas with spiritual, cultural or

historic heritage value to tangata whenua.

896. RPS Objectives 23-28 address matters of significance to tangata whenua:

897. Objective 23: The region’s iwi authorities and local authorities work together

under Treaty partner principles for the sustainable management of the region’s

environment for the benefit and well-being of the regional community, both

now and in the future.

898. Objective 24: The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account

in a systematic way when resource management decisions are made.

899. Objective 25: The concept of kaitiakitanga is integrated into the sustainable

management of the Wellington Region’s natural and physical resources.

900. Objective 26: Mauri is sustained, particularly in relation to coastal and fresh

waters.

901. Objective 27: Mahinga kai and natural resources used for customary purposes

are maintained and enhanced, and these resources are healthy and accessible to

tangata whenua.

902. Objective 28: The cultural relationship of Māori with their ancestral lands,

water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga is maintained.


PAGE 206 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

903. Policies 23 and 24 direct regional plans to identify and protect ecosystems and

habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values, including those of

significance to tangata whenua. Policy 23 states that ecosystems or habitats are

significant where:

904. (e) Tangata whenua values: the ecosystem or habitat contains characteristics of

special spiritual, historical or cultural significance to tangata whenua identified

in accordance with tikanga Māori.

905. Policy 49: Recognising and providing for matters of significance to tangata

whenua – consideration

906. When preparing a change, variation or review of a district or regional plan, the

following matters shall be recognised and provided for:

907. (a) the exercise of kaitiakitanga;

908. (b) mauri, particularly in relation to fresh and coastal waters;

909. (c) mahinga kai and areas of natural resources used for customary purposes;

and (d) places, sites and areas with significant spiritual or cultural historic

heritage value to tangata whenua.

910. Policy 61: Allocation of responsibilities for land use controls for indigenous

biodiversity

911. The Council shall be responsible for developing objectives, policies, rules

and/or methods in regional plans for the control of the use of land to maintain

and enhance ecosystems in water bodies and coastal water. This includes land

within the CMA, wetlands and the beds of lakes and rivers.

912. The most relevant RPS methods include:

913. Method 4: Consideration – resource consents, notices of requirement and when

changing, varying or reviewing plans;

914. Method 13: Information about best practice for earthworks to protect Māori

archaeological sites, other significant sites and kōiwi;


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 207 OF 221

915. Method 38: Iwi authorities prepare planning documents;

916. Method 39: Prepare protocols for tangata whenua access to mahinga kai and

natural resources used for customary purposes on public land; and

917. Method 49: Investigate use of Māori names for rivers, lakes and places of

cultural significance in the region.

918. I note that a Council decision was made in August 2014 to use the term mana

whenua (authority over land) instead of tangata whenua (people of the land) in

order to clarify when Council is referring to its iwi partners rather than other

Māori residents of the region. This gives emphasis to the role of Māori in

decision-making, with the term mana whenua denoting those with the authority

to make decisions over customary matters (GWRC 2015b).

Iwi management plans

919. There are three iwi management plans relevant to the Wellington Region:

920. a) Raukawa Environmental Management Plan 2015 prepared by Ngāti

Raukawa ki te Tonga

921. b) Parangarahu Lakes Area Co-Management Plan prepared by Port Nicholson

Block Settlement Trust

922. c) Wellington Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Plan 2012–2017 prepared by Port

Nicholson Block Settlement Trust.

923. As discussed in the evidence of Mr Grace, the provisions of the proposed Plan

have a significantly stronger regulatory effect than these iwi management

plans; in particular by identifying sites and areas of cultural significance and

linking iwi values and attributes directly to objectives, policies and rules.

924. The limitations of these iwi management plans were the primary motivation for

iwi commitment to the Te Upoko Taiao Committee review process of the

regional plans in partnership with Council. Iwi considered that the requirement

for Council to ‘take into account’ iwi management plans (under RMA

s66(2A)(a)) was insufficient to address their concerns relating to water quality


PAGE 208 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

and that participation in Te Upoko Taiao enabled them to better express their

role as mana whenua kaitiaki within regional resource management.

925. Iwi input to the proposed Plan has included identification of values and

relationships with areas and sites of significance. Objectives, policies and rules

throughout the proposed Plan trigger responses that recognise mana whenua

values.

National water conservation order

926. Section 67(4) of the RMA states that a regional plan must not be inconsistent

with a water conservation order. The National Water Conservation Order (Lake

Wairarapa) 1989 recognises that Lake Wairarapa has outstanding wildlife

habitat, created in part as a consequence of natural fluctuations of water levels.

The order prohibits diversion of water and states that no water rights or general

authorisation shall be made if the effect would be to diminish significantly the

outstanding wildlife habitat feature of the lake. The primary matters relating to

water takes and diversion from Lake Wairarapa are dealt with in the water

allocation regime relating to the lake, discussed in the Section 32 report: Water

quantity. However, a reclamation of the lake bed would necessarily involve

diversion of water away from the area reclaimed, an activity which is

prohibited by the order.


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 209 OF 221

12. Appendix C: Higher order planning instruments and linkages between objectives and other plan provisions

Higher order planning instruments proposed Plan

S32 Report RMA

Part 2

NZCPS NPS-FM Other NPS/NES RPS Objectives Policies Rules Methods Schedules/

Maps

Beds of lakes and

rivers

Section 5

Section 6 (a) (c)

Section 7 (a)(a),

(d), (f)

Section 8

Section 13

Section 30 (1) (c),

(g)

N/A N/A N/A Objective 13

Policy 12

Policy 18

O2 Importance of land

and water

O3 Mauri

O4 Intrinsic values

O5 Fresh and coastal

water

O12 Benefits of

regionally significant

infrastructure

O14 Māori

relationships

O15 Risk from natural

hazards

O17 Natural character

O19 Natural proceses

O20 Ecosystem health

and mahinga kai

O29 Fish passage

O31 Outstanding water

bodies

O33 Sites within

significant mana

whenua values

O35 Sites with

significant indigenous

biodiversity values

Policy P102 –

Reclamation or

drainage of the

beds of lakes and

rivers

R127, R128 and

R129

N/A N/A

Beds of lakes and

rivers

Section 5

Section 6 (a) (c)

Section 7 (a)(a),

(d), (f),

Section 8

Section 13

Section 30 (1) (c),

(g)


Policy 12

Policy 18


water


O19 Natural processes


hazards

O25 Aquatic

ecosystem health and

mahinga kai

O30 Trout habitat

Policy P103 –

Management of

gravel extraction

R120 and R129 N/A N/A

Beds of lakes and

rivers

Section 5

Section 6 (a) (c)

Section 7 (a)(a),

(d), (f)

Section 8

Section 13

Section 30 (1) (c),

(g)


Policy 12

Policy 18


water


O19 Natural processes


hazards

O25 Aquatic

ecosystem health and

mahinga kai

Policy P104 –

Effects on

catchment-based

flood and erosion

control activities

Rule R120 as well

as the general

conditions of

Section 5.5.4

N/A N/A


PAGE 210 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

Higher order planning instruments proposed Plan

S32 Report RMA

Part 2

NZCPS NPS-FM Other NPS/NES RPS Objectives Policies Rules Methods Schedules/

Maps

Beds of lakes and

rivers

Section 5

Section 6 (a) (c)

Section 7 (a)(a),

(d), (f), (h)

Section 8

Section 13

Section 30 (1) (c),

(g)


Policy 12

Policy 18

O17: Natural character

O25: Aquatic

ecosystems and

habitats

O27: Riparian margins

O30 Trout habitat

O33: Sites with

significant indigenous

biodiversity values

Policy P106 –

Management of

plants in the beds

of lakes and

rivers

Rules R121, R122,

R123 and R129

Method M1 N/A

Section 42A Report <Subject>

NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 211 OF 221

13. Appendix D – Common Format Submitters

Submitters who submitted one or more of the following standard-text submissions are

listed below in the following tables:

Farmer Common Format (Table 1)

Wairarapa Water Users Common Format (Table 2)

Land Matters Common Format (Table 3)

Craig Dairy Farms Common Format (Table 4)

Submitters are listed alphabetically by first name.

Table 1: List of Farmer Common Format submitters

Submitter number Name

S365 A J Barton

S298 A T McKay

S334 Alan Westbury

S345 Alex Kyle

S292 Andrew Patrick

S336 Andrew Thomson

S343 Andy Phillips

S396 Bernie George

S393 Blair Roberts

S337 Bob Tosswill

S347 Brian Bosch

S320 Charlie Matthews

S289 Charlotte and Toby McDonald

S339 Chris and Steven Price

S170 Chris Engel

S379 Clayton Hartnell

S303 Craig and Janet Morrison

S38 D P Wood

S350 Dan Riddiford

S395 Daniel George

S341 David Hume

S377 Donald McCreary

S323 DW and PC McKay

S321 Edward Handyside

S342 Gary James and Anne Marie Daysh


PAGE 212 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

S363 Gavin Bruce

S371 George Ritchie

S388 Gerard Vollebregt

S381 Glen Rowe

S375 Graeme Hugh Tulloch

S391 Guy Didsbury

S390 Hayden Thurston

S332 Hiwi Trust

S404 J.Q and P.M Donald

S376 James Falloon

S373 Jamie Falloon

S280 Jan and Jock Richmond

S389 Jeremy Bennill

S281 Jim, Pascoe and Henry Reynolds

S401 Joe Hintz

S314 John Carred

S74 Kairoa Farms Limited

S360 Kyle Wells

S372 Leo Vollebregt

S378 Lewis Herrick

S293 Margaret Niven

S348 Max Lutz

S355 Michael Hewison

S113 Michael John Slater

S374 Michael Taylor

S385 Michael Wood

S356 Mike Butterick

S397 Mike McCreary

S400 Mike Moran

S394 Owen Butcher

S331 Pip Tocker

S387 Pip Wilkinson

S322 Rex McKay

S384 Richard Osborne

S368 Richard Tosswill

S369 Richard Wilkie


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 213 OF 221

S290 Robert Kyle

S354 Sam Orsborn

S361 Sandra Shivas

S399 Sandy Bidwell

S386 Shane and Geoff Wilkinson

S392 Stewart Weatherstone

S171 Stuart Woodman

S317 Susannah and Mark Guscott

S312 Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre

S324 Tim Williams

S151 Warren Bryant

S380 Willy and Sally Bosch

Table 2: List of Wairarapa Water Users Common Format submitters


S365 A J Barton

S274 Alexander Haddon Webster

S406 Alison Turner

S411 Andrew Douglas Harvey

S292 Andrew Patrick

S396 Bernie George

S393 Blair Roberts

S337 Bob Tosswill

S383 Brad Gooding

S347 Brian Bosch

S416 Bryan Thompson Tucker

S170 Chris Engel

S395 Daniel George

S419 David G Holmes

S377 Donald McCreary

S321 Edward Handyside


S424 Gary Svenson

S371 George Ritchie

S388 Gerard Vollebregt


PAGE 214 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

S375 Graeme Hugh Tulloch

S390 Hayden Thurston

S340 Jim Hedley

S408 John Petrie

S407 Kurt Simmonds

S372 Leo Vollebregt

S378 Lewis Herrick

S417 Matthew Honeysett

S113 Michael John Slater

S400 Mike Moran

S413 Mike Warren

S335 NDR and BA Davies

S382 Noel and Ann Gray

S394 Owen Butcher

S409 Peter Vollebregt

S421 Ray Craig

S410 Richard John and Carolyn Ann Stevenson

S420 Richard Kershaw

S384 Richard Osborne

S418 Rod Sutherland

S361 Sandra Shivas

S399 Sandy Bidwell

S412 Shane Matthew Gray

S422 Shaun Rose

S414 Stephen Hammond

S392 Stewart Weatherstone

S317 Susannah and Mark Guscott

S124 Wairarapa Water Users Society Incorporated

S423 Willem Stolte

S380 Willy and Sally Bosch

Table 3: List of Land Matters Common Format submitters


S294 Bell Camp Trust

S295 Carter Families


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 215 OF 221

S299 Julian and Ruth Blackett

S297 Kennott Family Trust

S285 Land Matters Ltd

S370 Mahaki Holdings Ltd

S348 Max Lutz

S351 Tim Mansell and family

S349 USNZ

S346 Waikanae Christian Holiday Park (El Rancho)

Table 4: List of Craig Dairy Farms Common Format submitters


S427 AB and DE Smith

S430 Ali and Dion Kilmister

S426 Beryl Masters Stuart

S429 Blair Percy

S358 Craig Dairy Farm Ltd

S431 Garry Daniell


S428 James and Jane Smallwood

S378 Lewis Herrick

S173 N and S Terry

S361 Sandra Shivas


PAGE 216 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

14. Appendix E – Pre-hearing meeting notes


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 217 OF 221

15. Appendix F – Technical Evidence


PAGE 218 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

16. Appendix G – Recommended decisions on submissions and section 32AA assessment


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 219 OF 221

17. Appendix H – Recommended amendments


PAGE 220 OF 221 NATRP-1620937158-1716

17. Appendix I – Recommended amendments clean copy


NATRP-1620937158-1716 PAGE 221 OF 221

18. Appendix J: Recommended decisions on each submission point

Date post:	20-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

s42A Beds of lakes and rivers - GWpnrp.gw.govt.nz/...Report-Beds-of-lakes-and-rivers.pdf · 6.2...

Documents