Transpower New Zealand Limited

Appendix F

Ecological Assessment

Transpower Ltd

REPORT

Hairini - Mount Maunganui Trans mission Line Realignment Marine Ecological Assessment

Prepared for TranspowerTr an sp ow er (NewNe w Zealand) Limited PreparedPr ep ar ed byy TonkinTo nk in & Tayloray lo r Ltd Date SeptemberSe pt em be 20201717 JobJo b NuNumbermb er 26752.222026 75 2. 22

Distribution: Transpower (New Zealand) Limited 1 PDF copy Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 PDF copy

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1 2 Description of proposed activity 2 2.1 Tower 118 removal 2 2.2 Pole 128 replacement with Pole 128A 3 2.2.1 Access track 3 2.2.2 Works area 3 2.2.3 Tree removal 3 2.3 Temporary wiring sites 4 3 Ecological assessment methods 4 3.1 Tower 118 4 3.1.1 Benthic survey 4 3.1.2 Habitat classification 7 3.1.3 Coastal birds survey 7 3.2 Pole 128/128A and SEA 25 7 3.3 Wiring sites 7 4 Results 7 4.1 Tower 118 7 4.1.1 General habitat description 7 4.1.2 Areas of ecological value 7 4.1.3 Habitat type classification 8 4.1.4 Benthic ecology 8 4.1.5 Threatened benthic marine species 13 4.1.6 Kaimoana species 13 4.1.7 Papaka 13 4.1.8 Coastal birds 13 4.1.9 Wiring site near Pole 33D 13 4.2 Pole 128/128A and SEA 25 14 4.2.1 SEA 25 description and values 14 4.2.2 Values in and around Pole 128/128A and associated access track 14 4.2.3 Values in and around the wiring site and tree clearance areas 15 5 Assessment of effects on the environment 15 5.1 Effects assessment framework 15 5.2 Effects of Tower 118 removal works 16 5.2.1 Ecological effects on benthic fauna of area near Tower 118 16 5.3 Effects on kaimoana species 17 5.4 Effect on surrounding habitats present in Rangataua Bay 17 5.5 Effects on coastal seabirds 17 5.6 Effects on SEA 25 and adjacent habitats 18 5.6.1 Effects on wetland birds 19 5.6.2 Habitat disturbance effects 19 5.7 Summary of ecological effects 20 6 Ecological mitigation summary 21 6.1 Tower 118 21 6.2 Works within and around SEA 25 21 7 Conclusion 22 8 Applicability 23

Appendix A : Drawings Appendix B : EcIA guidelines Appendix C : Benthic Fauna Appendix D : Mitigation Location Plan

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

1 Introduction Transpower (New Zealand) Limited (Transpower) is proposing to realign a section of the Hairini- Mount Maunganui (HAI-MTM) A and B 110 kV transmission lines in Tauranga. These two lines are both Single Circuit lines on poles. The A line was commissioned in 1958, while the B line was commissioned in 1995. The section of A and B lines proposed to be realigned is located on both sides of Rangataua Bay, Tauranga Harbour. This work will involve: The removal of HAI-MTM-A118 (known as Tower 118) that is located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). The removal of Tower 118 will result in one aerial span crossing the harbour, connecting two new monopoles on either side; and The replacement of Pole 128 with a new Pole 128A immediately adjacent to it and which is located adjacent to a Category 2 Special Ecological Area (SEA) 25, as described in the Tauranga City Plan (see Figure 1.1 for locations). It is noted that the Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan also includes an Indigenous Biodiversity Area B located within the overall boundaries of SEA25. Temporary wiring sites will be established as part of the realignment works to enable new conductors to be pulled through the transmission line poles. Proposed wiring site locations are shown on Figure 1.1 below and on the drawings provided as Appendix A. The temporary wiring site located near to Pole 128 and is located within SEA 25.

Figure 1.1: Aerial photograph showing ecological assessment locations (Source: Google Earth)

Transpower has requested Tonkin & Taylor Limited (T+T) to undertake ecological assessments to understand the impacts of the proposed realignment works on ecological values at the tower/pole removal/replacement as described above and the temporary wiring sites proposed within SEA25 and adjacent to the CMA. This assessment will support the resource consent applications for the project.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

This assessment: Describes the existing ecological values at Tower 118 and Pole128A, and the surrounding areas that may be affected by the works; Determines the ecological significance of the impacted areas; Assesses the actual and potential effects of proposed activities on the ecology of the works areas; and Identifies appropriate measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects.

2 Description of proposed activity This section describes the parts of the overall Hairini-Mount Maunganui transmission line realignment relevant to this ecological assessment.

2.1 Tower 118 removal Transpower is proposing to remove Tower 118 in its entirety, including the foundations to below the level of the existing seabed. The location of Tower 118 is shown on Figure 1.1 and on AECOM Drawing 60438334-3 included in Appendix A. It is proposed to remove the bulk of the above ground portion of the tower by contractors dismantling and/or cutting portions of the tower, which will then be removed off site by helicopter and disposed of appropriately. This methodology eliminates the need for temporarily storing portions of the tower on the sea-bed and therefore minimises adverse effects. The above methodology would remove the bulk of the steel portion of the tower, leaving short sections of the remaining vertical members (legs) and associated concrete foundations. The remaining leg sections and concrete foundations would then be removed to a level around 500 mm below existing seabed level using a barge based methodology. The following is a proposed methodology for the removal of the foundations for Tower 118 and has been provided to Transpower by Bay Underwater Services Ltd. The works methodology will be confirmed by the contractor prior to works commencing. We understand that any substantive departure from the methodology assessed may result in a variation of resource consent being required. In summary, when the pylon has been cut down to just above the sea bed, sand will be excavated down to approximately 800 - 1,000 mm around each leg. This will allow the vertical legs to be cut off at 500 mm below seabed level. The legs will be supported by a barge based HiAb then cut and transported to shore for landfill disposal. Specific steps include: The contractor will have a certified work boat and skipper onsite at all times; All gear to be used will be set up and tested; If it is low tide as many pre-cuts as possible will be completed; At high tide, the HiAb barge will be stationed alongside the pylon base; Strops will be secured to the pre-cut members to support them for the final cuts; Once they are cut they will be loaded onto the HiAb barge; The HiAb will continue to hold the members being cut; When the tide is getting too low for the barge to operate effectively, the barge will back off the sand bank and take the sections of pylon back to the load out area onshore (a formal boat ramp, location to be confirmed); The pylon sections will be loaded onto a HiAb truck and transported to a land fill for disposal;

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

When all of the horizontal members have been removed the Dive team will excavate around the legs. Each leg will be excavated down to approximately 800 – 1,000 mm below sea level, to allow for it to be cut at 500 mm below sea level. This will be done using a 4 inch hydraulic trash pump; The hydraulic power pack runs on Bio oil that is approved as environmentally friendly; The material will be excavated from the hole through a 4 inch hose to approximately 6 m away from the existing pylon base; The hose will be underwater at all times and is anticipated to result in a minimal sediment plume or water discolouration, as the material is only being transferred from one place underwater to another; After the excavation has been completed, the HiAb will be connected to the leg; The diver will cut through the member using a hydraulic ring saw; The member will be loaded onto the barge; This will continue until all of the legs have been removed; The excavation will be refilled once the legs have been removed. The sand that has been removed from the excavations will be re-pumped into the holes to leave the seabed as flat as possible; and All gear and any debris will be removed from site.

2.2 Pole 128 replacement with Pole 128A

2.2.1 Access track The replacement of Pole 128 will require an access track to be formed and a works area to be cleared within an area of existing vegetation, and adjacent to an existing Special Ecological Area (SEA 25), also referred to in the Proposed BoP Regional Coastal Environment Plan as Indigenous Biodiversity Area (IBDA) B23. The location of the proposed access track and works area are shown on AECOM drawing 60438334-8 (Appendix A). The proposed access track does not encroach on SEA 25. The access route is across scrub land for a distance of approximately 265 m to the site of Pole 128 and its replacement with Pole 128A immediately adjacent. The access track to be formed will be sufficiently wide to accommodate heavy vehicles and machinery. The access track will be up to 4 m wide and construction typically involves removal of vegetation and topsoil or placement of a geotextile fabric and installation of hard fill. The track will be uplifted when construction is complete.

2.2.2 Works area The location of Pole 128 /128A is shown on AECOM drawing 60438334-8 (Appendix A). A cleared works area of up to 1,500 m² is required for assembling and lifting poles into position. The construction site indicated on the access plans will be fenced off during the construction works. The fences will be removed once work is complete. Pole 128/128A is located on generally flat ground. There will be a requirement to install a crane pad for construction purposes. Excavations will be required at the pole site to create level work platforms for large construction plant.

2.2.3 Tree removal For electrical safety and security of the transmission line it is important that trees and other vegetation cannot contact the line or encroach into a Vegetation Exclusion Zone (VEZ) around the

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

4 conductors. The VEZ is applied to trees beneath the conductors and those affected by conductor swing, as well as trees with potential to fall towards the conductors. It is intended that no vegetation clearing or cutting be required for at least five years after re- commissioning of the line. To achieve this five year cutting free period it is intended to remove trees that are reasonably capable of infringing the VEZ within five years of re-commissioning (and therefore a danger or hazard to the line) at the time of construction of the line. Some tree removal is required for this purpose from within the SEA 25 area as shown on AECOM drawing 60438334-8 (Appendix A). These trees are all exotic willows.

2.3 Temporary wiring sites Conductor installation (wiring or stringing) is carried out on sections of line (wiring runs). A “wiring site” is located at each end of each wiring run, where heavy equipment, plant and materials required for the wiring will be situated. Significant vehicle movements are required at the wiring sites for establishment, during the wiring and for disestablishment. The area required for each wiring site will be approximately 750 m2. Two wiring sites are relevant to this assessment; a wiring site near the edge of the Tauranga Harbour on the northern side and a wiring site located within SEA 25 as shown on 60438334-8 (Appendix A). The wiring site near the edge of the Tauranga Harbour will be within an existing paddock and accessed via the route established for another new tower (Tower HAI-MTM B 33D). Plant and vehicles will access the wiring site via the construction access for pole 128A. It will be necessary to create an all-weather access track for a distance of approximately 20 m to the wiring site. The access track and wiring site will be uplifted and the pasture suitably reinstated when construction is complete.

3 Ecological assessment methods This section describes the methods used to assess the existing ecological environment in and around the works areas described in the previous section.

3.1 Tower 118 A survey of Tower 118 and the surrounding area was undertaken 25 November 2016. This survey entailed a site walkover of the intertidal habitats, the collection of benthic fauna cores from five pre- determined locations in and around Tower 118 and a qualitative coastal bird survey. Data collected from these surveys were then used to characterise the existing ecological values of the area. The ecological surveys are described in more detail below. The objectives of this survey were: To determine the biological community structure and contamination levels in and around Tower 118; To assess the ecological significance of the biological communities, with a focus on whether or not any rare or endangered species occur in the areas directly affected by activities.

3.1.1 Benthic survey A total of five benthic fauna samples were collected, at the locations shown on Figure 2. The sampling exercise covered the area surrounding Tower 118 and a potential vehicle access route across the foreshore. However, it is noted that the vehicle access route is no longer proposed.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Samples were collected using a 130 mm diameter benthic corer that was pushed up to 100 mm into the seabed. The sample was then placed into a snaplock bag. The sample was then sieved gently in seawater using a 500 µm sieve bag. All sieved organisms were then preserved in 80% ethanol, double labelled, and sealed in a plastic container, for later taxonomic identification. In addition to the collection of benthic fauna cores, a qualitative survey of surface dwelling benthic fauna was also undertaken. Organism identification was carried out by Biolive Identification Services (Nelson), to the lowest taxonomic level possible, using a binocular microscope when necessary. For each sample, total abundance and total number of species was recorded. The degree of “disturbance” in Rangataua Bay was determined using the AZTI 1 Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) 2. In summary, the AMBI system has a database of some 8,000 marine benthic invertebrate taxa, each of which are rated according to their ability to live with man-made or natural disturbance (which can be physical, such as dredging, or chemical, such as pollution). This database is able to be adapted for use in New Zealand. Hence, the AMBI offers a ‘disturbance or pollution classification’ of a site, representing the benthic community health 3. To undertake the analysis, the AMBI software package was sourced from www.ambi.azti.es. The taxonomic list from the present study was formatted according to the requirements of the software package (described in detail in Borja et al. 2012), and processed through the AMBI software to give an assessment of the degree of disturbance at each site. The results from the AMBI analysis are interpreted using Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: AMBI Biotic coefficient interpretation

Dominating Benthic community Biotic coefficient ecological group* health Site disturbance Ecological status 0.0 < AMBI ≤ 0.2 I Normal Undisturbed High status 0.2 < AMBI ≤ 1.2 - Impoverished - - 1.2 < AMBI ≤ 3.3 III Unbalanced Slightly disturbed Good status Transitional to Moderately 3.3 < AMBI ≤ 4.3 - pollution disturbed - 4.3 < AMBI ≤ 5.0 IV – V Polluted - Poor status Transitional to heavily 5.0 < AMBI ≤ 5.5 - polluted Heavily disturbed - 5.5 < AMBI ≤ 6.0 V Heavily polluted - Bad status *The dominating ecological group refers to the grouping of species based on their sensitivity to an increasing stress gradient.

1 AZTI is the Technical Institute in Spain that developed the AMBI index. 2 Borja, A., Franco, J., & Pérez, V. 2000. A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments . Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12), 1100-1114. 3 Muxika, I., Borja, A., & Bonne, W. 2005. The suitability of the marine biotic index (AMBI) to new impact sources along European coasts. Ecological indicators, 5(1), 19-31.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Site 1

Site 2 Tower 118

Site 5 Site 3

Site 4

LEGEND Medium coarse sandy beach

Seagrass, zostera beds

Intertidal sandflat STATE HIGHWAY 29A Subtidal channel

Site 1 Site location

Aerial photo sourced from Google Earth. Copyright Image@2016DigitalGlobe. Imagery Date: 3-6-2016. Property boundaries sourced from Land Information New Zealand data as at 7-Jun-2016 (Crown Copyright Reserved).

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland www.tonkintaylor.co.nz 2 7

3.1.2 Habitat classification The intertidal and subtidal habitats present at the project site were mapped based on the criteria from the former Auckland Regional Council (ARC) Technical Report which classified intertidal and subtidal habitats present in the Waitemata Harbour 4.

3.1.3 Coastal birds survey A brief qualitative coastal bird survey was undertaken near Tower 118 and within the surrounding area during the site walkover. Any observed coastal birds were identified and their presence recorded.

3.2 Pole 128/128A and SEA 25 A walkover ecological assessment of the area around Pole 128 and the proposed access route to that pole was undertaken by a T+T ecologist on 18 July 2017. The access track and works site are adjacent to SEA 25, which is noted in the Tauranga City Plan as having significant wildlife value, mainly as habitat for banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis ) and North Island fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae ). General vegetation values and observations on habitat quality for banded rail and North Island fernbird were recorded. The site was re-visited by T+T terrestrial and aquatic ecologists on 9 August 2017 to assess an area of tree removal within SEA 25. Observation on vegetation and habitat values for the sites were recorded.

3.3 Wiring sites A walkover ecological assessment of the area around proposed wiring sites near Tower 118 and Pole 128 was undertaken by T+T terrestrial and aquatic ecologists on 9 August 2017. Observation on vegetation and habitat values for the sites were recorded.

4 Results

4.1 Tower 118

4.1.1 General habitat description Tower 118 is situated on the northern side of Rangataua Bay in Tauranga Harbour. The habitat present near Tower 118 and in the surrounding area is predominantly intertidal sandflat with areas of seagrass ( Zostera ) beds on the upper intertidal zone and a medium coarse sandy beach along the northern fringe of the shoreline. A subtidal channel is located on the southern side of Tower 118 (refer Figure 2).

4.1.2 Areas of ecological value Under the Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environmental Plan, the wider Rangataua Bay coastal margins contain Indigenous Biological Diversity Areas (IBDA). None of these IBDAs are situated near Tower 118 or in the surrounding area (but are in the vicinity of the 127A-128A span, see later). The ecological values these IBDAs are recognised for are as follows: IBDA – B23 – Estuarine wetlands of sea rush, oioi, saltmarsh ribbonwood, mangrove, Ficinia nodosa , Samolus repens and glasswort.

4 Auckland Regional Council, 1999. Intertidal and subtidal biota and habitats of the central Waitemata Harbour. Technical Publication TP127.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

IBDA – B24 – Sea rush-oioi tussock land, manuka scrub, and forest of ti kouka and manuka with grey willow. The wider Rangataua Bay is also scheduled in the Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environmental Plan as an Area of Significant Cultural Value.

4.1.3 Habitat type classification The intertidal and subtidal habitats present at the project site fall into four habitat types based on the definitions in ARC (1999) 4. The habitats found at Rangataua Bay are listed below, their locations are shown on Figure 2. Intertidal sand flat: representative of most of the intertidal habitat present in Rangataua Bay near Tower 118 and the surrounding area (Photograph 2) Medium-coarse sandy beach: representative of the sandy beach along the northern and north-eastern coastline of Rangataua Bay Seagrass, Zostera , Beds: representative of the northern upper intertidal reaches of Rangataua Bay. Subtidal channel: Representative of the channel to the south of Tower 118.

4.1.4 Benthic ecology The results of the marine benthic fauna survey are presented in Appendix B. The locations of the benthic sampling locations are shown in Figure 2. Characteristic biota of the sampled areas are described below: Surface fauna observed during the site walkover of the intertidal sandflat and seagrass beds (Photograph 1) included cockles ( Austrovenus stutchburyi ), mud flat whelks (Cominella glandiformis ), spire shells ( Zeacumantus lutulentus ), the small mud snail Zeacumantus subcarinatus , and the speckled topshell ( Diloma aethiops ). Biopores were also present on the interidal sandflat, as were areas of sea lettuce ( Ulva lactuca ). The foundations of Tower 118 (Photograph 2) were also covered by encrusting species including the modest barnacle ( Elminius modestus ), the acorn barnacle ( Chamaesipho brunnea ), the New Zealand rock oyster ( Crassostrea glomerata ) and little black mussels ( Xenostrobus neozelandicus ). Other species present included oyster borer snails ( Haustrum scobina ) and periwinkle snails ( Nodolittorina sp.).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Photograph 1: Area of Seagrass bed present on the predominantly intertidal sandflat habitat at Rangataua Bay.

Photograph 2: Species present on the foundations of Tower 118.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Results from benthic fauna cores collected around Tower 118 and the surrounding area showed that the benthic communities were moderately diverse, with samples containing between 8 – 19 different taxa. Most species within the samples were found in similar numbers, with the exception of oligochaete worms (120 individuals), the polychaete worm family Hesionidae (154 individuals) and the polychaete worm species Aonides trifida (71 individuals), which were all found in higher numbers compared to other taxa. Results of AMBI analysis of the data are presented in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 below. AMBI analysis showed that the samples were generally dominated by species that are classified as being disturbance-indifferent (ecological group II), disturbance tolerant (ecological group III) and the first- order opportunistic category (ecological group V) suggesting that the sites were of overall fair quality. Most samples also contained a small number of species that fell into the other ecological groups. The AMBI scores for the sites ranged from 1.58 – 3.70. These scores fall within the range of AMBI scores for sites that are either slightly disturbed or moderately disturbed (Figure 4.2), indicating that the ecological status of the intertidal marine area ranges from ‘good ‘to ‘transitional ’ (between good and poor quality).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Figure 4.1: AMBI Species Group Distribution (SGD) results for the Rangataua Bay samples. Each station is a single sample. Species (Ecological) Groups are based on sensitivity to disturbance: Group I (Blue): species very sensitive; Group II (Green): species indifferent; Group III (Yellow): species tolerant; Group IV (Orange): second-order opportunistic species; Group V (Red): first-order opportunistic species.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Extremely disturbed

Heavily disturbed

Moderately disturbed

Slightly disturbed

Undisturbed

Figure 4.2: AMBI results for the Rangataua Bay samples. Data for each station consists of a single sample.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

4.1.5 Threatened benthic marine species No nationally “Threatened” or “At Risk” marine invertebrate species were recorded during this survey 5.

4.1.6 Kaimoana species Kaimoana species identified in and around the project area included: Pipi Cockles Wedge shells Gastropods (whelks, snails). Cockles were the most numerous kaimoana species encountered in the Intertidal Sandflat habitat with individuals generally found in low numbers (1 – 6 individuals) in the collected benthic fauna cores. Cockles were present in higher densities at Site 1 (approximately 120 m from Tower 118), where 11 individuals were found in the fauna core). Pipi were found in low numbers (3 individuals) in the Intertidal Sandflat habitat, as were wedge shells (3 individuals). The shellfish found during the benthic fauna investigations were all small and not of an attractive edible size. Several gastropod species were identified in low numbers in the surface fauna and benthic fauna investigations. Gastropods (snails and whelks) were present throughout the site but were all small and not of an attractive edible size.

4.1.7 Papaka The presence and importance of papaka has been raised by Iwi, including the desire for any papaka to be translocated. Our understanding is that papaka refers to the various crab species that inhabit the mudflat habitats of Rangataua Bay, and potentially hard substrate habitat, such as the concrete foundation of Tower 118. Our survey of the mudflat habitat, including benthic cores, and visual observations of the fauna on the concrete pier did not identify any crab species. While crab species may be present, the results of the survey suggest numbers are low in the vicinity of the proposed works.

4.1.8 Coastal birds While quantitative coastal bird surveys were not undertaken as part of this ecological assessment two coastal bird species were identified in and around the project footprint on the day of the survey. A single variable oystercatcher ( Haematopus unicolor ) and two spur-winged plovers ( Vanellus miles novaehollandiae ) were observed. According to the Department of Conservation Threat Classification Series, variable oystercatchers are listed as ‘At Risk’ – Declining, and spur-winged plovers are listed as ‘Not Threatened’. 6

4.1.9 Wiring site near Pole 33D The wiring site near the edge of the Tauranga Harbour is located within an existing paddock and accessed via the route established for another new support structure (Pole HAI-MTM A 33D). There

5 Freeman, D, Schnabel, K, Marshall, B, Gordon, D, Wing, S, Tracey, D, Hitchmough, R (2013). Conservation status of New Zealand invertebrates , 2013. Department of Conservation. 6 Robertson, H. A., et al. (2013). Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 4. Department of Conservation: Wellington.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

14 are no particular ecological values associated within the immediate footprint of the proposed wiring site. Vegetation present along the northern shoreline of the harbour, above the medium coarse sandy beach habitat (see Figure 2) included a small area of rank grasses, the native spinifex sand dune grass ( Spinifex sericeus ), harakeke flax ( Phormium tenax ) and native coprosma shrubs ( Coprosma sp.). Tall exotic trees are also present in the general vicinity. At the time of the site visit on 9 August 2017 there were no visible signs that local trees were used as nesting or roost sites by coastal birds.

4.2 Pole 128/128A and SEA 25 As described in Section 2, proposed works relevant to the SEA include the footprint of the Pole 128 replacement works are and an associated access track, both of which are located in an area of weedy vegetation and habitat fringing SEA 25. A wiring site and some tree clearance are proposed within the area of SEA 25 on the western side of SH29. Ecological values in these areas are described in the following sections.

4.2.1 SEA 25 description and values SEA 25 comprises a large area on the eastern side of SH29A, as well as a smaller area on the western side, as shown on Drawing 60438334- 8 (Appendix A). There is no obvious hydraulic connection between wetland areas on the eastern and western sides of SH29A. The wetland on the western side (and in the vicinity of the works) appears to be freshwater in nature and drains to the eastern side via an underpass when water levels are high. The wetland on the eastern side of SH 29A is coastal fringe wetland habitat. The overall SEA is included in the “Category 2” (good-quality representative examples of indigenous flora and/or habitat of indigenous fauna) Schedule to the Tauranga City Plan and described as a large, diverse area of wetland vegetation containing a range of estuarine vegetation types and small example of palustrine vegetation. The area is of significant wildlife value and banded rail and North Island fernbird are present. Both banded rail and North Island fernbird have a threat status of At Risk: Declining 5. The wetland area on the western side of SH29A is also referred to in the Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan as Indigenous Biodiversity Area (IBDA) (Map 14b_Rangataua Bay/Papamoa Beach). The area shown on Map 14b better follows the edge of the freshwater wetland area (as opposed to the SEA 25 polygon in the Tauranga City Plan). However, the description of values in Schedule 2 of the Proposed BoP Regional Coastal Environment Plan as estuarine wetland vegetation is generally applicable to a larger area of coastal wetland on the eastern side of SH29A as opposed to the freshwater wetland on the western side (and potentially impacted by the proposed works).

4.2.2 Values in and around Pole 128/128A and associated access track The wetland area of the project footprint is degraded and dominated by weed species, particularly thick blackberry (Rubus fruticosus ), pampas (Cortaderia sp.), moth plant (Araujia hortorum ), gorse (Ulex europaeus ) and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica ). The wetland vegetation present is of low ecological value, with willow and arum lily, and the only native species present are some Carex sp . sedges within in the wettest areas. In comparison, the SEA wetland on the eastern side of SH29A is of high ecological value with rushes, seagrass and mangroves, and supports known breeding populations of banded rail and North Island fernbird. Due to the close proximity of the high-value wetland to the project footprint, these threatened native wetland birds may nest in the vegetation in and around the Pole 128/128A construction footprint.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

4.2.3 Values in and around the wiring site and tree clearance areas A proposed wiring site and some tree clearance would impact on the freshwater wetland component of SEA 25 on the western side of SH29A. The SEA area as shown on Drawing 60438334-8 (Appendix A) includes an area of freshwater wetland in a local depression, steep banks around the edge of the wetland and some of higher the ground around the wetland. The current SEA 25 delineation does not appear to be related specifically to a habitat boundary or any particular vegetation of value. The freshwater wetland area appears to have come about as a result of highway construction bisecting the edge of what would have originally been coastal wetland habitat. The bisected area has become a swamp forest wetland over time and now supports large exotic trees (Willows). The wetland is dominated almost exclusively by exotic wetland weed species. Riparian and elevated areas within the SEA comprise terrestrial exotic habitat dominated by rank grass and exotic pampas. Overall, the wetland area in the vicinity of the works is characterised by low habitat quality. The wetland’s SEA status and significance relates to the potential presence or use of the site by banded rail and fernbird and the fact that wetlands are a threatened habitat type, with 9.4 % of original wetland habitats remaining nationally.

5 Assessment of effects on the environment

5.1 Effects assessment framework Our assessment of ecological effects includes the use of the EcIA guidelines (EIANZ, 2015 7). The EcIA approach follows the steps outlined below. We adapted the EcIA guidelines slightly through the incorporation of additional detail to address ambiguity and gaps in the initial guidelines. We note that EIANZ is undertaking a review of the existing guidelines and is expected to update these guidelines in the near future to address existing issues. While the EcIA guidelines were used to provide a framework and process for assessing effects, the outputs were driven our specialist assessments. 1 Ecological values are assigned a level on a scale of ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’,’, ‘High’ or ‘Very High’ based on assessing the values of species, communities, and habitats identified against criteria set out in the EIA guidelines (see Table B.1 in Appendix B); 2 Step 2 of the EIANZ guidelines requires an evaluation of the magnitude of effects on local ecological values based on footprint size, intensity and duration. The unmitigated ‘Magnitude of the Effect’ that the Project is expected to have on species found in the Project area i s evaluated as being either ‘No effect’, ‘Negligible’, ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’, ‘High’ or ‘Very High’, based on the proposed works (footprint size, intensity and duration; see Table B.2). The ‘Magnitude of Effect’ was based on: - The scale of unmitigated effect per se (i.e. the project footprint); - The proportion of habitat loss versus local availability; - The duration of effect (e.g. permanent versus temporary); and - The intensity of the effect (i.e. the extent to which habitat loss within the Project footprint is complete or partial). 3 Step 3 of the EIANZ guidelines requires the overall level of effect to be determined using a matrix that is based on the ecological values and the magnitude of effects on these values in the absence of any efforts to avoid, remedy or mitigate for potential effects. Level of effect categories include ‘No Ecological Effect’, ‘Very Low’, ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’, ‘High’ and ‘Very High’.

7 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, 2015. Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines for New Zealand.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Table B.3 shows the EIANZ matrix outlining criteria to describe the overall level of ecological effects. 4 Using the overall ecological importance of effect to determine if mitigation is required. Effects assessed as being 'Moderate' or greater in Table B.3 warrant efforts to avoid, remedy and mitigate them. An assessment for each aspect of the project with potential for adverse ecological effects is presented below. Our assessments consider the proposed works as described in Section 2 and the values described in Section 4.

5.2 Effects of Tower 118 removal works

5.2.1 Ecological effects on benthic fauna of area near Tower 118 The removal of Tower 118 has the potential to affect benthic communities near the tower. Figure 2 shows the existing marine macro-habitat types which have been recorded at the site. The macro- habitat type that would be directly affected by the tower removal is entirely comprised of intertidal sandflat. This macro-habitat type is common within Rangataua Bay, as well as the wider Tauranga Harbour. The footprint of the tower removal activities have been minimised through the selection of a works methodology that reduces the disturbance footprint (i.e. the barge based methodology as opposed to plan accessing over the intertidal zone). The works will therefore only temporarily affect a small and localised area of intertidal sandflat compared to the overall intertidal flats within the wider Rangataua Bay area, and even less when compared to the intertidal areas present in the Tauranga Harbour. The species found in the area surrounding Tower 118 were dominated by various polychaete worm species and oligochaete worms and cockles, all of which are common, and not listed as ‘Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’ species 5. While there will be a short-term reduction in local populations of these species as a direct result of the tower removal activities, they are expected to recover to near their original levels over the short term. Previous studies elsewhere in New Zealand (e.g. Gardner & Wear, 2006 in Wellington Harbour 8; Port of Tauranga, 2009 9; Lyttelton Port Company, 2013 10 ) indicate that the type of communities present at the site would become re-established in 1-3 years post-disturbance by burrowing, migration and recruitment of juveniles into the newly created habitat. In the case of mobile surface dwelling benthic species (such as snails), the duration will be much shorter than this, i.e. days or weeks. When considered in combination with the expected rapid recovery rate of these communities subsequent to the tower removal, the long-term effects on benthic communities are expected to be negligible. With respect to the EcIA framework, the ecological value of the impacted ecosystems is considered to be ‘L ow ’ on the basis that the species present and habitats impacted are not rare or threatened. The magnitude of the effect is also ‘Low’ (and temporary), and therefore the overall direct effects of the project on benthic ecology are considered to be ‘Very Low’ . No specific mitigation is considered necessary.

8 Gardner J.P.A. & Wear, R.G. 2006. Changes in subtidal macroinvertebrate community structure in Wellington Harbour (New Zealand) following a large-scale natural die-off. NZ Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40, 29-42. 9 Port of Tauranga Ltd. 2009. Assessment of Environmental Effects for Port of Tauranga Limited Channel Deepening and Widening February 2009. 10 Lyttelton Port Company. 2013. Continuing Maintenance Dredging Operations at Lyttelton Port of Christchurch. Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

5.3 Effects on kaimoana species Core samples collected near Tower 118 and the surrounding area identified several species of kaimoana significance, with pipis, cockles, wedge shells and gastropods (whelks and snails) all found in the core samples (Appendix C). These kaimoana species were generally found in low numbers, with the exception of cockles, which were found in higher numbers at Site 1 (approximately 120 m from Tower 118). However, the cockles found in the sample core from Site 1 were all small and not of an attractive edible size. The species identified in the core samples indicate that the area near and surrounding Tower 118 is of ‘Low’ value from a kaimoana perspective. Therefore combined with the ‘Low’ magnitude of effect that the tower removal will have on benthic ecology in these locations, this translates to a ‘Very Low’ level of effect on benthic kaimoana within the works footprint. The concrete foundations provide some habitat for some kaimoana species. However, due to the low kaimoana values for this habitat type and the small size of the habitat, the level of ecological effects on kaimoana is assessed as ‘Low’ to ‘Very Low’ . For these reasons and because the work is to remove an artificial structure no mitigation is considered necessary.

5.4 Effect on surrounding habitats present in Rangataua Bay Several other types of macro-habitats have been identified in the area surrounding Tower 118. These include seagrass ( Zostera ) beds, intertidal sand flats and subtidal channel habitats. Seagrass ( Zostera ) beds and medium coarse sandy beach habitats would only be potentially affected by the tower removal activities if machinery had to access the site over the sandflat, which is not proposed, or if significant sediment liberation and deposition occurred as a result of the works. Seagrass beds are an important coastal habitat as they support complex food webs, filter sediment and nutrients from the water column, and act as nurseries to fish and shellfish populations 11 . Seagrass beds are vulnerable to increased sedimentation although this is not expected to be an issue as the tower removal will likely be carried out at low tide and by barge. Intertidal sand flat and subtidal channel habitat are located adjacent to the Tower 118 works footprint and there is potential for indirect effects on these habitats through sedimentation. However, as per the direct effects benthic communities will rapidly recover. With respect to the EcIA framework, the ecological value of the impacted ecosystems is considered to be ‘Low’ on the basis that the species present and habitats impacted are not rare or threatened. The magnitude of the effect is also ‘Low’ (and temporary), and therefore the overall direct effects of the project on benthic ecology are considered to be ‘Very Low’ . In our experience significant erosion and sediment control works, to say isolate the works area for example, can cause a similar level of disturbance to the main works. We therefore consider that the most appropriate means to minimise indirect effects is to undertake the works as quickly as possible and to minimise the works footprint, both of which have been considered in developing the works methodology.

5.5 Effects on coastal seabirds The proposed tower removal will result in a small area of good quality foraging habitat for coastal birds being temporarily disturbed. It is expected that the recovery time of the intertidal sandflat invertebrate and mollusc communities will be approximately 1 – 3 years. In accordance with the EcIA Guidelines, habitats of ‘At -Risk’ indigenous species is considered to be of high value. In this

11 Short, F, Wyllie-Echeverria S. 1995. Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrass. Environmental Conservation.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

18 case, the variable oyster catcher is classified as ‘At Risk – declining’. Therefore, the wider area of Rangataua Bay is considered to be of High value to coastal birds. However, the magnitude of the effects is considered to be negligible as during the tower removal works any coastal birds foraging in the sand borrow area footprint will be able to use adjacent foraging areas within Rangataua Bay and the wider Tauranga Harbour that are unaffected by the project. In comparison with the available foraging area in Rangataua Bay and wider Tauranga Harbour, the affected area is insignificant. In the short term (i.e. less than 3 years after the effects), benthic communities will recover and coastal bird foraging opportunities in Rangataua Bay will be unaffected. Taking into account the High ecological value of Rangataua Bay to coastal bird species but negligible magnitude of effects, the overall effect of the project on coastal birds is considered to be Very Low. The proposed wiring site located on the northern side of Rangataua Bay (near Pole 33D) is near to some tall exotic trees ( Pinus sp .) as shown in Photograph 4. There was no evidence of the use of these trees as roosts by coastal birds during our site visits. No adverse effects on coastal birds are therefore anticipated as a result of works in this location.

Photograph 4: Existing tall trees near to Rangataua Bay and the proposed wiring site (private land).

5.6 Effects on SEA 25 and adjacent habitats Works in and around SEA 25 include the access track and Pole 128 replacement works footprint (outside of SEA 25) and the proposed wiring site and tree removal (within SEA 25). As described in Section 4 habitats within and around SEA 25 are of reduced quality due to the prevalence of weed species. However, wetland habitat values are present and the wetland and surrounding vegetation may provide habitat opportunities for North Island fernbird and banded rail.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

5.6.1 Effects on wetland birds In terms of wetland bird values and potential effects. The ecological value of the habitat is ’High’ due to the potential presence of At Risk species (Table B1), and this applies to areas within and outside of SEA 25. The magnitude of effect is considered to be ‘Low’ on the basis that there is no permanent habitat loss, just temporary disturbance (refer to Table B2). The overall level of effect is therefore also ‘Low’ , which does not necessarily warrant efforts to avoid, remedy and mitigate. However, in this case we recommend that to avoid impacts on ‘At Risk ’ birds, vegetation clearance and construction activities should take place outside of bird breeding season (November to February inclusive for North Island fernbird, and September to March inclusive for banded rail) to ensure no chicks or eggs are harmed and birds can self-relocate if present. If vegetation clearance and construction activities are required to be undertaken during the bird breeding season, the works area will need to be deemed clear of threatened wetland birds by a suitably qualified ecologist.

5.6.2 Habitat disturbance effects The following paragraphs address the potential habitat disturbance effects associated with the various components of the works in and around SEA 25. The proposed access track to the Pole 128 works footprint and the clearance of the proposed works footprint will impact on low ecological value weed dominated vegetation only. The ecological value of the impacted habitat is ‘Low’ (Table B1) and the magnitude of the effect is also ‘Low’ (Table B2) given the temporary nature of the access and works. The overall level of effect is ‘Very Low’ (Table B3) and no specific on-site mitigation is considered necessary beyond the proposed uplift of the access track at the completion of the project. These areas will return to a weed dominated state, similar to the surrounds in the short to medium term. Works within SEA 25 include the proposed wiring site adjacent to the wetland area and tree removal from within the wetland area. The trees to be removed from the wetland are all exotic willows and of low botanical value but the disturbance to remove entire trees is potentially significant. The ecological value of the disturbed areas is ‘High’ (Table B1) due to the potential presence of At Risk: Declining bird species, the presence of the wetland (a nationally threatened habitat type) and the classification of the area as an SEA in the Tauranga City Plan. The magnitude of the habitat disturbance is considered to be ‘Low’ for the wiring site, which is located on the high ground and only impacts rank grass and weeds, and moderate for the exotic tree clearance that will directly impact the freshwater wetland area. The overall level of effect is ‘Low’ for the wiring site and high for the tree clearance works impacting on the wetland, and mitigation actions are therefore recommended for the latter. Recommended measures to mitigate adverse habitat disturbance effects on the wetland area are as follows: Use a combination of methods to remove and/or control willows. This could comprise cutting and removal of the bulk of the trees while leaving the stumps in place and using poison to prevent re-growth. This would minimise machinery access to the wetland and disturbance to wetland soils associated with removal of whole stumps and roots. No mulching of the willow material should be done on site to prevent any re-growth from fragments. Control low growing weed species around the margin of the wetland and establish a 15 m wide native riparian buffer strip on the banks along the southern and western margins of the wetland, extending to the northern side of the wiring site (i.e. to the northern extent of site disturbance and around 150 m). The recommended planting area is shown on the plan included as Appendix D. This would provide a buffer from human disturbance and improve

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

terrestrial biodiversity values in and around the wetland for banded rail and fernbird but most notably provide additional habitat for fernbird. We note that weed control and planting within the disturbed area of the wetland is unlikely to be successful in the long-term due to pest plant issues and restoration over the entire SEA 25 wetland area would not be in keeping with the magnitude and level of effects. However, the owners of the land parcels encompassing the freshwater wetland component of SEA 25 have indicated a desire for restoration of this wider area, including the SEA 25 freshwater wetland. We recommend that an Ecological Management Plan (EMP) is developed for the wider area surrounding and including the freshwater part SEA 25 as a condition of consent. We recommend the EMP cover the implementation of the above measures specific to mitigation for effects of the Hairini-Mount Maunganui transmission line realignment as Stage 1. The overall area that would be subject to the EMP and an indicative area for Stage 1 is shown on the map provided as Appendix D.

5.7 Summary of ecological effects Table 5.1 below summarises our assessment of actual and potential ecological effects.

Table 5.1: Summary of assessment of actual and potential ecological effects without mitigation

Site Description of Existing values Magnitude of effect Potential overall activity and with actions to reduce level of ecological potential effect the effect effect Tower 118 Machinery Low – benthic Low, and benthic Short term: Low accessing site and assemblages well communities will Long term: Very undertaking tower represented locally rapidly recover in the low removal – effect on and no short term (1 – 3 existing benthic ‘Threatened’ or ‘At years) fauna Risk’ species found Tower 118 Machinery Low – Some Low, and benthic Low to Very Low accessing site and kaimoana species communities will undertaking tower present but in low rapidly recover in the removal – effects numbers and not of short term (1 – 3 on kaimoana attractive edible years) species size Tower 118 Sediment High – Seagrass No effect – work being No ecological disturbance – beds declining carried out at low tide effect effects on nationally and not in area surrounding containing seagrass habitats beds Tower 1 18 Disturbance to High – ‘At Risk’ Negligible – very slight Short term: Low intertidal foraging species present change from existing Long term: No habitat – effects on foraging conditions for ecological effect coastal birds coastal birds in short term. Rapid recovery of benthic communities in foraging area Wiring Site Disturbance to Low – no significant No effect No ecological adjacent to habitats and habitat or evidence effect Rangataua coastal birds of roosting sites Bay

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Site Description of Existing values Magnitude of effect Potential overall activity and with actions to reduce level of ecological potential effect the effect effect Pole 128/ Effects on wetland High – ‘At Risk’ Low – disturbance is Low, particularly if 128A, access, birds species potentially short term and breeding season wiring site and present temporary avoided tree removal Pole Disturbance to Low – effects weed Low – disturbance is Very low 128/128A and vegetation and dominated short term and access track habitat vegetation only. temporary Wiring site Disturbance to High – ‘At Risk’ Low – weedy Low within SEA 25 vegetation and species potentially vegetation only habitat present impacted and effects are short term Tree clearance Disturbance to High – ‘At Risk’ Moderate – works will High within SEA 25 vegetation and species potentially impact on wetland habitat present habitat

6 Ecological mitigation summary

6.1 Tower 118 Due to the relatively small affected area by the project footprint (including around the tower and potentially a narrow corridor to access the tower from land) compared with the wider Rangataua Bay and Tauranga Harbour, and because the disturbed area will be re-colonised, we consider that no specific mitigation other than minimising the size of the works area for the long-term effects on marine ecology is required. Short-term, construction related effects may be managed by standard construction management techniques, such as appropriate storage of environmentally hazardous substances and refuelling of machinery outside so that they do not find their way into coastal environments.

6.2 Works within and around SEA 25 Vegetation clearance and works in and around SEA 25 have the potential to disturb breeding for At Risk wetland bird species potentially present. We recommend that to avoid impacts on ‘At Risk ’ birds, vegetation clearance and construction activities should take place outside of the bird breeding season (November to February inclusive for North Island fernbird, and September to March inclusive for banded rail) to ensure eggs and chicks are not harmed, and birds can self-relocate if present. Vegetation should be cleared and maintained to a low level prior to bird breeding season to ensure birds do not re-establish nests within the works footprint. If vegetation clearance or construction activities are required to be undertaken during the bird breeding season, the following management approach should be used: The area to be affected should be checked for threatened wetland birds by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than 48 hours prior to vegetation clearance or construction activities; Checks will include playback calls of threatened bird species potentially present at dawn and dusk over a 24 hour period, and visual observation of signs of wetland birds; If threatened wetland birds are found in the works area during breeding season, no vegetation clearance or construction activities can take place for 8 weeks (which is sufficient time for banded rail chicks to fledge), unless the area is deemed clear of nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

In terms of habitat effects, most of the vegetation and habitat impacted by the proposed works is weed dominated and of low botanical value, and no specific mitigation is considered necessary outside of normal erosion and sediment control practices. However, for the tree removal activities within the palustrine freshwater wetland component of SEA 25 we recommend that an EMP is developed for the wider area (as described in Section 5.6.2) as a condition of consent and that Stage 1 of that EMP covers the implementation of the following measures. The use of a combination of methods to remove and/or control willows that minimises disturbance. This could comprise cutting and removal of the bulk of the trees while leaving the stumps in place and using poison to prevent re-growth. This would minimise machinery access to the wetland and disturbance to wetland soils associated with removal of whole stumps and roots. Weed control around the margin of the wetland and establishment of a 15 m wide native riparian buffer strip on the banks along the southern and western margins of the wetland, extending to the northern side of the wiring site (i.e. to the northern extent of site disturbance and around 150 m). The recommended planting area is shown on the plan included as Appendix D. This would provide a buffer from human disturbance and improve terrestrial biodiversity values in and around the wetland for banded rail and fernbird but most notably provide additional habitat for fernbird.

7 Conclusion Transpower is proposing to realign a section of the Hairini-Mount Maunganui (HAI-MTM) A and B 110 kV transmission lines in Tauranga. The section of A and B lines proposed to be realigned is located on both sides of Rangataua Bay, Tauranga Harbour. This work will involve the removal of Tower 118 that is located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and the replacement of Pole 128 with 128A which is located adjacent to a Category 2 Special Ecological Area (SEA) 25, as described in the Tauranga City Plan. Transpower has requested that T+T undertake an ecological assessment to understand the impact of the proposed works on ecology values. An assessment of the ecological effects from a benthic marine ecology and coastal bird perspective found that the impact of Tower 118 removal will have an overall low level of effect. This is based on the development of a works methodology that minimises disturbance to marine habitats, the expected rapid recovery rate of benthic fauna communities short term disturbance, and no loss of foraging opportunities for any ‘Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’ coastal bird species present in Rangataua Bay. Due to the relatively small affected area by the project footprint compared with the wider Rangataua Bay and Tauranga Harbour, and because the disturbed area of intertidal sandflat will be re-colonised, we consider that no specific mitigation other than minimising the size of the works area for the long-term effects on marine ecology is required. The vegetation both within and surrounding the part of SAE 25 impacted by the proposed works are weed dominated, and this limits overall botanical and habitat values. Ecological values in and around SEA 25 are mainly related to the potential presence of At Risk wetland birds and a small area of palustrine wetland. We have recommended mitigation actions around avoiding effects on breeding wetland birds known to be present in the wider SEA 25 area and potentially present on site, the development and use of low impact willow removal/control methods and some riparian buffer planting as mitigation or wetland disturbance associated with tree removal. Provided these actions are limited the long term effect of the works on SEA 25 will be no more than minor.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

8 Applicability This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Transpower (New Zealand) Limited, with respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by: pp ...... …...... …...... …...... …...... Caleb Sjardin Shannon Richardson Marine Ecologist Project Director

Report prepared by:

...... Dean Miller Principal Ecologist

dcm t:\auckland\projects\26752\26752.2220 (hairini transmission line)\issued documents\ecology report update - sept 2017\t+t tower 118 removal eco report.docx

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd September 2017 Hairini - Mount Maunganui Transmission Line Realignment - Marine Ecological Assessment Job No: 26752.2 220 Transpower (New Zealand) Limited

Appendix A : Drawings

AECOM Drawing 60438334 – 3 AECOM Drawing 60438334 – 4 AECOM Drawing 60438334 – 8

PROJECT ISO A3297mm x 420mm ISO HAI-MTM A RELOCATION SSR

CLIENT TRANSPOWER NZ LTD

CONSULTANT

AS/NZSISO 9001:2008. AECOM New Zealand Limited AECOM HOUSE 8 MAHUHU CRESCENT AUCKLAND +64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fax www.aecom.com

!> Existing Alignment -to be removed Biodiversity Sites TOWER HAI-MTM A 118 TO BE REMOVED Mean High Water Springs Height above GL : 31.0m SPATIAL REFERENCE Scale:1:1,500 (A3 size) ject have been preparedand checked inaccordance w 105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Meters Map features depicted in terms of NZTM 2000 projection.

Data Sources: Cadastral Boundaries – LINZ NZ Cadastral Dataset 2016

Note : The MHWS boundary is based on 2007 aerial mapping. It does not necessarily represent the current position.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

ApprovedColin Thomson Date Checked Iqbal Kalsi Date block confirms the design and drafting of this pro 09/06/2017 Designed Iqbal Kalsi Date 18/05/2017 Drawn David Klap Date 18/05/2017

ISSUE/REVISION

A1 15.06.17 A 18.05.17 .

urposes ofthis project. The signingof this title Rev Date Description

3_Transmission_Mapping_dhk.mxd KEY PLAN 16-04-14

SH 29A 8 7 6 5 4 3

ap is confidential and shall only be used for the p 2 1

PROJECT NUMBER 60438334 SHEET TITLE HAI-MTM A & B Modifications Illustration Last saved Last saved by: (2017-06-20) KLAPD Last Plotted: 20 Filename: D:\temp\iqbal\4.99GIS\02_Maps\20170620_A MAP NUMBER

PROJECT ISO A3297mm x 420mm ISO HAI-MTM A RELOCATION SSR

ki CLIENT uwhari TRANSPOWER NZ LTD P Rd CONSULTANT

AS/NZSISO 9001:2008. AECOM New Zealand Limited AECOM HOUSE 8 MAHUHU CRESCENT AUCKLAND +64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fax www.aecom.com

(! New Structure (! Existing Structure >! Existing Structure - to be replaced >! Existing Structure - to be removed iththe AECOM Quality Assurance system certified to Proposed Realignment Existing Alignment Access E Existing Alignment -to be removed STRUCTURE HAI-MTM A 119 TO BE REMOVED Access F Biodiversity Sites Height above GL : 13.1m >! Mean High Water Springs

SPATIAL REFERENCE NEW 24.0m TALL STEEL (! STRUCTURE HAI-MTM B 33E Scale:1:1,500 (A3 size) NEW 45.1m TALL STEEL STRUCTURE FOUNDED ON BASE PLATE ject have been preparedand checked inaccordance w NEW 45.1m TALL STEEL 105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 13.9 m from Parcel Boundary HAI-MTM B 33D FOUNDED ON BORED Height above GL : 24.0m STRUCTURE HAI-MTM B 33D PILE FOUNDED ON BORED PILE Height above ! Meters 30.2 m from MHWS boundary Height above GL : 46.5m ( (! GL : 46.8m 38 Map features depicted in terms of NZTM 2000 projection. (!! NO CHANGE REQUIRED (! 36 37 Data Sources: NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE 38 Cadastral Boundaries – LINZ NZ Cadastral Dataset 2016 NO CHANGE REQUIRED Height above GL 36 TO STRUCTURE 37 Height above GL : 16.9m : 15.6m Note : The MHWS boundary is based on 2007 aerial mapping. It 35 Height above GL does not necessarily represent the current position. (! NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE : 15.6m (! 35 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Height above GL : 16.9m SH 29A 34 ApprovedColin Thomson Date NO CHANGE TO CTS Checked Iqbal Kalsi Date block confirms the design and drafting of this pro 09/06/2017 STRUCTURE 34 Height above Designed Iqbal Kalsi Date 18/05/2017 GL : 16.8m Drawn David Klap Date 18/05/2017 (! ISSUE/REVISION

A1 15.06.17 A 18.05.17 .

urposes ofthis project. The signingof this title Rev Date Description

3_Transmission_Mapping_dhk.mxd KEY PLAN 16-04-14

8 7 6 5 4 3

ap is confidential and shall only be used for the p 2 1

PROJECT ISO A3297mm x 420mm ISO HAI-MTM A RELOCATION SSR

CLIENT TRANSPOWER NZ LTD

CONSULTANT

AS/NZSISO 9001:2008. AECOM New Zealand Limited AECOM HOUSE 8 MAHUHU CRESCENT AUCKLAND +64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fax www.aecom.com

(! New Structure

Access K (! Existing Structure >! Existing Structure - to be replaced >! Existing Structure - to be removed iththe AECOM Quality Assurance system certified to Proposed Realignment EXISTING STRUCTURE Existing Alignment HAI-MTM A 128 HEIGHT Proposed EXISTING STRUCTURE ABOVE GL : 12.6m TO BE Existing Alignment -to be removed Wiring Site REPLACEDHAI-MTM A 128 WITH TWIN 11.2m 128A TALLHEIGHT CONCRETE ABOVE GL STRUCTURES: 12.6Mm TO BE REPLACED WITH Biodiversity Sites >! Height WITHNEW TWIN4.3m 11.2mEMBEDMENT TALL AND above GL RENAMNEDCONCRETE STRUCTURE AS 128A WITH Mean High Water Springs : 11.2m 4.3m EMBEDMENT AS 128A POLE HAI-MTM A 127 TO (! >! SPATIAL REFERENCE BE REMOVED Height above Scale: (A3 size) GL : 16.1m 1:1,500 ject have been preparedand checked inaccordance w 54A 105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE 54A 54A Meters Height above GL : 18.3m (! (!

25m Map features depicted in terms of NZTM 2000 projection.

Access J Data Sources: 30m 55 Cadastral Boundaries – LINZ NZ Cadastral Dataset 2016 NO CHANGE TO (! STRUCTURE 55 Note : The MHWS boundary is based on 2007 aerial mapping. It Height above GL : 17.5m does not necessarily represent the current position. 53 29A PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLE 127A - NEW CONCRETE NO CHANGE TO SH POLE 127A - NEW TWIN TWIN 19.4m TALL CONCRETE STRUCTURE 53 ApprovedColin Thomson Date 19.4m TALL CONCRETE Checked Iqbal Kalsi Date POLE STRUCTURE WITH 3.6m Height above GL : 18.2m block confirms the design and drafting of this pro 09/06/2017 POLE STRUCTURE WITH EMBEDMENT Date 18/05/2017 3.6m EMBEDMENT Designed Iqbal Kalsi Height Above GL : 19.4m Height above GL : 19.4m Drawn David Klap Date 18/05/2017 (! 48F (! Height ISSUE/REVISION above GL 52 : 22.8m NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE 52 52 (! Height above GL : 18.2m >! Willows to be A1 Removed 15.06.17 EXISTING STRUCTURE A HAI-MTM B 51 18.05.17 .

HEIGHT ABOVE GL : 17.8Mm urposes ofthis project. The signingof this title Rev Date Description TO BE REPLACED WITH 21.8 3_Transmission_Mapping_dhk.mxd TALL STEEL STRUCTURE KEY PLAN WITH 4.2m EMBEDMENTEMBEDMENTAND AND 16-04-14 RENAMED AS 48F

8 7 6 5 4 3

ap is confidential and shall only be used for the p 2 1

Appendix B : EcIA guidelines

Table B.1: Assignment of values to species, vegetation and habitats (adapted from EIANZ, 2015)

Value Species Value requirements Vegetation/Habitat value requirements Very High Pr ovides habitat for Nationally Meets most of all of the ecological ‘Threatened’ species significance criterion as set out in relevant statutory policies and plans. High Provides habitat for Nationally ‘At Risk’ Meets one of some of the ecological species and may provide less suitable significance criterion as set out in relevant habitat for Nationally Threatened species statutory policies and plans. Moderate No Nationally Threatened or At Risk species, Habitat type does not meet ecological but habitat important for locally uncommon significance criteria as set out in the or rare species, or keystone species that are relevant statutory policies and plans but considered important for ecological does provide locally important ecosystem integrity and function services (e.g. erosion and sediment control, and landscape connectivity) Low No species that are Nationally Threatened, Nationally or locally common habitat and At Risk, locally uncommon or rare, or that does not provide locally important considered keystone species ecosystem services

Table B.2: Summary of the criteria for describing the magnitude of unmitigated effect (adapted from EIANZ, 2015)

Magnitude Description Very High Total loss or major alteration of the existing baseline conditions; Loss of high proportion of the known population or range High Major loss or alteration of existing baseline conditions; Loss of high proportion of the known population or range Moderate Loss or alteration to existing baseline conditions; Loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range Low Minor shift away from existing baseline conditions; Minor effect on the known population or range Negligible Very slight change from the existing baseline conditions; Negligible effect on the known population or range

Table B.3: Criteria for describing overall levels of ecological effects as outlined in EIANZ, 2015.

Ecological Value Magnitude of effect Very high High Moderate Low

Very high Very High Very High High Moderate High Very High Very High High Low Moderate Very High High Moderate* Very Low Low Moderate Low Low Very Low Negligible Low Very Low Very Low Very Low No effect No ecological effect No ecological effect No ecological effect No ecological effect * = changed from ‘Low’ (EIANZ 2015) to ‘Moderate’

Appendix C : Benthic Fauna

Table C1: Identification and counts of Invertebrates in core samples from Rangataua Bay, Tauranga Harbour. Sampled 25 November 2016.

General Group Taxa Common Name Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Anthozoa Anthopleura aureoradiata Anemone 7 3 3 Nemertea Nemertea Proboscis worms 2 Gastropoda Cominella glandiformis Mud Flat Whelk 2 Gastropoda Notoacmea sp. Limpet 1 Gastropoda Zeacumantus lutulentus Spireshell 9 6 Gastropoda Zeacumantus subcarinatus Small Mud Snail 1 Bivalvia Austrovenus stutchburyi (0-5mm) Cockle (0-5mm) 6 1 1 Bivalvia Austrovenus stutchburyi (6-10mm) Cockle (6-10mm) 1 1 Bivalvia Austrovenus stutchburyi (11-20mm) Cockle (11-20mm) 4 1 3 Bivalvia Austrovenus stutchburyi (21-30mm) Cockle (21-30mm) 1 Bivalvia Macomona liliana Wedge shell (Hanikura) 3 Bivalvia Nucula hartvigiana Nut Shell 2 2 Bivalvia Paphies australis Pipi 2 1 Bivalvia Xenostrobus pulex Little Black Mussel 1 Oligochaeta Oligochaeta Oligochaete worms 42 25 4 1 48 Polychaeta: Paraonidae Paraonidae Polychaete worm 5 1 Polychaeta: Paraonidae Aricidea sp. Polychaete worm 1 Polychaeta: Spionidae Aonides trifida Polychaete worm 51 6 4 5 6 Polychaeta: Spionidae Prionospio aucklandica Polychaete worm 14 1 Polychaeta: Capitellidae Capitella capitata Polychaete worm 4 Polychaeta: Capitellidae Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete worm 4 1 1 Polychaeta: Hesionidae Hesionidae Polychaete Worm 2 4 67 54 27 Polychaeta: Syllidae Syllidae Polychaete worm 2

General Group Taxa Common Name Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Polychaeta: Syllidae Sphaerosyllis sp. Polychaete worm 2 1 Polychaeta: Nereidae Nereidae (juvenile) Rag worms 7 1 7 1 Polychaeta: Nereidae Perinereis vallata Rag worms 2 2 1 Cumacea Cumacea Cumaceans 4 2 6 5 11 Isopoda Exosphaeroma gigas Isopod 1 Isopoda Exosphaeroma waitemata Isopod 8 Amphipoda Phoxocephalidae Amphipod (family) 4 1 Amphipoda Amphipoda Unid. Amphipod 1 Ostracoda Parasterope quadrata Ostracod 1 Ostracoda Rutiderma sp. Ostracod 1 1 Count: Number of Individuals 176 58 98 79 103 Count: Number of Taxa 19 15 13 11 8

Appendix D : Mitigation Location Plan

PROJECT ISO A3297mm x 420mm ISO HAI-MTM A RELOCATION SSR

CLIENT TRANSPOWER NZ LTD

CONSULTANT

AS/NZSISO 9001:2008. AECOM New Zealand Limited AECOM HOUSE 8 MAHUHU CRESCENT AUCKLAND +64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fax www.aecom.com

(! New Structure

Access K (! Existing Structure >! Existing Structure - to be replaced >! Existing Structure - to be removed iththe AECOM Quality Assurance system certified to Proposed Realignment EXISTING STRUCTURE Area Subject to the Restoration Plan Existing Alignment HAI-MTM A 128 HEIGHT ABOVEEXISTING GL STRUCTURE : 12.6m TO BE Existing Alignment -to be removed Development REPLACEDHAI-MTM A 128 WITH TWIN 11.2m 128A TALLHEIGHT CONCRETE ABOVE GL STRUCTURES: 12.6Mm TO BE REPLACED WITH Biodiversity Sites >! Height WITHNEW TWIN4.3m 11.2mEMBEDMENT TALL AND above GL RENAMNEDCONCRETE STRUCTURE AS 128A WITH Mean High Water Springs : 11.2m 4.3m EMBEDMENT AS 128A POLE HAI-MTM A 127 TO (! >! SPATIAL REFERENCE BE REMOVED Height above Scale: (A3 size) GL : 16.1m 1:1,500 ject have been preparedand checked inaccordance w 54A 105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE 54A 54A Meters Height above GL : 18.3m (! (! Map features depicted in terms of NZTM 2000 projection.

Access J Data Sources: 55 Cadastral Boundaries – LINZ NZ Cadastral Dataset 2016 NO CHANGE TO (! STRUCTURE 55 Note : The MHWS boundary is based on 2007 aerial mapping. It Height above GL : 17.5m does not necessarily represent the current position. 53 29A PROJECT MANAGEMENT NO CHANGE TO SH POLE 127A - NEW TWIN STRUCTURE 53 ApprovedColin Thomson Date 19.4m TALL CONCRETE Checked Iqbal Kalsi Date Height above GL : 18.2m block confirms the design and drafting of this pro 09/06/2017 POLE STRUCTURE WITH Date 18/05/2017 3.6m EMBEDMENT Designed Iqbal Kalsi Height above GL : 19.4m Drawn David Klap Date 18/05/2017 (! 48F (! Height ISSUE/REVISION above GL 52 : 22.8m NO CHANGE TO STRUCTURE 52 52 (! Height above GL : 18.2m >!

A1 15.06.17 EXISTING STRUCTURE Approximate area to be subject to A HAI-MTM B 51 18.05.17 .

HEIGHT ABOVE GL : 17.8Mm urposes ofthis project. The signingof this title Rev Date Description TO BE REPLACED WITH 21.8 Stage 1 Weed Control, Planting and 3_Transmission_Mapping_dhk.mxd TALL STEEL STRUCTURE KEY PLAN WITH 4.2m EMBEDMENTEMBEDMENTAND AND 16-04-14 Maintenance by Transpower (0.23 ha) RENAMED AS 48F

8 7 6 5 4 3

ap is confidential and shall only be used for the p 2 1

Appendix G

Noise Assessment

Transpower Ltd

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A & B Transmission Line Realignment Project

August 2017

Prepared By: Malcolm Hunt Associates Noise and Environmental Consultants Second Floor Arco House 47 Cuba Street PO Box 11-294 Wellington

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Quality Control Statement

Date of Issue: 30 August 2017

Clien t: Transpower New Zealand Limited

Project Name Pre -commissioning Noise Report - HAI -MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

KELLY PAREKOWHAI

Client Contact/Manger: Transpower New Zealand Ltd Transpower House Wellington

Project Reference: CP_682_20_00_00 , SUP-11884-23

Name of File: E:\Pre Comm Noise Assessment_HAI-MTM LineRlgnmt Project - updated Final (Repaired).docx

Document Version: V9 Document Status Updated Final Document Release Transpower New Zealand Limited Document Prepared By: Malcolm Hunt and Lindsay Hannah Document Review/Sign off Malcolm Hunt

Malcolm Hunt MASNZ. MNZEIH Lindsay Hannah MASNZ. MNZEIH Principal Acoustic Consultant. Consultant Document Sign off:

Bachelor of Science [B.Sc.] Bachelor of Building Science [BBSc.] Master of Engineering[mech] Post Graduate Diploma Sci [Acoustics [dist]] Diploma in Public Health Master of Phil [Sc] [Acoustics] [Hons]] RSH Diploma Noise Control Engineering

The information contained in this Pre-commissioning Noise Report for HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project produced by Malcolm Hunt Associates is solely for use of our Client Transpower New Zealand for the purpose for which it has been prepared. No section or element of this document may be copied or removed from the document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Malcolm Hunt Associates or Transpower New Zealand Limited. All rights reserved. ©Copyright MHA. July 2017. Report Version & Distribution

Name Version Date Report Status/Reference

Ms Sarah Shand. Transpower Draft 12 December 2016 Draft for Comment Wellington Ms Sarah Shand. Transpower Draft Final 15 February 2017 Draft Final Wellington Mr Matthew Walker Mr Dhilum Nightingale Amended Draft Final 22 February 2017 Amended Draft Final Transpower Wellington Mr Matthew Walker Mr Dhilum Nightingale Final 23 February 2017 Final Transpower Wellington Kelly Parekowhai Mr Matthew Walker Updated Final 20 July 2017 Updated Final Mr Dhilum Nightingale Transpower Wellington Kelly Parekowhai Mr Matthew Walker Updated Final 30 August 2017 Amended Final Mr Dhilum Nightingale Transpower Wellington

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 3

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Acoustic Nomenclature

dB[A] A weighted Decibel. A measurement of sound which has its frequency characteristics modified by a filter [A-weighted] so as to more closely approximate the sensitivity of the human ear. The A-weighting curve applies a correction to measured values which increases in the low frequency region, reflecting that humans are relatively insensitive to sounds below about 200 Hz. The A- weighting curve is summarised as follows;

The time-averaged sound level [or equivalent sound level] that has the same mean square sound

LAeq dB pressure level as the time-varying sound level under consideration. Commonly referred to as an

“energy average” measure of sound exposure. The L Aeq is an A weighted sound pressure level over the measurement period.

LAFmax dB A weighted sound pressure level. The single highest sampled level of sound over the measurement period.

LA90 dB The ‘Background Sound Level’ equating to the level of sound exceeded for 90% of the monitoring period. The background sound level is influenced by constant sound sources. Noise emission limits

are not generally specified in terms of an L 90 level, but it is used as a guide to the general amenity

of an area. The L A90 is used to portray the human perception of aural amenity and generally reflects the noise level in the lulls between individual noise events, for example noise present during car

by pass or voices yelling. The L A90 is always presented as an A weighted sound level.

LX as function of Time

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 4

Sound Power Or “ Sound Power Level ”. The ‘energy’ created by a sound is defined as its sound power. The ear cannot hear sound power nor can it be measured directly. Sound power is not dependent upon its surrounding environment. Sound power is the rate per unit time at which airborne sound energy is radiated by a source. It is expressed it watts [W]. Sound power level or acoustic power level is a logarithmic measure of the sound power in comparison to the reference level of 1 pW [picowatt]. The sound power level is given the letter Lw or SWL, it is not the same thing as sound

pressure [L p]. Any L p value is dependent of the distance from the noise source and the environment in which it was measured. Lw values are preferred for noise prediction purposed as their value is

independent of distance or environment. There are recognised formulas for converting L w to L p. A-

weighted sound power levels are usually denoted L wA [dB] or sometimes L w [dBA] or SWL [dBA].

Sound Pressure Level is defined as varying pressure fluctuations caused by sound waves. The ear Sound Pressure converts these fluctuations into what we call audible sound, which is the sensation [as detected by the ear] of very small rapid changes in the air pressure above and below a static value. This "static" value is atmospheric pressure.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 5

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... 6

2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING SITES ...... 6 2.1 Method of Investigation...... 8 2.2 Measurement Standards ...... 9 2.3 Measurement Equipment and Weather Details ...... 9

3 MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ...... 9 3.1 Overview Map...... 9 3.2 Map 1: IP-1 to IP-5 ...... 10 3.3 Map 2: IP-6, IP-7 and IP-8 ...... 11 3.4 Map 3: IP-9 and IP-10 ...... 11

4 AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS ...... 12

5 OPERATIONAL NOISE ...... 13 5.1 Aeolian Noise ...... 14 5.2 Electrical Noise ...... 14 5.3 Audible Noise at Residential Sites ...... 15 5.4 Noise Reductions ...... 17

6 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ...... 17 6.1 Activities & Noise Sources ...... 17 6.2 Ground Works for Poles 33C and 33D ...... 18 6.3 Construction Noise Throughout Project Area ...... 19

7 NOISE CRITERIA...... 21 7.1 Tauranga District Plan Noise Criteria ...... 21 7.2 National Environmental Standard ...... 23 7.3 NZ Standards ...... 23 7.4 Construction Noise ...... 23 7.5 Criteria Summary ...... 24

8 OVERALL ASSESSMENT ...... 25

9 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ...... 26

10 SUMMARY ...... 27

APPENDIX A: Equipment Calibration Certificates …………………………………………………………………………………………...... 28 APPENDIX B: Construction Noise Predictions ………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………31

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 6

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

1 Introduction / Purpose of Study

Malcolm Hunt Associates [MHA] have been commissioned by Transpower New Zealand [Transpower] to carry out a pre- commissioning noise assessment for a project which entails partially relocating the HAI-MTM-A overhead circuit onto the existing HAI-MTM-B transmission line support structures located along part of State Highway 29 [SH29], Tauranga.

This acoustic report describes potential noise effects that may occur in the surrounding environment due to the proposed re-located transmission line. Apart from the emission of temporary construction noise during the proposed works, this noise assessment has identified small increases in noise where the new conductors from Line A are added to the support structures already supporting the B Line, as well as expected minor decreases where Line A is shifted away from existing dwellings and other noise sensitive sites.

This acoustic report assesses the potential for noise to increase in some areas already affected by transmission lines, and the reduction of noise effects where the transmission line is removed from near dwellings. This report assesses noise effects on the local environment in taking into account the sensitivity of the receiving environment as per the requirements of the Forth Schedule to the Resource Management Act [RMA].

2 Project Location and Surrounding Sites

The project involves partially relocating the Hairini-Mount Maunganui A [HAI-MTM-A] 110kV transmission line onto the existing HAI-MTM-B transmission line support structures located along part of State Highway 29, Tauranga.

The HAI-MTM A&B 110kV transmission lines are both Single Circuit lines on Poles. The A line was commissioned in 1958, while the B line was commissioned in 1995. Due to the wishes of the landowners and the potential for erosion to threaten Pole 117, Transpower wishes to investigate options for the realignment of HAI-MTM-A away from the Ngati Hei Marae.

The relocation of the A line is proposed to follow the following route:

o From Pole 28 to Pole 32 on the vacant side of the existing B Line;

o A new single circuit line from HAI-MTM B Pole 32 to Pole 37 via the following new structures 33A-33B-33C-33D-33E;

o From Pole 37 to Pole 47 on the vacant side of the existing B Line; and

o A new single circuit from HAI-MTM B Pole 47 to HAI-MTM A Pole 128 via the following new structures 126A-126B- 126C-126D-127A.

Following consideration of overloading and/or clearance issues Transpower has decided the relocation project will require some specific existing structures to be replaced with higher rated poles.

Map 0 below depicts the section of A & B line proposed to be realigned which is located either side of Rangataua Bay, Tauranga.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 7

Map 0: Summary of project works – Blue = lines & structures removed, Red & turquoise = new and altered structures. Map not to scale.

In summary, the proposal will consist of the following components:

• Realign transmission line A from the point where the two transmission lines currently converge in the State Highway 29A road reserve in Maungatapu at Pole 28, to Pole 128 which lies north of the estuary at Matapihi. From there, the A and B lines continue on existing poles beyond the project area to the Mount Maunganui Substation. The most noise-sensitive works are related to the realignment on the B-line alignment along the State Highway 29A corridor. This will involve a number of replacement and additional poles to manage structural loads and line swing and will take place close to residentially zoned sites in Maungatapu Road and Whikitoria Street.

• Install two steel monopoles on either side of Rangataua Bay to enable the A-line to span the estuary in a single span. This activity is unlikely to result in significant noise affecting sensitive receiver sites, including the marae.

• The removal of the A-line including 5 existing structures from Te Ariki Park and residential areas on the Maungatapu side, and removal of this line including 9 structures from pastoral/horticultural land on the Matapihi Side. Noise effects may arise due to some works needed to retrieve the conductors and extract existing poles and structures near to existing dwellings 1.

1 These works will in some cases take place within 20 metres of residences however the effects will be of short duration, during daytime hours, and not take place without prior notification to the householders. The proposed Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) referred to within consent conditions recommended to be attached to the resource consent will require all works to be undertaken in a noise-aware manner and that temporary noise effects of works conducted close to dwellings are especially mitigated and

managed at all times.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 8

• Removal of Tower 118 from the CMA and replacement of suspension Pole 128 with a new ‘strain’ replacement structure immediately adjacent to it. Works associated with the removal, replacement and installation of pole structures and the removal of Tower 118 from the CMA are located at reasonable buffer distances (> 200 metres) from any noise sensitive site and will not be likely to generate adverse environmental noise effects.

In overall terms, this report investigates construction noise effects arising from the removal of 27 existing poles (and one tower in the CMA) and installing 27 new poles (including 13 replacement poles) being installed. As indicated within the assessment below, the location of the proposed works in some cases will result in moderate (temporary) noise effects being received at existing dwellings and noise-sensitive locations (which includes marae). The extent of these effects are quantified within this report, indicating the maximum worse-case noise levels would not exceed the relevant guideline for assessing construction noise, NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise , a Standard referred to within the Tauranga City Plan.

As far as we are aware, none of the works will be required to be conducted over the more sensitive night time period. The findings below support the assessment that construction activities will generate acceptable levels of temporary noise effects that can be fully assimilated into the surrounding environment without causing any significant adverse effects. Construction noise effects are proposed to be subject to control and management via specialised conditions recommended to be attached to the resource consent, if granted.

Noise effects associated with the on-going operation of transmission assets within the project area are also considered within the assessments outlined below. The expected low-level noise effects associated with typical operation of the A & B Lines is typical of most 110 kV transmission lines in New Zealand, and is also consistent with the results of field measurements set out below (which have confirmed the low-noise operation of the existing transmission equipment installed in the project area.

2.1 Method of Investigation

A site visit and a sound level measurement survey has conducted on the 9 th of November 2016 by Malcolm Hunt Associates for the purposes of inspecting the project area and measuring current ambient [background] sound levels near residential boundaries adjacent to the HAI-MTM Line B Pole 28 to Pole 33. As set out within the project description, this area is where the new section will be added to the existing or replacement poles and thus, any operational noise effects of the new infrastructure (if any) would be most noticeable.

The overall aim was to undertake the measurements during night time under calm and quiet conditions to ascertain whether sound levels associated with normal operation of the new lines and structures would represent a noticeable noise effect in the context of the existing ambient [background] noise environment. The results of measurements of the curr ent “quiet night time” ambient sound levels are set out below. Section 6 below contains the comparison of the existing (night time) sound levels with predicted ‘worse case’ noise due to normal operation of both Line A and B.

The methods and procedures used to predict noise (separately) from construction activities and operation of the transmission lines are set out in detail below. The prediction of noise due to ‘corona discharge’ sound levels under normal operation of all transmission assets within the project area (once the project is completed) is based on calculations carried out by AECOM Consultants, as set out in Section 6. Noise levels have been estimated for receiving sites defined as any location within residentially zoned sites, or within the 20 metre notional boundary to dwellings in the rural zone (Matapihi).

Details of the methods used to predict noise from construction activities based on the recommendations of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise are se t out below in Section 7. These predictions have adopted published ‘sound power levels’ for a wide range of construction equipment, with the actual emission level determined according to the “percent use” and other source factors, as recommended be taken into account within NZS6803:1999. For construction noise the effects of distance and screening by fences and buildings has been taken into account. Under NZS6803:1999 the relevant assessment point is a location 1 metre from the most exposed outside wall or a dwelling or a building housing a noise sensitive activity.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 9

2.2 Measurement Standards

Sound level monitoring was carried out in accordance with the procedures set down in the technical New Zealand Standard, NZS6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound [NZS6801:2008]. This Standard provides guidance on the technical aspects of noise measurement. Field calibration was checked before and after the field measurements.

2.3 Measurement Equipment and Weather Details

Sound level measurements were conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer 2260 Investigator Type 1 Sound Level Meter. Appendix A attached sets out the calibration details for the sound level meter employed for the survey. Sound Level Meters comply with IEC 651 Type 1 specifications for precision grade sound level meters. In all cases the microphone was positioned approx. 1.2 metres above local ground. The microphone was fitted with a dual layer [with separate inner and outer] windshields during all measurements. Measurements were conducted by Malcolm Hunt.

As above, these settings are in accordance with technical guidance set down in NZS6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound. All measurement conditions attempted to be within the recommended met window as set out within NZS6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound. It is noted that there was nil wind gusts and nil precipitation during the survey period. The cloud cover ranged from overcast to scattered cumulus cloud. The average temperature was around 9 degrees Celsius.

3 Measurement Locations

The aim was to measure the existing ambient [background] noise levels during periods of low activity. Measurements took place late at night [under calm conditions] at the locations shown in Map 1 , Map 2 and Map 3 as solid red dots, with the sample locations referred to IP-1 through to IP-10. Noise assessment locations were near existing dwellings in all cases.

3.1 Overview Map

The following is an overview map showing the extent of the survey work and surrounding areas. Further details of actual assessment locations are set out in Map 1 , Map 2 and Map 3 below.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 10

Map 3

Map 2

Map 1

Overview Map: Summary of approx. measurement sample locations. Map not to scale.

3.2 Map 1: IP-1 to IP-5

IP -1 IP -2 IP -3 IP -4 IP -5

Map 1: Measurement locations IP-1 to IP-5. Map not to scale.

Measurement Address Position

IP -1/Map 1 Rear boundary adjacent 327 B Maungatapu Road IP -2/Map 1 Rear boundary adjacent 333 /337 Maungatapu Road IP -3/Map 1 Rear boundary adjacent 353 Maungatapu Road IP -4/Map 1 Rear boundary adjacent 371 Maungatapu Road IP -5/Map 1 Rear boundary adjacent 379 Maungatapu Road

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 11

3.3 Map 2: IP-6, IP-7 and IP-8

IP -8

IP -6 IP -7

Map 2: Measurement locations IP-6, IP-7 and IP-8. Map not to scale.

Measurement Address Position

IP -6/Map 2 Rear boundary adjacent 381 and 387 Maungatapu Road IP -7/Map 2 Rear boundary adjacent 399 Maungatapu Road IP -8/Map 3 Rear boundary adjacent 409A Maungatapu Road

3.4 Map 3: IP-9 and IP-10

IP -9

IP -10

Map 3: Measurement locations IP-9 and IP-10. Map not to scale.

Measurement Address Position

IP -9/Map 3 Front boundary adjacent 411 Maungatapu Road IP -10 /Map 3 =Whikitoria Street Reserve / Ngati Hei Marae.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 12

4 Ambient Sound Levels

A major objective of the study was to measure existing ambient noise levels to enable an assessment of potential operational noise levels at night to assist in fully assessing noise associated with this realignment project. The LAeq (residual sound level) and LA90 (background sound level) measured as an overall A-weighted sound level at sites IP-1 to IP- 10 are summarised in the following graph in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overall results of night time measurements [LAeq and L A90 ] of the existing ambient noise environment undertaken adjacent to the boundary of the closest existing residential sites under calm, late night conditions.

These survey results indicate the existing environment is relatively quiet. Passage through the area by vehicles travelling at the posted speed limit of 80 km/hr generates significant and noticeable individual noise events.

Figure 2 below sets out a typical example of the night time sound levels measured at IP-9 monitoring location under calm conditions. These results are affected to a large extent by intermittent sounds of vehicles passing the site on the state highway. The assessment below considers the potential noise effects of conductor noise at times of low background sound levels, such as that evident between the times when vehicles are passing the site.

Figure 2: Typical late night ambient sound levels under calm conditions adjacent rear residential boundaries to 411 Maungatapu Road.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 13

The frequency content of the sound levels measured at each of the 10 monitoring sites described above and summarised in Figure 1 is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Sound level spectra measured at each of the monitoring sites IP-1 to IP-10.

Figure 3 shows the sound energy present across the audible sound spectrum (16 Hz to 12.45 kHz) as measured at sites IP-1 to IP 10. To properly interpret the above frequency analysis one needs to take into account the relative insensitivity of the human ear in the low frequency region 2. Elevated sound levels measured in the frequencies below about 100 to 200 Hz are normally expected when measuring environmental sound outdoors. None of the measured sound levels appear related to the operation of the existing transmission line which, while live and operating at the time, did not emit any measurable sound.

There should be no mistake that compared to typical urban sound levels, the above samples are remarkably low. This is due to there being no sound from passing vehicles included within the samples taken.

The low sound levels observed during these periods enables useful conclusions to be drawn around the lack of any audible transmission line noise from the existing Line B. Also, the low sound levels recorded during the site visit enables a worst- case assessment of the impact that any additional transmission sounds generated by the project would have on the environment. This is because as any increases noted would be benchmarked against the low ambient sound levels recently measured in the project area.

5 Operational Noise

Based on field measurements and published research reports on noise from various 110kV conductors, conductor noise arising from the upgraded section of the HAI-MTM-A&B Transmission Line has been investigated. The results below indicate a minor (and likely unnoticeable) amount of additional sound may be generated due to residual electrical discharge from the conductor referred to as ‘corona di scharge’. Some additional sound occurring under windy conditions referred to as ‘A eolian Noise’ may also be generated, however as these sounds are only present under windy conditions, high ambient sound levels at these times tends to render such sounds as inaudible.

2 See definition of ‘dBA’ within the ‘Acoustic Nomenclature’ set out on pages 4 and 5 of this report.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 14

5.1 Aeolian Noise

This form of noise occurs under well-defined wind conditions and is caused by the wind impinging on the different components of a line, e.g. the steel towers, conductors and insulators. The two meteorological factors that affect the level and frequency of this noise are the wind speed and direction. The different line components give rise to different types of noise. The noise is not dependent on whether or not the line is energised. The occurrence of aeolian noise from the various components of a high voltage line is uncommon, since the conditions under which the noise occurs are very specific, though in particular localities it may occur more frequently.

Aeolian noise may occasionally occur when wind blows through a steel tower of an overhead voltage line. More important, however, is the noise that is sometimes produced under rather specific conditions by the wind blowing over conductors and insulators. Two types of aeolian noise may arise;

A. Conductors: The regular shedding of air vortices as the wind flows across the conductor causes the noise. At relatively low wind speeds, i.e. below approximately 10 m/s a "swish-ing" noise may occur but at a low level that is seldom troublesome. At higher wind speeds, the noise is similar to the "rumbling" sound of aircraft flying overhead in the distance.

B. Insulators: This noise occurs for only specific high wind speeds and angles of incidence and only for certain designs and arrangements of insulators. The occurrence of this type of noise is difficult to anticipate but it is usually possible to reduce or eliminate it by ensuring that sufficient acoustic resonance does not occur. In practice, this means replacing some units in the insulator string with ones that have a completely different "rib" profile or installing composite insulators. The number and location of the units in the string to be replaced must be determined for each particular design of insulator string.

By its nature aeolian noise is hard to predict. It also occurs quite infrequently. Depending on wind speed, maximum noise levels of more than 50 dBA can be expected however this would be for very windy conditions when ambient sound levels themselves would register above 50 dBA. Based on experience and the structures involved, aeolian noise is not likely to be detectable within any residentially zoned site or within the notional boundary to any rural dwelling located in the vicinity of the proposed works.

5.2 Electrical Noise

Electric fields around a transmission line conductor wire can become concentrated enough to create an electric discharge. This is termed corona discharge which is a process that causes some sound to be released due to electrical energy ‘leaking’ from the conductor which ionizes the air around the conductor. Typical corona discharge sound is subjectively described as a crackling or humming sound and is often caused by water drops that collect on the conductor when it rains or when there is sufficient moisture in the air. In some rare instances, using some conductors, the corona discharge sound is also accompanied by a significant tone at 100Hz when wet.

In reality, there are few conductors that significant tonal issues are associated with normal operation. In the past, noise issues have arisen with one type of conductor [ACSR/AC Zebra] which is not proposed to be used on this project. The existing conductor on HAI-MTM-A is Simplex ACSR/GZ Wolf. The existing conductor on HAI-MTM-B is Simplex ACSR/GZ Coyote. None of the known ‘noisy’ conductor types are proposed to be used in this project.

It is proposed that both the realigned HAI-MTM-A and B lines will be re-strung with ACSR/AC Coyote Conductor, with the exception of the harbour crossing as well as its adjacent spans [i.e. spans 33B-33C and 33D-33E] which will be will be strung with ACSR/AC Goat conductor. All these conductor types are expected to be ‘low noise’ under normal 11 0 kV operation.

The following design factors have been taken into account:

(a) Conductor noise levels have been predicted by AECOM consultants. The results are tabulated below are for ‘worst case’ sound levels predicted beneath the conductor. These levels have been used as the basis for predicting conductor noise received within all adjacent residential sites, thus making the assessment ultra-conservative;

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 15

(b) ACSR/AC Goat conductor used on spans 33B-33C and 33D-33E and ACSR/AC Coyote conductors have similar low- noise noise emission qualities based on the line configuration; (c) Maximum ‘wet’ conductor noise emissions [5% wet], but no significant tones 3; (d) The AECOM values set out below are for “aged” conductors. Transpower have conducted measurements under controlled conditions in a laboratory which show low noise conductors such as ACSR/AC Goat or the ACSR/AC Coyote conductor emit a slightly higher noise level when first installed. The laboratory measurements indicate these conductors (when wet) typically emit slightly higher sound (approximately 2 dB higher) compared to conductors exposed to the elements for 6 to 36 months. The prediction of sound levels at sensitive receiver locations have been based on the AECOM values set out below plus 2 dB to reflect the noise levels expected upon first operation. (e) The AECOM values presented below are for the audible noise expected at a central location beneath lines A and B. A small downward correction adjustment has been made to account for extra distance sound must carry to representative receiver locations, which are locations 1.2 metres above ground level, within the closest; 1) residentially zoned sites and other sensitive sites (e.g. the marae) in the Maungatapu Sector 2) 20 metre notional boundary to any dwelling located in the rural zone, on the Matapihi side

The AECOM results provided to Malcolm Hunt Associates indicates the highest expected conductor sound levels arise in relation to structures 30A, 33, 37, and 127A. These expected (wet) conductor noise emission levels are summarised in the following table, as measured at 1.2 m above local ground level. These form the basis of the ‘worst case’ values used to estimate the scale of conductor noise effects:

Predicted Sound Level Structure Configuration (LAeq dB) *This noise level is the worst-case 26.4 dB at structure 30A Double Circuit for any double circuit structure in 31.3 dBA at span mid-point the Maungatapu Sector

33 Single Circuit Vertical 26.8 dB *This noise level is the worst-case 37 Double Circuit 30.7 dB for any double circuit structure anywhere on the line. 127A Single Circuit Flat Top 21.4 dB

As a ‘worst case’ situation, a mid span value of 31.3 dB has been assumed to be emitted from all conductor spans in the Maungatapu Sector. A conductor noise emission value of 30.7 dBA has been assumed to be emitted by conductors spans in the Matapihi sector of the project. The AECOM noise levels are cumulative for both lines of the double circuit and are relevant to a receiver centrally located under the circuits. A small downward adjustment has therefore been made to account for the distance from the conductor alignment to each receiver site. As above, a small +2 dBA adjustment has also been made to account for extra sound produced by a wet ‘ new ’ conductor .

5.3 Audible Noise at Residential Sites

The following table (Table 1) sets out expected ‘worse case’ audible conductor noise levels for representative receiver locations in the Maungatapu Sector (closest residential boundary) and at the notional boundary to rural residences in rural area (Matapihi side):

3 Should the audible noise (unexpectedly) contain a tone (as defined within Appendix B of NZS6802:2008), then the predicted sound level shall be increased by 5 dB, in accordance with NZS6802:2008. As both proposed conductors are not known to generate significant tones, no correction is considered necessary within this assessment.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 16

Spans Residential Address of Receiver LAeq(15 min) dB Property

Maungatapu Sector – Zone: City Living Residential 28A -29A rear boundary adjacent 21.9 dB 327B Maungatapu Road 29A -30A rear boundary adjacent 26.6 dB 333/337 Maungatapu Road 30A -31A rear boundary adjacent 29.7 dB 353 Maungatapu Road 31A -32A rear boundary adjacent 29.8 dB 371 Maungatapu Road 32A -33 rear boundary adjacent 32.2 dB 379 Maungatapu Road 32A -33A front boundary adjacent 29.6 dB 411 Maungatapu Road 33A -33B Wh ikitoria Street Reserve/ Ngati Hei Marae 23.6 dB 33B -33C Font boundary 411 Maungatapu Road 28.6 dB 33C -33D Whikitoria Street Reserve/ Ngati Hei Marae <20 dB Matapihi Side – Zone: Rural Notional boundary of 120 -119 <20 dB 41 Puwhkiri Road Notional boundary of 123 - 124 <20 dB 311 Matapihi Rd Notional boundary of 126 127 <20 dB 303 Matapihi Rd

Table 1 : Predicted conductor noise (re-aligned A line plus sound from the existing B Line) as received within the closest part of the nearest residentially zoned sites, or within the notional boundary to rural dwellings on the Mataphihi side.

Comparing expected cumulative conductor noise levels with measured existing ambient sound levels under calm conditions during night time, we see that conductor noise will remain less than measured ambient sound levels which were noted above as being quiet. It is therefore reasonable to expect noise from both A + B transmission lines to remain at or below the ambient sound level measured in the area.

Importantly, the results show no dwelling or sensitive receiver site is expected to receive noise levels approaching the L Aeq 40 dB District Plan guideline standard for night time noise received within residentially zoned sites, or within the notional boundary to any rural residential sites. For the reasons set out below this assessment has not included an adjustment for tonality under NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise [NZS6802:2008]. It is therefore evident that no residential site is in fact likely to receive cumulative conductor noise exceeding L Aeq 32.2 dB which is a worst case for wet conductor that has slightly elevated noise emissions when new (which will reduce with age).

Readings taken during calm night time periods indicate the added noise from Line A is relatively insignificant. The overall change in ambient noise levels at a worst case location adjacent to Highway 29A is shown below in Figure 4.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 17

Figure 4: Typical late night ambient sound levels under calm conditions [rear boundary 411 Maungatapu Road] with additional maximum (wet) conductor noise shown added as the dark areas.

5.4 Noise Reductions

The proposed re-location of the A Line will reduce existing conductor noise for some residences, in particular:

o 41 Puwhkiri Road, rurally zoned site with span 120-119 located at around 100 metres which will increase to around 200 metres;

o Currently spans 123 – 124 lie within about 85 metres of the notional boundary of a rural dwelling 311 Matapihi Rd which will increase to around 140 metres once Line A is re-located;

o Currently spans 126 – 127 lie within about 50 metres of the notional boundary of a rural dwelling 303 Matapihi Rd which will increase to around 100 metres once Line A is re-located; and

o Around 39 dwellings between about 327 and 448 Maungatapu Road, the Rangataua Rugby & Sports Club, and Ariki Park lie under or adjacent to the existing Line A corridor. With the removal of the A-line (including 5 poles crossing residential land and Te Ariki Park) a minor noise reduction is expected in the area once the works are completed. The re-located Line A will lie at least 50 to 100 metres further from any of these dwellings.

Consistent with the small degree of additional noise predicted to arise at adjacent sites due the proposed new Line A, the relief in noise level reduction terms due to removing Line A from its current alignment will not be great. The removal of the Line A is expected to reduce noise at a small number of residential sites closely located to the current Line A alignment. However, as the current Line A conductor is not expected to be noisy, only a minor lowering of ambient sound levels can be expected [e.g. 1 to 2 dB]. The dark banding in Figure 4indicates the small amount by which ambient sound levels may reduce once the Line A conductor and poles are removed from their existing alignment in the Maungatapu Road residential area.

6 Construction Noise

6.1 Activities & Noise Sources

The effects of construction noise have been investigated by undertaking predictions of noise from the proposed construction works, as received at dwellings or other noise sensitive sites in the area. There has been a focus on assessing construction noise effects associated with the following key locations;

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 18

Construction activities including earthworks required to install new poles each side of the Rangataua estuary. Specifically we have investigated the potential for ground vibration and noise effects associated with drilling the deep foundation piles and earthworks (involves vibro-piling methods) to enable preparation of the foundations.

Pole extractions and new poles and structural elements being installed along the rear of around 25 residential properties in the Maungatapu area. This includes removal of the A-line including 5 poles crossing residential land and Te Ariki Park.

Noise from pole removals and installation on the Matapihi side, albeit undertaken at far greater buffer distances compared to works on the Maungatapu.

The works required to be undertaken to remove pole 118 from the CMA, although involving equipment on a barge and works within the sensitive seabed environment, are not considered likely to result in adverse noise effects on the environment given its remote location in the estuary and available buffer distances to the closest sensitive receiver sites.

6.2 Ground Works for Poles 33C and 33D The construction activity at locations 33C and 33D will involve vibro-piling to sink large steel casings into the substrate to enable earthworks to take place and pole foundations to be formed. The noise from the vibro-driving activity comes from the engine noise of the excavator or 55 tonne crane which is supporting the vibrator, and the operation of this unit itself (including noise emitted from the steel casing itself). Annex 2 to NZS6803:1999 indicates such works may give rise to LAeq sound levels of 88 to 91 dB measured at 10 metres. Noise from all aspects of vibro-piling of steel casings and earthworks at locations 33C and 33D are included within the predictions of construction relevant receiver sites set out within Section 6.3 below.

Concerning vibration effects due to vibro-piling, there are no relevant NZ Standards that deal with the perception of ground borne vibration. International Standard ISO 2631-2:1989 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration -- Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibrations in buildings (1 to 80 Hz ) refers to vibration assessment criteria based on vibration peak velocity limits across the sensitive spectrum of between 0.1 and 1.0 mm/sec for protecting people and buildings.

We have investigated the expected vibration levels and obtained research results of similar steel piling and provide the following forecasts of peak vibration velocity (mm/sec) for typical pile driving, as received at distances up to 100 metres from this activity.

Figure 5: Peak particle velocity versus distance, of vibro-piling of steel casings. Sources: Abdel-Rahman, S.M. (2002) “Vibration associated with pile driving and its effects on nearby historical structures .” Proceedings of SPIE, 475311, 1251 - 1258. Athanasopoulos G.A., and Pelekis P.C. (2000) “ Ground vibrations from pile driving in urban environment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants .” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19, 371 -387.

The above representative measurements show that, at site 33C, vibrations at the closest dwelling (29 Whikitoria St) located at 15 metres to the works will receive <1mm/sec with vibrations compliant with ISO2631 – Part 2. The following diagram indicates the area within 10 metres of the works where we consider temporary construction vibration effects would not be acceptable for sensitive receiver sites.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 19

Location of Closest Building 29 Whikitoria St

Location of Pole 33C

Figure 6: Location of 10 metre radius of location 33C within which ground vibrations maybe unacceptable (peak particle velocity > 1 mm/sec) due to vibro-piling at site 33C.

Vibro-piling undertaken at the location of pole 33D on the north side of the estuary will take place at over 300 metres from the closest dwelling and will not be likely to cause any noticeable vibration effects at sensitive receiver sites. Ground vibrations will reduce rapidly with distance in typical soil conditions. In fact, it is likely no detectable vibration effects will occur beyond about 50 metres from the source however it is difficult to assess the ability of the subsoil geology to transmit vibrations and to predict the transmission of vibrations through the ground to buildings.

The current worst case vibration assessment is that, in general no noise sensitive receiver sites will receive detectable ground vibrations associated with the works, except at the location of the dwelling at 29 Whikitoria Street where some piling-induced vibrations are likely be noticeable for limited periods due to the limited buffer distance available.

The proposed Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan recommended in Section 8 below is designed to mitigate potential effects (such as those that may occur at 29 Whikitoria Street) and will ensure the ‘best practicable option ’ is adopted for dealing with construction noise and vibration effects such as those outlined above.

6.3 Construction Noise Throughout Project Area

Predictions have been undertaken of expected levels of construction noise received at nearby sensitive receiver sites, at 1 metre from the dwelling or building housing a noise sensitive activity. The predictions are based on the use of a wide range of tools, hand operated equipment, heavy vehicles, 55 tonne crane, excavator-mounted boring equipment, vibro-piling unit and the use of a 20 tonne excavator. The predictions have been based on the generic methodology set out within NZS6803:1999 with sound propagation being based on the methods set out within the ISO standard ‘ISO 9613 -2:1996 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: General method of calculation’ 45.

The prediction method utilises various input variables including octave band sound power levels at source, air absorption values based on temperature and humidity. Sound power data used within the model are the sound power levels presented with the appendices to NZS6803:1999 or measurement data published by the equipment manufacturer.

4 ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors -- Part 2: General method of calculation. International Organisation for Standardisation 1996, Geneva. 5 ISO 9613-2:1996 predicts equivalent continuous A-weighted sound level under meteorological conditions favourable to propagation. These meteorological conditions equate to slight downwind conditions, or propagation under a well- developed moderate ground-based temperature inversion which are considered worst case conditions.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 20

The methods adopted to predict construction noise conform with the prediction recommendations of NZS6801:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound which states, at Clause 7.1.2 , that slightly enhanced sound propagation conditions should be adopted for predictions of environmental sound.

Information used within the predictions of noise from the operation of construction equipment is set out in APPENDIX B . The equipment employed in the calculations have been based on discussions with earthworks contractors and information from a powerline construction company. The table provided in APPENDIX B includes a generic description of the various equipment items assumed to be used within the project, and the expected noise emission level from each equipment item, when measured at 10 metres. The above ISO Standard ISO 9613- Part 2 has been used to calculate the propagation effects as well as the screening effects of fences and buildings (where these are present).

Predicted sound levels are provided as both LAeq dB and LAFmax sound level for each residential receiver location assessed. These sites are listed within the table entitled “C onstruction Noise Levels Predicted for Each Dwelling ” located within APPENDIX B to this report. This table presents results for 67 dwellings located in the wider area (which includes some distant sites unlikely to be affected by construction activities). In all cases the predicted levels relate to noise levels expected at the location of 1 metre from the dwelling, for dwellings located at the addresses provided.

The results indicate LAeq sound levels falling between 51.2 dB and 68.7 dB. The most significant predicted levels are found at dwellings in the Maungatapu area. Figure 7 sets out the distribution of predicted LAeq sound levels across all 57 dwellings assessed in the Maungatapu area.

< 55 dBA 55 to 58 dBA 59 to 62 dBA 62 to 65 dBA 65 to 69 dBA

Figure 7 Distribution of predicted LAeq construction noise levels across all 57 dwellings assessed in the Maungatapu area.

Predicted LAFmax sound levels due to temporary construction activity have been predicted to fall between 60 and 72 dB, which are not unusual levels to experience outdoors around dwellings near to state highways in New Zealand.

It is possible that a helicopter may be used provide aerial lift during stringing of conductors, for example in stringing the conductor across the estuary. The use of a helicopter (if any) would be for short duration, daytime time periods. Most likely the helicopter tasks would not require the helicopter to land or take-off within the project area. Rather, the machine would fly into the area, hover briefly to connect to the slung objects, and transport such objects to other parts of the project area. Thus, such noise effects are expected to be temporary for any particular receiver site. Temporary sounds associated with airborne operations of helicopters are not usually assessed under NZS6803:1999 (see Section 7.4 below) however it is likely that such sounds would comply at all times with the guideline limits for construction noise set out within NZS6803:1999.

Construction noise effects are assessed below in Section 8.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 21

7 Noise Criteria

The following sets out a discussion of the relevant assessment criteria and conformance of this project with these guideline performance standards;

7.1 Tauranga District Plan Noise Criteria

The Tauranga District Plan, Chapter 10 [Network Utilities] contains objectives, policies and rules which govern the development and use of land, including installation and operation of network utilities. In managing the effects of network utilities, the District Plan recognises the essential role that electricity networks play and the services they provide in the existing and future functioning of the City and the sub-region. This section of the District Plan also recognises that the nature of some network utilities and associated works need to be managed to ensure they do not adversely affect amenity, landscape character, streetscape, heritage values, or public health and safety.

It is noted that at Chapter 10A of the District Plan that the relevant provisions of Chapter 4 [General Rules ] through to Chapter 12 – Subdivision, Services and Infrastructure are to apply to network utilities and are to be assessed in accordance with these rule requirements. The relevant District Plan zoning for the area is set out within the following extract from the Tauranga District Plan maps

The District Plan noise criteria applying to the adjacent residentially zoned sites include 4E.1.1.1 Policy [Noise from Non- Residential Activities] which states that by ensuring non-residential activities and roadside cabinets do not generate noise levels normally considered unacceptable in sensitive zones, or create noise levels which are unreasonable for occupiers of adjoining or adjacent properties.

The zoning of the project area is shown below in Figure 8. The specific noise performance standards for residentially zoned sites are set out as follows;

However, we note the poles and new infrastructure will be located within the road zone except in the Matapihi side (where the alignment is generally well setback from any noise sensitive site. The relevant rule for the Road Zone is:

Note: The definition of “road Zone” = Covers any public road, regardless of the unde rlying zoning on the Plan Maps [Part B] including a State Highway and any service lane.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 22

As explained below, owing to the nature of the project and provisions of the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities [NESETA], the above provisions of the District Plan dealing with noise are not considered relevant to the assessment of noise effects for this project.

Zoning Across Inlet:

Figure 8 Tauranga District Planning Map. Map not to scale.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 23

7.2 National Environmental Standard

The assessment takes into full account the provisions of the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities [NESETA] which came into effect on 14 January 2010. The NESETA sets out a national framework of permissions and consent requirements for activities on existing electricity transmission lines in the National Grid. Activities covered in the NESETA include the operation, maintenance, upgrading and removal of existing transmission lines.

The NESETA applies to “existing transmission lines”. Regulation 3 of the NESETA defines ‘existing transmission line’ as “a transmission line that was operational, or was able to be operated, at the commencement of these regulations”. The existing HAI-MTM A line and HAI-MTM B line fall within the definition of “existing transmission line” as the lines were operated, or able to be operational, on 14 th January 2010. As set out below, Regulation 37 of the NESETA provides for construction activities associated with line re-location as permitted activities providing noise emissions comply with the limits set out within New Zealand construction noise standard NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

The NESETA confirms the District Plan noise performance standards do not apply to the proposed works. Instead, operational noise assessment is guided by the “general duty” provisions of the resource Management Act 1991 and guidance from NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise . Within the above range of guideline noise standards, the potential for adverse effects due to operational noise is minimised providing noise at any dwelling or noise sensitive site is not greater than L Aeq 40 dB within any adjacent residential site during the sensitive night-time period.

7.3 NZ Standards

The District Plan refers to assessment of noise using New Zealand Standard NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise which requires sounds (other than sounds from construction activity) to be assessed for the presence of “special audible characteristics”. This correction is intended to be applied where the sound under investigation possesses certain attributes that make the sound more annoying than it would be without such a characteristic.

Sound emitted from transmission lines under normal circumstances are not known for commonly possessing strong tonal components. The assessment is to be solely based on sounds experienced within the noise-sensitive receiver site. Where the sound in question does possess a "special audible characteristic", the level of this sound is adjusted [penalised] to reflect the added annoyance likely to be caused by such a sound when received at sensitive locations. Appendix B to NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise sets out recommendations for evaluating whether significant tonality is present by comparing the levels of adjacent one-third octave bands in the results of provided by frequency analysis.

An adjustment for tonality shall be applied if the L eq in a one-third octave band exceeds the arithmetic mean of the sound level in both adjacent bands by more than the values given as follows in Table 3.

One -third octave band [Hz] Sound Level difference [dB]

25 – 125 Hz 15 dB 160 – 400 Hz 8 dB 500 – 10000 Hz 5 dB Table 3: Adjustment for tonality under NZS6802:2008 Acoustics Environmental Noise .

As set out above, available conductor noise level information indicates the conductors proposed to be employed on this project do NOT emit sound with tonal character, even under wet conditions, sufficient to warrant application of the tonal adjustment under NZS6802:2008. On this basis, the assessment set out below does not include a tonal penalty under NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise

7.4 Construction Noise

Regarding construction noise associated with the transmission line realignment works, the Resource Management NESETA Regulations incorporate by reference New Zealand Standard NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise. Regulation 37 of the NESETA stipulates that construction activities associated with line re-location are permitted activities under the District

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 24

Plan, providing noise emissions comply with New Zealand Standard NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

During the construction period, we have assessed the works on the basis that they take place within the maximum hours of between 7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Saturday. NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise adopts the limits set out within Tables 2 and 3 of that standard for any construction activity. Those limits within Tables 2 and 3 of the standard are set out as follows:

Where: o "Short-term" means construction work at any one location for up to 14 calendar days;

o "Typical duration" means construction work at any one location for more than 14 calendar days but less than 20 weeks; and

o "Long-term" means construction work at any one location with a duration exceeding 20 weeks.

The above limits are set out in the Standard as applying to any particular project according to the project duration. We understand the overall construction time frame for the proposed work is in the order of 3 months. However, depending on the time of year/weather, this may be undertaken in stages within an overall construction window of 9 months. Thus, we have for the purposes of this assessment adopted the ‘Long term’ noise limit recommendations of NZS6803:1999 and have also referred to these limits within the recommended conditions of consent (if granted) at Section 9 of this report.

7.5 Criteria Summary

For construction noise, as above, the NESETA Regulations incorporate by reference New Zealand Standard NZS6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise .

For operational noise, Regulation 4[1] of the NESETA sets out that activities which are covered by the NESETA and specifically provides for the relocation of an existing transmission line including activities that relate to construction, use of land and an activity relating to an access track to an existing transmission line. On the basis that the above NESETA requirements are fulfilled, the operational noise from the proposed re-location activity is not subject to assessment in accordance with the Operative Tauranga District Plan noise requirements.

Instead, the over-riding duty under the Resource Management Act [RMA] is to avoid the emission of unreasonable noise [s.16]. Case law and best practice indicate for the vast majority of situations the s.16 duty is met where noise levels comply with the generic recommendations of New Zealand Standard NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise . This Standard recommends a night time limit of L Aeq 40 to 45 dBA. This would include any correction [penalty] for special audible characteristics (if present) however we have set out above that the operational noise emissions are not assessed as likely to exhibit any significant tonality.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 25

8 Overall Assessment

The following is an overall assessment of noise effects associated with the proposed project:

Noise associated with construction works (which includes establishing new structures, replacing some existing structures and removal of structures) have been predicted in accordance with the relevant Standards and guidelines assuming equipment and procedures representative of this project. Predicted noise levels are at dwellings or buildings housing noise sensitive activities are not likely to exceed the current levels of traffic noise currently experienced in the area. The highest levels predicted to be received at any dwellings are LAeq 69 dB and LAFMax 72 dB. Being a daytime activity, these construction noise levels comply in all respects with the ‘Long Term’ construction noise limits recommended within NZS6803:1999.

Based on the Electric Power Research Institute noise prediction approach and results of laboratory testing, operational noise due to electrical discharge (corona discharge) from the new and altered transmission lines is predicted to be low and well within guideline limits. The most affected site will receive noise from this source not greater than 32.2 dB when measured at 1.2 m above ground level. This is the highest level expected of any residentially zoned site or notional boundary to any dwelling in the rural area.

Vibration effects of ground works associated with establishing Poles 33C and 33D have been specifically investigated with respect to expected effects at the closest dwelling (29 Whikitoria Street). Being located at least 15 metres from the location of the groundworks, this dwelling may be affected for a limited (daytime) periods. We have examined generic vibro-piling vibration results to inform our assessment of the likely effect of vibro-piling steel casings into the sub soil at the Pole 33C location. The threshold of peak particle velocity <1mm/sec referred to within ISO standards are not predicted to be exceeded at the closest dwelling.

The highest potential for adverse noise or vibration effects associated with this project are those likely to arise during the temporary construction phase. These potential noise or vibration effects are most effectively avoided by implementing practical management methods. Thus, recommended conditions set out below include a requirement for a Construction Nosie & Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to be prepared for the project and provided to Tauranga City Council for certification. The conditions require the project to be operated in accordance with the certified CNVMP.

There are a small number of Maungatapu residential properties and the Ngati Hei Marae and rugby club that may gain a small marginal noise benefit of having the old Line A transmission line removed, however we have not been able to establish that this line generates any audible sound. This means no changes in noise from this source will be detectable.

For construction noise, taking into account the limited duration of the works, the proposed re-location of Line A and de- commissioning of the old infrastructure, noise from construction or demolition activities is expected to be detectable at times over significant areas, but received at dwellings at only moderate levels, during daytime only. Daytime construction noise (worst case) ranging from L Aeq 52 to 69 dB and L AFmax 69 to 72 dB at sensitive receiver sites will not be likely to exceed the recommendations of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise , the noise performance standard for construction activities set out within the NESETA.

The assessment of potential noise effects of the operation of the transmission assets present within the project area (once constructed) are considered to be di minimus . Currently no transmission noise effects are detectable under either Line A or Line B. The acoustic effect of these two lines operating together on the same support structures has been fully analysed with a worse case received sound level of 32.2 dB predicted. On this basis, there is no recommended noise-related condition governing the operation of the transmission assets in the project area fallowing completion of the project.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 26

9 Proposed Conditions

The following are recommended to be attached to the consent sought (if granted):

Noise

a) The consent holder shall submit a Construction Vibration Noise Management Plan (CNVMP) to the to the Tauranga City Council [insert relevant TCC delegation ] for certification at least 15 working days prior to construction work commencing. The consent hold er shall ensure the following minimum requirements are met;

i. The CNVMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified independent acoustic specialist acceptable to Council and shall provide a framework to manage construction noise/vibration appropriately for the variety of circumstances along the route by outlining the methods, procedures and standards for mitigating the effects of noise and vibration during construction of the Project.

ii. The CNVMP shall identify mitigation methods so that noise from construction or demolition activities do not exceed the noise limits specified in (b) below and the vibration limits in (c) below at the relevant receiver locations.

iii. Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Council’s written certification for the CNVMP.

iv. The consent holder shall implement the certified CNVMP throughout the entire construction period of the Project.

b) Unless works are being undertaken in accordance with a SSCNMP certified by Council, no construction or demolition activities shall be undertaken which exceeds the following limits when measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise :

Day of week Time period dB LAeq(15 min) dB LAmax Weekdays 0630-0730 55 75 0730-1800 70 85 1800-2000 65 80 2000-0630 45 75 Saturdays 0630-0730 45 75 0730-1800 70 85 1800-2000 45 75 2000-0630 45 75 Sundays and 0630-0730 45 75 public holidays 0730-1800 55 85 1800-2000 45 75 2000-0630 45 75

c) The consent holder shall implement the vibration management and mitigation measures identified in the certified CVNMP. Construction vibration shall be made to comply with the following criteria:

Receiver Details Vibration Limit Occupied dwellings Daytime 0630h - 2000h 1 mm/s PPV Other occupied buildings Daytime 0630h - 2000h 2 mm/s PPV Measurements of construction vibration shall be undertaken in accordance with German Standard DIN 4150 - 3:1999 “Structural Vibration Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures”.

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 27

10 Summary

Malcolm Hunt Associates have carried out a pre-commissioning noise assessment for a project which involves partially relocating the HAI-MTM-A overhead circuit onto the existing HAI-MTM-B transmission line using new, replacement supporting structures located along part of State Highway 29, Tauranga and into a rural area of Matapihi.

The assessment is based on the relevant New Zealand acoustic standards and other relevant noise and vibration guidelines including the District Plan provisions, where appropriate. Measurements of the current ambient noise environment during calm night time periods has established there is little or no noise from existing transmission lines. Predictions indicate the new and altered transmission assets are not expected to acoustically affect any rural or urban residential site by more than

LAeq 32.2 dB which is a very low noise level. Such low sound levels are only readily detected within the existing environment during calm night time periods after midnight when all other activities cease, thus mostly no change will be experienced at the closest sensitive receivers. Overall, noise from transmission assets will result in a di minimus effect on the environment.

There are number of residential properties, Ariki Park, the Ngati Hei Marae and the rugby & sport club that may gain a marginal acoustic benefit (of having the old Line A transmission line removed) but, as no existing noise from the transmission line can be measured, mostly these changes would not be noticeable.

Our assessment has confirmed reasonably significant temporary daytime noise will arise from time to time during the construction period. It is proposed to manage these effects using a certified Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan. Construction activities will, in some cases, take place quite close to dwellings giving rise to moderate levels of daytime construction, however these noise effects can be effectively managed through the additional assessment, mitigation and prior notification measures referred to within the CNVMP. In all cases, construction noise emissions are expected to fully comply with limits set out within the recommended conditions of consent, being based on the ‘Long Term’ limits of table 2 of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

Overall, provided noise and vibration effects are managed according to the recommend CNVMP, construction effects of the proposed works are expected to be less than minor.

Malcolm Hunt Associates August 2017

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 28

Appendix A - Sound Level Measurement Calibration Certification

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 29

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Malcolm Hunt Associates. August 2017 Page | 30

Pre-Commissioning Noise Report HAI-MTM A&B Transmission Line Realignment Project

Appendix B – Construction Noise Predictions

Construction Noise Levels

Hand tools, etc. Drills, hand 50 kW Wheeled Kobelco 7045 55 Typical concrete Truck @ 10 m APE 150 Vibo Piling @ Volvo EC140 with Soilmec SR30 self- 20 tonne excavator operated kango Loader @ 10 m tonne Crawler mixing transport 10 m hydraulic drill head mounting, hydraulic hammers. Small Crane @ 10 m truck. 8 cubic yards drilling rig concrete (6.1 m 3 ) @ 10 m mixers, grinders, and saws LAeq @ 10 metres from works 61 71 78 86 84 85 89 82 81 80 Leq @ 10 m (100% use) Percentasge Of Time Each Equipment Item Operated Drung daylight hours Removal of 5 poles crossing residential land and Te Ariki 79 20% 35% 10% 0% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 20% Park

REMOVE Poles between P28A 82 5% 15% 20% 15% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 30% and P33A

NEW Poles between P28A and 82 5% 15% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 15% 15% P33A

84 5% 10% 5% 20% 15% 5% 10% 5% 15% 10% New Poles 33 C and 33 D

Construction Noise Levels Predicted for Each Dwelling Preicted Preicted Closest works ResidenceaAddress LAeq(15 min) dB LAFmax dB Maungatapu 28, 28A and 28T 315 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 54.3 < 60 dB 28, 28A and 28T 317 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 60.5 65.7 28, 28A and 28T 319 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 62.2 67.3 28, 28A and 28T 32 WIKITORIA STREET 61.8 67.0 28, 28A and 28T 323 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 61.2 66.3 28, 28A and 28T 327A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.2 61.3 28, 28A and 28T 327B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 62.2 67.3 28, 28A and 28T 331A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 58.9 64.0 28, 28A and 28T 331B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 60.9 66.0 28, 28A and 28T 333 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 58.9 64.0 28, 28A and 28T 335 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 57.2 62.4 29, 29A 337 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 55.1 60.2 29, 29A 337A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.6 61.7 29, 29A 34 WIKITORIA STREET 61.8 67.0 29, 29A 343 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.8 61.9 29, 29A 345A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.4 61.5 29, 29A 345B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 62.6 67.7 29, 29A 351A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 66.7 71.8 29, 29A 351B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 59.4 64.5 29, 29A 353A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 59.4 64.5 29, 29A 353B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 57.9 63.0 29, 29A 359 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.0 61.2 29, 29A 361 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 54.1 < 60 dB 29, 29A 361A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 53.2 < 60 dB 30.30A, 369 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 55.1 60.2 30.30A, 371 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 58.1 63.3 30.30A, 371A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.8 61.9 30.30A, 373 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 58.9 64.0 30.30A, 373A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 64.8 69.9 30.30A, 377 (rear) MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.0 61.2 30.30A, 379 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 62.6 67.7 30.30A, 381 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 59.1 64.3 30.30A, 383B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 55.3 60.4 30.30A, 385 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 51.6 < 60 dB 31, 31A 387 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 57.7 62.8 31, 31A 389 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 60.9 66.0 31, 31A 391 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 54.1 < 60 dB 31, 31A 393B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 56.8 61.9 31, 31A 395 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 54.7 < 60 dB 31, 31A 397 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 58.1 63.3 31, 31A 399 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 67.9 73.0 31, 31A 401 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 57.7 62.8 32A, 32 405 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 52.0 < 60 dB 32A, 33 409A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 64.6 69.7 32A, 34 409B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 64.2 69.3 33, 33B, 33A 411A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 62.6 67.7 33, 33B, 33A 411B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 61.2 66.3 33, 33B, 33A 413 MAUNGATAPU ROAD 55.8 61.0 33, 33B, 33A 413A MAUNGATAPU ROAD 61.2 66.3 33, 33B, 33A 413B MAUNGATAPU ROAD 57.7 62.8 33, 33B, 33A 413C MAUNGATAPU ROAD 54.1 < 60 dB 33, 33B, 33A 14A WIKITORIA STREET 57.9 63.0 33, 33B, 33A 14B WIKITORIA STREET 53.2 < 60 dB 33, 33B, 33A 16A WIKITORIA STREET 55.1 60.2 33, 33B, 33A 16B WIKITORIA STREET 59.4 64.5 33, 33B, 33A 26 WIKITORIA STREET 52.7 < 60 dB 33C 29 WIKITORIA STREET 65.6 70.7 33C 25 WIKITORIA STREET Marae) 51.2 < 60 dB Matapihi 33D, 34 44 Puwhariki Road 36.7 < 60 dB 33D, 34, 35, 33E, 37,38 41 Puwhariki Road 44.5 < 60 dB 33D, 34, 35, 33E, 37,39 44 Puwhariki Road 44.6 < 60 dB 38A, 39, 39A, 40, 40A, 41 41A, 42, 42A 351B Matapihi Road 36.8 < 60 dB 43, 43B, 44A, 44B, 45, 45A, 46 351B Matapihi Road 39.0 < 60 dB 47A, 47, 48, 48A, 48B, 48C, 49A 48D, 50, 48E, 315 Matapihi Road 41.1 < 60 dB 47A, 47, 48, 48A, 48B, 48C, 49A 48D, 50, 48E, 311 Matapihi Road 42.3 < 60 dB 127A, 99X, 48F 303 Matapihi Road 47.3 < 60 dB 128A, 128 259 Matapihi Rpad 47.2 < 60 dB 128A, 129 267 matapihi Road 45.2 < 60 dB

Appendix H

Archaeological Assessment

Transpower Ltd

Transpower HAI–MTM A and B lines: archaeological assessment

report to Transpower

Danielle Trilford

CFG Heritage Ltd. P.O. Box 10 015 Dominion Road Auckland 1024 ph. (09) 309 2426 [email protected] Transpower HAI–MTM A and B lines: archaeological assessment

report to Transpower

Prepared by: Danielle Trilford

Reviewed by: Date: 13 July 2017 Matthew Campbell Reference: 16-0703

CFG Heritage Ltd. P.O. Box 10 015 Dominion Road Auckland 1024 ph. (09) 309 2426 [email protected] Transpower HAI–MTM A and B lines: archaeological assessment

Transpower intend to realign a series of transmission poles on the Hairini–Mount Maunganui (HAI–MTM) lines which across Maungatapu and Matapihi, in Tauranga, as a result of a long standing commitment to the local community and at the request of local iwi. !e works may also assist long-term road works by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) (Table 1). Several pole positions on the HAI–MTM transmission lines are located close to or are on known archaeological sites, recorded in the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) Site Recording Scheme (SRS). Poles 33A, 33B, 33C, 116 and 117 are on site U14/175, on Maungatapu 2 (Maori reservation New Zealand Gazette 1958) and State Highway 29a Easement. Poles 33D, 33E, 37, 38, 39 and 119 are on archaeological site U14/201 (Te Ahipouto, Pt Ngai Tukarairangi 2, and State Highway 29a Easement). Pole 41 is very close to site U14/3226 (State Highway 29a Easement). Pole 46 is very close to sites U14/2556 and U14/2557 (State Highway 29a Easement). Pole 47 is very close to U14/2555 (State Highway 29a Easement). Pole 128 is very close to U14/2576 (Pt Ohuki 2D). . An archaeological assessment of e2ects is required in support of applications to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) for archaeological authorities under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Julia Kennedy of Tranpsower commissioned this assessment from CFG Heritage Ltd.

U14/3226 U14/201 Te Ngaio Pa U14/175 Te Pa o te Ariki

Figure 1. Route of the HAI–MTM lines (green = to be replaced; blue = new line) and archaeological sites recorded in the vicinity of the project. Pole Action Pole Action 28 M 33B N 113A R 33C N 114 R 33D N 115 R 33E N 116 R 37 M 117 R 38 M 119 R 39 M 120 R 40 M 121 R 41 M 122 R 42 M 123 R 43A M 124 R 44A M 125 R 45 M 126 R 46 M 127 R 47 M 128 R 126A M 128A N 48 M 29 M 50 R 30 M 126B N 31 M 126C N 32 M 126D N 33A N 127A N R = remove; M = move (within ~10 m of the current position); N = new.

Table 1. Summary of transmission poles in the project and the type of works involved.

Statutory requirements

All archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and may not be destroyed, damaged or modi1ed without an authority issued by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). An archaeological site is de1ned in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act as: (a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that — (i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and (ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and (b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1). 2e Resource Management Act 1991 requires City, District and Regional Councils to manage the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way that provides for the wellbeing of today’s communities while safeguarding the options of future generations. 2e protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development is identi1ed as a matter of national importance (Section 6f).

2 HAI–MTM Historic heritage is de!ned as those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, derived from archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scienti!c, or technological qualities. Historic heritage includes: • historic sites, structures, places, and areas • archaeological sites; • sites of signi!cance to Maori, including wahi tapu; • surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources (RMA Section 2). $ese categories are not mutually exclusive and some archaeological sites may include above ground structures or may also be places that are of signi!cance to Maori. Where resource consent is required for any activity the assessment of e%ects is required to address cultural and historic heritage matters.

Method

$e SRS was searched for records of archaeological sites in the vicinity (www.archsite.org.nz). Old maps and plans held by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) were searched using QuickMap software. Landcare Research Maanaki Whenua New Zealand’s predictive environmental website (https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/layer/289-potential-vegetation-of-new-zealand/) was used to understand wetlands and vegetation before European settlement. New Zealand topographic maps and early survey drawings were used for the names of smaller waterways and landmarks. Published texts on Tauranga’s cultural history were used to understand the recorded heritage of the area. Auckland Art Gallery’s watercolour prints were searched for relevant images of pre-1900 land use in the project area. Smap Online provided soil information about the project area. $e Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) digital library was used to access reports of previous heritage work carried out within the area. $e property was surveyed on 10 May 2016 by Danielle Trilford of CFG Heritage Ltd. $is was a visual survey of both the existing and proposed pole positions and the nearby land, as well as close examination of exposed ground around fences, gates, farm tracks, etc., accompanied by systematic probing for subsurface remains.

Background Environment

Maungatapu and Matapihi are two peninsulas of Tauranga Harbour. Maungatapu is a north east to south west aligned promontory on the eastern side of the harbour; Matapihi is also a north east to south west aligned promontory but on the western side. $e two are separated by a water channel of Tauranga Harbour running west–east. Maungatapu is mostly 1at apart from a highpoint at the southern end which declines gradually to the northern coastline, and the north eastern tip where Te Pa o te Ariki, Maungatapu Pa, is located. Matapihi is elevated from the coastline with occasional and steep ridgelines. $e inland has a mostly 1at undulating top. Rangataua Bay lies east of the area, Welcome Bay is tucked in the south-east coastline of Maungatapu. Access to the ocean by water is west of the penisnulas and requires passing through three main channels of the harbour. $e deeper solid geology of Tauranga consists of Pleistocene era, 1uviatile sand and silt (Healy et al. 1964). $e super!cial soils of Tauranga are derived of the ash showers from Waihi, Kaharoa, and Tarawera (Stoke 1980). A yellow-brown peaty loam lies in the low-lands, with a dark brown to black sandy loam soil along the coastal land with a !ne granular structure (Luke

Danielle Trilford 3 CFG Heritage Ltd. 1968: 51). Both of the areas of this project have well-draining soils with high soil moisture, apart from the south portion on Matapihi which has imperfectly draining soils, and a small eastern coastal portion of Matapihi having moderate soil moisture (Smap Online, accessed 16 May 2016). Based on environmental variables, the probable vegetation composition before human contact was predicted and mapped by Landcare Research to have been scrub, shrubland and tussock-grassland below treelines. *e tree cover above the scrubs are predicted to be kauri/tarai- re-kohekohe-tawa forest. Kahikitea and kauri logs have been found in swamps nearby (Stoke 1980). Horticultural expansion by pre-European Maori required forest clearance, and on land that was not regularly gardened fern and manuka +ourished. A large swamp is predicted to have lain on the coastline of Waipu Bay on the north western coastline of Matapihi, north- west of the property (Potential Vegetation of New Zealand - Informatics Team New Zealand, Environment and Land GIS, LRIS Portal).

Pre-European Maori

Several waka are recorded as having visited Tauranga, including Takitumu , Tainui and Te Arawa . From the crews of these waka, particularly Takitumu , Waitaha a Hei and Ngati Ranginui were descended. *ese hapu occupied Mt Maunagnui and Mauao until they were displaced by Ngaiterangi in the 18th century (Stokes 1980). *e Bay of Plenty is well known for its mild climate, fertile soils and abundant shell0sh and 0sh populations, which supported a large pre-European population, and the region has one of the highest densities of archaeological sites in the country (McFadgen 2007: 173). At the time of European contact (mid to late 1820s) Ngaiterangi were in possession of the area although Waitaha and Ranginui identities survived. Ngati Maru and Ngati Tamatera attacked Otumoetai, Te Papa and Maungatapu pa in 1828 killing many inhabitants and enslav- ing others (Phillips and Arabin 2004: 4). Very little is recorded on the pre-European Maori land use of speci0cally Matapihi and Maungatapu, most accounts lie in oral traditions with iwi. Many of the place names in Tauranga are after people, relationships, and events of the past.

European contact and historic period

*e 0rst Europeans in the Bay of Plenty were missionaries and traders. Samuel Marsden passed through the Tauranga area in 1820. *e Church Mission Society schooner Herald was the 0rst documented European vessel at Tauranga Harbour in 1826.During this visit Otumoetai, Te Papa and Maungatapu were identi0ed as the three main pa in the area (Stokes 1980: 45). A couple of years after that voyage Phillip Tapsell set up his trading station at Maketu. During the following decade sporadic European visits were interspersed with musket warfare. Several European traders followed Tapsell to settle in villages around Tauranga Harbour. One of these villages was Maungatapu, where four Europeans were living by 1831 (Stokes 1980: 58). During the following decade sporadic European visits were interspersed with musket warfare. Maungatapu was visited again in 1852 by the H.M.S Pandora , which documented the pa surrounded by a stockade and deep trench, with many people living both on the pa and in houses surrounding it. In 1865 Tauranga’s tribal land was con0scated by the Crown under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, after involvement in the Waikato Land Wars. Survey Plan ML 566, dated to 1866 shows Te Pa o te Ariki (Figure 2). *e peninsula was surveyed again in 1885; ML 5924-6 shows the pa clearly identi0ed as well as house sites and potentially an urupa is recorded (Figure 3). *ere is also a watercolour painted in 1863 of Maungatapu,

4 HAI–MTM Figure 2. ML 566, drawn in 1866, showing Te Pa o te Ariki on the north east.

Danielle Trilford 5 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 3. Detail of ML 5924-6, drawn in 1885, showing Te Pa o te Ariki (SRS U14/175).

6 HAI–MTM Figure 4. Watercolour by John Kinder painted in 1863, painted from Te Pa o te Ariki, facing south east.

Danielle Trilford 7 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 5. Detail of ML 619, drawn in 1867, showing U14/201 on the southern tip of the peninsula, and several other fortications along the coastline (note north is to the left of the image).

8 HAI–MTM facing south-east from Te Pa o te Ariki. !e painting shows a church (recorded as U14/253), and several permanent structures and houses in the foreground (Figure 4). Very little is recorded on European occupation of the Matapihi side of the harbour, other than a row boat ferry service established in 1873 between Matapihi and Te Papa (which was the centre of Tauranga Township at the time) (Bellamy 1982). Maungatapu remained a village settlement until the early 1900s, providing goods and services to Tauranga until the mid-1900s when Tauranga’s residential expansion engulfed Maungatapu as a suburb. A survey plan of ML 619 shows the land hosting several forti3ed sites, drawn in 1867 (Figure 5). One of these is the coastal pa U14/201. Several other elevated sites are seen on the map which are currently unrecorded archaeologically.

Archaeological investigations

Most sites in the wider landscape of the project area are pa, midden, and horticultural sites (Figure 1). !ere are three previously recorded archaeological sites immediately within the project footprint (U14/175, U14/201, U14/3226), and a further 10 within 400 m. Some of the latter sites are recorded using the NZMS 1 Imperial 100 yard grid references, subsequently converted to NZMS 260 Metric 100 m grid references, meaning the true position of sites may not be as precise as the more recently visited sites. Many earthworks present in the area were done in previous decades before archaeological monitoring was implemented, further damaging the archaeological record of the area. Site U14/175 is Te Pa o te Ariki, a pa occupying the north eastern coast of the Maungatapu peninsula. !e site was originally recorded with NZAA by Ken Moore in 1972, based on written records from the 1852 visit by H.M.S Pandora . !e 3rst visual survey was in 1977 when Te Ariki Park had already been established on the site. !e survey noted very little original surface features remained on the higher part of the pa due to the park build, but documented a southern ditch and bank and a possible second inner ditch to the west. !e site also had eastern terraces, possible northern terraces and pits (eroding with the cli4), midden on the surface north and east of the pa, and lithic material eroding into the northern beachfront from the cli4. In 2002 Don Prince surveyed the site, noting the pa was used as an urupa following the 1918 in5uenza epidemic – the koiwi were reinterred in a mass grave elsewhere during the development of the sport complex. !e site is likely to span east down to the lower lying coastal 5ood zone, after investigations by Mallows (2011) discovering evidence of pre-European Maori structures, obsidian, and cooking at the Wikitoria Pump Station (approximately 120 m from the eastern base of the pa) U14/201 is a pa lying on the southern tip of the Matapihi peninsula, facing south. It was 3rst recorded as an archaeological site in 1973 by Ken Moore, lying on the end of the spur facing Te Pa o te Ariki across the water. However, earthworks monitoring by Cable (2005) showed the pa is larger and an undefended portion extends north and east. It is bisected by State High 29a. !e pa has a trench, terraces, a traverse trench and bank, pits, and midden eroding both from the top and the western scarp. Sandstone 3les, 5akes, adze portions, drill points, and worked bone have been collected near the pa on the beach front by a local fossicker. Works in 2005 exposed evidence of the pa extended north, with rua pits, obsidian, midden, ovens and worked bone found during power cable trench works on the highway easement (Cable 2005). !e cultural impact assessment for the authority of the trench works assessed a high cultural value due to the presence of an urupa; currently there is no urupa recorded on the NZAA SRS within the project vicinity. U14/3226 is a site with 8 pits, 3 post-holes and midden deposits. !e site was discovered in 2005 by Charlotte Judge who recorded them after they were found in the cut of the highway

Danielle Trilford 9 CFG Heritage Ltd. build. !e size of the site is unknown, and there has been no investigation of the site other than identifying and describing the visible material.

Field survey

!e pole locations were assessed on 10 May 2016 by Danielle Trilford of CFG Heritage. Known archaeological sites within the project area were relocated and reassessed and midden was detected through systematic probing. !e results are discussed below, divided under the Maungatapu and Matapihi land.

Maungatapu Poles 28–32

Poles 28–32 will be moved within a 5 m window to either side of their current location at the highway’s western easement (Figure 6). !ere were no visual or probing indicators of archaeological material within the window of the works at these poles, most were within the dense overgrown bush on runs down a high and gently sloping rise southwest to northeast over approximately 800 meters.

Figure 6. Aerial photograph of the State Highway 29 west easement showing the locations of Poles 28–32.

10 HAI–MTM Figure 7. Pole 30 in the foreground to the left, showing the dense bush near the poles impacting the quality of the visual survey.

Poles 33A, 33B and 33C

"ese new poles will be installed within the marked occupation area of Te Pa o te Ariki (U14/175), as shown after pre-European archaeological features were found during the investigations of earthworks at Wikitoria Pump Station (Mallows, 2011). "e surveyed areas for the poles did not provide any visual or probing archaeological indicators during the site visit.

Poles 116 and 117

Poles 116 and 117 are both double-posted poles (pi poles) which are currently on the Ariki Sports 0eld, which is also the location of Te Pa o te Ariki (U14/175) (Figure 10). Pole 116 is at the south eastern end of the high point on the park, before the slope runs east and south (Figure 11). "e survey detected loosely packed midden 60 mm below the ground surface. Probing around Pole 117 did not detect any midden, and there were no exposed surfaces where subsurface features may have been visible, the grass near the poles were very overgrown (Figure 12). Pole 117 is fairly close to the cli1 edge of the pa (approx. 15–25 m), and the surrounding land to both poles is very likely subsurface archaeological remains related to the pa. Both Poles 116 and 117 are to be removed.

Matapihi Poles 33D, 33E, 37, 38, 39, and 119

"ese poles all lie at the southern tip of Matapihi and are within the area that marks site U14/201, Te Ngaio, a pa on the south facing spur bisected by State Highway 29a (Figure 13). Poles 33D, 33E and 39 will be new poles, while Poles 37, 38 will be retained in existing location with no change to structures. Pole 119 is a double-posted pole with two stabilising strainers to south and north that will be removed.

Danielle Trilford 11 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 8. Aerial photograph of the State Highway 29 west easement with pole positions 33a–33c plotted and labelled.

Figure 9. The area where 33B and 33C will be placed, facing north east, showing the likely lack of modi!cation to the area. Wikitoria pump station is to the left of the photograph.

12 HAI–MTM Figure 10 . Aerial photograph of Ariki Park (Te Pa o te Ariki, SRS: U14/175) with pole positions 116–117 plotted and labelled.

Figure 11 . Pole 116 facing south east where the pole will be removed.

Danielle Trilford 13 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 12 . Pole 117 where the pole will be removed, facing north-west looking toward Matapihi.

Figure 13 . (Aerial photograph of the south part of Matapihi peninsula (including site U14/201) with the pole positions 33d–119 plotted and labelled.

14 HAI–MTM Figure 14 . The overgrown vegetation at the point where Pole 33D will be installed..

Figure 15 . The area where Pole 33E with be installed

Probing at 33D provided evidence of subsurface shell 70 mm below the ground surface, this may be a natural deposit considering its proximity to the coastline, however the presence of U14/201 nearby means this cannot be con'rmed without archaeological excavation. (ere was no visual evidence of archaeology immediately near the position because the vegetation was dense and partly overgrown (Figure 14). (e land is currently used for grazing stock and horses but the surface does not appear damaged. Surveying near 33E did not provide any evidence of subsurface or visual markers of archaeological remains. (e pole is on a high point, approximately 30 m north to a series of ditch and bank complexes (Figure 15). (e position commands clear views of the southern portion of the pa, Te Ngaio, and the harbour to west and east. (e pole position is 10–15 m from archaeologi-

Danielle Trilford 15 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 16 . Pole 119.

Figure 17 . Poles 37, 38 and 39 facing northeast from Pole 37, showing the downhill, north eastern portion of the pa. cal remains of the pa found during earthworks in 2005 (Cable 2005). $e land is currently used for grazing stock and horses and shows surface damage from this. Pole 119 lies further inland than 33E, at a *at high point 7–8 m east from a sharp drop from the ridgeline (Figure 13). $ere were no archaeological features found by probing or visual inspection. $e pole position is 10–15 m from archaeological remains found related to the pa during highway easement earthworks in 2005 (Cable 2005) (Figure 16). $e locations for Poles 37–39 did not provide any visual or subsurface indicators of archaeological remains, although excavations in 2005 con1rmed there is archaeological activity running across the ridge as far back as Pole 39 and probably further northeast up the highway easement. $e land is in good condition; the only land use is the very occasional vehicle. $e poles

16 HAI–MTM run down a slope: Pole 37 is the highest (approximately 20–30 m above the road level), which gently lowers to be level with the road over 40–45 m to the position of Pole 39(Figure 17).

Poles 40–49

Most of existing poles will be retained and new poles installed between existing (within same general alignment) – please refer to the attached pole schedule appended to this report. +ey all run on the highway eastern easement and between 40–90 m of the current coastline of Rangataua Bay (Figure 18). Similar to Poles 37–39, the land is in very good condition. Pole 40 may lie on the peripheral parts of U14/201, however no visual or probing results indicated archaeological remains were present. Pole 41 is approximately 20 m northeast of archaeological site U14/3226, recorded post-earthworks as an exposed pro2le of post-holes, midden and rua-pits as part of the construction of the highway in 2004. Considering the proximity of Te Ngaio Pa (U14/201), and the series of midden and oven sites running up the nearby Rangataua Bay coastline, it is possible that Poles 40–49 may be on or close to unrecorded pre-European Maori archaeological remains.

Figure 18 . Aerial photograph of the highway and labelled pole positions of poles 40–49 with nearby archaeological sites

Danielle Trilford 17 CFG Heritage Ltd. Figure 19 . Aerial photograph of the orchard and labelled pole positions of poles 120–128 with nearby archaeological sites.

Poles 50, 120–128

Poles 120 –128 are all double-posted poles (pi poles) running through a kiwifruit orchard and highway easement; they will be removed (Figure 19). 'e ground around the poles points did not provide any evidence of archaeological remains on the surface or through probing.

Poles 48B 48C 48D 48 E (previously known as 126A, 126B, 126C, 26D)

'ese poles will be installed on the easement of the highway (Figure 20). Oruamatua Pa (U14/614) is recorded approximately 300 m east of the poles, the extent of the site is not known and the surrounding area has not been archaeologically surveyed until the current works. Sites U14/307 and U14/2555 are also within 60 m of the pole points. 'e area did not provide visual or probing evidence of archaeological features during the site visit.

Assessment

'e following assessments of values and signi2cance relate only to archaeological values. Other interested parties, in particular mana whenua, may hold di3erent values regarding the site.

18 HAI–MTM Figure 20 . Aerial photograph of the land where the poles 126A–D will be installed with nearby archaeological sites.

ree sites will be potentially a"ected by the proposed works and each is assessed separately here, though it should be noted that they are all part of the same archaeological landscape. e following assessments of archaeological values is based on the criteria set out in NZHPT (2006).

U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki Assessment of values

Condition e condition of any surviving pre-European archaeology is not known, the northern cli" face is reportedly eroding and the piece-meal earthworks to the lower land and parts of the top have damaged and removed parts of the pa. Although much of the site was damaged when the sports &eld complex was constructed in 2002, the site is wide-spread and there is likely to be much remaining subsurface. It is likely to be in moderate condition at best due to the modi- &cation during the construction of Ariki Park and the surrounding housing and infrastructure. U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, has moderate condition values. Rarity Pa are highly visible archaeological sites and are not uncommon in Tauranga. e pa was stated to be one of the three most prominent pa in Tauranga in 1826. e scale and size of the pa at that period increases the rarity of the site.

Danielle Trilford 19 CFG Heritage Ltd. U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, has moderate to high rarity values. Context %e relationship of the pa to the natural landscape, particularly the Tauranga Harbour, and to surrounding archaeological site remains relatively intact despite substantial modi&cation of parts of this landscape. U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, has high context values. Information %e remaining parts of the pa have the potential to provide important information about the history of New Zealand. U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, has high information values. Amenity While Ariki Park and Wikitoria pump stations are amenities in themselves, the amenity values are not associated with the pa. U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, has moderate amenity values. Cultural %e cultural values of the site can only be determined by the mana whenua.

Assessment of signi&cance

%e primary values of U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, are its information potential, amenity, and its surviving context, despite its partly damaged condition. %e site has high signi&cance.

Assessment of e'ects

One archaeological feature was detected within the footprint of the proposed works, it is likely there are more below the surface of the topsoil. %e works have the potential to damage archaeological deposits associated with U14/175, Te Pa o te Ariki, which remain beneath the current ground surface. %ese works will be small in scale, but given the damage that has already occurred to the site though the original tower installations, roads, housing, Ariki Park, and Wikitoria pump station, there are grounds to be concerned about cumulative e'ects.

Mitigation of e'ects

While the scale of e'ects is low and there is no opportunity for open area excavation, monitoring of works by a quali&ed archaeologist, and recording exposed features and sampling where required, is an appropriate level of mitigation. If the opportunity arises, obtaining data- ble material should be a priority.

U14/201, Te Ngaio pa Assessment of values

Condition While the condition of any surviving pre-European archaeology is not known, archaeological monitoring of the construction of State Highway 29a and subsurface power cables con&rmed the pa is larger than the south facing ridge. %ese works have also damaged the eastern portion and removed parts of the pa. %e pa is large and there is likely to be much remaining subsurface. It is likely to be in moderate condition at best due to the modi&cation during the construction of State Highway 29a, transmission pole installation, subsurface cable laying, orchard and agricultural land use, and possible ploughing. U14/201, Te Ngaio pa, has moderate condition values.

20 HAI–MTM Rarity Pa are highly visible archaeological sites and are not uncommon in Tauranga. !e pa was stated to be one of the three most prominent pa in Tauranga in 1826. !e scale and size of the pa at that period increases the rarity of the site. U14/201, Te Ngaio pa, has moderate rarity values. Context !e relationship of the pa to the natural landscape, particularly the Tauranga Harbour, and to surrounding archaeological site remains relatively intact despite substantial modi(cation of parts of this landscape. U14/201, Te Ngaio pa, has high context values. Information !e remaining parts of the pa have the potential to provide important information about the history of New Zealand. U14/201, Te Ngaio pa, has high information values. Amenity While State Highway 29a is an amenity in itself, the amenity value is not associated with the pa. U14/201, Te Ngaio pa, has moderate amenity values. Cultural !e cultural values of the site can only be determined by the mana whenua.

Assessment of signi(cance

!e primary values of U14/201 are its information potential, amenity, and its surviving context, despite its partly damaged condition. !e site has high signi(cance.

Assessment of e*ects

No archaeological features were observed within the footprint of the proposed works, but these have the potential to damage archaeological deposits associated pa U14/201 which remain beneath the current ground surface. !ese works will be small in scale, but given the damage that has already occurred to the site though the during the construction of State Highway 29a, transmission pole installation, subsurface cable laying, orchard and agricultural land use, and possible ploughing there are grounds to be concerned about cumulative e*ects..

Mitigation of e*ects

While the scale of e*ects is low and there is no opportunity for open area excavation, monitoring of works by a quali(ed archaeologist, and recording exposed features and sampling where required, is an appropriate level of mitigation. If the opportunity arises, obtaining data- ble material should be a priority.

U14/3226 Assessment of values

Condition !e condition of any surviving pre-European archaeology is not known, the construction of the highway provided a shallow pro(le that exposed rua pits, post holes and midden deposits. !is means the grassed land o* the road is very likely to contain archaeological deposits from the same site, and also possibly below the roading surface. It is likely to be in moderate condition at best due to the modi(cation during the construction of the roading and nearby transmission pole installations.

Danielle Trilford 21 CFG Heritage Ltd. U14/3226 has moderate condition values. Rarity Midden and horticultural sites are not uncommon in Tauranga. &e site is one of likely to be one of many more unrecorded archaeological deposits running up the inland coastlines of Tauranga Harbour. U14/3226 has moderate rarity values. Context &e relationship of the site to the natural landscape, particularly the surrounding pa and Tauranga Harbour, remains relatively intact despite substantial mod- i'cation of parts of this landscape. U14/3226 has high context values. Information &e remaining parts of the pa have the potential to provide important information about the history of New Zealand. U14/3226 has high information values. Amenity While State Highway 29a is an amenity in itself, the amenity values are not associated with the midden and horticultural site. U14/3226 has low amenity values. Cultural &e cultural values of the site can only be determined by the mana whenua.

Assessment of signi'cance

&e primary values of U14/3226 are its information potential, amenity, and its surviving context, despite its damaged condition. &e site has moderate signi'cance.

Assessment of e)ects

No archaeological features were observed during the survey within footprint of the proposed works, but these have the potential to damage archaeological deposits associated pa U14/3226 which remain beneath the current ground surface. &ese works will be small in scale, but given the damage that has already occurred to the site though the original tower and highway installation, there are grounds to be concerned about cumulative e)ects.

Mitigation of e)ects

While the scale of e)ects is low and there is no opportunity for open area excavation, monitoring of works by a quali'ed archaeologist, and recording exposed features and sampling where required, is an appropriate level of mitigation.

Recommendations

&ese recommendations are only made on the basis of the archaeological values that have been outlined above. Any other values associated with special interest groups, including tangata whenua, can only be determined by them. It is recommended that: x an authority to modify sites U14/175 Te Pa o te Ariki, U14/201 Te Ngaio Pa, and U14/3226 and any other archaeological features that may be encountered during works be applied for from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) under Section 45 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; x note that this is a legal requirement;

22 HAI–MTM x no authority should be applied for without consultation with the appropriate tangata whenua authorities; evidence of consultation, and views expressed, will be required by NZHPT, and will be taken into account when making a decision about the granting of the authority x note that the application process may take up to three months from the date of lodge- ment, and following issue there is a period of 15 working days during which earthworks cannot commence to allow for appeals to the Environment Court; x appropriate tikanga (protocols) should be followed during works – mana whenua may make recommendations outlining these; x in the event of koiwi (human remains) being uncovered during any future construction, work should cease immediately and mana whenua should be contacted so that suitable arrangements can be made; x since archaeological survey cannot always detect sites of traditional signi#cance to Maori, or wahi tapu, mana whenua should be consulted regarding the possible existence of such sites, and the recommendations in this report.

References

Bellamy, A.C. 1982. Tauranga 1882–1982 . Tauranga, Tauranga City Council. Cable, N. 2005. SH2 Power Cable Installation, Matapihi, Tauranga (Archaeological Site U14/201). Unpublished OPUS report prepared for Tauranga City Council. Healey, J., Scho#eld, J.C. and +ompson, B.N. (1964) Sheet 5 Rotorua (1st Edition). Geological Map of New Zealand, 1:250,000, Wellington: Department of Scienti#c and Industrial Research. Luke, J. (ed.) (1968) Soils of New Zealand. Part 1. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin , 26 (1), Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs Limited. Mallows, C. 2011. Archaeological monitoring: Wikitoria Pump Station, Maungatapu, Tauranga. NZHPT Authrority 2010/438. Unpublished report prepared for the Tauranga City Council. McFadgen, B. 2007. Hostile Shores: Catastrophic Events in Prehistoric New Zealand and their Impact on Maori Coastal Communities . Auckland University Press, Auckland. Phillips, K. and Arabin, S. (2004) Archaeological Survey: Tauranga City Central Business District (Te Papa), unpublished report for Tauranga City Council by Archaeology Bay of Plenty. Phillips, K. 2009. Archaeological survey, Adams Avenue to Banks Avenue, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga. Unpublished Archaeology B.O.P report to Tauranga City Council. Stokes, E. 1980. A History of Tauranga County . Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.

Danielle Trilford 23 CFG Heritage Ltd. I

PROJECT ISO A3297mm x 420mm ISO HAI-MTM A RELOCATION SSR

CLIENT TRANSPOWER NZ LTD

CONSULTANT

AECOM New Zealand Limited o AS/NZSISO 9001:2008. AECOM HOUSE 8 MAHUHU CRESCENT AUCKLAND +64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fax www.aecom.com Maunga tapu Rd (! New Structure (! Existing Structure >! Existing Structure - to be replaced >! Existing Structure - to be removed

withthe AECOM Quality Assurance system certified t Proposed Realignment

t Existing Alignment

i S r Existing Alignment -to be removed STRUCTURE ipa HAI-MTM A 114 Biodiversity Sites STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED Ta HAI-MTM A 113A Height above Mean High Water Springs TO BE REMOVED GL : 16.3m TEMPORARY19.4Mm Height above STRUCTURE 28T GL : 16.0m >! SPATIAL REFERENCE 28A - TYPE 10 CONCRETE >! STRUCTURE WITH Scale: (A3 size) Height STANDARD EMBEDMENT 1:1,500 above GL oject have been preparedand checked inaccordance 105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 >! : 25.5m EXISTING STRUCTURE Meters (! >! HAI-MTM B 29 HEIGHT ABOVE GL : 16.3Mm Map features depicted in terms of NZTM 2000 projection. TO BE REPLACED WITH 28.2m Data Sources: EXISTING TYPE 18 STEEL TALL STRUCTURE WITH Cadastral Boundaries – LINZ NZ Cadastral Dataset 2016 CONCRETE STRUCTURE 28 3.8m EMBEDMENT AND HEIGHT ABOVE GL : 18.2Mm RENAMED AS 29A Note : The MHWS boundary is based on 2007 aerial mapping. It TO BE REPLACED WITH does not necessarily represent the current position. TWIN ARMLESS 25.5m STEEL Access A >! (! TALL STEEL STRUCTURESTRUCTURES PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RENAMED AS 28A EXISTING STRUCTURE 29A HAI-MTM B 30 ApprovedColin Thomson Date HEIGHT ABOVE GL : 17.2Mm Checked Iqbal Kalsi Date 09/06/2017 Height above TO BE REPLACED WITH 28.2m e block confirms the design and drafting of this pr Designed Iqbal Kalsi Date 18/05/2017 GL : 28.2m TALL STEEL STRUCTURE WITH 3.8m EMBEDMENT Drawn David Klap Date 18/05/2017 Access AND RENAMED AS 30A B (! >! ISSUE/REVISION

30A SH 29A Height above GL : 28.2m A1 15.06.17 A 18.05.17 . Rev Date Description purposes ofthis project. The signingof this titl

3_Transmission_Mapping_dhk.mxd KEY PLAN 16-04-14

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 map is confidential and shall only be used for the 1 Te Hono St PROJECT NUMBER 60438334 SHEET TITLE

St HAI-MTM A & B Modifications Illustration

Wati Last saved Last saved by: (2017-06-20) KLAPD Last Plotted: 20 Filename: D:\temp\iqbal\4.99GIS\02_Maps\20170620_A MAP NUMBER