BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("Act") AND IN THE MATTER of a Notice of Motion under section 87G of the Act requesting the granting of resource consents to Waiheke Marinas Limited to establish a marina at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke Island, in the Hauraki Gulf (ENV-2013-AKL-000174) REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD ANTHONY REINEN-HAMILL (COASTAL PROCESSES) ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL Dated 23 September 2014 BROOKFIELDS LAWYERS M J Dickey / M C Allan Telephone No. 09 379 9350 Fax No. 09 379 3224 P O Box 240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND
Page 2 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Richard Anthony Reinen-Hamill. 2. This rebuttal statement is given on behalf of the Auckland Council (Council) in relation to Waiheke Marinas Limited's (Applicant) resource consent application to construct a marina and associated facilities at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke (Application). In particular, my rebuttal statement relates to the section 274 party evidence of Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa and Lucy Tukua in relation to sea level rise and shoreline change, and marina construction matters raised by Thomas Greve and Kirstin Lewis. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 3. My qualifications and experience are set out in my Statement of Evidence in Chief, dated 10 June 2014. MY ROLE 4. My role in the Application is as set out in my Statement of Evidence in Chief, dated 10 June 2014. In addition, I participated in expert conferencing on the topic of coastal engineering, marina design, geotechnical and wave/wake assessment and am a signatory to the Joint Expert Witness Statement Coastal Engineering, Marina Design, Geotechnical and Wave/wake Assessment (JWS), dated 29 August 2014. CODE OF CONDUCT 5. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses outlined in the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note and have complied with it in preparing this evidence. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting evidence to the Court. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise and that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions.
Page 3 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 6. This rebuttal statement responds to issues raised in the section 274 party evidence of Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa, Lucy Tukua and Thomas Greve and Kirstin Lewis. RESPONSE TO SECTION 274 PARTY EVIDENCE Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa and Lucy Anne Tukua 7. The last paragraph of page 3 of the statement of evidence of Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa, dated 22 July 2014, includes a comment from the farm manager for Fred Alison that the high tide mark had risen five chains within Matiatia Bay since the Deed had been written protecting the waahi tapu urupa. This anecdotal information on the rise of the high tide mark is not accurate and is a significant over-estimate of the observed increase based both on sea level rise at the tide gauge at the Ports of Auckland (Queen s Wharf) and historic aerial photographs which do not show any significant shoreline variation from 1928 to the present. 8. A chain is an old unit of length that was used in land surveying. It is equivalent to 20.12 m. Five chains is therefore equivalent to 100.6 m. Based on historic measurements of Mean Sea Level, carried out at the Ports of Auckland since 1899 (refer Attachment A), there has been an average increase in Mean Sea Level of 0.184 m or around 0.2 m. This is significantly lower than the historic observation relayed by Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa. 9. I have considered the possibility that the observation referred to by Moana Te Aira Te Uri Karaka Te Waeroa is a reference to the horizontal excursion of the high tide, i.e. a horizontal landward movement of the high tide, rather than the vertical movement. However, with this interpretation, the observation would mean that the high tide line has moved around 100 m landward over the past 100 years within Matiatia Bay. 10. To examine the likelihood of a 100 m of landward retreat within Matiatia Bay, I have considered the map attached to Lucy Tukua's statement of evidence,
Page 4 dated 22 July 2014. Ms Tukua's map uses the historic 1899 Maori Land Court map as a base with the modern day cadastral map overlain. 11. My initial concern with the approach used by Ms Tukua is that by using the historic map as a base there is an assumption that both the historic map and cadastral boundaries are accurate to current day survey standards. Further, it assumes that there are sufficient features shown on the map to accurately geo-reference features common both to the historic map and the modern day cadastral. As can be seen on the plan on page 4 of Ms Tukua s evidence, the historic plan has very little detail apart from the shoreline, and possibly some notion of ridge lines. It does not provide sufficient detail to accurately position modern day features. 12. In addition, the modern day cadastral overlay used by Ms Tukua only provides boundaries and no geographic features. It is also not an accurate representation of the modern day coastline. To illustrate this I have included, in Attachment B, an overlay of the cadastral boundary information from Ms Tukua's cadastral map with a current aerial photograph from Terraview, which is a national desktop-based land and property information tool. This image shows the existing cliff headlands to the north of the bay and the cliff shoreline along the northern end of Matiatia Bay extend seaward of the cadastral boundaries. Therefore, using an historic chart that does not accurately map the shoreline or land based features and comparing it with cadastral boundaries that do not accurately represent present day shorelines does not provide meaningful information to inform the Court. 13. In my review of historic aerial images there is only limited coverage with no readily available historic images. However, the Applicant has provided plans that show cadastral boundaries and measured high water levels in the vicinity of the site (refer Max Dunn, Evidence in Chief, Figures A and E). These plans show the mean high water mark and the present day shoreline in a similar position. 14. Further insight on the position of the shoreline over time can be gained by examining available historic and present day photographs. Mr Scott provides historic images (refer Dennis Scott, Evidence in Chief, Exhibit 3 - undated) and modern day shoreline photographs (refer Dennis Scott, Evidence in
Page 5 Chief, Exhibit 30). Mr Dunn also provides some current day shoreline images (refer Max Dunn, Evidence in Chief, Figure 9: Photographs of Historic Reserve). In addition, I have sourced additional photographs from 1928 and 1983 (refer Attachment C). 15. These photographs show a generally stable shoreline within Matiatia Bay with no large scale erosional trends as could be expected in an embayed shoreline. There is evidence of the cliff headland being mined for the reclamation material but no evidence of large scale natural cliff retreat. There is evidence of small scale localised erosion, for example, Mr Dunn's Figure 9 shows small scale erosion of the weathered cliff material along the historic reserve. However, in the background of Figure 9 the low bank visible appears similar to the historic bank visible in Photograph A of Mr Scott s Exhibit 3. This shows that while erosion is occurring, it is at relatively low rates and is localised due to the combination of the bay being a relatively sheltered environment and a largely hard coast. Thomas Greve and Kristen Lewis 16. Paragraphs 12 to 17 of Thomas Greve and Kristen Lewis' evidence raise an issue with the use H6 Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) treated timber piles and the risk of leaching. 17. H6 timber is the appropriate grade of timber for marine works and this continues to be specified and used on the majority of wharf and jetty construction in New Zealand. The majority of the CCA fixed within timber remains there over its lifetime of service. Studies for the EPA 1 identified that there are no other approved methods for treating timber to be used in the marine environment and that leaching effects are very localised and unlikely to result in widespread environmental contamination in most situations. A more recently published review on the ecological impact of CCA treated wood in marine applications (Edwin and Sreeja, 2011 2 ) concluded that after 60 1 2 Graham, B. (2005) Review of acitivities relevant to the use of CCA timber treatment chemicals in New Zealand for the EPA, May 2005 http://www.epa.govt.nz/publications/cca-review-may-05.pdf Edwin, L and A. Sreeja (2011). Ecological impact of Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) treated wood for marina applications: a review. http://210.212.228.207/bitstream/handle/123456789/741/ecological%20impact%20of%20chromated%2 0copper%20arsenate%20(CCA)%20treated%20wood%20for%20marine%20applications%20a%20revie w.pdf?sequence=1.
Page 6 years of use that there is little or no convincing evidence of its adverse effects, though the review also noted that there is limited information or data. If alternatives to treated timber piles are required, this is likely to be in the form of prestressed concrete piles. CONCLUSION 18. Based on my experience of using historic charts, maps and photographs to assess shoreline change, and my review of the information provided for this Application, there is no evidence to suggest significant increases in historic sea level or that shorelines have eroded landward in the order of 100metres. 19. CCA is the approved treated process for timber for marine construction in New Zealand and there is little global evidence of adverse environmental effects in marine use. Low levels of leaching of CCA can be expected over time. If alternatives to treated timber piles are required, this is likely to be in the form of prestressed concrete piles. Richard Reinen-Hamill 23 September 2014
Page 7 Attachment A: Increase in annual Mean Sea Level recorded Ports of Auckland from 1899 to 2014 (Source: NIWA) 2 Port of Auckland: Annual MSL (1899-2014) 1.9 1.60 mm/yr 1.8 AVD- 46 1.743 m 1.7 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1.6 Annual MSL: Chart Datum (m)
Page 8 Attachment B: Cadastral boundaries overlain modern day aerial photograph (Source: Terraview)
Page 9 Attachment C: Historic oblique photographs of Matiatia Bay Photograph C 1 Henry Winkelmann 1928 photo of Matiatia Bay (Source: Auckland Museum) Photograph C 2 Whites Aviation Photograph from October 1983 (Source: National Library).