Page 1

Hauraki Gulf and the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve State of the Environment May 2017 Case Study: Weiti Development Keep Okura Green Incorporated Executive Summary The Weiti Development impacts on the Long-Bay Okura Marine Reserve. The development has been and currently is discharging sediment into the Karepiro Stream and tributaries that flow to Karepiro Bay in the Marine Reserve. The sediment discharges are visible on Google Earth and suspended solids and turbidity monitoring of the streams as they enter the marine reserve by a local environment group has shown sustained high levels of total suspended solids and turbidity concentrations that exceed the New Zealand guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems. 62 water samples were collected over an 11-month period and all the samples exceeded the criteria for protection of aquatic ecosystems. Although there are no national guidelines for suspended sediment, the concentrations exceeded the maximum recorded in the Auckland Council Environmental Monitoring of Streams in the Auckland area more than half the time, and exceed the average every time. The consents that have been supplied to us for this site have no criteria for total suspended solids, turbidity or for discharge weights of sediment to the Marine Reserve receiving environment. Deposition of sediment in the intertidal of the Marine Reserve has been observed on numerous occasions, at times forming a layer more than 10mm thick over the sand beach. In late April 2017, after sustained efforts to prevent the continuation of the discharges of high sediment loads to the streams and Marine Reserve, and after suspended solids loading of 490 g/m3 were recorded, the developer filled in (reclaimed) approximately 75 metres of the central stream, smothering the salt marsh and blocking flow from the stream. No sediment control methods were employed and earth was just pushed into the intertidal stream. Fish barriers were not placed above and below the works area and no native fish recovery and relocation was undertaken. The stream flow from the upper catchment has subsequently mixed with uncontrolled sediment discharges from the site and has ponded behind the beach effectively forming a massive sediment retention pond; smothering salt marsh, freshwater stream habitats, blocking fish passage, flooding archaeological


sites and destroying wetland habitats. These are all serious adverse effects and many will have long term residual adverse effect on the environment. A high tide wading bird roost at the mouth of the central stream is dependent upon the flow from the stream and is now under threat. The loss of this roost, clearly identified of significant concern ten years ago, will have a significant adverse effect on the use of this area by wading birds. Review of the consents held by the Developer show four permits / consents for works in this area:    

Permit No. 34157 for the installation of 4 box culverts Permit No. 34002 for the diversion and discharge of storm water (2007 permit for 5 years; presumed lapsed in Dec 2012, i.e. more than four years ago) Permit No. 34156 for the damming of water with off stream dams for the landscape lake, and wetlands (dependent upon 34002 above, which presumably lapsed in 2012). Consolidated Consent Conditions R52447/F (dated 22 November 2016, after the AUP became operative), which requires (ja): The consent holder shall not develop the proposed lake (including the bund around the lake and terrace on the eastern portion of the lake), the dune system and associated earthworks recorded on the Boffa Miskell Plan Figure 12 dated 8/11/07 within the “hay paddock” area.

None of these consents give permission to reclaim the stream, either as freshwater ecosystem or more accurately within the coastal marine area. Keep Okura Green Inc (KOG) requires the following outcomes: The Regulatory Authorities (Auckland Council, Department of Conservation) take charge of their areas of responsibilities; All parties critically review the works carried out and ensure the Developer is working according to their consent conditions, which includes working to the Objectives and Policies of the Plans and current best practice; That an abatement notice is served on the unconsented reclamation, all steps are immediately taken to control the flooding and discharge of sediment in the “hay paddock’’ area, and the stream; That the archaeological sites are protected; The centre stream and surrounding area is reinstated, restored and remediated with critical attention to sediment discharges to the marine environment and unimpeded fish passage to and from the upper catchment; and That the storm water treatment proposal is re-drawn, as allowed for under the consolidated consents, with full compliance with the objectives, policies and rules of the AUP.


Contents Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.

Keep Okura Green Inc (KOG) .......................................................................................................... 4

2.

Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve & Scenic Reserve, SEA, Hauraki Gulf ....................................... 5

3.

Weiti Development ......................................................................................................................... 7

4.

Analysis of the Consents in the “Hay Paddock” and vicinity .......................................................... 9

5.

Site Photographs & Links to Drone Footage ................................................................................. 11

6.

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 1. Karepiro Bay Centre Stream – Memo: 4 May 2017 ................................................. 27 Appendix 2. Long Bay- Okura Marine Reserve– Suspended Solids and Turbidity Results Analysis. Memo: 16 May 2017 ..................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix 3. Stream discharge onto Karepiro Bay Beach. Letter Becca Limited, 16 May 2017. . 39 Appendix 4. Emails and Document Trail. ..................................................................................... 40 Appendix 5. Consents and Hay Paddock Concept Plan Figure No. 12 8/11/2007. ...................... 55


1. Keep Okura Green Inc (KOG) Keep Okura Green (KOG) is an Incorporated Society who’s aim is to protect and preserve the Okura estuary and its visual margins as a rural and natural area. Keep Okura Green was formed as an Incorporated Society in late 1993, in opposition to the North Shore City Council (NSCC) intention to urbanize the entire North-Shore section of the Okura Catchment and to support the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) in its attempt to hold the ‘’green belt‘’ line at Glenvar Road. Since the Environment Court judgement of the 1st October 1996, KOG has been actively lobbying the NSCC, Rodney District Council, and the ARC to have the recommendations of that Court Hearing implemented. Keep Okura Green had representatives on the Transit New Zealand Highway Extension Environment Monitoring Committee and was involved in site inspections and monitoring of storm-water control during and since the construction phase in the Okura Catchment. For three years KOG was also part of the Project Care Working Party for the NSCC, who’s function was to look at the waste-water and storm water problems of the city, and to look at possible solutions. As a result of having been on that committee, KOG carried out weekly water monitoring and testing of the Okura Catchment and the Albany Basin streams for Waicare, an environmental initiative of the ARC and NSCC. We did this for seven years, 2000 – 2007. We are also actively concerned with the methods to be used to mitigate and avoid damage to the Long Bay - Okura Marine Reserve by storm water and contaminants generated by urban and rural development. In 2002 KOG was part of the Combined Environmental groups under the heading Okura Environmental Groups (OEG), that took part in Environment Court proceedings that set the development rules for the North Shore section of the Okura Catchment. 2004: We worked on the Environment Court Appeal 56/04 – North Shore City Council v Rodney District Council. Proposed Bral Holdings Clean fill. We opposed this application. 2007: KOG was a party to the Environment Court action to decide the development rules for the development of the Long Bay catchment. 2008: KOG was in the Environment Court, appealing against the decision of the Rodney District Council to allow urban development in the Weiti block of Karepiro Bay. We have currently an active committee, and we hold a watching brief on local development proposals, especially those effecting the Long Bay - Okura Marine Reserve.


2. Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve & Scenic Reserve, SEA, Hauraki Gulf Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve is the receiving environment for the Weiti Development. All the streams for the 150-lot development drain to Karepiro Bay, a sheltered sandy beach at the northern end of the Marine Reserve. The Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve is an SEA – Marine 1 area and as such is and should be afforded the highest level of protection from the adverse effects of development of the catchment. The Marine Reserve and the Karepiro Beach Esplanade Reserve and Historic Reserve at Dacre Cottage along with the DoC Okura Bush Walkway are all classified as Outstanding Natural Landscape ONL. The legislation protecting this area includes:      

The Marine Reserves Act; The Fisheries Act; Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000; Auckland Unitary Plan - operative in Part (AUP); New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (CPS); and Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), operative in part recognises the very high natural value and significance of this ecological area and describes Long Bay and Okura Estuary as: 64a. Intertidal. SEA-M1 Within this area are a considerable variety of intertidal substrates which together form a complex array of habitats which support a variety of animal and plant communities. The communities living on the wavecut platforms, cliffs, and beaches at Long Bay have been studied over a long period and are in reasonably good condition. This is a known location of pingao, a threatened plant of mobile sand areas. The intertidal areas within the Okura Estuary and outside its entrance range from fine mud to sand and are used as a feeding ground by several hundred wading birds. Many of these birds roost on the sandy area at the entrance to the estuary at high tide. A variety of other coastal birds feed and roost within this area. Areas of saltmarsh and mangrove line the estuary and are used by banded rail, a threatened secretive coastal fringe bird. The adjoining terrestrial vegetation which provides shelter for the birds and offers potential nesting sites. This saline vegetation and other intertidal areas grade into coastal pohutukawa forest on sheltered cliffs, then into taraire forest on coastal hill country, and finally into kanuka forest on a headland. Both of the latter are considered to be the best examples of their types in the ecological district. At Karepiro Creek, the marine environment grades into significant coastal saltmarsh on stabilised sand above Mean High Water Springs. Okura estuary is part of the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve. The Okura River provides habitat for giant kokopu and longfinned eel. The Department of Conservation has selected this area as an Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV). 64b. SEA-M1 Saline vegetation and other intertidal areas grade into coastal pohutukawa forest on sheltered cliffs, then into taraire forest on coastal hill country, and finally into kanuka forest on a headland. Both of


the latter are considered to be the best examples of their types in the ecological district. At Karepiro Creek, the marine environment grades into significant coastal saltmarsh on stabilised sand above Mean HighWater Springs. The Department of Conservation has selected this area as an Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV). 64W1. Wading bird habitat. SEA-M1. See 64a, 65a, 65b Extensive intertidal feeding habitat for waders along this coastline. AUP (OP), Chapter L, Schedule 4 Significant Ecological Areas – Marine Schedule


3. Weiti Development KOG’s involvement with the Weiti Development extends over 10 years, where the group challenged the change of zoning allowing the 150-house allotment for the wider area of Weiti to be concentrated in the coastal area. KOG identified serious inadequacies in the 2007 Assessment of Environmental Effects and negotiated several concessions under pressure from the Environment Court. Included in these was that the stream in the centre of Karepiro Beach formed/supported a sandbar that was/is heavily used by the wading and shore bird population as a high tide roost, which was clearly outlined to the developer Evan Williams at the time. The legal agreement signed 6 May 2008 stated: (a) Williams Land shall investigate whether the existence of the sandbar in Karepiro Bay is reliant on the stream and culvert located in the middle of the beach at Karepiro Bay. Subject to agreement from ARC, Williams Land agrees to retain the stream and culvert unless its investigations demonstrate, to KOGSI’s satisfaction, that that sandbar is not caused by or otherwise reliant on the stream and culvert Although consent was granted in late 2007, development of the coastal site did not start until 2015. Over the late summer and early autumn of 2016, the local community observed plumes of sediment being discharged via Karepiro Stream to the Marine Reserve (this is clearly visible on the current Google Earth default aerial photos). After communicating their concerns to the Auckland Council on numerous occasions and getting no meaningful improvement, KOG instigated water quality sampling programme, under supervision from an aquatic ecologist, with surface water samples analysed by Hill Laboratories, Hamilton. The samples were initially tested for total suspended solids (TSS) but on advice from the freshwater ecologist, the samples were tested for turbidity (cloudiness), which have national and international standards for the protection of aquatic ecosystems. Photographs and video were also taken including, more recently, drone footage to ensure that the works carried out on the site were documented and evidence was collected. KOG in March and April 2017 communicated with the Auckland Council and Department of Conservation. KOG requested that the development site not be allowed to continue working outside of the earthworks season, as the development was having a clear and obvious adverse effect on the receiving environment. At the end of April very little stabilisation works had been instigated and new earth works were still being carried out. Consent for winter works was subsequently approved. In April, just prior to the end of the earthworks season, the site had not been controlling sediment from the southern earthworks and the Centre Stream was carrying up to 490 g/m3 TSS and turbidity was 900 NTU just prior to discharging into in Karepiro Bay, adjacent to the main of two high tide bird roosts in the bay. This was brought to the attention of the Council and in response the Developer reclaimed an approximately 75m section of the stream, located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA), blocking the flow of water from the stream. The water from the catchment has now formed a sediment laden lake behind the reclamation, flooding the “hay paddock’, streams and wetlands; smothering the salt marsh, diverting the water, preventing fish passage, drowning some archaeological sites. This untreated sediment loaded water is now flowing over land to Karepiro North Stream by Dacre Cottage, and south to the base of the cliffs and entering the Marine Reserve. KOG informed the Auckland Council and the Department of Conservation, and to date nothing has been done.


KOG requested copies of the consents and ecological reports on the area. The consents were forwarded to KOG but no ecological reports. The consents are discussed below and attached in the Appendices. Although KOG was informed that it has been consented, our analysis of the consents cannot find any consent that allows for the reclamation of the stream and/or reclamation in the CMA. The Ecological Reports on the area have not been made available and we are of the firm opinion that they either do not exist or are inadequate. Although wildlife and wildlife mitigation programs are specified in the conditions of consent (j and k), none of these appear to have been carried out in this area, specifically no native fish recovery and relocation prior to the stream works. The area of the reclamation is within the intertidal zone as defined under the Coastal Policy Statement: CPS Defines the Intertidal zone or area as The landward boundary of the intertidal zone or area is the extreme or area high water of spring tides, which is the average of the two highest tides at the period of the year when the range of the tides is greatest. The seaward boundary of the intertidal zone or area is the extreme low water of spring tides, which is the average of the two lowest tides at the period of the year when the range of the tides is greatest. Prior to the reclamation large hay bales were observed blocking the tidal reaches of the stream. KOG requested and site visit by an ecologist and the ecologist clear identified the area as within the CMA, see attached report.


4. Analysis of the Consents in the “Hay Paddock” and vicinity Permit No. 34002. To Authorise the diversion and discharge of stormwater associated with the development of a 150-lot subdivision and 5 km access road in accordance with Sections 14 (1)(a) and 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Recourse Management Act 1991. This consent applies to storm water only and it is our understanding that under Section 125 of the RMA that this consent lapsed on 21 December 2012.

Permit 34156. To authorise the damming of water with off stream dams for the landscape lake, wetlands and wetland features in accordance with section 13, 14 and 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This is specific to off stream dams and specifically says that it does not constitute an Authority or Dispensation by the Director General of Conservation to impede the natural passage of fish. Refers primarily to Permit 34002 which lapsed. It specifically requires: Adaptive Stormwater Monitoring and Management Response Plan to be signed off prior to works, the intent of which is to avoid adverse effects on the receiving environments and to demonstrate that the stormwater discharges from the site is not having any adverse effects …; and include thresh holds for ecological changes. This Adaptive Stormwater Monitoring and Management Response Plan has been requested by KOG but it has not been supplied. Environmental Management Plan to be signed off prior to works.

Permit 34196. To authorise the installation of 4 box culverts and stormwater discharge structures in accordance with section 13 and 14 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Change to consent conditions R52447/F Signed on 22 November 2016, after the AUP became operative (in part). Consolidated conditions of consent as amended: (ja) (protection of the “hay paddock”) The consent holder shall manage the hay paddock in a manner that respects and is consistent with the heritage values of this place. The consent holder shall not develop the proposed lake (including the bund around the lake and terrace on the eastern portion of the lake), the dune system and associated earthworks recorded on the Boffa Miskell Plan Figure 12 dated 8/11/07 within the “hay paddock” area. (Attached as Appendix 5). 1. The southern streams were to be all diverted to the amenity lake, which under condition (ja) above, will not be developed, and none of the streams were to be diverted on-line into the stormwater system; and


2. The “existing outlet filled in” is part of the dune system and associated earthworks that shall not be developed (ja, above); and would obviously only be filled in if and when there was no stream.

We believe given the information supplied by Council that these conditions of consent have been breached.

None of the consents give permission to reclaim the stream, which is specifically

non-complying (E3. 4.1(A49) and is directly counter to Objectives (E3.2.(2), (6))and Policies (E3.3(13) of the AUP. Furthermore, the area reclaimed was below Mean High Water Springs, i.e. within the Coastal Marine Area and subject to the Coastal Policy Statement, the Marine Reserves Act and Section F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone of the AUP(OP). AUP (OP): The coastal marine area applies to the foreshore, seabed, water and air from mean high water springs to 12 nautical miles (territorial sea). It is defined in section 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991. As a jurisdictional boundary, the exact location of the line of mean high water springs needs to be defined on a case-by-case basis. Where activities are close to the indicative coastline, a site-specific survey will be required to determine the location of the line of mean high water springs which defines the landward boundary of the coastal marine area. F2.2.3. Policies [rcp] (1) Avoid reclamation and drainage in the coastal marine area except where all of the following apply: (a) the reclamation will provide significant regional or national benefit; (b) there are no practicable alternative ways of providing for the activity, including locating it on land outside the coastal marine area; Table F2.19.1 Activity table - Drainage, reclamation and declamation pursuant to section 12(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (A1) Reclamation or drainage not otherwise provided for In the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone (GCM Zone) in non-compliant; and in the Marine Reserve, SEA Marine 1, is Prohibited.


5. Site Photographs & Links to Drone Footage

Photo 1. Google Earth 2016 (Current default at May 2017). Note site streams: Centre Stream with tributaries; bush headwaters and catchment for Centre Stream; high sediment loading in Karepiro Stream (north); mud plumes in intertidal; “hay paddock� grassed and no flooding.


Photos of Karepiro North and Centre Streams. Karepiro North Stream 23rd of June 2016

Karepiro North Stream 8th of July 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 8th July 2016

Massive bank of dead and dying Shell fish by Centre Stream 22nd of August 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 25th August 2016

Karepiro North Stream 25th of August 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 21st September 2016

Karepiro North Stream 21st September 2016


Sediment deposits Karepiro Beach 24th of September 2016

Karepiro North Stream 1st of October 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 1st October 2016

Karepiro North Stream 2nd October 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 2nd October 2016 Massive mortality of juvenile shell fish.

Karepiro Centre Stream 2nd October 2016


Karepiro North Stream 2nd October 2016

Karepiro Centre Stream 5th October 2016


Karepiro North Stream 5th October 2016

Karepiro Centre Stream 7th November 2016


Karepiro North Stream 7th November 2016

Karepiro North Stream 11th November 2016


Karepiro Centre Stream 17th February 2017

Karepiro North Stream 17th February 2017


Karepiro Beach mud deposits 17th February 2017

Karepiro North and Centre Stream discharging 11th March 2017


Karepiro Centre Stream 30th April 2017 with easy salt water boat access to dammed site.

Karepiro North Stream 12th May 2017


Karepiro North Stream and Karepiro Bay 17th May 2017 Drone photo. (note; if we had access to a drone on all of the days we have taken samples this picture would be normal on most)


6. Appendices


Appendix 1. Karepiro Bay Centre Stream – Memo: 4 May 2017


MEMORANDUM TO:

KEEP OKURA GREEN INC

ATTENTION:

PETER TOWNEND

FROM:

TREFFERY BARNETT

SUBJECT:

KAREPIRO BAY CENTRE STREAM

DATE:

4 May 2017

REF: TB\KOG\MEMO KAREPIRO BAY CENTRE STREAM

Keep Okura Green Inc (KOG) requested a site visit by an ecologist of the Karepiro Bay centre stream (Centre Stream) discharging to Karepiro Bay from the Weiti Block (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Karepiro Bay Centre Stream (KC) draining the southern bush catchment in the Weiti Block to the Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve. KOG’s concerns were the recent deposition of hay bales obstructing the stream, the status of the stream, and the level of sedimentation in the stream discharging into the Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve.


The site visit was carried out on the incoming tide approximately 2 hours before high tide on 17th April 2017. A high level, primarily visual assessment was undertaken of the Centre Stream from Karepiro Bay beach to the boundary of the foreshore reserve. The stream was open to the coast, with no obstructions, and approximately 2m wide and 0.6m deep, with low exposed intertidal banks on either side of the central channel at the start of the site visit. The water widened and deepened over the time of the site visit as the tide rose and the water covered most of the exposed banks, widening to about 4m wide. Tidal surges were visible near the end of the site visit, approximately 1.5 hours before high tide. The substrate was muddy sand and sandy mud with a clear layer of recent fine clay deposition immediately below the surface sand. Several minor flows entered the mainstem watercourse from the south and a tributary entered the Central Stream draining from the north approximately 140m inland from the beach (Figure 1). Several large round hay bales had been deposited in the stream channel, approximately 120m from the beach, just downstream of the junction of the Central Stream and the tributary draining from the north. There was a patchy distribution of salt marsh, dominated by sea primrose, Samolus repens throughout the upper intertidal downstream of the haybales (Photo 1).

Photo 1. Salt marsh dominated by Samolus repens in the upper intertidal of Karepiro Bay centre stream. Photo taken in Karepiro Centre Stream, approximately 50m upstream from Karepiro Beach.


Immediately upstream of the hay bales, at the junction of the Central Stream and the tributary draining from the north, an embankment showed clear pitting indicative of the estuarine mud crab Helice crassa and salt marsh was present on the true right bank of the minor watercourse (Photos 2 and 3).

Photo 2. Minor tributary draining to the Central Stream from the north. Note recent deposition of fine clay at the junction (yellow) and salt marsh in the tributary – middle of photo.

Photo 3. Close-up of salt marsh in minor tributary just upstream of junction with the Centre Stream.


There was clear visual evidence of recent deposition of fine material at and below mean high water spring (MHWS) and the water within the stream was visually turbid with a clear demarcation line between the water in the Central Stream and the clear water entering the stream from the minor drainage channels draining from south, there was also a clear visual difference in water clarity above the hay bales and below the hay bales, either from the bales providing some filtration and / or the influence of the incoming tide. Clearly visible layer of fine clay deposition (yellow) approximately 2mm deep between the natural substrate, sandy mud (black) and surface muddy sand (black). Summary Karepiro Bay Central Steam, discharging to the Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve is tidal to at least 140m upstream from the coast. The watercourse backed up and rapidly filled it’s banks with the flooding tide, salt marsh plants were present in the upper intertidal and there was evidence (unconfirmed) of the presence of the estuarine mud crab Helice crassa, at the junction of the Central Stream and the tributary draining from the north.

Yours sincerely

Treffery Barnett, M.Sc.(Hons) | Marine & Freshwater Biologist


Appendix 2. Long Bay- Okura Marine Reserve– Suspended Solids and Turbidity Results Analysis. Memo: 16 May 2017


Treffery Barnett, B.Sc., M.Sc. (Hons). Coastal & Freshwater Ecologist Telephone : Email :

+64 277475317 treff.barnett@xtra.co.nz

MEMORANDUM TO

:

KEEP OKURA GREEN INC.

ATTENTION

:

PETER TOWNEND

FROM

:

TREFFERY BARNETT

SUBJECT

:

LONG BAY- OKURA MARINE RESERVE– SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND TURBIDITY RESULTS ANALYSIS

DATE

:

16 MAY 2017

REF

:

KOG TSS Results Memo May 2017

In response to concerns regarding the extensive areas of exposed land in the Long Bay – Okura Marine Reserve catchments, the effectiveness of stabilisation of the sites and/or ongoing earthworks over the winter months and visible discharge of sediment into the Marine Reserve, a programme of in stream sampling during and after rain events from late June 2016 was undertaken.

Water samples for suspended solids were collected on 34 occasions between June 2016 and April 2017 from Karepiro Stream (KN), discharging to the marine reserve at the northern end of Karepiro Bay; and samples were collected on 23 occasions between July 2016 and April 2017 from the central stream (KC), discharging to the centre of Karepiro Bay (Figure 1). All samples were analysed by Hill Laboratories, Hamilton.


Figure 1. Sampling Locations Karepiro North (KN) and Karepiro Centre Stream (KC)

During the sampling programme turbidity was added to the testing regime as there are no clear guidelines or trigger levels for total suspended solids but there are clear guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems for turbidity.

This memo presents the data collected (Tables 1 to 3) and summarises the results of these analyses.


Table 1. Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity Results from Karepiro Stream (KN). Code

KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN

Date Sampled

26/06/2016 27/6/2016 29/6/2016 30/6/2016 8/07/2016 14/07/2016 15/07/2016 16/07/2016 20/07/2016 22/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 4/08/2016 10/08/2016 25/08/2016 25/08/2016 26/08/2016 21/09/2016 25/09/2016 1/10/2016 2/10/2016 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 8/10/2016 8/03/2017 8/03/2017 11/03/2017 12/03/2017 27/03/2017 27/03/2017 29/03/2017 5/04/2017 12/04/2017 13/04/2017

TSS

Turbidity

ANZECC Guideline

(g/m3)

NTU

NTU

ANZECC Guideline Should not Exceed Guideline

171 53 48 73 187 45 35 77 87 9 300 41 45 123 64 82 32 139 38 103 450 72 79 43 260 67 101 65 64 64 40 106 94 53

172 79 112 340 131 90 100 240 64 120 82 105 74 28 140 145 77

5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded


Table 2. Code

KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC KC Table 3.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Turbidity Results from Karepiro Bay Centre Stream (KC). Date Sampled

8/07/2016 14/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 10/08/2016 25/08/2016 21/09/2016 25/09/2016 1/10/2016 2/10/2016 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 8/10/2016 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 12/03/2017 27/03/2017 27/03/2017 29/03/2017 5/04/2017 12/04/2017 13/04/2017 14/04/2017

TSS

Turbidity NTU

ANZECC Guideline NTU

ANZECC Guideline Should not Exceed Guideline

(g/m3)

68 27 130 39 129 70 135 78 141 400 36 88 26 400 105 116 24 85 27 400 490 320 149

194 114 169 370 117 135 88 480 153 164 34 80 34 660 950 600 240

5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Turbidity Results from Karepiro Beach – Saline Samples collected offshore of KN. RAW DATA

TURBIDITY

Code

Date Sampled TSS (g/m3) NTU

KN BEACH KN BEACH KN BEACH KN BEACH KC BEACH

29/6/2016 30/6/2016 8/07/2016 5/04/2017 5/04/2017

56 45 148 280 410

280 600

ANZECC Guideline NTU

0.5 - 10 0.5 - 10

ANZECC Guideline Should not Exceed Guideline

Exceeded Exceeded


Discussion

Total suspended solids are particles that are larger than 2 microns found in the water column. Anything smaller than 2 microns (average filter size) is considered a dissolved solid.

There are no regional wide Auckland Council assessment criteria for suspended solids within receiving waters but Auckland Council State of the Environment Monitoring results for thirty-four streams sampled monthly throughout the 2015 year ranged from a minimum of 0.2 g/m3 to a maximum of 76 g/m3, and averaged 4.7 g/m3 (Auckland Council, 2016).

The total suspended solids measured in the Karepiro Streams exceeded the average for the Auckland streams on every sampling occasion, and exceed the maximum recorded on more than half of the sampling occasions.

Unlike total suspended solids, turbidity has clear guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems. The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality document (ANZECC, 2000) provides the criteria for turbidity of 5.6 NTU for the protection of aquatic organisms in lowland rivers and Waikato Regional Council (Auckland Council does not publish guidelines) provides: Turbidity (NTU) <2 Excellent, 2-5 Satisfactory, >5 unsatisfactory.

ANZECC (2000) turbidity criteria for estuarine and marine waters ranges from 0.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10, depending upon the environment.

Turbidity in all sampled collected exceed the guideline for protection of aquatic ecosystems both in Freshwater and the Marine samples.


REFERENCES

ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Volume 1. The Guidelines (Chapters 1-7). Paper No. 4. October 2000. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Auckland Council (2016) State of the Environment Monitoring: River Water Quality Annual Report 2015, August 2016. Technical Report 2016/034


Appendix 3. Stream discharge onto Karepiro Bay Beach. Letter Becca Limited, 16 May 2017. See attached â&#x20AC;&#x201C; use link:

BECCA Report Stream Discharge.pdf


Appendix 4. Emails and Document Trail. See attached â&#x20AC;&#x201C; use link: Weiti email history combined.pdf


Photos sent in emails (refer to Appendix 4) 28-7-2016

28-7-2016


8-7-2016


8-7-2016

8-7-2016


8-7-2016


28-7-2016

28-7-2016


28-7-2016

28-7-2016


10-8-2016

10-8-2016


10-8-2016

25-8-2016


25-8-2016

25-8-2016


25-8-2016

29-8-2016


29-8-2016

29-8-2016


26-9-2016

17-2-2017


17-2-2017

11-3-2017


26-4-2017


Appendix 5. Consents and Hay Paddock Concept Plan Figure No. 12 8/11/2007.

Weiti case study may 2017 final sm2  
Weiti case study may 2017 final sm2  
Advertisement