Skip to main content

Reports and Resource Consents

Consents

The applicant submitted a resource consent application in March 2013, which was publicly notified on 10 April 2013. Submissions on the resource consent application closed in May 2013. A public hearing was held and, in February 2014, the independent commissioners advised that the application for resource consent had been successful, subject to significant conditions.

That decision was appealed to the Environment Court on 11 March 2014. In November 2014 the appeal was resolved by way of court order.

Many submissions on the consent indicated the community was concerned about various elements of the project, particularly traffic, dust and spillage during removal and transportation. A trial of a new methodology was carried out in 2015. On the basis of the trial results and positive community feedback, a variation to the existing consents was applied for. A variation was granted to the original consents to reflect these changes in methodology in September 2016. 

Consent conditions (due to the large file size this is broken down into several documents. If you have any issue with the large file size, please contact us for a copy)

Consent BOPRC 67173

Consent WDC LL-2012-8085-00

Plans

You can read a summary of how the current consent conditions differ to the original consent in the Project Manager presentation to the CLG in October 2016 (2.1MB, pdf) 

Independent Monitor reports

Date Description Files
May 2016 Report by the Independent Monitor for the consenting authorty. It provides Andrew Kolrusch’s commentary on the proposed alternative methodology (sediment dredging method) as an alternative to the consented method for the remediation of Kopeopeo Canal.  Independent Monitor Alternative Methodology comments (100KB, pdf)
July 2015

Independent Monitor review of a series of documents related to myco and photoremediation studies of Kopeopeo sediments. 

Independent Monitor bioremediation comments (81.3KB, pdf)

Technical reports

Please note the large size of some of the following files. If you are unable to access these files, please contact us.

Background and baseline reports 

Date  Description  Files 

Jun 2016

Jones Road Ambient Air Monitoring (February - May 2016) Report

Further air quality monitoring before works start. Conclusions on p16 note that the trigger level for particulate matter form the resource consent was exceeded at times. "In particular, the trigger level of 70μg/m3 as a 1-hour average was exceeded on 24 occasions. These exceedances tended to occur during night-time or early morning periods, and are likely explained by increases in part by relative humidity and subsequent formation of fog, which is read by the optical instruments as particulate matter. The data is similar to what has been observed in the previous monitoring near the canal. Dioxin results are well below consent levels".

Jones Road Ambient Air Monitoring Report (13MB, pdf)

Mar 2016

Baseline ambient air monitoring results - 2nd (Jacobs)

Further baseline ambient air monitoring including a new site on Kope Canal Road (adjacent to the wastewater treatment ponds) between October 2015 and January 2016.

There were a number of exceedances of the trigger levels for particulate matter, however the exceedances are "considered to be most likely due to moisture interference rather than a local dust source".

See page 15 for "Discussions and Conclusions".

Further baseline ambient air monitoring results (4MB, pdf)

Sept 2015

Baseline ambient air monitoring results - 1st (Jacobs)

Our resource consent requires monitoring of ambient air for both dust and dioxins during the remediation project.

This report documents baseline data (the existing levels of dust and dioxin in air prior to commencement of the works) so that any changes resulting from the project can be assessed.

The report notes that before works have begun, the consent ‘trigger levels’ were exceeded for particulate matter on a number of occasions and dioxins on one occasion.

The report indicates that it is most likely that dioxin levels exceeded the trigger value due to combustion sources. When physical works begin, a reading of this type will ‘trigger’ further investigation into the reason for the results above the trigger limit. The levels are consistent with other rural areas in New Zealand (and are below urban area levels), and the levels of dioxin measured do not present a health risk above what is experienced by the majority of the population.

Due to the elimination of the bulk of heavy traffic the disturbance of contaminated soils adjacent to the canal, the risk of spills and therefore the generation of dioxin impacted dust is expected to be significantly reduced.  

See page 15 "Conclusions". 

Baseline ambient air monitoring results (3.8MB, pdf)

Pre-works reports 

Date Description Files
September 2016 Site Contamination Management Plan for CS3 geotechnical investigation Site Contamination Management Plan for CS3 geotechnical investigation  (1.2MB, pdf)

Reports relating to the dredging trial

The trial was carried out in 2015 to test a different methodology for removing sediment from the Canal. This methodology uses a cutter suction dredge to remove sediment through a pipe to the containment sites. This is now the consented methodology. 

The trial allowed the Project Team an opportunity to address some key concerns from members of the community including noise, groundwater contamination, traffic and dust, flooding and drainage. A number of reports were prepared to consider the impact of the changed methodology on some of these factors. These reports provide useful background on the consented methodology. 

Date Description  Files
Mar 2016

Traffic Impact Assessment (Jacobs)

This assessment considers and compares the traffic impacts associated with the current and alternative methodology.

The assessment concludes "from a traffic impact perspective, the alternative sediment pumping methodology will enhance the safety and operation of the road network in comparison to the current methodology by eliminating the large majority of traffic movements during the construction period. As a result, the alternative method will require fewer traffic management measures to ensure safe and efficient operation of the network during the construction period."

 

Traffic Impact Assessment (1.5MB, pdf)
Jan 2016

Groundwater Assessment Report (Jacobs)

This report considers the potential groundwater effects associated with the current and alternative methodology (as trialled in Sept/Oct 2015).

Under the new methodology, the sediment is dewatered in large geotextile tubes (“geotubes”) and the separated water (filtrate) is discharged back into the Canal. The containment cells would be lined with an HDPE liner (a non-permeable layer under the geotubes), and all filtrate and stormwater within the containment cells is collected and returned to the Canal following treatment.

The report notes that under the new methodology “the resultant risk of groundwater contamination has reduced, and is now considered highly unlikely.”

The Executive Summary is on page 4.

Groundwater Assessment Report (6MB, pdf)
Jan 2016

Flooding and Drainage Management Plan (BOPRC) 

This report considers the differences in managing potential flood and drainage related effects. It includes a draft Flood Management Plan which documents one way to manage potential effects associated with the proposed methodology.

The final flood and storm water management plans will be developed in consultation with the physical works contractor and submitted for consent authority approval in advance of the physical works commencing.

Flooding and Drainage Management Plan (2MB, pdf)
Jan 2016

Construction Noise from Revised Remediation Method (Design Acoustics) 

This is a noise assessment in relation to the proposed cutter suction dredge methodology. The alternative method eliminates the bulk of heavy traffic requirements for the project and has resulted in a reduction of potential effects.

“…we consider that noise from the proposed Kopeopeo Canal remediation will comply with the Construction noise limits. The revised method provides significant benefits in relation to noise received at neighbouring residents and we consider that any noise effects will be less than minor.”

Noise Assessment (172KB, pdf)

 

On completion of the Trial, several reports were completed including the results of the Trial and compliance with consent conditions. 

Date Description Files 
 

Mar 2016

 

June 2016

Discharge water quality from containment sites (Opus)

This technical assessment reviews the consented and proposed methodologies with specific regard to discharging filtrate back onto the Kopeopeo Canal and not to groundwater.

See page 8 for "Summary".

An associated memo was produced to provide further detail on "the filtrate quality from the containment sites following the completion of the dredging of the Kopeopeo Canal.

Discharge water quality from containment sites assessment (977KB, pdf)

Memo regarding Filtrate Discharge (94KB, pdf)

Jan 2016

This document is in two parts due to the size of the files.

Compliance Monitoring Report (Opus Consultants)  

This report outlines761 compliance with consent conditions for the trial of the alternative Canal dredging method (resource consent 68275). The executive summary is on page 5 (Part 1).

The summary table shows compliance with all consent conditions.

Compliance Monitoring Report - Part 1 (8MB, pdf)

Compliance Monitoring Report - Part 2 (5.3MB, pdf)

Jan 2016

Dredge Trial Monitoring Report (Opus Consultants)

This report documents the monitoring, sampling, and laboratory analysis from the dredging and sediment dewatering trial that was carried out during September/October 2015.  This is a factual report with laboratory and field data collected during and after the trial.

Ongoing monitoring is being carried out on the water quality discharging from the trial geotubes (graph on ongoing discharge results - JPEG, 1.8MB).

Dredge Trial Monitoring Report (10MB, pdf) 
Oct 2015

Dredge Trial Report  (EnviroWaste)

This is a report from EnviroWaste, the company that completed the physical works for the trial.  

This report focuses on the dredge methodology including the amount of water and sediment moved through the system, turbidity levels, use of the geotubes, discharge rates, health and safety, consent compliance and the public open days.  

The Executive Summary is on page 2.

Dredge Trial Report  (1MB, pdf)

Other reports 

Overview of the effects of residual flocculants on aquatic receiving environments (available from the Auckland Council website - Technical Publications)