BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL

Transcription

1 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Board of Inquiry MacKays to PekaPeka Expressway Proposal Notice of Requirement and Resource Consents in the matter of: the Resource Management Act 1991 and in the matter of: a Board of Inquiry appointed under s 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider applications for a Notice of Requirement and Resource Consents made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the MacKays to PekaPeka Expressway Proposal. Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement to the Board of Inquiry Ecology Dated: 6 November 2012 Due: 9 November 2012 Page 1 of 23

2 EXPERT CONFERENCING JOINT REPORT TO THE BOARD OF INQUIRY INTRODUCTION 1 This joint signed report is written in response to the Board of Inquiry s Minute and Directions dated 18 October The Directions require that the experts seek to reach agreement with the other expert witness(es) on matters within their field of expertise, and following conferencing, provide a report by 5 pm on 9 November 2012 that includes: the matters on which the expert witnesses agree; the matters on which they do not agree, and the reasons for their disagreement. 2 This report relates to the conferencing topic of Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology. 3 A conferencing meeting was held on 6 November Participants were: Paula Warren (for Loretta Pomare) Dr Mary McIntyre (for Action to Protect & Sustain our Communities) Russell Death (for Kapiti Coast District Council) Shona Myers (for Kapiti Coast District Council) Tim Porteous(for Wellington Regional Council) Dr Ian Boothroyd(for Wellington Regional Council) Alton Perrie(for Wellington Regional Council) Melanie Dixon (for Raumati South Residents Association) Stephen Fuller (for NZTA) Dr Vaughan Keesing(for NZTA) Dr Leigh Bull (for NZTA) Matiu Park (for NZTA) Dr Sharon De Luca (for NZTA) A number of experts in the Freshwater Ecology field contributed to this statement, but also broke off into a separate Freshwater Ecology group and produced a separate statement. 5 In preparing this statement, the experts have read and understood the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as included in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note Page 2 of 23

3 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: ISSUES/AREAS TO BE RESOLVED Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation There are sites that have ecological significance within the footprint. There are sites with significant ecological value that have been avoided through the design process. All All PW (but conditions as currently worded do not ensure these will be avoided) There are sites that will be affected by the proposal that should have been avoided or further minimised. There are other design options which should have avoided or minimised effects on significant values. Boardwalks over wetlands rather than filling; PW (original soils), IB (Otaihanga wetland), SM (wetlands and indigenous vegetation) MD, IB, SF (agree with consideration of boardwalks & realign cycleway), SM, PW SF& MP (comprehensive project shaping), VK (in regard to streams), RD (streams), AP (streams) SF& MP (disagree with regard to original soils & bridging wetlands), VK (in regard to streams) Re-align roads to avoid original soils; Realigning cycle ways in some locations; Bridging Otaihanga wetland instead of embankments. Adaptive management is about avoidance and remedying the potential for adverse ecological effects. Adaptive management planning is an appropriate way to manage effects (refer evidence in chief from Robert Schofield& draft EMP) with the following conditions: 1. There are no values so valuable that no risk is acceptable; 2. There is potential for remediation to be done in time to All MD, PW (but only if all conditions met), SM (there is risk associated with relying on adaptive management to mitigate for effects), SF, MP, VK, LB (agreed in principle). Page 3 of 23

4 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation prevent unacceptable impacts; 3. There are clear triggers of when action is needed; 4. The outcomes are clearly defined; 5. It is the best option; 6. There is a robust process to ensure full implementation. There are features out there that are of such value that they are irreplaceable. PW (because of level of ecological loss in the ecological district). MP and SF (With regard to terrestrial vegetation and habitats), VK (with regard to streams). Ecology The ecological values are generally agreed as recorded in Park and Keesing EIC. MP, SF, VK, LB, SD, TP RD (stream ecological values undervalued), PW (suites of organisms (e.g. bryophytes, fungi, lichens, small terrestrial invertebrates) not assessed at all &associated habitats undervalued), SM (undervalues significance of indigenous vegetation & wetlands & stream values), IB (streams), AP (stream ecological values especially fish). MD (accurately describes, but undervalues wetlands). All regionally significant wetlands have been identified under Policy 22 of the proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement. MP, SF, TP MD, SM MD & SM agree that all wetlands have been identified, but there is disagreement as to their significance. Under Policy 22 of the proposed WRPS wet pasture including pasture that supports patches of rushes, is not indigenous wetland. MP, SF, SM, IB& MD SM, IB & MD believe that they have restoration potential and provide important ecosystem services (e.g. Page 4 of 23

5 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation water quality improvement). The loss of areas of wet pasture, including pasture that supports patches of rushes (Juncus spp.),do not require mitigation. MP, SF, SM, IB, MD PW (depending on history of individual pasture & what this means for soil organisms), Areas of exotic wet pasture and rushland within the Designation provide opportunities for mitigation. MP, SF, MD, SM, IB, LB, VK Ecological mitigation Indigenous vegetation communities identified by the Project have been appropriately mitigated. MP, SF PW (insufficient information on original soils) SM (insufficient quantity and quality) MD (lack of certainty regarding outcome), TP (link between loss & mitigation unclear). Concerns could be reduced by a new Condition G41a which required like for like habitat mitigation (including wetland class) as far as practicable. Refer to Transmission Gully Condition G25 for additional words regarding salvage of vegetation and soils. 1.8 ha of indigenous wetland vegetation (based on site visits and descriptions of wetland vegetation communities) is the amount of wetland vegetation lost in the project footprint and the correct number for determining the mitigation and offsetting required. MP, SF, MD (confirmed for Raumati South area), SM, TP Planted flood offset storage areas can provide ecological mitigation if designed and planted in accordance with ecological principals. MP, SF, LB, PW, TP, MD, VK (fish and aquatic habitat). SM, PW, MD & TP (concerns regarding like for like habitat loss). The group agrees that this could be resolved with a condition regarding like for like. Refer to condition G41a recommended above. Flood storage areas and stormwater treatment ponds should be managed to avoid negative ecological effects (e.g. invasive weed and mosquito production). MP, SF, LB, PW, TP, MD, SM MM raises the issue regarding temporary standing water, mosquito breeding and potential to exacerbate seasonal mosquito Page 5 of 23

6 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation nuisance on adjacent properties, and contribute to occasional wider irruptions. PW & SM concerned that current conditions do not adequately integrate the various plans and ensure landscape and other activities optimise their contribution to ecological mitigation. Stormwater swales can provide an ecological benefit if designed and managed with ecological principles. MP, SF, MD, SM, PW, LB, VK. 3.8 ha of indigenous terrestrial vegetation (based on site visits and descriptions of vegetation communities) is the amount of vegetation lost in the project footprint and the correct number for determining the mitigation and offsetting required. MP, SF, SM PW (does not cover all habitat loss e.g. original soils) 7.6 ha of terrestrial mitigation (in the form of mass indigenous planting and enhancement) is sufficient offset or mitigation for 3.8 ha of affected terrestrial dryland vegetation. MP, SF PW (depending on the quality of vegetation & habitat produced), SM (quantity and quality & achievement of like for like mitigation of vegetation and habitat types) Concerns could be reduced by a new Condition G41a which required like for like habitat mitigation as far as practicable. Refer to Transmission Gully Condition G25 for additional words regarding salvage of vegetation and soils. Mitigation for the potential hydrological effects on wetlands should be required before an effect has been observed. MD, SM (the risk and uncertainty regarding hydrological effects), PW (the creation of risk is itself an effect) MP, SF (quantum of effect cannot be determined and may not occur, and effects may be remedied if they do occur. Remedy should be the focus). Page 6 of 23

7 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation Mitigation is required if there are hydrological effects on wetlands and cannot be avoided or remedied through adaptive management. MP, SF, MD, PW, SM See Condition G40. PW& SM have concerns about Condition G40C(ii). MP suggests that this can be resolved through a condition including WRC. The conditions relating to the EMP and LMP ensure effective ecological mitigation for terrestrial habitats and wetlands. MP, PW, SM, SF, TP & MD SM has concerns about long term maintenance. TP has concerns about long term legal protection of areas of mitigation Amend condition G43E to refer to invasive weeds and to delete the term significant from this clause. Amend condition DC54b to add a purpose for the LMP related to giving effect to ecological mitigation planting of terrestrial vegetation and wetlands. Lizard management plan It is appropriate to conduct lizard relocations in the vicinity of the El Rancho wetland, which has been identified as a priority habitat. MP, SF, SM This is reference in Condition G34d(vi). PW has concerns about the wording of condition G34d(vi). Korthalsella protection Korthalsella salicornioides (dwarf mistletoe) populations are sufficiently avoided so as not to require a specific condition. MP, SM Fernbird There needs to be an additional requirement to create specific fern bird habitat as part of terrestrial mitigation, for the loss of fern bird habitat. LB, SM, MD Page 7 of 23

8 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation Fernbird monitoring is to be agreed with the Department of Conservation. Predator control is required to protect Fernbird, improve habitat values and mitigate the effects of the project. LB, SM, MD SM LB Wetland hydrology Consent conditions need to more clearly define the purpose for which management trigger values are set specifically to ensure changes are identified early enough to be able to respond appropriately. MP, PW, SF, MD, SM PW notes also that improvements are needed to other aspects of the monitoring condition Monitoring Requirements The proposed condition to increase sediment and erosion control at the other identified wetlands will ensure these areas are given due regard and protection during construction. MP, SM, MD, SF SM however has concerns about potential effects on Te Harakeke Wetland The combination of groundwater monitoring (piezometers) and wetland condition monitoring is appropriate subject to the inclusion of photo points in each wetland. MP, SF SM & MD SM & MD agree that this is necessary, but seek an improved understanding of the hydrological categorisation of the wetland (e.g. discharge, recharge, perched). There are methods to counteract potential adverse groundwater effects on wetlands should they be identified as at risk during the monitoring. These need to be investigated in more detail prior to the commencement of earthworks. MP, SF, MD, SM PW (insufficient information to determine that the methods could adequately address changes) PW also has concerns about the risk that consenting processes will delay implementation and reduce the effectiveness of adaptive management. SM (methods need to be investigated in more detail to provide greater certainty that they will address any potential adverse effects) Page 8 of 23

9 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation A pre-construction survey of mosquitoes is necessary in the areas where flood storage areas and stormwater treatment ponds are proposed along with the development of a contingency plan where seasonal and weather conditions may promote the build-up of mosquitoes. There should be proper design of flood storage areas to minimise mosquito population build-up. MM, SF & VK (agree to proper design of flood storage & stormwater, and need for contingency plan), IB SF & VK (disagree with pre construction survey, ongoing monitoring) The experts accept the rationale for the proposed terrestrial mitigation as being restricted to within the designation (with exception of Waikanae Oxidation Ponds). MP MD, SM, PW MD suggests that a whole landscape approach should have been used to identify mitigation areas. SM suggests that better ecological outcomes could be achieved through not being restricted to the designation The experts agree with the type of and proposed locations of the proposed wetland mitigation (both within and outside of the Designation). MP, SF MD, SM, PW (lack of detail) MD & SM believe that this could be addressed through additional detail and including site-specific plans. Condition G43 provides adequate mechanisms for long term legal protection of mitigation areas and the ability to carry out mitigation related activities. MP, SF SM, MD& PW(certainty of protection in perpetuity of ecological areas plus mitigation areas) Changes to G43 could help to resolve this by referencing the areas of valued wetlands and terrestrial habitats in G41, and providing a more certain protection mechanism than G ha of wetland mitigation in the form of newly created and restored wetlands is sufficient offset or mitigation for 1.8 ha of affected wetland. MP, SF (adequate given values of wetlands & given additional benefits of landscape mitigation wetland works) PW (insufficient information on original soils and likely loss of unique areas), SM (significance of what will be lost & adequacy of mitigation to address effects; SM lack of detail and certainty of landscape mitigation works to achieve ecological outcomes as a primary purpose and achieve like for like mitigation. Page 9 of 23

10 Issue (and sub issues) Key facts and assumptions Position Agreed Disagreement with reasons Explanation landscape mitigation works have not been included as proposed ecological mitigation) The effects of the project can be mitigated within the permanent designation. MP, SF, LB (Fernbird based on current knowledge), VK (noting some stream mitigation lies in Kakariki Stream outside designation) PW (insufficient information on original soils and likely loss of unique areas), SM & IB (quantity of mitigation) There will be better ecological outcomes if terrestrial, wetland and freshwater mitigation are integrated and if the focus is on less fragmented areas. All There is 43.5 ha of potential wetland restoration available (based predominantly on well designed, mass indigenous planted flood offset storage areas) within the designation to mitigate for a worst-case scenario or 16.3 ha of wetland loss outside the designation associated with hydrological change. MP, SF SM (lack of detail and certainty of flood mitigation design to achieve ecological outcomes as a primary purpose), PW (lack of detail) PW does not agree that the conditions adequately address the expectation that planted flood management areas will provide ecological value. Consent conditions / EMPs The conditions related to the EMP clearly specify the outcomes that the EMP must achieve. MP, SF PW (drafting of conditions does not achieve that) 7 November 2012 Signatures attached Page 10 of 23

11

12 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Dr Mary McIntyre 7 November 2012 Page 11

13

14

15 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Tim Porteous 7 November 2012 Page 14

16 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Dr Ian Boothroyd 7 November 2012 Page 15

17 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Alton Perri 7 November 2012 Page 17

18

19

20

21

22

23 BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL Dr Sharon De Luca 7 November 2012 Page 22