Coro Harbour Dev Strategy - FinalDraft Council... · Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy...

Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy Reference Document Final Draft

1

For: Thames-Coromandel District Council

By: Coromandel Harbour Facilities Development Project Control Group

28 July 2014

Final Draft


2

At a Glance

The Coromandel Harbour project is one of our Council's top three projects priorities. Harbour facilities around the Coromandel need to be upgraded as we prepare for higher visitor numbers and increased usage of wharf and boat ramp facilities by both recreational and commercial users. Developing the infrastructure to allow for a fast ferry from Auckland will also have major economic benefits for the entire Coromandel District. This project aims to facilitate and implement a partnership strategy that includes our communities, iwi, central and local government and the private sector.

The Coromandel Harbour Facilities Project has been underway for the past 18 months, starting in January 2014 following the Coromandel-Colville Community Board indicating in its 2013-2014 Community Board plan that upgrading harbour facilities was a priority. This project is still very much in its infancy in terms of its project lifecycle. Phase One of the project is nearing completion, which will be delivering a business case for the preferred option for development within the Harbour along with a submission to the 2015-2025 Long-Term Plan. Phase One of the project has involved the Project Control Group (consisting of our Chief Executive, Senior Council staff, technical engineers, and consultants when required) meeting with various organisations and stakeholder to assess needs and options. Consultation also involved a public survey along with a project-briefing meeting for the public. Alongside this, our Project Control Group has been working on technical and financial studies, enabling us to refine our investigations to several preferred options and areas of development. The two preferred options we're now looking at for development are:

1. The area of Sugarloaf Wharf at Te Kouma through to Windy Point. 2. The area of Furey's Creek to Coromandel Wharf.

Any improvements at the Sugarloaf would be to address the separation of aquaculture and recreational fishing interests to improve health and safety practices while a development around Furey's Creek area would be to cater for the growing number of charter boat operators and recreational fishers. Following the project-briefing meeting to the public, a Stakeholders Working Group was established in May 2014. This group represents the community, iwi, businesses, local and regional government, recreational fishers, aquaculture and environmental groups. The group's role is to give feedback around the various options and make recommendations and direction on the project. Local knowledge is really important with the development or improvement of any facility. Following recommendations from the Stakeholder Working Group and our Economic Development Committee, as well as the work done by our Project Control Group to formulate this Coromandel Harbour Facilities Strategy Document, Council will be in a position to sign off a final option and area for development. A full business case can then be undertaken where we can calculate costs and carry on with concept design. The cost of any preferred option to develop and improve Harbour infrastructure is going to be significant and it won't be funded solely by Council. By working with our strategic partners (communities, iwi, central and local government and the


3

private sector) we want to ensure we're reducing the financial burden on our ratepayers and creating commercial opportunities and revenue streams. Once Council approves the final concept and Phase One is completed we will be moving into Phase Two, which is finalising a detailed concept plan and design, establishing a consultation group with an independent chair to work with stakeholder groups to work towards finally lodging a Resource Consent Application. Phase Three will be working through the Resource Consent Process before Phase Four - Physical Works. Throughout these phases we will be working on partnership and funding agreements. All the stages within each phase of the project lifecycle are iterative and work completed is seldom done with only one phase in mind. It's also important to note that this project is managed and monitored by way of decisional hold points; ensuring implementation is done with best practice and significant governance input. The recommended scenario or option established through consultation is being proposed as follows:

• Aquaculture expansion of Sugarloaf (as per their submission) as a long-term option. The facility will remain consented for recreational and industry use.

• Furey’s Creek half metre deep channel and associated facilities for recreational users and shallow draft charter vessels as an interim solution to resolve some of the congestion issues at Sugarloaf and Hannaford’s.

• Continued use of the Hannaford’s Jetty as an interim facility for the ferry and charter boat operators. A park and ride system is essential to ensuring safe operation at this site.

• Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin as a long-term option for the ferry and various other users, which may include marine servicing facilities, storage facilities, a marina and also potentially space for aquaculture industry.

Allowances are made in this option for improvement of roading infrastructure to resolve traffic safety and congestion issues. Concept costs will be refined and potentially reduce with the confirmation of scope requirements. Even with a refinement on scope and associated cost the recommended option relies heavily on external investment and joint ventures. There is also the opportunity for specific commercial development within the final long-term solution.

What we are keenly aware of is that we need to address the safety, congestion and access issues of the Coromandel Harbour. If we do nothing this would come at a considerable cost to the community through lost opportunities and continued stress on the current facilities.


4

Table of Contents

At a Glance ............................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7

About this Document ............................................................................................. 7

Purpose of this document ...................................................................................... 7

Summary ............................................................................................................... 7

Key Considerations and Strategic Positioning ....................................................... 8

Strategic Recommendations.................................................................................. 9

2. Background ......................................................................................................... 11

Council Direction ................................................................................................. 11

Project Timeline and Key Decisions .................................................................... 12

3. Project Structure & Path ...................................................................................... 19

Project Objective ................................................................................................. 19

Project Path ......................................................................................................... 20

Project Structure .................................................................................................. 21

Project Scope ...................................................................................................... 23

In-Scope .............................................................................................................. 24

Out of Scope ....................................................................................................... 24

Lead-in Phase Methodology ................................................................................ 24

4. Current Day Scenario .......................................................................................... 26

Area of focus ....................................................................................................... 26

Existing facilities .................................................................................................. 26

Sugarloaf Wharf .................................................................................................. 27

Hannaford’s Wharf .............................................................................................. 28

Furey’s Creek Facilities and Jack’s Point Boat Ramp .......................................... 29

Coromandel Wharf .............................................................................................. 29

Long Bay Campground and Boat Ramp .............................................................. 30

5. Problem Definition ............................................................................................... 31

What is the problem?........................................................................................... 31

What are we trying to accomplish? ...................................................................... 32

6. Future Demand, Needs & Opportunities .............................................................. 33

Current Facilities & Demand ................................................................................ 33

Aquaculture ......................................................................................................... 33

Charter boats ...................................................................................................... 34

Ferry, Tourism Visitor Economy & Commuters .................................................... 34

Social –recreational users ................................................................................... 35

Recreational yachts and other vessels ................................................................ 36

Recreational amenity ........................................................................................... 36

Cultural – iwi ........................................................................................................ 36

Economic Benefit ................................................................................................ 37

Environment – Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan ................................................. 40

Other Commercial Opportunities ......................................................................... 43

7. Land Tenure and Bylaws ..................................................................................... 46

Sugarloaf ............................................................................................................. 46

Coromandel Wharf .............................................................................................. 46

Furey’s Creek ...................................................................................................... 47

8. Community views and opinions ........................................................................... 48

Nov 13 survey ..................................................................................................... 48

Iwi & Key Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 49

Further discussions and submissions – Post 18 December 2013 ........................ 50

Submission to 2014-15 Annual Plan Special Consultation Process ..................... 50

Stakeholder Working Group ................................................................................ 51

2015-25 LTP Special Consultative Procedure ..................................................... 53


5

Consultation Process as Part of Consent Process ............................................... 53

9. Planning, Legal and Regulatory Considerations .................................................. 54

Statutory Provisions ............................................................................................ 54

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) ............................................... 54

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) ..................................................... 54

WRC – Regional Policy Statement (RPS) ............................................................ 55

WRC Consents.................................................................................................... 55

TCDC - District Plan ............................................................................................ 58

Plan Change Process .......................................................................................... 59

Statutory Process ................................................................................................ 59

Consenting Phase ............................................................................................... 59

Current Consent Compliance - Sugarloaf ............................................................ 60

Potential Legal & RMA Issues - Sugarloaf Wharf to Windy Point ......................... 62

10. Environmental / Ecological Considerations ........................................................ 64

Significant Ecological Features of the Coromandel Harbour ................................ 64

Ecological Assessment - Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf ............................ 64

Ecological Assessment - Sugarloaf to Windy Point .............................................. 65

Sediment Quality Sugarloaf & Windy Point .......................................................... 65

Sediment quality – Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf ..................................... 66

Possible Sampling Programme - Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf ................ 70

Harbour Clean-up ................................................................................................ 71

11. Engineering considerations ............................................................................... 73

Preliminary Concept Designs .............................................................................. 73

Defining the Project Area and Boundary Conditions ............................................ 73

Design requirements ........................................................................................... 74

Channel and Berthing Basin Depth ...................................................................... 74

Sediment Issues .................................................................................................. 75

Asset Lifecycle .................................................................................................... 76

Construction Methodology ................................................................................... 76

12. Preliminary Assessment of Forcing and Coastal Effects .................................... 77

Purpose ............................................................................................................... 77

Geophysical ........................................................................................................ 77

Coromandel Harbour Tidal Height Information .................................................... 78

Bathymetry .......................................................................................................... 79

Spectral- Wind Wave Model – Coromandel Harbour Area ................................... 79

Fetch Limited Wave ............................................................................................. 81

Stream Flow ........................................................................................................ 82

Summary of Un-calibrated Model Output ............................................................. 82

Hydrodynamic Model – Coromandel Wharf Area ................................................. 85

Sediment Transport Model – Coromandel Wharf Area ........................................ 89

13. Alternative Options Considered ......................................................................... 92

Existing facilities – excluded from the study: ........................................................ 92

Aquaculture 2011 – Tier 1 options re-considered in this study: ............................ 92

Aquaculture 2011 – Tier 2 options excluded from this study: ............................... 92

From Submissions to the Coromandel Harbour Project Team – Nov’13 .............. 92

Shortlisted sites as at 9 April 2014 – Council Resolution: .................................... 92

Hannaford’s Wharf .............................................................................................. 93

Option 1. Puhi Rare / Windy Point ....................................................................... 94

Option 2. Coromandel Wharf – Dredged Basin .................................................... 96

Option 3. Coromandel Wharf – Wharf Extension ............................................... 101

Option 4. Kopu .................................................................................................. 105

Option 5. Pedestrian and Rail Concrete Jetty – Barry Brickell ........................... 108

Option 6. Long Bay – Dredged Basin ................................................................ 110

Option 7. Long Bay – Boat Ramp and Small Dredged Basin ............................. 111

Option 8a & b Sugarloaf – Recreational & Commercial split .............................. 115


6

Sugarloaf combination Aquaculture and Recreational Split ............................... 117

Option 9a & b Furey’s Creek – Recreational and some Charter Operators ........ 123

Option 9c Furey’s Creek – Recreational, Charters and Ferry ............................. 125

14. Comparison of Options Assessed ................................................................... 130

Comparison of Options – Aquaculture Industry - Tier 1 Options ........................ 130

Comparison of Options – Community Submissions Nov’13 ............................... 131

Logical locations for specific users .................................................................... 132

Affordability / consolidation of services / staging ................................................ 132

Alternative Options - Costs calculations ............................................................ 134

Combined Options Assessment ........................................................................ 135

15. Short Listed – Combined Options Assessment ................................................ 136

Scenario A - Sugarloaf ...................................................................................... 136

Scenario B - Sugarloaf & Furey’s Creek ............................................................ 137

Scenario C – Sugarloaf, Furey’s Creek, Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin ...... 138

Scenario D – Barry Brickell’s Coromandel Wharf Extension, Sugarloaf, Furey’s Creek and Hannaford’s ...................................................................................... 138

Staging of the recommended Scenario C: ......................................................... 140

16. Proposed Development Programme................................................................ 142

Harbour Related services and structures ........................................................... 142

Preliminary Cost Benefit .................................................................................... 142

References: ........................................................................................................... 144

Attachments .......................................................................................................... 144

Attachment A – Minutes of Stakeholder Working Group Meetings ..................... 145


7

1. Introduction

About this Document This document was written by the TCDC Project Control Group, drawing on various works and reports completed by others to form a solid knowledge base for decision making purposes and to minimise the number of limitations associated with this study. The document is in draft as it will evolve with consultation and be finalised with the business case. This document is approved for release in its current draft form by the Project Control Group and includes the views and recommendations from various stakeholders engaged during the development of the strategy and business case.

Purpose of this document This Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy captures the process followed throughout the project initiation phase and provides a stable reference for the feasibility and business case.

Summary Growth of the aquaculture industry together with increased usage by recreational users and charter operators have put the existing wharf facilities at Sugarloaf under pressure. These issues are expected to increase in the future given the forecast growth in the mussel, scallop, commercial fisheries and proposed finfish industry. There is a need to provide additional wharfing infrastructure to meet the forecasted demand from the Aquaculture industry. The other key economic development driver is the improvement of facilities to attract larger numbers of visitors to the peninsula via the ferry. It is anticipated that facilities will be required in the medium to long term for a fast ferry service direct from Auckland to Coromandel town. This is however not realizable over night and will take a number of years before fast ferry service is established. In addition, there will need to be no negative effects for recreation boating activities, charter operations and recreational fishers in the offset of capacity uptake and expansion of Sugarloaf for Aquaculture Industry. The Coromandel Harbour Facilities project seeks to address the existing provision of harbour infrastructure with a look at addressing the needs of all harbour users including holistic consideration of commercial, community, cultural, social and environmental aspects. We have realised from further research a holistic plan for wider management and development of Coromandel Harbour is needed. Viewing the Sugarloaf facility in isolation is insufficient for developing a suitable solution for all users, or at least a solution with no dis-benefit. We also acknowledge that existing harbour facilities around Coromandel need to be upgraded as we prepare for higher visitor number or increased usage of wharf and boat ramp facilities for both recreation and commercial use. The Coromandel Harbour Facilities project aims to facilitate and implement a partnership strategy that includes partners such as Iwi, Waikato Regional Council,


8

Auckland Council, Central Government Organisations, private sector and the wider community. A number of sites and options were investigated and assessed. The recommended way forward includes a focus on two sites:

• The area of Sugarloaf to Windy Point; and • The area of Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf

While consolidation of services make for greater optimization and cost efficiencies, the proposed solution and recommended way forward is a combination of the two sites and is proposed to be completed in stages dependent on progress on the funding and partnership strategies.

Key Considerations and Strategic Positioning The table below provides at a glance an overview of key issues considered and TCDC’s strategic response or position on the matter. Item Issue Strategic Position

1 Mixed-use Facilities and Health & Safety

Manage and mitigate H&S issues through a variety of non-infrastructure solutions in the short term while the final solution is being investigated.

Incorporate lessons learnt with regards to mixed-use and resulting risks into the final solution’s physical design.

2 Congestion and Road Safety

Roading matters will remain even if some of the activities such as transport of mussels are removed from the area. This needs to be dealt with in the larger Roading strategy for the District.

Where the activity has specific impact on congestion, availability of parking or adds additional pressure to existing infrastructure, it is to be dealt with in the proposed final solution.

3 Aquaculture Strategy Council supports the retention and expansion of the industry and related commercial activity that it attracts to the District.

4 Environmental Impact The project needs to be developed in a unified manner, assessing and incorporating requirements much wider than just user requirements an engineering design.

Environmental impact and mitigation along with enhancement to the environment (ecological to urban) is to be included in the final proposed solution.

5 Funding Council will develop a funding strategy, which creates opportunities for specific commercial investment and joint ventures in order to minimise the burden on the general ratepayer.

6 Suitable Facilities with consideration for on-going Management and Operation

Facilities are to be developed in conjunction with user groups and affected parties.

Suitable tidal access and landside access is essential along with associated land to service the facilities. The final option needs to consider growth.

7 Consenting and Landownership

Develop and implement a suitable strategy to obtain consents that include consultation and don’t rely solely on the RMA to resolve affected party issues.

Title will be applied for in consultation with the affected iwi through the MACAA.


9

Strategic Recommendations

Partnering

Implement a partnership strategy that enables collective partnering to deliver the next stage of the project and facilitate the resolution of issues such as land tenure and ownership. This includes strategic partners such as Iwi, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council, Central Government Organisations, Private Sector and the wider Community. Lead and champion the development of a successful project resource consent process with strategic partners.

Funding Strategy

The financial impact on the general ratepayer for the proposed option calculation is based on a significant amount of external funding. The rating impact projected is therefore only the Council funding portion of the project or put in a different way – if external funding is not realised then the project will not be implemented. For this reason it is essential to engage with potential funding partners, and implement a funding strategy that explores a variety of funding avenues including: private, public, commercial and lastly rates. Ongoing operation and maintenance of the facilities will be funded form user charges, unless a specific arrangement is made through the establishment of a port company (for instance) to replace Council as the operator of the facilities. Important to note is that this would include the maintenance of tidal access to and at the facilities.

Shared Intent and Strategic Purpose

Determine key economic and environmental outcomes shared by collective regional and central government through delivery of the Coromandel Harbour Strategy. This includes aligning the guiding principles and strategic objectives of the Thames-Coromandel District Council’s Economic Development Plan, Aquaculture New Zealand Strategy, Central Government (MPI) response to Aquaculture strategy, The Hauraki Gulf Spatial Plan and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 of which include the maintenance and enhancement of natural and physical resources of the Coromandel Harbour and the social and economic well-being of neighbouring regions and New Zealand.

Key Project Priorities

Enable all tide commercial ferry access from Auckland to Coromandel town. Develop a berthing facility in the area between Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf. Enable cultural, recreational and economic development. Partner with private organisations to deliver commercial, mixed use and recreational boating facilities at Furey’s Creek. Enable retention of the various existing industries operating from Coromandel along with immediate growth for the Aquaculture industry. Provide for expanded use for the Aquaculture industry at Sugarloaf for short to the medium term future. Plan for growth and expansion of mussel and oyster farms as well as the potential future fin fish farms in the Coromandel harbour. Attract sustainable private sector


10

investment through the planning of a future recreational marina and mixed-use development that support sustainable options for Coromandel Wharf. This development also needs to cater for and enable future growth of commercial fishers, charter operator, recreational yachts and boats, recreational fishers, marine servicing, storage facilities and ancillary activities.

Project Delivery

Enable the newly established Thames Coromandel Economic Development Committee to govern the project intent, champion the project purpose and deliver the project key deliverables in support with Key Partners and the Stakeholder Working Group.

Staged Implementation

The staging of the recommended solution is crucial as the long-term solution will take a number of years to design and obtain consent for. Funding for the final Coromandel Wharf - Dredged Basin component of the solution may also delay the implementation of the final solution, which could cater for all users. It is proposed that while the project is being developed that congestion and Health & Safety issues are addressed with specific management solutions as outlined in this report. These management issues may include the establishment of a park and ride system to resolve various issues at Hannaford’s and Sugarloaf. The timing, final location and extent of the expansion for the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (CMFA) may be implemented in stages. The first stage is to take pace as soon as possible. The Furey’s Creek half metre channel to service the recreational users and shallow draft charter operators will need to be implemented as a first stage to provide an interim solution to the congestion and H&S issues experienced at Hannaford’s and Sugarloaf. The development of the Coromandel Wharf – Dredged Basin is seen to be the long-term solution for the majority of user and support service issues. This solution can be implemented in stages, but the initial stage will be substantial at just over $20M to provide the various walls, dredged basin and reclamation hardstand area. Further stages can follow as and when the demand dictates.


11

2. Background

Council Direction The Coromandel Harbour Project is one of Council’s prioritised top three projects in its draft 2014-18 Economic Development Action Plan, Council identified the Coromandel Harbour Strategy as a key anchor project with a targeted approval date of June 2014. The drivers include unlocking of Auckland investment in northern Coromandel, reducing travelling distance of populations to the City, growing aquaculture development, and increasing use and popularity of recreational boat users. With the Fast-ferry aspiration from Auckland city to Coromandel town having existing since the 1920s, the project has a long history.

Council has identified very clear expectations and outcomes in terms of what it expects to achieve for the Coromandel, including:

• A prosperous district�- The Coromandel has a prosperous economy. • A liveable district�- The Coromandel is a preferred area of NZ in which to

live, work, raise�a family and enjoy a safe and satisfying life. • A clean and green district�- The Coromandel Peninsula’s natural

environment provides a unique sense of place. �

In its draft 2014-2018 Economic Development Plan Council has further identified major economic targets along with critical actions to lay a strategic foundation to facilitate increased economic activity and sustainable access to harbour facilities for a number of sectors and industries. � The Coromandel Harbour provides the natural attributes and existing commercial base that will vastly benefit from strategic development and capital investment to further contribute to Council’s following economic targets:

• An average annual increase in real exports of greater than 5% and an average real GDP increase of greater than 2.5% by the end of 2018. Coromandel Harbour aquaculture and tourism will be significant contributors to achieving this growth. The aquaculture industry could grow over the next five years by around 15 – 25%, with the potential for even greater growth depending on market conditions. The charter boat industry is also in good shape, with some growth and a larger number of visitors to the area expected over the next few years.

• A permanent population increase of 5,000 by the end of 2018. Providing a significant sea transport link with Auckland through a fast ferry connection will assist with this by making it easier for commuters to work in Auckland. Auckland-Coromandel ferry patronage has already seen steady growth of 4.3% annually in the years to August 2011 – 2013. New wharfing facilities could help to increase this patronage still further and assist with increasing the regional population by 2018.

• Increase in rateable units of greater than 2.5% by the end of 2018. Contribute to an increased commercial and residential rating basis through a new property development base.

• A 5%+ annual increase in visitor guest nights. The Coromandel sea link gateway or “Blue Highway” will provide a vital linkage to the Auckland tourism gateway. This will increase the Coromandel peninsula tourism offering through faster access and improve the overall stay and play destination experience.

• Increase in employment on the Coromandel by 5% by the end of 2018. The


12

local aquaculture industry supports an employment base of 297 direct jobs (and 432 indirect jobs) and contributes $31 million to the regional domestic product.

An investment in essential harbour infrastructure will enable critical

growth and expansion for these Industries. It is proposed that the Coromandel Harbour strategy will provide the Region with a considerable infrastructure and works project. This is a significant capital project for the public and private sector to deliver over a proposed 5 – 10 year timeframe. This project will generate significant employment opportunities through construction and trade supply.

In recent years the Council partnered through the Hauraki Development Board to review options for aquaculture industry wharfing infrastructure. The outcome of the study was the proposed expansion of the Sugarloaf wharfing facility for industry purposes only. The report conclusions were later found to be too narrow for TCDC, focusing solely on industry issues at the Sugarloaf site. The project direction changed and a new wider scope was established to investigate alternative sites for commercial fishers, recreational users, charter operators, recreational fishers, recreational vessels and the fast-ferry as well as aquaculture industry. After a tender process Cranleigh & Associates was engaged by Council to deliver on a staged process including the delivery of a situation and needs analysis, feasibility study and business case. At its meeting on 18 December 2013 Council was presented with the options selection, draft feasibility and indicative business case for its decision on pursuing the Furey's Creek option. The project executive key areas of focus, apart from economic development, are to resolve Health & Safety and congestion issues at Sugarloaf and Hannaford’s while providing improved access to Harbour users. These priorities are worked into the specific site selection and staging process.

Project Timeline and Key Decisions 2010-11 Aquaculture Wharfing Infrastructure project was established to determine the optimum location for wharfing infrastructure for the Aquaculture Industry. This project was completed under the banner of the Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group or Economic Development Agency and was in response to, among other, the increases growth up to that point, the proposed expansion of the mussel farms and the addition of a proposed 300ha fin fish farm close to Coromandel. The study included among other engineering, planning, legal, mauri values assessments, ecological assessments, sediment quality and other considerations. With a specific brief, focussed on the Hauraki Gulf and specifically the Aquaculture Industry, the study was thorough and assessed and ranked projects in terms of feasiblity as follows: First Tier Options

• Kopu – Transporter Barge Option • Windy Point / Puhi Rare • Sugarloaf Wharf

Second Tier Options • Coromandel Wharf & Jack’s Point • Coromandel Furey’s Creek • Te Kouma Harbour • Waikawau • Wharekawa


13

• Auckland December 2011 Council resolved that Sugarloaf expansion was to be developed and consents were to be obtained. $850,000 was put aside in the 2012-22 LTP to complete the relevant work required to compile the consent applications and fund the aplication process. The option was based on a reclamation with additional berths created for mussel barges along the reclamation extending east towards Puhi Rare / Windy Point. The Council resolution in December 2011 has not been reversed or superceeded by this strategy. Sugarloaf is still the preferred site for Aquaculture expansion in the short to medium term. June 2012 TCDC restructure saw the introduction of the Community Empowerment model. With the restructure came a reprioritasation and project scope review. The Sugarloaf wharf expansion only catered for aquaculture and the problem was more widespread than that. It was decided to take a step back and assess all existing harbour facilitities, current and future use along with the condition of the infrastructure before finalising any expansion plans at Sugarloaf. It became apparent from historic records that the subject of developing suitable wharfing facilities in Coromandel Harbour has been a much-debated issue since the 1920’s. Various options were developed, with only a few small facilities actually developed. The proposals range from private plans for the commercial development of Coromandel Wharf, marina development, vehicle ferry service and landing facilities to the development and growth of the aquaculture industry and mussel farms which currently use Sugarloaf wharf. This wharf is seriously under capacity and expansion is required. In an economic development context, TCDC has also become very interested in the proposition that a fast ferry link from downtown Auckland to Coromandel would lead to a boost in both tourism and potentially new residents. This proposition needed some serious testing. Jan 2013 - The Coromandel/Colville Community Board indicated in its 2013-2014 Community Plan that strategically the development and upgrade of the Coromandel Harbour facilities is one of its top priorities April 2013 - Council approves a budget of $40,000 within the Economic Development activity for a feasibility study into the Coromandel Wharf. This budget is split between the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 financial years ($15,000 and $25,000 respectively). The scope of work could have been packaged to begin following public consultation on the 2014-15 Annual Plan. However, given the strength of the drivers for the various works in the Harbour, the Chief Executive gave approval to seek tenders for the expanded scope of work. This work package was put to tender during the 2012-13 financial year. All tenderers received, exceeded the original approved budget of $40,000. July 2013 - A Cranleigh-led consortium is the successful tenderer. The total value of the tender is $240,500 split into three go-no-go parcels of work with estimated costs aligned with three Milestones


14

Given the amount of investment that may be required in the Harbour, and the fact that other potential funders in future would need to see a strong proposal, the price for the work was not necessarily unexpected. The work would be completed in the following stages: • Milestone 1: Situation and needs analysis to determine the current and future

harbour infrastructure provision and activity needs. This will include the current infrastructure provision and ownership, identification of future potential harbour activity and commercial demand to inform the stages that follow.

• Milestone 2: A focused feasibility study to determine the suitability along with commercial viability of the proposed option/s.

• Milestone 3: Development of a Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy and

Implementation plan. This proposed business plan would map out the staged implementation of the proposed strategy and identified projects through the 2015-2025 Ten Year Plan. In addition, a Feasibility Study was needed for the 2014/15 Draft Annual Plan timetable to obtain approval for the proposed lead-in works to complete immediate works.

• Milestone 4: Work package wrap up and presentation of final business case,

related documents and the final approved strategy to stakeholders. 2 Oct 2013 - Milestone One: A situation and needs analysis to determine the current and future harbour infrastructure and activity needs presented to Council at its October 2013 meeting. There were four focus areas of interest Furey's Creek, Long Bay, Coromandel Harbour and Sugarloaf Wharf. A public survey was undertaken along with early stage introductory meetings with key stakeholders including iwi, commercial and recreational fishing organisations, community groups, businesses, environmental groups, regional and national government agencies. Hannaford’s Jetty was eliminated early from the study for the following due to a lack of associated land for parking and land based services; limitations of the built infrastructure (even with the latest upgrades); exposed location; and the difficulty of road access. The four sites selected in the Situation and Needs Analysis were evaluated based on, among other, the following criteria: • Utilisation • Future demand • Commercial opportunities • Commercial structure options • Site constraints • Infrastructure concerns • Health & Safety concerns • Consulted party preferences • Ownership and management • Financial • Regulatory and planning risks Furey’s Creek clearly stood out as the likely site for development of harbour facilities. Further analysis followed in Milestone 2.


15

At this meeting Council also approved the funding and initiation of project Milestone 2: Draft Feasibility Study and Indicative Business Case. The proposed feasibility study (Milestone 2), the business plan and procurement strategy (Milestone 3) are intended for use in attracting investors and external funding parties. These final documents and the process by which the work package is to be completed also underpin any future consent applications in relation to the preferred option. 18 Dec 2013 - Milestone Two: A report is taken to Council presenting Furey's Creek as the recommended option for development. A staged proposal was presented along with key constraints and potential fatal flaws. The report presented was a draft business case which contained a preliminary feasibility study and was supported with an engineering report, preliminary sediment analysis, draft wind wave, hydrodynamic and sediment transport model, planning assessment, stakeholder meeting notes, key points from community survey. The concept delivered was high level and only painted a picture of what could be achieved at the Furey’s Creek site. The cost for the initial stages was in the region of $28M. The report also discussed options for implementation and options for funding were discussed. These included partnerships with regional and central government agencies, private sector joint ventures, and commercial opportunities such as residential development, retail, boat storage and parking, marina, tourism, marine servicing and recreational opportunities. Major criticism from the community included development of high rise apartment blocks, ecological impact, mining of schedule 4 area, cost of consultants, cost of project, insufficient consultation. The project was still in information gathering stage with a significant number of individual key stakeholder meetings and iwi as there wasn’t anything formal or concrete to consult on. Council asked for more details to determine the level of contaminants and potential effects of dredging at Furey's Creek, through sampling of the sediment at specific depth and levels. Milestone 3a: Sediment Proposal. Project management is iterative in its approach through all stages in a project, but none as much as the project lead-in and option selection phase. It was understood that a sediment analysis proposal alone would not answer the questions raised by Council and community and that a decision was needed on which option to develop so as to minimise the potential sunk cost. Following the initial study the scope of the project was broadened to provide a comprehensive review of all Coromandel Harbour options. All options were revisited and assessed in line with needs, constraints and reworked costs to reflect current day rates and consentable and constructible methodologies. 11 February 2014 Coromandel / Colville Community Board met and discussed the issues around the presentation of the Health & Safety Report by the CEO. Supportive of the project, some key messages came back as being: • Manage the communications well and openly; • Recreational boating is as significant to the Coromandel community economy as

Aquaculture; • Loss of amenity values associated with Patukirikiri Reserve would need to be

mitigated;


16

• The community is not enthusiastic about commercial development associated with the proposed Furey’s Creek facility;

• Sugarloaf: The consent and Management Plan needs to be managed, but the matter of charter boats needs to be approached fairly;

17 Feb 2014 - The proposed scope and cost of this sediment quality report was submitted to Council's Economic Development Committee for input prior to being considered by Council. After reviewing the sediment sampling proposal and the assessment of all available options. It recommends Furey's Creek as a preferred option for recreation and charter boat users. Meanwhile aquaculture and recreational fishing interests are separated at Sugarloaf Wharf to improve health and safety practices. Aquaculture and recreational fishing are the two consented activities at the Sugarloaf. The Economic Development Committee recommended to Council sediment sampling and testing is delayed until a desktop study around best location for the development of facilities is complete. 26 Mar 2014 Council workshop included a presentation and open discussion on various aspects of the project including a range of options revisited. It was explained that it was essential to characterise the nature and extent of contaminants within the study area as part of the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that sediment is only one of a number of environmental impacts that will need to be assessed during consent application stage. This information will drive the feasibility and cost of the concept as the final physical construction methodologies will need to include appropriate mitigation measures. The cost of the geophysical study, sampling programme and lab analysis is in the region of $300,000 to $350,000 and will take 18 weeks (weather and tide dependent) to deliver. It was noted that the sediment quality study didn’t follow the original project path and wasn’t supported by other studies that make up the supporting information to the Assessment of Environmental Effects and would therefore not provide a definitive answer as to the environmental impact of dredging or if the concept is consentable. The Project Control Group (PCG) recommended a staged approach to minimise sunk costs and delays. 9 April 2014 - A re-scoped roadmap for the project is approved by Council which allowing for the completion of a business case to assess various development options at both the Furey's Creek and Sugarloaf Wharf sites. The completion of the business case will cost $110,000 and will be funded through a three-year loan. Discussion related to the proposed project roadmap and next steps expanded on the Council’s preference of the two main options for serious consideration: Option A: Sugarloaf Full expansion at Sugarloaf to accommodate aquaculture, recreational, charter operators and ferry; Option B: Sugarloaf and Furey's Creek


17

This option included a staged withdrawal of recreational users from Sugarloaf to Furey's Creek. Development of the facility to cater for recreational, some charters and eventually all charter operators and the ferry. Option C: A combination of both sites in a staged manner, resolving short to medium issues through low cost solutions, leaving the more costly upgrades as medium to long-term solutions. 8 May 2014 Council Annual Plan Deliberations included the response to submissions to the project’s proposed 2014-15 financial year budget of $850,000 for consenting purposes. Council had also during the submission process received Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (CMFA) notice that they engaged their own consultants and will commence with their consents and physical upgrade at the Sugarloaf Wharf. It was decided that the Harbour strategy and resulting business cases for the identified projects would need to be approved by Council prior to commencing with any consents and physical works. A 12-week deadline was set for the delivery of the strategy and business case. Council resolved that the strategy along with a business case for the short to medium term scenario would be completed in conjunction with a Stakeholder Working Group within that12 week window, submitted to Economic Development Committee for their comment on in July 2014 and Council on 13 August for approval. This strategy document is intended to fulfill the requirements as set by Council at its meeting on 8 May 2014. 29 May 2014 Public Meeting was held and expressions of interest were called for the establishment of the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG). This group would be involved throughout the development of the strategy and Business Case to be submitted to Economic Development Committee and Council In July and August 2014. 19 June 2014; 3 July 2014 and 17 July 2014 SWG meetings in June and July noted key views and opinions of the various stakeholders. Stakeholder comments made in these meetings and also in submissions direct to the Council during this period informed the direction and content of the strategy reference document. The majority of the SWG is supportive of the project and the two shortlisted locations (Sugarloaf to Windy Point and Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf) for development of harbour facilities. The SWG recommends the following shortlisted options:

• Sugarloaf (short to medium term solution) or Windy Point (long term solution) for Aquaculture Industry expansion (with opposition from Waipapa Bay Protection Society, Te Kouma Residents and Ratepayers Association and Forest & Bird).

• Furey’s Creek half metre deep dredged channel and improved boat ramps and landing facilities for recreational all tide access and to cater for some of the charter operators (shallow draft vessels). This is an interim solution for the congestion of Hannaford’s and Sugarloaf facilities.

• Hannaford’s would then continue to be used by the ferry and those charter boats requiring deeper water at low tide.

• Coromandel Wharf – Dredged basin as the long-term option that would cater for all users and the ferry. There is however views within the SWG that recreational fishing boats should continue to use Furey’s Creek and the


18

Aquaculture industry should remain at a location that doesn’t increase congestion in town.

It is anticipated that project will continue to work with the SWG to develop the final option and work through issues related to various affects of such a development.


19

3. Project Structure & Path

Project Objective The primary objectives are as follows: Phase 1 - Project Setup & Feasibility Study

• To determine through initial consultation and initial technical and financial studies the needs of the various user groups along with the constraints, opportunity and risks for the various identified sites.

• Undertake an option selection process to identify a feasible solution or concept while demonstrating due consideration for all other options.

• Determine through semi detailed investigations (sediment quality, ecological impact etc.) whether the solution or concept is feasible.

• To deliver a business case for the proposed concept's development, this should include the improvement and expansion of wharfing facilities to cater for the current and future needs of the ferry, Aquaculture and various other industry and user groups.

• Obtain approval from Council on the proposed way forward; complete a submission to the 2015-25 TYP.

Phase 2 – Consultation & Development of Resource Consent Application

• Finalise the detailed concept plan and design as far as required for consenting purposes.

• Establish a consultation group with, potentially, an independent Chair in order to execute the specific strategy of engaging with affected property owners and other affected or interested parties.

• Develop the wharf facility upgrade proposal with the affected property owners and other interest parties. Integrate their concerns and ideas.

• Obtain clarity on which issues will not be resolved prior to the consenting phase so that these items can be addressed further with a memorandum of understanding or similar.

• Develop the specific strategy documents, monitoring plans and operation and management plans further if required during the consultative process.

• Develop the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE); other supporting information and the draft consent application for sign-off by the Project Control Group, Economic Development Committee and Council at the end of the pre-consent consultation phase.

• Lodge the consent application.

Phase 3 – Resource Consent Process

• To follow the consent application process post lodgment. This process may include the notification of affected parties, pre-hearing meetings, hearings and court processes.

• Apply for title on existing wharfing infrastructure while the consultation process is underway.

• Obtain the resource consent for the development of the wharf facility.


20

Phase 4 – Physical Works

• Finalise all partnership and funding agreements • Procure for works in line with TCDC procurement policy and in line with

funding agreements. • Complete the work packages in relation to the final solution in line with the

consent/s. • Lodge the vesting application to LINZ in line with the Marine and Coastal

Area Act 2011 (MACAA)

Project Path Although the path is shown as a linear sequence of events the stages within each phase are iterative and work completed is seldom done with only one phase in mind. Important to note is that the project is managed and monitored by way of decisional hold points. These decisional hold points ensure that the project is implemented in line with best practice and significant governance input.


21

Project Structure


22

Group Function & Terms of Reference

Project Executive

• This group will consist of Elected members (Council and Coromandel Colville Community Board Chair)

• This group may initiate a project or sub-project within the current workflow.

• Has overall sign off of work programme, scope and budget approval, and revision is required throughout the project.

• Is the ultimate point of escalation and decision maker for issues resolution.

• Two elected members have been made available to the project team and will form part of the project control group. This provides a stronger project governance link and facilitates an improved political/operational interface on the project.

Economic Development Committee

• A formal sub-committee of Council, delegated with set responsibilities • This Committee also fulfills the governance role within the project

structure. • Issues that can’t be resolved within the Project Sponsor or Project

Control Group delegations area escalated to this committee for review. • This committee is responsible for the review of project objectives and

recommended implementation strategy. • The Council requires the Committee’s advice on, or endorsement of

the specific project action proposed by the project control group and project sponsor,

• This committee doesn’t have financial or decision making delegations.

Project Sponsor • Has oversight of resources, including budget • Sets overall direction for the project • Is a member of the Strategy Team • Responsible for initial planning, scoping and feasibility of a project • Builds/prepares the document(s) to obtain approval for a project • Responsible for final sign-off of, or recommendation if value exceeds

financial/ technical delegation, of procurement processes. • Responsible for handover to a project manager (if required) • On-going budget responsibility • Responsible for quality assurance and quality checks of project

Project Control Group

• Consists of key members of the Strategy Team with direct support input into the direction of, or directly affected by the Harbour Facilities project

• The team will change depending on the nature and phase of the project.

• Individual team members will have specific responsibilities along the path of the project and will meet on a regular basis to manage these tasks.

• Support the project manager to implement the project, as per project plan.

• This specific project team also includes two elected members as previously mentioned.

• This group also sets the requirements for the communications plan and stakeholder engagement plan.

Project Manager

• Responsible for detailed project planning • Responsible for implementing project to scope, in budget and on time,

delivering value as per the project plan • Manages resources • Identifies project risks and issues and identifies mitigations and

escalation requirements


23

• Manages procurement and contract management • Prepares project reports • Ensures the implementation, in liaison with communications team, of

the communication plan and stakeholder engagement plan.

Technical Support Team

• The project will from time to time depending on the phase and output requirement of that phase employ technical experts for the delivery of discrete packages of work.

• These technical experts/contractors/consultants will receive instructions through the project manager and report directly to the project manager.

Stakeholder Working Group

• The Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy is a significant project, which required significant stakeholder consultation and input.

• The Stakeholder Working Group is established to facilitate the consultation process in a meaningful and controlled manner. Controlled in the sense that the individual members convey information both to the project group and their represented association or group. Controlled also in a manner that no one stakeholder group’s voice is louder than another so as to give adequate attention to all important issues not just the ones that are heard the most.

• This group consists of elected members, partner organisations, community groups, environmental groups, iwi, Harbour user groups, etc.

• The working group supports the project manager to implement the project, as per project plan, and provide a strong link to local knowledge, user requirements, assessment and mitigation of effects, general stakeholder views, preferences and aspirations.

• The group will not have decision-making powers and will not have financial delegation.

• Feedback from his group will influence the direction of the project. Local knowledge is key in the successful implementation of the project.

Project Scope The following assumptions were made in respect to the project’s scope:

• That the project is not just solely concerned with development of the Sugarloaf Facility on Te Kouma Rd or any one particular site in isolation.

• That the economic development potential for the area indicates that Coromandel Harbour is the most suitable gateway destination from Auckland (by sea).

• The development of the final concept under this project will be in line with the increased capacity required by the various users.

• That the cost of the infrastructure would be significant and if funded by Council it would burden ratepayers. A way to reduce the burden on ratepayers would be to introduce partners to the project along with specific commercial opportunities that would serve as revenue streams.

• Funding would be from district and external sources as the project benefits more than just Coromandel.

• That the community is in favour of the gateway concept insofar as it supports the fast ferry, aquaculture growth, tourism growth, small business opportunities and improved facilities for all users in a staged implementation.

The following outlines project in-scope and out-of-scope activities.


24

In-Scope The following are included in the scope of works: Phase 1 - Project Setup & Feasibility Study

• Employment of specialists in the specific fields required to complete the feasibility study stage;

• Develop and present the business case along with issues and alternative options considered during the development of the feasibility study and business case;

• Sharing of information for stakeholder and public consultation.

Phase 2 – Consultation & Development of Resource Consent Application • Establish a consultative group and employ a reputable, fair and impartial

Chair to manage the consultation meetings. • Further development of key resource consent support documentation during

the course of the consultative process. Refine the option's detail design and method of implementation and management.

• Develop the draft resource consent application along with AEE and supporting information.

• Lodgment of the consent upon approval from Project Group, Community Board and Council.

Phase 3 – Resource Consent Process • Follow the statutory processes in order to obtain the desired consent/s

Phase 4 – Physical Works • All works as required and in line with the approved detail design and

conditions of consent/s.

Out of Scope The following are excluded from the scope of works: Phase 1 - Project Setup & Feasibility Study

• Work other than that which is required to demonstrate feasibility of the proposed solution.

Phase 2 – Consultation & Development of Resource Consent Application • Work on investigations, supporting studies and consents for facilities, which

have not been agreed by the Project Group, Community Board and Council.

Phase 3 – Resource Consent Process • Proceeding with the consent process without Project Group, Community

Board and Council sign-off on the revised work package and draft resource consent application.

Phase 4 – Physical works. • Works not agreed between Project Group and Council. • Unconsented works.

Lead-in Phase Methodology A unified approach was followed during the compilation of the Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy. In this the project team considered the options not just from an engineering point of view, but also from a wide range of aspects including among


25

other, economic development, commercial opportunity urban design, road congestion, user requirements, regulatory issues, stakeholder views and values and ecological impacts. The options and solutions had to be practical and sustainable in the short, medium and long term. The lead-in phase of the project is an iterative process and includes a number of steps. Planning steps followed with the development of the strategy.

1. Identify current day and most likely future conditions (without project) – Section 4

2. Develop the problem statement, including the project objective, needs and opportunities – Section 5 & 6

3. Evaluate effects, key issues and opportunities – Section 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 4. Formulate alternative options – Section 13 5. Compare alternative options – Section 14 6. Select a site/s, determine suitable option/s and staging and map a possible

way forward – Section 15 &16 7. Develop selected option functional and structural design and measure against

problem statement and project objective. Check for constructability. Identify operational and maintenance issues and quantify lifecycle costs – Next stage once strategy is adopted.


26

4. Current Day Scenario

Area of focus

Existing facilities The Coromandel harbour is a substantial social, cultural and economic contributor to the Thames-Coromandel District. However, its current performance and future potential is badly compromised by the poor condition and inadequacy of the currently provided wharfing and marine infrastructure. The shortcomings of the Harbour infrastructure have come into focus with the continued expansion of the aquaculture industry and the increased popularity of the location with recreational users. Congestion, Health & Safety issues and failing infrastructure have highlighted to Council that “do nothing” is not a suitable or sustainable option. Both recreational and commercial activities within the Coromandel harbour have already outgrown the existing wharfing and marine infrastructure capacity resulting in untenable congestion and management issues, which must be responded to in the short to medium term. There are a number of harbour facilities in the Coromandel area that serve specific purposes. No one facility provides for all uses. These facilities and their short to medium uses are as follows:

1. Sugarloaf Wharf – Consented and used by Aquaculture Industry and Recreational Fishers. Charter operators also used to use this facility up till end June 2014.

2. Hannaford’s Wharf – Originally built for the local swing moor owners now also serves the Ferry and Charter Operators. There is no specific land use consent as the facility is strictly not land above MHWS.


27

3. Furey’s Creek and Jack’s Point – This facility comprises a boat ramp; haul out ramp; hardstand; 16 private jetty consents and tidal berths. The facility is currently leased to the Coromandel Harbour and Boating Association. Tidal access 2- 3 hours either side of high tide.

4. Coromandel Wharf – The wharf is currently managed by Waikato Regional Council and maintained by TCDC. The facility comprises 16 private jetty consents; the TCDC wharf structure and fuel bunker and their consents at the end of the causeway or mole; and the Harbour Master office. A number of commercial fishers, charter operators and mussel barges use the facility on a regular basis. Tidal access 2 hours either side of high tide.

5. Long Bay boat ramp – This is a public facility owned by TCDC and situated at the Long Bay campground. Tractors are available on site to assist with the launching of recreational fishing boats.

Sugarloaf and Hannaford’s are the only all-tide access facilities for recreational, charter boats and mussel barges at present. Hannaford’s Wharf is the only all-tide access for ferry vessels at this stage.

Sugarloaf Wharf This facility comprises a boat ramp, double lane industry ramp and vertical wharf. The boat ramp is very popular as it is the only all-tide ramp in the Coromandel Harbour area. The facility also has an emergency maintenance grid. The vertical wharf services up to three mussel barges at a time depending on the tide. Scallop dredges also use this facility during harvesting months. The aquaculture industry has outgrown the facility resulting in longer waiting times on the water. The commercial area on the wharf is also congested and in peak periods trucks need to wait in the road. The facility is consented specifically for recreational fishers and aquaculture industry. A number of issues have been highlighted by the recent operational, H&S and consent compliance reviews of the facility. These issues are being addressed through the parking bylaw review, improved Health & Safety processes, signage along with a review of the general staffing arrangement and management of the facility. These matters will also be addressed in the current review of the Operational Management Plan, which needs to be in place and enforced in line with the conditions of the TCDC land use consent (K02/30/1044). The Operational Management Plan will be reviewed with input from key stakeholders and interest groups. TCDC doesn’t currently have title for the facility (reclamation) and will be progressing the matter through consultation with iwi. The wharf facility has a number of high wear components due to the specific operation of larger vessels and the exposed nature of the facility. These items are repaired and replaced under TCDC’s planned and reactive renewals programme. Any upgrade of the facility will need to incorporate the repair of the toe of the “L” shaped concrete sections forming the vertical wharf. The soft bedrock is increasingly eroded by wave and boat action and the vertical wharf is moving out of its vertical alignment and starting to lean towards the Harbour. This deflection is currently not an issue but if the recent findings at the double lane industry ramp at Sugarloaf and


28

exposed vertical wall between the working wharf and double lane ramp evidenced and issue that needs to be remedied. Any upgrades to the Sugarloaf wharf also need to consider raising the level of the wharf as it is currently flooded by tide. Congestion on the site remains unresolved as does road safety issues with the parking spill-over into Te Kouma Road, narrow curve at Windy Point and dangerous Te Kouma/State Highway intersection. The Sugarloaf site is one of two locations being considered for development in the Harbour Facilities Development Strategy project.

Hannaford’s Wharf The recent upgrade of the facility was completed whereby the timber jetty was strengthened, the pontoon, gangway, piles, fender system were replaced and a dolphin fender and lights were added to the site. Issues taken into account with the repair and upgrade of the facility were:

• Stability of the pontoon and gangway in moderate to rough weather due to the specific exposure of the site;

• Structural requirements with regards to the timber jetty; • Positioning of the floating pontoon and water depth required to cater for the

existing small and large ferry vessels; and • Stability of the fender systems and additional protection for the new floating

concrete pontoon. As previously stated, this facility caters for swing moor owners, charter operators and the ferry. This facility is not designed for physically disabled or people with limited mobility and assistance for these users need to be provided by the vessel operators. This facility has very little associated land and as a result very poor parking provisions. Busses are used to transport ferry passengers to and from Coromandel town. Up to three busses are required to collect passengers at a time during peak periods. A single Bus park is currently signposted. Further parking solutions are being considered for the short-term future of this facility. Twelve charter boats currently operate from Sugarloaf and Hannaford’s. Charter boats can have up to three trips a day in peak summer months. It is often the case that two or more boats arrive at Sugarloaf at the same time. At times up to 100 passengers have been recorded on the wharf associated with charter fishing trips. This poses significant congestion and Health & Safety risks. Even more so as charter-fishing boats are not consented for use at the Sugarloaf facility. These charter operators have been diverted to other facilities with from 30 June 2014. It is anticipated that the majority of fishing charters would use the Hannaford’s facility. This facility wasn’t designed or built for this amount of use. The recent upgrade was only a marginal improvement to restore the existing facility and by no means adequate to address the existing service level deficiency or provide for current and future growth. This remains a short-term solution and once a proper facility is available for the ferry and charter operators the Hannaford’s wharf will revert back to its original purpose. Road access and safety issues remain unresolved. Busses often have trouble in accessing the site through narrow lane left by parked cars and boat trailers along the winding road.


29

Furey’s Creek Facilities and Jack’s Point Boat Ramp Consents were obtained in 2014 to dredge and deposit 800m3 per year of silt, sediment and shingle from the channel and the boat ramp areas. There is no reclamation to which the dredged material can be added and unsuitable material permitted for removal from the coastal marine area is currently deposited at the Hauraki Road landfill site. The boat ramp area (Jack’s Point) has sustained damage from previous years’ dredging operations. The pole walls weren’t designed for the level of over excavation that took place in the past and has in part collapsed. On the opposite side (western side) of the ramp the pole wall is showing similar signs of fatigue and will need to be repaired or removed as part of any future works proposed for this site. The concrete boat ramp is constructed a distance away from the channel. The area between the concrete ramp and the channel forms a stilling basin and deposit area for fine marine silts. This area will require constant dredging or cleaning along with mangrove management. The consented jetties along the stream bank just upstream of the boat ramp will be affected by any channel excavation work on the stream. When the channel is deepened the jetty area would need similar treatment to ensure adequate water depth for boat access. The further implication is that the jetty structure was designed for the current sediment or foundation depth and any deepening of the channel would affect the integrity of the structure. Any option that involves the deepening of the channel would therefore need to take into account the relocation or upgrade of the jetty structure. The Patukirikiri Reserve is Crown Owned and managed by TCDC. The Coromandel Harbour & Boating Association currently leases the hardstand and boat ramp areas from TCDC and may in future obtain concessions for use of the area in line with provisions in the Conservation Act. The current lease is renewed on a month-by-month basis. This issue will need to be resolved in discussion with Patukirikiri iwi.

Coromandel Wharf The wharf is over 120 years old and was approximately 180m longer (anecdotal) than its current day 340m length. Significant sediment build-up has occurred over the years and a once deep-water wharf is now only accessible by its users 2 - 3 hours on a tide cycle. The sediment is very soft and deep in places near the wharf. The portion of the wharf owned by Council is at the end of the mole or causeway. It consists of timber and concrete structures. The facility is managed by Waikato Regional Council, but maintained by TCDC. The wharf structure and armoring is in poor albeit stable condition. The retaining walls at the wharf head structure are deteriorating rapidly. The timber component of the wharf is not suited for the aquaculture barge and truck operation. Regular repairs and replacement of timber components are required as a result of industry activity. Timber piles are also in need of replacement due to toredo worm, age and large vessel damage.


30

The facility is not well used as it sits dry during lower tides. This facility has the only marine fuel bunker on the west coast of the Peninsula. It is a popular albeit often inaccessible destination point for Auckland yachts. Any expansion of the structure or dredging close to the wharf would include significant structural upgrades and potentially relocation of private jetties as a result.

Long Bay Campground and Boat Ramp The boat ramp at this facility is not well developed and tractors are required to assist with the launching and retrieving of boats during lower tides. The structure is sufficient for its current level of use. There is no current proposal to further develop this site. This is mainly due to the distance of tow vehicle travel across the intertidal margin required during lower tides. Other boat ramps in the area have similar restrictions with regards to tidal access.


31

5. Problem Definition

What is the problem? Some of the constraints on this project include:

• Aquaculture Expansion: The primary motivation of the Aquaculture industry for the expansion of the Sugarloaf wharf is the current loss in production due to extended waiting times at the wharf, which in turn increases their required operating hours. Currently the wharf has both recreational use and aquaculture as consented activities.

• Sugarloaf Use and Health & Safety Concerns: Council is working through a

number of initiatives to address health and safety concerns. Whilst the joint use of space is not ideal, it does not mean that the recreational users must leave the site. A variation of the consent will need to be applied for to exclude one of the two consented users. This is not thought to be a feasible approach and other measures for separation will need to be developed. The site Operational Management Plan urgently needs adoption. TCDC’s H&S plan for the site has been completed and is being enforced. The H&S plan will need to be revised to align with changes in legislation as and when required. The reality is that Sugarloaf will only provide parking for 40 boat trailers if Aquaculture chooses to operate from a different site. This is not adequate to cope with the 150 boats on a good fishing day. The same restriction on associated flatland will affect the Aquaculture industry if recreational users no longer have use of the facility. The restriction on the number of trucks and forklifts that can operate on the existing reclamation at any given point in time means that any option that doesn’t include significant reclamation will only service the industry for a few years and is not a long term proposition.

• Ferry and Charter Operator landing facilities: Congestion and H&S issues raised in relation to activities and mixed use of Sugarloaf Wharf required that council move the charter operators off Sugarloaf. The only facility available for all tide access for these vessels is the Hannaford’s Wharf. The facility is severely crowded in summer periods. The congestion and H&S along with parking and road safety issues associated with this site holds significant risk for its users and Council. This is only a short term solution at best.

• Harbour Contamination and legacy issues: The Harbour is not pristine.

Mining, agriculture, forestry and natural geological processes introduced mercury, arsenic and other trace elements into the receiving harbour. From previous studies and reports it is evident that the area north of Furey's Creek contains elevated concentrations of these minerals while the Te Kouma area contains lower levels of the same trace elements. From previous studies, reports and geological surveys along with more recent work completed by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd and Aurecon, it is evident that trace elements are concentrated in the top sediment layer throughout most of the Coromandel Harbour including the Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV).

• Public Opinion: Public opinion has been swift and direct on release of the

Cranleigh Report. A public survey undertaken prior to release in November indicated as high as 93% support from Coromandel Town residents for ferry terminal development, 69% would conditionally support Harbour dredging (if it was responsibly done). In other words, whilst there is high support for Council


32

conceptual planning, the dredging aspect is a major issue for the community. Since release of the Cranleigh Report, public opinion seemed to be vocal in opposing commercial activities (such as low-level apartments) on a Furey's Creek reclamation site. This poses a significant problem to the project as the fewer commercial offerings in the proposal; the more ratepayers would need to foot the bill.

• Land Ownership: TCDC does not own all the land underneath Sugarloaf and

is seeking legal advice on this matter. Neither does Council own the Patukirikiri Reserve lands. There is the need for partnership models to move forward.

• Consenting and Legal Implications: TCDC doesn't manage the coastal

marine area (CMA) and doesn't administer the Regional Coastal Policy (RCP). The hurdles in consenting of any site for development are substantial. Specific development actvities may trigger changes required in the RCP through specific plan change applications.

What are we trying to accomplish? The first and highest priority is for Council to provide suitable facilities and solutions for harbour users that are accessible and safe. Council has also determined in its economic development plan that prioritised investment in future facilities can substantially contribute to sustainable economic growth within the Coromandel Harbour. This can be achieved in the following socio economic areas:

• Retention of the various industries in the district; • Assisting the growth of the aquaculture industry; • Improving access to recreational boating (ensure access to all-tide facility); • Establishing a tourism and commuter fast ferry (eventually direct) from

downtown Auckland; • Facilitating the development of marine infrastructure and ancillary

opportunities in an environmentally responsible manner; • Protect the diverse heritage of the area and in specific the look and feel of

Coromandel Town through this development; • Celebrate the natural taonga of the area and weave the Māori values and

significance of the area into the design of the facility; • Funding through partnerships; and • Partnering with others to develop a healthy, productive and sustainable

harbour environment for all users. New Zealand’s regional communities are struggling for sustainable economic survival, let alone to prosper. Failure to make a strategic shift change and implement actions that will competitively position Coromandel Harbour as a significant economic and cultural destination could prove detrimental to the region’s future economic stability. Sustainable economic survival of the area is achievable through strategic management and designation of existing facilities and development of suitable all-tide access facilities to maximize benefits to all users and Coromandel Town.


33

6. Future Demand, Needs & Opportunities

Current Facilities & Demand Current harbour facilities are insufficient to support the current and future growth demands of recreational and commercial needs. Thames-Coromandel District has an estimated (stable) population of 27,000. The estimated population of the Coromandel-Colville community is 2,850, with over 50% of these people residing or based within Coromandel town itself. The population of Coromandel town usually hits a peak in the Christmas and New Year period (as does the peninsula in general) of around three times its resident population Cranleigh et al have undertaken Milestone 1 of the Feasibility Study with a needs analysis and determined:

• There are six major wharves in total on Coromandel Peninsula: Thames, Tairua, Te Kouma (Sugarloaf and Hannaford’s Jetty), Whitianga, Coromandel Wharf and Whangamata. There are 23 boat ramps available for recreational use, the majority of which do not provide all tide access.

• The available facilities are, in general, ageing and in need of updating to sustain future capacity increases.

With respect to economic growth potential of the town the demand for the improvement of marine infrastructure facilities in the Coromandel Harbour particularly has been driven by the following influential commercial factors in the region:

• Commercial fishing and aquaculture; • Charter boat operators; • Tourism; and • other indirect economic benefits, which are also touched on but by no means

exhaustively dealt with in this strategy.

Aquaculture • The aquaculture industry in New Zealand is currently estimated at $380M

p.a., with a target goal of reaching $1B in sales by 2025. • The Coromandel region produces 24% of NZ’s Greenshell Mussels. • The Coromandel region produces approximately 20% of NZ’s Pacific Oysters. • There are an estimated 432.3 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) employed

across the aquaculture sector and its supplying industries located in the Waikato region.

• The Coromandel aquaculture industry contributes $77.4M in GDP to the national economy –and generates a total of 1,193 FTE jobs.

• By 2025 the mussel and oyster industry is forecast to contribute a total of $60.7M per annum in regional GDP by 2025, and bring in 835 full-time jobs.

• There is also the possibility of a finfish industry becoming established once there is greater investment in this sector.

• Figures and stats provided above include a wider area spanning Aukland to Tuaranga and ecenomic benefit is not solely focussed on the Thames-Coromandel District. It is estimated that only 30% of the projected FTE’s are Coromandel Peninsula based.

• Aquaculture farm area or water space expansion is to be matched with suitable landing facilities in order to protect and make the most of the water space investment.


34

• The Coromandel Marine Farmers Association is keen to stay at Sugarloaf and would like to see a split where recreational / charter users were moved to a different site.

• If industrial users were to be moved from Sugarloaf an all-tide access wharf would be required for loading /unloading vessels around the clock.

• Improved maintenance facilities would also be required in order to reduce potential environmental impacts.

• Commercial Fishers and Scallop Dredges operating from Coromandel Harbour mainly use the Coromandel Wharf.

• The scallop vessels do not come every year but when scallops are bigger on the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula a number of vessels will berth at the Wharf. In the recent past they have also used Sugarloaf, but has met with criticism from the Coromandel Marine Farmers Aassociation as it is believed they are not consented for use of the wharf.

Charter boats • There are approximately 16 boats in operation around Coromandel town,

bringing approximately 30,000 - 35,000 people per year through these charter operators.

• The vast majority of customers (approximately 80%) are New Zealanders from out-of-town, with the remainder either locals or tourists.

• The Charter Association was recently established for the purpose of joint representation. A number of operational issues have already been addressed with the charter operators and unconsented use of the Sugarloaf facility was resolved in June 2014.

• Congestion, parking, road safety and H&S issues are to be addressed at Hannaford’s Wharf in the short to medium term while the Council in consultation with the community and various user groups, selects a viable option for development.

• The majority of charter operators prefer the Furey’s Creek option as it will bring people into town as opposed to Sugarloaf or Hannaford’s which is approximately 9 km out of town.

• A park’n ride service is potentially a further business opportunity. Visitor collection and drop off in town will also benefit businesses in the town.

• The charter boat industry is a fast growing industry with significant future potential within the Coromandel area.

Ferry, Tourism Visitor Economy & Commuters • In 2013 calendar year over 45,000 passengers travelled by ferry between

Auckland and Coromandel. • Visitation within 100km of Coromandel town of domestic and international

tourists is estimated to total 752,000 people per annum, most of whom travel from Auckland.

• 51% of the rateable dwellings on Coromandel Peninsula are owned by absentee owners. These holiday home owners and friends visit up to seven times per year (especially at peak times –Christmas, long weekends and school holidays).

• However, in contrast to the majority of Coromandel Peninsula townships, 80% of dwellings in Coromandel town are resident owner-occupied.

Fullers / Discovery 360o currently operates the only ferry service between Auckland and Coromandel.


35

The service ranges from a weekend (Friday night drop-off and Sunday Afternoon collection from Hannaford’s Wharf) service in winter to a summer service with up to 4 trips per week. The commercial oprator prefers an option closer to town (either Furey’s Creek or Coromandel Wharf) to reduce the time it takes to move passengers into Coromandel town. It currently takes around 45 minutes to one hour to move passengers from the ferry drop-off point at Hannaford’s Jetty into town. This will also allow them to better market their products which will increase visitor numbers and longer visiting period within the Coromandel area. Opportunities for the expansion of this service include the promotion of the area, tourism products, increased visitor and visitor spends within Coromandel area and potentially a commutable service. This will not only increase the number of people coming through Coromandel, but also improved access to the east coast – in particular, areas such as Whangapoua, Matarangi, Kuaotunu, Rings Beach and Whitianga. The concept of a passenger ferry that takes between one and one and a half hours from Auckland to Coromandel was very well received by the various operators, inbound tour wholesalers and information providers within the tourism industry. A vehicle ferry isn’t feasible in the medium to long term with the specific options considered due to the requirement for a deep-water harbour or port. This however means that there are further opportunities to establish car rental and campervan outlets in Coromandel Town and possibly long term parking for commuters.

Social –recreational users • Long Bay boat ramp has moderate usage involving mainly campground

users. In summer there are around 20-30 boat movements a day.1 • At Sugarloaf Wharf, in the peak holiday season, there can be up to 300 boat

movements a day. Off-peak (from Nov – March excluding Dec/Jan holidays) there are around 70-80 boat movements a day. Even in the winter months (May – July) there are typically around 30-40 boat movements, with up to 50-60 on a busy winter day.

• There is no boat ramp for recreational users at Coromandel Wharf. However, in summer visiting launches will use the Wharf for fuel and water. Up to 12 vessels can visit on a busy day.

• Furey’s Creek jetty has reduced capacity for recreational usage as the access on the boat ramp is only 2-3 hours either side of high tide. In summer there can be up to approximately 100-150 boat movements a day.


36

Recreational yachts and other vessels Council doesn’t currently hold data on the number of visiting boats and boats on swing moorings in the Harbour or any specific data on associated activity spin off for the town. There is also a lack of data with regards to projected growth within the recreational vessel sector. For these reasons the recreational yachts and vessels sector is not currently in focus as a key user group with regards to economic development or commercial opportunities unless a large scale marina development is included in the final solution. The number of visiting and recreational vessels doesn’t currently warrant a significant expansion of facilities and services. There is however opportunity to attract more visiting vessels into the harbour, to Coromandel Wharf for refueling and Coromandel Town for various activities. The economic potential for the Coromandel town would however increase significantly if the selected option included a significant number of temporary berths for day visitors or permanent berths in a marina style development. The economic impact from this sector would need to be estimated in line with a specific option, which includes the required infrastructure.

Recreational amenity Apart from recreational fishing and boat activities there are also a number of land based recreational requirements. Associated land to wharfing facilities is usually very limited, but it is intended to develop facilities that would also attract the general public due to the specific activities and viewing corridors available at these sites. The Ariki Tahi reserve at Sugarloaf wharf provides passive recreational amenity for visitors and locals. The site is significant to iwi and storey boards present the history of the site and its people. Patukirikiri reserve has the potential in future with co-governance with Patukirikiri iwi to support both harbour users and provide passive recreational amenity. The community has a strong view to retain the green space while developing adequate parking areas, ramps and landing facilities. The Coromandel Urban Design project will therefore need to link into any proposed solution for implementation in order to retain the look and feel of Coromandel, while developing harbour facilities.

Cultural – iwi Through initial consultation Iwi groups have shared aligned aspirations of cultural, social and commercial importance. This includes a willingness to influence and participate with the development of harbour facilities and sustainable outcomes within Coromandel Harbour. Iwi groups will be key enablers in the future development of the Coromandel Harbour as both primary landowners and commercial investors of both on and off shore activities.

• Iwi own numerous aquaculture assets in the Coromandel Harbour, including mussel farms and water space.

• Iwi wish to ensure that during the process they are engaged early, are kept informed, have active participation in any opportunities and also realise any


37

benefits arising from the project (whether they are commercial, social, cultural or economic benefits).

• Iwi would also like to have active participation in any investment and employment opportunities that arise as a result of this process.

• Apart from Governance there is also a desire to portray as with Urban design the heritage of Coromandel town – the iwi and Māori values and history associated with the area.

• Currently through the Treaty Settlement process it is believed that ownership Patukirikir Reserve will be transferred to Patukirikiri iwi and be co-governed with TCDC.

• Ongoing discussions with Patukirikiri iwi, Ngati Huarere, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanuanga and Ngati Tametera will be held with regards to Treaty Settlement Process, Title application for Sugarloaf, Coro Wharf and Furey’s Creek reclamantions.

Economic Benefit

Visitors & Tourism

The concept of an upgraded all-tide wharf facility is seen as an ideal opportunity to provide improved marine infrastructure that will increase economic development opportunities to Coromandel Town and the District as a whole. For example at present the all-tide access for a small ferry service out of Auckland into the Coromandel is to Hannaford’s Jetty. Unfortunately there are no significant parking facilities close to this structure and it is located a considerable distance from the township. It is envisaged that an all-tide access facility capable of accommodating larger transport vessels that provides a more direct and convenient access to the Coromandel township itself from central Auckland with appropriate parking facilities would increase visitor numbers to the District and potentially the permanent population of Coromandel township.. Supporting Foundations include:

• Closeness to Auckland – ideal day trip / commute • Additional “Gateway” to the District – Blue Highway • Supporting Economic Development opportunities to Coromandel Town and

the District as a whole. • Bringing passenger ferry service closer to Coromandel town • Accommodating larger transport vessels with a more direct access to the

Town from Central Auckland and improved facilities such as parking • Provide a day visitor experience to rival the likes of Waiheke, Rotorua,

Waitomo etc. • Avoids congested roads and long travel times • Provides a vital link to open up a host of district wide tourism opportunities –

accommodation, tours to name a few. It is envisaged that these activities could also provide opportunities within the town for new businesses such as a car, boat, campervan rentals, eco-tourism among other.

• Valid commuter lifestyle opportunity for Coromandel residents Potential Facility provisions include:

• Commercial Passenger Ferry Terminal • Charter Boat Berths • Recreational Berths • Marina provision


38

• Leisure Retail opportunities • Marine Servicing • Marine Chandlery Retail • Aquaculture Servicing

Aquaculture

Mussel, oyster, and finfish farming (aquaculture) and processing are an important part of the seafood industry in the Hauraki Gulf. Marine farms are spread throughout the Hauraki Gulf at:

• Mahurangi Harbour • Waiheke Island • Wairoa Bay • Firth of Thames • Coromandel Harbour • Manaia Harbour • Port Charles • Kennedy Bay • Whangapoua Harbour • Whitianga Harbour • Great Barrier Island. �

Both local and central government have identified aquaculture as a growth industry in Auckland and the Coromandel, and the Aquaculture Council aims to achieve an output of $1 B by 2025.

�Various economic studies have focused on the contribution

made to regional economies by current aquaculture activities, and on future prospects for growth in these regions. In 2011, Sapere studied the Coromandel aquaculture sector. A standard economic multiplier analysis, using input-output tables, was used to measure the overall impacts of the sector on the economy. The multipliers include both direct and indirect expenditure effects at both the individual business and wider consumption levels. The data to inform these multipliers was drawn from a wide range of sources including personal interviews and council-held statistics. In 2010, the combined impact (direct, indirect, and induced) of Coromandel aquaculture on GRP was:

• $31.4 M in Waikato Region; and • Nationally, the impact was $77.4 M.

In 2010, there were approximately:

• 297 FTEs employed directly in the aquaculture industry in the Waikato; and • with a further 251 employed in regions outside the Waikato.

The total contribution to employment (direct, indirect, and induced effects) was

• 432 FTEs in the Waikato region; and • 1193 FTEs Nationally.

In the Waikato region, the total contribution of aquaculture to GRP was distributed almost evenly between aquaculture farming and aquaculture processing. However, the direct contribution differed, with 61 per cent from farming and 39 per cent from processing.


39

Total economic impact of the Coromandel aquaculture sector on the Waikato region, 2010/11. (Source: Sapere, 2011) Aquaculture Farming

Impacts Aquaculture Processing Impacts

Total Economic Impact

Output ($2010 M)

Direct 21.8 26.2 48.0

Indirect 3.9 9.2 13.1

Induced 5.1 5.8 10.9

Total 30.8 41.2 72.0

Value Added ($2010 M)

Direct 11.8 7.6 19.4

Indirect 1.8 4.5 6.3

Induced 2.7 3.1 5.7

Total 16.3 15.2 31.4

Employment (FTEs)

Direct 121.1 176.3 297.4

Indirect 10.5 62.0 72.5

Induced 26.3 36.0 62.4

Total 157.9 274.2 432.3

Total economic impact of the Coromandel aquaculture sector on the New Zealand economy, 2010/11. (Source: Sapere, 2011) Aquaculture Farming

Impacts Aquaculture Processing Impacts

Total Economic Impact

Output ($2010 M)

Direct 21.8 73.8 95.6

Indirect 15.4 34.8 50.1

Induced 11.6 29.3 40.9

Total 48.8 137.9 186.7

Value Added ($2010 M)

Direct 11.8 22.4 34.1

Indirect 6.4 16.2 22.6

Induced 5.9 14.9 20.7

Total 24.1 53.4 77.4

Employment (FTEs)

Direct 121.1 430.0 551.2

Indirect 117.7 259.7 377.4

Induced 75.4 189.5 264.8

Total 314.2 879.2 1,193.4

Sapere also provided growth projections to 2025 and 2013 as per the summary table below. The projections assumed that, by 2025, an extra 640 hectares would be


40

farmed for mussels. Oyster farming would not increase in area but will double in output due to improved technology. The projections also assumed that new legislation would allow finfish farming which would produce approximately 5000 tonnes of kingfish.

This scenario could increase GRP to $96 million by 2025,

including an additional $35 million per annum generated by finfish. Nationally, the Coromandel industry could contribute $195 million in GDP with 2775 FTEs (by 2031). The finfish industry had not yet taken off as predicted in 2010 and it is not anticipated that it will take off in the foreseeable future due to the investment risk involved. Growth projections of the Coromandel aquaculture sector on the New Zealand economy, value added, 2011–2025. (Source: Sapere, 2011)

Value added ($2010 M) 2011-25 2031

Direct 34.1 90.6

Indirect 22.6 52.5

Induced 20.7 51.8

Total 77.4 194.9

Employment (FTEs) 2011-25 2031

Direct 551.2 1,294.6

Indirect 377.4 848.2

Induced 264.8 632.2

Total 1,193.4 2,774.9

Environment – Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan The Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (called Sea Change) is a project led by a partnership between mana whenua (local Māori who have customary authority over the area), and central and local government. The goal of the Spatial Plan is to secure the Hauraki Gulf as a healthy, productive and sustainable resource that is shared by all. Improved marine infrastructure in the Coromandel Harbour will align with these objectives in that current environmental concerns can be alleviated and there will be greater accessibility for all to the Harbour. Catchment management and sediment control measures are also identified in the spatial plan as a significant contributor to the environmental degradation apparent in the harbour areas. Environmental degradation due to various sources and activities have been identified and studied over the last few decades. Converting these negative impacts into drivers for sustainability is often very hard and not very successful. A different approach is needed in order to change the community’s awareness and drive environmentally sustainable solutions. Summary extract below is of Auckland University – Towards an Economic Valuation of the Hauraki Gulf: A stock-take of Activities and Opportunities report.


41

There are many difficulties related to the interpretation and valuation of ecosystem services, as ecosystems themselves are fundamentally complex and intertwined. Although the Hauraki Gulf has a clear geographical boundary, it contains a huge variety of complex ecosystems, which interact among themselves. This presents many challenges when trying to include them in valuation frameworks or decision-making processes. Market values are captured in the economic impact of industries that rely on the Hauraki Gulf for their operations. Commonly, an economic impact analysis calculates the value added of an economic activity (i.e., values of revenues minus values spent on intermediate goods and services) and its contribution to GDP. However, in order to calculate value added, assumptions sometimes need to be made about the technical structure of a certain sector. In general, these assessments recognise that one form of economic expenditure in an industry generates income for another sector. Existing studies identified three types of economic impact that can occur as a result of growth within a sector:

• Direct impacts - initial injections of revenue and expenditure that accrue to that specific sector

• Indirect impacts - net increase of economic activity generated by the provision of goods and services to the study sector

• Induced impacts - net increase of economic activity due to increased household expenditure in the study sector. �

Direct, indirect, and induced impacts also occur in relation to employment.

�Non-market values have no explicit monetary value or price and, therefore, are not captured by standard accounting methods. Many goods do not have a market value because, even though they form part of markets, they are unaccounted for and are treated as externalities. Examples include climate regulation (an unaccounted benefit) and pollution (a commonly unaccounted cost). In the context of the Hauraki Gulf, non-market values relate mainly to ecosystem benefits, recreation, and cultural and spiritual values. As ecosystem services are not fully captured in commercial markets, they are often given little or no weight in policy decisions. This may ultimately lead to environmental depletion, and undermine the economy and human well-being. The table below presents a summary of the existing empirical research of the economic and cultural activities provided by the Hauraki Gulf. The estimated total value added (i.e. contribution to GDP) is presented, along with a breakdown of direct and indirect value added effects when this information is available. To provide a broader picture the employment effects have also been included. The information presented in Table B is collated from a variety of sources and research papers. As such, comparing the results between the economic and cultural activities is fraught. Specifically, the estimated impacts:

• do not refer to the same year • are the result of different valuations, techniques, and methods • have different assumptions that underpin the analysis • are not necessarily independent/mutually exclusive of each other. �


42

For the same reasons, it is not possible to ‘add up’ the individual estimates presented in Table B to generate a total economic impact of the Hauraki Gulf. Doing so would likely result in significant double counting of the results. This potential should not be downplayed. The Hauraki Gulf is home to a variety of interdependent activities and these individual estimates for the economic impact of each activity cannot be developed in isolation of the other activities. Assessed economic activities in Auckland and Hauraki Gulf (Source: Auckland Council Nov 2012)

Tentative Valuation

Year Direct Value Added

($2011M)1

Indirect + Induced Value Added

($2011M)1

Total Value Added

($2011M)1

Employment2

Tourism 2008 656 281 937 15,742 FTEs

Marine Recreational3

2008 N/A N/A 550 5,781 FTEs

Recreational fishing

2010 N/A N/A 81 N/A

Aquaculture4 2008 / 2010

49 50 99 939 FTEs

Commercial fishing5

2010 41 N/A 41 1,183 FTEs

Ports of Auckland

2008 113 143 257 2,027 ECs

Cruise industry 2009 35 34 69 928 ECs

Sand mining 2010 N/A N/A 10 100 FTEs

1. Direct impacts are initial injections of revenue and expenditure that accrue to that specific sector; Indirect impacts are the net increase of economic activity generated by the provision of goods and services to the study sector; Induced impacts are the net increase of economic activity due to increased household expenditure in the study sector. 2. Employment Counts (ECs) are not directly comparable to Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) as they count equally both full- and part-time jobs. Therefore, they tend to be higher than FTEs.� 3. Value added includes some indirect impacts within the marine cluster but not induced impacts.� 4. Values for Auckland refer to 2008 values for the Waikato refer to 2010. 5. Including processing. This study identified that the economic and cultural activities in the table above contribute positively to the Auckland and Waikato regions, creating a wealth of value added. These activities also sustain significant employment opportunities. The results indicate that tourism; the recreational marine cluster; and the Ports of Auckland generate significant economic impact. However, it is important to clarify what conclusions and inferences can be drawn from these estimates. The estimates of value added do not consider any depletion of capital stock and trade-offs of these activities. In addition, the analysis does not consider, or imply, which activities could generate the biggest returns on any future investment. This means that the focus of current and future policy should not be based solely off these results. Policy should be developed after gaining an appreciation of:

• The return on investment relative to alternatives (opportunity costs) • The scale of investment required


43

• The complex interaction between the activities However, the results of this study present a useful picture. The tentative picture provided by this study shows a complex relationship between the environment and the economy. The study shows that the environment underpins all the values realised by humans, but also that the relationship between the economy and the environment in the Hauraki Gulf is mainly synergistic. This means that a thriving ecosystem is necessary to support the Auckland and Waikato economies, while thriving Auckland and Waikato economies are necessary to realise the vast untapped economic potential of the Hauraki Gulf. The Hauraki Gulf has always been one of the most powerful economic, environmental, social, and cultural clusters for Auckland and the Coromandel. These preliminary results show that the Hauraki Gulf is home to a cluster of economic activities that have the environment at the very core of their value proposition. These share a common interest in protecting the environment as they have a critical dependence on the flow of ecological goods and services provided by the Gulf. In other words, the Hauraki Gulf supports a complex eco-cluster. These economic activities could further increase their value through deeper collaboration while the economic relevance of the Hauraki Gulf could grow if its ecosystems are preserved and the potential of an eco-cluster is clearly identified and valued both by the private and public sectors.

Other Commercial Opportunities A number of businesses both existing and new would benefit from growth within the aquaculture industry; ferry; tourism and potential commuter arrangement. The latter also have the potential to reduce rates as the rating database increases. Existing businesses that could expand may include marine servicing; accommodation; restaurants and café’s; supermarkets and general stores along with a raft of services that would be required with an increase in population. New businesses that could establish as part of the increase in visitors or increase in tourism demand are: storage facilities; long term car park areas; car and campervan rental services; ecotourism and so on. Through the Cranleigh report a number of potential commercial opportunities that could help fund a development such as Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf was investigated. It should be noted that this wasn’t a proposition, but an assessment of what could be achieved if commercial funding sources were pursued for co-funding of the development. The following is an extract of the initial indicative commercial study completed by Cranleigh for the Furey’s Creek Development as proposed in the December 2013 Milestone 2 report. Furey’s Creek Development Option – Potential Funding Contribution through Commercial Investment Scenarios (Source: Cranleigh February 2014) No./Area Cost Unit

Value Total Cost Unit Sale /

Rental Total Sales / Rental

Contribution to Marine Infrastructure


44

Development

Apartments 98 (2 storey)

$2,025/m2 $414k (incl. GST)

$35.3M $4.8M (assuming 30% margin)

Office / Retail

5,400m2 $1,400/m2 $8.4M $180/m2 $1.0M p.a. rental

-$200k (assuming 15% margin)

Dry Stack Boat Storage

$800/m2 $800k $3,000 p.a. rental

$450k p.a. rental

$1.1M (assuming 20% margin)

Total Possible Contribution

$5.7M

Of the two options; apartments and dry stack boat storage only the latter is suitable for the Furey’s Creek site. Social (Source: Cranleigh February 2014) No./Area Cost Unit



Contribution to Marine Infrastructure Development

Plaza 4,615m2 $150/m2 $700k - -$700k

Car/Trailer Parking

110 spaces $65/m2 $800k $3.00/day $70k -$800k

Boat Ramp n/a n/a n/a $2.00/day $170k -

Total Possible Contribution

-$1.5M

There is no commercial proposition in social infrastructure. Marina (Source: Cranleigh February 2014) No./Area Cost Unit



Contribution to Marine Infrastructure Development

130 berths 130 $280k per berth

$37M $1.7M (includes charter, ferry and berth rental)

-$23M (assumes 10% margin)

250 berths 250 $312k per berth

$78M $2.6M (includes charter, ferry and berth rental)

-$57M (assumes 10% margin)

The preliminary calculations above were discussed with various developers and members of the Economic Development Committee in February 2014 and found to be realistic for the current economic climate and operational risk of developing a marina in a shallow water high sediment transport area. The scenario of a Harbour Clean-up wasn’t pursued with the completion of these calculations. A hypothetical scenario which includes a harbour clean-up funded by others will significantly reduce


45

the total cost of the project and by extension drop the cost per unit. The uncertainty remains as to the specific layout and extent of the marina and the potential to trap sediment (uncertainty regarding operational and maintanance costs). The avenue of a joint venture with a marina developer was requested by the Stakeholder Working Group for further consideration as the concept of building a marina has seen a fair bit of discussion and buy-in in the past. The development of a marina as part of the final solution will require a very specific joint venture and financial contribution response from a significant number of potential marina berth owners. The further investigation of this solution also needs to consider the ownership and management model – nobody wants to be stuck with a white elephant. A Sugarloaf commercial proposition couldn’t be assessed due to the limitations of the development and the site. The Council and any government partners would need to fund the development of the facility. Repayment on TCDC side would be through rates and any fees and charges would go towards the operation and management of the site. It is anticipated at this stage that any Aquaculture Industry contribution would be repayment of a Council loan rather than a once off cash contribution from the industry. An equitable mechanism for repayment of the loan needs to be agreed and included in the Council’s Annual Plan Fees and Charges section. It is anticipated that the charging mechanism will take care of the expansion required by the industry as well as any interest payment on the loan. Sugarloaf doesn’t have any further commercial opportunities due to the limitations of the site and distance from the Coromandel Town. There is no associated flat land for commercial and retail development and all flat areas including (safe) road verges will be used for parking. It is not anticipated that a parking fee will be introduced at this stage, unless the sittuation becomes dangerous and unmanageable.


46

7. Land Tenure and Bylaws

Sugarloaf The Coromandel Harbour has been a part of the TCDC district since 1989 in accordance with a 1989 Reorganisation Order and associated survey plan that included the part of the Coromandel Harbour that eventually became Sugarloaf Wharf when the land was reclaimed. Sugarloaf Wharf itself has been part of the TCDC district in accordance with clause 5(2)(a) in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the LGA02 since it was reclaimed. Sugarloaf Wharf is also within TCDC’s district pursuant to the definition of district in the Resource Management Act 1991. The LGA02 gives TCDC the power to “make bylaws for its district” so TCDC can make bylaws that apply to Sugarloaf Wharf and whether the bylaws apply or not depends on the wording of the bylaws. The Wharves Bylaw and the Parking Bylaw apply, respectively, to:

“all wharves or other structures owned or controlled by the

Council.”

“all roads under the care, control or management of the Council

and to any other portion of land or buildings set aside for

parking.”

Sugarloaf Wharf is under the control of TCDC pursuant to the 1992 land use consent and the OMP for the wharf. The OMP refers to 19 parking spaces being located on Sugarloaf Wharf so it contains a portion of land set aside for parking. The definition of road in the Parking Bylaw includes any place the public has access to whether as of right or not. The public has access to Sugarloaf Wharf. Both bylaws are therefore considered to apply to Sugarloaf Wharf. If TCDC is granted a freehold or leasehold interest in Sugarloaf Wharf, there is nothing in the MACAA that will change the application of TCDC’s bylaws to Sugarloaf Wharf. In that regard, the MACAA applies primarily to the common marine and coastal area and Sugarloaf Wharf is not in that area as it is above mean high water springs (MHWS). The only real relevance of the MACAA is the ability to apply for an interest in Sugarloaf Wharf from the Crown.

Coromandel Wharf The same provisions as for Sugarloaf apply to Coromandel wharf with the exception that the Coromandel Wharf was built in the late 1800’s by a private organization and not Council. There is no title for the land occupied by the structure nor is there any ownership documentation or transfer of ownership to WRC or TCDC. TCDC inherited the facility from a maintenance point of view and has done so for over 20 years. WRC administers the site as it falls with the Coastal Marine Area in the absence of title, even though the structure is above MHWS. WRC in its Regional Coastal Policy states that it is only responsible for the coastal area below MHWS. TCDC seeks title for this historic reclamation as it is a key piece of infrastructure for the District and needs to be managed accordingly.


47

Furey’s Creek The Furey’s Creek or Patukirikiri reclamation took place over a number of years and started out as a refuse dump site. The landfill site is now capped and bunded off from the coastal marine area. Title has been registered for part of the reclamation. The land is currently owned by the Crown and managed by TCDC. The area of title doesn’t extend far enough to cover all of the reclamation area. A number of harbour facility assets have been constructed on and just off the title area. There are also a number of unconsented timber retaining walls at the edge of the reclamation. These walls are not structurally engineered and some are failing. TCDC seeks to tidy up the title area to match the existing reclamation and cover the assets constructed on the site. There is no reclamation consent in place for the existing land above MHWS constructed over the years. There is therefore no section 245 certificate completed stating that the reclamation is completed and by implication that it is no longer in the coastal area. The proposed process will not necessarily provide TCDC with title for the land, as the existing title may be part of cultural redress in the treaty settlement process. TCDC currently manages the site and have granted lease / concession to the Coromandel Harbour & Boating Association over the hardstand and boat ramp.


48

8. Community views and opinions

Nov 13 survey This section provides a summary of the November 2013 public survey results. There were 146 respondents and a number of individual written submissions. Very few of the respondents were not residents to Coromandel town. Respondents were asked for their preferences based on the premise that future developments would have to be environmentally responsible, affordable and appropriate for use. The results show that: • 83% of respondents support the development of the harbour to allow for a fast

ferry. • 93% of respondents would support the development of a ferry terminal. • 58% would support a vehicle ferry service. • 92% would support charter boat berths. • 91% would support recreational berths. • 77% would support a marina. • 75% would support leisure retail opportunities. • 87% would support marine servicing. • 81% would support marine chandlery retail. • 85% would support Aquaculture servicing. Respondents were asked to identify their top three priorities for the Harbour development. The responses show that respondents would prioritise as follows: 1. Commercial passenger ferry terminal (29%) 2. Recreational Berths (18%) 3. Third place is shared between Charter Boat berths (12%) & Aquaculture

Servicing (12%) 4. Marina provision (10%) 5. Fifth place is shared between Vehicle Ferry Service (6%) & Marine Servicing

(6%) 6. Leisure retail opportunities and Marine chandlery retail were in sixth and

seventh place respectively. 68.7% (79 of 115 who answered this question) of respondents indicated their support to dredge the harbour. A number of these 79 indicated that it was provisional on completing the work in a responsible and sustainable manner. 29.6% (34 of 115 who answered the question) of respondents were against dredging the harbour. Most of the comments associated with a no answer were around anti-mining; there were a number of comments regarding the protection of the local ecology and leaving the environment as it is; some commented that dredging would not be economical or practical; and some were concerned that no development should take place. The survey is in no way to be regarded as formal consultation, but it provides the Council with a good indication of the preferences of the community.


49

Iwi & Key Stakeholders The Coromandel Harbour is an organic system that supports the spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the area, and provides for the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well being of people, its communities and aquatic fauna. Initial discussions were held from October to December 2013 with a number of individual stakeholders to discuss concepts and to obtain feedback and viewpoints on what they would like to see now and in the future, preferences and considerations. Establishment of charter association and Coromandel Harbour User Group Committee followed these discussions. Iwi views and opinions will be taken into account with the development of the final concept. The discussions are of a sensitive nature and are not elaborated on in this document. The story or history of the area needs be woven into the development of the new facilities. This could be done with storyboards as shown below or other more elaborate means.

The original sign at Ariki Tahi showing the account of the history of the Pa.


50

The current Te Ariki Tahi storyboard at the reserve next to Sugarloaf Wharf.

Further discussions and submissions – Post 18 December 2013 A number of individual stakeholder or community member discussions took place directly after the December 2013 Council meeting where the proposed Furey’s Creek development was tabled. These discussions lead to additional options or scenarios investigated; further discussions on operational issues and solutions; and a further understanding of community and stakeholder preferences. It needs to be understood that at that early stage Council didn’t have anything solid to consult on and as such wasn’t in a position to enter into any formal consultation.

Submission to 2014-15 Annual Plan Special Consultation Process The 2014-15 Annual Plan consultation process recorded 65 submissions in relation to the Coromandel Harbour Facilities project. Of these submitters, 80% agreed with the concept and 20 % disagreed. Of those who agreed, reasons for their support is summarised as follows:

• Separate recreational and commercial activities are urgently needed. • This will open the door for the Coromandel and allow continuous people flow

for the rest of the Peninsula. • A solution needs to be found now for recreational boat launching before

serious accidents occur at Sugarloaf. • What a wonderful opportunity to introduce more tourism and employment to

Coromandel Town. • A number of submitters emphasised that the facilities should be developed as

close as possible to town.


51

Of those that disagreed, their reasons include: • People that don’t have boats should not pay. • The Cranleigh Report doesn’t take into account Furey’s Creek Historic

flooding. • The cost of undertaking an investigation into the effects of dredging the

harbour and Furey’s Creek is prohibitive. • It’s unaffordable and Coromandel is not big enough yet. • Patukirikiri reserve is an old landfill site. • The Furey’s Creek development only benefits a small number of developers. • The CMFA stated that further investigation is not needed and Sugarloaf

expansion for Aquaculture is to be progressed. They don’t support the expansion of the Harbour study and concept to Sugarloaf (recreational and commercial split which entails a large reclamation).

Stakeholder Working Group The Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was established directly after the 29 May 2014 public meeting through an expression of interest process. The organisations represented on the SWG are as follows:

• Elected Members (Council, Coromandel Colville Community Board, Coromandel Harbour User Group Committee and Economic Development Committee)

• Waikato Regional Council • Patukirikiri iwi • Ngati Whanaunga • Ngati Tamatera • Ngati Huarere • Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (CMFA) • Coromandel Business Association • Recreational Fishing Association • Charter Association • Commercial Fishers • Environmental Groups – Forest & Bird • Barry Brickell – Rail / Jetty concept • Te Kouma Residents and Ratepayers Association • Waipapa Bay Protection Society • Coromandel Harbour& Boating Association • Jacks Point Boat Ramp Club

The purpose of having this group is to include the community and stakeholders in the development of the concept, options and staging to be proposed in the strategy. Local input is essential for the success of this project. Since the last Council meeting on 9 April 2014, the public meeting 29 May 2014 and the three SWG meetings were held 19 June, 3 July and 17 July 2014. The minutes of these meetings and submissions received during this initial consultation phase are included as Attachment A. Stakeholder Working Group Feedback Three meetings were held with the Stakeholder Working Group in June and July 2014 as previously mentioned. The working group included representatives from 18


52

directly affected stakeholders including iwi. The contribution from this group to the project is significant and well received. The group presented their views, opinions, proposed solutions and stated their preferences with regards to the options being considered. The options that were consulted on included:

1. Puhi Rare / Windy Point 2. Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin 3. Coromandel Wharf Extension (almost to Ruffin's Rocks) 4. Kopu Wharf 5. Coromandel Wharf Area - Barry Brickell concept for Ferry, Rail and

Pedestrian access. 6. Long Bay Marina Basin (all users except aquaculture) 7. Long Bay all tide boat ramp facility 8. Sugarloaf expansion for Aquaculture (2010 option, which includes

reclamation) 9. Sugarloaf expansion for Aquaculture (2013 option, three concrete jetties) 10. Sugarloaf Recreational and Commercial split (includes reclamation, jetty and

pontoon for charters and ferry) 11. Furey's Creek half metre deep channel and landing facilities for shallow draft

charter vessels and recreational users. 12. Furey's Creek 1.5m to 2.5m deep channel with larger reclamation and landing

facilities for all charters and the ferry and Furey's Creek ultimate development with potential for marina.

The working group undertook a combined Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the various options and was able to make recommendation to the Project Control Group and Council on the options that should no longer be pursued on this project and the options that need to be investigated further or included in the final option recommended to Council. The options recommended to be excluded from this process going forward include:

• Puhi Rare / Windy Point - (pending CMFA decision) • Coromandel Wharf Extension (almost to Ruffin's Rocks) • Kopu • Long Bay Marina Basin (all users except aquaculture) • Long Bay all tide boat ramp facility • Sugarloaf expansion for Aquaculture (2010 option, which includes

reclamation) • Sugarloaf Recreational and Commercial split (includes reclamation, jetty and

pontoon for charters and ferry) • Furey's Creek 1.5m to 2.5m deep channel with larger reclamation and landing

facilities for all charters and the ferry and Furey's Creek ultimate development with potential for marina.

The majority of the Stakeholder Working Group was in agreement on the recommended way forward. It needs to be noted that there were specific issues raised by individual stakeholder representatives as captured in the meeting minutes. The Stakeholder Working Group recommended scenario or option is as follows:

1. The aquaculture industry needs to decide whether they will proceed with proposed development of the Sugarloaf concrete jetty concept or, the Windy Point or, at a dredged basin concept at Coromandel Wharf (mussel industry representatives didn't attend the final meeting and comment couldn't be made on their behalf).


53

2. Furey's Creek half metre deep channel for recreational users and shallow draft charter boat operators and associated landing facilities as an interim solution to congestion at Hannaford's and Sugarloaf.

3. Continued use in the interim of Hannaford's jetty for the ferry and charter operators not able to use Furey's Creek half metre deep channel.

4. Coromandel Dredged basin as the long-term solution for ferry, charter operators, commercial fishing vessels, marine servicing, potentially a marina and potentially for mussel industry. This option will need commercial funding, which will be further explored in the business case along with potential staging.

The Barry Brickell rail and ferry jetty option was briefly presented at the last SWG meeting. The revised option is similar to the extension of the Coromandel Wharf (almost to Ruffin's Rocks). The feasibility for this option is being completed by Jacobs on behalf of Barry Brickell and will be submitted directly to Council for consideration. As previously mentioned, the CMFA will also need to make its final recommendation to Council project executive with regards to scoping requirements for the industry wharf operation and their preferred location for development or expansion. At the time of writing this report, confirmation from the industry had not yet been received and it is assumed that the Sugarloaf (three concrete jetty) expansion was still their preferred option.

2015-25 LTP Special Consultative Procedure The community will have a further opportunity to submit in favour or against the project in the next LTP special consultative procedure in March 2015.

Consultation Process as Part of Consent Process Council intents to continue with the consultation process started May 2014 and include in its project path the development of the consent application documentation in conjunction with a number of SWG meetings.


54

9. Planning, Legal and Regulatory Considerations An assessment of associated regulatory planning risks has been undertaken as part of the Milestone 2 analysis. This assessment has included a review of current planning requirements and an assessment of potential risks associated with development activity. Further to this assessment Harrison Grierson have undertaken a preliminary overview of the consenting and planning framework in respect of potential future development of harbour facilities in Coromandel town.

Statutory Provisions There is a broad range of statutory and policy provisions that will provide a framework to consider the proposed harbour facilities. The primary statute is the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) and under this Act, the following statutes, policy statements and planning instruments will be relevant:

• New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement • Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 • Operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement • Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement • Waikato Regional Coastal Plan • Regional Land Transport Strategy • Operative Thames Coromandel District Plan • Draft/Proposed Thames Coromandel District Plan

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) The NZCPS provides national level policy direction on the values of the coastal environment and how the purpose of the Act can be achieved. While the NZCPS largely provides policy for the protection of values and natural resources of the coastal environment, it does also recognise the need to maintain and enhance public open space qualities and recreation opportunities

as well as

providing for people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, through subdivision, use, and development. In terms of the consenting process, there will need to be robust and comprehensive technical reports and assessment of the effects on the coastal environment to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the NZCPS.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) The HGMPA has been enacted to recognise the significance of the Hauraki Gulf and to integrate the management of the natural, historic and physical resources of this area. It also established the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. Sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA have the same statutory status as a national policy statement in accordance with section 9(5) of the HGMPA. The HGMPA places significant weight on the natural and cultural values of the Hauraki Gulf and while these matters would be key issues for any wharf or marina proposal, their status is given more significance and is elevated by the HGMPA.


55

In terms of ensuring that the consenting process does not suffer significant risk in terms of the HGMPA, it will be very important to develop the proposal in a manner, which ideally has the full support of local iwi or at least does not give rise to substantive opposition.

WRC – Regional Policy Statement (RPS) The Waikato RPS has recently been reviewed and there are currently appeals on the new provisions of the Proposed RPS. The Proposed RPS further develops the policy framework for regional issues associated with the Coromandel peninsula and coastal marine area (CMA). Objective 3.6 of the Proposed RPS will be directly relevant to the proposed harbour facilities. This objective is as follows:

The coastal environment is managed in an integrated way

which:

a. protects the unique features and values of the coastal

environment;

b. avoids conflicts between uses and values; and

c. recognises the need to link marine-based and land-based

activities.

This objective specifically recognises the link between marine based activities and land based activities and provides a positive basis to consider the effects of harbour facilities. Objective 3.6 is only one objective within the Proposed RPS and must be considered in light of the overall objective and policy framework. However, the context of the Proposed RPS is considered appropriate to enabling the development of harbour facilities subject to the adverse effects of such facilities being avoided, remedied or mitigated. Although the Proposed RPS will have primacy, there may still need to be reference made to the Operative RPS depending on the outcome of appeals.

WRC Consents The nature and type of consents that are likely to be required from the regional council are as follows:

• Coastal permit to undertake activities in the coastal marine area associated with dredging and disturbance of seabed;

• Coastal permit to undertake activities associated with maintenance dredging; • Coastal permit to occupy the coastal marine area with permanent structures;

and • Land use consent to undertake earthworks associated with the disposal of

material removed by maintenance dredging above MHWS. Through the development and refinement of the Draft Concept Plan, more detailed analysis of the individual components of the Regional Council consents will need to


56

be identified and assessed for the purpose of preparing the consent applications. This will include careful attention to the construction methodology and to potential mitigation measures. � With respect to Rule 16.6.13 and 18, the specific methodology and design will need to ensure that there is no breach of these rules. This may however not be sufficient in terms of the provisions of the Regional Coastal Plan (RCP) and is further addressed in the next section. Potential Legal & RMA Issues - Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf The proposed dredging and reclamation as presented at Council’s December 2013 meeting has, as with any other work within the coastal marine area, a number of consent challenges. Disturbance related to dredging Rule 16.6.18 seeks to prohibit discharge and deposition of hazardous substances (such as arsenic and mercury) into the CMA from outside the CMA. It is not the intent of Rule 16.6.18 to prohibit disturbance by dredging of hazardous substances already present within the CMA. On that basis we do not consider Rule 16.6.18 to be applicable in the context of the proposed dredging of Furey’s Creek. The RCP provides for activities associated with dredging (which involve disturbance of the foreshore and seabed) as discretionary activities under Rules 16.6.12 and 16.6.13 provided specified standards and terms are complied with. Rule 16.6.13 is relevant as it provides for removal and deposition of material within the CMA in excess of 50,000m3 within any 12 month period as a discretionary activity. The quantity of material to be dredged in the ultimate development proposed at Furey’s Creek exceeds this volume. The standards and terms of the rule relate to not disturbing shellfish beds, vegetated areas, etc., and not depositing contaminated material on the foreshore or seabed. The standard related to depositing contaminated sediment in the reclamation is not relevant as that is specifically addressed by Rule 16.6.22 (see below). The standards and terms re not disturbing shellfish beds, etc., would have to be complied with, otherwise the rule would not apply. If it is not possible to comply with the standards and terms applicable to Rule 16.6.13, the dredging related activities will default to non-complying activity status under Rule 16.1.2 (which operates as a general default rule where activity status is not otherwise specified). In that event, it is necessary to satisfy at least one of the gateway tests in section 104D of the RMA. In essence, the gateway tests are that adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor or the activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant planning provisions. The words “not contrary to” have been interpreted to mean “not repugnant to.” In practice, an activity can be consistent with some objectives and policies and inconsistent with others while at the same time not being contrary/repugnant to them. This requires a detailed planning analysis. However, the initial view is that the project would not be contrary/repugnant to the relevant objectives and policies in the RCP. Reclamation Deposition of any material other than “cleanfill” in reclamation is a prohibited activity in terms of Rule 16.6.22.


57

The contaminated marine sediment that TCDC wishes to use to establish the reclamation does not fall within the definition of “cleanfill”. The deposit of such material is therefore a prohibited activity, with the result that TCDC is precluded by Rule 16.6.22 from applying for resource consent to authorise the reclamation aspect of the Furey’s Creek proposal. The prohibited activity status of the proposed reclamation does not preclude TCDC applying to the WRC (via a private plan change (“PPC”) application)) for a project/site specific change to the RCP to authorise that aspect of the project alongside the other resource consents required to authorise the project as a whole. For reference purposes the definition of contaminant and Hazardous substances is included below.

Contaminant includes any substance (including gases,

[odorous compounds,] liquids, solids, and micro-organisms) or

energy (excluding noise) or heat, that either by itself or in

combination with the same, similar, or other substances,

energy, or heat—

(a) When discharged into water, changes or is likely to

change the physical, chemical, or biological condition of water;

or

(b) When discharged onto or into land or into air, changes

or is likely to change the physical, chemical, or biological

condition of the land or air onto or into which it is discharged:

hazardous substance means, unless expressly provided

otherwise by regulations, any substance—

(a) with 1 or more of the following intrinsic properties:

(i) explosiveness:

(ii) flammability:

(iii) a capacity to oxidise:

(iv) corrosiveness:

(v) toxicity (including chronic toxicity):

(vi) ecotoxicity, with or without bioaccumulation; or

(b) which on contact with air or water (other than air or

water where the temperature or pressure has been artificially


58

increased or decreased) generates a substance with any 1 or

more of the properties specified in paragraph (a)

Areas of Significant Conservation Value An ASCV site 12 is located to the south of the Whangarahi Stream. The Coastal Plan identifies the Conservation Values of ASCV12 as:

• Site of significance to Hauraki iwi; • Resident rare and threatened wading and coastal bird species; and • Saltmarsh, eelgrass and mangrove communities. �

The Draft Concept Plan does not directly encroach on the area of the ASCV, and this is a positive aspect of the design. It is noted that the 1998 application by Coromandel Waterways for a marina and ferry terminal was seriously compromised by the ecological values of this area and the opposition to the proposal from the Department of Conservation (DOC). � Although the footprint of the Draft Concept Plan does not encroach over the ASCV, the works within the CMA may still give rise to effects of flora and fauna within the ASCV and these effects will need to be assessed as part of the technical reports for the consent. It is also noted that the Coastal Plan shows the mangrove area within the ASCV12 area and also extending north and covering some of the mangrove area, which will be affected by the Draft Concept Plan.

TCDC - District Plan The nature and type of consents will depend on the nature and location of land use activities, which are proposed above Mean High Water Spring. � Under the Operative Thames-Coromandel District Plan (Operative Plan), the footprint of the Draft Concept Plan covers land with different zones in accordance with the following table: Item Proposed activity Zoning

1 Ferry Terminal

Jetties /temporary births

Main Public Boat Ramp

Boat Dry Stack

Trailer Parking

Access Roads

Narrow Gauge Rail Corridor

(In part) Recreational (passive)

2 Refurbish existing ramp (In part) Open Spaces

3 Marine Precinct

Town Centre (Marine Activities Policy Area)

4 Marine Servicing Precinct Town Centre (Heritage Policy Area)

5 Public Space Open Space

Recreation (Active)

The Operative Plan provides a wide range of plan mechanisms in accordance with the zoning framework. In most zones, where a specific activity is not identified, the activity defaults to a Non-Complying activity.


59

In terms of the Recreation Zone (Passive), there are some provisions for public recreational activities; however the ferry terminal is likely to require consent as a Non-Complying Activity. In addition, any marine activities within the Town Centre (Heritage Policy Area) will also require consent as a Non- Complying activity. The provisions for the use and storage of hazardous substances and any disposal of dredging material above MHWS will need to be further assessed in terms of consenting requirements and once further design and construction details have been developed. Overall, there will be a range of activity status rules, which will apply to the proposal from Controlled Activity through to Non-Complying activities. This is as to be expected in terms of the scale and nature of activities proposed.

Plan Change Process It is possible that a Plan Change process may be required to provide appropriate zone provisions and an integrated planning framework for any new marina and associated land based harbour industry or development hub. A Plan Change will ensure that there is flexibility for development in accordance with appropriate zoning mechanism over the medium to long term. A Plan Change process will however add time and additional costs to the planning process and as such, it is considered that applications for consent will deliver an appropriate outcome in the first instance. It will be possible to consider a Plan Change process at a subsequent stage and depending on the timing of the Proposed Plan review, there may be opportunity to make submissions for rezoning through this process as well.

Statutory Process The nature and scale of the project will require appropriate consultation, lodgment of applications with the regional and district councils, a joint application process, notification, submissions and a joint hearing is proposed.

Consenting Phase The consenting phase will require substantive analysis and assessment and will be subject to the scrutiny of the consent authorities, submitters and ultimately the Hearing Commissioners and possibly the Environment Court. A robust consultation process is underway and along with the economic and commercial feasibility work, this will provide context to the broader issues and justification for the wharf project. In terms of technical analysis, the consent application will need to include an assessment and analysis of all the specific consenting requirements, specific performance criteria and the statutory planning instruments. Technical/planning components of the consent applications will need to address:

• Land ownership • Iwi support/opposition


60

• Economic justification and positives/negatives to community and sector/industry groups

• Hydrology of the harbour • Ecological effects, both aquatic and land based • Engineering and infrastructure servicing and design • Geotechnical • Effects from contaminated sediments • Landscape and character effects • Transportation Effects • Heritage • Noise effects • Archaeological

The current work being completed for the Preferred Option Assessment is focusing on consultation, Iwi, economic and commercial viability, hydrological, ecological and engineering design. All technical and planning components identified above will need to be advanced and completed in conjunction with the findings from the Draft Concept Design process. It is recommended that comprehensive and robust technical assessments are provided with the application documentation. While it is possible to provide additional technical analysis through the consenting process and practically right up to and including the hearings process, it is best to ensure that the technical work is complete in the first instance. This reduces the opportunity for criticism through the process.

Current Consent Compliance - Sugarloaf With the application for any new consent the applicable existing consents, their status and the consent holder’s compliance with consent conditions will be under the spotlight. The only site with compliance and operational management issues is Sugarloaf.

Sugarloaf OMP

The original Land Use consent K02/30/1044 was granted by Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) in 1992 and the Reclamation Permit 920214 in 1993. Both consents required an OMP to be developed and signed off by the TCDC Chief Planner and Waikato Regional Council (WRC). The December 1993 version of the OMP was signed off by WRC on 30 May 1994. In 2011 a further attempt was made through consultation with affected parties to establish a more up to date OMP. The 2011 OMP review process wasn't completed and the document not signed off by the TCDC Chief Planner. The 1993 OMP is therefore the operative management plan. Increased congestion and Health & Safety issues are experienced at the wharf due to growth within the aquaculture industry and growing popularity with recreational fishers and charter operators. Various infrastructure upgrade options are being investigated to cater for the current and projected growth while resolving congestion and Health & Safety issues. These options are expensive and consents of this nature take a number of years to obtain.


61

The June 2014 OMP review process is Council's immediate response to resolve operational issues and congestion which increases Council's risk in relation to resource consent compliance and health & safety.

Congestion and Parking

A major frustration for users of the facility is the extent to which the facility becomes congested during peak periods (peak period being any good fishing day during mussel harvesting season). Road safety issues are further exacerbated with the number of boat trailer and cars parked on Te Kouma Road. The wharf parking spaces, allocation and traffic flow are included in the OMP and its attachments. An additional emergency parking space is proposed for use by the Sea Rescue tow vehicle and trailer at the boat ramp. Road safety outside to boundaries of the Sugarloaf Wharf reclamation is not covered in the OMP. Road safety will be addressed through the review of the general Parking Bylaw and will be enforced accordingly.

Consent Compliance - Consented Users

The Sugarloaf Wharf is consented for use by aquaculture industry and recreational fishers only. A number of charter operators, not consented to use the Sugarloaf Wharf were given a three month notice in April 2014, after which they would no longer be allowed to use the facility. Diverting charter operators away from Sugarloaf has consequences for the management of the Hannaford's facility in the short to medium term.

Consent Compliance - Maintenance

Maintenance is not permitted at the wharf. Only limited maintenance is permitted at the emergency maintenance grid in line with the WRC resource consent 118568. TCDC is responsible for any transgressions in relation to consents held for the wharf and the emergency grid. TCDC is also responsible for the clean up of any scrapings or waste at the emergency maintenance grid. A number of vessels have recently caused issues at Sugarloaf Wharf and the emergency grid with hull scraping and painting within the coastal marine area (CMA) without express permission from TCDC as the consent holder. In most cases, the scrapings or debris, which from time to time includes hydrocarbons, have been left in the CMA.

Health & Safety

A health and safety audit of Council’s responsibilities at Sugarloaf Wharf was undertaken by Impact Services Ltd on behalf of Council in September 2014. The report clearly showed the various risks in relation to the mixture of activities on the wharf. There is a need to separate or reduce in some way the number of different users of the wharf to enable responsible management. Under current use conditions, physical separation of users on the wharf is not practical as there is only one road entrance to the facility and very limited space on


62

the wharf if specific areas are to be fenced off or physically demarcated in some other way. The gazetting and enforcement of parking bylaws at the site will go some way towards mitigating some of the vehicle congestion issues. The Council will also need to have regard for the anticipated changes in legislation, which requires Council to have a greater involvement in H&S management of users of the wharf. A H&S plan was prepared and implemented by staff. The H&S plan has specific regard for the types of activities on the various harbour facilities and incorporates environmental hazard management. The Coromandel Harbour Facilities H&S plan covers Sugarloaf Wharf, Hannaford’s Wharf, Furey’s Creek / Jack’s Point Facility and Coromandel Wharf.

Refueling

TCDC granted consent (RMA2009/23) to the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association for refueling of boat vessels at the Sugarloaf Wharf. The retrospective container structure consents (RMA2010/154 and RMA2012/268) also allow the refueling of forklifts on site, with a limited volume of fuel that can be stored within the container. All spill kits are held within the consented containers on site. These spill kits will be included in the monthly Health & Safety audits. The proposed July 2014 OMP is based on the June 2011 version, which saw a number of consultation meetings with affected parties. The proposed OMP contains a number of changes in respect to current operational issues experienced on site.

Consultation

The CMFA and Recreational Boating Association have had an opportunity to comment on the proposed OMP document. These groups represent the consented users of the facility. It is intended to present the proposed OMP to the Coromandel-Colville Community Board prior to releasing the document for further limited consultation with affected parties. Affected parties include Iwi, Waipapa Bay Protection Society and Te Kouma Residents and Ratepayers.

Formalisation of OMP

The process for formal review of the OMP concludes with the TCDC Chief Planner sign-off. At that point the OMP succeeds the 1993 version and becomes the operative plan.

Potential Legal & RMA Issues - Sugarloaf Wharf to Windy Point There is a long-standing record of complaints and issues with regard to the operation at Sugarloaf. Main issues include noise, visual impact, safety on the road


63

(pedestrians and trucks), safety on site and restrictions to recreational access and parking. The implementation of the newly revised OMP is an attempt to improve management on the site in a manner that doesn’t affect the industry’s working hours and production. By the same token the individual members of the CMFA need to adhere to their code of practice and health and safety plans. There are also questions around the intended length of time that the industry should be permitted to operate from this facility when referring back to the 1992 consent application process and decision.


64

10. Environmental / Ecological Considerations

Significant Ecological Features of the Coromandel Harbour

Map 13 from the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan showing the boundary of ASCV 12 and Designated Mooring Areas within Coromandel Harbour in the vicinity of Sugar Loaf and Windy Point.

Ecological Assessment - Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf An initial ecological assessment in respect of the December 2013 Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf concept designs concluded that the harbour bed dredging issue is a potential fatal flaw for the wharf / marina development scenarios that are being considered. The proposed dredging package of work needs to include the ultimate disposal and management of tailings material (including heavy metals and metalloids naturally abundant in Coromandel soils), and demonstrate it will not compromise the ecological health of Coromandel Harbour. Specialist environmental chemist resource may need to provide latter expertise that has first hand experience with dredging, handling and disposing of contaminated marine / freshwater sediments. There are case studies of removing contaminated bed material from harbours in Australia, Japan and elsewhere and specific expertise in this field needs to review the lessons to be learnt from these case studies. There is a possibility that removal of only some of the sediment profile that has been deposited since the early 1880’s could mean benthos (particularly in-fauna) could be left with an uninhabitable seabed until the surficial sediments have weathered / stabilised and permit bioturbation to re-establish. In all reality the intertidal flats are covered in fine silt, which is readily mobilised in the harbour and doesn’t promote a healthy benthic environment in the area of focus between Furey’s Creek and Coromandel wharf.

E s k P t

O k a h u P t

L o n g B a y

Te K o u m a

W y u n a B a y

P r ee c e P t

Ro d n e y P t

W ha w en g a P t

W a i p a p a B a y

W o o l s h e d B a y

N g o h i t a n u B a y

Te K o u m a H ea d

M o t u o r u h i I s l a n d

M o t u k a k a r i k i t a h i ( R a t I s l a n d )

M c G r e g o r B a y

Oa

ma

r u B

ay

Li t t l e

Pa

ss

ag

e

W a i m a t e I s l a n d

Wa i m

a t e Ch a n n e l

W h a n g a n u i I s l a n d

Te K o u m a H a r b o u r

M o t u k o p a k e I s l a n d

R a n g i p u k e a I s l a n d

C o r o m a n d e l H a r b o u r

Motutapere Island Sc enic Reser ve

Long Bay Park Recr eation Reserve

Whanganui IslandMarginal Strip

ASCV 12

ASCV 12

Coromandel H

arbour

Co romandel Harbour

!4

C o r o m a n d e lC o r o m a n d e l

TH

E 3

09

RO A

D

RO

AD

FLA

YS

R

OA

D

TI K

I RO

AD

TE K OU M A R O AD

RIN

GS

RO

AD

WY

UN

A B

AY

RO

AD

T IK I Q U AR RY RO A D

DR

IVIN

G CRE E

K R O AD

PRE EC ES PO INT RO AD

ED W AR D ST REE

T

HU AR OA STR EE T

L IL L IS LA N E

PITA ST RE ET

PO UN D STR EET

MC Q UO ID RO A D

PO TTER Y L A NE

MA

NN

ION

RO

AD

STR ON G M AN RO A D

PU

RIR

I R

OA

D

WHA R F R O AD

TR

AM

WA

Y R

OA

D

LE141

LE310

LE4

LE70 LE49

LE26

LE20

LE59

MFP364

LE224

LI 421

LI347

LI346

LI350

LI295

LI349

LI 293

LI292

LI333

LI 310

LI 326

LI336

LI345

LI 327

LI 343LI296

LI 383LE118

LI 380

LE101

LI 362

LI291

W aia u R i ve r

W ai n ga ro

Ko p u ru

kai ta i St r e

am

P itoti S tre

a m

A w

a ka nae S trea

m

H u a ro a St re a m

M at aw ai S tr e am

Pu ru n ui St re a m

Wh a n g ar ah i S

t rea

m

Whaka

n e kene k e S

tr eam

Mo t ute r e Str e a m

T au ma ta w ahin e St re am

Saw m

i l l S tr ea m

Kar a ka St r ea

m

Wa

i ko

rom

SH 2

5

Wharf

J

I

H

K

G

Map 13

Co-ord inates of C orner Po ints fo r each Zoned Mooring Area are listed in Schedule3of R egi ona l Coasta l Plan

0 1 2 3 40.5

Kilometers

9

18

19

1122

21

20

23

24

16

15

14

13

12

25

10

17

Overview Map

LI294

,METADATA:

- I magery sourced from Terralink Internat ional Limited.- Cadastral information derived f rom Land Informati on New Zealand's Landonl ine Cadastral Database.- Landcover data supplied by Terrali nk NZ Limited. Copyright Reserved.- Archaeological Site locations supplied by Departm ent of Conservat ion.- Al l other inform at ion sourced from Environment Waikato database and may be subj ec t to Privacy regulations. Copyright Reserved.


65

Erosion and soil management issues in the upper catchments affect the harbour. The rapid increase in mangrove areas is a good indication of the health of the upper catchments. Mangrove areas trap silt, which in turn provides more suitable habitat for expansion of mangrove areas. Some of these areas are a direct result of manmade structures placed in a manner that affected littoral drift, trapping sediment and creating suitable environment for mangrove development. The area south of Furey’s Creek is indicated in the WRC Regional Coastal Plan as an Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV 12) The area has a shingle base built up over the years from Furey’s Creek historic alluvial deposition prior to realigning the stream flow (bunding the southern bank). Fine silt deposit is affecting the area, but the area has a reasonably well-established intertidal environment supporting birdlife and various species of fish and invertebrates. The proposed construction work doesn’t extend to this area, but the long-term effect of the altered coastline on this area including changes in littoral system needs to be considered. There are a number of documents and technical publications produced over the years that may inform the project of the various ecological aspects to take into consideration with the development of the option for this site. These documents are references and contain among other; Brian Coffey 1990 report in relation to the proposed Coromandel Waterways Marina Development; TR0812, which includes commentary on sediment mobilization and effects on harbours; and various other technical publications in relation to sediment and ecological effects due to catchment management practices. These reports are useful, but the final assessment of impact on the environment will need to be completed with the specific concept design. The concept presented in this report is still to be finalised.

Ecological Assessment - Sugarloaf to Windy Point The environmental commentary on shoreline in the surrounds of Sugarloaf and Windy Point (Puhi Rare) as potential Locations for additional all tide wharf infrastructure within Coromandel Harbour report was completed by Brian Coffey in 2011. The report acknowledges the requirement for dredging and reclamation due to the shallow nature of the harbour. It also acknowledges that the area Sugarloaf to Windy Point is far more suited to all tide wharfing facilities than areas Preece Point to Coromandel Wharf. The proposed Windy Point concept falls within the Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV 12). It is also noted that the area of proposed development is very close to oyster farms and birdlife habitat. The intertidal zone and benthic environment would undergo changes as per the assessment and loss of benthic environment in the short term is seen to regenerate with mussel beds etc. due to industry activity. There would be a net loss of intertidal habitat associated with any dredging and reclamation proposed. Re-colonization of sub-tidal habitats will be impeded by boat activity. There is however no specific native species identified as being restricted in their distribution to the areas proposed for development.

Sediment Quality Sugarloaf & Windy Point Pattle Delamore and Partners (PDP) completed a sediment quality study in the area between Sugarloaf Wharf and Windy Point in 2012. The sediment samples recovered, recorded concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc that did not exceed the ANZECC (2000) ISQG-low values and were in a similar range to previous background concentrations of metals


66

determined by Hume and Dahm in 1991.

The PDP report and key outcomes included that the concentrations of trace elements in the Waipapa Bay sediment samples were lower than the ANZECC (2000) ISQG-low guideline values. Three of the twelve sediment samples collected from Windy Point however exceeded the ANZECC (2000) ISQG- low guideline value for mercury, but not the ISQG-high guideline value. One sediment sample collected from Windy Point exceeded the ANZECC (2000) ISQG-low guideline value for arsenic, but not the ISQG-high guideline value.

Sediment quality – Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf From previous studies, reports and geological surveys along with more recent work completed by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd and Aurecon, it is evident that trace elements are concentrated in the top sediment layer throughout most of the Coromandel harbour including the Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV). Sediment quality and background values obtained through the various studies and reports show what we already know – that the Peninsula and specifically in this case, the Coromandel area, has a highly mineralised geology due to ephemeral volcanic activity. It is a geo-diverse area that doesn’t necessarily fit within the national background standards for trace elements (metals and metalloids) in soil. Natural lithological processes, deforestation, agricultural practices and historic gold mining activities contributed to a legacy of having to deal with elevated levels of trace elements in the marine silts and sediment. The data indicates that the Coromandel Harbour is not a pristine environment in terms of regulation standards and guidelines. The trace elements are concentrated in the top sediment layers at levels exceeding guideline values. The upper sediment layer is readily mobilised with wind, wave, tide and boat movements. Geochemical Investigations of Coromandel Harbour Sediments Leipe & Healy December1992 is a further useful reference along with various other technical publications, in gaining an insight to the transient nature of top sediment layer (this layer was formed during a time of significant anthropogenic influence). Disturbing sediment can mobilise trace elements to water by two mechanisms, first through shifting the solid solution absorption equilibrium to allow some of the elements to be release to the water from solid phases and secondly by physical transport of the contaminated sediment particles. This is currently taking place before we introduce dredging activities. Trace elements in sediments are distributed between various fractions of the sediment. The most toxic fraction of a trace element in sediment is the part, which is readily available to be dissolved from the solid phases to the associated water (available fraction). In sediment influenced by anthropogenic sources, proportionately more of the trace element is available. This is mainly because a greater proportion of the element is present as absorbed forms, rather than being incorporated inside mineral lattices. Also to be considered:

• The finest particles often have the highest concentrations of contaminants and travel the furthest. This is because absorption depends on surface area. The finest particles have the highest ratio of surface to weight.

• ANZECC (2000) guidelines for metals and metalloids in water relate to the dissolved part, not the suspended sediment. This is because the dissolved


67

part is the immediately toxic part. There are separate guidelines for metals in sediment.

• Transient exceedances of ANZECC (2000) guidelines for water can be tolerated.

• The guidelines are designed to protect against long-term exposure at a given level.

• Guidelines apply after reasonable mixing. An increase in dissolved trace elements would be expected close to dredging operation, but the impact may be limited once mixing is taken into account.

• The physical effect of mobilised sediment is its ability to coat out and suffocate sediment dwelling invertebrates.

• Where fine particles are mobilised, in dredging for instance, their contaminant concentrations are likely to dilute with distance. This is because course grained particles that also get shifted and mix with the fine grain material act to dilute the final concentration. Sand for example has very low concentrations of trace elements.

The dredging activity would need a methodology that would prevent the release of fine sediment plume from the project area. This mitigation will need to be proposed in line with proven practices. TCDC doesn't manage the CMA and doesn't administer the RCP. We are also not the health authority or MPI managing sampling programme for mussel and related foods industry. The harbour sediments have contained these heavy metals for well over a century, much longer than the period of time that shellfish farms have operated in the Hauraki Gulf. Coromandel Marine Farmers Association are aware of the presence of trace elements and remain confident in their management systems related to these issues; including the risks around additional dredging with the proviso of having appropriate mitigation methods in place. This issue is an important factor in relation to proposals for dredging within the harbour. It will be important to ensure that dredging operations are carried out in an environmentally responsible manner and that ongoing dredging maintenance is both economically and environmentally sustainable. Contaminated sediment issues have been identified as pivotal to the consenting, cost and public acceptability of a development at Furey’s Creek. To date, historic sampling, (including that done by PDP in 2012 and recent Aurecon sampling and testing in November 2013), has shown the presence of contaminants in the upper site sediment profile. For consenting purposes it is essential to characterise the nature and extent of contaminants within the study area as part of the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that sediment is only one of a number of environmental impacts that will need to be assessed during consent application stage. This information will drive the feasibility and cost of the concept as the final physical construction methodologies will need to include appropriate mitigation measures. Sampling to date has been a mixture of limited core samples, surficial grab samples and samples from limited areas adjacent to the wharf and along the bank of the Furey’s Creek channel. This together with the desktop study presented in this section comprise a Level 1 investigation (Sediment Waste Characterisation process - NZ Guidlenines for Sea Disposal of Waste, 1999). A Level 2 investigation was presented


68

to Council in April 2014 for the Furey’s Creek area. This is later discussed in the next section. To achieve a better understanding a staged geo-environmental investigation is proposed (this is also required for environmental assessments and detailed design of the proposed infrastructure). The layout and table below show a summary of core and grab samples from a number of sources.

Combined sample location layout from various sources:

• Geotech Investigations of Coro Sediments - Dec 1992 [Red squares] • Brian Coffey - Core samples as part of environmental impact for Coromandel Marine - Sep

1992 [Inverted red triangles] • PDP Report - Grab and Core samples (Mercury analysis at 0.02m / 0.10m / 0.40m) - Mar

2012 [Blue and yellow dots] • Aurecon - Nov 2013 [Blue triangles]

The table below provides a summary of the Arsenic and Mercury found a the various sample locations. Sample ID Arsenic (ppm)

ANZECC (2000)

ISQG-Low 20 ppm

ISQG-High 70ppm

Mercury (ppm)

ANZECC (2000)

ISQG-Low 0.15 ppm

ISQG-High 1.00 ppm

GI 1, 2, 3 24.6 -

GI 5 24.6 -

GI 6 32.0 -

Core A 15.2 0.18

Core B 9.2 0.10


69

Core C 13.6 0.04

Core D 10.4 0.09

CMW01 38.0 0.22 / 0.21 / 3.10

CMW02 28.0 0.22 / 0.23 / 1.52

CMW03 27.0 0.13 / 0.26 / 0.73

CMW04 35.0 0.21 / 0.22 / 1.90

CMW05 31.0 0.25 / 0.19 / 0.81

COR01 19.0 0.32

COR02 19.0 0.31

COR03 23.0 0.34

COR04 27.0 0.42

COR05 19.0 0.49

COR06 23.0 0.35

AU01 26.0 0.16

AU02 25.0 <0.10

AU03 24.0 <0.10

AU04 25.0 0.22

AU05 28.0 0.20

AU06 28.0 0.18

AU07 20.0 0.18

AU08 18.0 0.24

AU09 21.0 0.18

AU10 20.0 0.23 Note:

1. Even though a significant area of the proposed study site has been sampled, there isn't enough sample data to support the development of a trend at this stage. The samples are also predominantly taken from the top sediment layer - at best it is a representation of what is currently in the top 400mm sediment layer which moves around in the Harbour (tide / wind / wave / boat movements).

2. It seems that both arsenic and mercury are relatively consistently between ANZEC2000

ISQG low and high. The area is highly mineralised similar to large portions of the rest of the Peninsula.

3. PDP in their 400mm deep samples off the end of the Coro Wharf seems to have found 2

hotspots of mercury. These are assumed to be from mining and the old wharf activity (the old wharf extended much further than the current day 340m footprint)

The volume and extent of additional sediment released into the harbour over the last 150 years is significant. The Coromandel Wharf area changed from a deep water facility to a 2.5 hour tidal access facility. The rate of sediment build up and mangrove growth indicates that the health of the contributing catchments. At some point the situation will need to be remedied and then through harbour clean-up initiatives reversed by removing the contaminated material buildup from the intertidal zone. Improved catchment management will eventually reduce the volume of sediment and shingle deposited in the lower reaches of the Whangarahi Stream and Furey’s Creek area and resolve some of the flooding hazard issues.


70

Possible Sampling Programme - Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf An indicative proposal was obtained from Aurecon in January 2014 for a Level 2 investigation (Sediment Waste Characterisation process - NZ Guidlenines for Sea Disposal of Waste, 1999). An extract of the proposal (commercially sensitive proposa) was presented to Council in April 2014 for the Furey’s Creek area. A staged geo-environmental investigation is proposed (this is also required for environmental assessments and detailed design of the proposed infrastructure). The layout below shows the proposed long term or ultimate development concept for Furey’s Creek (December 2013) to Coromandel Wharf. The specific layout and positioning of proposed core sample sites will depend on the final concept. The layout below is indicative only and in no way finalised.

Note:

• Yellow dots - tracked vehicle mounted drill rig. • Blue dots - over water drill rig on barge. • Green dots - platform mounted drill rig.

The indicative cost of the exercise is such that it would need to be implemented in stages. If the study is completed and the conditions are not favourable or the project doesn’t proceed for any reason, the investigation and analysis cost is considered to be a sunk cost. At the stage of writing the strategy the option selection process has not yet taken its course and there is no certainty of the site or the alignment and extent of the preliminary detail design. A costly sediment sampling programme will tehrefore only take place during preliminary detail design phase. The cost of the geophysical study, sampling programme and lab analysis was indicated to be in the region of $300,000 to $350,000 and will take 18 weeks (weather and tide dependent) to deliver. These values are not exact, as the number of disruptions can’t be predicted. For instance, the drill rig will be mounted on a barge. This operation takes a few hours, includes calibration and should preferably only be done once for this proposed work package. Drilling will be weather, wind/wave and tide dependent. Any disruption as result would mean plant downtime, which becomes a cost to the project.


71

The investigation outlined below includes a geophysical survey to determine suitable drill sites and minimise damage to drilling equipment over a 15 Ha area and the drilling and extraction of 20 (no.) 3 - 4 deep core samples from platform, tracked vehicle and barge. Drilling and extraction of mud samples at this depth is a specialist activity. Rough order costs for the various components of the proposed Level 2 investigation are listed below: Item Description Indicative Budget

Required

1a Overall Project Management and administartion 15,000

1b Geophysical survey and documentation 23,000

2a Project planning and processes for sampling / investigation with (various) specialist input and liaison with relevant authorities and procurement. 12,000

2b Establishment and time related P&G’s 15,000

2c Site investigation (estimated on 1 month) Includes:

• Field supervision, sampling and logging • Dril rig setup on barge • Accommodation and dispursements • Field instruments for accurate survey of each sample

location • Barge hire and crew • Waste disposal of drill mud • Preparation of temporary workplatforms • Drilling (and extractig samples) from platform, swamp

crawler and barge.

155,000

2d Laboratory Testing. Includes preparation of samples and custody processes.

Excludes speciation, seawater and sediment pore water analysis. 65,000

3 Reporting (and proposal of next steps – Level 3 investigation) 20,000

Subtotal 305,000

Contingencies (~15%) 45,000

Total 350,000

To put this cost in context - A recent proposal was also received by Council for drilling of the core samples (i.e. items 2b and c above) at roughly $180,000. This is for the sampling process only and excludes any lab and analysis work. The process outlined above could take up to 18 weeks and is proposed for completion during summer months.

Harbour Clean-up The intended reduction of effects on the environment from sediment disturbance due to boat movement and wind wave action can only ultimately be achieved by treating the issue at source. Mitigation and effective management of soil erosion in the upper catchment and subsequent discharge into the receiving Harbour environment would resolve any further degradation of the Harbour with respect to sedimentation.


72

This unfortunately doesn’t resolve the legacy issues created by mining, agriculture, urban development and other deforestation practices. The concept of a harbour cleanup has been muted on a number of occasions. This is mostly a subject associated with mining, as the funding for this exercise will only be realised through precious metal extraction. It is not believed that a government lead contaminated site rehabilitation project would be feasible due to the scale of the Harbour floor. The issue is also widespread throughout the Firth of Thames and affects the Hauraki Gulf. The Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf options include the proposal to create a deep-water channel or basin area for all tide access. This dedicated area is to be used by boats and vessels, thereby focusing the activity to a controlled area and minimizing further disruption to areas with contaminated fine sediments. Any proposal that includes the removal and disposal of contaminated material will need to consider the environment and would need to be completed in such a way that it adds to the enhancement of the Harbour area. This is not a mining project and the Council doesn’t support mining activities that would cause further legacy issues within the Harbour. This project seeks to establish a blue highway and is intended to have strong linkages with environmental enhancements explored through the ongoing Hauraki Gulf Spatial Plan process. If the opportunity arises to clean up the harbour then this will potentially create a deeper harbour environment requiring far less dredging maintenance in future.


73

11. Engineering considerations

Preliminary Concept Designs Due to the costs involved in developing marine infrastructure a staged approach is favoured whereby deterministic assumptions are made and rough sketches of concepts are developed based on relatively untested assumptions and theories. These concepts are then gradually replaced with better defined concepts based on gradually increased probabilistic risk based approach as the knowledge base is increased for the specific site. A number of sites were included in the initial options selection process. It wasn’t feasible to develop detail designs for each of the sites as this would have increased the cost of the project significantly. The level of data is reflected and number of uncertainties with regards to final design requirements for concepts in the initial phase of the project is evident by the broad-brush costings completed (included as attachment B). As such milestone 1 and 2 of the current project has seen limited (un-calibrated) modeling work completed in an attempt to stage the transition from concept to detail design while minimizing sunk cost if the project doesn’t go ahead. None of the options presented to date or those included in this report are complete or final. The process of completing a probabilistic risk analysis along with further defined user requirements, functional design requirements, operational and maintenance will define the proposed final option. This is only possible (project control process) once Council approves a site for further development. Site selection and concept development is an iterative process. Once a site is selected for detail design development the investment become more significant and Council would require a greater level of confidence that the end goal is achievable. The section below and in the next few sections give an overview of applicable knowledge areas and information gathered to date.

Defining the Project Area and Boundary Conditions Coastal engineering includes a number of major uncertainties. These uncertainties include forcing processes and coastal response. The effects of the forcing on coastal processes will be altered with the addition of a structure or altered coastline within the coastal marine area. A site is usually selected on the basis of fulfilling a functional design or its proximity to a feature or town for instance. This is the first stage in selecting a site. In order to make an informed decision site selection, project variables need to be taken into account. There are a number of project variables to take into consideration. The key variables that will affect the project performance are the main forcing mechanisms, project sizing and project response. Defining the project area is not just an exercise to determine the footprint of the developed facility but also needs to include its area of influence on littoral1 processes. For this reason the modeling and assessment of effects will extend to the 1 Referred to in this report as the coastal zone area that extends from the area just above MHWS rarely submerged to shoreline areas well below MLWS forming the harbour floor area, which is always submerged. This area includes the intertidal zone.


74

wider Harbour coastal environment even though only two sites within the Harbour are currently being assessed (Sugarloaf to Windy Point and Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf). With the latter the site assessment includes the affects of stream flows, flooding and increased velocities due to alteration of the lower reaches of the Whangarahi Stream/Furey’s Creek. This has a significant impact on the Furey’s Creek option and assessment to the likely effects of flooding at this site on marine structures and vessels moored at the facility will be based on both local knowledge and numerical modeling. The assessment will indicate whether the concept is in fact feasible or if the site boundaries need to be adjusted with a general movement of initial stages closer to the Coromandel Wharf. This in turn will affect the functional design of the facility. The Sugarloaf Wharf on the other hand needs to be developed as close as possible within the protected zone within the Waipapa Bay. Any extension of jetties or floating pontoons or other functional structures further north (deeper into the Harbour) than the existing wharf will attract significantly more wave action and would require additional protection potentially in the form of a revetment wall on the western side of the facility. Due to the uncertainties discussed above, the final site boundaries have yet to be established. Operational and maintenance requirements will need to be considered along with projected deterioration/progressive failure over time of any structures placed in this environment.

Design requirements The functional design as far as it concerns marine activity, needs to cater for various small to medium sized vessels. These vessels include commercial and recreational powered and sailing vessels. This section includes only a high level overview and doesn’t incorporate navigational and maritime safety design requirements yet. Design parameters taken into account with the preliminary design concepts include:

• Protection from wind, waves and currents • Sufficient land and water areas • Proximity to operating area, support infrastructure and major roads • Adequate water depth • Sediment issues • Environmental concerns with regards to activity at the facility

General design requirements for small craft, mussel barges, commercial fishing vessels and ferry were explored with various user groups and operators. This formed a list of criteria, which was used to evaluate whether specific options were practical for intended use. Only a few of these design parameters are discussed below. The aggregation of users to a single facility makes financial sense, but this is not always possible due to the size or draft of the vessel.

Channel and Berthing Basin Depth The largest vessel that would make regular berth at the proposed facility is the ferry, which currently requires adequate water depth to navigate a vessel with a 1.5m draft. It is anticipated that in future the ferry vessel will be replaced with a larger vessel


75

(stable enough to travel at higher speeds across the Hauraki Gulf) to cater for a commuter/tourism service, which would have a draft closer to 1.8m. A draft of 1.8m will require further depth below keel to soft basin of ~600mm to account for the vessel’s drawdown when underway in shallow water. In this case the facility would need a navigational depth of 2.4m at MLWS (or channel and berth area to -2.2mCD). None of the existing facilities or options can cater for this vessel all tide. It is instead proposed to design the new ferry vessel in a manner that would suit the landing facility due to significant site constraints within the Harbour. Where dredging depths are mentioned it needs to be taken into account that over dredging past that depth will be required so that infill over time can be monitored and managed to a specified minimum channel or basin depth. Excessive over-dredging is however not proposed due to cost, impact on the hydrodynamics at the facility and the tendency for rapid infill at points of major differential flow velocities. Where these risks aren’t relevant and cost is not an issue or can be justified; over dredging will obviously have a significant benefit to the user. The following design drafts have been taken into account in the development of the options:

• Recreational fishing boats - 500mm • Recreational powered and sailing vessels – 1,400mm • Fishing charters and commercial vessels – 1,500mm • Fishing charters (barge type – not fully loaded in this application) – 500mm • Mussel Barges – 1,000mm to 2,400mm (fully laden) • Ferry – 1,500mm (potentially in future – 1,800m)

As previously mentioned the navigational depth for larger vessels need to include for vessel squat or drawdown when underway. A facility, which will cater for all users, will need to have water depth of 2.4m at MLWS (worst case scenario). A facility to cater for some of the charter operators and all recreational fishing boats will need a safe navigational water depth of 700mm. The half metre deep dredged channel proposal for Furey’s Creek would provide that navigational depth. Recreational fishing boats require a boat ramp with adequate lanes and lane with to accommodate users of all skill levels. The ramp needs to extend into the channel or basin to a level below MLWS and have adequate toe and edge protection to avoid undermining and eventual structural failure. A fall or ramp slope of 1:8 is assumed and where possible the layout of the land based facility needs to accommodate rigging and de-rigging of boats so as not to add to ramp congestions. A floating pontoon is also to be incorporated into the design for ease of use and safety reasons. The deepening of channels or basins near existing structures need to be done in such a way as to avoid failure or increased degradation of the structure or asset. For this reason the deepening of the Furey’s Creek channel options include the replacement or partial upgrade of existing jetties and retaining structures.

Sediment Issues The width and frequency of use of the larger vessels need to be taken into account with the design of the landing area and approach channel. The channels in a number of designs or concepts need to be limited in width in order to reach self-cleaning flow velocities. In respect to the Coromandel Wharf Dredged basin and Furey’s Creek


76

options the effective channel width (at base) is only 15m. It is anticipated that a channel of this nature would be shared between various different vessels with different uses and needs. Restrictions on channel width will affect navigation. Where a basin falls within the salt/fresh water interface and not directly in the scour path it is believed to present increased risk of sedimentation or shoaling. This is expected in the small channel basin proposed with the Furey’s Creek option. Any marina basin with an entrance close to exposed to the mobilised sediment from the intertidal zone will experience significant siltation and attract high operational costs. This affects the marina type options presented so far in this report and a marina is only thought to be viable if the approach to the basin is extended to deeper water below the intertidal zone. This has a significant impact on footprint of the facility albeit not as severe as the extension of the Coromandel Wharf at a total length of 1.4km from shore.

Asset Lifecycle The design of the proposed structures and facility components need to take into account the nature of the coastal environment. Asset design life is to be incorporated as a key design parameter along with the projected progressive failure of coastal structures over time and their replacement or maintenance requirements. The facility’s functional design will therefore not only look at the user requirements but also the ability to maintain or accommodate the replacement of components without the requirement to rebuild major sections of the facility.

Construction Methodology A further key consideration at this point in the project is the specific construction methodology. This methodology needs to not just take into account the length of the construction phase and construction window (tidal and seasonal), as well as the following:

• Impact on ecology and environmental risk • Geotechnical considerations • The handling and final deposition of contaminated sediments • Temporary bunding or drywall construction and dewatering • Disruption during construction (including noise, truck movements etc.)

Concept costings include broad-brush methodologies. As such the preliminary and general and contingency values or percentages are relatively high and will hopefully reduce with further refinement and more detailed scoping of the project.


77

12. Preliminary Assessment of Forcing and Coastal Effects

Purpose The work required to complete the studies for consent application preparation are all interlinked and no one study stands alone. Ecological, geophysical, sediment quality, sediment management, wind wave, sediment transport, hydrodynamic modeling, all feed into the Assessment of Environmental Effects. Coastal force analysis is also only really relevant if done in conjunction with the layout of the structure and the specific materials proposed for the construction of the facility. In all these studies, modeling and forcing analysis underpin the accuracy of predicted changes and design requirements. In order to provide an understanding based on probabilistic risk assessment process of the effects of the proposed harbour development an initial numerical modeling exercise has been carried out using un-calibrated models of the Coromandel Harbour. This approach takes into account broader scale drivers (tides and winds) and local bathymetric effects with the following modeling methodologies:

• Estimates of fetch limited wave development using industry standard empirical methods;

• Simulation of the growth, decay and transformation of wind-generated waves within Coromandel Harbour using the MIKE-21 Spectral Wave model;

• Simulation of two-dimensional hydrodynamics using the MIKE-21 Flow model. This model predicts water level variations and flows in response to a variety of forcing functions;

• Calculations of the rates of sand transport using the MIKE-21 Sand Transport model. Model outputs can be used to identify potential areas of erosion or deposition.

The approach is probabilistic rather than deterministic due to the complexity of the sites within the harbour and the variables involved in determining a suitable outcome. It is considered by the project team that deterministic approach is not suitable as there is not enough local and professional experience, or expert judgment to base a multi million dollar solution on. This area of the project will therefore see significant additional development within the next stage of the project.

Geophysical There is currently very limited information (and mostly anecdotal) of the geophysical character of the areas proposed. Information required would consist of depth of sediment, rock type and character, bearing capacities, sediment particle profile and strata analysis. Due to the ongoing activities and 2011 Aquaculture industry study, the Sugarloaf site has significantly more data available when compared to other sites in the Harbour. Further studies would be required in the Sugarloaf area if the expansion towards Windy Point were the selected solution and with the additional required navigational depth for Ferry access. Similarly the sediment investigation work package at Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf would need to include detailed geophysical investigation to support the quantification of horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, refinement of the sediment transport model and structural design requirements. In the absence of any site specific geotechnical investigations at Furey’s Creek reliance has been made on the general geological mapping available for the site and


78

work undertaken for the previous marina resource consent application by Earthtech and Engineering Geology Ltd. Although not specifically located in the area of the currently proposed works the findings are broadly similar to what might be expected with a development in the areas being proposed. Some assessment of earthworks performance in drying and filling trials was also previously conducted, which provides valuable information for current, works too. The key findings of relevance from these previous studies are that:

• The dredged sediments are likely for the most part to comprise marine muds / clays and silts which have very poor drying characteristics and poor properties for use as reclamation fill unless modified.

• The reclamation area under the mangrove area is likely overlain by several metres of softer marine muds and silts which will consolidate significantly once loaded by fill (unless pre-treated).

• There is a possibility of harder Andesite outcrops in the areas to be dredged (although the investigations did not identify any specific areas). This would have possible implications for the methods of dredging to be employed.

Coromandel Harbour Tidal Height Information During the course of establishing benchmarks in the Coromandel area the data provided by various surveyors and WRC was cross referenced with data from a LINZ benchmark and its Mean Level of Sea (MLOS) approximation recorded over 79 days was found to be 0.051mm above AVD46. Although the tide level observation period was far too short for a precise determination of MLOS, the information supports the concept that the current MLOS along the west coast of the peninsula is within +/- 100mm of AVD46. TCDC therefore accepted AVD46 as the common MSL height datum for the west coast. Tidal information shown below is obtained from LINZ secondary Chart Datum for Coromandel Harbour (NZ5328). The Auckland Vertical Datum 1946 (AVD46) and Waikato Regional Council (WRC) Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum correlates closely as shown in the TCDC Benchmark Booklet for Coromandel developed in October 2009 by WEC and Geometrix Surveyors in conjunction with WRC and LINZ. Tidal Description Height (m) relative to

Chart Datum (NZ5328) Height (m) relative to

Auckland Vertical Datum (AVD46)

~ 100 year sea level rise (@880mm) 4.14 2.54

95th Percentile wave height (360mm only) 3.26 1.66

MHWS 2.90 1.30

MHWN 2.50 0.90

MSL 1.60 0.00

MLWN 0.70 -0.90

MLWS 0.20 -1.40

LAT 0.00 -1.60

Recreational Fishing Boat Access (0.5m draft) -0.50 -2.10

Ferry Access (1.6m draft) (indicative depth requirement only)

-1.70 -3.30


79

Bathymetry Bathymetry is available for Sugarloaf Wharf. Detailed bathymetry is not available for Furey’s Creek and preliminary option development and assessments are based on soundings, LiDAR and charts. For modeling purposes a variety of bathymetric sources have been used to establish the finite element grid used for the numerical models. These include data from Electronic Navigation Charts for the Firth of Thames (NZ300533), Coromandel (NZ505328) and Approaches to Auckland (NZ305321) extracted using MIKE C-MAP. Data from recent LiDAR surveys of the Waikato Region have been collated to provide inter-tidal bathymetry. Cross section data for the Whangarahi Stream (Environment Waikato, 2003) have been used to provide schematised bathymetry of the Whangarahi Stream. All data has been converted to NZTM and MSL (Auckland vertical datum 1946).

Spectral- Wind Wave Model – Coromandel Harbour Area A preliminary wind wave model was developed by DHI as part of the Milestone 2 work package and presented to Council on 18 December 2013. This work will need to be further developed, as the model is un-calibrated. What follows is an extract of the DHI work so far. Wind data was obtained from the automated weather station located at Coromandel (NIWA). The data spans the period 1983 to 1986. This data shows the localized wind force for the Coromandel Harbour, but the length of time is insufficient for statistical analysis. Further data was obtained for the period 1979 to 2010 from the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) dataset. This data set (for the overlapping period) records stronger winds than the localized Coromandel Harbour data set. The model is based on the CFSR data as it is a more appropriate wind dataset for regional scale forcing.


80

The wind rose presented in the DHI report is copied below for context. The wind rose is a graphical representation of the Firth of Thames CFRS wind dataset 1979-2010.


81

Fetch Limited Wave The CFSR winds were binned into 20o sectors from 180o

+/- 10o through to 320o +/-

10o. For each of these sectors a mean fetch distance was calculated and for each hourly wind speed prediction observation estimates of wave heights (Hs), period (Ts) and hours required to reach fetch limit conditions (t) were made.

The table below shows the median predicted wave height; period offshore of Coromandel Harbour; and the time taken to reach fetch limited conditions (as per the diagram above – just outside Coromandel Harbour).

Wind Direction Wave Height (m) Wave Period (s) Time (hrs) to reach fetch limit conditions

170-190o 0.49 2.88 6.6

190-210o 0.48 3.29 5.1

210-230o 0.54 4.19 4.0

230-250o 0.64 4.89 3.9

250-270o 0.59 4.53 4.0

270-290o 0.75 4.12 6.5

290-310o 0.87 3.77 9.1

310-330o 1.00 3.68 11.4


82

Stream Flow Data presented in the Waikato Regional Council flood risk report (Environment Waikato, 2003) provides estimates of peak stream flow data for both the Whangarahi and Karaka streams. Such data along with estimates of catchment sediment loads will be required to assess the potential effects of the development on delivery of catchment derived sediments. For this phase of work a base flow value of 0.5 m3/s was assumed (for sediment deposition projections). Event Return Period (years) 2 10 20 50 100

Rainfall Intensity (mm/hour) 29 41 48 60 73

Peak Stream Flow Whangarahi (m3/s) 61 86 101 126 155

Peak Stream Flow Karaka (m3/s) 37 52 61 77 94

Peak Stream Flow Combined (m3/s) 99 140 162 203 248

The table above provides return period rainfall intensity and peak stream flow estimated for the Whangarahi and Karaka streams.

Summary of Un-calibrated Model Output To provide an initial assessment of the likely wave climate at the study site just the existing bathymetry was incorporated into the model grid. Using the long term Firth of Thames wind data the 75th and 90th percentile wind speeds for the four wind fetch directions that were modeled as shown below:

Wind Direction

(o true)

Wind Direction Range (o true)

Wind Speed (m/s)

75th Percentile 90th Percentile

185o 170-200o 6.43 8.28

220o 200-240o 8.06 9.72

260o 240-280o 8.65 10.45

300o 280-320o 7.79 9.73

For each of these representative wind scenarios the SW model was run for a fixed water level of 2.9 m above Chart Datum (1.3 m above Mean Sea Level). This provides worse case conditions for wave development within the vicinity of the development – a long period of sustained strong wind coinciding with a spring high tide. Initial model conditions were set to still water (zero spectra) and the model spun up for 12 hours to ensure fully developed waves had established for each of the wind conditions modeled. Wave Height predictions immediately offshore of Coromandel Wharf Area (Inside Coromandel Harbour) from Mike-21 SW model.

Wind Direction

(o true)

Wave Height (m)


185o 0.09 0.18

220o 0.28 0.36

260o 0.25 0.33

300o 0.05 0.08


83

Wave period predictions immediately offshore of Coromandel Wharf Area (Inside Coromandel Harbour) from Mike-21 SW model.

Wind Direction

(o true)

Wave Period (s)


185o 1.48 1.58

220o 1.75 1.99

260o 1.83 2.00

300o 1.71 1.87

The schematics below show the wave height for Coromandel Harbour area

Predicted wave height and direction – 90th percentile wind speed 185o true.


84




85

Predicted wave height and direction – 90th percentile wind speed 300o true. From the above data and schematics is clearly seen that the predominant wind directions are from southwesterly direction. The more significant fetches are from the northwest. The preliminary spectral wind wave model output show the more significant wind direction impacting on the Coromandel Wharf area as 220o True (SW). The wave height is not significant enough (only 0.4m) to require significant structural protection to the facility. Buffering to exposed southwest facing facilities will be required. The model output provides useful information for future sediment transport modeling. The wind direction affecting the Sugarloaf to Windy Point area is west to northwest. A summary of the conditions is captured in the name Windy Point. The wave height for 260o True (W) in this area range from 0.4 and 0.8m. The design will need to take into account that groins may be required for expansion to the western edge of Windy Point.

Hydrodynamic Model – Coromandel Wharf Area The hydrodynamic model applies specifically to the Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf area. Simulations with both the existing bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed development and altered bathymetry incorporating the proposed reclamation, marina basin and approach channel were developed so that changes in flows and freshwater dynamics due to the development could be assessed. Under existing conditions there is a relatively uniform long-shore gradient in peak flood tide current strengths with currents weakening from south to north. The existing river channel is restricted to a width of 50-70m. Maximum currents occur immediately


86

offshore of the Whangarahi stream channel and on the inter-tidal area directly to the south.

Post development currents within this inter-tidal area are reduced and there is a broad area to the south of the approach channel where peak flows are predicted to be reduced compared to the existing conditions. Within the area immediately to the south of the marina basin flows are directed south/south-east away from the approach channel and onto the inter-tidal area.


87

Under existing conditions during peak ebb tide the Whangarahi stream channel drains of water leading to strongest flows both within and immediately offshore of the Whangarahi stream channel. Flows on the inter-tidal area immediately to the south of the river channel are directed to the southwest.

Post development currents on this inter-tidal area are reduced. Some of this inter-tidal area now drains directly into the approach channel. Offshore there is a broad area to the south of the approach channel where peak flows are predicted to be reduced compared to the existing conditions.


88

Changes in flows lead to changes in the dynamics of the Whangarahi Stream freshwater plume. Mean salinity over an 18-day spring-neap tidal cycle illustrates the overall effect of the development in terms of the dynamics of the Whangarahi stream fresh water plume. Under existing conditions lowest salinities occur along the length of the drainage channel and to the area immediately to the southeast of the Whangarahi Stream. With the development in place the increased exchange of saline water into and out of the area leads to a relatively restricted area of lower mean salinity.

Predicted mean salinity over an 18-day spring-neap tidal cycle. Top panel shows predictions prior to the development, bottom panel shows predicted mean salinity with the reclamation, marina basin and rock revetments in place.


89

Both the changes in currents and distribution changes in salinity provide an early indication of the delivery of catchment-derived sediments. Areas of lower salinity and of low or intermittent stronger currents will correspond to areas where catchment derived sediments are likely to be delivered to. In areas of higher currents catchment derived sediments are unlikely to ultimately settle. Under existing conditions catchment derived sediments are likely to either be flushed through the drainage channel or be deposited within the inter-tidal area to the southwest of the Whangarahi Stream. With the development in place the flushing of catchment derived sediments through the drainage channel will be reduced and areas of highest deposition are likely to be more localised. The addition of the marine basin also introduces a stilling area, which is likely to attract higher settlement rates.

Sediment Transport Model – Coromandel Wharf Area Given the relatively low wave conditions expected at the site, the MIKE-Sediment Transport model for this phase of work was run just simulating currents. Several different sediment transport formula can be used and the most suitable formula would be chosen during a calibration process. The default Engelund and Hansen total-load transport formulae (Engelund and Hansen, 1972) have been applied for single fine-grained sand (0.1 mm). Sediment transport rates are a function of bed shear stress (which relates to current strength) and the consideration of the entrainment of sediments into the water column, turbulent mixing of sediments and settling. The empirical formula of Engelund and Hansen estimates the total sediment transport rate (i.e. bed-load and suspended load components) as a function of current and grain size. Importantly the formula does not take into account sediment availability – merely the maximum potential rate at which sediment could be transported given the predicted currents at a site. An analysis of accumulated sediment transport rates over an 18-day spring-neap tidal cycle provides useful quantification of the net transport rates that occur for both the existing and development bathymetries.


90

Predicted accumulated sediment over an 18-day spring-neap tidal cycle. Top panel shows predictions prior to the development, bottom panel shows predicted net sediment transport rate with the reclamation, marina basin and rock revetments in place. Under existing conditions net sediment transport rates are directed offshore and reflect the pattern of predicted residual currents within the existing drainage channel (Figure 5-5). This implies that sediments arriving within the existing drainage channel (either catchment derived or from other areas in the vicinity) are likely to be flushed seaward through the drainage channel. Sediments on the inter-tidal area just to the south-west of Coromandel are potentially moving to the south-west under the influence of the tidally driven currents. Elsewhere tidally driven sediment transport is likely to have little net effect on the general morphology of the inter-tidal area offshore of Coromandel.


91

With the development in place there is a relatively small net onshore sediment transport rate within the western end of the approach channel. Within the rest of the approach channel and marina basin net transport rates are very low. This implies that sediments arriving within the approach channel (either catchment derived or from other areas in the vicinity) may remain within the channel or (within the western end) be slowly transported onshore. Net transport rates on the inter-tidal area southwest of the development are slightly reduced. Sediment transport rates on the area immediately south of the marina basin increase and is directed to the south. Sediments arriving in this area (either catchment derived or from other areas in the vicinity) are likely to be transported away from the marina basin. This zone could potentially be prone to erosion depending on the nature of the underlying sediments and the level of sediment delivery to this area. If erosion of this area was to occur it could be expected that short-term bathymetric changes would occur while flows and sediment transport mechanisms establish a new equilibrium. These initial findings indicate that as designed the marina basin is unlikely to become a depositional zone and that some localised bathymetric changes will occur post development. Further modeling which includes catchment derived sediment sources, quantification of sediment loads and simulations under a range of freshwater inflows would be required to quantify the potential changes in sediment dynamics. This further modeling will need to be completed with a number of improved design scenarios, as the option is refined.


92

13. Alternative Options Considered Alternative options assessed during the course of the project and either included or excluded are as follows:

Existing facilities – excluded from the study: • Hannaford’s Wharf –the site was assessed post its 2013-14 upgrades and

found to have little to no associated land and no potential for expansion without significant reclamation. The site is included below with a brief assessment, as it has not yet been recorded in any of the other studies to date.

Aquaculture 2011 – Tier 1 options re-considered in this study: 1. Windy Point /Puhi Rare 2. Coromandel Wharf – Dredged basin 3. Coromandel Wharf – Concrete Jetty Extension (no dredging) 4. Kopu Wharf

Aquaculture 2011 – Tier 2 options excluded from this study: • Te Kouma Harbour – Pristine area; Māori land with significant spiritual and

cultural significance; progressive sediment build-up and mangrove growth due to health of upper catchment; and cost of infrastructure.

• Waikawau – This is an existing boat ramp area; a wharf structure would cost would be significant as it would need to be extended towards deeper water; will require significant and ongoing dredging similar to present activity but at a greater depth; roading access and road safety issues.

• Wharekawa – Stevenson’s Wharf – the wharf and quarry is currently under private ownership; significant on-going dredging will be required to enable the use of this facility; and distance from towns and labour force. This move may be realistic if Sugarloaf’s future use is contested – in that case the industry would potentially move out of Coromandel also impacting on Whitianga. This is not a viable solution for TCDC.

• Utilising Auckland Wharves – this option sees the shift away from Coromandel and would also impact on Whitianga. This is again not a desired solution for TCDC, as it is desired to retain the industry within the District.

From Submissions to the Coromandel Harbour Project Team – Nov’13 5. Coromandel Wharf Area – Concrete jetty with pedestrian and rail access.

Based on Barry Brickell’s concept. 6. Long Bay Marina 7. Long Bay Boat Ramp and Basin for Charter Operators.

Shortlisted sites as at 9 April 2014 – Council Resolution: 8. Sugarloaf to Windy Point Area 9. Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf Area


93

Hannaford’s Wharf

The Hannaford’s Wharf is situated in Waipapa Bay ~11km from Coromandel Town. The site is exposed to the elements. Recent storm repairs and upgrade work to the value of $275,000 saw the upgrade and strengthening of the existing timber jetty; installation of new fender piles and whalers; new aluminium gangway; 12m x 4 m floating concrete pontoon and dolphin fender. The site is adequate for all tide access for boats with a draft of up to 1.6m. This site has a soft sea floor, but doesn’t currently require dredging. This site is adequate for used by ferry and charters in the short term. This is not a long-term solution. The road connecting the facility to the SH is windy and congested. Access by bus is difficult in places and during peak period become dangerous. This facility has almost no associated land and would require either significant earthworks or significant reclamation to create parking and onshore services.

One such scenario is shown in the layout above. The cost benefit analysis of this solution is not favourable as the scale of improvement is negligible and only really resolves a localised traffic issue – it is assumes at this stage the consent, excavation, site preparation, sealing and painting would cost between (up to) $150,000 for a rough metal car park area to $250,000 for a sealed car park solution. This site and its harbour facility would require significant expansion to safely cater for its current users, let alone future demand. This upgrade will need to take into account the upgrade of the road between Sugarloaf Wharf and Hannaford’s. This is not a feasible solution for a site, which remains to have significant exposure, erosion and access issues. The anticipated future of this site is to remain as is without any further expansion. Once the medium to long-term solution is in place, catering for the ferry and charters the facility is intended to return to its original purpose – a facility for nearby mooring owners.


94

Option 1. Puhi Rare / Windy Point

Windy Point (Puhi Rare) has been proposed as an alternative development site to Sugarloaf. The site in Coromandel Harbour is just around the corner eastwards from Sugarloaf, and is already the mooring site for many of the mussel barges, along with recreational fishers. Local residents at Sugarloaf who are opposed to any expansion of the Sugarloaf may potentially be supportive of such a move. The industry, however, is divided over the issue, with some wishing to expand to Windy Point if it is economically viable, while others are unwilling to give up the Sugarloaf site, even if a new wharf was built around the corner at Windy Point. The key point is that the Windy Point location is a greenfields site, and there are a number of major issues that would need to be overcome for such a development to succeed. This development is close to ACSV 12 and oyster farms – any contamination will affect farming and ecological processes in those areas.

Puhi Rare / Windy Point Wharf

Key Benefits & Opportunities

Utilisation Future Demand Commercial Opportunities for TCDC Commercial Structure Options

This site ~ 9km from Coromandel town and is a new facility intended for use by the aquaculture industry only at this stage.

Mussel and scallop boats are likely to increase in line with future growth projections.

The only commercial partner is the aquaculture industry.

- A trust structure could be established to manage the facility, including industry, iwi, TCDC and other related parties.


95

Risks & Constraints

Issues Risks/Constraints Potential Trade Offs Recommended Actions

a. Site constraints - There is no associated flat land for parking and onsite facilities or storage.

- Road safety issues as trucks turn off to get access to wharf.

- Road safety issues associated with Te Kouma / SH intersection.

- Significant reclamation proposed to create associated land for working wharf.

- Road upgrades to take place at he same time as the reclamation work in order to alleviate some of the level differences as well as the safety issues.

Combine reclamation and road safety works in order to save on construction costs.

b. Infrastructure Concerns This is a new development with limited to no dredging. Significant structure to access the road at existing level while extending the wharf to deeper water.

Design caters for minimum disruption to seabed and coastline.

If other users such as the ferry move to this new development the extent of the structure will need to adjust to suit required navigational depth of those vessels.

c. Health & Safety Concerns Hazards related to a working wharf need to be taken into account when designing the site layout and traffic flow.

This is a new site with potential to implement lessons learnt from Sugarloaf and other similar sites.

Implement a design, which is tested against operational, and health and safety considerations.

d. Consulted Party Preferences - This option carries some support in the local community.

- Iwi have highlighted significance of the site.

This option could be developed in a way that would enhance the values associated with the site.

Further consideration of significance and specific values of the area.

e. Ownership / Management - Title will need to be obtained for the reclamation

f. Financial The cost of this option is $21m This development will need to be funded by TCDC and aquaculture industry.

Limited commercial opportunity in relation to the cost and intended use of the facility.

g. Regulatory Planning - The development is very close to ASCV 12 and oyster farms. This poses ecological risks and potential effects on nearby marine farming.

- Some of the local community prefer this site as it is out of view and would have less of an impact with regards to night time glare and noise.

h. Future Demand Future demand as per the projected growth of the aquaculture industry for the long-term view


96

Option 2. Coromandel Wharf – Dredged Basin

The Coromandel Wharf is approximately 1km from the town centre and is a secondary wharf used to service the marine farming industry. The Wharf also services a number of commercial fishing operations and provides permanent mooring for around 6-12 fishing vessels. Tidal access is approximately 2hours either side of high tide, with no access at low tide. The Wharf is approximately 340m long, being made up of reclamation and partly a piled jetty. Vehicle access is provided to the end of the Wharf, however, vehicle turning and maneuverability is extremely limited due to the narrow width of the Wharf. There is also limited to no parking available. This location has the only marine fuel facility in close proximity to Coromandel town as well as the Harbormaster’s Office. Reasonably good road access, but potential for congestion at Coromandel township (Tiki Rd, Kapanga Rd intersection). Opportunity to divert traffic around intersection available.

The site is located about 1 km west of Coromandel Township and has the following key constraints: • No associated flat land available for development at the wharf. • Currently wharf users tend to park their vehicle on the wharf, which causes concern given the narrow nature of the wharf pavement. • The rubble mound (partly piled) wharf is in a moderate to poor condition. Rip-rap used for scour protection is not adequate. Stability of

the wharf may be under threat when exposed to nearby dredging. • There are 15 private jetties along northern side of the wharf and 1 on the southern side. • There is no boat ramp facility.


97

The solution presented under this option includes a dredged basin and channel; revetment walls; vertical wharf construction around the affected existing Coromandel wharf; significant reclamation area; and onsite facilities (not included in costings. The basin has the capacity to service the aquaculture and commercial fishing industry, charter operators; 130 marina berths and potentially recreational fishers. The on-site facilities may include retail, office space, ferry terminal, car and boat trailer parking, equipment storage and a link to Patukirikiri Reserve. Previous application for a marina at Coromandel was declined. There are also legal issues with the ownership of the existing wharf, exploration permit that includes the proposed development area and potential Treaty of �Waitangi claims. The dredging exercise in the intertidal zone can be completed with a dry wall construction methodology, which would avoid the release of a sediment plume into the harbour. The channel dredging will need to be completed with grab bucket and silt screens. The dredged material is then to be stabilised and used in the reclamation area. Ongoing dredging will be an issue with the specific sediment of this harbour in mind. The marina basin will be larger than 23Ha, which is thought to provide adequate flushing capacity to minimise annual dredging. The marina basin will however have large areas of low current and will act as a stilling basin for sediment transported into the basin. Potential for long-term developments in combination with Furey’s Creek. This option is specifically designed to cater for the aquaculture industry as a first priority. The current level of road congestion through town will only become worse with truck and trailer units making their way to and from the wharf. Coromandel Wharf



- Reasonably good road access to the site with only 1 km distance from the Wharf to town. - Economic benefits could be realised for the town if facilities were developed in close proximity.

- Mussel and scallop boats will continue to use the Wharf as a mooring point and refueling station. - Demand for the Coromandel Wharf will likely remain as it is currently, until the final stage of the proposed development where the marina will adjoin the structure.

- Partnering with iwi / private sector in relation to the development of a marina which would adjoin Coromandel Wharf. - Assist the private sector in the development of a marina adjoining the Wharf through partnership, financial support and/or the facilitation of regulatory processes.

- Partnership would be required once the ownership rights to Coromandel Wharf have been fully evaluated. - A trust structure could be established to manage the facility, including industry, iwi, TCDC and other related parties. - The private sector could assume control of the site, with TCDC only required in a regulatory capacity.

Risks & Constraints


98


a. Site constraints - There is no flat land available for development at Coromandel Wharf; and redevelopment would require significant reclamation. - Access to the Wharf is only at high tide; substantial dredging as well as regular maintenance dredging would be required to sustain all-tide access along with the reconstruction of the current 380m mole. - If dredging is to be avoided, the wharf would need to be extended by approximately 800 to 900m to enable all tide access for the ferry and larger vessels. - The extension work would also see the reconstruction of the existing 380m to facilitate the traffic flow required to service the wharf and its users.

- Reclaimed land could be created from materials that are produced as part of the dredging works. - The Wharf could be part of a long- term redevelopment option in conjunction with Furey’s Creek.

Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf in conjunction with the short – medium term plans for Furey’s Creek.

b. Infrastructure Concerns - There is no available parking on the mole and no scope to increase the available amount of car parks and storage area unless land is reclaimed. - The poor condition of the existing wharf would likely require costly repairs or replacement in the next five years. A recent estimate of costs to remedy moderate defects

came to approximately $65,000.10

This unfortunately doesn’t cater for any deepening of the channel and area around the wharf to enable all tide access – this would require re-construction of the facility. - There is no boat ramp facility – this would need to be developed separately.

- Large amounts of land would have to be reclaimed in order to develop car parks, storage area and a boat ramp facility. - This reclaimed land could come from the dredged materials and would require a mudcrete solution to aid stability.


c. Health & Safety Concerns - The rubble mound of the partly-piled wharf is in poor condition. - The stability of the Wharf may be under threat when exposed to nearby dredging; this could cause health and safety issues to arise.

No dredging next to the mole in order to keep the structure as stable as possible.

Ensure no dredging is undertaken around Coromandel Wharf, until it is to become part of the long- term plan to amalgamate this site with Furey’s Creek.

d. Consulted Party Preferences - Industry would require a large facility with all-tide access and consent for fuelling in order to

The Wharf could be part of a long- term redevelopment option (as it is relatively close

- Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf


99

move from its preferred base of Sugarloaf Wharf. - Charter boat operators and the ferry operator would like to have a wharf closer to town for ease of access to facilities for their customers. - Recreational boat users would also like to be at a site closer to town for the proximity to maintenance facilities, and with less congestion and a safer environment.

to town) in conjunction with Furey’s Creek.

in conjunction with the short – medium term plans for Furey’s Creek.

e. Ownership / Management - TCDC owns the jetty at the end of the wharf; however, the mole/causeway is Crown-owned. - There are also 16 private jetties attached to the mole. - WRC is the consenting authority. - TCDC maintains the structure. - Iwi also have the potential to make a claim over the site.

Any expansion plans will need to be made in consultation with the Crown and the relevant iwi groups.

The issue of ownership / management of the Wharf will need to be resolved before any future expansion developments can begin.

f. Financial Costs for an upgraded wharf with dredging has been estimated at $57m and for a piled wharf with no dredging it has been estimated at $38m.

High costs for an upgraded wharf facility with or without dredging, lend to Coromandel Wharf being a more appropriate long-term option than a short-term solution.

- Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf in conjunction with the short – medium term plans for Furey’s Creek.

- The structure is likely to follow a user pays or at best a loan repayment arrangement with aquaculture industry.

g. Regulatory Planning Contaminants in the Harbour sediment will require careful consideration and will attract significant interest and potential opposition.

The economic and social benefits to the region will assist in ‘balancing out’ adverse environmental effects.

Ensure that the environmental effects of any wharfing facility are thoroughly investigated and measures to mitigate any concerns are included in the concept designs.

h. Future Demand - Mussel and scallop boats will continue to use the Wharf as a mooring point and refueling station. - Demand for the Coromandel Wharf will likely remain as it is currently, until the final stage of the proposed development where the marina will adjoin the structure.

Staged development will allow for recreational users to use the Wharf, as well as the industry users that currently utilise the facilities.


Recommended Way Forward


100

Our long-term view is that redevelopment options need to be evaluated by Thames-Coromandel District Council, Waikato Regional and Industry to determine how the wharf maybe reconfigured to provide a purpose built facility for the Aquaculture and Finfish industries. Any redevelopment options should take into consideration any proposed development for Furey’s Creek to ensure that the projects are complementary and share aligned objectives.


101

Option 3. Coromandel Wharf – Wharf Extension

This option as with the previous scenario (option 2) builds on the existing infrastructure at the Coromandel Wharf. The same constraints with regards to the structure, road access, congestion and associated land apply to this option. The concrete deck and pile jetty construction provides a 12 m wide carriageway for trucks and potentially busses. This carriageway is added to the existing mole, as there is insufficient access via the existing single lane road. The jetty is then extended to form a shore link between the end of the existing wharf and the concrete deck and piled wharf 900m towards deep water (-1.7mCD). There are a number issues with this option. The key constraints are listed below:

• No associated land • Exposed nature of the wharf and shore link • Significant footprint in the CMA • Only caters for aquaculture and potentially the

ferry. Charter operators may also use the site but the wharf is limited in size and a potential repeat of Sugarloaf H&S and congestion issues.

Coromandel Wharf Extension – No Dredging



Aquaculture and commercial fishing industry with potentially the ferry and charter fishers if the facility is equipped to deal with the congestion.

Any growth in the aquaculture industry will put pressure on the facility as the deep-water wharf has a limited area.

The only commercial partner is the aquaculture industry.

- Partnership would be required once the ownership rights to Coromandel Wharf have been fully evaluated. - A trust structure could be established to manage the facility, including industry, iwi,


102

TCDC and other related parties. - The private sector could assume control of the site, with TCDC only required in a regulatory capacity.

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints - There is no flat land available for development at Coromandel Wharf; - Access to the Wharf is only at high tide; substantial dredging as well as regular maintenance dredging would be required unless the mole is extended as proposed in this option - If dredging is to be avoided, the wharf would need to be extended by approximately 900m to enable all tide access for the ferry and larger vessels. - The extension work would also see the reconstruction of the existing 340m to facilitate the traffic flow required to service the wharf and its users.

- No reclamation means the associated land issue remains - The Wharf could be part of a long- term redevelopment option in conjunction with Furey’s Creek.

Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf in conjunction with the long-term plans for Furey’s Creek.

b. Infrastructure Concerns - There is no available parking on the mole and no scope to increase the available amount of car parks and storage area unless land is reclaimed. - The poor condition of the existing wharf would likely require costly repairs or replacement in the next five years. A recent estimate of costs to remedy moderate defects came to approximately $65,000.

This

unfortunately doesn’t cater for any deepening of the channel and area around the wharf to enable all tide access - This would require re-construction of the facility. - There is no boat ramp facility – this would need to be developed separately.

- no reclamation and by extension no parking, storage or on site services


c. Health & Safety Concerns - The rubble mound of the partly piled wharf is No dredging next to the mole in order to keep No dredging only strengthening proposed for


103

in poor condition. - The stability of the Wharf may be under threat when exposed to nearby upgrade works; this could cause health and safety issues to arise.

the structure as stable as possible. Reconstruction of the initial 340m access (existing mole)

the long term solution.

d. Consulted Party Preferences - Industry would require a large facility with all-tide access and consent for fuelling in order to move from its preferred base of Sugarloaf Wharf. - Charter boat operators and the ferry operator would like to have a wharf closer to town for ease of access to facilities for their customers. - Recreational boat users would also like to be at a site closer to town for the proximity to maintenance facilities, and with less congestion and a safer environment.

The Wharf could be part of a long- term redevelopment option (as it is relatively close to town) in conjunction with Furey’s Creek. In the mean time if this option is constructed the recreational fishers will inherit the Sugarloaf facility with its all-tide boat ramps and 40 boat trailer parking spaces.

- Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf in conjunction with the short – medium term plans for Furey’s Creek, as Sugarloaf is not big enough to cope with the recreational fishers demand even if Aquaculture is not using the site.

e. Ownership / Management - TCDC owns the jetty at the end of the wharf; however, the mole/causeway is Crown-owned. - There are also 16 private jetties attached to the mole. - WRC is the consenting authority. - TCDC maintains the structure. - Iwi also have the potential to make a claim over the site.

Any expansion plans will need to be made in consultation with the Crown and the relevant iwi groups. Title will need to be obtained for the mole.

The issue of ownership / management of the Wharf will need to be resolved before any future expansion developments can begin.

f. Financial Costs for an upgraded wharf with dredging has been estimated at $$38m for a piled wharf with no dredging.

High costs for an upgraded wharf facility with or without dredging, lend to Coromandel Wharf being a more appropriate long-term option than a short-term solution. Very hard to stage this work.

- Further develop the long- term redevelopment plan for Coromandel Wharf in conjunction with the long-term plans for Furey’s Creek.


g. Regulatory Planning The large footprint is likely to attract significant interest and potential opposition.

The economic and social benefits to the region will assist in ‘balancing out’ adverse environmental effects.



104

h. Future Demand - Mussel and scallop boats will continue to use the Wharf as a mooring point and refueling station. - Demand for the Coromandel Wharf will likely remain as it is currently, until the final stage of the proposed development.

Development will allow for recreational users to use the Wharf, as well as the industry users that currently utilise the facilities.



105

Option 4. Kopu

At first glance, Kopu seems the logical long-term option for aquaculture development. It has a wealth of industrial land, and is close to sources of labour in Thames, and also straddles major transport routes. In addition, it adjoins the Waihou River, which is already used for barging aggregate on a limited scale. However, as the report points out, there are some serious impediments standing in the way of developing Kopu as a major aquaculture centre. Apart from the cost of building the wharf and the cost of continued dredging, there are some major hurdles out to sea in terms of the significant cost of initial dredging, and the potential environmental impacts of stirring up potentially toxic sediments – particularly when these are so close to the internationally-recognised RAMSAR site. From the industry perceptive, the current industry shore bases are at Coromandel, which is 50km away. None of these problems are insurmountable, but they will require further scientific investigation and potentially high capital costs to overcome as indicated in the Proposed All Tide Wharf Facility at Kopu – Scoping Study May 2005.

The issue of the industry using a transporter barge has been raised as a potential solution to the congestion at the current Sugarloaf wharf. However in practice, the reality of a transporter barge raises significant problems – particularly with tidal access to Kopu, the cost of building a barge, and the difficulties of trans-shipping product at sea. Furthermore, the real problem with this option is the Catch 22 situation, whereby the transporter barge idea will only work financially if it cuts down the costs of transportation. This means that the processing factory would need to be built at Kopu before it became economical to look at the cost of building a barge. In other words, if the transporter barge was simply delivering product to a jetty at Kopu where it was trans-shipped into trucks that drove to the Tauranga factory, then there is no economic logic to spending several million dollars on a purpose-built transporter barge.


106

Kopu Wharf



Aggregate barge, boat haul out services and recreational fishers currently use the wharf.

With the intended mussel industry shift to this site there is also the potential to have increased marine servicing and boat building/repair certification services

Commercial partners will include mussel industry.

A trust structure could be established to manage the facility, including industry, iwi, TCDC and other related parties.

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints - The site has the longest distance from the mussel farms than all other options assessed in this report.

- The last 6km in approach close to land or in the river to the wharf will add an hour onto the trip from the mussel farms.

- The site is in an industrial area and the proposed zoning for the adjacent land area supports aquaculture purposes

The site is close to major routes and easily accessible by trucks with a bit of work on ramp angles over the flood embankment.

Detail design for this option should take into account foundation issues and improved truck access.

b. Infrastructure Concerns The infrastructure to be constructed is in soft marine clay and sediment. The area north of the Kopu bridge has no known bedrock base – requiring friction piles.

A sheet pile construction is proposed seeing the area is continually moving and any embankments constructed in the area tend to settle over short period of time.

Sheet pile wharf with adequate structural tieback to solid ground.

c. Health & Safety Concerns There are a number of users on site and care should be taken not to repeat a Sugarloaf scenario.

Design to be adapted to the mixed use of the site.

Incorporate lessons learnt from similar sites into the design.

d. Consulted Party Preferences - Aquaculture is not in support of this option due to long travel distances.

- Local industry welcome the opportunity presented with servicing the aquaculture industry.

e. Ownership / Management TCDC currently owns the land and existing facilities except for the concrete wharf, which is owned by Leach’s Quarry.

TCDC is likely to own the facility, but there could be iwi interest.

f. Financial The cost of this option is $30m Significant cost to be shared between aquaculture and TCDC



107

g. Regulatory Planning Significant sediment contamination would affect any solution requiring dredging.

The channel isn’t all tide access and requires ~ 600,000m3 dredging. The disposal of the material will need to be to an approved landfill site or dumped in suitable location after undergoing significant treatment.

Avoid any solution, which requires dredging and select transport barges with very shallow draft. This in turn poses issues with vessel stability on open water.

h. Future Demand Future demand is likely to include other industrial uses as well as mussel barges.

This may become a dock for transport of large-scale engineering products from A&G Price or Kopu Engineering businesses.

Future uses to be explored when designing the facility.


108

Option 5. Pedestrian and Rail Concrete Jetty – Barry Brickell

This specific option was developed based on a submission from Barry Brickell – the narrow gauge rail for pedestrians and light freight along the Patukirikiri Reserve to Jack’s Point. At that point it follows a new 1.4km concrete deck and pile jetty to a ferry terminus at -1.7mCD. The option differs from the original concept in that the jetty is wider than just the rail corridor in that it allows for pedestrians and a safe distance or partitioning area between pedestrians and the train. This option, as per the aquaculture expansion of the Coromandel Wharf is exposed to the elements and has a significant footprint. The option is limited in commercial funding arrangements, although it would be a major tourism attraction. It is unlikely that charter operators would use the jetty unless associated facilities can be established to accommodate temporary berths.

Pedestrian and Rail Concrete Jetty



Not an existing facility. Intended for the ferry and the narrow gauge rail.

Tourist attraction This facility has no commercial opportunity that would fund part of the start-up capital needed.

The facility would potentially be privately owned.


109

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints Water depth at Jack’s Point The jetty construction is extended 1.4km to reach a water depth adequate for the ferry.

This is a significant distance for a pedestrian and narrow gauge rail jetty

b. Infrastructure Concerns The proposed jetty only caters for the ferry. Solutions for recreational fishers and charters will still require access via Furey’s Creek.

Dredging will be required to secure recreational boat access.

Include the development of the jetty into the short to medium term planning of Furey’s Creek.

c. Health & Safety Concerns This is a new jetty intended for rail and pedestrian access.

- Handrails and adequate separation between rail and pedestrians will be required.

- There needs to be some form of shelter at the end of the wharf as it is a significant distance from land (for pedestrians)

Explore the manner in which the facility would be used along with hazards. Include the necessary measures in the design of the facility.

d. Consulted Party Preferences This solution has a lot of support from the community.

The ferry operator requires a protected landing facility.

Unfortunately this is a new facility to be built at significant cost for limited return as a tourist and ferry landing facility. If this was an existing facility repurposed to suit the intended use this would be a different picture altogether.

A solid wharf construction at the end of the facility may resolve ferry vessel concerns.

Explore ways in which the end structure may be constructed to provide shelter for docked vessels.

e. Ownership / Management This is a new facility. Uncertain whether TCDC would invest in such a structure while trying to resolve some pretty big issues on existing harbour facilities. The new solution only deals with the ferry.

A private company could fund and construct the facility.

Private ownership is a possible solution.

f. Financial The cost of constructing the facility is $18m ++ with some major uncertainties around foundation depth.

The option could be staged over a number of years with start of use at the end of the last phase. In the mean time the train can be linked to the facility.

Private funding and grant applications.

g. Regulatory Planning The structure has a significant footprint in the CMA, but it is expected that with significant community backing this will not be an issue.

h. Future Demand Future growth is limited.


110

Option 6. Long Bay – Dredged Basin

The Long Bay Reserve is a reserve approximately 3km from the town centre. Currently the flat area adjacent to the beach is a campground with a small public boat ramp. The boat ramp has moderate recreational usage year round with the majority of users being those staying at the campground. There are approximately only 20-30 boat movements a day in summer. Tidal access is 2 hours either side of high tide with a tractor on-site to tow boats out over the ~400m intertidal area when the tide is too low for boat access. Very little data is available for this site and assumptions were made based on nautical charts and wind wave data. The site is exposed to a 52km NW fetch. The original submission included a marina development to the south of the bay. The development concept was shifted to the northern end of the bay with additional groins or revetment walls to minimise exposure to the basin. This will not resolve the issues associated with this site and the ferry operator raised concern. The marina basin has the potential along with the reclamation from dredged material to provide adequate space for: 150 marina berths; charter operators; and recreational fishers.

The ferry would potentially not use the site and CMFA have also stated that they do not see any advantage in moving to this location. The Long Bay site poses a consenting risk that is far greater than the other sites we have evaluated. Accordingly, it was ruled out as a viable option. Long Bay’s pristine natural environment, undeveloped marine facilities and likely opposition from residents would make it unrealistic that resource consent could be easily obtained for a multiple use facility.


111

Option 7. Long Bay – Boat Ramp and Small Dredged Basin

The reduced scale version of the Long Bay Marina includes a dredged channel and dredged marina basin only big enough for charter boat temporary berths. This option only includes a dredged solution for shallow draft vessels and as such not all charter operators will be able to use this facility. The campground will also be relocated under this scenario as with the full marina proposal to make space for boat trailer parking. There remains limited retail opportunity at the site, but this is not a viable commercial proposition. Road access issues will also need to be remedied in this reduced scope option. The road from the corner to the campground gate will need reclamation or retaining walls to accommodate widening and repair of land stability issues. The area to the south includes a large subdivision and the potential is there to repeat the Sugarloaf – Puriri Rd sensitivity issues to noise and visual impact.

Long Bay Boat Ramp



The site is currently used by campers and recreational fishers

The future demand of the site is expected to be unchanged unless development takes place. In which case the users may include the charter

Commercial opportunities have not been explored for this site, but could include residential, apartment block type development and related retail and services to offset the

Very limited commercial opportunity given the location of the site.


112

industry and potentially the ferry service.

high cost of development. Obtaining consent for this type of additional development is a further potential impediment to the site as a potential solution.

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints - Long Bay Reserve is about 3 km from Coromandel town. As with Sugarloaf Wharf, redevelopment of this Reserve over the options closer to town would reduce the people (and hence the money) coming through town. - The campground occupies the only flat land available. - A narrow access road to the campground would have to be widened if expansion were to occur to allow larger vans and buses to enter the site. - The Reserve would be considered a ‘natural environment’ as no structure is located within the Coastal Marine Area (apart from the existing boat ramp). - This pristine environment is likely to face considerable local opposition to redevelopment of the shoreline, as it is the only sandy white beach in the Coromandel town area. - There is also no campground relocation site that is currently under consideration. - A concept, which focuses on the southern end of the bay, will need to cater for potential land stability issues. Slip material and debris entering the facility or dredged channel restricting access will need to be mitigated.

- TCDC own the land and lease the campground; there is the potential to buy back this lease for expansion. - A campground relocation site could be identified to assist the buy back of the lease. - However, given significant dredging and infrastructure upgrades (among a myriad of other issues), development of the Reserve is not a viable option.

TCDC concentrate on other sites to upgrade instead of a pristine area and the Reserve.

b. Infrastructure Concerns - Existing boat ramp is small and adequate only to service the adjacent campground. - Access to the boat ramp is available only at high tide; dredging of a 400 m channel at a minimum level would be required to provide all-tide access. - The site is very exposed to the west. Breakwater protection would also be required

Efforts should be concentrated on upgrading the superior existing infrastructure available in the area (i.e., Furey’s Creek Jetty).

Leave the boat ramp for camp ground use as it currently adequately serves this purpose.


113

in order to provide all-tide access.

c. Health & Safety Concerns Congestion on the narrow access road into Long Bay would be an issue if wharfing facilities were developed.

The narrow road would need to be widened to allow easier vehicle access to the site.

TCDC concentrate on other sites to upgrade instead of the Reserve.

d. Consulted Party Preferences Industry would require a large facility with all-tide access and consent for fuelling in order to move from its preferred base of Sugarloaf Wharf. � Charter boat operators and the ferry operator would like to have a wharf closer to town for ease of access to facilities for their customers. Recreational boat users would also like to be at a site closer to town for the proximity to maintenance facilities, and with less congestion and a safer environment.

Development of an option closer to Coromandel town would be required in order to satisfy the preferences of those consulted.

TCDC concentrate on other sites to upgrade instead of the Reserve.

e. Ownership / Management - TCDC currently own the land and lease this to the campground; the existing lease would need to be terminated for any redevelopment to occur. This will have a termination cost. - The land was gifted by local residents for the specific purpose of camp ground

- Cost to terminate the campground lease would need to be determined in order to assess the viability of this option. - However, given significant dredging and infrastructure upgrades (among a myriad of other issues), development of the Reserve is not a viable option.

The potential buy back of the campground lease to be dismissed as an idea to provide the leaseholders with assurance the lease will not be disrupted.

f. Financial - Marina Expansion is $40m - Boat ramp dredged channel and small basin for charter boats is $10m - This option is not viable compared to the other available options. This will place a huge burden on the local ratepayers.

g. Regulatory Planning - The undeveloped nature and natural qualities of the existing site would be a large issue in obtaining consent. - There is difficult access for large vehicles unless further road works are undertaken.

- Separation from potentially ‘affected parties’ could be beneficial in any resource consent application. - However, given significant dredging and infrastructure upgrades (among a myriad of other issues), development of the Reserve is not a viable option.

TCDC to concentrate on other sites to upgrade instead of the Reserve.


114

h. Future Demand Future demand for this site will likely remain as it currently is as redevelopment is unlikely; the Long Bay Reserve boat ramp will mainly service campground users.

Dependencies For this site to become viable as an option to be considered for development of harbour facilities there would need to be a string drive from the local community and iwi. Even then obtaining consent would be difficult. Recommendation The Long Bay Site does not provide a viable option for redevelopment given the clear issues and constraints. The site is in a pristine environment that would require significant dredging and reclamation of which we perceive to be a high risk of not obtaining consents for marine facility development.


115

Option 8a & b Sugarloaf – Recreational & Commercial split

Sugarloaf Wharf is located approximately 9 km from Coromandel Town and is the main wharf used by the aquaculture industry within the Coromandel District. The Wharf currently services some 20 mussel barges for loading and unloading of product. The consented users of the Wharf are the aquaculture industry and recreational fishers. There is limited parking available at the Wharf, with cars forced to park (precariously) on the side of the road during peak times. The wharf has all-tide access, which is beneficial in servicing large marine farming vessels. Physical attributes include:

• Established wharf facilities and existing operation establish a ‘baseline’ to consider any additional effects.

• Very limited opportunity for development of additional facilities.

• Te Kouma Road has a narrow carriageway and poor intersection geometry with SH25.

• Not located adjacent to or within a town centre. • All tide access.

The proposed reclamation in this option is significantly larger than the existing wharf. The layout above shows the final stage of this option with recreational fishers on left with 50 boat trailer parking are and commercial charters and ferry access to the east. Only a double boat ramp is proposed at this stage due to the limitation on parking and onshore facilities. Key constraints and considerations are listed below: • Reclamation structures could be costly considering relatively steep bathymetry. • Relatively cheap fill material can be obtained from the quarry close to Te Kouma intersection. • Condition and level of wharf structure could require costly repairs in future. It is proposed that he wharf is raised and the toe strengthened

at the same time as the proposed aquaculture expansion shown below. • Lack of onshore services limits cargo handling and boat maintenance potential. • Deepening at wharf toe could potentially undermine wharf structure / foundations.


116

• Opposition from Puriri Road residents could cause significant delays and cost to project or, worst case, potential �for application to be declined.

• Any proposal will be limited by the physical constraints of the site and will not provide for a multi user facility. • Possible Iwi opposition – equally an issue for all sites. • Need to upgrade Windy Point corner and Te Kouma Road intersection. • Local Te Kouma opposition to growth of aquaculture industry at this site – could impact on consenting process. A �number of houses are

located within 500m of Sugarloaf Wharf. • The site will only be able to service a finite number of industry, recreational and commercial users if separation is achieved. • If the recreational reclamation is built the capacity will be insufficient for current day demand – it doesn’t cater for future growth. • The site is exposed to wind wave action and the current proposed layout of the jetty, pontoon and boat ramps is not ideal. It is anticipated

that consent will be very hard to obtain for a groin or revetment wall in this location due to its setting and cultural significance.

The proposed Aquaculture Industry expansion is shown to the left. The work includes the addition of three concrete deck and pile jetties, which would provide access for forklifts and light vehicles while providing additional berths for mussel barges. This expansion would need to include the repair of the vertical wharf, which is starting to lean over due to foundation issues. This may include concrete nib wall at the base and anchoring. The wharf level is to be raised at the same time to a level above MHWS + wave action and allowance for sea level rise. This upgrade may require strengthening of the structure. The site has a hard base and will require dredging for ease of access for mussel barges to -1.0mCD; approximately volume 10,000m3. The addition of the ferry to this site post expansion will also be explored. This will see the increase in dredging to a depth lower than -1.7mCD for the current ferry vessels. The recreational facility would potentially not need dredging as the structure extends into exposed, deeper water.


117

Sugarloaf combination Aquaculture and Recreational Split With the development of the Aquaculture expansion at Sugarloaf Wharf, recreational users will retain the right to access along with their existing 16 boat trailer parking spaces. Diverting the recreational users away from the existing facility is only possible with the reclamation from Sugarloaf towards Windy Point. If both facilities develop side by side as shown in the layout then the industry could potentially take over the entire existing wharf and develop a new layout that would cater for its expanded operation on the site. In that scenario there will be no public access to the site – only industry. This is the ideal scenario when considering Health & Safety concerns and further anticipated legislative changes in relation to H&S. Apart from Industry access separation, the recreational and commercial users of the facility will have separate access to their respective areas (to the right of the yellow line shown in the layout and again to the right of the boat ramp area). The site could also potentially accommodate 50 single cars parked on the reclamation.

Sugarloaf Wharf



Consented users are Aquaculture industry and recreational fishers.

Main wharf used by aquaculture industry in Coromandel District.

- Industrial use with majority of �recreational users elsewhere (potentially Furey’s Creek).

- Select recreational use for Te Kouma

- Expansion at Sugarloaf for industrial users only. - Possible partnering with iwi / industry to develop the Sugarloaf Wharf into a commercial

- Partnership would be required once the ownership rights to Sugarloaf Wharf have been fully evaluated. - A trust structure could be established to


118

- Services some 20 mussel barges for �loading/unloading of �product.

- Could cope with 35,000 �tonnes of product, but not the 60,000+ predicted in next 10-15 years.

- High recreational demand on weekends, public holidays and holiday periods due to all-tide access boat ramps

residents.

- With an increase at Wilson’s Bay by 1,200 lines and global seafood demand increasing, there will be an increase in mussel farming over and above the current production. - If other users were moved elsewhere, the Wharf should have sufficient capacity for industry users for the next 5 years with modest expansion required after this to accommodate industry growth. - Industry has stated it would require a staged development of Sugarloaf, adding further berths to accommodate growth. Three further berths would allow seven mussel barges to use the wharf at any one time and should be sufficient for the next 50 years.

venture. - Industry could effectively “purchase” the exclusive rights to use the Wharf, with TCDC allowing self-regulation to an extent by industry and thus extricating itself from management responsibilities.

manage Sugarloaf Wharf, including industry, iwi, TCDC and other related parties. - The private sector could assume control of the site, with TCDC required in a regulatory capacity.

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints - The available land at Sugarloaf is not large enough to accommodate expansion without significant reclamation and there is currently little maneuverability area for operations. This limits the future potential of the site, particularly if it was to be for mixed use. - Coromandel town is 9 km away. This reduces the likelihood of economic spinoffs and dilutes the commercial proposition. - The access road is very narrow and in peak times recreational users are forced to park precariously on the road adjacent to the Wharf. - This also affects road safety as far as truck maneuvering around tight bends and moving in-between lanes of parked boat trailers.

The available land will be sufficient if the numbers of users are reduced. The aquaculture industry can operate out of the site in its current capacity and this could be made easier with less congestion issues if it had exclusive rights to use the Sugarloaf wharf

Sugarloaf Wharf to be designated for permitted short to medium term use for the aquaculture industry, with limited recreational use available for Te Kouma residents who live in close proximity to the wharf


119

b. Infrastructure Concerns - There are limited on-shore services currently available at the site, with no water, wastewater, power or telecommunication services available except for mobile phone coverage. - If Sugarloaf Wharf was to be expanded, an upgraded road intersection would be required, costing $500,000 plus land purchase costs. - Windy Point road upgrades are provisionally estimated at $1m. - The long-term technical condition of the Wharf requires ongoing maintenance, costing between $5,000 and $15,000 per year.

Reducing the number of users will reduce the loading on infrastructure and allow the aquaculture industry to operate more safely.

The Industry to upgrade the current infrastructure for operational use.

c. Health & Safety Concerns - Congestion is a big issue at Sugarloaf Wharf, especially at peak times, where there can be up to 300 boat movements a day. - Recreational users, charter boat operators and industry users all operate out of the site, which has the potential for serious health and safety issues to arise, especially when mussel barges are loading or unloading while recreational users are trying to use the boat ramp. Council is exposed to a large amount of risk through its management of the Wharf, which it needs to mitigate.

CDC has commissioned a report into the health and safety risks at Sugarloaf Wharf; according to the draft version, TCDC has a statutory obligation to recreational users, charter operators and industry users to manage the hazards arising from the interface and interactions between them while they are on and around the reclamation, boat ramps and wharf.

The most effective way of managing the health and safety risk is to physically remove the recreational users (and charter boat operators) from the Sugarloaf area to another purpose-built facility elsewhere, preferably with better parking, less congestion and safer operating procedures

d. Consulted Party Preferences - Industry feels they are invested in Sugarloaf Wharf and would prefer not to move to another site. - Charter boat operators and the ferry operator would like to have a wharf closer to town for ease of access to facilities for their customers. - Recreational boat users would also like to be at a site closer to town for the proximity to maintenance facilities, and with less congestion and a safer environment. - Te Kouma Residents and Ratepayers have requested that Te Kouma not be the site for major land based marine facilities or expansion i.e aquaculture. - Waipapa Bay Protection Society have raised issue concerning a narrative accompanying the Joint Hearing Committees 1992 decision which granted consent as an interim measure

Allowing some recreational users to use Sugarloaf Wharf (i.e., Te Kouma residents) may still be a feasible option, though challenging to administer and manage.

A pragmatic solution based on the preferences of each user group is for permitted use for industry for a short to medium term and that charter boat operators and recreational users be relocated to a purpose built facility with wider recreational amenity. Longer term provision could be made for aquaculture and the future fin fish industry at a purpose built commercial facility located by Coromandel wharf if among other, all tide access to this wharf is established.


120

for both commercial and recreational users to accommodate the site as separate sites could not be financed at the time. Any increased use of the facility by commercial users could require provision of an alternate site.

e. Ownership / Management - Sugarloaf Wharf is technically owned by the Crown - TCDC owns the reclamation but not the underlying land, which causes concern over ability to expands and enforce bylaws. - Iwi have the potential to make a claim over the site, particularly given is cultural significance. - As TCDC manages the Wharf it is therefore legally liable, under s 16 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, if any accidents were to occur at the site.

- Consultation with iwi should determine their participation and ownership ambitions for the site. -Closer management of the Wharf through a reinvigorated management agreement would give TCDC greater control over the Wharf and confidence that health and safety concerns could be addressed. - Alternatively, TCDC could possibly introduce an operative policy that could allow industry users to manage the Wharf independently.

- The issue of ownership of Sugarloaf Wharf needs to be determined as soon as possible in order to fully assess tenure, expansion or upgrade options. - Wharf management obligations need to be re- evaluated following the decision on the future use of Sugarloaf Wharf, including health and safety issues, environmental issues and asset management.

f. Financial - An extension to Sugarloaf Wharf was mentioned (in discussion with CMFA) to be between $2.0m (3 berth option) and $3.0m (6 berth option).

These figures relate to an

expansion of Sugarloaf to service the needs of the aquaculture industry only. These values include one round of consenting costs of $800,000. - Expansion to include a ferry to the southwest corner of the existing site is estimated by the CMFA at $600,000 without consenting. - The recreational split is estimated at $11m, but may not be consentable.

Any Wharf expansion must be considered in the context of aquaculture industry involvement – it may be possible to obtain industry funding for expansion.

Consult further with the aquaculture industry to gauge its level of interest for funding development.

g. Regulatory Planning There is a history of opposition and complaints from the Local community.

The consenting process will benefit from the existing environmental and consented ‘baseline’.

Consult further with the local community to determine potential opposition to concept plans.

h. Future Demand With an increase at Wilson’s Bay by 1,200 lines there will be an increase in mussel farming over and above the current production. If other users were moved elsewhere, the Wharf should have sufficient capacity for industry users for the next 5 years with modest expansion required after this to

Possible relocation to a purpose-built facility at Coromandel Wharf in the long-term.

Determine relocation options to support industry’s growth as part of the regional aquaculture strategy.


121

accommodate industry growth.

Dependencies To ensure a successful outcome for Sugarloaf Wharf, TCDC will have to implement a partnership strategy to deliver the next stage of the project and facilitate the resolution of issues such as land tenure and ownership. These partners could include strategic partners such as Iwi, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council, the aquaculture industry, central government organisations, and the wider community. It is anticipated that the consent for the aquaculture expansion on the existing wharf will be applied for and funded by TCDC. The CMFA will then repay the cost of consent to the Council in a manner still to be determined. The CMFA will then pay for their own expansion (physical works) as and when required. Recommended Way Forward The Sugarloaf facility does not provide a large enough footprint to cater for all users. Reclamation to service the recreational users and potentially charter boats and ferries would be difficult to stage and will be very costly. The reclamation area required to service only 50 boat trailers would be large and levels of the new reclamation area would need to be at least 3.5m RL. To economically construct the reclamation area and integrate and widen the road access points with road levels at 5 or 6m RL will be an issue. The proposed extension to the current facility is also not practical from a recreational and commercial perspective as the new boat ramp and pontoon would be relatively exposed, requiring a breakwater to be constructed. The latter is not included in any costings to date. It is envisaged that a successful consent process would be very difficult to obtain for an increase in footprint of this scale at this particular location (more than twice the size of the current wharf) especially as it will only cater for part of the current user demand. This option is not close to town and travel times and road safety remain issues to be resolved. There is an increased risk that time constrained tourists would not pass through the local Coromandel town to other tourist activities. TCDC doesn’t support the Sugarloaf facility as a viable multi user expansion opportunity and make further recommendation that the site is better utilised in the short to medium term future as a site for the aquaculture industry to continue their operations. It would be uneconomic for the industry to relocate to a specialised purpose built facility within this period. It is further recommended that a future facility planning exercise be undertaken to support the aquaculture industry’s long term planning requirements of which we believe would be better suited to eastern edge of Furey’s Creek of where there would be sufficient area to accommodate expansion for the Industry. Ownership


122

Council is proceeding through consultation with iwi with the MACAA applications for title for various sites including Sugarloaf Wharf. Partnership Arrangement with CMFA The expansion of the wharf for aquaculture industry will benefit only the industry/ CMFA members. The funding agreement and terms of reference for the arrangement as well as the loan repayment for the consent application costs will need to be agreed prior to commencing with this part of the project. Management TCDC established the Coromandel Colville Community Board sub committee; Coromandel Harbour Users Committee to oversee the management of the facilities with key users. The Sugarloaf Operational Management Plan (OMP) is old (1993) and needs to be updated to includes current constraints, measures in dealing with consent conditions and operational risk. Operations Establish a relocation strategy with clear short to medium term objectives to relocate recreational users and Charter Boat operators to a purpose built facility located at Furey’s Creek. Consultation Continue consultation and key engagement programme. Link the consultation strategy with TCDC’s Strategic Relationships Manager work flow around Treaty Settlement process.


123

Option 9a & b Furey’s Creek – Recreational and some Charter Operators

Furey’s Creek Jetty (often also referred to as Jacks Point or Patukirikiri Reserve) is mainly used by Furey’s Creek jetty owners. There are 16 consented jetties with Waikato Regional Council as the consenting authority. The Coromandel Harbour & Boat Association leases the hardstand and boat ramp areas. The land is Crown Owned. TCDC has management rights at present. The Patukirikiri Reserve is included in the treaty settlement process. Restricted tidal access is an issue, with access approximately only 1.5 to 2 hours either side of high tide. This area is directly adjacent to the town centre and has a large amount of unsealed boat trailer parking available in the car park area. The jetty is moderately busy with recreational users and in summer there can be up to 150 boat movements a day. This site has significant potential from a commercial and economic development spin-off point of view.

At a glance: • There is good access to the site, but potential for congestion at Coromandel Township (Tiki Rd and Kapanga Rd intersection). • Opportunity to divert traffic – TCDC has a concept plan to reroute traffic at this intersection. • Site located at about 300 m from Coromandel Township. • Adequate parking available and sufficient flat land to extend if required (i.e. 30,000m2 Recreation Reserve) to cater fro boat trailers,

charter and ferry customers. • The eastern part of the site is currently used for storage and maintenance of boats. • Plans to relocate existing netball courts providing more storage space. • A wide boat ramp is available, but only one side provides adequate depth to launch boats.


124

• A section of the timber wharf structure along the eastern side of the boat ramp has collapsed and the timber wall on the western side of the boat ramp is also deteriorating fast.

• The Patukirikiri Reserve was once a landfill site. A clay bund was constructed after capping the landfill area. This clay core bund provides a cut-off for leachate and toxins filtering into the CMA.

• The site as significant sediment build-up and any development will need to be mindful of the contaminants within the sediment as well as the sediment transport rates.

• As a result the site has significant mangrove growth, which will need to be managed if this site is to be developed. • Existing jetties will need to be reconstructed as part of the deepening of the channel.

9a Furey’s Creek – Recreational users part tide access only: The concept shown on the previous page provides increased access for recreational boat users to 3 hours either side of high tide with the $400,000 option. This option includes maintenance dredging under the existing 800m3/year consent and improvements to the boat ramp, which may include a floating pontoon. 9b Furey’s Creek – Recreational and some Charter Operators – all tide access: This stage includes a dredged channel to -0.5mCD, which provides access for shallow draft vessels. The dredged material (approximately 28,000m3) is then either carted off site to an approved landfill site or used in a staged reclamation process. The reclamation is shown in stages on the layout. The exact layout of the reclamation is still to be finalised. The current layout allows for a small marina basin for temporary berths and jetties. The channel is to be lined with geotextile and rock rip rap for protection of the new channel alignment and scour purposes just downstream of the dredged basin. This option will require additional geotechnical, sediment quality, sediment transport and hydrodynamic studies in order to shape the final layout and solution. The existing boat ramp will ten still be in use for the short to medium term while the reclamation is formed and developed.


125

Option 9c Furey’s Creek – Recreational, Charters and Ferry

Option 9c is a long-term stage of the Furey’s Creek solution. Dredging will be required to deepen the channel to -1.5m or deeper depending on the draft of the fast ferry at that stage. This could potentially mean that a part of the channel lining would need to be reconstructed. The reclamation will have increased in size and could potentially accommodate 150 boat trailers as shown in the layout if the existing reserve is to be kept as green open space. Development of permanent landing facilities is indicatively shown in the marina basin. This area is for temporary berths and ferry terminal. A new improved boat ramp could potentially be constructed as shown on the layout. It is important to note that pedestrian and boat trailer traffic is to be separated on the site so as not to repeat mixed-use issues on Sugarloaf. This long-term scenario may also include a marine service precinct on the eastern edge of the Furey’s Creek channel close to existing light industrial activities.

Buildings will be needed on site as the dry stack may still be a potential source of revenue, ferry terminal, public facilities and other structures as may be required at that stage in line with the specific character and urban design of the area. The potential redevelopment of Furey’s Creek Jetty provides an opportunity to deliver upgraded wharfing facilities in a prime location, adjacent to Coromandel town. This could have associated flow-through social and economic benefits for the town and region as a whole and provide wharfing facilities that cater for recreational users, charter boat operators and ferry operators alike. However, the site has critical constraints that include contamination levels in both the seabed and possibly the reserve area. This contamination has been derived from the previous landfill, natural geological processes, farming activities in the catchment and historic mining activity of which have impacted severely on the environment.


126

Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf



- Location is only 300m from Coromandel town and access is good

- There is an existing marine precinct in the vicinity, shops and accommodation nearby. - The site provides opportunity for increased economic benefit fro the town if a wharfing facility is built to cater for increased visitors. - Large areas available for parking.

- Demand for facilities is dependent on the stage of development and tidal access achieved during that stage.

- Strong preference from charter industry and ferry.

- Attractive for recreational fishers with all-tide access as there is large areas for parking.

- Long-term solution to bring ferry to town. This will increase visitor numbers to town and potential increase in tourism products/ services.

Partnering with iwi and private sector in relation to upgraded boat ramp, dry stack and dry dock / marine servicing areas.

Partnering with public organisations / funding grants / facilitation of regulatory processes.

- Partnership would be required once ownership rights to Furey’s Creek have been fully evaluated.

- A trust structure could be established to manage the facility.

- A private sector organisation or entity could lease the area and manage the facility. The lease arrangement would be the means by which Council pays for maintenance and dredging activities or the entity could take on that role as well.

Risks & Constraints


a. Site constraints - Tidal access issues

- Potential flood risk if sediment builds up in channel

- Development of the site will need to take into account flood risk and overland flow paths

- Sediment quality and contamination issues need to be addressed.

- Large scale dredging will be required in order to give the upgraded wharf facilities all-tide access.

- This site is well suited to staged development. Sediment removed from the channel has the potential to be filled-in spaces made available as future reclamation.

- Potential to incorporate better drainage through the site to alleviate flood risk issues upstream of Patukirikiri Reserve.

- Sediment issues will be an issue and will need to be decoupled from mining activity, as mining is currently not proposed.

- Undertake dredging works to allow all-tide access in stages allowing specific users access to facilities as and when it become affordable to upgrade the landing facilities.

- Further develop the concept plans for Furey’s Creek jetty and obtain consents for a staged implementation.

- Complete sediment-sampling programme and study along with the rest of the AEE support studies prior to consent application stage. Methodologies and processes proposed will need to align with the level of risk associated with the sediment.

b. Infrastructure Concerns - With the deepening of the channel the existing jetties could potentially collapse due to insufficient structural design and pile depth.

- There is potential for traffic congestion through the centre of town.

- the current boat ramp is too far away from the channel and becomes a sediment trap.

- Ensure all tide access to jetties along the Creek in a staged manner allowing for reconstruction of critical components of the jetties.

- Investigate potential for diversion around the busy intersection in town.

- The boat ramp and related structures will

- Allow adequate budget and include in consent application process for the partial rebuild of jetties along Furey’s Creek

- Further develop traffic solutions along with urban design work package fro Coromandel town.

- Include boat ramp and jetty reconstruction


127

need to be upgraded with the first stage of the works.

and upgrades in the overall suite of consents to be applied for.

c. Health & Safety Concerns Environmental concerns such as a dirty harbour from rubbish in the mangroves and leaching contamination from the landfill could raise health and safety concerns

It would be expected that new mangroves would be cleaned up or part of reclaimed land during construction. A revetment could potentially also be built to contain contaminants.

Environmental concerns to be factored into design concepts.

d. Consulted Party Preferences - Industry would prefer not to move from Sugarloaf Wharf to another site. - Charter boat operators and the ferry operator would like to have a wharf closer to town for ease of access to facilities for their customers. - Recreational boat users would also like to be at a site closer to town for the proximity to maintenance facilities, and with less congestion and a safer environment. - CLAIM & Watchdog would prefer that no development takes place at Furey’s Creek and that all users be catered for at Sugarloaf. - Private sector investors see the commercial opportunities in Coromandel.

Industry users could stay at Sugarloaf Wharf and all other users could operate of the upgraded wharfing facilities at Furey’s Creek.

A pragmatic solution based on the preferences of each user group is to keep industry users at Sugarloaf Wharf and move all other users to another location.

e. Ownership / Management - The site is controlled and managed by TCDC, but the Crown owns Patukirikiri Reserve. This could cause issues in relation to the proposed expansion on the site. - Iwi also have the potential to make a claim over the site.

Any expansion plans will need to be made in consultation with the Crown and the relevant iwi groups

The issue of ownership of Patukirikiri Reserve needs to be determined as soon as possible in order to fully assess expansion or upgrade options.

f. Financial Base civil infrastructure to redevelop the Furey’s creek site is anticipated to cost $28 million. This would provide a dredged 25m wide and 1.5km channel in addition to improved marine facilities.

The cost of base infrastructure would need to be offset by commercial development to enable the project. This could include retail, commercial and residential.

Consult further with potential partners to determine the level of interest for funding development.

g. Regulatory Planning - The area to the south of Furey’s Creek is identified within the Coastal Plan as an Area of Significant Conservation Value, which would make obtaining consent for any work in that area more difficult to obtain. - There is a landfill on the site of Patukirikiri Reserve that could potentially leach contaminants into the Harbour.

- The economic and social benefits to the region will assist in ‘balancing out’ adverse environmental effects. - A revetment could potentially be built to contain contaminants.



128

- Contaminants in harbour sediment will require careful consideration.

h. Future Demand - Demand for these facilities will be dependent on the stage of development. - There will be strong demand from the charter boat industry as well as recreational users for easy-access wharfing facilities as the number of visitors and permanent residents in the region increases. - Increase demand for marine servicing and haul out as the facility is developed. Potential for all industry vessels servicing to be catered for in Coromandel Town area. - The aquaculture industry could potentially in the long term access the eastern Furey’s Creek channel area for industry use.

Staged development will allow for an increase over time in the user capacity of the wharfing facilities. Future stages may evolve as indicated in December 2013 towards the Coromandel wharf. This extension could include further reclamation and a marina basin.

Further develop the concept plans for Furey’s Creek Jetty and obtain resource consent for commencing construction of the initial stages of the concept to resolve immediate congestion and safety issues at other facilities.

Dependencies To ensure a successful outcome for Furey’s Creek Jetty, TCDC would need to implement a partnership strategy to deliver the next stage of the project and facilitate the resolution of issues such as land tenure, ownership and contamination remediation. These partners could include strategic partners such as Iwi, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council, the aquaculture industry, central government organisations, and the wider community. Recommended way forward Evaluation of the Furey’s Creek location for potential development of harbour facilities has highlighted the levels of seabed contamination as a critical issue. Whilst surface heavy metal testing undertaken as part of this assessment has found that the values do not exceed any ISQG-High values (ANZECC 2000), there is a strong possibility that increased concentrations maybe at depth. Leaving the contaminants in-situ is not an option as this may lead to complex environmental issues over time. Remediation of the affected areas should be an absolute priority for Thames-Coromandel District Council and Waikato Regional Council. Whilst remediation of this type of material in-situ can present challenges, there are recognised effective methods to dredge and dispose, or to dredge, treat ex-situ and replace. However before remediation solutions can be effectively evaluated further investigation and sampling of deep core samples is required to properly assess and confirm the horizontal and vertical extents of the contaminated material and its current effect on the environment. Further assessments would also include geophysical analysis to ascertain the depth to bedrock. This would be a benefit for geotechnical purposes, and would provide determination of the current thickness of soft sediment and likely extent of potentially contaminated material.


129

Whilst the Furey’s Creek location provides the optimal site for commercial and recreational development, the remediation of the site and close waterways is an immediate priority to ensure the sustainability of the environment. This should be a shared initiative of local government, central Government, the regional community and key stakeholders. Ownership Determine key parties with interest in the redevelopment and remediation of Furey’s Creek (ownership and/ or participation.) Management Establish a project control group who can further ascertain the commercial development of a master planned and urban designed commercial and marine precinct for Coromandel town. This may include Council, iwi, industry and community representatives. Planning Establish a project delivery strategy and work plan to further: - Evaluate the planning requirements for the project - The various studies to include further contaminant testing i.e., core sampling and trialing of mitigation measures. Consultation Implement a strategic project consultation and key engagement programme. Dredging & Reclamation Methodology Dredging and Reclamation Method Statement Determine a suitability and efficiency of plant best for purpose for the various parts of the site and effectiveness in minimizing contaminant spillage. This combined with ground improvement / fill stabilization in reclamation is likely to have the single biggest impact on unit pricing in the construction budget so more accurate determination of rates will minimise uncertainty of construction budget


130

14. Comparison of Options Assessed

Comparison of Options – Aquaculture Industry - Tier 1 Options PROPOSED

UPGRADE COST BENEFITS DOWNSIDES POTENTIAL

ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING

CONCLUSION

Option 1

Puhi Rare

Aquaculture $21m - Noise should not affect Te Kouma Residents.

- No amenity or infrastructure

- Existing transport infrastructure unable to cope.

Aquaculture

Ministry for Primary Industries

Not commercially viable due to upgrade of the intersection and cost of infrastructure upgrade

Option 2 Coromandel Wharf (Dredged Channel & Basin)

Ferry

Future aquaculture

Charter Operators

Commercial Marina

$57m - Closer to town amenity

- Considerable dredging required

- Marina not viable

- Consent issues due to environment impact

- Doesn’t cater for reccies

Not fundable / Commercially Viable

Not commercially viable

Option 3

Coromandel Wharf (Extension)

Aquaculture

Ferry

Charter Operators

$39m - Closer to town amenity

Significant impact on environment i.e 900m long wharf extension therefore consenting issues.

Not fundable Not commercially viable

Option 4

Kopu

Aquaculture $30m - Closer to Kopu Industry and transport infrastructure

Cost of dredging

Impacts on industry i.e steaming for 1hr to reach wharfing infrastructure

Private / Iwi Not commercially viable

Negative impact on industry & negative for Coro & Whitianga


131

Comparison of Options – Community Submissions Nov’13 PROPOSED

UPGRADE COST BENEFITS DOWNSIDES POTENTIAL

ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING

CONCLUSION

Option 5

Coromandel Wharf (Busselton WA Concept)

Pedestrian Jetty and Train

Ferry

$18m Visitor experience positive

Close to town amenity

No Dredging

- Land acquisition needed to create corridor from town to wharf.

- Visual & impact on environment.

Not fundable Not commercially viable no ancillary commercial activity to offset commercial loss. This option if it is to proceed will be presented directly to Council.

Option 6

Long Bay

Ferry/ Marina $41m Council owned land therefore more control

- Pristine location difficult to get consent due to impacts.

- Land specifically gifted for campground. - Need to upgrade infrastructure

i.e roading, power, water, sewer.

- Dredging.

- Exposed to 52km NW fetch

Not fundable unless combined with apartment block development

Consenting risk too high

Requires ancillary development to ensure viability i.e. apartment development

Closing campground may draw opposition

Option 7

Long Bay

Recreational Fishers Only

$12m Council owned land therefore more control

- Pristine location difficult to get consent due to impacts.

- Land specifically gifted for campground. - Need to upgrade infrastructure

i.e roading, power, water, sewer.

- Dredging.

- Exposed to 52km NW fetch

Not fundable unless combined with apartment block development

Consenting risk too high

Not commercially viable

Closing campground may draw opposition


132

Note that the concept values stated are slightly inflated from figures stated at the Public Meeting 29 May 2014 due to the inclusion of additional roading infrastructure costs for options west of Kapanga / Tiki Road intersection.

Logical locations for specific users During the course of the study the project team came to the conclusion that the logical sites for development of Harbour facilities were:

1. Sugarloaf to Windy Point; and 2. Furey’s Creek to Coromandel Wharf. 3. The Stakeholder Working Group also indicated that the Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin / Marina option was a viable solution to be

included in the short list. The exact layout and detail of the development will change until the final construction drawings are signed off. For ease of reference this study provides a limited series of scenarios for the two sites, which includes specific users or vessels, to give an indication only of the scale and extent of development that could take place.

Affordability / consolidation of services / staging Staging of options for individual sites are shown below. These stages are shown purely from an affordability point of view in the sense that significant expenditure might only be budgeted for from year 3 onwards in the 2015-25 LTP, unless significant public private partnering is realised.

Site and Possible Staging Cost Range Total

8 - Sugarloaf

8a – Recreational Split

8b – Charter and Ferry

$ 7,000,000

$ 4,000,000

$ 11,000,000

9 - Furey’s Creek

9a – Maintenance Dredging& Improvements

9b – All tide for Recreational and some Charters

9c – All Charters and Ferry

$ 500,000

$ 10,500,000

$ 19,000,000

$ 30,000,000

2 – Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin / Marina

2a – Only one stage proposed at this stage for bulk civil works (estimated at $28M)

2b – The rest of the solution can be implemented in stages as and when required) – Only one stage shown here.

$28,000,000

$29,000,000

$57,000,000


133

The staging and values included in the table above exclude Aquaculture. It considers the Ferry due to its economic development potential and other users due to resulting restrictions of use in line with the possible decision to support the Aquaculture industry expansion at Sugarloaf as an attempt to retain the industry in the District and by extension support industry growth. The short to medium term solution could be a mixed site solution moving towards the aggregation of users to a single facility in the long term. Developing multiple sites for specific uses unfortunately doesn’t have the most economic long-term outcome as indicated in the combined solutions matrix below. It needs to be remembered that these options and concepts are conceptual at this stage. The refinement of costs will take place with designing the detail of the option and moving towards aggregation of activities in specific location (keeping lessons learnt from the operation at Sugarloaf in mind) for a more refined and economic solution. Commercial opportunity will then be clearly identified and it will be possible to include it in the funding strategy and open the project up to external investors.


134

Alternative Options - Costs calculations


135

Combined Options Assessment The table presents a summary of combined options for development along with total costs and funding opportunities for each scenario as contained in Attachment B. In all options that don’t cater for Ferry to Town it is assumed that the Ferry will continue to use Hannaford’s Wharf.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2010 Option 2013 Option 8a&b 9a&b 9c 10Puhi Rare/Windy

PointCoromandel Wharf Dredged Channel &

Basin

Coromandel Wharf Extension (no

dredging)

Kopu Coromandel Wharf Jetty Extension for pedestrian and Rail

(supplied and installed by others)

only.

Long Bay (Ferry, Charters, Boat ramp

and marina)

Long Bay (boat ramp and parking only)

Sugarloaf 6 berth Reclamation

(Aquaculture only)

Sugarloaf 6 berth Concrete Jetties

(Aquaculture Only)

Sugarloaf Recreational Split &

Ferry Charters

Furey's Creek (Rec boat access only) -

no reclamation

Furey's Creek (Patukirikiri Reserve + reclamation with

dredging's)

Furey's Creek (Patukirikiri Reserve + reclamation with

dredging's+ Marina)

TotalRates Additional Rates Impact/Ratable Unit - District

1Scenario A - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + 8a&b (Ferry not to Town & Limited capacity for Rec/Charters)

34.34 - 34.34

2Option 2013 Sugarloaf + Furey's 9a&b (Ferry not to Town)

35.86 - 35.86

8 Scenario B - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + Furey's 9c 96.43 - 96.43 3 Option 10 Furey's Creek to Coro Wharf + Marina 54.64 54.64

4

Scenario C - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + Furey's 9a&b + Option 2 Coro Wharf Dredged Basin + Marina (Takes care of Aquaculture future growth, commercial investment opportunity to reduce rates)

66.47 32.13 - 34.34

6Option 1 Windy Point (Takes care of Aquaculture Future Growth) + 9a&b Furey's Rec & some Charters (Ferry not to Town)

83.58 47.72 35.86

9Option 3 Coro Wharf Ext + 9a&b Furey's Rec & Some Charters

139.78 103.92 35.86

7Scenario D - Option 5 Coro Wharf Ped/Train + 2013 Sugarloaf + 9a&b Furey's Rec & Some Charters

89.61 53.75 - 35.86

5 Option 6 Long Bay Marina + 2013 Sugarloaf 82.15 82.15 -

Total SWG Feedback Total CommentsRates Quanti fied (roughly)

% not in favour

2Scenario A - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + 8a&b (Ferry not to Town & Limited capacity for Rec/Charters)

34.34 100 134.34

4 Scenario B - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + Furey's 9c 96.43 80 176.43

1

Scenario C - Option 2013 Sugarloaf + Furey's 9a&b + Option 2 Coro Wharf Dredged Basin + Marina (Takes care of Aquaculture future growth, commercial investment opportunity to reduce rates)

66.47 30 96.47

3Scenario D - Option 5 Coro Wharf Ped/Train + 2013 Sugarloaf + 9a&b Furey's Rec & Some Charters

89.61 50 139.61

Capacity is taken up as soon as the facility is built; Many limitations. This option doesn't bring people into own; opposition to the development from community/landowner group and ecological groups. This option is the cheapest overall, but it is considered that it is not likely that consent will be obtained for this site and for this large footprint. The site is in its expanded form more exposed and ferry landing area will require additional (causeway) protection.

Multiple site development. This option is presented as a strong tourism attraction. The facility at the wharf only services the ferry and tourists (rail and pedestrian). Not suitable for charter operators and as such they will remain at Hannaford's (except for shallow draft vessels that could make it up Furey's Creek.) Wharf extension has large footprint - almost to Ruffin's Rocks and consent is expected to be really hard to obtain. Concept being developed by Jacobs on behalf of Barry Brickell.

Highest rates impact as lowest commercial opportunity option, Opposition to expansion at Sugarloaf for industry. Expansion at Sugarloaf for industry doesn't resolve congestion - recreational to migrate to Furey's Creek. Furey's Creek large development option to bring in recreational, charters and ferry will be a deep channel - opposition due to flooding, aesthetical, green space uptake, losing the feel of the town.

This option sees the development of multiple sites and brings the ferry into town. The option can be staged, but will not resolve all user issues until the basin is constructed. The rates impact reflected for this option is relatively low as a large part of the development is of a commercial nature - i.e. there will be no large development without sufficient external funding. User charges and marina berth annual fees to cater for maintenance and dredging requirements. This is a clean-up project as it removes significant volumes of contaminated sediment from the CMA. Plan change will be required to use the material in reclamation. Opposition includes the large footprint, aesthetical impact and potential for the development of a white elephant.

Combined Option Ranking (based on rates impact)

Shortl isted Options Ranking (based on rates and SWG Feedback)

Only The Combination of Options that Serve All Users


136

15. Short Listed – Combined Options Assessment From the Combined Option Assessment table it is clear that the two most likely sites for further development are Sugarloaf and Combination Sugarloaf and Furey’s Creek. This is based on the assumption that Aquaculture would contribute in cash contribution in both cases and that a dry stack developer would contribute to the Furey’s Creek site development.

Scenario A - Sugarloaf Scenario A: Sugarloaf - Full expansion at Sugarloaf to accommodate aquaculture, recreational users and ferry. Advantages Disadvantages Cost • All tide access off boat ramps with minimal

dredging.

• Any consenting process will benefit from the existing environmental and consented ‘baseline’.

• The experience and issues, which came forward from the earlier application for the reclamation, will provide an indication of consenting issues for any new proposal.

• Potential support from Industry depending on proposal.

• The recreational split proposed in stage 1 will resolve H&S on the existing Sugarloaf landing facility - as the only activity remaining at that part of the facility will be aquaculture industry.

• Space constraints limit future potential.

• Not suitable for mixed operations without significant reclamation.

• Limited onshore services available.

• Very little to no associated land. I.e. the option doesn't resolve parking and road safety concerns at the landing facility.

• Upgraded road intersection and Windy Point corner to suit truck movements $1,75m

• Night time noise will continue to be an issue. Any consent will be subject to limitations, which may constrain long-term development options as well as restrictions on future use/operation.

• Ownership issues need to be resolved.

• Exposure with regards to proposed layout of new boat ramp and floating pontoon.

Potential fatal flaws:

• Space constraints limit future potential.

• Ownership issues need to be resolved.

• Significant local opposition to ongoing operation of the aquaculture industry and expansion of the existing facility

• Significant SWG opposition to the reclamation option at Sugarloaf. There is also opposition in relation to industry expansion.

Possible staging as follows • Stage 1 - Recreational split - $7m • Stage 2 - Ferry and Charter facilities - $4m • Aquaculture will then take care of their own

expansion - 3 x Concrete deck and pile jetties.

Commercial Opportunities:

This option allows for aquaculture expansion only.

This may result in a contribution from Aquaculture industry for stage 1 - recreational split and will require the industry to fund their expansion of the industry side of the facility.


137

Scenario B - Sugarloaf & Furey’s Creek Scenario B: Sugarloaf and Furey's Creek - A staged withdrawal of recreational users from Sugarloaf to Furey's Creek development to cater for recreational initially and eventually charter operators and the ferry . Advantages Disadvantages Cost

•••• Ample parking available and sufficient associated flat land to extend if required (i.e. 30,000 m2 Recreation Reserve).

•••• Current facilities provide an opportunity for a staged approach with initial marginal upgrade to enable improved recreational fishers access.

•••• Very sheltered.

•••• Site is close to Coromandel town. This provides associated benefits – facilities, accommodation, shops and service technicians are nearby.

•••• Potential support from ferry and charter boat operators due to close proximity to town.

•••• Existing facilities and activities will assist in consenting baseline.

•••• This option supports most of the medium to long term economic development strategy

•••• The concept and its funding model includes for external commercial opportunities

•••• Issues associated with ‘exclusive’ exploration permit need to be resolved.

•••• Current lack of all-tide access.

•••• Dredging and reclamation requirements for all-tide access.

•••• Potential high cost of dredging and construction.

•••• Sediment quality will require increased mitigation measures as part of dredging and reclamation/disposal methodology.

•••• Community groups opposition to mining and by extension dredging activities.

•••• Community groups opposition to wharf so close to town.

•••• Ownership issues need to be resolved.

•••• Not supported by aquaculture industry - i.e. industry will remain at Sugarloaf and as per current discussions not contribute to providing a recreational facility which will result in freeing up of Sugarloaf to the industry.

•••• Local community groups strongly oppose the ongoing industry operation at Sugarloaf.

Potential fatal flaws

•••• High cost of dredging and construction.


•••• Tenure certainty.

•••• SWG supportive of the half metre deep channel at Furey's Creek, but not the larger development.

•••• SWG supportive of Aquaculture, but the group is split on where the development or expansion should take place.

Possible staging as follows:

• Stage 1a - Sugarloaf Management and Furey's Creek maintenance dredging, improvements to boat ramp and potential floating pontoon. $500k

• Stage 1b - Dredging of channel for all tide access for recreational fishers and shallow draft charter boats only. $10.5m

• Stage 2 - dredging of channel and reclamation for all tide access for ferry and charters and associated commercial opportunities. $18m


•••• Dredging and redevelopment to create an access channel for boats right into the centre of town.

•••• Large reserve adjacent to jetty could be converted to car parking / marine facility

•••• A series of commercial opportunities have been presented with this option that would create employment opportunities for the town.


138

Scenario C – Sugarloaf, Furey’s Creek, Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin Scenario C: Sugarloaf (industry expansion and recreational), Furey's Creek (half metre deep channel), Continued use of Hannaford's and the Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin concept Advantages Disadvantages Cost





•••• Potential support from ferry and shallow draft charter boat operators due to close proximity to town.


•••• This dredged basin stage of the option supports most of the medium to long term economic development strategy and provides opportunity for future expansion.

•••• The concept and its funding model provides for and relies upon external commercial opportunities









•••• Local community groups strongly oppose the ongoing industry operation at Sugarloaf.


•••• High cost of dredging and construction.



•••• SWG supportive of Aquaculture, but the group is split on where the development or expansion should take place.

•••• The dredged basin or long term stage of this option relies on significant external funding.




• Aquaculture industry expansion at Sugarloaf. • Stage 2 - Construction of the Coromandel

Wharf Dredged Basin for ferry, charters, marine servicing and associated commercial opportunities. $57m




•••• A series of commercial opportunities can be presented with this option that would create employment opportunities for the town - these may include temporary berths, storage facilities, dry stack, boat servicing, marina etc.

Scenario D – Barry Brickell’s Coromandel Wharf Extension, Sugarloaf, Furey’s Creek and Hannaford’s


139

Scenario D: Barry Brickell's Coromandel Wharf Extension for ferry and railway (to be presented separately by Barry directly to Council), Sugarloaf (industry expansion and recreational), Furey's Creek (half metre deep channel), Continued use of Hannaford's for charter operators. Advantages Disadvantages Cost





•••• Potential support from ferry and charter boat operators due to close proximity to town.










•••• Local Te Kouma community groups strongly oppose the ongoing industry operation at Sugarloaf.


•••• High cost of jetty construction - risk in relation to foundation depth and conditions.

•••• Significant funding requirement for a tourist / ferry landing facility.



•••• Significant footprint in the CMA (almost to Ruffin's Rocks)

•••• Facility not sheltered enough for charter operators.

•••• The wharf extension is not considered to be wharfing facility project - regarded as a tourist attraction and ferry landing facility by the SWG.




• Aquaculture industry expansion at Sugarloaf. • Continued use of Hannaford's for charter

operators. • Coromandel Wharf Extension $38m (cost to be

presented by Barry Brickell)




•••• Commercial opportunities will be presented as part of the submission on the wharf extension.


140

On balance, the recommended option subject to detailed design and partnering ability is Scenario C Sugarloaf (aquaculture and recreational), Hannaford's (ferry and charters interim solution), Furey's Creek (half metre deep channel for recreational users and shallow draft charter vessels) and Coromandel Wharf Dredged Basin (as the long term option for various users and related industry/commercial). This will only be achieved through additional investment into a larger scale concept. The flooding and ongoing dredging issues were previously highlighted as potential fatal flaws and it is felt that these will need to be investigated further in order to achieve a safe and economic proposal. The functional design will need to take these constraints into account during the detail design stage if Council has the appetite to proceed down this path. The dredged basin close to Coromandel wharf falls within the site selected for further development and may be the long term option to develop further during the next stage of the works as the long term Furey’s Creek option is found to be flawed due to dredging requirements and potential flood risk.

Staging of the recommended Scenario C: Stage 1a: Sugarloaf Management and Maintenance dredging of Furey's Creek together with minor upgrades for part tide access for recreational fishers. 1. Maintain Resource Consent:

(A) Management Plan implemented by June 2014; (B) Maintain access to both recreational and commercial per the consent; (C) Move charter boats from the site to comply with the consent in an agreed

timetable (as far as practicable) with charter operators; (D) Communicate that the resource consent and Management Plan are to be

strictly managed. 2. Manage Recreational Space:

(A) Reduce recreational demand on the site: - Continue to manage charging mechanism/method; - Implement and enforce parking bylaws - Other users to purchase access in Coromandel Town or other facilities; - Money raised is put toward site development. - Encourage recreational diversion by completing the maintenance dredging

exercise in Furey's creek to improve tidal access for recreational users and select facility upgrades to make the facility more user friendly.

3. Manage the Site:

(A) Operational Management Plan updated and implemented; (B) Employee on site and active in both managing safety and also carrying out

Council's H&S requirements with the operators which are changing under law;

(C) Confirm land ownership. (D) Encourage a Park & Ride system for charter operators and a revised ferry

service that relies on pick up and drop off by bus in town (not at Hannaford's)


141

4. Expanded Aquaculture: (A) Approval sought from Council that the long term preferred future on the site

is Aquaculture if that industry expands should that industry invest in its expansion;

(B) Agreement sought that Industry is to lead this next set of actions as they know when they are ready, and it is their investment which will be needed to fund expansion and consent changes;

(C) When industry ready is to expand, Council will require: - Industry commit to significant funding contribution to the Furey's Creek

option to accelerate the project; and, - Industry sign into a legal document addressing funding, ownership

arrangements, Council and industry respective roles and commitments; - Council and industry enter into joint consenting process.

Stage 1b: Furey's Creek Dredging and facility upgrade to accommodate and provide all tide access for recreational users and shallow draft charter vessels only. The conceptual cost of this stage is estimated at 10,500,000 due to the inclusion of a possible by-pass road constructed south of Kapanga Road via either Pita Street or Strongman Road. This option could be completed with a methodology that either includes disposal of dredging material to reclamation or to landfill. Stage 2: Coromandel Wharf - Dredged Basin. The full project is roughly estimated at $57,000,000. There are a number of variations to the theme and it is also possible to develop the concept in stages (with regards to land based facilities and marina fitout). This option will require the implementation of the funding strategy well before construction is proposed, as ministerial funding may need to be included in the various agencies' budget planning processes.


142

16. Proposed Development Programme

Harbour Related services and structures The proposed expenditure is shown indicatively in line with short medium and long-term staging below: Asset Group or Asset Proposed Actions

Ref. Objective Years 1 - 3 Years 4 - 10 Years 11 - 20

1 Sugarloaf: Management measures OMP; H&S; MACAA

Applications

2 Obtain Consent for Aquaculture Expansion & Furey’s Creek

$1,500,000

3 Hannaford’s Parking Area $150,000

4 Sugarloaf: Industry Expansion to 3 and then 6 berths Including vertical wharf wall repair and raising of wharf.

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

5 Furey’s Creek: Maintenance Dredging & selected upgrades

$10,000,000

6 Te Kouma & Windy Point Roading Works

$1,750,000

7 Sugarloaf: Ferry expansion (optional) $600,000

8 Coromandel Wharf – Dredged Basin $500,000 $28,000,000 $28,000,000

Totals $14,750,000 $30,750,000 $ 28,000,000

The figures presented in the table above will change in time as concepts are refined and staging is finalised. The Values are inflated as previously mentioned to provide a worst case scenario indication. Item 5 for instance is shown at $10,000,000 and is currently a concept with no commercial opportunity. It is anticipated that with the development of the detailed concept the scope of work will be trimmed back and the cost if the option reduce as well.

Preliminary Cost Benefit There will a point beyond which the cost of response will outstrip the benefit. This is the cost: benefit point. The cost of developing and maintaining marine facilities is costly and it needs to be understood that the cost: benefit relationship for this project doesn’t purely hang on the economic benefit to the town, district or region. The key priority for Council remains to resolve the congestion and Health & safety issues at Sugarloaf Wharf and to provide up to date, suitable all tide access for Harbour users. With regards to motivating for large infrastructure works where Health& Safety is an issue and potentially resulting injury or loss of life, a calculation process based on the value of statistical life is used. In this instance Council has acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and has resolved that a do nothing scenario is not an option – something needs to be done to rectify the situation. A less emotive approach to value of statistical life used by various government agencies is economic benefit for the district and the region.


143

The economic health of the District is also a focus point for the Council, evident through the establishment of the Economic Development Committee and establishing specific economic development targets within its long term planning process. There are a number of avenues being explored to boost the economic health of local communities within the District. The Council is in this instance taking on a facilitation role, as the cost of any solution for the construction of harbour facilities will exceed what is deemed fair and equitable to be paid by the general ratepayer. Cost benefit in terms of economic return for the Thames-Coromandel District will differ from the Regional or National benefit from industries local to the Coromandel. This is in the first instance due to the economic benefit projected for the Aquaculture industry and the areas or regions in which the benefit will have effect. The number of FTE’s stated in the Sapere and recent AUT reports for instance (see section 6 of this report) are significant, but a large percentage of the benefit is associated with associated business and employment in regions outside the Coromandel. The proposition of increased tourist numbers due to ferry access to town, more efficient charter landing facilities, recreational fishers being attracted to the town with potential increase in hospitality service requirements and so on is relatively untested. To state figures at this stage may look impressive, but there is no way of telling for sure what the economic benefit will be for the town and district specifically due to increased tourism or visitor activity. For Coromandel it is as much a case of retention of the existing as it is the securing of projected future benefit from aquaculture and tourism and its spin off for the town and district. The retention of industry and tourism needs to be managed while the opportunity in those sectors are still favourable for the town and the district. Deteriorating facilities, poor access and unsafe working environments will potentially erode the baseline and affect any future projections. While this may seem negative it does however open the possibility of partnering with other government agencies and creating commercial investment opportunities. This is only possible if the concept is developed in a unified manner (i.e. not just an engineering exercise) inclusive of considerations of partnering potential. It is assumed at this point that the economic benefit alone (even in the best case scenario) will not outweigh cost. In other words, the establishment of a “Blue Highway” is not feasible based solely on economic benefit and other benefits will need to be introduced into the equation. Most of these other benefits cannot be readily converted to dollar values and some would depend on partnering arrangements being successful. Initial work completed by Cranleigh and Giblin Group on behalf of Council has shown a number of avenues to consider with regards to obtaining external funding. The matter to be explored and developed further is the value proposition that would exist for these potential partners based on the final concept or option. This work will need to be completed during the business case stage, but it is expected to evolve far beyond the business case stage,


144

References: • Giblin Group – Funding Partnership s – Ministerial Research Report • Barry Ogilvie – TCDC’s Strategic Response to the Aquaculture Industry

Strategy • Jacobs – Barry Brickell concept for Coromandel Wharf Extension with

Pedestrian and Rail access. • Cranleigh Milestone 2 report – long-term view (Aurecon, DHI, H&G) • Coromandel Waterways Ltd Proposed Marina • Brian Coffey – Waterways Marina Ecological assessment • Sugarloaf Operational Management Plans • Geological Surveys • Waikato Regional Council Technical report on Coastal Sediment – April 2008 • Waikato Regional Council Technical Report on Potential of Sea Level Rise on

Estuarine Environment – Coromandel Harbour Pilot Study June 2006 • Economic impact of Coromandel aquaculture – Sapere Research Group • TCDC: 2014 – 2018 Draft Economic Five Year Plan • TCDC Draft 2012 – 2022 Ten Year Plan • TCDC Aquaculture Wharf proposal – Ngati Whanuanga values assessment • Coromandel Aquaculture – A sector and economic overview of our district • Scoping Assessment – An assessment of alternative locations for wharfing

infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry – KTB Planning

• Coromandel Ferry Project – A Campbell Consulting Concept • Coromandel Harbour Marine Facilities – Historic Development Concepts • Preliminary Concept Sugarloaf Recreational Separation – Option to Relocate

Existing Recreational & Commercial Use to Hardstand Concept Design • Aquaculture on the Coromandel Peninsula – TCDC • Fish Farming – a Guide to obtaining permits in the Coromandel and Wilson

Bay Marine Farming Zones – Waikato Regional Council • Sediment Quality Assessments at Coromandel Wharf, Te Kouma and Waihou

River Mouth – Pattle Delamore Partners Limited • Wharfing Infrastructure Report Nov 2010 – Hauraki-Coromandel

Development Group • Harbours & Wharves – Progressive Business Consulting Limited • Preferred Location Options Report: Selection of Optimum Wharfing Site for

Aquaculture Industry – Ben Dunbar Smith / Gordon Reynolds – 24 December, 2011

• Coromandel Wharf: Condition Assessment 2011 – Peninsula Civil Limited • Aquaculture NZ Strategy Phase • TCDC’s Response to Aquaculture Industry Strategy - Barry

Attachments Attachment A – Minutes of Stakeholder Working Group Meetings


145

Attachment A – Minutes of Stakeholder Working Group Meetings

Coro Harbour Dev Strategy - FinalDraft Council... · Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy...

Documents

Transcript of Coro Harbour Dev Strategy - FinalDraft Council... · Coromandel Harbour Development Strategy...