BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

ENV-2018-AKL-000078

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991 (RMA)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the direct referral of

applications for resource

consents for the necessary

infrastructure and related

activities associated with

holding the America's Cup in

Auckland

BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT

AUCKLAND

Applicant

AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Regulatory Authority

EVIDENCE OF PAUL CAMERON KENNEDY ON BEHALF OF

PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND

(COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL)

7 AUGUST 2018

0965

1

1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My full name is Paul Cameron Kennedy.

1.2 I hold the degrees of BSc and BSc. (Hons) in Botany and Zoology from Victoria University

of Wellington and have been involved in environmental research and assessment since

1975. I am a Principal Environmental Consultant with Kennedy Environmental Limited.

Prior to December 2017 I was employed by Golder Associates (NZ) Limited (Golder), a

global engineering and environmental consulting company as Principal Environmental

Consultant. Prior to December 2006 I had been employed by Kingett Mitchell Ltd since

1985 and was a Director of that Company. I am a member of the Society for

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the American Chemical Society.

1.3 I have been involved in a wide range of coastal studies in the Waitemata Harbour and

around New Zealand. I undertook reviews of Americas Cup studies for the Americas

Cup Planning Authority in 1990-1991 and subsequently I coordinated field work and

supporting environmental assessments in 1996 and 2003 in the Viaduct Basin for

Americas Cup proposals.

1.4 Over the years I have undertaken a range of work in the Waitemata Harbour related to

this project. This has included:

a) Preparing an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) for the Marine Rescue

Centre in Mechanics Bay.

b) Preparation of an AEE for a proposed Bayswater Marina.

c) Undertaking dredging assessments for the Port of Auckland, an AEE for the

disposal of sediment at the North Rangitoto disposal site including sediment

chemistry, benthic ecology and bioaccumulation, conducing biological and

sediment chemistry monitoring at the North Rangitoto disposal site.

d) Undertaking an examination of the benthic ecology of the historic Browns Island

disposal site.

e) Undertaking baseline and post disposal sediment chemistry and biological

surveys for the Hauraki Gulf dredged material disposal site in 1991 and 1992

0966

2

(pre-disposal), two during disposal surveys in 1992 and surveys in 1993 and

1994 following disposal; Six surveys of subtidal rocky shore and seabed

biological monitoring at the Noises and Tiritiri Matangi islands over 1992 and

1993. Four biomonitoring surveys using green lipped mussels at four sites in

the Hauraki Gulf in 1992 and 1993.

f) Undertaking sediment quality surveys in the Port of Auckland in 1989, 1990,

1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2016-17.

g) Environmental assessment for the expansion of the Fergusson Container

Terminal reclamation.

h) Environmental assessment for the deepening of the Rangitoto Channel,

undertaking pre-dredging surveys in 2003, 2004 and post dredging benthic

ecology recovery monitoring studies in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013.

i) Coastal environmental assessments for study of alternative Waitemata Harbour

crossings.

j) Dredging sediment quality assessments, effects assessments for marine

disposal of sediment, dredging monitoring at Devonport Naval Base, Milford

marina, Pine Harbour marina, Bucklands Beach marina, and Hobsonville Point.

1.5 I have also been involved in a number of major coastal projects including:

a) Port Shakespeare in Picton construction (environmental assessment and during

construction biological and biouptake monitoring).

b) Clifford Bay (adjacent to Lake Grassmere in Marlborough) ferry terminal

(preparation of environmental assessment).

c) Various studies off Taranaki for the Maui A and B oil platforms and

environmental assessments for the Tui oil field.

d) Clive sewage outfall (undertake five yearly outfall environmental surveys (1995,

2000, 2005, 2015), including benthic ecology, sediment quality and flounder

contaminant uptake).

0967

3

e) Rosedale sewage outfall (preparation of environmental assessment for

operation and construction, baseline environmental surveys).

f) Waimakariri District ocean outfall ((preparation of environmental assessment for

operation and construction, baseline environmental surveys).

g) Christchurch City Council ocean outfall (baseline and first two post construction

environmental surveys).

h) Bream Bay ocean outfall (benthic and sediment quality baseline survey).

i) Preparation of AEE for proposed mining of rock phosphate from the Chatham

Rise.

1.6 I was engaged by Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) through Golder to undertake

coastal environmental studies to support the application for the thirty sixth Americas Cup

(AC36). I co-ordinated the water and sediment sampling and prepared the overall

technical report providing an assessment of costal environmental effects that was

submitted with the application (CBD Vol A, CB21, page 1293) (my April Report) (Golder

2018 in the attached reference list). The ecological field work and ecology sampling was

carried out under my instruction by NIWA (Coordinated by Dr Serena Cox).

1.7 I advise that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and have complied with it in preparing this

evidence. I confirm that the issues addressed in this evidence are within my area of

expertise and I have not omitted material facts known to me that might alter or detract

from my evidence.

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 I have been asked to provide evidence in relation to the effects of the proposed AC36

development on the environment of Freemans Bay and the adjacent Waitemata Harbour.

My evidence will cover the following matters.

a) The physical environment of Freemans Bay;

b) Coastal ecology including ecological habitats within Freemans Bay and

intertidal and subtidal ecology, birds, fish, and marine mammals;

0968

4

c) Environmental quality, including water quality and the quality of sediment;

d) The effects of construction (wharf and breakwater construction and dredging)

on water quality and ecological resources in Freemans Bay and the wider

Waitemata Harbour;

e) The effects on operational matters (e.g., stormwater discharges, lighting,

decommissioning) on water quality and ecological resources in Freemans bay

and wider Harbour;

f) Comments on the Auckland Council Report;

g) Comments on conditions;

h) Comments on submissions; and

i) Conclusions

2.2 I have been involved in expert conferencing with the Council’s expert Ms Kala Sivaguru

and refer to the Joint Witness Statement (Coastal Environment) dated 25 July 2018.

There are no matters of disagreement between myself and Ms Sivaguru as recorded in

the Joint Witness Statement.

3. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

3.1 The Freemans Bay environment is highly modified such that none of the original

Waitemata Harbour shoreline that was present prior to European arrival remains. The

shore adjacent to the proposed AC36 developments comprises reclamation, seawalls

and piled wharf structures. The overall project development makes no change to the

type of man-made shoreline, has no reclamation and all development will occur in areas

of existing similar development. There is no reclamation but piling results in some loss

of soft sediment seabed. Half of the piles installed for the new Wynyard Wharf south

deck will be removed after the Americas Cup reducing the physical effect.

3.2 The ecological habitat within Freemans Bay is simple comprising soft seabed habitat or

intertidal and subtidal man-made structures (seawalls, piles, walls and pontoons). No

changes in habitat types will occur as a result of the proposal.

0969

5

3.3 Water quality monitoring was undertaken within the Inner and Outer Viaduct Harbour and

Freemans Bay. Water quality was similar to that in the main Waitemata Harbour. Higher

concentrations of copper were present in the Inner Viaduct Harbour due to its use as a

marina.

3.4 The proposed construction works, including piling and dredging, will have no effects on

areas of ecological importance outside of Freemans Bay in the Waitemata Harbour.

Noise from piling has the potential to disturb marine mammals in the lower Waitemata

harbour resulting in behavioural avoidance. More than minor effects on mammals could

potentially occur if mammals moved into Freemans Bay in close proximity of the piling.

Observers will be used to watch for mammals near the construction activity thereby

appropriately mitigating such effects (as provided for in condition 110A and section 6.7

of the draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan attached to the evidence

of Mr Craig Fitzgerald).

3.5 Piling and related work to construct new breakwaters and wharfs (Wynyard South and

Hobson Wharf extension) will result in changes to the underwater light environment.

Shading will have local effects on wharf pile and sediment community composition

Overall the effects are considered to be no more than minor on environmental quality or

ecological habitat.

3.6 Mudcrete may be placed on the seabed where new wave panels are being installed. The

mudcrete will be made from local sediment of similar quality to that present where it will

be placed. The mudcrete will have no more than minor effects on contaminant

movement or ecology.

3.7 Sediment quality survey of areas to be disturbed by construction and dredging showed

that sediment quality within the Outer Viaduct Harbour and in Freemans Bay (entrance

channel to Viaduct) was better than that present in the Wynyard Wharf South

Waterspace. Poorer quality in that location was attributed principally to the discharge of

stormwater from the Daldy Street outfall. Recent sampling of deeper sediment from the

northern end of the approach channel to the Inner Viaduct Harbour has shown that

sediment quality is very similar to surface samples collected from the same area.

3.8 Additional lighting to be installed on new structures within Freemans Bay will have no

more than minor effects on the ecological resources (birds, fish etc) within the bay.

0970

6

3.9 Stormwater treatment is proposed for the AC36 bases on Wynyard Point and also for the

Hobson Wharf extension and the Halsey St Extension Wharf. This in my view is an

environmental improvement as existing wharfs do not have managed and treated

stormwater discharges.

3.10 Modelling has indicated that flushing of Viaduct Harbour waters will take longer than at

present. Although adverse effects are not expected from the change in flushing times,

environmental monitoring of the Inner Viaduct Harbour is proposed and included in

conditions to provide information that might identify any changes should they occur. The

monitoring is set out in a draft Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan

(attached to my evidence as Attachment B) which includes a range of measures to

provide information that are expected to lead to a better environment within the overall

Viaduct Basin.

3.11 Submissions have raised the cumulative effects of changes to the Waitemata shoreline.

The key historical changes happened in the 1800s and 1900s with relatively smaller

changes in the latter part of the 1900s and since 2000. The significance of historical

changes to iwi are recognised. The current project results in small changes in the

physical nature of the man-made harbour shore within Freemans Bay. The overall

change is considered to have no more than minor effect on the natural resources of the

harbour.

4. RELEVANT FACTS AND CONTEXT

4.1 In this statement of evidence I do not repeat the project description and refer to the

summary of the application in the evidence of Mr Rod Marler (Panuku).

4.2 Matters relating to coastal hydrodynamics (tides, currents, circulation) which I rely on in

my evidence, are presented in the evidence of Mr Stephen Priestley.

4.3 I will also refer to the evidence of Mr Craig Fitzgerald (Noise and Vibration) and Mr John

McKensey (Lighting).

5. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

5.1 The proposed AC36 development sits in Freemans Bay. The site is within the Port of

Auckland, which is a highly modified environment where no natural shoreline of the

0971

7

Waitemata Harbour remains. As described in my April Report (CB21 page 1293), the

visible shoreline to the west comprises a reclamation (the Wynyard Point section built in

1930) and the existing Wynyard Wharf and, to the east Princes Wharf (built in 1921).

The Hobson Wharf extension sits on the northern end of Hobson Wharf built in 1937.

Within this wharf framework sit the Inner and Outer Viaduct Basins/Harbours. The

Hobson West Marina sits within the Outer Viaduct Harbour (OVH). The original Viaduct

Harbour (including the Lighter Basin) was redeveloped in the 1990s with further

development as part of the 2000 Americas Cup development.

5.2 The physical nature of the environment the AC36 development sits within means there

is no natural shoreline adjacent to any area of construction activity. The majority of

structures are wharf piles, cross beams, wooden wharf fenders, pontoons and

associated structures and wharf walls in the Inner Viaduct Harbour (IVH), part of the

OVH, North Wharf and the length of Wynyard Wharf. All of these structures sit vertically

in the tide. The only area of intertidal shore is artificial and is located along the southern

section of Wynyard Wharf.

5.3 The seabed within Freemans Bay comprises mostly soft silts that overlay Waitemata

sandstone at various depths. Through most of Freemans Bay, the depth to sandstone

follows the natural contours of the original valleys and ridges that lead up into the current

business district behind the bay. In some places sandstone has been dredged. For

example, as part of the 2000 Americas Cup, some 250,000 m3 of sandstone was dredged

from the inner Viaduct Basin.

5.4 Sediment through much of Freemans Bay is mainly mud with variable amounts of sand

with a small amount of gravel sized material (mostly shell). Sampling undertaken and

reported in my April Report (CBD Vol A, CB21, page 1315) showed that the sediment

cores contained about 70% mud and 30% sand. Some surface sediments contain over

90% mud. The mud is mostly silt (72%) with some clay (28%). There are places where

shell has accumulated at the surface (under wharfs and next to piles) or where debris

has been deposited from stormwater or material has been placed or accumulated (e.g.,

under Wynyard Wharf between the seawall and berth).

0972

8

6. COASTAL ECOLOGY

Intertidal and subtidal ecology of structures

6.1 The fauna and flora of the wharf structures (piles, wave panels), walls and pontoons were

examined by examining vertical structures by depth, taking video and still images and

taking scrape samples to assess dominant species (Cox 2017; Figure 1 below shows

the locations sampled and survey). In addition to these structures, there is an area of

intertidal shore located under the southern section of Wynyard Wharf.

Figure 1. Ecological sampling locations (From Cox 2017).

0973

9

6.2 The communities present on the pontoons located in the Outer Viaduct Basin (OVB)

were different to those present on wharf piles, walls or wave panels. At 0 m (MHWS) and

2 m, the wall and pontoon sites in the OVB had the highest species abundance and the

pontoons had the highest species richness.

6.3 However at 5 m down, all the substrate types (new piles under the Event Centre, old

piles under the Maritime Museum, pontoons and walls in the Viaduct Basin, and the outer

facing wave panels) had relatively high abundance, species richness and diversity.

6.4 Some 27 species were identified on the various intertidal structures. Of these, the

australasian barnacle (Austrominius modestus) was the dominant barnacle and is very

common on artificial structures. The most common bivalve was the introduced oyster

Crassostra gigas and formed dense areas on many substrates. A range of indigenous

sponges are also very common with one sponge (Crella incrustans) collected in the

harbour for the first time in this survey. Two solitary ascidians were recorded on all the

structures and can also be found growing on shell debris at the seabed. A number of

colonial ascidian species were also present. Hydroids and bryozoans were also

recorded. One of the visual species present on all structures was the Mediterranean fan

worm (Sabella spallanzanii) which is common in the harbour.

6.5 Overall, there are differences in the distribution of some species resulting in some

differences in community structure across type of structure and by depth. The intertidal

sites on structures support a significant non-indigenous component to the ecology.

Subtidal soft sediment ecology

6.6 The soft sediment seabed of Freemans Bay and the OVH supports few mobile or fixed

epibenthic species. The most notable faunal evidence are burrows in the soft sediment.

These are home to organisms such as shrimps. Occasional starfish were also seen.

The non-indigenous fan worm was seen in the North Wharf/Wynyard Wharf area where

the substrate was more variable.

6.7 The soft sediment infauna (living in the sediment) was dominated by polychaete worms

(in particular a common species Heteromastus filiformis), bivalve shellfish (mostly the

small non-indigenous Theora lubrica) and crustacea (decapods, amphipods and

isopods) amongst others. Several introduced polychaete worm species were found in

0974

10

the sediments. A single gastropod species (the non-indigenous Australian dog-whelk

Nassarius burchardi) was found (my April Report: CBD Vol A, CB21, pages 1392 –

1393). Comparison of samples in the darker environment under an existing wharf (under

the Viaduct Event Centre) with sediment from open water revealed that there were

differences in species dominance with the molluscs Theora and Nassarius and ostracods

more abundant under the wharf.

Coastal birds

6.8 Freemans Bay does not support any resident breeding populations of coastal birds. A

number of species which are seen through much of the lower Waitemata Harbour are

also seen within Freemans Bay. Some of the species can be seen roosting or resting

(including gulls and shags) and some utilise the open waters of the bay to feed (e.g.,

white fronted tern). The white fronted tern and red-billed gull, which are both “at risk’

conservation status species roost and breed elsewhere in the Waitemata Harbour and

Hauraki Gulf.

Fish

6.9 Freemans Bay provides a habitat for a range of fish species found through Waitemata

Harbour. These include fish found around the wharf piles and pontoons where there is

more diversity of habitat and food (e.g., for grazers such as spotty and parore) and open

water species who move between the harbour and Freemans Bay (e.g., bottom feeders

such as rays, flounder and snapper and pelagic feeders such as kahawai, mullet etc.

The underwater ecology of existing structures provides some diversity of habitat for fish.

No unique habitat appears present for fish of conservation significance. The fish fauna

includes one introduced Australian species (a goby) found during earlier biosecurity

surveys.

Marine mammals

6.10 A wide range of marine mammals can be found in the Hauraki Gulf (CBD Vol A, CB21,

pages 1306 – 1307). As a result, some of these species enter the Waitemata Harbour.

No marine mammals are known to be permanent residents but some such as seals and

sea leopards spend extended periods of time within the harbour. More frequent visitors

sighted within the harbour include orca, bottlenose dolphins and common dolphins.

0975

11

False killer whales (a member of the dolphin family) were seen at Okahu Bay in 2005.

Occasionally some larger cetaceans visit the harbour. These have included a southern

right whale sighted in Okahu Bay in 2015. Of the more common species seen,

Bottlenose dolphin, is classified as nationally endangered and have a small population

regarded to be in decline (Baker et al. 2016). Common dolphins and fur seals are

resident taxa with large populations which are not threatened (Baker et al. 2016), but

have a moderate population. Leopard seals are considered to be vagrants with relatively

small numbers in coastal waters.

Biosecurity

6.11 The coastal flora and fauna of the Waitemata Harbour contain a range of introduced

species. These introductions are likely to have commenced when the first ships arrived

in the early 1800s. Hayward (1997) provided a summary of the introductions to the

harbour over a 60 year period since early ecological surveys (Powell 1937). The number

of introductions has been substantial and has had substantial ecological impacts. Today

significant monitoring effort is expended by Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) in relation

to watching for unwanted marine organisms. The Waitemata Harbour is a key monitoring

location in the Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme. A baseline

survey was carried out in the Port of Auckland in 2007 (Inglis et al. 2007) and Freemans

Bay is monitored on a regular basis and the results reported in the annual MHRSS

reports (e.g., Inglis et al. 2017). As part of the AC36 ecological survey introduced species

were identified amongst the fauna and flora collected. No new species were identified

in the sampling. An MHRSS survey was undertaken in February 2018 and no new

unwanted species were identified in the Waitemata Harbour. As discussed in Section

9.10 of this evidence, the regular independent MPI monitoring will inform the Biosecurity

Management Plan (BMP) that will be utilised to manage biosecurity issues that may arise

during construction and for decommissioning any temporary marine structures. The

table of contents for the draft BMP is attached to my evidence as Attachment A.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Water Quality

7.1 Although there is a long-term saline water quality monitoring programme in the

Waitemata Harbour, there is no long-term water quality monitoring data for the Viaduct

0976

12

Harbour or Freemans Bay. The closest site in the Auckland Council monitoring

programme is at Chelsea Wharf up-harbour from the Auckland Harbour Bridge. To

provide an indication of local water quality, water samples were collected at four sites

(two in the IVH, one in the OVH and one in Freemans Bay) on five surveys in November-

December 2017. Figure 2 below shows the sampling locations. The weather was good

on all sampling occasions. The results were summarised in Section 5 of my April Report.

Figure 2. Water sampling locations (Figure 15 from Golder 2018).

7.2 Overall, the data collected showed a general similarity to the data collected from Chelsea

Wharf in the Auckland Council long term water quality monitoring programme. This

indicated that the water quality reflected harbour water moving into and then back out of

the IVH and OVH (as samples were measured on the ebb tide). The five sets of data

collected showed that the IVH waters had lower suspended solids concentrations and all

sites had similar low concentrations of organic carbon. Dissolved oxidised nitrogen

0977

13

concentrations were low but ammoniacal-nitrogen concentrations were on average

higher than oxidised nitrogen concentrations. The survey was not able to identify clear

differences between the IVH and the sites outside. The chlorophyll-a concentrations

were similar at all sites and similar to those measured at the Chelsea Wharf site.

7.3 Measurements of key trace element concentrations identified a difference in copper

concentrations between the IVH and Freemans Bay. No differences were detected in

zinc concentrations. Dissolved copper concentrations ranged from average of 0.0036

g/m3 and 0.0031 g/m3 in the IVH to 0.001 g/m3 in Freemans Bay. These concentrations

compare to the ANZECC (2000) 90 and 95% protection trigger values of 3.0 g/m3 and

1.3 g/m3 respectively. The measured concentration sit at the trigger values. It is likely

that some dissolved copper would be associated with dissolved organic carbon present

in the IVH waters reducing potential toxicity. The difference in copper is attributed to the

loss of antifoulant copper from the vessels within the IVH.

7.4 Although increased residence time of water within the IVH has the potential to result in

water quality differences compared to the site sampled in Freemans Bay north of the

entrance to the OVH (due to settling and biological processes) differences were not seen

for most parameters in the short AC36 survey. The survey was carried out in good

weather and as such no significant storm events were captured by the sampling. On-

going water quality monitoring has been recommended as part of consent conditions and

this is described in Section 9 of my evidence and is included as part of the Inner Viaduct

Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP) described in Section 9.8 of my

evidence.

Sediment Quality

7.5 Several surveys of sediment quality have been carried out within Freemans Bay/Viaduct

Harbour. Earlier sediment quality surveys were carried out as part of earlier America’s

Cup environmental assessments. For the AC36 assessment, sediment samples (cores)

were collected within the Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace (abbreviated WWSWS in

this section) the OVH and immediately to the north of Hobson and Halsey Wharfs

(surface samples and cores) (referred to as Freemans Bay) (Figure 3 of my evidence

illustrates where the samples were collected).

0978

14

Figure 3. Sediment sampling locations (Figure 12 from Golder 2018).

7.6 Additional sediment quality data has been collected since the application was lodged.

Samples were obtained during geotechnical investigations undertaken for the Wynyard

Edge Alliance. Drilling down to Waitemata Group materials was also carried out more

recently (June 2018) at locations shown in Figure 4 below. I will describe the

supplementary sediment quality results in the following sections of evidence.

7.7 The samples in the primary AC36 survey were examined for physical characteristics,

concentrations of organic carbon, a range of trace elements, total petroleum

hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, a group of cyclic hydrocarbons

emitted from motor vehicles etc.), a range of persistent organic pollutants and

antifoulants (tributyl tin and co-biocides). The samples collected from the northern end

of the proposed approach channel dredging (in the additional geotechnical investigations

subsequent to the application being lodged) were analysed for trace elements and

0979

15

polyaromatic hydrocarbons. A number of other core samples were examined for the

same and some screened for semi-volatile organic compounds.

Figure 4 Geotechnical borehole locations (original drawing SI01-01 Rev B, provided by C

Bailey Tonkin & Taylor). .

7.8 Organic carbon concentrations were low with mean concentrations of 1.49% in surface

sediments from the OVB. The average concentration in Freemans Bay north of the OVH

were slightly lower but were higher in sediments located just off North Wharf in the

WWSWS (average of 1.71%). The slightly higher concentrations appear to reflect the

addition of organic matter from stormwater discharging at that location.

7.9 In relation to the trace elements, the key findings were:

a) Concentrations of chromium were similar in all sediments.

0980

16

b) Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, nickel were similar in sediment in the Outer

Viaduct Harbour and Freemans Bay with higher concentrations in the sediments

sampled from WWSWS.

c) Concentrations of copper, lead and zinc were similar in the OVB and Freemans

Bay and lower than in WWSWS sediments. Within the WWSWS concentrations

were higher close to North Wharf and further off the Wharf were intermediate in

concentration compared to the Freemans Bay samples. It is likely that the three

elements are derived from urban stormwater runoff and for copper and zinc,

contribution from vessel activity. It was notable that lead concentrations in

surface samples in Freemans Bay were some 30 % lower than their

corresponding core samples (30 mg/kg) and the core concentrations measured

in 1989 from the same locations were twice as high, averaging 61.8 mg/kg

(Bioresearches 1989). This change over time is a response to the removal of

lead from petrol in New Zealand.

d) As has been found in previous surveys, mercury concentrations in core samples

were elevated compared with average concentrations of 0.2 mg/kg in the OVH

and Freemans Bay samples, with slightly higher concentrations in samples from

WWSWS (average of 0.28 mg/kg).

e) An additional three sediment samples obtained from deeper depths (1.5 to 2.5

m) from Boreholes (BH) 208 and 209 located at the northern end of the

approach channel were analysed for trace elements. The concentrations

measured were within the range or in the case of the deeper sample from

BH208 at the upper end of the range of concentrations recorded in the surface

core samples examined.

f) Table 1 attached to my evidence provides a summary of a comparison of

concentrations measured (2017 and 2018 samples) with ANZECC (2000)

sediment quality guideline values (SQGV). That comparison showed that within

the OVH and Freemans Bay sediments only mercury exceeded its SQGV. For

samples from the WWSWS, exceedances of the lead, mercury and zinc SQGV

were identified along with a single sample exceedance of the lead SQG-High

value. Overall, this comparison provides an indication that the sediment quality

0981

17

in the OVH and main section of Freemans Bay are better than sediment located

off North Wharf within the WWSWS where quality appears to be impacted by

stormwater discharge.

7.10 Total petroleum hydrocarbons were non-detected in the OVB and Freemans Bay

sediments but detected in the North Wharf samples in the WWSWS. PAHs were

common with total measured concentrations over 1 mg/kg in OVB and Freemans Bay

sediments and higher concentrations within parts of the WWSWS close to North Wharf

(average 7.65 mg/kg). Deeper sediment samples collected from the north end of the

approach channel in 2018 had similar concentrations to surface core samples (refer

Table 1 below). The elevated concentrations and the gradient adjacent to North Wharf

likely reflects the presence of PAHs in urban stormwater. Comparison of the measured

concentrations showed that they were all lower than the SQGV of 10 mg/kg (Simpson et

al. 2013).

Table 1: Summary of contaminant concentrations in key sampling areas and comparison with ANZECC (2000) sediment quality guidelines (updated from Simpson et al. 2013).

Samples HWC4-9 and 10-12

BH208

1.5-2.0 m

BH208

2.0-2.5 m

BH209

1.5-2.0 m

BH204

0.5-1.0 m

BH205

0-0.5 m

ANZECC (2000) guidelines

SQGV SQG-High

Arsenic 7.4 ± 0.7 (6.8-8.4)* 7 9 6 9 7 20 70

Cadmium 0.064 ± 0.018 (0.041-0.098) <0.1 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 10

Chromium 25 ± 1 (24-27) 22 30 21 26 28 80 370

Copper 21.2 ± 2 (18-24) 20 21 17 22 24 65 270

Lead 30 ± 3 (27-33) 33 45 30 32 38 50 220

Mercury 0.19 ± 0.03 (0.16-0.24) 0.17 0.53 0.2 - - 0.15 1

Nickel 9.1 ± 0.3 (8.8-9.6) 9 11 8 9 10 21 52

Zinc 104 ± 6.2 (96-110) 95 119 92 106 112 200 410

Total PAHs 1.662 ± 0.406 (1.12-1.22)

<1.99 <2.54 <1.56 <1.6 <1.66 10 50

Notes: Bold indicates a sample exceeds the SQGV. Yellow shading identifies where the mean site concentration exceeds the SQGV.

Red x indices a sample exceeds the SQG-H. PAH concentration adjusted to 1 % TOC - 1.907 ± 0.285 (0.954-1.949) mg/kg.

7.11 Analysis of a range of persistent organic compounds identified low concentrations of

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and the organochlorine insecticide DDT

(Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its breakdown products DDE and DDD in

sediments. DDT and PCBs were ‘banned’ in 1989 and 2004 respectively.

0982

18

7.12 Tributyl tin concentrations were detectable in some sediments from OVH and Freemans

Bay but concentrations were low compared to the SQGV provided by Simpson et al.

(2013). Within the WWSWS, TBT concentrations were higher and variable with a

number of concentrations over the SQGV and one of the six samples over the SQG-High

guidance. It was considered that the source may be residual antifoulant paint flakes

derived from an unknown source. No co-biocides were detected in samples tested.

7.13 Overall, sediments from the OVH and Freemans Bay have consistently lower levels of

contaminants compared to sediments from WWSWS. The concentration of most

constituents were lower than sediment quality guidelines. In the OVB and the approach

channel (north of entrance to the OVB), mercury was the only constituent where the

mean concentration exceeded SQGV (the lower ANZECC sediment quality guidance).

Higher contaminant concentrations were present in the sediment within WWSWS

reflecting stormwater discharges and other contributions to contaminants found in that

area. The exceedances included lead and TBT in addition to mercury. This is discussed

further in Section 8 of my evidence which deals with the effects relating to construction

activity and dredging/sediment management.

8. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

Construction

8.1 The majority of the disturbing activity associated with construction activity is the drilling

and driving of piles for the extension to Hobson Wharf and the installation of the

permanent and temporary decking at Wynyard Wharf. Pile installation may occur

through driving the piles or in some locations where the piles need to be installed into

sandstone through drilling and placement of the piles into the bored hole.

8.2 The installation process in all cases results in local seabed disturbance and some

suspension of fine sediment. The changes in local water clarity will typically be sub-

surface and will be very local. Sedimentation will also be localised. I consider these

effects as less than minor and acceptable given the nature of the environment.

8.3 Temporary construction platforms are likely to be required during breakwater and wharf

construction works. These will typically be vessels with spuds (rather than anchors) that

are able to move themselves. They will result in some local seabed disturbance but no

0983

19

more than a spudded dredging vessel such as carries out maintenance dredging in the

Port of Auckland.

8.4 Some under wharf repair work will be required on Hobson and Halsey Wharfs during the

construction period. This will involve removal of deteriorated concrete using high

pressure water. This work is described in the Base Infrastructure Technical Report

lodged as part of the application (CBD Vol A CB10, page 619) and waste collected is

disposed to landfill.

Dredging

8.5 Dredging will be required in three areas of the Freemans Bay marine environment as

shown on Figure 5 below. As described in the evidence of Mr Priestley, there have been

some adjustments to the volumes of sediment to be dredged. The dredging plan as

presented in the Application included 78,000 m3 dredging and 9,000 m3 of pile coring.

Dredging of the navigation channel will now remove 20,000 m3. Dredging in the

WWSWS is also reduced, bringing the current dredging total to 73,000 m3 including pile

corings.

0984

20

Figure 5. Location and depth of proposed dredging (from Appendix F of Golder 2018).

8.6 It is proposed that dredging will be carried out using a long-reach hydraulic excavator

similar to those utilised for maintenance dredging within the Port of Auckland. This

method of dredging has been in common usage in the port for more than 20 years and

has been subject to a range of water quality monitoring to assess the generation of TSS

and changes in water clarity. Local but minor changes in TSS concentrations are

expected down drift of dredging. Due to the extensive historic monitoring that has been

undertaken, water quality monitoring has not been recommended during dredging of the

approach channel or Hobson West Marina (within the OVH). Monitoring has been

recommended during dredging within the WWSWS.

8.7 Disturbance of the seabed during dredging and the dispersion of sediment results in the

release of some constituents into the water column. This occurs as the sediment

contains pore water and some of the contaminants can be loosely bound to sediment

and released when the low redox sediment enters aerobic overlying seawater. To assess

0985

21

this, the six sediment samples from WWSWS were subject to elutriate testing (a shaking

test). The results which assess what is released into the water were compared to water

quality guidelines (ANZECC (2000) and USEPA (2018) where required). Elutriate was

not obtained from sediments collected the OVB or in Freemans Bay north of Halsey

Wharf as the sediments were ‘clean’ by comparison with the WWSWS. Recent

geotechnical investigation in Freemans Bay provided for the collection of three sediment

samples from the northern end of the approach channel dredging. All three samples

were collected at depths deeper than previous sampling. Elutriate testing was carried

out on all three sediment samples.

8.8 The results of the elutriate testing of WWSWS samples were very similar to tests

previously carried out on Waitemata Harbour sediments. Ammoniacal nitrogen was the

most significant constituent released (as it can be present in high concentrations in

reduced pore water). Most trace element concentrations and TBT in the elutriate were

not detectable. Arsenic was measurable at elevated concentrations (and is in all testing

of Waitemata sediments). PAHs were not detected. Table 2 below summarises the

elutriate concentration data and shows that the results from the deep sediment samples

within the approach channel are similar to the results obtained and reported in my April

Report (CBD Vol A, CB21, page 1336). The ammonia and arsenic concentrations are

rapidly diluted with surrounding seawater when sediment is disturbed and no adverse

effects are predicted in adjacent waters.

Table 2: Summary of contaminant concentrations in sediment elutriate from key sampling areas and comparison with ANZECC marine water quality guidelines (ANZECC 2000).

Contaminant\ sampling area

WWSWS

WW1-WW3

BH208

1.5-2.0 m

BH208

2.0-2.5 m

BH209

1.5-2 m

ANZECC (2000) 95 % trigger

Ammoniacal-N 5.6 (5.7-8.8)* 0.38 15.4 4.8 0.91

Arsenic 0.0156 (0.0146-0.021)* 0.0116 0.024 0.060 0.013, 0.036**,

Cadmium <0.00021 <0.00021 <0.00021 <0.00021 0.0055

Chromium <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 0.0044

Copper <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 0.0013

Lead <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 0.0044

Mercury <0.00008 <0.00008 <0.00008 <0.00008 0.0004

Nickel <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.070

Zinc <0.0041 <0.0041 <0.0041 <0.0041 0.015

Notes: mean (range). ** - ANZECC (2000) 95 % trigger for freshwaters, USEPA CCC (chronic) criteria for salt water.

0986

22

8.9 Some off-site movement of sediment will occur during dredging. For the two key areas

of dredging, the quality of sediment is similar to most adjacent harbour sediment quality.

As such transport and deposition of the sediment is unlikely to have offsite effects. A

part of the WWSWS dredging will involve sediment of poorer quality. The environment

is subject to routine vessel disturbance as the area is shallow. It is unlikely that dredging

will produce additional offsite sediment movement other than that occurring at present.

As such, dredging within the WWSWS is not expected to have more than minor effects.

Proposed Conditions 56 through 68 (in the Applicants Proposed Conditions of Consent

(7 August) attached to the evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala as Attachment A) set

out monitoring required within this sub-area of dredging.

Effects of construction noise on marine mammals

8.10 Mr Craig Fitzgerald has described the underwater noise environment during

construction. The primary source of noise as it might affect marine mammals is piling for

breakwaters and new wharf structures. As described in Golder (2018) these are typically

fur seal (an otarrid pinniped), leopard seals (a phocid pinniped (true seals)), bottle-nose

and common dolphins and orca (mid-frequency cetaceans). In addition, larger

cetaceans such as the southern right whale (a baleen whale - low frequency cetacean)

are occasionally seen in the lower harbour.

8.11 NOAA provides guidance in relation to Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS) and temporary

threshold shifts (TTS) onset for both impulse and non-impulse sounds. The noise

modelling undertaken by Mr Fitzgerald and described in his evidence, which identified

the noise contours that might cause adverse effects should mammals swim within the

zones. These thresholds occur very close to the piling source and as such any marine

mammals present in the lower harbour will not be exposed to such close proximity

effects.

8.12 The noise assessment identified that although piling noise will be detectable at the

harbour entrance and for mammals swimming in the main body of the lower harbour may

illicit behavioural avoidance, the key temporary threshold shifts effect threshold is located

close to the source of the piling activity within Freemans Bay. Potential disturbance

related effects on marine mammals are mitigated through the use of an observer to

identify if marine mammals are likely to enter Freemans Bay.

0987

23

8.13 Although piling occurs for a period of time, potential effects on marine mammals that

might be present within Waitemata Harbour are behavioural avoidance. Any effects are

considered to be of a short-term nature.

Effects of mudcrete placement within the CMA

8.14 It is proposed that some of the sediment dredged from within the OVB or approach

channel may be used to create ‘mudcrete’. Mudcrete is created by mixing muddy

sediment with a small amount of concrete (typically about 3%). Mudcrete has been

utilised in shoreline construction within the Waitemata Harbour. It was used in the

construction of Fishermans Wharf in 1992, parts of the IVH edge and shore for the

Americas Cup in 1997 and has been used for the last 20 years in the construction of the

Fergusson Container Terminal reclamation.

8.15 Mudcrete will be used on land as part of ground improvements (evidence of Mr Ware

and Mr Priestley) and in the construction of the new breakwaters where it will form a

bund. The use of the mudcrete and where it will be placed is identified in the

Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the coastal marine area

(MPDMP).

8.16 The addition of the Portland cement (e.g., 5-10%) to the mud solidifies the material to

form a soft rock (not unlike sandstone). The mudcrete solidifies relatively quickly and can

solidify underwater. The formed mudcrete is dense and has low hydraulic conductivity.

The solid nature of the mudcrete also reduces the movement of water through it and

therefore the movement of contaminants out of the mudcrete. The immobilisation of any

contaminant within the mudcrete is dependent on the mudcrete chemistry (e.g., final pH,

presence of organic matter and carbon etc.). The alkaline nature of the mudcrete

immobilises most elements (precipitation etc.). Copper loss can be seen in mudcrete

leaching (with alkaline conditions) due to the presence of dissolved organic carbon within

the mudcrete (e.g., refer Depree & Frobel 2009, Priestley 1995). The diffusion of any

‘contaminants’ from the surface or within the mudcrete mixes in the seawater

immediately over the mudcrete surface (a very small layer of seawater). It is my opinion

that water quality changes (e.g., pH and dissolved metals) will not be detectable.

Monitoring was carried out during the mudcrete placement at the Fergusson Container

Terminal reclamation. No detectable changes were identified.

0988

24

8.17 The mudcrete will be placed on the seabed and will settle into the sediment. The surface

of the underwater mudcrete bunds will weather and receive a coating of fine sediment.

The mudcrete will be colonised by a range of organisms. The colonisation of intertidal

mudcrete and rockcrete has been observed in the Auckland region. The species seen

in the colonising process are typical of colonisation of concrete walls and concrete and

wooden piles. The colonisation appears dependent on the surface topography of the

material (i.e., hollows and crevices provide shelter as they do on natural rocky shores).

No observations are available on sub-tidal mudcrete colonisation in New Zealand. As

the mudcrete sits at the seabed where the light environment is reduced, it is likely that

colonisation will be similar to that found at the base of concrete wave panels or concrete

piles].

8.18 The erodibility of mudcrete is dependent upon the amount of cement used to create the

mudcrete. The mudcrete is being placed sub-tidally so there will be no wave action on

the mudcrete. Over time some surface changes may occur. Should any mudcrete

material be lost to the seabed it will have a similar composition to the adjacent seabed

sediment.

8.19 Overall, the mudcrete will have a similar quality to the sediment in the area it will be

placed. The mudcrete will be physically stable and will not result in the loss of

contaminants to the surrounding environment (any more than occurs currently from

sediment). The mudcrete is expected to provide a habitat for sediment tolerant subtidal

species.

Effects on construction on intertidal and subtidal ecology

8.20 Effects on existing ecological resources from construction activity may arise during

installation of wharf piles, construction of breakwaters and during dredging.

a) Piling will result in the loss of soft sediment habitat under the Hobson Wharf

Extension, Wynyard Wharf South decking and under the new breakwaters. The

loss of habitat is considered minor because the new piles will create new vertical

habitat that will be similar to that already present on existing piles. This effect

is not adverse.

0989

25

b) Construction of the Hobson Wharf extension will result in seabed shading in an

area north of the existing wharf. The shading is expected to result in some

changes in the infauna living in sediment under the wharf. The change is not

expected to have any secondary ecological effects on other biota within

Freemans Bay. Some shading is expected under the new breakwaters, but due

to their smaller cross section, the effects will less.

c) Construction of the new wharf decking is likely to cause some changes in the

ecology of the present exterior piles on the north face of the wharf. These piles

will become shaded. They will be replaced by an equivalent set of seaward

facing piles. This effect is considered to be no more than minor.

d) Dredging will remove existing soft sediment habitat with associated biota. The

soft sediment biological community is not considered to be ecologically

significant (in terms of conservation significance or diversity). Areas dredged

will be recolonised by similar biota to that present in the sediment at present.

As such although recolonisation will take at least two years to reform similar

communities, I consider the effect no more than minor.

e) Dredging will result in local changes in water quality. Changes in water clarity

(e.g., total suspended solids) have been monitored during previous dredging

activity in the Waitemata Harbour. Identifiable changes are localised close to

the point of dredging and are present for short periods of time during the

dredging (the time depends on tides and the time the excavator takes for each

excavation movement). Monitoring has been recommended for the dredging

proposed in the WWSWS but not OVB or Freemans Bay.

f) Potential changes in water quality were examined using elutriation tests for the

WWSWS sediments.

g) The activities will have no effect on any area of conservation significance

outside of Freemans Bay within the lower Waitemata Harbour. The tests were

carried out on the sediments from this location as they were of poorer quality

compared to elsewhere in Freemans Bay. Historical information was available

for elutriation tests carried out on Viaduct Basin sediments. The outcome of the

tests described in my April Report (CBD Vol A, CB21, page 1336) was that no

0990

26

adverse effects are expected as a result of the release of dissolved

contaminants to the water column during dredging.

h) Localised sedimentation will occur where dredging is being carried out.

Sedimentation is not expected to effect seabed communities as there is

negligible epifauna. Sedimentation downgradient is not expected to be

significant. For most of the areas to be dredged sediment quality is similar to

that adjacent so no offsite changes in quality would be expected.

9. OPERATIONAL EFFECTS

Stormwater management

9.1 Land-based stormwater management associated with the AC36 bases on Brigham

Street will include capture of all non-roof stormwater as described by Mr Priestley.

Currently stormwater generated on Wynyard Point north of Jellicoe Street receives no

formal treatment and stormwater generated on Brigham Street discharges through a

series of points under Wynyard Wharf.

9.2 Roof water will discharge directly to Freemans Bay. Treatment of all other site

stormwater will be to Auckland Council requirements (principally 75% TSS removal)

using proprietary devices able to reduce concentrations of hydrocarbons and trace

elements. The addition of stormwater treatment to the hard stand area associated with

the bases on Wynyard Point will provide environmental improvement.

9.3 Stormwater generated on existing wharfs is untreated and discharges directly to the

harbour. Halsey Wharf constructed for previous AC events had no managed stormwater

system. It is proposed that stormwater management is retro-fitted to Halsey Wharf and

included on the Hobson Wharf Extension. Stormwater will be collected and piped under

the wharf to treatment units slung under wharf. The proprietary treatment systems will

be able to remove 75% of TSS and will provide removal of other key urban stormwater

contaminants. Other structures such as new breakwaters will not be provided with

treatment as they have small surface areas, three are pedestrian only and the Hobson

west breakwater will have minimal vehicle traffic. The addition of stormwater treatment

to the AC36 wharf surfaces will provide environmental improvement.

Viaduct Harbour environmental management

0991

27

9.4 The Inner Viaduct Harbour will not be directly affected by the AC36 development as no

construction activity will occur within the inner basin. The addition of the new Hobson

Wharf Extension, breakwaters and wave panels to improve the existing wave climate

(i.e., reduce the height of waves penetrating into OVH and WWSWS) has potential to

alter the hydrological environment within these areas. To understand the potential

influence the changes in the physical structures might have on circulation of water within

the Viaduct Basin modelling was undertaken and this is described in the evidence of Mr

Priestley.

9.5 The modelling showed that some changes in water circulation may possibly occur within

the area bounded by the new structures. The modelling examined changes in tidal speed

and the time that it took for water entering the Viaduct Basin to leave on the ebb tide.

This is referred to as the tidal exchange or the amount of time it takes the water to

turnover. Because of physical constraints all of the water entering the Viaduct Harbour

on the incoming tide doesn’t leave on the ebb tide. Physically it takes several tides for

all of the water to be exchanged. The modelling examined how long this process takes

and whether the changes would increase the time it took to ‘flush’.

9.6 The modelling predicted no significant changes in tidal velocities within the Inner Viaduct

Harbour as the water movement is not driven by currents. It did predict some overall

changes (extended flushing times) mainly within the inner Viaduct Harbour. It was

concluded based on the predictions coupled with the existing water quality information

that adverse effects on water quality or the ecology of the Viaduct Basin were unlikely.

The areas around the entrance to the Inner Viaduct Harbour and the Lighter Basin

currently have good and fair flushing characteristics. The general category doesn’t

change for the Lighter Basin but two sites at the entrance to the Inner Viaduct moved

from the good to the fair category. This is summarised in Figure 7 below.

Time (in hours) for 37 % of “initial

concentration” to be reached

(current/proposed under spring

and neap tides).

Site Spring Neap

0992

28

7 6.5 / 18.5 8.0 / 33.2

8 13.5 / 17.5 12.0 / 32.2

9 38.5 / 50.5 38.8 / 99.5

10 27.7 / 18.5 21.7 / 43.2

11 50 / 52.3 64.3 / 113.8

12 47.3 / 51.0 64.5 / 101.0

13 100.7 /

112.8

125.8 /

175.7

14 116.7 /

128.5

145.2 /

199.0

Figure 6. Locations in the Freemans Bay area (Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South

water space) modelled for changes in flushing characteristics (from Tonkin & Taylor 2018,

Option D modelling results) (Figure 16 in Golder 2018).

9.7 Although it was my opinion that the changes were not likely to be adverse (i.e., have flow

on affects resulting from the altered circulation), it was concluded that further

environmental data should be collected within the framework of an Inner Viaduct Harbour

Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP) to provide a basis for identifying if any

changes occurred. The preparation of an IVHEMP was identified as a recommended

condition of consent. The draft of the IVHEMP is attached to my evidence as Attachment

B.

9.8 The IVHEMP contains a monitoring programme whose aim is to collect a range of

environmental data to assist in identifying whether any changes have occurred that might

be attributable to changes in the flushing characteristics. The monitoring program as set

out in the draft IVHEMP include:

0993

29

a) Regular water quality monitoring at a series of sites in the WWSWS, OVH and

IVH.

b) Benthic sediment sites where sediment quality and ecology will be assessed

prior to any works commencing and then annually.

c) Intertidal and subtidal ecological monitoring sites in the IVH on walls, piles and

pontoons will be assessed prior to any works commencing and then annually.

d) Sampling will also be carried out during storm events to further characterise the

role that such events play in water quality in the WWSWS and IVH.

9.9 The results of the monitoring will be reviewed a year after the physical changes have

been completed and the results forwarded to Auckland Council as set out in the IVHEMP.

Should significant environmental changes (to ecology, water quality etc.) be identified

through the monitoring, the report will evaluate these, and if they are attributable to

changes in flushing identify the physical options available for reversing the observed

trend. The options could include removing a portion of the wave panels installed as part

of the proposed development.

Construction and Decommissioning Biosecurity

9.10 A BMP will be used to manage potential biosecurity concerns during the project

(Attachment A to my evidence). The plan will include the management of biosecurity

risks of construction vessels moving between ports, the preparation of information to be

distributed to vessels visiting during the Americas Cup and also the decommissioning of

structures after the event. These matters are covered in recommended Conditions 115

and 116 (in the Applicants Proposed Conditions of Consent (7 August) attached to the

evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala as Attachment A). The BMP will be informed by

the routine MHRSS biosecurity monitoring work undertaken by MPI within Freemans

Bay.

Lighting

9.11 Proposed lighting is described in the evidence of Mr McKensey. As described by Mr

McKensey all new lighting will be installed according to conditions of consent. The

proposed changes to lighting within Freemans Bay are considered to be no more than

0994

30

minor. There are a number of coastal bird species of conservation interest that are

occasional visitors to Freemans Bay. The bay is not a primary habitat area for these

species. None of the key species are migratory night species that could be affected by

changes in night lighting. Based on my assessment of the natural environment including

seabirds and subtidal ecology I do not consider that there will be any changes to the light

environment that will have adverse effects on the natural environment.

10. COMMENTS ON THE COUNCIL REPORT

10.1 I have read the Council report and the technical reports prepared by:

a) Dr Kala Sivaguru (marine ecology, water and sediment quality) – Appendix B of

Council report (CBD Vol D CB137); and

b) Sam Morgan (coastal processes) - Appendix C of Council report (CBD Vol D

CB138)

10.2 I have been involved in the joint witness conferencing and all matters have been agreed

between the expert witnesses involved. For completeness, I address the following

matters, which were raised in the Council reports.

10.3 Dr Sivaguru requested that the “Decommissioning Biosecurity Management Plan” (as

referred to in Golder 2018), include the construction period. Following discussion with

Dr Sivagaru it was agreed that the “Biosecurity Management Plan” cover the construction

period as well as the decommissioning period.

10.4 Panuku actively participates in biosecurity communications as part of its involvement in

the Clean Marina program. As such, extending the biosecurity management into the

earlier phase of the project is not major. The additional conditions requested by Council

involve construction vessel biosecurity management and the preparation of a

communication package on biosecurity management to be available to all visiting vessels

during AC36. These are included in Conditions 115 and 116 (in the Applicants Proposed

Conditions of Consent (7 August) attached to the evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala

as Attachment A).

10.5 Mr Sam Morgan recommended a change in the frequency of monitoring to be varied out

as part of the IVHEHP. In Section 9.8 of my evidence I outlined the proposed monitoring

0995

31

and the frequency of that monitoring. Following expert caucusing it was agreed that the

changes recommended by Mr Morgan were not necessary. The frequency of monitoring

is reflected in the wording of recommended Condition 119.

10.6 Mr Morgan also recommended that the WWSWS be included into the monitoring

programme. The programme as originally described in my April Report (CBD Vol A,

CB21, page 1349) identified a site for water quality monitoring within the WWSWS in the

centre of the new basin (some 50 m off North Wharf). This is described in the draft

IVHEMP.

11. COMMENTS ON CONDITIONS

11.1 I have no comments on the current set of draft conditions (attached to the evidence of

Karl Cook and Vijay Lala as Attachment A). In my opinion the potential effects discussed

in my evidence can all be appropriately managed and mitigated through the proposed

conditions of consent so that any effects on the coastal environment are acceptable.

12. COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS

12.1 Environmental monitoring has been identified in the submission made by ETNZ and

water and ecology matters have been raised in the submissions from:

a) Ngati Whanaunga Incorporated Society

b) Ngati Whatua Orakei

c) Ngati Tamaoho Trust

d) Ngati Maru Runanga Trust

e) Ngati Tamatera

f) Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Trust

g) Te Akitaia Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporation

h) Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust

ETNZ submission

0996

32

12.2 The ETNZ submission comments on proposed condition 117, noting that the Applicant

should consult with ETNZ in relation to the content of the IVHEMP and that ETNZ has

the right to object to any parts of the IVHEMP. The submission does not specify any

particular aspects of the proposed IVHEMP (as described in the Application) that it has

concerns about. I understand that ETNZ no longer have any concerns in relation to the

draft IVHEMP.

Iwi and Trust submissions

12.3 All of the submissions identify that the Waitematā Harbour is of great spiritual, cultural

and historical significance to submitters. All submitters consider that the mauri of the

Waitematā Harbour has been significantly degraded from extensive reclamations and

port developments. With each successive encroachment over time impacting on the

Mauri of the Waitematā. The submitters identify that “the concept of cumulative effects

in the context of the RMA is well tested and well understood, cumulative effects in the

Māori world view are significantly different” and that “The Māori world view on cumulative

effects is that the extent of effects should be considered from pre-settlement and not

simply an incremental addition to an already modified environment that is present post-

settlement.” From the work that I have carried out in the Waitemata Harbour and

elsewhere in New Zealand from 1970s through to today, I have been aware of the

concerns raised in relation to the loss of natural environment, adverse effects on

environmental quality and loss of seafood resources.

12.4 The historical changes to the Waitematā Harbour over time since European arrival are

well documented. The changes in the 1800s and early part of the 1900s were significant

with major physical changes to headlands and major reclamation and construction works

(e.g., refer Barr 1926). Significant changes were underway by the early 1800s and by

the late 1800s all the natural physical features and natural ecology of that shoreline had

gone. Figure 7 illustrates the high-level changes that have occurred along the city

shoreline. As noted earlier in my evidence there is no natural shore remaining on the

southern side of the harbour from the Auckland Harbour bridge south to the harbour

entrance.

0997

33

Figure 7. Overlay of original Waitemata Harbour shoreline overlain on aerial of the Harbour

(taken from Kang 2011).

12.5 The past physical and biological changes that have occurred to the Waitematā Harbour

and how those changes have occurred over time have been described in a number of

reviews and studies of the Waitematā Harbour. I recognise the concern and recognise

that there are a number of projects underway within the harbour that all have a physical

presence in the harbour. In the context of the works associated with AC36, I understand

the scale of changes that have occurred in the Waitematā Harbour over time since pre-

European times. The physical effects remain the same and are therefore acceptable.

However, some of the past effects on the environment within the Waitematā Harbour

were probably more significant than they are today (e.g., nearshore industrial waste and

landfill discharges), in particular some aspects of water quality. Overall, the physical

changes to the harbour are in my view minor. They have, in my opinion, no physical or

environmental flow on effects that are more than minor.

0998

34

13. CONCLUSIONS

13.1 The Freemans Bay environment is highly modified. None of the original Waitematā

Harbour shoreline that was present prior to European arrival remains. The land adjacent

to the site of the proposed AC36 developments is all reclaimed and the shores comprise

reclamation and seawalls along with piled wharf structures. The overall project

development makes no change to the type of man-made shoreline and all development

will occur in areas of existing similar development.

13.2 The development results in no reclamation but there is some loss of seabed area with

the installation of piles for the southern section of Wynyard Wharf and to the north

extension to Hobson Wharf. Half of the piles installed for the Wynyard Wharf south deck

will be removed after the Americas Cup.

13.3 The ecological habitat within Freemans Bay is simple comprising soft seabed habitat or

intertidal and subtidal man-made structures (seawalls, piles, walls and pontoons). No

changes in habitat types are proposed.

13.4 Water quality monitoring was undertaken at a number of sites within the Viaduct Harbour

and Freemans Bay. The monitoring showed that quality was generally similar to that in

the main Waitematā Harbour. Higher concentrations of copper were present in the Inner

Viaduct Harbour due to its use as a marina. Water quality monitoring will continue as a

consent condition.

13.5 The proposed construction works including piling and dredging will have no effects on

areas of ecological importance outside of Freemans Bay in the Waitemata Harbour.

Noise from piling has the potential to disturb marine mammals in the lower Waitemata

harbour resulting in behavioural avoidance. More than minor effects on mammals could

occur if mammals moved into Freemans Bay in close proximity of the piling. Observers

will be used to watch for mammals near the construction activity.

13.6 Piling and related work to construct new breakwaters and wharfs (Wynyard South and

Hobson Wharf extension) will result in changes to the underwater light environment.

Shading will have local effects on wharf pile and sediment community composition

Overall the effects are considered to be no more than minor on environmental quality or

ecological habitat.

0999

35

13.7 Sediment quality survey of areas to be disturbed by construction and dredging showed

that sediment quality within the OVH and in Freemans Bay (entrance channel to Viaduct)

was better than that present in the Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace. The poorer

quality in that location was attributed principally to the discharge of stormwater from the

Daldy Street outfall. Recent sampling of deeper sediment from the northern end of the

approach channel to the IVH has shown that sediment quality is very similar to surface

samples collected from the same area.

13.8 Waitematā create bunds underneath new wave panels to assist in creating calmer water

conditions in the WWSWS. The mudcrete will create new hard habitat which will be

colonised by sediment tolerant species. The mudcrete will have no more than minor

effects on contaminant dispersal when it is placed on the seabed.

13.9 Additional lighting to be installed on new structures within Freemans Bay will have no

more than minor effects on the ecological resources (birds, fish etc) within the bay.

13.10 Stormwater treatment is proposed for the AC36 bases on Wynyard Point and also for the

Hobson Wharf extension and the Halsey St Extension Wharf. This in my view is an

environmental improvement as existing wharfs do not have managed and treated

stormwater discharges.

13.11 Modelling undertaken of the hydrodynamic environment within the overall Viaduct

Harbour has indicated that flushing of IVH waters will take longer that at present.

Although I concluded that adverse effects are not expected from the change in flushing

times, environmental monitoring of the IVH is proposed (and included in conditions) to

provide information that might identify any changes should they occur. An IVHEMP will

be prepared that will provide for a range of environmental monitoring to assess changes

in environmental quality and ecological communities in the IVH that might arise if flushing

times increase. The plan includes a requirement to assess remedial options should

changes be detected.

13.12 A BMP will be prepared to manage biosecurity risk during construction and

decommissioning. The key elements of the Plan are ensuring construction vessels do

not transport unwanted organisms from a location to one where they are not present and

providing biosecurity information to vessels visiting during the Americas Cup.

1000

36

13.13 Submissions have raised the cumulative effects of changes to the Waitemata shoreline.

The key historical changes happened in the 1800s and 1900s with relatively smaller

changes in the latter part of the 1900s and since 2000. The significance of historical

changes to iwi are recognised. The current project results in small changes in the

physical nature of the man-made harbour shore within Freemans Bay. The overall

change is considered to have no more than minor effect on natural resources of the

harbour.

Paul Kennedy

7 August 2018

1001

References

ANZECC 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality 2000.

Volume 1, The guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council,

Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Beca 2018a. Americas Cup Base Infrastructure Technical Report for Resource Consent

Application, Wynyard Hobson. Report prepared for Panuku Developments Auckland and Ministry

of Business Innovation and Employment by Beca Ltd. April 2018.

Bioresearches 1989. The effects of the proposed America's Cup developments on marine

habitats. Prepared for Ports of Auckland Ltd and Fletcher Construction Ltd, October 1989.

Cox S 2017. Ecological assessment of marine assemblages of the Halsey Street Wharf and

Viaduct Harbour. Report prepared by NIWA for Golder Associates (NZ) Limited, December 2017.

Depree C, Frobel T 2009. Reconstruction of coal tar-contaminated roads by in-situ recycling using

foamed bitumen stabilisation. New Zealand Transport Agency research report 388.

Golder 2018. America's Cup 36, Auckland 2021.Assessment of Coastal Environmental Effects

Associated with the Development of America's Cup Facilities for the Wynyard Hobson Option.

Report prepared by Golder Associates (NZ) Limited for Panuku Development Auckland and

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, April 2018.

Inglis G, Gust N, Fitridge I, Floerl O, Woods C, Hayden B, Fenwick G 2000. Port of Auckland:

Baseline survey for non-indigenous marine species (Research Project ZBS 2000/04) Biosecurity

New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2005/08.

Kang J-G 2011. Point Britomart Museum. Auckland Waterfront Development. Master of

Architecture, Explanatory document. Unitec.

Kingett Mitchell 1996. Effects on the marine environment associated with the development of the

proposed Americas Cup harbour facility. Report prepared for Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner

Limited. March 1996.

Priestley S 1995. Beneficial use of mudcrete in reclamations. Transactions on the Built

Environment Vol 8. 1995 WIT Press.

1002

Priestley S 2001. The use of mudcrete in exposed locations. In Coasts & Ports 2001: Proceedings

of the 15th Australasian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Conference, the 8th Australasian Port

and Harbour Conference. Barton, A.C.T.: Institution of Engineers, Australia, 2001.

Simpson SL, Batley GB, Chariton AA 2013. Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ sediment

quality guidelines. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 08/07. CSIRO Land and Water.

Tonkin & Taylor 2018. AC36 Waterfront development. Wynyard Point Scheme. Hydraulic

Modelling Report. Appendix C in Beca (2018b). Report prepared for Panuku Development

Auckland by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, April 2018.

1003

ATTACHMENT A – DRAFT BIOSECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

1004

Wynyard Edge Alliance

America’s Cup – Wynyard / Hobson

Biosecurity Management Plan (DRAFT) 6 August 2018

WYNYARD EDGE ALLIANCE

1005

Contents

Relevant consent conditions Quick reference guide to consent conditions

Introduction Scope and purpose of the Biosecurity Management Plan Project description Objectives and Outcomes of the BMP Responsibilities Project contacts

Proposed America’s Cup Infrastructure Works Activities relevant to this plan Construction

3.3 Decommissioning Biosecurity Management Plan - Scope and Risk

Introduction 4.1.1 Scope of this Biosecurity Management Plan

Unwanted pest species 4.2.1 High risk and secondary target species

4.2.2 Unwanted / biosecurity risk species present in Waitemata Harbour 4.2.3 Unwanted / biosecurity risk species present in Whangarei Harbour

Potential for transfer of unwanted / biosecurity risk species 4.3.1 Pathways of spread

5 Management and Mitigation of Risk Measures to avoid or minimise transfer of unwanted / biosecurity risk species during

construction 5.1.1 Measures for vessels / equipment travelling from international ports to New Zealand

5.1.2 Measures for vessels / equipment travelling from domestic ports within New Zealand 5.2 Measures to avoid or minimise transfer of unwanted / biosecurity risk species during

decomissioning Measures to ensure operators of visiting vessels during the America's Cup are aware of their

obligations 6.1 Communication package 6.2 Distribution of information 6.3 Records of communication and distribution

Management of Biosecurity Risk

9 Reporting Requirements

10 References

1006

ATTACHMENT B – DRAFT INNER VIADUCT HARBOUR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

1007

Wynyard Edge Alliance

America’s Cup – Wynyard / Hobson

Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT)

WYNYARD EDGE ALLIANCE

This DRAFT management plan has been prepared for discussion purposes only.

When reading this plan please note the following:

The plan is based on the proposed draft conditions contained with the Joint Witness Statement ENV-AKL-2018-000078 – Coastal environment, 18 July 2018.

The plan is based on the design and construction methodology as at July 2018 and these are subject to change as the design and construction planning is progressed concurrently with the resource consent process.

The plan is a draft for discussion with relevant submitters, other stakeholders and Auckland Council specialists.

The plan will continue to be refined to reflect the agreed changes to conditions, address key issues from the consent process and to reflect the developing design and construction planning.

1008

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | i

Revision History

Revision Nº

Description Prepared By Reviewed by Approved on behalf of Wynyard Edge Alliance

Date

A Draft plan for Auckland Council pre-submission comment

Items highlighted green indicates details still to be confirmed by the Alliance

Malea Zygadlo Raymond Chang

Brendon Barnett

Bob Mawdsley

Edwin Zwanenburg

Kurt Grant

Niksa Sardelic

Ian Campbell 3-07-18

B Draft plan for inclusion in evidence

Items highlighted green indicates details still to be confirmed by the Alliance

Malea Zygadlo Raymond Chang

Brendon Barnett

Bob Mawdsley

Kurt Grant

Ian Campbell 3-08-18

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by the Wynyard Edge Alliance for the benefit of the Panuku Development Auckland Ltd.

No liability is accepted by the Alliance Partners or any employee of or sub-consultant to the Alliance Partners companies

with respect to its use by any other person.

1009

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | ii

Contents

Relevant consent conditions ............................................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

Scope and purpose of the Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan ....... 1

Project description .............................................................................................................. 2

Responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 2

Project contacts ................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed America’s Cup infrastructure works .................................................. 3

Relevant construction activities and staging ....................................................................... 3

Monitoring programme .................................................................................... 5

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5

Water quality monitoring .................................................................................................... 5

Ecological monitoring .......................................................................................................... 5

Sediment monitoring ........................................................................................................... 5

Storm event monitoring ...................................................................................................... 5

Aesthetic monitoring ........................................................................................................... 5

Monitoring methodology ................................................................................. 7

Water quality ....................................................................................................................... 7

Ecology ................................................................................................................................. 8

Storm event monitoring .................................................................................................... 10

Sediment quality ................................................................................................................ 11

Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 11

Reporting ....................................................................................................... 12

Other matters ................................................................................................. 13

Avoidance of new untreated stormwater discharges into the Inner Viaduct Harbour .... 13

On-going waste management ........................................................................................... 13

Freemans Bay catchment stormwater improvement ....................................................... 13

1010

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 1

Relevant consent conditions

The consent conditions relevant to the Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (“IVHEMP”) are summarised in Table 1.1 below. The conditions referenced are as per the proposed draft resource consent conditions1. [Note: this IVHEMP will be updated to reflect the final conditions when available]

Table 1.1: Summary of consent conditions relevant to the IVHEMP.

Condition Number

Condition requirement Section referenced in the Plan

117 The consent holder shall submit an Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP) to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification in terms of the matters in Condition 119

This Plan

118 The purpose of the IVEMP is to provide for the appropriate management of effects on the environment of the Inner Viaduct Harbour from works authorised by this consent.

This Plan

119

The IVHEMP shall include:

i) Water quality monitoring on a monthly basis at sites within the Inner Viaduct Basin and the Wynyard South Waterspace and in Freemans Bay. The samples collected should be collected monthly analysed for the constituents set out in Golder (2018).

Section 4.2 and 5.1

ii) In addition to the sites identified in (i), additional sites for the observation of aesthetic effects (identification of sheens, floatables, rubbish); Observations including photographic records should be made at least monthly at all sites.

Section 4.6 and 5.5

iii) Sediment quality sampling on an annual at the water quality monitoring sites in the Inner Viaduct Harbour. The samples collected at each site should be photographed and examined for grain size, total organic carbon, redox and concentration of copper, lead and zinc. Samples should be collected at least annually.

Section 4.4 and 5.4

iv) Benthic ecological sampling to provide information on the infauna at sediment quality sampling sites. Samples should be collected at least annually at the same time as sediment quality samples.

Section 5.2 and 4.3

v) Intertidal and subtidal ecological monitoring on structures (pontoons, piles and walls) at, at least three locations within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Data will be collected from permanent photo-quadrats. For wall and pile sites, quadrats should be established at surface and approximate mid and bottom water depths. Samples should be collected at least annually.

vi) Water quality sampling should be carried out following at minimum of three storm events at Karanga Steps within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Samples collected should be examined for enterococci and field information collected as required by the monthly water quality monitoring.

Section 4.5 and 5.3

Following the completion of water quality monitoring 12 months after the completion of all construction works, a report should be prepared summarising all environmental data collected in the environmental monitoring programme and provide an assessment of the following matters:

i) Whether there have been any environmental or ecological changes within the Inner Viaduct Harbour that may have been influenced by possible changes in flushing within the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

ii) Whether water quality in the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space is suitable for contact recreation; and

iii) Whether stormwater discharge to the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space results in identifiable water quality changes

Section 6

The IVHEMP should also include reference to the following Section 7

1 Conditions contained in the Joint Witness Statement ENV-AKL-2018-000078 – Coastal environment, 18 July 2018

1011

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 2

Condition Number

Condition requirement Section referenced in the Plan

i) Avoidance of new, untreated stormwater discharges from surrounding development into the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space;

ii) Waste management, including flotsam removal, litter collection from adjacent quays; and

iii) Support for any wider Council group initiatives for the Freemans Bay catchment stormwater improvement

1012

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 1

Introduction

This Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (“IVHEMP”) forms part of a comprehensive suite of environmental controls within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”) for the America’s Cup Infrastructure Project (“the Project”).

The Project is being delivered by the Wynyard Edge Alliance (“the Alliance”).

Scope and purpose of the Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan

The purpose of this Plan, in accordance with consent Condition 118, is to provide for the appropriate management of adverse effects on the Inner Viaduct Harbour environment as a result of the Project, specifically the installation of breakwaters and wave panels.

While these physical works will not be undertaken within the Inner Viaduct Harbour, the Harbour’s flushing regime may be impacted from the works. The objective of this Plan is to collect sufficient information to detect whether predicted changes to the flushing regime are in turn impacting the Harbour’s water quality and ecology. The Inner Viaduct Harbour refers to the area outlined in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Location of the Inner Viaduct Harbour (shaded blue).

The water quality and ecological monitoring set out in the conditions and detailed in this plan will be undertaken during construction of the Project. However, this plan does not set out to directly monitor construction effects; but rather the result of the design and installation of structures within the CMA. Some of the monitoring outlined in this plan is located outside of the Inner Viaduct Harbour, the purpose of

which is to provide environmental controls and add to the realm of information for the area.

1013

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 2

Whilst the monitoring and reporting regime forms part of the comprehensive suite of environmental controls for the Project as outlined in the CEMP, it focuses on gathering information resulting from the Project, for future consideration.

This Plan addresses the matters in Conditions 117-119 (refer to the quick reference guide to conditions in Section 1).

The final version of this IVHEMP will be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central in accordance with Condition 16 and Condition 117 for certification.

This IVHEMP will be updated, if necessary to reflect changes in design, construction methods or to manage effects. In accordance with the consent conditions, any amendments are to be agreed by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central in writing prior to implementation of any changes. A copy of the original IVHEMP and subsequent versions will be kept for the Project records, and marked as obsolete. Each update of the Plan will be issued with a version number and date.

Project description

For a description of the Project, refer to the Project Description within the CEMP. The construction details relevant to this plan are set out in Section 3.

Responsibilities

The Alliance Project Director has the overall responsibility for meeting the requirements of this Plan.

The Alliance Construction Environmental Manager will implement the Plan, including water quality and ecological monitoring.

Refer to the CEMP for more detail on roles and responsibilities.

Project contacts

The contact details for queries, compliments and complaints regarding the project are provided in Table 2.1. Further Project contact details and the complaints response procedure are contained in the CEMP.

Table 2.1: Project contact details

Project hotline TBC

Stakeholder Manager Michael Goudie 021810194

Construction Manager Kurt Grant 021834512

Construction Environmental Manager Brendon Barnett 021 527 461

1014

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 3

Proposed America’s Cup infrastructure works

Relevant construction activities and staging

The construction of new structures that are relevant to this Plan are those that may influence the water quality and ecological communities by altering the flushing regime in the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Broadly, all construction activities are relevant to this plan. However, the dredging regime and the construction of the breakwaters and wave panels are of particular relevance, given they are predicted to affect the flushing regime within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Figure 3.1 identifies the works areas and structures within this area, which are:

1. Hobson South Breakwater

2. New Hobson Wharf Extension Structure

3. Hobson East Breakwater

4. “Old” Hobson Wharf West Side wave panels

5. “Old” Hobson Wharf East Side Wave panels

6. Dredging Works in the Outer Viaduct Harbour inner channel

7. Dredging Works Entrance Channel

8. Dredging Works J-Class area

9. New breakwater Halsey Wharf west

10. New Breakwater Wynyard Wharf east

11. Dredging Works Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace

Figure 3.1: Location of works within Freemans Bay. Descriptions of locations in figure detailed above.

As the IVHEMP’s role is primarily to provide information relating to how changes that have been made as a result of the Project influences water quality and ecological communities in the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

1

2 3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1015

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 4

Management actions relating to dredging and mudcreting activities in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) are managed via the Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the Coastal Marine Area (MPDPM).

The current coastal structures and piling programme is as detailed in Table 3.1. Locations of the works are shown in Figure 3.1. Note: The below detail is indicative and not confirmed at this stage of drafting. The below content is provided to illustrate the type of information and the general concept that would be expected to be provided in the plan, once the works programme is complete. The concept design and construction staging are all subject to change (as at 20 June 2018)

Table 3.1: Construction dates of relevant works

Element Structure Start Date1 End Date1

1 Hobson South breakwater (BW5) Late-June 2019 Early-Oct 2019

2 New Hobson Wharf Extension Structure early-Nov 2018 late-July 2019

3 Hobson East breakwater (BW6) early-Sept 2019 mid-Dec 2019

4 “Old” Hobson Wharf West Side wave panels mid-Nov 2018 early-March 2019

5 “Old” Hobson Wharf East Side wave panels early-April 2019 late-May 2019

6 Dredging Works in the Outer Viaduct Harbour inner channel

early-Jan 2019 mid-Feb 2019

7 Dredging Works Entrance Channel mid-Nov 2018 late-Dec 2018

8 Dredging Works J-Class area mid-Feb 2019 late-Mar 2019

9 New breakwater Halsey Wharf west mid-Nov 2018 mid-Feb 2020

10 New Breakwater Wynyard Wharf east late-March 2019 late-June 2019

11 Dredging Works Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace mid-April 2019 late-May 2019

1Note dates are approximate

1016

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 5

Monitoring programme

Introduction

The programme for water quality and ecological monitoring described in this Plan is outlined in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 and described in the sections below. These timeframes are, in general, based around the works for construction of the wave panels and breakwaters. Should these dates change, the monitoring programme and commencement/end dates will also be reviewed.

The monitoring will provide for the collection of sufficient information in order to identify any changes to water quality and/or ecology as a result of changes to flushing regimes within the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

Refer to Section 5 of this Plan for details of the monitoring methodology for each aspect outlined below.

Water quality monitoring

The wave panels and breakwaters installed as part of the Project are predicted to increase flushing times within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Water quality monitoring within the Inner Viaduct Harbour will begin prior to the installation of the first breakwaters/wave panels to gain an understanding of the existing environment/quality parameters. As required by consent Condition 119 b), monitoring will continue until 12-months post completion of the wave panel and breakwater installations, unless otherwise agreed with the Team Leader – Central Monitoring.

Accordingly, water quality monitoring will be undertaken monthly from August 2018 to July 2020. Monitoring undertaken from August to November 2018 will inform an initial assessment of existing water quality parameters prior to the commencement of construction.

Ecological monitoring

Ecological monitoring will begin prior to the installation of the first breakwater/wave panels. While the consent conditions only require monitoring for 12-months post completion of the works, ecological monitoring will be undertaken annually at the same time each year. This means that monitoring will continue until November 2020 and provide three monitoring rounds, which is more favourable than two for analysing the monitoring dataset.

Ecological monitoring will be undertaken annually each November from 2018 to 2020.

Sediment monitoring

Sediment monitoring will be undertaken in line with the ecological monitoring timeframes outlined in Section 4.3.

Accordingly, sediment monitoring will be undertaken annually each November from 2018 to 2020.

Storm event monitoring

The purpose of the storm event monitoring is separate to the above water quality monitoring. Three sample events are required at any time prior to, or within the works, period based on storm events.

Storm event monitoring will be undertaken at any time between November 2018 and January 2021.

Aesthetic monitoring

Aesthetic monitoring will be undertaken in conjunction with the water quality monitoring (refer to Section 4.2).

Aesthetic monitoring will be undertaken monthly from August 2018 to July 2020.

1017

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 6

Table 4.1: Monitoring programme 2018 - 2019

Frequency 2018 2019

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Water quality monitoring monthly

Ecological monitoring annually

Sediment monitoring annually

Storm event monitoring at any time

Aesthetic monitoring monthly

Note: yellow – not related to works, green – before works influencing flushing regime commences, blue – during works influencing flushing regime, orange – post completion

of works

Table 4.2: Monitoring programme 2020 - end of project (Jan 2021)

Frequency

2020 2021

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Water quality monitoring monthly

Ecological monitoring annually

Sediment monitoring annually

Storm event monitoring at any time

Aesthetic monitoring monthly

Note: yellow – not related to works, orange – post completion of works

1018

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 7

Monitoring methodology

The below sections detail the methodology for the required monitoring. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Approximate locations of monitoring points and areas.

Water quality

Condition 119 a) i) specifies the water quality monitoring programme within the Inner Viaduct Harbour to sample and analyse for the parameters detailed in Table 5.1. Locations have been determined and are shown in Figure 5.1.

Baseline water quality samples will be collected at least three times prior to the commencement of construction. Samples will be taken from the six locations shown in Figure 5.1 (being identified as locations WW2, OVB, FB, KP, IV, LB in Figure 5.1) and as follows:

Samples shall be collected on a half ebb tide;

2 This locality, whilst somewhat distant from the Inner Viaduct Harbour itself, is included in this regime to

consider whether there is propagation of contaminants arising from stormwater discharges to the Wynyard

Wharf South Waterspace and then to the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

1019

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 8

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen shall be collected from approximately 0.2 m below the surface and above the sea bed;

Enterococci samples shall be collected just below the water surface, chilled to <4°C and analysed within 24 hours;

All other samples shall be collected just below the surface of the water and chilled before dispatch to the laboratory for analysis.

Sampling shall be undertaken by a suitably trained person.

Table 5.1: Water quality parameters and method for each sampling location identified in Figure 5.1.

Parameter Method1

Temperature field meter (top and bottom)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) field meter (top and bottom)

Salinity field meter

Secchi disc depth in-field

Turbidity lab analysis

Total suspended solids (TSS) lab analysis

Nitrate-nitrogen and nitrite-nitrogen lab analysis

Ammoniacal-nitrogen lab analysis

Dissolved reactive phosphorus lab analysis

Chlorophyll-a lab analysis

Enterococci MPN lab analysis

Dissolved copper lab analysis

Dissolved zinc lab analysis

1All samples taken from near surface unless otherwise stated.

Ecology

5.2.1 Monitoring requirements

Condition 119 a) iv-v) requires the identification of key ecological communities within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Key ecological communities are defined for this Plan as the benthic and fouling communities as these are the communities that may be impacted by changes in flushing regimes. Identification of these communities swill be carried out using standard ecological survey methodologies tailored to the outcomes sought from this monitoring.

As there is no existing Inner Viaduct Harbour ecological data suitable to provide pre-construction information, monitoring will be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction to provide baseline data for comparison against subsequent monitoring rounds. As set out in Section 3 above, wave panel/breakwater installation is expected to commence in November 2018. The first ecological monitoring round will be undertaken in October 2018, prior to this works and coinciding with a water quality monitoring round.

Ecological monitoring will be undertaken at the same time of year, each year as outlined in Section 4 in order to allow for seasonal comparability.

1020

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 9

Note: Should the initial monitoring timeframe change, subsequent sampling should also be changed to keep consistent with this first sampling round; bearing in mind the overall need to sample a ‘baseline’ (prior to construction occurring) ecological sample within the months of November and March.

5.2.2 Biofouling communities

Ecological surveys will be undertaken to describe the intertidal and sub-tidal fouling assemblages on wharf piles, floating pontoons and basin walls in the Inner Viaduct Harbour (Figure 5.1). Each area will include:

Six randomly selected wharf piles;

Six pontoons; and

Six vertical wall transects.

Three areas within the Inner Viaduct Harbour will be sampled at the shown in Figure 5.1. These areas have been selected based on predicted changes in flushing regime within the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

Ecological surveys will use video transects and photo quadrats to describe the general ecological assemblage.

Video imagery will comprise of the following:

For each wharf pile and sea wall station:

– Video imagery from the water surface to 5 m below MLWS; and

– Three photo quadrats (0.06 m2) will be taken at 0.5 m, 3 m, and 5 m depths (where available).

For each pontoon station, video imagery will be taken and three photo quadrats will be spaced randomly along each of the following transects:

– One transect beneath the pontoon (i.e. totally shaded); and

– One transect along the exposed edge (i.e. exposed to sunlight).

The purpose of the ecological surveys is to describe the general ecological assemblage, abundant species (native and introduced species) and groups of organisms, where possible. The structure and composition of the assemblage will be described using estimates of the percentage cover of organisms within the imagery. Voucher specimens will be collected of dominant organisms to determine their identity. It is not anticipated that there will be a need to identify all macro-organisms within the assemblages to a species-level.

The wharf pile, sea wall and pontoon stations will establish the fixed photo quadrats to enable the annual monitoring of the ecological assemblages. The location of the photo quadrats sampled during the first survey will be permanently marked using a non-removable tag, attached to the substrate. One tag will be attached at the start point of each vertical transect (i.e. on a wharf pile or wall) and each horizontal transect (i.e. the point of the first quadrat on the underside and side wall of the pontoon). GPS coordinates and landmarks will be recorded to ensure the same location can be identified and re-sampled, should a tag be tampered-with or removed.

Samples of biofouling may need to be removed from the survey location for laboratory identification, particularly for dominant species that cannot be identified in the field. Re-sampling exact locations will not occur as the process of removing biofouling will alter the community in that quadrat. Therefore, the fixed locations between sampling rounds will in close proximity to the prior location but not at the same location.

5.2.3 Benthic communities

Collection of sediment cores from Sites LB, IV and KP will be taken to assess the current ecological communities present within these areas. Sediment cores (10 cm diam. x 15 cm deep) and video transects

1021

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 10

will be taken at the three stations identified in Figure 5.1 to describe the benthic infauna within the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

Prior to coring, a continuous transect will be filmed using a GoPro 4 camera with video lights (or similar), held at a fixed distance (20cm) above the seabed, and around a central shot line deployed from a dive boat. Three screen grabs will be used to during the analysis to characterise the habitat.

Collection of three 10 cm diameter core samples (i.e. three replicates per station) will be taken from the three stations identified in Figure 5.1. Individual cores will be pushed into the sediment to a depth of 15 cm, capped in-situ and then placed into a catch bag. Samples will be chilled until they can be processed in the laboratory. The samples will be passed through nested 1 mm and 0.5 mm sieves to separate the infauna. The 1 mm fraction will be sorted and identified to the lowest practical taxonomic unit to provide a basic description of the fauna present at each station. The 0.5 mm fraction will be preserved and retained if further description is required.

The number of sites and / or replicates may be reduced or ceased for subsequent monitoring based on the first round of results and the type of communities present.

Storm event monitoring

Storm events result in the discharge of stormwater into the harbour through outlets and diffuse runoff from the surrounding land area. Discharges of stormwater to the CMA have the potential to change the receiving environment’s water quality following a storm event. Condition 119 a) vi) requires sampling following at least three storm events prior to the completion of the Project.

Certain water quality parameters (outlined in Table 5.2) will be sampled at the Karanga Plaza Steps (refer to shown in Figure 5.1).

Rainfall will be monitored by a rain gauge with polling alerts. Two types of storm events will be targeted:

>10mm over 1 hour; and

>20mm over 24 hours.

Once the 20 mm or 10 mm threshold is reached (over the specified timeframe), sampling will be undertaken as soon as practicable.

Samples will be taken 30 minutes apart for a maximum of three hours, or for 30 minutes after the storm event ends, whichever is less.

Water samples will be collected as follows:

Field meter samples will be collected from approximately 0.2 m below the surface; and

Enterococci samples will be collected just below the water surface, chilled to <4°C and analysed within 24 hours.

Sampling and monitoring will be undertaken by a suitably trained person.

Table 5.2 (overleaf) details the parameters and method.

1022

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 11

Table 5.2: Storm event sampling parameters and method for the sampling location identified in Figure 5.1.

Parameter Method

Temperature field meter

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) field meter

Salinity field meter

Secchi disc depth in-field

Enterococci MPN lab analysis

Sediment quality

Collection of sediment cores from sites LB, IV and ST (as shown in Figure 5.1) will also be taken for analysis of:

Total organic carbon (TOC);

Redox potential;

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); and

Copper, lead and zinc.

Sampling will coincide with the benthic community monitoring outlined above.

Three samples will be collected to a standard depth (2 cm) at each location. Analysis of sediment will be carried out on <2 mm material if the sediment contains any coarse material.

Aesthetics

Condition 119 a) iii) requires the establishment of visual monitoring points to identify where rubbish, floatable debris, sheens and visually identifiable contaminants may be present within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. These potential debris amalgamation points will be identified during the water quality baseline monitoring.

A walkover of the monitoring points will be undertaken monthly in conjunction with the water quality monitoring.

A written and photographic record of any identifiable sheens, floatables, rubbish and other contaminants that may have an aesthetic effect on public amenity will be kept. The nature and scale of contaminants at each of these localities should be recorded.

Collection and disposal of accumulated debris will be undertaken in accordance with the CEMP during the project period.

1023

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 12

Reporting

Following the completion of monitoring 12 months post-construction, a final report will be prepared and submitted to Auckland Council within two months of the final sampling being undertaken. The report shall include:

For water quality:

Summary of sample results;

Summary of storm event results, both from targeted events and other events that may be captured in regular monitoring;

Analysis and discussion of any changes in water quality since construction;

An assessment of whether water quality in the Inner Viaduct Harbour is suitable for contact recreation;

A discussion of any identifiable non-seasonal changes in water quality constituents; and

Summary of observed sheens, floatables and rubbish during water quality sampling rounds.

For ecology:

A summary report of the findings of the key ecological communities will be provided to Auckland Council within two months of completion of the monitoring rounds (i.e. 12-months post construction). The report shall include:

Identification of fouling communities present on wharf piles, sea walls and pontoons;

Identification of benthic community assemblage;

Comparison of ecological assemblage pre-construction and post-construction; and

A discussion of any identified changes.

For sediment quality:

Results of sediment quality analysis;

Comparison of replicate core data by location and time; and

Discussion of any identified changes in sediment constituents.

For aesthetic monitoring:

A summary of the results of monitoring shall be provided to Auckland Council to implement an on- going management programme for the Inner Viaduct Harbour.

1024

Wynyard Edge Alliance | Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (DRAFT) Rev B | August 2018 Page | 13

Other matters

As outlined in Section 2, the purpose of this Plan is to implement a monitoring regime to assess changes in water quality and ecological communities within the Inner Viaduct Harbour as a result of the Project. It is an opportunity to provide information to improve water quality within the Inner Viaduct Harbour and wider catchment with some scientific basis. This is captured within Conditions 1193. The below sections describe the process in which information gathered during this monitoring programme will be used to inform wider stormwater quality initiatives.

Avoidance of new untreated stormwater discharges into the Inner Viaduct Harbour

The Alliance are responsible for the design and construction of Project infrastructure that provides for stormwater treatment in accordance with the stormwater discharge consent. Other discharges into the Inner Viaduct Harbour are outside the control of the Alliance, however works associated with the Project will be designed so as not to impede future stormwater improvement works.

Panuku and other Council organisations will work to develop and implement stormwater management strategies that avoid the discharge of any new stormwater discharges to the Inner Viaduct Harbour as part of optioneering and engineering design programmes.

On-going waste management

As noted in Section 6, results of the aesthetic monitoring, including the identification of sheens, floatables and rubbish within the Inner Viaduct Harbour will be shared with Auckland Council.

It is envisaged that these results will assist in informing where natural collection points of gross / floatable contaminants generally occur within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. This can therefore inform any on-going waste management programme for the area. While the Alliance would not be responsible for the implementation of such a waste management programme, it could assist in collating the information required to inform those areas of the Inner Viaduct Harbour requiring management. It may be that a monitoring and collection regime can be developed for certain localities within the Inner Viaduct Harbour, at differing frequencies depending on the build-up of floatables over time.

Freemans Bay catchment stormwater improvement

The Project provides an opportunity for data sharing and combined efforts in developing stormwater improvements for the Freemans Bay catchment. The Alliance is aware of opportunities being investigated by Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters team, including changes to the existing Daldy Street stormwater outfall that will assist in discharging stormwater contaminants further to sea; and not discharged in the near-shore environment. The Alliance and Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters are investigating how the stormwater works can be delivered during the same construction period of the Project.

A significant amount of data will be collected as part of this Plan around the water quality of the Inner Viaduct Harbour and ecological environment. The Alliance will share the results with Auckland Council through the required reporting. The Alliance also proposes to share the data collected with the wider Auckland Council team to inform future project and initiatives within the area.

3 Noting that these conditions may change as a result of the resource consent process.

1025