CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE AGENDA

41 

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Full text

(1)

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON

WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

2

7

NOVEMBER 2014

AT 5PM

THE BOARDROOM, FENDALTON SERVICE CENTRE

Committee: Arapata Reuben, Tūāhuriri Rūnanga (Chairperson)

Hugh Thorpe, Community Representative (Deputy Chairperson) Councillor Pauline Cotter. Christchurch City Council

Councillor Debra Hasson, Selwyn District Council Commissioner Rex Williams, Environment Canterbury Yvette Couch-Lewis, Rāpaki Rūnanga

Les Wanhalla, Te Taumutu Rūnanga Ian Fox, Community Representative Chris Kelliher, Community Representative Lan Pham, Community Representative

Robert Wynn-Williams, Community Representative

Principal Adviser Zone Facilitator  Committee Adviser

Diane Shelander Tel: 941 8304

Christchurch City Council

Matthew Ross 0275642371

Environment Canterbury

Margaret Henderson Tel: 941 8185

Christchurch City Council INDEX

PAGE NO

1. APOLOGIES 1

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 23 OCTOBER 2014 1

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 1

4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1

5. IDENTIFICATION OF URGENT ITEMS 1

6. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY GENERAL PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS 1

7. SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND BIODIVERSITY 7

8. STORMWATER 15

9. DRIVING ACTION THROUGH WORKING GROUPS 37

(2)
(3)

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – DATE

The minutes of the Committee meeting held on 23 October 2014 are attached.

The Committee is asked to approve these minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 5. IDENTIFICATION OF URGENT ITEMS

(4)
(5)

A meeting of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee was held in Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre on Thursday, 23 October 2014 at 5pm

PRESENT: Arapata Reuben, Tūāhuriri Rūnanga (Chairperson)

Hugh Thorpe, Community Representative (Deputy Chairperson) Councillor Pauline Cotter. Christchurch City Council

Commissioner Rex Williams, Environment Canterbury Les Wanhalla, Te Taumutu Rūnanga

Ian Fox, Community Representative Hamish Keown, Community Representative Chris Kelliher, Community Representative Lan Pham, Community Representative

Robert Wynn-Williams, Community Representative

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillor Debra Hasson and Yvette Couch-Lewis.

An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Councillor Pauline Cotter who arrived at 6pm and was absent for clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,and part of clause 8. An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Commissioner Rex Williams who departed from the meeting at 5.15pm and was absent for clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 part of Clause 3

Mr Ken McAnergey, Transition Manager at Christchurch Airport, was invited to provide a karakia to open the meeting.

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

It was decided that the minutes of 25 September 2014 be approved as a true and accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendments:

Item 6 reading “The Committee was invited by Katie Nimmo to walk from the Estuary to the Tannery on 1 November 2014. The walk has been organised in conjunction with the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board.”

2. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Nil.

3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Mr Ken McAnergey, Transition Manager Christchurch Airport Limited, addressed the Committee regarding the increased problem of birds at and around the airport, in particular Canada Geese, Pigeons and Black Backed Gulls, and expressed concern at the possibility of an airstrike.

Christchurch Airport Limited has an obligation under International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to try to influence off-airport bird habitats and request that it have the opportunity to discuss with Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury staff ways it can influence the design of wetlands and appropriate bird management plans.

The Christchurch Airport also asked for the contact details of a person who pilots and air traffic controllers can contact should birds create a problem at and around the airport.

(6)

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 23. 10.2014

4. IDENTIFICATION OF URGENT ITEMS The Committee noted the following:

 Christchurch City Councillors and Environment Canterbury Commissioners meeting

A presentation on Stormwater and Land Drainage was provided to the recent meeting between Christchurch City Councillors and Environment Canterbury Commissioners. Questions asked by Councillors included the role of the Zone Committee and the difference between floods and drainage issues.

Christina Robb, Environment Canterbury, and Helen Beaumont, Christchurch City Council would be asked to make a similar presentation to the next meeting of the Zone Committee.  Field Trip to Hagley Park

Committee members met up with ‘Hands Off Hagley’ members on the field trip to Hagley Park to discuss the values of Addington Brook through the park.

 Community Day in Riccarton

Hamish Keown, Les Wanhalla and Hugh Thorpe met with the public at the Environment Canterbury Stall at the Community Day in Riccarton. A request was made for the committee members to be provided with identification badges for future events.

5. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY GENERAL PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS Nil.

6. REGIONAL COMMITTEE UPDATE

The Committee received an update from Lan Pham, the Committee’s representative on the Regional Committee and noted the following:

 Regional Infrastructure – The Regional Committee is looking at infrastructure in South Canterbury in relation to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

 Ecosystem Health and Biodiversity – Long Fin Eels are to be an indicator as success of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. A working group is looking at what is happening at a national level and what it requires to have a sustainable Long Fin Eel population.

 CWMS Funding - Draft recommendations will go to the Regional Committee’s December meeting.

7. ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY “ON THE GROUND ACTION” UPDATE

The Committee received the quarterly report from Environment Canterbury’s Resource Management Group (RMG) including an update from the key priorities and a summary by catchment.

The Committee noted that the identification of two Wetlands was an outstanding item on the Project Schedule although some money had been put into Otukaikino Wetland.

(7)

The Committee received the Natural Environment Recovery Programme’s third quarter progress report covering July, August and September and noted the following:

 Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee meeting – the stormwater issue discussed  The Heathcote River catchment is being under considered

 A briefing on stormwater was held with the Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury Commissioners

 Celebration My Sports Trust is working independently

 Eastern Vision is collating other outdoor recreation opportunities in the east

 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust - lot of work around recreation on the peninsula

 Christchurch Adventure Park has the Cashmere Stream Care Group involved regarding the issues with sediment coming off the road

The Meeting closed at 6.09pm with a karakia from Arapata Reuben.

At the conclusion of the meeting Hamish Keown resigned from the Committee.

CONFIRMED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014

ARAPATA REUBEN CHAIRPERSON

(8)
(9)

Sediment Removal and Biodiversity REPORT: Christchurch West Melton

Zone Committee DATE OF MEETING: 27 November 2014 REPORT BY: Matthew Ross, Facilitator APPROX 30MINS

PURPOSE

To discuss a report on the removal of fine sediment for biodiversity gain.

 

BACKGROUND

The Zone Committee requested a report on the removal of fine sediment for biodiversity gain at its September 2014 workshop. The attached report has been jointly prepared by Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury for discussion. The paper contains two parts:

1. An overview of the effects of fine sediment on stream ecosystems and potential methods for environmentally sensitive removal.

2. A list of possible fine sediment removal projects which focus on either Zone Committee priority catchments or biodiversity outcomes.

No decision is required.

ATTACHMENTS

(10)
(11)

Proposed projects to remove fine sediment from streams to

improve ecological health: memo to Christchurch-West Melton

Zone Committee

Dr Duncan Gray (Senior Ecology Scientist, Environment Canterbury)

Dr Belinda Margetts (Waterways Ecologist, Christchurch City Council)

Michele Stevenson (Senior Ecology Scientist, Environment Canterbury)

The purpose of this paper is to respond to a request from the Zone Committee for information

on fine sediment removal for biodiversity gain. The paper contains two parts:

1.

An overview of the effects of fine sediment on stream ecosystems and potential

methods for environmentally sensitive removal

2.

A list of possible fine sediment removal projects which focus on either Zone

Committee priority catchments or biodiversity outcomes.

Overview of fine sediment removal for biodiversity gain

Fine sediment removal from the bed of waterways, particularly in lowland areas, may be a critical step in ecosystem health rehabilitation. The Natural Environment Recovery Plan (NERP) includes provisions for the rehabilitation of stream habitat1, and so provides an opportunity to undertake fine sediment removal along with other works that benefit stream ecological communities and the abundance of mahinga kai. Lowland, and especially spring-fed waterways, often do not have sufficient flow velocities to flush fine sediments. Therefore, the legacy of fine sediment additions to waterways may impair aquatic communities in perpetuity. This memo details potential sediment removal methods and recommends streams within the Christchurch city environs which would benefit from fine sediment removal.

Fine sediment (<2 mm) is a significant contaminant in Canterbury waterways. In particular the urban streams in and around Christchurch have been badly affected by the earthquakes (Harding & Jellyman 2012; Environment Canterbury & Christchurch City Council 2011). The accumulation of fine sediment has the potential to alter the quantity and quality of physical habitat, to the detriment of invertebrate and fish communities. Specifically, sediment smothers invertebrates and the stream bed, and may clog the gills of fish. Infilling of spaces between stream bed gravels reduces the availability of habitat for invertebrates and prevents the movement of oxygenated water through the stream bed to support larval fish. In addition, substantial fine sediment cover reduces the aesthetic appeal of waterways, as well affecting cultural values, such as the health of mahinga kai.

1

Project 5: Act on opportunities for stormwater treatment and improving the water quality and ecosystem health of waterways (‘stream and river restoration’, ‘during rebuild consider changing the form of waterways to enhance stream ecology’); Project 11: Assess, retain and enhance biodiversity (‘rehabilitate highest-value ecosystems, ‘rehabilitate inaka spawning sites’); Project 17: Act on opportunities to restore and enhance mahinga kai (‘restore and enhance mahinga kai resources and sites’).

(12)

Various methods can be used to remove fine sediment. Dredging is an effective technique, but can be extremely destructive of the remaining habitat and also mobilises a lot of fine silt which travels downstream. More careful removal of sediment using an excavator bucket is preferred, in conjunction with sediment control measures downstream (e.g. floating booms), to collect any sediment discharged. Gravels removed can be cleaned and returned to the stream to provide important streambed habitat. This technique has been used quite often and effectively throughout Christchurch, most recently for the Avon River Precinct works. The benefit of this technique is that it is very effective at removing large depths of sediment quickly and potentially at lower costs to other methods. However, sufficient access and room on the stream bank is required for the excavator. Another technique is the use of suction technology (the ‘sand wand’), which based on recent trials appears to also be effective at removing sediment, but with lesser environmental impacts (Gray et al. 2013; attached to Gray et al. 2013 ). With this technique, water is pumped from the stream at high pressure into a hood that encloses an area of the stream bed (Figure 1). The water jet penetrates the stream bed and mobilises fine sediment. Sediment and water is then pumped out of the hood and goes through a disposal or settling apparatus. Clean water can then be discharged back to the stream or allowed to infiltrate into land depending upon the context of the stream. Separation of silt and water, and sediment disposal, requires careful thought and preparation. The method as currently configured is suited to smaller, shallow streams, but could be configured for larger waterways. There have also been trials involving specialised sediment settling equipment and flocculants (Taylor & Marshall 2013). This technique is potentially limited when it comes to removing large depths of sediment and may be best used as a ‘polisher’ – removing the fines that are difficult to remove using an excavator bucket. Sufficient access and room on the stream bank is also required for the settling apparatus.

It is likely that a combination of sediment removal using an excavator bucket and the sand wand will be required across sites, and sometimes at the same site. Assessments of the most appropriate methods will need to be carried out at each site to ensure effective removal of sediment for the lowest financial cost possible. It is important to note that with both of these sediment removal techniques, some fine sediment may still be discharged downstream even with the best mitigation measures. However, this short-term adverse effect is considered to be outweighed by the long-term positive effects on ecological health due to the removal of sediment. Sediment in urban areas may be contaminated and as such should be disposed of at an appropriate land use facility.

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 10

(13)

Figure 1. Schematic showing a potential method to mobilise and remove fine sediment from a stream bed with minimal ecological impact.

It should be noted that fine sediment is only one of the stressors that may affect stream ecosystems. The factors which regulate the health of stream communities are linked by many complex interactions, and occur across scales of time and space. However, stream ecologists often separate factors into three broad groups; habitat quantity, water quality and habitat quality. Fine sediment impacts upon habitat quality and water quality. Each of these groups may represent a limiting factor to the health of stream communities. Limiting factors can be visualised as the broken boards around a barrel. No matter how much water we pour into the barrel the level is maintained at the height of the lowest board. Thus, the effects of habitat quality restoration may be limited by a lack of flow or poor water quality. Accordingly, before any attempt at active stream rehabilitation takes place it is important to identify the full suite of limiting factors to stream health. This is important for the success of the project but also in terms of managing expectations. In the case of fine sediment removal, it is important to identify the sources of sediment to the stream. If sediment continues to enter the stream, this will affect the outcomes of the projects. Habitat restoration in the form of riparian planting may also be necessary to improve habitat, provide shade to the stream channel and increase the stability (i.e. reduce erosion) of stream banks. Planting should ideally be undertaken simultaneously to the sediment removal operations. Sediment removal should also be undertaken from upstream to downstream, to avoid sediment being discharged to newly restored areas from upstream catchments.

(14)

Possible Projects

Project ideas for discussion contingent on funding and permission

CWMS zone committee priority catchments

Cashmere Stream

The Cashmere Stream is recognised as having a significant sedimentation issue that is limiting ecological values. There are multiple ongoing sources of sediment in the catchment that are not easily mitigated. A range of other actions are required to address these sediment sources before sediment removal could be considered as an option to achieve good ‘bang for buck’ in achieving ecological outcomes. However, Cashmere Stream retains some good ecological values and is part of the greater Heathcote River system which is a focus of restoration projects.

Addington Brook

The stream is only visible above ground in its lower reaches where it flows through Hagley Park. Parts of these reaches, from Deans Ave to Riccarton Ave, do have areas of sedimentation that may benefit from sediment removal. The upstream catchment that is a piped stormwater network will be an ongoing source of sediment (at a much lower scale than Cashmere Stream sources), but the catchment work of the Pollution Prevention team may help reduce this. Sediment is not likely to be the most significant factor affecting ecological health in this stream – water quality needs to be addressed as a priority.

Project for biodiversity gain

Wairarapa Stream

This waterway has been badly impacted by liquefaction from earthquakes along its entire length (James & McMurtrie 2011). However, despite this the stream retains some biodiversity values, particularly fish, which are likely to be enhanced by fine sediment removal and other habitat improvements (Gray 2013, Blakely 2013). This waterway and Waimairi Stream also have the best water quality of all waterways in the Avon River catchment, according to Christchurch City Council monitoring data (Margetts 2014), increasing the chance of positive outcomes due to sediment removal. It is possible that sediment removal within this waterway will also reduce sediment discharges downstream to the Avon River during floods. However, access to the waterway may be an issue as the stream is abutted by private properties on both sides. Removal of sediment in this waterway is also planned eventually for the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP), for the purposes of flood mitigation2. Ongoing sediment sources in this catchment are possible due to poor erosion and sediment control measures on building sites during the rebuild.

2

Waterway areas identified on the LDRP are for locations identified to have flooding risk only and therefore sediment removal will not extend the along the entire reach of the waterways needed for complete ecosystem

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 12

(15)

The headwaters of the Wairarapa Stream are located approximately 90 metres upstream of Greers Road (based on early June 2014 observations). The first stage of this project could be focussed from this upstream extent of permanent water down to Jellie Park, finishing just upstream of the confluence with Hewlings Stream (approximately a 480 metre stream length). A site reconnaissance is required first to establish locations of sediment and logistical opportunities/obstacles. Hewlings Stream could then be the next stage of the project, although the large pond at Jellie Park is at the downstream extent of this stream, so mobilisation of sediment from this tributary (and the ability/opportunity to clean the pond out) should be assessed to determine if this would be worthwhile. It may be that sediment cannot discharge from the pond to Wairarapa Stream and therefore removing sediment in Hewlings Stream may not be the best use of resources.

Steamwharf Stream tributary of the lower Heathcote River

This waterway is a tributary of the Heathcote River, and is tidal in its lower reaches and badly choked with sediment. The tidal reach has in the past provided valuable spawning habitat for inanga (or inaka, which is the South Island Maori word for inanga), which deposit their eggs in riparian vegetation during high water levels (Taylor & Blair 2011). However, this ecological function is severely compromised by the current high levels of sediment. This sediment renders the habitat unsuitable for egg laying and can smother any eggs that are present. Potential ongoing sources of sediment are unknown other than an unfenced horse paddock upstream of Dyers Road; most of the current sediment is earthquake derived. The waterway length is approximately 1.5 kilometres, so the project could be focused on the entire waterway. Sediment removal is also scheduled in this waterway for the LDRP.

health benefit. However, there are opportunities to tie in with this program to maximise resources available and ultimately save costs. Further consultation is required to identify areas of overlap.

(16)

References

Blakely, T. 2013. Ecological values of the Avon River catchment: an ecological survey of the Avon SMP catchment. Prepared for Christchurch City Council by Boffa Miskell Limited. 57 p.

Environment Canterbury & Christchurch City Council 2011. Ecological effects of the Christchurch February earthquake on our city rivers: summary and management recommendations. Environment Canterbury technical report No. U11/6. 8p. http://www.eosecology.co.nz/files/Ecan-Quake-River-Ecology.pdf.

Gray, D. 2013. Fine sediment removal from streams: environmental effects, protocols and a proposed rule. Environment Canterbury technical report No. R13/95. 16p.

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/fine-sediment-removal-streams.pdf.

Gray D.P., Taylor M., Moore E., Pohe S., Barbour S. 2013. A trial of fine sediment removal using the Sand WandTM: efficacy and impacts. Environment Canterbury technical report No. R13/96. 22p. Harding, J. & Jellyman, P. 2012. The response of stream communities to earthquake derived sand and silt. PowerPoint presentation at 26 April 2012 seminar: Earthquake effects on rivers and the estuary in Christchurch. Retrieved from http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/streams-affected-liquefaction.pdf.

James, A. & McMurtrie, S. 2011. Christchurch February earthquake: effects on aquatic invertebrates. Prepared for Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council by EOS Ecology Limited. Report No. 11010-CIV01-01. 11 p.

Margetts, B 2014. Interim Global Stormwater Consent: surface water quality monitoring report for the period May 2013 – April 2014. Christchurch City Council technical report. 55p.

Taylor, M. & Blair, W. 2011. Effects of seismic activity on Inaka spawning grounds on City rivers. Environment Canterbury technical report No. U11/12. 29p.

http://www.crc.govt.nz/publications/Reports/eq-effects-inanga-spawning-groundAs-ael.pdf.

Taylor, M. & Marshall, W. 2013. Silt removal trial from Wairarapa Stream; 12 April 2013. Prepared for Environment Canterbury by Aquatic Ecology Limited. Report No. 104.

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 14

(17)

REPORT: Christchurch West Melton

Zone Committee DATE OF MEETING: 27 November 2014 REPORT BY: Matthew Ross, Facilitator APPROX 90MINS

PURPOSE

To provide feedback and advice to Christchurch City Council on the following stormwater related matters:

(a) The preferred option for flood mitigation in Dudley Creek (b) An update on the Stormwater Management Programme (c) An update on the draft Avon Stormwater Management Plan

(i) “Blueprint” document

(ii) Catchment Load Modelling report.  

BACKGROUND

The Zone Committee have identified stormwater as a critical barrier to implementing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) in the Zone. The Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) was adopted by the Christchurch City Council (CCC), Environment Canterbury, and the Selwyn District Council in April 2013 and includes a number of priority outcomes related to improving stormwater impacts. In addition, a Key Principle of the ZIP is that “The effects of improving flood management are beneficial to a spectrum of waterway values.” Successfully applying this principle means that “Flood management strategies, plans, and activities (including urban and rural drainage systems) are aligned with the CWMS where possible, without compromising the overall level of flood protection provided. A summary of the Committee’s approach to improving stormwater management for urban waterways in Christchurch is attached.

Dudley Creek Flood Mitigation Preferred Option

The CCC has identified its preferred option to reduce the risk of regular flooding in the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment, from earth-quake related land damage and is seeking your feedback. The Committee will be briefed on the preferred flood mitigation option including potential for integration with wider stormwater management approaches and waterways values in the catchment. Consultation documents are attached for information.

Stormwater Management Programme An update will be tabled.

Draft Avon Stormwater Management Plan (SMP)

The Committee developed “Goals and Indicators” for successful stormwater management in the Avon/Ōtākaro catchment with involvement of a number of interested groups and organisations in late 2013.

(18)

The Committee received high-level briefings from CCC on the development of the draft Avon Stormwater Management in mid-2014 including key “blueprint” components and initial findings of catchment load modelling.

The Committee will receive the draft “Blueprint” for the Avon SMP and be briefed on the final catchment load modelling report.

ATTACHMENTS

 The Zone Committee’s Approach to Improving Stormwater Management

 Dudley Creek Consultation Document and 2 Maps

 Stormwater Management Programme Briefing (tabled)

 Draft Avon Stormwater Management Plan Update– Blueprint and Catchment Load Modelling Report (tabled).

 

(19)

Summary of Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee’s Approach (September 2014) Outcomes:

• More stormwater is treated to a better standard at source (before it’s discharged to the public

stormwater network or an urban waterway).

• The public stormwater network is better able to treat and manage stormwater. • More people understand and reduce their stormwater footprint.

• The effects of stormwater run-off and downstream flooding and are reduced.

Steps required: Leadership, collaboration, regulation, investment.

• Encourage Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury to jointly facilitate a

collaborative process to:

• Develop a work programme that addresses water quality and quantity going into the

stormwater system.

• Secure buy-in and involvement from all sectors and the community. • Encourage improvement from all land uses through regulation:

• Resource Management Act 1991 Plans incorporate performance standards for

stormwater management to address urban land use impacts on water quality.

• Local Government Act 2002 Bylaws incorporate performance standards for stormwater

to manage discharge to public stormwater networks.

• Well-resourced and integrated compliance and enforcement activities. • Improve the public stormwater network by investing in:

• Installation, upgrades, and maintenance of engineered/treatment solutions (e.g. end of

pipe filters, rain gardens, swales)

• Reduction of inputs to the network:

• Pollution prevention projects targeting hot-spots. • Awareness raising that changes behaviours.

• Integrate management of stormwater quality, run-off and flooding at a catchment level: • Integration of stormwater and flood management strategies, plans and activities. • Prioritisation of resources for solutions that achieve both stormwater and flood

management outcomes.

(20)
(21)

Dudley Creek

Preferred option for long-term

flood remediation

Consultation: Monday 10 November — Wednesday 26 November 2014

Contact us:

Phone: (03) 941 8999 and 0800 800 169 Email: floodmitigation@ccc.govt.nz Post: Freepost 178

Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council

(22)

Christchurch City Council

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 3

Introduction

Christchurch City Council is seeking your feedback on its preferred option for reducing the risk to properties against regular flooding in the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment, following earthquake-related land damage.

Flood risks across the city have changed since the Canterbury Earthquakes and 70 per cent of the homes with repeated flooding above the floor since the quakes are in the Flockton area. Many residents trying to recover from the earthquakes are now faced with flooded and unhealthy homes, and report increasing health problems, stress and financial challenges.

The Council has been working since 2012 on ways to address increased flooding following the earthquakes. The Council is focusing on Dudley Creek first because of the significant flood risks in this area, but work is also underway to address the issues faced by flood-affected residents in other parts of Christchurch.

Fourteen options for Dudley Creek were identified in November 2013, with two of the engineering options put to the Council in March 2014. Further work on the longer-term options for Dudley Creek saw two lower-cost versions – optimised Option 1 and optimised Option 2 – presented to the Council on 23 October 2014.

test page

Councillors chose an optimised version of Option 2 as the preferred option for long-term flood protection in the Flockton area and this is now being consulted on. The preferred option expands the benefits of the Tay Street Drain pump station (PS202), currently under construction as part of the Mayoral Flood Taskforce’s work, with a gravity-piped diversion and an upgrade of surrounding waterways at a cost of up to $48 million. The pump station (Tay Street Drain PS202) will be operating by February 2015.

Option 2 is expected to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding in the Flockton area. In a major event (1 in 50 year event) the works reduce the number of homes likely to flood above the floor from 91 to 10. In a 1 in 10 year storm event the number of floor levels at risk reduces from 55 to 3. Overall, the work will reduce flooding depth for at least 585 properties. This option will effectively return most of the catchment to the same level of flood risk, or slightly better, than before the Canterbury Earthquakes.

What we are seeking your views on now

The Council is seeking your feedback on its preferred option to return most of the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment, to the same level of flooding risk as before the earthquakes. Even if the work is progressed, there will still be flooding in some areas of the catchment after heavy rainfall.

Your feedback, along with technical advice, will inform the Council decision on 11 December 2014.

The Flockton area was at risk of flooding before the earthquakes and the preferred option returns the area to pre-earthquake levels of flooding. Unfortunately, about 14 properties may experience regular flooding until Option 2 is in place. We estimate three of these properties may flood regularly even once Option 2 is in place. Council staff have contacted these residents to update them and seek their views. There will still be some flooding of streets and houses after a prefered option is built.

This booklet includes details of the preferred option – Option 2, as well as information on the other options that were initially considered. A submission form and information about drop-in sessions, where residents can speak to Council staff and make a submission, is included at the end of the booklet.

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(23)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

4 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 5

Proposed work areas for preferred Option 2

The scale, impact and

construction involved with

proposed works is different in

each of the seven areas.

Key to map

1. Dudley Creek widening along Banks Avenue between the Avon River to North Parade

2. A new underground rectangular pipe beneath Warden Street and across the Shirley Intermediate grounds (the Warden Street Bypass)

3. Dudley Creek along Stapletons Road from Shirley Stream down to St Albans Creek

4. Dudley Creek from Hills Road to Stapletons Road

5. Dudley Creek from Aylesford Street to Hills Road

6. Shirley Stream from Orontes Street down to Dudley Creek 7. St Albans Creek from Hills Road

to Dudley Creek (Stapletons Road)

For full details on each area, see pages 7—9

6

5

4

2

1

3

7

Shirley Road Warrington Street Averill Street Warden Street Orontes Street North P arad e Ayle sford S treet Flo ckton S treet Carric k Stre et Sla te r S tre et Hills R oa d Q uin ns R oad Sta pl eto ns R oa d

(24)

Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

6 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 7

About preferred Option 2

Option 2 includes a gravity-piped diversion and upgraded waterway capacity. A significant upgrade of Dudley Creek is required. This will involve culvert removal in problematic pinch-points along Dudley Creek (for example Warden Street and Slater Street). Some mature, significant and protected trees will need to be removed but the Council will retain as many as possible. Where required, creek channel widening and deepening will be carried out and modifications to the creek bank will be made. The modifications to the banks will be either ‘naturalised’ or ‘engineered’.

Option 2 has the potential to improve the landscape, ecological, recreational and community values associated with parts of Dudley Creek and its tributaries through well-considered urban planning and landscape design. Further discussions will be held with local residents on landscaping options once an option is confirmed.

Engineering works mean the Council will need to purchase at least two properties, and discuss a possible full or partial purchase with a number of other owners. These directly affected owners are being contacted. At this stage Council is seeking to understand the views and preferences of these owners. Detailed property negotiations will follow the Council’s decision of the preferred option in December.

Option 2 has altered significantly since it was first proposed, due to the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work already underway. The Tay Street Drain pump station (PS202) is now under construction and expected to be in operation by February 2015. The creek channel upgrade options were reduced and there is no longer an upgrade of the Hills Road – Shirley Road intersection culvert. This ‘optimised’ Option 2 provides the greatest opportunity for cost savings.

Map of Option 2

1.

Dudley Creek widening along Banks Avenue between the Avon River to

North Parade

Widening and deepening of Dudley Creek will be required in this area to increase the capacity of the waterway so floodwater can efficiently pass through to the Avon River. Much of the work can occur on Council land, and some existing mature trees may need to be removed but we will retain trees where possible. Some land purchases would be required to construct the proposed option. Naturalised banks are preferred for much of this area with only limited lengths of engineered walls, particularly about Achilles and Cooper streets. Replacement of existing access bridges will be required with the widened waterway.

Summary of proposed changes under preferred

Option 2

Naturalised banks are preferred by the Council. They are visually appealing as they include plants that fit in with the creek and stream environments. They have sloped banks that provide a suitable environment for vegetation to flourish. Naturalised banks require additional land, so discussions need to take place between the Council and private property owners to progress such work.

What is a naturalised bank?

0.0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 +

Peak Flooding Depth (m)

Culvert upgrade Pump station Engineered banks Naturalised banks

Legend

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(25)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

8 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 9

2.

Warden Street Bypass

A new underground rectangular pipe (3 metres wide by 1.5 metres high) is proposed beneath Warden Street and across the Shirley Intermediate grounds. The inlet and outlets from the pipe will be engineered structures with grills / grates. Access to properties along Warden Street will be maintained. This is a cost-effective solution that avoids extensive work on private property and the need to upgrade several bridges.

3.

Dudley Creek along Stapletons Road from Shirley Stream down to

St Albans Creek

The works upstream of the bypass inlet (at Warden Street) will be substantial and are likely to involve some property purchase and tree removal or vegetation clearance. Widening of the creek will take a naturalised form, but some engineered walls may be required. Downstream of the bypass the work will be much smaller in scale with a reduced impact on existing trees.

4.

Dudley Creek from Hills Road to Stapletons Road

Works are proposed to widen and deepen the creek in this area so floodwater can pass through efficiently. Typically, the stream is bounded on one side by Council-owned property or the road reserve and the other by private property. Much of this area will require engineered banks of timber or concrete, rather than naturalised banks, to maximise the capacity of the channel. Access to private property will be needed during construction of these walls. On the other bank (the Shirley Road side) a mix of engineered and naturalised banks is proposed. Terracing will be used to maintain a low-flow channel and pedestrian access. Option 2 proposes to replace Slater Street Bridge and reinstate Chancellor Street Bridge. However, leaving these as pedestrian-only bridges may be an option — feedback on this is welcomed.

5.

Dudley Creek from Aylesford Street to Hills Road

Deepening the existing timber-lined drain is proposed. The walls of the channel are likely to be timber or concrete, depending on what is easier to construct in this confined area. Some trees may need to be removed to build the enlarged channel.

6.

Shirley Stream from Orontes Street down to Dudley Creek

Works are proposed along Shirley Stream, downstream of Orontes Street, to reduce flooding on Emmett Street. The Shirley Road culvert will be replaced with a larger culvert. Engineered banks may be required, particularly downstream of Shirley Road. A naturalised approach to banks is preferred, however it may not be possible in all areas. Upstream of Shirley Road the work will be minor, mostly reshaping the channel. Replacement of existing access bridges will be required with the widened waterway.

7.

St Albans Creek from Hills Road to Dudley Creek (Stapletons Road)

A mix of naturalised and engineered banks is proposed along St Albans Creek to reduce flooding upstream of Hills Road. A 3 metre creek width is required from Hills Road down to the Churchill Complex. Hills Road and Slater Street culverts will be enlarged. Most of the channel widening works will require partial purchase of private properties. Engineered banks are vertical walled creek banks made from either concrete or timber. While some people consider

them to be less visually appealing, they maximise the waterway capacity of the channel during flood conditions. In some instances, where there are land restrictions, engineered banks may be the only option.

(26)

Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

10 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 11

Other options considered for long-term flood

remediation in the Flockton area

Fourteen options were initially identified in November 2013 as possibly offering long-term flood remediation benefits in the Dudley Creek/Flockton area.

The 14 options included gravity based solutions, such as channel and culvert upgrades as well as diversions that seek to enhance natural drainage systems to reduce the flooding risks. Also considered were a range of pumping upgrades that target the most vulnerable locations and could potentially be implemented much faster than catchment-wide measures. Another important group of solutions considered were property based upgrades such as localised bunding, house raising or property purchase.

After further analysis and assessment, three options were considered further.

Option 1 – Major upgrading of waterway capacity using gravity – This option would improve flood protection through upgrading the waterway capacity using gravity. The benefits would be achieved by increasing the width and depth of watercourses, including all of Dudley Creek downstream of the Aylesford culvert to the Avon River, and short sections of Shirley Stream, Bings Drain and St Albans Creek. It also includes the replacement of culverts at 12 road crossings, two public footbridges and 29 private vehicle access bridges. It would impact 115 properties to some degree. This option would benefit 550 properties and cost up to $60 million. Construction of this option would require major works and temporary traffic management plans and may require land purchase discussions with up to 40 private property owners.

Option 2: Major pump station, gravity piped diversion and lesser upgrading of the waterway capacity (see page 6 for more information) - This is the preferred option.

Option 3: Retreat – The option of retreating from those properties most affected by the flooding was explored. A “retreat” scenario has been considered where properties in the most affected areas would be purchased. Also included are engineering works to maximise the benefit of the vacant land as a stormwater storage basin and to ensure any flooding of surrounding houses does not increase.

In October 2014, the Council identified Option 2 as its preferred option.

Summary of advantages and disadvantages of the three options

Effect of option Preferred Option 2 Option 1 Option 3 — Retreat

Advantages • Cheaper than Option 1 or

Retreat

• Fewer property purchases • Earlier benefits from

works

• More resilient to future earthquakes than Option 1 • Some scope for

environmental enhancement

• Slightly more scope for environmental

enhancement than Option 2 • More resilient to very major

storm events than Option 2

• Zero flood risk for properties purchased • Resilient to future

earthquakes

Disadvantages • Less benefit in 1 in 50 year plus rain events

• Some trees need

removing, but fewer than for Option 1

• Slightly less resilient to very major storm events than Option 1

• More property purchase • Higher costs

• More traffic disruption during work

• More trees removed than Option 2

• Less resilient to future earthquakes than Option 2

• Very expensive • Less catchment wide

benefit

• Redirect existing services • Reduced occupation has

an economic impact

Cost estimate $48m $60 million $90 million

Map of Option 1.

0.0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 +

Peak Flooding Depth (m)

Culvert upgrade Pump station Engineered banks Naturalised banks

Legend

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(27)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

12 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 13

Questions and answers

The consultation process

Question Answer

Why are you consulting again? Option 1 and 2 have been on the table for months and you’ve already had feedback from residents.

Consultation will focus on the enhanced version of Option 2 now it has been chosen by the Council as the preferred option. We are detailing the impact of the engineering work now that more detail about this proposed work is available. This proposed work is being presented to the community to get their views and preferences, including from those particularly affected.

Why are you consulting on an option at the same time as preparing detailed design?

Time is short and if we are to begin work on engineering solutions before winter we need to run a two-track process. However, the Council is approaching consultation with an open mind and this may mean some rework of detailed design based on feedback from communities.

Is Option 2 fixed, or will

there be room for changes? The consultation will be genuine; we will be inviting feedback from the community. Feedback will be analysed and on 11 December 2014 a report will go to the Council for their consideration. In early 2015 we hope to be progressing detailed design work, subject to Council approval, and by April 2015, again subject to Council approval, work is scheduled to start. Overall, the works are expected to take two years to complete.

More about preferred Option 2

Question Answer

With Option 2, how much longer until people living in the Flockton area are actually protected against flooding?

Many of the most seriously affected residents (41 of 55) will no longer experience above floor frequent flooding once the Tay Street Drain Pumping Station becomes operational from February 2015. Once all engineering work for Option 2 is

completed by mid-2017, only three homes will continue to experience regular flooding above the floor in a regular (1 in 10 year) rainfall/flood event. Even with the proposed long term option, some streets and properties will flood, but the work will reduce the number of houses which flood above floor level.

Where is the Tay Street Drain

pump station? It is located just outside the volunteer library at 42A Kensington Avenue, Mairehau.

What are the financial

implications of Option 2? The Council has approved a budget of $48 million for this work in the draft Long Term Plan, although funding contributions from the Crown and EQC will be pursued. The report also mentions possible revenue options such as a targeted rate across the city. This will be further investigated and reported back to the Council.

I thought the Council was short of money – why are you spending up to $48 million to benefit 585 homes?

Overall, 585 homes have a reduced risk of flooding on their properties. We also considered the economic impact of flooding on local businesses and residential property values, and the effect of flooding on the landscape and the environment.

Why isn’t the Council looking at other options? Is this because Option 2 is the cheapest option?

We have looked at 14 options (go to page 16 for a timeline which outlines the history of flooding events and Council reports). Each has its merits, but for technical and other reasons, such as cost or the amount of land required, they have been discounted. Councillors have selected a preferred option – Option 2, which we will be consulting on. We have used a multi-criteria analysis approach to find the best option for the city. Cost consideration was just one factor.

Exactly how is Option 2 a

better option than others? Both options work to reduce the risk of flooding. Option 2 is the preferred option based on a number of criteria such as: costs, concentration of essential services such as power and wastewater on particular routes, the potential for work to impact on private property and timeframes.

Can’t you just dredge the

(28)

Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

14 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 15

Effect on the community

Question Answer

I live in the Flockton area - with Option 2 will there ever be flooding at my place?

There will always be some homes that experience flooding in an extreme event. Many homes may still experience regular flooding on their properties and on the street outside similar to the flooding experienced before the earthquakes. A much bigger and far more expensive scheme would be needed if we were to protect against every possible storm event.

If the Council widens Dudley Creek, as proposed in Option 2, will they be taking part of my land or will they use land from the road side?

Widening of the creek will only take place as part of a permanent solution. So far only a preliminary design for the channel has been prepared, but widening will take place on Council-owned public land (the road side) wherever possible without reducing the width of the road or affecting road safety.

Doesn’t Option 2 mean a much more invasive approach to the river bank?

In certain places yes and in others no. We will be speaking to the community to ensure we understand their views and preferences. This may include naturalised banks, engineered vertical banks, or a mix of both. The proposed work will also involve the deepening of the creek, which will give much more capacity through the network.

What does part purchase

mean? There are approximately 16 properties that will require part purchase with Option 2. This means we will purchase part of their section near the creek. It will be less than 20 per cent of the property.

Will protection against flooding improve before Option 2 is completed by mid-2017?

As the work progresses the risk of flooding will reduce. By winter 2015, we will benefit from the Taskforce’s work and the Tay Street Drain pump station. By winter 2016, the downstream works and bypass will be in action and by winter 2017 the channel works will be completed.

Are the yellow parts on the map of Option 2 the areas where Dudley Creek will be widened?

The yellow area represents a naturalised area. The Council is very keen to work with residents to achieve naturalised banks wherever possible. However, there may be lengths of walls required along Banks Avenue or walls may be preferred by the community.

How much surveying has been done in the Banks Avenue area?

Dudley Creek has been surveyed several times since the earthquakes for a range of reasons, such as establishing earthquake effects, quantifying silt removal and enabling Taskforce works. Recently we have undertaken a detailed survey which will be used to inform the next stages of design.

Why are you proposing a 15 metre width for Dudley Creek. This is very wide.

The width is required as the creek is now ‘flatter’ due to the earthquakes, for example some properties are now closer to the tide. Channels which are flat need to be bigger to carry the same amount of water as a steep channel. By incorporating terraces into the design of the new channels, a low flow channel will not need to be as wide – the full 15 metre width would only be flooded during high-flow events.

With this proposal, if residents’ bridges need replacing will this increase the cost of the overall option?

No, bridge replacement costs are included in the current option estimates.

An artist’s impression of a private bridge over Dudley Creek with engineered and landscaped banks at Banks Avenue, Shirley.

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(29)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

16 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 17

May 2012

Land Drainage Recovery

Programme (LDRP)

September 2009 — 2039

Surface Water Management Strategy

Post-earthquake flood protection timeline

This timeline outlines the history of the flooding events, Taskforce work to date and workplans for the next two years.

14 August 2014

Mayoral Flood Taskforce Final report delivered to Council, including a section on Lyttelton. The report outlines short/ medium-term recommendations to protect the areas identified as

vulnerable to flooding. Land drainage operations, LDRP and Surface Water Management Strategy continue to maintain and improve flood protection.

June 2014

Temporary pump installed in Dudley Creek ahead of forecast heavy rains. Culvert and foot bridge removal in Dudley Creek.

July 2014

Tay Street Drain Pump Station construction begins in Shirley. This pump station will be used to divert flood water to the Dudley diversion, reducing the flood risk to homes in the Dudley Creek/ Flockton area.

Permanent stop bank reinstatement in Southshore. Widening creeks, removal of vegetation and sediment from waterways across Christchurch. Successful ‘House-tanking’ water-proofing pilot.

May 2014

Mayoral Flooding Taskforce established. First progress report delivered to Council on 12 May. The report outlines recommendations to protect the areas identified as vulnerable to flooding. Short-term mitigation work starts in these areas.

5 June 2014

Mayoral Flood Taskforce delivers its second progress report to the Council. The report outlines further recommendations to protect the areas identified as vulnerable to flooding. Short-term mitigation work ongoing.

FeasabilityReport

Flood

Report

Flood

Report

Flood

Report

Flood Report Flood Report Flood Report 4—5 March 2014

160.8mm rainfall

19 April 2014

79.2mm rainfall

30 April 2014

85.4mm rainfall

June 2014 — August 2014

Community engagement,

investigations, consulting, design, tagerted maintenance and some physical work. Rates rebate and Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accomodation Service assistance.

0 — 3 months

September 2014 — November 2014

Construction of Dudley Creek Catchment Scheme completed, majority of other local area schemes completed.

3 — 6 months

December 2014 — May 2015

Ongoing planning and implementation of Taskforce recommendations.

6 — 12

months

November 2013

Dudley Creek Draft issues

and options report

with 14 options in total identified, two selected to progress to a feasibility and design report.

March 2014

Dudley Creek Feasibility Report went to the Council — the report includes options for long-term flood mitigation for Flockton and surrounding areas

• Option 1 – creek deepening and widening.

• Option 2 – installation of a pump station and bypass as well as minor creek widening and deepening.

Options One and Two to be re-assessed in October, in light of the short/medium-term mitigation work the Taskforce has done.

October 2014

Options 1 and 2 have been re-assessed in light of the short/medium-term mitigation work the Taskforce has done, such as:

• Tay Street Drain Pump station • creek widening

• culvert and bridge removals

The Council has identified its preferred option to reduce the risk of regular flooding in the Flockton area and reported to Council on 23 October.

February 2015

Tay Street Drain Pumping Station completed. Early 2015 Detailed design starts (subject to approval). April 2015

Long-term option early works start (subject to approval). This work will be added to the LDRP. Late November 2014 Submissions along with technical advice analysed.

2 years

December 2014 — Mid-2017

Flood management steadily improving. Mid-2017: Long-term option physical works complete.

December 2014

Expected Council decision on consenting and detailed design.

10—26 November 2014

Consultation on preferred option begins.

(30)

Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

18 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 19

Have your say

Decision making

Rebuilding essential infrastructure is a top priority for the Council. However, the Council has many demands on its finances and needs to be prudent.

The Council is acting responsibly by considering the best interests of the whole city, and wants to check with the public on the preferred option for long-term flood protection in the Flockton / Dudley Creek area. Once consultation has closed, your feedback, along with technical advice, will inform the Council decision on 11 December 2014. Before the Council makes its decision, we will inform submitters of the community feedback and update you on the next phase of the project.

Feedback and comments are being sought during the consultation period from 10 November to 26 November 2014.

What next?

Submissions close at 5pm on Wednesday 26 November 2014.

By late November, when consultation ends, the Council will be analysing submissions and considering further technical advice. The Council will consider the report and decide on an option on 11 December 2014. In early 2015 the Council hope to be progressing detailed design work, subject to Council approval, and by April 2015, again subject to Council approval, early work is scheduled to start. Overall, work is expected to take two years to complete.

How to give us your feedback

A submission form is included at the end of this booklet. However, you can provide your feedback in a number of ways:

By using the online submission form at: www.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay

By emailing your feedback and any attachments to: floodmitigation@ccc.govt.nz (please make sure your full name and address is included with your submission). By mail, post to (no stamp required):

Freepost 178

Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council

PO Box 73011 Christchurch 8154 By hand delivery to:

Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street; or at the drop-in sessions as shown below

Please make sure your submission arrives with the Council before the consultation closes at 5pm, Wednesday 26 November 2014.

Presentations and drop-in sessions

• Wednesday 12 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm • Thursday 20 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm • Saturday 22 November – Shirley Primary School, 11 Shirley Road, Shirley, 10am—2pm

• Monday 24 November – St Albans/Shirley Working Men’s Club, 269 Hills Road, Shirley, noon—3pm

Consultation Leader contact details

Tara King Phone: (03) 941 5938 Mobile: (027) 208 3235 Email: tara.king@ccc.govt.nz Ann Campbell Phone: (03) 941 8717 Mobile: (027) 479 1586 Email: ann.campbell@ccc.govt.nz

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(31)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

20 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 21

Preferred option for Dudley Creek long-term flood

remediation

Christchurch City Council is seeking your feedback on its preferred option to return flooding to pre-earthquake levels in the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment. Even if the work is progressed, there will still be flooding in some areas of the catchment after heavy rainfall.

Feedback and comments are being sought during the consultation period from Monday 10 November 2014 to 5pm Wednesday 26 November 2014.

Overall, do you agree or disagree with the Council’s preferred option – Option 2

Strongly agree Agree

Neither agree or disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Any comments (optional)

The Council is keen to look at a naturalised approach to flood control, where possible as an alternative to engineered walls. We want your views on this. Which would you prefer?

Mostly naturalised (requires more land than engineered solutions, see page 7)

Mostly engineered (less land required, but less visually appealing for some people, see page 8)

Any comments (optional)

Do you have any other comments?

(32)

test page

fold

fold staple or tape here

fold fold

ta

pe her

e

Dudley Creek Flood Remediation

External Relations and Communications

Christchurch City Council

PO Box 73011

Christchurch 8154

ta

pe her

e

No anonymous feedback will be accepted.

Whether you use this form or not, you must provide your full name and telephone number please. If you are submitting on behalf of an organisation, please state this and your role within that organisation.

Submissions must be made no later than 5pm Wednesday 26 November 2014.

Please note: On request, we are legally required to make all written or electronic responses available to the public, including the name and address of the author, subject to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and meetings Act 1987. If you consider there are compelling reasons why your contact details and/or feedback should be kept confidential please contact the Council’s Principal Adviser Engagement, telephone 941 8999 or 0800 800 169.

Contact details

I am completing this submission

If you are representing a group or organisation, how many people do you represent?

If your submission is supported by others, have you attached a supporting submission form? Send a scan of your supporting submission form to floodmitigation@ccc.govt.nz with your name and your group’s name in the email.

Name:

Organisation: (if representing) Role in organisation:

Postal address: Post code:

Phone: (home/work/mobile) Email: (if applicable) Date:

Presentations and drop-in sessions

• Wednesday 12 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm

• Thursday 20 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm

• Saturday 22 November – Shirley Primary School, 11 Shirley Road, Shirley, 10am—2pm

• Monday 24 November – St Albans/Shirley Working Men’s Club, 269 Hills Road, Shirley, noon—3pm

CHRISTCHURCH WEST MELTON WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE 27. 11. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8

(33)

Contact us:

Phone: (03) 941 8999 and 0800 800 169 Email: floodmitigation@ccc.govt.nz Post: Freepost 178

Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council

(34)
(35)

Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation

4 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 5

Proposed work areas for preferred Option 2

The scale, impact and

construction involved with

proposed works is different in

each of the seven areas.

Key to map

1. Dudley Creek widening along Banks Avenue between the Avon River to North Parade

2. A new underground rectangular pipe beneath Warden Street and across the Shirley Intermediate grounds (the Warden Street Bypass)

3. Dudley Creek along Stapletons Road from Shirley Stream down to St Albans Creek

4. Dudley Creek from Hills Road to Stapletons Road

5. Dudley Creek from Aylesford Street to Hills Road

6. Shirley Stream from Orontes Street down to Dudley Creek 7. St Albans Creek from Hills Road

to Dudley Creek (Stapletons Road)

For full details on each area, see pages 7—9 of the consultation booklet

6

5

4

2

1

3

7

Shirley Road Warrington Street Averill Street Warden Street Orontes Street North P arad e Ayle sford S treet Flo ckton S treet Carric k Stre et Sla te r S tre et Hills R oa d Q uin ns R oad Sta pl eto ns R oa d

(36)
(37)

0.0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 +

Peak Flooding Depth (m)

Culvert upgrade Pump station Engineered banks Naturalised banks

Legend

Dudley Creek

(38)
(39)

AGENDA ITEM NO:

Driving Action In Priority Catchments Through Working Groups

REPORT: Christchurch West Melton

Zone Committee DATE OF MEETING: 27 November 2014 REPORT BY: Matthew Ross, Facilitator APPROX 40MINS

PURPOSE

 To establish working groups to drive action in priority catchments.  To agree purpose, function and direction for working groups.

BACKGROUND

The committee discussed a proposed approach for using working groups as a tool to drive delivery of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy at a workshop on 23 October 2014: There was broad agreement by committee members at the workshop on purpose, form, function, and direction.

The draft approach (attached) has been prepared by the Zone Facilitator based on the workshop for discussion and agreement by the full committee. The draft work programmes included for working groups have been developed by committee members.

The draft approach would establish working groups to drive action in the following priority “catchments”:

 Cashmere Stream

 Addington Brook/Riccarton Stream  Heathcote/Ōpāwaho Catchment  Land Use & Unconfined Aquifers

ATTACHMENTS

 Driving Action In Priority Catchments Through Working Groups (circulated separately)

(40)
(41)

REPORT: Christchurch West Melton

Zone Committee DATE OF MEETING: 27 November 2014 REPORT BY: Matthew Ross, Facilitator APPROX 20MINS

PURPOSE

To receive an update from the Communications and Engagement Working Group, including the following items:

(a) A new stormwater micro video

(b) New micro videos for the Zone Committee 2014 Refreshment Process (c) Development of a temporary Stormwater Awareness Site on Hereford Street

(SWASH).

BACKGROUND

The Communications and Engagement Working Group has been providing advice and feedback to Environment Canterbury on the development of new micro-video resources and a temporary stormwater awareness site on Hereford Street.

The Communications and Engagement Working Group will verbally brief the committee on recent progress. Micro videos will be premiered at the meeting. The latest SWASH design graphic and project timeline will be tabled.

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :