Hibiscus & Bays Greenways Plan Feasibility Study

Hibiscus & Bays Greenways Plan Feasibility Study for Section A ‐ Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights

Contents Greenways and the Auckland Plan ...... 3 The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Local Paths Plan ...... 4 Implementing the Greenways Plan ...... 4 Feasibility Analysis ‐ Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights (Section A) ...... 5 Methodology and Scope ...... 5 Pathway Design & Standards ...... 5 Local Path Design Guide ...... 6 Walkway Standards ...... 6 Cycleway Standards ...... 7 Proposed Standard...... 7 Route Review ...... 10 Implementation ...... 20 Consents ...... 20 Cost Breakdown ‐ Entire Route: Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights ...... 22 Next Steps ...... 22 Appendices ...... 23 Appendix 1 – Site & Example Photos ...... 23 Appendix 2 – Frame Group Design Report ...... 23 Appendix 3 – Wildlands Ecological Report ...... 23 Appendix 4 – Development Plans for 488 496c Hibiscus Coast Highway (Lot 15 DP 478069) which has a consented development (LUC60070192) ...... 23 Appendix 5 – Landowner approval letter ...... 23

Greenways and the Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan sets Council’s long‐term strategic direction, with a vision to create the world’s most liveable city. The plan envisages integrated planning to improve transport, environmental protection, land uses, housing growth and economic development, with the benefits of one authority responsible for all coordination.

Greenways implement priorities and directives of Auckland Plan, including:

• Chapter 5: Auckland’s recreation and sport

• Priority 1: Encourage all Aucklanders, particularly children and young people to participate in recreation and sport

• Chapter 7: Auckland’s environment

• Priority 1: Value our natural heritage

• Priority 2: Sustainably manage natural resources

• Priority 3: Treasure our coastlines, harbours, islands and marine areas

• Chapter 12: Auckland’s physical and social Infrastructure

• Priority 2: Protect, enable, align, integrate and provide social and community infrastructure for present and future generations

• Directive 12.8: Maintain and extend the public open space network ... walkways and trails and recreational boating facilities in line with growth needs.

• Chapter 13: Auckland’s transport

• Priority 3: Prioritise and optimise investment across transport modes.

Building a connected Auckland is an essential part of creating the world’s most liveable city. The path network in Auckland provides walking and cycling connections across the region.

There are many benefits to developing a network of neighbourhood greenways, including:

Recreation ‐ Improving people’s access to outdoor recreation opportunities close to their home;

Environmental ‐ Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by providing attractive and safe alternative transport choices, improving water quality and reducing flooding events through low impact design measures, and by enhancing ecosystems, habitat sources and ecological niches;

Social ‐ Providing improved opportunities for people to get out of their cars and meet their neighbours, to be engaged with a diverse range of communities and be connected to their local community facilities;

Health ‐ Providing improved opportunities for activity and fitness, which benefits both physical and mental health;

Education ‐ Providing opportunities for people to learn about the vegetation, wildlife, ecology, history and culture of the landscapes that the routes pass through; and

Economic ‐ Improving local employment opportunities as areas become more desirable for businesses and shoppers. Greenways routes often become a tourist destination for both international and domestic visitors.

The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Local Paths Plan The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board published its Greenways Plan in December 2016 after significant consultation with the wider community. The plan seeks to create safe and enjoyable ways for people to get around, get active, and get engaged with their community and the environment.

The plan sets out a network of greenways and identifies opportunities to improve:

• walking connections • cycle connections • recreation opportunities • ecological opportunities • access to streams and waterways. The plan was developed using a three‐stage process, with feedback loops, as outlined below:

Implementing the Greenways Plan In 2017, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board prioritised the greenway projects below for further investigation. This process will consider feasibility, staging and costs as well as recommendations to enable the design phase.

The projects are:

• Section A – Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights (this report)

• Section B – Alice Eaves to Hatfields

• Section C – Millwater

• Section D – Browns Bay to Sharon Rd

• Section E – Taiaotea Creek Path

• Section F – Murrays to Churchill Path

• Section G – Centennial Park Path

The findings of the relevant section are outlined in this report.

Feasibility Analysis ‐ Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights (Section A) This report outlines the feasibility assessment of Section A, a 3km long potential Greenway Path in Hibiscus & Bays Local Board, Auckland, between Hibiscus Coast Highway and West Hoe Heights.

The path follows the Nukumea Stream along the edge of Alice Eaves Reserve for 1.3km until it begins the ascent up into the Pacific Heights subdivision and up to West Hoe Heights at the top of the ridge. At this point it continues down the valley for a short distance. A likely future connection with Grand Drive is outside the scope but appears feasible. Methodology and Scope This report has been prepared as part of a wider feasibility analysis of seven potential greenway routes in the Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan. Each route is different and has required different analysis. These are documented in separate reports to allow reprioritisation over time and projects to be separated out for varying delivery programmes. Where applicable, the work has required and involved:

• Physical walking and recording key features of each potential route • Discussions with key council staff • Commissioning third party studies. For example, ecological study of Alice Eaves Reserve to understand potential effect of paths through Kauri, and Frame Group (specialist track experts) to work out specifics for more complex routes • Consultation with AT • Consultation with DoC • Analysis of GIS information and aerial photography • Obtaining planning advice from Auckland Council • Limited consultation with key landowners This feasibility investigation includes a description of each part of the proposed routes and provides recommended solutions to achieve a viable route, considering

• Walkability • Safety of users • Public access • Implementation This report also includes;

• Drawings of the proposed route

• Statement of recommended further work

Note this study does NOT include an assessment of environmental impacts, nor is it detailed design. Pathway Design & Standards All walkways and cycleways should be designed to a standard that is appropriate for the expected type of user. Whilst a detailed survey of the likely users of this specific Greenway Path has not been carried

5 out, the type of and the level of use can be estimated from similar walkway/cycleways in proximity to residential areas. Local Path Design Guide The Local Paths Design Guide (Rev. 1.2) is a set of guidelines by Auckland Council. It defines what a Local Path is and what it isn’t and illustrates how they connect to Auckland’s wider transport network.

Local Paths must meet the needs of all people walking and cycling. The design guide framework is based on the following principles: they must be safe, connected, accessible, comfortable and enabling.

Safe ‐ Safety and a stress‐free environment are core tenets of achieving a successful Local Path. Conflict points such as high vehicle numbers and high speeds should be minimised by providing a consistent level of experience across the Paths network. Crime prevention and enhanced social safety are also key outcomes of well‐designed Local Paths.

Connected ‐ Local Paths should connect destinations such as residential neighbourhoods, schools and universities, town centres, transit stations, and bicycle facilities. They should seamlessly connect to the wider transport network including Express Paths. Additionally, these connections should be designed to be easily navigated. Where intuitive design is unachievable, clear and consistent way finding signage should be employed.

Accessible ‐ Paths infrastructure should be accessible for all users, including children and people with disabilities. Considerations include ample width, gentle gradients, smooth transition in surfaces, and avoidance of high volumes of traffic that create fumes and noise.

Enabling ‐ Iwi, local community and stakeholders should be engaged early in the process to incorporate Te Aranga principles and community driven initiatives. Local Paths should integrate with the existing streetscape and celebrate Auckland’s unique character by responding to and incorporating elements of the natural and built environment, heritage and culture. Opportunities to include ecological function through planting, water sensitive design, and low energy/low toxicity materials should be integral to each Local Path design.

The consideration of all paths within this report incorporates the aspirations as set out in the Local Paths Design Guide. Walkway Standards The NZ Handbook for Tracks and Outdoor Visitor Structures (SNZ HB8630:2004) classifies walkway users into User Groups based on the type of visitor, their physical capability and their level of self‐reliance in the outdoors. The relevant User Group Categories for this proposed walkway are as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Walkway Categories User Group Description Urban Resident (UR) Users of urban parks; the majority of which are local residents including unsupervised children, elderly people, people with mobility difficulties and a wide range of physical abilities. People entering parks for recreation or accessing other locations.

Appropriate Track Classification: ‘Path’.

Short Stop Traveller (SST) Users including local residents and visitors from a wider area, undertaking a short walk from a few minutes up to an hour duration. Includes parents with toddlers, school age children, elderly people and some people with mobility difficulties.

Appropriate Track Classification: ‘Short Walk’.

Cycleway Standards The Ministry of Tourism has prepared a Cycle Trail Design Guide, which is the basis for design of cycleways that form part of Nga Haerenga, the New Zealand Cycle Trail. This document provides guidelines for the appropriate standard for various grades of cycleway to suit the capability and experience of various user categories. The relevant grades for this proposed path section are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Cycleway Grades Grades Description Grade 1 Flat, wide, smooth trail. Trail feels safe to ride. Ideal as a first ride experience for non‐cyclists, and those wanting an easy gradient and experience. Trail allows cyclists to ride two abreast most of the time and provides a social component to the ride. Cyclists will be able to ride the total distance without dismounting for obstacles.

Grade 2 Some gentle climbs, smooth trail. Suitable for beginner riders, the trail is predictable with no surprises. Social component with riders able to ride side by side at times, but possibly large sections of single trail. Grade 3 Narrow trail, there will be some hills to climb, obstacles may be encountered on the trail, and there may be exposure on the edge of the trail. Suitable for riders with intermediate level skills.

Proposed Standard The Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights Greenway Path (Section A) would provide for a wide variety of users including both walkers and cyclists who would use the shared use Greenway Path for recreational purposes in addition to commuting.

The path can be broken down into four sections:

 Section 1: This section consists of a path network between West Hoe Heights Subdivision and Pacific Heights Subdivision, a 1000m long by 1.4m wide proposed concrete path (along the council berm) within the typical road environment. This route will be used by both walkers and cyclists, although the path will be steep.

 Section 2: This section goes from Sunny Heights Road down into Pacific Heights Subdivision and into the esplanade reserve at the bottom of the valley along the Nukumea Stream. It is proposed to be 800m long by 1.4m wide concrete path along the council berm within the typical road environment. This route could be utilised be used by both walkers and cyclists, although again the path is steep.

 Section 3: This section goes from Hillcrest Road, down the southern slope into the valley and Nukumea Stream below. It is proposed to formalise an existing informal track with a 490m long by 1.2m wide compacted aggregate walkway/steps suitable for walkers only.

 Section 4: The longest section goes from Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (along edge of Nukumea Stream), a 1390m long by 2.2m wide section of concrete walkway/cycleway (with small sections of boardwalk where it traverses the stream edge) suitable for both walkers and cyclists.

Figure 1: Route diagram overview – Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights

Given the likely characteristics of these expected users, we believe the appropriate classification for walkers is “Short Walk” (SST User Group) and the appropriate grade for cyclists is Grade 2 (except for Section 3).

Based on the Path Design Guide, walkway and cycleway classifications and through discussion with Auckland Council regarding their expectations; the recommended parameters for the design and construction of this path are as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Recommended Design Parameters Surface Width Typically, 2.2m wide for the section of path that follows the Nukumea Stream along the edge of Alice Eaves Reserve for 1.3km until it begins the ascent up into the Pacific Heights subdivision. This section can be used for side by side cycle riding, safe passing of other cyclists and shared used with pedestrians. At this point the path connects to a 1.4m wide standard footpath up the steeper sections onto Sunnyheights Road and down to the valley at the south of the West Hoe Subdivision. Section 3 of the path network is 1.2m wide and constructed from compacted aggregate. Gradient The 2.2m wide sections are generally preferred between 0% and 8% (1 in 12). Steeper 12% (1 in 8) maximum acceptable along short sections. The path on section 3 is very steep and will require steps. Steps Steps have only been shown on the Section 3 path. Steps are not permitted on Section 1, 2 and 4 Surface Concrete paths for sections 1,2 and 4. 100mm thick black oxide tinted concrete on a 100mm thick GAP 40 basecourse. Light broom surface finish. Timber boardwalk is required for some small sections along Section 4. Compacted aggregate which is well drained, dry underfoot with no muddy areas for Section 3. Alignment Minimum 6m curve radius preferred. Minimum 3m curve radius acceptable in some locations. Minimum 1.5m curve radius for Section 3 only Batter Slopes Maximum fill batter slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and maximum cut batter slope of 4 vertical to 1 horizontal. Both reduced to maximum 1 vertical to 3 horizontal in mown grass areas to allow for easy maintenance. Vegetation Clear vegetation across surface width up to 2.5m in height. Structures Timber with 2.2m wide deck width. Preference to be level, up to 10% (1 in 10) maximum grade. Barriers 1200mm high timber barriers, installed on structures and where the effective fall height exceeds 1.5m as defined in SNZ HB8630:2004. Signage or Markers Markers not necessary (route clearly defined by the path surface). Directional signage at junctions. Bollards Bollards may be installed at the connections to any public roads where risk of vehicle entry is identified. The bollards will reflect Auckland Council standard details for stationary or removable bollards. Any bollard that is installed into the centre of the path formation shall be minimum 900mm high with a reflector installed on both sides, so it can be seen by cyclists in poor conditions.

Route Review As noted, the proposed greenway is broken up into 4 sections, outlined to follow. Each section has its own character and resulting path typology. It is proposed that if staging was to occur the path should be constructed from Hibiscus Coast Highway first, then slowly towards the west and Pacific Heights Subdivision to allow use of the completed sections immediately whilst waiting for further funding/construction to occur.

The proposed route has been divided into sub‐sections and is summarised as follows;

Section 1 traverses from the southern‐most section of the West Hoe Subdivision up the ridge to Sunnyheights Road and is 1km long. The 1.4m wide concrete path will be in the road reserve (currently under construction). The overall development has been consented and therefore the path width and specification has already been determined. It would be difficult to deliver a wider the path network or provide additional environmental enhancements as part of the development construction.

Cost Estimate (Section 1)

Estimated cost of construction (including $0,000,000 (excl GST) ecological planting): The path construction and costs are being borne by the developer. It is not known to what extent street tree planting is being undertaken along this route, nor if any rain gardens are being implemented by the developer. Estimated cost of professional services: N/A $000,000 (excl GST)

TOTAL $0,000,000 (excl GST)

Figure 2: Route diagram ‐ Section 1

Further to the above described route, there is a potential connection to Grand Drive through the paper road network which could be investigated later.

Figure 3: Route diagram – Section 1 continued

Section 2 traverses from Sunnyheights Road down the valley to the Nukumea Stream and is 800m long. The path will follow the road network (currently under construction) and is a 1.4m wide concrete footpath located within the road reserve. It then crosses over a pedestrian bridge and connects with the esplanade reserve network at the bottom of the valley. This development was in the final stages of approval at time of writing this feasibility report.

Cost Estimate (Section 2)

TOTAL $0,000,000 (excl GST)

Figure 4: Route diagram – Section 2

Figure 5: Route diagram – Section 2

Section 3 runs from the Nukumea Stream within the existing paper road, up a hill to connect with Hillcrest Road and is 510m long. This section is very steep and will therefore require steps and landings at regular intervals. A 1.2m width with compacted gravel path/steps appears viable. This path is situated within a bush environment. The exact route will need to be informed with arboricultural/ecological advice to avoid effects on the significant vegetation and fauna. There will be no lighting. Whilst users are potentially isolated CPTED issues are not expected beyond those experienced at similar bush walks.

Cost Estimate (Section 3)

Estimated cost of construction (including $230,000 (excl GST) ecological planting)

Estimated cost of professional services $35,000 (excl GST)

TOTAL $265,000 (excl GST)

Figure 6: Route diagram – Section 3

Section 4 consists of the longest 1390m and most complex path network, but also the section of path with the highest potential benefits to the community. It would provide easy access from West Hoe Heights to Orewa town centre and the beach and provide accessible access along the edge of the Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve and the Nukemea Stream. linking to the significant track network within the reserve and beyond.

It traverses a flatter topography and extends from Hibiscus Coast Highway up to the entrance of Pacific Heights Subdivision along West Hoe Road. High number of users are expected. The path could be accessed from the upper West Hoe area and provide access to Orewa Beach and township or simply as an accessible bush/stream recreational path.

The path is proposed at 2.2m wide for this section and has a preferred gradient of between 0% and 8% (maximum 1 in 12) to provide for wheelchair users. The path would be constructed of concrete for all weather access and ease of mobility uses. Some short sections of boardwalk 2.2m wide will be required over difficult terrain. Lighting is not recommended.

Cost Estimate (Section 4)

Estimated cost of construction (including $1,970,000 (excl GST) ecological planting)

Estimated cost of professional services $280,000 (excl GST)

TOTAL $2,240,000 (excl GST)

Section 4 can be broken down into the following zones:

Section 4a: At the edge of the Pacific Heights Subdivision the path moves down adjacent the Nukumea stream into the esplanade reserve network to where the tributary stream from the Pacific Heights subdivision (Lot 1 DP 204866, West Hoe Heights) meets the esplanade reserve. The land developer is constructing a pedestrian bridge which allows for the connection to the esplanade. At this intersection with the bridge the path will widen to 2.2m formed in concrete. The path follows the stream edge down the valley through mature Kanuka bush until it reaches the edge of the existing subdivision on Roberta Crescent. There will be localised tree removal and replanting as part of this section.

Section 4b: Adjacent the properties 77‐107 Roberta Crescent the path drops down to a lower contour adjacent the bush edge. Based upon GIS imagery and site visits it appears that small scale private structures likely encroach into the esplanade reserve (fencing, small deck platforms, chicken coups). If these conflict with the path route they may need to be removed. There will also be localised tree removal and replacement as part of this section. No consultation has been undertaken with these landowners yet.

Section 4c: The next section traverses the edge of the reserve network connecting Roberta Crescent to the Nukumea Stream, including the esplanade. The path will then run through an open grass reserve network and has opportunities (at a later date and not part of this scope) to connect to Roberta Crescent by footpath. The open grassed slopes of the reserve allow the path to avoid the wet swampy areas and traverse the slope on the gentlest gradient possible. There will be minor tree removal and replacement required along part of this section.

Figure 7: Route diagram ‐ Subsections 4a, 4b and 4c

Section 4d: Moving east, there is a pinch point at the intersection of the Kensington Properties land and the esplanade reserve. A potential route could be secured via a landowner agreement with the owners of Lot 2 DP 381692, Hillcrest Road, Orewa who own the 28 ha of protected bush block. It is understood there has been dialogue between the landowner and Council about part of this property being vested to Council as reserve at a later date. Kensington Properties have outlined their concerns over the path being to close to the newly developed residential apartment block adjacent this pinch point. It is due to this concern that the investigation into the above is recommended.

Section 4e: Kensington Properties (Kensington Park) own the land adjacent the stream along this section of the route. The land parcel, if subdivided in the future would result in the provision of an esplanade reserve which could then be used for the walkway. It appears that the placement of buildings provides for a future esplanade reserve.

If a walkway was proposed before this time a landowner agreement would need to be established with Kensington Properties. Initial discussions with Kensington Properties have been undertaken and they have informally supported in principle the greenways proposal. They have however noted that any such proposal would need to have the walkway located as far away from the residential units as possible. The greenway would also be able to connect with the existing paths on their land which have been formed as part of their wider internal path network.

Connecting to this land is an existing bridge which connects to Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve. It is recommended this bridge should undergo a structural assessment as there is an expectation of increased volume of users. It is believed that this bridge is an Auckland Council asset although no asset number can be located on the bridge. It is not owned by Kensington Properties. The process to gain an agreement with Kensington Properties may take some time and negotiation, and an agreement cannot be assured.

Figure 8: Route diagram ‐ Subsection 4d and 4e

Section 4f: Moving to the east of Kensington Park, the path will be located in the esplanade reserve. The esplanade reserve narrows significantly at this point down to approximately 5m in width. There are 6 residential properties fronting the esplanade reserve. There is also a narrow 3.5m wide access way from the esplanade reserve onto Forest Glen. This is currently an unused connection and has been fenced off by the adjacent landowners. Consultation would need to occur to open this access up and provide for a 1.4m wide concrete path.

Based upon GIS imagery and site visits it appears that small scale private structures may encroach into the esplanade reserve (fencing, small deck platforms). If these conflict with the route of the walkway they may need to be removed. A survey will need to be undertaken to establish the legal boundary. There is no requirement for Council to fence the boundaries however on similar projects the council has agreed to construct fences. No consultation has been undertaken with these landowners at this point.

Section 4g: The next section is along the length of 488 496c Hibiscus Coast Highway (Lot 15 DP 478069) which has a consented development (LUC60070192) (See appendix 5). This comprises of retirement style apartment living in a master planned site. The consent stipulates in Condition 31 & 32 that any enhancement works on the reserve will be done in consultation with council’s Team Leader Compliance Monitoring. There is also an advice note to condition 31 which specifically notes that engagement with the parks department is required, as well as the requirement to give regard to the T&C’s of the Land Owner Agreement. Again, there are some existing trees within this esplanade which will need assessment at time of detailed design. A Land Owner Approval process was undertaken (see letter dated 25 January 2018) where the developer has agreed to build the walkway along the southern side of the reserve to Councils standards in the Hibiscus and Bays Greenway Plan adopted December 2016 (See appendix 6).

Figure 9: Route diagram ‐ Subsections 4f, 4g

Figure 10: Part plan from approved development showing greenway on esplanade

Section 4h: The area of esplanade adjacent the historic Orewa House is very narrow (tightest point is approximately 2.6m wide). Orewa House is built right up to (and potentially beyond) the boundary. A boundary survey will be required. The path may need to be a boardwalk that overhangs the stream to achieve adequate separation from Orewa House. Some trees will need to be removed to provide space for the walkway to be determined upon detailed design. Once past Orewa House, there is adequate land on the stream side of the esplanade where the path would be located. No consultation has been undertaken with Orewa House yet.

Section 4i: The final stretch is the connection to the Hibiscus Coast Highway. The available area is too narrow for a 2.2m width and may result in CPTED concerns under the bridge. The existing bridge path would also restrict wheel chair users and potentially cyclists from accessing the path. Therefore, the most viable route appears to be through private property up onto the highway. A landowner agreement will need to be obtained but cannot be assured to be possible. The area will need to be surveyed prior to this occurring and a design drafted to ensure gradients will work.

Figure 11: Route diagram ‐ Subsections 4h and 4i

Implementation For more details on the implementation of the path, please refer to the report by Frame Group Report – Appendix 3

Consents A summary of the expected consent requirements for construction of the Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights Greenway Path is provided below. Note that this is a brief summary of requirements and should act as an overview only.

Resource Consent: There will be various reasons for consent along the length of the greenway. These triggers can be summarised below:

• Structures will be adjacent to stream margins (boardwalks, possible bridge), particularly section 4.

• Parts of the alignment are in the floodplain and will be subject to flood hazard assessments. Overland flow paths also apply. • Greenway alignment is very likely in significant ecological areas and stream margins. Associated vegetation alteration or removal is very likely. Detailed design will need to consider avoiding the mature vegetation and best practice ecological and arboricultural practices. • Lower reaches in stream are subject to coastal inundation. Coastal risk hazard assessment will be required. • Historic Heritage overlay surrounds Walnut Cottage. • Sections 1, 2 and 3 are subject to stormwater management area flow 1 provisions. • Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay applies to Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve and margins. • Earthworks are likely near stream and coastal environments. Detailed design will need to consider best practice erosion and sediment control. • Some sections are on land not currently owned by Council. For example, Section 4 passes through land presently owned by Kensington Park and Section 3 passes through private land. • Overall: some of the sections (particularly Section 4) will need to consider several constraints including design of a greenway resilient to coastal processes and flooding, avoiding significant vegetation removal, setback from and effects on adjacent properties. It is considered there will be moderate to high planning risks associated with this section.

Building Consent: Building consent is required for all structures that are not exempt under Schedule 1 of the Building Act. Any boardwalk structure from which it is possible to fall more than 1.5m, or any retaining wall supporting more than 1.5m height of soil will require a building consent. This will include the boardwalks that are proposed to follow the lower section of the Nukumea stream adjacent Orewa House. Note that a separate building consent application will be required for every structure that falls within a different legal description. Single structures that span over multiple legal descriptions or several structures within the same legal description could be applied for under a single consent.

Heritage NZ Authority: Although there are no obvious sites recorded on the Heritage NZ’s archaeological site recording, this should be checked again once the detailed design phase is underway and exact alignment known.

Mana Whenua: Manu Whenua has a partnership agreement with Auckland Council and as such dialogue should occur early in the design phase. Their cultural input can enhance projects significantly and form an important role during both Resource Consent and Heritage NZ authority applications.

Landowners: Sections of pathway are shown over private property. Landowner agreements would need to be obtained for these sections. This applies to three places in Section 4: Kensington Properties Limited on Kensington Park property, property owners at Lot 2 DP 381692, Hillcrest Road Orewa who own 28 ha of protected bush and the owners of Orewa House where the entry to the path network is shown.

Adjacent Landowners: The planning process may require consultation and advice should be obtained. Additionally, it is good practice is to consult with residents, landowners and businesses whose properties adjoin land where works are proposed. Consultation strategy and purpose should be carefully planned and considered. It is important that the scope of consultation is accurately defined. For example, there is a wide difference between asking “should this project go ahead” versus, “we would like to work with you regarding how you are affected by the proposed walkway”. Often adjacent landowners will object to walkways and raise fears regrading security and privacy. It is recommended that a Registered Surveyor be engaged to peg and clarify the relevant boundaries. This will also clarify if any private structures are located on public land and enable these matters to be raised with the owners of the structures, if required.

Auckland Transport: Auckland Transport should be consulted regarding the entry/exit point on Hibiscus Coast Highway to ensure the crossing point is adequately marked and any traffic safety issues managed.

Cost Breakdown ‐ Entire Route: Section A Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights The estimated cost of construction and professional services for this proposed path as per the recommended design parameters is provided as follows:

Entire Route Costings:

Estimated cost of construction (including $2,200,000 (excl GST) ecological planting)

Estimated cost of professional services $315,000 (excl GST)

TOTAL $2,515,000 (excl GST)

Note: The estimated cost of construction, incorporates the lowest cost options and a concrete surface (including a light broom finish and black oxide tinting).

Note: The estimated costs of professional fees that are expected to be necessary for this project include survey, design, planning, construction management and specialist reports.

Note: The above cost estimate excludes all internal council costs and assumes that the Resource Consent can be lodged as a non‐notified application. If a notified Resource Consent becomes necessary, it is expected that the estimated cost for additional professional services could increase by $100,000 (excl GST)

Next Steps To progress the development of the Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights Pathway, it is recommended that the following steps are actioned:

1. Obtain stakeholder feedback including agreeing on preferred route and surfacing options. 2. Begin negotiations and determine likely success of required land owner agreements, upon which parts of the route are dependent. 3. Secure funding source within Auckland Council, CCO’s or other 4. Identify staging requirements of the design or physical (if any) 5. Complete detailed surveys of the more difficult segments, including the set out of proposed centrelines. 6. Prepare design drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates for path, structures and any proposed plantings.

7. Engage a planner to provide advice throughout the project design and development. 8. Engage specialists as required; Geotechnical Engineer to assess the ground conditions and assist with retaining wall/boardwalk designs, Arborist to assess the impacts to any surrounding vegetation, including the pruning and removal of any identified trees, Archaeologist to assess the impacts of the works to any recorded or unrecorded archaeological sites, and apply for a Heritage NZ authority. 9. Carry out consultation with mana whenua, landowners and local residents 10. Apply for all required consents (including Resource and Building Consents). 11. Complete the tender process, and procure and manage the physical construction works

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Site & Example Photos Appendix 2 – Frame Group Design Report Appendix 3 – Wildlands Ecological Report Appendix 4 – Development Plans for 488 496c Hibiscus Coast Highway (Lot 15 DP 478069) which has a consented development (LUC60070192) Appendix 5 – Landowner approval letter

Appendix 1

Route photos: Section A – Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to West Hoe Heights

Photo 1: Typical existing path along Section 4e Photo 2: Typical existing path along Section 4e Kensington Park looking west Kensington Park looking east

Photo 3: Typical existing stream profile along Photo 4: Typical existing path along Section 4h Section 4h looking north looking east towards Hibiscus Coast Highway

For more photos refer to Frame Group Report

Appendix 2

Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway

Feasibility Report

FGL 17/073

Prepared by: Drew Kenny

Frame Group Limited PO Box 147 211,

Ponsonby, Auckland Ph: (09) 638 7221, Fax: (09) 376 0513

August 2018

Auckland Council  Detailed site investigations, survey and final design of each section. Level 7N, Bledisloe House,  Apply for all necessary consents. 24 Wellesley St,  Tendering and construction of each stage. Auckland 1010

2.0 Background 28th August 2018

Auckland Council’s vision is to interlink the city with a network of tracks to improve both the Re: Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report internal park connections, and the connections between these parks and key places in the

community. 1.0 Summary

The Auckland Council, Hibiscus and Bays Greenways - Local Path Plan, prepared in December This report evaluates the feasibility of creating a 3.65km long network of walking and cycling 2016, identifies a series of recommended walkways/cycleways throughout the Hibiscus and tracks in northern Orewa and Hatfields Beach, Auckland, that will connect Hillcrest Road and Bays Local Board that aims to provide connectivity throughout the board; including linking to Hibiscus Coast Highway to the Pacific Heights Subdivision (currently under construction), and existing and proposed new tracks in other adjacent local boards. The recommended continue north through Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to Otanerua Road Reserve. connections included in this document are on the eastern side of SH1; as south as Campbells

Bay, as north as Waiwera and extending east to Army Bay on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. To assist with the costing and staging of this proposed walkway/cycleway, it has been assessed in the following four sections: This feasibility report has been prepared as the next level of development for the Alice Eaves  Section A – Hillcrest Road to Pacific Heights, a 510m long by 1.2m wide aggregate Walkway and Cycleway after the Auckland Council, Hibiscus and Bays Greenways - Local walkway proposed to be suitable for walkers only. Path Plan. The preparation of this feasibility report included a site investigation to determine  Section B – Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway, a 1390m long by 2.2m wide what routes are feasible, an assessment of the potential benefits and issues, and the preparation section of concrete walkway/cycleway. of estimated costs for construction and professional services.  Section C – Old North Road to Hillcrest Road, a 410m long by 1.2m wide aggregate walkway proposed to be suitable for walkers only. 3.0 Objectives  Section D – Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road, an 1150m long by 1.4m wide section of concrete walkway and a 190m long section by 1.2m wide aggregate walkway proposed The proposed Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway development has potential benefits to a to be suitable for walkers only. wide range of the community and visitors; from local residents who wish to venture along a safe walkway, commuters using the walkway as an alternative to using the road and visitors The general formation of this proposed walkway/cycleway poses some technical challenges. looking to explore the area. Specific construction details will be necessary to provide a safe, durable walk through a range of different environments including native bush (kauri), mown grass recreational areas, The Auckland Council, Hibiscus and Bays Greenways - Local Path Plan outlines the following adjacent to roads and along the creek edge. objectives when planning and forming new walkways/cycleways, which the Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway can fulfil:  Connected communities with excellent transport choices. The total estimated construction cost to develop the Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway is $2,265,000 (excl GST); and the estimated cost for professional services including design,  Easy access to recreation options and open space. planning, construction management and specialist reports is $350,000 (excl GST).  A protected and enhanced environment.  Improve walking connections. The next steps for this project, following consultation and approval of this report by the  Improve cycle connections. stakeholders, are as follows:  Improve recreation opportunities.  Set-out the walkway centreline and prepare a concept package.  Improve ecological opportunities.  Complete required consultation and land negotiations.  Improve access to streams and waterways.  Geotechnical, arboricultural and archaeological investigations.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 2 4.0 Requirements 4.2. Cycling Trail Standards

All walkways and cycleways should be designed to a standard that is appropriate for the Recreational cycle trail grades are best described by the Cycle Trail Design Guide prepared expected type of user. Whilst a detailed survey of the potential walkway and cycleway users for the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. This guide describes various has not been carried out, the type of users that this proposal will likely attract can be grades of cycleway for different levels of cyclist capability and type of experience offered, anticipated by looking at the local community, and the use of other walkways and cycleways in and is used as the basis for grading of the NZ Cycle Trail cycleways. The relevant grades the area. for the proposed sections of cycleway are shown in Table 2.

4.1. Walking Track Users and Categories Table 2 – Off-road Cycle Trail Grades and Trail Description Grade Description The NZ Handbook for Tracks and Outdoor Visitor Structures (SNZ HB8630:2004) classifies Grade 1 - Flat, wide, smooth trail. Trail feels safe to ride. Ideal as a first ride pedestrian track users into User Groups based on the type of visitor, their physical Easiest experience for non-cyclists, and those wanting an easy gradient and capability and their level of self-reliance in the outdoors. The relevant User Group experience. Trail allows cyclists to ride two abreast most of the time and Categories for the proposed sections of walkway are as shown in Table 1. provides a social component to the ride. Cyclists will be able to ride the total distance without dismounting for obstacles. Table 1 – Walking Track User Group Classifications and Track Categories User Group User Description Track Category Grade 2 - Some gentle climbs, smooth trail. Suitable for beginner riders, the trail is Group 1 Users of urban parks, the majority Path: Easy track catering for all ages and Easy predictable with no surprises. Social component with riders able to ride Urban of which are local residents; most walking abilities. Usually high side by side at times, but possibly large portions of single trail. Resident including unsupervised children, standard of track surface and structures (UR) elderly people, people with suitable for access in all types of footwear. Grade 3 - Narrow trail, there will be some hills to climb, obstacles may be mobility difficulties and a wide Low risk tracks. Most will be accessible Intermediate encountered on the trail, and there may be exposure on the edge of the range of physical abilities. People by people with mobility difficulties or trail. Suitable for riders with intermediate level skills. entering parks for recreation or for limitations. simply accessing other locations. Group 2 Users including local residents and Short Walk: Easy tracks catering for all 4.3. Proposed Standard and Parameters Short Stop visitors from a wider area, ages and most walking abilities. Formed Traveller undertaking a short walk from a firm path suitable for safe use by most Each section of the Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway is aimed at a variety of users. (SST) few minutes up to an hour pedestrians wearing walking footwear. Sections A, C and D are planned for walkers only, and Section B is planned for both walkers duration. Includes parents with Low risk tracks. May be accessible by and cyclist. Walkers and cyclist are expected to use this track network for recreational toddlers, school age children, people with mobility difficulties. purposes in addition to an alternative route (off of the road) for commuting. Section B elderly people and some people would also be suitable for wheelchair users. with mobility difficulties. Group 3 Users consisting visitors Walking Track: Relatively easy tracks, Given the likely characteristics of these expected users, we believe the appropriate Day Visitor undertaking an extended walk up often of extended distance, formed to a classification for walkers is “Short Walk” (SST User Group) and the appropriate grade for (DV) to a full day in duration, seeking high standard that is suitable for cyclists is Grade 2. an outdoor experience in a natural physically able users wearing walking setting with a sense of space. footwear. Low risk tracks. May be Based on the above walking track and cycling trail classifications, and through discussion Includes families with young suitable for people with minor mobility with Auckland Council regarding their expectations; the recommended parameters for the children, school parties and elderly difficulties. design and construction of this track network are as shown in Table 3 and 4. people, but not generally including people who are physically challenged.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 3 Table 3 – Recommended Design Parameters for Sections A, C and D (Short Walk) 5.0 Formation Types Item Design Range Surface Typically 1.2m for track, structures and steps, The proposed route generally travels through native and non-native bush areas that will Width increased to 1.4m for roadside footpath. require vegetation to be cleared, over maintained areas with mown grass and new plantings Gradient Maximum 1 in 6 grades on track sections. that will need to be shifted, on steep slopes, and along creek edge where larger tree (including Steps Ground based boxed steps with a timber handrail. pohutukawa) will require removal or pruning. The following formation types and structures Maximum 13 steps between minimum 900mm long landings. will be used during construction to form the proposed walkway/cycleway, including the Surface Generally 50mm thick compacted aggregate surface on walkway and steps; upgrade of existing tracks (this is as shown on the attached Estimated Work Schedule): or for roadside footpath use 100mm thick concrete on a 100mm thick GAP 40 basecourse with a light broom surface finish.  Form path on flat Alignment Minimum 1.5m curve radius. Where the cross-slope is less than 15%, only minor path formation earthworks are Batter Maximum fill batter slope of 1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal and maximum cut required. Slopes batter slope of 4 vertical to 1 horizontal. Vegetation Clear vegetation across surface width up to 2.5m in height.  Form path on cross-slope less than 40% Structures Timber, up to 10% (1 in 10) maximum grade. Kerbs not required. Where the cross-slope is less than 40%, cut and fill formation shall be used where the Barriers 1100mm high timber barriers, installed on structures and where the suitable excavated material from the inside of the formation bench is used as compacted effective fall height exceeds 1.5m as defined in SNZ HB8630:2004. fill on the outer edge of the walkway bench.

 Form path on cross-slope greater than 40% Table 4 – Recommended Design Parameters for Section B (Grade 2) Where the cross-slope is greater than 40%, a full cut formation (full bench) detail shall be Item Design Range used where the material cut from this type of formation is carted and compacted to form Surface 2.2m to allow side by side cycle riding, safe passing of other cyclists and other segments, including those to be built on fill or on ground with a cross-slope of less Width shared used with pedestrians. than 40%. Gradient Preferred between 0% and 8% (maximum 1 in 12).

Also this is the maximum grade allowable for wheelchair use.  Installation of boxed steps with handrail Steps Step free (not permitted). Steps are to be installed in steeper segments of tracks suitable for walkers only that Surface 100mm thick black oxide tinted concrete on a 100mm thick GAP 40 cannot be traversed at a 1 in 6 grade. They are to be constructed from timber stringers basecourse with a light broom surface finish. and risers, backfilled with fill material, and have an aggregate surface. Steps shall be Alignment Minimum 6m curve radius preferred. constructed in such a way to enable comfortable use by children and elderly people, Minimum 3m curve radius acceptable in some locations. with a maximum riser height of 190mm and minimum tread length of 250mm. Steps Batter Maximum fill batter slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and maximum cut shall have a handrail on one side to assist users negotiate the steps. Slopes batter slope of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal.

Both reduced to maximum 1 vertical to 3 horizontal in mown grass areas to  Installation of timber retaining wall allow for easy maintenance. Retaining walls are to be constructed from timber poles concreted in the ground and Vegetation Clear vegetation across surface width up to 2.5m in height. retaining boards. They can be installed on either the uphill or downhill side of the Structures Timber, preference with a level deck up to 8% (1 in 12) maximum grade. walkway/cycleway generally in areas on steep cross slopes (including where the ground Use kerbs where barrier not installed. type is not suitable to be benched, such as over tree roots). The wall heights will vary Barriers 1200mm high timber barriers, installed on structures and where the between 0.6m and 2m. Barriers are to be installed on downhill retaining wall where the effective fall height exceeds 1.5m. effective fall height exceeds 1.5m.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 4  Installation of boardwalks  The installation of a 120m length of 1.2m wide of aggregate filled timber boxed steps Boardwalks are to be constructed with timber joists and decking supported on timber with a handrail on one side. poles and bearers. These are to be used to traverse over wet or steep segments, or to  The installation of a new 20m long by 1.2m wide timber glulam bridge with barriers on protect significant features such as tree roots. Boardwalks are to be constructed as low both sides. to the ground as possible (taking into account flood levels when constructing boardwalks adjacent to the creek). Barriers are to be installed where the effective fall The majority of this section should be relatively easy to form in the existing clearing. Some height exceeds 1.5m and kerbs will be installed where the fall height is less 1.5m on of this clearing though enters the existing private property to the west; therefore in this accessible boardwalks only (where wheelchair users may frequent). segment it is recommended to form a new route through the neighbouring bush (keeping the new walkway within the road reserve). A boundary survey and Arborist report is  Installation of bridges recommend to be completed for this segment to ensure this new route is fully constructed Bridges will be used where it is necessary to completely span a watercourse. They will in the road reserve and it limits effects to native vegetation. be typically constructed with timber glue-laminated (glulam) beams and decking supported on timber poles and bearers. Barriers will generally be installed on both sides Water has been allowed to flow down this existing clearing for many years causing erosion of bridges (where the effective fall height exceeds 1.5m). and rutting in places. It is recommended on the new walkway to install drainage with side

drains and discharge culverts, and to install grade dips to divert the water away from the  Installation of barriers route on the steeper segments that require steps. Barriers are to be installed on bridges, boardwalks and retaining walls where the effective fall height exceeds 1.5m. Type B barriers with three or four horizontal rails will A profile survey is recommended in this location to determine the best location for steps to be used where the effective fall height is between 1.5m and 3.0m, and Type A barriers limit earthworks. Where the walkway is being rerouted away from the existing clearing, with vertical battens will be used where the effective fall height is greater than 3.0m. deep cut outs should be installed to limit ongoing erosion to these areas. Refer to SNZ HB8630:2004 for more information on requirements and definitions of type and fall surface, etc. This section ends by forming a new bridge over the existing watercourse to Section B. It is of the understanding that from here a second bridge and access pathway is being  Miscellaneous constructed by the subdivision development contractor to link this development south to Other items to be used during construction include culvert installation (to discharge side the Pacific Heights Subdivision. drains or to be installed in overland flow paths), pedestrian crossing installation (at road crossings), large tree removal, private structure and old/unsuitable structure removal, 6.2. Section B – Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway decommission of old tracks (installing cut outs), installation of timber edge boards (low with driven pegs where retaining wall is not suitable), etc. Section B is 1390m long, and traverses between proposed bridge structure at the end of Section A and the existing roadside footpath at Hibiscus Coast Highway. The proposed 6.0 Proposed Route works in this section includes the following:  The formation of 960m length of 2.2m wide concrete walkway in grass and bush areas. The proposed 3.65km long walkway/cycleway route has been divided into four sections and is  The installation of a 200m length of timber retaining wall with some barrier (over four summarised as follows. Each section is presented in more detail in the attached Route segments). Comments Schedule and is shown on the attached Concept Plans.  The installation of a new 30m long by 2.2m wide timber boardwalk with barrier on one 6.1. Section A – Hillcrest Road to Pacific Heights side over a wetland.  The installation of a new 380m long by 2.2m wide timber boardwalk with barrier on one Section A is 510m long, and traverses down an existing clearing adjacent to the powerlines side adjacent to Nukumea Creek. between the existing track entranceway located opposite 157 Hillcrest Road and the Pacific  The removal of large trees and encroachments that are in the esplanade reserve Heights Subdivision, which is currently under construction. The proposed works in this (required to be removed to form the walkway). section includes the following:  The formation of 370m length of 1.2m wide aggregate surfaced walkway in the clearing This section of walkway/cycleway poses some technical challenges to construct. Where the and native bush areas (including the installation of side drains and discharge culverts). reserve is narrow a boundary survey should be undertaken to mark the boundary and

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 5 ensure the walkway is built within the reserve. In some instances adjacent residents,  The upgrade and widening of 135m length of aggregate surfaced walkway to a landowners and businesses have been using the reserve land as their own, including minimum 1.2m width. building fences, sheds, gardens, etc. In places these will need to be removed to construct  The installation of a 25m length of 1.2m wide of aggregate filled timber boxed steps with the walkway/cycleway. a handrail on one side.  The installation of a new 3m long by 1.2m wide timber boardwalk with barrier on one Where the reserve is steep, retaining walls will be required on the uphill or downhill side of side to replace an existing structure that is steeper than the maximum grade allowed on the walkway/cycleway to ensure the required earthworks are maintained in the narrow boardwalk. reserve area and to ensure the stability of this land. A Geotechnical Engineer should be  The installation of a new 65m long by 1.2m wide timber boardwalk in two parts (joining engaged to assess these areas and design the retaining walls. In one particular location in to an existing boardwalk) to traverse over kauri roots. Segment B5-B6, the reserve boundary is only 5m wide before the proposed walkway/cycleway enters Kensington Park land. The Geotechnical Engineering assessment will need to ensure that any works here will not impact the nearby apartment building. It is recommended that a Structural Engineer undertakes an assessment to the existing Both Kensington Park and the residents in the northwest corner of this apartment building bridge, boardwalk and staircase structures that are to be maintained on this existing track will need to be consulted, including gaining permission from Kensington Park to continue (note that the upgrade to these structures, if required, has been excluded from this the walkway/cycleway on their land adjacent to the creek where no reserve land exists. feasibility). An Arborist should also be engaged to report on the effects this works will have to surrounding vegetation, including the many kauri trees that are in close proximity The Geotechnical Engineer will also be required to complete a foundation assessment for to the existing track. Standard Kauri dieback protocols will need to be adhered during the the proposed 380m long timber boardwalk adjacent to Nukumea Creek, and a Structural construction of Section C. Engineer will need to be engaged to complete the detailed design. It is proposed that this boardwalk follows the narrow reserve area on the southern edge of the creek, and where 6.4. Section D – Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road necessary to avoid any significant features in the reserve, by installing one of the two piles at each span into the creek. Due to the risk of flooding from the creek, and associated Section D is 1340m long, and commences at the end of Section C on Hillcrest and ends in possible damage to the structure, it is not recommended to install the boardwalk fully in the the bush reserve located adjacent to 19 Otanerua Road. The proposed works in this section creek; therefore some features such as tree and other significant vegetation will require includes the following: removal, including a large pohutukawa in Segment B10-B11.  The widening and formation of new 50m length of concrete footpath adjacent to roads to a minimum 1.4m width. An Arborist report will be required to report on any effects to vegetation, including the  The formation of 190m length of 1.2m wide aggregate surfaced walkway in native bush proposed removals and pruning/lifting required to other large trees. areas (including the installation of side drains and discharge culverts in sloping areas).  The installation of a 20m length of timber retaining wall. At the end of this section, after the proposed boardwalk traverses passed the café and other  The installation of three pedestrian crossings. local businesses, a land purchase or easement will be required to permit the walkway/cycleway to be built on the private land adjacent to the existing driveway and join to the existing footpath at Hibiscus Coast Highway. Alternatively, if this is not obtained, it The majority of this section traverses on existing footpaths adjacent to roads. One section of would be necessary to join this walkway/cycleway to the existing narrow path that footpath requires widening with a timber retaining wall proposed to achieve the required continues under the Hibiscus Coast Highway Bridge towards the beach at Arundel width. A Geotechnical Engineer should be engaged to provide an assessment and design Recreation Reserve. To allow better access into central Orewa it is preferred that the new this retaining wall, and an Arborist be engaged to assess the native vegetation removal walkway/cycleway joins to the existing footpath at Hibiscus Coast Highway. required in the bush reserve at the last segment.

6.3. Section C – Old North Road to Hillcrest Road Where the roadside footpaths are proposed to be widened or pedestrian road crossings are proposed, Auckland Transport should be notified and consulted to ensure that all works Section C is 410m long, and traverses between the existing entrances to Alice Eaves Reserve, comply with their standard procedure. opposite 9 Old North Road at the southern end and adjacent to 36 Hillcrest Road at the northern end. The proposed works in this section includes the following: This section ends at a creek, which will require a new bridge to continue the walkway/cycleway north. This is excluded from this feasibility.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 6 7.0 Approvals 7.4. Mana Whenua

The following summarises the expected approvals required for this walkway/cycleway Consultation with mana whenua will be necessary to form part of the resource consent and proposal, including consents. Heritage NZ authority applications. It is important that mana whenua are consulted early to be given the opportunity to provide cultural input into this project. As part of the 7.1. Resource Consent process they may request for interpretation or artwork to be included into the design (or as a condition to the resource consent). An Auckland Council resource consent will be necessary for this project as per the rules outlined in the Auckland Unitary Plan. It is recommended that a Planner is engaged to 7.5. Adjacent Landowners determine the specific consent requirements and prepare detailed assessment of effects. It is likely that geotechnical, arboricultural and archaeological assessments by specialists in Consultation will be required with the residents, landowners and businesses whose those fields; in addition to detailed consultation with mana whenua and adjacent properties back onto the reserve where works are proposed. Some will be apprehensive landowners; will be required to accompany the resource consent application. A single with the closeness of the proposed walkway/cycleway to their property, as well as being resource consent application could be undertaken for all of the proposed works together, or concerned with privacy and security. separate applications could be split between sections. A majority of the reserve land is currently accessible to the public and is clearly defined 7.2. Building Consent within its boundary; however in some Section A and B segments they are not, and it is recommended in these locations that a Registered Surveyor be engaged to peg and clarify Under the Building Act, an Auckland Council building consent will be necessary for any the reserve boundaries on site. structure that is not exempt under Schedule 1 of the Act. This means that any boardwalk or bridge structure from which it is possible to fall more than 1.5m, or any retaining wall In Section B, some of the adjacent residents and businesses have been using the reserve as supporting more than 1.5m height of soil will require a building consent. This will include their own property by mowing the grass and building private structures. In these areas, the glulam bridge in Section A, the boardwalks that are proposed to follow the creek in consultation will be required with these parties to remove the fences, sheds, gardens, etc Section B, the short replacement boardwalk in Section C, and a portion of the proposed that encroach into the reserve to enable space to build the walkway/cycleway. Permission retaining walls in Sections B. Note that a separate building consent application will be will also be required from Kensington Park to continue the walkway on their land; and at required for every structure that falls within a different legal description. Single structures the end of Section B, a land purchase or easement will need to be acquired where the that span over multiple legal descriptions or several structures within the same legal walkway/cycleway is recommended to be built on the private land adjacent to the existing description could be applied for under a single consent. driveway to enable the new walkway/cycleway to join to the existing footpath at Hibiscus Coast Highway. 7.3. Heritage NZ Authority 7.6. Services and Roads A search of Heritage NZ’s archaeological site recording scheme indicates that there is a recorded archaeological site in close proximity to the existing track in Section C. In There are some underground services adjacent to the proposed walkway/cycleway. Whist addition, as this proposed walkway/cycleway is located near the coast, it is expected that earthworks will be limited in these locations, consultation and consent may be required unrecorded archaeological sites may be present along the proposed route. Once the final from the appropriate utility provider for working near their services. Auckland Transport walkway/cycleway location is determined and mapped (and prior to commencing any should also be consulted regarding upgrading the roadside footpaths and installing construction works), it is recommended that a detailed archaeological study be undertaken pedestrian crossings in Section D. by an Archaeologist to assess what impacts the construction works will have on both recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites. 8.0 Estimate of Costs

If the Archaeologist deems it required, a Heritage NZ authority shall be applied for the The estimated cost of construction and professional services to develop the Alice Eaves proposed construction works to include permitting works over any recorded sites in Walkway and Cycleway is provided as follows. addition to any accidental discovery.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 7 8.1. Construction Cost Estimate The above cost estimate excludes all internal council costs and assumes that the resource consent can be lodged as a non-notified application. If a notified resource consent A breakdown of the estimated construction cost of each segment is detailed in the attached application becomes necessary, it is expected that the estimated cost for additional Estimated Work Schedule. The estimated cost of construction for the recommended option professional services could increase by another $100,000 (excl GST). is as follows. All construction cost estimates exclude GST and include a 20% contingency: These costs also exclude any land purchases or easements creations (lawyer fees, etc) that  Section A – Hillcrest Road to Pacific Heights $220,000 may be required to legalise the walkway/cycleway where it crosses private land.  Section B – Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway $1,842,000 9.0 Recommended Next Steps  Section C – Old North Road to Hillcrest Road $109,000

 Section D – Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road $94,000 To progress with the development of the Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway, the  Total Estimated Construction Cost: $2,265,000 recommended next steps for this project are as follows:  Obtain stakeholders feedback from this feasibility report and source funding for this The above cost estimates are based on current contractor rates for similar construction project. projects in North Auckland. They do not include provision for the installation of signage,  Engage a Registered Surveyor to mark any unclear boundaries and where the proposed plantings, viewing areas and other landscaping items (nor do they include the assessment walkway/cycleway enters private land make any required land negotiations. and upgrade of any existing structures that meet the required parameters).  For each specific section, set-out the proposed walkway location.

 Prepare a concept package which outlines all of the proposed construction works. 8.2. Professional Services Estimate  Liaise with any mana whenua, service providers, local businesses, adjacent residents The estimated costs of professional fees that are expected to be necessary for this project are and landowners. shown in Table 5. Note that these are estimates only and shall not be considered as a quote  Engage an Archaeologist to assess the impacts of the works to any recorded or for services. All of the costs included in this table exclude GST. unrecorded archaeological sites, and apply for a Heritage NZ authority.  Engage an Arborist to assess the impacts to any surrounding vegetation, including Table 5 – Estimated Cost of Professional Services where pruning and the removal of trees is required. Item Estimated Cost  Engage a specialist Geotechnical Engineer to assess the ground conditions and assist Boundary surveys $20,000 with retaining wall designs. Consultation and Land negotiations $25,000  Engage a Planner to prepare an assessment of effects and lodge a resource consent application. Archaeologist assessment, Heritage NZ Authority and monitoring $10,000  Make any minor adjustments to the marked route and complete a detailed survey of the Arborist investigation, report and monitoring $15,000 more difficult segments. Geotechnical Engineer investigation and retaining wall design $20,000  Prepare design drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates for the Survey and final design of walkway and structures $65,000 walkway. Resource consent application preparation, lodgement and fees $25,000  Engage a Structural Engineer to provide calculations and producer statements for the Building consent application preparation, lodgement and fees $10,000 proposed bridge/boardwalk structures, and lodge building consent applications. Tender and contract management services $100,000  Complete the tender process, and procure and manage the physical construction works 20% contingency (rounded) $60,000 for each stage of works.

Total Estimated Cost of Professional Services: $350,000

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 8 10.0 Attachments

 Attachment 1 – Site and Example Photos.  Attachment 2 – Route Comments and Estimated Work Schedule.  Attachment 3 – Overall Concept Plan and Concept Plan drawings (x4).

Drew Kenny Consultant, Frame Group Ltd.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 9

Site Photos

A2-A3: Existing clearing, install steps down steep segments. A3-A4: Upgrade exposed clay track in clearing. A4-A5: Proposed bridge crossing to Section B.

B1-B2: Existing narrow track to be cut to grade. B2-B3: Enter bush area in reserve strip south of existing track. B3-B4: Install boardwalk and retaining wall.

B4-B5: Over stormwater retention dam and up grass. B6-B7: Shift plantings and bench walkway with retaining wall. B6-B7: Retain above stormwater discharge.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 10

B7-B8: Existing footpath to be widened (bridge excluded). B8-B9: Bench walkway down to fence on grass. B8-B9: Remove large trees and install boardwalk.

B8-B9: Boardwalk to continue in narrow esplanade. B8-B9: Boardwalk to continue, some piles to span into creek. B10-B11: Boardwalk to continue at cafe, remove encroachments.

B10-B11: Boardwalk to continue, remove encroachments. B10-B11: Remove pohutukawa. B10-B11: Join to footpath through private land.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 11

C1-C2: Existing bridge at reserve entrance. C2-C3: Widen existing track with new edge C2-C3 Existing boxed steps ok.

C3-C4: No works at existing stepped boardwalk. C4-C5: Install boardwalk adjacent to Kauri trees. C6: Install new step flight and join to Hillcrest Road footpath.

D1: Join to existing road footpath at start of section. D1-D2: Install uphill retaining wall to widen footpath. D2: Formalise existing road crossing, no works at block wall.

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 12

D2-D3: Existing 1.5m wide footpath along Hillcrest Road. D4-D5: Existing 2.2m wide footpath along Beachwood Drive. D5: Existing path at Beachwood Drive / Otanerua Road.

D6: Install road crossing and concrete path leading to bush. D6-D7: Form aggregate path with drainage in bush reserve. D7: Bridge required at end (not part of this project)

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 13

Example Photos

Compacted aggregate surfaced path Concrete surfaced path with light broom finish and black oxide Concrete path with retaining walls and Type A barrier

Timber boxed steps Boardwalk with Type B barriers Coastal boardwalk with Type A barriers

______Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report, August 2018 Page: 14 Auckland Council - Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report Route Comments Schedule - Rev. A August 2018 Segment Route Segment Description Comments Issues Investigations Estimated Length Construction [m] Cost [excl GST]

SECTION A - HILLCREST ROAD TO PACIFIC HEIGHTS Upgrade grass track at start and reroute track into bush Existing clearing enters private land. Setting out, Arborist, Boundary survey. From Hillcrest Road, existing cleared Existing grass and clay track in existing (keeping within road reserve). Install boxed steps down Native vegetation removals on new A1-A2 190 Discuss installing cut outs with $53,550 route on private land. clearing surrounded in bush. steeper segments with handrail. Install cut outs in clearing to route. Water services under route. landowner. prevent ongoing erosion. Boundary unclear. Cut existing track to reduce grade and install boxed steps Exposed clay track in existing clearing down slope with handrail. Use grade dips to divert water on Water services under route. Erosion A2-A3 Existing cleared route in road reserve. 100 (up to 5m wide) down steep slope, Profile survey for step alignment. $39,000 landings and side drain with discharge culvert on track issue in steeper segments. approx 30%. segment. Exposed clay track in clearing (2-3m Cleared route continues to bridge Form track meandering down slope with side drain and A3-A4 200 wide), approx 17% grade with steep Nil. $30,250 crossing. discharge culverts. Install boxed step flight before bridge. segment. Bridge crossing joining to Section B Native vegetation removals. Estimated bridge length is 20m. Install glulam beam timber A4-A5 and to additional accessway to Pacific 20 Wide vegetated gully with creek. 2nd bridge and accessway to Structural Engineer, Arborist. $60,000 pedestrian bridge with barriers both on sides. Heights Subdivision. subdivision (not part of this project). TOTALS: 510 $183,000 Contingency 20%: $37,000 GRAND TOTAL: $220,000 SECTION B - PACIFIC HEIGHTS TO HIBISCUS COAST HIGHWAY Narrow track leading to existing track Cut new walkway up and down slope, and onto flat terrain Native vegetation removals. B1-B2 Pacific Heights Subdivision to junction. 280 Setting out, Arborist. $103,000 junction. ensuring max grade. Wastewater services under route. Form new walkway above existing track to ensure it is located Existing 1.2m wide track steep in in reserve strip. Install downhill retaining wall with barrier in Native vegetation removals. Boundary Setting out, Arborist, Geotech, B2-B3 North of 77-103 Roberta Crescent. 220 $169,000 places. place to avoid undercutting private property with cut unclear. Boundary survey. earthworks. Narrow reserve segment between Form walkway across flat grass, raised boardwalk with barrier East of 107 Roberta Crescent in Minor vegetation removal. Boundary Structural Engineer, Geotech Boundary B3-B4 70 private property and wetland (mainly on both sides over wetland and downhill retaining wall with $99,000 reserve. unclear. survey. grass). barrier to climb slope. Over flat grass, with future junction Stormwater retention area below B4-B5 70 possible to Roberta Crescent, and onto Form walkway adjacent to stormwater pond and up slope. Wastewater services under route. $27,100 Roberta Crescent. sloping segment (up to 40% crossfall). Form walkway with cut and fill earthworks down slope. Install Weed vegetation removal. Boundary Consultation with adjacent landowner Continue east towards Eaves Bush Area with pampas, ginger, etc (up to B5-B6 120 downhill retaining wall (with barrier) raised where it is close to unclear. Enters Kensington Park land. and resident, Geotech, Boundary $67,600 Parade. 30% crossfall). the building where boundary narrows. Close to apartment building. survey. Move planting. Possible stability issues Adjacent to creek with plantings and Bench walkway with timber retaining wall on uphill side of Consultation with adjacent landowner, B6-B7 Below retirement community. 80 adjacent to creek. On Kensington Park $87,400 grass areas. walkway (including over stormwater pipe). Geotech. land. Join to existing walkway that crosses Remove existing concrete, widen and form new walkway Consultation with adjacent landowner, Existing walkway into Alice Eaves bridge into reserve and continues Move signage. On Kensington Park B7-B8 130 segment. Minor cutting required for widening. Works on Structural Engineer to check bridge (not $51,400 Reserve. below retirement community with land. bridge into Alice Eaves Reserve not included. included in costs). concrete and aggregate segments. Remove private encroachments. Native Route investigation, consultation with Bench walkway down to fence on grass and install boardwalk Continue east adjacent to creek Esplanade strip behind private houses vegetation removal including some adjacent landowners, Setting out, B8-B9 150 along edge of creek, noting that some piles may be required $319,000 through private encroachments. adjacent to creek, 31-36 Forest Glen. larger trees. Narrow esplanade, Arborist, Structural Engineer, Geotech, in the waterway. boardwalk piles required in waterway. Boundary survey. Vegetated esplanade area adjacent to Native vegetation removal including Continue east adjacent to creek in Continue boardwalk in esplanade, noting that some piles may Setting out, Arborist, Structural B9-B10 80 creek near future new development at some larger trees. Narrow esplanade, $185,600 narrow esplanade. be required in the waterway. Engineer, Geotech, Boundary survey. 25-35 Annalise Place. boardwalk piles required in waterway. Remove private encroachments (fence, Continue boardwalk in esplanade, noting that some piles may Consultation with adjacent landowner shed, garden, gate, etc) and large Adjacent to business area and café be required in the waterway. Remove first large pohutukawa and where it is proposed to enter Narrow grass area between creek and pohutukawa (and other smaller B10-B11 joining to footpath at Hibiscus Coast 190 to make room for boardwalk in narrow esplanade and lift private property at end, Setting out, $425,400 building with larger trees present. vegetation). Enters private property at Highway. second pohutukawa. Form concrete walkway at end adjacent Arborist, Structural Engineer, Geotech, end to join to footpath after road bridge. to driveway to join to footpath (narrow at pole). Boundary survey. Boundary unclear. TOTALS: 1390 $1,535,000 Contingency 20%: $307,000 GRAND TOTAL: $1,842,000 Auckland Council - Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report Route Comments Schedule - Rev. A August 2018 Segment Route Segment Description Comments Issues Investigations Estimated Length Construction [m] Cost [excl GST]

SECTIONSECTION CA -- OLDHILLCREST NORTH ROADROAD TOTO PACIFICHILLCREST HEIGHTS ROAD Entry to Alice Eaves Reserve from Old C1-C2 50 Existing concrete path and bridge. No works. Nil. $0 North Road. Upgrade 10m long track segment and install 3m length of new boxed steps to existing 7m long bridge Widen existing path Existing track through Alice Eaves Aggregate track with steep segments from 1m to 1.2m using a timber edge board and install side Arborist, Structural Engineer to check C2-C3 90 Native trees adjacent to track. $23,800 Reserve. and existing timber structure. drain with discharge culverts. Replace narrow staircase with bridge (not included in costs). three boxed step flights and steep boardwalk with new 3m long level boardwalk. Existing boxed steps at end ok. Structural Engineer to check staircase / Existing staircase / stepped boardwalk Existing timber structure elevated over C3-C4 100 No works. Nil. stepped boardwalk (not included in $0 in Alice Eaves Reserve. Kauri roots. costs). Existing track with boardwalk in Alice Existing aggregate track with existing Install two new 1.2m wide timber boardwalk sections to join to C4-C5 85 Kauri located adjacent to track. Structural Engineer, Arborist. $52,000 Eaves Reserve. structure centrally located. either side of existing boardwalk. Upgrade existing track with thick aggregate surface to cover any roots. Install new 5m long boxed step flight down steep Native trees adjacent to track including C5-C6 Join to Section D at Hillcrest Road. 85 Existing 1.2m wide aggregate track. Arborist. $14,900 track segment and 5m long concrete path segment flared to Kauri. 2.2m wide at join to Hillcrest Road. Turn path to flow east.

TOTALS: 410 $91,000 Contingency 20%: $18,000 GRAND TOTAL: $109,000 SECTION D - HILLCREST ROAD TO OTANERUA ROAD 3m and 1.5m wide concrete segments ok. Widen 1m concrete Existing concrete footpath width varies South side of Hillcrest Road after Alice footpath to 1.4m by installing a uphill timber retaining wall. Possible services present at proposed Geotech, Consult with Auckland D1-D2 120 from 3m to 1m and 3m to 1.5. End at $28,000 Eaves Reserve and form crossing. Block wall appears ok. Formalise existing pedestrian crossing retaining wall location. Transport. road crossing with existing ramps. at end across Hillcrest Road. Existing 1.5m wide concrete roadside D2-D3 North side adjacent to Hillcrest Road. 140 No works. Nil. $0 footpath. Turn onto Beachwood Drive, follow Existing 1.5m wide concrete roadside D3-D4 410 No works. Nil. $0 east side of road. footpath. Continue on south side of Beachwood Existing 2.2m wide concrete roadside No works on paths. Establish pedestrian crossing across D4-D5 290 Nil. Consult with Auckland Transport. $8,000 Drive. footpath. Fendalton Place. Continue on south side of Otanerua Existing 1.5m wide concrete roadside No works on paths. Establish pedestrian crossing ay end D5-D6 160 Nil. Consult with Auckland Transport. $8,000 Road. footpath. across Otanerua Road. Form 1.4m wide concrete path over flat grass and form 1.2m Setting out, Arborist, 15m long bridge Enter bush reserve and continue north Flat grass area and native bush D6-D7 220 wide aggregate track in area with native vegetation. Bench Native vegetation removals. required at end with approach $34,200 to creek. reserve (manuka, etc). sloping ground with side drain and discharge culverts. boardwalk (not part of this project).

TOTALS: 1340 $78,000 Contingency 20%: $16,000 GRAND TOTAL: $94,000 Auckland Council - Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report Estimated Work Schedule - Rev. A August 2018 Segment Route Segment Vegetation Form Form Form Install 2.2m Install 1.4m Install 1.2m Install 1.2m Install 2.2m Install 1.2m Install 1.2m Install Install Misc. Total Length Clearance walkway walkway walkway wide wide wide wide boxed wide wide wide retaining barrier on [removals, [m] [m] on flat where where concrete concrete aggregate steps with timber timber glulam wall wall or culverts, [m] cross fall cross fall walkway walkway walkway handrail boardwalk boardwalk bridge [m] [m] boardwalk etc.] <40% [m] >40% [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]

$/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m LS $20 $50 $100 $150 $280 $180 $50 $500 $2,000 $800 $2,400 $700 $300 $1 SECTION A - HILLCREST ROAD TO PACIFIC HEIGHTS

From Hillcrest Road, existing cleared A1-A2 190 165 25 110 190 55 1000 $53,550 route on private land.

A2-A3 Existing cleared route in road reserve. 100 40 100 60 2000 $39,000

Cleared route continues to bridge A3-A4 200 195 200 5 8000 $30,250 crossing. Bridge crossing joining to Section B and A4-A5 to additional accessway to Pacific 20 20 40 $60,000 Heights Subdivision. TOTALS: 510 165 260 110 0 0 0 490 120 0 0 20 0 40 11000 $183,000 Contingency 20%: $37,000 GRAND TOTAL: $220,000 SECTION B - PACIFIC HEIGHTS TO HIBISCUS COAST HIGHWAY B1-B2 Pacific Heights Subdivision to junction. 280 280 180 100 280 $103,000

B2-B3 North of 77-103 Roberta Crescent. 220 220 140 80 220 80 70 $169,000

East of 107 Roberta Crescent in B3-B4 70 20 20 20 20 30 20 50 $99,000 reserve.

Stormwater retention area below B4-B5 70 30 40 70 $27,100 Roberta Crescent.

Continue east towards Eaves Bush B5-B6 120 100 120 120 20 20 $67,600 Parade.

B6-B7 Below retirement community. 80 50 80 80 80 $87,400

Existing walkway into Alice Eaves B7-B8 130 70 60 130 5500 $51,400 Reserve.

Continue east adjacent to creek through B8-B9 150 80 30 30 120 120 30000 $319,000 private encroachments.

Continue east adjacent to creek in B9-B10 80 80 80 80 $185,600 narrow esplanade.

Adjacent to business area and café B10-B11 joining to footpath at Hibiscus Coast 190 30 10 10 180 180 7000 $425,400 Highway.

TOTALS: 1390 860 300 540 140 960 0 0 0 410 0 0 200 520 42500 $1,535,000 Contingency 20%: $307,000 GRAND TOTAL: $1,842,000 Auckland Council - Alice Eaves Walkway and Cycleway Feasibility Report Estimated Work Schedule - Rev. A August 2018 Segment Route Segment Vegetation Form Form Form Install 2.2m Install 1.4m Install 1.2m Install 1.2m Install 2.2m Install 1.2m Install 1.2m Install Install Misc. Total Length Clearance walkway walkway walkway wide wide wide wide boxed wide wide wide retaining barrier on [removals, [m] [m] on flat where where concrete concrete aggregate steps with timber timber glulam wall wall or culverts, [m] cross fall cross fall walkway walkway walkway handrail boardwalk boardwalk bridge [m] [m] boardwalk etc.] <40% [m] >40% [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]

$/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m $/Lin m LS $20 $50 $100 $150 $280 $180 $50 $500 $2,000 $800 $2,400 $700 $300 $1 SECTIONSECTION CA -- OLDHILLCREST NORTH ROADROAD TOTO PACIFICHILLCREST HEIGHTS ROAD Entry to Alice Eaves Reserve from Old C1-C2 50 $0 North Road.

Existing track through Alice Eaves C2-C3 90 55 75 20 3 3 4000 $23,800 Reserve.

Existing staircase / stepped boardwalk C3-C4 100 $0 in Alice Eaves Reserve. Existing track with boardwalk in Alice C4-C5 85 65 $52,000 Eaves Reserve.

C5-C6 Join to Section D at Hillcrest Road. 85 80 5 80 5 3000 $14,900

TOTALS: 410 0 135 0 0 5 0 155 25 0 68 0 0 3 7000 $91,000 Contingency 20%: $18,000 GRAND TOTAL: $109,000 SECTION D - HILLCREST ROAD TO OTANERUA ROAD

South side of Hillcrest Road after Alice D1-D2 120 20 20 20 20 8000 $28,000 Eaves Reserve and form crossing.

D2-D3 North side adjacent to Hillcrest Road. 140 $0 Turn onto Beachwood Drive, follow east D3-D4 410 $0 side of road. Continue on south side of Beachwood D4-D5 290 8000 $8,000 Drive. Continue on south side of Otanerua D5-D6 160 8000 $8,000 Road.

Enter bush reserve and continue north D6-D7 220 190 170 50 30 190 2000 $34,200 to creek.

TOTALS: 1340 210 170 70 0 0 50 190 0 0 0 0 20 0 26000 $78,000 Contingency 20%: $16,000 GRAND TOTAL: $94,000 Legend Section A - Hillcrest Road to Pacific Height (1.2m wide) Otanerua Road Section B - Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (2.2m wide) Reserve Section C - Old North Road to Hillcrest Road (1.2m wide)

Section D - Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road (1.4m wide) Otanerua Road

y a w h ig H t s 0 500 a o Avenue C ammond s H u c is ib H

e S

w SHT 01 o

d C

H r D H i e a l r l s t c i f v i re c e e l e d st n H SHT 04 R e o t i a gh d ts ve o y r e G ll a in V W n u S SHT 03

d a ad Ro Ro est ll llcr o Hi T

wa e t a G

n r e h t r o N

Pacific Heights Subdivision Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve

Hi Eav es Bush b Pa i rade s c len u st G s ore F C SHT 02 o a s t

g h w

a y

PREPARED FOR PROJECT TITLE SCALE Date: Frame Group Limited Plan Scale 1:6000 @ A3 AUG 2018 PO BOX 147211, PONSONBY, AUCKLAND 1144 ALICE EAVES WALKWAY AND CYCLEWAY DRAWN FGL JOB LEVEL 2, 16 COLLEGE HILL, AUCKLAND, NZ OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN JR 17/073 PHONE: 64 9 638 7221 FEASIBILITY APPROVED DRAWING REV © FRAME GROUP LTD, 2018 00 A Legend Hillcrest Road Section A - Hillcrest Road to Pacific Height (1.2m wide) A1 Section B - Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (2.2m wide) Section C - Old North Road to Hillcrest Road (1.2m wide) Note existing track enters private property, Section D - Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road (1.4m wide) therefore reroute is required Install new walkway/cyleway Upgrade existing tracks Install retained walkway Install steps Install boardwalk or bridge Track ok, no works A2 Underground services - Stormwater Proposed new boxed steps down slope

Underground services - Waste water Underground services - Water

A3 0 250

Proposed 20m long by 1.2m wide bridge (accessway to subdivision completed by others)

A5=B1 A4

Pacific Heights Subdivision

Proposed downhill retaining wall section over sloping ground

PREPARED FOR PROJECT TITLE SCALE Date: Frame Group Limited Plan Scale 1:2500 @ A3 AUG 2018 PO BOX 147211, PONSONBY, AUCKLAND 1144 ALICE EAVES WALKWAY AND CYCLEWAY DRAWN FGL JOB LEVEL 2, 16 COLLEGE HILL, AUCKLAND, NZ CONCEPT PLAN JR / DK 17/073 PHONE: 64 9 638 7221 FEASIBILITY APPROVED DRAWING REV © FRAME GROUP LTD, 2018 01 A Legend Section A - Hillcrest Road to Pacific Height (1.2m wide) Section B - Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (2.2m wide) ad Ro Section C - Old North Road to Hillcrest Road (1.2m wide) rest L illc a D2 H n c Section D - Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road (1.4m wide) e l o t C6=D1 Proposed road crossing R Install new walkway/cyleway o a d Upgrade existing tracks Install retained walkway

Install steps Retaining wall section required to widen existing footpath Install boardwalk or bridge C5 Track ok, no works Existing bridge Existing boardwalk Underground services - Stormwater Old Underground services - Waste water Existing staircase North Road Proposed new boardwalk sections at Kauri

C2 Underground services - Water C1 C4 Alice Eaves C3 Scenic Reserve 0 250 Replace staircase with boxed steps and replace boardwalk (to be level) B2 Enters private property (no alternative option to join to road footpath) Proposed downhill retaining wall section over sloping ground Pohutukawa removal required for boardwalk to avoid private property

B3 B11 Proposed boardwalk and retaining wall section up slope B10 k e Proposed 380m long by 2.2m wide boardwalk parallel re H C i to creek (private encroachments to be removed) b a i e s m c u k u t Retaining wall required close to u s N n C e apartment where boundary narrows c o s B4 B9 a e s r t

C H

a i t g r B5 Private property (landowner approval required) h

e w b a o B6 y R B7

Retaining wall on uphill side of walkway

Eaves Bu sh Parade

A n len n est G a or l F i s e

P l a c e PREPARED FOR PROJECT TITLE SCALE Date: Frame Group Limited Plan Scale 1:2500 @ A3 AUG 2018 PO BOX 147211, PONSONBY, AUCKLAND 1144 ALICE EAVES WALKWAY AND CYCLEWAY DRAWN FGL JOB LEVEL 2, 16 COLLEGE HILL, AUCKLAND, NZ CONCEPT PLAN JR / DK 17/073 PHONE: 64 9 638 7221 FEASIBILITY APPROVED DRAWING REV © FRAME GROUP LTD, 2018 02 A Legend Section A - Hillcrest Road to Pacific Height (1.2m wide) Drive d Section B - Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (2.2m wide) oo w Section C - Old North Road to Hillcrest Road (1.2m wide) Beach ue ammond Aven Section D - Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road (1.4m wide) H Install new walkway/cyleway Proposed road crossing

F Upgrade existing tracks e n d a Install retained walkway l to n D4 P Install steps la c e Install boardwalk or bridge Track ok, no works Underground services - Stormwater Underground services - Waste water Underground services - Water

e c

a h

v w

e o

w 0 250 o

e r

i s v

t Note existing track enters private property, H at therefore reroute is required fie ld H ei gh ts W il lia m H a d lo ve w o r P G la in c W e H y il le lc l r a e V s t n R u o S Proposed new boxed steps down slope a d

ad Ro rest L illc a D2 H n c e l o t SCALE Date: PREPARED FOR PROJECT TITLE R Plan Scale 1:2500 @ A3 AUGo 2018 Frame Group Limited a d PO BOX 147211, PONSONBY, AUCKLAND 1144 ALICE EAVES WALKWAY AND CYCLEWAY DRAWN FGL JOB LEVEL 2, 16 COLLEGE HILL, AUCKLAND, NZ CONCEPT PLAN JR / DK 17/073 PHONE: 64 9 638 7221 FEASIBILITY APPROVED DRAWING REV © FRAME GROUP LTD, 2018 03 A Legend Section A - Hillcrest Road to Pacific Height (1.2m wide) Required bridge at end not part of this project Section B - Pacific Heights to Hibiscus Coast Highway (2.2m wide) Hatfeild Bay Domain Section C - Old North Road to Hillcrest Road (1.2m wide) D7 Section D - Hillcrest Road to Otanerua Road (1.4m wide) Otanerua Road Install new walkway/cyleway Reserve

Upgrade existing tracks Hatfeild Beach Recreation Reserve Install retained walkway Install steps

Install boardwalk or bridge 11 Track ok, no works 7 y a D6 w Underground services - Stormwater Otanerua Road h ig H t s a Underground services - Waste water o C D5 Proposed road crossing s 16 u Underground services - Water c is ib H

0 250 ive Dr

chwood Bea nue Hammond Ave

Proposed road crossing

F e n d a l to n D4 P la c e

e c

a h

v w

e o

w o

e r

i s v

t H at fie ld H ei gh ts W illia SCALE Date: PREPARED FOR PROJECT TITLE m Frame Group Limited H Plan Scale 1:2500 @ A3 AUG 2018 a d PO BOX 147211, PONSONBY, AUCKLAND 1144 lo DRAWN FGL JOB ALICE EAVES WALKWAY AND CYCLEWAY w LEVEL 2, 16 COLLEGE HILL, AUCKLAND, NZ P CONCEPT PLAN JR / DK 17/073 la c PHONE: 64 9 638 7221 FEASIBILITY e APPROVED DRAWING REV © FRAME GROUP LTD, 2018 04 A Appendix 3

DRAFT DESKTOP ASSESSMENT OF TWO PROPOSED GREENWAYS AT OREWA AND HATFIELDS BEACH

R4602

DRAFT

DRAFT DESKTOP ASSESSMENT OF TWO PROPOSED GREENWAYS AT OREWA AND HATFIELDS BEACH

The understorey of mānuka gumland comprising abundant tangle fern.

Contract Report No. 4602

March 2018

Project Team: Jarrod Cusens - Report author Nick Goldwater - Peer review

Prepared for: Walker Landscape Ltd

AUCKLAND OFFICE: 97A MT EDEN ROAD, MT EDEN, AUCKLAND 1023 P.O. BOX 46-299, HERNE BAY, AUCKLAND 1011, Ph 09-377-4886

HEAD OFFICE: 99 SALA STREET, P.O. BOX 7137, TE NGAE, ROTORUA Ph 07-343-9017; Fax 07-343-9018, email [email protected], www.wildlands.co.nz

DRAFT

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT 1 2.1 Overview 1 2.2 Local context 3 2.3 Site description 3

3. METHODS 3 3.1 Vegetation and habitat types 3 3.2 Fauna 4

4. VEGETATION AND HABITATS 4 4.1 Overview 4 4.2 Terrestrial habitats 4 4.2.1 Kauri forest 4 4.2.1 Regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest 6 4.2.2 Mānuka gumland 6 4.3 Aquatic habitats 6

5. FLORA 6 5.1 Overview 6 5.2 Significant flora 6

6. FAUNA 7 6.1 Avifauna 7 6.2 Aquatic fauna 7 6.3 Long-tailed bats 8 6.4 Herpetofauna 8 6.5 Introduced pest mammals 8

7. ECOLOGICAL VALUES 8 7.1 Terrestrial values 8 7.2 Aquatic values 9

8. POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONTRAINTS 9 8.1 Overview 9 8.2 Localised loss of indigenous terrestrial vegetation 9 8.3 Loss of riparian vegetation 10 8.4 Temporary disruption of avifauna during construction 10 8.5 Localised loss of feeding and breeding habitat for avifauna 10 8.6 Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous lizards 10 8.7 Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous fish 10 8.8 Increase in edge effects 11 8.9 Sedimentation of aquatic and saline environments 11 8.10 Kauri dieback 11 8.11 Pest plant invasion 12 8.12 Enhanced access for introduced predators 12

DRAFT

8.13 Decline in tree health 12

9. OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID, REMEDY OR MITIGATE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS 12 9.1 Minimising vegetation clearance 12 9.2 Avoiding stream disturbance 12 9.3 Minimising edge effects 13 9.4 Herpetofauna protection 13 9.5 Avifauna protection 13 9.6 Protection of aquatic habitats 13 9.7 Sediment controls 14 9.8 Pest plant and animal control 14 9.9 Kauri dieback 14 9.10 Habitat enhancement 15 9.11 Tree protection 15

10. CONCLUSIONS 16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 17

REFERENCES 17

APPENDIX

1. Vascular plant species recorded within the study area, including Nukumea Scenic Reserve 20

Reviewed and approved for release by:

______Nick Goldwater Principal Ecologist Wildland Consultants Ltd

 Wildland Consultants Ltd 2018

This report has been produced by Wildland Consultants Ltd for Walker Landscape Ltd. All copyright in this report is the property of Wildland Consultants Ltd and any unauthorised publication, reproduction, or adaptation of this report is a breach of that copyright.

DRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION

Walker Landscape Ltd, in conjunction with Auckland Council (Hibiscus and Bays Local Board), is undertaking a feasibility study for several greenways projects within Orewa and along parts of the North Shore. One of the greenways will extend through Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve to the bridge on the Hibiscus Coast Highway, then traverse through estuarine vegetation and along a tidal stream. Some existing tracks will be used for the greenway, although some sections will need widening while other parts in the west are not formed at all. Up to three bridge structures will be required, together with a boardwalk near Orewa Beach due to the lack of Council-owned land to accommodate the pathway.

Alice-Eaves Scenic Reserve is part of a large Significant Ecological Area (SEA_T_6652b) and contains representative examples of indigenous coastal forest, including kauri (Agathis australis) forest. As such, there are potential ecological constraints associated with the proposed greenways. In addition, Auckland Council may require advice on the potential impacts on estuarine environments on the southern side of Alice-Eaves Scenic Reserve and the stream along the northern edge of the Hatfields Beach residential development.

To this end, Walker Landscape Ltd has commissioned Wildland Consultants Ltd to prepare a desktop ecological assessment of the proposed greenways that includes:

(i) Maps and descriptions of vegetation and habitats present. (ii) Ecological values of vegetation and habitats. (iii) Potential ecological constraints of the proposed greenways. (iv) Opportunities to avoid, minimise, or mitigate potential adverse ecological effects.

2. ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT

2.1 Overview

Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve is located in the suburb of Orewa within the Rodney Ecological District. This ecological district contains a mixture of low forested ranges, volcanic cones, pasture, alluvial plains, and extensive areas of estuarine and duneland habitats.

Rodney Ecological District was originally extensively forested with tall kauri forest on the inland ridges and slopes and podocarp-broadleaved species forest throughout. Freshwater wetlands and swamp forests occupied dune slacks and alluvial valleys and extensive areas of dune vegetation occurred from Mangawhai to the southern end of Pakiri.

Since human occupation the natural landscape of Rodney Ecological District has undergone extensive modification and remaining indigenous vegetation is highly modified and fragmented. However, sizeable areas of regenerating forest have established, often dominated by kānuka (Kunzea robusta), kauri, tōtara (Podocarpus totara), taraire (Beilschmiedia tarairi), pūriri (Vitex lucens) and kahikatea

DRAFT

(Dacrycarpus dacrydioides). Freshwater wetlands and swamp forests have been significantly reduced from their original extent. Many former wetlands have been modified or destroyed by vegetation clearance and drainage. Wetlands that still remain are small and scattered in the ecological district and consist mainly of raupō (Typha orientalis) reedlands.

Despite the small number of remaining freshwater wetlands and their modified and/or degraded character, they support a number of threatened bird species: Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus; ‘Threatened-Nationally Endangered’), North Island fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae; ‘At Risk-Declining’), banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis assimilis; ‘At Risk-Naturally Uncommon’), and spotless crake (Porzana tabuensis tabuensis; ‘At Risk-Relict’).

Coastal habitats such as intertidal flats, mānawa (mangrove; Avicennia marina subsp. australasica) forest, dunelands, salt marshes and terrestrial margins provide extensive and rich feeding grounds for a variety of bird species including oceanic species, waders, marsh birds and forest birds. Several species of birds classified as ‘Threatened’ and ‘At Risk’ by Robertson et al. 2017 occur in these habitats, including New Zealand fairy tern (Sternula nereis davisae; ‘Threatened-Nationally Critical’), white heron (Ardea modesta; ‘Threatened-Nationally Critical’), New Zealand dotterel (Charadrius obscurus aquilonius; ‘At Risk-Recovering’), and Caspian tern (Hydropogne caspia; ‘Threatened-Nationally Vulnerable’).

All indigenous forest and scrub in the Rodney Ecological District provides habitat for common bird species such as riroriro (grey warbler; Gerygone igata), silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) and pīwakawaka (North Island fantail; Rhipidura fuliginosa placabilis). Species such as tūī (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae) and kererū (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) are more common in larger forest remnants. Tomtit (Petroica macrocephala toitoi), North Island kākā (Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis; ‘At Risk-Recovering’) and korimako (North Island bellbird; Anthornis melanura melanura) occur mainly in predator free sanctuaries along the eastern coastline. North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli; ‘At Risk-Declining’) would have once been common in the forests and shrublands of the district but are now only found in the Tawharanui Open Sanctuary. Long-tailed bat (pekapeka; Chalinolobus tuberculatus), classified as ‘Threatened-Nationally Critical’ by O’Donnell et al. (2017) and Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) classified as ‘At Risk-Declining’ by Newman et al. (2013) have been recorded in Dome Valley, north of Warkworth.

Skinks and geckos are present in coastal, shrubland and forest habitats. Threatened species include ornate skink (Oligosoma ornatum), Pacific gecko (Dactylocnemis pacificus) and elegant gecko (Naultinus elegans), all of which are classified as ‘At Risk-Declining’ by Hitchmough et al. (2016).

A diverse range of aquatic fauna species occur in Rodney Ecological District, including species classified as ‘Threatened’ and ‘At Risk’ by Goodman et al. (2014). These include īnanga (Galaxias maculatus; ‘At Risk-Declining’), banded kōkopu (G. fasciatus), longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii; ‘At Risk-Declining’), redfin bully (Gobiomorphus huttoni; ‘At Risk-Declining’) and the non-threatened Cran’s bully (G. basalis) and shortfin eel (A. australis). Black mudfish (Neochanna diversus; ‘At Risk-

DRAFT

Declining’) has its stronghold at the Tomarata wetlands, where it was first discovered in 2004. The largest whitebait species, giant kōkopu (G. argenteus; ‘At Risk- Declining’), is also known to occur in this ecological district.

2.2 Local context

The project site comprises mixed land uses including residential, rural and conservation zoning. Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve is situated in an ‘Open Space- Conservation’ zone (AUP). The whole of Alice Eaves is within a Significant Ecological Area Overlay (SEA_T_6652b), which qualifies as ecologically significant on the basis of the ‘Threat status and rarity’ criterion (Sawyer and Stanley 2012). Importantly, SEA_T_6652b is contiguous with four additional SEAs. Of importance is SEA_T_6652, which meets four significance criteria: ‘Representativeness’, ‘Threat status and rarity’, ‘Diversity’ and ‘Stepping stones’, ‘Migration pathways and buffers’ (Sawyer and Stanley 2012). Given these criteria, Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve comprises part of the Alice Eaves-Nukumea ‘Tranche 1’ Biodiversity Focus Area (BFA). There are two streams within the study area, Nukumea Stream and Otanerua Stream. One of the tributaries of Otanerua Stream is within a Natural Stream Management Area overlay; however, this tributary is downstream of the study area.

2.3 Site description

Much of the project site is located on a south-facing hillslope which is dissected a series of gullies and ridges. The top of the hillslope is bounded by Hillcrest Road (which runs east-west along a ridge) while Nukumea Stream flows near the bottom of the slope. There are approximately eight overland flowpaths that form tributaries to Nukumea Stream. There are c.80.3 hectares of indigenous vegetation within the study area, much of which is in private ownership. The vegetation broadly comprises large areas of regenerating forest and scrub with locally common mature kauri. The northern part of the project site comprises residential housing.

3. METHODS

3.1 Vegetation and habitat types

Information was collated primarily from digital resources utilising a range of databases and websites together with previous reports and surveys undertaken by Wildland Consultants. Where ground-truthed information was unavailable, aerial imagery was used to determine vegetation cover (Google Earth Pro Version 7.1.8.3036, imagery shot 06/10/2017 and Auckland Council GeoMaps). Where possible, vegetation was identified down to the species level and categorised as indigenous or exotic. Where species level or individual specimen identification was not possible, the vegetation was categorised based on its habitat type (e.g. mixed indigenous-exotic scrub, regenerating indigenous coastal forest). All vascular plant species recorded in previous reports and databases are presented in Appendix 1. Vegetation and habitat types were digitised onto aerial imagery using ArcGis10.1.

DRAFT

3.2 Fauna

Information on indigenous fauna was collected from published reports, previous ground surveys by Wildland Consultants, and databases. Databases used include NIWA Freshwater Fish Database (NIWA 2018) for aquatic fauna, DOC Bioweb Herpetofauna Database (DOC 2017) for herpetofauna, and the Auckland Council fauna database for aquatic fauna and herpetofauna. The suitability of the vegetation at the site to provide habitat for species such as long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus), forest gecko (Mokopirirakau granulatus), elegant gecko, copper skink (Oligosoma aeneum), and ornate skink was also assessed. All fauna species known to be present at the site are listed in Appendix 2.

4. VEGETATION AND HABITATS

4.1 Overview

The study area comprises three broad terrestrial vegetation types, two permanent streams and associated tributaries, and suburban housing (Figure 1). The terrestrial vegetation types include the following:

 Kauri forest  Regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest  Mānuka gumland

The vegetation types and aquatic habitats are described below and are illustrated in Figure 1. Site photographs are provided in Appendix 1

4.2 Terrestrial habitats

4.2.1 Kauri forest

The eastern hillslope and gully of Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve comprise mature kauri- podocarp-broadleaved species forest on the slopes and younger kauri ricker on the ridge. Emergent species include kauri and occasional rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum) over a canopy of broadleaved tree species. Gullies comprise broadleaved species such as kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile) and taraire. Tree ferns, ponga (Cyathea dealbata) and mamaku (C. medularis) occur in the understorey, along with species such as māhoe (Melicytus ramiflorus), māpou (Myrsine australis) and hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium). The ground layer supports ferns including kiokio (Parablechnum novae-zelandiae) and pukupuku (Doodia australis), and sedges such as Carex lambertiana and kamu matau a Maui (C. uncinata). Epiphytes and lianes are present including rātā (Metrosideros fulgans), aka (M. perforata), kahakaha (Astelia hastata) and kōwharawhara (A. solandri).

DRAFT

4.2.1 Regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest

Large areas of regenerating forest are characterised by commonly occurring kānuka with frequent to occasional tānekaha ricker. The understorey includes broadleaved species such as mingimingi (Leucopogon fasciculatus), Coprosma spp., hangehange and māpou. An area towards the west along Hillcrest Road has frequent emergent pine (Pinus spp.), many of which have been poisoned and are now dead. The gullies support mixed broadleaved species such as māhoe and hangehange together with tree ferns such as ponga and mamaku.

4.2.2 Mānuka gumland

There are small patches of mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium) gumland on impoverished soils along the ridge along Hillcrest Road. This vegetation comprises a sparse canopy of mānuka and occasional grass tree (Dracophyllum sinclairii) and toru (Torinia toru). Tānekaha is an occasional emergent. The understorey layer comprises kumarahou (Pommaderris kumeraho), tangle fern (Gleichenia dicarpa) and māpere (Gahnia setifolia).

4.3 Aquatic habitats

There are two permanent streams within the study area: Nukumea Stream and Otanerua Stream. The headwaters of both streams are well-buffered by indigenous forest and scrub. In its mid-to-lower reaches, Otanerua Stream has little woody vegetation relative to the headwaters due to the presence of parture land and urban housing. Despite the lack of vegetation in these reaches, much of the riparian margin is vegetated with woody species, as are the tributaries that drain the hillslopes.

East of State Highway One, Nukumea Stream has a wide riparian buffer on the northern bank and a narrow riparian margin on the south; however, the riparian margin is intact with predominantly woody vegetation characterised by kānuka with occasional kahikatea.

5. FLORA

5.1 Overview

One hundred and fifty-eight vascular plants species have been compiled from available survey data and database records within the wider area. Of these species, 133 indigenous are indigenous and 25 are exotic.

5.2 Significant flora

The nationally ‘At Risk-Declining’ Pimelea longifolia has been recorded Hillcrest Road, west of the study site. There is one record for swamp astelia (Astelia grandis) within the study area and one from within two kilometres of the project site (Australian Virtual Herbarium). Swamp astelia is classified as ‘Acutely Threatened- Regionally Critical’ by Stanley et al. 2005. In addition, there are records held on the Auckland Council flora database for repehina-papa (Arthropodium candidum) and

DRAFT

kakaha (Astelia fragrans), both classified as ‘Regionally Critical’ and ‘Regionally Data Deficient’ respectively (Stanley et al. 2005). A full species list is presented in Appendix 1.

6. FAUNA

6.1 Avifauna

Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve provides habitat for common indigenous species such as silvereye, riroriro, kererū, tūī, pīwakawaka. None of these species are classified as ‘Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’ by Robertson et al. (2017). North Island fernbird and North Island kākā have been recorded in the vicinity and may be present within the fire induced gumland heath adjacent to Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve. North Island fernbird is classified as ‘At Risk-Declining’ and North Island kākā as ‘At Risk-Recovering’ as per Robertson et al. 2017.

Exotic birds such as blackbird (Turdus merula), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus) are also likely to use the area for nesting and foraging.

6.2 Aquatic fauna

The Nukumea and Otanerua streams both have tidal influence in their lower reaches. The streams and their tributaries support indigenous freshwater and estuarine fish and invertebrate species. Aquatic fauna records for the Nukumea and Otanerua catchments held in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NIWA 2018) are presented in Table 1. A total of eleven indigenous fish species have been recorded from the catchments, including five species classified as ‘At Risk-Declining’ by Goodman et al. (2014). Two indigenous aquatic invertebrate species have been recorded from the catchment, both of which are classified as ‘Not Threatened’ as per Grainger et al. (2014).

Table 1: Aquatic fauna species recorded within the Nukumea and Otanerua catchments (NIWA 2018).

Group Species Name Common Name Threat Classification Indigenous fish Anguilla australis Shortfin eel Not Threatened Anguilla dieffenbachii Longfin eel At Risk-Declining Cheimarrichthys fosteri Torrentfish At Risk-Declining Galaxias argenteus Giant kōkopu At Risk-Declining Galaxias fasciatus Banded kōkopu Not Threatened Galaxias maculatus Īnanga At Risk-Declining Gobiomorphus cotidianus Common bully Not Threatened Gobiomorphus gobioides Giant bully Not Threatened Gobiomorphus huttoni Redfin bully At Risk-Declining Mugil cephalus Grey mullet Not Threatened Retropinna retropinna Common smelt Not Threatened Indigenous Paranephrops planifrons Koura Not Threatened invertebrates Paratya curvitrosis Freshwater shrimp Not Threatened

DRAFT

6.3 Long-tailed bats

Long-tailed bats occur in the Auckland Region and are classified as ‘Threatened- Nationally Critical’ by O’Donnell et al. (2017). They are known to favour forest edge and riparian habitats of both indigenous and exotic forest types, having adapted to exotic tree species such as pine and macrocarpa (Cupressus macrocarpa). They are also known to forage over farmland and urban areas (O’Donnell et al. 2013). The large kauri and pines within Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve are suitable for bat roosts.

6.4 Herpetofauna

Vegetation within Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve and to the west of the reserve provides high quality habitat for indigenous gecko and skink species. The Auckland Council fauna database has records for three species of gecko (pacific gecko, elegant gecko and forest gecko) and two species of skink (copper skink and ornate skink). Pacific gecko is classified as ‘At Risk-Relict’, while elegant gecko, green gecko and elegant gecko are classified as ‘At Risk-Declining’ by Hitchmough et al. 2016).

6.5 Introduced pest mammals

Pest animals likely to be present at the site include brush-tailed possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), ship rats (Rattus rattus), Norway rats (R. norvegicus), mice (Mus musculus), and hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Mustelids (stoats, Mustela erminea; ferrets, M. furo; and weasels, M. nivalis vulgaris) and feral and domestic cats (Felis catus) may also utilise the site occasionally.

7. ECOLOGICAL VALUES

7.1 Terrestrial values

The kauri forest supports a wide range of indigenous flora and fauna including ‘At Risk’ bird and lizard species, and regionally threatened plant species. The forest is intact with few pest plants and is currently not affected by kauri dieback (Phytopthera agathidicida). The kauri forest is also an important seed source for the larger areas of regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest contiguous with Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve, enhancing the likelihood of a trajectory towards mature kauri forest. Kauri forest is classified as regionally ‘Endangered’ by Singers et al. (2016) as per the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) system for assessing the threat status of ecosystems (Keith et al. 2013).

The vegetation supports one nationally ‘At Risk’ species, two regionally ‘Threatened’ and one regionally ‘Data Deficient’ plant species.

The regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest provides good habitat for indigenous fauna such as geckos and insectivorous birds, including ‘At Risk’ species. Many common bird species forage and nest within this forest type, and others, such as kererū, use kānuka material for nest building.

DRAFT

Gumland vegetation is considered rare at a national level (Williams et al. 2007) and ‘Critically Endangered’ at a regional level (Singers et al. 2017). In Auckland there are few examples of this habitat type remaining. Gumland habitats within the study area are representative examples of this ecosystem type. It is likely that fernbird utilises these areas along with other ‘At Risk and ‘Threatened’ flora and fauna.

7.2 Aquatic values

Nukumea and Otanerua streams and their tributaries provide excellent aquatic habitat for indigenous fish and invertebrates. Large areas of the catchments, particularly the headwaters, are vegetated with predominantly indigenous species. Stream sections that are not within vegetated catchment areas tend to have some vegetation within the riparian margin. Vegetated catchments and riparian vegetation provide high ecological values. Vegetation filters overland flows, provides support for stream banks, provides organic inputs and woody debris, and also shades the watercourses thereby keeping water temperatures low and constant. The high ecological values of the two streams are underscored by the presence of at least five species of ‘At Risk-Declining’ fish species.

8. POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONTRAINTS

8.1 Overview

Potential ecological constraints of the proposed greenway can be summarised as:

 Localised loss of indigenous terrestrial vegetation.  Loss of riparian vegetation.  Temporary disruption of avifauna during construction.  Loss of feeding and breeding habitat for avifauna.  Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous lizards.  Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous fish.  Increases in edge effects for remaining vegetation.  Sedimentation of aquatic and saline environments.  Fragmentation and degradation of indigenous forest.  Decline in tree health.  Enhanced access for introduced predators.

Each of these potential effects is addressed in more detail below.

8.2 Localised loss of indigenous terrestrial vegetation

The construction of the proposed greenway paths and widening of existing paths will require the clearance of some indigenous vegetation, which could include understorey species, regenerating kānuka scrub and gumland species. Species present within kauri forest and kānuka scrub are likely to be relatively common species; however, gumland is a regionally ‘Critically Endangered’ ecosystem and supports several threatened plant species. Kauri forest is classified as regionally ‘Endangered’. Given the small area of vegetation likely to be cleared or rimmed, these effects are localised and are

DRAFT

expected to be no more than minor as long as no mature trees are removed or damaged.

8.3 Loss of riparian vegetation

The proposed greenways follow the Nukumea and Otanerua streams. Approximately 750 metres of the proposed greenway requires a new path to be created along the northern bank of Nukumea Stream, which will require the removal of some riparian vegetation. Given the important functions that riparian vegetation provides for aquatic habitats, the loss of trees and shrubs buffering the streams may result in decreased habitat values within the stream.

8.4 Temporary disruption of avifauna during construction

Noise and movement associated with the construction of pathways may disturb or temporarily displace bird species. However, these effects are likely to be no more than minor as the bird species present are all common and mobile. Disturbance during the breeding season is unlikely to result in more than minor adverse effects as any breeding individuals will be able to produce extra clutches to compensate for failed breeding attempts.

8.5 Localised loss of feeding and breeding habitat for avifauna

Removal of vegetation at the site will result in the localised loss of feeding and breeding habitat for indigenous bird species. Many of the bird species present at the common and widespread and there is sufficient similar habitat within the local area to which displaced birds can disperse.

The habitat within the central part of study area is suitable for fernbird; this species has been recorded in vegetation to the west of Alice eaves Scenic Reserve (R. Statham, Auckland Council, pers. comm.) and also in Nukumea Scenic Reserve, west of State Highway One (N. Goldwater, pers. ob.). One section of the greenway is proposed to cut through potential fernbird habitat.

8.6 Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous lizards

Indigenous lizards, including ‘At Risk’ species are likely to be present within or near to the footprints of the proposed greenways. Clearance of indigenous vegetation will result in a limited loss of habitat suitable for indigenous lizards and could also result in injury to and/or mortality of individuals. The risk of injury to and/or mortality of lizards during the clearance works is a constraint given the high quality habitat and the likelihood of indigenous lizards being present.

8.7 Injury to and/or mortality of indigenous fish

The current proposal requires two (potentially three) bridges to be constructed over permanent watercourses. Construction of bridges may require works within the streambed and/or debris to be intentionally or accidentally deposited in the stream. Several ‘At Risk’ fish species are present within the watercourses at the site. As such, the construction of bridges may result in fish being harmed or killed. Under the

DRAFT

Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 it is an offence to intentionally kill or destroy indigenous fish, unless they are taken for the purpose of scientific research or for human consumption.

8.8 Increase in edge effects

The removal of small areas of vegetation to construct and/or widen the greenways will create new forest edges. Forest edges are exposed to high light levels, large fluctuations in temperature and low humidity compared with interior forest habitats. These effects can affect the understorey up to 60 metres from the forest edge and can lead to the enhanced germination and spread of pest plant species, reduced regeneration and survival of indigenous plant species, and reduced habitat quality for indigenous fauna.

The proposed vegetation clearance will remove some vegetative buffers and could therefore push these effects further into the forest; however, much of the vegetation along the edge is regenerating scrub/forest with sparse canopies and species tolerant of higher light and exposed conditions.

8.9 Sedimentation of aquatic and saline environments

Carrying out earthworks within the riparian margin has the potential to result in sediment discharge into aquatic and saline receiving environments. The soil at the site is predominately clay, and clay particles are easily mobilised during rain events. The small size of clay particles also means that they tend to remain suspended in the stream environment and are often deposited in estuarine receiving environments. Sediment affects aquatic and marine biodiversity in a number of ways: smothering river and stream beds, which reduces habitat and food resources for fish and macroinvertebrates; increasing turbidity, which affects fish species that rely on sight to hunt; binding with nutrients such as phosphorous; and smothering benthic fauna (e.g. cockles) and important nursery habitats in estuarine habitats. Deposited sediment, in particular, is probably more of an issue for freshwater fish given that most of our fish species are benthic and some spend a considerable proportion of their time in the substrate below the stream bed (McEwen and Joy 2014). When sediment builds up, it can fill the interstitial spaces in which fish live, significantly reducing the amount of available habitat (Joy and Death 2013). Sedimentation affects many New Zealand streams, particularly those in rural and urban catchments.

8.10 Kauri dieback

Earthworks and associated activities such as movement of equipment to and from the site have the potential to introduce kauri dieback disease into the forest adjacent to the construction area, which may threaten local kauri in Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve. Kauri dieback is believed to be absent from the wider area, including the large tract of indigenous forest and scrub on the western side of State Highway One (e.g. Nukumea Scenic Reserve).

DRAFT

8.11 Pest plant invasion

The proposed greenways have the potential to increase weed pressure on the site during construction and in the future. Movement of construction equipment to and from the site has the potential to introduce pest plant propagules. Once constructed, foot traffic will increase significantly and the greenways can potentially act as corridors for pest plants through the indigenous vegetation. Weed seeds, spores, and fragments can attach to footwear, clothing and other equipment (e.g. tradescantia/Tradescantia fluminensis and African clubmoss/Selaginella kraussiana). African clubmoss would threaten indigenous bryophytes, clubmosses, and other ground flora (e.g. gumland orchids or small herbs) and potentially suppress natural regeneration.

8.12 Enhanced access for introduced predators

Pathways through indigenous vegetation can act as corridors for mammalian predators. Mustelids and cats use forest margins and existing tracks to navigate and hunt. The proposed greenways may enhance the distance that predators can penetrate into the vegetation. Given the presence of North Island fernbird within the central parts of the study area, enhanced predator access may threaten this ‘At Risk’ bird species.

8.13 Decline in tree health

Works to construct greenways within existing vegetation may require the trimming of trees and there is the potential for machinery and vehicles to encroach into the root zone of trees. This has the potential to cause a decline in canopy health due to the burial or loss of surface feeder roots and damage to bark and branches. Damage to tree roots can also cause trees to lose stability and become more susceptible to wind-throw.

9. OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID, REMEDY OR MITIGATE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS

9.1 Minimising vegetation clearance

The plans indicate that vegetation clearance will be kept to a minimum. The proposed pathway that goes directly through the middle of the study area may contain critically endangered gumland vegetation. It is recommended that this area be assessed by an ecologist prior to works commencing to ensure potential damage to gumland vegetation is kept to a minimum.

9.2 Avoiding stream disturbance

It is important that the proposed stream crossings are designed to maintain ecological and hydrological connectivity within the catchment. Important considerations are those related to fish passage, changes to hydrology, and minimising the scouring of the stream bed and banks. Bridges are preferable to culverts in order to minimise in- stream works and impacts, and maintain the natural morphology and hydrology of the watercourses.

DRAFT

9.3 Minimising edge effects

There are few spaces within the study area that will provide for new plantings to replace any lost vegetation. It is therefore proposed to mitigate for this loss by protecting and enhancing the remaining vegetation. The following measures are recommended:

 Control of pest plant species within the western areas of regenerating kānuka- tānekaha forest and mānuka gumland.  Control of pest animal species to enhance the survival of indigenous fauna. An Ecological Management Plan (EMP) will be required to guide planting and pest plant control work at the site. All plants to be planted must be sourced from the Tamaki Ecological District in line with Auckland Council’s eco-sourcing Code of Practice.

9.4 Herpetofauna protection

Given that lizard habitat will be impacted, a Lizard Management Plan (LMP) will be need to be prepared and implemented prior to the commencement of works. The LMP will guide works to capture indigenous lizards and relocate them to other suitable habitat at the site. A suitably qualified and experienced herpetologist should be present on site to supervise vegetation clearance/trimming. Any lizards found by the herpetologist will be relocated to the remaining adjacent habitat. The resulting felled vegetation should also be stacked in the adjacent vegetation to provide habitat for skinks and to allow any geckos not found during the initial search to disperse to neighbouring vegetation.

9.5 Avifauna protection

If possible, it is recommended that vegetation clearance work be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season (September-January) in order to reduce disturbance to resident birds.

9.6 Protection of aquatic habitats

The construction of stream crossings has the potential to cause harm or mortality to indigenous fish. It is recommended that any stream crossing avoid works occurring within the streambed. No materials should be deposited within the streambed. If it is not possible to avoid works within the streambed, a Fish Management Plan (FMP) will need to be prepared, approved by Auckland Council, and implemented before any works take place within the watercourses. The FMP will detail methods for capturing indigenous fish species and identify a suitable release site for indigenous fish beyond the extent of works. It will also need to detail methods of capture and euthanasia for pest fish species (gambusia) to ensure that they are not inadvertently introduced to neighbouring watercourses or catchments.

DRAFT

9.7 Sediment controls

In order to mitigate the potential impacts of sedimentation, the design and implementation of the works must comply with industry best practice and include low-impact design features such as grass swales. A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be approved by Council before earthworks take place and should be consistent with the recommendations outlined in ‘TP90 Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region’ or ‘GD2016/005 - Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing activities in the Auckland Region’ (whichever is operative at the time of work being taken).

9.8 Pest plant and animal control

Pest plants may invade the indigenous vegetation along the greenway paths. It is recommended that the pathways be monitored for the presence of any pest plant species that have the potential to threated indigenous forest and shrubland communities. If pest plants are encountered, they should be controlled. Pest plants such as prickly hakea (Hakea sericea) pose a risk to the ecological integrity of the gumland vegetation. Controlling these plants will have a significant benefit to this critically endangered vegetation type. Pest plant control should be guided by an EMP.

It is noted that in Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve, members of the Orewa Lions and the Hibiscus Coast branch of Forest and Bird have an ongoing programme to maintain tracks, signs, and undertake the control of possums and rats. Public volunteer days are regularly held, primarily to manage pest plant infestations. The predator control programme has been extended up the Nukumea catchment to improve control over the reinvasion of pests into the reserve (Forest & Bird 2017).

9.9 Kauri dieback

All machinery and vehicles used must be cleaned thoroughly before and after entering the site, and standard kauri dieback protocols must be followed. This includes removing all loose soil and using a disinfectant spray such as TriGENE® to kill pathogens.

Once the greenways have been established all normal entrances should have appropriate footwear cleaning stations that include clean brushes and disinfectant spray such as TriGENE® to kill pathogens. Clear signage should be displayed providing information about the disease and how to correctly clean footwear. It is likely that cyclists will use the greenways, thus the information should extend to cleaning bicycles. Consideration of a cleaning station design should be made for bicycles.

Where possible, tracks should avoid kauri roots. If kauri roots are unavoidable, boardwalks should be used to prevent direct contact between roots and potential pathogens. Board walks will also reduce mud during rainfall thereby reducing the amount of soil that would stick to footwear.

DRAFT

9.10 Habitat enhancement

Any woody vegetation that is cleared should be retained on site. Felled vegetation should be transferred to areas outside of the construction footprint to provide habitat for indigenous fauna. Woody debris plays an important ecological role in ecosystems (c.f. Allen et al. 2003) by providing habitat for a wide range of biota, including lizards, invertebrates, lichens, and fungi, as well as providing microsites for the regeneration of indigenous plants.

9.11 Tree protection

Protection of tree root systems along the route will require a flexible approach, with some track sections being able to traverse closer to some trees, where root systems are well below the soil surface, and other sections needing to avoid excavation over greater distances for trees with large surface root systems. There are two key considerations that need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis:

 The importance of protecting the tree, with greater importance placed on mature canopy species.

 The extent, size, and depth of surface lateral roots within the proposed footprint of the track.

The following matters also need to be taken into account:

 Wherever possible, sections of the route that require excavation should avoid larger and older trees.

 If large roots are present, a decision would then be made whether to select a new alignment (if feasible), build up the track surface, or construct a boardwalk.

 The path should avoid indigenous trees that have large surface roots.

 Disturbance of tree roots greater than five centimetres diameter should be avoided. If severing roots greater than five centimetres is unavoidable, no tree should have multiple roots removed. All roots greater than three centimetres diameter that are cut should be cleanly severed.

 Care should be taken not to damage surface lateral roots temporarily exposed during construction works. Temporarily exposed roots should be covered with a textile sheet and a layer of fill.

 Tree roots greater than three centimetres diameter exposed during excavation should be reburied so that the original depth below surface is retained. This prevents subsequent damage to larger tree roots. Covering large surface roots near the surface of the track with textile sheets is also recommended.

 Any boardwalks that are constructed should be of permeable materials, high enough to allow for the of a humus layer to be retained and/or rebuild. The supports for the boardwalk should avoid large tree roots.

DRAFT

 Any equipment or machinery used during construction should be moved with care to avoid damage to the roots, trunks, or branches of trees to be retained. Following construction of the walkways, the route should be checked annually for three years for the following:

 The exposure of any large roots within filled sections of the track. Any exposed roots should be reburied.

10. CONCLUSIONS

Greenways are proposed for Orewa and Hatfields Beach, Auckland. The greenway paths will require upgrades of current tracks and the construction of new tracks. The tracks will run through kauri-podocarp forest, regenerating kānuka-tānekaha forest, and along a permanent stream. It is possible that the paths will cut through mānuka gumland. The paths will require some vegetation clearance and trimming within tree root zones and the construction of at least one bridge.

The vegetation and habitats within the study area have high ecological values. The vegetation is all within a Significant Ecological Area overlay and makes up a ‘Tranche 1’ Biodiversity Focus Area. There are records of nationally ‘At Risk’ fish, lizard and bird species, together with regionally ‘Threatened’ plant species within the study area. The mānuka gumland vegetation is classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ while kauri forest is classified as regionally ‘Endangered’ by Singers et al. (2017).

The potential ecological effects of the proposed greenways are:

 Loss of vegetation  Disruption to avifauna  Injury to and/or mortality to indigenous lizards  Injury to and/or mortality to indigenous fish  Increased edge effects  Stream and estuary sedimentation  Fragmentation of indigenous habitat  Kauri dieback  Pest plant invasion  Reductions in tree health

Opportunities to avoid or mitigate the potential adverse effects of proposed greenways include minimising vegetation clearance where possible, fish protection measures during stream crossing construction, sediment control, kauri dieback hygiene measures during and post construction of the walkways, pest plant monitoring and control, habitat enhancement and tree protection measures.

The control of pest plants and animals on the site will need to be guided by an Ecological Management Plan (EMP) and lizard protection will require a Lizard Management Plan (LMP).

DRAFT

If the mitigation measures described above are properly implemented then the overall adverse ecological effects of the proposed development will be no more than minor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Claire Walker (Walker Landscape Ltd) provided client liaison and site information.

REFERENCES

Allen R.B., Bellingham P.J., and Wiser S.K. 2003: Developing a forest biodiversity monitoring approach for New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27: 207-220

Auckland Regional Council 2000: Low Impact Design Manual for the Auckland Region. Technical Publication No. 124.

Auckland Regional Council 2007: Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012. Auckland Regional Council.

AVH 2018: The Australasian Virtual Herbarium, Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, http://avh.chah.org.au, accessed 1 March 2018. de Lange P., Rolfe J., Champion P., Courtney S., Heenan P., Barkla J., Cameron E., Norton D., and Hitchmough R. 2013: Conservation status of New Zealand indigenous vascular plants, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 3 . Department of Conservation, Wellington. 70 pp.

Forest & Bird 2017: Hibiscus Coast Reserve Projects. Retrieved from http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/branches/auckland/hibiscus-coast/reserve-projects

Goldwater N., Graham P., Holland W., Beadel S., Martin T., and Myers S. 2012: Natural areas of Rodney Ecological District (Northland Conservancy). Department of Conservation, Auckland.

Goodman J.M., Dunn N.R., Ravenscroft P.J., Allibone R.M., Boubee J.A.T., David B.O., Griffiths M., Ling N., Hitchmough R.A., and Rolfe J.R. 2014: Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 7. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 12 pp.

Grainger N., Collier K.J., Hitchmough R., Harding J.S., Smith B.J., and Sutherland D.L. 2014: Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater invertebrates. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 8. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 28 pp. Hitchmough R, Barr B., Lettink M., Monks J., Reardon J., Tocher M., van Winkel D, and Rolfe J. 2016: Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2015. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 17. Department of Conservation. Wellington.

Hitchmough R. 2013: Summary of changes to the conservation status of taxa in the 2008-11 New Zealand Threat Classification System listing cycle. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 1. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 20 pp.

DRAFT

Joy M.K., Death R.G. 2013: Freshwater biodiversity. In: Dymond J.R. ed. Ecosystem services in New Zealand - conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.

Keith D.A., Rodríguez J.P., Rodríguez-Clark K.M, Nicholson E., Aapala K., Alonso A., Asmussen M., Bachman S., Basset A., Barrow E.G., Benson J.S., Bishop M.J., Bonifacio R., Brooks T.M., Burgman M.A., Comer P., Comín F.A., Essl F., Faber- Langendoen D., Fairweather P.G., Holdaway R.J., Jennings M., Kingsford R.T., Lester R.E., Mac Nally R., McCarthy M.A., Moat J., Oliveira-Miranda M.A., Pisanu P., Poulin B., Regan T.J., Riecken U., Spalding M.D., and Zambrano-Martínez S. 2013: Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems. PLOS One 8: 5 e62111 p.

Lindsay H., Wild C., and Byers S. 2009: Auckland Protection Strategy: A Report to the Nature Heritage Fund Committee. Nature Heritage Fund.

McEwan A.J. and Joy M. 2014: Habitat use of redfin bullies (Gobiomorphus huttoni) in a small upland stream in Manawatū, New Zealand. Environmental Biology of Fishes 97: 121-132.

Mitchell N.D., Campbell G.H., Cutting M.L., Ayres B.D., Hilton M., and Slaven D. 1992: Rodney Ecological District Survey Report for the Protected Natural Areas Programme 1983-1984. Department of Conservation, Auckland. Moorhouse R., Greene T., Dilks P., Powlesland R., Moran L., Taylor G., and Jones A. et al. 2003: Control of introduced mammalian predators improves kaka Nestor meridionalis breeding success: reversing the decline of a threatened New Zealand parrot. Biological Conservation 110: 33-44. Newman D.G., Bell B.D., Bishop P.J., Burns R.J., Haigh A., and Hitchmough R.A. 2013: Conservation status of New Zealand frogs, New Zealand Threat Classification Series 5. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 10 pp.

NIWA 2016: New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. https://nzffdms.niwa.co.nz/

O’Donnell C.F.J., Borkin K.M., Christie J.E., Lloyd B., Parsons S., and Hitchmough R.A. In press: Conservation status of New Zealand bats, 2017. New Zealand Threat Classification Series. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Robertson H.A., Baird K., Dowding J.E., Elliott G.P., Hitchmough R.A., Miskelly C.M., McArthur N., O’Donnell C.F.J., Sagar P.M., Scofield R.P., and Taylor G.A. 2017: Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23 pp.

Sawyer J. and Stanley R. 2012: Criteria for the identification of significant ecological areas in Auckland. Auckland Council.

Singers N., Osborne B., Lovegrove T., Jamieson A., Boow J., Sawyer J., Hill K., Andrews J., Hill S., and Webb C. 2017: Indigenous terrestrial ecosystems of Auckland. Auckland Council.

DRAFT

Stanley R., de Lange P.J., and Cameron E.K. 2005: Auckland Regional Threatened and Uncommon Vascular Plants List. Auckland Botanical Society Journal 60(2): 152-157.

Waitakere City Council 2007: Waitakere City Biodiversity Report, Waitakere City Council.

Widianarko B., Kuntoro F.X.S., Van Gestel C.A.M., and Van Straalen N.M. 2001: Toxicokinetics and toxicity of zinc under time-varying exposure in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20: 4.

Williams P.A., Wiser S.; Clarkson B., and Stanley M. 2007: New Zealand’s historical rare terrestrial ecosystems set in a physical and physiognomic framework. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31: 119−128.

DRAFT

APPENDIX 1

VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, INCLUDING NUKUMEA SCENIC RESERVE

The species list is predominantly from a survey undertaken between 27-28 April 2017 by Nick Goldwater, Sarah Budd and Joshua Wium (Wildland Consultants Ltd), and Brenda Osborne (Auckland Council). Additional records are from the Australasian Virtual Herbarium (AVH) and Maureen Young (MY). Records from the AVH are accompanied by their herbarium collection number.

INDIGENOUS SPECIES

Gymnosperms

Agathis australis kauri Dacrycarpus dacrydioides kahikatea Dacrydium cupressinum rimu Phyllocladus trichomanoides tānekaha Podocarpus totara var. totara tōtara Prumnopitys ferruginea miro

Monocot. trees and shrubs

Cordyline australis tī kōuka Cordyline pumilio tī rauriki Rhopalostylis sapida nīkau

Dicot. trees and shrubs

Alseuosmia macrophylla toropapa, karapapa, matukuroimata Beilschmiedia tarairi taraire Carmichaelia australis maukoro, tainoka, taunoka Carpodetus serratus putaputawētā Coprosma arborea tree coprosma, māmāngi Coprosma areolata Coprosma grandifolia kanono, raurēkau, raurākau, manono Coprosma lucida karamū, kāramuramu, glossy karamū Coprosma rhamnoides Coprosma spathulata subsp. spathulata Corynocarpus laevigatus karaka Dracophyllum latifolium neinei, taritari āwhā Dracophyllum lessonianum Dracophyllum sinclairii Dysoxylum spectabile kohekohe Elaeocarpus dentatus hīnau, whīnau Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium hangehange

DRAFT

Griselinia lucida puka Hedycarya arborea porokaiwhiri; pigeonwood Knightia excelsa rewarewa Kunzea robusta kānuka Leptospermum scoparium agg. mānuka Leucopogon fasciculatus mingimingi Melicytus ramiflorus subsp. ramiflorus māhoe Myrsine australis māpou, matipou, māpau Nestegis lanceolata white maire, maire rauriki Olearia furfuracea akepiro, tanguru Olearia rani var. colorata heketara Pennantia corymbosa kaikōmako Piper excelsum subsp. excelsum kawakawa Pomaderris amoena tauhinu Pomaderris kumeraho kūmarahou Pseudopanax arboreus whauwhaupaku, puahou, five finger Pseudopanax crassifolius horoeka, lancewood Pseudopanax lessonii houpara Schefflera digitata patē Sophora microphylla kōwhai Streblus heterophylla tūrepo Toronia toru toru Vitex lucens pūriri Weinmannia silvicola tōwai

Monocot. lianes

Freycinetia banksii kiekie Ripogonum scandens supplejack, kareao

Dicot. lianes

Clematis paniculata puawānanga Metrosideros diffusa rātā Metrosideros fulgens rātā Metrosideros perforata aka Muehlenbeckia australis puka Parsonsia capsularis akakiore Parsonsia heterophylla akakaikiore Pimelea longifolia tāranga Rubus cissoides tātarāmoa, tātaraheke, bush lawyer

Lycopods and psilopsids

Lycopodium deuterodensum puakarimu Tmesipteris sp.

DRAFT

Ferns

Adiantum hispidulum huruhuru tapairu, maidenhair fern Asplenium bulbiferum mouku, hen and chicken fern Asplenium flaccidum makawe, ngā makawe o Raukatauri Asplenium gracillimum (MY) Asplenium polyodon petako Blechnum discolor piupiu, crown fern Icarus filiformis pānako Deparia petersenii subsp. congrua Dipoblechnum fraseri maukurangi Parablechnum novae-zelandiae kiokio Doodia australis pukupuku Cyathea dealbata ponga, silver fern Cyathea medullaris mamaku Dicksonia squarrosa whekī Gleichenia microphylla waewaekākā, Hymenophyllum flexuosum mauku, filmy fern Hymenophyllum revolutum (AK128443, AVH) mauku, filmy fern Hymenophyllum sanguinolentum (AK27416, AVH) mauku, filmy fern Lastreopsis glabella Lastreopsis hispida tuakura Lindsaea linearis Lindsaea trichomanoides (AK151894, AVH) Lygodium articulatum mangemange Microsorum pustulatum kōwaowao, pāraharaha, hound’s tongue fern Microsorum scandens mokimoki Paesia scaberula mātātā Pneumatopteris pennigera pākau Pteridium esculentum rārahu, brackenlinear Pteris macilenta titipo, sweet fern Pteris tremula turawera, shaking brake Pyrrosia eleagnifolia leather-leaf fern Trichomanes elongatum

Orchids

Bulbophyllum pygmaeum (AK158814, AVH) piripiri Diplodium alobulum (AK151691, AVH) Diplodium trullifolium (AK151884, AVH) Earina autumnalis raupeka Earina mucronata peka-a-waka Pterostylis agathicola Pterostylis banksii (AK151845, AVH) tutukiwi Singularybas oblongus (AK151810, AVH) Thelymitra longifolia (AK154357, AVH)

DRAFT

Grasses

Microlaena avenacea bush rice grass Microlaena stipoides pātītī, meadow rice grass Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. imbecillis

Sedges

Carex banksiana matau Carex lambertiana Eleocharis acuta spike sedge Gahnia lacera tarangārara, toetoe kiwi, toetoe ngaungau, tatangi Gahnia pauciflora takahikahi Gahnia setifolia māpere Gahnia xanthocarpa tupari-maunga Lepidosperma australe Lepidosperma laterale Machaerina rubiginosa Morelotia affinis Schoenus maschalinus Schoenus tendo wīwī

Monocot. herbs (other than orchids, grasses, sedges, and rushes)

Astelia fragrans kakaha Astelia grandis (AK 313207, AVH) mauri Astelia hastata kahakaha Astelia trinervia mauri Dianella haematica Dianella nigra tūrutu Phormium tenax harakeke, flax

Dicot. herbs (other than composites)

Centella uniflora Drosera auriculate (AK151684, AVH) sundew, wahu Elatostema rugosum parataniwha Epilobium pallidiflorum (AK361874, AVH) tawarewa Gonocarpus micranthus piripiri Nertera dichondrifolia

NATURALISED AND EXOTIC SPECIES

Gymnosperms

Cupressus macrocarpa macrocarpa Pinus pinaster maritime pine Pinus radiata radiata pine

DRAFT

Dicot. trees and shrubs

Acacia longifolia Sydney golden wattle Eriobotrya japonica loquat Hakea salicifolia willow-leaved hakea Hakea sericea prickly hakea Psoralea pinnata dally pine Ulex europaeus gorse

Dicot. lianes

Anredera cordifolia madeira vine, mignonette vine

Grasses

Cortaderia selloana pampas Schedonorus arundinaceus tall fescue

Sedges

Cyperus eragrostis umbrella sedge

Rushes

Juncus tenuis var. tenuis track rush

Monocot. herbs (other than orchids, grasses, sedges, and rushes)

Aristea ecklonii aristea Hedychium gardnerianum kahili ginger, wild ginger

Composite herbs

Conyza sumatrensis broad-leaved fleabane Helminthotheca echioides oxtongue Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy

Dicot. herbs (other than composites)

Impatiens sodenii shrub balsam Lotus pedunculatus lotus Myosotis arvensis (AK286895, AVH) field forget-me-not Plantago australis swamp plantain Plantago lanceolata narrow-leaved plantain Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup

AUCKLAND OFFICE: 97A MT EDEN ROAD, MT EDEN, AUCKLAND 1023 P.O. BOX 46 299, HERNE BAY, AUCKLAND 1001, Ph 09-377-4886

Appendix 4

0 200 400 1km 20.000 0 200 400 1km 20.000

0 150 300 750 15.000 0 150 300 750 15.000

0 100 200 500 10.000 0 100 200 500 10.000

0 50 100 200 5000 0 50 100 200 5000

0 25 50 100 2500 0 25 50 100 2500

0 20 40 100 2000 0 20 40 100 2000

0 10 20 50 1000 0 10 20 50 1000

500 500 0 5 10 20 0 5 10 20 Landscape Plan © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L01 North Disclaimer: Aerial obtained from Auckland Council GIS Database Scale 1:500@A3 Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C 0 2 5 10 200 0 2 5 10 200

0 1 2 5 100 0 0.5 1 2.5 50

0 2.5 5 10 250 0 200 400 1km 20.000 0 200 400 1km 20.000

0 150 300 750 15.000 0 150 300 750 15.000

0 100 200 500 10.000 0 100 200 500 10.000

0 50 100 200 5000 0 50 100 200 5000

0 25 50 100 2500 0 25 50 100 2500

0 20 40 100 2000 0 20 40 100 2000

0 10 20 50 1000 0 10 20 50 1000

0 5 10 20 500 0 5 10 20 500

0 2 5 10 200 0 2 5 10 200

0 1 2 5 100 0 0.5 1 2.5 50

0 2.5 5 10 250 Landscape Plan - Foreshore Reserve Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L02 North © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Scale 1:250@A3 Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C Planting Legend Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L03 © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C 0 200 400 1km 20.000 0 200 400 1km 20.000

0 150 300 750 15.000 0 150 300 750 15.000

0 100 200 500 10.000 0 100 200 500 10.000

0 50 100 200 5000 0 50 100 200 5000

0 25 50 100 2500 0 25 50 100 2500

2000 2000 0 20 40 100 Extent of 0surveyed 20 40 100 data (to MHWS)

0 10 20 50 1000 Indicative0 stream 10 levels 20 50 1000

0 5 10 20 500 0 5 10 20 500

0 2 5 10 200 0 2 5 10 200

100 50 0 1 2 5 0 0.5 1 2.5 Section - Nukumea Stream Edge © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L04 Disclaimer: Sections obtained from Ashton Mitchell Architects Scale 1:100@A3 Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C 0 2.5 5 10 250 0 200 400 1km 20.000 0 200 400 1km 20.000

0 150 300 750 15.000 0 150 300 750 15.000

0 100 200 500 10.000 0 100 200 500 10.000

0 50 100 200 5000 0 50 100 200 5000

0 25 50 100 2500 0 25 50 100 2500

0 20 40 100 2000 0 20 40 100 2000

0 10 20 50 1000 0 10 20 50 1000

0 5 10 20 500 0 5 10 20 500

0 2 5 10 200 0 2 5 10 200

100 50 0 1 2 5 0 0.5 1 2.5 Landscape Plan - Foreshore Reserve Schematic Section Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L05 © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Scale 1:50@A3 Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C 0 2.5 5 10 250 Paving type 3

P Paving Paving type 1a, east of entrance. Linear paving pattern, to type 3 be aligned with building and parking areas. P P

P P Paving type 2a, accent bands

P For landscape details, refer to L01 P P Paving type 2b, parking lot markers P

Paving type 1b, west of entrance. Radial alignment P with form of driveway as indicated.

Paving type 2b, parking lot markers 0 200 400 1km 20.000 0 200 400 1km 20.000 P

0 150 300 750 15.000 0 150 300 750 15.000

0 100 200 500 10.000 0 100 200 500 10.000

0 50 100 200 5000 0 50 100 200 5000 PAVING PATTERNS PAVING COLOURS Linear (1a) or radial (1b) paving pattern Pedestrian accent (3) Colour ‘Volcanic Ash’ 1a & b as indicated2500 on plan. 3 2500 (light) and ‘Black Sands’ 0 25 50 100 0 25 50 100 Large format square paving (dark) by Firth Paver ‘Holland©’ by Firth, colour ‘Eden’, 100x200, or similar. Final product to be Paver ‘Forum’ by Firth, colour ‘Volcanic approved2000 by Landscape Architect 2000Ash’, 400x400, or similar. Final product 0 20 40 100 0 20 40 100 to be approved by Landscape Architect

0 10 20 50 1000 0 10 20 50 1000

Accent bands (2a) and parking lot markers (2b) Colour ‘Eden’ by Firth 2a & b 0 5 10 20 500 0 5 10 20 500 Paver ‘Holland© Set’ by Firth, 100x200, or similar.

0 2 5 Accent10 200bands: colour ‘Black Sands’ 0 2 5 10 200 Parking lot marker: colour ‘Volcanic Ash’ 100 50 0 1 2 Final5 product to be approved0 by 0.5Landscape 1 2.5 Architect

0 2.5 5 10 250 Shared Space Design Coastal Retirement Resort Forest Glen Road, Orewa L06 North © Copyright Reserved by Transurban Limited Scale 1:250@A3 Date : 17/08/2017 Rev C Appendix 5

Remy De La Peza