queens wharf dolphin - auckland council€¦ · the deck of the dolphins will be 5.5m above chart...

Queens Wharf Dolphin Marine Ecology Assessment

Prepared for Panuku Development Auckland

31 August 2018

Document Quality Assurance

Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2018. Queens Wharf Dolphin: Marine Ecology Assessment. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Panuku Development Auckland.

Prepared by: Dr Jacqui Bell Associate Principal / Ecologist Boffa Miskell Limited

Reviewed by: Dr Sharon De Luca Associate Partner / Ecologist Boffa Miskell Limited

Status: Final Revision / version: 9 Issue date: 31 August 2018

Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or any external source.

Template revision: 20150331 0000

File ref: U:\2016\A16156_SHo_Queens_Wharf_Dolphin_Structure\Documents\Marine Ecology Assessment

Boffa Miskell Ltd | Queens Wharf Dolphin | Marine Ecology Assessment | 31 August 2018

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Site Location 1 1.2 Report Purpose 1 1.3 Development Proposal 1

2.0 Methodology 2

2.1 Assessment of Ecological Value 2 2.2 Assessment of Ecological Effects 4

3.0 Description of Existing Environment 5

4.0 Assessment of Ecological Value and Effects 6

4.1 Ecological Value 6 4.2 Ecological Effects 7 4.3 Summary of Ecological Effects 9

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 10

6.0 References 10

Appendix 1 Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin Design 12

Boffa Miskell Ltd | Queens Wharf Dolphin | Marine Ecology Assessment

1.0 Introduction

Panuku Development Auckland is proposing an upgrade to the existing cruise ship berthing facilities at Queens Wharf to accommodate large cruise vessels on the eastern Berth. The berth modifications are required to accommodate new generation "extra large" cruise ships, with the design vessel of the 362m long ‘Oasis of the Seas’, capable of carrying 6000 passengers. Boffa Miskell has been engaged by Panuku Development Auckland to carry out a desktop assessment, based on existing ecological information, of the potential ecological effects from the proposal. This will accompany a resource consent application for modification to the cruise vessel berth at Queens Wharf.

1.1 Site Location Queens Wharf is located within the Waitematā Harbour along the waterfront of downtown Auckland. Since the 1840s, extensive reclamation, dredging, construction and refurbishment has taken place at Auckland’s waterfront, resulting in a significantly modified environment. It is a high-use area, with public events often being held at the wharf and vessels including cruise ships, ferries and cargo ships, regularly making use of the berths. In addition, stormwater from Auckland’s central business district (CBD) discharges adjacent to Queens Wharf.

1.2 Report Purpose This report provides the results of the desktop ecological assessment. It describes the existing ecological values and habitats within the proposed works footprint and provides an assessment of the potential adverse effects of the proposed works on marine ecological values.

1.3 Development Proposal The proposed modifications include two mooring dolphins and access gangway, fendering and bollards and associated strengthening of the southern end of Queens Wharf.

1.3.1 Mooring Dolphins

The proposed dolphins are approximately 15m diameter and will be located in parallel 49m and 82m north of the end of the existing wharf structure (Appendix 1). Each dolphin will consist of a reinforced concrete deck, supported by six to eight bored steel piles,1800mm in diameter. Piles will be infilled with reinforced concrete and socketed 10m into the Waitematā sandstone rock strata. Piles will be founded in Waitematā sandstone material located beneath the existing seabed. The deck of the dolphins will be 5.5m above chart datum (Appendix 1).

1.3.2 Dolphin Gangway

A gangway will provide access to the dolphins and comprise four to five 21m spans of 2.3m wide and 0.8m deep reinforced concrete between the existing wharf and the dolphin structures. The gangway will be supported on 1200mm in diameter steel cased reinforced concrete piles capped with a precast capping beam.


1.3.3 Fendering

A fender system will protect the wharf from damage of berthing vessels. Additional fender systems will be installed at chainage 90m and 290m, which match the existing fender clusters located at chainages 130m, 170m, 215m and 250m.

1.3.4 Bollards and Wharf Modifications

Seven new 150 tonne bollards will be installed at the southern end of the wharf (Appendix 1). An additional five 600mm diameter bored piles will be installed through the existing wharf deck, directly beneath the position of each new bollard.

1.3.5 Maintenance Dredging

The existing approved dredge depths cater for the ships draught and under keel clearance. Maintenance dredging consented under Ports of Auckland Ltd’s Permit (Permit No. 34673) will maintain sufficient clearance.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Assessment of Ecological Value We have assigned ecological values to individual species (Table 1) as well as habitats (Table 2). With regard to species, all New Zealand biota have been assessed by DOC against a standard set of criteria (described in Townsend et al. (2008)) and lists published for each taxonomic group.1 These criteria provide a consistent basis on which to assign ecological value for individual species (see Table 1).

Table 1: Criteria for assigning ecological value to species (based on Table 10 in EIANZ (2015))

ECOLOGICAL VALUE SPECIES

Very High Nationally Threatened (Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, Nationally Vulnerable)

High Nationally At Risk – Declining

Moderate - High Nationally At Risk – Recovering, Relict, Naturally Uncommon

Moderate Locally uncommon/rare, not nationally threatened or at risk

Low Not threatened nationally, common locally

1 Classifications as listed in: Hitchmough et al. (2007) for marine fish; Freeman et al. (2014) for marine invertebrates; Baker et al.(2016) for marine mammals.


The value of the benthic marine habitat within the proposed works area was assessed based on the existing information using the characteristics in Table 2.2

Table 2: Characteristics of estuarine sites with low, medium and high ecological values.

ECOLOGICAL VALUE

CHARACTERISTICS

LOW • Benthic invertebrate community degraded with low species richness, diversity and abundance.

• Benthic invertebrate community dominated by organic enrichment tolerant and mud tolerant organisms with few/no sensitive taxa present.

• Marine sediments dominated by silt and clay grain sizes (>70%). • Surface sediment predominantly anoxic (lacking oxygen). • Elevated contaminant concentrations in surface sediment, above ISQG-high or

ERC-red effects threshold concentrations3. • Invasive, opportunistic and disturbance tolerant species dominant. • Macroalgae provides minimal/limited habitat for native fauna. • Habitat highly modified.

MODERATE • Benthic invertebrate community typically has moderate species richness, diversity and abundance.

• Benthic invertebrate community has both (organic enrichment and mud) tolerant and sensitive taxa present.

• Marine sediments typically comprise less than 50-70% silt and clay grain sizes. • Shallow depth of oxygenated surface sediment. • Contaminant concentrations in surface sediment generally below ISQG-high or

ERC-red effects threshold concentrations. • Few invasive opportunistic and disturbance tolerant species present. • Macroalgae provides moderate habitat for native fauna. • Habitat modification limited.

HIGH • Benthic invertebrate community typically has high diversity, species richness and abundance.

• Benthic invertebrate community contains many taxa that are sensitive to organic enrichment and mud.

• Marine sediments typically comprise <50% silt and clay grain sizes. • Surface sediment oxygenated. • Contaminant concentrations in surface sediment rarely exceed the respective

ISQG-low effects threshold concentrations, nor ERC amber threshold. • Invasive opportunistic and disturbance tolerant species largely absent. • Macroalgae provides significant habitat for native fauna. • Habitat largely unmodified.

2 Currently there are no guidelines for how to assess the ecological values of marine environments in New Zealand. The characteristics of estuarine sites with low, medium and high ecological values have been developed by Dr De Luca, Boffa Miskell Ltd, to guide valuing estuarine environments, and to provide a transparent approach that can be replicated. The characteristics have been applied in Environment Court and Board of Inquiry hearings, including a number of NZTA projects (Transmission Gully, MacKays to Peka Peka, and Puhoi to Warkworth). The characteristics have been modified over the years as improvements are recognised. 3 ANZECC (2000) Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High contaminant threshold concentrations and/or the Auckland Council’s (former Auckland Regional Council) Environmental Response Criteria (ERC) Red contaminant threshold concentrations (Auckland Regional Council, 2004).


2.2 Assessment of Ecological Effects

2.2.1 Magnitude of Ecological Effects

We assess the magnitude of ecological effects using the following criteria (Table 3)4:

Table 3: Criteria for describing effect magnitude.

MAGNITUDE DESCRIPTION

Very High Total loss or very major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether; AND/OR Loss of a very high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature.

High Major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed; AND/OR Loss of a high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature.

Moderate Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes of baseline will be partially changed; AND/OR Loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature.

Low Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible but underlying character/composition/attributes of baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances/patterns; AND/OR Having a minor effect on the known population or range of the element/feature.

Negligible Very slight change from baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the “no change” situation; AND/OR Having negligible effect on the known population or range of the element/feature.

2.2.2 Significance of Ecological Effects

We then assessed the level of ecological effects, based on ecological value (determined in Table 1 and 2) and effect magnitude (Table 3) using Table 4 as a guide.

The Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) impact assessment guidelines state that the purpose of the document is to provide guidance on good practice in environmental management without being prescriptive. Further, the guidelines state that they are not binding, will be revised from time to time with user feedback and evolving good practice, and practitioners are able to deviate from the guidelines where they consider it is ecologically relevant and justifiable to do so.

4 Adapted from Regini (2000) and Boffa Miskell (2011).

http://www.eianz.org/


Table 4: Matrix combining magnitude and value for determining the level of ecological impacts.

EFFECT LEVEL Ecological and/or Conservation Value

Very High High Medium Low

Mag

nitu

de

Very High Very High Very High High Moderate

High Very High Very High Moderate Low

Moderate Very High High Low Very Low

Low Moderate Moderate Low Very Low

Negligible Low Low Very Low Very Low

3.0 Description of Existing Environment

3.1.1 Sediment Quality

The substrate beneath Queens Wharf is soft sediment, characterised by mostly mud sized particles with sand making up most of the remainder (84% mud, 14% sand, 2% gravel) (Golder, 2011).

Trace elements (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were analysed in sediment samples collected at random locations around Queens Wharf. Results identified that mercury and zinc are present above the ANZECC ISQG low threshold (Golder, 2011). All other contaminants measured were below guideline values. Zinc is likely to have been derived from stormwater runoff.

3.1.2 Water Quality

Water quality within the Auckland downtown area reflects the nature of the stormwater and other discharges (such as the occasional overflow of sewage in to stormwater) from the CBD and the commercial port into that part of the Harbour (Golder, 2014).

The benthic community of mud habitats within the central Waitematā Harbour is generally lower in abundance, diversity and species richness than sandier habitats (Hewitt et al., 2009). These habitats are dominated by polychaetes (capitellids, cossurids and paranoides) (Golder, 2014).

3.1.3 Benthic Invertebrates

The benthic invertebrate assemblage of the soft sediment benthic ecology beneath Queens Wharf and within the proposed works footprint consists of low species richness, diversity and abundance. This habitat is highly modified.

The ecology of the wharves and piles within the central Waitematā Harbour are rich and diverse and characterised by a range of low-tidal species that typically utilise hard structures (Morton, 2004). Typical species observed on piles and wharves of the central Waitematā include black lichens, green algae (Enteromorpha), barnacles (Austrominius modestus), oysters (Crassostrea glomerata, Ostrea lutaria), tube worms (Pomatoceros caeruleus), bryozoans (Watersipora


subtorquata), ascidians (Microcosmus squamiger) and green lipped mussels (Perna caniculus) (Morton, 2004).

3.1.4 Fish

A diverse array of fish species are present within the central Waitematā, with most species being locally common and not Threatened or At Risk (Hitchmough, Bull, & Cromarty, 2007). The ecological value of the fish within the central Waitematā harbour is therefore classified as Moderate.

3.1.5 Marine Mammals

More than 22 species of whales and dolphins have been recorded in the wider Hauraki Gulf, many of which are known to venture into the Waitematā Harbour (Department of Conservation, 2006). Orca (Orcinus orca) are the most common species of marine mammal sighted close to shore. Often these animals are seen in groups of between 5 and 15 hunting sting rays and eagle rays.

A number of shallow water marine mammals are occasionally seen within the Central Waitematā Harbour (CWH), two species of which are classified as Threatened (Baker et al., 2016). Orca are classified as Nationally Critical with a very small population of less than 250 mature individuals (Baker et al., 2016). The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), also commonly observed feeding and bow riding nearshore, is classified as Nationally Endangered with a small population of between 250 and 1,000 mature individuals and a predicted decline of 10-50%. The CWH is not a notable feeding or breeding habitat for marine mammals and is not a migratory pathway.

Two resident leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) have been regularly sighted at a number of locations within Waitematā Harbour since 2015. Leopard seals primarily inhabit the Antarctic region and have been known to visit New Zealand in winter, however it is unusual for this species to reside in New Zealand year round (DOC media release, 2017).

New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) may also be present in the CWH area. This species is classified as not threatened.

4.0 Assessment of Ecological Value and Effects

4.1 Ecological Value Our assessment of marine ecological values is guided by a number of characteristics, including (but not limited to) the sediment quality, water quality, benthic invertebrate community, fish, marine mammals and habitat modification. All of these factors were taken into consideration when determining if, on balance, the ecological value is Low, Moderate, High or Very High.


4.1.1 Soft Sediment Habitats

The marine ecological values of the soft sediment benthic ecology beneath Queens Wharf and within the proposed works footprint are assessed as Low; having low species richness, diversity and abundance; marine sediments dominated by silts and clays; elevated contaminant concentrations; and a highly modified habitat (Table 2).

4.1.2 Hard Shore Habitats

The marine ecological values of the ecology of the hard surfaces of Queens Wharf within the proposed works footprint are assessed as Medium; having moderate species richness, diversity and abundance; and elevated contaminant concentrations (Table 2).

4.1.3 Marine Species

Given the conservation status of a number of commonly observed marine mammal species within the nearshore areas of the CWH, we have assigned the marine species a Very High ecological value (Table 1).

4.2 Ecological Effects

4.2.1 Permanent habitat loss and habitat creation

A total of 42.1m2 of permanent covering of the seafloor where piling is to be placed will result in direct habitat loss to soft sediment benthic infauna (Table 5). The ecological value of the habitat to be lost is low (Section 2.1 and 4.1.1; Table 2). We consider the magnitude of effect of the loss of a relatively small area of soft sediment habitat within the wider Waitematā Harbour environment involves “loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that the post development conditions will be partially changed” (Table 3). Low ecological values combined with a low magnitude of effect produces a Very Low level of ecological impact (Table 4 and Table 6).

Introduction of a total of approximately 1177.8m2 of hard substrate such as the proposed dolphins and associated piles at Queens Wharf will create new space for species succession (Table 5). Marine communities are known to thrive on wharves and piles due to the spacious settling surfaces, fast currents and shaded microclimates that they provide (Morton, 2004). The new dolphin structure and gangway will likely increase the availability of food and shelter, which will likely indirectly increase the abundance of other macroinvertebrates and fish, thereby having a very localised positive impact on marine ecological values.

Table 5: Quantum of permanent habitat loss and habitat creation

Structure Permanent Habitat Loss Habitat Creation Mooring Dolphins 35.6m2 722.3m2

Dolphin Gangway 4.5m2 323.6m2

Bollards and Wharf Strengthening 2.0m2 131.9m2


4.2.2 Temporary Habitat Disturbance

Operation of construction machinery will result in temporary habitat disturbance, including sediment plumes, noise and vibration over an area slightly larger than the area directly affected by permanent habitat loss.

Emission of sound and vibration into the water during pile driving will induce a temporary habitat loss or disturbance for marine mammals, fish and invertebrates, as they will avoid the area. Noise may also mask biologically significant sounds for fish and marine mammals temporarily (Popper et al., 2003). High sound levels can damage (either permanently or temporarily) the sensory function producing hearing loss (threshold shifts), elicit stress responses, mask biologically significant sounds (such as communication) and alter behaviour (such as avoidance) (Nedwell, Langworthy, & Howell, 2003; Popper, Fewtrell, Smith, & McCauley, 2003). Whales and dolphins are classified as mid frequency cetaceans and are particularly vulnerable to noise underwater because they produce and receive sound over a large range of frequencies for use in communication, orientation, predator avoidance and foraging (Tyack, 1998). Potential effects on these organisms are a factor of sound level and duration of exposure.

The level of noise and vibration produced by the construction of the wharf upgrade could induce hearing impairment or stress responses in marine mammals. The results of noise modelling for the construction period that have been carried out are described in the Assessment of Acoustic Effects (Marshall Day, July 2018). Temporary habitat disturbance of noise generated from construction is predicted to have a permanent threshold shift within a maximum distance from Queens Wharf dolphins of 20m for mid frequency cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and fur seals, and 140m for leopard seals. Temporary habitat disturbance of noise generated from construction is predicted to have a temporary threshold shifts within a maximum distance of 125m for fur seals, 435m for mid frequency cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and 890m for leopard seals from the Queens Wharf dolphins. The likelihood of species, only occasionally observed within the immediate vicinity of Queens Wharf, to be affected by this this zone of influence is very low.

Suspended sediments, and associated contaminants, may cause damage to fish eggs and disturbance to fish spawning grounds. Deposition of suspended sediment may cause temporary habitat loss for benthic flora and fauna and has the potential to smother filter feeding organisms. This may occur within approximately 50m of the works.

Construction works will cause temporary disturbance to marine ecology within and adjacent to the construction area. However, the area is likely to recover in the long term after works have ceased. The magnitude of effect is likely to be Low, involving a minor shift from baseline conditions (Table 3). Combined with Very High ecological values, the overall level of effect is assessed as Moderate (Table 4 and 6).

4.2.3 Cumulative Effect of Permanent Habitat Loss and Habitat Disturbance

Assessment of cumulative effects requires the consideration of appropriate temporal and spatial boundaries for the assessment, and consideration of the interactions of the ecological effects of the proposed works along with past and future activities. One type of cumulative effect is incremental habitat loss or degradation which can be difficult to assess on a project-by-project basis. The actual cumulative adverse effect of incremental loss or degradation can be difficult to measure due to the long time frames for measurable effects to manifest themselves and the


multiple activities, projects or stressors that, in combination, cause incremental degradation and / or loss.

Incremental loss and disturbance of marine habitat are the primary cumulative effects on marine ecological values from the proposed works.

Total permanent habitat loss from the proposed works will occur over an area of 43m2 while the area of habitat disturbance is estimated to be slightly more. In the context of the Waitematā Harbour, which covers an area of 18,130 ha, the total area lost and disturbed is negligible. However, the proportion of habitat affected depends on the scale of the assessment i.e. a greater proportion is affected if the scale of assessment is the subtidal habitat within the Queens Wharf area (30,000m2).

Overall, the magnitude of effect of cumulative soft shore occupation within the Waitematā Harbour could be assessed as Negligible, but in order to be conservative we have assessed this effect as Low (Table 3). Combined with Low ecological values (section 2.1; Table 2) the level of effect is assessed as Very Low (Table 4 and Table 6).

4.2.4 Biosecurity

The biosecurity risk of the spread of unwanted marine organisms can be managed through best practice procedures regarding inspection (and prior cleaning) of equipment and plant brought to the marine construction area from elsewhere. It is recommended that prior to construction, a Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP) is developed, submitted to AC for their approval and implemented. The BMP should cover both construction and post-construction risk management.

The magnitude of effect of marine biosecurity risks, with a robust, approved BMP in place, is assessed as Low (Table 3). Given the existing low ecological value of soft sediment and artificial hard shore habitat, and a low magnitude of effect, the level of effect is considered to be Very Low.

4.3 Summary of Ecological Effects The level of potential adverse effects of the proposed works ranges between Very Low for permanent habitat loss and cumulative effects and Moderate for temporary habitat disturbance (Table 6).

Table 6: Summary of ecological values, magnitude of effect and significance of effect

ECOLOGICAL VALUE MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT LEVEL OF EFFECT

Permanent soft sediment habitat loss by pilings for mooring dolphins

Low Low Very Low

Temporary habitat disturbance to marine mammals seaward of works

Very high Low Moderate

Cumulative effects of permanent habitat loss and temporary habitat disturbance

Low Low Very low

Marine biosecurity risk Low Low Very low


5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The level of effects on marine ecological values arising from the proposed upgrade to the existing berthing facilities at Queens Wharf is Very Low.

The piles, structural dolphins and gangways will provide an opportunity for recruitment of hard surface adhering benthic flora and fauna.

Temporary habitat disturbance through emission of noise and vibration as well as sediment resuspension will result in a moderate level of effect.

The amount of re-suspended sediment should be controlled by using the pile driving technique outlined within the Engineering Report (Beca, 2018) and should not exceed the projected sediment plume rate.

Recommendations for construction noise management of effects on marine mammals should be carried out as per the recommendations in the Assessment of Acoustic Effects (Marshall Day, 2018).

Mitigation procedures such as visual monitoring of marine mammals before and during construction is recommended within the zone of construction noise around the site. It is recommended that works are shut down if a marine mammal sighting has been made, until the marine mammal has vacated the zone of influence. We agree with the recommendation in the Assessment of Acoustic Effects (Marshall Day, July 2018) that a site-specific construction noise and vibration management plan is developed to address the procedures around managing underwater noise effects on marine mammals (as well as other matters not related to marine ecology) and implemented.

It is recommended that a marine Biosecurity Management Plan be developed, approved and implemented prior to construction to manage the risk of spread of unwanted organisms.

6.0 References

ANZECC (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. National water quality management strategy. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. Agriculture and Resource Management Councils of Australia and New Zealand. Canberra, Australia.

Boffa Miskell Ltd. (2011). Transmission Gully Project Technical Report #11: Assessment of ecological effects (Report No. W09034E). Prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd for New Zealand Transport Agency and Porirua City Council.

Baker, C. S., Chilvers, B. L., Childerhouse, S., Constantine, R., Currey, R., Mattlin, R., … Rolfe, J. (2016). Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals, 2013 (New Zealand Threat Classification Series No. 14). Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Beca (2018) Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Berth: AEE Engineering Aspects. Prepared for Panuku Developments Auckland.


Department of Conservation. (2006). Marine mammals in the Hauraki Gulf Auckland. Auckland Conservancy, Department of Conservation.

Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (2015). Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) – EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Inc.

Golder (2011) Port of Auckland Sediment Quality Survey. Prepared for Ports of Auckland.

Golder (2014) Britomart to Wyndham Water Quality Assessment. Prepared for Auckland City Rail.

Hewitt, J., Edhouse, S., and Simpson, J. (2009) Biodiversity of intertidal soft sediment habitats in the Auckland Region. Prepared for the Department of Conservation. DOC 09302.

Morton, J. (2004) Chapter Fourteen: Overhangs, Wharves and Caves. In: Seashore Ecology of New Zealand and the Pacific. Published by David Bateman Ltd. ISBN 1-86953-399

Popper, A. N., Fewtrell, J., Smith, M. E., & McCauley, R. D. (2003). Anthropogenic sound: effects on the behaviour and physiology of fishes. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 35-40.

Regini, K. (2000). Guidelines for ecological evaluation and impact assessment. Ecology & Environmental Management In Practice: Bulletin of the Institute of Ecology and Environment.


Appendix 1 Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin Design

S

H

E

D

1

0

C

A

P

T

.

C

O

O

K

W

H

A

R

F

M

A

R

S

D

E

N

W

H

A

R

F

Q

U

E

E

N

S

W

H

A

R

F

3

2

0

3

1

0

3

0

0

2

9

0

2

8

0

2

7

0

2

6

0

2

5

0

2

4

0

2

3

0

2

2

0

2

1

0

2

0

0

1

9

0

1

8

0

1

7

0

1

6

0

1

5

0

1

4

0

1

3

0

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

9

0

8

0

7

0

6

0

5

0

4

0

3

0

2

0

1

0

0

E

A

S

T

E

R

N

V

I

A

D

U

C

T

P

R

I

N

C

E

S

W

H

A

R

F

H

O

B

S

O

N

W

H

A

R

F

S

H

E

D

1

0

C

A

P

T

.

C

O

O

K

W

H

A

R

F

M

A

R

S

D

E

N

W

H

A

R

F

Q

U

E

E

N

S

W

H

A

R

F

3

2

0

3

1

0

3

0

0

2

9

0

2

8

0

2

7

0

2

6

0

2

5

0

2

4

0

2

3

0

2

2

0

2

1

0

2

0

0

1

9

0

1

8

0

1

7

0

1

6

0

1

5

0

1

4

0

1

3

0

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

9

0

8

0

7

0

6

0

5

0

4

0

3

0

2

0

1

0

0

DO NOT SCALE

Drawing No.

Discipline

Title:

Project:

IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Docu

ment

No.

Rev.

By

* Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature

Client:

Dwg Check

Drawing Originator:

Scale (A3)

Revision

Dsg Verifier

Scale (A1)

Reduced

Drawn

Original

No.

Design

Date

Approved ForConstruction*

AppdChk Date

Drawing Plotted: 04 Jul 2018 12:24 PM

3232

840-

CA-K

001.D

WG

ww

w.b

eca.

com

ww

w.b

eca.

com

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

3232840-CA-K001 J

PLAN OF PROPOSEDMODIFICATIONS TO

QUEENS WHARF

CIVIL ENGINEERING

PANUKU DEVELOPMENTAUCKLAND

QUEENS WHARFCRUISE SHIP

BERTH MODIFICATIONS

1:1000

1:2000

JAC 27/06/16VDLT 27/06/16

QUEENS WHARF - DECK AND DOLPHINARRANGEMENT LAYOUT PLAN

SCALE 1:1000

AK002

EXISTING FENDERCLUSTERS

NEW FENDER CLUSTER TO MATCHEXISTING FENDERSREFER DRAWING 3232840 -CA-K004

NEW 150 TONNE BOLLARDS AND1500 x 1500 x 600 DEEPTHICKENED SLAB OVER NEW Ø600REINFORCED CONCRETE PILEWITH PERMANENT STEEL CASING

MOORINGDOLPHIN

KEY PLAN

QUAY ST.

CUSTOMS ST.

HOBS

ON S

T.

EASTERN VIADUCT

QUEE

NS W

HARF

PRIN

CES

WHA

RF

CAPT

COO

K W

HARF

QUAY ST.

A FOR DESIGN CRITERIA VDLT JACB REVISED ACCESS GANGWAY JAC JACC ACCESS GANGWAY REMOVED JAC JAC SJP 21/10/16D DOLPHIN LAYOUT UPDATED JAC JAC SJP 03/11/17

MOORINGDOLPHIN

E REVISED DOLPHIN & GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 07/02/18F REVISED DOLPHIN & GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 28/03/18G REVISED DOLPHIN & GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 24/04/18H REVISED ACCESS GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 06/06/18I REVISED ACCESS GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 27/06/18

NEW FENDER CLUSTER TO MATCHEXISTING FENDERSREFER DRAWING 3232840 -CA-K004

J REVISED ACCESS GANGWAY JAC JAC SJP 04/07/18

AutoCAD SHX Text

BA32_3504

49.0082.00

9.22 15.00m

150t BOLLARD ONMOORING DOLPHIN

15.00

m

NAVIGATIONLIGHT & AREA LIGHTING POLE

1800mm DIA REINFORCEDCONCRETE PILE

ELECTRICCAPSTAN

LADDER

NOTE:FENDERING NOT SHOWNON THIS DRAWINGFOR CLARITY.

5.94

6.50

90°

90°

45°

18.0015.00m

45°

45°45°

33.00

AREA LIGHTINGPOLE


90°

90°

45°

45°45°

45°

2.30

ELECTRICCAPSTAN

BULL RAIL

LADDER

LADDER

LADDER

BULL RAIL

2.30

13.85

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.80

4.001.38

SECURITY GATE

4.63

2.00

1.50

EXISTINGWHARF

1K003

13.80

SECURITYGATE

GRATING OVERHERITAGE STAIRS

AREA LIGHTINGPOLE


90°

90°

45°

45°45°

45°

ELECTRICCAPSTAN

LADDER

LADDER

2.30

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.80

4.001.38

SECURITY GATE

2.00

1.50

No. AppdRevision By Chk Date

Drawing Originator:

DO NOT SCALE


Scale (A1)

Scale (A3)Reduced

Dwg Check

Dsg Verifier

Drawn

Original DesignConstruction*

Date

Approved For Client: Project:

IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Title:

Drawing No.

Discipline

Docu

ment

No.

Rev.


3232

840-

CA-K

002.D

WG

ww

w.b

eca.

com

ww

w.b

eca.

com


PRELIMINARY

3232840-CA-K002 J

MOORING DOLPHINAND ACCESS GANGWAYDETAILS SHEET 1 OF 2

CIVIL ENGINEERINGPANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND


BERTH MODIFICATIONS1:125

1:250

JAC 27.06.16VDLT 27.06.16

G REVISED TO 2 DOLPHINS AND GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 24/04/18

AK001

PLAN - DOLPHINS AND ACCESS GANGWAYSCALE 1:125

H REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 06/06/18

BK001

PLAN - DOLPHINS AND ACCESS GANGWAYSCALE 1:125

RETRACTABLEGANGWAY CLOSED

RETRACTABLEGANGWAY OPEN

I REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 27/06/18J REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 04/07/18

+3.38m MHWS

-10.5m CD DREDGED LEVEL

PLEISTOCENE SEDIMENT

+5.0m DECK LEVEL

+1.50m MSL

+0.39m MLWS

0.00 LAT

RECENT MARINE SEDIMENTS

1800mm DIA REINFORCEDCONCRETE PILE WITHPERMANENT STEEL CASING

-26.0m CD ESTIMATED TOP OFCOMPETENT WAITEMATASANDSTONE / SILTSTONE

1.75

PILE SOCKET INTOWAITEMATA SANDSTONE

MOORING DOLPHINMOORING DOLPHIN


1200mm DIA REINFORCED CONCRETEPILE WITH PERMANENT STEEL CASING

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GANGWAYPEDESTRIAN ACCESS GANGWAY

0.40

0.40

1.75

0.20

PILE SOCKET INTOWAITEMATA SANDSTONE

DUCTING FORCAPSTAN & LIGHTPOLE

AREA LIGHTINGPOLE

NAVIGATION LIGHT ANDAREA LIGHTING POLE

0.65

4.00

SUBMARINE HVCABLE

SECURITYGATE

2K003

EXISTINGWHARF

DECK LEVEL+5.50m

SECURITYGATE

MOORING DOLPHIN4.00SECURITYGATE

MOORING DOLPHIN4.00SECURITYGATE

ww

w.b

eca.

com

ww

w.b

eca.

com


PRELIMINARY

No. AppdRevision By Chk Date

Drawing Originator:

DO NOT SCALE


Scale (A1)

Scale (A3)Reduced

Dwg Check

Dsg Verifier

Drawn

Original DesignConstruction*

Date

Approved For Client: Project:

IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Title:

Drawing No.

Discipline

Docu

ment

No.

Rev.


3232

840-

CA-K

003.D

WG

3232840-CA-K003 J

MOORING DOLPHINAND ACCESS GANGWAYDETAILS SHEET 2 OF 2

CIVIL ENGINEERINGPANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND


BERTH MODIFICATIONS1:125

1:250

JAC 27.06.16VDLT 27.06.16

1K002

SECTION - DOLPHINS AND ACCESS GANGWAYSCALE 1:125

2.00m

0.20m

0.65m0.10m

0.20m1.38m

2K003

SECTION - GANGWAYSCALE 1:50

G REVISED TO 2 DOLPHINS AND GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 24/04/18H REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 06/06/18

3K002

SECTION - RETRACTABLE ACCESS GANGWAYSCALE 1:125

4K002

SECTION - RETRACTABLE ACCESS GANGWAYSCALE 1:125

RETRACTABLEGANGWAY OPEN

RETRACTABLEGANGWAY CLOSED

RETRACTABLE GANGWAYPARTIALLY OPEN

I REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 27/06/18

2.30m

J REVISED GANGWAY ACCESS JAC JAC SJP 04/07/18