Ports of Auckland Limited
Submitter number 5137
IN THE MATTER
Topic 005 - RPS Issues
Primary evidence
of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the
Local
Government
(Auckland
Transitional
Provisions) Act 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER
of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF STEPHEN JOHN PRIESTLEY FOR PORTS
OF AUCKLAND LIMITED IN RELATION TO TOPIC 005 - RPS ISSUES
ALTERNATIVE PORT INVESTIGATION
17 OCTOBER 2014
D A Nolan / S H Pilkinton
Phone +64 9 367 8000
Fax +64 9 367 8163
PO Box 8
DX CX10085
Auckland 1140
Ports of Auckland Limited
Submitter number 5137
Topic 005 - RPS Issues
Primary evidence
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
2. CONSTRAINTS MAP ................................................................................. 3
3. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DESIGNS ........................................................ 7
4. CONSENTABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................... 12
5. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 16
2799998
i
Ports of Auckland Limited
Submitter number 5137
Topic 005 - RPS Issues
Primary evidence
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.
POAL has commissioned an independent investigation into alternative
locations for an Auckland port. The investigation has been prepared in
part to inform decision making on submissions on the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan that seek that the Port of Auckland be
relocated or an alternative location be considered. In this evidence, I
summarise the findings of the investigation team.
B.
The influence of the Resource Management Act 1991, directive
policies in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and the
mapping of significant ecological, natural character and landscape
areas in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan have created a highly
constraining environment in respect of the establishment of significant
infrastructure in the coastal environment.
C.
The investigation uses a Constraints Map (refer Annexure B) and
sector analysis of the Auckland region to demonstrate the highly
constrained nature of the Auckland coastline in the context of
establishing infrastructure at the scale of an alternative port. The
Constraints Map identifies two levels of constraints: first order "no go"
constraints and second order “high” constraints. These constraints
influence the “consentability” of an alternative port.
D.
Despite the overall conclusion of the investigation team (based on the
Constraints Map analysis) that all potential alternative port sites are
highly constrained and therefore potentially "unconsentable", concept
designs for four alternative locations: two in the Manukau Harbour;
one near Ponui Island; and one in the Firth of Thames, were
investigated to test and compare the effects, suitability and cost of
these locations.
E.
The Manukau site (refer Annexures D and E) near Clarks Beach is
adjacent to first order constraints of a Significant Ecological Area Marine 1 / Coastal Protection Area 1 and the Auckland International
Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface designation. The site requires 140
hectares of reclamation and capital dredging of 40 million m3 of
material. The port would connect to land by a 1 kilometre bridge. A
new and widened road (17 kilometres) and new rail (11.5 kilometres)
2799998
connections would be required. The estimated capital cost for this site
is $5.2 billion.
F.
A separate Manukau Harbour option near Puhinui (refer Annexures F
and G) was also considered as that location was recently promoted by
private interests. It is of similar design and has similar environmental
effects to the Clarks Beach alternative. However, based on the
Constraints Map, its direct location within the Auckland International
Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface and Significant Ecological Area Marine 1 / Coastal Protection Area 1 and proximity to an Outstanding
Natural Feature means that the Puhinui location is simply not feasible
and was not evaluated further than for cost comparison.
G.
The Ponui site (refer Annexures H and I) is located off Kawakawa
Bay near Ponui Island between first order constraints of Outstanding
Natural Landscapes areas. It requires a 160 hectare reclamation, 5.5
million m3 of dredging and 16 million m3 of sand material imported for
fill, likely from a Hauraki Gulf dredged source. A 6 kilometre bridge /
causeway for road and rail would connect the port to the mainland at
Waitawa Regional Park. A 28 kilometre new and widened road and a
26 kilometre new rail connection would also be required.
The
estimated capital cost for this site is $5.1 billion.
H.
The Kaiaua site (refer Annexures J and K) is located north of Kaiaua
in the Firth of Thames within a first order constraint being the
RAMSAR wetland of international significance. The reclamation
footprint is 100 hectares with dredging of 32 million m3. Of this, 22
million m3 would need to be disposed of to sea. A 23 kilometre road
and 36 kilometre rail connection is required. The estimated cost of this
site is $5.5 billion.
I.
The high level assessment of effects on the environment completed
for the sites (refer Annexure L) is summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1 uses a traffic light system where red is highly negative, orange
is moderately negative, yellow is a low negative and grey is neutral.
J.
2799998
All concept designs would:
(a)
Cost between $4.4 and $5.5 billion to construct.
(b)
Require significant dredging, reclamation and disposal.
(c)
Generate significant adverse effects on ecological values and
natural character and landscape values.
(d)
Cause significant adverse social and community disruption.
(e)
Be contrary to the regional growth strategy of the Auckland
Plan.
(f)
Require high ongoing maintenance dredging costs.
Table 1 – Summary Effect Comparison
Locations and effect level
Activity
Manukau
Ponui
Kaiaua
Construction
Dredging
Dredging disposal
Reclamation
Structures
Road and Rail
Operational
Port Operations
Dredging and Disposal
Road and Rail
Project wide
Social
Regional Planning
K.
The concept port designs and the associated assessment of effects
on the environment that each design would generate demonstrate that
the effects of establishing an alternative port would be significant.
Furthermore, the concept
design locations
appear
potentially
"unconsentable" based on the first and second order constraints
present in each location and the significant adverse effects that are
likely to be caused by construction and operation.
L.
The overall conclusion is that there are no alternative port locations for
Auckland that are justifiable in the foreseeable future.
2799998
1
Ports of Auckland Limited
Submitter number 5137
Topic 005 - RPS Issues
Primary evidence
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
My full name is Stephen John Priestley. I am a Senior Technical
Director with Beca Limited in Auckland.
Qualifications and experience
1.2
This evidence is based on an investigation undertaken by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in coastal engineering, coastal
planning, landscape architecture, GIS mapping and ecology.
My
qualifications and experience are set out in my brief of evidence on
this topic relating to Coastal Engineering.
The qualifications and
experience of each of the contributors to the investigation are set out
in Annexure A to this evidence.
1.3
If required, those other members of the expert team will be available
to answer any questions that the Hearings Panel might have.
Code of conduct
1.4
I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out
in the Environment Court's Practice Note 2011. I have complied with
the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and I agree to comply
with it while giving oral evidence before the Hearings Panel. Except
where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this
written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to
consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from
the opinions expressed in this evidence.
Scope of evidence
1.5
As noted above, this evidence is based on an investigation prepared
by a multi-disciplinary team to examine alternative port locations for
Auckland.
This
evidence
summarises
the
findings
of
that
investigation. It is intended to inform decision making on those
submissions and further submissions that have sought that the Port of
Auckland be relocated or an alternative location be investigated. For
example, Heart of the City has opposed the entirety of Ports of
2799998
Auckland Limited's (POAL) primary submission, partly on the basis
that alternative port locations should be investigated. In its further
submission, Heart of the City states:1
Port Precinct reclamations of the scale recommended by
POAL are not required to accommodate the anticipated growth
in freight demand for Auckland over the life of the Unitary Plan.
There are a range of possibilities for catering for the growth in
Upper North Island freight, and there are several approaches
to considering alternatives:...

Look at options for additional and/or alternative
ports in the Auckland region. One leg of this
approach is also to suggest alternative uses of part or
all of the current port land. Waterfront transformations
in other cities provide examples, and commentators
like Michael Parker (ref: Pine Tree Paradox) and
others have opened the discussion for Auckland. On
our back doorstep, Sydney and Brisbane have
relocated their ports. Auckland should at least
consider the option of developing one expandable
'green port’ that provides for all cargo types.
[Emphasis added]
1.6
The recent work is an update to a similar investigation undertaken in
the late 1990s, which culminated in the 1999 "Port Development
Options for the Auckland Region" Report.2 Both were undertaken by a
multi-disciplinary, independent team of experts from the fields of
landscape, ecology, coastal processes, port design and planning.
While I am not an expert in all these fields, I was the investigation lead
and based on my above experience I am qualified to summarise the
findings of the investigation and its implication for the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) hearings.
1.7
This approach to evidence presentation is similar to the earlier 1990s
investigation where I led the engineering design inputs and Dr Phil
Mitchell led the overall team. Dr Mitchell then gave evidence in a
similar manner to this statement of evidence as the project team lead
in the Environment Court hearings for the Fergusson Container
Terminal extension resource consent application.
1.8
The location of alternative ports has focused on the Auckland Region
but, at the request of POAL, a location in the Firth of Thames was also
considered.
1
2
2799998
Further submission number 2935, page 46 / 194.
"Port Development Options for the Auckland Region", Beca (1999).
2.
CONSTRAINTS MAP
2.1
The approach taken was to investigate the availability of any suitable
alternative port locations. This began with preparation of a Constraints
Map (refer Annexure B).
2.2
Two levels of constraints were identified; first order constraints (shown
in red) – "no go" locations that mean an alternative port location would
be "unconsentable" under the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA); and second order constraints (shown in orange) – which
provide a significant RMA consenting impediment to the establishment
and operation of an alternative port.
2.3
“Unconsentable” for the purpose of this evidence means that either
the activity would not likely secure resource consents due to the
significance of effects and/or contrary nature to planning provisions or
that a plan change process would unlikely be successful due to the
restrictions of the constraints, particularly the first order constraints.
2.4
First order constraints are set out in Table 2.
Table 2 - First order constraints
Constraint
Rationale
Outstanding Natural
Character Areas
An assumption of this study is that the scale and associated
modifications caused by the establishment and operation an 80
hectare port would have significant adverse effects that could not be
avoided, and that it would be very difficult to remedy or mitigate the
effects on these areas / features.
High Natural
Character Areas
Outstanding Natural
Landscapes within the
coastal environment
Outstanding Natural
Features
An alternative port in these locations would fail to give effect to the
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) (in particular,
Policies 13 and 15) which states that development is to avoid adverse
effects in areas of Outstanding Natural Character, Outstanding Natural
Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes and to avoid significant
adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on
other areas of natural character, natural features & landscapes within
the coastal environment. Recent case law has affirmed this direction of
the NZCPS.
3
The PAUP prohibits reclamation within an area of outstanding natural
feature(s) or outstanding natural character.
Residential zones
within the RUB
3
2799998
An alternative port in the vicinity of these areas would generate
sensitivity issues – in terms of amenity, visual effects and public use of
Unless required for safe and efficient operation of significant infrastructure.
Constraint
Rationale
and access to the CMA. As a result, all existing residential areas are a
"no go" constraint.
Marine Reserves
Marine reserves (administered by the Department of Conservation
(DOC)) are determined to be locations that contain outstanding, rare or
distinctive marine habitats or ecosystems. Marine reserves are the
highest level of marine protection in New Zealand. Identified
interaction with a port location would result in a port option being
incompatible. Areas of international significance (e.g. RAMSAR
wetland areas) are identified as having the same significance as
marine reserves.
Significant Ecological
Area – Marine 1 (SEAM1) / Coastal
Protection Area 1
(CPA-1)
Locations under the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal that are of
regional, national or international significance due to their ecological,
landform or geological values have been defined as Coastal Protection
Areas (CPA). These areas are classified as CPA types 1 or 2. CPA-1
areas contain features that are more significant than those in CPA-2
areas. CPA-1 areas are considered "no go" areas. Capital dredging
and reclamation in a CPA-1 is prohibited under the Auckland Regional
Plan: Coastal.
The PAUP equivalent classification is SEA-M1 and M2. The PAUP
4
prohibits reclamation in a SEA-M1.
Sites and places of
significance to Mana
Whenua
Sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua are significant
features of the physical and cultural landscape (eg. Pa, Wahi Tapu
sites and Urupa). These features are distinct from the range of cultural
features including middens and food pits. Port establishment would be
expected to result in the destruction of these sites or significant
degradation of their value and therefore these sites are "no go"
constraints.
Auckland Airport
Obstacle Limitation
Surface (OLS)
The Auckland Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) prevents any
activities from being established that would penetrate the envelope of
the OLS, without approval from Auckland Airport. The OLS envelope
extends from 0 metres at the runway concentrically outward to 52
metres at 4 kilometres from the runway and 100 metres at 8 kilometres
from the runway. The height of loaded ships is >50 metres and quay
ship-to-shore cranes with raised booms are >100 metres. Dispensation
from Auckland Airport is highly unlikely to be obtained. Therefore the
OLS contour is a "no go" constraint.
RAMSAR sites
As noted above in the commentary of Marine Reserves, RAMSAR
sites are internationally significant wetland areas. Given the extent of
this significance, RAMSAR sites are considered "no go" constraints.
2.5
Second order constraints are set out in Table C.
Table 3 – Second order constraints
Constraint
4
2799998
Rationale
Unless required for safe and efficient operation of significant infrastructure.
Constraint
Rationale
Regional and local
parks
Regional and local parks attract uses that are incompatible with port
activities and generally are afforded a high level of planning
protection. They are therefore considered to be second order
constraints.
Significant Ecological
Area – Marine 2 (SEAM2) / Coastal
Protection Area 2
(CPA-2)
SEA-M2 / CPA-2 are areas of regional, national or international
significance that do not fit the SEA-M1 or CPA-1 classification as they
are considered more robust or of less ecological significance than
SEAM-M1 or CPA-1 sites. They are still highly valued and therefore
are second order constraints.
Sites of value to Mana
Whenua
A port would be considered an incompatible uses and these sites
have a high level of protection. However, mitigation of effects may be
possible and therefore these areas are considered as second order
constraints.
Conservation Areas
and Reserves
DOC terrestrial land is generally of high value and set aside for
conservation purposes. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that the
required approvals (concessions) would be able to be obtained to
utilise DOC land for port activities. These areas are therefore
considered to be second order constraints.
Cable Protection Areas
Development in these areas would require relocation of cables, which
would be a major undertaking. These areas are therefore second
order constraints.
Established marine
activities (mooring /
aquaculture)
Existing marine use and assumed occupation permits / zones protects
this primary use of coastal space. Such areas are therefore second
order constraints.
Water Supply
Management Areas
Road and rail transport connections through these areas are likely to
be incompatible with this protected land use and these areas are
therefore considered to be second order constraints.
2.6
Enabling attributes were also shown on the Constraints Map. As
shown on Annexure B, these are:
2.7
(a)
the existing rail network (NIMT);
(b)
State Highways;
(c)
business/industrial zoned land; and
(d)
areas of 12 to 15 metres of water depth.
The Constraints Map was split into seven sectors to enable easier
review.
The
sectors
were
identified
using
harbour
catchments/ridgelines, broad scale landscape characteristics and in
2799998
some places the edge of the urban area. These are shown on the
Constraints Map as thick white lines.
2.8
The investigation team collectively reviewed the Constraints Map to
identify potentially suitable locations for an alternative port location
within each sector. To understand the scale of the alternative port for
this review, and to prepare concept designs, the current commercial
port footprint (with existing and consented infrastructure) was used,
including:
(a)
A minimum of 80 hectares of port land area.
(b)
Minimum water depths of 12.75 metres (12.5 metres + 0.25
metres sedimentation allowance) below Chart Datum (CD) in
the approach channels, and up to 13.5 metres below CD in
the berths.
(c)
Shelter from wind and shelter from waves such that
significant wave heights in the port basins would be 0.5
metres or less.
(d)
17 shipping and support vessel berths with a total berth
length of 3,200 metres.
(e)
Road and rail connections serving regional and national
distribution networks.
2.9
Other considerations included:
(a)
International shipping requirements (e.g. east coast preferred
over west coast to suit international shipping routes, as stated
in the evidence of Mr Peter Morris).
(b)
Connections to utilities such as high voltage power supply
and fire fighting water supply.
(c)
Adaptation to climate change effects such as sea level rise,
increased rainfall and increased wind speeds.
2.10
Based solely on the Constraints Map, for an alternative port on the
scale of the characteristics set out in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, there
2799998
are very few locations that are not covered by red "no go" first order
constraint layers.
2.11
The Kaipara Harbour is one of the few locations that appears to offer a
potentially suitable alternative port location. However, the Kaipara
Harbour was not selected as an alternative port location as it would
require extensive inner harbour dredging and reclamation to establish
a port and is a large distance from the existing distribution centroid in
Auckland. More importantly, the Kaipara Bar is treacherous with
inadequate depth and would require a large volume of continuous
dredging and disposal to maintain a safe navigable channel. This
would be prohibitively expensive, likely cause significant adverse
effects that would be difficult to mitigate and have high uncertainty in
terms of its continued operation. In addition, international shipping
logistics companies are understood to prefer East Coast ports
because most of New Zealand's main ports are on the East Coast
where a level of vital interconnectedness can therefore be maintained.
2.12
The site attributes for the Kaipara Harbour are similar for the Manukau
Harbour location, which has similar harbour dynamics but is in a more
preferable west coast location much closer to the distribution centroid
in Auckland. As an alternative location, an option in the Manukau
Harbour was therefore selected for further investigation. This enables
a good understanding of the issues that would come up for any
theoretical Kaipara Harbour location.
3.
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DESIGNS
3.1
Despite alternative locations being constrained from a consenting
perspective (as shown on the Constraints Map in Annexure B), three
alternative locations were nevertheless selected for concept design to
test and compare the effects, suitability and cost of these locations.
The three selected locations and the rationale for selection are shown
in Table 4. These alternative concept designs are based on the same
design rationale for a "like for like" replacement port as described in
Annexure C.
A fourth location was subsequently investigated at
POAL's request to allow consideration of a location that was subject to
a private investigation by other interests in 2013.
2799998
3.2
As an aside, the yard areas required for the alternative ports are all
considerably larger (140 hectares to 175 hectares) than the existing
Port of Auckland at its current location (80 hectares). This situation
arises because the required berth length rather than the yard area has
governed the design of the port area footprint. The concept designs
use a yard width of 300 metres, however, the concept designs did not
enable berths on the outer face of any alternative port because it
would require dredging, deeper perimeter structures and wave
protection adjacent to it. This demonstrates the benefit of having a
sheltered harbour port, such as the Port of Auckland in its current
location, as all the yard perimeter can be used for berth space.
Table 4: Selected Alternative Port Locations
Port
Manukau
Island
Port
Location
Manukau Harbour southern shore
(north east of Clarks
Beach)
Ponui
Island
Port
Hauraki Gulf - south
of Ponui Island
(offshore from
Kawakawa Bay)
Kaiaua
Land
Port
Firth of Thames –
western shore
(north of Kaiaua)
Selection Rationale
The Manukau Harbour has an existing small
port; there are locations within the harbour that
are very close to enabling infrastructure and
the freight distribution centroid; the Harbour was
the preferred alternative location in a 1989 Port
Development Plan; and it provides a concept
alternative West Coast site for comparison to
East Coast port locations.
This location has proximity to adequate water
depth and some degree of shelter; it provides a
concept alternative east coast site for
comparison; and it was the preferred alternative
option in the previous 1999 study.
This site provides an alternative that is out of
the region; it enables comparison of a mainland
based port; and the investigation of a Firth of
Thames site was requested by POAL in
response to public comments by other parties
indicating the viability of such a site.
Manukau Harbour Alternative Port Location
3.3
The site selected is north-east of Clarks Beach, outside the Auckland
Airport OLS 110 metre height contour, as the existing port crane
booms extend approximately 100 metres above yard deck level when
elevated. The port site is located approximately 1 kilometre off the
coastline, outside the first order constraint CPA-1 zone. Refer to
Annexures D and E showing the conceptual port layout and
navigation channel.
2799998
3.4
The port concept has two finger type reclamations 400 metres apart
extending northwards with internal quays. The service area is located
at the landward end of the fingers across the 400 metre basin width.
The reclamation is connected to land by a 1km bridge and new road
(17 kilometres) and rail (11.5 kilometres) routes provide transport links
to the nearby road and rail corridors. The estimated capital cost of the
port and transport connections is $5.2 billion.
3.5
Significant reclamation of 140 hectares would be required over a
second order constraint (an intertidal area frequented by wading birds)
to create the port infrastructure. Significant dredging of 40 million m3 is
also required to construct the port basin and navigation channel,
including within the same second order constraint intertidal area,
across the Manukau Bar, and for berthing and ship turning basins.
This quantity of dredging would require offshore disposal to a
dispersive site and potentially cause significant ecological effects.
3.6
Maintaining a safe navigational channel on an ongoing basis across
the Manukau bar would be a significant technical issue. The estimated
length of maintenance dredging over the bar is approximately 3.8
kilometres. This trench type trapezoidal channel would be prone to
sedimentation from the extensive littoral drift northwards up the coast.
It is estimated some 500,000 m3 annually could be interrupted by the
channel which would require continuous maintenance dredging and
recycling back into the sediment system northwards of the channel.
The unknown effects of this ongoing maintenance dredging on coastal
processes could be significant. The cost of this maintenance dredging
including the port basin and navigation channels is estimated to be
$19 million per year.
Additional Manukau Harbour location
3.7
For comparison to the base Manukau Harbour option, and assuming
no first order constraints existed, an alternative site near Puhinui
adjacent to Papakura Channel and Auckland International Airport has
been assessed. This is shown as Annexures F and G. The site
provides a direct transport link to the south-western motorway and
North Island Main Trunk Line (rail).
2799998
3.8
This location was selected at POAL's request because it was
promoted by private interests a year ago as an area where a new port
might be developed (those behind the private investigation included
Russell Kilvington and Mark Oxley, who I understand are Heart of the
City's "port advisers"). There is a cost saving compared to the base
Manukau Harbour option (estimated to be $0.8 billion, mostly due to
shorter transport connections, so the cost would be in the order of
$4.4 billion).
3.9
However, this site is directly located within a first order "no go"
constraint. It is located within the Auckland Airport OLS (so any
container cranes would intrude significantly into the restricted
airspace, as would large container ships entering the port). The site is
also adjacent to an outstanding natural feature, and it would need to
be located within a SEA-M1 / CPA-1.
3.10
This location would require a similar scale of reclamation and dredging
as for the Clarks Beach option, with all of the associated significant
effects likely to result.
3.11
Given the first order constraints identified above, it is perhaps not
surprising that this idea does not seem to have progressed, to my
knowledge.
Ponui Island, Hauraki Gulf Alternative Port Location
3.12
The site selected is approximately 2 kilometres offshore, south-east
from Ponui Island in water depth between -8 metres and -12 metres
CD. Refer to Annexures H and I showing the conceptual port layout
and navigation channel. To help orientate the Panel, on Annexure I
Kawakawa Bay is identified on the bottom left. This port location was
selected to be clear of the outstanding natural landscape areas on the
mainland and Ponui Island, shown as red first order "no go"
constraints.
3.13
The port is a U-shaped island of 160 hectares in area including a
northern breakwater about 1.5 kilometres long to provide protection
from northerly aspect waves. As the site is located in deep water,
dredging at the port itself is minimised but channel dredging over
2799998
about 3.5 kilometres is required to form a navigation channel. It is
assumed that dredged material from the navigation channel would be
used to help form the port, but that a further 16 million m3 of material
would still be required. Realistically, this would have to be sand fill. For
cost estimate purposes sand is assumed to be available within 20
kilometres of the site. It would be reasonable to assume that this
would have to come from a Hauraki Gulf dredged source, which will
generate associated adverse effects.
3.14
A 6 kilometre bridge connection for road and rail is required in the
coastal marine area (CMA) to connect the port to the mainland at
Waitawa Regional Park near Kawakawa Bay. This road and rail
connection within the coastal marine area would be a significant piece
of infrastructure in its own right and nothing of a similar scale currently
exists in New Zealand. From here a new 0.8 kilometre-long link
through the Waitawa Regional Park would connect to the existing
road. The road and rail transport connections would then follow
approximately the existing road alignment through the Wairoa River
valley to Clevedon and on to Papakura, a distance of some 26
kilometres for the rail and 28 kilometres for the road. The estimated
cost of the port and transport connections is $5.1 billion. The annual
maintenance dredging cost would be approximately $10 million.
Firth of Thames Site (Kaiaua) Alternative Port Location
3.15
Site selection in this sector is largely dictated by the northern-most flat
land area and nearest access to deeper water. The site selected is
north of Kaiaua Township on the coast, between the settlements of
Wharekawa and Whakatiwai. The concept port footprint covers land
zoned for a quarry.
Refer to Annexures J and K showing the
conceptual port layout and navigation channel. Annexures J and K
also show in a red-hatch the RAMSAR wetland of international
significance (which is a first order constraint that can also be seen on
the Constraints Map in Annexure B).
3.16
The port is aligned approximately parallel with the coast with smaller
return quays to minimize the length of the main quay.
The
reclamation footprint is 100 hectares and the total port footprint is 175
2799998
hectares, as part would be built on the adjacent land. Dredging of 32
million m3 is required to create the port basin and navigation channel,
which extends 8 kilometres to reach deep water. As for the Manukau
alternative, dredged material would be used in the port reclamation
but an excess of 22 million m3 of dredged material would need to be
disposed of to sea, with associated significant adverse effects. There
would also be annual maintenance dredging required of 180,000 m3
because of the location, which would also have to be disposed of to
sea.
3.17
A 23 kilometre-long connection to State Highway 2 is required,
including new transport corridors to ease horizontal curvature and
provide a more direct link. A new rail corridor extends for a further 13
kilometres to connect with the North Island Main Trunk Line.
Annexure J shows these connections (colored blue and purple),
being a mixture of new or widened road and rail infrastructure, from
the alternative port to the existing State Highway 2.
From State
Highway 2 to the existing rail line, the new rail link is shown in green.
In terms of length, this new transport link would be 30 per cent longer
than the recent Transmission Gully proposal in the Wellington Region.
The estimated cost of the port and transport connections is $5.5
billion.
The
annual
maintenance
dredging
cost
would
be
approximately $14 million.
4.
CONSENTABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4.1
The investigation assumed that a plan change process would be
required to establish appropriate planning controls for an alternative
port location and to provide operational certainty to a commercial port.
This is necessary because POAL is not a requiring authority (and in
any case a designation cannot apply to the CMA).
4.2
A desktop assessment of environmental effects is included in
Annexure L. The assessment assigned an "effects level" using the
qualitative "traffic light" scale from highly negative (red), moderately
negative (orange), low negative (yellow) and neutral (grey). A
comparative summary of the assessment is shown in Table 5.
2799998
Table 4 – Comparative effects summary
Locations and effect level
Activity
Manukau
Ponui
Kaiaua
Construction
Dredging
Dredging disposal
Reclamation
Structures
Road and rail
Operation
Port operations
Dredging and disposal
Road and rail
Project wide
Social
Regional planning
4.3
Although the table includes an entry for social effects, no
consideration was given to likely effects on Mana Whenua in respect
of “consentability”. Intuitively, from the experience of the investigation
team, it was felt likely that all of the alternative locations would be of
equally serious concern to Mana Whenua.
4.4
The Manukau Harbour location would have highly negative effects
associated with port construction including dredging, disposal of
dredged material and reclamation, especially on ecology. Construction
of road and rail links would have moderately negative effects. Longterm and operational effects from maintenance dredging, disposal of
dredged material and the impact of port activity and the presence of
the reclamation and dredged areas (on coastal processes and
ecology, including the West Coast beaches, and in terms of visual
impacts) would be highly negative.
4.5
The Manukau Harbour location would have adverse social effects and
is contrary to the Auckland Plan and PAUP as it promotes
development outside the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and duplicates
transport infrastructure requirements in the region (with associated
2799998
social effects, for example compulsory land acquisition). The Manukau
location is located closer to existing transport links than the other sites
assessed. However, the “consentability” would be very difficult given
the potential impact on West Coast beaches, the scale of the
reclamation and dredging on the harbour and the 1 kilometre access
bridge crossing a SEA-M1 / CPA-1.
4.6
The alternative Manukau Harbour location near Puhinui has similar
"general" environmental effects to the Clarks Beach site. However, its
location within the Auckland Airport OLS and SEA-M1 / CPA-1 and
proximity to an Outstanding Natural Feature means the location is
simply not feasible and in the opinion of the investigation team likely
“unconsentable”.
4.7
The Ponui location would have highly negative construction effects
relating to the reclamation and road and rail links and moderately
negative effects from the dredging. Long term and operational effects,
including the visual impact of the port activity and the impact on
ecology, would be highly negative. The port would also have highly
negative social and regional planning effects, such as loss of amenity
values (including at the Waitawa Regional Park), promotion of
development
outside
the
RUB
and
duplication
of
transport
infrastructure.
4.8
Adequate water depth and shelter makes the Ponui location attractive
from an operational point of view. However, it requires substantial
volumes of fill to create the port reclamation. It is surrounded by "no
go" natural character and landscape constraints which it would
significantly adversely affect. The opinion of the project team was that
the ”consentability” would be extremely difficult because of the first
order constraints and all of the effects described.
4.9
The Kaiaua port would have highly negative effects from the
construction of the road and rail links, the dredging, disposal of
dredged material, and reclamation. Long term and operational effects,
including the visual impact of the port activity and the impact on
ecology (particularly the international wading bird RAMSAR site),
would be highly negative. The port would also have highly negative
2799998
social and regional planning effects, such as loss of amenity values,
promotion of development outside the RUB and duplication of
transport infrastructure. In my opinion, and that of the investigation
team, it would likely be "unconsentable" because of its location with
the RAMSAR site and as a result of the other effects the investigation
and project team have identified.
4.10
All of the concept designs would:
(a)
Cost between $4.4 and $5.5 billion dollars.
(b)
Require significant amounts of dredging, reclamation and
disposal.
(c)
Generate significant adverse effects on ecological and
natural character and landscape values.
(d)
Cause social and community disruption. The transport
connections would exacerbate this and result in many directly
affected landowners.
(e)
Be contrary to the regional growth strategy of the Auckland
Plan and would cause unintended regional development as
labour, servicing and distribution infrastructure relocates
closer to the alternative port location.
(f)
Have high operational costs due required maintenance
dredging.
4.11
The “consentability” of all these sites would be very difficult based on
the first order constraints and the effects generated due to the scale of
construction and operation. In all probability, enabling legislation
would most likely be necessary to provide for an alternative port due
to the highly constrained nature of the region when considering the
effects that an alternative "like for like" port would create.
2799998
5.
CONCLUSION
5.1
Using the Constraints Map and sector analysis of the Auckland region
it is concluded that there are very few unconstrained locations for
infrastructure the scale of an alternative Auckland port.
5.2
The Kaipara Harbour is less constrained; however, a site in the
Manukau Harbour was selected for assessment as it has similar
harbour dynamics but is a preferable West Coast location being much
closer to Auckland.
5.3
The concept port design locations of the Manukau Harbour, Ponui and
Kaiaua and the assessment of environmental effects that each
location would generate can be used to conclude that the effects of
establishing and operating an alternative port with the necessary
transport connections would be significant.
5.4
The concept design locations are all constrained by first order "no go"
constraints. This, coupled with the significant adverse effects each
location would generate, makes each location appear potentially
"unconsentable" under the RMA. The overall conclusion is that there
are no alternative port locations for Auckland that are justifiable in the
foreseeable future.
Stephen John Priestley
17 October 2014
2799998
ANNEXURE A – Alternative Port Study Project Team Qualifications and
Experience
Project Team
Stephen Priestley: Project Lead
(Refer to this Statement of Evidence above.)
Paul Kennedy: Ecological Specialist
(Refer to the Statement of Evidence of Mr Paul Kennedy for Topic 005 RPS
Issues.)
Kane Satterthwaite: Port Design Specialist
Kane is a Chartered Professional Engineer holding a Bachelor of Engineering
(Civil) from the University of Auckland and a Master of Engineering Science
(Construction Management) from the University of New South Wales. He is a
member of the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand.
Kane has 20 years’ experience in maritime and civil infrastructure projects in
Asia, Middle East, South Pacific, Central America and New Zealand. His
particular expertise is contract management and construction for large scale
maritime projects including breakwaters, revetments, dredging and
reclamation, quays and port infrastructure. His experience also includes
project planning, design, technical review and project bid documentation for
general marine and infrastructure projects.
Relevant work experience includes:






2799998
Ports of Auckland Multi-cargo Development – Engineer for concept
wharf options for multi-cargo operations at Captain Cook Wharf,
Marsden Wharf, Bledisloe Wharves B1 and B2 and Kings Low
Landing. Cost estimate range NZ $93-150m.
Rena Project – Engineer for concept barge landing and small harbour
design options for Motiti Island, Tauranga.
PrimePort Timaru – Project Manager for concept design of a 215m long
wharf structure for a proposed cement handling facility. Estimated cost
NZ$ 15m.
East Container Terminal, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Review of Employers
Requirements for a US$ 75m D&C quay 400m long with berth pocket to
-18mCD.
Colombo Port Expansion Project, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Chief RE and
Deputy RE for construction of a US $400m ADB port project including a
5km breakwater, 1km breakwater, port basin to -18m CD, 20 million m3
reclamation and a 9km navigation channel. The new port will be
capable of handling 400m long 12,500 TEU vessels and provide for
three 1.2km quays, resulting in additional capacity of 7.2m TEU.
Diyar Al Muharraq, Bahrain – Chief RE and SRE for construction of a
US $450m waterfront development including dredging, reclamation and
shore protection. The project featured marina’s, canals and several
breakwaters and beach precincts. The footprint area was 12km2, and
the works included 75 million m3 of reclamation and 40km of shore
protection.




Bua Bay Integrated Port, Vanua Levu, Fiji – Engineer’s Representative
for construction of a FJ$ 25m port facility for timber processing and
export. The piled wharf structure extended 354m offshore to water
depth -12m CD.
Rokobili Port EIA, Suva, Fiji – Engineer for assessing services and yard
facilities on several options for a new port in Suva (estimated cost
range FJ $445-700m).
Kings Wharf Rehabilitation and Upgrading, Suva, Fiji - Engineer’s
Representative/RE for two ADB funded construction contracts (FJ
$30.2million) at Kings Wharf container port in Suva. The works
featured pile and beam upgrading, new wharf deck, new fendering
systems and stabilising 60,000m3 of marine sediment for seismic
upgrading.
Eastern Marina Extension, Gulf Harbour – Resident Engineer for
construction of marina extension to provide mega-yacht anchorage and
space for up to 4 Americas Cup yacht bases (NZ $3.2m)
Ben Frost: Natural Character and Landscape Assessment Specialist
Ben Frost is a Senior Landscape Architect at Beca and holds a Bachelor of
Landscape Architecture and Diploma of Landscape Design from Unitec NZ. He
has over 8 years professional experience and a member of the New Zealand
Institute of Landscape Architects.
He specialises in landscape planning and assessment which has included the
evaluation of visual, landscape, and natural character effects related to energy
and infrastructure projects, mining, coastal / rural / urban development, and
estuarine management. This experience has required him to prepare and
present evidence at council hearings and attend caucusing for the environment
court. He has led and completed a number of landscape assessments that
identified natural character, amenity and landscape values at both district and
regional scales.
Recent studies include the Coromandel District Landscape review, Natural
Character Assessment of the Auckland Region, and the Evaluation of
Geological Sites and Landforms and whether they quality as Outstanding
Natural features across the Auckland Region.
Recent relevant experience includes:


2799998
Outstanding Natural Landscape Review – Kaimai Ranges (2013) Review and field evaluation assessment of the proposed ‘Kamai
Ranges’ ONL for Waikato Regional Council.
Volcanic Cones Sightlines and Height Sensitive Areas (2013) Evaluation of the recommendations of the 1997 study focusing on those
scheduled to be deleted for Auckland Council. Undertook site visits to
each of the scheduled viewpoints and retook photographs as a
comparison between the 1997 and 1975 studies. Undertook a review
and provided recommendations in response to geo-preservation society
submissions.







Outstanding Natural Landscape Review – Rangitiki Foredunes (2013) Review and field evaluation and assessment of the proposed ‘Rangitiki
Foredunes’ ONL
Outstanding Natural Landscape Review – Tauroa Peninsula Dunefield
& Coastal Flank (2013) Review and field evaluation of the proposed
‘Tauroa Peninsula Dunefield & Coastal Flank’ ONL as proposed in the
Northland RPS
Thames Coromandel Landscape Review – Detailed Assessment(2013)
Detailed property level assessment of the entire district taking into
account feedback from residents.
Landscape Evaluations of Geological Sites and Landforms – Auckland
Region (2012) NZILA Distinction Award (Landscape Planning &
Environmental Studies Category) Undertook analysis of past case law,
the RMA and current policy, to determine the evaluation criteria for
assessment of the 270 sites, followed by fieldwork evaluation and
photography to determine those that qualify as Outstanding Natural
Features.
Landscape & Natural Character Assessment – West Coast Region of
the South Island (2012 - 2013) Delineation of the coastal environment
and identification and description of areas of high and outstanding
natural character employing key environmental indicators / parameters
based on the 2010 NZCPS. Description and rating of identified
Outstanding Natural Landscapes.
Natural Character Assessment – Auckland Region (2012) Delineation
of the coastal environment for the Auckland Region and identification of
areas of high and outstanding natural character employing key
environmental indicators / parameters based on the 2010 NZCPS – for
the Auckland Regional Council.
Thames Coromandel Landscape Review (2011) Undertook a thorough
re-assessment of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Amenity
Landscapes across the Peninsula following on from the original
assessment and peer review in 2008.

East West Connections, Auckland Transport, (2014 – current)
Assessment of the visual, landscape and natural character implications
of multiple transport options connecting Onehunga to Penrose.

AMETI Mokoia Pa, Auckland Transport (2014 – current) Responsible
for designing a landscape response to the Mokoia Pa section of the
AMETI transport corridor

Mt Crawford and Palmer Head Water Reservoir Feasibility Study (2014)
Evaluation of the landscape, natural character and amenity implications
and consenting risks of three emergency water storage reservoirs on
the Miramar Peninsula, Wellington.
Blair Masefield: Strategic and RMA Planning Assessment Specialist:
Blair is a qualified Planner with a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental
Planning (honours) from Massey University, is a full member of the New
Zealand Planning Institute, and active member of the New Zealand Coastal
Society.
2799998
He has eleven years’ experience in strategic and statutory Planning roles
across a range of major infrastructure, environmental, policy and strategic
planning projects in New Zealand and the UK.
He has experience in development scoping and strategic consenting advice,
complex AEE preparation, expert evidence and environmental management
plans. He has held Project Management roles on medium to large
infrastructure planning projects and applied his statutory process
understanding to managing technical inputs from a range of environmental
specialists. Blair has a sound knowledge of the New Zealand Coastal Planning
Framework and is a regular presenter at NZ Coastal Society conferences.
Relevant experience and projects include:

Penlink Re-consenting (2014 – Ongoing) – lead planner preparing the
consents and designation alterations and managing 14 environmental
specialists for a 7km road and 600m bridge across the CMA;

Te Atatu Interchange Design and Construct (2014 – ongoing) – lead
planner for the design and construct team rebuilding and widening the
Te Atatu Interchange on SH16, Auckland.

Transmission Gully PPP Bid (2013) – prepared the consenting strategy
for a PPP redesign of a new 23km 4-lane road north of Wellington,
including high level effects assessments and consentability;

Refining NZ Erosion Management Strategy (2012-2013) – led this
strategy development in response to an erosion issue. It included an
evaluation process to select response options. Using the strategy Blair
consented a 540m back-wall and dune restoration.

NRC Moorings and Marinas Strategy (2012-2013) - prepared a Draft
Moorings and Marinas Strategy for Northland including an evaluation
framework to assist NRC in making decision over a range of options for
allocation of space.

Onehunga Foreshore Project (2010 – 2012) – provided tender
evaluation and application review services on the consentability and
environmental impacts of 3 tenders for a consent-design- construct
contract involving a 7ha of reclamation.

Waterview Connection (2010 – 2012) – Senior planner throughout the
pre and post lodgment phases of this project including through the
Board of Inquiry. The project secured consents and designations for
two three lane tunnels, significant motorway infrastructure and two
kilometers of widened coastal causeway, partially through a marine
reserve.

Major Coastal Infrastructure Consenting, ARC (2007 - 2008) - sole
qualified processing planner in the Coastal Consents team at Auckland
Regional Council. He focused on managing the consenting process for
larger or complex infrastructure projects which contained coastal
aspects but also included other Regional Consent requirements under
the Air, Land and Water Plan and the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan.
2799998
Hugh Leersnyder: Strategic and RMA Planning Reviewer
Hugh is an Environmental Scientist at Beca with over 30 years in applied
resource management. He holds a Bachelor of Agricultural Science,
(Agricultural Engineering/Natural Resource Economics), Massey University, a
Bachelor of Science, (Zoology), Massey University, 1991, and a Master of
Science (Environmental Science/Geography) (First Class Honours), University
of Auckland,
He has an extensive science (biological and physical) and coastal planning
background including a detailed knowledge of regional government resource
management responsibilities. Hugh is an accredited RMA Commissioner and
has been involved in a number of resource consent roles for coastal and major
infrastructure projects representing either the applicant or the regulator.
Relevant experience and projects include:

Capital Dredging of Lyttelton Harbour, Lyttelton Port of Christchurch
(LPC), October 2013 – Present: coordinating a range of experts in the
preparation of the assessment of effects on the environment from the
dredging and disposal of 12.5 million cubic metres of sediment

Rena Project, “The Swedish Club”, insurers for Daina Shipping
Company, June 2012- Present – part of a team considering the medium
to long term options for the management of the Rena’s wreck.

Majuro Airport runway safety area, Republic of Marshall Islands Ports
Authority, March – June 2012 – environmental approvals to allow the
construction of a runway safety area (RSA) at the Amata Kabua
International Airport (AKIA) including dredging and reclamation

Okiato Ferry ramp dredging Hearing Commissioner, Northland
Regional Council, NZ, November 2011 - hearing an application for
dredging and associated alterations to a boat ramp at Okiato to
accommodate overnight berthing of the Opua vehicular ferry

Port Otago Dredging Hearing Commissioner- Otago Regional Council,
February to June 2011 - considering coastal permit applications for the
dredging and disposal of 7.2 million cubic metres of sediment from the
entrance channel of Otago Harbour

MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway, Wellington – NZ Transport
Agency, 2010 - 2012 - preparation of the Construction Environmental
Management Plan for an 18 km expressway

Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing, NZ Transport Agency, June
2010 –October 2010 - coordinated environmental input to the
consenting issues (or the degree of environmental effects) associated
with various options

Waterview Connection, Auckland – NZ Transport Agency, 2006 – 2011
- managing a number of the environmental work packages for the
approvals required to construct the Auckland motorway connection
from SH 20 (Mt Roskill) to a connection with SH16 at Waterview,
including a section of marine causeway
2799998

2799998
Pine Harbour Marina Dredging and Disposal Consent Application
Processing, Auckland Regional Council, 2009 - prepared the officer’s
hearing report for the resource consent applications
ANNEXURE B – Constraints map
2799998
GIS@beca.com
LEGEND
Wellsford
"
)
Location of Possible Port Sites
Muriwai Connections
Alternative Port Transportation
Sectors
Coastline
Leigh
o
=
<
International Airport
Exisiting Port
Warkworth
Enabling Attributes
North
East
Existing rail network
Kaipara
State Highway (CRS)
Major rural; Major urban; Motorway
Business Zoned Land -incl. Industrial
Commercial Shipping Channel
Depth 12 -15m
West
Coast
Constraining Attributes
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
Orewa
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
D
!
Helensville
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
D
!
!
RAMSAR Area
Waitamata
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Browns
Bay
Te Atatu
=
<
Devonport
D
!
D
!
D
!
D
!
!
D
!
D
!
D !
!
!
!
D
!
D!
D
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
!
DDD
!
D
!
D
D
!
!
!
D
D!
!
!
D
D
!
!
!
!
D
!
D
!
!
!
D
!
D
!
!
!
D!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
Hauraki
Gulf
D
!
!
Waiheke
D
!
!
=
<
Onehunga
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
D !
!
!
D
D
!
!
!
!
D!
!
D
!
D
!
!
!
D!
!
D
!
!
D!
!
D!
!
!
D
!
D!
D
!
!
D
!
Mangere
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
o
Pakuranga
D
!
!
Howick
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
D
!
!
Ponui
D
!
!
D
D
D
!
!
!
!
D
D
!
D
!
D
!
!
!
Clevedon
Date: 8/10/2014
Clarks Bea
Author:
Takapuna
West
Coast
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquiculture)
Water Supply Management Area
Date: 8/10/2014
Muriwai
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-0089b_A3_Constraints_1_350000.mxd
Kumeu Huapai
D
D
D !
D
!
!
!
!
!
Waiuku
Ponui Site
Kawakawa Bay
Clarks Beach Site
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-0089b_A3_Constraints_1_350000.mxd
Author:
Manukau
Glenbrook
D
!
!
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources othe
Souththan
East
Beca, and therefore, no representations or warranties are ma
and Firth
by Beca as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.
of Thames
Pukekohe
Waiuku
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other
than Beca, and therefore, no representations or warranties are made
by Beca as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
ScaleKaiaua
may be incorrect
Site when printed.
Contains information sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright Reserve
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed
Firth
of Thames:DS,
RAMSAR
site no.AEX,
459 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN
CNES/Airbus
USDA, USGS,
(approximately 8,500 ha)
– Wetland of International Significance
Revision
Mangatawhiri
Wetland
Map Scale @ A3: 1:350,000
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
0
Contains information sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright Reserved.
2.5
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the
Revision
Author
Verified
2.5
5
10
Kilometres
15
3
AYF
BTM
2
AYF
DRAFT
1
AYF
DRAFT
10
15
3
2
Kilometres
1
Approved
Date
Map Scale @ A3: 1:350,000
0
5
03//10/14
DRAFT
19//08/14
DRAFT
19/08/14
Title:
Client:
Constraint Map
Ports of Auckland Ltd
±
D RA WN : A Y F
RE V I E WE D : K S BE CA RE F : 3122425
annexure b - CONSTRAINTS MapProject:
POAL Engineering Assistance
Discipline:
GIS
S CA LE : 1: 350, 000 @ A 3
O RI GI N A L S I ZE : A 3
Drawing No:
SHEET 1 OF 1
GIS-312425-009a
ANNEXURE C – Alternative Port Design Criteria and Concept Design
Parameters
Design Criteria
An overarching design principle is that any alternative port is to match the
capacity of the existing port as a minimum. However, a 'greenfields'
development allows optimisation (e.g. of quay layout and yard areas) so
improvements are expected.
Another
important feature
of
any port
development is future proofing to cater for expansion, though this matter is not
explored here, as the study objective is to investigate an equivalent port to the
existing.
Based on the existing port the following design criteria have been adopted to
base the alternative port location concept designs:

Minimum port land area to cater for wharf margins, yard, internal traffic,
workshop and administration requirements – 80 ha with yard depth to be
similar to berth length (this is based the on existing commercial port area).

Berth requirements – 5/300 m long berths, 3/250 m long berths, 3/200 m long
berths, 6/50 m berths for tugs, pilot vessels and barges (this is based the on
existing commercial port area).

Port cargo capacity – will vary depending on cargo mix but will be based on
above land area and berth provisions.

Dredged depths – approach channels to be a minimum of 12.75 m CD (12.5m
+ 0.25m sedimentation allowance) and allow for two-way traffic: 300m long
berths; 13.5m CD: 250 m long berths; 12.5 m CD: 200 m long berths; 11.0 m
CD: 50 m long berths; 7.0 m CD.

Wave protection – rock/armour protection for 50 year event and 0.5% damage,
and 200 year event with 5% damage. Significant waves in port area to be
limited to 0.5 m height.

Road and rail links – 2 lane state highway equivalent with grade separation at
each major intersection. Resilience is required with access not dependent on a
sole link. Single line rail to NIMT with grade separation at each major
intersection.

20MVA power supply at 11kV or 22kV.

Substantial water supply (for fighting and bunkering ships).

Port area capable of being extended / expanded in the future.

Climate Change – 1.0 m MSL increase over next 100 years, and rainfall and
wind increase for extreme events of 20% (Note: the existing port doesn't have
these allowances).
2799998
The following guidelines were used to aid development of the concept
alternative port layouts:

Design Principles for Small and Medium Marine Container Terminals, PIANC
(World Association for Waterbourne transport Infrastructure) report No 1352014

Navigation Projects, Chapter 5, USACE, EM 1110-2-1100, July 2003

Port Engineering, Volume 1 – Harbour Planning, Breakwaters and Marine
Terminals, Per Bruun, 1989
Concept Design Parameters
Safe navigation and relatively calm water for berthing and mooring is
paramount.
Navigation channels with the least bends and corners are
preferred. The nominal design channel depth is -12.75m CD (12.5m water
depth + .025m sedimentation allowance) to match the existing Rangitoto
channel depth.
Two-way ship traffic has been allowed for, and based on the design vessel this
gives a nominal channel width of 250m.
High currents >1.5 knots require
increasing this basic channel width to 300m. Channel horizontal turns require
widening and for this study either a cut-off turn or a circle turn has been
adopted, depending on the site.
A turning basin is required to orient ships to the quay alignment for berthing.
The turning basin is based on ship length, currents, layout of channels and
docks and tug and pilot arrangements. A circular basin of dimension 1.5 ×
design vessel length (300m x 1.5=450m) has been adopted for this study. The
turning basin configuration would need to be checked using a ship simulator,
particularly for currents exceeding 1.5 knots, such as in the Manukau Harbour.
Wave protection for the berthing basin is provided by a combination of
breakwaters, yard reclamation with revetment and offshore mudcrete bunds.
Wave heights within the port basin are envisaged to be limited to 0.5m. Use of
dredged material for offshore wave protection bunds has a dual purpose in
cost effective disposal of material.
The wave climate for each selected site is moderate and the design significant
wave height is less than 3m. The largest breakwater structure required is at
the Ponui Island site in ~12.5m water depth. For a design significant wave
2799998
height ~3m, concrete armour units are typically used as large rock armour is
difficult to source in significant quantities.
An approximate comparison was undertaken between concrete armour units
and rock armour which indicated that the rock armour option is between 1.5-2
times more costly than the concrete armour units.
Accordingly concrete
armour units were selected for the Ponui Island site. All other sites have rock
armour as they are more protected.
A sea level rise of 1m and a storm surge of 0.6m have been adopted to assess
quay and yard levels design significant wave heights and overtopping.
Significant quantities of high quality rock will be required for each potential port
location.
Ideally the majority of dredged material would be reused as reclamation fill for
the new port or some other land reclamation project, as this is generally cost
effective and environmentally desirable.
However the dredging and
reclamation can be imbalanced due to other site selection parameters, such as
proximity to deep water, wave protection, transport length and environmental
reasons.
Material that cannot be used in reclamation has to be disposed to dump sites
offshore beyond the territorial sea limits, which is an expensive operation. Due
to the significant quantities of dredging and reclamation, cost estimates are
sensitive to changes in quantity or rates.
No investigation into seabed material type has been undertaken however the
following has been assumed based on knowledge of the sites:

Clarks Beach (Manukau Harbour) – inner harbour location on mudflats,
assumed to be majority fines material

Ponui Island – sited in deep water southeast of Ponui Island, assumed to be a
mix of fines and sandy material

Kaiaua (Firth of Thames) – sited adjacent the coast near Kaiaua township,
assumed to be majority fines material
The implication of substantial fines material is that it is unsuitable for
reclamation fill without treatment, such as mixing with coarse material or
stabilising. Cement stabilising treatment, which produces a material known as
mudcrete, has been undertaken successfully at the existing Ports of Auckland
2799998
site now for some 20 years, and is an effective way of using otherwise
unsuitable material in reclamation.
Sandy material may be placed by hydraulic fill into reclamation as core
material, which is typically cost effective compared to rock fill options.
However issues such as liquefaction under earthquake loading and settlement
need to be considered. Settlement of deep reclamations, both underlying and
reclaimed material, is a matter to be addressed in preliminary and detailed
design.
Surcharge and deep-compaction are methods used to address
settlement and compaction.
Soft fine seabed material may need to be removed and replaced with more
suitable material on which to found reclamations, such as stabilised material
(mudcrete), quarry run or sand fill with minimum fines content. A nominal
thickness of 1m removal under breakwater and revetment foundations has
been allowed for in this study. An alternative treatment method is to surcharge
the seabed material for a set period to induce consolidation.
Site specific geotechnical investigations would be needed for each site to
determine
dredging
material
classification,
foundation
conditions
and
liquefaction potential.
Potential quay types include:
(a)
Solid concrete block wall and capping beam
(b)
Caisson with infill and capping beam
(c)
Reinforced concrete piled structure and deck and under-deck
revetment with down-stand wall or sheetpile
A block wall type quay requires firm foundations and may not be suitable
seismically. A caisson type quay may offer cost advantages and is common
overseas but requires specialist casting and placing equipment.
For the
purpose of this study a 30m wide reinforced concrete piled structure and deck
with under-deck revetment has been adopted, as this type of quay has been
constructed in New Zealand and cost data is readily available.
A typical yard width of 300m has been adopted adjacent to quays. This width
includes the quay structure, transport lanes, container stacking area and outer
2799998
traffic lanes. The total yard area for the new port layouts is approximately
double the 80Ha area of the existing Port due to the provision of 300m yard
width adjacent the full new quay length.
In contrast the existing port has
doubled sided quays on fingers with lesser wharf width, demonstrating the
benefit of a harbour port with natural wave protection.
Wherever feasible, widening and upgrading of existing road transport routes
has been adopted and costed. Allowance has been made for easing obvious
tight horizontal geometry. Existing vertical geometry is assumed to be suitable.
Land acquisition widths have been assumed as follows:
(d)
Widening existing road and add rail corridor – 20m
(e)
New road and rail corridor – 40m
(f)
New rail corridor – 20m
The above width allowances are based on relatively flat land and minimal
earthworks. Greater width will be required for intersections and any significant
cutting or filling.
The cost estimate assumes that existing Ports of Auckland container cranes
and yard plant and equipment are to be transferred to the new Port.
2799998
ANNEXURES D-K – Alternative Ports
2799998
-1.2
5.5
16.9
25
12.5
14.1
21
16.9
23
18
33
27
-1.5
7.6
13.6
0.3
8
5.4
0.6
3.6
11.1
9.1
14.6
11.3
9.6
5.7
8.3
4.2
6.1
21.5
31
4.6 25
2.9
17.3
13
11.1 9.4
26.5
6.7
27
11.6
14.3
18.4
8.1
7.4
5.5
8.7
35
13.3
17.6
22
3.9
4.1
13.4
18.4
11.8
12.9
11.4
5.8
24
35
25
19.2
22
33
13
Existing
24
31
Road
Rail
Indicative
21
27
33
42
19.1
24
29
35
47
Date: 8/10/2014
33
40
31
53
44
4.6
8.8
11.3
12.6
10.4
9.1
11.2
13.1
17.7
14.3
15.5
15.5
1.8 2.1
-0.6
0.3
0.9
0.9
-0.3
0.9
2.4
-0.7
0.3
3.3
0.6
-0.6
-0.3
-0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3 2.4
-0.9
-1.2
3.5
-0.3
4
-1.5
-0.9
-1.2
0.9
8.5
9.1
7.6
8.8
9.1
2.4 3.6 4.3
2.7
6.1
7
3
7.9
10
9.1
7.3
3
7.3
0.9
3.6
13.4
8.2
16.1
6.4
-3
0.6
33
33
-1.5
8.2
6.7
11.6
24
24
35
35
6.1
4.6 -0.9
3.6
0.6
-0.3
2.7
3
0.6
-1.2
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
RAMSAR Area
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
19.2
19.2
22
22
13
13
11.5
11.5
16.3
16.3
21.5
24
13.8
13.8
19.1
19.1
16
16
21
21
27
27
19.1
19.1
42
New
New Rail
Road/Rail
42
36
36
47
New
47 Road
Widening
of Exisiting Road
New
44
StateRoad/Rail
Highway
44
24
24
29
29
35
35
42
31
31
33
33
Existing
Road Widening / New3636
Rail
Rail4747
40
40
53
53
Indicative
Channel Designation
38
Road
44
38
44
49
49
Dredging Required
Constraining
Attributes
Constraining Attributes
25
25
27
27
33
33
First
FirstOrder
Order'No
'NoGo'
Go'Constraints
Constraints
D
!
Sites
D
!
SitesAnd
AndPlaces
PlacesOf
OfSignificance
SignificanceTo
ToMana
ManaWhenua
Whenua
Outstanding
OutstandingCoastal
CoastalNatural
NaturalCharacter
Character
High
HighCoastal
CoastalNatural
NaturalCharacter
Character
Marine
MarineReserve
Reserve
Outstanding
OutstandingNatural
NaturalLandscape
Landscape
Outstanding
OutstandingNatural
NaturalFeatures
Features
Exisitng
ExisitngResidential
ResidentialAreas
Areas
Significant
SignificantEcological
EcologicalAreas
Areas(CPA1/M1)
(CPA1/M1)
Airport
Height
Restriction
Airport Height Restriction 52m
52m-110m
-110m
RAMSAR Area
RAMSAR Area
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Conservation Area (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
Water Supply Management Area
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
This
contains
derived in part
or wholly from
sources
other as
than
andmap
therefore,
no data
representations
or warranties
are made
by Beca
to Beca,
the
and
therefore,
no representations
warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy
or completeness
of thisorinformation.
accuracy or completeness of this information.
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Map
intended
distribution
a PDF document.
Scale
may befor
incorrect
whenasprinted.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Contains
Crown sourced
Copyrightfrom
Data.
Crown Copyright
Aerials images
Auckland
Council. Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
0
0
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
1.25
1.25
2.5
2.5
5
5
Kilometres
Kilometres
Map Scale @ A3: 1:120,000
5
±
Revision
Author
Verified
Approved
DRAFT
Date
Title:
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Puhinui
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
annexure d - MANUKAU HARBOUR
(CLARKS
BEACH) ALTERNATIVEProject:
PORT
LAYOUT
Potential
Port Layout
POAL Engineering Assistance
2
1
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
15/08/14
17.8
17.8
22
22
31
31
37
37
12.7
12.7
15
15.2
21
21
29
29
49
49
11
11.3
17
17
27
27
40
40
8.4
8.4
9.4
9.4
12.7
12.7
18
18
4.1
4.1
6.5
6.5
3.6
3.6
6.7
6.7
Map Scale @ A3: 1:120,000
Map Scale @ A3: 1:120,000
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
Kilometres
Base Width 3
Base Width 3
Dredging to -15.3m
Dredging to -15.3m
12.75 x 20% Swell Factor
12.75 x 20% Swell Factor
25
25
6.9
4
5.8
5.8
40
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
2.5
1.3
1.3
13.4
13.4
Road Transport Connections
Indicative
53
53
2.1
22.5
16.7
16.7
12.7 22.5
12.7
11.8
11.8
31
Bridge
-0.3
3.9
3.9 27
27
18.8
32
18.8
1
27 32
31 27 19.4 8.614
31
19.4 8.6
6.9
12.4
12.4
12.9
18.4 12.9
18.4
11.4
11.4
Indicative
New Road
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
1.25
6
5.5
7.4 5.5
8.7
7.4
8.7
4.7
4.7
13.3
5.9
8.1
13.3
5.9
8.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
33
33
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
0
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.5
8.1
3.9
6 8.1 3.9
31
State
Highway
Dredging
Required
40
-0.6
1.2
6.2
8.3 6.2
8.3 6.1
6.1
2.9
2.9
11.1 9.4
11.1
9.4
Rail
New Rail
42
-0.6
6.4
6.4
3.1
3.1
Existing
Indicative Channel24 Designation
21.5
47
47
1.2
9
11.1
11.1 9.1
9.1
11.3
9.6
11.3
9.6
11.6
11.6
33
33
42
42
-1.2
4.6
2.1
13
13
19
19
4.6
5.8
Legend
Legend
-1.2
-0.9
1.8
-0.9
-1.8
25 1.5
1.2
3.6
-1.2
0.6
-1.2
7.9
2.1
7.3
-0.6
-0.9
-0.9
4.6
4.3
7.9
7.9
2.4
-0.6
0.3
5.5
4.7
-1.2
-1.8
-0.6
2.1
3
17.6
17.6
27
27
5.8
-0.6
Bridge
-0.6
6
-0.6
3.3 6.7
-0.6
1.5
3
22
22
-0.3
1.8
0.3
-0.6
-1.5
5.6
-0.6
2.4
-0.9
2.1
-0.6
0.3
-0.6
1
0.7
7.7
-0.6
8.8
0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.9
-1.1
6.5 2.3
7.8
-1.1
1.8
3.6
-1.5
7.9 3.3
2.1 0.6
9.1
12.5
Constraining Attributes
2.4
-0.9
2.1
0.3
4.9
1.5
4.6 0.3
9.7
13.7
0.6
11.8
1.2
0.6
6.7
2.5
25
25
35
35
1.8
0.3
-0.3
7.3
10.3
25
0.3
0.9
-0.3
0.5
0.2
11.3
8.2
9.1
17.1
33
7.3
10.7
15.5
4.6
9.4
13.7
14.6
2.4
-0.6
2.7 10
-0.9
3.3
6.7
13
13.4
4.3
8.5
0.9
14.6
0.6
7
4.3
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.6
6.9
1.2
-1.2
9.1
1.2
6.4
3
1.5
0.3
1.2
0.6
8.5
-0.3
0.9
7.6
1.5
0.6
0.9
8.2
7
6.9
3
8.8
2.7
7.3
2.7
0.7 1.2
3.1
3
0.3
0.6
6.1
1.2
6.3
6.9
13.5
2.3
0.9
5.9
0 0.5
0
0.8
1.7 3.3
3
-0.9
0.3
0.5
15.6
15.6
14.6
14.6
14.3
14.3
-1.2
0.3
0.6
0.6
-0.1 0.2
5.6
17
0.3
2.1 9.4
1.2
0.3
6.7
4
1.8
9.4
7.5
3.6
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.3
-1.2
0.6
0.6
7.7 3.3
10.4
-1.2
1.8 10.7
2.4
0.9
12.2
-1.2
12.5 2.4
1.2
1.8
1.5
-1.2
14
1.2
3
2.2
13.9
2.3
0.9
6.4
3.3
-1.2
2.1
2.1
6.1 7.3
11.3
2.1
-1.5
0.9
2.1
2.1
0.9
0.6
8.2
0.9
15.8
2.4
2.1
0.6
1.2
10.4
11.5
20
37
49
Dredging Required
7.9
9.4
1.2
1.2
-0.3
0.3
7.6
-1.8
2.4
-0.9
8.8 1.2
2.1
10.7
Indicative Channel Designation
38
5.5
15.8
-0.9
0.3
7
9.7
12.7
16.7
21
27
4.3
7.6
8.7
16.4
Existing
Road Widening / New 36
Rail
47
1.8
7.1
10.8
15.5
3
14.6
2.7
11.9
0.3
0.3
0.9
-0.6
-0.9
17.8
1.8
2.1
1.2
9.4
1.5
-1.2
0.4
13.9
16.3
16.5 20.3
7.8
3.1
5.7
0.6
3.3
14.4
24
6.3
1.5
2.1
3
4.3
8.2
11.2
15.1
0.5
-1.5
-1.8
7.4
12.4
20.2
11
0.6
-0.3
-1.2
21.5
21.5 18.4
18.4
27
27
1.5
-0.6
21.5 17.3
21.5 17.3
26.5
26.5
0.6
19.3
19.3
21.5
21.5
1.2
-1.2
2.2
10.3
13.4
7.3
31
31
-0.9
-0.3
-1.2
16.9
5.2
24
4.6
9.9
13.2
20
3
9.7
6.3
13.2
49
-0.6
-1.8
-0.3
0.3
5.3
14
27
-0.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.9
6
2.4
-1.2
-0.9
6.9
4.7
9.6
27
3.5
10.9
16.7
9.7 18
7.3
14.3 0.6
6.5
11.6
25
29
40
New Road/Rail
44
1.1
8
22
4.9
13.5
8.9
20.3
-0.3
19.2
19.2
21
21
29
29
-0.6
3.6
12.9
17
20.8
12.1
24
0.2
27
27
-0.9
-0.6
0.9
-1.5
6.2
16.1
33
8.8
9.1 12.8
9.1
3.3
0.6 3.3
0.3
16.1
3
15.5
20.7
11.6 5.8
13.7
27
36
New Road
53
Author:
31
42
33
22
8.8
8
14.9
New Rail
22
15.2
22
5.8
2.7
0.3
-0.9
15.2
6.4
8.4
47
33
0.7
-0.5
1.2 2.8 0.2
5.7
11.3
17.8
10
25
4
0.2
12.2
5.3
6.1
12.5
21
3.3
3
12.8
6.2
0.2
3
6.1
6.6
10.9
15.2
3.6 2.1
0.3
1.5
1.2
0.9 0.9
4.7
11.1
17
0.6
2.4
24
11.9
1.3
0.3
5.6
8.5
16
7.3 2.1
29
29
-0.3
2.8
1.2
4.8
7
6.6
5
12.7
19.1
40
2.1
8.8
7.3
13.1
3.7
0.5
-0.3
0.6
0.3
1.2
1.5
3.3
6.6
8
9.6
13.8
7.3
13.4
3.6
5.3
3
3.6
6.1
1
11.3
16.3
7.3
16.4
13.1
31
31
22
24
15.5
33
33
35
36
25
3.6
0.3
7
4 5.2
2.1 6.4
1.7
2.4
7.4 3.9
3.3
7.4
11.5
21.5
State Highway
2.9 5.5
7.8
8.2
8.4
12.7
18
9.8
6.5
6.7
9.4
Legend
42
3.6
Dredging to -15.3m
12.75 x 20% Swell Factor
19
4.1
31
27
22
-0.9
0.3
4.6
3.4 10.5
Base Width 300m
10
2.1
4.8
35
47
5.2
7.9
31
-1.2
1.3
5.7
9.6
2
1.3
7.2
27
33
4.9
4.5
6.8
31
4.2
4
13.4
4.9
5.6
-0.9
4.4
6.2
1
3.6 6
6.3
19.4 8.6
14
8.7 3.6
3.9
4.3
8.4
8.7
9.6
2.7
0.7
Base Width 300m
7.3
8.3
8.9
8
-1.2 1.2 0.6
10.3 9.1
13.4
11.9
14.9
15.2
10.9
12.2 11.7
16.7
26
23
19.6 15.4
13.6
38
41
40
46
50
45
14.5
6.9
12.7
8.1
32
27
31
22.5
16.7
5.9
7.1
18.8
12.4
4.7
25
3.9
27
32
33
24
33
32
32
33
21
18.2
7
11.3
8.6
3.9
6
24
8.4
6.5
21.5
9.8
13.3
37
6.2
-1.2
5.2
7.3
12
12.5
2.1 7.3
7
11.9
15.5
3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
3.6 8.8
6.4
15.6
-1.5
-0.6
3.1
19.3
21.5
29
-2.1
8.2
9
19.2
21
8.5
11.9
13.7
29
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007g_A3_Preferred_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_100000.mxd
1.2
2.1 11.6
2.5
3
16.4 1
0.7
3.1
-1.2
11.9
-0.3 0.9 4.3
-0.1
3.4
15.2
0.3
1.3
3.7
12.5 11.3
0.2
0.6
2.4
-0.3
13.4
3.6
6.1 2.1
-1.5
7.9
0.6
12.2
-0.3 0.1
0.2
0.3
3.7 0.6 5.4
8.8 3.6
3 8.2
14.6
6.7
-2.1
0.8
-0.6 -0.3 -0.3
0.2
8.5
0.7
-0.9
-0.6
0.9 4
3.5
0.1
10 6 3.1
0.6
-0.9
-0.2
2.4
-1.2
1.7
0.7
-1.2
0.7
13.7
29
File:
P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007g_A3_Preferred_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_100000.mxd
19/09/2014
File:
P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007g_A3_Preferred_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_100000.mxd Author:
Author: Date:
Date:
8/10/2014
GIS@beca.com
33
Discipline:
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
GIS
SC A L E : 1 :1 2 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZ E : A 3
Drawing
SH E E T No:
1 OF 1
GIS-3122425-007g
1.2
2.1
0.6
2.1
-0.3
1.8
1.2
2.1
0.6
10.7
2.1
1.2
0.6 Road
Rail
0.9
0.6
New Rail
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007h_A3_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_30000.mxd
Author:
Date: 8/10/2014
-0.6
2.1
0.3
2.1
1.2
New Road/Rail
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
Indicative Channel Designation
0.9
-0.3
Author:
2.1
New Road
0.3
7.3
Constraining Attributes
2.4
-0.6
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
0.3
9.1 Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features-0.3
Exisitng Residential Areas
Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
-0.3
10Significant
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
4.6
-0.6
-0.6
RAMSAR Area
11.3
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
Conservation
Area (DOC)
0.3
Reserve (DOC)
7.3Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
4.9 Supply Management Area
Water
-0.9
-0.3
-0.6
-1.5
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
7.9
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
Indicative Channel Designation
0.3
7.3
Constraining Attributes
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whe
0.3
9.1 Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features-0.3
Exisitng Residential Areas
Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
-0.3
10Significant
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
RAMSAR Area
11.3
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
Conservation
Area (DOC)
0.3
Reserve (DOC)
7.3Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
4.9 Supply Management Area
Water
-0.9
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
7.9
3.3
5.5
4.6
0.25
0.5
1
Kilometres
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
Kilometres
-0.9
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
4.6
0.5
2.1
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
0
-0.9
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
0.25
0.3
New Road/Rail
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
2.1
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
0
0.6
New Road
3.3
5.5
0.6
Rail
0.3
Date: 8/10/2014
Indicative
0.6 Road
New Rail
1.8
0.6
0.9
State Highway
3.6
State Highway
1.2
0.3
Indicative
2.4
0.9
0.3
-1.2
Existing
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007h_A3_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_30000.mxd
GIS@beca.com
Existing
-1.8
-1.5
-0.9
1.2
Legend
0.9
Legend
3
1.2
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.3
-0.6
-1.2
2.4
4
-0.6
-1.5
1.2
1.8
0.9
1.5
3
0.6
3.5
-0.3
-0.6
1.2
2.4
0.9
0.6
-0.6
9.4
1.2
1.8
-0.9
2.4
3.6
0.9
-0.6
GIS@beca.com
5.8
-0.6
-0.9
2.1
0.6
-0.3
1
±
Revision
DRAFT
Author
Verified
Approved
Date
Title:
2
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
1
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
15/08/14
Discipline:
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
FOR INTERNAL
PURPOSES ONLY.
Puhinui
TO BE
VERIFIED.
annexure e - MANUKAU HARBOURYET
(CLARKS
LAYOUT
Project:
Potential
PortBEACH)
Layout ALTERNATIVE PORT
POAL Engineering Assistance
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
SC A L E : 1 :3 0 ,0 0 0 @ AGIS
3
OR IG IN A L SIZ E : A 3
SH EDrawing
E T 1 OF
No: 1
GIS-3122425-007h
6.7
0.9
Indicative
Channel Designation
7.9
24
15.2
4.3
Indicative Transport Connections
GIS@beca.com
22
7.9
Legend
New Road/Rail
8.8
5.8
6.7
22
0.9
4.3
Indicative Transport Connections
New Rail
10.3
3
Road
4.9
10
-1.5
7
2.7
14.9
Constraining Attributes
9.1
14.3
24
1.2
3.6
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
20
-0.6
15.8
D
10
!
Sites And Places
Of3.3Significance To Mana Whenua
3.9
Outstanding Coastal8.2 Natural Character
22
15.2
High
Coastal Natural
Character
-1.8
7
Marine 19.5
Reserve
Outstanding Natural
Landscape
14.3
9.1 2.7
Outstanding Natural Features
6.4
17.7
22
Exisitng Residential
Areas
14.3
8.5
Significant Ecological Areas
(CPA1/M1)
3.6
15.8
Airport Height Restriction
52m -110m
3.3
25
6.1
-1.2
5.5
0.3
Regional Park
8.2
16.9
Conservation
Area (DOC)
11.9
13.7
Reserve (DOC)
7.6
Cable
Protection Area
18
8 Areas (Land/M2)
13.6
Significant Ecological
5.4
Marine Activites9 (Mooring/Aquicuture)
19.2
6.4
Water15.6Supply Management Area
23
21
11.1
9.1
8.5
0.3
4.6
2.9
8.1
3.9
6
7.4
5.5
8.7
18.8
12.4
5.9
7.1
7.2
4.9
3.9
4.1
13.4
5.8
6.3
Dredging to -15.3m
12.75 x 20% Swell Factor
19
25
16.3
19.1
21
19.1
24
17.8
35
1.1
42
22
36
Map Scale @ A3: 1:100,000
0
1
2
Kilometres
4
0.3
-0.3
7.1
7.6
7
9.7
7.9
11.3
12.7
12.6
±
7
13
2
1
8.5
4.3
6.7
9.1
Author
2.4
0.3
2.4
-0.6
8.8
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
3.3
2.4
-0.6
-0.9
2.4
0.6
-0.6
-0.6
0.6
-1.5
1.5
3.6
0.9
-0.6
2.1
0.3
0.9
0.3
1.2
2.4
-0.6
0.6
1.5
14.3
1
3.5
-1.2
-0.3
4
-0.6
-1.5
0.9
2.1
36
4.7
-0.3
0.7
7.75.9
6.5 2.3
13.3
7.8
17.6
5.6
6
3
7.1
-0.7
3.9
3.9
1.2 5.5
7.4
-1.1
1.8
2.5
-1.1
6.5
8.1
11.6
-1.2
0.3 2.4
-0.9
-0.6
1.8
-0.3
-0.6
0.3
-0.3
-0.3
1.8 2.1
-0.9
-0.9
0.6
0.3
12.2
2.7
-0.9
4.6
7.3
Verified
-0.3
-0.3
10
-0.6
27
8.7
18.8
12.4
3
7.9
-0.6
3.3
12.9
18.4
24
Base Width 300m
8.2
6.7
25
19.2
-1.2
11.3
16.3
13.8
21.5
24
31
-1.2
9.4
11.5
12.7
18
-1.8
12.7
19.1
16
21
19.1
27
33
24
17
15.2
21
29
42
8.4
8.8
13
22
6.5
8.3
7.6
-1.2
4.1
3.6
11.6
3.5
3
4.6
6.3
5.8 4.3 6.7
6.1
Dredging to -15.3m
12.75 x 20% Swell Factor
19
33
-1.5
5.8
5.8
-1.8
-1.2
4.
13.4
6.7 11.8 -0.9
0.6
11.4
-0.9
1.3
16.1
-1.2
17.8
35
31
42
27
22
36
Map Scale @ A3: 1:100,000
-0.6
7.3
-1.5
0.3
4.9
1.5
4.6 0.3
7.9 3.3
Approved
Date
-0.6
0
-0.3
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
15/08/14
2
4
Kilometres
-0.9
2.1
Title:
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Puhinui
annexure F - MANUKAU HARBOUR
ALTERNATIVE PORT LAYOUT
YET TO (PUHINUI)
BE VERIFIED.
Project:
DRAFT
1
Potential Port Layout (Alternative)
POAL Engineering Assistance
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
14.
19.4 8.6
6.9
12.7
-1.2
32
27
31
22.5
16.7
8.1 -0.6
7.2
4.7
4.6
-0.6
11.3
3.3
11.2
Revision
0.9
0.3
14.6
0.6
8.5
10.4
0.6
0.3
7.6
-0.3
1.2
2.9
17.3
13
11.1
Contains1.2
Crown
Copyright
9.4 Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
6.7
Aerials images0.6sourced from Auckland Council.
9.1
4.6
8.8
11.5
0.9
3
0.6
1.2
6.4
0.3
21.5
11.8
6.7
1.2
6.1 7.3
11.3
2.1
10.4
16.7
3
0.9
4.3
1.2
0.3
2.1
4.6
6.1
6.9
7.1
8.3
0.2
Base Width 300m
2.7
0.6
0.5
7
0.5
-0.6
9.4
1.2
1.2
0.6
1.5
-0.6
-0.9
3.6
2.4
0.9
-1.2
8.8
7.3
0.6
1.2
0.7
3.1
-0.3
1.5
10.7
2.1
0.9
0.9
0.5
6.3
6.9
-0.9
0.3
2.7
6.9
13.5
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.2
5.9
5.6
6.7
-1.2
0.9
1.2
1.8
1.2
9.9
10.8
2.1
0.6
9.4
0.3
4.3
10.9
0.6
-1.2
4
12.5 2.4
2.1
1.2
9.4
17
0.3
0.9
0.8
1.7 3.3
-0.1 0.2
2.3
1.5
-1.2
14
2.1
2.1
4.6
8.7
11.2
1.2
0.3
-0.9
1.8
2.1
2.1
0.9
1.8
7.5
2.3
2.1
3
3.3
-1.2
3.3
7.7
13.9
6.4
0.9
2.4
1.2
-0.3
3
4.3
8.2
11.3
15.1
1.2
0.3
-1.5
15.8
1.8
8.2
0.9
2.4 0.3
0.3
0
0
-0.6
-0.9
10.4
17.8
1.2
2.7
-1.8
14.6
-0.9
8.8
16.3
7.8
3.1
1.5
2.2
8.3
11.9
13.9
16.5 20.3
5.7
0.6
13.4
2.1
9.7
6.3
8
13.2
7.3
0.6
8.8
6.5
24
6.3
1.5
0.6
3.5
14.4
0.9
-1.2
0.4
3.3
12.4
9.4
5.2
17.1
15.8
-1.8
7.4
20.2
0.5
0.6
9.1
Map intended for distribution as a PDF
6.1 document.
Scale may
-0.9 be incorrect when printed.
18.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
-1.5
-1.2
0.3
0.6
-0.3
-1.2
5.3
3
7.6
-1.2
2.2
11
2.4
14
27
-0.9
6.9
4.7
9.6
27
14.3
13.7
27
18
5.5
14.9
31
9.7
5.7
13.2
21
29
42
4.9
-0.6
-1.8
5.3
8
11.1
15.2
9.1
0.3
-0.6
-0.6
16.9
13.5
8.9
7.3
11.6
17
0.6 3.3
12.1
24
33
12.8
11.1
19.3 contains data derived in part 3.1
This map
or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore,14.6
no representations
or warranties are made by Beca as to the
11.3
21.5
6.2
9.6of this information.
accuracy or completeness
-1.2
-0.3
10.3
11.6 5.8
6.4
12.5
27
33
1.2
3.3
9.1
0.3
6.1
8.4
16
2.1
3.3
8.8
21
-0.9
0.3
6
8.5
Regional Park14.1
8.2
16.9
Conservation
Area (DOC)
11.9
13.7
Reserve (DOC)
7.6
Cable
Protection Area
18
13.6
8
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
5.4
Marine Activites9 (Mooring/Aquicuture)
19.2
6.4
Water15.6Supply Management
Area
23
-0.3
12.5
21
-2.4
-0.3
-1.2
20.3
16.9
-1.5
2.1 0.9
1.5
13.7
Second Order 'High' Constraints
-2.8
-2.4
-2.4
-0.3
11.9
RAMSAR17.4
Area
5.5
-1.4
-1.1
-0.6
12.9
17
20.8
16.1
2.7
0.3
3.6
3
5.6
6.1
12.7
0.9
0.6
2.4
10
33
16.1
-2.1
-1.2
-0.6
-1.5
6.2
20.7
15.2
4.7
6.6
10.9
13.8
21.5
24
31
3.6
3.6
11.9
3
22
12.8
22
-2.2
-0.9
3
11.3
18
7.3 2.1
7.3
22
-2.2
0.2
-0.9
24
4.8
8.5
11.5
12.7
0.9
16.4
33
29
24
22
25
29
0.7
-0.5
0.2
0.8
3
15.5
5.8
1
7
9.6
9.4
8.8
35
4
15.2
0.2
2.8
-1.5
Outstanding Coastal8.2 Natural Character
22
15.2
High
Coastal Natural
Character
-1.8
7
Marine 19.5
Reserve
Outstanding Natural
Landscape
14.3
9.1 2.7
Outstanding Natural Features
6.4
17.7
22
Exisitng Residential
Areas
14.3
8.5
Significant Ecological Areas
(CPA1/M1)
3.6
15.8
Airport Height Restriction
52m -110m
3.3
-2
-1.1
-2.6
-0.3
0.3
0.6
-0.2
1.2
13.1 -0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
-1.2 -0.9
1.3
6.2
4.6
25
14.9
14
2.4
12.2
-0.9
0.3
0.2
-0.3
-0.3
2.8
3.7
13.1
31
31
5.3
0.7
-1.4
6.7
15.8
D
10
!
Sites And Places
Of3.3Significance To Mana Whenu
25
2.1 -1.8
4.3 8.8
0.3
-0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2
6.6
5
8.4
33
0.3
0.3
7
0.7
6.7
0.7
0.2
0.3
7.4 3.9
6.6
8.2
13
22
33
6.7
1.5
33
3.1
-0.6
3.6
-0.3
3.3
6.5
8.3
7.6
19.2
7.4
2.1
8.8
14.3
-0.9
11.3
-0.6
3.4
1.7
2.4
7.9 2.9 5.5
8
5.1
4.1
3.6
3.5
13.1
4.8
13.4
7.9
12.2
3.6
8.8
14.6
11.9
15.2
9.7
7
2.5
11.6
16.4 1
12.2
3.3
3
11.4
24
7.8
7
Base Width 300m
18.4
13.4
15.5
12.2
0.3
12.5
15.8
6
6.4
2.1
1.2
1.5
3
3.6
0.6
6.1
9.4
1.2
3
1.3
4.6
10.5
3.4
22
24
4.2
8.7 3.6
5.7
9.8
11.8
12.9
7.3
27
22
36
31
3.6
10.9
8.5
10
2.4
8.2
2.1
2.4
6.1 2.1
3
4
-1.2 0.9
0.9 4.3
5.2
0.3
-1.3
-2.4
2.1
-0.9
5.8
11.6
-1.5
4.3
3.6 6
9.6
2
31
3.8
13
40
35
47
3.5
6.9
4.9
0.6
6.7
1.7 4.2 -1.2
5.2
-0.3
-1.5
0.6
4
7
-0.9
0.3
1.2
2.1
0.3
-0.6 11.3
-0.6
1
6.3
14.5
19.4 8.6
1.3
16.1
8.4
40
6.9
12.7
8.1
32
27
31
22.5
3.9
4.8
13.4
0.7
0.6
7.3
-0.3
0.8
0.6
5.6 4.9
7.9
2.1
14
15.4
4.5
6.7
6.8
10
23
19.6
8
31
26
11.7
8.9
14.9
8.7
32
13.6
38
41
27
16.7
13.3
45
3.9
4.7
17.6
50
11.9
15.2
1.2
8.3
12.2
16.7
32
37
33
46
7
11.3
8.6
33
32
33
21
18.2
6.5
25
24
8.4
13
11.1
Contains Crown
Copyright
9.4 Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
6.7
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
11.6
13.3
4.2
-1.2
5.2
12
Base Width 300m
24
5.7
9.8
8.3
14.3
2.1 7.3
15.5
3
7.1
3.1
0.6
0.3
-1.5 0.6
3.6
3.6 8.8
Map intended for distribution as a PDF
6.1 document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
18.4
0.6
0.6
19.3 contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
This map
and therefore,14.6
no representations
or warranties are made by Beca as to the
11.3
6.2
9.6of this information.
accuracy or completeness
17.3
-1.5
-2.1
-1.2
3.7
0.1 7.2
3.7 0.6 5.4
-0.3
-1.5
-0.6
3.1
-0.1
0.3
-1.2
6.1
-0.9
4
3.4
-0.7
-2.9
-3.2
3.6
-0.9
3.6
-1.3
-2.5
-1.1
0.3
2.3
2.7 -0.4
-0.3
0.9
4.6
0.6
-0.9
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
4.5
6.3
-1.5
2.8
0.7 1
2.2
-0.9
0.3
-0.9
-0.9
6.2
-2.4
4.9
0.9
3.6
0.8
-1.2
3.3
20
-1.2
2.4
0.9
0.2
-1.5
4.3
-1.2
2.2
6
3.2
5.8
-1.5
-1.1
2.6
-1.5
5.8
1.2
3.6
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
0.9
-1.2
4.4
0.7
1.3
-2.1
21.5
Author:
Date: 19/09/2014
12.5
14.1
2.7
7.1
6.4
3.4
4.2
Second Order 'High' Constraints
21
-0.6
0.3
-0.9
-1.8
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
1.5
7.5
-0.8
0.4
3.4
0.9
7.4
1.3
13.7
16.9
2.8
-1.2
11.9
RAMSAR17.4
Area
6.4
-1.2
11.5
1.7
-0.4
2.2
3.9
4
-1.3
6
5.4
1.2
-1
3
6.7
4.6
25
0.9
-0.6
2.7
5.6
-1.5
2.7
2.6
-1.5
0.4
0.5
-0.6
3.5
-1.8
-1.2
-0.9
7.9
2.7 2.7
-0.9
-1.8
-1.5
4
6.1
-1.5
-0.6
Date: 19/09/2014
15.8
7.3
4.9 6.1
5.5
-1.8
6.7
14.3
-1.2
6.4
22
2.7
14.3
24
-1.3
-1.2
Author:
5.8
17.1
State
Highway
3.6
Rail
7
9.1
New Road/Rail
22
4.9
10
Constraining Attributes
2.7
17.7
-1
8.4
14.9
22
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007e_A3_Alt_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_100000.mxd
22
15.8
Road
-1.8
2.7
13.1
21.5
Rail
Indicative
Channel Designation
7.9
15.2
1.4
6.2
6.4
3
17.1
State
Highway
3.6
4
Dredging
Required
24
1.6
2.7
17.7
14.3
15.5
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007e_A3_Alt_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_100000.mxd
-1.8
2.7
13.1
New Rail
10.3
Discipline:
SC A L E : 1 :1 0 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZGIS
E: A3
SH E E T 1 OF 1
Drawing No:
GIS-3122425-007b
State Highway
GIS@beca.com
Road
Rail
Legend
Indicative Transport Connections
Indicative Channel Designation
New Rail
State Highway
New Road/Rail
Road
Constraining Attributes
Rail
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
Indicative Transport Connections
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Wh
New Rail
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
New Road/Rail
Constraining Attributes
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
RAMSAR Area
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Marine Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
RAMSAR Area
Second Order 'High' Constraints
-0.9
Date: 19/09/2014
1.5
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
0.3
0.6
-0.3
0.6
0.9
2.2
3.3
7.7
1.8
0.2
7.5
5.6
0.9
13.5
0.5
1.2
0.7
7.3
0.6
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
0.25
-0.3
0.2
2.5
-1.1
6.9
11.8
-0.9
1.2
0.5
Kilometres
1
3
8.8
0.6
0
7
6.5
7.8
1
2.1
2.3
0.7
5.6
7.7
-0.3
-0.6
3
-1.2
6
3
4.7
-0.7
7.9
3.3
-0.6
0.6
2.7
-1.1
1.8
-0.6
2.3
0.3
8.2
6.3
3.1
17
0.5
-1.2
6.9
6.9
5.9
0.5
1.2
-0.9
0.3
2.7
3.3
1.7
9.4
10.4
13.9
0.8
-0.1
0
0
-0.6
-0.9
3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
-1.2
-0.6
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
Author:
0.6
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007f_A3_Alt_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_30000.mxd
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-007f_A3_Alt_Puhinui_Port_Layout_1_30000.mxd
1.2
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
Author:
Date: 19/09/2014
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
-0.6
-0.3
2.2
-0.6
-0.9
0.3
3.3
7.7
1.8
9.4
10.4
7.5
13.9
5.6
17
13.5
2.3
0.3
0.9
0.6
-1.2
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
6.7
0.6
0
-0.9
-1.5
0.25
0.5
1
Kilometres
4.3
±
Revision
2
1
Author
Verified
Approved
Date
Title:
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
Puhinui
FOR INTERNAL
PURPOSES ONLY.
annexure g - MANUKAU Potential
HARBOUR
(PUHINUI)
ALTERNATIVE
PORT
LAYOUT
Layout
(Alternative)
YETPort
TO BE
VERIFIED.
Project:
DRAFT
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
15/08/14
POAL Engineering Assistance
5
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
SC A L E : 1Discipline:
:3 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZ EGIS
: A3
SH E E T 1 OF 1
Drawing No:
GIS-3122425-007f
State Highway
D
!
GIS@beca.com
Road
-2.1
-1
-0
-1.4
0
14
9.4
25
270.2 6
0.6 1.8
2.10.9 0.9
-0.9 -0.8
9.1
Rail
8.2 11.9
1.5
3.3
3.6
22
0.9
7
18.9
7
18.3
5.5
1.3 7.7 8.3 3.7
6.7
7.1
4.6 3.6 4
7.3
2.4 5.1 -0.3 !
4
6.7
6.4
D 1.5
4.9 -2.7
6.1
6.4
25 14 7.9
4.9
6.4
6.7
7
0.8
24
7.9
13.7-0.7
8.2
-0.9
5.8
5.7
6.1
-0.5 -0.5
4.8
7.3
4.6
13.7
2.7 8.2Indicative
5.2
3.5
7.9
25 -1.3
2.1
7
6.1
5.8
3.2
6.4
6.4
5.5 3
6.4
22
9.1
5.5
14
6.5
6.1
-0.8
9.4
9.1
-1.8
6.7
22
14
5.5
0.1
6.5
7.3
0.9
7
6.1
6.4
New Road
4.3
4
-1.2
6.7
1.5
7.6
-0.6
6.4
3 11
5.8
4.3
4 -1.4
5.5
7
6.3
-0.924
7
7
7
Existing
4.6
-0.3
-0.4
4.9
7
29
4.9
0.6
2.8
5.2
3
5.5
0.6 7.2
6.1
9.7 11.9 16.4New 19.5
4.3
8.2
4.9
1.8
Road/Rail
3.6
4.6
5.2
5.2 4.6
4.3
6.1
22
6.1
24
6.1
5.5
-1.6 -1.7
State Highway
6.7
6.1
1.81.2
6.1
6.1
12.5
6.4
0.4
4.9
-1
5.5
4.6
5.2
-0.9
4.9 9.7
3.6 1.5
4
1.1 6.3
4.9
6.4
1.5 1.5
6.4
Existing
Road
Widening
/
New
Rail
2.7
4.9
19.8
3.3
-0.410.7
22
4.9
1.5
4
4.6
D
!
-1.71.63.7
5.5
2.7
-0.9
-2.1
3.6
Road
5.5
-0.3 3.1
1.5
6.1
4.3 12.2 15.8
6.2 -0.5
5.5
5.5
2.1
4
1.8 2.7
1.5
-1.4
4.6
5.8
2.7
0.6
21
0.4
4.9
0.6
18.6
5.2
-1.2
0.6
5.8
22
0.6
0.2
0.4
5.8
3.6
5.2 4.8
5.2
-1.2
0.6
4.6
6.2 1.4
1.2
6.93
4.9
-0.9 -0.8
1.5
5.5
Rail
6.4 -1
1.2 3.3
1.5
0.6
6.1 20
4.6
5.8
0.9
5.2
4.6
4
4.3
19.8
1.3 7.7 8.3 3.7
5.2
4.6
21
-0.6
2.4
18.9
0.3 0.6
4
5.2
3.6
5.5
4.6
13.7-0.7
8.4
0.9
-1.5
4.9
4.6
Indicative
-0.5 -0.5
4.8
3.3
5.5
4
0.9
3.6
18
1.5
3.3
3.3
4.6
0.9
0.9
2
4.3
4.6
22
2.7
19.5
-0.8
4.9
-1.8 -1.3
2.4
-0.9
4.9 4.9
6.5
0.6
4.6
21
2.7
4.6
New Road
D
4.6
1.2
!
Sites
And
Places
Of
Significance
To
Mana
W
4.9
0.9
4.6
4.6
18.3
1.2
4
4.6
1.2
17.1
2.7
-0.9 4 -1.4
1.8 2.7 3.6
4.3
19.5
1.5
19.5
2.8
4.6
-0.6
4.6
3.3 8.2
0.3 0.9
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
4
New Road/Rail
0.3
1.2
0.6
3.6
4.6
7.3 4.6
3
18
4.3
-1.7
2.7
4.3
0.6
-1.6
16.7 Natural Character
0.6
4.3
3
1.5
4
High
Coastal
4
-0.3
19.8
14.6
3
15.8
1.1 6.3
4
21
-0.3 1.5
Existing Road Widening
/ New Rail
0.3
6.7
4
Marine
Reserve
4
D
2.4
2.4
-0.9
!
4.3
2.7
-1.71.63.7
17.7
0.3
3.6
1.8
3.3
9.1
1.2
16.1
1.5
3.6
16.7
3.6
2.4
Outstanding
Natural
Landscape
-0.9
0.9
8.2
-0.9 0.6
4 14
16.1
3.6
1.8 1.2 0.9
-0.9
14.6
0.6
14Outstanding
2.7
-0.9
3
3.6
3.3
Natural Features 17.4
3.3
1.2
6.2 1.4
3
3.3
1.2
16.7
6.4 -1
2.1
0.6
3
2.7
1.2 1.8
D
Exisitng
Residential Areas15.5
-1.2
!
3.6
3
3.6 7 3.6 8.8
13.7
14.3
2.7
19
8.4
2.4
0.6
12.5 Significant
D
14.9 Areas (CPA1/M1)
4.9 5.8
!
Ecological
17.1
2.4
3
1.2
2.7
19.5
2.7
2.7
9.1
4.3
D
!
0.6
11.3
Airport
Height
Restriction
52m
-110m
1.8
2.7
5.2
D
!
13.1
13.7
14.6
12.2
15.5
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
2.1
16.3
5.8
RAMSAR Area
7.6
0.6
10.7
12.5
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
16
1.6
11.5
9.6
2.4
8
High Coastal Natural Character
4.2
12.5
1.8
13.5
5.9
2.1
15.7
1.8
Marine Reserve
D
10.1
!
11.5
D
1.7 8
5.7
!
1.5
-1.2
Regional Park
0.6
14
Outstanding Natural Landscape
7.9
D
11.6
!
8.5
2.5
Conservation Area 12.2
(DOC)
10.2
Outstanding Natural Features
15
3.5
1.2
7
Reserve (DOC)
6.4
1.2
1.2 5.1
1.8
Exisitng Residential Areas
12.6
8.5
10.5
3 2.5
-0.9
14
Cable Protection Area
6.3
1.7
D
!
Significant
Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
10.6
10.9
3.3
0.3
Significant
Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
8.7
2.9
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m !
2.3 1.4
D
9.6
11.5
0.6
3.2
14
1.4
6.5
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
2 9
9.5
2.9
7.2
0.7
RAMSAR Area
12.2
Water
Supply
Area
8 Management
6.5
8.5
1.5 4
1.7
9.5
D
!
D
0.5 !
1.8
D!
7.5
11.8
0.1
7.5
7.8 or wholly from sources other
-2.7 6data derived
This map contains
in part
than Beca
6.4 3.5
and therefore,3.5
no representations
or warranties
are made by Beca as to the
4
3.2 3.4
Regional Park
8.8
D
!
5.2
3.4 2.9
12
accuracy or completeness
of this information.
Conservation Area (DOC)
4.4 3 5.7
4.6a PDF document.
Map intended for distribution as
6.2
4.1
Reserve (DOC)
2.5 1.8
Scale may be incorrect when
1.9printed.
2.2
7.6
Cable Protection Area
5.8
1.5
Contains
Crown
Copyright
Data.
Crown
Copyright
Reserved.
3.3
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
3.2
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.0.3 2.3
7.4
-0.6
0.7
1.4
4.7 -0.2
0.8
!
Legend
4.8
6.7
7.6
7
6.4
5.5
6.7
7.9
6.4
!
Constraining Attributes
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
!
Constraining Attributes
!
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
!
!
!
!
Second Order 'High' Constraints
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Date: 8/10/2014
!
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-008b_A3_Ponui_Island_1_100000.mxd
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-008b_A3_Ponui_Island_1_100000.mxd
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
Author:
Date: 8/10/2014
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
D!
!
D
!
D
!
D!
!
D
!
D !
!
D
D !
!
-0.6
-1.2
7.9 -0.6
3.3 6.7
-1.2
0.6
5.8
-0.9
-1.5
-1.8 8.2
6.7
3
4.6
5.8
-0.5
Author:
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
DD
!
!
!
2.4
-0.2
3.9
1.8
D
D!
!
!
D
D !
!
D
D !
!
-0.6
8
3
2.5
-1.2
7.9 -0.6
3.3 6.7
-1.2
0.6
5.8
-0.9
-1.5
-1.8 8.2
6.7
3
4.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
Map Scale @ A3: 1:100,000
0
0.75
1.5
3
Kilometres
Map Scale @ A3: 1:100,000
0
0.75
1.5
Kilometres
3
±
Revision
2
1
Author
Verified
Approved
DRAFT
AYF
DRAFT
Title:
Client:
FOR INTERNALALTERNATIVE
PURPOSES ONLY.
annexure h - Ponui islandPonui
Port Layout
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Project:
DRAFT
AYF
Date
DRAFT
18/09/14
DRAFT
18/08/14
Potential Port Layout
Ports of Auckland Ltd
POAL Engineering Assistance
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
SC A L E : 1 :1 0 0Discipline:
,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZ E : A 3
SH E E T 1 OF GIS
1
Drawing No:
GIS-3122425_008b
Road
4
Legend
4.6
4
Existing
Rail
4
Indicative
New Road/Rail
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
Constraining
Attributes
3.3
8.2
D
!
Sites And Places Of3Significance To Mana Whenua
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
3
Marine Reserve
2.7
Outstanding
Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
3
2.1
2.7
2.7
0.6
-1.2
7
3.6
5.8
9.1
4.3
5.8
11.5
7.9
11.6
8.5
10.2
3.5
5.1
1.8
Author:
1.7
3.3
2.3
1.4
1.4
9
7
6.4
-0.9
3
8.5
2.5
10.6
8.7
2.9
3.2
7.2
1.5
0.1 Kawakawa Bay
9.6
6.5
2.9
1.7
D
!
10.5
6.3
0.7
0.5
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
D
!
D!
!
8
6.5
4
1.8
-2.7
3.5
D
!
7.5
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
0
0.25
0.5
Kilometres
1
±
2
Author
Verified
Approved
DRAFT
Title:
Client:
FOR INTERNAL
PURPOSES ONLY.
annexure i - Ponui
islandPonui
ALTERNATIVE
Port Layout
DRAFT
AYF
Date
DRAFT
18/09/14
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Potential Port Layout
Project:
5.1
1
12.2
2
12.6
10.9
3500m
11.5
9.5
8.5
9.5
7.8
6
6.4
3.5
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
3.2
5.2
3.4
4.6
Revision
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
12.5Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
250m Base
1.2 Width
10.1
2.5
2
12.5
8
5.9
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
11.5
5.7
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
1.5
9.6
8
1.7
1.5
13.7
7.6
4.2
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
2.4
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant 14.6
Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture) 15.5
Water Supply Management Area
11.3
13.1
15.5
Second
14.9 Order 'High' Constraints
19.5
10.7
2.1
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
3
Marine
Reserve
16.1
2.7
Outstanding
Natural Landscape
Outstanding Natural Features
Exisitng Residential Areas
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
RAMSAR Area
14.3
12.5
1.6
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
2.4
Reserve (DOC)
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-008d_A3_Ponui_Island_1_30000.mxd
13.7
12.2
Second Order 'High' Constraints
D
!
Sites And Places Of3Significance
17.7 To Mana Wh
14.6
14
8.8
5.2
RAMSAR Area
1.2
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
16.7
3.6
4.9
2.7
15.8
16.1
3.6
3.6
1.2
2.4
2.7
-1.2
6.4
3
Constraining
Attributes
3.3
16.7
0.9
2.7
3.3
First Order 'No Go' Constraints
1.5
14
4
14.6
3
4
9.1
3.6
3
18
Indicative Dredged Channel
16.7
16.4
6.7
3.6
3.3
Indicative Dredged Channel
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
8.2
4
4
New Road/Rail
Date: 8/10/2014
Road
4.6
7.3
4.3
3.3
19.5
3.3
Author:
State Highway
Date: 8/10/2014
4
Indicative
19.5
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-008d_A3_Ponui_Island_1_30000.mxd
GIS@beca.com
Rail
Ports of Auckland Ltd
POAL Engineering Assistance
0
4
0.25
0.5
1
3.4
Kilometres
4.4
D RA WN : A Y F
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
3
2.9
5.7
SC A L E : 1 :3 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
Discipline:
OR IG IN A
L SIZ E : A 3
SH E E T 1 OFGIS
1
Drawing No:
GIS-3122425_008d
10.8
GIS@beca.com
-0.2
0.8
1.3
7
12
8.4
9.8
9.2
11.4
7.1
5.6
4.4
1.6 3.8
4.6
8.4 8.1
5.8
6.1
0.8
-0.4
-0.2 4.3 7
1.8
0.8
-0.8 2.8 4.6
5.6
3.8
-0.4
1.8
13
8.7
8.4
10.5
14.6
10.8
7.1
12
8.5
7.8
8.4
10.5
5.8
-0.8 2.8 4.6
8.2
11.9
10.5
9.2
12.1
9.7
8.2 10.4
13.4 8.6
8
9.2
8.1
4.3
9.4
12.1
11
7.4 8.9
9.4
7.3
9.8
7
10.5
8.2
8.2
8.6
8.7
6.8
7.4
9.2
7.1
7.8
6.8
8.5
7.3
7
8
Legend
Existing
State Highway
Road
Rail
Indicative
New Rail
Legend
New Road/Rail
Existing
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
State Highway
Indicative Dredged Channel
Road
Rail
Constraining
Attributes
FirstIndicative
Order 'No Go' Constraints
New Rail
D
!
Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
New Road/Rail
Outstanding
Coastal Natural Character
Existing Road Widening / New Rail
High Coastal Natural Character
Indicative
Dredged Channel
Marine
Reserve
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Constraining
Attributes
Outstanding Natural
Features
Exisitng
Residential
First
Order
'No Go'Areas
Constraints
Significant Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
D
!
SitesHeight
And Places
Of Significance
To Mana Whenua
Airport
Restriction
52m -110m
File: P:\312\3122425\TGI\55_Workspaces\01_mxd\GIS-3122425-0010d_A3_Kaiaua_1_120000.mxd
Author:
Date: 8/10/2014
Outstanding
RAMSAR
Area Coastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
Second Marine
OrderReserve
'High' Constraints
Outstanding
Regional
Park Natural Landscape
Outstanding
Natural
Features
Conservation
Area
(DOC)
Exisitng
Residential Areas
Reserve
(DOC)
Significant
Ecological
Cable
Protection
Area Areas (CPA1/M1)
Airport Height
Restriction
52m -110m
Significant
Ecological
Areas (Land/M2)
Marine
Activites
(Mooring/Aquicuture)
RAMSAR
Area
Water Supply Management Area
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Regional Park
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
Conservation Area (DOC)
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
(DOC)
accuracy orReserve
completeness
of this information.
Cable
Protection
Map intended
for distribution
as a PDFArea
document.
Areas
Scale may Significant
be incorrect whenEcological
printed.
(Land/M2)
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Water
Supply
Management
Area
Aerials images
sourced
from Auckland
Council.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,
This map
contains data
derived in part
wholly USGS,
from sources
Earthstar
Geographics,
CNES/Airbus
DS,orUSDA,
AEX, other than Beca,
and therefore,
no representations
or warranties
by Beca as to the
Getmapping,
Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo,
and are
the made
GIS User
accuracy or completeness of this information.
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
±
Map Scale @ A3: 1:120,000
0
1
2
Revision
4
Kilometres
2
1
Map Scale @ A3: 1:120,000
0
1
2
Kilometres
4
±
Author
Verified
Approved
DRAFT
Date
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/08/14
Revision
2
1
Author
Verified
Approved
Title:
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Kaiaua
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Potential Port Layout
Date
Title:
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Kaiaua
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
Client:
Project:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/08/14
Drawing No:
GIS-3122425_0010d
POAL Engineering Assistance
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
DRAFT
annexure j - FIRTH OF THAMES
SITEPort
(KAIAUA)
Potential
Layout ALTERNATIVE PORT LAYOUT
AYF
Discipline:
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
GISi-cubed,
Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Project:
POAL Engineering Assistance
Discipline:
D RA WN : A YF
RE V I E WE D : K S
BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
GIS
SC A L E : 1 :1 2 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZ E : A 3
Drawing No:
SH E E T 1 OF 1
GIS-3122425_0010d
4.6
13.4
13
11
4.4
6.1
0.8
1.6
8.4
10.4
8.4
14.6
10.8
4.6
-0.2
7
6.1
0.8
Radius = 3,000m (min)
13.4
13
12
8.4
Radius = 3,000m (min)
10.8
0.8
12.75m Dredge Depth
11
12.75m Dredge Depth
8.4
-0.2
7
0.80.6
12
9.2
5.6
8.4
9.2
Ba
se
5.6
8.2
m
8.1
0
25
10.5
-0.2
0.6
8.6
W
3.8
h
idt
-0.7
5.8
8.7
10.5
0
25
-0.2
m
8.1
Legend
8.2
Ba
Existing
se
9.2
8.7
Constraining
Existing
8.5
9.2
-0.6
-0.8
1.8
-0.8 -0.2
7.8
4.6
6.2
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
7.2
3.5
-0.2
0
0.25
0.5
1
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
0
0.25
0.5
Kilometres
±
±
-0.2
Kilometres
1
Author
Verified
Approved
Date
3.5
DRAFT
2
1
Revision
2
1
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
19//08/14
Author
8
7.4
6.2
Revision
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar
Geographics,
CNES/Airbus
DS,
USDA,
USGS,from
AEX,sources
Getmapping,
Aerogrid,
This
map contains
data derived
in part
or wholly
other than
Beca,
IGN,
IGP, swisstopo,
and the GISorUser
Community
and
therefore,
no representations
warranties
are made by Beca as to the
LINZ andorEagle
Technology
accuracy
completeness
of this information.
-0.2
Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000
8
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca,
and therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the
accuracy or completeness of this information.
7.8
2.8
Verified
Approved
Date
Title:
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document.
Scale may be incorrect when printed.
7.2
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Kaiaua
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Potential Port Layout
Title:
FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Kaiaua
YET TO BE VERIFIED.
Contains Crown Copyright Data. Crown Copyright Reserved.
Aerials images sourced from Auckland Council.
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
LINZ and Eagle Technology
Project:
7.4
POAL Engineering Assistance
Client:
Ports of Auckland Ltd
DRAFT
annexure k - FIRTH OF THAMES
(KAIAUA) ALTERNATIVE PORT LAYOUT
Potential SITE
Port Layout
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
18/09/14
AYF
DRAFT
DRAFT
19//08/14
FirstRoad
Order 'No Go' Constraints
7.3
D
!
Indicative
7
! Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
Outstanding
New
Road/RailCoastal Natural Character
High Coastal Natural Character
8.5
4.6
Attributes
Indicative
Dredged Channel
Marine Reserve
7.1
2.8
8.6
Legend
Indicative Dredged Channel
-0.4
4.3
Indicative
New Road/Rail
7.1
1.8
h
idt
5.8
4.3
-0.6
Road
W
-0.7
3.8
-0.4
Project:
POAL Engineering Assistance
Outstanding Natural
Landscape
Constraining
Attributes
Outstanding Natural Features
First Order
'No
Go' Constraints
Exisitng
Residential
Areas
7.3
Significant
Ecological
Areas (CPA1/M1)
D
!
7
! Sites And Places Of Significance To Mana Whenua
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
Outstanding Coastal Natural Character
RAMSAR
Area
High
Coastal
Natural Character
Marine
Reserve
Second Order 'High' Constraints
Outstanding Natural Landscape
Regional Park
Outstanding Natural Features
Conservation Area (DOC)
Exisitng Residential Areas
Reserve
6.2(DOC)
Significant
Ecological Areas (CPA1/M1)
Cable Protection Area
Airport Height Restriction 52m -110m
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
RAMSAR
Area (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Marine Activites
Water
Supply
Management
Area
Second Order 'High'
Constraints
5.4
5.4
Regional Park
Conservation Area (DOC)
Discipline:
Reserve
6.2(DOC)
GIS
Cable Protection Area
Significant Ecological Areas (Land/M2)
Drawing No:
Marine Activites (Mooring/Aquicuture)
Water Supply Management Area GIS-3122425_010c
Discipline:
D RA WN : A Y F
RE V I E WE D : K S BE CA RE F : 3 1 2 2 4 2 5
SC A L E : 1GIS
:3 0 ,0 0 0 @ A 3
OR IG IN A L SIZ E : A 3
Drawing No:SH E E T 1 OF 1
GIS-3122425_010c
ANNEXURE L – Assessment of Effects
Manukau Harbour
Assessment
Activity
Effect
(Clarks
Beach)
Alternative
Port
Effects
Rationale
Construction
Dredging




Dredging
disposal
Reclamation











Structures
Road and
rail








40 M m3 estimated capital dredging to create the channel
and berthing basin;
0.80 M m3 estimated annual maintenance dredging;
Dredging through a CPA2 / M2 SEA intertidal areas;
Unknown effects of bar dredging / intervention on sand
migration to/from Auckland’s west coast beaches;
Wading bird effects.
34 M m3 estimated capital dredging disposal;
Most disposal beyond the 12NM limit;
Habitat smothering and temporary loss;
This will be a dispersive site due to the high energy
environment.
140 hectares of reclamation;
Reclamation of a CPA2 / M2 SEA;
Localised accretion and changed coastal processes
around the reclaimed area and port basin, including
possible mangrove colonisation;
Due to close proximity there will be wider effects on the
intertidal area (CPA2/M2 and CPA1/M1) identified for
wading birds;
Mortality of and habitat loss for marine biota (includes
creatures & plants);
The extent of reclamation construction activity would
fundamentally undermine the site’s landscape values.
1 km connection from the island port to land. CPA/M 1
zone so have assumed a bridge would be required;
Temporary construction staging and piling disturbance.
5.5 km of new connecting road (including 500m bridge
over inlet) and upgrading of 11.4 km of Linwood/Hingaia
Roads;
New 11.5 km rail spur connecting to the Glenbrook spur
near Kingseat;
Temporary construction discharges to streams and
coastal margins;
Located in rural land or involves upgrading an existing
road;
Some affected communities but not a densely populated
area;
While some effects will be high on balance the effects
likely to be moderate.
Operation
Port
operations
2799998

The vertical scale, horizontal extent, and bulk associated
with container storage, cranes, and ships would have
significant visual & amenity effects;
Activity
Effect
Rationale



Maintenance
dredging








Road and
rail




Significant visual effects associated with lighting and
dominance of ships;
Elevation of connecting bridge to preserve habitat and
coastal processes will add to the overall visual impact;
Ecological effects from operation including noise and
lights on wading / shore birds and the on-going
maintenance dredging and disposal of significant
volumes;
Changed coastal processes;
Maui Dolphin habitat.
Side casting of 0.5 M m3 per year for maintenance
dredging of the bar;
Continuous side cast dredging causing localised
ecological effects at the Manukau Bar;
Unknown effects of bar dredging / intervention on sand
migration to/from Auckland’s west coast beaches;
Ecological effects not high due to existing high mobility of
sediments in this location;
Offshore disposal effects from 0.30 M m3 per year;
High energy location means a dispersive disposal site will
be needed.
Operational noise and light from transport connections
through greenfield locations affects amenity;
Local community impacts of increased traffic along
transport connections;
Localised effects from contaminant runoff into freshwater
and coastal environments;
Effects likely to be mitigated.
Project wide
Social






Regional
planning



2799998
Local adverse effects on Clarks Beach, Patumahoe and
surrounding settlements with potential benefits to the
Papakura and Pukekohe centres;
Potential land-use changes may alter the social fabric of
existing communities and adversely affect the local and
wider communities perception of the area;
Specific land effects of severance and perceived or actual
loss of value for directly affected land required for the
transport connections;
Loss of amenity from visual, lighting, noise and other
operational effects;
Local employment a potential benefit;
While some effects would be high, particularly initially, on
balance the effects are moderate.
Employment and servicing for the Port likely to drive land
use change outside of the RUB including residential
expansion and warehousing and distribution in rural
production land;
The port location and associated pressure for land use
change is contrary to the Auckland Plan;
Duplication of transport connections (as existing
motorway and rail infrastructure would still be required)
Activity
Effect
Rationale


2799998
and scarce public resources diverted to construct, operate
and maintain these;
Some expected improvement in existing motorway and
rail network capacity however only limited reduction to
congestion as port cargo movements are a small
contributor to total traffic volumes;
Enables release of existing Port land for alternative uses.
Ponui Island Alternative Port Effects Assessment
Activity
Effect
Rationale
Construction
Dredging






Dredging
disposal

Reclamation




Structures




Road and
rail








5.5 M m3 estimated capital dredging to create the channel
and berthing basin;
0.13 M m3 estimated annual maintenance dredging;
Changes to velocities and flows around the Port;
Continual deposition of sediment in dredged channels
within the harbour requiring biannual maintenance
dredging;
Localised accretion and changed coastal processes
around the bridge and causeway connection and possible
mangrove colonisation;
Unknown effects on Tamaki Strait entrance (Sandspit
passage).
Capital dredging reuse in the reclamation.
21.5 M m3 of reclamation (5.5 M m3 from dredging and 16
M m3 borrow);
160 hectares of reclamation;
Mortality of and habitat loss for marine and avian biota is
significant;
The extent of reclamation and sheer scale of construction
activities would compromise natural character and
landscape values.
6 km connection from the island port to land;
Would have to be a bridge from the port to McCallums
Island, rest could be a causeway;
Temporary construction disturbance;
Effects on habitat loss and coastal processes from the
causeway construction.
28 km of new connecting road and upgrading of the road
network;
New 26 km rail spur connecting to the NIMT at Papakura;
Significant earthworks in and severance of the Waitawa
Regional Park – could require a tunnel;
Temporary construction discharges to freshwater and
coastal environments;
Located in rural land or involves upgrading an existing
road;
Some affected communities but not a densely populated
area;
Large number of directly affected landowners;
While some effects will be high on balance the effects
likely to be moderate.
Operation
Port
operations
2799998

The vertical scale, horizontal extent, and bulk associated
with container storage, cranes, and ships would dominate
the seascape resulting in significant visual & amenity
effects;
Activity
Effect
Rationale



Maintenance
dredging and
disposal
Road and
rail








Outstanding landscapes and high natural character of
Ponui Island and Kawakawa Bay headland adversely
affected;
The barrier created by the bridge, causeway and port
reclamation would irrevocably undermine the natural
character and seascape values of the Tamaki Strait;
Ecological effects of the operation on wading / shore birds
and the on-going maintenance dredging and disposal;
Brydes whale habitat in the wider Hauraki gulf.
0.13 M m3 per year for maintenance dredging of the port
basin and channel and offshore disposal;
Habitat smothering and temporary disturbance;
Able to achieve a managed site in lower energy
environment.
Operational noise and light from transport connections
through greenfield locations;
Community impacts of increased traffic along transport
connections;
Localised effects from contaminant runoff into freshwater
and coastal environments;
Effects likely to be mitigated.
Project wide
Social







Regional
planning




2799998
Local adverse effects on Kawakawa Bay, Clevedon and
surrounding settlements and possible some benefits to
the Papakura and Maraetai centres;
Loss of or at least significant reduction in value of
Waitawa regional park;
Potential land-use changes may alter the social fabric of
existing communities and adversely affect the local and
wider communities perception of the area;
Specific land effects of severance and perceived or actual
loss of value for directly affected land required for the
transport connections;
Loss of amenity from visual, noise and other operational
effects;
Local employment a possible benefit;
While some effects would be high, particularly initially, on
balance the effects are moderate.
Employment and servicing for the Port likely to drive land
use change outside of the RUB including residential
expansion and warehousing and distribution. Suitable
land would be in the Clevedon Valley;
The port location and associated pressure for land use
change is contrary to the Auckland Plan;
Duplication of transport connections (as existing
motorway and rail infrastructure would still be required)
and scarce public resources diverted to construct, operate
and maintain these;
Some expected improvement in existing motorway and
rail networks however probably limited effect on
congestion as port cargo movements generally outside
Activity
Effect
Rationale

2799998
peak travel times;
Enables release of existing Port land for alternative uses.
Kaiaua Alternative Port Effects Assessment
Activity
Effect
Rationale
Construction
Dredging



Dredging
disposal
Reclamation
Structures
Road and
rail



















32 M m3 estimated capital dredging to create the channel
and port basin;
0.18 M m3 estimated annual maintenance dredging;
Dredging through a RAMSAR wetland of international
significance;
Sedimentation of navigation channel;
Effects on aquaculture areas would need to be mitigated.
22 M m3 capital dredging disposal;
Disposal beyond the 12NM limit;
Significant ecological effects due to volume;
Would achieve a depositional site so more manageable
than the Manukau disposal.
10 M m3 reclamation and landside filling;
100 Ha of reclamation;
Significant adverse effect on the RAMSAR site;
Habitat loss.
Much less effects than other locations as this is a
mainland based port so no connecting structure required.
23 km of connecting road via Miranda and Mangatangi to
connect to SH2 at Mangatawhiri;
New 36 km rail spur following the road connection to
Mangatawhiri then on a further 13km to connect to the
NIMT near Mercer;
Located in rural land or involves upgrading an existing
road;
Some affected communities but not a densely populated
area;
Numerous stream crossings and large extent of
earthworks;
Temporary construction discharges;
Expect to alter alignment to avoid the Mangatawhiri
Wetlands;
While some effects will be high on balance the effects
likely to be moderate.
Operation
Port
operations


The extent and scale of modification associated with the
reclamation and breakwaters would fundamentally
undermine the natural character values and broader
seascape of the Firth of Thames;
The vertical scale, horizontal extent, and bulk associated
with container storage, cranes, and ships would dominate
the local landscape resulting in significant visual &
amenity effects;
Ecological effects of the operation on wading / shore birds
and the on-going maintenance dredging and disposal;
Brydes whale habitat in the wider Hauraki Gulf.

0.18 M m3 per year for maintenance dredging of the port


Maintenance
2799998
Activity
dredging and
disposal
Road and
rail
Effect
Rationale

basin and channel;
Offshore disposal effects from 0.18 M m3 per year;

Habitat smothering and temporary disturbance;

Able to achieve a managed site in lower energy
environment.
Operational noise and light from transport connections
through greenfield locations affects amenity;
Local community impacts of increased traffic along
transport connections;
Effects likely to be mitigated.



Project wide
Social

Local adverse effects on Kaiaua, Miranda and
surrounding settlements but also growth benefits to these
communities;

Loss of or at least significant reduction in value of the
RAMSAR site which locals likely affiliate with;

Potential land-use changes may alter the social fabric of
existing communities and adversely affect the local and
wider communities perception of the area;

Specific land effects of severance and perceived or actual
loss of value for directly affected land required for the
transport connections;

Loss of amenity from visual, noise and other operational
effects;
Local employment a possible benefit plus regional
benefits accrue to the Waikato and Hauraki areas;
While some effects would be high, particularly initially, on
balance the effects are moderate.
Potential for structural changes to the Auckland regional
economy if Port traffic is diverted to non-Auckland location
(e.g. Tainui Inland Port). This could alter the demand for
warehousing, servicing and distribution networks that
have service the port and other sectors;
Difficult to comment. Not contrary to any regional strategy
as outside the region but as a port is envisaged in
regional planning documents it is inconsistent;
Duplication of transport connections (as existing
motorway and rail infrastructure would still be required)
and scarce public resources diverted to construct, operate
and maintain these;
Some expected improvement in existing motorway and
rail networks however probably limited effect on
congestion as port cargo movements generally outside
peak travel times;
Enables release of port land for other uses but loss of the
port and the economic growth it provides likely to be an
overall regional disbenefit.


Regional
planning





2799998