Flood Modelling Report

Wark worth to Wellsford
Flood Modelling
Technical Report
July 2019
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Jacobs CHD Joint Venture in association with Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. Prepared subject to the
terms ofthe Professional Services Contract between the Client and Jacobs GHD Joint Venture
for the Route Protection and Consenting of the Warkworth to Wellsford Project.
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date
Final Mazhar Ali & Tim Fisher Brad Nobilo x” I; 1,!” 05/07/2019
Michelle {I- f/L/f/x" Hwy..-
Sands
Peter Kinley A
Document title: Warkworth to Wellsford Project; Flood Modelling technical report
Revision: Final
Date: July 2019
Prepared by: Mazhar Ali and Michelle Sands (Jacobs New Zealand Limited)
Reviewed by: Tim Fisher (Tonkin & Taylor Limited) and Peter Kinley (Jacobs New
Zealand Ltd)
Approved by: Brad Nobilo (CHD Limited)
File name: Flood_Model|ing_Technical_Report_5Julyl9_F|NAL.Docx
The Jacobs GHD Joint Venture in association with Tonkin & Taylor Ltd has prepared this document for the sole use
of the NZ Transport Agency (the Client), subject to the terms of the Professional Services Contract between the
Client and Jacobs GHD Joint Venture for the Route Protection and Consenting ofthe Warkworth to Wellsford Project
and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. The Jacobs GHD Joint Venture accepts no
liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third
party. This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that this document may be made available to other persons for
an application for permission or approval or to fulfil a legal requirement.
JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

GLOSSARY AND DEFINED TERMS
Refer to the Water Assessment Report for a master glossary and defined terms table.
[l
5? JACOBS LE1? Ton kin +Taylar

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
©OO\IU1wI—\H
1.1 Project background
1.2 Project features
1.3 Purpose and structure of this report
1.4 Identification of important crossings
1.5 Flood effects assessment [method]
1.6 Climate change
2 MAHURANGI RIVER 12
2.1 Extent and boundaries 12
2.2 Hydrology 14
2.3 Hydraulic model setup 16
2.4 Peak flows at the Mahurangi River flow gauge 19
2.5 Results 20
3 KOURAWHERO STREAM 47
3.1 Extent and boundaries 47
3.2 Hydrology 47
3.4 Comparison of model results with rapid flood hazard assessment map of
Auckland Council 50
3.5 Results 51
4 HOTEO RIVER 65
4.1 Extent of hydraulic model 66
4.2 Hydrology 68
4.4 Comparison of model results with observed hydrographs and rapid flood hazard
assessment map of Auckland Council 74
4.5 Results 77
5 MITIGATION PLANTING ALONG THE HOTEO AND MAHURANGI RIVERS 93
6 FLOOD MODELLING LIMITATIONS 99
7 CONCLUSIONS 100
8 REFERENCES 101
APPENDIX A: HOTEO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 102
JACOBS |firl=1| Tonkin+Taylor

1 INTRODUCTION
The NZ Transport Agency (Transport Agency) is lodging a Notice of Requirement (NOR) and
applications for resource consent (collectively referred to as “the Application”) for the
Warkworth to Wellsford Project (the Project).
The Project involves the construction, operation and maintenance of a new four lane state
highway. The route is approximately 26 km long. The Project commences at the interface
ū
with the PUhoi to Warkworth project (P—Wk) near Woodcocks Road. It passes to the west of
the existing State Highway 1 (SH1) alignment near The Dome, before crossing SH1 just
south ofthe Hoteo River. North ofthe Hoteo River the Project passes to the east of Wellsford
and Te Hana, bypassing these centres. The Project ties into the existing SH1 to the north
of Te Hana near Maeneene Road. The proposed designation boundary and Indicative
Alignment are shown in Figure 1.
For description purposes the Project has been divided into the following sections (as shown
in Figure 1). These sections also reflect the indicative construction programme and
sequencing.
a) Southern Section: From the southern extent of the Project at Warkworth to the
northern tunnel portal.
b) Central Section: From the northern tunnel portal to the Hoteo River (southern
abutment.
c) Northern Section: From the Hoteo River (northern abutment) to the northern tie in
with existing SH1 near Maeneene Road.
[
JACOBS |fifi| Tonkin+Taylor

I“ \\\ ’:_::_—~.__ — :-\\
Illlllli' \_ .’ fir—F 13W 4%
-' :344’0
III, #3 9514341"
IL__.,| i-' '{1'1
Q‘\ {3\
z N“ ’5}! .u- ‘5’ . //\ o «3‘

fig; REF-5:?! m sC—t_::f/ \‘1 (9‘; 1
’Pfl
/,-- Jr" | I
(2.7 W! a. I“. ///,|’|
£7} .._"° :1 ”I 3."

\S-"h , _ : ::£_://f“§\\o\° ’r' 3g 4 11'
gr? x4; E- 33
_., ‘t /J I
_
(K mr \‘L'Jf/ \ /
I"; I gift” ‘13:. \\Mf&
31'.‘ EM]? 9915'“. .F‘:;‘ L o K 591;:/
93‘: ’1'
1i,"—
l;ll
Latex-m
1’: 1’6” \‘ '3't
=—-
,4}: ‘ z {3 ‘3 31)::
_:-:‘iii—1‘!)- I :57," 1&9?4 /' 55' (g
' whit-c
. Nag H‘:‘.'_-‘_ .tu
.rr P ‘ "\_.-;:;”
fle‘36—_-@°
\
' \i‘ /II‘IIIII& I|II"II|
”if i] {I in
/v- '
13-.
‘33 315,-]j 3/3 \- fl
if?" . )13:
fs’ ,5" rig-4b
F; L {’i a? _____ fl/ rr:::;;’7/
"'=‘=-”~‘<{zi‘ ELLE-$953.0 V4 niig _ if .57

TC?
_,_—— .4‘-:::1:::_""f x'fi::jii’_ '_'§:‘:’:{}fil
. -a'- ' J ‘ “We h
flew-"3
.- _.—- l
"-3 .
.J
,fi' \
I'. / .
per-r
Il’l' 4‘0
“41‘Il- f‘x":
qt—
at RD
._::::‘I - :::_r A
(55..
" 33“
U r '3 a;
I‘ _
. llé’
"3",; . if
,- mn-A’KF“:
ht‘. f—Jz/f/‘l
/
f RH— Ffiijff“:__\\;_
\___\\r 2%
‘5w
oj/"«§;%® 1152/
\4,
‘-. —.39p
fl -. 1-
Wellsford «9 gm-
3 Hr-
33g; 31:5” \? G$V Nix. fig-£951.;
5.! rfi—x :____ _/' \
‘E {.x y?/ I'll. —._3__,, \‘g
we;-
”£31414
«r,-
a W REA
et; ; ‘ r 17 J’l—é—i //
3:!
:>‘:- ”\
‘3"
69/ \t‘? g.
\3,
~ "’3‘eg- a???
.--'3:\ 'h" “"1Fir4-t a»: La- I \ - _J “-3561, 33,
:— —-———:\\_
\fim
‘12-... PRIC 1133,59
rift“ {L30
"\‘1’ "“‘*I2
a: twp
$0
:13 _ _ \Lsgig:
a,
"‘13. “Q“
“efiewfift’ ‘—' -.‘://,/
.l .
\EIK I {4:31
it:
\"3 335’
CIT/1.4: ’:‘_
HOTEO NORTH 13-; 'IVI’
A NORTH 33:?”—
.
J Proposed 7K. HOTEO SOUTH y ‘3-3 $3i,4? Y CENTRAL

‘ desrgnatlon it .- ELL It] erg—£5"-
boundary 733‘. ‘._

55 '“~ T30
$39_,r::$*-:— “P A 5.42» ,P
. 47“"
Pfihoi to Warkworth r? '\\
‘x
Alignment 4”a l L
_
{Pr/la—
6'
H Indicative
r" Alignment
wee»'3;
ire-111$.
Existing State
highway “infill-:-
“j; :3: ::
//"’
"749:?5
.‘l «223‘ j, V...
D. __J_;l~,
ii
- Whangarei _.f;-,3n Warkworth
,_ Fr —-"J;-..(_
{._ _.
4‘1
'\
'f}
‘tw be; 7’
c
\J
/
it?
3;;
h.—
5’
$15.3.“
’I
.x "l
A f: ‘5 "I?
_, . r35”);
_
, 1‘3»
£1:-
El ‘II "x: N]
.- \I
H Avr'T-‘BN RD
l’" l/(1,79% V“::q
_~-—""':—_3§\/l it"II
"' I)? ital-L 4'
’III H\_fi
5’2 “-. g»
- Auckland “53v:-
“it"
‘rf
': m
,_ DENNEEE _... .. é‘j"
“—-f—""“>“\\’v'- -' '- __.3___ _ - '- " r; a
..-:_-;-.%""H
Figure 1 — Project Sections and Indicative Alignment
The proposed designation boundary and freshwater catchments relevant to the Project are
shown in Figure 2 below
JACOBS LPN-5| Tonkin+Taylor

2
ahurangi River t
' (left branch)
I
RANGI
E Proposed designation
boundary
m Minor Catchments
Major Catchments .:_ _ 5i - _
-
- Hoteo River ‘- - - -.; .1 _ a ' : (rightRfbr n
- Mahurangi River _
- Oruawharo River
Figure 2 — Proposed designation boundary and freshwater catchments
1.2 Project featu res

The key features of the Project, based on the Indicative Alignment, are as follows:
a) A new four lane dual carriageway state highway, offline from the existing State
Highway 1, with the potential for crawler lanes on the steeper grades.
b) Three interchanges as follows:
i. ū
Warkworth Interchange, to tie—in with the Puhoi to Warkworth section of state
highway and provide a connection to the northern outskirts of Warkworth.
<5
.‘JACOBS' Wronkimraylor
ii. Wellsford Interchange, located at Wayby Valley Road to provide access to
Wellsford and eastern communities including Tomarata and Mangawhai.
iii. Te Hana Interchange, located at Mangawhai Road to provide access to Te Hana,
Wellsford and communities including Port Albert, Tomarata and Mangawhai.
c) Twin bore tunnels under Kraack Road, each serving one direction, which are
approximately 850 metres long and approximately 180 metres below ground level
at the deepest point.
d) A series of steep cut and fills through the forestry area to the west of the existing
SHl within the Dome Valley and other areas of cut and fill along the remainder of
the Project.
e) A viaduct (or twin bridge structures) approximately 485 metres long, to span over
the existing SH1 and the Hoteo River.
f) A tie in to existing SHl in the vicinity of Maeneene Road, including a bridge over
Maeneene Stream.
g) Changes to local roads:
i. Maintaining local road connections through grade separation (where one
road is over or under the other). The Indicative Alignment passes over
Woodcocks Road, Wayby Valley Road, Whangaripo Valley Road, Mangawhai
Road and Maeneene Road. The Indicative Alignment passes under Kaipara
Flats Road, Rustybrook Road, Farmers Lime Road and Silver Hill Road.
ii. Realignment of sections of Wyllie Road, Carran Road, Kaipara Flats Road,
Phillips Road, Wayby Valley Road, Mangawhai Road, Vipond Road, Maeneene
Road and Waimanu Road.
iii. Closing sections of Phillips Road, Robertson Road, Vipond Road and
unformed roads affected by the Project.
h) Associated works including bridges, culverts, drainage, stormwater treatment
systems, soil disposal sites, signage, lighting at interchanges, landscaping,
realignment of access points to local roads, and maintenance facilities.
i) Construction activities, including construction yards, lay down areas for storage of
materials and establishment of construction access and haul roads.
A full description of the Project including its current design, construction and operation is
provided in Section 4: Description of the Project and Section 5: Construction and Operation
of the AEE contained in Volume 1 and shown on the Drawings in Volume 3.
The Indicative Alignment is a preliminary alignment for a state highway that could be
constructed within the proposed designation boundary. The assessment within this flood
modelling report considers the effects of the Indicative Alignment, but also considers the
sensitivity to effects if the alignment shifts within the proposed designation boundary when
the design is finalised.
The final alignment for the Project (including the detailed design and location of associated
works including bridges, culverts, stormwater management systems, soil disposal sites,
signage, lighting at interchanges, landscaping, realignment of access points to local roads,
and maintenance facilities), will be refined and confirmed at the detailed design stage.
P!
hi JACOBS | [:15 | Tonkin +Taylor
The Flood Modelling Technical Report (this Report) forms part of a suite of water related
ū
design and technical reports prepared for the Ara Tuhono ū
— Puhoi to Wellsford — Warkworth
to Wellsford section (the Project).
These reports are listed below with a short description of each:
•. Water Assessment Report (WAR) — This report contains a summary of the work
carried out and assessment of water related effects associated with construction
and operation of the Project.
•. Flood Modelling technical report (This report) — A model has been developed to
predict any changes to flood risk associated with the Project. This report
summarises any changes.
•. Construction Water Management Design technical report — This report contains
indicative details of the proposed construction methodology, proposed erosion and
sediment controls (ESCs), and other construction phase mitigation measures
recommended to reduce and erosion and sediment laden stormwater discharges
from entering the receiving environment during construction.
•. Operational Water Design technical report — This report contains details of the
operational stormwater management and other operational phase mitigation by
deflgn.
•. Existing Water Quality technical report — This report summarises water quality
monitoring carried out by Auckland Council and for the Project.
•. Catchment Sediment Modelling technical report — Sediment models have been
developed to predict changes in sediment and water quality within receiving
watercourses associated with the Project. This report summarises the modelling
methodology and results.
•. Operational Water - Road Runoff technical report — An assessment has been
carried out to predict changes to water quality in relation to the Project and
pollutants.
•. Hydrological technical report — Catchment analysis has been developed to predict
catchment wide hydrological changes associated with the Project. This report
summarises predicted changes to the hydrological environment.
The purpose of this report is to describe the findings of the flood modelling related to the
loss of flood storage and changes to flow path due to the location of the Indicative
Alignment within the floodplain and due to the crossings of rivers and streams. The results
of the modelling have been used to identify changes to flooding in areas that are expected
to have potential to be affected by the Indicative Alignment. The findings of this report will
inform the Water Assessment Report and the Assessment of Effects on the Environment
(AEE). Figure 3 below summarises the relationship between each of the water related
technical and assessment reports and the AEE.
P!
AEE
(Assessment of Effects on the Environment}
Marine Ecology I I Ecology

“'6' Assessment Report ' ' ' Assessment Report
Assessment
Reports
1Water Assessment Report

.—. Construction Water Operational Water -:
r, I: -.
A ' Catchment Operational Hydrological Flood

siissmenlt Sediment Water — Road Assessment — Modelling —
: dIoasta Modelling — Runoff — Technical Technical
water Tecnmcal __ . e Iment Technical Report Technical Report Report Report
Reports " .g. a. a
Construction Water Existing Operational

Management Water Quality , I I Water Design—
Design — Technical — Technical Technical
Report Report Report
Figure 3 — Flood Modelling Technical Report — relationship to other reports
The scope of this report is to describe the models used to simulate the existing scenario
and modifications made to the model to include the proposed works. The models have been
run with the 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI floods including an allowance for climate change.
The results from this report are used as the basis for assessment of flooding effects in the
Water Assessment Report.
The structure of this Report is as follows:
• Section 1 describes the Project, the purpose of this report and the methods adopted
for flood assessment.
• Section 2 discusses the flood model built for the Mahurangi Catchment and the
changes to the extents of flooding due to the Indicative Alignment proposed within
the floodplain.
• Section 3 describes the hydraulic model constructed for the Kourawhero Catchment
and the impact of Indicative Alignment, culverts and bridges on flooding.
• Section 4 discusses the flood model built for the Hoteo Catchment and the changes
to the extents of flooding due to the Indicative Alignment proposed within the
floodplain.
• Section 5 presents the impact of mitigation planting proposed by the ecologists
and landscape architects within the Mahurangi and Hoteo Catchments on flooding.
• Section 6 presents the model limitations; and
• Section 7 discusses the conclusions made on basis of results obtained from the
flood models.

The proposed Warkworth to Wellsford Indicative Alignment passes through the catchments
of Mahurangi, Hoteo, Te Hana and Maeneene. Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment (RFHA) maps
developed for the 100—year ARI event by Auckland Council show the locations where
flooding is predicted to occur. The proposed designation boundary was overlaid across the
flood extents and shows that the Indicative Alignment coincides with the flood extents at
many locations (Figure 4).
,J '2. ll Te Hana Creek? ’ x. - _‘ ' t . film—““33““

6945‘!” iffi: Catchment/"5% ~. ' . 'T 3 i. . ’ “A33
A ,.::,_ :1: of ,.
«7 ,ii KV\\ ,- S l s:
{f .4 I“ ll ‘i:_ Wells ord‘\§ ' " “wrap;
. lift id? Ellie w:\ fi5\ ,, . ii _
fl
LTl +, l ll—T/ r“ :S lily Egg;
‘ 1"" ill
" .1" ' l
6Eit is;
<2r?) «4
“ 9,.
. a .x f ’r J
l /;\_.J/; Err” ’ if Kb 4;}!
i“. if}? likes/fl; [if if
E} (El iii \, l /,;:i
[5L Ar
,5} J / ltE—.___
a if a? l. _
i ll“Ki:- \..\
.z'o ilk}
a;RE?“ \tf‘;1
HE} X
it a
rare?
. L. -
'5'3‘.»
l-WLI Hr?“ E; _./ 1' d. Eng-tin}
1::s\ ' x _ "' J l l \ A—zzf-tseffi lg— fihQfi—‘ifizdg
few 1: J is
O High Flood Risk Area (FE of;
{:3 Catchment Boundary \‘ {irififimq‘ i [MI/S [2)“
‘ Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment Map (AC) -: Wig} Q3??? f" E
um. i
E Proposed designation boundary ‘- ll 0 :- I???
— Indicative Alignment 4 5 km
I l I l
1“)
__.}J‘;‘r:4‘i‘::’?ssa J”
Figure 4 — Catchment Boundaries with Indicative Alignment and rapid flood hazard
assessment map (source: Auckland Council)
:l'JACOBS
There are three high flood risk areas where the Indicative Alignment may exacerbate the
flooding in Mahurangi, Kourawhero (a tributary of the Hoteo River) and Hoteo catchments
(Figure 4). In this study, Maeneene and Te Hana catchments are screened out of modelling
and assessment at an early stage as the Project will have minimal interactions with these
catchments and the risk of adverse flood effects are low and can be managed in detailed
design using consent conditions for flood performance. In view of this, the impact of the
Indicative Alignment on flood depth was assessed at the following three locations by
developing hydraulic models:
•. Mahurangi River and its tributaries crossings.
•. Crossings of Hoteo tributary (Kourawhero Stream) south of the proposed tunnel.
•. Areas along Wayby Valley Road due to flood water from the north branch of the
Hoteo River.
For assessing the effects of the Project on the flood levels in Mahurangi, Kourawhero and
Hoteo catchments (Figure 4), the floods of 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI event were adopted,
with an allowance for climate change to 2130.
Flood models have previously been built and studies undertaken by third parties for the
Mahurangi catchment. The methodologies used and the models created in the previous
work were assessed and, as far as possible, adapted for use on the Project. For the
Kourawhero and Hoteo catchment new models were developed for this assessment.
A hydrological and hydraulic model for the Mahurangi catchment was developed by
Auckland Council using Infoworks ICM software. The Auckland Council model was revised
for the P—Wk project (Northern Express Group, 2018), and this model was adopted for this
study. Hydrological inputs used in this assessment were based on the rainfall profiles
derived for undertaking flood assessment for P—Wk project and rainfall depths were
transformed into runoff using the methodology as described in the Auckland Regional
Council’s “Technical Publication 108 — Guidelines for stormwater runoff modelling in the
Auckland Region” (1999), which is referred to in this report as TP108.
A new hydraulic model was constructed for the Kourawhero Stream using MIKE Flood
software. Hydrological inputs to the model were based on flows derived by following the
methodology as described in TP108.
A hydraulic model was constructed for the Hoteo floodplain in the vicinity of the southern
end of Wayby Valley Road using MIKE Flood software. Hydrological inputs to the model were
based on area—adjusted flood—frequency analysis from the flow gauge ‘Hoteo River at
Cubbs’, using the area adjustment method specified in the NZTA Bridge Manual (Third
Edition, May 2016). Climate change to the year 2130 was accounted for by adopting factors
as outlined in section 1.6. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken using TP108 derived flows.
P!
8
Current guidance from Ministry for the Environment (MfE) provides tools for estimating the
effects of future climate change on extreme (storm) rainfall through until the year 2090.
For the Project, the effects of climate change were considered for 100 years post—road
construction, i.e., approximately 2130. This section outlines the proposed method for
allowing for the effects of climate change to 2130 for the flood modelling of the Project.
The proposed method consists of three aspects:
•. Evaluation of projected changes in seasonal and annual mean temperature from

baseline to 2130.
•. Evaluation of projected changes in extreme rainfall based on the projected changes

in temperature from baseline to 2130.
•. Evaluation of projected changes in flood magnitude based on the projected changes

in extreme rainfall from baseline to 2130.
The proposed method refers to the following documents:
•. MfE (2010): Tools for Estimating the Effects of Climate Change on Flood Flows: A
guide for local government in New Zealand.
•. MfE (2016): Climate Change Projections for New Zealand: Atmosphere Projections
Based on Simulations from the |PCC Fifth Assessment.
•. Opus (2014): Peka Peka to North Otaki Expressway Effects of Major Watercourse
Crossings on Floods Adjusted for Possible Climate Change to 2130.
The most recent climate change projections for New Zealand were reported by MfE (2016)
and focus on the future changes in New Zealand climate out to 2101—2120 relative to a
current—climate ‘baseline’ of 1986—2005. The report draws on the |PCC Fifth Assessment
Report climate model simulations, downscaled to New Zealand. The projected changes
between 1986—2005 and 2101—2120 for the Northland and Auckland regions are given in
Table 1 for the models that have data available beyond 2100. The changes are given for
three RCPs where the ensemble average is taken over four models. The values in each
column of Table 1 represent the ensemble average, and in brackets the range (5th to 95th
percentile) over all models within that ensemble.
Table 1 — Projected changes in seasonal and annual mean temperature (in oC) between 1986—
2005 and 2101—2120 for Northland and Auckland regions
Summer Autumn Winter Spring Annual

4.1 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.7
rcp 8.5
(2.9, 5.9) (3.0, 5.5) (2.7, 4.5) (2.8, 4.2) (2.9, 5.0)
M d 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7
NO” a” rcp 4'5 (1.1, 2.5) (1.2, 2.3) (1.0, 2.2) (1.0, 2.2) (1.2, 2.2)
0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8
rcp 2.6
(0.2, 1.3) (0.3, 1.3) (0.5, 1.2) (0.3, 1.2) (0.4, 1.3)
HJACOBS |fifi| Tonkin+Taylor

9
Summer Autumn Winter Spring Annual
4.1 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.8
rcp 8.5
(2.9, 6.1) (3.0, 5.6) (2.8, 4.7) (2.7, 4.3) (2.9, 5.2)
kl d 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7
Auc 5‘” rcp 4'5 (1.1, 2.9) (1.2, 2.3) (1.0, 2.2) (1.0, 2.2) (1.2, 2.3)
0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
rcp 2.6
(0.0, 1.5) (0.3, 1.4) (0.4, 1.2) (0.4, 1.2) (0.4, 1.3)
Of note, there is little difference between the projections for Northland and Auckland, with
the mid—range scenario (rcp 4.5) results being identical.
We have adopted the mid—range scenario results (for rcp 4.5) to incorporate the effects of
climate change into the Project design. This approach gives a projected mean annual
temperature increase between 1986—2005 and 2101—2120 for the Project area of 1.7°C.
Analysis of large floods in the Hoteo River indicates that most (70%) of the annual maximum
floods over the last 40 years have occurred during winter. The mid—range scenario increase
in winter temperature through until 2101—2120 is 1.6°C. Thus adopting an increase of
1.7°C is deemed to be appropriate.
The temperature changes projected in MfE (2016) are through to 2101—2120, taken to be
2110. Linear extrapolation of the trend in annual mean temperature change from 2110 to
2130 gives a temperature change from 1986—2005 to 2130 of 2.0°C. Linear extrapolation
appears reasonable (Figure 5).
2.5 -
Change in annual mean temperature
E
3
E 22 _
g. Mean
—O—Mean
E
3
C 1.5 - _ _ Upper
(deg C)
8 0
E 8
wg 3 1 — Lower
C
(U
.5
CI.) -O— Extrapolation of mean
0.0 0.5
C
(U
change
_C
u
0O {; l l l l l l l
1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130
Figure 5 — Projected changes in annual mean temperature, baseline to 2130
MfE (2010) give percentage adjustment factors to apply to extreme rainfall totals per
percent change in temperature between 1990 and 2090. We have assumed that the
adjustment factors also apply to projected changes in temperature beyond 2090 (Le. to
2130), as was also assumed by Opus (2014).
H JACOBS fih—J‘l Tonkin+Taylor

10
The TP108 method for estimating peak flows was utilised for the Kourawhero and
Mahurangi catchments. TP108 uses a rainfall duration of 24 hours. The adjustment factors
(percentage increase in rainfall per 1°C temperature increase) to apply to the 24—hour
rainfall depths for ARIs of 2 years to 100 years, from MfE 2010, are shown in Table 2.
Assuming a 2°C increase in temperature for the Project area, through to 2130, the
adjustment factors to apply to rainfall for the Project are given in the bottom row of Table
2.
Table 2 — Proposed adjustment factors to apply to 24—hour storm rainfall depths for 2 to 100
year ARls, for the Project
ARI (Year) 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year 50 Year 100 Year
Adjustment factor per 1°C

increase 1.043 1.054 1.063 1.072 1.080 1.080
AdJPStment
Pr0ject
law” for the 1.086 1.108 1.126 1.144 1.160 1.160
It is noteworthy that mean winter rainfall is projected to remain approximately the same
(1% increase for a mid—range scenario) by 2101—2120 (MfE, 2016). Thus, although extreme
(storm) rainfalls are likely to increase due to the projected temperature increase, overall
catchment conditions such antecedent moisture conditions during the season when most
floods occur in the Hoteo River are not predicted to substantially change.
For the Hoteo River, design flood peaks have been derived by flood frequency analysis using
flow gauging records of Gubbs station, instead of adopting methodology of TP108. The
guidance given by MfE (2010) is for adjusting extreme rainfall to account for the effects of
climate change, rather than for adjusting peak flows.
In other recent state highway projects (Peka Peka to Otaki — PP20 and MacKays to Peka Peka
— M2PP), a flood frequency analysis methodology was used to calculate peak flows on the
large rivers (Otaki and Waikanae) with the climate change increases applied to peak flow
(Opus, 2014).
The methodology applied in PP20 and M2PP analysed relationships between rainfall and
flow at the river gauges. For M2PP a 5% increase in flow to rainfall was applied, while in the
case of PP20 the increase for rainfall and flow were equivalent.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyse the relationship between rainfall and flow of the
Hoteo River at Gubbs Station due to the relative location ofthe rainfall gauges. Furthermore,
the location of rainfall and flow gauges has made it challenging to develop a calibrated
rainfall runoff model in this catchment.
Hence, to determine what climate change factor should be applied to flows in the Hoteo
catchment, we analysed the TP108 rainfall runoff models that were developed for the
culvert design. As a result of this analysis we found that the increase of flow was about
26.4%, when the flows estimated without and with climate change were compared.

11
2 MAHURANGI RIVER
The Indicative Alignment crosses the Mahurangi floodplain in a number of locations as
shown in Figure 6. There are two causes for potential increase in flood level in this area
from the Indicative Alignment:
•. Loss of flood storage and changes to flow paths due to the location of road
embankments within the floodplain.
•. Bridges associated with connecting ramps affecting the flood capacity of the left
tributary of the Mahurangi River.
. IIK‘E
fitfiEET
Important
Crosssi' -s _
_ _.i
f
D I
g. Warkwor n ‘Qfi r
M9040
aw Dan/0
Fig. I it)???
MA
: Culverts Puhoi to Warkwerth
= Culverts WW2W
1 - Bridge
I - Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment (AC)
'1- a! . — Indicative Alignment WW2W
' - h. a _- Alignment Pflhoi to Warkworth
4i i _ -! "'-. " 1 //
Figure 6 — Important crossings in the Mahurangi catchment
The flood model of the Mahurangi Catchment built for P—Wk project (Northern Express
Group, 2018) was obtained for this study, which is referred to in this report as P—Wk model.
The model was built in accordance with the Auckland Council Standard Stormwater
Hydraulic Modelling Specifications, as per the Mahurangi River Catchment Flood Hazard
Mapping Report by Auckland Council (2017).
While revising Auckland Council’s model for the P—Wk project, the extents of the 2D surface
and 1D model were not modified (Northern Express Group, 2018). The urban, future urban
and some rural parts of the Mahurangi Catchment were represented by 2D surface, while
the remainder of the catchment was modelled with lumped hydrology connected to the 1D
models of the streams. The specific land use of the future urban area has not been
LE? Tonkin+Taylor
12
considered in the flood assessment of the Indicative Alignment. It is appropriate to assume
that the flood effects of future development will be addressed by the developer at the time
of development. The Mahurangi River and its left and right branches and major tributaries
were modelled in 1D as shown below in Figure 7.
To perform flood assessment for P—Wk project, the P—Wk State Highway alignment, stream
diversions, culverts and a bridge were included in the 2D extent. Besides these
modifications, changes were also introduced in the hydrological parameters in order to
match the P—Wk hydrological assessments.
The details of these changes are provided in subsequent sections of this report.

l
13
I:
I - - -I Mahurangi catchment
'- - - boundary
Culverts PDhoi to
Warkworth
__ Culverts WWZW
- Bridges
Indicative Alignment
Alignment PL'rhoi to
” Warkwonh
1D River Reach (AC)
2D zone (AC)
Figure 7 — 1D and 2D Zones of the P—Wk’s Mahurangi River catchment hydraulic model
As per Mahurangi River Catchment Flood Hazard Mapping Report of Auckland Council
(2017), the guidelines outlined in TP108 were adopted to model stormwater catchment
runoff in Infoworks ICM software. The flood flows estimated using the TP108 methodology
are conservative (larger) when compared to flood flows estimated from the statistical record
using the flood frequency analysis method.
I! ,
5‘ JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor
14
In Auckland Council’s model, the TP108 method was parameterised as follows:
•. Rainfall depths and pattern: derived from TP108 isohyet maps and increased for
climate change by multiplying rainfall depths with factors as given below in Table
3. Developed rainfall patterns based on TP108 having peak rainfall intensity at mid—
duration.
•. Time of concentration: calculated using the empirical lag equation given in TP108
(Equation 4.3 on page 12). A minimum time of concentration of 10 minutes was
adopted, as per TP108.
•. Initial abstraction: adopted 0 mm for impervious areas and 5 mm for pervious areas,
as per TP108.
•. Curve number: assigned using tables supplied in TP108 (Appendix B). As per
Auckland Council’s Mahurangi River Catchment Flood Hazard Mapping report, curve
numbers selected based on land use and soil types.
As described earlier, the P—Wk model was obtained for the flood assessment of the
Indicative Alignment. In order to estimate flows comparable with the flows obtained from
flood frequency analysis based on empirical data, the following modifications were
introduced for the P—Wk project as key hydrological parameters in the Auckland Council
model:
•. Revised Curve Numbers (CN) for all the sub—catchments;
•. Modified time of concentration (> 10 minutes) of sub—catchments; and
•. Two models were constructed for each of the pre and post development scenarios
using CN66 and CN74. Besides CN and time of concentration, the rainfall depths
were also revised for the P—Wk model.
In this study for the Project, the modifications introduced for the P—Wk project were adopted
for flood assessment of the Indicative Alignment.
The effects of climate change on rainfall depths as at 2130 are incorporated into the design
hydrology of the Mahurangi catchment. The method used for incorporating the effects of
climate change is to increase the rainfall depths of different return periods by the factors
in Table 3 (refer to Section 1.6).
Table 3 — Climate change adjustment factors for different return periods
ARI (year) 2 1o 20 100

Adjustment factor for the Project 1.086 1.126 1.144 1.160
Adjustment factor as per Mahurangi River Catchment
Flood Hazard Mapping Report of Auckland Council 1.091 1.132 1.151 1.168
(2017)
The above climate change adjustment factors were derived using the information provided
in MfE (2016), based on a mid—range climate change temperature increase scenario to
H .
H JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor
15
2090, linearly extrapolated to 2130, and assuming an 8% increase in rainfall intensity per
1°C increase in temperature (MfE, 2010).
The climate change adjustment factors derived by Auckland Council (2017) were adopted
to include the impact of climate change to 2130 for the Mahurangi Catchment. This
approach is the same as that adopted for P—Wk model (Table 3).
A LIDAR derived DEM with a grid size of 1 m x 1 m procured from Auckland Council was
used as a ground model in Infoworks ICM based hydraulic model of the Mahurangi
Catchment.
The hydraulic model of the Mahurangi Catchment obtained from Auckland Council
comprises of 775 sub—catchments. To study the impact of Indicative Alignment, culverts
(CLVT_MCGO_280 to CLVT_49500) and bridges on flood levels, the sub—catchments located
along the Indicative Alignment were either split or merged in order to include the effect of
the Indicative alignment on catchment boundaries. For assessing the cumulative Project
and P—Wk road impacts on flooding, the 2D Zone was extended in the south to include the
sub—catchments located along both of these road alignments as shown in Figure 8.
Besides this, adjustments were made to two key parameters (Curve Number — CN and time
of concentration) of Auckland Council’s model in order to achieve a better match between
the model and the gauge data. According to the P—Wk flood model report (Northern Express
Group, 2018), CN66 and CN74 were used for all the sub—catchments in order to develop
two models, one relating to each CN number. Besides changes to CN values, the sub—
catchments with a time of concentration greater than 10 min were identified and their times
of concentration were revised. Like the P—Wk model, two models were also developed for
this study by introducing the above modifications into Auckland Council’s model.
In addition to CN and time of concentration, the rainfall depths were also adjusted and were
determined on the basis of detailed hydrological assessment for CN66 (Northern Express
Group, 2018). The rainfall depths adopted for this modelling are given below in Table 4.
Table 4 — 24 hr design rainfall depths including climate change derived for CN66 (source:
Northern Express Group, 2018)
ARI (Year)
Rainfall Depth (mm) 151 194 223 251 285 307
In contrast to the use of above rainfall depths for CN66, the rainfall depths including the
impact of climate change as reported in Mahurangi River Catchment Flood Hazard Mapping
Report of Auckland Council (2017) were adopted for CN74 as suggested in P—Wk Flood
Model Report (Northern Express Group, 2018).
In both Auckland Council model and P—Wk Model, the areas along the Mahurangi River and
its tributaries within 2D Zone (Figure 7) were represented with fine resolution mesh and a
coarse mesh was used for the elevated areas. The fine resolution mesh has maximum
triangle area of 10 m2 and minimum element area of 5 m2, while the size of elevated areas’
mesh have a maximum triangle area of 100 m2 and a minimum element area of 25 m2.
Based on these models, the same features were adopted to develop fine and coarse
resolution mesh for the revised 2D zone (Figure 8).
H .
H JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
16
In both Auckland Council model and P—Wk model, the modelled stormwater network is the
same and Table 5 below summarises the components of Auckland Council’s Mahurangi
model:
Table 5 — Summary of hydraulic model components
Hydraulic model components Values

Pipe network
Total number of stormwater network system nodes 1,082
Total number of stormwater network system pipes 1,030
Total numbers of weirs 43
Total number of outlets 10
Total numbers of bridges 19

Total numbers of culverts 49
In addition to the culverts (49) modelled by Auckland Council (Table 5), the Project culverts
from CLVT_MCCO_280 to CLVT_49500 (14) were modelled as conduits in a 1D model with
a single dummy Outfall upstream and downstream inserted into the 2D model (Figure 9).
Besides these culverts, two new bridges (Bridge No. 5 and Bridge No. 6) proposed to cross
the left branch of the Mahurangi River located south of Kaipara Flats Road were modelled
(Figure 9).
The P—Wk alignment was included in both pre and post development scenarios, while this
Project’s Indicative Alignment was considered only in the post development scenario. The
culverts in the P—Wk alignment obtained from NZTA were also included in the model and
their locations are shown below in Figure 9.
For the pre and post development scenario, the models developed for CN66 and CN74 were
simulated for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events.
': JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

17
I‘ ‘ I,
‘ I -I/ ‘ Q
' _,s-' “
I . ”I
‘ r
I i 'l
l
‘ . if;
‘ £73",
I" {I
‘'
.:._'_ i. '. ‘
if
l ‘ I
‘_ 1.. {.r- “-3331'

_.-‘ .._
-
.a—-
.___.‘_-
-._ x—r”
. <'-‘_
:'
I - - -l Mahurangi catchment
'— - - boundary
Culverts PUhoi to
Warkworth
Culverts WW2W
- Bridges
— Indicative Alignment
Alignment PUhOi to
Warkworth
1D River Reach (AC)
20 zone (revised)
Mahurangi Urban Area
Figure 8 — Revised 2D zone of the Mahurangi hydraulic model
H .
@moas WTonkimTaylor 18
"4’3. CLVT_MCG1_280 CLVT MCGO 280
Kaipara Flats
a?
CLVT_MC10_2350 _ "x _ “t
I
.2:
CLVT_47850 . ,. »
9'; E-.-.-_T._,I,._
' . é? “vi-5:, -
- -.
CLVT M010 1660

. g ""0"
J .
CLVT_MCSO_400 . - CLVT_MC10_2180"§ 1.3: .

I
q.
I
CLVT_48400 _ ' CLVT MC10_1800 —

x.
. '7 _. _Bridge05 _,.

l'
i. g
CLVT_M030 1550 —
$91; -
. . .
CLVT_MCOO_520 _ - _ I...” _ . '

l
..
-
«“1. _ ._ “gig-1.x. 1- _ ‘3' BridgeP Wk ,

CLVT_MCOO_40 \ -.. -_., _
“'Q
.é_ _ -
l
_, CL _Mcyo_2oo - '~ CLVT__MCYO__1UO .'
fir" Woodcocks Road - ‘ CLVT 49500

' a
‘ .
Culverts Pfihoi to
Vllhrkwortl'l
= Culverts VWVZW
VWVZW
Alignment Pflhoi to
Whrkworth
- Bridges
ū
Figure 9 — Location of culverts and bridges for the Project (indicative) and Pfihoi to Warkworth
alignment
2.4 Peak flows at the Mahurangi River flow gauge

The purpose of this section is to compare the model outputs derived for this Project with
those derived by the P—Wk modelling approach. A good comparison would indicate
alignment with empirical flow gauge data from the geographic area.
After incorporating the changes in Auckland Council’s model as discussed in Section 2.3
for CN66 and CN74, the projected peak flows were found to be comparable with the peak
0"?»
H JACOBS- W Tonkin +Taylor
flows as reported in P—Wk flood model report (Northern Express Group, 2018) and as are
given below in Table 6. The results of P—Wk model and revised WW2W model (Table 6)
indicate that the revised model set up is suitable to support the flood assessment of the
Indicative Alignment.
For CN66, the projected peak flow of 100 Year ARI event is slightly higher (2.5%) than the
peak estimated for the same event as reported in P—Wk flood model report (Northern
Express Group, 2018). This is potentially due to either slight differences in subcatchments
along the Indicative Alignment caused by the splitting or merging of catchments. The peak
flows estimated for 2, 10 and 20 Year ARI events are also reasonably comparable (Table 6).
Similarly, the results for CN74 of 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events are also comparable
with the peak flows as reported in P—Wk flood model report (Northern Express Group,
2018).
Table 6 — Peak flows at the Mahurangi River flow gauge estimated for Pre—development
scenario
Peak Flows (m3/s) (source: Northern Estimated Peak Flows using revised
ARI Express Group, 2018) WW2W model (m3/s)
(Year) ———
CN66 CN74 CN66 CN 74
2 151 161 159 166
10 274 311 285 329
20 328 390 339 412
100 438 568 449 595
For our study, the flood assessment was undertaken for the Indicative Alignment and
associated design with major stream crossings where bridges are proposed to cross the left
branch of the Mahurangi River, and also at the minor stream crossings where culverts are
proposed.
Bridge No. 5 and Bridge No. 6 have indicative spans of 65.0 m and 110.0 m respectively,
with the bridge span and crest level based on road geometrics rather than by flood
hydraulics. At the detailed design stage, a bridge with smaller dimensions could increase
flood levels, but these effects may be able to be contained within the designation or be
within acceptable levels. The requirements for detailed design of bridges and culverts are
best informed by performance based resource consent conditions.
The projected flood levels obtained for CN66 and CN74 at proposed bridges for the 100
Year ARI event are given below in Table 7 and Table 8.
H .
7 JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor
20
Table 7 — Predicted Flood Levels at Bridges for the 100 Year ARI Event for CN66
Predicted Flood Level (m) Projected

Increase in
Pre— Post— Flood Depth
Development Development (m)
Proposed
Mahurangi Bridge 65.0 40.2 36.65 36.70 0.05
(Bridge 5)
Proposed
(Bridge 6)
Table 8 — Predicted Flood Levels at Bridges for the 100 Year ARI Event for CN74
Predicted Flood Level (m) Projected

Increase in
Pre— Post— Flood Depth
Development Development (m)
Proposed
(Bridge 5)
Proposed
(Bridge 6)
Figure 10 to Figure 13 show slight reductions in flow at Bridge 5 and Bridge 6 across the
left branch of the Mahurangi River obtained for CN66 and CN74, compared to pre—
development conditions.
a JACOBS fimnkinfiaylar
21
140
120
— Pre-Development
80
Flow (m3fs)
60
40
20
4 8 12 16 20 24
Tlme (Hours)
Figure 10 — Comparison of flow for 100 year ARI event at Bridge No. 5 Mahurangi left branch
bridge for CN66
140
120
—Pre-Development
100
80
Flow (m3r‘5)
60
40
20
4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours)
bridge for CN66
H .
6-5;) JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
22
200
175
A
l \ —Pre-Development
150
\
l — -Post-Development
125
/\
Flow (m3fs)
S
O
/\
: / \
25 / \
4 8 12 20 24
Time (Hours)
bridge for CN 74
200
175
—Pre-Development
150
— -Post-Development
125
Flow (m3fs)
100
75
50
25
4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours)
Figure 13 — Comparison of flow for 100 year ARI event at Bridge No.6 Mahurangi left branch
bridge for CN 74
ED
hi JACOBS' W Tonkin+Taylor
Figure 14 to Figure 21 show the flood extents obtained for CN66 and CN74 for 2, 10, 20
and 100 Year ARI events. The pre—development flood extent is plotted over the post—
development flood extent, so the change in flood extent where it is larger for post—
development can be seen. These figures show that the proposed State Highway structures
including embankment, bridges and culverts, only have a small impact on the extent of
flood inundation for the Mahurangi in this area. The change in flood extents are within the
defignaflon.
.o/
((9, ,
/:
k. ' J) arkworth
Culverts WW2W
— Culverts PUhoi to Warkworth 1
— Alignment Pflhoi to Warkworth
— Indicative Alignment WW2W 1
E Proposed designation boundary T
I: Pre—Development flood extent

:
- Post—Development flood extent
/ 2D zone revised J
. '2
° l 1 I I I
7
Figure 14 — Comparison of flood extents for pre and post—development scenarios for the 2
year ARI event obtained for CN66
H _
I-l JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor
24
-.
/
. e,—
~"“~\\ (49>
; ¥_/—J arkw ort h
'— Culverts WW2W
: Culverts PUhoi to Warkworth

— Alignment Puhoi to Warkworth
Indicative Alignment WW2W
E Proposed designation boundary
l:l Pre-Development flood extent
/ 2D zone revised
0 0.5 1 km
I I l l I
JACOBS firmkinnaylor
25
,1
‘1‘. I "
My
. xv. \
pitf‘.
f5 " \
ort
'— Culverts WW2W
: Culverts PUhoi to Warkworth 1

Indicative Alignment WW2W _‘
- Post—Development flood extent E#-
/ 2D zone revised J
o 0.5 1 km "
I I l l I 7
26
'— Culverts WW2W
: Culverts PUhoi to Warkworth

|:l Pre-Development flood extent
/ 2D zone revised
0 0.5 1 km
I I l l I
JACOBS LEI-IE Tonkin+Taylor

27
0 PD
as
/
«9’
Q arkw ort h
= Culverts WW2W
: Culverts Pl'Jhoi to Warkworth 1
— Alignment Pflhoi to Warkworth l
— Indicative Alignment WW2W I
I: Pre-Development flood extent

- Post-Development flood extent ,.
/ 2D zone revised 1
° 7
0.5 1 km
I I l l I
year ARI event obtained for CN 74
28
,1
. ‘5//__
<\ \_/—j arkwort h
= Culverts WW2W
: Culverts Pl'Jhoi to Warkworth

\li—Hfie—k’flw
— Indicative Alignment WW2W
l:l Pre-Development flood extent

- Post-Development flood extent
/ 2D zone revised
0 0.5 1 km
I I l l I
29
(54/
%
«9’'
Culverts WW2W
Culverts Pl'Jhoi to Warkworth
l:l Pre-Development flood extent

/ 2D zone revised
0.5 1 km
l I I
I JACOBS
LEI-IE Tonkin+Taylor
V/
W9;0
<82" .
arkworth
= Culverts WW2W
— Culverts Pl'Jhoi to Warkworth 1

E Proposed designation boundary X/
l:l Pre-Development flood extent I

/ 2D zone revised 1
° 7
0.5 1 km
I I l l I
31
Figure 22 to Figure 29 show the change in flood depth for the post development scenario
compared to pre development for 2, 10, 20, and 100 Year ARI events for CN66 and CN74.
These figures show that the proposed State Highway structures including embankment,
bridges and culverts, only have a small impact on the flood depths of flood inundation for
the Mahurangi in this area. The change in flood extents are within the designation.
Since the results obtained for both CN66 and CN74 are comparable (Figure 22 to Figure
29) and the peak discharge at the Mahurangi College gauge is a better match at CN66, the
results of CN66 are therefore adopted for this flood assessment.

l
32
e0“0
KM? PW F 5
Q I 0':- _ . ( \ ///
{3°
o ‘3’ ‘' \k
._ J1 Warkworth
HLIH‘IWVBB
2 Year ARI ““
|:| <-50 mm (Decrease) \
D -50 - 50 mm
1—.
_.
|:| 50- 100 mm

|:] 100-150 mm
S 150-250 mm 'l/
\\
-250-500mm I
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts WWZW
Culverts Puhoi to
Warkworth
Alignment PUhoi to
Warkworth
/’°\
/ boundary
0 1km
I I I
Figure 22 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 2 year ARI event obtained for
CN66
JACOBS LE1? Tonkin +Taylor

33
90
e ‘30
KN?P‘RP‘
‘9
\ /
{3°
\: J1 Wa rkworth
HLIH‘IWVBB
10 Year ARI
|:| <-50 mm (Decrease)
1—.
E -50 - 50 mm
_.
|:] 50-100mm
|:|100-150 mm
S 150-250 mm 'l/
\\
-250-500mm I
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts WWZW
Culverts Puhoi to
Warkworth

Alignment PUhoi to
Warkworth
/’°\
/ boundary
0 1km
I I I
CN66
JACOBS LE}? Tonkin+Taylor

34
90
e ‘30
KN?P‘RP‘
l \
{3’
2J1 arkworth
HLIH‘IWVBB
20 Year ARI
|:] <-50 mm
‘9'
1—.
|:] —50 - 50 mm O
_.
" Q”
|:| 50- 100 mm \J
59
|:|1oo-150 mm a?
.-
|:| 150—250 mm W
\\
-250-500mm I
-O.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5—2m
->2m
= Culverts WW2W
Culverts Pflhoi to
Warkworth

Alignment PUhoi to
Warkworth
/ boundary
0 1km
I I I
CN66

35
_/
90
e ‘30
KN?P‘RP‘
D ’- ‘ I [I /
0°.» -
{3°
\N .. a Wa rkworth
HLIH‘IWVBB
100 Year ARI

D -50 - 50 mm . '
1—.
_.
|:| 50 - 100 mm
|:] 100-150 mm
|:|150-250mm
\\
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts WWZW
Culverts Puhoi to
Warkworth
Alignment PUhoi to
Warkworth
/ boundary
0 1km
I I I
CN66

39’
Hl-‘WVBH
2 Year ARI
1—.
|:]-50-50mm
_.
|:|50-100mm
|:]100-150mm
|:|150—250mm
\\
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
= Culverts VWV2W 1
tl °\l
Culverts Pflhoi to
Warkworth

Alignment Panel to
Warkworth
/ E Proposed designation
boundary
CN 74
JACOBS "Fl-L? Ton kin +Taylor

37
39’
Hl-‘WVBH
10 Year ARI
1—.
|:] -50 - 50 mm
_.
|:] 50 - 100 mm
|:| 100- 150 mm
|:| 150—250 mm
\\
- 250- 500 mm
- 0.5 -1 m
- 1 - 1.5 m
= Culverts VWV2W
Culverts Pflhoi to
Warkworth

Alignment Panel to
Warkworth
boundary
0 1km
I I I
CN 74
JACOBS fill? Tonkin +TaYIor

38
0%
0‘???
Q.
'\\y‘5"//
‘9
4"?—
£% /
l
g; JJL Warkworth
g 20 Year ARI \/
2;; |:] <-50 mm (Decrease)
i |:| -50 - 50 mm
|:] 50 - 100 mm
|:] 100 - 150 mm \
j I: 150 — 250 mm .
- 250 - 500 mm
- 0.5 — 1 m '
- 1 -15 m \
- 1.5 2 m-
- >2 m 1-
= Culverts VWV2W
Culverts Pflhoi to
Warkworth
Alignment Pl‘Jhoi to
Warkworth
/ E Proposed designation I”
boundary 0
o 1 km "
I I I 7
CN 74
JACOBS "Fl-L? Ton kin +Taylor

39
3‘?
HLIH-‘WVBH
100 Year ARI

I: <-50 mm (Decrease)
1—.
|:|-50-50mm
_.
ESQ-100mm
:100-150mm
[:|150—250mm
\
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts WW2W
Culverts Pt'moi to
Warkworth

Alignment PUhoi to
/°\
Warkworth
boundary
CN 74
Figure 30 shows the change in flood depth for the post development scenario compared to
pre development for the 100 year ARI event at the Indicative Warkworth Interchange. The
areas, where the flood depth increases, are fully contained within the proposed designation
h-l JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

40
boundary and no dwellings outside the designation are affected by the increased flood
depth.
Upstream of CLVT_48700, the proposed increase of flood depth ranges from 50 to 250 mm
within the proposed designation boundary over the grassland. In addition to the
CLVT_48700, there is an increase of flood depth obtained upstream and downstream of
CLVT_484OO within the proposed designation boundary. This can be mitigated by including
diversion channels at the detailed design stage.

41
100 Year ARI
‘:| <—50 mm (Decrease)
|:|-50-50mm
|:|50-100mm
|:|100-150mm
-150-250mm
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
Culverts WW2W
Culverts PUhoi to
Warkworth
WW2W
'. 1: .- -.<-'
_ _
. ' -‘ ' I *‘ _."I -, - .- l‘ l’; . ' ‘
i ‘1‘. _: - _.-,l . L} ': _ . .1. ‘1‘.
-
_ ‘ ‘-_ . _ ' , - a ' .- ,

‘. ‘ ‘t __
‘j . - . x I _-__-"‘.\ \ .‘" ._ _ -.._ . _ . “I
Q .- ‘\. _ ' a, w
. _ . . f .' v I 1 .I ' 1.1- . . .
.;r .' e
Figure 30 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for 100 year ARI event obtained for
CN66 — Warkworth Interchange
The increase of flood depth upstream and downstream of culvert CLVT_49500 ranges from
50 to 250 mm (Figure 31) within the proposed designation boundary for the 100 Year ARI
event. Upstream of culvert CLVT_49500, the increase of flood depth remained within the
riparian margins and over the forest land use, and within the designation. Figure 31 shows
that the extents of the increase of flow depth downstream of culvert CLVT_49500 are
relatively wider, impacting the riparian margins and over grassland within the designation.
However, there is no increase of flood depth at the location of dwellings outside the
designation.
<5)
_ JACOBS' EH" Tonkin+Taylor
._u.
'5.
W400 g
. .41.
100 YearARl
El <—50 mm (Decrease)
|:| -5o - 50 mm
|:| so — 100 mm
100- 150 mm
- 150- 250 mm
- 250— 500 mm
- 0.5-1 m
- 1-1.5 m
- 1.5-2 m
- >2 m
G Dwelling
= Culverts WW2W
_ Culverts Pflhoi to
' Warkworth
— Indicative Alignment wwzw F
D Proposed designation
boundary
CN66 — Woodcocks Road
As per our flood extent map of the 100 Year ARI event (Figure 17), a section of Carran Road
remained underwater for both pre and post development scenarios, where the increase of
flow depth ranges from 35 to 75 mm (Figure 32). No dwellings are affected by the increased
flood depth in this area. Over Carran Road, the flood depths obtained for pre—development
scenario ranges from 2 mm to 9 mm, while flood depths obtained for post development
scenario ranges from 40 mm to 75 mm.
F55
H JACOBS- EFL? Tonkin+Taylor
100 YearARl
|:] <-50 mm (Decrease)
|:| —50—50 mm
|:] 50- 100 mm
[:| 100- 150 mm
- 150-250 mm
- 250-500 mm
- 0.5-1 m
- 1- 1.5 m
- 1.5 -2 m
- >2 m
= Culverts WW2W
_ Culverts Fahoi to
' Warkworth
— Indicative Alignment WW'ZW
boundary
CN66 — Carran Road
Figure 33 shows that the Indicative Alignment increases the flood depth over a small area
upstream of Bridge 5 and Bridge 6 along the left branch of the Mahurangi River ranging
from 50 mm to 1 m for the 100 Year ARI event within the proposed designation, which is
over grassland.
@
hi JACOBS- W Tonkin+Taylor
44
100 Year ARI
|:] <-50 mm (Decrease)
|:]-50-50mm
|:]50-100mm
|:|100-150mm
-150-250mm
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts VWV2W
Culverts Pfihoi to
Warkworth
- Bridge
WW2W
boundary
"" . "
fi ftr h
I. :2 t "j "" . -.
5+i 7 |
- L‘-‘ ‘: '
CN66 — Kaipara Flats Road
2.5.5 Culverts
As described earlier, the peak discharge at the Mahurangi College gauge is a better match
at CN66 while the flows estimated for CN74 are relatively conservative. Therefore, the
results of CN66 are adopted for flood assessment of culverts.
<5
_ JACOBS' EH" Tonkin+Taylor
Flood water remains well below the proposed road level at all locations along the Indicative
Alignment for CN66 and meets the design criteria of having a freeboard of equal or greater
than 0.5 m (Table 9).
Table 9 — Predicted peak flood levels at proposed culverts for CN66
Diameter/ Predicted flood levels after

height x No. Length completion of Warkworth to Freeboard
Culvert of barrels Wellsford Project (m) I (m)
(m)
(m) Upstream Downstream
CLVT_MCGO_280 1.50 X 1 64.9 46.94 44.57 55.0 > 1 m

CLVT_47850 2.10 X 1 128.7 42.75 38.42 48.7 > 1 m
CLVT_MC30_400 1.95 X 1 45.3 43.28 40.24 45.8 > 1 m
CLVT_MC10_1100 1.0 X 2 27.5 38.10 38.00 38.6 = 0.5 m
CLVT_MC10_1660 0.5 X 2 26.5 42.30 39.15 43.3 = 1.0 m
CLVT_MC10_1800 1.0 X 2 25.9 43.18 40.61 43.8 > 0.5 m
CLVT_MC10_2180 1.0 X 3 17.7 38.61 36.56 40.0 > 1 m
CLVT_MC10_2350 1.0 X 2 31.6 38.60 36.12 39.6 = 1 m
CLVT_48400 2.3 X 1 89.8 37.44 37.22 46.1 > 1 m
CLVT_48700 1.65 X 1 96.8 36.91 35.37 44.3 > 1 m
CLVT_MC00_40 1.5 X 2 22.4 32.69 32.69 45.4 > 1 m
CLVT_49500 3.5 X 3 120.6 34.12 33.87 35.1 > 0.5 m
In! JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

46
3 KOURAWHERO STREAM
Immediately north of Kaipara Flats Road, the Indicative Alignment is in the same valley as
the Kourawhero Stream and has a number of crossings (Figure 34). A hydraulic model was
__,~__
built to identify the effects on flooding and assess methods for mitigating these effects.
_..=e’i‘°
.3
45.x
x“?
f (:20
D
F5”efiw
‘51: 9:
'_'Il'.;:.1
£11”; - Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment Map (AC)

.m
0.?5 a“
'5'.._
-- I] I M
Figure 34 — Indicative Alignment over the natural flow path of the Kourawhero Stream
To derive peak flows of 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events for the Kourawhero catchment
we used the TP108 Graphical Method. This method is endorsed by Auckland Council.
TP108 method was parameterised as follows:
•. Rainfall depths: derived from TP108 isohyet maps and increased for climate change
by multiplying rainfall depths with factors as given below in Table 10.
•. Time of concentration: calculated using the TP108 equation (Equation 4.3 on page
12), using a channelization factor of 0.9 and catchment length and slope derived
using a 1 m resolution raster provided by Auckland Council. A minimum time of
concentration of 10 minutes was adopted, as per TP108.
I! ,
•. Initial abstraction: adopted 0 mm for urban areas and 5 mm for pervious areas, as
per TP108.
•. SCS soil group: assigned following an analysis of soil types and considering
Auckland Council guidance in TR 2009/0072. The soil in the Project area was
defined using the GIS—based New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI) soil
maps of Landcare Research. The soil type within the catchment boundary include
clay and clay loam.
•. Curve number: assigned using tables supplied in TP108 (Appendix B) and related to
the land use categories from the New Zealand Land Cover Database version 4
(LCDBv4). As per this database, the average calculated value of curve number for
the Kourawhero catchment was 75. A curve number of 75 is likely to be conservative
from comparison with the Mahurangi Model and should be considered in more detail
for the detailed design of the Project.
The effects of climate change on rainfall depths as at 2130 are incorporated into the design
hydrology of the Kourawhero catchment. The method used for incorporating the effects of
climate change is to increase the rainfall depths of different return period by the following
factors, Table 10.
Table 10 — Climate change adjustment factors for different return periods
ARI (Year)
Adjustment factor for the Project 1.086 1.126 1.144 1.160
The above climate change adjustment factors were derived using the information provided
in MfE (2016), based on a mid—range climate change temperature increase scenario to
2090, linearly extrapolated to 2130, and assuming an 8% increase in rainfall intensity per
1°C increase in temperature (MfE, 2010).
The catchment of the Kourawhero Stream has been divided into five sub—catchments, which
are shown in Figure 35. For these sub—catchments, the flows of 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI
events have been computed by following the TP108 methodology. The graphical method of
TP108 predicts flood peaks only. The computed peaks are given below in Table 11.
Table 11 — Estimated peak flow of sub—catchments with allowance of climate change for 2,
10, 20 and 100 year ARI events
Culvert name Catchment area Peak flow (m3/s)

(kmz) 2 Year 10 Year 20 Year 100 Year
CLVT_45650 0.23 3.79 6.35 8.17 10.70
CLVT_46150 0.06 1.03 1.92 2.45 3.20
CLVT_47200 0.16 1.33 2.97 3.45 4.87
CLVT_MCGl_280 0.34 3.27 7.14 8.29 11.97
Proposed bridge 0.72 5.91 13.15 15.27 21.55
H _
H JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
48
:
‘3:
~"I
r
‘q‘
CLVT_45 0
CLVT_4615 £9
43‘
Av
Cg)?
' 0
Bridge 22
CLVT_472OO ”$9 5109‘ will ’~w0rth
CLVT_MCG1_280 WW
._ Inflow points
= Culverts E
— Stream diversion
Kaipara Flats Road LZ] Kaourawhero subcatchment boundary
I / 57
Figure 35 — Catchment boundaries with inflow points, culverts and stream diversions
A hydraulic model of the Kourawhero area has been developed in MIKE Flood software. In
this model, the Project area was modelled in MIKE 21 software to represent the floodplains
and channel flow paths. For the study area, the mesh has been generated with an average
size of 26 m2.
To undertake the hydraulic modelling of this area, a LIDAR derived 1 m resolution DEM was
obtained from Auckland Council. The LCDBv4 of Landcare Research was utilised to define
the roughness of floodplains. The values adopted as a Manning’s Roughness Coefficient (n)
for different land covers (Christchurch City Council, 2015) are provided below in Table 12.
Table 12 — Manning’s n for different land covers
Land cover description Land cover description

River 0.045 High Producing Exotic Grassland 0.05
Exotic Forest 0.15 Manuka and/or Kanuka 0.10
Indigenous Forest 0.15 Mangrove 0.125
Orchard, Vineyard or Perennial Crop 0.05 Built—up Area 0.10
Urban Parkland/Open Space 0.033 Transport Infrastructure 0.016
H _
I-l JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor
49
Land cover description Land cover description
Surface Mine or Dump 0.06 Lake or Pond 0.02
Low Producing Grassland 0.09 Herbaceous Saline Vegetation 0.10
Flaxland 0.16 Gorse and/or Broom 0.125
Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods 0.10 Deciduous Hardwoods 0.125
Mixed Exotic Shrubland 0.08 Forest — Harvested 0.16
Culverts and a proposed bridge (Bridge No. 22) across the Kourawhero stream were
modelled in MIKE 11 as a part of MIKE Flood model with a single cross section upstream
and downstream.
The Indicative Alignment obstructs the natural flow path at different locations, stream
diversion and cut—off drains will be required at locations. The stream diversions were
modelled in MIKE 21 by introducing channels in the bathymetry.
Model Simulations were conducted for pre and post development scenarios considering 2,
10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events with an allowance of climate change.
In order to build confidence in the results of the hydraulic model, the flood extents of pre—
development scenario for the 100 Year ARI event were compared with the RFHA Map
procured from Auckland Council.
Overall, it was found that the flood extents of pre—development scenario are reasonably
comparable with RFHA map of Auckland Council where they can be compared as shown
below in Figure 36. However, Figure 36 shows that our model did not generate flood
extents at three locations within the catchment boundary shown on the RFHA Map. The
flood extents were not simulated for streams in the north and to the east since the model
hydrology input node is downstream of this location. The flood extents for the reach where
the bridge is proposed is not shown because it is modelled in M|KE11 ratherthan in M|KE21.
A more detailed model should be developed as part of the detailed design.

50
= Culverts
I:I Model results
- Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment (AC)
121' Kourawhero catchment boundary
o 250 500 m - .. ' I 4. E Proposed designation boundary
I 1 I ' "'i" » -.
//
Figure 36 — Flood extents comparison of model results with RFHA map of Auckland Council
for the 100 year ARI event
We carried out a flood assessment, not only at the major stream crossings where the bridge
is proposed across the Kourawhero Stream, but also at the minor stream crossings through
the indicative design of culverts.
The Kourawhero bridge has been designed to maintain the existing floodplain extent, with
the objective of maintaining the hydrological connectivity of the wetlands on the east and
western side of the State Highway. The bridge soffit level is governed by the road geometry
and is significantly higher than the floodplain. As illustrated in Table 13, the wide span of
the bridge means that there is negligible impact of the bridge on flood levels and the bridge
has ample freeboard.
The projected flood levels at proposed bridge for 100 Year ARI event are given below in
Table 13.
H ,
f -. JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
51
Table 13 — Predicted flood levels at the Kourawhero Bridge for the 100 year ARI event
Length Soffit Predicted flood level (m) Projected

(m) level (m) increase in
Pre— POSt' flood depth
development development
Proposed 96.0 63.82 55.068 55.071 0.003

Kourawhero
Bridge (Bridge 22)
Figure 37 indicates that flood hydrographs obtained at the proposed bridge of the
Kourawhero Stream are identical for pre—development and post development scenarios.
15-
—Pre-Development
— -F’ost-Development
Flow (mils)
0 10 20 30 £10 50 60
Time (Hours)
Figure 37 — Comparison of flow for the 100 Year ARI event at the Kourawhero Bridge
Figure 38 to Figure 41 show the change in flood extents for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI
events. The pre—development flood extent is plotted over the post—development flood
extent, so the change in flood extent where it is larger for post—development can be seen.
These figures show that the culverts, bridges and earthworks within the Kourawhero
Catchment have a small impact on the extents of flood inundation with the exception of
increases in flood extents on the west of the Indicative Alignment, which is inside the
designation and due to the diversion of the stream on the western side.
JACOBS LE1? Tonkin +Taylor

52
Culverts
|:| Pre-Development flood extent

- : :I Kourawhero catchment boundary
0 250 500 m _, D Proposed designation boundary \

I I l
/ /
year ARI event
W Tonkin+Taylor
53
Culverts
l: Pre-Development flood extent
- Post-Development flood extent

: :I Kourawhero catchment boundary
0 250 500 m D Proposed designation boundary

I
//
year ARI event
‘EWW
'
Ll! JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
54
\ .,__..-. ”.‘fl‘b-
Cuwefls
|:l Pre—Development flood extent
_ : :I Kourawhero catchment boundary
E Proposed designation boundary E
//
year ARI event
| JACOBS fifi' Tonkin+Taylor

55
= Culverts
|:| Pre-Development flood extent
- : :I Kourawhero catchment boundary
O 250 500 m D Proposed designation boundary \

I
//
year ARI event
Figure 42 to Figure 45 show the change in flood depth for the post development scenario
compared to pre development for 2, 10, 20, and 100 Year ARI events.
JACOBS LE1? Tonkin+Taylor

56
U
"In "- IF-N-
2YearARl
|:| -50-50 mm -‘
|:| 50-100mm ‘.
|:| 100- 150 mrn ,.
E 150-250 mm “H
- 250-500 mm ‘.
- 0.5-1m
- 1 -1.5m
- 1.5-2 m
- >2 m
= Culverts
a Proposed designation
boundary
- - -I Kourawhero catchment
l- - - boundary
0 250 500 m
Figure 42 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 2 year ARI event
W Tonkin+Taylor
57
U
"In "- IMF-\-
10 YearARl
|:| -50-50 mm x
|:| 50-100mm ‘.
|:| 100- 150 mm
- 150-250 mm
- 250-500 mm
- 0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
- >2m
= Culverts
boundary
L - - boundary
0 250 500 m
W Tonkin+Taylor
58
U
"In "- IMF-\-
20 Year ARI
|:| <-50 mrn (Decrease)
:I-SO-SOmm ~,
|:|50-100mm ‘3,
|:|100-150mm
-150-250mm
- 250-500mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
= Culverts
boundary
L - - boundary
0 250 500 m
W
Lu: JACOBS. W Tonkin +Taylor
59
U
100 YearARl
|:| <-50 mm (Decrease) I
|:| -50-50 mm ‘.
|:| 50-100mm n,
|:| 100- 150mm
! 150-250 mm
- 250-500 mm
- 0.5-1 m
- 1 -1.5m
- 1.5-2 m
- >2 m
= Culverts
boundary
L - - boundary
0 250 500 m
W Tonkin+Taylor
6O
There are three areas where flood depth increases as a result of the design aspects of the
Project, all of which are contained within the proposed designation boundary.
Two of these areas are in the northern part of the model at culvert CLVT_46150 and culvert
CLVT_45650 (Figure 35), where the increases are confined to small areas over forestry land
coven
Larger increases (> 0.2 m) are predicted upstream of culvert CLVT_47200 and culvert
CLVT_MCGl_280 north of Kaipara Flats road for the 100 Year ARI event, which are
contained within the proposed designation boundary, refer Figure 46. Likewise at these
locations, the flood depth increase (> 0.2 m) was also observed within the proposed
designation boundary for 2, 10 and 20 Year ARI events.
Culvert CLVT_MCGl_280 is proposed under the local road Phillips Road. Upstream and
downstream of this culvert, the increase of flood depth ranges from 0.3 m to 0.5 m for the
100 Year ARI event. A small section of Phillips Road will get inundated due to flood water
as shown below in Figure 47.
Building Information available on Auckland Council’s GIS web—portal, shows there are three
dwellings potentially affected by flood increases within the proposed designation (Figure
46) and these will likely be purchased by the Crown. Table 14 compares the flood depths
obtained from modelling results for pre—development and post—development scenarios for
the 100 Year ARI event.
Table 14 — Dwellings affected by flooding for the 100 year ARI event
Pre— Post—
Project increase Location Related
Street address of development development
dwelling affected flood
(m)
depth flood
(m)
depth in fl°°d depth
(m)
t° tl'e Prim“
Desngnation
. . Within proposed
11 Phillips Road 0.80 1.78 0.98 designation
. . Within proposed
. . Within proposed
h.‘ JACOBS E? Tonkin+Taylor

61
\Kl/ 18 Phillips Road
Post-Development Flood Depth 0.13 m

Pre-Development Flood Depth 0.0 m
30 Phillips Road
Post-Development Flood Depth 1.52 m

Pre-Development Flood Depth 0.55 m
100 Year ARI
|:| -50-50 mm
|:| 50-100mm
|:] 100- 150 mm
- 150-250 mm
- 250-500 mm
- 0.5-1 m
- 1 —1.5 m
- 1.5-2 rn
- :2 m
11 Philips Road - " _
' ' ' Dwelling
Post-Development Flood Depth 1.78 m _
Pre-Development Flood Depth 0.80 m . ‘ = Culverts
Proposed designation
boundary
|:| Metadata Footprints
Figure 46 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 100 year ARI event — Kaipara
Flats Road
H .
®JAC°BS fimnmnaaylor
100 Year ARI
C -50-50 mm
[:| 50- 100 mm
|:| 100- 150 mm
- 150—250 mm
- 250-500 mm
- 0.5-1m
- 1-1.5m
- 1.5-2m
-
Culverts
boundary
|:| Metadata Footprints
(K
Figure 47 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 100 year ARI event — Phillips
Road
3.5.5 Culverts
Flood water remains well below the proposed road level at most locations and achieves the
design criteria of having a freeboard of equal or greater than 0.5 m and cover on each
culvert of 1.0 m as given below in Table 15.
<5
HJACOBS' WTonkimTaylor
Table 15 — Predicted peak flood levels for proposed culverts
Diameter/ Predicted flood levels after

height x Length completion of Warkworth to Freeboard
Culvert No. of Wellsford Project (m)
(m) (m)
barrels (m) Upstream Downstream
CLVT_45650 2.55 X 1 139.6 104.28 98.04 111.5 > 1 m

CLVT_46150 2.10 X 1 134.7 73.65 72.12 83.23 > 1 m
CLVT_47200 2.30 X 1 62.5 48.86 48.09 52.09 > 1 m
fl“cfil-
{33‘L-z.5'gffT
.. Jan
‘ ,B
SI
khfillEAl
JAC
W Tonkin+Taylor
64
4 HOTEO RIVER
The Indicative Alignment interacts with the Hoteo River floodplain in Wayby as shown in
Figure 48. The Indicative Alignment is located within the identified floodplain from the
proposed Hoteo Viaduct to culvert CLVT_37630. There are two sources of flood change in
this area:
•. Impoundment of water upstream of the Indicative Alignment, which is caused by

the construction of the earthworks; and
•. Changes in water levels in the main Hoteo River and floodplain due to embankments
and the proposed Hoteo Viaduct.
Mitigation planting also has the potential to result in further changes to the floodplain and
is assessed in Section 5.

65
- Rapid Flood Hazard Assessment Map (AC)
Figure 48 — Important Crossings in H6teo Catchment
The catchment areas of the Hoteo River at the proposed H6teo Viaduct and Gubbs station
are about 197 and 266 km2 respectively. For modelling purposes, the catchment area above
Gubbs station was split into 11 sub—catchments as shown below in Figure 49. In order to
estimate peak flows for each sub—catchment, a scaling at—site flood frequency method was
adopted which is described below in Section 4.2.
ELI—=1? Tonkin+Taylor
66
J
Hote -. ‘ Gubbs ‘Qfi’s

A Inflow poin ts A " I
— Streams if“ t
I: Catchment boundary m
E Proposed designation boundary -.
Figure 49 — Sub—Catchments of the H6teo River with inflow locations and proposed
designation boundary
a JACOBS fimnkinfiaylar
67
Due to relative location of rain gauges, it is not possible to develop calibrated rainfall runoff
model by following the TP108 methodology for Hoteo catchment. In view of this, the most
appropriate method for deriving the peak flows of 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events for
the Hoteo sub—catchments is scaling at—site flood frequency estimates for Auckland
Council’s monitoring site ‘Hoteo River at Gubbs’. The Gubbs station is located
approximately 10 km downstream of the proposed Hoteo Viaduct site and has a record of
approximately 40 years. The relatively long length of record and close proximity of gauge
means that it provides a robust source of hydrological data for this Project. This
methodology is in accordance with Section 2.3.3 of the NZTA Bridge Manual.
As described earlier, climate change increases applied to peak flow on other recent state
highway projects and climate change factors were estimated by building relationships
between rainfall and runoff (Opus, 2014).
IPCC 5th assessment (MfE, 2016) provides updated estimates of temperature increase
compared with the 4th assessment (MfE, 2010), and predicts a 16% increase in rainfall for
the 100 Year ARI event. By comparing the flows computed for without and with climate
change using the rainfall—runoff model developed for the culvert design (refer to Section
1.6), it was assumed a further increase of 10% for 20 Year and 100 Year ARI event flows for
the flood effect assessment of the Hoteo River ( Le. 16% increase in rainfall results in a 26%
increase in flow for 100 Year ARI Event).
For frequency analysis, the annual flood maxima series of Gubbs station for the period from
1978 to 2016 was utilised for analysis in Hilltop Hydro (Version 6.55)1. Figure 50 shows the
comparison of fit of EV1 and GEV distributions to the observed values.
1 Hilltop Hydro (version 6.55), Hilltop Software Ltd 1998 — 2017.
P!
hi JACOBS ”21%| Tonkin+Taylor
68
EDD
4GB
Flflw [mafs]
30D
20E} _ E'IJ' 1
100 - IEE‘IiIr
D I | l
1 [1.1 0.01 0.001

Annual Prflhablllw
Figure 50 — Comparison of fit of frequency distributions for Hoteo at Gubbs Station
Since the results of EV1 probability distribution follows the trend of observed floods and
projected conservative flood peak for the 100 Year ARI event, the estimated peaks, as given
in Table 16, have been used for flood assessment of the Project.
Table 16 — Frequency Analysis results of EV1 for Hoteo at Gubbs Station (without climate
change)
ARI (Year) AEP (%) Flow (m3/s)
2 50 124
5 20 193
10 10 236
20 5 278
50 2 332
100 1 373
For each sub—catchment of the Hoteo River (Figure 49), the peak flows were computed on
the basis of the Catchment Area Ratio Method, as described in the NZTA Bridge Manual.
The computed peak flows released in each sub—catchment in MIKE Flood model for the 2,
10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events as given below in Table 17.
Table 17 — Estimated peak flow of sub—catchments with allowance of climate change for the
2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI flood events
Peak flow (m3/s)

Catchment No.
2 Year 10 Year 20 Year 100 Year
1 38.8 78.2 94.4 129.3
2 21.1 42.5 51.3 59.57
3 34.2 68.9 83.2 114.0
4 30.3 61.1 73.7 101.0
hi JACOBS LE1? Tonkin+Taylor

69
Peak flow (m3/s)
Catchment No.
2 Year 10 Year 20 Year 100 Year
5 4.9 9.8 11.9 16.20
6 13.7 27.7 33.4 45.80
7 25.9 52.0 62.8 76.30
8 14.2 28.6 34.5 47.2
9 18.8 37.9 45.8 62.7
10 9.2 18.5 22.3 30.6
11 9.9 19.9 24.0 32.8
The hydrograph shapes were obtained by scaling with observed hydrographs of Waiteitei
at Sandersons and Hoteo at Gubbs gauging sites. Six flood hydrographs of different events
observed at Gubbs (Figure 51) were used to check the performance of the hydraulic model.
Hydrographs analysis indicates that hydrograph shape is very similar between events as
shown below in Figure 51. A normalised hydrograph for each of these events were derived
by dividing each ordinate by their peak flow rate. An average normalised hydrograph was
adopted for this study which is shown below in Figure 51.
350 1.4
300 1.2
—jan-il
250 Mal/'85 i
—Aug-l6
._.\ —jun-93
it 200 -Mar-07 0.8
E» —_/HH-97 g
£- 750 -- Normalised 0.6
700 0.4
50 0.2
0 " 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Hours)
Figure 51 — Shape of observed hydrographs of different events with normalised hydrograph
of Hoteo at Gubbs
A hydraulic model of the Project area was developed in MIKE Flood software. In this model,
the area upstream of the proposed viaduct over the Hoteo River was modelled in 2D to
represent the floodplains and channel flow paths.
h-l JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

70
The 2D terrain used by the hydraulic model used Auckland Council’s 1m resolution DEM
derived from LIDAR (2013). The New Zealand Land Cover Database Version 4 (LCDBv4) was
utilised to define the roughness of the floodplain and overland flow areas.
The reach of the Hoteo River from the proposed viaduct to Gubbs station, along with its
three tributaries, was modelled in 1D.
The flexible mesh of about 73 kmzareawas generated for the flood zone. The areas along
the Hoteo River and the Indicative Alignment were represented with fine resolution and a
coarse mesh was used for the elevated areas. The fine resolution mesh is under 500 m2,
while the coarse mesh for elevated areas’ mesh is under 1000 m2. Overall, the average size
of mesh is 492 m2. Figure 52 and Figure 53 show that the extracted cross—sections from
the mesh are comparable with the cross—sections of DEM.
3O
29
27
Elevation (_m_)
26
25
24
23
22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (m)
Figure 52 — Comparison of cross—sections of the Hoteo River extracted from LIDAR based
DEM and the model mesh
JACOBS fih—I' Tonkin +Taylor

71
29
28
2?
26
Elevation (m)
25
24
23
22
21
0 2O 4O 60 80 100 120 140
Distance (m)
Figure 53 — Comparison of cross—sections of the Hoteo River extracted from LIDAR based DEM
and the model mesh
Culverts from CLVT_MCFO_67O to CLVT_3 7630 (Figure 54) and the proposed viaduct across
the Hoteo River were modelled in 1D as a part of MIKE Flood model with a single cross
section upstream and downstream. In the same way, the existing bridges across the Hoteo
River were also modelled in 1D. Limited datasets on existing bridge dimensions were
available. In view of this, assumptions were made to model these bridges, and this is
reflected in the model. However, the model is reliable for our purpose.
A value of 0.045 for Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) was adopted in the model for
channel based on the information available for the Hoteo River in the handbook “Roughness
Characteristics of New Zealand Rivers”. The values adopted as a Manning’s n for other land
covers were given previously in Table 12.
JACOBS fih—I' Tonkin +Taylor

72
CLVT_MCFO_670 -
'7.» k u
t . Farmers Lime Road
1 CLVT_32530
iri V,I\CLVT_32000
CLVT_MCWO_107
.éi‘ '- 3
if is;
CLVT_MCWO_136
“”5“” CLVT_33530 *5
CLVT_34190 a"
CLVT_34520»
Rus brook Road...»
0 VT_MCRO_430"'
CWT 35330 _., CLVT_MCRO_80
CL M... 35910
CLVT_\' 180 -
CLVT_MCHO_700
CLVT_366 Wayby Valley Road
CLVT_MCHO—190 x. --10 CLVT MCHO 20

CLVT_ mcc0_770* . Zilli‘
CLVT_37320_RD
—
_
CLVT 37520 S_H1 \

CLVT_37630 \\
Proposed Viaduct
— Culverts
0 1 2 km Indicative Alignment
..- n // \\\\
Figure 54 — Location of culverts with indicative road alignment
Hydrology inflow points were set close to the downstream end of most sub—catchments,
except for sub—catchments 6 and 7. The inflow locations for these sub—catchments are
approximately in the centre. While for sub—catchment 8, the inflow location is set close to
its upstream boundary (Figure 49). These adjustments help the model to achieve flood
peak comparable to flood peak obtained from frequency analysis for the 100 Year ARI event.
The downstream boundary is based on flow/level hydrograph data at Gubbs station, which
was assessed as having a peak flow of 373 m3/s for the 100 Year ARI event.
Model simulations were conducted for pre development scenarios considering 2, 10, 20
and 100 Year ARI events. Under the pre—development scenario, the model results obtained
F1
hi JACOBS |fifi| Tonkin+Taylor
73
for the existing conditions were compared with the RFHA Map of Auckland Council, as
described in Section 4.4. As a second step of the baseline case, the model flows were
updated with an allowance for climate change. Finally, the Indicative Alignment was
introduced in the bathymetry to complete the flood risk assessment for post—development
scenario.
As described earlier in Section 4.2, the peak flow of each sub—catchment was estimated on
the basis of the Catchment Area Ratio Method. The estimated peak flows were scaled to a
normalised hydrograph based on observed hydrographs of Gubbs and Sandersons in order
to define their shape. To produce a peak flow (373 m3/s) at Gubbs comparable to flood
peak obtained from frequency analysis for the 100 Year ARI event, the timing of peak flow
for each sub—catchment was adjusted either by delaying or making it earlier without
changing the shape of a hydrograph. Furthermore, an optimal location of inflow points
along natural flow paths within each catchment were identified by an iterative process.
As a result of these adjustments, the MIKE Flood model generated a peak flow of 372 m3/s
at Gubbs, which is similar to the flood peak obtained from frequency analysis for the 100
Year ARI event. Figure 55 shows the comparison of modelled and gauged hydrographs of
different events of the Hoteo River observed at Gubbs. The shape of the modelled
hydrograph is steeper prior to the peak and higher after the peak. These differences
reflects that the model simplifies the hydrology; however the hydrograph is suitable for
assessment purposes as the peak and volumes are replicated.
To further check the model results, the model was re—run using the hydrographs with an
allowance for the effects of climate change. The result of this simulation produced a peak
of 472 m3/s at Gubbs, which is also comparable with the peak obtained by frequency
analysis with allowance for climate change i.e. 471 m3/s.
P!
hi JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
74
400
350
—Model Output
300 —Jan—11
' May—85
250 —Aug—16
—Jun—93
2 200 Mar—07
g f —Jun—97
E 150 x“
100 //
//
50 ff
0 __
O 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Hours)
Figure 55 — Comparison of modelled hydrograph and gauged hydrographs of different events

of the Hoteo River observed at Gubbs Station
The resulting modelled flood extents (without and with climate change) are comparable
with the RFHA map supplied by Auckland Council for the area upstream of the proposed
viaduct over the Hoteo River (Figure 56 and Figure 57). The RFHA map supplied by Auckland
Council was developed using flows that were derived without including the allowance for
the effects of climate change.
Since the inflow location was set in the centre for catchment 7 (Figure 49), the model has
not projected the flood extents for the area located in the west of the Hoteo River between
Rustybrook Road and Whangaripo Valley Road.
The flood map developed by the model (without climate change) between the proposed
viaduct and Rustybrook Road indicates a slightly reduced extent and is more patchy when
compared to the RFHA floodplain. The flood model is likely to be predicting less flow than
the RFHA due to the use of the flood—frequency hydrological method that is based on
observed data and is preferred for that reason. The flood maps are more different in
extents above the Rustybrook Road (Figure 56), but this is outside the areas of interest for
this assessment.
H .
7 JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
75
,I
Wellsford <-L_
.,'::l '
mi
5
D Proposed designation boundary

I:| Model results (without climate change)
0 1 2km
l I l I |
Figure 56 — Flood extents comparison of model results (without climate change) with RFHA
map of Auckland Council for the 100 Year ARI flood event
W Tonkin+Taylor
76
I:I Model results (with climate change)
0 1 2km
l I l I I
Figure 57 — Flood extents comparison of model results (with climate change) with RFHA map
of Auckland Council for the 100 Year ARI event
As a part of this study, the flood assessment was carried out not only at the major stream
crossings where the proposed viaduct crosses the Hoteo River, but also at the minor stream
crossings via culverts.
The pre and post development scenario were simulated for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI
events with an allowance for climate change.
is) JACOBS W Tonk|n+Taylor

77
The existing State Highway 1 (SH 1) bridge crossing of the Hoteo River is approximately 85
m downstream of the proposed viaduct. There is another private bridge that lies about 32
m upstream of the existing SH1 bridge. Overall, the SH1 and private bridges are of
approximately similar length i.e. 70.0 m and 62.0 m respectively. The proposed viaduct
has indicative span of490.0 m and is at a higher level than the existing bridges. The bridge
span and crest level have been defined by road geometrics, rather than driven by flood
hydraulics. At the detailed design stage, a bridge with different dimensions could achieve
a similar level of flood level performance.
The projected flood levels at bridges for 100 Year ARI event is given below in Table 18.
Table 18 — Predicted flood levels at bridges for 100 Year ARI event (with climate change)
Length Soffit Predicted flood levels (m) Projected increase

(m) level (m) in flood depth
Pre—development Post—development (m)
Proposed
H0teo Viaduct 490.0 41.38 27.814 27.850 0.036
(Bridge 11)
EX.iS““9
Bndge
Private 62.0 28.20 27.803 27.807 0.004
Existing SH1
Bridge 70.6 29.76 27.409 27.412 0.003
Figure 58 shows that flood hydrographs obtained at the proposed viaduct of the Hoteo
River are identical for pre—development and post development scenarios. The hydrographs
and the predicted flood levels indicate that the proposed Hoteo Viaduct will have negligible
effect on flooding within the Hoteo River.
': JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

78
300 --
250 --
— Pre-Development
- -Post-Development
200 —-
Flow (m3fs)
150 --
‘IOO —-
50 --
0 I '- I I I I I
0 10 20 30 4D 50 60
TIME (Hours)
Figure 58 — Comparison of flow for 100 Year ARI Event at the proposed Hoteo Viaduct
Figure 59 to Figure 62 show flood extents upstream of proposed bridge across Hoteo River
for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events including the allowance for the effect of climate
change. These figures show that the proposed culverts and bridges within the Hoteo
catchment have a negligible impact on the extents of flood inundation.

79
Rt
= Culverts
I: Pre-Development flood extent
0 1 2km - Post-Developmentflood extent
I I l I I
year ARI event (with climate change)
la; 9 .
e351) JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

80
\
GARI PO
/\:V/Hb—N__ WAD / [X/
= Culverts
_ ‘:l Pre-Development flood extent
0I 2I km . - Post-Developmentflood extent
nun—IL
I I “a
W JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

81
= Culverts
0 2km
—.3.
- Post-Developmentflood extent
I I l I I
W Tonkin+Taylor
82
<29?
‘1’ A. ’
3F— fix
’i I
7 l
e \‘ y ,5
a
.c. -’ ) /—, '
1' I (D
z NGARIPO /‘< ._/
1. ":E WW flVALLEYROA ,2 ”KAN;

2 E /" \ D
‘3‘; o / .
‘9473 g T
«5‘?
‘ ‘3“ T
., 31>
Wellsf -'= d .9
h . TH :10 0
R EL - ”"1 In I ' I
' I? O
‘70
0A [1. m ‘YO
56'
m v
at
2b ‘3 p a Q ' $08; ’
r
o ‘9 " r”
4%.” 0
06"
D
$3 0
:0
4:4-
-‘l‘
— Culverts
' E Proposed designation boundary
‘:l Pre-Development flood extent
- Post-Developmentflood extent
| I l I I t \
Year ARI event (with climate change)
Figure 63 to Figure 66 show the change in flood depths along the Indicative Alignment for
both pre and post development scenarios for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI events including
allowance for the effect of climate change. These figures show that the proposed culverts
and bridges within the Hoteo catchment do change flood depth.
The increases in flood depths that occur outside of the designation on the west (upstream)
side of the Project are limited in area and consist of a small incremental increase at the
hi JACOBS LEI-IE Tonkin+Taylor

83
edge of the existing foodplain. The increases in flood depths that occur outside the
designation on the east (downstream) side of the Project are within the existing floodplain.
All of these areas are over pasture, have a short term duration and occur infrequently. They
could be mitigated during the detailed design process.
g9.
PO‘RT ALB‘EW
- CLVT_341 9%
[-
(:LVT_345é/O
//
/
“'\
st / /
cgyT_MCRo_8o
0:
A.
D
a: ”if!
e ,e’
+-.2% /.-
[g
2 YearARl _ j 5%
[:l <-5o mm (Decrease)
:| -50 - 50 mm
C] 50 -100 mm
J
/ |:| 100 — 150 mm

150 - 250 mm 7
If
Cl CLVT_36650
-250-500mm '-' GLVT_M C H0__700
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m Proposed designation
boundary
= Culverts
Figure 63 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 2 Year ARI event
. I JACOBS "Fl-L? Tonkin +Taylor

84
‘5
-.
ROAD
,To R
10 Year ARI
[:| <-5o mm (Decrease)
|:|—50-50 mm
|:|50—100 mm
/ |:|100-150n1m
- 150-250 mm f ‘ ’
-250-500 mm . GLVT_MCHO_700
{
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
i.
->2m Proposed designation
boundary
= Culverts
\\ // .
kltigfll JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

85
C LVT_34190 _
f
I
( :LVT_34520
/.r
\Cli_MCRO_80
,“
O
Q:
A.
ROAD
(U
*4
_ “-4
:3
,To R
A.
g?
s}
20 Year ARI
[:| <-5o mm (Decrease)
|:|—50-50 mm
|:|50—100 mm
/ |:|100-150n1m
- 150-250 mm CILVT_36650 g
i a,
-250-500 mm . 0LVT_M0H0_700
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m - i
'3'. _.
-1.5-2m
->2m
boundary
= Culverts
\\ // .
trig? JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor

86
- CLVT_34190 f , f
z“
<:LVT_345éo
If
\cuyT_M0Ro_80
O
Q‘
A.
ROAD
(u
'I-J
'HJ
.57
.TOR
.L
g?
s}
100 Year ARI
[:| <-50 mm (Decrease)
‘:| 50-50 mm
,|:| 50-100mm
/ |:| 100- 150 mm
|:] 150-250 mm
- 250-500 mm . GLVT_MCHO__700
- 0.5-1m
-1-1.5 m
-1.5—2 m
boundary
= Culverts
North of Rustybrook Road, the Project increases the flood depth upstream of the proposed
culverts in some locations (CLVT_3419O and CLVT_34520) for 2, 10, 20 and 100 Year ARI
events (Figure 63 to Figure 66). Within and outside the proposed designation boundary, the
increase of flood depth was up to 2 m for 100 Year ARI event at those locations as shown
below in Figure 67. This flooding occurs over pasture land.
hi JACOBS LE1? Tonkin+Taylor

87
Upstream of culvert CLVT_34520, the change in flood depth extents obtained for 2, 10 and
20 Year ARI events remained within the proposed designation boundary (Figure 63 to
Figure 65) and exceeds it for the 100 Year ARI (Figure 66).
Upstream of CLVT_ 34190 the increase of flood depth upstream obtained for 2, 10 and 20
Year ARI events goes beyond the proposed designation boundary like the results of 100
Year ARI event (Figure 63 to Figure 66). Those high flow depths are possibly due to high
tail water levels. Moreover, the model has not captured the existing small channels draining
water from the catchment that also triggers flow depths. A cut—off drain needs to be
considered at detailed design stage to reduce flooding at this location. The Water
Assessment Report will make recommendations to establish performance requirements for
flooding that can be then met at the detailed design stage.
Before the intersection of Rustybrook Road and Wayby Valley Road, the Project increases
the flood depth upstream of culvert CLVT_MCRO_80 ranging from 50 to 100 mm for 20
Year (Figure 65) and 100 Year ARI events (Figure 66). While, the results show that there is
no increase of flood depth for 2 Year and 10 Year ARI events obtained at this location
(Figure 63 and Figure 64).
According to building information available on Auckland Council’s GIS web—portal, there is

a dwelling affected by flood increase within the proposed designation (Figure 67). This
dwelling will likely be purchased by the Crown. Table 19 compares the flood depths
obtained for pre—development and post—development scenarios of 100 Year ARI event at
237 Rustybrook Road.
Table 19 — Dwelling affected by flooding for the 100 year ARI event
Pre— Post—
Street address of development development PFOJ'ECt increase Location Related
dwelling affected flood depth flood depth In flOOd depth to the Project
(m) (m) Designation
(m)
237 Rustybrook 2.18 2 23 0.05 Within proposed
I designation
Road
7 JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
H 88
1| 'l
all 4.
‘ ' ll
it“
«‘1‘
" 13*.‘l CLVT_34190 1
V?-
'6)
0.“
f3?!"
33’
l. ‘ Wile:
I 5! CLIVT_34520 § gr»
sax:
.5? 237 Rustybrook Road
$7! <
" Post-Development Flood Depth 2.23 m
‘41 Pre-Development Flood Depth 2.18 m
*‘
FL 100 Year ARI

y |:|—50—50mm
|:|50-100mm
|:]1oo-150mm
-150-250mm
‘-250-500mm
‘-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
. -1.5-2m
7" ->2m
i '4‘ Q Dwelling
Culverts
boundary
Figure 67 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 100 year ARI event —
Rustybrook Road
North of the interchange of the existing SH1 and Wayby Valley Road, the Indicative
Alignment raises the flood depth at both upstream and downstream of both culvert
CLVT_36650 and culvert CLVT_MCHO_7OO for the 100 Year ARI event (Figure 68).
Upstream of culvert CLVT_36650, the increase in flood depth ranges from 100 to 200 mm
within the proposed designation boundary, which occurs over pasture land.
[@l
JACOBS Wronkimraylor
The flood depth increase was up to 250 mm within the proposed designation boundary
upstream of culvert CLVT_MCHO_7OO and up to 75 mm outside the designation
downstream of culvert CLVT_MCHO_700, which occurs over pasture land.
Likewise at these locations, the flood depth increase was also observed within and outside
the proposed designation boundary for 10 and 20 Year ARI events (Figure 64 and Figure
65). Whereas, the increase of flood depth for 2 Year ARI event is confined to within the
proposed designation (Figure 63). The model results show that the Project increases the
flood depth over Wayby Valley road ranging from 50 to 100 mm for 10, 20 and 100 Year
ARI event (Figure 64, Figure 65 and Figure 68). In this area, dwellings are not affected by
the flood depth increase as shown in Figure 68 and Figure 68.

l
90
4
.1- w__-_‘_
___,._
©5171-9665 43--
p ‘ I
a; cL7T_MCH0_7oo
A
L,‘
t r
\\ V 100 Year ARI
‘ E <-50 mm (Decrease)
|:|-50-50mm
|:|50—100mm
|:|1oo-150mm
-150-250mm
-------
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
' -1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
G Dwelling
Culverts
Indicative
- "1
-\ ‘1‘. l
. r.
r.
' 1\‘ll
v.3
- ”ill
- K“.
. “A
.
boundary
't .A..
-. . 4 In-
. 'l
. ~"'-.,_"-. .‘fi...l ‘~.‘t;.,._
'r. ._‘-_ __ *3. r,“ _ V
" x ‘- . ._
o
’ _ I".- - - .
\N1—I\ .
I‘\\ I I
.'I
I."
Figure 68 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 100 Year ARI Event — SH1 and
Wayby Valley road
4.5.5 Culverts
Flood water remains well below the proposed road level at most locations and achieves the
design criteria of having a freeboard of equal or greater than 0.5 m and cover on each
culvert of 1.0 m as given below in Table 20.
<5
“JACOBS' Wronkimraylor
Table 20 — Predicted peak flood levels for 100 Year ARI event at proposed culverts
Diameter/ Predicted
. flood levels after
height :‘c Length completion of the Warkworth Freeboard
Culvert No. of (m) to Wellsford PrOJect (m)
barrels (m) Upstream Downstream
CLVT_37630 3.05 * 2 90.6 28.28 28.28 33.19 > 1 m
CLVT_MCHO_20 1.80 * 2 41.4 34.31 32.08 35.92 > 1 m
CLVT_MCHO_700 2.50 * 2 23.9 28.96 28.81 30.23 > 1 m
CLVT_36650 3.05 * 2 109.3 29.02 29.03 32.57 > 1 m
CLVT_35380 4.00 * 3 71.8 30.33 30.33 32.27 > 1 m
CLVT_34520 2.30 * 1 81.3 34.63 31.25 36.04 > 1 m
CLVT_34190 3.05 * 2 82.9 32.80 31.25 35.11 > 1 m
CLVT_32600 2.10 * 3 167.0 53.24 49.66 63.55 > 1 m
CLVT_32530 2.55 * 3 148.5 51.73 50.88 64.23 > 1 m
CLVT_MCFO_670 2.05 * 2 28.9 76.29 75.70 77.58 > 1 m
JACOBS LE1? Tonkin+Taylor

92
5 Mitigation Planting Along the Hoteo
and Mahurangi Rivers
As recommended by ecologists and landscape architects, mitigation planting is being
proposed inside of the Project designation boundary for both the Hoteo and Mahurangi
Catchments (see EM plan series in the Volume 3, Drawing set). The mitigation planting is
located upstream of the proposed viaduct between Wayby Valley Road and the Hoteo River
as marked in Figure 69. While within the Mahurangi Catchment, the mitigation planting is
proposed along its left bank tributary (Figure 71). The effect of this potential planting has
been assessed in the flood model as the planting has the potential to increase the
“roughness” of the floodplain, and therefore slow flood flows and to increase flood levels.
According to Plan Land Cover Database (LCDBv4) and confirmed from aerial photographs,
the existing land cover of the Hoteo Catchment is defined as High Producing Exotic
Grassland, which has a roughness of 0.05 (Table 12) in the flood model. While the area
marked in the Mahurangi Catchment has a roughness of 0.08.
According to the ecological and landscape mitigation planting plans, the planting proposed
within the Hoteo and Mahurangi Catchments are of following types:
•. Landscape Mitigation Planting; and
•. Ecology Vegetation Mitigation
For Landscape Mitigation Planting and Ecology Vegetation Mitigation areas, ecologists have
proposed that 30% of the area is to be Canopy trees (Kahikatea and Totara as clusters of
~20 trees), 40% Flax/Cabbage trees/Manuka and 30% Wetland grasses.
In view of the above land cover characteristics, the appropriate Manning’s ‘n’ values have
been selected from the literature and their details are given below, Table 21.
Table 21 — Selected Values of Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Riparian Planting Areas
Proposed Plantation Manning’s n Reference

Kahikatea and Totara Trees 0.1 Tonkin and Taylor (2014)
Flax/Cabbage trees/Manuka 0.085 Auckland Council (2011)
Wetland Grasses 0.075 Auckland Council (2011)
Manning’s n (roughness coefficient) for the proposed plantation area was computed by
taking a weighted area average, which is 0.087.
In this study, the impact of proposed mitigation planting on flooding was assessed by using
the Project’s flood models of Hoteo and Mahurangi catchments.
In order to consider the impact of the proposed mitigation planting in the hydraulic
modelling, the land roughness of the area with planting was changed to 0.087.
Figure 69 and Figure 71 compare the flood extents obtained for post development
scenarios with mitigation planting for a 100 Year ARI event including the allowance for the
effect of climate change for the Hoteo and Mahurangi Catchments. For both the catchments,
H .
93
the post—development flood extent without planting is plotted over the proposed mitigation
planting flood extent. The figures indicate that the flood extent is not increased with
planting in either location.
For the Hoteo Catchment there is no change in flood extent, however the model predicts
an increase of flow depths upstream of the proposed viaduct ranging from 50 mm to 150
mm with the greatest increase immediately outside the Project designation and reducing to
50 mm depth with distance (Figure 70).
Figure 72 shows the increase of flood depth within the Mahurangi Catchment ranging from
50 to 100 mm in very small areas within the proposed designation boundary.
Figure 70 and Figure 72 show that there are no dwellings directly affected by the increased
flood depth in either of the catchments.
We note that the increase in flood depth outside the designation in the vicinity of the Hoteo
viaduct occurs in an area of pasture already subject to flooding. The flood depth increase
predicted due to planting in the 100 Year ARI event will be of limited duration and occur
infrequently. It is not predicted to affect dwellings.
F1
hi JACOBS W Tonkin+Taylor
94
’q0
l
d
3.}?
,3» §
.. . El
2 \, LLE‘NIAK
9 ) as?” /\ fa
.- a -
'\ / f—Xfi
"a.
“3:
a
rt"
‘2.
‘13
’6
Culverts
Proposed mitigation planting area

D Proposed designation boundary
El Post-Development flood extent
- Proposed Mitigation Planting flood extent
Figure 69 — Comparison of flood extents of the H6teo Catchment for proposed mitigation
planting and post—development scenarios for the 100 year ARI event (with climate change)
W Tonkin+Taylor
95
- CLVT_34190 ,
I
I
(:LVT__3452ti
If
100 Year ARI (With

Proposed Mitigation
. 0::
E Planting) (f:
|:' <-50 mm (Decrease) a?"

A
|:| -5o - 50 mm A.
.5?
|:| 50 — 100 mm g
[:l1oo-150mm
|:]150-250mm
-250-500mm
-0.5-1m
\
-1—1.5m
- 1 5_2 m CILVT_36650 o
' - GLVT_MCHO_700
- >2 m
m Proposed mitigation
I
planting area
M
boundary
Culverts
(D Dwellin R“ ‘-\ 4' 5

'i‘
9 S9 5%", G
1 ‘T 2 km “Mn
MN I I j I I \-‘$ 9
Figure 70 — Change in flood depths within the H6teo Catchment due to the Project for 100
year ARI event with proposed mitigation planting scenario
: JACOBS W Tonkln +Taylor

96
3' ._
u_‘-.
‘
.-
. ' _I
uni-
r'.
(‘
an:
\‘
-
\ \‘n\
\\
_ _
-_‘_
‘ -;- ‘-
'
‘
- ‘
_,. £2_ 11I1 ‘fl
\
1!
¥
1
,I
.6. .
ii
I
.a‘I. __
ZZ] Proposed mitigation planting area

'— Culverts WW2W
: Culverts PUhoi to Warkworth 1
E Proposed designation boundary I
- Post—Development flood extent ,4
/ 2D zone revised 1
o o5 1 km "
I l I 7
Figure 71 — Comparison of flood extents of the Mahurangi Catchment for proposed mitigation
planting and post—development scenarios for the 100 year ARI event (with climate change)
97
1:92:
i
{ff—5’. -I‘
«xv ‘
’1. v’"
1 'fi?‘
r
r
'
.7" _ ‘7
\Jfls .
MW” ‘/
I ,I|' i {I .- n/
¥ *6: 7/
XV};
100 Year ARI (With ' {j ,__ "/

lt- . ..' /
Proposed " //
‘9; Mitigation ®\ W k th
g Planting) u- 3' “W
E- |:] <—50 mm (Decrease) ’0
c .0
j [:| —50 - 50 mm "l,
|:| 50 - 100 mm K 30
[:1 100 -150 mm
/ |:|150—250 mm ‘M'\
”f - 250 - 500 mm
- 0.5 — 1 m
- 1 - 1.5 m \
- 1.5 2 m-
- >2 m -
= Culverts WW 1
Culverts Pflhoi to
Warkworth
Alignment PUhoi to
Warkworth
E Proposed designation 4
/ boundary I
Figure 72 — Change in flood depths within the Mahurangi Catchment due to the Project for
100 year ARI event with proposed mitigation planting scenario
JACOBS fimnkinfiaylor
98
6 FLOOD MODELLING LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the flood modelling work are as follows:
• The hydrological and hydraulic modelling approaches for the H6teo, Kourawhero
and Mahurangi all have limitations as described previously. The modelling
approaches are suitable for assessing the effects of the Project and Indicative
Alignment at this stage of design detail. However, they will need to be refined for
detailed design.
• The use of diversion channels was not considered while carrying out the hydraulic
modelling of the Hoteo and Mahurangi Rivers. However, the diversion channels/cut—
off drains proposed within the Kourawhero catchment are sized using the flows of
the respective sub—catchments and modelled as rectangular channels.
• This flood assessment, only relates to the flood effects related to the loss of flood
storage due to the volume of the road in the floodplain and the changes in drainage
associated with culverts, diversions and bridges. Curve numbers of the area, where
the Project is proposed, have not been updated to reflect the increase in
imperviousness in hydrological models developed to compute flows for Hoteo,
Kourawhero and Mahurangi catchments.
• This flood assessment only considers the planting types and areas proposed by the
landscape architects and ecologists at the time of writing (Section 5 of this report)
and based on mitigation plans included in the Ecology mitigation series, Volume 3
of the Application: Drawing Set.

99
7 CONCLUSIONS
In the light of results of this study, following conclusions have been made:
•. The models are suitable for identifying the likely effect of the Indicative
Alignment.
•. The results ofthe modelling show that the changes to flooding from the Indicative
Alignment on flooding are mostly negligible. Where the changes are not
negligible, the increase in flooding can be mitigated by standard engineering
methods during the design phase and controlled by resource consent conditions.
•. Diversion channels proposed within catchments will influence flood levels local
to them rather than the main floodplain flood levels. Flood modelling to support
detailed design can confirm that diversion channels (with all other aspects) meet
flood performance requirements set out in resource consents.
•. The impact on flood levels of changes in imperviousness is expected to be very

small. In our view, the changes in flood levels presented in this report, provide a
good basis for estimating the overall flood effects.
•. This assessment considers the impact on flood levels and extents of the Indicative
Alignment. If in the detailed design phase the alignment was to shift or the size
and location of cross—drainage (culverts and bridges) was to change, then the
flood changes may also be different.
•. This assessment predicts that the mitigation planting in the Hoteo Catchment has
the potential to increase flood depths on pasture land outside the designation in
the 100 year ARI event. This is not predicted to affect dwellings.
•. The scale of flood effects presented in this report is likely to be representative of

a similar alignment within the proposed designation boundary. However, at the
detailed design stage, further hydraulic modelling will be required to ensure the
road can meet relevant performance requirements established in resource
consent conditions and in NZTA requirements.
IN
hi JACOBS “ZINE” Tonkin +Taylor
100
8 REFERENCES
Auckland Council (201 1). Stormwater
Stormwater Flood
Flood Modelling
Modelling Specifications
Specifications.
Auckland Council (2015). Code

Code of
of Practice
Practice for
for Land
Land Development
Development and
and Subdivision
Subdivision, Version
2.0.
Auckland Council (2017). Mahurangi

Mahurangi River
River Catchment
Catchment Flood
Flood Hazard
Hazard Mapping
Mapping.
Auckland Regional Council (1999). Guidelines

Guidelines for
for Stormwater
Stormwater Runoff
Runoff Modelling
Modelling in
in the
the
Auckland
Auckland Region
Region. Technical Publication TP 108.
Auckland Regional Council (2009). Review

Review of
of Hydrologic
Hydrologic Properties
Properties of Soils in
ofSoils in the
the Auckland
Auckland
Region.
Region. Technical Report No. 072.
Brisbane City Council (2003). Natural

Natural Channel
Channel Design
Design Guidelines
Guidelines, Appendix C.
Christchurch City Council (2015). Coastal

Coastal Hazard
Hazard Assessment
Assessment –— Stage
Stage 2
2.
Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Gippel, Cl. and Nathan, R]. (2004). Stream
Stream
Hydrology:
Hydrology: An
An Introduction
Introduction for
for Ecologists
Ecologists. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
England.
Hicks, D.M. and Mason, PD. (1991). Roughness

Roughness Characteristics
Characteristics of New Zealand Rivers
ofNewZealand Rivers. DSIR
Marine and freshwater, Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment (2010). Tools

Tools for
for Estimating
Estimating the
the Effects
Effects of
of Climate
Climate Change
Change on
on
Flood
Flood Flow
Flow –— A
A Guidance
Guidance Manual
Manual for
for Local
Local Government
Government in
in New
New Zealand
Zealand.
Ministry for the Environment (2010) Tools for Estimating the Effects of Climate Change on
Flood Flows: A guide for local government in New Zealand.
Ministry for the Environment (2016). Climate

Climate Change
Change Projections
Projections for
for New
New Zealand:
Zealand:
Atmosphere
Atmosphere Projections
Projections Based
Based on
on Simulations
Simulations from
from the
the IPCC
IPCC Fifth
Fifth Assessment
Assessment.
Northern Express Group (2018). Mahurangi

Mahurangi Flood
Flood Model
Model Report ū
Report, Puhoi to Warkworth
Motorway.
NZSOLD (2015). New

New Zealand
Zealand Dam
Dam Safety
Safety Guidelines
Guidelines.
NZTA (2016). Bridge

Bridge Manual
Manual, Version Third Edition.
NZTA (2016). NZTA

NZTA P46
P46 Stormwater
Stormwater Specification
Specification.
Opus (2014). Peka

Peka Peka
Peka to
to North
North Otaki
Otaki Expressway
Expressway Effects
Effects of
of Major
Major Watercourse
Watercourse Crossings
Crossings
on
on Floods
Floods Adjusted
Adjusted for
for Possible
Possible Climate
Climate Change
Change to
to 2130
27 30.
Tonkin and Taylor (2014). Increased

Increased Flood
Flood Vulnerability:
Vulnerability: Overland
Overland Flow
Flow Model
Model Build
Build Report
Report.

l
101
APPENDIX A: HC_)TEO SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis of Hoteo Model was undertaken because we developed a calibrated
model of the Hoteo, and Auckland Council does not have a detailed hydraulic model of the
Hoteo River.
Sensitivity analysis of Hoteo Model was carried out by studying the variation in model
results due to change in Manning’s roughness coefficient, peak flows of the 100 Year ARI
event with allowance of climate change and peak flows of TP108. These are described in
further detail below.
Sensitivity analysis was not undertaken for Kourawhero, because this is a small catchment,
and there is no flow data to calibrate a model. Sensitivity analysis was not undertaken for
the Mahurangi, because we adopted the Auckland Council model and the model built for
ū
PL'Jhoi to Warkworth project. The parameters within the Auckland Council model were
calibrated as part of that model development. However, the design flows used in the model
are based on the TP108 methodology, and these design flows are conservative when
compared to the flood frequency estimates of design flows, using the statistical record. At
the detailed design stage, the hydrology for the Mahurangi catchment may be revised.
Sensitivity of hydraulic model was checked by reducing the Manning’s roughness coefficient
to 0.040 and by increasing its value to 0.050. This scenario showed little impact over the
generated peak flows at Gubbs station. The peak flow obtained at Cubbs station for 0.040
was 373 m3/s, whereas by increasing the roughness to 0.050, the value of peak flow
obtained at Gubbs station was 370 m3/s. The results show that the model is not
substantially affected by a change in roughness.
Besides studying the impact of Manning’s roughness coefficient over peak flows, the
sensitivity of model was also checked by increasing the peak flows by 26.5% to represent
the effects of climate change. As a result of the increased inflow, the projected water depth
at proposed bridge location was increased by 500 mm and raised the flood peak at Gubbs
station to 472 m3/s.
Table 22 compares the peak flows calculated using TP108 and Flood Frequency methods
for the 100 Year ARI event for sub—catchments of the Hoteo River.
Table 22 — Peak low comparison of TP108 and flood frequency analysis for the 100 year ARI
flood (with allowance for the effect of climate change)
Peak flow (m3/s)

Catchment No.
TP108 Frequency analysis
1 401.1 129.3
2 188.63 59.57
H .
H JACOBS fiF—Lrl Tonkin+Taylor
102
Peak flow (m3/s)
Catchment No.
TP108 Frequency analysis
3 392.2 114.0
4 344.5 101.0
5 85.8 16.20
6 237.5 45.80
7 111.75 76.30
8 101.5 47.2
9 217.5 62.7
10 172.9 30.6
11 181.6 32.8
As Table 22 shows the TP108 flows are very conservative. This is likely to be because the
catchment size of most sub—catchments of the Hoteo River exceed 12 kmz, which is one of
the application limitations of TP108.
Figure 73 shows the extents of flooding for both pre and post—development scenarios
assessed for the 100 Year ARI event of TP108. Figure 74 below illustrates the change in
flood depth obtained for the 100 Year ARI event of TP108 with the Indicative Alignment.
The setup ofthe hydraulic model is identical to the model as discussed in Section 4.3 above,
except for the flows.
The model results show that with TP108 flows, the flood depths on Wayby Valley Road are
increased by between 100 mm — 400 mm (Figure 74).
However, the flows calculated using TP108 are not realistic for the Hoteo River and a much
more reliable estimate of the flow is predicted using the flood frequency method, this is
illustrated in Section 4.2.
As compared to Manning’s roughness coefficient, the model results are more sensitive to
peak flows.
JACOBS fih—J‘l Tonkin +Taylor

103
‘u.
'-.'
Wellsf 'd
EL H)"."'_':
Film- ..
Culverts
* — Indicative Alignment
I:I Pre-Development flood extent
- Poet-Development flood extent
Figure 73 — Comparison of Flood Extents for Pre and Post—Development Scenarios for the 100
Year ARI Event of TP108
LEI-L? Tonkin+Taylor
104
100 Year ARI - TP108
|:| <—50 mm (Decrease)
|:|-50-50 mm
|:|50-100 mm
/ ‘:|100-150mm
[:1 150—250 mm
-250-500 mm
-0.5-1m
-1-1.5m
-1.5-2m
->2m
boundary
= Culverts
\\
Figure 74 — Change in flood depths due to the Project for the 100 Year ARI Event of TP108
W Tonkin+Taylor
105

Flood Modelling Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Flood Modelling Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Modelling Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wark worth to Wellsford

Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Name Signature Date

Document title: Warkworth to Wellsford Project; Flood Modelling technical report

Date: July 2019

Approved by: Brad Nobilo (CHD Limited)

File name: Flood_Model|ing_Technical_Report_5Julyl9_F|NAL.Docx

JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

5? JACOBS LE1? Ton kin +Taylar

5 MITIGATION PLANTING ALONG THE HOTEO AND MAHURANGI RIVERS 93

6 FLOOD MODELLING LIMITATIONS 99

APPENDIX A: HOTEO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 102

JACOBS |ﬁrl=1| Tonkin+Taylor

JACOBS |ﬁﬁ| Tonkin+Taylor

z N“ ’5}! .u- ‘5’ . //\ o «3‘

(2.7 W! a. I“. ///,|’|

£7} .._"° :1 ”I 3."

"'=‘=-”~‘<{zi‘ ELLE-$953.0 V4 niig _ if .57

J Proposed 7K. HOTEO SOUTH y ‘3-3 $3i,4? Y CENTRAL

boundary 733‘. ‘._

Figure 1 — Project Sections and Indicative Alignment

JACOBS LPN-5| Tonkin+Taylor

Figure 2 — Proposed designation boundary and freshwater catchments

1.2 Project featu res

These reports are listed below with a short description of each:

Marine Ecology I I Ecology

1Water Assessment Report

A ' Catchment Operational Hydrological Flood

Construction Water Existing Operational

Figure 3 — Flood Modelling Technical Report — relationship to other reports

The structure of this Report is as follows:

JACOBS |ﬁﬁ| Tonkin+Taylor

,J '2. ll Te Hana Creek? ’ x. - _‘ ' t . ﬁlm—““33““

1::s\ ' x _ "' J l l \ A—zzf-tseffi lg— fihQfi—‘ifizdg

•. Mahurangi River and its tributaries crossings.

•. Crossings of Hoteo tributary (Kourawhero Stream) south of the proposed tunnel.

The proposed method consists of three aspects:

•. Evaluation of projected changes in seasonal and annual mean temperature from

•. Evaluation of projected changes in extreme rainfall based on the projected changes

•. Evaluation of projected changes in flood magnitude based on the projected changes

The proposed method refers to the following documents:

Summer Autumn Winter Spring Annual

HJACOBS |ﬁﬁ| Tonkin+Taylor

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130

Figure 5 — Projected changes in annual mean temperature, baseline to 2130

H JACOBS ﬁh—J‘l Tonkin+Taylor

ARI (Year) 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year 50 Year 100 Year

Adjustment factor per 1°C

JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor

JACOBS |ﬁﬁ| Tonkin+Taylor

•. Revised Curve Numbers (CN) for all the sub—catchments;

•. Modified time of concentration (> 10 minutes) of sub—catchments; and

Table 3 — Climate change adjustment factors for different return periods

ARI (year) 2 1o 20 100

Table 5 — Summary of hydraulic model components

Hydraulic model components Values

Total numbers of bridges 19

': JACOBS W Tonkin +Taylor