Assessment of Environmental Effects

Appendices

Appendix A

Certificates of Title

Appendix B

Design and Construction Report

Appendix C

Groundwater Technical Report

Appendix D

Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix E

Contaminated Land Assessment

Appendix F

Water Quality Assessment

Appendix G

Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment

Appendix H

Air Quality Assessment

Appendix I

Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan

Appendix J

Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix K

Stakeholder Correspondence and Minutes

Appendix L

Mana Whenua Correspondence and Minutes

Appendix M

Proposed Resource Consent Conditions

Appendix N

Drawings

Glossary of Terminology

The following terms have been used throughout the document and are listed below for reference.

Term Meaning

Alignment

Chainage

Consolidation

Consolidation

settlement

Cut and cover tunnel

Differential settlement

Enabling works

Engineer

Electric Multiple Unit

Ground anchors

The horizontal and vertical position of the pipe or the CRL tunnels.

An imaginary line used to measure distance from a specified starting point

A process by which water saturated soil reduces in volume due to load application or lowering of groundwater level that causes the water to be squeezed/ removed out and the soil settles.

Space deformation induced by consolidation (see ‘consolidation’ above).

A form of construction for a box-shaped tunnel where a trench is excavated within which the tunnel is constructed and then the trench is backfilled and the surface restored

Difference in settlement between two adjacent locations

Works carried out in advance to facilitate ease of permanent works construction.

The owner or an entity acting on behalf of the owners to approve and review the works

Electric powered multiple unit train rolling stock

Steel tendons installed in the ground to provide support to ground retaining structures.

Groundwater Water located in pore spaces within the soil mass.

Principal Technical Adviser

Sediment Control Protection Areas

Sensitive structures

The Principal Technical Adviser to Auckland Transport for this Project is Aurecon New Zealand Limited.

Are defined as (a) 100 metres either side of a foredune or 100m landward of the coastal marine area (whatever is the more landward of mean high water springs);or (b) 50 metres landward of the edge of a watercourse, or wetland of 1000m² or more.

Structures susceptible to ground movements due to tunnel excavations and other construction activities. For the purpose of this assessment, this has been defined as all buildings constructed with unreinforced masonry.

Shafts Underground structures excavated from the surface for permanent or temporary access.

Spoil Excavated material.

Tunnel boring machine

Water table

A mechanically operated machine used to excavate a tunnel with a circular cross section through a variety of ground strata.

The level below which the ground is saturated with water.

Glossary of Abbreviations and Units

The following abbreviations and units have been used throughout the document and are listed below for reference.

Acronym Meaning

AAAQS

Auckland ambient air quality standard

AAQG Ambient air quality guideline

AC Auckland Council

ACDP: CA Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City – Central Area Section 2005

ACDP: I

ACRP: ALW

ACRP: SC

Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water 2013

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001

SW CoP Auckland Council Stormwater Code of Practice

ACZ Active Construction Zone

AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects

AMP Archaeology Management Plan

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

AQNES Air Quality National Environmental Standard

ARAQT Auckland regional air quality target

ACRPS Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement 1999

AT Auckland Transport

ATCoP Auckland Transport Code of Practice

BaP eq. Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent

bGL Below Ground Level

CBD Central Business District

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CIA Cultural Impact Assessment

CLA Contaminated Land Assessment

CLS Contaminated Land Specialist

CMJ Central Motorway Junction

CoC Certificate of Compliance

CPO Chief Post Office building

CSA Construction Support Area

CSMP Contaminated Soils Management Plan

CRL City Rail Link

CVA Cultural Value Assessment

DCR Design and Construction Report – Aotea to NAL Section

DSC Downtown Shopping Centre

DSI Detailed Site Investigation

ECBF East Coast Bays Formation

ECBF ER

ECBF EU

Residual soil/ completely weathered ECBF

Unweathered ECBF

ECBF EW Weathered ECBF

ECI Early Contractor Involvement

EHS Environmentally Hazardous Substances

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EMU Electric Multiple Unit

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan

GSMCP Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

GTR Groundwater Technical Report

Ha Hectare

HAIL Hazardous Activities and Industries List

HNZPT Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

HNZPT Act Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

ITA Industrial and Trade Activity

ITA EMP Industrial and Trade Activity Environmental Management Plan

m Metres

MfE Ministry for the Environment

mm Millimetres

M&CP Monitoring and Contingency Plan

MVA Maori Values Assessment

NESair Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004

NESsoil Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

NIMT North Island Main Trunk

NoR Notice of Requirement

OMS Orakei Main Sewer

OTE Over Track Exhaust

PA Permitted Activity

PAUP Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013

PPL Precinct Properties Limited

PPV Peak Particle Velocity. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is the measure of the vibration amplitude, zero to maximum. Used for building structural damage assessment.

PTA Principal Technical Adviser

QE2S Queen Elizabeth II Square

RL Reduced Level

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

SCShealth Soil Contaminant Standards (to Protect Human Health)

SMP Site Management Plan

TA Tauranga Group

TBM Tunnel Boring Machine

TP90 Auckland Council Technical Publication No. 90 - Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region 1999

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UAQMA Urban Air Quality Management Area

WDQMP Water Discharge Quality Monitoring Programme

WQA Water Quality Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report

This Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) has been prepared to accompany the application by Auckland Transport (AT) to Auckland Council (AC) for the resource consents necessary to authorise the proposed construction of the Aotea Station to North Auckland Line (NAL) section (Aotea to NAL section) of the City Rail Link (CRL) and the operation of the entirety of the proposed CRL from Britomart Station and the NAL The proposal is referred to throughout this AEE as the ‘Project’

The CRL Designation conditions were confirmed by the Environment Court on 10 November 2015 AT is the requiring authority responsible for the designation of land required to build and operate the CRL project. AT is now seeking the remaining resource management authorisations required in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). These include a range of resource consents required by regional plans and land use consents required by national environmental standards.

The resource consents required for the CRL have been sought in two separate packages. This AEE provides an assessment of actual and potential effects on the environment for Resource Consent Package 2, which relates to resource consents associated with the construction of the Aotea to NAL section The Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project covers the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway, including the future Aotea Station via cut-and-cover means and the tunnels by TBM between Aotea Station and the NAL. It also encompasses the construction of the Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels), along with the Mt Eden Station redevelopment, mined and cut-and-cover tunnels at the turnouts to the NAL, track modifications and connections to the NAL, the relocation of significant network utility infrastructure and various new and replacement bridges and local road infrastructure at the NAL. Resource Consent Package 2 also seeks the necessary resource consents required for the operation of the entire CRL; from Britomart Station to the NAL. These include air discharges associated with train operation, tunnel and rail maintenance activities and operational water discharges associated with station, tunnel and track drainage

Resource Consent Package 1, which relates to resource consents associated with the construction of tunnel infrastructure for the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section (inclusive of the section of tunnel running beneath the Downtown Shopping Centre [DSC]), was granted on 1 September 2015 (amended version dated 22 October 2015 pursuant to section 133A of the RMA) 1

This AEE has been prepared in accordance with sections 88, 139 and the Fourth Schedule of the RMA. This AEE is intended to provide the information necessary for a full understanding of the Project and any actual or potential effects the proposed activities may have on the environment. This AEE contains the following information:

 A description of the proposed construction works for the Aotea to the NAL section and the operational and maintenance elements relevant to regional consent matters for the CRL route in its entirety, including alternatives that were considered.

 A description of the existing environment in which the Aotea to NAL section will be constructed and the entire CRL route will be operated and maintained

 The statutory approvals required (reasons for the application).

 Consultation and engagement undertaken.

 An assessment of the actual and potential effects of the Project on the environment and identified measures which will be implemented in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects

 An assessment of the proposed works and the operational and maintenance matters against relevant statutory and non-statutory documents.

 An overview of the draft resource consent conditions which propose management plan processes, the preparation and implementation of management plans and specific measures to mitigate the actual and potential adverse effects associated with the construction of the Aotea to NAL section and operation of the CRL route in its entirety (as relevant to air and water discharges).

1.2 CRL Overview

The CRL is the key project in an integrated transport programme to keep Auckland moving as the city grows over the next 30 years. It supports the Auckland Plan target of 69% of trips to the city centre being met through public transport. The underground rail line linking Britomart and the existing western line near Mt Eden via the city centre will allow a train every five to 10 minutes from most Auckland stations along that route.

The CRL project objectives are as follows:

 Improve transport access into and around the city centre for a rapidly growing Auckland.

 Improve the efficiency and resilience of the transport network of urban Auckland.

 Significantly contribute to lifting and shaping Auckland’s economic growth.

 Provide a sustainable transport solution that minimises environmental impacts.

 Contribute positively to a liveable, vibrant and safe city.

1.2.1 Horizontal Alignment

The CRL project comprises the construction, operation and maintenance of a 3.4 km underground passenger railway (including two tracks, two new underground stations, modification of Britomart Station and substantial redevelopment of the existing Mt Eden Station) running between Britomart Station and the NAL in the vicinity of the existing Mt Eden Station. These works include an additional 850 m of track modifications within and adjacent to the NAL. The two new stations included in the CRL have been temporarily named Aotea Station and Karangahape Station.

Refer to Appendix A for Certificates of Title for properties within which the Aotea to NAL section will be constructed.

The indicative CRL alignment is depicted in Figure 1-1 below.

1.2.2 Vertical Alignment

The alignment rises 70 m from Britomart Station to the connection at the NAL, taking account of a range of constraints and parameters An indicative long section of the CRL alignment is illustrated in Figure 1-2 below.

Figure 1-1 Indicative CRL Alignment Plan.

Figure 1-2 Indicative CRL Alignment Long Section.

1.2.3 Design and Construction

The wider CRL project design identifies the project footprint and potential configurations required to support construction and operation of modifications to Britomart Station, two proposed new underground stations, and the redevelopment of the existing Mt Eden Station.

The principal features of the CRL project are as follows:

 Extending underground into Lower Queen Street via existing Platforms 1 and 5 at Britomart Station.

 Cut-and-cover tunnels between Britomart and Aotea Stations

 A cut-and-cover station at Aotea.

 Driven tunnel using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) between Aotea Station and the Newton Grade Separation Structure at Eden Terrace, including extending under the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ)

 Deep station with mined platform tunnels and access shafts at Karangahape Road.

 Cut-and-cover tunnels south of the Newton Grade Separation Structure at Eden Terrace.

 A new platform at Mt Eden Station located within the West Facing Connection (open trench).

 East and West Facing Connections to the NAL at the southern end of the CRL.

A variety of construction methodologies suitable for different locations along the CRL alignment have been identified based on the initial site analysis and investigations, topography and identified engineering risks and constraints.

Refer to Section 3 below for an indicative construction methodology of the Project

The programme for construction for the wider CRL project is still subject to confirmation. Refer to Section 3.12 for an indicative programme for the Project

1.2.4 CRL Operation

During operation of the CRL, the following operational design and maintenance matters are relevant to the resource consent applications:

 Sumps and an associated pumping system for pumping out foul water, groundwater seepage, and minimal amounts of tunnel wash water during cleaning and water from small fires (which may be discharged to the wastewater network).

 A stormwater system to discharge rainwater at the NAL connections.

 Rising mains at the end of each station.

 A tunnel ventilation system.

 Tunnel and station maintenance.

 Track maintenance.

For a more detailed description of the CRL operation refer to Section 10 of the Design and Construction Report (DCR) prepared by Aurecon New Zealand Limited (Aurecon) attached at Appendix B.

1.2.5 Anticipated CRL Project Benefits

The wider CRL project benefits were discussed in detail under the previous Notice of Requirement (NoR) project phase (refer to Section 1.8 of the NoR AEE, Beca, 2012). In brief summary, it is anticipated that once operational, the CRL will provide or contribute to achieving a range of benefits, which include increased train movements on the Auckland rail network by developing Britomart as a through station and unlocking the current capacity constraint. Commuter access to the city centre will be increased, providing the opportunity to stimulate economic development. Ease of access to the Central Business District (CBD) will also be enhanced for international and domestic tourists.

The CRL will build on the benefits of existing investment committed by Central Government and the Auckland region to electrification of Auckland’s rail network, including the new electric multiple units (EMUs). The CRL will also assist in providing additional rail network capacity to support the provision of potential future extensions of the rail network to the Auckland International Airport and the North Shore. The resilience of Auckland’s infrastructure will be developed, complimenting investment in Auckland’s strategic road network by freeing up road space for freight and other trips.

The CRL is predicted to provide a catalyst for inner city re-development by creating new major transport hubs around the underground rail stations, stimulating land use intensification and regeneration of central city areas.

The CRL may also assist in meeting the environmental and health objectives, notably air quality standards, sought by the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement 1999 (ACRPS) and the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP: ALW) and through potential overall reductions of regional carbon emissions stemming from the transport system, a key component of climate change.

1.3 Approach to Obtaining Resource Consents

Resource consents have been sought in a staged approach in order to respond to the CRL design progress (i.e., level of information and design available for certain sections of the CRL route) and construction programme requirements. AT is progressing the CRL Enabling Works2 package through a formal Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) contract arrangement via two ECI contracts. The staged resource consent approach responds to this process and is summarised in Sections 1.3.1 to 1.3.2 below.

The approach to packaging of the resource consent applications is shown in Table 1-1 below.

Resource Consent Package Location

1

Britomart Station to Wyndham Street

2

Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation (this AEE)

Table 1-1 Resource Consent Programme.

2 CRL tunnel works including those within Britomart Station and across Lower Queen Street; works from Customs Street West/ Albert Street intersection through to Wyndham Street (including the portion of CRL tunnels through the Downtown Shopping Centre). The Enabling Works also includes the Albert Street Stormwater Main Realignment which has been consented as a separate project.

1.3.1 Resource Consent Package 1 – Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section

Resource Consent Package 1 included regional and land use3 resource consents4 associated with construction of CRL infrastructure for the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section This stage sought the resource consents required for the completed, but not operational CRL project, from Britomart Station to Wyndham Street (discussed below)

This package included the cut and cover tunnels from Britomart Station to a point just to the south of the Wyndham Street and Albert Street intersection. The works include the underpinning of the Chief Post Office (CPO) building, and the section of running tunnels that extends into Queen Elizabeth II Square (QE2S), into the DSC site and includes running tunnels across Customs Street West and along Albert Street to Wyndham Street.

The works associated with Resource Consent Package 1: Britomart Station to Wyndham Street fall into both Enabling Works Contracts 1 and 2.

1.3.2 Resource Consent Package 2 – Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation (subject of this AEE)

Resource Consent Package 2 (the subject of this AEE) seeks the necessary regional and land use resource consents for the construction of the substantive works of CRL from Aotea Station to the NAL and the operational and maintenance elements associated with air and water discharges for the CRL route in its entirety

These works continue the CRL from an approximate chainage of 682,436m on the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT)5 for the NIMT MC20 down main rail line which runs down the western side of Albert Street, to where the Britomart to Wyndham Street section (Resource Consent Package 1) finished.

The Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project covers the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway, including the future Aotea Station via cut-and-cover means and the tunnels by TBM between Aotea Station and the NAL. It also encompasses the construction of the Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels), along with the Mt Eden Station redevelopment, mined and cut-and-cover tunnels at the turnouts to the NAL, track modifications and connections to the NAL, the relocation of significant network utility infrastructure and various new and replacement bridges and local road infrastructure at the NAL.

Resource Consent Package 2 also seeks the necessary resource consents required for the operation of the entire CRL; from Britomart Station to the NAL. These include air discharges associated with train operation, tunnel and rail maintenance activities and operational water discharges associated with station, tunnel and track drainage

3 Land use consent applications are required for works pursuant to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011.

4 R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, and R/REG/2014/543 granted on 1 September 2015 (amended version pursuant to section 133A of the RMA)

5 Note that the chainage for MC20 and MC30 has changed to align with the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT) from the original City Rail Link (CRL) which was used for Package 1. In this report only the new NIMT chainage has been used for MC20 and MC30. For reference: NIMT 682,436m = CRL 610m.

1.4 Planning Approvals Required

The following resource consents are being sought for the Project and these are detailed further in Section 5. In addition, AT is seeking certificates of compliance (CoCs) for a range of activities permitted under the relevant statutory documents.

The approvals for the Project are being sought under the relevant provisions of the following statutory documents and plans:

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001 (ACRP: SC).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water 2013 (ACRP: ALW).

 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (notified 30th September 2013, updated 13th April 2016) (PAUP).

 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESsoil).

In addition, Regulation 17 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESair) gives direction to consent authorities’ on whether to grant or decline applications for certain air discharge permits sought under regional plans This has also been addressed as part of the Project

1.4.1 Resource Consents

The following resource consents are required for the Project:

A land use consent for land disturbing activities, including earthworks pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

A land use consent for land disturbing activities including roading and trenching pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 pursuant to Activity Table 1, Rule 1.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls do not apply pursuant to Rule 1.2 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls apply pursuant to Rule 1.2 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the 100-year ARI flood plain pursuant to Rule 1.2 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Rule 6.5.77 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.17 of the PAUP is sought.

A water permit for the taking of groundwater for the purposes of temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Rule 6.5.43 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A water permit for the taking of groundwater associated with a temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) in Chapter H, Section 4.17 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants to land or water pursuant to Rule 5.5.44A (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbance of land not meeting the controlled activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 2.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.5 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during construction pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater and/or washwater to land or water pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to water during construction pursuant t to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during operation pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to water during operation pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge stormwater from the redevelopment of existing, high use public roads operated by a road controlling authority with an impervious area greater than 5,000 m2 pursuant to Table 3.1, Rule 3.2.2 (controlled activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit for diversion and discharge of stormwater to land and water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan that does not meet the permitted activity controls pursuant to Table 1.1, Rule 1.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities pursuant to Rule 5.5.18 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 2.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.8 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works that are not to be vested in council as infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for above ground infrastructure involving structures that occupy more than 25m2 in ground surface area located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for activities within overland flow paths: Flood protection works within an overland flow path required to reduce the risk to existing buildings from flooding hazards unable to comply with the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for infrastructure activities within overland flow paths, including maintenance and minor upgrading, road construction, maintenance and resurfacing unable to comply with the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for diverting the entry or exit point of an overland flow path pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for any building or structure located within or over an overland flow path pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks pursuant to Rule 4.5.56 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit for discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 3.3.5 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from tunnels over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent to disturb soil pursuant to Regulation 11 (discretionary activity) of the NESsoil is sought

Overall, resource consent is sought from AC as a Discretionary Activity.

1.4.2 Certificates of Compliance

The following CoCs are also being sought for the Project:

A certificate of compliance for discharge of treated sediment laden water from any earthworks allowed by a resource consent pursuant to Rule 1.1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance to discharge stormwater from redeveloped existing impervious surface pursuant to Rule 5.5.1 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance to discharge stormwater from redeveloped existing impervious surface pursuant to Rule 1.2.1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the diversion and discharge of stormwater inside Urban Areas pursuant to Rule 5.5.1 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance for below ground infrastructure within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the construction of stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works that are to be vested in the council pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for any flood-vulnerable infrastructure involving structures placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from cement use pursuant to Rule 4.5.57 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from cement use pursuant to Activity Table 2 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from trains pursuant to Rule 4.5.3 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance for discharge of contaminants into air from trains pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

1.4.3 Information Requirements

The PAUP lists specific information requirements relevant to particular resource consent applications. The specific requirements under the PAUP that are relevant to this application are:

 Cultural Impact Assessment(s) (CIA) may be necessary for applications requiring resource consent under the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay and where the proposal may have adverse effects on Mana Whenua values pursuant to Section 2.7.4 in Chapter G of the PAUP as identified as required by Mana Whenua. Refer to Section 6.4 below for details of the ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua.

 Heritage Impact Assessment for an application for resource consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks within the Historic Heritage Overlay pursuant to Rule 1.2 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H4.2, requiring the provision of a Heritage Impact Assessment pursuant to Section 2.7.8 in Chapter G of the PAUP, which is provided in Appendix J

 Heritage Impact Assessment for any discretionary resource consent application on land adjacent to scheduled historic heritage places pursuant to Rule 2.7.8 in Chapter G, Section 2.7.8 of the PAUP, which is provided in Appendix J

1.5 Further Approvals Required

Further approvals will be required for the CRL project, in particular it is noted that AT is not yet seeking the relevant authorisations/ approvals from AC for:

 Resource consents for utilities located outside of the CRL Designations and extent of works for the Project (a global resource consent for such works is proposed)

1.6 General Archaeological Authority

The following approval under other legislation is being concurrently sought from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) for the Project:

 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPT Act): application for a general archaeological authority under s44(a)

1.7 Resource Consent Application Suite of Documents

Table 1-2 below sets out the suite of documents that are provided in support of the Project Table 1-2 Project Suite of Documents.

Volume Description of Content

Volume I

Assessment of Environmental Effects and Appendices

A - C (this volume)

Volume II

Appendices

D - E

Volume III

Appendices

F- M

 Assessment of Environmental Effects

 Appendix A: Certificates of Title

 Appendix B: Design and Construction Report (Aurecon New Zealand Limited)

 Appendix C: Groundwater Technical Report (Pattle Delamore Partners Limited)

 Appendix D: Assessment of Settlement Effects (Aurecon New Zealand Limited)

 Appendix E: Contaminated Land Assessment (Golder Associates (NZ) Limited)

 Appendix F: Water Quality Assessment (Golder Associates (NZ) Limited)

 Appendix G: Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment (Golder Associates (NZ) Limited)

 Appendix H: Air Quality Assessment (Golder Associates (NZ) Limited)

 Appendix I: Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (Aurecon New Zealand Limited)

 Appendix J: Heritage Impact Assessment (Reverb Limited)

 Appendix K: Stakeholder Correspondence and Minutes

 Appendix L: Mana Whenua Correspondence and Minutes

 Appendix M: Proposed Resource Consent Conditions

Volume IV

Drawings

Appendix N

 Appendix N: Drawings

2 Applicant and Property Details

Applicant Details: Auckland Transport Private Bag 92250

Auckland 1142

Site Address: Various - refer to Certificates of Title and covering schedule (Appendix A) and Drawings (Appendix N)

Site Address: Albert Street, Kingston Street, Victoria Street West, Wellesley Street West, Mayoral Drive, Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Greys Avenue, Beresford Square, Poynton Terrace, Karangahape Road, Mercury Lane, Canada Street, Central Motorway Junction, Ian McKinnon Drive, Upper Queen Street, St Benedicts Street, Symonds Street, Newton Road, Mt Eden Road, Basque Road, New North Road, Flower Street, Nikau Street, Shaddock Street, Ruru Street, Ngahura Street, Fenton Street, Porters Avenue, Haultain Street, Boston Road, Nugent Street, Normanby Road, Lauder Road, Water Street, Severn Street, Auburn Street, Wynyard Road, Cross Street. Refer to Drawings (Appendix N).

Regional Plan: Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water 2013

Zoning: N/A

Limitations:

Overlays, precincts and non-statutory information:

None

Urban Air Quality Management Area (Map Series 1, Map 30)

Western Springs Volcanic Aquifer (Map Series 2: Map 9)

Regional Plan: Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001

Zoning: Outside the Sediment Control Protection Area (SCPA).

Limitations: None

Proposed Plan: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (notified 30th September 2013, updated 13th April 2016)

Zoning: Road, Business - City Centre, Town Centre (Newton – Upper Symonds Street), Business -Mixed Use, Public Open Space – Informal Recreation, Light Industry and Strategic Transport Corridor

Limitations: None

Overlays, precincts and non-statutory information:

Precincts: Arts, Civic & Entertainment, Residential and Karangahape Road

Additional Height Controls

Natural Heritage: Notable Trees Ref # 9 London Plane (54 trees along Greys Avenue, whole avenue, both sides located at ground level above the TBM tunnelling works within Mayoral Drive and Vincent Street), Ref # 13, Tulip Tree (170 trees both sides of Mayoral Drive), Ref # 204, Flame Tree;

Natural Heritage: Viewshaft Contours; Volcanic Viewshafts and Height

Sensitive Areas (E10 Mt Eden; E16 Mt Eden; E20 Mt Eden)

Historic Heritage: Pre 1944 Demolition Control

Within scheduled historic heritage places: Bluestone Wall and Toilets, ID 01906; Mount Eden Prison, ID 01721

Within 20 m of scheduled historic heritage places (various)

On land adjacent to scheduled historic heritage places (various)

Built Environment: City Centre Fringe Office, Air Quality Transport Corridor

Separation, Special Character, Building Frontage (Key Retail Frontage)

Natural Resource: Aquifer - Western Springs Volcanic Aquifer; Auckland Isthmus Volcanic

Infrastructure: High Land Transport Route Noise, Vehicle Access Restriction (various locations), Parking – City Centre Fringe Area

Designations: ID 8841 Electricity Transmission, Vector; ID 1552 Carpark; ID 6736 State Highway 1 and 16; ID1594 Road Widening; ID 8819 Electricity Works; ID 1592 Road Widening; ID 1616 Road Widening; ID 6300 North Auckland Railway Line; ID 3903 Mt Eden Prison

Within a scheduled Site and Place of Significance to Mana Whenua, Nga Wharau a Tako, ID: 009

Within the 100-year ARI flood plain

Within overland flow paths

3 Project Description

3.1 City Rail Link Aotea to NAL Section and CRL Operation

The Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project (Resource Consent Package 2) covers the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway, including the future Aotea Station via cut-and-cover means and the tunnels by TBM between Aotea Station and the NAL. It also encompasses the construction of the Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels), along with the Mt Eden Station redevelopment, mined and cut-and-cover tunnels at the turnouts to the NAL, track modifications and connections to the NAL, the relocation of significant network utility infrastructure, as well as various new and replacement bridges and local road infrastructure at the NAL.

Resource Consent Package 2 also covers resource consents required for the operation of the entire CRL; from Britomart Station to the NAL. These include air discharges associated with train operation, tunnel and rail maintenance activities and operational water discharges associated with station, tunnel and track drainage

3.2 Active Construction Zones

3.2.1 Introduction

The Aotea to NAL section consists of five distinct Active Construction Zones (ACZs) (notated A, K, M, N, and S) which are supported by five CSAs (notated 1 to 5).

ACZs are the locations where the physical CRL infrastructure is to be constructed. CSA are locations required to support construction activities.

Given the scale of the Aotea to NAL section, the five ACZs have been divided into smaller “Intermediate Active Construction Zones” (Intermediate ACZ) based on the nature of the construction activities in order to describe the indicative construction methodology and design.

The ACZ and CSA locations (shown in white) are shown in Figure 3-1 below. A description of the ACZs is provided in Section 3.2 below and a description of the CSAs 1 to 5 is provided in Section 3.3 below.

Figure 3-1 Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Active Construction Zones and Construction Support Areas.

A detailed description of the Aotea to NAL section is contained within the DCR (Appendix B) and within the Drawings (contained within Appendix N).

An indicative construction methodology for each ACZ and Intermediate ACZ is detailed in Section 4 to Section 8 of the DCR (Appendix B) Table 3-1 below provides a summary of the key characteristics for each of the ACZs, with key information for each ACZ provided in Sections 3.2.2 to 3.2.6 of this AEE

* Estimated earthworks volumes also include any earthworks that may be required for site establishment of the five CSAs, such as levelling or filling and the creation of platform areas for plant/ equipment.

** For chainages refer to the drawings contained within Appendix N

***All ACZs are located within the CRL Designations with the exception of ACZ A and ACZ M for which an application to alter CRL Designation 1 and 6 respectively are currently being prepared.

Table 3-1 City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Section Active Construction Zones.

3.2.2 Active Construction Zone A – Aotea Station

Active Construction Zone A – Aotea Station (ACZ A) involves the construction of the underground station box with above ground entrances at Wellesley Street, Victoria Street West (east and west of its intersection with Albert Street) and ventilation stacks located on Albert Street and Kingston Street respectively The tunnel works at the northern end (within Albert Street, near Wyndham Street) may be required to interface with any remaining work being undertaken in the Britomart to Wyndham section (Resource Consent Package 1). At the southern end, the station excavations will provide the retrieval shaft for both the Downmain and Upmain TBM drives (although it should be noted that the final directional methodology with respect to TBM is yet to be confirmed i.e., the TBM could be turned around at Aotea Station for the return drive)

The station and tunnels in ACZ A are envisaged to be built using a cut-and-cover methodology. Construction of piled walls is required to support the excavation of a temporary trench. This trench will allow the construction of the permanent structures for Aotea Station and sections of tunnels within ACZ A. On completion of the piled walls, excavation between the walls will be undertaken down to the underside of the station or tunnels in a staged manner accounting for service diversions, traffic management and access to adjacent buildings. Once the piled walls have been constructed and excavation has been completed, the station and tunnels will be built within the excavated trench On completion of the Albert Street tunnels the remaining trench will be backfilled.

ACZ A is supported by CSA 1.

3.2.3 Active Construction Zone K – Karangahape Station

Active Construction Zone – Karangahape Station (ACZ K) involves the construction of two underground mined station platform tunnels, a mined central tunnel and mined cross adits (passages). The central tunnel and cross adits will link the platform tunnels to the above ground entrance at Mercury Lane and emergency exit and ventilation stack at Pitt Street and Mercury Lane. The mined platform tunnels interface with the South Tunnels (ACZ S) and North Tunnels (ACZ N), described in Sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 below.

The station shafts at ACZ K are envisaged to be constructed with an open cut methodology from ground level. The excavation of the shafts, piling, road decks, propping, infill construction and backfill of Mercury Lane and Pitt Street shafts is similar to that described for Aotea Station in Section 3.2.2 above. In addition, Mercury Lane shaft requires an open cut through rock which is supported by rock bolts and shotcrete applied to the face of the excavated walls. An alternative may be to use diaphragm walls.

The excavated (mined) platform tunnels will act as a retrieval site for the two TBM drives from ACZ S. The TBMs will break through the southern end of the platform tunnels into a cradle slab cast into the invert of the platform tunnel. The TBMs will subsequently be dragged through the mined tunnel and relaunched at the northern end to complete their drives to Aotea Station through ACZ N. The final methodology (and sequencing of the TBM drives) will be confirmed by the contractor.

On completion of the excavation, temporary support, TBM breakthrough and relaunch of the TBMs, the permanent lining and internal structures for the mined tunnels can be completed. This is carried out for the tunnel lining in stages using formwork and casting in place concrete to form the lining. The internal structures including platforms, walls and tunnel ventilation systems which will be constructed and cast in place concrete or precast elements that are assembled within the tunnel.

ACZ K is supported by CSA 2 and CSA 3.

3.2.4 Active Construction Zone M – Mt Eden Station

Active Construction Zone – Mt Eden Station Upgrade (ACZ M) involves the construction of the southern section of the CRL and includes the upgrade of the Mt Eden Station and the tie-in to the

existing NAL. ACZ M is located between Nikau Street to the north, State Highway 1 (SH1) to the east, Dominion Road to the west and the existing NAL to the south.

Construction within ACZ M includes:

 The Newton Junction for the Upmain/ Downmain (‘Newton grade separation junction’ or ‘Crossover Shaft’)

 A new Mt Eden Station building incorporating passenger linkages

 Modifications of the existing Mt Eden Station platforms

 Road over rail bridges at Mt Eden Road, Normanby Road and Ruru Street with sections of road realignment

 A western grade separation bridge structure for the NAL to pass over the NIMT tracks

 Pedestrian/ cyclist bridges at Fenton Street and Porters Avenue

 New road linkages within the reinstated CSA 4 post construction.

The works interface with both ACZ S (South Tunnels) at the northern end at Nikau Street (as the Newton Grade Separation Junction is utilised as the launch site for the TBM drives) and the mined tunnels for the Y-Junctions.

The construction methodology for piling through the soft ground layers at Newton Grade Separation Junction and the East Link cut and cover tunnels, the construction of permanent structures and backfilling approaches are similar to that described for Aotea Station in Section 3.2.2 above

In addition to the piling works through soft ground, the East Link cut and cover tunnels require an open cut trench through rock, with support provided by rock bolts and shotcrete applied to the face of the excavated walls. The construction methodology for the piling, rock support, excavation, propping and infill construction is similar to that described above for the cut and cover shafts, except that the excavation is not backfilled.

ACZ M also involves the construction of three road over rail bridges and the approaches at Normanby Road and Ruru Street in particular will require earthworks to raise the level of the roads.

ACZ M is supported by CSA 4 and CSA 5.

3.2.5 Active Construction Zone N – North Tunnels

Active Construction Zone– North Tunnels (ACZ N) involves the construction of the two tunnels below ground level between ACZ A (Aotea Station) and ACZ K (Karangahape Station) The tunnels will be constructed using a TBM in two drives (to construct the single track tunnels for the Upmain and Downmain lines). Where the tunnels interface with ACZ K to the south, they are launched from the Karangahape Station Platform Tunnels and will breakthrough into the excavation at ACZ A.

The TBM will start bymining through the end wall (soft-eye) of the ACZ K platform tunnel. As it moves forward the segment erectorinstalls precast concrete segments into rings that form the tunnel lining. The TBM then uses thrust jacks to propel itself forward off the installed segmental lining rings filling the void between the ground and the segmental rings with grout. The excavated ground known as “spoil” is taken from the cutting face and then transported on aconveyor belt or mechanised transport that carries the spoil through the tunnel to CSA 4 at Mt Eden. This process is repeated for the length of the drive when the TBM will breakthrough into the excavationat ACZ A through a soft-eye wall.

A cross passage tunnel used for intervention/ emergency egress will be mined between and from within the bored tunnels approximately halfway between the stations. It forms the emergency passenger egress between the two tunnels. The excavation, temporary support and permanent lining methodology and for the cross passages is similar to that described for the mined tunnels at ACZ K in Section 3.2.3.

ACZ N is supported by CSA 4; CSA 1 and/ or CSA 3.

3.2.6 Active Construction Zone S – South Tunnels

Active Construction Zone – South Tunnels (ACZ S) is located below ground level between its junction with ACZ K (Karangahape Station) and ACZ M (Mt Eden Station) It involves the construction of the two tunnels linking Karangahape Station to Mt Eden Station and the excavation for the turnouts (‘YJunctions’) that split the NIMT tracks to the East Link into the NAL. There will betwo cross passage tunnels used for emergency egress.

The tunnels will be constructed using a TBM in two drives. The TBMs are launched from the Newton Junction (‘Newton grade separated junction’ or ‘Crossover Shaft’) from the south at ACZ M. They also interface with ACZ K at the northern endas the TBMs will breakthrough into the mined platform tunnels at Karangahape Station. The construction methodology for the TBM tunnels is similar to that described in Section 3.2.5 above.

The excavations for the mined turnouts (Y-Junctions) and two cross passage tunnels willbe constructed using a mined tunnel method. The excavation, temporary support methodology and permanent lining for the mined Y-Junctions and cross passages is similar to that described for the mined tunnels at Karangahape Station discussed in Section 3.2.5 above.

ACZ S is supported by CSA 4.

3.3 Construction Support Areas

The five CSAs support the ACZs and may be used for the following general activities:

 Site offices and construction personnel amenities;

 Construction vehicle and machinery parking and maintenance;

 Loading and unloading of construction materials;

 Storage of construction materials such as steel reinforcing cages, pre-cast concrete elements, geotextiles, formwork (timber and steel), cement, fuel for generators and construction plant (not including vehicles which can re-fuel off site e.g. trucks);

 Fabrication, reinforcement cutting and bending;

 Storage of plant and equipment and building materials;

 Ground improvement plant and materials (cement and slurry from the ground treatment process);

 Storage of hazardous construction materials (if any);

 Construction vehicle wheel washing areas (where necessary);

 Stormwater and groundwater treatment facilities where required;

 Waste storage and collection; and

 Spoil handling and storage.

To ensure works can occur continuously, provision has been made for uncovered storage of up to 24m³ of spoil, engineering fill, drainage materials or demolition debris at all ACZs and CSAs. In addition, all of the CSAs will provide covered spoil storage facilities, if these are confirmed as being required. CSA 4 will also contain specific spoil storage and handling facilities associated with TBM tunnelling activities.

Details on the CSAs are provided in Section 4 to Section 8 of the DCR (Appendix B). Table 3-2 provides a summary of these areas.

CSA 1* 25,000m² Intermediate ACZs A1, A2, A3 and A4 for Aotea Station construction

Intermediate ACZs N1 and N2 for TBM retrieval for the Running Tunnels Aotea to Karangahape

CSA 2 8,800m² Intermediate ACZs K1 for Pitt Street Shaft construction

CSA 3 9,000m² Intermediate ACZs K2, K3, K4, K5 and K6 for Karangahape Station construction

Intermediate ACZs S1 and S2 for TBM retrieval for the Running Tunnels Karangahape to Eden Terrace.

CSA 4 36,000m² Intermediate ACZs M1 and M2 for Mt Eden Station, Crossover Shaft and NAL Tie-In construction.

ACZ N and ACZ S, which include all Intermediate ACZs N1, N2, N3, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 for tunnelling construction for the Running Tunnels and cross passages.

CSA 5* 6,300m² ACZ M1 and M2 for Normanby Road Bridge, Mt Eden Road Bridge and NAL Tie-In construction

Corner of Wellesley Street and Albert Street, Victoria Street, Wellesley Street, Kingston Street, Durham Lane

Pitt Street, Beresford Square and carpark

Mercury Lane and carpark

Nikau Street, Flower Street, Shaddock Street, Mt Eden Road, Ruru Street, Porters Avenue, Fenton Street, Haultain Street, Wyndham Road, Normanby Road, Boston Road, Mt Eden Road

Normanby Road, Boston Road, Mt Eden Road, Dominion Road

*All CSAs are located within the CRL Designation with the exception of CSA 1 and CSA 5 for which an application to alter CRL Designation 1 and 6 respectively are currently being prepared.

3.4 Utilities

There are a range of utilities which are affected by the construction of the CRL infrastructure. The notable utilities affected by the works are also summarised in the DCR (Appendix B) In particular, four significant network utilities are proposed to be relocated at ACZ M. Refer to Section 6.2.3 of the DCR for further description of these works. Consultation with affected network utility owners has been undertaken throughout design development and is still on-going.6

3.5 Earthworks

The approximate excavation volumes (cut and fill) and exposed earthworks areas are shown above in Table 3-1 Spoil material along with construction debris will generally be removed from the ACZ’s due to limited space requirements rather than stored onsite. A small amount of onsite uncovered storage in the ACZs and CSAs will be available as previously described in Section 3.3 above

A number of erosion and sediment controls are proposed for the ACZs and CSAs which are outlined in Section 7 below and the attached Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (ESCP) in Appendix I

3.6 Ground Settlement Management

Managing any potential adverse ground settlement effects upon existing adjacent buildings, utilities, roads and infrastructure has been a consideration in the development of the CRL design and construction methodology. Potential ground settlement effects caused by mechanical and consolidation settlement adjacent to the Aotea to NAL section works are addressed in the Assessment of Settlement Effects prepared by Aurecon and contained in Appendix D. Monitoring and contingency measures will be implemented by the contractor and will include measures such as building and ground movement monitoring and building condition surveys.

Table 3-2 City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Section Construction Support Areas.

6 The existing utilities design development and engagement with network utility operators is up until the current Reference Design phase. It is anticipated that further engagement and confirmation of any required relocations with network utility operators will occur during the detailed design phase.

3.7 Groundwater Management

The following engineering design elements are proposed to deal with groundwater in all ACZs:

 Construction Period (Temporary Case)

ACZ A, ACK K and ACZ M - During construction groundwater will freely drain into the excavation areas

ACZ N and ACZ S Bored Tunnels – Face pressure of the TBM will be in ‘open mode’. The ground deformation from excavation of the TBM can be controlled during construction as necessary by the use of face pressure in ‘closed mode’. This is not expected to be required except potentially in the section of tunnel close to Aotea Station where the tunnel passes through weathered rock and as the tunnels pass beneath the CMJ.

ACZ N and ACZ S Mined Cross Passage Tunnels - During construction groundwater will freely drain into the excavation areas.

 Post Construction (Permanent Case)

It is noted that all elements listed below which are designed as undrained in the permanent case (with the exception of the bored tunnels in ACZ N and ACZ S) have been assessed as drained in the Groundwater Technical Report (GTR, Appendix C) in order to examine the broadest possible envelope of effects from the potential zone of influence for groundwater effects and associated consolidation settlement of the ground.

ACZ A Station and Tunnels – designed to be undrained

ACZ K Mined Tunnels - designed to be undrained.

ACZ K Shafts - may potentially be designed to be undrained or drained.

ACZ M Station Trench, Cut and Cover Tunnels and Newton Grade Separation Structure –designed to be undrained.

ACZ S Y-Junction Mined Tunnels – may potentially be designed to be undrained or drained.

ACZ N and ACZ S Bored Tunnels and Mined Cross Passage Tunnels - designed to be undrained.

A groundwater monitoring network will be implemented to monitor groundwater drawdowns in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL section works to compare these against the predicted values, supporting monitoring for potential consolidation settlement.

A GTR has been prepared by PDP and is contained in Appendix C

3.8 Overland Flow Paths and Flood Plains

An assessment of existing overland flow paths and 100 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood plains in relation to each ACZ and CSA is provided in the DCR based on AC GIS data, in order to assess the potential scale of surface flows occurring in larger storm events during both construction and operation of the Aotea to NAL section.

A range of measures for the management of overland flow paths during both construction and the permanent situation will be adopted. The primary and secondary stormwater system post-construction has been designed in accordance with the AC Stormwater Code of Practice (SW CoP) design standards. Further details on overland flow paths and flood plains are contained in Section 3 to Section 6 of the DCR (Appendix B) and the Draft ESCP (Appendix I).

3.9 Water Management

3.9.1 Construction Discharges

Within the CSAs, all stormwater generated will be routed to existing street stormwater system inlets. A number of procedural controls are proposed for the CSAs (outlined in Section 7 below, the Water Quality Assessment (WQA) (Appendix F), Section 7 of the ITA Assessment (Appendix G) and the Draft ESCP (Appendix I) to minimise the contribution of contaminants to stormwater leaving the CSAs.

Within ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M, stormwater will combine with groundwater encountered in the excavation and be treated via treatment systems. The treatment systems at each of the three ACZs will consist of two in-line settlement tanks. The first tank will be the discharge tank for the pumped discharge and the other will provide secondary settlement prior to discharge to the stormwater system. The second tank will also provide a suitable location for flocculant batch dosing if required.

The proposed treatment and discharge options are outlined in the WQA (Appendix F) and in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9

3.9.2 Operational Water Discharges

Operational water discharges from the constructed CRL stations and tunnel comprise groundwater drainage into the tunnels, minimal tunnel washwater (where it is generated) and stormwater from the tracks at the NAL and the Mt Eden station. All water associated with the operation and maintenance of the CRL will drain into the station sump or sumps (located at Britomart, Aotea, Karangahape, Mt Eden stations). Drainage will be provided for track, concourse, platform and under platform service areas.

The quality of water entering the station sumps from groundwater ingress will depend upon the quality of the groundwater seeping into the tunnels and stations, as well as the presence and nature of contaminants on the tunnel surfaces that the water drains over, and the quality of particles deposited in water within the tunnel. See Section 4.1.4 of this AEE for details on groundwater quality.

Given the uncertainties around the potential quality of operational discharges, the preferred approach is for this water to be pumped to the trade waste system. Given discussions with Watercare regarding this option are still preliminary, an alternative approach of discharging treated water to the stormwater system is proposed as a prudent contingency and the necessary consent sought. This approach is described in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9.

3.9.3 Stormwater Management

Stormwater runoff will need to be managed for all surface infrastructure associated with the CRL. There is no net increase in impervious area at Aotea, Karangahape and Mt Eden stations, as sites where the stations are to be constructed are currently 100 % impervious. All stormwater from the reinstated surfaces will be directed to the existing stormwater system as occurs for existing impervious surfaces.

However, there are changes in the types of impervious surfaces at each station. At Aotea Station and Karangahape Station, the primary change in nature of the impervious surface relates to the removal of old roofs with new roofs. At Mt Eden Station, large areas of existing roofs and carparks are being replaced with a small area of new road, and rail tracks, the new roof associated with the Mt Eden Station building and portal building and a large stabilised area. The replacement of old roofs (which are often high contaminant generating materials, i.e. galvanised steel), with new roofs (i.e. coated roof materials), will likely result in a net decrease in contaminant concentrations and loads in stormwater.

Overall, the proposed CRL construction works result in no net change in the amount of impervious surface. Therefore, treatment (quality or quantity) of surface runoff is not proposed on a long-term

basis. The exception to this is the reinstatement of Albert Street which is being managed by a separate package of works. It is AT’s intention to include stormwater improvements as part of the reinstatement works, however this will be confirmed at a later stage. This approach is described in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9.

3.10 Contaminated Ground Management

As described in the Contaminated Land Assessment (CLA) (Appendix E), a number of sites on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) lie within the Aotea to NAL section. These were areas around the rail corridor (NAL), former rail marshalling yards and CSA 4.

The Contaminated Land Assessment (CLA) did not identify any significant contamination. However, it recognises that there are limitations due to areas of the project footprint not investigated in the vicinity of the NAL. As such, a precautionary approach has been proposed. A Draft Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) (an appendix to the CLA, Appendix E) has been prepared which recommends that the earthworks be monitored by a Contaminated Land Specialist (CLS) or other suitably trained personnel. The Draft CSMP also outlines procedures if unexpected contaminated soils or hazardous material is encountered during earthworks.

3.11 Reinstatement and Rehabilitation

A range of activities will be undertaken in the ACZs and CSAs for the Aotea to NAL section which will require reinstatement post-construction.

During construction, excavation activities will be required within a range of existing roads for a number of relocation works for utilities and tunnel, station and bridge infrastructure which will require the reinstatement of road pavement Reinstatement of those identified elements will take place upon completion of the Aotea to NAL section construction.

Where CSAs are located within existing roads the existing surface is likely to be retained and used where possible For other CSAs, the contractor will be required to reinstate the area to its previous condition upon completion of the works, or in the case of CSA 3 to a stabilised surface and at CSA 4 to a condition suitable for the future development of the site. This will include reinstated and new sections of roading and development sites consisting of stabilised surfaces.

3.12 Construction Programme

The indicative construction programme for the Aotea to NAL section continues to develop as the design progresses and, the overall estimated duration of the construction of the Aotea to NAL section is currently five to six years. Further programme considerations may be required for operational fitout. The programme is based on the design at the date of issue of this report and it is subject to change as the design progresses. An indicative programme for the Aotea to NAL section is shown in Table 3-3 below.

ACZ

ACZ

ACZ

ACZ

ACZ

TOTAL

3.13 CRL Operation and Maintenance

It is noted that Resource Consent Package 2 will seek all necessary resource consents for the operation and maintenance of the CRL with respect to air and water discharges, from Britomart Station through to the NAL. These elements are detailed below.

3.13.1 Air Discharges from Station and Tunnel Ventilation

The following key features are noted:

 The current design is to provide a uni-directional ventilation system, including for emergency operation during evacuation in a fire event, for the tunnels and stations from Britomart to Aotea Stations. The Aotea and Karangahape Stations and tunnels generally incorporate three main locations of discharge, including from the tunnel and over track exhaust (OTE) ventilation systems and enclosures, ventilation equipment and louvres (horizontal slats) in station entrance buildings, and air handling units above the entrance structures.

 Mt Eden Station includes one discharge point from the tunnel ventilation systems which involves tunnel ventilation enclosures located at Crossover Shaft and passive relief/ intake from the east facing connection portal.

3.13.2 Water Discharges Station and Tunnel Drainage

The following key features are noted:

 Drainage will be provided for track, concourse, platform and under platform service areas to cater for groundwater seepage through walls, minimal station and tunnel wash down water for maintenance and small fire events.

 The majority of CRL structures will be undrained, with waterproofing installed to prevent groundwater ingress into the structures (refer to Section 3.7 above). However, minor groundwater seepage is expected in the stations and the tunnels. The total groundwater inflow from Britomart Station to the NAL is not likely to exceed 25 m3 to 50 m3 per day (approximately) over the entire length of the CRL route

 The tunnel structures are designed to drain any water to a low point (i.e. a sump) at each of the stations (Britomart, Aotea, Karangahape, Mt Eden and potentially the Newton Grade Separation Structure). Any groundwater from the North Tunnels (the section of tunnels located between Aotea and Karangahape Stations) will drain to Aotea Station and groundwater from the South Tunnels (the section of tunnels located between Karangahape Station and the Newton Grade Separation Structure at Mt Eden) will drain to Karangahape Station. The section of tunnels between Aotea Station and Britomart Station (Resource Consent Package 1) will drain to a sump at Britomart Station.

Indicative Construction Programme.

 The approach to operational water discharges from the stations includes the following: Foul water, groundwater seepage and minimal amounts of station and tunnel wash water will be discharged to the wastewater network. Alternatively, this water will be treated and discharged to the stormwater system.

Water from small fire events may be pumped to the wastewater network if permitted by Watercare.

Water from fires which result in volumes in excess of the capacity of the small pumps which service the sumps will be disposed of into the stormwater system.

3.14 Consideration of Alternatives

Under the RMA an assessment of alternative methods and locations is required for all discharges (section 105) and for any activities likely to have a significant adverse effect (Clause 6(1)(a) of Schedule 4).

While Section 7 of this document concludes that the actual and potential effects associated with the Aotea to NAL section are not significant, this application is seeking permits for the discharges identified below and therefore an assessment of alternatives is required under section 105(1)(c) of the RMA. The identified discharges include:

 Construction Phase

Earthworks and associated discharge.

Discharge of contaminants from disturbing soil on land potentially containing elevated levels of contaminants to land or water.

Discharge of wastewater

Discharge to air (dust).

 Operational and Maintenance Phase

Discharge to air (station and tunnel ventilation).

Discharges to stormwater from redevelopment of Albert Street

Discharges of treated tunnel drainage water to the stormwater system

3.14.1 Construction Discharges

The CLA has confirmed fill material and natural soils will be disturbed during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section. Leaving the fill material insitu was considered, however the CLA considered it prudent to remove all encountered fill material off-site, and proposes the disposal of the fill at a managed fill facility (as appropriate). The underlying natural soils are consistent with published background concentrations and may be suitable for disposal as cleanfill. It is considered that the proposed decision making process outlined in the CSMP (attached within the CLA, Appendix E) will ensure the best practicable option is met.

Discharges of wastewater originate from:

 Stormwater from ITA areas (the CSAs).

 Groundwater from dewatering excavations at the ACZs.

 Stormwater from the ACZs.

Stormwater generated within the CSAs will be managed in accordance with the ITA EMP, and is therefore is considered clean and suitable for discharge to stormwater.

Groundwater contamination has been identified above relevant Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (ANZECC 2000) trigger levels and there are potential effects associated with encountering contaminated groundwater during earthworks. There are also potential adverse effects from stormwater which encounters sediment and contaminated soil, causing sediment laden water to be discharged to the stormwater system.

The groundwater and stormwater will be collected in sumps or tanks and subsequently pumped to a treatment system consisting of two in line settlement tanks. There are a number of treatment and discharge options set out in the WQA (Appendix F). If the quality of the discharge is acceptable, all treated water from the ACZs will discharge to the stormwater system and into the Waitemata Harbour. If the discharge is unacceptable, it will be treated further, or collected in water tankers and removed off-site for treatment and discharge. It is considered that this proposed decision making process will ensure the best practicable option is met.

The potential for adverse dust effects is due to the very close proximity of sensitive activities/ land uses to possible sources of dust. A Draft AQMP (Appendix H) has been prepared which sets out a detailed framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring measures to be implemented in the construction and earthworks activities associated with the Aotea to NAL section. It is considered that framework will ensure the BPO is met.

Subject to ensuring the on-going adoption of best practice approaches (as identified above), it is considered that the proposed control and mitigation of potential construction related discharges to air, and to Motions Creek and the Waitemata Harbour from the construction of the Aotea to NAL section represents the best practicable alternative.

3.14.2 Operational and Maintenance Discharges

During the operation of the CRL, there will be discharges to air from a tunnel over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources. The AQA (Appendix H) discussed a number of mitigation options for operational air discharges, including aligning the vent to discharge vertically instead of horizontally, increasing discharge height and discharging at higher velocities. Emissions control technologies were also discussed. The AQA concluded that due to the building structures that the vents are within or beside, there are constraints on the ability to rearrange the vents. The AQA also concluded that due to the two directional airflow and the large cross-section areas of the vents, it is not practical to fit vents with an extraction fan system to provide for a greater exit velocity. In terms of emission control technologies, the AQA concluded that the ability to employ technologies is likely to be constrained by the need for the vents to allow airflow in two directions.

Therefore, the air quality modelling carried out in the AQA assumed these mitigation options were not employed. It was concluded that given the minimal adverse effects, there may be little benefit for the wider airshed gained by implementing these mitigation measures, which are likely to be high cost.

Once CRL is operational, there will be discharges to stormwater from the redevelopment of Albert Street (a high use public road with an impervious area of greater than 5,000 m2). It is AT’s intention to include stormwater improvements as part of the reinstatement of Albert Street. Given the limited land area available in the CBD area around Albert Street, the best practice options may include Tetratraps (gross pollutant traps) on catchpits along Albert Street, and/or landscape/streetscape options (e.g. treepits, rain gardens). It is anticipated that these options will be further refined by the urban design package at a later date. AC officers have advised that this conceptual level approach is acceptable, and possible conditions of consent have been discussed to build a degree of flexibility for the final design.

There will also be discharges from groundwater seepage and minimal amounts of station and tunnel wash water. Consideration was made as to whether operational tunnel water would be of acceptable quality to discharge to the stormwater system or trade waste system. The preferred option is to

discharge to the trade waste system and Watercare has indicated that this approach may be acceptable. In this case, a monitoring programme would be initiated to assess the quality of groundwater pumped from the station sumps. Monitoring would occur for a minimum of 12 months to confirm the quality. If the quality is appropriate to consider discharge to the stormwater system, a certificate of compliance for this activity would be sought from AC at a later date.

However, should discharge to trade waste not be permitted by Watercare, a resource consent to discharge treated tunnel drainage water to the stormwater system is being sought. In this case, a discharge quality monitoring programme will need to be implemented, to provide critical information on the quality of the untreated tunnel drainage water, as well as the treated water prior to discharge to the stormwater system.

The monitoring and treatment (in the case of discharge to the stormwater system) proposed will ensure that the best practicable option is undertaken, taking into account any agreement reached with Watercare.

3.14.3 Conclusion

The discharges are directly linked to the construction of the Aotea to NAL section and operation and maintenance of the entirety of the CRL, from Britomart Station to the NAL.

Given the nature of the construction, operation and maintenance related discharges, there are considered to be no appropriate alternative discharge methods, subject to the ‘control’ or ‘treatment’ methods used to actually minimise the discharges which are discussed in Section 7.

In addition, the alternatives for the location/ route of the CRL were discussed in the NoR7 for the designation of the land required to build and operate the CRL, and as such, there are no realistic alternative discharge locations.

7 CRL NoR AEE, Beca, 2012.

4 Existing Environment

4.1 Natural Environment

4.1.1 Geology

The geology of the Aotea to NAL section footprint has been established by earlier investigations for the wider CRL project.8 The general vertical stratigraphic sequence comprises fill overlying Tauranga Group overlying East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) within the Waitemata Group. As the entire length of the route has been modified to various extents, fill materials are present throughout the route. The most significant of these deposits are present under the waterfront reclaimed land. A brief description of the stratigraphic units is provided below:

 Fill – asphalt or concrete pavement underlain by granular base coarse and/or sub-base. Fill materials may comprise re-worked natural soils (silts, sands and gravels) or waste materials such as ash, clinker and demolition rubble.

 Auckland Volcanic Field – there are three distinct lithologies present including ash, tuff and basalt lava.

 Tauranga Group – alluvial and marine sediments comprising peat, mud, silt, sand and gravel.

 East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) – there are three weathering related subdivisions of the ECBF composed of a sequence of alternating sandstone beds with interbedded mudstone and siltstone layers. The ECBF extends to depths greater than 100 m below ground surface and contains discontinuities including faults and joints.

4.1.2 Topography

The topography of the CRL route includes the following elements:

 Britomart Station is located at the route’s lowest point, eight meters below sea level. The area in the vicinity of the CPO building and DSC is more or less level with a slight rise in ground level to the west and south.

 The topography of Albert Street is defined by a gentle sloping gradient that rises from north to south, with Albert Street located on the edge of the Queen Street valley and near the ridgeline of Hobson Street. Adjoining streets (such as Swanson Street, Wyndham Street, Victoria Street West and Wellesley Street) that run from the east or west down the valley slopes to Queen Street are relatively steep.

 A topographic high point is located at Karangahape Road along the ridge line, with a relatively steep gradient rising from the proposed Aotea Station towards Karangahape Station.

 A valley is located south of Karangahape Road, within which the CMJ lies.

 Further south of the CMJ is a ridge that crests in the area of Newton Road.

 South of Newton Road the topography consists of a slope towards a valley located generally along the alignment of the NAL.

8 Auckland City Rail Link: Concept Design Geotechnical Interpretative Report (Stage 2) (Aurecon 228072-ACRPT-073, 2013); Auckland City Rail Link: Reference Design Geotechnical Engineering Report (Aurecon CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006, 2015)

4.1.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

4.1.3.1 Drainage and Springs

The CRL alignment is located within a highly urbanised environment within which significant modification of the natural land surface has occurred. Impervious surfaces form nearly 100 percent cover in the wider area, therefore surface water drainage occurs via the AC stormwater network. It is noted that some small areas of nearby pervious cover such as Albert Park, Myers Park, Grafton Cemetery and Basque Park exist, however drainage is still primarily via the stormwater system.

The Waihorotiu Stream was formerly the main water course north of the CMJ, flowing down the valley within which Queen Street is located. During the 19th and early 20th centuries Waihorotiu was progressively altered and today is captured within the underground AC stormwater system, with no reaches visible at the surface.

In the vicinity of Mt Eden a number of pre-urban watercourses are likely to have been associated with minor gullies draining from the topographically high Newton Road ridge. The largest of these gullies drains west towards SH16 and is occupied by Basque Reserve. On the southern slopes of Newton Ridge near Shaddock Street, historic gullies are partially infilled by basalt lavas from the Mt Eden volcano. East of Mt Eden Road towards Normanby Road, it is understood that a swamp occupied this area prior to it being covered by fill during urban development.

4.1.3.2 Groundwater Resource - Aquifers

The Waitemata (ECBF) aquifer is the dominant hydrogeological unit in the central and southern part of the Auckland CBD area9

The Greater Western Springs Aquifer is a basalt aquifer located in proximity to the proposed Mt Eden Station. As a basalt aquifer it is transmissive and therefore is utilised for municipal and industrial water supply. Excluding rainfall recharge, groundwater throughflow in the Greater Western Springs Aquifer (which discharges to Meola and Motion Creeks) is estimated to be approximately 28,000 m3/day.10

4.1.3.3 Hydrogeological Conceptual Model

Key aspects of the hydrogeological model for Aotea to NAL section in relation to each ACZ are:

 ACZ A - The presence of numerous perched groundwater zones overlying the regional groundwater level (saturated water table) around the proposed Aotea Station is indicated by piezometer data, with perched water tables typically varying from 0.5 m to 3.5 m in thickness depending on location, layer thickness, lithology and depth. Greater variations are more likely when the perched layer is close to recharge sources (e.g. leaking services) or discharge sinks. Perched water tables that are < 1 m thick are likely to dry out seasonally. The regional groundwater level predominantly lies within the EU at around 3 m to 15 m RL.

 ACZ K - Perched groundwater within the Fill/ TA/ ER areas are likely to be relatively isolated and laterally discontinuous – flowing to local topographic sinks or shallow drainage infrastructure. For the purposes of the GTR (Appendix C), a single perched water table is assumed to be present at a depth of between 3 m to 6 m below ground level with a thickness of ~2 m and maximum total head of 2 m. Seasonally permanent saturation of the Fill/ TA/ ER representing the regional water table is assumed to occur below approximately 6m depth. Recharge in the Karangahape Station area is primarily influenced by rainfall recharge and leakage from underground services.

 ACZ M – Perched groundwater tables occur within the Fill/ TA/ ER/ Va, with a thickness of 0.5m to 2m, similar to ACZ A and ACZ K. They are recharged primarily from rainfall recharge and leakage from underground services and experience seasonal variations accordingly. The regional

9 Chapter 10, ARC, Auckland Water Resource Quantity Statement 2002 TP171 Surface water and groundwater resource information, availability and allocation

10 The Greater Western Springs Aquifer was assessed as part of the Global Aquifer Study (PDP 2005 and 2008).

groundwater level predominantly lies near the top of the ECBF along Newton Ridge. Near the NAL, the water table occupies most geological units at various locations depending on lithology. Typically, seasonal low regional groundwater levels are 60 m to 65 m RL in the vicinity of NAL and up to 82 m RL on Newton Ridge. Further south of the NAL, regional groundwater levels in the basalt are between 45 and 55 m RL.

 ACZ N and ACZ S - The bored tunnels are located primarily within the EU, however some sections are partially within the EW and ER. The EU rock mass is of low permeability of there are no (known) connections to bodies of open water or high permeability reservoirs.

4.1.3.4 Existing Bores, Groundwater Takes and Soakage Consents

Refer to Section 4.3.2 below for further detail regarding existing bores, groundwater takes and soakage consents in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL section route.

4.1.4 Water Quality

The WQA (Appendix F), identifies that stormwater is routed in two directions dictated by the local topography. All surface water generated from the areas around the Aotea Station to Karangahape Station (at Beresford Square) will drain north to the Waitemata Harbour. Stormwater generated at the Mercury Lane at Karangahape Station, and areas around Mt Eden Station will drain west through the stormwater system to Motions Creek.

Stormwater discharging to the Waitemata Harbour within the port typically discharges into an area located between wharfs. No areas of significant conservation value (ASCVs) are located in and around these stormwater discharge locations. The Auckland regional baseline water quality monitoring programme includes survey sites in the Waitemata Harbour but the closest sites to the Port are above the Harbour Bridge. Water quality is considered to reflect the nature of waters passing through the Port on the ebb and flood tides. Historically, changes in microbiological water quality have been identified in surveys. Increased bacterial numbers have been attributed to urban stormwater quality, contamination of stormwater occurs through the historic combined sewer and stormwater system present in the downtown Auckland City area.

The entire upper section of Motions Creek has been piped and as such there are no natural watercourses above Western Springs Park and Ponds. Motions Creek has been classified as a Type 4/5 urban stream in the ARP: ALW Classification identified as a degraded urban stream in the ACRPS (Map 5 Sheet 2).

4.1.5 Flood Hazards

The Aotea to NAL section works fall within areas of the 1% AEP flood plain and existing overland flow paths (based on AC GIS data). According to the PAUP, a floodplain is an ‘area of land that is inundated by water during a specific flood event’. Overland flow paths and flood plains are based on an assessment of a 1 in 100 year storm event.

There are four overland flow paths identified around the Aotea Station area. These include Wyndham Street (a relatively small catchment area of approximately 0.45 hectares (ha)); Durham Street (1.86ha catchment approximately); Darby Street (4.58ha approximately); and Mayoral Drive/ Queen Street (4.06ha approximately). In addition, all flows generated by the catchments upstream of Albert Street total approximately 8ha.

Karangahape Road forms a ridgeline, with properties to both the north and south falling away from the road. A very small catchment (approx. 0.08ha) formed by the crest of Karangahape Road is located approximately 40m to the west of the proposed station.

The overland and underground stormwater flows occurring around the Mount Eden and NAL area are located within the Motions Creek Catchment. Overland flows currently utilise the existing NAL corridor to convey flows generally in an east to west direction with some localised flooding occurring during

major storm events. The upstream catchment to the south of the NAL is approximately 36ha in size. A catchment to the north of the NAL of approximately 25ha in size also drains towards the NAL. Local and road catchments are also present in the Mt Eden Area.

Further details on overland flow paths, associated catchments and flood plains are contained in Section 3 to Section 6 of the DCR.

4.1.6 Air Quality

The area surrounding the Aotea to NAL section is a highly modified urban environment, with low to high rise buildings along the route.

Albert Street can be described as an urban canyon, as it is flanked on both sides by medium to highrise buildings. Land uses around Aotea Station include high density commercial and office buildings, retail, residential apartments, hotels, restaurants and bars.

The buildings lining the sections of streets surrounding Karangahape Station are mostly low to medium-rise buildings. Land uses around Karangahape Station include shopping/commercial/ business activities, residential apartments, hotels, restaurants, bars and a church and fire station.

The buildings lining the sections of streets surrounding Mt Eden Station are mostly low to medium-rise buildings. Land uses around Mt Eden Station include the shopping/commercial/ business activities, residential apartments, bars, residential apartments, a prison, two churches, childcare and a college. There are also low residential dwellings to the south of the west connection near the Mt Eden Station.

The CRL route is located within an Urban Air Quality Management Area (UAQMA) as defined under Map Series 1, Map 30 of the ARP: ALW. In relation to issues associated with air quality, the PAUP identifies that Auckland’s urban areas are a main focus as higher population densities, together with mixed residential, commercial and industrial land uses and the high numbers of vehicles means there needs to be a greater focus on both the management of individual discharges from various sources and the separation of incompatible land uses and activities.

4.2 Physical Environment

4.2.1 Land Use

Auckland’s CBD and city fringe area is a built up urban environment, consisting of New Zealand’s largest city centre and commercial / business area. It is a centre of business, art, culture, entertainment, recreation, education, tourism and residential living. At the southern end of the CRL alignment a range of mixed use commercial and residential activities occur in a diverse built environment consisting of character precincts in the vicinity of Karangahape Road and Symonds Street, with urban regeneration occurring in the light industrial area located in Eden Terrace.

The current land use along the route comprises:

 High density commercial multi-storey buildings (office buildings, residential and visitor accommodation, retail, restaurants and bars) from Aotea Station to Karangahape Station (Wellesley/Albert Street to Vincent Street).

 Mixed commercial from Karangahape Road to the CMJ (Vincent to Mercury Lane, then Canada Street).

 Mixed commercial and apartments from the CMJ up to Symonds Street.

 Mixed commercial and light industrial from Symonds Street to Shaddock Street and then to the NAL.

4.2.2 Road Network and Traffic Environment

The proposed route of the Aotea to NAL section of works commences at the northern end from Albert Street (adjacent to Wyndham Street) and runs within and beneath a number of roads through to the NAL. Refer to Section 2 (above) for a comprehensive list of roads located within the Aotea to NAL section.

Aotea Station is proposed to be located mostly within Albert Street which is classified as a Collector Road under the ACDP: CA, bound by high density commercial and residential development. Albert Street is understood to carry in excess of 13,000 vehicles per day. Albert Street has conventionally been a major bus route through the CBD until the recent shifting to alternative routes to provide for the CRL enabling works. Following completion of the CRL, Albert Street is expected to regain its function as a primary bus route.

The Aotea to NAL section works located within the CBD and southern fringe near to Karangahape Road are characterised as Pedestrian Oriented under the ACDP: CA.11

The road network in the vicinity of Karangahape Station includes the District Arterial Roads of Pitt Street and Karangahape Road, alongside Mercury Lane being classified as a Collector Road under the ACDP: CA. The CMJ to the south which includes both State Highway (SH) 1 and SH 16 is annotated as a Strategic Route.

In the Mt Eden Station area the transport network is characterised by a range of road types as identified on the ACDP: I planning maps, including Mt Eden Road and Boston Road (District Arterial Road), Normanby Road (Collector Road), and a number of Local Roads adjacent to the NAL.

4.2.3 Ground Contamination

The works associated with the Aotea Station to NAL section of the CRL occur within or below fully developed areas of Auckland City. Current and historic land use activities influence the quality of both surface materials and groundwater.

The Contaminated Land Assessment (CLA) (Appendix E) identifies the following HAIL12 activities and potential contaminants of interest within the Aotea to NAL section footprint:

 Rail corridor (NAL) – petroleum hydrocarbons, metals/metalloids, solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and asbestos.

 Former rail marshalling yards (21 Shaddock Street and 21 Ruru Street – CSA 4) – petroleum hydrocarbons, metals/metalloids, solvents, PAH, and asbestos.

 Other areas within CSA 4 – petroleum hydrocarbons, metals/metalloids, PAH, and asbestos.

In summary, the Aotea to NAL section consists of predominantly commercial buildings (office, retail and accommodation) which pose low contamination risk. The majority of properties with current or historical activities that have the potential to result in ground contamination are located in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station.

11 ACDP: CA Planning Overlay Map 2.

12 Hazardous Activities and Industries List – a list of sites published by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) which have the potential to be contaminated due to the use, storage, manufacture or disposal of hazardous substances.

4.2.4 Heritage and Cultural Environment

4.2.4.1 Built Heritage and Scheduled Sites

The following Table 4-1 outlines the scheduled sites under the PAUP and HNZPT List within the immediate area (20 m) surrounding the Aotea to NAL section route:

Table 4-1 Historic Heritage Places within 20 m of the Aotea to NAL Section Works.

4.2.4.2 Maori Cultural Values

The PAUP identifies one scheduled Site and Place of Significance to Mana Whenua located within the Aotea to NAL section extents13. The site is summarised in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2 Mana Whenua Sites and Places of Significance.

Albert Street 87-89, Kingston Street 4,12-14 and 16, and Federal Street

009 (site exception rule does not apply)

4.2.5 Utilities

Nga Wharau a Tako

North eastern corner of land bordered by Kingston Street and Federal Street (one property only), plus adjacent portion of Federal Street; plus portion of land enclosed by Kingston Street, Albert Street, Victoria Street West and Federal Street; plus Kingston Street between Federal Street and Albert Street.

Partially located within the ventilation plenum within Kingston Street of the Aotea to NAL section (subject of this AEE).

Network Utility Operators include (but are not limited to) Watercare, AC Stormwater Unit, Vector Electricity, Vector Gas, Chorus and Vodafone. At ACZ A, a section of the Albert Street Stormwater Main (which runs the length of Albert Street) and the Orakei Main Sewer (OMS) are located in proximity to the Aotea Station works.14 A range of notable major water and stormwater utilities located within ACZ M require relocation prior to the construction of the main CRL alignment in this area to remove significant clashes. A range of other minor utilities located in the vicinity of the three stations will require relocation and protection works also

4.3 Statutory and Approvals Environment

4.3.1 Existing Designations

A number of pre-existing designations under the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City - Central Area Section 2005 (ACDP: CA) and Auckland Council District Plan - Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999 (ACDP: I) are located within the extent of the CRL Designations and Aotea to NAL section and they form part of the existing environment. These are outlined in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 below.

13 It is noted that this site are also identified in the ACDP: CA (Planning Overlay Map 6). However, these provisions are not relevant to these applications.

14 The relocation of a section of the Albert Street Stormwater Main and strengthening of the OMS was previously granted resource consents and at the time of writing these works were underway. R/LUC/2014/4792, R/REG/2014/4793, R/REG/2014/4794, R/REG/2014/4795 and R/REG/2014/4796

ACDP: CA 288

PAUP 8841

ACDP: CA 283

PAUP 6736

Electricity Transmission Purposes Penrose to Hobson Street tunnel, for the purposes of conveying electricity to the Auckland CBD (Mercury Tunnel)

Motorway – The designation is to include, and allow for, the control of this State Highway, including planning, design, supervision, construction and maintenance in accordance with the provisions of the Government Roading Powers Act 1989

Vector Limited

CRL Designation 2 and 3 cross the Mercury Tunnel at Mayoral Drive.

ACDP: CA 310

PAUP 1552

ACDP: CA 384

Car Park

NZ Transport Agency

CRL Designations 2 and 3 cross beneath the CMJ (State highways 1 and 16).

Public road network

Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport

CRL Designations 2 and 4 cross beneath the Mercury Lane vehicle access to the carpark.

All public roads are subject to this designation CRL Designations 1, 2, 3 and 4 are partially located within the road network.

ACDP: I C08 -19

PAUP 8819

ACDP: I C08

PAUP 1592

09

ACDP: I D08 – 33

PAUP 1616

ACDP: I D08 – 25

PAUP 3903

ACDP: I H13

PAUP 6300

09

Electrical works (substation) Vector Limited

Building Line for Road Widening Auckland Transport

Building Line for Road Widening, Mt Eden Road

Prison

Railway Purposes

Auckland Transport

Ministry of Corrections

NZ Railways Corporation (KiwiRail)

CRL Designations 2 and 3 cross beneath this at Dundonald Street.

CRL Designations 2 and 3 cross beneath this at New North Road.

CRL Designation 6 is located within this designation on Mt Eden Road.

CRL Designation 6 is located within the Prison boundaries at Lauder Road.

CRL Designation 6 is adjacent to this designation and crosses over the designation within the air space of the proposed road over rail bridge at Normanby Road.

ACDP: I B08-04

Public road network

Auckland Transport

All public roads are subject to this designation CRL Designations 2, 3 and 5 and 6 are partially located within the roads network.

Table 4-3 Existing Designations in the Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section.

Table 4-4 Existing Designations in the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section.

In order undertake the CRL works within other designations where AT is not the requiring authority, AT will seek written consent from the relevant requiring authority in accordance with s176(1)(b) of the RMA prior to commencing construction.

Refer to Section 6.7 for a description of the specific consultation undertaken with the NZ Transport Agency in relation to the ACZ S bored tunnelling works to be undertaken beneath the CMJ which incorporates both State Highway 1 and 16 (ACDP: CA Ref # 288 and PAUP Ref # 8841).

4.3.2 Resource Consents

There have been 185 bore consents granted for the area surrounding the CRL alignment,15 with the majority of these authorising construction. Descriptions of the bore consents indicate that 96 are related to various groundwater and geotechnical investigations, including for the CRL. A further four bores were constructed to be used as soak holes, which are located in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station. Correspondingly, a number of soakage consents are active south of the NAL and east of Mt Eden Road, and are generally located within the extent of the Mt Eden basalt flows.

There are 24 groundwater take consents listed in the AC database as either “proposed” or “occurring”, with one further take consent listed as “cancelled”. Of these takes, 23 are for groundwater dewatering/ diversion, with the remaining take being for a pumping test.

It is noted that a number of dewatering resource consents for building developments in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL section route have been granted.

With respect to existing groundwater abstraction from the Greater Western Springs Aquifer, existing abstraction by users is estimated to be less than 1,000 m3/day, therefore is not considered significant in relation to the Aotea to NAL section.

15 Existing bore and groundwater take permit information provided by AC on 4 December 2015. Of the 185 bore consents, 127 are listed as “drilled”, 56 as “proposed”, and two as “decommissioned/ backfilled”.

5 Reasons for Application

5.1 Consents Required under Regional Plans

Assessment of the provisions of the following AC Regional and Unitary Plan documents has confirmed the required resource consents and CoCs:

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001 (ACRP: SC).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water 2013 (ACRP: ALW).

 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (PAUP). The following rule assessment tables outline the resource consents and certificates of compliance sought in accordance with the proposed activities.

5.1.1 Earthworks and Land Disturbance

Resource consents and CoCs are sought as per the rule assessment table below:

Table 5-1 Earthworks and Land Disturbance.

Rule Reference Rule

Land disturbing activities including earthworks

ACRP: SC, Rule

5.4.3.1

Land disturbing activities, including earthworks on all soils outside the Sediment Control Protection Area on an area greater than 5.0 hectares where the land has a slope less than 15º.

Comment

The total area of excavation for the Aotea to NAL section outside the Sediment Control Protection Area, has an exposed earthworks area of 77,100 m2 (that is, 7.71 ha approximately, which is greater than 5.0 ha). This area is generally comprised of all ACZs and CSAs, with the exception of ACZ N and ACZ S which are comprised of below ground works (involving no exposed earthworks). The land where the surface works will be undertaken has a slope less than 15º.

Therefore, a resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 5.4.3.1

Activity Status

Restricted Discretionary

Land disturbing activities including roading and trenching

ACRP: SC, Rule

5.4.3.1

Land disturbing activities; including roading to form, construct and reconstruct roads and trenching for utilities works on all soils other than sand soils outside the Sediment Control Protection Area for an area greater than or equal to 5.0 hectares where the land has a slope less than 15º.

Comment

Rule 5.4.3.1 provides for land disturbing activities including roading to reconstruct roads at various ACZ locations where excavation areas to construct the CRL infrastructure require reinstatement (ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M), forming/ constructing new sections of roading as extensions to existing roads (ACZ M), and trenching for utilities works (ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M)

The areas of roading that will be reconstructed will be the total areas of excavation for CRL infrastructure and utilities works within legal road for the Aotea to NAL section works, (approximately 50,000 m2 , that is 5.0 ha), which have an overall area greater than or equal to 5.0 ha. The roads where the surface works will be undertaken have a slope less than 15º

Therefore, a resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 5.4.3.1

Restricted Discretionary

Earthworks and land disturbance – network utilities

Earthworks for network utilities and road networks: Earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the Business: City Centre zone, Business: Town Centre – Newton – Upper Symonds Street zone,

Restricted Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule

and road networks

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Activity Table 1, Rule 1.1

Business: Mixed Use zone, Public Open Space – Informal Recreation, Road zone, and Strategic Transport Corridor zone

Comment

The total earthworks volume for the Aotea to NAL section of works includes an estimated volume of 722,900 m³ of cut and 71,400 m³ of fill.

Earthworks will be greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks within the Strategic Transport Corridor zone, including those below ground for TBM tunnelling works beneath the CMJ, and various works adjacent to the NAL, including (but not limited to) earthworks associated with demolition and site preparation works in CSA 4 and works within ACZ M.

Therefore, a resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.1

Activity Status

Earthworks and land disturbance – Treated sediment laden water

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.1

Earthworks and land disturbance

– Historic Heritage Overlay

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.2

Discharge of treated sediment laden water from any earthworks allowed by a resource consent, under a regional land use consent in the above tables (PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.1).

Comment

As a regional land use consent is being sought for earthworks which are greater than 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 within the Strategic Transport Corridor zone, the discharge of treated sediment laden water associated with these earthworks is permitted.

Earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks within various sites identified on the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls do not apply

Comment

The earthworks for the Aotea to NAL section will be undertaken within various sites identified in the Historic Heritage Overlay. The proposed earthworks include the construction of the cut and cover, mined and TBM tunnels and relocation of various network utilities, both at the surface and beneath various historic heritage places. Therefore, resource consent is required as a discretionary activity for earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks located in the Historic Heritage Overlay pursuant to Rule 1.2.

Discretionary

Earthworks and land disturbance

– Historic Heritage Overlay

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.2

Earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks within a site identified on the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls apply (Mount Eden Prison [Ref # 01721 PAUP]).

Comment

The earthworks for the Aotea to NAL section includes earthworks within the extents of Mount Eden Prison, which is identified as a scheduled historic heritage place and extent of place on the Historic Heritage Overlay. The proposed earthworks are associated with network utilities relocations in the vicinity of Lauder Road which forms part of Mount Eden Prison. The proposed earthworks within the extents of the Mount Eden Prison totals approximately 2500 m³ of cut earthworks volume

Therefore, resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity for earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks located in the Historic Heritage Overlay pursuant to Rule 1.2.

Discretionary

Earthworks and land disturbance

Earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks located within the 100-year ARI flood plain.

Comment

Restricted

Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

- 100-year ARI flood plain

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2, Rule 1.2

Summary

Portions of the Aotea to NAL section earthworks are located within the 100-year ARI flood plain (affecting generally all ACZs and CSAs)

Therefore, resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity for earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 for network utilities and road networks in the 100-year ARI flood plain pursuant to Rule 1.2.

 Land use consents

A land use consent for land disturbing activities, including earthworks pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

A land use consent for land disturbing activities, including roading and trenching pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 pursuant to Activity Table 1, Rule 1.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls do not apply pursuant to Rule 1.2 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the Historic Heritage Overlay where archaeological controls do apply pursuant to Rule 1.2 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

A land use consent for earthworks greater than 2,500 m2 or 2,500 m3 within the 100-year ARI flood plain pursuant to Rule 1.2 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

 Certificates of compliance

A certificate of compliance for discharge of treated sediment laden water from any earthworks allowed by a resource consent pursuant to Rule 1.1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.2 Groundwater Diversion

Water permits are sought as per the rule assessment table below:

Table 5-2 Groundwater Diversion.

Rule Reference Rule

Groundwater diversion

ACRP: ALW, Rule 6.5.77

The diversion of groundwater not covered by Rule 6.5.76 is a restricted discretionary activity.

Comment

Groundwater will be temporarily diverted during construction to enable the excavations associated with the Aotea to NAL section.

Groundwater will also be permanently diverted as a result of the proposed CRL infrastructure, with 25 m3 to 50 m3 (approximately) estimated groundwater ingress per day across the entire CRL route (Britomart Station to the NAL).

The diversion of groundwater which cannot meet the conditions of Rule 6.5.76 is a restricted discretionary activity, pursuant to Rule 6.5.77.

Activity Status

Rule Reference Rule

The diversion of groundwater as a result of the construction of the Aotea to NAL section cannot meet Condition (b) of Rule 6.5.76 as settlement has the potential to result in adverse effects on buildings, structures and services.

Therefore, resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity for diversion of groundwater not covered by Rule 6.5.76 pursuant to Rule 6.5.77.

Activity Status

Groundwater diversion

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.17, Activity Table 1

Diversion of groundwater - caused by any excavation, and tunnel up to 1m diameter that does not meet the permitted activity controls or is not otherwise provided for (All Zones).

Comment

Groundwater will be temporarily diverted into the excavations associated with the Aotea to NAL section.

Groundwater will also be permanently diverted as a result of the proposed CRL infrastructure, with 25 m3 to 50 m3 (approximately) estimated groundwater ingress per day across the entire CRL route (Britomart Station to the NAL).

The proposed tunnel excavations will be greater than 1m diameter, and therefore are “not otherwise provided for”.

Therefore, resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity for the groundwater diversion pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.17.

Summary

 Water permits

Restricted Discretionary

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Rule 6.5.77 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) in Chapter H, Section 4.17 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.3 Groundwater Take

Water permits are sought as per the rule assessment table below:

Table 5-3

Groundwater Take and Drilling of Holes and Bores.

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Groundwater take

ACRP: ALW, Rule 6.5.43

Taking of groundwater for the purposes of groundwater diversion (All Zones).

Comment

Groundwater take for the purposes of groundwater diversion is proposed for activities relating to the Aotea to NAL excavations (including predicted quantities for both short term and steady state regional groundwater takes and perched groundwater) during construction. Groundwater take for the purposes of groundwater diversion is proposed for the ongoing operation of the CRL in its entirety, from Britomart Station to the NAL. The volume of operational groundwater take is estimated at 25 m3 to 50 m3 per day.

The taking of groundwater for the purposes of groundwater diversion under Rule 6.5.77 of the ACRP: ALW is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.43.

Restricted Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Groundwater take

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.17, Activity Table 1

Water take and use of groundwater: Dewatering or groundwater level control associated with a groundwater diversion authorised as a restricted discretionary activity (All Zones).

Comment

Groundwater take for the purposes of groundwater diversion is proposed for activities relating to the Aotea to NAL excavations (including predicted quantities for both short term and steady state regional groundwater takes and perched groundwater) during construction. Groundwater take for the purposes of groundwater diversion is proposed for the ongoing operation of the CRL in its entirety, from Britomart Station to the NAL. The volume of operational groundwater take is estimated at 25 m3 to 50 m3 per day.

Dewatering associated with a groundwater diversion is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.17

Summary

 Water permits

A water permit for the taking of groundwater for the purposes of a temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Rule 6.5.43 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A water permit for the taking of groundwater associated with a temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) in Chapter H, Section 4.17 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.4 Contaminated Land Discharges from Soil Disturbance

Resource consents are sought as per the rule assessment table below: Table 5-4 Contaminated Land Discharges from Soil Disturbance.

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Contaminated land discharges from soil disturbance

ACRP: ALW, Rule

5.5.44A

The discharge of contaminants to land or water from land containing elevated levels of contaminants that does not comply with the standards and terms Rule 5.5.43 or Rule 5.5.44.

Comment

Rule 5.5.44 provides controlled activity status to discharges from soil disturbance provided a Site Investigation Report (SIR) (in accordance with Schedule 13 (A3) – Schedules for Reporting on Contaminated Land) and a Remedial Action Plan is prepared and provided to AC.

The findings of the SIR (referred to as the CLA, Appendix E) states the soil analysis found minor isolated exceedances of the permitted activity criteria. The SIR also identified that the investigations were limited in scope and there is potential for contaminated fill to be present within the project footprint. Therefore, to be prudent, a restricted discretionary activity resource consent is sought pursuant to Rule 5.5.44A of the ACRP: ALW.

Contaminated land discharges from soil disturbance

PAUP Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.5,

Discharges of contaminants from the disturbance or remediation of land not meeting the permitted activity controls.

Comment

Restricted

Rule Reference Rule

Activity Table 1, Rule 2.3.1

Summary

The DSI (referred to as the CLA) (Appendix E) states the soil analysis found minor isolated exceedances of the permitted activity criteria. In addition, the investigations were limited in scope and there is potential for contaminated fill to be present within the project footprint. Therefore, to be prudent, a restricted discretionary activity resource consent is sought pursuant to Rule 2.3.1 of the PAUP.

 Discharge permits

Activity Status

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants to land or water pursuant to Rule 5.5.44A (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbance of land not meeting the controlled activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 2.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.5 of the PAUP.

5.1.5 Discharges of Contaminants to Stormwater During Construction

Discharge permits are sought as per the rule assessment table below: Table 5-5 Discharges of contaminants to stormwater during construction.

Any discharge, which is not otherwise provided for in any other rule in Chapter 5 of the ACRP: ALW Comment

Discretionary

5.5.68

Rule 5.5.68 provides discretionary activity status to discharges which cannot meet the conditions of Rule 5.5.55.

Condition d) of Rule 5.5.55 requires that the discharge does not give rise, in the receiving water body, to any or all of the following:

“(i) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scum, foams, of floatable or suspended material.

(ii) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity.

(iii) a change in the natural pH of more than 1 pH unit.

(iv) any significant adverse effect on aquatic life.”

As outlined in the WQA (Appendix F), It is considered that the procedural controls detailed in the draft EMP (contained within Appendix F), as well as the use of catchpit protection, will protect the quality of stormwater discharged from these areas. Furthermore, the discharge water quality monitoring of the treated water discharge from the treatment system provided for the CSAs’ and ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M will be designed to achieve the conditions of Rule 5.5.55. However, given the uncertainties associated with the discharge quality in relation to potential ground contamination, it is considered prudent to apply for a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 of the ACRP: ALW.

Discharges to stormwater

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.18, Activity Table 1

The discharge of water or wastewater not otherwise authorised by a rule in the Unitary Plan Comment

The Activity Table provides for the: ‘concrete/asphalt laying for reworking and other road construction’, ‘drilling – excluding bore development and testing’, ‘ washing vehicles, plant or machinery’ and ‘construction, installation, maintenance, alteration, removal or upgrading of any component of the stormwater or wastewater network

Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

that does not border, span or otherwise extend over any water body’ and ‘dust suppression’ as permitted activities provided the general controls set out in Rule 2.1.1 can be met.

Condition 1 of Rule 2.1.1 states that discharge must not, after reasonable mixing, give rise to:

“a. the production of any conspicuous oil or grease film, scum or foam, or floatable or suspended materials; or

b. any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity; or

c. any emission of objectionable odour; or

d. the rendering of freshwater unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; or

e. a change the natural temperature of the receiving water by more than 3 degrees C; or

f. a change in the natural pH of the water by more than 1pH unit.”

Condition 2 of Rule 2.1.1 states that:

“The contaminant discharged must not either by itself or in combination with other contaminants after reasonable mixing exceed the greater of the 95 per cent trigger values for freshwater (groundwater) specified in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000, or the natural background level.”

As outlined in the WQA (Appendix F), it is considered that the procedural controls detailed in the draft EMP (contained within Appendix F), as well as the use of catchpit protection, will protect the quality of stormwater discharged from these areas. Furthermore, the discharge water quality monitoring of the treated water discharge from the treatment system provided for CSAs and ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M will be designed to achieve the conditions of Rule 2.1.1

However, given the uncertainties associated with the discharge quality in relation to potential ground contamination, it is considered prudent to apply for a discretionary activity resource consent under Activity Table 1 of Section 4.18 of the PAUP.

Discharges to stormwater

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.18, Activity Table 1

Discharges for the purpose of dewatering trenches or other excavations

Comment

The Activity Table provides for the: ‘Discharges for the purpose of dewatering trenches or other excavations”’ as permitted activities, subject to the permitted activity conditions of Rule 2.1.5.

Condition 2 refers back to Condition 1 of Rule 2.1.1 and Condition 3 requires that:

“The discharge must meet all other relevant permitted activity controls of the Unitary Plan, including those relating to land disturbance and contaminated land.”

As outlined in the WQA (Appendix F), given the uncertainties associated with the discharge quality in relation to potential ground contamination, it is considered prudent to apply for a discretionary activity resource consent under Activity Table 1 of Section 4.18 of the PAUP.

Summary

 Discharge permits:

Discretionary

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during construction pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to stormwater water during construction pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge to land or water from dewatering pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.6 Discharges of Contaminants to Stormwater During Operation

Discharge permits are sought as per the rule assessment table below:

Table 5-6 Discharges of contaminants to stormwater during operation

Rule Reference Rule

Discharges to stormwater ACRP: ALW, Rule 5.5.68

Any discharge, which is not otherwise provided for in any other rule in Chapter 5 of the ACRP: ALW Comment

As outlined in the WQA (Appendix F), the preferred option is to discharge the groundwater seepage and incidental water collected in the station sumps to the trade waste system for the first 12 months, while discharge quality is monitored and long term plans are confirmed.

However, in the event that a trade waste permit cannot be obtained, a resource consent to discharge to the stormwater system is being sought as a prudent contingency measure.

Rule 5.5.57(e) provides permitted activity status to the temporary and permanent discharge of diverted uncontaminated groundwater provided the discharge can meet conditions (a) to (h) set out in Rule 5.58.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the quality of groundwater entering the underground tunnel and station and the contaminants that the groundwater intercepts in its passage to the sump, it is uncertain as to whether the discharge can meet the permitted activity conditions of Rule 5.58. Therefore, it is considered prudent to apply for a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 of the ACRP: ALW.

Activity Status

Discretionary

Discharges to stormwater

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.18, Activity Table 1

The discharge of water or wastewater not otherwise authorised by a rule in the Unitary Plan Comment

As stated above and as outlined in the WQA (Appendix F), the preferred option is to discharge operation water to the trade waste system. However, in the event that a trade waste permit cannot be obtained, a resource consent to discharge to the stormwater system is being sought as a prudent contingency measure.

Activity Table 1 provides permitted activity status of the temporary and permanent discharge of diverted uncontaminated groundwater provided the discharge can meet conditions provided the general controls set out in Rule 2.1.1 can be met.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the quality of groundwater entering the underground tunnel and station and the contaminants that the groundwater intercepts in its passage to the sump, it is uncertain as to whether the discharge can meet the permitted activity conditions of Rule 5.58. Therefore, it is considered prudent to apply for a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant Activity Table 1 of Section 4.18 of the PAUP.

Discretionary

Summary

 Discharge permits:

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during operation pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to water during operation pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.18 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.7 Discharges of Stormwater from Impervious Surfaces

Discharge permits and CoCs are sought as per the rule assessment table below: Table 5-7 Discharges of Stormwater.

Rule Reference Rule

Discharges of stormwater

ACRP: ALW, Rule

5.5.1

The diversion and discharge of stormwater either inside or outside Urban Areas is a permitted activity if it arises from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of this plan (23 October 2001) and it complies with all of conditions (a), (aa), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Comment

There are no proposed new impervious surfaces as part of the construction works associated with the Aotea to NAL section. Instead, the works will involve the removal and replacement of impervious surfaces within each ACZ. Therefore, Rule 5.5.1 is relevant.

The assessment provided in Section 6 of the WQA (Appendix F) states that the changes in the type of impervious surfaces are expected to result in a net benefit to stormwater quality and therefore, the reinstatement will be able to comply with all of the conditions of Rule 5.5.1.

Activity Status

Permitted

Discharges to stormwater PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.14, Activity Table 1.1, Rule 1.2.1

Diversion and discharge of stormwater to land, water or the CMA including the diversion of surface water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan.

Comment

There are no proposed new impervious surfaces as part of the construction works associated with the Aotea to NAL section. Instead, the works will involve the removal and replacement of impervious surfaces within each ACZ. Therefore Rule 1.2.1 is relevant

The assessment provided in Section 6 of the WQA (Appendix F) states that the changes in the type of impervious surfaces are expected to result in a net benefit to stormwater quality and therefore, the reinstatement will be able to comply with all of the conditions of Section 1.2.1 Permitted Activity Controls.

Permitted

Stormwater Managementquality

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.14, Activity Table 3.1, Rule 3.2.2

New, and redevelopment of existing, high use public roads operated by a road controlling authority: Impervious area greater than 5,000m2 where stormwater quality management requirements are met.

Comment

High use public roads are defined in the PAUP as roads carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day. As described in Section 6.6.3, of the WQA (Appendix F) vehicle flows on Albert Street are above this limit. In addition, the impervious area of Albert Street that will be redeveloped as part of the Aotea to NAL section is greater than 5,000 m2, therefore a resource consent is required for this activity. If the stormwater quality management requirements set out in Table 3 can be met, this will be a controlled activity under Section 4.14 Rule 3.2.2.2 of the PAUP

Rule Reference Rule

The assessment provided in Section 6 of the WQA (Appendix F) states that the activity will be able to comply with all of the conditions of Section 3.2.2 controlled activity controls. .

Activity Status

Discharges of stormwater

ACRP: ALW, Rule 5.5.1

The diversion and discharge of stormwater inside Urban Areas.

Comment

A stormwater soakage pit (which will incorporate a gross pollutant trap) will be installed as part of the proposed stormwater drainage at the NAL. The NAL consists of existing impervious areas (with no proposed new impervious surfaces as part of the Aotea to NAL section). The proposed activity can comply with the permitted activity conditions of Rule 5.5.1.

Discharges of stormwater

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.14, Activity Table 1.1, Rule 1.2.1

Diversion and discharge of stormwater to land and water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan that does not meet the permitted activity controls.

Comment

A stormwater soakage pit (which will incorporate a gross pollutant trap) will be installed as part of the proposed stormwater drainage at the NAL. The NAL consists of existing impervious areas (with no proposed new impervious surfaces as part of the Aotea to NAL section) The proposed activity cannot comply with the permitted activity conditions under Section 4.14, Section 1.2.1, in particular condition 2 (g): the method of treatment, diversion and location of the discharge must not change

The AC’s discretion is restricted to the matters in Section 1.4.1 and AC are to also consider the relevant assessment criteria in Section 1.4.2 which are set out in Section 9.7 of this AEE.

Summary

 Discharge permits

A discharge permit to discharge stormwater from the redevelopment of existing, high use public roads operated by a road controlling authority with an impervious area greater than 5,000 m2 pursuant to Table 3.1, Rule 3.2.2 (controlled activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

A discharge permit for diversion and discharge of stormwater to land and water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan that does not meet the permitted activity controls pursuant to Table 1.1, Rule 1.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

 Certificates of compliance

A certificate of compliance to discharge stormwater from redeveloped existing impervious surface pursuant to Rule 5.5.1 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance to discharge stormwater from redeveloped existing impervious surface pursuant to Rule 1.2.1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.14 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the diversion and discharge of stormwater inside Urban Areas pursuant to Rule 5.5.1 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

5.1.8 Stormwater Discharges – Industrial or Trade Activities

Discharge permits are sought as per the rule assessment table below: Table 5-8 Stormwater Discharges - Industrial or Trade Activities (ITA).

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Stormwater Discharges –Industrial or Trade Activities

ACRP: ALW, Rule 5.5.18

The use of land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities.

Comment

Five CSAs will be required to support construction activities for the Aotea to NAL section. The activities proposed to be undertaken in the CSA 1, 2, 3, and 5 are not listed in Schedule 3 of the ACRP: ALW. However, CSA 4 is to include a grout batching plant which is listed in Schedule 3 of the ACRP: ALW. In addition, all CSAs will include provision for the storage of materials, and environmentally hazardous substances, as well as refuelling facilities.

The discharge of contaminants, including environmentally hazardous substances, onto or into land or water from the Activity Area of a new Industrial or Trade Activity categorised as High Risk in Schedule 3: Industrial or Trade Activities is a restricted discretionary activity subject to the following standards and terms:

“(a) The Industrial or Trade Activity was not existing at its current location at 23 October 2001;

(b) All treatment devices utilised for the Industrial or Trade Activity are installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or the best practicable option.”

The AC’s discretion is restricted to the matters (i) to (vi) which are set out in Section 9.6.3 of this AEE

As outlined in the Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment (Appendix G), all conditions of Rule 5.5.18 will be achieved through procedural controls, as detailed in the attached Draft ITA Environmental Management Plan (ITA EMP) (contained within Appendix G)

Restricted Discretionary

Stormwater Discharges –Industrial or Trade Activities

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.8, Activity Table 1, Rule 2.2.1

Restricted Discretionary Activity Controls

The use of land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities. Comment

Five CSAs will be required to support construction activities for the Aotea to NAL section. The activities proposed to be undertaken in the CSAs 1, 2, 3, and 5 are not listed in Table 3. However, CSA 4 is to include a grout batching plant which is listed in Table 3, In addition, all CSAs will include provision for the storage of materials, and environmentally hazardous substances, as well as refuelling facilities. New high risk ITA sites where industrial or trade activity areas have appropriate stormwater treatment and can meet general and moderate risk permitted activity controls (Rule 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) are a restricted discretionary activity.

An assessment against the permitted activity criteria in Section 2.1 is outlined in the Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment (Appendix G), where it concludes that all conditions of Rule 2.1 will be achieved through procedural controls, as detailed in the attached Draft ITA Environmental Management Plan (ITA EMP) (contained within Appendix G).

The AC’s discretion is restricted to the matters in Section 3.1 and AC are to also consider the relevant assessment criteria in Section 3.2 which are set out in Section 9.7.6 of this AEE

Summary

 Discharge permits

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities pursuant to Rule 5.5.18 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 2.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.8 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.9 Flooding

Resource consents and CoCs are sought as per the rule assessment table below: Table 5-9 Flooding.

Rule Reference Rule

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1, Rule 2.1.2

Infrastructure within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain: Below ground infrastructure (located) within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain.

Comment

The permitted activity controls in Rule 2.1.2 can be complied with. Of relevance to the Aotea to NAL section is Condition 5: ‘Stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with any structure plan, network discharge consent and vesting requirements.’

The activity will be able to comply with all of the conditions of Rule 2.1.2 Permitted Activity Controls.

Below ground infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain is a permitted activity pursuant to the Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP.

Activity Status

Permitted

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain: Construction of stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works that are to be vested in the council, or otherwise approved by way of a structure plan incorporated into the Unitary Plan or network discharge consent

Comment

Various stormwater management devices will be constructed during reinstatement of the ACZs and CSAs for the Aotea to NAL section, which will be vested in AC.

The permitted activity controls in Rule 2.1.2 can be complied with, in particular Condition 2 which relates to Storage of materials within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain and Condition 5 with respect to the design of the stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works The activity will be able to comply with all of the conditions of Rule

2.1.2 Permitted Activity Controls.

Infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain: Construction of stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works that are to be vested in the council is a permitted activity pursuant to the Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP.

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain: Stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works that are not to be vested in council, or which have not been approved in a structure plan or network discharge consent.

Comment

Flood mitigation works within the Mt Eden area may involve the potential construction of stormwater management devices and various flood mitigation works such as (but not limited to), earth bunds,

Restricted Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule

retaining walls, traffic barriers, table drains, inlets, reticulation network installation, and surface reprofiling to achieve positive overland flow paths in the reinstatement and construction of new roads. Some of this infrastructure will not be vested in AC and has not been approved in a structure plan or network discharge consent.

Stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works that are not to be vested in council as infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.12.

Activity Status

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain: Other above ground infrastructure involving structures that occupy more than 25m2 in ground surface area

Comment

Various structures located above ground including station buildings and entrances, ventilation enclosures, new and replacement bridges occupy more than 25m2 in ground surface area and are located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain

Above ground infrastructure involving structures that occupy more than 25m2 in ground surface area located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain is a discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.12.

Discretionary

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Infrastructure outside of the 1 per cent AEP Floodplain and within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain: Any flood-vulnerable infrastructure involving structures placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain

Comment

Flood-vulnerable infrastructure which (includes rail lines) associated with the Aotea to NAL section will be placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain

The activity will comply with all of the conditions of Rule 2.1.3

Permitted Activity Controls.

Infrastructure outside of the 1 per cent AEP Floodplain and within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain: Any flood-vulnerable infrastructure (including rail lines) involving structures placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain is a permitted activity pursuant to the Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP.

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Activities within overland flow paths: Flood protection works within an overland flow path required to reduce the risk to existing buildings from flooding hazards unable to comply with the permitted activity controls

Comment

Flood protection works within the Mt Eden area within an overland flow path are required to reduce the risk to existing buildings from flooding hazards. This may involve the potential construction of stormwater management devices and various flood mitigation works such as (but not limited to) walls, earth bunds, retaining walls, traffic barriers, table drains, inlets, reticulation network installation, and surface reprofiling to achieve positive overland flow paths in the reinstatement and construction of new roads.

The activity is unable to comply with all of the conditions of Rule 2.1.4

Permitted Activity Controls, in particular condition 2.a as the works cannot maintain the same entry and exit point of the overland flow path at the site post-construction.

Activities within overland flow paths: Flood protection works within an overland flow path required to reduce the risk to existing buildings from flooding hazards unable to comply with the permitted activity controls is a discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.12.

Discretionary

Rule Reference Rule

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Activities within overland flow paths: Infrastructure, including maintenance and minor upgrading, road construction, maintenance and resurfacing unable to comply with the permitted activity controls

Comment

New sections of roads will be constructed in ACZ M and other road minor upgrading and resurfacing works will be undertaken during reinstatement for the Aotea to NAL section in all ACZs which are located within overland flow paths.

The activity is unable to comply with all of the conditions of Rule 2.1.4

Permitted Activity Controls, in particular conditions 3.a and b The path and capacity of the overland flow path where it enters or exits the site or crosses the road, in particular in ACZ M will be altered by the works and secondary flow paths are not being provided in all cases in ACZ M (other drainage mitigation options apply in some instances).

Activities within overland flow paths: Infrastructure, including maintenance and minor upgrading, road construction, maintenance and resurfacing unable to comply with the permitted activity controls is a discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP.

Activity Status

Discretionary

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Activities within overland flow paths: Diverting the entry or exit point or reducing the capacity of any part of an overland flow path Comment

During construction the entry or exit point of various overland flow paths located within ACZs and CSAs will be diverted temporarily, without reducing the capacity of any part of an overland flow path Post construction the entry and exit points of various overland flow paths will be diverted permanently by the proposed design of the flood mitigation measures.

Diverting the entry or exit point of an overland flow path is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.12.

Restricted

Flood Hazards

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.12, Activity Table 1

Summary



Activities within overland flow paths: Any buildings or structures, including retaining walls but excluding permitted fences located within or over an overland flow path Comment

Various CRL buildings and structures will be located within or over an overland flow path.

Any building or structure located within or over an overland flow path is a discretionary activity pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.12.

Resource consents

Discretionary

A resource consent for stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works that are not to be vested in council as infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for above ground infrastructure involving structures that occupy more than 25m2 in ground surface area located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for diverting the entry or exit point of an overland flow path pursuant to Activity Table 1 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for activities within overland flow paths: Flood protection works within an overland flow path required to reduce the risk to existing buildings from flooding hazards unable to comply with the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for infrastructure activities within overland flow paths, including maintenance and minor upgrading, road construction, maintenance and resurfacing unable to comply with the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A resource consent for any building or structure located within or over an overland flow path pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

 Certificates of compliance

A certificate of compliance for below ground infrastructure within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance to for the construction of stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works that are to be vested in the council pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

A certificate of compliance for any flood-vulnerable infrastructure involving structures placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain pursuant to Activity Table 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.10 Air Discharges

Discharge permits and CoCs are sought as per the rule assessment tables below: Table 5-10 Dust.

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Air discharges

ACRP: ALW, Rule

4.5.56

The discharge of contaminants into air from earthworks or from the construction, maintenance and repair of roads (road works) that does not comply with Rule 4.5.49

Comment

The discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks or from the construction and repair of roads (road works) is a permitted activity under Rule 4.5.49, subject to conditions (a) to (c):

(a) “That beyond the boundary of the premises where the activity is being undertaken there shall be no noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable odour, dust, particulate, smoke or ash; and

(b) That there shall be no noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable visible emissions; and

(c) That beyond the boundary of the premises where the activity is being undertaken there shall be no discharge into air of hazardous air pollutants that does, or is likely to, cause adverse effects on human health, ecosystems or property.”

A range of measures will be employed to minimise the discharge of dust. AT intends to achieve compliance with Conditions (a) to (c) of Rule 4.5.49. However, because of the very close proximity and the high sensitivity of the receiving environment, combined with the potential for the generation of uncontrolled dust, it is considered prudent to not rely on the permitted activity rule and to a seek restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 4.5.56..

Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Air discharges

ACRP: ALW, Rule 4.5.57

The discharge of contaminants into air, through a bag filter system, from:

(a) The manufacture of asphalt paving mix; or

(b) The mixing of cement powder with other materials to manufacture concrete or concrete products at a rate exceeding a total production capacity of 110 tonnes per day is a restricted discretionary activity.

Comment

The use of cement will be a consideration for the construction of cement stabilised piles along the route as will the use of shotcrete. However, it is understood that less than 110 tonnes per day would be used and therefore this will be a permitted activity.

Permitted

Air discharges

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.1, Activity Table 1, Rule 3.3.5 (3)

The discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks and the construction, maintenance and repair of public roads and railways not meeting the general permitted activity controls.

Comment

The discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks or from the construction and repair of roads (road works) is a permitted activity provided it meets the General Controls in Rule 3.1.1:

1. “The discharge must not contain contaminants that cause, or are likely to cause, adverse effects on human health, property or the environment beyond the boundary of the premises where the activity takes place.

2. The discharge must not cause noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable odour, dust, particulate, smoke or ash beyond the boundary of the premises where the activity takes place.

3. There must be no, dangerous, offensive or objectionable visible emissions.

4. There must be no spray drift or overspray beyond the boundary of the premises where the activity takes place.”

A range of measures will be employed to minimise the discharge of dust. AT intends to achieve compliance with Conditions (1) to (4) of Rule 3.1.1. However, because of the very close proximity and the high sensitivity of the receiving environment, combined with the potential for the generation of uncontrolled dust, it is considered prudent to not rely on the permitted activity rule and to seek a restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 3.3.5(3)..

Air discharges

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.1, Activity Table 1

Discharges to air from cement storage, handling, redistribution, or packaging, where cement is stored in fully enclosed silos is permitted. Where it does not comply with the permitted activity controls, the activity is discretionary.

Comment

Cement will be used in the construction of cement stabilised piles and use of shotcrete. This rule is relevant to the storage of cement stabilised piles and use of shotcrete and the manufacture of grout. It is anticipated that the use of cement will comply with the permitted activity controls and therefore this will be a permitted activity.

Summary

 Discharge permits

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks pursuant to Rule 4.5.56 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A discharge permit for discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 3.3.5 (restricted discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

 Certificates of compliance

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from cement use pursuant to Rule 4.5.57 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from cement use pursuant to Activity Table 2 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

Table 5-11

Discharges from mobile sources.

Rule Reference Rule

Air discharges

ACRP: ALW, Rule 4.5.3

The discharge of contaminants into air created by motor vehicle, aircraft, train, vessel and lawnmower engines, including those located on industrial or trade premises is a permitted activity.

Comment

The rule permits the discharge of combustion emissions from vehicles and machinery operating during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section, and changes in traffic resulting from the construction.

Air discharges

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.1, Activity Table 1, Rule 1

Air discharges

PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.1, Activity Table 1, Rule 1

Discharges to air from motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, vessels (including boats) and mobile sources not otherwise specified (such as lawnmowers), including those on industrial or trade premises (excluding tunnels) (permitted controls do not apply).

Comment

The rule permits the discharge of combustion emission from vehicles and machinery operating during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section, and changes in traffic resulting from the construction.

Discharges to air from tunnels up to 220 m long that are used for motor vehicles or other mobile sources (permitted controls do not apply) are a permitted activity, whereas such discharges from tunnels longer than 220 m are discretionary activities.

Comment

The rule permits the discharges to air from tunnels used for motor vehicles or for mobile sources where the tunnel is less than 220 m long. This rule is considered relevant to the operational phase of the tunnel and is therefore relevant to this application. Given the length of the tunnels for the Aotea to NAL section the discharges to air from the tunnels are not permitted and will require resource consent.

It is noted that amendments to this rule have been proposed through the PAUP hearings process which would give permitted activity status in all zones to discharges to air from rail tunnels established from 30 September 2013 that only carry electric powered locomotives.

Permitted

Discretionary

Summary

 Discharge permit

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from tunnels that are over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

 Certificates of compliance

A certificate of compliance for the discharge of contaminants into air from trains pursuant to Rule 4.5.3 (permitted activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

A certificate of compliance for discharge of contaminants into air from trains pursuant to Activity Table 1 and Rule 1 (permitted activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought.

5.1.11 PAUP Information Requirements

Under the PAUP, applications for resource consent are required to consider whether a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) is to be provided. Engagement with relevant Mana Whenua groups has been undertaken and is ongoing, which is described in further detail below in Section 6.4

In addition, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required for any discretionary or non-complying resource consent applications on land or affecting water adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place.

Information requirements under the PAUP include:

Table 5-12 PAUP Information Requirements.

Cultural Impact Assessment

PAUP Part 3, Chapter G, Section 2.7, Rule

2.7.4 Cultural impact assessment

1. A cultural impact assessment will be required for all applications requiring a resource consent under:

a. the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua overlay

4. A cultural impact assessment will be required for the following resource consent applications where the proposal may have adverse effects on Mana Whenua values:

a. discharges to water or the CMA

b. discharges to air

c. discharge to land

d. diversion, taking or using of surface water, ground water, coastal water or geothermal resources

l. construction of significant infrastructure

p. Applications that require integration of mātauranga and tikanga

Cultural Impact Assessment(s) may be required from Mana

Whenua for all applications requiring resource consent under the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana

Whenua overlay and where the proposal may have adverse effects on Mana

Whenua values under the PAUP.

The proposal involves the construction of significant infrastructure that will result in construction earthworks; groundwater diversion and take; discharge of contaminants (various); earthworks within an identified Site and Place of Significance to Mana

Whenua

Heritage Impact Assessment – Adjacent to Historic Heritage Places

Information Requirement Reference

PAUP Part 3, Chapter G, Section 2.7, Rule 2.7.1. General information requirements

Information Requirement

Information requirements for resource consent and subdivision consent applications adjacent to scheduled historic heritage places

2.The following information must be provided, to the council as part of any application for the following:

a. a heritage impact assessment for any discretionary or non-complying resource consent or subdivision consent application on land or affecting water adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place

b. a cultural impact assessment for any restricted discretionary, discretionary or non-complying resource consent application on land or affecting water adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place where it is archaeology of Maori origin.

Comment

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required for any discretionary or noncomplying resource consent application on land or affecting water adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place.

PAUP Part 3, Chapter G, Section 2.7, Rule

2.7.8 Historic heritage

PAUP Part 3, Chapter G, Section 2.7, Rule

2.7.8 Historic heritage and PAUP Part 3, Chapter J, Section 2.5, Special Information Requirements, Rule 1 Heritage Impact Assessment

Summary

3. Any application for resource consent on land or affecting water that is adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place must include a heritage impact assessment.

A HIA is required for any resource consent application on land adjacent to a scheduled historic heritage place.

Heritage Impact Assessment – Scheduled Historic Heritage Place

Heritage Impact Assessment

1. An application for resource consent or subdivision consent for a scheduled historic heritage place must be accompanied by a heritage impact assessment

An HIA has been included in Appendix J. This assesses the potential effects of the proposed Aotea to NAL section works, within the scope of these resource consent applications, including those works within the extents of scheduled historic heritage places (Bluestone Wall and Mount Eden Prison).

 Information requirements

Cultural Impact Assessment(s) may be required for all applications requiring resource consent under the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay and where the proposal may have adverse effects on Mana Whenua values pursuant to Rule 2.7.4 in Chapter G, Section 2.7 of the PAUP as identified as required by Mana Whenua. See Section 6.7 (below) for the status of this requirement at the time of lodging this application.

Heritage Impact Assessment for an application for resource consent for a scheduled historic heritage place pursuant to Rule 2.7.8 in Chapter G, Section 2.7.8 and Rule 1 Heritage Impact Assessment in Chapter J, Section 2.5 of the PAUP is provided in Appendix J

5.2 Consents Required Under a National Environmental Standard

5.2.1 NES National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NESsoil) apply as disturbing soil is covered by Regulation 5(4) of the NESsoil and the site includes activities on the HAIL List (Item H). It is therefore necessary to assess the proposed works against the relevant standards of the NESsoil

Resource consent is sought as per the assessment of regulations presented in Table 5-13 below:

Table 5-13 Disturbing Contaminants in Soil. Rule Reference Rule Activity Status

Disturbing contaminants in soil

NESsoil, Regulation 11

Disturbing Soil. Comment

The proposed soil disturbance does not meet the permitted activity criteria of Regulation 8(3), as the volume of soil disturbance exceeds 25 m3 per 500 m2 and the volume of soil to be removed from site will exceed 5m3 per 500m2

Regulation 9 provides controlled activity status to soil disturbance provided Conditions 1(a) to 1(d) are met. Although the CLA (Appendix E) concluded that laboratory analysis of soil samples has returned results below the NESsoil for commercial/industrial outdoor worker unpaved exposure scenario, the assessment was limited in scope and contaminated soils above the NES Soil Contaminant Standards (to Protect Human Health) (NES SCShealth)may be present within the vicinity of the NAL. Therefore, it cannot be concluded with assurance that the soil contamination does not exceed the applicable Regulation 7 standards.

Regulation 10 provides restricted discretionary activity status to soil disturbance provided Conditions 1(a) to 1(d) are met. For the same reasons stated above, it cannot be concluded with assurance that the soil contamination does not exceed the applicable Regulation 7 standard.

Therefore, a discretionary activity resource consent is sought under Regulation 11 of the NESsoil

 Land use consent

A land use consent to disturb soil pursuant to Regulation 11 (discretionary activity) of the NESsoil is sought

5.2.2 National Environmental Standard for Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2011

The National Environmental Standard for Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2011 (NESair) gives consent authorities’ direction on whether to grant or decline applications for certain air discharge permits and therefore has been addressed within this application.

Regulation 17 of the NESair applies to the discharge permit being sought for the discharge of contaminants to air from tunnels over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP.

The Aotea to NAL section is situated in the Auckland Urban Airshed, which is deemed to be a polluted airshed in relation to PM10. The modelling undertaken in the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) included in Appendix H, found that the predicted concentrations exceed the 2.5 µg/m³ (24-hour average) threshold of Regulation 17 of the NESair over a very small area surrounding both the north and the south vents at Aotea Station and the two tunnel vents at Karangahape Station.

Under Regulation 17 of the NESair, applications for discharges into a polluted airshed that would lead to an increase of the PM10 concentration by more than 2.5 µg/m³(24-hour average) must either be declined, or are required to be offset through emissions reductions elsewhere in the airshed.

Offsets are discussed in Section 7.3 of the AQA which concludes that the off-set provided by the CRL project itself (from reduced motor vehicle use) has been calculated and is greater than those emissions arising from the operation of the CRL route, therefore providing the offset required under Regulation 17 of the NESair

On this basis, the consent authority should grant the resource consent that AT is seeking for the discharge contaminants to air from tunnels over 220 m in length

5.3 Resource Management Act 1991 Assessment

Overall, resource consent is sought from AC as a Discretionary Activity.

For the avoidance of doubt, AT is seeking resource consent under the above rules and any other rules which may apply to the activity, even if not specifically noted.

5.4 Heritage New Zealand Archaeological Authority

In addition to any requirements under the RMA 1991, the HNZPT Act protects all archaeological sites whether recorded or not, and they may not be damaged or destroyed unless an authority to modify an archaeological site has been issued by the HNZPT. Authorities to modify archaeological sites can be applied for under section 44(a) of the HNZPT Act.

Potential effects on archaeology and RMA approvals requirements were assessed under the prior NoR phase of the CRL project.16 In addition, AT is also applying for a General Archaeological Authority under section 44(a) of the HNZPT Act to cover the proposed Aotea to NAL section works. This will ensure that if any archaeological evidence is unearthed, appropriate protocols are in place and delays to the Aotea to NAL section will be minimised. The authority will be sought from HNZPT concurrently with the current resource consents being sought from AC.

16City Rail Link Project: Archaeological Assessment (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement Assessment of Effects on the Environment, Volume 3, Appendix 3, 2012).

6 Consultation and Engagement

6.1 Introduction

Consultation and engagement activities with respect to the Aotea to NAL section have been undertaken, or are underway with AC (various divisions/ units), AT (internal stakeholders), network utility providers, Mana Whenua groups, HNZPT, KiwiRail, NZ Transport Agency and targeted proximity buildings/ landowners.

6.2 Auckland Council

6.2.1 Major Infrastructure Project Team

AT has held a series of workshops, meetings and pre-lodgement communications with members of AC’s Major Infrastructure Projects team to discuss the Aotea to NAL section. Key interactions were held in November and December 2015 as well as March 2016 (targeted environmental specialist and planning workshops relating to this phase of the CRL project). Specialists from the Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit attended the above sessions and on-going engagement between AC and AT technical specialists has occurred over the course of 2016.

Regular co-ordination meetings have also progressed throughout 2016 with members of the AC Major Infrastructure Projects team and other supporting sections of AC as required in order to keep AC up to date with progress on planning and engineering matters, along with the overall programme.

6.2.2 Stormwater Unit

AT have held a series of meetings and pre-lodgement communications with members of AC’s Stormwater Unit to confirm the proposed stormwater drainage design over the course of the CRL project and recently with respect to the Aotea to NAL section, in particular in the Mt Eden area.

A meeting was held on 20 April 2016 to further review the approach to the proposed stormwater drainage design and flood modelling and associated mitigation works required at Mt Eden Station. The scope and requirement for updates to the Motions Flood Model was discussed. It has been agreed with the AC Stormwater Unit that updated modelling will be provided in parallel with the processing of the Aotea to NAL section resource consent application. Refer to correspondence and meeting minutes in Appendix K

6.2.3 Local Boards

Various briefings and regular updates via email have been provided over the course of the CRL project to the Waitematā and Albert-Eden Local Boards, with the most recent update provided on 26 May 2015.

6.3 Network Utility Providers

A range of network utility providers are likely to be affected by the Aotea to NAL section works to varying degrees. These providers include:

 Watercare Services Limited:

 Vector Electricity.

 Vector Gas.

 Chorus.

 Vodafone

 Vector Communications.

 Kordia.

 CityLink.

Engagement with these network utility providers has been ongoing and required as part of condition 9 of the confirmed CRL designations. In principle, these parties have expressed no concern regarding the Aotea to NAL section works subject to their operational requirements being met. Consultation and engagement will be ongoing in order to confirm an appropriate approach to protection, proposed relocations and operational requirements. A range of options are available including supporting utilities in their existing location or relocations if deemed necessary/ required

With regard to discharge of tunnel drainage water, a meeting to discuss the CRL operational discharge strategy was held with Watercare on 22 March 2016. A key focus of the discussion was around the potential for tunnel drainage water to be discharged to the wastewater network. Further engagement with Watercare is programmed to confirm the strategy when further specific design details are developed.

6.4 Mana Whenua

6.4.1 Background

Through the CRL Mana Whenua Forum (a requirement of the CRL designation conditions), AT has briefed and engaged with those Mana Whenua groups who, at the time of the CRL NoR process, expressed an interest in being involved in the CRL project. The eight Mana Whenua groups who selfidentified their interest in the CRL project and therefore the Aotea to NAL section include:

 Ngāti Maru.

 Ngāti Paoa.

 Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki.

 Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua.

 Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

 Te Akitai Waiohua.

 Te Kawerau a Maki.

 Ngāti Tamaoho.

Cultural Values Assessment

Māori Values Assessments (MVA) were commissioned by AT directly from the above Mana Whenua for the CRL NoR process. A Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) was also commissioned by AT to support the NoR process. The CVA considered the information and recommendations contained within the MVA. The CVA represented an independent review of information relevant to consideration of Māori values and interests in the CRL project area, including the Aotea to NAL section; and provided recommendations on measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on Māori values, or measures to recognise and provide for the relationship of iwi/ hapū with their ancestral lands and tāonga.

Process Considerations

Following ongoing discussion with AC’s Major Infrastructure Projects team, it was agreed that the five additional Mana Whenua groups not listed above, but who do have a registered interest regarding all resource consenting activities within the Waitematā Local Board area, would be written to in relation to all ongoing resource consenting activities associated with the wider CRL project.

This was on the basis that the PAUP contains policy that provides guidance around the requirements for Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA) where Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua or Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua are potentially impacted or where applications are required for discharges to air, land or water, water takes and diversions and land disturbance.

The five additional Mana Whenua groups written to were:

 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

 Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

 Ngāti Whanaunga.

 Ngāti Tamaterā.

 Te Patukirikiri.

AT sent letters (the form of which was agreed to by AC) to the above Mana Whenua groups on 25 August 2014. These letters outlined upcoming resource consent requirements for and associated with the CRL project, and requirements under the PAUP (the requirement to engage with Mana Whenua groups who have identified themselves as having an interest in a particular Local Board area to determine whether a CIA is required for a resource consent application that potentially impacts on matters of importance to Mana Whenua). The letters also requested that the five Mana Whenua groups confirm whether a CIA was required from them for the specified regional consenting requirements or whether they wished to continue deferring their interest to the eight iwi groups who make up the CRL Mana Whenua Forum.

Of the five Mana Whenua groups written to, two responses were received. Responses were received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Tamaterā. Both groups deferred their interest to other groups already sitting on the CRL Mana Whenua Forum. The remaining three groups did not respond. It is assumed that for all remaining resource consenting process for and associated with CRL that these groups are not required to be specifically engaged with under the requirement of the PAUP provisions.

6.4.2 Engagement with Mana Whenua on the CRL Project

Targeted engagement with the CRL Mana Whenua Forum with respect to the resource consents for CRL has been ongoing since August 2014. This has included a large number of hui and targeted workshop sessions around various resource management authorisations (resource consents, alterations to designations and HNZPT General Archaeological Authorities).

Key matters raised by Mana Whenua during the Resource Consent Package 1 engagement process have been brought forward into the propose Aotea to NAL section design and construction methodologies and proposed resource consent conditions, including the following:

 Ongoing involvement with the communication and consultation plan processes (including preconstruction).

 Pre-construction cultural protocols and cultural inductions of contractor staff.

 Opportunities for the use of non-chemical flocculants

 All spoil material removed from or delivered to the Project site shall be covered during transportation

Management of potentially contaminated land/ water discharges entering the stormwater system/ wider receiving environment

Of direct relevance to this application, the following hui are noted:

 CRL Mana Whenua Forum (hui), 10 December 2015

AT presented an update to the resource consenting strategy and provided an overview of programme for the Aotea to NAL section resource consent.

 CRL Mana Whenua Forum (hui), 18 February 2016

A progress update on the Aotea to NAL section resource consent was provided and a workshop date was agreed for a full presentation on the application and key technical reports.

 Targeted Mana Whenua Resource Consents Workshop, 30 March 2016

A targeted workshop was set up to discuss in detail resource consent requirements, the outcomes of environmental investigations to date, and to further understand key Mana Whenua concerns with respect to the Aotea to NAL section. AT’s technical experts provided an overview of the approach to, and outcomes of, investigations to date (air quality, contamination, stormwater, groundwater etc.). Mana Whenua indicated at this workshop that they would like an update at the following hui with respect to some specific matters (in particular stormwater) and how their values were being taken into account with respect to the wider CRL project. Representatives of the CRL Mana Whenua Forum also indicated that they would like to discuss the types of mitigation and conditions they would like to see imposed (e.g. Kaitiaki monitor; possible re-use of materials).

 CRL Mana Whenua Forum (hui), 14 April 2016

A further update on progress was provided following the download of technical reporting to the Mana Whenua Forum. Further discussion around possible mitigation was held.

Minutes of these hui are included within Appendix L.

6.4.3 Summary

AT has been unable to confirm whether CIAs are required for the Aotea to NAL section at the time of lodgement because the CRL Mana Whenua Forum has confirmed that it wishes to view the application in full prior to confirming the need for a CIA or otherwise. While the MVA and CVA documents developed for the CRL NoR process provide a broad understanding of the cultural values Mana Whenua hold, it is recognised that they do not provide a formal assessment of these values in respect of this proposal. It is also noted that a CIA was deemed as not being required for Resource Consent Package 1, acknowledging ongoing and regular Mana Whenua Forum hui and updates from the resource management and planning workstream.

6.5 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

Ongoing meetings have been held with HNZPT with respect to the CRL project. HNZPT’s involvement in CRL has been wide-ranging and has included extensive engagement over the CRL Designations, Resource Consent Package 1 Britomart Station to Wyndham Street and the alteration process to the Britomart designation. HNZPT are aware of the Project construction phases and resource consent staging has been previously provided. This has included consideration of the staging of General Archaeological Authority applications It has previously been agreed to stage authorities in line with resource consent staging.

6.6 KiwiRail

A targeted meeting with KiwiRail was held on 2 December 2015. The Aotea to NAL section resource consent applications were broadly discussed as they relate to the NAL and critical structural elements within this corridor. Further engagement is proposed.

6.7 NZ Transport Agency

A meeting was held with representatives of the NZ Transport Agency on 21 April 2016. The discussion revolved around the potential effects of the project on the CMJ (critical structures) and the outcomes of the settlement analysis.

6.8 Community Liaison Groups

As required by the CRL Designation conditions, establishment meetings have been held in November 2015 for Community Liaison Groups (CLG) for the Aotea, Karangahape and Mt Eden areas. The purpose of the CLGs include providing a means for receiving regular updates on CRL project progress, monitor the effects of constructing the Project on the community, and providing feedback on the development of the CEMP and Delivery Work Plans (DWP).

6.9 Proximity Buildings

It is noted that the CRL alignment passes close to a large number of buildings. Assessment of the effects of settlement has confirmed a number of buildings of interest. Given the length of the Aotea to NAL section route and the number of proximity buildings AT has not embarked on targeted engagement with respect to this application. It is noted that AT has undertaken a significant amount of prior engagement as part the CRL NoR project phase and ongoing Reference Design.

Engagement with proximity owners will be undertaken as appropriate, following lodgement of the application. Any feedback will be supplied to AC as appropriate.

6.10 Public Open Days

Further to the Public Open Days held in August and September 2014, a wide range of public events have been held, including the following:

 Karangahape Road Open Streets Event – 1 May 2016.

 QE2 Square information hub – 11 to 15 April 2015 and 17 to 19 March 2016.

 Porters Avenue Public Open Days – 2 and 5 March 2016

 Roadshow to 13 suburbs and city centre – May to June 2015.

 Aotea Square Transport Expo – 22 October 2015.

6.11 Others

Local residents, businesses and transport users will be consulted well in advance of commencement of works. A communications plan will be prepared in accordance with the CRL Designation Conditions and proposed resource consent conditions to ensure residents, businesses and transport users are informed of the works on matters relating to the programme and potential construction effects

7 Assessment of Effects on the Environment

7.1 Introduction

Pursuant to section 88 of the RMA, an application for resource consent shall include an assessment of any actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment and an outline of the proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment.

When considering an application for resource consent, the RMA (under section 104(1)(a)) requires a consent authority (in this case AC) to have regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity.

7.2 Positive Effects

The potential positive effects associated with the matters addressed in these resource consent applications include:

 Potential for a degree of improvement to stormwater quality due to the reinstatement of Albert Street and the Mt Eden Station area.

 Water quality improvements in the vicinity of the stations where the nature of impervious surfaces will change, primarily from the removal of old roofs which are often high contaminant generating materials, with new roofs which will likely result in a net decrease in contaminant concentrations and loads in stormwater.

 Improvements to water quality associated with the potential reductions in the number of private motor vehicles within the Auckland isthmus due to the provision of CRL as an alternative transportation mode.

 Air quality improvements associated with the potential reductions in the number of private motor vehicles within the Auckland isthmus due to the provision of CRL as an alternative transportation mode.

 Removal of some contaminated soil from the city and city fringe areas and further information about the material in the Mt Eden area, particularly in the vicinity of the NAL which may potentially assist future projects in the area.

The broader CRL project benefits and positive effects for the Auckland region were addressed in detail during the prior CRL NoR phase. Potential positive effects from the CRL project (reproduced from Section 7.1 of the CRL NoR AEE) include:

 Realising the potential of the existing infrastructure and the unlocking of the Auckland rail network through Britomart becoming a through station rather than a terminus station;

 Ability for people to better access the city centre area by train through the provision of the stations proposed along the CRL between Britomart and the NAL;

 Increases in rail patronage;

 Promoting and supporting intensification of land uses around stations, a key proponent of the Auckland Plan and CCMP [City Centre Masterplan 2012];

 Increasing the resilience of the Auckland rail network;

 Assists in providing a sustainable transport system and in reducing greenhouse gases.

7.3 Earthworks

Earthworks associated with the Aotea to NAL section can be split into varying construction methodologies including cut and cover/ open trench tunnel works, shaft excavation, TBM and mined tunnelling within the five ACZs. These include Aotea Station (cut and cover/ shaft excavation), Karangahape Station (mined/ shaft excavation), Mt Eden Station (cut and cover/ shaft excavation/ mined/ open trench), North and South Tunnels (TBM/ mined). CSAs are proposed to support construction activities, including the removal of spoil material associated with the excavation activities. Establishment of the CSAs and ACZs (depending on the specific location) may involve earthworks associated with building demolition and site establishment such as levelling.

The earthworks cut volumes associated with the five ACZs areas of excavation will result in approximately 722,900 m³ of excavated material and a total of 77,100 m2 exposed earthworks areas in order to construct the Project. Reinstatement works will result in approximately 71,400 m³ of earthworks fill material.

While the exposed earthworks will generally be confined to the excavations themselves with direct disposal of the majority of spoil off-site, any sediment generating activities can be controlled within the excavation areas with protection measures in and around the ACZs and CSAs. Without these measures the earthworks have the potential to result in soil mobilisation and discharges to the stormwater system.

A Draft ESCP has been prepared by Aurecon (refer to Appendix I) and based on measures proposed in the DCR (refer to Appendix B). This Draft ESCP will be further developed by the contractor based on the detailed Aotea to NAL section design and construction methodology and submitted to AC for verification and implemented by the contractor during construction. This will form part of the wider Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) framework which is recommended as part of the Aotea to NAL section proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M). All erosion and sediment controls prescribed in the Draft ESCP will be in accordance with TP90, yet will enable further innovation and flexibility as necessary.

The recommended erosion and sediment control measures are specified in the DCR (refer to Appendix B) and the Draft ESCP (Appendix I). In summary, the proposed measures include:

 Ensure all hoarding lines are installed with solid barriers at the base with waterproof seal to existing pavements to divert stormwater away from the ACZ/ CSA to existing catchpits.

 Avoid earthworks in heavy rain, however, in the event of an unforeseen heavy rainfall event, erosion and sediment control measures will be checked and upgraded or modified where necessary.

 All catch pits within and in the vicinity of the works site to be protected by inlet protection.

 All surface and ground water flows to be collected by localised sumps within the excavation area and pumped to a settlement tank within the ACZ/ CSA prior to discharge.

 Excavated material shall be loaded straight onto trucks within the excavation, where possible (and covered prior to removal). If spoil/ fill or demolition debris is to be stored on site, material shall be placed within a bunded area using filter socks or a similar alternative such as covering the stockpile with geotextile. Stockpiles will not be located in an area where runoff cannot be controlled.

 Covered spoil handling areas at each CSA may be provided (as required).

 A water cart to be located onsite to wet down stockpiles and/ or pavement areas to prevent dust movement.

 Surface site runoff within the ACZs/ CSAs shall generally be collected against hoarding lines and directed to existing catchpits. Where flows cannot be collected prior to discharge from the site filter socks (or similar), measures shall be put in place to ensure flows are collected and treated prior to discharge from site.

 Where low points are formed by construction activities additional inletting maybe required. Inlets shall be installed with suitable inlet protection and a positive gravity connection provided to the existing stormwater system.

 Bare soil surfaces shall be stabilised with hardfill as soon as practicable once excavation has reached the required depth.

 Where vehicular access to the open cut section of the works is provided, wash down areas and facilities at the top of the ramps shall discharge to a settlement area to ensure vehicles leaving open cut ACZs and CSAs are “clean”

 The majority of access points shall be impervious stabilised areas (asphalt) however where bare earth is exposed, stabilised entry/exit points shall be provided.

 Road sweeping will be carried out along the adjacent streets where trucks leave the site to ensure that no residual material is left behind which may be hazardous to traffic and pedestrians. The contractor will be required to submit a road sweeping plan as part of the earthworks management plan in advance of commencing works on site.

 No discharge of surface and groundwater to wastewater is proposed. Further specific mitigation measures are recommended for each ACZ and associated CSAs.

Subject to the development of a detailed ESCP in accordance with the erosion and sediment control measures outlined in the DCR (Appendix B) and Draft ESCP (Appendix I) and through the implementation of proposed conditions (refer to Section 10 and Appendix M), it is considered that the actual and/ or potential effects associated with erosion, soil mobilisation, sedimentation to receiving water bodies and stormwater discharges will be temporary in duration and will be appropriately avoided or mitigated to the extent they are no more than minor

7.4 Groundwater

7.4.1 Overview

A GTR (Appendix C) has been prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited to assess potential effects on groundwater from the construction of the Aotea to NAL section and operation of the CRL route in its entirety.

The Aotea to NAL section works have the potential to affect perched and regional (saturated) groundwater levels as a result of groundwater inflows (diversions) into the excavations, subsequent dewatering (takes), drawdowns, and groundwater damming (limited to identified areas of basalt in the Mt Eden area). In addition, the GTR (Appendix C) has assessed the potential effects of the Aotea to NAL section on aquifer groundwater resources, users and the Waihorotiu.

A hydrogeological conceptual model has been developed to assess the potential effects of the Aotea to NAL section on groundwater for various construction phases and time periods, including initial construction inflows (up to one week), and various modelled scenarios for long term construction inflows and drawdowns In addition, operational inflows have also been assessed.

The relevant geological units have been classified into five hydrogeological units according to their hydraulic conductivity and compressibility:

 Fill - The composition of the Fill materials is more variable than in other units, directing its categorisation as a separate hydrogeological unit.

 TA and ER - These units are predominantly composed of clay and stiff silt, and accordingly both the hydraulic and settlement properties of these units are similar. Hence, the two units have been grouped.

 EW and EU - These units have similar hydraulic properties. EW includes the channelised sandstone layer.

 Ash and Tuff - These units have similar hydraulic properties.

 Basalt - This unit has a relatively high permeability compared with the other units and its behaviour is generally independent of the other hydrogeological units.

7.4.2 Diversion and Take Effects on Groundwater

The potential temporary construction related and permanent diversion/ drawdown effects of the Aotea to NAL section on perched and regional groundwater levels has been assessed. In order to determine a conservative envelope of effects for drawdowns, including the radius of influence and associated consolidation settlement, the groundwater analysis has assumed excavations will be fully drained during construction and operation (with the exception of the TBM tunnelling sections of ACZ N and ACZ S)

However, it is noted that the majority of structures during operation are anticipated to be undrained (refer to Section 3.7 above), therefore the effects assessment is conservative. Operational groundwater inflow volumes for the purposes of the groundwater take permit sought have been assessed, reflecting the largely undrained design, alongside those selected structures which may remain drained during operation (the two Karangahape Station shafts and the mined Y-Junctions in ACZ S).

The assessment outcomes are described below:

 ACZ A - Construction scenarios were assessed assuming the station envelope is fully drained for 6 months, 1 year, 3 years and 30 years.

Drawdown and inflow predictions for the perched aquifer layers are considered to be conservative. This is because the perched layers are assumed for modelling purposes to be fully saturated and horizontally continuous. Perched aquifer layers along Albert Street are typically of limited horizontal extent. Focus was directed on perched layers within compressible soil units; namely ER, TA and Fill. Each of the modelled perched layers (shallow and deep layers) has been assessed to calculate groundwater drawdown and the zone of influence (where drawdown reduces to 1 m) for a combined system of a number of layers This results in a greater radii of influence than single layer analysis (refer to Table 7, GTR, Appendix C).

With respect to the regional system, Figures 13 and 14 within the GTR (Appendix C) show drawdown predictions through time from the Victoria Street and Wellesley Street section models. Drawdown is predicted to be greater, in terms of magnitude and radius of influence, at Wellesley Street, due to the greater initial saturated thickness at this location.

Construction and Operational Inflows

 The simulated excavation was conservatively taken to be at the maximum depth across the entire width thus both predicted inflows and drawdowns are likely upper bounds. Even so, predicted inflows of both perched and regional groundwater are unlikely to exceed 20 m3/day into the entire station under steady-state long term conditions.

Drawdown Predictions

 Drawdown in the perched layers overlying the saturated system produces the greatest effect around Aotea Station. Modelling and conceptual understanding suggests that areas underlying buildings, structures and services within 30 m and 70 m of the excavation, using a conservative approach, could experience drawdown in excess of 1 m. The actual radius of influence though is dependent on the following factors:

Lateral extensiveness of perched layer;

Lateral position of excavation wall in relation to perched layer; and Layer thickness.

 It is considered unlikely that all shallow and deep perched layers will extend laterally for 30 m and 70 m, respectively, hence this assumption is a conservative approach.

 Drawdown extent and magnitude in the regional system is predicted to be relatively minor at and north of Victoria Street because the excavation intersects the water table by a small proportion, mostly in the west. Drawdown and drawdown extent at Wellesley Street is predicted to be much greater (up to 80 m after three years) because the excavation intersects the water table to a greater extent in both directions.

 The synthetic profile (shallow and deep perched layers) shows that shallow perched layers are saturated over a thinner interval than deeper layers (1.5 m as opposed to 3.5 m). Therefore, perched zone cumulative drawdown will be greater where the deeper layers are present. Drawdown in these deep layers could reach 3.5 m in proximity to the excavation where they exist. In areas where the EU is at less than 8 m depth, the deeper perched system is unlikely to be present, and correspondingly drawdowns in individual perched layers will likely be < 1.5 m. Based on borehole logs, maximum drawdowns of the order calculated (up to 3.5 m at the excavation) is predicted to potentially occur in the following locations:

To the east of along the entire station length Aotea Station, and around the Wellesley Street entrance;

North of Victoria Street, along both sides of the station and around the station entrances; and

At the southern end of Aotea Station south of Wellesley Street.

 At each of the above locations, depth to EU is > 10 m. Elsewhere, depth to EU is greater, and maximum drawdowns are expected to be less.

 ACZ K – Construction scenarios were assessed assuming the station envelope is fully drained for 6 months, 1 year, 3 years and 30 years.

Construction and Operational Inflow Predictions

 Predicted inflows to the shafts and underground station and cross passages are expected to be small – up to 50 m3/day during the initial construction phase (1 week), and less than 10 m3/day total under long term construction conditions.

 During an operational dewatering scenario, whereby all parts of the station except the Mercury Shaft and Pitt Street Shaft are sealed, approximately 7 m3/d inflow to the station can be expected. This estimate is only slightly reduced from the long term construction scenario due to the sustained radial flow pattern to the station area with the shaft continuing to act as a sink.

Drawdown Predictions

 Predicted drawdowns are up to 4 m in the Fill/ TA/ ER portion of the regional system and up to 2 m drawdown within the perched system.

 Dewatering potential for any perched groundwater is greatest close to the shafts; as the potential for lateral connection to the shaft face is increased.

 For the Pitt Street Shaft the key drawdown effects within the regional portion of the Fill/ TA/ ER occur:

West of the shaft, drawdown is predominantly in ER and with ‘Summer low’ groundwater levels typically 5 m to 7 m bGL. Drawdown in the ER is typically 3 m to 4 m within 100 m west of the shaft after three years of construction.

To the east, north and south of the shafts, drawdown will primarily occur within ER, but also notable deposits of Fill and TA exist. ‘Summer low’ groundwater levels are typically 4 m to 6 m bGL. Of particular note is the potential for drawdown in the Fill and TA beneath and surrounding the area of St Kevin’s Arcade and carpark south of Myers Park (21 Poynton Terrace); which is predicted to be 1 m to 3 m for the long term drained scenario.

 For the Mercury shaft the key drawdown effects within the regional portion of the Fill/ TA/ ER occur:

West of the shaft, drawdown is predominantly in ER and with ‘Summer low’ groundwater levels relatively deep – typically 5 m to 7 m bGL. Greater than approximately 60 m west, the ER does not hold a seasonally permanent regional water table due to the paleo ridge of the EU and drainage structures associated with the CMJ. Drawdown within 70 m west of the shaft ranges between 0 m and 4 m in the Fill/ TA/ER in the long term construction scenario (3 years).

To the east, north and south of the shaft drawdown is primarily within Fill and ER. ‘Summer low’ groundwater levels are typically 3 m to 5 m bGL. Of particular note is the significant thickness of Fill to the south; some of which is predicted to experience 3 m to 4 m of drawdown in the long term drained scenario.

 ACZ M to ACZ S Y-Junctions - Construction scenarios were assessed assuming the station envelope, cut and cover tunnels and mined tunnels (Y-Junctions) are fully drained for a construction period of 5 years and steady state construction conditions for 20 years.

All excavations including mined tunnels and open excavations were assumed to be instantaneously excavated i.e. no staging of construction was simulated. The model was run in transient mode for 20 years – which was deemed to assess long term dewatering effects similar to permanent drainage.

Construction and Operational Inflows

 Inflows to the mined tunnel and trench excavations from ECBF and TA are expected to be small – up to 85 m3/day initially during construction (after one week) and approximately 25 m3 per day under long term construction conditions (5 years). Inflows to sections of open trench which intersect basalt may be subject to higher flow rates due to local soakage and rapid through-flow towards the trenches. A conservative assessment has predicted up to 80 m3 per day may drain from each of two basalt fingers on the west and east facing links under long term average conditions.

 Under wet weather conditions (short-term) the inflows from each of the basalt fingers could be expected to rise to 2 to 3 times the average inflow; i.e. up to 200 m3/day for each trench, however it was considered unlikely that inflows would exceed this

 Groundwater inflows in basalt - If complete dissection of the eastern basalt lobe occurs by the MC50 trench, alongside an undrained design, a groundwater damming effect may occur which may require the installation of a flow diversion to address this potential damming effect during the operational phase in order to divert dammed groundwater through-flow in the basalt finger.

 Considering an operational dewatering scenario, whereby all structures except the ACZ S YJunction mined tunnels (for MC50 and MC60-30) are sealed, approximately 15 m3/d inflow to the drained structures is estimated.

Drawdown Predictions

 The GTR (Appendix C) has identified areas potentially subject to groundwater drawdown within ER /TA /Fill geology during construction. The estimated drawdowns are summarised in Table 7-1 below. The areas subject to the greatest drawdown potential are those adjacent to the open cut excavations for trenched and cut and cover sections for MC50, MC60, MC30 and MC20 south of the Newton grade separation structure.

 Of these areas, the section of MC50 construction works south of the Newton grade separation structure is predicted to be subject to the greatest potential drawdown, due to the depth of cut and presence of ER and TA at this location. The potential drawdown within ER/ TA is variable depending on the depth and occurrence of these units relative to the depth of planned construction works and existing groundwater levels. The maximum potential drawdown is centred around the MC50 alignment in two zones west and east of Mt Eden Road. From these

centres, up to 8 m drawdown is estimated within the excavated areas and the lateral extent of potential drawdown of 1 m is approximately 230 m (after 5 years of drainage).

 Drawdown of Fill/ TA/ ER resulting from deep mined tunnelling north of the Newton grade separation structure is of a lesser magnitude but of greater lateral extent due to broad underdrainage effects.

 To provide a conservative view of effects, a long term (20 years) simulation was also developed to assess drawdown impacts resulting from a permanently drained development. Drawdown contours for the TA/ ER for this simulation are presented in Figure 38 (Appendix A contained with the GTR, Appendix C). Between 5 and 20 years of drainage, the magnitude and extent of drawdown within 100 m of excavations remains relatively steady. The most significant difference is in the extent of drawdown north of the ACZ M. By 20 years, the extent of drawdown greater than or equal to 1 m extends up to a maximum of 300 m laterally from drained works. The cause of this broadened drawdown is primarily underdrainage from EU/ EW, depressurised by mined tunnel excavations.

 ACZ N and ACZ S

Construction and Operational Inflow Predictions

 Overall small steady-state inflows are predicted due to the low permeability of the EU rock mass and no (known) connections to bodies of open water or high permeability reservoirs.

 Refer to ACZ M and ACZ S Y-Junctions commentary above for a summary of the groundwater effects assessment for the mined Y-Junctions.

Drawdown Predictions

 The low vertical conductivity of the EU and the overlying units is interpreted to provide strong buffering of drawdown effects within the Fill/ TA/ ER, with the majority of the alignment expected to receive only approximately 1 m drawdown above the bored tunnels, with the exception of CRL MC20 Ch1800 to Ch1850 (up to 4 m drawdown influenced by the Pitt Street Shaft) and Ch2000 to Ch2100 (up to 3 m drawdown influenced by the Mercury Shaft). The under drainage effects are predicted to propagate out up to 150 - 160 m (in each direction) perpendicular to the alignment axis.

7.4.2.1 Summary of Predicted Groundwater Effects

A summary of the predicted groundwater inflows (takes) and drawdown effects during construction of the Aotea to NAL section and the operation of the entire CRL route is provided in Table 7-1 below (based on Table 24 of the GTR, Appendix C)

Table 7-1 Summary of Predicted Inflows and Drawdown Effects During Construction and Operation

Notes:

1. Assumes bored tunnels are constructed in closed face mode, i.e. no groundwater dewatering effects. Dewatering inflows occur at cross passages.

2. Drawdown in Fill/TA/ER only.

3. Radius of influence to 1 m drawdown.

4. Drawdowns and radius of influence from perched zone calculations. Inflows mostly from regional zone.

5. Range based on maximum and minimum values across each tunnel construction zone.

6. Assuming all elements are fully drained for the duration of construction.

7. Inflow predictions provided for mined tunnel sections adjacent ACZ M (as per Table 21 of GTR).

8. Assumes equal flows from East (MC50) and West (MC30) fingers.

9. Allowance for fugitive leakage through construction joints and other cracks over full length Britomart to NAL

10. Resource Consent Package 1: CRL Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section. The construction of this section has been previously granted resource consent.

7.4.2.2 Monitoring and Trigger Levels

Potential effects on buildings, infrastructure and utilities from groundwater drawdown and associated consolidation settlement are proposed to be intensively monitored through a comprehensive ground and building settlement monitoring programme comprising ground settlement and building marks (refer to Section 7.5 below). Therefore, the main purpose of groundwater monitoring will be to provide support to the settlement monitoring programme as part of an overall monitoring system, should ground settlement behaviour exceed predictions.

To address the relevant matters of discretion of the groundwater diversion rules (Rule 6.5.77 of the ACRP: ALW and PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.17, Activity Table 1, Rule 3.3.2), a GSMCP will be prepared by the contractor and submitted to AC for certification prior to works commencing (the basis for the GSMCP is provided for within the GTR and Assessment of Settlement Effects). The GSMCP requirement has been proposed through conditions (refer to Section 10 and Appendix M) and this requires (amongst other matters), full details of the groundwater monitoring network to be confirmed. The GSMCP forms part of the wider CEMP framework which is recommended as part of the Aotea to NAL section.

Section 10 of the GTR (refer to Appendix C) provides a range of measures to monitor the groundwater related effects of the Aotea to NAL section. These measures include:

 A groundwater monitoring network, including groundwater monitoring wells near the Aotea to NAL section works and adjacent to buildings within the expected zone of influence (as access and services clearance restrictions for borehole construction allow). It is expected that the existing network of monitoring wells will need to be supplemented by additional wells in gap areas of the network or where existing wells will be destroyed by construction of the alignment. The existing and proposed groundwater monitoring network is outlined in Table 23 and Figure 39 of the GTR (Appendix C).

 The proposed locations of monitoring wells within the monitoring network have been selected to provide not only coverage of the entire alignment but also to coincide with areas where drawdown is expected in units with the potential for consolidation settlement.

Regular monitoring of groundwater levels is proposed through the proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M).

 Identification of groundwater drawdown alert level trigger levels in order to provide a field check against predicted drawdown responses.

 An alert level is proposed which will provide a flag that groundwater responses to the construction works are nearing predictions and that such groundwater responses may be close to having implications for ground settlement (consolidation) No drawdown alarm level is required as the settlement behaviour itself (which will be intensively monitored separately with its own trigger levels, refer to Section 7.5 below) will control the need or otherwise for contingency measures.

 The Alert Level Trigger proposed is:

Drawdown alert level - 90% of predicted drawdown response at the respective monitoring bore.

 The following measures have been identified for the development, documentation and implementation of trigger levels:

Values for the trigger level that will apply for each borehole will be developed during the preconstruction period based on the estimated or measured lowest groundwater level for each monitoring borehole, minus 90% of the estimated drawdown response.

The developed trigger levels will be documented in the proposed GSMCP for certification by AC, which will set out actions to be undertaken should the trigger levels be exceeded.

7.4.2.3 Contingency and Mitigation Options

As mitigation and contingency actions are proposed to be based on settlement monitoring, no specific contingency actions are proposed should exceedance of the groundwater trigger levels occur. If Alert levels are exceeded, groundwater monitoring in the respective bore(s) will be increased to a daily frequency and increased focus will be given to the settlement monitoring data for the areas adjacent/ nearby.

7.4.3 Groundwater Resource and Existing Users

Total groundwater throughflow in the Greater Western Springs Aquifer which discharges to Meola and Motion Creeks is estimated to be approximately 28,000 m3/day.17 Existing groundwater takes from this aquifer are not significant and are estimated to be less than 1,000 m3/day. Therefore, the calculated total groundwater inflow to the excavations (1,000 m3/day) is around 3.6% of the available groundwater throughflow in this basalt aquifer, which is likely to be less than seasonal variability of flow within either of the Motions or Meola Creeks. As such, due to the relatively small construction related groundwater takes associated with diversions into excavated areas within the Mt Eden area, potential adverse effects on the Motions and Meola creeks, the aquifer itself, and existing users is therefore considered to be less than minor.

7.4.4 Waihorotiu Stream

A prior significant investigation to attempt to locate and monitor the Waihorotiu Stream located in the vicinity of Karangahape Station and Myers Park was completed as part of the 28 day Karangahape Road Pumping Test (Council ref: R/REG/2014/2358). The investigation indicated that groundwater that may represent the source of this stream currently discharges into the stormwater system of Myers Park. It was also discovered that leakage from other underground services was flowing into the Myers Park stormwater network at rates far in excess of the potential Waihorotiu spring flow.

The potential effects of the works on Waihorotiu Stream are considered negligible, due to the results of the pumping test investigation which found that the current Waihorotiu spring flow (if it exists) is currently into the underground stormwater network of Myers Park and that the leakage into the stormwater network is likely to be at least an order of magnitude higher than spring discharge within the upper region of Myers Park.

7.4.5 Summary

Subject to the development and implementation of a GSMCP by the contractor as required through proposed conditions (and in conjunction with the further measures outlined below at Section 7.5), appropriate design measures such as the installation of a flow diversion to address the potential damming effect resulting from dissecting an area of basalt (if required), it is considered that the actual and/ or potential effects on buildings, infrastructure and utilities associated with groundwater diversion (inflows), drawdown, damming and take will be appropriately avoided, remedied and mitigated to the extent they will be no more than minor in nature Potential adverse effects on the availability of the groundwater resource to existing users of the Greater Western Springs Aquifer and the downstream Motions and Meola Creeks will be mitigated through the relatively small proposed construction related groundwater takes. Potential adverse effects on the Waihorotiu Stream is considered negligible due to its current path into the stormwater network and the volume of leakage from the stormwater network. The associated actual and potential effects arising from consolidation settlement on buildings, structures, and utilities are considered in further detail below at Section 7.5.

7.5 Ground Settlement

An Assessment of Settlement Effects has been prepared by Aurecon and is attached as Appendix D This report has been prepared to present an overview of the estimated ground surface settlements and associated potential effects on existing buildings, utilities and infrastructure due to the construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

The report notes that effects associated with settlement will arise from two sources:

17 Groundwater throughflow in the Greater Western Springs Aquifer which discharges to Meola and Motion Creeks was assessed as part of the Global Aquifer Study (PDP 2005 and 2008).

 Movements of the ground or deflections of ground supports resulting from excavations of tunnels and retaining walls (also known as ‘mechanical settlement’)

 Consolidation settlement of the superficial soils due to changes in groundwater pressures (groundwater drawdown) It is time dependant and based on the location and permeability of the excavation at any one time (groundwater drawdown has previously been covered at Section 7.4).

The settlement assessment analysis considered the geology along the Aotea to NAL section alignment which determined the recommended geotechnical parameters utilised. The groundwater testing data within the groundwater assessment has defined the recommended parameters for the permeability of each geological unit, as well as estimated groundwater drawdown profiles during construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

Representative analytical sections were taken at key locations along the alignment which were then assessed based on the sources of settlement effects. The predicted ground movements from the anticipated sources were superimposed to produce the estimated influence zone of the potential settlement effects, which extends along the entirety of the Aotea to NAL section route. Generally, the predicted settlement influence zone extends from 30 m to 50 m from the centreline of the tunnels, which extends into adjacent properties (and buildings). This has the potential to cause aesthetic building damage effects (refer to Section 7.5.1 and Appendix D) to adjacent buildings. In addition, potential settlement effects on structures, infrastructure and utilities has been assessed.

To understand the potential ground settlement effects on buildings, further assessments have been undertaken on selected potentially affected buildings to determine the risk of adverse effects from settlement (refer to Section 7.5.1 below and Appendix D)

7.5.1 Ground Settlement Effects on Buildings

An assessment of the risk of adverse effects from settlement to adjacent buildings that fall within the 10 mm contour of estimated surface settlement (refer to Section 7.5.1 above) and associated ground slopes of less than 1:500 has initially been carried out in accordance with the internationally accepted Burland method (Burland, 1997). This provides a method whereby settlement effects can be referenced and the risk of damage assessed. Based on the building Damage Assessment Criteria (Burland, 1997) the effect on surrounding structures is expected to be “Negligible” if the vertical settlement is below 10 mm. Therefore, only the buildings where the estimated settlements exceed 10mm were assessed. Typically the 10mm assessments includes buildings and structures within approximately 4 m to 18 m of the outer edges of the tunnels, stations or shafts.

For the purposes of a preliminary assessment of potential damage to buildings, a zone within the estimated 10mm settlement contour was defined and all buildings within this zone were subject to a Stage 2 assessment, with the Damage Assessment Criteria in accordance with the internationally accepted Burland method was applied. Those buildings falling outside of this contour, where the slope was shallower than 1/500, were considered to have no more than “Negligible” effects as defined by the Damage Assessment Criteria (identified within the Assessment of Settlement Effects, Appendix D). Total settlement has not been utilised in the Stage 2 phase, recognising that it is relative deflection or angular distortion under a building (estimated tensile strains and differential settlements or slope of the ground under the subject buildings) that causes adverse effects rather than the magnitude of the total settlement.

It is noted that the Burland Damage Assessment Criteria is based around damage to masonry buildings and the ‘ease of repair’. It does not readily account for effects upon piled building foundations. Accordingly, given the proximity and scale of the CRL excavations at Aotea Station in particular and the degree of interaction with existing buildings the potential risks to piled buildings have been calculated explicitly using finite element analysis.

A buildings assessment was undertaken for 113 buildings. Various assessment methodologies (refer to the Assessment of Settlement Effects, Appendix D) were applied to two groupings of buildings: shallow founded/ piled buildings (empirical assessment) and piled buildings (explicit piled building assessment). Refer to Section 7.5.1.1 and Section 7.5.1.2 below.

The buildings assessment for shallow founded/ piled buildings found that the risk of building damage effects arising from settlement on the majority of surrounding structures is expected to be “Negligible” (95 buildings). A limited number of buildings are estimated to fall within the “Very Slight” (16 buildings) and “Slight” categories (2 buildings). Each of these is limited to the ‘aesthetic damage’ category, with no building damage that would affect ‘serviceability’18 anticipated.

The buildings assessment overall estimates that the risk of building damage effects is “Negligible” for the majority of buildings in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL section, with a limited number of buildings with ”Very Slight” and “Slight” effects.

The following buildings in Table 7-2 have been identified as subject to ”Very Slight” and “Slight” building damage as a result of potential settlement effects:

Table 7-2 Buildings Potentially Affected by Estimated Settlement Due to the Aotea to NAL section.

Structural deflections (caused by ground settlement) that may lead to structural as opposed to non-structural (cosmetic) damage:

i. reduction of operational functionality

ii. reduction in weathertightness or service life

iii. reduced durability

The analysis confirmed that no buildings fell into the “Moderate” damage classification, therefore a Stage 3 assessment was not required for any buildings based on the results of the Stage 2 assessment.

Any buildings estimated to be potentially subject to settlement effects will be managed through ongoing monitoring and mitigation measures, with further contingency and remediation measures (if required), which will be implemented as part of the proposed conditions of resource consent (Appendix M). Refer to Section 7.5.4 below for further description of the proposed measures.

7.5.1.1 Detailed Evaluations (Stage 3 Assessments)

For this application the predicted settlements are such that a detailed evaluation (Stage 3 assessment) is not required. However, to further illustrate the beneficial actions of the building configuration and also to illustrate how the influence of building configuration may be significant, a Stage 3 assessment was undertaken on the following two buildings:

 11 Mayoral Drive (former Public Trust Building) - Based on the estimated settlement induced tensile strains on the building, the effects are considered to be less than minor and limited to the potential for aesthetic damage.

 9 Mercury Lane (former Mercury Theatre) - A detailed evaluation allowing for the configuration of the building was undertaken. It was found that the northern and southern wall foundations and walls may rotate in proportion to adjacent ground settlements. Given the unreinforced masonry construction of the wall, the southern wall in particular is considered very sensitive to the excavation of the shaft and any ensuing ground movements.

It is recommended that the stability of the foundation of the southern wall and its likely response to construction needs to be investigated in more detail as part of the detailed design. Given that deterioration of the building maybe quite rapid in response to movement, preventive works mitigation in the form external bracing may be required. It is also recommended that a detailed preconstruction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is closely monitored during construction.

The above assessment outcomes of the Stage 3 assessment resulted in a reduction of both of the buildings’ Damage Classification from ‘Very Slight’ to ‘Negligible’. Nonetheless, further consideration of the influence of building configuration in relation to ground movements has resulted in specific recommendations for mitigation measures to be implemented for the Mercury Theatre.

7.5.1.2 Other Sensitive Buildings

The following buildings have also been identified as particularly sensitive to ground movements given their configuration and existing condition:19

 61-65 Pitt Street

 2 Flower Street

 10-14 Nikau Street

 16 Nikau Street.

The Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) recommends that further detailed assessments (including further consideration of the design or Stage 3 assessments of the buildings) is undertaken as part of the detailed design phase of the Project.

7.5.1.3

Piled Buildings Construction-Induced Settlement

In addition to the Stage 2 assessment, selected piled buildings were subject to an evaluation of both the serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of the foundations and superstructure in relation to the additional demands on the building from the Aotea to NAL section construction.

The construction of Aotea Station in particular is likely to lead to construction-induced settlement effects on buildings due to the geology (the depth of rock) and the scale and proximity of the cut and cover excavation resulting in potential interaction with the piled foundations. The assessment has also included the Eclipse Apartments as these have piled foundations that are relatively close the alignment.

Potential construction-induced settlement effects on various building elements were assessed, including (but not limited to) building piles, columns, beams, slabs and basement floors where relevant.

The assessment of piled buildings included the following buildings:

 63 Albert Street – AMI House

 38 Wyndham Street – Wyndham Towers

 87-89 Albert Street – Albert Plaza

 99 Albert Street – AA Building

 109-125 Albert Street – Sky City Grand Hotel and Convention Centre.

 152-156 Vincent Street – Eclipse Apartments

The piled buildings assessment methodology adopted (refer to the Assessment of Settlement Effects, Appendix D), recognises that buildings with piled foundations do not settle along the predicted ground settlement trough, with building settlements therefore a function of pile settlement.20

19 Assessed externally and from building record drawings.

20 It is noted that buildings possessing structural continuity such as those of steel and concrete frame construction are more robust than masonry and brick buildings. It is further noted that differential settlement is the principal cause of damage and may be aggravated where separate individual foundations support a building or where there is a mixture of foundation types (e.g. piles and spread footings). This is especially true for buildings that have been modified creating zones of differing structural stiffness – the junction of which will be more

Along Albert Street there is a difference in ground level between the eastern and western sides of the street where the Aotea Station cut and cut cover excavation is occurring. This ground level difference may lead the Albert Street excavation works to ‘rack’ away from some existing piled buildings, with the potential for subsequent construction-induced settlement resulting in additional loads on existing buildings and associated building damage. With respect to TBM tunnelling adjacent to 152-156 Vincent Street, volume loss resulting from the TBM excavation may cause downward movement of the soil underneath the building. This may result in additional loads on the building as the piles settle.

In order to assess the potential effects on piled buildings as a result of construction-induced settlement, two assessment criteria were defined which reflect current design standards. Firstly the serviceability limit of each concrete element (Table 3.1 and Table C2.1, NZS 3101)21 and secondly, the ultimate limit state capacities, which includes existing design loads on the building (NZS1170 –Existing Loads) and building member capacities (NZS3101 – Member Capacities).

For the piled building assessment, six analytical sections have been undertaken in the vicinity of Aotea Station to represent the potential effects of the excavation works on five piled buildings. Further detailed assessment/ explicit analysis has also been undertaken for 152-156 Vincent Street due to the proximity of the existing building piles to the TBM tunnel alignment, in order to enable a comparison with the Stage 2 Burland screening.

The building assessment contained within the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) has found that the Aotea to NAL section works may result in nominal increases in the demands on various building elements such as columns, beams and piles for adjacent piled buildings. These additional demands have been checked and are within the existing serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities, as assessed in accordance with the adopted assessment criteria.

Building damage effects due to the combination of existing loads and the addition of stresses induced by the ground movements during construction (construction-induced settlements) may occur, such as no more than minor fine cracks to basement beams, slabs, ground beam and ground floor slab. It is noted that any such cracking would be within the durability criteria of NZS3101. Refer to the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) for specific building assessment results.

Given the limited predicted ground movement, it is expected that these potential adverse effects can be minimised with active management during construction. The potential for cracking is expected to be no more than minor, limited to an aesthetic damage, resulting in fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration.

Building Condition Surveys are proposed to be undertaken prior to commencement of excavation and dewatering, during construction and post-construction to manage any potential ground settlement effects on buildings. Any damage to buildings or structures resulting from settlement (and associated groundwater drawdown) as part of the construction of Aotea to NAL section shall be recorded and repaired with the costs associated with the repair met by the AT.

Further monitoring, contingency and remediation measures are outlined in Section 7.5.4 below to minimise and mitigate potential adverse settlement effects on buildings, which will be implemented through conditions of resource consent (Appendix M).

affected by

these different types of effects have been considered in this assessment.

ground movements. In addition, buildings with an axis oriented at a significant skew to the axis to the tunnel may be subject to warping, or twisting effects. These may be accentuated if the tunnel axis passes close to the corner of a building. Where applicable, all of

21 Table 3.1 Exposure classifications and Table C2.1 Recommended maximum surface width of cracks at the serviceability limit state, NZS 3101.

7.5.2 Ground Settlement Effects on Infrastructure

Various types of infrastructure are located in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL works, which are described in the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D). These include the CMJ, in particular the Newton Bridge, CMJ retaining walls and Upper Queen Street Bridge under which the TBM tunnels pass.

For the Newton Bridge, the assessment determined settlements would be approximately 6mm at the bridge abutment and 5mm at the first pier. This represents a differential settlement of 1mm over the 24.4m span and 5mm over the adjacent 30.5m span which is considered acceptable for the existing continuous structure, however some minor resurfacing works may be required locally to the abutment. The estimated maximum settlement slopes at surface for the retaining walls and Upper Queen Street Bridge are estimated at less than 1:500.

7.5.3 Ground Settlement Effects on Utilities

Due to the highly developed nature of the urban environment at the locations of the proposed excavation, there are a number of major and minor utilities which run across or close to the areas of excavation. The utilities which have the highest risk of damage are utilities which run at a 90° angle to the cut and cover excavation (i.e. perpendicular to the settlement contours). As the slope of settlement increases as distance from the piled wall decreases, damage to utilities is most likely in the area closest to the piled wall. Potential settlement effects typically include either opening of joints (for jointed pipes/ducts) or cracks in the cables or ducts.

Potential settlement effects on notable major utilities which fall within the settlement contours have been assessed due to their proximity to the works. In particular these include the Orakei Main Sewer, AC stormwater mains (including the Nikau Street 1950 mm dia.), Vector Gas and Electricity cables, Vector Tunnel, watermains (including the 1300 mm dia. Huia No.2 Watermain and 375 mm dia. near Karangahape Station). The assessment has incorporated the maximum settlement slope based on relatively conservative parameters, distance of clearance and age of each utility.

Minor utilities are generally located near the existing ground level. Many of the utilities will be able to accommodate high levels of deflection (ground movement slopes of up to 1:500), with the possible exception of particularly fragile services such as older cast iron gas mains. The assessment of minor utilities has been based on a maximum allowable slope value which is applicable for the utilities most susceptible to damage and which is therefore conservative for other utilities. The maximum ground movement slopes were determined from the settlement contours at selected locations. Based on these results, utilities located in the vicinity of Chainages 1+040 (south of Aotea Station and close proximity to tunnelling) and 2+200 (TBM tunnelling beneath the CMJ) should be further investigated during detailed design stage to determine their risk of damage and/or impaired performance (in addition to utilities in close proximity to station and cut-and-cover tunnel excavations). A range of mitigation measures have been proposed for minor utilities along the Aotea to NAL section alignment, including relocation and protection in-situ.

Overall it is considered that potential adverse settlement effects on major and minor utilities in the vicinity of the Aotea to NAL section works will be appropriately avoided, remedied and mitigated, subject to undertaking relocations as required and the adoption of appropriate protection measures during construction (see Section 7.5.4 below).

7.5.4 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Monitoring of adjacent buildings, infrastructure, utilities, and actual ground movements is essential to confirm that the design is properly implemented, ground conditions and design assumptions are correct, the construction process is properly controlled with respect to construction-induced and consolidation ground settlements, and to monitor the actual response of buildings, infrastructure and utilities.

Proposed monitoring and indicative contingency measures have been recommended in order to avoid, remedy and mitigate potential damage to buildings, infrastructure and services prior to and during dewatering/ excavation and post-construction of the Aotea to NAL section. These are summarised below and in the Assessment of Settlement Effects contained in Appendix D, including drawings which outline monitoring measures and trigger levels for each identified building and service (attached to Appendix D). Further measures will be detailed in the GSMCP, required to be implemented through proposed conditions of resource consent (refer to Section 10 and Appendix M).

The proposed monitoring and associated proposed mitigation measures have been developed based on the current Reference Design. The design is subject to further development during the detailed design (suitable for building consent applications), further ground investigations, building condition assessments, and constructability and staging reviews. As such, an adaptive management regime is proposed, with proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M) reflecting a structured process to provide for the potential for change arising from the findings of further ground investigations, building condition assessment and design development.

7.5.4.1 Ground and Building Monitoring

A series of ground settlement markers will be installed at specified intervals radiating out from the Aotea to NAL excavations which will be regularly monitored before, during and post-construction so the actual surface settlements can be quantified and compared against the estimated settlements. The markers will generally be set out in an array along the tunnel route, adjacent to sensitive buildings/ structures and along the streets intersecting the excavations. The proposed ground survey network is identified on the GSMCP drawings (attached to Appendix D) and will be further confirmed as part of the GSMCP

The pre-construction monitoring results will be compiled into a factual report to form part of the input for the next phases of construction (including the GSMCP) Deflection and settlement alert and alarm triggers and corresponding pre-defined specific actions will be defined within a Response Plan which will form part of an independently reviewed GSMCP. The Response Plan (part of the GSMCP) and building condition surveys will be reviewed by an Independent Buildings Assessor (IBA). The GSMCP and associated Response Plan will be submitted to AC for certification prior to construction.

During construction the monitoring of each ground settlement marker will occur during excavation/ dewatering (at a time interval specified within the GSMCP) and reviewed regularly by the contractor, AT and AC. Post-construction, monitoring is to continue until stable measurements with respect to ground movement can be demonstrated.

In addition to the ground settlement markers, survey monitoring markers (building monitoring markers) will be placed at the base of sensitive buildings and at points along their facades and columns. This will allow the actual building movement to be monitored and compared with the estimated effects. The proposed building monitoring marks are also identified on the GSMCP drawings (attached to Appendix D) and will be further confirmed as part of the GSMCP. Should there be deviations from the expected system behaviour adjustments can be made that may include increased support measures and a more intense monitoring regime. A staged approach to confirming the system response to excavation in relation to design predictions enables timely interventions that minimise the potential for significant damage.

For the buildings in close proximity of the Aotea to NAL section and buildings near various shafts and stations, specific monitoring instruments will be installed The details for the monitoring of these buildings are described on drawings (refer to Appendix C of the Assessment of Settlement Effects, Appendix D) and includes installation of inclinometers and survey targets on the buildings and piles.

The system of monitoring set out in the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) and the attached Drawings (Appendix N) will be further confirmed as part of the GSMCP.

7.5.4.2 Building Surveys

For identified buildings, an assessment of building condition before and after construction (pre and post-construction building condition surveys) is used to confirm damage levels from construction in conjunction with comprehensive construction stage monitoring, to be undertaken as follows:

Pre-construction Structural Condition Surveys

 Individual pre-construction structural condition surveys will be carried out on buildings within the estimated 5 mm settlement contour. This scope is intentionally more extensive and conservative than the schedule of buildings within the 10 mm settlement contours (which may be subject to potential settlement effects and associated aesthetic building damage), in order to provide greater monitoring data coverage.

 The initial survey is expected to provide a record of a building’s existing condition, carried out prior to active construction in order to provide a baseline of the condition of each building.

 Buildings identified as being in a state of dilapidation may require further engineering involvement in the form of detailed assessments and/or specific monitoring of features.

 Detailed pre-construction structural (building) condition surveys have also been recommended for (but are not limited to) identified buildings in Sections 7.5.1.1 and 7.5.1.2 (above). Detailed preconstruction structural condition surveys for further buildings may be identified as necessary to respond to detailed design and during the preparation of the final GSMCP and Response Plan.

Post-construction Structural Condition Surveys

 Within 3 months of the completion of construction, post-construction building condition surveys shall be carried out on buildings where a building condition survey was undertaken prior and during the construction phase and when consented by the building owners.

 The survey report shall include an assessment of any change in observed building damage Where a post-construction structural condition survey confirms that a building has been damaged as the result of construction, remedial work will be required to rectify the damage. General repairs may include repainting and redecoration and will be undertaken at AT’s cost. The timing and extent of the repairs will depend on the owner’s requirements, stage of construction and degree of damage.

7.5.4.3 Building Specific Stakeholder Engagement

 The NDG development located at 35 Albert Street involves the construction of a deep basement adjacent to Aotea Station. It is noted that NDG have not yet obtained dewatering resource consents and the timing of construction has not yet been confirmed. While preliminary analysis of the effects of the NDG development has been undertaken, further coordination with NDG will be required to determine the sequence of construction, ground movement interactions and effects between the two excavations and their separate and combined effects upon existing buildings and infrastructure

7.5.4.4 Utilities Monitoring

 Significant pre-construction utility investigation will be undertaken to confirm the position of utilities (in conjunction with utility providers) and this will confirm either relocation or protection strategies for utilities. As such, no further specific monitoring is recommended for utilities If utilities are protected in-situ, specific monitoring regimes will be developed as necessary and detailed in the GSMCP.

7.5.4.5 Roads and Infrastructure

 It is anticipated that monitoring of roading and NZ Transport Agency infrastructure will be on a case by case basis, in agreement with AT Operations and the NZ Transport Agency

7.5.4.6 Design and Construction Mitigation Measures

Based on the Reference Design, specific design measures and construction methodologies have been proposed in order to mitigate the potential for settlement effects during construction, including the following:

 Settlement from Cut and Cover Structures and Shafts - The Reference Design has explicitly considered how the CRL structural elements will interact with the ground in order to limit settlements. For example, at Aotea Station where stiff permanent works props are installed during ‘top-down’ construction as the excavation proceeds and roof props are pre-loaded to account for the subsequent predicted deflection of the walls.

 Settlements from TBM Tunnels - Ground deformation from excavation of the TBM can be controlled during construction as necessary by the use of face pressure in ‘closed mode’. This is not expected to be required except in the section of tunnel close to Aotea Station where the tunnel passes through weathered rock and as the tunnels pass beneath the CMJ

 Settlements from Mined (SEM) Tunnels - The sequential excavation for mined tunnels will adopt an observational approach to suit the encountered ground conditions. If required by the ground conditions, pre-support ahead of the tunnel face may be used, the excavation advance length can be reduced, temporary support measures can be increased, or the tunnel face area can be reduced in each excavation heading.

7.5.5 Summary

An adaptive management framework approach is proposed through the proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M) which will provide for a structured process to allow for the detailed design and construction stage observations of the overall monitoring system response (including ground movements, the interaction of the introduced CRL structures with existing buildings/ structures) to take precedence over the pre-construction settlement predictions. The Reference Design on which the assessment of actual and potential adverse settlement effects on buildings, infrastructure and utilities is based is considered appropriately conservative in both the design and construction methodology described and the assumptions adopted in determining the potential envelope of settlement effects.

Subject to the development and implementation of a GSMCP by the contractor (in conjunction with the measures outlined at Section 7.4 in relation to groundwater monitoring) and as required by proposed conditions of resource consent (Appendix M), it is considered that the actual and potential adverse effects associated with ground settlement on buildings, infrastructure and utilities will be appropriately avoided, remedied and mitigated and will be no more than minor

7.6 Effects on Utilities

An overview of the known existing services is set out in Sections 3 to 8 of the DCR (Appendix B) and are further assessed within the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) prepared by Aurecon. While the Aotea to NAL section works have the potential to damage, interfere with, or disrupt the operation of existing network utility services as a result of ground settlement (discussed above), other damage can also result from uncovering services in unknown locations.

No physical impact on other utilities is expected during construction. The Aotea to NAL section contractor(s) will determine in conjunction with utility operators guidelines and protocols to determine the specific location of utilities and acceptable separation distances prior to excavation. Significant pre-construction utility investigation will be undertaken to confirm the position of utilities (in conjunction with utility providers) and this will confirm either relocation or protection strategies for utilities. Suitable measures will be taken to ensure that the services are adequately supported or managed once exposed. If utilities are protected in-situ, specific monitoring regimes will be developed as necessary and detailed in the GSMCP. There are also ongoing liaison and specific communication requirements with network utility operators under Condition 9 of the CRL Designations.

The proposed conditions (Appendix M) require the implementation of a GSMCP and associated settlement monitoring requirements. Overall, any effects on existing infrastructure will be appropriately managed, as is common with the installation of utilities within a shared corridor.

7.7 Contaminated Land

7.7.1 Overview

A Contaminated Land Assessment (CLA) has been prepared by Golder and is included in Appendix E. The investigation was undertaken to assess the potential impacts on human health and the environment, associated with the disturbance of soil during construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

The CLA fulfils the technical reporting requirements for assessment of contaminated land effects against the Permitted Activity (PA) criterion of the ACRP: ALW and the PAUP, and the applicable standard with respect to the commercial / industrial exposure scenario of the NESsoil

The CLA was also prepared as a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) in accordance (where relevant) with Ministry for the Environment (MfE, 2011a) Contaminated Land Management Guideline No. 1: Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand. However, there are some areas within the Aotea to NAL section footprint which have not been investigated and therefore, the investigations are considered to be limited in scope and not in accordance with Ministry for the Environment (MfE, 2011b) Contaminated Land Management Guideline No. 5: Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils.

Soil and groundwater quality samples were collected and laboratory analysed for a suite of metals / metalloids and petroleum based hydrocarbons. In addition, groundwater samples underwent analysis for major ions, nutrients, metalloids and standard water quality indicators.

7.7.2 Soils

Laboratory analysis of soil samples did not report contaminant concentrations exceeding the applicable standards (e.g., NES SCShealth) selected in accordance with Regulation 7 of the NESsoil, but were above the ARCP: ALW and PAUP PA criterion.

Nickel exceeding the PA criterion was identified within fill in two boreholes. Mercury exceeded the PA criterion in one sample and elevated concentrations of PAHs were identified in two bores resulting in total concentrations (in terms of benzo(a)pyrene equivalents (BaP eq.)) being higher than the PA criteria.

However, the CLA states that due to the low concentrations of other metals, the nickel is likely to be from volcanic deposits, typical of the Auckland region. The CLA also identifies that isolated mercury and BaP eq. at low concentrations are unlikely to represent a risk to the receiving environment during construction.

Nevertheless, due to the limited investigation scope and the potential for contaminated soils to be present, it is considered that there are potential environmental effects and risks to human health from contaminated soil during earthworks associated with the construction of the Aotea to NAL section

Consequently a Draft Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) (provided as an appendix of the CLA, Appendix E) provides a framework to manage potential adverse human health and environmental effects during earthworks. It also provides for mitigation of potential effects associated with unexpected discovery of contamination during earthworks.

The Draft CSMP outlines measures for:

 Soil management (excavation, transportation and disposal, dust, erosion and sediment controls and decontamination);

 Health and safety (training, control measures, identification of hazards, hazard minimisation procedures); and

 Contingency measures for unexpected encounters of contamination.

Subject to the revision and implementation of the Draft CSMP by the contractor (in conjunction with the measures outlined at Section 7.3 in relation to erosion and sediment control), as required by the

proposed conditions (refer to Section 10 and Appendix M), it is considered that the actual and potential effects associated with contaminated land will be appropriately managed and mitigated. It is important to note that the CSMP forms part of the wider CEMP framework which will be developed and implemented during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

7.7.3 Groundwater

Groundwater samples were collected in 2014 to 2015 as part of the assessment of groundwater wells within and adjacent to the Aotea to NAL section. The groundwater quality samples were analysed for major ions, nutrients and standard water quality indicators to determine whether groundwater had been impacted from any contaminated material identified in the soil sampling. For the purpose of this assessment, the groundwater analytical data has been compared to ANZECC (2000) trigger levels at the 80 % level of protection for freshwater species (where available). The selection of these trigger levels is consistent with Rule 5.5.43 of the ARP: ALW and Rule 2.2.1 of the PAUP.

The groundwater analysis detected concentrations below the relevant ANZECC (2000) trigger levels, except for dissolved copper which was detected in four bores, nickel which was found in one bore and dissolved zinc which was detected in one bore.

However, there will be water quality monitoring undertaken prior to discharge of any stormwater from the construction site, as discussed in Section 7.9 and the WQA (Appendix F). Draft conditions have also been proposed which require an ongoing water discharge monitoring programme to be prepared and maintained for the duration of construction in order to ensure water quality, prior to discharge, to ensure that appropriate standards are met.

7.8 Groundwater Quality

7.8.1 Overview

The CLA (Appendix E) and the WQA (Appendix F) have assessed groundwater quality. Groundwater was sampled at a number of locations within and adjacent to the Aotea to NAL section of the CRL works.

The groundwater quality samples were analysed for major ions, nutrients and standard water quality indicators. The results of trace elements were compared to available ANZECC (2000) 95 % trigger values (freshwater trigger values for that part of the CRL catchment draining south to Motions Creek and marine trigger values for the northern part of the catchment draining to the Waitemata Harbour).

Groundwater quality results are described in two groups below. The first group consists of the section of the route from Aotea Station to the Karangahape Road Ridge, and the second section of the route from the Karangahape Road Ridge and the Mt Eden Station.

7.8.2 Aotea to Karangahape Road Ridge

The groundwater quality from Aotea Station to the Karangahape Road Ridge section of the route discharges to Waitemata Harbour and the following results were found:

 Low levels of pH and high Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were measured in the borehole located in Victoria Street (EB308) which implies that sediment or materials around the borehole has some acid generating capacity.

 Generally contains low concentrations of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and nitrogen.

 Chromium concentrations exceeded the trigger value in two samples collected in 2010 from wells on Mayoral Drive.

 Copper exceeded the marine trigger value in two of three samples from shallow wells on Albert Street (EB308) and Mercury Lane (EB312) and one sample from a deep well on Mayoral Drive (BH211).

 Lead exceeded the marine trigger value in a single sample from a deep well on Vincent Street (BH214).

 Zinc exceeded the trigger value in all samples from a shallow well on Albert Street (EB308), and in one sample from the deep well on Mayoral Drive (BH211).

7.8.3 Karangahape Road Ridge to Mt Eden

The groundwater quality from Karangahape Road Ridge and the Mt Eden Station section of the route discharges to Motions Creek and the following results were found:

 High levels of pH were measured in the shallow bore on Shaddock Street (EB316)

 Higher concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen were measured in two sampling locations in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station (EB316 and BH238)

 Elevated concentrations of nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were measured in EB316.

 A number of piezometers contained elevated concentrations of nitrate nitrogen.

 Boron exceeded the freshwater trigger value in a single sample from a deep well BH229 on Nikau Street.

 Chromium exceeded the freshwater trigger value in all three samples from a shallow well (EB316) on Shaddock Street.

 The copper concentrations measured in samples collected from a shallow well (EB316) in Shaddock Street, a deep well (BH232) in Ruru Street and a deep well (BH236) in Fenton Street were consistently greater than the trigger value, as were two of three samples collected from a shallow well (EB318) in Mt Eden Road and in one sample from two deep bores (BH226 and BH229) in Khyber Pass Road and Nikau Street respectively.

 Lead exceeded the trigger value in one sample collected in 2010 from a well on Burleigh Street and in one sample collected in 2012 from Shaddock Street (MW167).

 Nickel marginally exceeded the trigger value in a single sample from a deep well (BH229) on Nikau Street

 Zinc exceeded the trigger value in two of three samples from deep wells BH226 and BH229 in Khyber Pass Road and Nikau Street respectively, and all samples from BH238 in Haultain Street at the end of the west facing connection.

7.8.4 Summary

The data shows that two monitored locations along the CRL route had unusual pH conditions. One location south of the Karangahape Road Ridge contained elevated concentrations of nitrate nitrogen and several locations south of the intersection of Symonds Street and Mt Eden Road contained variable and elevated concentrations of either ammoniacal nitrogen or nitrate nitrogen, thought to be leakage from the foul sewer system.

Some low level elevations of arsenic, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, above relevant ANZECC (2000) trigger levels, were measured along the Aotea to NAL route. However, minimal dilution will ensure no specific water quality management is required prior to discharge to the receiving environment.

For chromium, copper and zinc, elevated concentrations have been measured, above relevant ANZECC (2000) trigger levels, on a consistent basis at a number of locations (e.g., in the Ruru and Shaddock Street area near Mt Eden Station) that will require further evaluation of groundwater in those locations.

The groundwater quality anomalies identified through the groundwater sampling programme will necessitate an adaptive treatment approach to water quality management.

7.9 Surface Water Quality

7.9.1 Overview

A Water Quality Assessment (WQA) has been prepared by Golder and is included in Appendix F. The assessment was undertaken to determine potential impacts on the water quality and ecological values of the two receiving environments (Waitemata Harbour and Motions Creek).

Potential sources of water which need to be managed and discharged during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section are from:

 Stormwater generated within the CSAs.

 Stormwater and groundwater encountered in the ACZs.

 Water washed off vehicles prior to leaving the CSAs and ACZs.

These are addressed in turn below. Once construction works associated with the Aotea to NAL section are completed, areas will be reinstated. The effect of the reinstatement of impervious surfaces on water quality is also discussed below.

During the operation of CRL, the potential sources of ‘operational water’ which will drain into station sumps are from:

 Minor contributions of groundwater seepage from the undrained tunnel and stations.

 Minor water contributions from tunnel maintenance, and stormwater will drain into the station sumps.

 Groundwater seepage from the two drained Karangahape Station shafts.

 Possible groundwater seepage from the two turn-out junctions in ACZs (if drained).

As stated in Section 3.9, the preferred approach is to discharge the operational water to the trade waste system. In the event that this is not possible, a resource consent to discharge to the stormwater system is being sought as a contingency measure. Therefore, the quality of the discharge, treatment options and effects on the receiving environment was assessed in Section 8.0 of the WQA contained in Appendix F and is summarised in Section 7.9.7 below.

7.9.2 Stormwater from CSAs

Stormwater from CSAs in relation to Industrial or Trade Activities (ITAs) and Environmentally Hazardous Substances (EHSs) are addressed in Section 7.10 below. In terms of sediment becoming entrained in stormwater which falls on the CSA, it is considered that the amount of TSS created within the CSAs will be limited as the sites will be located on impervious surfaces and active on-site management within the CSAs will ensure that excess solids on impervious surfaces do not contribute TSS to the stormwater system. It is proposed that catchpit protection will be installed on all catchpits within the CSAs as a secondary control measure to minimise the amount of sediment entering the stormwater system. The proposed water discharge monitoring programme (a proposed condition of resource consent) will ensure that the less than minor effects will be appropriately mitigated.

7.9.3 Water from the ACZs

The quality of the water collected within the ACZs are related to the quality of the groundwater and the interaction of the groundwater and rain water (in open excavation areas) with the bare soil in the ACZ. Therefore, the three ACZs which involve open excavation (ACZ A, ACZ K (K1 and K5) and ACZ M) will require water management. The volume of water to be managed is directly related to the area of open excavation receiving stormwater and groundwater flow from excavations below groundwater levels.

Elevated to high concentrations of TSS (and any associated contaminants) is expected in the stormwater / groundwater encountered within the ACZ A, ACZ K and ACZ M and will be collected in sumps or tanks and pumped to a treatment system consisting of two in line settlement tanks.

Once the water has been treated, daily assessment of the water quality will be undertaken. The water will be deemed suitable for discharging to the local stormwater network if:

 Water clarity exceeds 10 cm as measured with a black disc;

 It meets the 50 g/m3 performance limit;

 Key contaminant concentrations that fall below the range identified by 95 % ANZECC (trigger values) multiplied by a factor of 50;

 It contains no visible TPH (sheens, odour); and

 The pH falls within between 5 and 9.

If the quality of the discharge is good, all treated water from the ACZs will discharge to the stormwater system and into Motions Creek or Waitemata Harbour. If the water quality does not meet these basic standards, it will be classified as being moderate quality, and will be treated further and sent through oil separators and filters (or appropriate enhanced settlement) prior to being discharged to the local stormwater system. If the water quality is poor, it will be collected in water tankers and removed offsite for treatment and discharge. The proposed treatment and discharge options decisions are outlined in the WQA (Appendix F).

A water quality discharge monitoring programme has been proposed as a condition of resource consent (Appendix M) to ensure that water quality, prior to discharge, meets appropriate standards and to provide specific details related to water quality monitoring, reporting and maintenance of the discharge water management and treatment system. This programme will ensure the potential effects associated with water quality and discharges are appropriately mitigated throughout the construction phase of the Aotea to NAL section. The water quality discharge monitoring programme forms part of the wider CEMP framework which is recommended as part of the Aotea to NAL section.

7.9.4 Effects on the Receiving Environment

7.9.4.1

Introduction

The WQA (Appendix F) provides a detailed assessment of the potential effects associated with the discharges from the ACZs on Motions Creek and Waitemata Harbour. The assessment is summarised in the following sections.

7.9.4.2 Discharge to Waitemata Harbour

Within Aotea Station (ACZ A) and Pitt Street shaft (ACZ K5), water will be collected in sumps or tanks and pumped to a treatment system consisting of two in line settlement tanks. The procedure to monitor, classify and treat the water has been outlined in Section 3.9.

The WQA (Appendix F) concluded that this on site management and treatment of all water from ACZ A and ACZ K5, will ensure that discharges from the two sites will not result in conspicuous films, scums or floatable materials entering the Waitemata Harbour. It will also limit the discharge of suspended solids, ensuring that the discharges will not result in conspicuous changes in colour or clarity with the Waitemata Harbour.

It is possible that localised areas of low pH in groundwater may be encountered during drawdown of groundwater surrounding ACZ A. However, the treatment system allows for pH adjustment so that the water discharge does not have adverse effects upon discharge to the Waitemata Harbour.

7.9.4.3 Discharge to Motions Creek

Within Mt Eden Station area (ACZ M) and Mercury Lane shaft (ACZ K1), water will be collected in sumps or tanks and pumped to a treatment system consisting of two in line settlement tanks. The procedure to monitor, classify and treat the water has been outlined in Section 7.9.3.

The assessment of groundwater quality undertaken in the WQA (Appendix F) states that with the exception of copper, the concentration of trace elements and organic compounds will not result in adverse effects upon discharge to the Motions Creek. Elevated concentrations of copper will only be an environmental issue should they coincide with low flows in Motions Creek. Flows are continuously being monitored within Motions Creek and should low flows occur, the treatment system can be adjusted to provide supplementary treatment of copper (should monitoring show that groundwater ingress to the construction site contains elevated copper).

The WQA (Appendix F) also concluded that this on site management and treatment of all water from ACZ M and ACZ K5, will ensure that discharges from the two sites will not result in conspicuous films, scums or floatable materials entering the Motions Creek. It will also limit the discharge of suspended solids, ensuring that the discharges will not result in conspicuous changes in colour or clarity with the Motions Creek.

In addition, the treatment system allows for pH adjustment. It is possible that localised areas of elevated pH in groundwater may be encountered during drawdown of groundwater surrounding the Mt Eden Station construction site. However, the treatment system allows for pH adjustment so that the water discharge does not have adverse effects upon discharge to Motions Creek.

7.9.5 Washed off Vehicles Prior to Leaving the CSAs and ACZs

A wheel wash will be installed in any ACZs where vehicular access to the open cut section of the works is provided. The purpose of the wheel wash is to minimise tracking of sediment from the ACZ to the CSA. Any wheel washwater will be managed through discharge to the stormwater/groundwater treatment tanks.

7.9.6 Redevelopment of Impervious Surfaces

Once construction is complete, all areas will be reinstated and stormwater runoff will need to be managed for all surface infrastructure associated with the CRL.

As shown in Table 14 of the WQA (Appendix F), there is no net increase in impervious area at the Aotea, Karangahape and Mt Eden stations, as sites where the stations are to be constructed are currently 100 % impervious. As such, no changes in runoff characteristics or the nature of stormwater runoff are expected. In addition, all stormwater from the reinstated surfaces will be directed to the existing stormwater system as occurs for existing impervious surfaces.

However, there are changes in the types of impervious surfaces at each station. At Aotea Station, the primary change in nature of impervious surface relates to the removal of the existing building and carpark on the corner of Wellesley Street and Albert Street, and replacement with the new Aotea Station entrance building. There is also the reinstatement of the existing road.

At Karangahape Station (Mercury Lane entrance), old roofs and a carpark are being replaced with roof and a stabilised area. There is also the reinstatement of the existing road.

At Mt Eden Station large areas of existing roofs and carparks are being demolished, and replaced with a small area of new road and rail tracks, the new roof associated with the Mt Eden Station building and portal building and a large stabilised area.

The nature of the changes, primarily the removal of old roofs (which are often high contaminant generating materials, i.e., galvanised steel), with new roofs (i.e., coated roof materials), will likely result in a net decrease in contaminant concentrations and loads in stormwater. Due to this, the

reinstatement of impervious surfaces can be undertaken as a permitted activity and stormwater treatment improvements are not required. However, AT is considering undertaking stormwater improvements similar to those proposed along Albert Street, as described below.

Albert Street is a high use public road22 and the impervious area of Albert Street that will be redeveloped as part of the Aotea to NAL section is greater than 5,000 m2. The reinstatement of Albert Street post-construction of the CRL tunnels is being managed by a separate package of works, although it is AT’s intention to include stormwater improvements as part of the reinstatement works. The stormwater improvements may consist of any, or a combination of, the following:

 Tetratraps (gross pollutant traps) on catchpits along Albert Street.

 Landscape/streetscape options such as treepits and/or rain gardens.

7.9.7 Operational Discharges

Once operational, groundwater seepage into the tunnel and station (and minor water contributions from tunnel maintenance, and stormwater) will drain into the station sumps. This water is proposed to be discharged to either the trade waste system or the stormwater system.

During the operation of CRL, there potential sources of ‘operational water’ which will drain into station sumps are from groundwater seepage and incidental water. Discharging the operational water to trade waste is the preferred disposal option. However, should this not be available, treatment will be provided to allow discharge to the stormwater system.

Discharge quality from each of the station sumps is a function of the quality of groundwater entering the underground tunnel and stations plus any contaminants that the groundwater intercepts in its passage to the sump. As stated in Section 7.8 above, there is uncertainty in regards to groundwater quality.

There is also uncertainty regarding the quality of water draining through underground rail tunnels. The WQA (Appendix F) determined that copper contributed to the tunnel environment through the nature of the electrical systems associated with and on the trains. However, as there is no published data on the concentration of copper in water draining electrified rail tunnels, a conservative approach to management of tunnel drainage water has been adopted.

Given that copper is likely to be the most significant trace element in the tunnel drainage water, a proprietary treatment system which incorporates enhanced copper removal is likely to be required. If the option of discharging operational water to stormwater needs to be implemented, the treatment system will be tested to ensure its capability to remove dissolved copper to ensure there are no significant adverse effects on the Waitemata Harbour or Motions Creek.

Once the CRL is operational, a monitoring programme will be implemented regardless of whether the operational discharge is to be discharged to the trade waste system or the stormwater system. The proposed monitoring programme, in the event of discharge to the stormwater system, is detailed in Section 9.2.2 of the WQA (Appendix F). Untreated and treated water samples will be collected daily for the first week, weekly for the first month and monthly thereafter. The purpose of monitoring the treated water is to ensure that discharge quality meets the required performance standards/trigger levels and to determine the ongoing maintenance requirements for the treatment devices.

PAUP definition of a high use road is a motorway, state highway, primary arterial or secondary arterial road or a road that carries more than 5000 vehicles per day.

7.10 Industrial and Trade Activities

An Industrial and Trade Activities (ITA) Assessment has been prepared by Golder and is included in Appendix G. The assessment was undertaken to determine potential impacts associated with the ITAs to be undertaken in the five CSAs for the Aotea to NAL section.

The CSAs will include provision for the storage of materials, and Environmentally Hazardous Substances (EHS) if required, as well as refuelling facilities, and a grout batching plant at CSA 4. Due to the proposed activities on the CSA, the ITA Assessment makes the following recommendations:

 Stormwater treatment will be provided for the high risk activity area associated with the grout batching plant on CSA 4 in accordance with TP10.

 Waste compactors and bins that are stored outside must be covered (lids closed) to prevent rainwater entry.

 Washwater from the wheel wash activities will be collected and treated onsite before being discharged to the stormwater system.

 Other minor sources of wastewater, including the jet grout wastewater, and any wastewater from concrete truck washouts, will be collected onsite (in a skip or similar) before being pumped out by an approved liquid waste disposal contractor.

 An Emergency Spill Response Plan will be developed.

 All EHS will be stored in a manner that prevents the entry of rainwater into the container and will be stored in a secondary containment device (such as a bund) or within a containment system.

 All chemicals are stored in a designated EHS storage area. EHS storage will be checked during the weekly site inspections.

 Install catchpit protection on all catchpits within the CSA boundaries as a secondary control measure to minimise contaminants entering the stormwater system.

In addition, Draft ITA EMP has been prepared by Golder and is included in Appendix G to manage the ITAs that will be undertaken in the five CSAs.

The Draft ITA EMP includes a Draft Emergency Spill Response Plan and outlines:

 Areas of potential risk to stormwater quality.

 The site management controls and procedures to manage identified risks.

 Contingency measures.

 The inspection and maintenance programme, record keeping and roles and responsibilities. Subject to the revision and implementation of the Draft ITA EMP by the contractor (in conjunction with the measures outlined at Section 7.3 in relation to erosion and sediment control), and as required through the proposed conditions of resource consent, it is considered that the actual and potential effects associated with the ITAs to be undertaken in the five CSAs will be appropriately mitigated.

7.11 Works within Flood Hazard Areas and Overland Flow Paths

An assessment of temporary and permanent works located within flood hazard areas and overland flow paths both during construction and operation has been summarised within the DCR prepared by Aurecon (Appendix B).

Engagement with the AC Stormwater Unit with respect to the existing and proposed stormwater drainage network (where relevant) has been ongoing and will continue in parallel during the processing of Resource Consent Package 2 (the subject of this AEE).

7.11.1 Construction

Earthworks and construction support activities associated with the Aotea to NAL section will take place in a range of areas shown as a flood plain (1% AEP) under the PAUP and associated overland flow paths based on AC GIS data (refer to DCR, Appendix B) within the following areas:

 ACZ A and CSA 1 (described in 4.5 of the DCR).

 ACZ K, CSA 2 and CSA 3 (described in 5.5 of the DCR).

 ACZ M, CSA 4 and CSA 5 (described in 6.5 of the DCR).

The North and South Tunnels (ACZ N and ACZ S) have not been assessed as the proposed tunnel construction methodology will not involve surface disturbance. As such, it is considered that there will be no impact to overland flow paths and flood plains from the TBM tunnels between Aotea Station and the NAL tunnel portal structures.

Temporary management of overland flows and flood plains within ACZs and CSAs will be the responsibility of the contractor and will be managed as part of the ESCP (Appendix I). A range of measures for the management of overland flow paths during the construction period are proposed, including diversion bunds or structures to direct clean water flows around the ACZs and CSAs in order to reduce any impact on the ACZ itself. Any diversion system will be designed to cause the least disruption to the existing flow path and will return flows to their original path as soon as possible. Flows will generally be located within road corridors or the extents of the CRL designations and will not exacerbate flood plains or divert overland flows to adjacent properties, nor adversely impact surrounding buildings or structures.

Particular consideration has been given to the following overland flow path and upstream catchment during the construction and operational phases:

Mayoral Drive/ Queen Street Overland Flow Path

 A catchment of approximately 4.06ha is located between Mayoral Drive and Hobson Street, bounded by Wellesley Street to the north.

 The existing overland flow path is expected to impact the portion of CSA 1 proposed to be located in the existing car park adjacent to Mayoral Drive and will require consideration during detailed design prior to construction. The planning and site management within the CSA will need to consider the alignment of the overland flow path and maintain an obstruction free path through the CSA. Maintenance of the overland flow path should be achievable through careful management of site operations and therefore flows through this area are not expected to have any major impact on the receiving environment.

 It is expected that the Wellesley Street Station Entrance will be located to the north of the existing flow path. However consideration of this overland flow path may be required at detailed design stage. Post-construction any reinstatement of the site will need to give due consideration to the overland flow path.

Upstream Catchment - Albert Street

 The total catchment upstream of Albert Street is approximately 8 ha.

 For the purposes of the effects assessment, it is assumed that all flows generated by the catchments upstream of Albert Street are diverted north around the proposed Aotea Station works area (as a worst-case scenario). Flows would be conveyed by the single service lane remaining in operation outside the tunnel box. The capacity of a 3 m wide traffic lane, with a bund or wall constructed at the line of the tunnel box to divert flows around the ACZ has been assessed to determine its capacity to carry the 1 in 100 year flows from the entire catchment upstream of Albert Street.

 In areas upstream of Swanson Street the levels along the existing property boundaries are well in excess of 280mm above the kerb invert.23

 However in some areas downstream of Swanson Street, levels along the existing property boundary may be slightly below the normal depth of flow in a 1 in 100 year event. Therefore, it is anticipated that some local bunding (approximately 50mm high) may be required to be installed adjacent to properties that are less than 240mm above the kerb invert, in order to contain flows within the road reserve. Nonetheless, given the temporary nature of the single traffic lane situation (less than 5 years) it is considered that design for mitigation of a 1 in 100 year storm event may be unwarranted. A 1 in 10 year storm event yields a depth of flow of approximately 200mm. It is considered that this represents a more suitable design standard given the temporary nature of the situation.

 Calculations for the purpose of the assessment are indicative only and more accurate flow depth and width calculations will be required to be undertaken at the detailed design stage. The confirmed schedule of potentially affected properties that are less than 240mm above the existing kerb invert level will be included within the final ESCP prepared by the contractor.

Post-construction the ACZ and CSAs are proposed to be reinstated generally as per the preconstruction levels and the overland flow paths will return to their original alignments.

7.11.2 Operation

During the operation of the CRL in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station and the NAL, the proposed design permanently alters the existing overland flow paths and flood plains of the wider Mount Eden (Motions Creek) catchment, therefore generates the potential to cause and increase flood hazard effects. The potential flooding effects associated with changes to overland flows and flood plains from internal and external catchments have been assessed, including flood plain storage, exacerbating existing flooding experienced by neighbouring properties,24 local road catchments, and the potential flood hazard impact of external catchments and associated operational risks to the CRL itself.

The following measures have been proposed to mitigate potential flooding effects in the Mt Eden/ NAL area during the operation of the CRL:

 Design Standards

Design of the primary (piped, 10 year ARI) and secondary (overland, 100 year ARI) stormwater drainage systems post-construction will be in accordance with the AC Stormwater Code of Practice (SW CoP) design standards (except where agreed with AC otherwise).

Due to the significance of the CRL infrastructure once operational and the potential risk of surface runoff from Mt Eden entering the main running tunnels as a result of the transition of the rail lines from on-grade alignments to below ground, the proposed inlets at the tunnel portal structures at Mt Eden and the NAL shall be designed applying a higher factor of safety with respect to potential flood risks. Inlets and associated discharge pipe systems at the portal structures will therefore be designed to convey a 1 in 1000 year ARI storm event. Inlets will also be sized assuming a 50% blockage factor.25

23 It should be noted that levels within property boundaries utilised for the assessment are based on LIDAR data sourced from the AC GIS and may not accurately represent the existing surface levels. More detailed investigations of levels within property boundaries are recommended at the detailed design stage to confirm actual building finished floor levels to enable a more accurate assessment.

24 A desktop review of the existing catchment has been completed to date. The external drainage assessment has utilised the existing 2D Motions Catchment flood model (Auckland Council (2013) - Report on Motions Creek Catchment Model Build and System Performance Report) as the basis of the effects assessment. Potential effects of the Aotea to NAL section on the wider Motions Catchment are proposed to ultimately be quantified through an update to the Motions model, following agreement with AC Stormwater Unit.

25 It is noted that while the inlets and local drainage system at the portal structures will be sized for a 1 in 1000 year event, the downstream discharge system is likely to be sized for a 1 in 10 year event only. The impact of discharging flows from an extreme 1 in 1000 event to this

These measures are proposed to mitigate the risk of stormwater runoff entering the main running tunnels, thus preventing flooding of the underground tunnels as far as possible.

 External/ Upstream Catchments

The upstream catchment to the south of the NAL is approximately 36ha in size.

Controls which prevent flows from 100 year ARI events from entering the NAL rail corridor (i.e. bunding or walls along the rail corridor boundary) are proposed. Where applicable, new inlets have been proposed to mitigate the impact on ponding levels that these controls may generate on neighbouring properties. Potential impact to downstream or upstream flood levels and surrounding properties from this action requires further assessment to be undertaken during the processing of Resource Consent Package 2 (subject of this AEE) and as agreed with the AC Stormwater Unit.26

Allowing external flows to enter the rail corridor (only where there is a low risk of flows draining to the portal structures), conveying and collecting flows via the new rail corridor drainage system.

 Internal/ Local Catchments

There are a number of local catchments that will be formed around Mt Eden Station and the tunnel portal structures which are separated by the track alignments

Drainage within the rail corridor will generally consist of open table drains and new inlet systems (with sub-surface drainage) on either side of the track formation.

Runoff will then be conveyed to the nearest existing underground network to discharge downstream (Motions catchment). The Motions Flood Report indicates that this system has excess capacity at this location.27

Flows from external catchments allowed to enter the rail corridor will be diverted away from the portal structures by way of new bunds or walls within the rail corridor. The Motions Flood Report indicates that flows from external catchments primarily pond outside the rail corridor and only excess flows overtop into the rail corridor. Therefore it is not expected that a large flow from the significant upstream external catchment will be required to be conveyed within the rail corridor.

 Local Road Catchments

New and replacement areas of roading are proposed, however it is not considered that the areas of new road will increase runoff volumes or flow rates. Therefore specific attenuation measures for the areas of new road are not anticipated.

Some re-profiling of sections of roading may be required to achieve positive overland flow paths during the reinstatement/ replacement of existing roads and construction of new sections of roading.

Local drainage is proposed to be connected from the new roads into the existing 1950mm diameter stormwater trunk main, which is generally as per the existing situation.

In summary, a number of permanent flood mitigation design measures and structures have been proposed through the Reference Design to mitigate potential flooding effects at in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station and the NAL during operation, including the following:

downstream system are to be assessed through an update to the AC Motions Flood Report during the process of this resource consent application, in agreement with the AC Stormwater Unit (refer to Section 6.2).

26 These approaches have been discussed with the AC Stormwater Unit and it has been agreed that any potential impact from the approaches outlined above will need to be quantified by updating the Motions flood model. It has been agreed that the potential impacts and any mitigation measures will need to be modelled during the consenting phase. This further work will be provided to the AC Stormwater Unit during the processing of the application.

27 However this capacity has not been confirmed throughout the entire downstream system. Therefore any impacts the discharge of flows might have on the overall network will need to be considered as part of the update to the Motions catchment hydrological model, in conjunction with the AC Stormwater Unit.

 Earth bunds.

 Retaining walls (or increasing the height of existing/ proposed retaining walls).

 Traffic barriers.

 Table drains and additional inlets.

 Underground drainage (reticulation network).

 Surface re-profiling of roads may be undertaken in order to achieve positive overland flow paths during the reinstatement/ replacement of existing roads and the construction of new sections of roading.

 As noted in Section 3.9 and Section 7.9, further stormwater management devices may be installed to achieve water quality outcomes beyond the requirements of the PAUP and best practice in accordance with Auckland Transport Code of Practice (AT CoP), however this subject to a separate CRL workstream. The selection and design of these stormwater management devices will need to consider any potential flood hazards

The proposed permanent design measures are to be further confirmed during the proposed update to the AC Motions Creek Catchment Model Build and System Performance Report (AC Motions Flood Report), engagement with the AC Stormwater Unit during processing of Resource Consent Package 2 (subject of this AEE) and during the detailed design phase.

The Mt Eden Station design incorporates appropriate design measures such as protecting entrances, for example by including ramps and upstand steps against the relevant flood levels, ensuring this significant infrastructure is resilient to potential flood hazards.

Due to the proposed stormwater drainage and flood mitigation works, some adjacent properties may experience positive effects through a reduction in the extent of ponding and flood inundation experienced on their property during 100-year ARI events

7.11.3 Summary

Stormwater drainage and flood mitigation measures will be implemented during construction as outlined in the DCR (Appendix B), the Draft ESCP (Appendix I) and proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M). As such, the potential adverse flooding effects during construction arising from earthworks and construction activities within overland flow paths and flood plains will not exacerbate flooding on adjacent upstream or downstream of the works and will not result in permanent reduction or loss of floodplain storage. Proposed permanent flood hazard mitigation design measures, including drainage and structures, will ensure potential adverse flooding effects on adjacent properties, surrounding buildings/ structures, the Motions catchment (subject to further modelling) and infrastructure (including the CRL itself) are appropriately avoided and mitigated, subject to the implementation of proposed resource consent conditions (refer to Appendix M)

7.12 Air Quality

An Air Quality Assessment (AQA) has been prepared by Golder and is included in Appendix H. The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the air quality related effects, and recommend mitigation options to control effects where necessary, associated with the proposed construction of the Aotea to NAL section and the operation of the whole route from Britomart Station to the NAL. The AQA also provides an assessment of the activity status of these works in relation to the air quality rules of the ACRP: ALW and the PAUP.

7.12.1 Construction Discharges

In terms of the construction of the Aotea to NAL section of the CRL, the assessment focussed on the main potential air quality impacts being dust particulate matter. Discharges of hazardous air pollutants and vehicle emissions are expected to be relatively minor for the construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

The main sources of dust emissions will be the excavation and spoil removal at Aotea, Karangahape and Mount Eden stations (ACZ A, K and M), and subsequent backfilling of part of the open trenches. Other sources of dust are the handling of materials, suspension of surface dust by vehicles removing excavated material and vehicles arriving with material for backfilling, and wind-blown dust from exposed surfaces at the construction support area (CSA 1 – 5).

The potential dust effects were assessed using FIDOL factors (Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness and Location)28 relating to nuisance effects of construction and earthworks dust. The assessment concluded that without the implementation of effective dust management and mitigation measures, sensitive receptors located around the ACZs and CSAs associated with the Aotea, Karangahape and Mount Eden Stations would have a high potential for offensive or objectionable dust effects. This is principally due to the very close proximity of sensitive activities to potential sources of dust, meaning that they could be subject to high intensity of dust impacts.

The AQA (Appendix H) recommended a combination of dust management and mitigation measures, combined with continuous real time monitoring of dust at a number of representative locations, to ensure the measures are being effective and potential adverse effects are no more than minor.

The AQA proposes a number of mitigation measures to manage the key sources of dust associated with excavation which are generated from the vehicle movements and wind erosion of material from exposed surfaces within the trench. Examples of mitigation measures are as follows:

 A water cart will be used to dampen down the exposed and excavated surfaces during the first stage of excavation.

 A suspended water spray system or other suitable system may be installed for suppressing dust during the remaining stages of trench excavation but also during the backfilling operations.

 Installation of a wheel wash at the exits of the ACZs and CSAs to avoid vehicles tracking soil offsite.

 Utilisation of a vacuum sweeper truck which is to be used to regularly sweep the public roads around any exits from the ACZs and CSAs.

 Where cement powder is stored in a small silo, the silo will be fitted with a filtration system and an alarm to warn the operator to stop filling when the silo is nearly full.

 During the operation of the TBM the ventilation and dust collection systems will be monitored regularly to ensure adequate airflow and dust control.

 Weather forecasts for strong winds and rainfall events will also be monitored so that appropriate dust management responses can be planned.

 Continuous dust monitoring (including an alarm system) will also be carried out for the duration of the earthworks and construction activities associated with the Aotea to NAL section.

A Draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) has been prepared (contained within Appendix H) which sets out a detailed framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring measures to be implemented during the construction and earthworks activities associated with the Aotea to NAL

28 The FIDOL factors are described in detail in the MfE ‘Good practice guide for assessing and managing the environmental effects of dust emissions’ (“the Good Practice Guide” – (MfE 2001))and ‘Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 152: Assessing Discharges of Contaminants into Air’ (TP152 - ARC 2002).

section. The Draft AQMP focuses principally on the sources of dust discharges, and will address the risk of discharges from each ACZ and associated CSAs, providing a greater level of detail and information on daily observation logs, complaint investigation and response procedures, training, and roles and responsibilities. The AQMP forms part of the wider CEMP framework which is proposed during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section.

It is considered that with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures outlined in the Draft AQMP (contained within Appendix H) and the Draft ESCP (Appendix I), in conjunction with monitoring measures outlined in the Draft AQMP, will ensure that potential adverse effects on air quality arising during construction will be appropriately managed. Proposed conditions of resource consent reflecting these proposed measures are provided in Appendix M.

7.12.2 Operational Discharges

In terms of discharges to air from the operation the CRL, the AQA focussed on the main potential air quality impacts being particulate matter (iron oxides) from the wear of rails, brakes, wheels and carbon contract strips associated with the passage of the electric commuter trains. As the trains operating within the CRL will be electric, there will be no discharges of combustion emissions.

Air dispersion modelling has been undertaken to predict ground level concentrations (GLCs) of PM10 and PM2.5 in the vicinity of three of the five tunnel vents at Aotea Station, two of the three tunnel vents at Karangahape Station, and the one vent at Mount Eden Station. The results were then compared to the relevant assessment criteria:

 National Environmental Standard pursuant to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (the NESair)

 National Ambient Air Quality Guideline (AAQG)

 Auckland Regional Air Quality Target of the ARP:ALW (ARAQT)

 Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standard of the PAUP (AAAQS)

The results for each station are described below.

7.12.2.1 Aotea Station

For the Aotea Station, the predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM10 is approximately 10 µg/m³ and occurs in immediate vicinity of the Aotea south vents – both of these vents discharge horizontally. Based on a maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately 37 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Aotea Station will not result in an exceedance of the NESair, AAAQG and AAAQS limit of 50 µg/m³ (24-hour average). However, the predicted 10 µg/m³ is an increase of the PM10 concentration by more than 2.5 µg/m³ and therefore, Regulation 17 of the NESair applies.

The maximum predicted annual average concentrations of PM10 are both less than 1 µg/m³. Based on an annual average maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately15 µg/m³ the cumulative impacts are not expected to exceed the AAAQG and AAAQS of 20 µg/m³ (annual average).

The predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM2.5 is approximately 6.6 µg/m³ and occurs in the immediate vicinity of the Aotea south vents – both of these vents discharge horizontally. Based on a maximum background PM2.5 concentration of approximately 18 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Aotea Station, will come close to, but will not result in an exceedance of the ARAQT and AAAQS limit of 25 µg/m³ (24-hour average).

In relation to the annual average, the maximum predicted concentration of PM2.5 is approximately 0.6 µg/m³ and occurs immediately in the vicinity of the Aotea south vents. Based on an average annual

background concentration of 7 µg/m³ this is predicted to give rise to a cumulative concentration of approximately 8 µg/m³, which is below the AAAQS of 10 µg/m³.

7.12.2.2 Karangahape Station

For the Karangahape Station, the predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM10 is approximately 10 µg/m³ and occurs in the immediate vicinity of the Mercury Lane. This vent discharges horizontally whereas the Pitt Street vent discharges vertically. Based on a maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately 37 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Karangahape Station will not result in an exceedance of the NESair, AAAQG and AAAQS limit of 50 µg/m³ (24-hour average). However, the predicted 10 µg/m³ is an increase of the PM10 concentration by more than 2.5 µg/m³ and therefore, Regulation 17 of the NESair applies.

The maximum predicted annual average concentrations of PM10 are both less than 2 µg/m³. Based on an annual average maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately15 µg/m³ the cumulative impacts are not expected to exceed the AAAQG and AAAQS limit of 20 µg/m³ (annual average).

The predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM2.5 is approximately 6.5 µg/m³ and occurs in immediate vicinity of the Mercury Lane vents. Based on a maximum background PM2.5 concentration of approximately 18 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Karangahape Station, will come close to but will not result in an exceedance of the ARAQT and AAAQS limits of 25 µg/m³ (24-hour average).

The annual average, the maximum predicted concentration of PM2.5 is approximately 0.6 µg/m³ and occurs immediately in the vicinity of the Mercury Lane vent. Based on an average annual background concentration of 7 µg/m³ this is predicted to give rise to a cumulative concentration of approximately 8 µg/m³, which is below the AAAQS of 10 µg/m³.

7.12.2.3 Mount Eden Station

For the Mount Eden Station, the predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM10 is approximately 1.2 µg/m³ or lower. Based on a maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately 37 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Karangahape Station will not result in an exceedance of the NESair, AAAQG and AAAQS limit of 50 µg/m³ (24-hour average). The predicted 1.2 µg/m³ is also within the threshold increase of the PM10 threshold specified in Regulation 17 of the NESair (i.e., more than 2.5 µg/m³).

The maximum predicted annual average concentrations of PM10 are very low at 0.07 µg/m³. Based on an annual average maximum background PM10 concentration of approximately15 µg/m³ the cumulative impacts are not expected to exceed the AAAQG and AAAQS limit of 20 µg/m³ (annual average).

The predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM2.5 is approximately 0.8 µg/m³ due to a greater vent height. Based on a maximum background PM2.5 concentration of approximately 18 µg/m³, it is expected that the cumulative effects of discharges from the vents associated with Aotea Station will not result in an exceedance of the ARAQT and AAAQS limits of 25 µg/m³ (24-hour average).

In relation to the annual average, the maximum predicted concentration of PM2.5 is approximately 0.4 µg/m³ and occurs immediately in the vicinity of the discharge vent. Based on an average annual background concentration of 7 µg/m³ this is predicted to give rise to a cumulative concentration of approximately 7 µg/m³, which is below the AAAQS of 10 µg/m³.

7.12.3 Summary

Air dispersion modelling has been undertaken to predict GLCs of PM10 and PM2.5 in the vicinity of tunnel vents associated with Aotea, Karangahape and Mount Eden stations.

The predicted GLCs associated with discharges from the Aotea and Karangahape Road Stations vents exceed 2.5 µg/m³ as a 24-hour average limit pursuant to the NESair. As the project is within the Auckland Urban Airshed, which is classified as a polluted airshed, there is a need to off-set the CRL PM10 emissions from another source(s) within the same airshed in accordance with Regulation 17 of the NESair

For Mount Eden Station, the predicted GLCs for both 24-hour and annual average of PM10 and PM2.5 is well below the relevant assessment criteria. This is also the case for the Aotea and Karangahape stations, except the predicted maximum 24-hour GLC of PM2.5 comes close to the limits of the ARAQT and AAAQS limits of 25 µg/m³ (24-hour average).

There are a number of dispersion and emission control measures which could potentially be applied to reduce the potential air quality impacts associated with each of the tunnel vents. However, given the relatively low PM10 and PM2.5 GLCs and isolated spatial extent of any impacts resulting from the discharge of contaminants from the vents, it is considered there will be minimal adverse effects.

In addition, the AQA calculated the overall PM10 emissions arising from the operation of the CRL route (1.3 kg/day), and compared it to the reduction in PM10 emissions into the airshed from reduced motor vehicle use anticipated as a result of the CRL project (i.e., the shift in passenger transport from people using motor vehicles and buses to trains). The AQA concluded that the reduction in PM10 emission from operation of the CRL is greater than the PM10 emission that is calculated as being discharged from the CRL route and as such is sufficient to off-set the PM10 emission as required by Regulation 17 of the NESair.

7.13 Historic Heritage

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been undertaken by Reverb Limited for the Aotea to NAL section and is attached at Appendix J. The HIA has been undertaken with reference to the DCR (Appendix B), Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) and Drawings (Appendix N).

The HIA considers the potential effects associated with earthworks activities, including ground settlement arising from the proposed works on or within directly affected historic or scheduled heritage buildings/ structures and places as identified under the PAUP’s Historic Heritage Overlay (refer to Table 4-1 above for a list of the identified buildings/ structures and places). Twenty-two historic heritage places have been identified along the CRL route.

The HIA identifies and quantifies issues associated with the construction of this phase of the CRL, as they relate to regional resource consenting matters. With reference to other technical appendices (refer to DCR, Appendix B and Assessment of Settlement Effects, Appendix D) the HIA recommends mitigation options to manage potential effects on heritage values arising from the Aotea to NAL earthworks activities.

7.13.1 Affected Historic Heritage Places

Earthworks activities for the Aotea to NAL section will be undertaken within various places identified in the PAUP Historic Heritage Overlay. The proposed earthworks include the construction of the cut and cover, mined and TBM tunnels and the relocation of various network utilities; both at the surface and beneath various historic heritage places.

Earthworks activities will be undertaken at ground surface levels of two identified historic heritage places:

 The Bluestone Wall (PAUP ref # 2016) is proposed to be dismantled and rebuilt following CRL construction (authorised by CRL Designation 1). Earthworks associated with piling and excavation for the cut and cover tunnels is proposed to occur within this scheduled place within Albert Street. The Bluestone Wall will not be in place at the time the most significant earthworks are progressed, therefore the management of potential adverse effects on the heritage values associated with the

Bluestone Wall are already addressed through the CRL Designation. As such, there are no effects anticipated for this historic heritage place associated with Resource Consent Package 2 and no further assessment is therefore warranted.

 Excavation associated with the construction of a shaft to enable utilities relocations and earthworks associated with the Mt Eden Road bridge replacement are proposed to occur within the westernmost portion of Mount Eden Prison (1 Lauder Road) (PAUP ref # 1721) which is subject to archaeological controls. These works are not located in proximity to existing buildings, therefore no ground settlement related effects are anticipated. Reverb conclude in the HIA (Appendix J) that potential effects associated with earthworks will be negligible. Any potential effects associated with earthworks activities and archaeology will be addressed in the application for a General Archaeological Authority sought from HNZPT, as described in Section 1.6 above.

Underground earthworks activities will be undertaken within a number of other historic heritage places, including mined, TBM and pipe-jacking tunnelling methodologies, as identified in Table 4-1 above. These historic heritage buildings have been assessed within the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) and considered in the HIA (Appendix J). Technically, while the CRL works fall within the identified historic heritage places, the Assessment of Settlement Effects predicts potential settlement effects on historic heritage buildings located over tunnelling activities to be negligible due to considerations such as depth, proximity, ground conditions and construction management techniques proposed. The HIA (Appendix J), at Table 5.2, provides a built heritage risk assessment summary which reflects the outcomes of the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D).

In terms of historic heritage places located within 20 m of the proposed earthworks areas, the Assessment of Settlement Effects has estimated that the potential effects range from “Negligible” to “Very Slight” (refer to Table 5.2 of the HIA, Appendix J). Only the former Public Trust Building (11 Mayoral Drive, Category B listing [PAUP ref # 01985]) resulted in the predicted “Very Slight” aesthetic damage category on the basis of estimated ground movements. Notably, this was revised down to “Negligible” following a Stage 3 Assessment (discussed further below).

7.13.2 Stage 3 Assessments - Historic Heritage Places

While the Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) building assessment methodology is considered to be conservative, AT considered it prudent to consider in more detail two particular buildings (both historic heritage places) to confirm predictions and given their inherent perceived vulnerability (construction type, proximity to the excavation works and the associated ground conditions). These additional buildings that were subject to a Stage 3 analysis included the Public Trust Building (11 Mayoral Drive, Category B listing [PAUP ref # 01985]) as noted above and the former Mercury Theatre (256 Karangahape Road, Category B listing [PAUP ref #1982]).

Based on the estimated settlement induced tensile strains on the identified buildings, the further Stage 3 assessment confirms:

 In the case of the former Public Trust Building, the effects are not considered to be more than minor, and are limited to the potential for aesthetic damage.

 In the case of the former Mercury Theatre, while the effects are not considered to be more than minor, given the building’s proximity to the access shaft and deep excavation to form the future Karangahape Station entrance, and the building’s construction type, it is considered potentially sensitive to the excavation works and the corresponding estimated ground movement The Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D) specifically highlights the vulnerability of the foundation to the southern wall and its likely response to construction activities. The assessment concludes that future more detailed investigation is required as part of the detailed design. The assessment goes on to note that preventive mitigation works in the form external bracing may be required.

In the case of the former Mercury Theatre, specific preventative measures in the form of exterior bracing has been recommended to ensure that the integrity of this potentially vulnerable structure is

maintained and this is endorsed in Reverb’s HIA (Appendix J). Post-construction (post-bracing) remedial measures are likely required if this mitigation is adopted and this will be at AT’s cost. Care will be required to ensure heritage values associated with the former Mercury Theatre are maintained as part of any future reinstatement following the removal of bracing.

7.13.3 Summary

Based on the proposed engineering design, construction methodologies and monitoring contained within the DCR (Appendix B) and Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D), Reverb Limited have concluded that any potential effects on historic heritage places from works within historic heritage buildings/ structures and within proximity of the works will be no more than minor subject to the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures that have previously been discussed (refer to Section 7.5 and the discussion above). This includes monitoring before, during and after construction and undertaking building condition surveys (subject to the building owner’s approval) Specific preventative measures in the form external bracing for the former Mercury Theatre are considered appropriate.

Overall, it is considered that any potential adverse effects on identified historic heritage places as a result of the proposed earthworks and groundwater diversion and take associated with CRL, and for which resource consent is sought, can be appropriately remedied and mitigated through the application of the previously identified monitoring and mitigation measures imposed through the proposed conditions, specifically the requirement for a GSMCP and an Independent Building Assessor (refer to Appendix M for more detail on the proposed conditions).

Subject to the above, the HIA concludes that the proposed earthworks will not affect or diminish the historic heritage value of the historic heritage places identified under the PAUP. The effects of the Aotea to NAL construction works are therefore considered to be no more than minor.

7.14 Mana Whenua Values

Relevant considerations with respect to the Aotea to NAL section matters raised by Mana Whenua groups within the CRL MVAs and CVAs (refer to Section 6.4 above) include:

 Works in-proximity and adjacent to scheduled Maori Heritage Site/ Site and Place of Significance to Mana Whenua Nga Wharau a Tako

 Discovery protocols.

 Monitoring

 The potential for the proposed works to give rise to adverse effects on cultural and spiritual landscape values for Mana Whenua, including the mauri and tapu of Nga Wharau a Tako

 The cumulative effects of the wider CRL project works on cultural values and the relationship of Mana Whenua with their ancestral lands and tāonga.

While no formal update to the MVAs has been sought, ongoing and regular feedback on the Aotea to NAL section design has been sought from Mana Whenua groups through regular CRL Mana Whenua Forum hui.

Aotea Station works are proposed within Kingston Street which falls within scheduled site Nga Wharau a Tako 29 In terms of Mana Whenua values in relation to these works, feedback has been provided by the Mana Whenua Forum regarding the potential for cumulative effects on Mana Whenua values as a result of the various CRL project works in relation to this identified Site and Place of Significance.

In accordance with the proposed resource consent conditions (Appendix M), the Mana Whenua Forum provides for ongoing opportunities for Mana Whenua groups to undertake kaitiakitanga responsibilities and mātauranga Māori input into the Aotea to NAL section works, including those CRL works within Nga Wharau a Tako

The PAUP, Part 3, Chapter G, Section 2.7.4, requires that a CIA may be required for resource consent applications where the proposed works may have adverse effects on Mana Whenua values, such as discharges to water, the CMA, air, land, the diversion and taking of groundwater and the construction of significant infrastructure.

In terms of Mana Whenua values and the Aotea to NAL section outcomes discussed at the various hui, it was noted in particular that further consideration to the importance of protecting the Hauraki Gulf from contaminants such as stormwater and improved water quality outcomes in the catchment was a preferred outcome. Methods for the application of kaitiakitanga principles through monitoring/ sampling of water quality was also raised. Matters related to the management of earthworks, groundwater and contaminated land are also understood to be important from the perspective of Mana Whenua values Consideration of opportunities for the cultural reuse of resources such as sandstone and basalt have also been suggested by the Mana Whenua Forum through a targeted resource consent workshop and hui.

In response, the design team has reviewed potential stormwater treatment options (including treatment measures at depth or at the discharge point into the harbour). Some potential opportunities on a catchment basis have also been previously presented by AC and the PTA as part of future works to Albert Street, which are beyond the scope of this application.

With respect to Mana Whenua values and the proposed resource consent to discharge treated tunnel drainage water to the stormwater system, if the discharge to stormwater permit needs to be implemented, a monitoring programme and treatment system are proposed to be implemented These measures will confirm the quality of both the treated tunnel drainage water and the treated water prior to discharge to the stormwater system. The treatment system will be tested to ensure its capability to remove contaminants to ensure there are no significant adverse effects on the Waitemata Harbour or Motions Creek, and therefore associated Mana Whenua values.

The draft technical reports which support this AEE have been circulated to Mana Whenua prior to lodgement. As an outcome of the various hui, Mana Whenua have indicated that until such time that they could review the resource consent application in full, the requirement for CIAs could not be confirmed. Consequently any identification of effects on Mana Whenua values and associated mitigation measures is unable to be confirmed at this time. Engagement with Mana Whenua groups is ongoing and any updates will be supplied to AC as appropriate.

7.15 Summary of Effects

The construction of the Aotea to NAL section will facilitate the operation of the CRL project which has a number of potential positive effects (both outlined in Section 7.1 of the NoR AEE and summarised in Section 7.2 of this AEE). The effects of the construction of the Aotea to NAL and the operational effects of the CRL project are summarised in the sections below. All actual and potential effects are considered to be no more than minor, and any effects can be effectively managed and mitigated.

7.15.1 Construction Effects

Construction of the Aotea to NAL section has the potential to give rise to a range of environmental effects within the immediate vicinity of the ACZs and CSAs and these have been covered in the preceding assessment. AT proposes consent conditions which require a suite of management plans to be developed or updated, in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the

construction of the Aotea to NAL section. Potential construction effects and the relevant management plans are as follows:

 Potential construction effects associated with erosion, soil mobilisation, sedimentation to receiving water bodies and stormwater discharges will be temporary in duration and will be appropriately avoided or mitigated via measures outlined in the DCR and Draft ESCMP.

 Potential effects from ground settlement on buildings, heritage buildings, structures and utilities can be appropriately mitigated by the implementation of a GSMCP.

 A Draft CSMP has been prepared to manage potential adverse human health and environmental effects during earthworks arising from contaminated land and to also provide mitigation for unexpected discovery of contamination during earthworks.

 Stormwater and groundwater encountered within the ACZs will be subject to a targeted water quality monitoring programme which will ensure any potential effects can be appropriately mitigated.

 Stormwater treatment will be provided to the grout batching plant on CSA 4 and the ITA EMP will be adhered to, to ensure that the actual and potential effects associated with the ITAs to be undertaken in the five CSAs will be appropriately mitigated.

 Potential flood hazards resulting from the diversion of overland flow paths and flood plains will be managed by implementing measures during construction to ensure the retention of overland flows through and around ACZs and CSAs where required.

 Potential adverse dust effects created during excavation of the cut and cover tunnels, open cut areas and shaft excavations, will be managed and mitigated by undertaking continuous real time monitoring and implementing the measures outlined in the AQMP.

Once construction is complete, a significant proportion of the Aotea to NAL section will be located underground and any areas affected by surface works will be reinstated to preconstruction levels. As such, the construction effects are temporary in nature and can be effectively managed and mitigated.

7.15.2 Operational Effects

There are potential longer term effects as a result of the operation of CRL. These relate to the permanent diversion of overland flow paths and flood plains, operational water discharges to stormwater, and the discharges to air of PM10 from the vents at Aotea and Karangahape Stations. Potential operational effects and recommended measures to manage and mitigate these effects are as follows:

 Particular consideration has been given to the operational design in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station and the NAL to ensure the appropriate management of potential flood hazard effects on adjacent properties and the CRL infrastructure itself.

 In the event that a trade waste consent cannot be obtained, an operational water quality monitoring programme has been proposed to ensure that the treatment is achieving the desired outcome prior to being discharged to the stormwater system.

 The operation of CRL will potentially give rise to an increase in PM10 from the vents at Aotea and Karangahape Stations. Specific mitigation measures are not proposed as the offsets from the CRL project itself (from the reduction in motor vehicle use) is greater than the amount of PM10 being discharged from the operation of CRL route.

8 Statutory Assessment

8.1 Introduction

This section of the AEE assesses the Aotea to NAL section and the operational aspects of the CRL from Britomart Station to the NAL) against the key provisions of the RMA in Section 8.2 and comments on other relevant legislation in Section 8.3. An assessment of the proposed Aotea to NAL section and the CRL’s operation against the relevant statutory policy statements and plans is contained in Section 9.

8.2 Resource Management Act 1991

8.2.1 Introduction

The proposed Aotea to NAL section must be consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA (or Act), as set out in Part 2 (sections 5 to 8) and have regard to matters in section 104 of the Act.

8.2.2 Part 2 Purpose and Principles (sections 5 to 8)

Part 2 of the RMA outlines the purpose and principles of the RMA. Section 5 states:

(1) “The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, ‘sustainable management’ means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

The purpose of the RMA, as set out in section 5 of the Act, is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The actual and potential effects on the environment are set out in Section 7 of this AEE. The assessment concludes that the construction effects of the proposed Aotea to NAL section construction works will be temporary in nature and can be effectively managed and mitigated via the measures outlined in Section 7. In particular, construction mitigation measures will be implemented through an approved CEMP and a range of key management and monitoring plans. These documents will address and seek to avoid or mitigate a range of actual and potential effects associated with the Aotea to NAL section.

The assessment in Section 7 also concludes that the effects from the operation of the CRL are limited to the permanent diversion of overland flow paths and flood plains, possible operational water discharges to stormwater, and the discharges to air of PM10 from the vents at Aotea and Karangahape Stations. However, the CRL project itself results in an overall reduction of PM10 emissions and the operational design ensures appropriate management of potential flood hazards. Furthermore, an operational water quality monitoring programme has been proposed to ensure that the treatment is achieving the desired outcome in the event that it is discharged to stormwater system. In addition, the CRL project will contribute to safe and efficient transport network which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and

safety. Therefore, operation of the CRL meets the purpose of the Act by promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources

Section 6 of the RMA identifies matters of national importance which shall be ‘recognised and provided for’. Section 7 of the RMA identifies other matters which ‘shall be had regard to’ under the RMA. With regard to the Aotea to NAL section and wider Project operation the following section 6 and 7 matters are considered to be of relevance. They are:

“6(e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

6(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.]

7(a) kaitiakitanga:

7(aa) the ethic of stewardship:

7(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:

7(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:

7(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:

7(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:”

In addition, section 8 of the RMA requires “all persons exercising functions and powers” under the Act to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

Consultation with Mana Whenua has been ongoing. Engagement with eight Mana Whenua groups who have self-identified an interest in the Project (outlined in Section 6.4 above) has been ongoing via the CRL Mana Whenua Forum and targeted hui. Key matters raised in consultation with Mana Whenua include requirements around accidental discovery protocols, the need to cover all trucks when moving earth, stormwater, the potential for use of alternative flocculants, monitoring and the potential re-use of materials. These matters have been addressed through suggested conditions included in this AEE as Appendix M and through ongoing engagement through the regular CRL Mana Whenua Forum hui. AT will “Dropbox” this application to the CRL Mana Whenua Forum members in its entirety following lodgement. Regular engagement through the Mana Whenua Forum assists in recognising and providing for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga, therefore has been recognised and provided for in accordance with section 6(e). Further providing for on-going involvement in the Aotea to NAL section application enables Mana Whenua to undertake their kaitiakitanga responsibilities, giving particular regard to sections 7(a) and 7(aa).

A HIA has been prepared by Reverb Limited and is attached in Appendix J. A summary of the findings of this assessment is provided in Section 7.13 of this AEE The protection of historic heritage therefore has been recognised and provided for in accordance with section 6(f) of the RMA.

The Aotea to NAL section involves construction techniques and practices which have been designed to minimise potential and actual adverse effects on the environment (discussed in Section 7 of this AEE). The Aotea to NAL section and CRL Project once operational represents the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (section 7 (b)) and maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment (section 7 (f)). Effects on amenity values are considered to be temporary in nature, therefore, long term amenity values will be maintained once construction is complete, in accordance with section 7 (c).

The potential effects from the operation of the CRL such as the possible discharge of operational water to the stormwater will all be managed in a way that will maintain the quality of the environment and have regard to the intrinsic values of ecosystems in accordance with sections 7 (c) and (d). The diversion of flood paths and flood plains and the discharge of PM10 have had regard to the

maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and amenity values in accordance with Section 7(c) and (f). The operation of CRL will contribute to safe and efficient transport, which is considered an efficient development of a physical resource in accordance with section 7(b).

A CLA and a Draft CSMP have been prepared which will ensure that any actual and potential effects on human health and the environment associated with contaminated land will be appropriately avoided or mitigated. Therefore the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment in accordance with section 7(f) of the RMA have been provided for and had regard to.

With respect to section 8 of the RMA, a core principle of the Treaty is partnership. AT have established a collaborative working relationship with Mana Whenua throughout the various stages of the CRL project (including Resource Consent Package 2), as outlined in Section 6.4 above, therefore the Aotea to NAL section is considered to be consistent with section 8 of the RMA.

Given the consultation that has been undertaken to date, it is considered that the requirements of sections 6(e), 6(f), 7(a), 7(aa), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(f) and 8 of the RMA have been provided for and had regard to. Ongoing consultation and engagement will continue through all stages of planning and construction.

8.2.3 Sections 9 to 16

Section 9 of the RMA places restrictions on the use of land. Sections 9 (1), 9 (2) and 9 (3) of the RMA state that no person may use land in a manner that contravenes a national environmental standard, a regional rule or a district rule (i.e., rules that require resource consents to be sought), unless expressly allowed by a resource consent or designation or the activity is an existing use.

As assessed in Section 5 of this AEE, relevant regional and proposed unitary plans do not provide for earthworks, groundwater diversion and take, contaminated land discharges, discharges to stormwater, works in flood hazard areas and air discharges as permitted activities. Therefore, resource consents being sought by this application document are required under the RMA to authorise the construction of the Aotea to NAL section and operation of the entire CRL.

Section 9 places restrictions on activities associated with earthworks and infrastructure associated with flood hazards where the proposed activity contravenes the relevant ACRP: SC, ACRP: ALW and PAUP provisions, therefore as assessed in Section 5 of this AEE, resource consents are sought to authorise these activities as part of the Aotea to NAL section and operation of the entire CRL Section 14 of the RMA places restrictions on the taking, use, damming, or diversion of water. Section 14 (3)(a) states that a person is not prohibited from taking, using, damming, or diverting any water, heat, or energy if it is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region or a resource consent.

As assessed in Section 5 of this AEE, the relevant regional plans do not provide for the diversion and take of groundwater as a permitted activity. Therefore, a water permit is being sought by this application document and is required under the RMA to authorise groundwater diversion and take associated with the Aotea to NAL section and the CRL’s future operation

In addition, as assessed in Section 5 of this AEE, the relevant PAUP provisions do not provide for the temporary and permanent diversion of overland flow paths and flood plains both during construction and operation of the Aotea to NAL section, therefore resource consents are sought and required under the RMA to authorise these activities.

Section 15 of the RMA places restrictions on the discharge of contaminants into the environment. Section 15(1)(a) states that no person may discharge any contaminant or water into water unless that discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulation, a rule in a regional plan or proposed regional plan or by a resource consent. Section 15(1)(b) places similar

restriction on discharges to land which may enter water, and Section 15(1)(c) places similar restrictions on discharges into air from industrial or trade premises.

As assessed in Section 5 of this AEE the relevant ACRP: ALW and PAUP provisions do not provide for discharges to air as a permitted activity. Therefore, the air discharge permit being sought by this application document is required under the RMA to authorise the discharges of dust associated with the Aotea to NAL section and for the discharge of contaminants to air from tunnels that are over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources (the operational aspect of CRL).

As assessed in Section 5 of this AEE the relevant ACRP: ALW and PAUP provisions do not provide for discharges to the stormwater system as permitted activities. Therefore, the discharge permit being sought by this application document is required under the RMA to authorise the discharges to stormwater associated with the Aotea to NAL section during construction and for the longer-term operation of CRL

As assessed in Section 5 of this AEE the relevant ACRP: ALW and PAUP provisions do not provide for the discharges of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants or for the discharges of contaminants from land containing elevated levels to land or water as permitted activities. Therefore, the discharge permits being sought by this application document are required under the RMA to authorise the discharges from contaminated land associated with the Aotea to NAL section.

8.2.4 Section 95 Notification

Sections 95 to 95F of the RMA set out the requirements in relation to public notification and limited notification of resource consent applications. The applicant requests notification pursuant to section 95A(2)(b). Details of consultation with affected parties and the wider public is contained in Section 6 of this AEE

8.2.5 Section 104 to 107 Considerations

For any resource consent application, section 104 of the RMA requires the consent authority, in making decisions, to have regard to:

 The actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity (section 104(1)(a));

 The relevant provisions of any national standard, other regulation, national policy statement, coastal policy statement, regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement, plan or proposed plan (section 104(1)(b)); and

 Any other matters considered relevant or necessary to consider (section 104(1)(c)).

The actual and potential effects associated with the Aotea to NAL section and the wider CRL Project operation have been assessed in Section 7 of this document (section 104(1)(a)).

Given the requirements of section 104(1)(b), relevant statutory documents need to be assessed in relation to the activities for which resource consents are being sought. On this basis, the statutory documents of relevance to this application, which are assessed in Sections 9.2 to 9.3, are:

 Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement 1999 (ACRPS).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water 2013 (ACRP: ALW).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001 (ACRP: SC).

 National Environmental Standard pursuant to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESair)

 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESsoil).

 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (PAUP).

As outlined earlier in this AEE, the overall activity status for the activities requiring resource consent is a discretionary activity Under section 104B, in determining a discretionary activity application, a consent authority may grant or refuse the application; and if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108 (refer to Section 8.2.8 below).

8.2.6 Section 105 Matters relevant to certain applications

Section 105(1) of the RMA provides for matters that consent authorities must have regard to when considering applications to discharge. The proposal involves discharges that require a discharge permit to do something that would contravene section 15 and therefore section 105(1) applies. Section 105(1) requires consideration of:

 An assessment of the discharges and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects (section 105(1)(a));

 The applicant’s reasons for the proposed choices in relation to the discharges (section 105(1)(b)); and

 Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment (section 105(1)(c)).

The nature of the discharges has been described in Section 3.14 and Section 7 of this AEE and the sensitivity of the receiving environment has been discussed in Section 4 and Section 7 of this AEE

The reasons for the proposed choices in relation to the discharges has been discussed in Section 3.14 of this AEE

Possible alternative methods of discharge are discussed in Section 3.14 of this AEE

8.2.7 Section 107 Matters Relevant to discharge permits

Section 107 of the RMA is also of relevance to the discharge permits for the discharges to land and water from contaminated land and disturbance of contaminated soil.

Under section 107(1) of the RMA, a consent authority shall not grant the discharge permit if the discharge, after reasonable mixing, gives rise to the following effects in the receiving water:

(c) “the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials:

(d) any conspicuous changes in the colour or visual clarity:

(e) any omission of objectionable odour:

(f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals:

(g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life”

The effects of the discharges to groundwater and the stormwater system are assessed in the WQA (Appendix F) and the CLA (Appendix E) of this AEE. As an overview, given the control mechanisms that are in place (outlined in the Draft ESCP (Appendix I), Draft CSMP, contained within Appendix E, and in the WQA), the discharge will not result in any effects identified in section 107(c) to (d) and (g). The effects identified in section 107 (e) and (f) are not relevant.

8.2.8 Sections 108, 123 and 125 Conditions and Consent Duration

In accordance with section 108, suggested consent conditions are provided in Appendix M and summarised in Section 10 of this AEE

Section 123 defines the period for which consents may be granted. Under section 123(b) the period for which any land use consent (apart from reclamation) is granted is unlimited, unless otherwise specified in the consent.

Section 123 sets an upper limit of 35 years for discharge and water permits. Section 123(d) limits discharge and water permits to five years unless an alternative duration is specified in the consent.

Subject to section 125(1), a resource consent lapses on the date specified on the consent. If no date is specified, under section 125(1)(a) the discharge permits, water permits and land use consents sought will lapse 5 years after the commencement of the consent (if they have not been implemented).

As outlined in Section 3.12 of this AEE, the Aotea to NAL section construction is estimated to take 5 to 6 years, potentially to commence in 2017 or 2018 The CRL designations have been granted with a lapse period of 15 years, from 10 November 2015, the date on which they were confirmed by the Environment Court. AT is also currently preparing NoRs to alter the CRL Designations which are scheduled to be lodged over the course of 2016. If during the procurement or construction phases of the Aotea to NAL section, or if the NoRs to alter the CRL Designations were subject to unresolved appeals, the wider CRL project may be delayed, which may then result in delays to the Aotea to NAL section.

Therefore, AT request that under section 123(b) the duration of the land use consents being sought is unlimited and under section 123(d) the duration of the discharge and water permits being sought is 35 years. Further, it is requested that the lapse period for all resource consents sought is 10 years.

8.2.9 Section 139 Certificates of Compliance

CoCs are being sought pursuant to section 139 of the RMA which sets out the requirements for CoC applications.

It is considered that the following activities are permitted and can be carried out lawfully without resource consent:

 Discharge of treated sediment laden water from any earthworks allowed by a resource consent.

 Installation of below ground infrastructure within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain

 Construction of stormwater management devices or flood mitigation works that are to be vested in the council

 Any flood-vulnerable infrastructure involving structures placed within the 0.5 per cent AEP flood plain

 Discharge of stormwater from redeveloped existing impervious surfaces.

 Discharge of contaminants into air from cement use

 Discharge of contaminants into air from trains

Assessment of these activities in relation to the permitted activity rules are provided in Section 5 of this AEE and through the assessments provided in Section 7. On this basis, the requirements of section 139(1) of the RMA are met.

There are no applicable national environmental standards that must be considered in accordance with section 139(10)(a). It is acknowledged that the CoCs requested would be subject to the conditions specified in the permitted activity rules in accordance with section 139(10)(b).

Therefore, in accordance with section 139(5) of the RMA it is requested that the CoCs be issued by AC.

8.3 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

Potential effects on archaeology were assessed under the prior NoR phase of the CRL project. Further to this, a General Archaeological Authority from HNZPT will be sought concurrently to resource consent for the Aotea to NAL section.

8.4 Summary of Statutory Assessment

The actual and potential effects on the environment of the construction of the Aotea to NAL section and the operation of the CRL route as a whole are no more than minor and can be managed and mitigated via the measures outlined in Section 7 and the proposed resource consent conditions contained within Appendix M. Further, the construction effects will be temporary in nature. As an integral part of the wider CRL project and Auckland’s transport network, the Aotea to NAL section will enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, consistent with the purpose of the RMA. Overall the proposed works are considered to achieve the purpose of the RMA. A General Archaeological Authority from HNZPT will be sought for the Aotea to NAL section under the HNZPT Act.

9 Relevant Planning Documents

9.1 Introduction

This section of the AEE assesses the Aotea to NAL section and the CRL Project (operation) against the relevant provisions of the following statutory policy statements and plans:

 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESsoil).

 Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESair).

 Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water (ACRP: ALW).

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP: SC).

 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

Other legislative provisions relevant to the Aotea to NAL section and wider CRL operation are discussed in Section 8.3.

9.2 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

The NESsoil:

 Provides a nationally consistent set of planning controls and soil contaminant values; and

 Ensures that land affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately identified and assessed before it is developed and if necessary the land is remediated or the contaminants contained to make the land safe for human use.

AC

is required to give effect to and

enforce the requirements of the NESsoil

Under the NESsoil regulations, land is considered to be actually or potentially contaminated if an activity or industry on the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) HAIL list has been, is, or is more likely than not to have been, undertaken on that land. These regulations apply to the works comprising the proposed Aotea to NAL section as activities that have occurred at the site are activities on the HAIL List (Item H) and the disturbance of the potentially contaminated is an activity covered by Regulation

5(4) of the NESsoil

While the laboratory soil analysis discussed in the CLA are not below the NESsoil permitted contaminant standards, the investigations were limited in scope and therefore it cannot be concluded with confidence that soil contamination does or does not exceed the applicable standard in Regulation

7. Therefore the following land use consent is being sought:

 A land use consent to disturb soil pursuant to Regulation 11 (discretionary activity) of the NESsoil

The NESsoil sets out controls and standards to manage soil disturbance on contaminated and potentially contaminated land. There are no matters of discretion under Regulation 11. However, a draft CSMP (contained within Appendix E) has been prepared to support this resource consent application, for a discretionary activity, under the NESsoil. The CSMP outlines the soil management protocols. It is considered that the CLA and draft CSMP provide adequate information for AC to assess the matters of discretion.

9.3 National Environmental Standard for Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2011

The NESair was published in 2004 and amended in April 2011 (with amendments taking effect from 1 June 2011). The NESair regulations are mandatory and include standards related to ambient concentrations of PM10,sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). They include concentration limits, maximum numbers of allowable exceedances, and define compliant monitoring methods. For this project, only the standard relating to PM10 is relevant (24-hour average concentration value of 50 µg/m³, allowing for one exceedance per year).

The standards apply in all areas of New Zealand, in the open air, wherever people may be exposed over the relevant time averaging period. The main exception is that if the discharge is authorised by a resource consent, then the standards do not apply on the site to which that consent applies.

Regulation 17 of the NES air relates to industrial PM10 discharges into polluted airsheds, and states that certain resource consent applications must be declined unless other PM10 discharges are off-set. Discharges into a polluted airshed that would lead to an increase of the PM10 concentration by more than 2.5 µg/m³(24-hour average) are required to be off-set through emissions reductions elsewhere in the airshed. As noted earlier in Section 4.1.5, the CRL Project is situated in the Auckland Urban Airshed, which is deemed to be a polluted airshed in relation to PM10

As discussed in Section 7.12, the AQA found that the predicted concentrations exceed the 2.5 µg/m³ (24-hour averaged) threshold of Regulation 17 of the NESair over a very small area surrounding both the north and the south vents at Aotea Station and the two tunnel vents at Karangahape Station.

However, it was concluded in Section 7.12, and in Section 7.3 of the AQA, that the off-set provided by the CRL project itself (from the reduction in motor vehicle use) is greater than the emissions arising from the operation of the CRL route, therefore providing the off-set required under Regulation 17 of the NESair

It is noted that AC, through the PAUP hearing process, is seeking the amendment of the activity status of the rules which requires an air discharge permit pursuant to the PAUP. For the operation of the CRL, the following resource consent is currently required:

 A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from a tunnel over 220 m long that are used for mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table 1 (discretionary activity) of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP is sought

In accordance with the rebuttal evidence of Lauren Jones on behalf of AC, dated 25 February 2015 for Topic 035 of the PAUP, the proposed amendment would give permitted activity status in all zones to discharges to air from rail tunnels established from 30 September 2013 that only carry electric powered locomotives.

In the event that the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Independent Hearing Panel recommends that the amendment in Ms Jones evidence is accepted, and AC confirms that amendment in its decision, air discharges from the operation of the CRL will be a permitted activity. This would mean that resource consent would not be required, and Regulation 17 of the NESair would not apply to the CRL project.

9.4 Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

The ACRPS became operative on 31 August 1999. The focus of the ACRPS is the management, use, development, and protection of natural resources of the Auckland region. The aim of the ACRPS is to achieve certainty through integrated, consistent and coordinated management of Auckland region’s resources.

The Chapter 2 (Regional Overview and Strategic Direction), Chapter 3 (Matters of Significance to Iwi), Chapter 4 (Transport), Chapter 6 (Heritage) Chapter 8 (Water Quality), Chapter 9 (Water Conservation and Allocation), Chapter 10 (Air Quality), Chapter 11 (Natural Hazards), Chapter 16 (Hazardous Substances) and Chapter 17 (Contaminated Sites) are of particular relevance to the application

Chapter 2, Strategic Policy 2.6.14 recognises that regionally significant infrastructure is essential for the community’s social and economic wellbeing, but that regionally significant resources can give rise to adverse effects. The Project is considered consistent with these provisions as the CRL tunnels will provide a safe and efficient means of public transport which supports the existing and future well-being of CBD residents and businesses and the wider Auckland region.

Chapter 3, Objectives 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 and Policy 3.4.1 aim to involve Tangata Whenua in resource management processes, sustain the mauri of natural and physical resources in ways which enable provision for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Maori and seek to give protection to waahi tapu and other ancestral taonga of special value to Tangata Whenua. As outlined in Sections 6.4 and 7.14, although identification of effects on Mana Whenua values cannot be confirmed at this time, engagement with Mana Whenua is well established through the CRL Mana Whenua Forum and will continue throughout the consenting and construction phases of both the Aotea to NAL section and the wider CRL project. This will assist in ensuring that the objectives and policies in Chapter 3 are met.

Chapter 4, Objectives 4.3.1, Policies 4.4.1, 4.4.4 and 4.4.7 relate to the development of a transport network that supports a compact sustainable urban form. The Aotea to NAL section will enable the development of the CRL project, which will improve the public transport system and is consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 4.

Chapter 6 Objectives 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 and Policies

6.4.(Heritage preservation and protection., 6.4.4 (Heritage use and access), 6.4.16 (Evaluation of cultural heritage., 6.4.19 (Volcanic Features) seek to protect, maintain and enhance a diverse range of the region’s heritage resources while enabling utilisation of and access to these resources. The Aotea to NAL section will involve earthworks and land disturbance within and adjacent to historic heritage places. The HIA prepared by Reverb Limited (Appendix J) has concluded that potential adverse effects on historic heritage places can be appropriately remedied or mitigated through the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures outlined within a final GSMCP (refer to Section 7.5 and Section 7.13) in addition to the proposed design and construction methodologies. Therefore it is considered that potential adverse effects on historic heritage values can be appropriately managed, ensuring the relevant objectives and policies are met.

Chapter 8, Objective 8.3 seeks to maintain or enhance water quality. Policy 8.4.1 aims to avoid the adverse effects on water quality caused by the discharge of contaminants, and Policy 8.4.7 seeks the adoption of appropriate methods to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of urban stormwater runoff on aquatic receiving environments. In particular, Policy 8.4.7.3 seeks to ensure that land disturbance activities which may result in the discharge of sediment, shall be carried out so that adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Policy 8.4.10 intends that all industrial, trade and rural production and processing activities shall be carried out in a manner which prevents, wherever practicable, the adverse effects of discharges and wastes. Policy 8.4.24 proposes that Māori cultural and traditional values shall be recognised and provided for in the management of water quality. It is considered that the actual and/ or potential effects associated with soil disturbance will be temporary in duration and will be appropriately remedied or mitigated by the implementation of various erosion

and sediment control measures outlined through the development of a detailed ESCP. In addition, the implementation of the CSMP will ensure that any actual and potential effects on human health and the environment associated with contaminants found in the soil will be appropriately avoided or mitigated. Furthermore, during construction water collected, treated and discharged to the stormwater system will be treated via settlement tanks to the quality requirements detailed in the ACRP: ALW and the PAUP. Water not achieving the required standard will be disposed of off-site in an appropriate trade waste facility. Operational water to be discharged to the stormwater system will also be treated via settlement tanks and a water quality monitoring programme has been proposed to ensure that the treatment is achieving the desired outcome prior to being discharged to the stormwater system.

Chapter 9, Objective 9.3 and Policies 9.4.1, 9.4.4, 9.4.7 and 9.4.10 are considered of particular relevance to the proposal. They aim to maintain water levels and flows of aquifers and seek to ensure that aquifer temperatures and levels are not adversely affected by the taking, use, damming or diversion of groundwater. As outlined in Section 7.4 it is considered that the groundwater diversion and take associated with the Aotea to NAL section will not adversely affect aquifers.

Chapter 10, Objective 10.3 aims to avoid, remedy, or mitigate deterioration of air quality in the Auckland region, while Policy 10.4.1 aims to minimise the cumulative adverse effects on air quality from pollutants, including particulates Objective 10.4.7 states that adverse effects due to discharges to air from industrial and trade premises will be minimised and shall be monitored to demonstrate compliance with regional rules, regulations or conditions of resource consents. It is considered that potential adverse effects on air quality arising during construction from the generation of dust from earthworks can be appropriately managed.

Chapter 11, Objective 11.3 and Policies 11.4.1.3, 11.4.1.6 and 11.4.1.7 aim to identify measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects arising from construction activities and infrastructure located within flood hazard areas and seeks to ensure that any works or structures shall not create or exacerbate flood hazards It is considered that the proposed design and construction methodologies will ensure that any actual and potential effects on adjacent properties resulting from the works or structures and the proposed CRL infrastructure will be appropriately avoided and mitigated and subject to the implementation of conditions of consent.

Chapter 16, Objective 16.3 and 16.4.1 aims to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on human health and environment from activities using, storing, disposing or transporting hazardous substances. Subject to the implementation of site management measures, including the implementation of a final ITA EMP, Spill Response Plan and resource consent conditions, the potential adverse effects associated with hazardous substances will be avoided and mitigated.

Chapter 17, Objective 17.3 and Policy 17.4.1.3 are considered of particular relevance to the proposal. Objective 17.3 aims to remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of existing contaminated sites, while Policy 17.4.1.3 seeks to ensure that remediation standards for a contaminated site are consistent with the existing and likely future use of the site and shall consider the risk to the environment posed by the site. All fill material encountered during the Aotea to NAL section will be disposed of at a managed fill facility. No contaminated material encountered will be left insitu. The resource consents sought are required to authorise the construction of the Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project and operation of the entire CRL from Britomart Station to the NAL Any potential adverse effects can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Aotea to NAL section construction and CRL operation is consistent with the ACRPS overall and support the key provisions relating to the provision of infrastructure.

9.5 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control

The ACRP: SC addresses the issues of elevated sediment generation and discharge from areas subject to land disturbance. The plan seeks to promote the sustainable use of soils throughout the region. Relevant chapters are Chapter 5: Regulation and Chapter 7: Minimum Earthwork Strategies. Earthworks (both cut and fill) are required for the Aotea to NAL section for a range of construction methodologies including cut and cover, shaft excavation, mined and bored tunnelling, utilities trenching, backfilling and roading. Site preparation of ACZs and CSAs may also include earthworks associated with building demolition, establishing stabilised surfaces and recontouring. These earthworks will comprise a total estimated volume of 722,900 m3 of cut and 71,400 m3 of fill, with an exposed earthworks area of 77,100 m2 The location of the earthworks activities falls outside of the Sediment Control Protection Area.30

Section 9.5.1 assesses the relevant policies and objectives of the ACRP: SC, and Section 9.5.2 outlines the matters of discretion for the following resource consents pursuant to the ACRP: SC:

 A land use consent for land disturbing activities, including earthworks pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

 A land use consent for land disturbing activities, including roading and trenching pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP: SC is sought.

9.5.1 Objectives and Policies of the ACRP: SC

Chapter 5 – Regulation

Chapter 5 of the ACRP: SC addresses the regulation of land disturbing activities and how this should be managed with regard to sediment generation. Of relevance are objectives 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 which refer to the maintenance and enhancement of water quality and the sustaining of the mauri of water in water bodies. Policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2 acknowledge land disturbing activities will result in the generation and discharge of elevated levels of sediment and that methods are to be employed to ensure the adverse effects on water bodies are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Section 7 – Minimum Earthworks Strategies

Chapter 7 of the ACRP: SC identifies minimum expectations for erosion and sediment generation associated with land disturbing activities. Objectives 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 and policies 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 emphasise the minimising the risk through the size of area exposed to earthworks and the duration of the earthworks period. The policies emphasise the need for implementation of strategies to limit sediment generation.

Effects from construction of the Aotea to NAL section will largely be temporary in nature and will be mitigated by the implementation of a CEMP and an ESCP. The ESCP will implement containment, settlement and stabilisation measures to ensure sediment laden water does not reach water bodies.

9.5.2 Matters of Discretion for Land Disturbing Activities

In terms of land disturbing activities, Rule 5.4.3.2 sets out the matters that AC will restrict its discretion to when considering this application for a restricted discretionary activity. The relevant matters relate to:

 Techniques used to restrict or control sediment being transported from the site and the effects or impacts of sediment on water quality from the techniques chosen, including the practicality and efficiency of the proposed control measures

30 “Sediment Control Protection Areas” are defined as (a) 100 metres either side of a foredune or 100m landward of the coastal marine area (whatever is the more landward of mean high water springs);or (b) 50 metres landward of the edge of a watercourse, or wetland of 1000m² or more.

 The proportion of the catchment which is exposed

 The proximity of the operation to the receiving environment

 The concentration and volume of any sediment that may be discharged

 The time during which the bare earth surface is exposed

 The time of year when the activity is undertaken.

 The duration of the consent

 Monitoring the volume and concentration of any sediment that may be discharged. These matters have been assessed in Section 7.3 of this AEE

9.6 Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

The ACRP: ALW became operative on 30 September 2013. The ACRP: ALW provides for the management of air, land and water resources in the Auckland region.

Section 9.6.1 assesses the relevant objectives and policies of the ACRP: ALW, and Sections 9.6.2 to 9.6.5 outline the relevant matters of control, matters of discretion and assessment criteria for the resource consents and CoCs being sought pursuant to the ACRP: ALW (refer to Section 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 for the approvals sought).

9.6.1 Objectives and Policies of the ACRP: ALW

The Chapter 2 (Values), Chapter 4 (Air Quality), Chapter 5 (Discharges to Land and Water) and Chapter 6 (Water Allocation) are of particular relevance to the application

Chapter 2 – Values

Chapter 2 deals with the use, development and protection of air, land and water resources that have environmental, social, economic and/or cultural value to the Auckland Community. Of particular relevance is Objective 2.2.3.4 which aims to provide for physical infrastructure which supports the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the region’s people and communities and provides for their health and safety, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

Policy 2.2.4.1 states that the use and development of air, land and water within Urban Areas shall be considered appropriate where it is consistent with the strategic directions of the ACRPS or with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (ARGS), while Policy 2.2.4.8 states the positive social, economic and cultural effects and benefits arising from any proposal for use and development shall be considered when assessing the overall effects of a proposal on air, land or water resources. Policy 2.2.4.4 states the use, development, upgrading or maintenance of network utility infrastructure shall be considered appropriate where consistency with the ACRPS and ARGS is achieved; environmental outcomes from the operation of the infrastructure are improved; the work is undertaken in a cost effective manner and significant adverse effects are addressed.

The Aotea to NAL section will enable AT to complete construction of the CRL project and enable its operation, which will in turn enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. Effects from construction will largely be temporary in nature, and will be mitigated by the implementation of a CEMP and the suite of final management plans (refer to Section 7)

Also of relevance are Policies 2.2.4.16 and 2.2.4.17 which aim to consider any effects on sites, buildings, places or areas which have cultural heritage values. Measures will be implemented to ensure the protection of these places. A HIA (Appendix J) has been undertaken in relation to the proposed earthworks activities, groundwater and settlement related adverse effects for those historic heritage places directly affected by, and in proximity to the Aotea to NAL section works, as outlined in

Section 7.13 of this AEE, and concludes that any potential adverse effects on these heritage items can be appropriately remedied and mitigated. A General Archaeological Authority from HNZPT will be sought concurrently as the resource consents for the Aotea to NAL section.

Policy 2.3.4.2 aims to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on sites and areas of special value to tangata whenua. Consultation with Mana Whenua is ongoing, with the requirement for CIAs to be confirmed by the CRL Mana Whenua Forum (see Section 6.4 and Section 7.14 above).

Chapter 4 – Air Quality

Chapter 4 deals with the discharge of contaminants to air. Of particular relevance is Objective 4.3.2 which aims to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants into air on human health, amenity and the environment and Objective 4.3.5 which aims to avoid reverse sensitivity conflict from the discharge of contaminants into air where sensitive activities that have differing air quality expectations are located in close proximity to activities that discharge contaminants into air. Objective 4.3.6 aims minimise the discharge of contaminants into air from mobile sources while enabling sustainable development and protecting the health and social wellbeing of the people of the Auckland region.

These objectives are supported by Policies 4.4.5 to 4.4.31, in particular Policy 4.4.5 which states that the discharge of contaminants into air shall be considered inappropriate where it causes, or is likely to cause, noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable odour, dust, particulate, smoke or ash, or visible emissions beyond the boundary of the premises on which the discharge is occurring or causes, or is likely to cause, adverse effects on human health or the environment, beyond the boundary of the premises on which the discharge is occurring. While appropriate measures will be undertaken to minimise the potential offensive or objectionable dust beyond the boundary, resource consent is being sought as a precautionary measure. Policy 4.4.9 states the Best Practicable Option shall be employed in accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the RMA to avoid or minimise significant adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants into air.

Policy 4.4.11 states the use of clean burning fuels and the efficient use of energy shall be encouraged and Policy 4.4.15 states that in assessing the effects of discharges of contaminants into air, particular regard shall be had to adverse effects on the environment, including amenity, human health and property, the methods to avoid or minimise adverse effects on the environment; the location of the activity and the proximity of other activities sensitive to the discharges and any cumulative adverse effects on the environment. These matters have been taken into account in AQA contained in Appendix H. In addition, the discharges of contaminants to air are subject to an AQMP which will detail the containment of dust and ongoing continuous monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of those control measures. Therefore, the Aotea to NAL section and Project as a whole (operation) is considered to be consistent with Objectives 4.3.2, and 4.3.5, and Policies 4.4.5 and 4.4.11.

Policy 4.4.16 states that any land use proposals with transportation effects, and any new transport projects or proposals for redeveloping transport infrastructure which have the potential to adversely affect air quality, should be assessed at a level considered appropriate for the size and scale of the project or proposal, and shall consider the effects on human health; air quality; and any alternatives or methods to mitigate effects on air quality or minimise the discharge of contaminants into air. Policy 4.4.19 states that the development of passenger transport, ridesharing, cycling, walking, tele-working and other measures to reduce the need to use motor vehicles to move people and goods around the Auckland region shall be encouraged and supported.

Chapter 5 – Discharges to Land and Water, and Land Management

Chapter 5 deals with the discharge of contaminants into water, or onto or into land. Section 5.3 contains objectives, while Section 5.4 contains policies which aim to protect, maintain or enhance the quality of land and water. Of particular relevance to the proposed discharges to the stormwater system is Objective 5.3.5 which aims to prevent or minimise the adverse effects of stormwater and wastewater

discharges, and Objective 5.3.8 which provides for discharges associated with stormwater and wastewater provided the Best Practicable Option (BPO) is undertaken to manage adverse effects on the environment. It is considered that the proposed treatment methods and decision making process associated with the construction stormwater and wastewater will be the BPO. It is considered that discharging treated water during operation to the stormwater system is the BPO in the event that the preferred option of disposal to the trade waste system is not available. Objective 5.3.9 seeks to promote sustainable management practices that where practicable avoid discharges of environmentally hazardous substances from an Industrial or Trade Activity, and remedy or mitigate the effects of discharges where they cannot be avoided.

Policies 5.4.4 and 5.4.4A to D relate to stormwater discharges and diversions and require the applicant to adopt the Best Practicable Option (BPO) and have regard to the level of adverse effects on the environment. In addition to the matters listed in Policy 5.4.4, consent applications for nonnetwork stormwater diversions and discharges under Rules 5.5.2 to 5.5.5 will also be assessed against the matters set out in Policy 5.5.4B. Policies 5.4.4 and 5.4.4A shall only apply to the diversion and discharge of stormwater from outside an ITA.

Policies 5.4.16 and to 5.5.18A relate to discharges of environmentally hazardous substances occurring from an ITA and require the management of risk by the implementation of Environmental Management Plans. In accordance with these policies, an ITA EMP has been included in the ITA Assessment (Appendix G)

Of particular relevance to the disturbance of potentially contaminated soil is Objectives 5.3.14, 5.3.15 and 5.3.16 which recognise the need to manage that land containing elevated levels of contaminants in order to protect the environment and human health. Policy 5.4.37 states that some contaminants can remain in the ground on the site where it can be demonstrated that the level of contamination will not pose potentially significant adverse effects on the environment or to human health. Policy

5.45.37A states that actual and potential adverse effects of the activity, physical constraints of the site, operational practicalities, and the financial implications of the investigation, remediation, management and monitoring options imposed compared with other options shall be regarded. The Draft CSMP outlines the measure to be being in the event that contaminated soil is encountered during the construction of the Aotea to NAL section. It states that any contaminated soil will be removed off site and disposed of appropriately.

It is considered that by implementing the procedures outlined in the CSMP, contaminated soil and groundwater will be managed appropriately and risks to human health and the environment will be mitigated during the works.

Chapter 6 – Water Allocation

Chapter 6 deals with water quantity and allocation. Section 6.3 contains objectives, while Section 6.4 contains policies which aim to protect and maintain water availability for consumptive use, to enhance access to water resources and to minimise wastewater generation. The issues associated with diversion and take of groundwater and drilling are the most relevant in this chapter. Of particular relevance to groundwater diversion and take is Objective 6.3.8 and Policy 6.4.49 which aims to enable people and communities to divert groundwater while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on groundwater regimes, surface water bodies, neighbouring structures and services and on people and communities. As stated in Section 7.4 of this AEE, groundwater inflow into the excavations and dewatering will be monitored. As stated in Section 7.5, a number of buildings along the Aotea to NAL section of works have been identified as potentially being subject to potential building damage (limited to aesthetic damage) as a result of potential ground settlement effects. The implementation of the GSMCP and proposed monitoring system by the contractor will appropriately avoid, remedy and mitigate any potential or actual adverse ground settlement or damage to buildings, infrastructure and utilities.

9.6.2 Matters of Discretion for Air Discharge Permit

In terms of the discharges of contaminants to air from construction activities, Rule 4.5.24 lists the matters for discretion relating to Rules 4.5.56:

 The requirement to discharge and consideration of alternatives;

 The quantity, quality and type of discharge and any effects arising from that discharge;

 The methods to minimise the discharge and to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the discharge;

 The location of the discharge;

 Monitoring; and

 The duration and review of the consent.

In considering the discharge of contaminants into air from earthworks from construction of the Aotea to NAL section, including the reinstatement of roads and footpaths, Rule 4.5.56 states that in order to minimise dust emissions, earthworks or road works that require a restricted discretionary activity consent under Rule 4.5.56 a Dust Management Plan may be required or the undertaking of video or total suspended particulate monitoring. A draft AQMP is contained in Appendix H.

These matters have been taken into account when assessing the Air Quality effects in Section 7.12, in the alternatives discussion in Section 3.14, and in the AQA contained in Appendix H

9.6.3 Matters of Discretion for Discharge Permit from an ITA

Rule 5.5.18 lists the matters AC will restrict its discretion to with respect to the discharge from a high risk ITA:

 The quality of the discharge arising from the activity area of the ITA, where it is discharged either to an authorised stormwater or wastewater network or after reasonable mixing in the receiving environment;

 The degree of adverse environmental effects on the receiving environment;

 Management practices, treatment systems or devices, to the extent that they are required to avoid, remedy or mitigate more than minor adverse effects having regard to (i) and/or (ii) above and Policy 5.4.18;

 The inspection and assessment regime for the Environmental Management Plan;

 The duration of the consent; and

 The timing and nature of reviews of consent conditions.

These matters have been taken into account when assessing the effects in Section 7.10 and in the ITA and draft ITA EMP contained in Appendix G

9.6.4 Matters of Discretion for Discharge Permit from Contaminated Land and Disturbance of Contaminated Land

In terms of the discharge of contaminants to land or water from land containing elevated levels of contaminants that does not comply with the standards and terms of Rule 5.5.44, Rule 5.5.44A sets out matters over which AC will exercise its discretion when considering this restricted discretionary resource consent application.

The matters of discretion relate to:

 The particular matter of non-compliance with the standards and terms of Rule 5.5.43 or Rule 5.5.44;

 Methods to avoid adverse effects on potable water supplies;

 Methods to control vapour migration;

 Preparation and implementation of a Monitoring and Management Plan (referred to as the CSMP);

 Methods to avoid adverse effects on potable water supplies and control vapour migration;

 The preparation, adequacy and implementation of an SIR (referred to as the CLA) an environmental and human health risk assessment, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) (referred to as the CSMP);

 Site Validation Report (SVR) for the land prepared in accordance with the requirements of Rules 5.5.43 and 5.5.44;

 The duration of the consent; and

 The timing and nature of reviews of consent conditions.

These matters have been assessed in the CLA and draft CSMP contained in Appendix E and summarised in Section 7.7 of this AEE.

9.6.5 Matters of Discretion for Diversion and Take of Groundwater

In terms of the diversion of groundwater, Rule 6.5.77 sets out assessment criteria that AC will use when considering this application for a restricted discretionary activity. Rule 6.5.43 (the taking of groundwater for the purposes of groundwater diversion) states that AC will restrict its discretion to the matters listed in Rule 6.5.77 of the ACRP: ALW. The relevant matters relate to:

 The effects on the flow regime required for the life-supporting capacity of waterbodies;

 Any adverse effects on existing lawful groundwater users, building owners;

 The potential for adverse effects arising from surface flooding;

 Cumulative effects that may arise from the scale, location and/or number of groundwater diversions in the same area;

 Discharge of groundwater containing sediment and other contaminants;

 Any adverse effects on the heritage values of sites, including archaeological significance; and

 Any adverse effects on ecosystem habitat, both terrestrial and freshwater.

These matters have been assessed in Sections 7.4, 7.5, 7.8 and 7.13 of this AEE and the GTR contained within Appendix C.

9.7 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The PAUP was notified for submissions on 30 September 2013. In accordance with section 86B of the RMA, a number of the rules (as identified by grey shading within the PAUP) have immediate effect from notification. Although this is the case, until the Auckland Unitary Plan is fully operative, the operative district plans and regional plans for Auckland continue to have legal effect.

Under the PAUP, the site is zoned Road, Business- City Centre, Town Centre (Newton – Upper Symonds Street), Business - Mixed Use, Public Open Space – Informal Recreation, Light Industry and Strategic Transport Corridor.

Sections 9.7.1 to 9.7.5 assess the relevant policies and objectives of the PAUP, and Sections 9.7.6 to 9.7.13 outline the relevant matters of control, matters of discretion and assessment criteria for the resource consents and CoCs being applied for under the PAUP (refer to Section 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 for the approvals sought).

9.7.1 Part 1, Chapter B – Regional Policy Statement

Part 1, Chapter B of the PAUP contains the regional policy statement provisions and identifies eight issues of regional significance for resource management in Auckland. Each issue has objectives and policies to achieve the outcomes, priorities and associated strategic directions in the Auckland Plan.

Issue 2 (Enabling economic well-being), Issue 3 (Protecting our historic heritage, special character and natural heritage), Issue 4 (Addressing issues of significance to Mana Whenua) and Issue 5 (Sustainably managing our natural resources) and Issue 8 (Responding to climate change) are all of relevance to the Aotea to NAL section and future operation of the CRL.

Section 3 (Issue 2 Enabling economic well-being) contains objectives and policies which recognise Auckland plays a crucial role in New Zealand’s economy as the major wealth creator for the country. In

Section 3.2 (Significant infrastructure and energy) states Auckland’s network of significant infrastructure plays key roles locally, regionally and nationally. In particular, Policy 3.2.1 and Policy

3.2.8 recognises that regionally significant infrastructure is essential for the community’s social and economic wellbeing, but that regionally significant resources can give rise to adverse effects

Section 3.3 (Transport) contains objectives and policies which recognise the establishment of transport infrastructure has had a fundamental role in shaping the form and ‘structure’ of urban development in Auckland. In particular, Policy 3.3.1 aims to enable an effective and efficient transport system including the rail network, as it is fundamental to the regional and national economies. Policy

3.3.6 seeks to protect existing and future rail corridors so they can meet future passenger demand. The Aotea to NAL section and CRL operation is consistent with the objectives and policies of Issue 2.

Section 4 (Issue 3: Protecting our historic heritage, special character and natural heritage) contains objectives and policies which recognise the importance of identifying and protecting Auckland’s significant historic heritage places, special character and natural heritage. The application is consistent with the objectives and policies of Issue 3.

Section 5 (Issue 4: Addressing issues of significance to Mana Whenua) contains objectives and policies which recognise and provide for the relationship of Mana Whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga. In particular, Policy

5.1.2 seeks to enable Mana Whenua to exercise Tino Rangatiratanga through participation in resource management processes and decisions, Policy 5.2.4 aims to promote the preparation of a CIA for activities that may adversely affect the values of Mana Whenua and Policy 5.4.4 seeks to protect the values and associations of Mana Whenua with their sites and places of significance or value. The Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of Issue 4.

Section 6 (Issue 5: Sustainably managing our natural resources) contains objectives and policies which seek to sustainably manage the multiple values and pressures on our natural resources not only for Auckland’s environmental wellbeing but also for our social, economic and cultural wellbeing. In particular, Policy 6.3.9 seeks to minimise and manage sediment discharges into surface water bodies and coastal water by requiring land disturbing activities to be designed and undertaken to retain sediment on land as far as practicable, limit the area of land being disturbed at any one time, and use industry best practices and standards appropriate to the nature and scale of the land disturbing activity and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to minimise sediment discharges. Objectives 6.7.1 and 6.7.2 and Policy 6.7.4 in particular seek to address adverse effects from flood plains and overland flows (natural hazards), adopting a precautionary approach to natural hazard management and risk assessment and significant infrastructure. Also, with respect to Issue 5, Objective 6.5.1 seeks to protect human health and the quality of air, land and water resources in Auckland by identifying, managing and remediating of land containing elevated levels of contaminants The Aotea to NAL section and future operation of the CRL is consistent with the objectives and policies of Issue 5.

Section 9 (Issue 8: Responding to climate change) contains objectives and policies which seek to increase both efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and preparation for the impacts of a more variable climate (adaptation). In particular, Policy 1(a) aims to mitigate adverse effects of climate change in Auckland by integrating land use and transport to enable an increase in the use of public transport networks. The Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of Issue 8.

The objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement of the PAUP continue through to more specific parts of the PAUP. These are addressed further in Sections 9.7.2 to 9.7.5 below.

9.7.2 Part 2, Chapter C - Auckland-Wide Objectives and Policies

Section 1.1 – Infrastructure

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 1.1 and to a lesser extent Section 1.2 of the PAUP outline the objectives and policies in relation to infrastructure and transport. In particular, Objective 1.1.3 is relevant, which states safe, efficient and secure development, operation and upgrading of infrastructure is enabled, to service the needs of existing and planned use and development. The construction of the CRL tunnels represents a significant upgrade in public transport infrastructure for Auckland and will support the functioning of communities, business, industry and economic growth of the region. Providing secure and sufficient infrastructure is essential to the health, safety and well-being of people and communities – and significantly contributes to a well-functioning and liveable Auckland. As demonstrated in Section 7 of this AEE, any actual and potential adverse effects on the environment can be appropriately mitigated. The Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of Section 1.1.

Section 3 – Historic Heritage

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 3 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to historic heritage which are not scheduled in the Unitary Plan. In particular, Policy 3.1 is relevant, as it aims to manage effects on historic heritage places by undertaking appropriate measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on significant historic heritage. Archaeological historic heritage will be managed through the HNZPT General Archaeological Authority application process. As outlined in Section 7.5 and Section 7.13 potential effects on adjacent historic heritage buildings along the Aotea to NAL section of works have been assessed as subject to potential settlement effects, which will be monitored for any potential or actual building damage. The proposed methods of mitigation and remediation through the GSMCP of any actual or potential adverse effects on historic heritage associated with the works are consistent with the objectives and policies of Section 3.

Section 5.1- Air Quality

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.1 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to air quality. Objective 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 and Policies 5.1.1, 5.1.12 and 5.1.13 are particularly relevant to proposed construction activities. Objective 5.1.2 states that air discharges are reduced to protect public health and amenity, and to meet national and AAAQS. Objective 5.1.3 aims to ensure human health, amenity values, property and environment are protected from significant adverse effects of air contaminants. Policy 5.1.1 seeks to protect human health by ensuring air discharge do not exceed specified levels. Policy 5.1.12 seeks to avoid or minimise adverse effects from air discharges by adopting a precautionary approach, using best management practices and best practicable option. Policy 5.1.13 seeks to avoid significant adverse effects from air discharges beyond the boundary of the premises where the discharge is occurring, including offensive or objectionable effects on amenity values from odour, dust, particulate matter, smoke, ash, fumes and visible emissions. The discharges of contaminants to air are subject to an AQMP which will detail the containment of dust and ongoing continuous monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of those control measures. Therefore, the Aotea to NAL section is considered to be consistent with Objectives 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, and Policies 5.5.5, 5.1.12 and 5.1.13. The AQA concluded that overall there is a reduction in PM10 emissions from reduced motor vehicle use anticipated as a result of the CRL project (i.e., the shift in passenger transport from

people using motor vehicles and buses to trains). Therefore the CRL operation is considered to be consistent with Objectives 4.3.6 and Policies 4.416 and 4.4.19.

Section 5.2 – Earthworks

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.2 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to earthworks. Objectives 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 seek to ensure that earthworks are undertaken in a manner that protects people and the environment, the risk of natural hazards is not increased by earthworks, and sediment generation from earthworks is minimised. Policy 5.2.2 is particularly relevant as it aims to manage earthworks by the use of best sediment and erosion control practices, and best industry practices and standards for on-site sediment treatment or removal methods. Policy 5.2.3 seeks to ensure that earthworks within the 1 per cent AEP floodplain do not exacerbate flooding, or result in permanent reduction of waterway area or loss of flood plain storage. Policy 5.2.4 seeks to manage the impact on Mana Whenua cultural heritage. The soil disturbance associated with the Aotea to NAL section will be subject to mitigation measures to ensure adverse effects are minimised, including the management of overland flow paths and therefore is consistent with Objectives 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 and Policies 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4.

Section 5.6 – Contaminated Land

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.6 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to contaminated land. Objective 5.6.1 aims to manage land containing elevated levels of contaminants to protect human health and the environment and to enable this land to be used for suitable activities now and in the future. This objective is supported by three policies; Policy 5.6.1 which requires site investigations to be undertaken, and Policy 5.6.2 which requires the remediation and management of contaminated land. The site investigations described in the CLA (Appendix E) identified the land containing elevated levels of contaminants, in accordance with Policy 5.6.1. The removal of contaminated soil to an appropriate landfill off-site and the implementation of the CSMP will ensure that any actual and potential effects on human health and the environment associated with contaminants found in the soil will be appropriately avoided or mitigated. Policy 5.6.3 states that a number of matters must be taken into account when making decisions on the management or remediation of land containing elevated levels of contaminants and Policy 5.6.4 states AC will have regard to Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No 1, 2 and 5 October 2011. The information AC needs with which to assess the Aotea to NAL section against Policies 5.6.3 and 5.6.4 is contained in the CLA in Appendix E and summarised in Section 7.7 of this AEE. The works are therefore considered to be consistent with Objective 5.6.1 and Policies 5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.3 and 5.6.4.

Section 5.13 – Flooding

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.13 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies for activities within flood hazard areas. Objective 5.13.2 states development or redevelopment in existing flood prone areas should be designed and managed to prevent any increase in flood risk. Policies 5.13.12 and 5.13.15, 5.13.20, 5.13.21 and 5.13.22 are relevant to the proposed works and relate to management of earthworks, construction of new infrastructure, obstruction and changes of overland flow paths and damage to property. Construction activities will be managed so that there is no exacerbation of flooding at adjacent properties upstream and downstream of the works. Temporary diversions will ensure adjacent buildings are not negatively impacted upon. Overland flows and flood plains during construction will be managed as part of the ESCP. As the construction in the flood plain areas will be limited to construction of the CRL tunnels located underground, there will be no permanent reduction or loss of flood plain. With the exception of the Mt Eden area, overland flow path diversions will be reinstated to their pre-construction location. Particular consideration has been given to overland flow paths, flood plains and associated stormwater drainage and flood mitigation works in the operational design at Mt Eden. The Aotea to NAL section and broader CRL Project operation is consistent with the objectives and policies of Section 5.13.

Section 5.15 – Water Quality

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.15 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to water quality. Objective 5.15.4 aims to ensure that development is undertaken in a way that minimises adverse effects on freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems, and Objective 5.15.5 aims to recognise and provide for the mauri of freshwater and the relationship of Mana Whenua with freshwater. Of particular relevance is Policy 5.15.23 which aims to minimise the adverse effects from construction, maintenance investigation and other activities by establishing minimum performance standards for the discharges. Groundwater, stormwater, and wastewater will be collected and treated via settlement tanks to the quality requirements detailed in the PAUP prior to being discharged to the stormwater system. Water not achieving the required standard will be disposed of off-site in an appropriate trade waste facility. In the event that operational water will be discharged to the stormwater system, the discharge will be treated to an appropriate and acceptable quality and monitoring will be undertake to ensure that the treatment is achieving the desired outcome prior to being discharged to the stormwater system.

Section 5.15.2 – Diversion and Take of Groundwater

Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.15.2 of the PAUP sets out the objectives and policies for water quantity, allocation and use. Specific to the diversion and take of groundwater, the objectives and policies seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on groundwater pressure, flooding, ground movement, people and communities. Of particular relevance are Objectives 5.15.2.3, 5.15.2.5 and Policies 5.15.2.5, 5.15.2.6 and 5.15.2.18 which seek that taking is within the water availabilities and levels for the aquifer, the taking will not cause adverse interference effects on neighbouring bores, the proposal avoids, remedies or mitigates any ground settlement on buildings, structures and services, and the consideration of mitigation options. In addition, the proposal avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on scheduled sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua and people and communities. As stated in Section 7.4 of this AEE, groundwater inflow into the excavations and dewatering will be monitored. As stated in Section 7.5, potential adverse ground settlement effects on buildings, infrastructure and utilities will be avoided, remedied and mitigated through the implementation of the GSMCP and proposed monitoring system by the contractor will appropriately avoid, remedy and mitigate any potential or actual adverse surface settlement or damage to buildings. Consideration of sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua and associated cultural values has been outlined in Section 7.14. The Aotea to NAL section is consistent with the objectives and policies of Section 5.15.2.

9.7.3 Part 2, Chapter D - Zone Objectives and Policies

Section 3.2 – City Centre

Part 2, Chapter D, Section 3.2 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to the City Centre Zone. Of particular relevance is Objective 3.2.4 which states the distinctive built form, scale, identified historic character and functions of particular areas within and adjoining the city centre are maintained and enhanced; Objective 3.2.5 which states that a hub of an integrated regional transport system is located within the city centre and the city centre is accessible by a range of transport modes; and Policy 3.2.13 which aims to encourage the retention and conservation of the city centre’s historic heritage and special character through development incentives. The proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies in that the purpose of the Aotea to NAL section is to construct the CRL, a significant upgrade to Auckland’s rail network. During the course of the works associated with the construction of the Aotea to NAL section, earthworks within and adjacent to heritage items identified under the PAUP will be required. A HIA (Appendix J) has been prepared to identify the impact of the works on the scheduled historic heritage buildings and has concluded that any potential effects can be managed subject to the implementation of appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures identified in Section 7.5 and Section 7.13, in conjunction with proposed design and construction methodologies.

9.7.4 Part 2, Chapter E - Overlay Objectives and Policies

Section 2 – Historic Heritage

Part 2, Chapter E, Section 2 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to the Historic Heritage overlay. In particular, Objective 2.2 is relevant, as it seeks to protect scheduled historic heritage places from inappropriate demolition or destruction and the adverse effects of development and/or subdivision. As outlined in Section 7.13 and the HIA (Appendix J), earthworks will be undertaken within historic heritage sites identified in the PAUP for the Aotea to NAL section. A number of historic heritage buildings are located within 20 m of the earthworks, in addition to falling within the 5 mmm settlement contours. While not considered likely to be subject to building damage beyond cosmetic damage arising from ground settlement effects, potentially affected historic heritage buildings will be monitored for any potential or actual building damage. The proposed methods of mitigation through the GSMCP of any actual or potential adverse effects on historic heritage associated with the works are consistent with the objectives and policies of Section 2.

Section 5 – Mana Whenua

Part 2, Chapter E, Section 5 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies in relation to the Mana Whenua overlay. In particular, Policy 5.3a is relevant, as it requires earthworks to avoid adverse effects on the values and associations of Mana Whenua with their sites and places of value. Earthworks will be undertaken within Nga Wharau a Tako, an identified Site and Place of Significance to Mana Whenua. As outlined in Sections 6.4 and 7.14, engagement with Mana Whenua has been ongoing through the CRL Mana Whenua Forum and targeted Aotea to NAL section hui, and will continue to ensure the protection of the values and associations of Mana Whenua with their Site and Place of Significance

9.7.5 Part 2, Chapter F - Precinct Objectives and Policies

The Aotea to NAL section route passes through three precinct areas within the City Centre zone: Arts, Civic & Entertainment, Residential and Karangahape Road. Part 2 Chapter F, Section 3 of the PAUP outlines the objectives and policies for these precincts that apply in addition to the underlying City Centre zone, which are summarised below.

Section 3.1 - Arts, Civic and Entertainment

The Arts, Civic and Entertainment precinct is located at the head of the Queen Street Valley and covers the area containing the Aotea Centre, Civic Theatre, Town Hall, Q Theatre, Art Gallery and Central Public Library. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for civic activities, ceremonies, functions, entertainment and performing arts, while ensuring development respects the special character and historic heritage places within the precinct.

Policies 3.1.3 requires building design to respect the form, scale and architecture of identified special character buildings and historic heritage places and Policy 3.3.4 aims to enhance the public function, pedestrian network and public spaces within the precinct. The HIA in Appendix J has considered the impact on historic heritage buildings and has proposed methods of mitigation, enabling the continued maintenance and use of these buildings. It is also considered that the CRL will enhance public access to the precinct through the location of Aotea Station.

Section 3.6 - Karangahape Road

The Karangahape Road precinct applies to land fronting and behind Karangahape Road between Howe Street and Liverpool Street. The purpose of the precinct is to maintain and enhance the distinctive built form and streetscape character of the Karangahape Road precinct. Karangahape Station will be located in this precinct, therefore the station design will aim to be compatible with the precinct’s character.

Section 3.11 Residential

The Residential precincts are applied to areas in the city centre that have a strong residential character and lower noise levels. There are four residential precincts located in the city centre, two of which are within the CRL footprint (Myers Park/ Greys Avenue and Day Street). The purpose of the Residential precincts is to provide for higher levels of amenity than in other parts of the City Centre zone. Policy 3.11.2 seeks to avoid activities which would detract from the residential amenity, while recognising the vibrant, mixed-use character of the city centre. It is considered that the construction effects will be mitigated through the implementation of management plans to ensure the effects on sensitive land uses will be no more than minor. Once the CRL is operational, it is considered it will add to the mixed use character of the city centre.

9.7.6 Matters of Discretion for Discharge Permit from an ITA

Section 3.1 of Chapter H4.8 lists the matters AC will restrict its discretion to with respect to the discharge from a high risk ITA and Section 3.2 sets out assessment criteria.

 The nature and sensitivity of the receiving environment;

 The contents and implementation of any environmental management plan and emergency response plan;

 The site management practices, including any necessary stormwater treatment requirements, to manage the contaminant(s) of concern from the ITA area to ensure that the activity does not result in contamination of stormwater; and

 The operation and maintenance requirements of any structural controls or treatment devices. These assessment criteria and matters of discretion have been assessed in Section 7.10 and the ITA assessment contained in Appendix G and an ITA EMP has been prepared and is included within Appendix G

9.7.7 Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria for Discharges to Air

In terms of discharges of contaminants to air pursuant to Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.1 of the PAUP, Clause 5.1 sets out the matters over which AC will restrict its discretion when considering this application.

Clause 5.1.1 sets out the following general matters of discretion:

 Offsets for discharges of PM10 and PM2.5; and

 Location of activity and site layout.

Clause 5.1.6 sets out matters of discretion for dust generating activities:

 Effects arising from the discharge;

 Sensitivity of receiving environment and separation distances between the activity and any sensitive land uses; and

 Mitigation measures and management plans.

In addition, Clause 5.2 outlines the assessment criteria AC will consider. These assessment criteria and matters of discretion have been assessed in Section 7.12 and the AQA and an AQMP has been prepared and is included in Appendix H

9.7.8 Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria for Earthworks

In terms of earthworks within the 100-year ARI flood plain pursuant to Rule 1.2 and earthworks for network utilities and road networks pursuant to Rule 1.1 of Chapter H, Section 4.2 of the PAUP (including within the Historic Heritage Overlay), Clause 3.1 sets out the matters over which AC will restrict its discretion when considering this application.

The matters of discretion relate to:

 Avoiding adverse effects of disturbance and sedimentation;

 Erosion and sediment control measures;

 Staging, timing, duration and progressive stabilisation of the works;

 Avoiding potential public health and safety;

 Nuisance effects and the management of dust, noise and vibration;

 Treatment of stockpiled materials on the site including requirements to remove material if it is not to be reused on the site; and

 Potential effects on overland flow paths and flooding, natural and historic heritage, the mauri of water.

Chapter H. Section 4.2 of the PAUP, Clause 3.2 outlines the assessment criteria AC will consider. These assessment criteria and matters of discretion have been assessed in Section 7.3, 7.11, 7.13 and 7.14 of this AEE

9.7.9 Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria for Diversion and Take of Groundwater

In terms of groundwater diversion and take pursuant to the Activity Table of Chapter H, Section 4.17 of the PAUP, Clause 5.1.9 sets out the matters over which AC will restrict its discretion when considering this application for a restricted discretionary activity.

The matters of discretion relate to:

 Pressures and base flow;

 Existing takes and diversions;

 Ground settlement;

 Surface flooding including any increase in frequency or magnitude of flood events;

 Cumulative effects;

 Sediment or other contaminants;

 Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and habitats;

 Monitoring and contingency plan;

 Location, rate and volume of dewatering;

 Water shortage; and

 Effects on Mana Whenua values.

In addition to the matters of discretion, Clause 5.2 outlines the assessment criteria AC will consider. These assessment criteria and matters of discretion have been assessed in Section 7.4, 7.5, 7.13 and 7.14 of this AEE

9.7.10 Matters of Discretion for Discharges from Contaminated Land and from Disturbance of Contaminated Land

In terms of the discharges from land containing elevated levels of contaminants and disturbance of land containing elevated levels of contaminants pursuant to Rule 2.3.1 of Chapter H, Section 4.5, Clause 4.1 sets out matters over which AC will exercise its discretion when considering this restricted discretionary resource consent application

The matters of discretion relate to:

 Adequacy of the detailed site investigation and the remedial action plan;

 The suitability of the land for the proposed activity, given the extent and type of soil contamination;

 The approach to the remediation or ongoing management of the site;

 The adequacy of the site management plan or/and the site validation report; and

 The transport, disposal and tracking of soil and other materials removed in the course of the activity.

These matters have been assessed in the CLA contained in Appendix E and summarised in Section 7.7 of this AEE.

9.7.11 Matters of Control for Discharge Permit from Redevelopment of a High Use Public Road

In terms of the discharges from new/ redeveloped impervious area for a high use public road pursuant to Rule 3.2.2 of Chapter H, Section 4.18, Clause 3.3.1 sets out matters over which AC will exercise its control of and Section 3.3.2 sets out the assessment criteria when considering this controlled activity resource consent application.

The matters of control and assessment criteria relates to:

 The implementation of a stormwater management system or devices to achieve the stormwater quality management requirements, operations and maintenance requirements and monitoring and reporting, on a network-wide basis.

 Whether the site stormwater runoff is directed to an on-site device and/or via a communal or public management device designed and sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the site and achieve the stormwater quality management requirements.

These matters have been assessed in the WQA contained in Appendix F and summarised in Section 7.12 of this AEE

9.7.12 Matters of Discretion for Discharge of Stormwater

In terms of diversion and discharge of stormwater to land and water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan that does not meet the permitted activity controls pursuant to Table 1.1, Rule 1.2.1 of Chapter H, Section 4.14, Clause 1.2.1.1 sets out matters over which AC will exercise its discretion when considering this restricted discretionary resource consent application

The matters of discretion relate to:

 The management of the adverse effects of the stormwater diversion and discharge on receiving environments, buildings and property.

 Consistency with any relevant network discharge consent or publicly available and current Auckland Council stormwater management plans / analysis.

 Operations and maintenance requirements.

 Monitoring and reporting.

In addition to the matters of discretion, Clause 1.4.2 outlines the assessment criteria AC will consider. These matters have been assessed in the DCR (Appendix B), GTR (Appendix C) and the WQA (Appendix F) and summarised in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 of this AEE

9.7.13 Matters of Discretion for Flooding

In terms of stormwater management devices and flood mitigation works that are not to be vested in council as infrastructure located within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain and diverting the entry or exit point of an overland flow path pursuant to Activity Table 1 of Chapter H, Section 4.12 of the PAUP, Clauses 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 set out matters over which AC will exercise its discretion when considering this restricted discretionary resource consent application

The matters of discretion relate to:

 Design of the structure, works or infrastructure;

 Extent of any earthworks proposed;

 Construction methodology;

 Potential impacts on overland flow paths including: obstruction of flows, any change to location and capacity, any change to overland flow on other properties, provision of secondary flow paths;

 Effects on existing infrastructure;

 Potential changes in flood depth and frequency upstream and downstream of the site and potential flooding of habitable floors;

 Provision of site access and potential effects of chosen access route; and

 Stormwater management devices within the 1 per cent AEP flood plain and the likely frequency of flooding of the stormwater management device for a range of flood events and the effects that the flooding may have on the function of the device, including the potential mobilisation of accumulated contaminants.

These matters have been assessed in the DCR contained in Appendix B and summarised in Section 7.11 of this AEE.

9.8 Conclusion

Given the above assessment, this document supports applications for the resource consents and CoCs outlined within Section 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. The proposal to construct the Aotea to NAL section is consistent with the policy direction of the relevant planning documents, being the ACRPS, ACRP:

ALW, ACRP: SC, NESsoil, NESair and the PAUP. The Aotea to NAL section will facilitate the construction and operation of the CRL project. The effects associated with the Aotea to NAL section, such as dust, sediment, contamination, groundwater diversion and take, settlement, flooding and water quality are considered temporary in nature and can be managed and mitigated through implementation of an approved CEMP and a range of associated management plans and conditions of resource consent

The effects in relation to the operation of CRL relate to the discharges of PM10 from the vents at Aotea Station and Karangahape Station, which are offset by the CRL project itself. The effects in relation to the discharge of operational water to the stormwater system can be mitigated by a treatment system tailored to treat dissolved copper and/ or chromium and other contaminants to an acceptable standard The potential flooding effects associated with the Aotea to NAL works located in the Mt Eden Station area on adjacent properties and the CRL infrastructure itself will be avoided and mitigated through the proposed stormwater drainage and flood mitigation works. Overall, the proposal enables people to provide for their economic and in turn social wellbeing, while avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects through a range of design and mitigation measures proposed and is therefore consistent with Part 2 of the RMA and the relevant planning documents. It is therefore considered that based on the planning assessment undertaken that the relevant applications for resource consent should be granted, subject to appropriate conditions of consent

10 Proposed Resource Consent Conditions

10.1 Proposed Resource Consent Conditions

Draft resource consent conditions which propose management processes, the preparation and implementation of management plans and specific measures to mitigate the actual and potential adverse effects associated with the Aotea Station to NAL section have been included at Appendix M The draft resource consent conditions were developed based on the findings of the expert reports (Appendix C to Appendix J) and have been reviewed by the authors of those reports. It is acknowledged that the suite of conditions included at Appendix M will be subject to further refinement in the post-lodgement phase

Broadly, the proposed conditions suite covers the following matters:

 Disputes resolution process and concerns and complaints management.

 Communication and consultation processes.

 Construction management (including the requirement for a CEMP to be developed).

 Earthworks (including the requirement for an ESCP and CTMP to be developed.

 Groundwater, settlement and buildings (including groundwater monitoring, ground settlement and buildings monitoring, building condition surveys, requirements for the preparation of a GSMCP, the role of an IBA and associated processes, and repair of unforeseen damage by AT).

 Contaminated land discharges and protection of human health (including the requirement for a CSMP to be developed).

 Washwater and wastewater discharges during both construction and operation phases (including requirements for discharge monitoring, treatment and reporting).

 Stormwater management (including the requirement for an ITA EMP to be developed);

 Flood hazard management during construction and operation.

 Air discharge (dust) (including the requirement for an AQMP to be developed).

10.2 Requested Resource Consent Terms and Lapse Periods

As discussed at Section 8.2.8, AT has specified the following resource consent terms and lapse periods and the reasons for those. These are:

 Under section 123(b), the duration of the land use consents being sought is unlimited;

 Under section 123(d), the duration of the discharge and water permits being sought is 35 years; and

 Under section 125(1), the lapse period for all resource consents being sought is 10 years.

11 Conclusion

AT is seeking resource consents and CoCs to authorise the construction of the Aotea Station to NAL section of the CRL and the operation of the entirety of the proposed CRL from Britomart Station through to the NAL, which is the second package of resource consents required for the CRL project.

This AEE provides an assessment of effects on the environment for Resource Consent Package 2 which relates to resource consents associated with the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway and inclusive of a cut and cover station, TBM tunnels, a deep mined station at Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels) and a range of works up in the Mt Eden/ NAL area including track modifications and connections. This application also provides for the operation of the CRL.

The majority of actual and potential effects on the environment associated with the Aotea to NAL section relate to groundwater diversion and take, ground settlement effects on buildings, water quality, air quality, flooding, sediment and contamination. The construction related effects will generally be temporary in nature and no more than minor. A range of monitoring and mitigation measures have been recommended to ensure that potential adverse effects during construction and operation can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Draft conditions have been proposed. Once completed, the physical works of the Aotea to NAL section and its associated features will be predominantly underground, and CSAs will largely be reinstated to preconstruction levels.

Overall, the proposed Aotea to NAL section will facilitate the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL project, and will ensure a safe and efficient transport system. Therefore, it is consistent with the policy direction of the relevant planning documents, and with the purpose of the RMA as the Aotea to NAL section and operation of the CRL enables people to provide for their economic and in turn social wellbeing, while avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects through a range of design and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented through conditions of resource consent.

While it is considered that the actual and potential effects of the proposal are able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated, due to the scale of the proposal and the level of public interest, AT requests that the resource consent applications be publicly notified under section 95A(2)(b) of the RMA.

This page has been intentionally left blank.

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix A Certificates of Title

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix B Design and Construction Report

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix C

Groundwater Technical Report

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix D Assessment of Settlement Effects

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix E

Contaminated Land Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix F

Water Quality Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix G

Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix H

Air Quality Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix I Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix J Heritage Impact Assessment

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix K

Stakeholder Correspondence and Minutes

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix L Mana Whenua Correspondence and Minutes

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix M

Proposed Resource Consent Conditions

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Appendix N

Drawings

This page has been intentionally left blank.

This page has been intentionally left blank.