Statement of evidence of Dr Wayne Donovan (freshwater ecology) for the

Transcription

1 Before a Board of Inquiry under: the Resource Management Act 1991 in the matter of: applicant: Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the Ara T hono P hoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance P hoi to Warkworth Section New Zealand Transport Agency Requiring Authority Statement of evidence of Dr Wayne Donovan (freshwater ecology) for the New Zealand Transport Agency Dated: 23 January 2014 Paula Brosnahan (pbrosnahan@furthernorth.co.nz) Luke Hinchey (lhinchey@furthernorth.co.nz)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 MY ROLE... 5 EXISTING FRESHWATER ECOLOGY... 5 Introduction... 5 Status of streams in Project area... 6 Riparian vegetation... 9 Stream morphology Sediment Ecological value and condition Wetlands METHODOLOGY Methodology for defining intermittent and permanent streams ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY EFFECTS Assessment of effects during construction Assessment of effects during operation MITIGATION OF EFFECTS ON FRESHWATER ECOLOGY Intermittent streams Permanent Streams avoidance in design Permanent Streams - Stream enhancement/restoration method Fish relocation RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS Director-General of Conservation submission (106198) Auckland Council submission (106085) Queen Elizabeth II National Trust submission (106110) Response to other submitters RESPONSE TO SECTION 149G KEY ISSUES REPORTS RESPONSE TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY THE BOARD CONCLUSIONS ANNEXURE... 0

3 1 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR WAYNE DONOVAN FOR THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE 1 My full name is Wayne Francis Donovan. 2 I have a Bachelor of Science, a Master of Science (Hons) and a Ph.D in zoology from the University of Auckland, and I specialise in freshwater ecology. I am a founding director of Bioresearches Limited (now Bioresearches Group Limited) that was formed in I am a certified Hearings Commissioner, an Associate of the New Zealand Planning Institute and a member of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society. 3 I have 41 years of experience as a consulting biologist. During that time I have coordinated and participated in a number of surveys of freshwater aquatic habitats throughout New Zealand, India and the South Pacific. I have also undertaken two study tours of pulp and paper mill and gold mining operations in North America and Europe, with particular emphasis on examining the effects of discharges from these operations on freshwater aquatic environments. 4 In New Zealand, I have undertaken and coordinated surveys and presented evidence as an expert witness in resource consent hearings for the following projects: 4.1 Assessments of the impacts of discharges from the Caxton Paper Mill (Kawerau) on the water quality and ecology of the Tarawera River ( ). 4.2 Assessments of the potential effects of discharges from goldmines in both the South Island (Macraes Mining - Macraes and Reefton) and North Island (Waihi Gold Mining Company - Waihi) (1983 to 2005). 4.3 The effects of flow changes on the ecology of rivers and streams associated with the Wheao, Hinemaiaia, Tongariro, Matahina and proposed Kaituna Hydro Electric Schemes ( ). 4.4 Evaluation of rivers and streams in the Grey and Buller River catchment and presented evidence on the same at the Water Conservation Order hearings associated with those two rivers(1988 and 1992). 4.5 Coordination of ecological surveys of 44 streams in the mid- Waitemata Urban area of Auckland City, for the Auckland Regional Council (1997). 4.6 Whitebait migration monitoring on several Auckland rivers (Kaukapapa, Wairao) for the Auckland Regional Council (1989).

4 2 4.7 Coordination of ecological surveys monitoring the effects of forestry operations ( ) on streams in the Mahurangi Forest (Mahurangi West - Pohuehue: Mahurangi East - Dome Valley) for Carter Holt Harvey Forests Limited. 4.8 Evaluation of the effects of the development of the Eastern Motorway (Tauranga) on adjacent freshwater aquatic habitats (2007). 4.9 Coordination of freshwater assessments associated with resource consent investigations for the PenLink access road to Whangaparaoa Peninsula (1999) Assessments of the effects of numerous projects (Kaihikatea Landfill, Kawakawa Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Disposal, urban development at Flat Bush, urban development at Long Bay, Waimahia and Gills Road Subdivisions, Brookby Quarry) on the ecology of freshwater habitats throughout the Auckland Region Each of these projects involved significant areas of earthworks A review of the operation of culverts on the ALPURT section of the Auckland Northern Motorway for the Further North Alliance (2013) Input to the review of draft NZTA guidelines for fish passage (2013). 5 My evidence is given in support of the New Zealand Transport Agency s (Transport Agency s) Notices of Requirement and applications for resource consent lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Ara T hono P hoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance P hoi to Warkworth Section (the Project). 6 I am familiar with the area that the Project covers. I am the author of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report that informed the Assessment of Environmental Effects lodged in support of the Project. 7 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in the Environment Court s Consolidated Practice Note (2011), and I agree to comply with it as if this Inquiry were before the Environment Court. My qualifications are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

5 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 This evidence addresses the freshwater habitats that are located within the proposed designation for the Project and identifies the ecological values of the freshwater habitats, potential adverse effects of the Project on those values, and my recommendations to avoid, remedy or mitigate these potential adverse effects. I also address concerns raised by submitters relevant to my area of expertise. 9 Streams within the proposed designation are either intermittent or permanent, as defined in the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP: ALW). The streams drain into two main river catchments; the Mahurangi and Puhoi Rivers. 10 My team and I assessed the habitat quality of all the intermittent streams to be poor, and the permanent streams ranged from poor to very good (based on such factors as extent of riparian cover, and diversity of macroinvertebrates and fish). We found that the modified areas had lower quality, while those with indigenous vegetation had higher quality. 11 Wetlands affected by the indicative alignment 1 contain poor quality aquatic habitats. The flora and fauna of the permanent streams assessed comprised some aquatic macrophytes and macroinvertebrates dominated by species such as midge and sandfly larvae and snails, that are able to tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions. The intermittent streams, which were devoid of water, are likely to contain very limited aquatic biota. 12 I selected permanent streams to survey, that are representative of catchments within the proposed designation and by considering catchment use, stream size and location. 13 At my direction, our team of ecologists conducted detailed habitat assessments, including sampling water quality, flora and fauna, habitat characteristics and Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) on five representative permanent streams. Most of the intermittent streams were visually assessed. Additional information was obtained from Auckland Council and the New Zealand Freshwater Fisheries Database (NZFFD). 14 My assessment of intermittent and permanent streams has been refined since my Assessment Report. We have used hydrological modelling to identify the relationship of groundwater with streams to confirm the status of intermittent and permanent streams crossed by the indicative alignment. 1 A preliminary design alignment assessed by technical experts that may be refined on detailed design within the designation boundary.

6 4 15 I examined the information provided by the Project s water specialists 2 on the existing water quality and stream flows within the proposed designation during construction, and the measures the Contractor will undertake to treat water runoff prior to discharge to these streams. 16 I consider the effect of the Project s construction on the intermittent stream habitat to be no more than minor. My opinion is based primarily on the poor quality habitat in those streams at the time of categorisation. In my opinion, no mitigation is required, except for fish passage in some cases. 17 The indicative alignment avoids effects on more significant stream environments by bridging or arch culverting. Where permanent streams cannot be avoided, I recommend undertaking a stream evaluation using protocol developed by the Auckland Council known as the SEV methodology (SEV method). 3 I recommend commensurate replacement for streams above a certain SEV ranking. 18 The Project s operation may affect freshwater habitats and aquatic organisms due to stormwater discharges but overall the effects will be no more than minor. 19 To assess the operational effects, I examined the information provided in the Operational Water Assessment Report about the Project streams hydrology, the modelling outputs for water flow and contaminants, and the best practicable options for operational water treatment systems. I also examined the post-construction ecological monitoring data from the Northern Gateway Toll Road (NGTR). 20 In cases of intermittent streams and low value permanent streams, no mitigation is required apart from fish passage in some cases. The change of habitat of some permanent streams will be replaced elsewhere in the designation. 21 Overall, I am satisfied that the mitigation I have proposed and which is now captured by conditions, is proportionate to the effects of the Project on freshwater ecology. 22 I have considered the submissions relevant to freshwater ecology. 4 In response I have reviewed the proposed conditions for the Project and recommended some amendments Construction Water Assessment Report Page 21, Section 3. Storey et al (2011) Stream Ecological Valuation: a method for scoring the ecological value of Auckland Streams. Auckland Council Technical Report 2011/009. Director-General of Conservation (106198), Auckland Council (106085), Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (106110) and local residents: Westgate (103627); Donnellan (104542); Pearman (105300); Fernbrook Farm (106186); Court (103679); Anderson (105089); Gowing (105371) and Gowing (106013).

7 5 MY ROLE 23 I am responsible for coordinating Bioresearches input into the freshwater ecology component of this Project. I have supervised my colleagues 5 in the preparation of the Freshwater Assessment Report, which included evaluating the status (intermittent or permanent) of streams within the Project area. 24 I have also been involved in discussions with the design engineers and scientists who prepared the Construction and Operational Water Assessment Reports for the Project. I have also participated in Project meetings with Auckland Council and the Department of Conservation. 25 I also supported the Transport Agency s application for a certificate of compliance (Reference REG-60933) for Project works in intermittent streams (COC Application), which was filed after the Project applications were lodged with the EPA. This COC work included providing technical inputs into responses to further information requests by the Auckland Council dated 18 October EXISTING FRESHWATER ECOLOGY 6 Introduction 26 The Auckland Region contains much smaller rivers and streams than many other places in New Zealand. 7 The characteristics of these water bodies depend on factors such as geology, topography, land-use, hydrology and the position of the river/stream in the catchment. The character of a stream in any one location also reflects its position in the catchment. The Project catchments have a number of potential uses and values, which include supporting aquatic ecology, cultural values, stock use, aquaculture, potable water and recreation. 27 In summary, with respect to the streams within the proposed designation, the intermittent streams my team and I assessed were essentially watercourses devoid of biota due to the fact that most of them were dry at the time of the assessment. They may, however, provide fish passage during flow. 28 The representative permanent streams within the proposed designation have characteristics, such as water quality, hydrology and biota, that are similar to those in forested and pasture catchments throughout the Auckland Region. These streams contain poor (low quality riparian Treffery Barnett M.Sc. (Hons); Keren Bennett B.Sc., PG Dip. Sci. Wildlife Management; Ria Rebstock B.Sc., PG Dip. Sci. Environmental Science; Dylan van Winkel M.Sc. (Hons), PG Dipl. Ecology and Entomology; Chris Wedding M.Sc. (Hons). The methodology I used to assess the existing freshwater ecology of waterways within the proposed designation is presented in the section following this description of the existing environment. ARP:ALW, Section

8 6 vegetation, low diversity of macroinvertebrates and fish species) to very good (extensive riparian vegetation, diverse macroinvertebrate and fish fauna) aquatic habitats The small scale of river and stream resources in the Auckland Region makes them more susceptible to effects from land use activities than larger streams. Small streams can be easily subject to physical modification through channelisation and the removal of riparian vegetation. These streams typically have a soft substrate, variable hydrology and are shallow and narrow. Status of streams in Project area 30 For my assessment, I characterised streams within the proposed designation as either intermittent or permanent using the definitions of these streams contained in the ARP: ALW. I identified some watercourses as artificial watercourses because these features (typically farm drains) did not meet the definition of a stream under the ARP: ALW. 31 Since the Project application was lodged, I have further assessed the stream categories for the purposes of the Agency s COC Application. Based on that work, in summary, I have confirmed that streams crossed by the indicative alignment are categorised as follows: intermittent streams; permanent streams; and artificial watercourses. 32 I am uncertain as to the classification of a further 7 streams crossed by the indicative alignment, which I discuss below. 33 I have prepared an updated Table of all the watercourses, their classification ( permanent, intermittent, artificial or uncertain ), and the nature of the Project works proposed for each (ie diversions, culverts, bridges and viaducts). I have included this Table A-1 in Annexure A. This Table provides an update to the Ecological Status data listed in Table 5 of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report. 34 I have also prepared an updated series of Figures (Figures A-1 to A-4) that replace Drawing FE-101, which are also attached to my evidence in Annexure A. These Figures illustrate all of the watercourses identified in Table A-1 and are also contained in Annexure A. Intermittent streams 35 An intermittent stream is defined under ARP:ALW as any stream or part of a stream that is not a Permanent Stream." 8 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30).

9 7 36 The Auckland Region has around 4,480km of intermittent streams. 9 With respect to the proposed designation, I have confirmed 19 streams as intermittent, and I have identified an additional 7 streams as being potentially intermittent, but requiring further assessment prior to construction (Annexure A). The catchment area for each watercourse is presented in Table 5 of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report. 37 With respect to the Puhoi catchment, I identified 12 streams as intermittent. The 12 intermittent streams had catchment sizes that ranged from 0.64 ha (P10a) to ha (P6), with a mean size of 9 ha. The indicative alignment south of Puhoi Road includes culverts for intermittent streams P2, P3, and P3a. These streams drain grazed pasture and have minimal riparian shading. To the north of Puhoi Road, the balance of the intermittent tributaries (P5, P6, P9a, P9b, P10a, P11a, P11f, P11g and P12) drain forestry pine blocks. 38 Overall, these intermittent streams contained poor quality habitat, low banks with poorly defined flow paths, generally soft substrate and very limited aquatic habitat suitable for aquatic plants, macroinvertebrates and fish. The intermittent streams in the lower Puhoi catchment had little riparian vegetation, while those in the forest were well-shaded but contained little free-standing water. 39 In the Mahurangi catchment, 7 streams (M13, M13b, M21a, M21c, M21d, PA200A, PA500A) were defined as intermittent. These had catchment sizes that ranged from 1.58 ha (M13b) to 8.63 ha (PA200A) with a mean size of 5.3 ha. Streams M13 and M13b were located within pine forest in the southern part of this catchment, with the balance of the streams in the northern part of the catchment being located within pasture. 40 As with the intermittent streams in the Puhoi catchment, those in the pine forest in the Mahurangi catchment were characterised by poorly defined flow paths and very limited aquatic habitat suitable for aquatic plants, macroinvertebrates and fish. The flow paths of many of these streams were covered by pine needles and associated organic litter from the pine forest. The streams in pasture had well defined flow paths (some of which were considered to be artificial watercourses) but limited riparian cover (comprising grasses) and almost stagnant water under low flow conditions (eg watercourse M19c requires walkover as indicated in Table A-1). Permanent streams 41 Under the ARP:ALW "Permanent River or Stream means downstream of the uppermost reach of a river or stream which meets either of the following criteria: 9 Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water 2010.

10 8 (a) (b) Has continual flow; or Has natural pools having a depth at their deepest point of not less than 150 millimetres and a total pool surface area that is 10 m 2 or more per 100 m of river or stream length. The boundary between Permanent and Intermittent river or stream reaches is the uppermost qualifying pool in the uppermost qualifying reach. 42 There are approximately 16,650 km of permanent rivers or streams in the Auckland Region. Approximately 90% are headwater streams with no more than one tributary and where width is generally less than 2 m. 10 With respect to the proposed designation, I identified 18 permanent streams in the Puhoi and Mahurangi catchments For the 5 permanent streams that are proposed to be culverted in the Puhoi catchment (P6a, P7, P9, P11b, P11c), the catchment areas assessed ranged from 2.47 ha (P6a) to ha (P9), with a mean area of 27.8 ha. 44 For the 6 permanent streams that are proposed to be culverted in the Mahurangi catchment (M13d, M21b, M22, M23a, M23b and M23c), the catchment areas assessed ranged from 2.23 ha (M21b) to (M22), with a mean area of 42.9 ha. 45 From the catchment data I have presented above, it is clear that the catchment areas of the intermittent streams are significantly smaller than the catchment areas of the permanent streams. 46 A comparison of our assessment of SEV method values (based on five representative permanent streams) with Auckland Council monitoring data indicates that: 46.1 Habitat quality of the permanent streams in the Puhoi catchment within the proposed designation was lower than that of the Puhoi River; 46.2 Permanent streams in the Mahurangi catchment within the proposed designation were similar to other streams in the Mahurangi catchment The habitat quality of the permanent streams ranged from poor to very good, and was largely determined by land use within the respective catchments. For example, the poor quality streams were located largely within rural catchments (eg stream M22) and were affected by stock (bank erosion, removal of riparian vegetation, development of aquatic Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 5 (page 24). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 4.4 (page 37).

11 9 plants), while the very good quality streams (e.g.m16) were located within forested (native/exotic) catchments and remained largely unmodified. 13 Riparian vegetation 48 Overall, the streams within the proposed designation for the most part have been significantly modified by land use activities (primarily forestry and farming), within their catchments. These activities have resulted in the removal or replacement of riparian vegetation, which has resulted in: 48.1 Increased erosion of the stream banks, with consequential increased sediment input to the streams; Increased peaking of stream flows; Development of soft-bottom substrates; 16 and 48.4 The development of in-stream aquatic flora and fauna tolerant of such conditions. Intermittent streams 49 The intermittent streams within the proposed designation for the most part had almost a total cover of pine trees for those streams within the exotic forest catchments. The riparian vegetation for those streams in the pastoral catchments consisted of grasses. Permanent streams 50 As with the intermittent streams, the catchments of the permanent streams within the proposed designation consisted of a mixture of forest (native and pine) and rural land use. 17 These land uses have resulted in the formation of aquatic habitats that range from poor to very good As a general comment, in catchments where there are remnants of native riparian vegetation, the habitat quality of the permanent streams in parts of these catchments is very good. The streams support diverse populations of fish and macroinvertebrates, as indicated by the data obtained at site M16 in the Mahurangi catchment In the forested catchments, where the native riparian vegetation has been replaced by pine trees, many of the smaller streams have become Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (Page 30). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 3.5 (page 30). Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 4.3 (page 33). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report Page 30, Table 6. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report Page 30, Table 6. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report Page 56, Table 11. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report Page 30, Table 6.

12 10 intermittent, as a result of factors such as the demand of the pine trees for the water, the tree canopy limiting the amount of rainwater entering the groundwater, and absorption of water within pine needle litter on the surface of the ground. Many of the intermittent stream flow-paths were also disrupted by pig rooting. 53 The conversion of catchments into pasture has often resulted in the removal of the indigenous riparian vegetation and replacement with grasses. In areas where livestock have gained access to these waterways, this has resulted in the destruction of stream banks and increased erosion resulting in the entry of increased amounts of sediment to these waterways. Removal of vegetation to facilitate grazing, and in particular removal of riparian vegetation, has also opened up the waterway to increased solar radiation, with resultant increases in water temperature. Removal of vegetation has also resulted in increased runoff containing both sediment and nutrients, the latter promoting the development of undesirable biological growths in the form of algae. Water quality data indicates that phosphorus concentrations in streams sampled along the proposed designation were elevated, although analysis of the hydraulic characteristics of the Mahurangi River indicated that this river has reasonably frequent floods that can flush periphyton and thus limit the growths of nuisance algae. 20 Stream morphology 54 A number of factors determine the morphology of a stream. In the case of streams within the proposed designation, primarily the geology and land use of the catchments, has resulted in the formation of small streams. Intermittent streams 55 The characteristics of the intermittent streams examined within the proposed designation are as follows: 55.1 average width of flow path: 0.2m; 55.2 average depth of flow path: 0.2m; 55.3 substrate: clay/mud; 55.4 aquatic plants: macrophytes limited to streams in rural catchments; 55.5 macroinvertebrates: nil; 55.6 fish species: nil. 20 Water Assessment Factual Report 4, Section (page 19).

13 11 56 Overall, the intermittent streams we assessed contained poor quality aquatic habitat, 21 which in my opinion is due largely to the absence of water at the time of the assessment. Permanent streams 57 The characteristics of the representative permanent streams examined within the proposed designation are as follows: 57.1 average width of water:1.0m; 57.2 average depth of water: 0.2m; 57.3 substrate: mud; 57.4 aquatic plants: nil (exception - rural stream - Site M22); dominant macroinvertebrate taxa: amphipods; 57.6 fish species: banded kokopu, shortfin and long fin eel, inanga, and several species of bullies As noted above, the substrates of the representative permanent streams that we assessed were predominantly soft-bottomed and dominated by clay and mud. 24 Such a substrate does not provide suitable habitat for the more sensitive freshwater organisms, such as some mayfly larvae, and does not act as a suitable substrate on which aquatic algae can develop. 59 As evidenced in the fisheries data, 25 these permanent streams are able to support a number of native fish species, such as shortfin and longfin eels, redfin, common and Cran's bullies, and banded kokopu, all of which are commonly found not only in the permanent streams in the P hoi and Mahurangi River catchments, but also throughout the Auckland Region. 60 I identified habitat quality, as indicated by a combination of the various indices (eg Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI); Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); and SEV Method) to range from poor to very good. 26 The streams supported a diverse fish population in areas such as the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 12 (page 58). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 11 (page 56).

14 12 upper reaches of Hungry Creek (ecological site P10) 27 and the upper reaches of the left branch of the Mahurangi River (ecological site M16). 28 Sediment Intermittent streams 61 Based on the visual assessments undertaken of the intermittent streams (forested and rural catchments) within the proposed designation, it is evident that land use activities, such as forest harvesting and farming, have resulted in sediment inputs to many of these streams. I acknowledge that many of these streams have natural clay/mud substrates. In my experience of monitoring the effects of forestry operations on streams, I have noted that the input of additional sediment (and associated nutrients) as a result of these activities further degrades the habitat quality of these streams. Permanent streams 62 Sediment input to the permanent streams within the proposed designation has the potential to also reduce the habitat quality of these streams. However, in my opinion, for the most part the hydrological characteristics of these streams, namely the flushing events, 29 means that the impact of sediment on these streams is short-term. The biota in these streams are of the type (eg midge larvae, sandfly larvae, eels, redfin bullies and banded kokopu) that are tolerant of sediment and able to colonise these streams In the case of streams within the forested catchments, primarily in the Mahurangi catchment, in the recent past harvesting of tree crops has modified the topography of these catchments. This modification has resulted in significant amounts of sediment entering these watercourses because of a general lack of sediment retention devices. 31. For example, total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in the order of 3,000 mg/l, which is considered to be very high, 32 were recorded in the Mahurangi catchment prior to and following forest harvesting in 1995 and The issue of sediment inputs into the Mahurangi catchment and the Mahurangi Harbour has been identified as a matter of concern by Auckland Council, and is the focus of the Mahurangi Action Plan and modelling undertaken by NIWA in Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 6 (page 30). Water Quality Monitoring Report, Section (page 21). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 5.1.1(d) (page 43). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 7.2 (page 108). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 7.2 (page 108). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 7.2 (page 108).

15 13 Ecological value and condition Intermittent streams 65 In my opinion, the ecological value of the intermittent streams is low, primarily because of the absence of water and the inability of these watercourses to support a diverse range of aquatic flora and fauna. 66 The ecological condition of intermittent streams within the proposed designation is poor, which in my opinion is due primarily to the absence of water in the forested catchment, and poor quality water in the case of the intermittent streams in rural catchments. The overall form of many of the streams in the forested catchments is that of an ill-defined watercourse. In many situations the watercourse is difficult to discern because of the presence of organic material, such as pine needles and pine branches. The absence of water has meant that aquatic biota normally associated with streams has not been sustained. 67 While the flow paths of the intermittent streams in the rural catchments are comparably well defined, these have often been impacted by stock, which has resulted in damage to the stream banks and the removal of any substantial riparian vegetation. This has resulted in enrichment of these streams, with the subsequent development of beds of aquatic plants which restrict water flow and limit the colonisation by a number of sensitive aquatic species (such as mayfly larvae) (ie sensitive species). Permanent streams 68 In my opinion, the ecological value of the permanent streams is comparable with streams found within similar land uses in the Auckland region. 69 In my assessment, 34 the ecological condition of the representative permanent streams ranges from poor to very good. Most of the poor quality permanent streams within the proposed designation are located within rural catchments. As with the intermittent streams within these catchments, the permanent streams have been adversely impacted by land use. The land use has limited the biota that is sustained by these streams to those species, such as midge larvae, worms and eels, that are able to tolerate a wide range of conditions ( tolerant species). 70 With respect to the permanent streams that contain very good quality habitat, these are associated with forested catchments (including mixed pine/native forest and catchments that are either completely or partially forested). These streams are able to support a diverse aquatic fauna (macroinvertebrates and fish) and a limited flora, the latter primarily because of the mud/clay substrate present and/or the degree of riparian cover. 34 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 11 (page 56).

16 14 Wetlands 71 As Mr Don has indicated, wetlands identified within the proposed designation are small with low botanical value and at best provide very temporary aquatic habitat. 35 Mr Don s analysis is supported by my observations and literature studies. As an example, I observed the absence of water in the Rakiura Wetland, which is protected by a Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Open Space Covenant, 36 during a visit (December 2013) following recent heavy rain. METHODOLOGY 72 The methodology I used to assess the existing ecology of the intermittent and permanent streams within the proposed designation consisted of: 72.1 A review of existing data and literature; 72.2 Selection of representative streams; 72.3 Site surveys and assessment and evaluation of representative freshwater aquatic habitats in both the P hoi and Mahurangi catchments; and 72.4 Visual surveys of most of the watercourses that will be crossed by the indicative alignment. 73 I obtained existing information from the NZFFD, Auckland Council database and a range of publications My assessments of the freshwater habitats were undertaken in two stages. The first stage, undertaken over the period October May 2011, included locations where the proposed alignment would cross five representative permanent streams throughout a representative range of land use types and catchments along what was, at that time, the preferred alignment These representative sites were based primarily on streams that flowed from the dominant catchment land use types, ie forest (native/exotic forest and rural), in the Puhoi and Mahurangi catchments. The selection was also based on representativeness of the substrate type, size of the stream, location within the particular Puhoi or Mahurangi catchment, proximity to the principal rivers in those catchments, existing habitat Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report, Section (page 23). Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (106110). Auckland Regional Council, (2010: State of the Auckland region 2009; Auckland Regional Council (2000): Fish Passage Guidelines for the Auckland Region; Bioresearches (2001) Schedewys Hill Realignment Ecological Characteristics; Joy, M and Henderson, I (2004), A fish index of biotic integrity (IBI) for the Auckland Region. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 3.2 (page 8).

17 15 quality data (Auckland Council monitoring data and fisheries data from the NZFFD), and proximity to the proposed alignment. 76 I supplemented these initial assessments by a second stage of visual assessments of a number of waterways in the vicinity of the proposed culvert locations within the proposed designation under low flow (70 year drought) conditions in March-April With respect to the representative permanent streams, my assessments involved collecting basic water quality and ecological data. Ecological data included recording habitat characteristics such as stream width, depth, substrate types, aquatic plants, macroinvertebrates and fish. 78 Water quality was assessed visually with temperature and dissolved oxygen recorded in-situ using a pre-calibrated YSI combined field meter. Characteristics such as surrounding land use, stream width and depth, substrate type and aquatic plants (dominant species - samples retained for laboratory identification) were assessed visually. 79 Macroinvertebrates were sampled in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment's current "Protocols for Sampling Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams using Protocol C2: soft-bottomed, semi-quantitative". Macroinvetrebrate samples were preserved in the field (using isopropyl alcohol) and returned to the laboratory and sorted using the "Protocol" P2 (200 fixed count & scan for rare taxa) as outlined in Stark et al (2001) 40 Macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest practicable level and counted by a qualified and experienced taxanomist. Taxa richness (the number of taxa) and community composition were also assessed and a number of biotic indices (Macroinvertebrate Community Index- MCI, Ephemeroptera, Plectoptera, Trichoptera - EPT taxa) were also calculated. 80 Fish were sampled using an EFM300 backpack electric fishing machine operated by qualified and experienced operators. Stunned fish were captured using a combination of scoop and stop nets. All fish captured were identified by the field scientists, counted and their size estimated before being returned to their habitats. This information was used to calculate a Quantitative Index of Biotic Integrity (QIBI) which indicates how intact the fish community is, based on altitude and distance inland in comparison to other Auckland sites Habitat data were collected by experienced and certified field scientists following the protocol developed by the SEV method. 82 The SEV method combines a broad range of physical, chemical and biological functions in a single, standardised, assessment framework that Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report Page 12, Section Stark et al (2001) Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams MfE. Joy, M and Henderson, I (2004), a fish index of biotic integrity (IBI) for the Auckland Region.

18 16 allows assessment and comparison of the health of a range of stream types. 83 The SEV method, which was developed in 2006, is continually under review and incorporates such functions as: 83.1 Hydraulic functions - natural flow regime, floodplain effectiveness, connectivity for natural species migrations, natural connectivity to groundwater; 83.2 Biogeochemical functions - water temperature control, dissolved oxygen levels, organic matter input, in-stream particle retention, decontamination of pollutants; 83.3 Habitat provision functions - fish spawning habitat, habitat for aquatic fauna; 83.4 Biodiversity provision function - fish fauna intact, invertebrate fauna intact, riparian vegetation intact. 84 The SEV method derives a ranking (0 = poor to 1 = excellent) for the stream's ecological function and may be used to compare the ecological values of streams. 85 Having assigned SEV method ratings for the surveyed streams, I compared the ecological status of the representative permanent streams within the proposed designation with Auckland Council data for the two major catchments (the Puhoi and the Mahurangi) This comparison indicated that the ecological functions of the two representative streams in the Puhoi catchment (P7 - forested; SEV 0.66; P10 - rural: SEV 0.53) were lower than the functionality of the Puhoi River site (SEV 0.82) monitored by Auckland Council. I attributed this difference to the fact that the Auckland Council site was in the headwaters of the Puhoi River, in a forested catchment, unlike the two representative sites for the Project that were on the lower reaches of tributaries of the Puhoi River (the Project sites were within the proposed designation) In the case of the three representative streams in the Mahurangi catchment, two of the assessment sites (M18/19 - rural/exotic forest: SEV 0.77; M22 - rural: SEV 0.54) were within the range of SEV rankings identified by Auckland Council for exotic forest ( ) and rural ( ) land use types in the Auckland Region. The other Mahurangi site (M16 - native forest: SEV 0.84) was within the Auckland Council exotic forest land use SEV ranking range ( ). In my opinion this result arose primarily because the native forest was essentially restricted to a Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 4.4 (page 38). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Figure 2 (page 37).

19 17 riparian band along the edge of a section of that stream upstream of the assessment site. Otherwise, if the native forest vegetation had been predominant in the catchment of this stream, I would have expected a higher SEV ranking and in the range SEV Methodology for defining intermittent and permanent streams 88 With respect to the determination of the status of the streams within the proposed designation, as indicated earlier, the methodology was based on the definitions 45 in the ARP:ALW. 46 The assessment of the streams in the Project Area was undertaken in two stages: 88.1 The first stage, undertaken in October - November 2010, identified seven streams as potential intermittent watercourses. This stage was very much a high level assessment as part of the scheme assessment phase The second stage, undertaken in March and April 2013, involved more detailed analysis of the streams crossed by the indicative alignment. This phase involved a full walkover of the alignment by me and my team. Visual examinations were undertaken, where practicable, of sections of 30 potentially intermittent streams. In some cases these streams were inspected by me and my team, on separate occasions. 89 In categorising each stream, my team and I used a range of criteria to help define the stream s status, particularly consideration of the key elements of the definition of permanent stream under the ARP:ALW, namely: 89.1 Flow patterns (continuous flow); or 89.2 Natural pooling having a depth at the deepest point of not less than 150 millimetres and a total pool surface area that is 10m2 or more than 100m of river or stream bed length. 90 My team and I also considered the following factors to help determine the status of the streams: 90.1 Their catchment land use(s); 90.2 Topography/steepness and the likelihood of there being pools further up-stream; Storey,R.G et al (2011) Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV): a method for assessing the ecological functions of Auckland streams. Auckland Council Technical Report 2011/009. Definitions recorded in the Glossary of Abbreviations, commencing from page ii of that Report. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Sections 2.1, 3.2, 3.4.1, Table 5, and Sections and

20 The catchment area and location of the stream in the catchment, and estimates of the likely flow during the period of the year (usually mid-late summer) when the watercourse is most ecologically stressed (low flow, high water temperature); 47 and 90.4 Evidence of habitat and potential for fish to move up and down the stream (ie to consider the possibility of there being pools of a sufficient size to support aquatic life upstream). 91 Where possible, we walked the entire length of each stream. There were a number of streams where we did not walk the entire upper length of the stream due to access restrictions (topography/vegetation or property access). We also took representative pictures of most streams and the surrounding land during our site visits. 92 For each stream, a groundwater modelling assessment by the Project groundwater specialists was also undertaken to supplement our assessment to respond particularly to a further information request provided to Auckland Council to support an application by the Transport Agency for a Certificate of Compliance for the intermittent streams. The Transport Agency s water experts prepared a three dimensional numerical groundwater model for the Project, which is documented in the Groundwater Modelling Report. The model has been calibrated to groundwater levels measured by the Project hydrologists in bores across the Project area. A static water level was used in the model representing an average groundwater level condition across the area (eg it was not calibrated for seasonal variations in groundwater levels). 93 The model was used by our groundwater specialists to identify where groundwater is intersecting the surface. I was informed that these areas are where the streams are likely to be fed for extended periods by groundwater and are more likely to be permanent, particularly in dry summer conditions. The areas identified in the model where the average groundwater level is close to the surface typically relate to the hilly topography, particularly in the deeply incised valleys. I understand that groundwater can emerge on valley sides in the form of seeps (generally higher up the catchment), and along geological boundaries in the form of springs. Springs typically indicate a permanent water course. Depending on the size of the contributing catchment, seeps are more likely to be intermittent. Due to the distinction between seeps and springs with regard to feeding streams, a second step was undertaken by the Project hydrological specialists to review the location of the zero groundwater contours in the context of the contributing surface water catchment. 47 For example streams M21a, c, d & PA 100A, 200A & 500A, as shown on Drawing FE-101 FE.

21 19 ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY EFFECTS Assessment of effects during construction 94 I assessed the effects of construction water discharge activities associated with the Project on the streams in the P hoi and Mahurangi catchments. 95 I consider that the principal activities associated with construction of the Project that may affect freshwater habitats and aquatic organisms are: 95.1 Cut and fill runoff (that is runoff from the formation of the road platform through ridges and valleys); 95.2 Construction water discharge; and 95.3 Associated stream works, such as filling, realignment and culverting. 96 All of these activities may result in: 96.1 Changes in water quality arising from the movement of soil with the potential to increase the amount of suspended solids (measured as TSS) entering the streams in the vicinity of the construction activities and depositing in the streams; 96.2 The total or partial loss of freshwater habitat (eg in areas where the spoil sites, stream diversions and culverting are intended to take place); and 96.3 Changes to fish passage (the reduction in the ability of organisms, primarily fish, to move through the streams, as a result of the placement of culverts). 97 My effects assessment involved examining the information provided by the Project s water specialists 48 on the existing water quality and flows of the streams within the proposed designation during construction, and the measures the Contractor will be required to undertake to treat runoff water prior to discharge to these streams. The ecological assessments informed the Project team s recommendations to apply a condition to the Project to limit the open area of earthworks in the hill country and flat land within the Mahurangi and P hoi catchments The erosion and sediment control measures will ensure that some 95% of the sediment will be removed in the sediment retention ponds. 50 As the component of the sediment removed from the runoff will primarily be the Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 3 (page 21). Proposed consent Condition 25. Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 5.1.1(b) (page 42).

22 20 larger grain sized material, 51 the sediment discharged into the streams will be fine grained and move through the streams into the marine environment where it will be dispersed and deposited once reaching the saline water. Dr De Luca assesses the related effects of sediment deposition in her evidence. 99 In my opinion, based on the Construction Water Assessment Report, the construction water discharges will result in an increase in TSS concentrations in streams downstream of the proposed designation. The effects of such increases on the aquatic biota will, in my view, be minor. In particular: 99.1 Most of the permanent streams I have examined along the indicative alignment are colonised by macroinvertebrates that are able to tolerate elevated TSS concentrations; I consider that the effects on native fish species will be minor given the species present in the streams affected by the Project are also tolerant of the predicted levels of TSS; 53 and 99.3 I do not expect a significant increase in the periphyton in the receiving streams as a result of increased nutrient inputs. As I have indicated the permanent streams affected by the Project are mainly soft-bottomed streams that are regularly flushed out by high flows I also assessed the main construction works activities (spoil sites and stream works) and I consider that the effects arising from these activities will be minor as: Spoil sites have been selected by a team of specialists, of which I was a member. Wherever possible, we deliberately identified sites in areas that did not contain permanent streams Spoil sites will result in the loss of aquatic habitat, however, in my opinion, the extent of that loss is minor, as the proposed stream diversions will replicate lost aquatic habitat; and While I acknowledge that culverting for the Project will result in a change in the quality of stream habitat, in my opinion, the proposed mitigation will adequately mitigate this loss Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 5.1 (b) (page 42). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section (d) (page 43). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section (d) (page 43). Water Quality Monitoring Report, Section (page 21). Mitigation is discussed later.

23 With regard to the amount of habitat change due to culverting, I have assessed the total length of culverts proposed for the indicative alignment. 56 In the P hoi catchment, there will be a change in the aquatic habitat of 406m (permanent streams) and 1409m (intermittent streams). In the Mahurangi catchment, there will be a change in the aquatic habitat of 455m (permanent streams) and 586m (intermittent streams). In addition to these streams, there are a further 7 unclassified streams that will be culverted in the P hoi and Mahurangi catchments (ie streams that I have not yet classified as permanent or intermittent). In these streams there will be a change in the habitat quality of 794m due to culverting. 102 I consider that the effect of the Project on the length of intermittent stream habitat will be no more than minor, primarily because of the poor quality of the existing habitat in those streams. As such, no mitigation is required for the effect of the Project on these streams apart from enabling fish passage in some cases, where upstream habitat suitable for fish is identified. With respect to the changes in the habitats of the permanent streams, I consider that these changes (as result of culverting and diversions) can be mitigated by appropriate measures, which I address later in my evidence. Assessment of effects during operation 103 The principal activities associated with the operation of the Project that may affect freshwater habitats and aquatic organisms relate to: Elevated concentrations of contaminants in the stream downstream from the stormwater discharges; Changes in waterflow; Culverting (fish passage) and stream diversions; and Stream diversions. 104 I assessed the effects of the operational aspects of the Project using the information provided in the Operational Water Assessment Report 57 relating to the hydrology of the Project streams, modelling output and the best practicable options that will be adopted for the Project s operational water systems. 105 I also examined ecological monitoring data from the NGTR 58 over the period post-construction The results of this monitoring of macroinvertebrates and fish indicated that there was not a consistent trend in terms of the effects of that project on the ecological health of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 5 (pages 24-26). Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 2 (page 14). Boffa Miskell Ltd (2011) Northern Gateway Toll Road. Ecological Monitoring Programme.

24 22 Otanerua, Nukumea or West Hoe streams. The habitat quality as measured has not deteriorated over this time. 106 Addressing the operational activities that have the potential to affect freshwater ecology, I note: Culverting as set out above, while the placement of the required culverts will result in a change of stream habitat, I consider that this effect is able to be adequately mitigated; Stormwater discharges while these discharges will contain contaminants, in my opinion, they will have a minor effect on the stream ecosystems, as the quality of the stormwater will meet the ANZECC guidelines. 59 The stormwater from the new impervious motorway surfaces and rock cuts for the Project will be treated by wetlands. 60 I have examined the information on the level of treatment proposed for the stormwater 61 and I am satisfied that the level of treatment will ensure that the overall effects of the discharge of treated stormwater associated with the Project will be minor. The Project s constructed wetlands will also provide potential aquatic habitats, as a result of aquatic and riparian planting, and access will be provided for fish where practicable. I understand that the Auckland Council has recently undertaken an assessment of methods, such as rope ladders, that can be implemented to assist fish passage into wetlands such as those proposed for this Project. I recommend a condition that ensures that the design of the stormwater wetlands incorporates measures to facilitate fish passage into these wetlands With respect to the effects of changes in flow, I examined the predicted hydrographs for the P hoi and Mahurangi catchments. 62 I note that the changes in flow, volume and time to peak are predicted to be small, and that the Operational Water Assessment Report 63 assessed the effects of the Project on overland flow to be minor and could be mitigated by bridges, culverts and stream diversions. Where a requirement for fish passage is identified by a suitably qualified ecologist following the baseline assessment required (proposed consent Condition 51) then such passage will be provided and will be based on the recent Transport Agency guidelines for fish passage Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section (page 49). Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 8. Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 6.6 (page 55). Operational Water Assessment Report, Section (page 100). Operational Water Assessment Report Page 73 Section 7.6.

25 Stream diversions for the Project will be designed to minimise environmental effects 64 through such measures as the replication of the existing stream profile and length as much as practically possible, 65 and resident fish species will be relocated prior to the commencement of instream works I have therefore concluded that the overall effects of the operational activities of the Project on freshwater ecology will be no more than minor. MITIGATION OF EFFECTS ON FRESHWATER ECOLOGY Intermittent streams 108 As the intermittent streams are poor quality aquatic habitats and the effects of the Project on these streams are no more than minor, I consider that no mitigation is required for the changes that will occur to these habitats as a result of activities, such as culverting. Permanent Streams avoidance in design 109 The effects of the Project on permanent streams, rivers and estuaries have been avoided because the indicative alignment provides for the placement of bridges or viaducts at ten crossings over these watercourses (Table A-1). As the piles for the viaducts will be constructed outside the floodplains of these streams, the habitat quality of the streams will not be altered and fish movement will not be impeded, in my opinion the effect of these viaducts on the streams will be minor. Permanent Streams - Stream enhancement/restoration method 110 With respect to mitigation of the effects of the Project on the permanent streams that are not avoided by the design, I consider that an approach based on the use of the SEV method is suitable for this Project. 111 This approach involves: Undertaking SEV rankings of the sites where there are proposed changes to the quality of the aquatic habitats (eg culverting) of sections of permanent streams and determining which SEV rankings are above 0.4; For those streams with a ranking above 0.4, determining the area of aquatic habitat that will be affected; Assessing the change in the SEV ranking of that area that will result from the Project activities in that stream section; Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 7.9 (page 85). Operational Water Assessment Report, Section 7.9 (page 85). Proposed consent Condition 57. Recommended threshold contained in Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) Technical Report 2011/009. Page 54, Section

26 Calculating the total reduction in SEV from the Project works for those streams with a ranking above 0.4; Determining suitable locations in the proposed designation for stream enhancement/restoration works. I note that there is substantial permanent stream area which would be available within the proposed designation for the stream enhancement/restoration works; Programming a range of enhancement and restoration works (such as riparian planting, habitat for aquatic fauna - ecological functions of the SEV method) within the designation designed to increase the SEV ranking of other streams to ensure the total reduction in SEV will be mitigated by the stream enhancement/restoration works. I recommend that the reduction in the SEV (that is, the SEV reduction due to culverting) should be mitigated based on the area where works affect the streams at a 1:1 ratio in permanent streams selected by a suitably qualified ecologist; Monitoring of the stream enhancement/restoration works at 3 and 5 years from the date of the road becoming operational by undertaking further SEV method rankings to assess whether the total reduction has been recovered; and Undertaking any further works during that period to ensure that following 5 years of the stream enhancement/restoration works being established, the total reduction has been recovered and is self-sustaining and protected. 112 I have proposed a set of conditions that will achieve this mitigation method As an example of how this method would work, I note that riparian planting alone could increase the SEV scores of 8 out of the 13 permanent streams we surveyed within the proposed designation by factors of between 0.1 and My analysis indicates that this action alone would be sufficient to mitigate the loss of the SEV functional score caused by culverting of a section of stream. 114 In my opinion, to optimise the benefit of this method, stream enhancement/restoration works should be undertaken within specified stream catchments within the Puhoi and Mahurangi River catchments in the proposed designation and integrated with other mitigation measures where possible (eg, wildlife corridors, restoration planting of wetlands and landscape mitigation). 68 Proposed consent Conditions 48,

27 In my opinion the above method is an appropriate approach to mitigation for this Project. Fish relocation 116 Fish should be recovered from sections of streams that will be subject to in-stream works and relocated using standard relocation procedures I consider that site-specific aquatic habitat assessments (SEV plus fish population assessment) should be undertaken in the permanent streams that will be culverted. Post-construction monitoring of culverted streams should also be undertaken to determine that the mitigation implemented is providing the outcomes required I also consider that the consents should include a condition requiring that the design of stream works in permanent streams shall consider fish migration and fish surveys, to assess the presence of fish that may require relocation, prior to the commencement of the stream works. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 119 The following are my responses to submissions received on the Project that relate to the freshwater ecosystems that are potentially affected by the proposed designation. Director-General of Conservation submission (106198) 120 Prior to receipt of the submission from the Director-General of Conservation (DOC) I attended a meeting in Hamilton with Department staff where I presented a summary of the Project work in which I have been involved. This presentation included a summary of the existing freshwater ecosystems and my assessment of the effects of the Project, which are the basis of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report. 121 During that discussion, DOC raised the question of the presence of the black mudfish within the proposed designation, as these fish have been found in wetlands in the Waikato (swampy lakes near Pirongia) and the Far North (Hikurangi Swamp). 71 In my investigations, no specific sampling was undertaken for mudfish as I considered that the aquatic habitat type that would support these fish (ie swampy areas) was not present within the proposed designation. While a number of wetlands have been recorded within the proposed designation, these are very poor quality 72 and, in my opinion, would not support these fish. No records of these fish were found in the NZFFD for this area Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 8.3 (page 59). Proposed consent Condition 59. R. M. McDowall (1990) New Zealand Freshwater Fishes. A Natural History and Guide. Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report, Section (page 23). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 4 (page 19).

28 26 Timing of assessments 122 DOC expresses concern that my ecological assessment of freshwater ecology was undertaken during a recognised period of drought and therefore the findings are not accurate representations of the existing environment (paragraph 13). While it is correct that a number of the assessments (primarily of intermittent streams) were undertaken during a drought (March-April 2013), the assessments of the representative permanent streams were undertaken during a range of flow conditions (October May 2011) 74 during the initial phase of the Project. 123 All of these assessments were undertaken to determine the status of the streams within the proposed designation, that is, whether they were intermittent or permanent using the definitions specified under the ARC:ALP. The definitions expressly state that (note (3)): (3) Assessment for determining Permanent rivers or streams and Intermittent streams may be undertaken at any time of the year. Once a reach of a river or stream has been assessed as satisfying the criteria for categorising the stream as an Intermittent stream, upstream of the point of assessment will continue to be considered an Intermittent stream. Details of the assessment should be retained for the purposes of demonstrating the stream s status as an Intermittent stream. 124 On that basis, in my opinion the streams do not need to be reassessed. The optimal time to assess a stream is when it is under its most stressed condition (at summer low flow). If we had examined the streams during winter we would have had to qualify our assessments for some streams that may be otherwise dry in summer. Fish sampling 125 DOC also expresses concern that fish were under-sampled (paragraph 14). While some fish sampling of the representative permanent streams was undertaken during the early assessments, 75 these data were obtained to supplement the extensive dataset presented in the NZFFD. 76 No fisheries sampling was undertaken during drought conditions as these assessments were primarily visual assessments of intermittent streams, which at the time were devoid of water. Level of detail 126 With respect to the concern expressed by DOC about the lack of sufficient detail relating to the extent of modification or destruction of freshwater habitat (paragraph 15), I consider that there is sufficient information presented in the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report and the Construction and Operational Water Assessment Reports, on the proposed Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 3.2 (page 8). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section 3.2 (page 8). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 4 (page 19).

29 27 modifications to the Project's streams. This includes such detailed information as the location, size, length and grade of the culverts, along with catchment size and ecological status of the streams The locations of the viaducts that will traverse the permanent streams are also presented in the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report (Table 5). 78 With respect to the impacts of the viaducts on permanent streams, as the support piles are located out of the stream beds, I consider the effects of these structures on the aquatic ecosystems will be minimal. 128 As best practices will also be used in the construction of the culverts and viaducts, 79 the effects of the construction activities on the aquatic ecosystems will, in my opinion, also be minimal. 129 With respect to the intermittent streams, sections of these streams will be culverted, with the culverts being constructed off-line and placed in the streambed during minimum flow conditions. In many situations, the placement will take place under zero flow conditions. Construction and placement of the culverts during these conditions will ensure that the effects of such culverting on the intermittent stream ecosystems will be no more than minor. Effects of sediment 130 Regarding the concern expressed by DOC (paragraph 16) about the potential adverse effects of sediment, I agree with the fact that sediment has the potential to have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. However, provided that the set of conditions proposed by the Transport Agency are followed, this potential will not be realised. 80 Sediment runoff generated from the Project will be treated to such a high standard (TP 90 specifications) 81 that the additional amount of sediment that will enter the Project streams will, in my opinion, have no more than minor effects on the freshwater ecosystems. 131 In regard to the fish habitat, or more particularly the macroinvertebrate habitat (predominantly riffle areas), most of the sediment discharged from the Project under high runoff conditions will be the fine component, as some 95% of the sediment comprising the coarse component will be retained in the sediment retention devices. 82 This fine sediment will pass over these areas and will either be deposited in the lower velocity pools or move downstream into the harbour. As the majority of the streams within the proposed designation are soft-bottomed streams, there are very few Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 5 (page 24). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 5 (page 24). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 4 (page 37). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section (page 41). Construction Water Assessment Report, Section 5.1 (page 51). Construction Water Assessment Report, Table 20 (page 112).

30 28 riffle areas throughout these streams. Riffle areas are important features because these areas support the greatest diversity of habitat, primarily for macroinvertebrates but also for some fish. 132 While DOC has also expressed concern about the possibility of sediment smothering fish eggs deposited in the streams, in my opinion, such smothering is very unlikely to occur. This is because little sediment will be deposited in the fast flowing riffle areas. In addition, all of the native fish species recorded in the two catchments (P hoi and Mahurangi) do not spawn in areas of the stream where sediment deposition may occur (eg they tend to spawn in the grassed banks of the flood plain (inanga) on woody debris (bullies) or in the case of eels, spawn off the coast of Tonga). Proposed conditions 133 Regarding the draft consent and designation conditions proposed by the Transport Agency, the submission from DOC (Attachment 2, Item H) considers that conditions specifying the measures to be undertaken for managing the effects on all freshwater fauna and habitat should be included in the consents. I agree with the need to manage the effects of the Project on freshwater ecosystems and consider that a number of the consent conditions proposed by the Transport Agency have been included to ensure that the effects of the Project will be appropriately managed. 134 I would draw attention to the proposed consent conditions associated with preconstruction monitoring, which requires stream habitat evaluation using SEV to be undertaken to confirm baseline environmental conditions. Refer to proposed consent Condition Also, erosion and sediment control criteria (Condition 17) including design, construction and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control devices to achieve TP90 (to limit the amount of sediment that will be discharged to the freshwater receiving environments) have been included in the proposed conditions. There is also a requirement (proposed consent Condition 48) to design streamwork construction methodologies, including stream assessments, fish species assessment, fish migration assessment and any fish relocation provisions, to minimise the effects of the Project on freshwater ecosystems. 136 With respect to fish passage, proposed consent Condition 50 requires that the design considerations for stream work includes consideration of fish species and fish migration assessment. A preliminary assessment of this requirement is presented in the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report (Table 5) Proposed consent Condition 57 has been proposed to minimise the effects of the streamworks on resident populations of fish. It will require that fish 83 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Table 5 (page 24).

31 29 present in sections of stream affected by Project works are recovered and transferred to another section of the stream before work commences and that barriers are put in place to keep them out of the work area. 138 Regarding the concern expressed by DOC about riparian planting, I have discussed my views as to the adequacy of mitigation earlier, and I have recommended a revised Condition 58 and a new condition related to post- Construction Works monitoring to give effect to the outcomes I seek in this regard. Auckland Council submission (106085) 139 In commenting on the proposed consent conditions relating to preconstruction monitoring (proposed Condition 10), 84 the Council has submitted that the stream survey and transects should be undertaken using the SEV method. I agree as this is a recognised standardised stream assessment procedure commonly used in the Auckland Region, and will be used to determine the appropriate level of mitigation for changes to habitats on sections of permanent streams within the proposed designation. 140 I also agree with the submission by the Council that proposed consent Condition 39 be amended to require that watercourses identified as permanent be assessed using the SEV method, which is captured by the amended conditions discussed earlier. 141 With respect to proposed consent Condition 41, I agree with the Council's submission that a new condition should be added that requires the fish passage to be designed in accordance with the NZTA's Fish Passage Guidance for State Highways August 2013 which was always my intent given that is now standard practice on Transport Agency projects. 142 While I agree with the new condition (to supplement consent Condition 44) proposed by the Council regarding the monitoring of fish passage during several months, I consider that there should be a requirement to undertake this monitoring during optimum periods for upstream migration during the four months specified. 85 This period should be related to tidal movement and elevated flows that are known to stimulate upstream fish migration. 143 The Council has submitted that proposed consent Condition 47 be amended to require the Transport Agency to calculate the amount of mitigation required for the impacts of construction works on permanent streams using the ECR tool which is based on the SEV method. I do not consider that this amendment is necessary. My recommended proposal is to use the method described earlier Resource Consent Conditions as notified (30 August 2013). Proposed consent Condition 57.

32 30 Queen Elizabeth II National Trust submission (106110) 144 The Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (QEII Trust) expresses concern about the destruction and loss of the Rakiura Wetland, which falls within the proposed designation. The QEII Trust has requested that a full ecological survey of the wetland, including a survey of the aquatic habitat component of the wetland, be undertaken before any final decision is made around the alignment or the required mitigation. 145 I undertook a recent site visit to the Rakiura wetland (December 2013) with Mr Floyd (QEII Trust Regional Representative) and found that the wetland did not contain any aquatic habitat, despite a period of heavy rain a week prior to the visit. Overall, I concluded that this "wetland" comprised poor quality habitats (as described by Mr Don) and at the best would provide very temporary aquatic habitat during high rainfall conditions. 146 On that basis, I am unable to support the QEII Trust s request for a more detailed assessment of the potential aquatic habitats of this wetland. Response to other submitters 147 Other submissions expressed concerns about the effects of the Project on water quality, 86 aquatic habitats, 87 and native fish, 88 and environmental impact in general With respect to concerns about the effects of the Project on water quality, as I have indicated, in my opinion effects on freshwater ecology will be minor. The treatment devices for construction water runoff and stormwater, as detailed in the Construction and Operational Water Assessment Reports, will ensure that the water discharged from these devices (sediment retention ponds and wetlands) will have a minor adverse effect on the water quality of the streams within the Project footprint. On that basis, such treatment will ensure that the effects of Project discharges on aquatic habitats and the populations of fish within these habitats will, in my opinion, be no more than minor. 149 With respect to Mr Westgate s concern about the effect of the Project on aquatic habitats, 90 Mr Westgate asked for the use of bridges where practicable. I note that the design of the Project s indicative alignment has provided for bridges (or viaducts) for the crossings of the major permanent streams. This design is, in part, to ensure that the effects of these crossings on the streams are minimised Westgate (103627); Donnellan Family (104542); Pearman (105300); Fernbrook Farm (106186). Westgate (103627). Pearman (105300). Court (103679); Anderson (105089); Gowing (105371); Gowing (106013); and Thaller (105691). Westgate (103679).

33 Regarding submissions 91 that expressed concern about the overall high ecological impact of the Project, as I have indicated, with respect to the effects of the Project on aquatic ecology, in my opinion these effects will be minor. 151 With respect to the submission by Ms Court 92 in which she expresses concerns about the effects of the Project on a creek in her property through sediment and nutrient inputs, as I have indicated 93 the effects of increased sediment and nutrient concentrations on the aquatic habitats will be minor. In relation to Ms Court s concern regarding the effects of vibrations from the concrete pylons on the creek and surrounding area, in my opinion such vibrations will not have an effect on the ecology of the creek or surrounding area. This conclusion is based on my experience with aquatic habitat surveys where I have examined these habitats adjacent to bridges and compared the quality of these habitats with aquatic habitats in other stream reaches some distance from such bridges. RESPONSE TO SECTION 149G KEY ISSUES REPORTS 152 The following issues have been identified in the section 149G Key Issues Report relating to the freshwater ecology component of the Project With respect to the total amount of stream habitat to be modified, 94 for the proposed designation, my analysis indicates that the lengths of identified permanent streams (861m) that will be modified by the indicative alignment (through culverting) will be less than 1% of lengths of all of the streams within the two (Puhoi and Mahurangi) catchments (182,958m) With respect to the degree of mitigation required for the modification of these habitats, 95 as I have indicated, such mitigation will be commensurate with the amount of aquatic habitat that will be modified. This topic is discussed in detail earlier With respect to concern about the lack of any recognition of ecological value of the intermittent streams, I have discussed the reasons for my assessment of the ecological value of the intermittent streams as poor earlier. I have acknowledged that this assessment was undertaken during a period of a 70 year drought. However, that was the condition of the streams at this point in time. The ARP:ALW is clear in stating that intermittent streams are Court (103679); Anderson (105089); Gowing (106013); Gowing (105371). Court (103679). Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, Section (page 41). Key Issues Report, Section 7.11 (paragraph 1). Key Issues Report, Section 7.11 (paragraph 3).

34 32 defined at the time of assessment. I am aware that a number of studies 96 have shown that intermittent streams are able to support a diverse macroinvertebrate fauna (even in the mud substrate) and that these streams are able to function almost at the same level as permanent streams, once there is adequate water to support the aquatic flora and fauna. I note though that to some extent the fauna, in particular the macroinvertebrates, are only able to colonise an intermittent stream following a dry spell (when there is no water) if there is a source of recruitment, such as a permanent stream, in the vicinity of the intermittent stream. However, when there is no water, as encountered in our assessment, the ecological value of these types of streams under these dry conditions is poor. Had the assessment been undertaken during a wetter period then I would have arrived at the same conclusion about the habitat quality of the intermittent streams, I say this because of such factors as the lack of defined watercourse, general lack of flora and fauna and my experience with the habitat quality of such aquatic habitats. 153 In conclusion, in my opinion, while there will be some modification of sections of permanent streams within the proposed designation, this modification will be mitigated by appropriate enhancement of other sections of permanent streams using the SEV protocol I have outlined. RESPONSE TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY THE BOARD 154 In relation to the matters identified in the Board of Inquiry s direction dated 20 December 2013 as Unresolved Issues, I note: 155 Item 37 - I consider that my Report provides an adequately broad assessment of ecological value and significance. 156 Item 38 - Resource consent conditions have been provided that address concerns related to fish capture and transfer and further survey work Item 39 - I have detailed a proposed condition for mitigation based upon SEV. Mitigation measures could include riparian planting. 158 Item 40 - I consider that appropriate designation and resource consent conditions the Transport Agency has proposed to address ecological assessments following significant rainfall events; and in particular, the conditions identified as the Adaptive Monitoring Programme Storey et.al.,(2011) Biodiversity values of small headwater streams in contrasting landuses in the Auckland region. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. Vol.45. No.2 June ; Small headwater streams of the Auckland Region Volume 4: Natural values. Auckland Regional Council Technical publication No Proposed consent Condition 57. Proposed consent Conditions

35 Item 41 - The length of permanent streams within the proposed designation indicates to me that there is sufficient length of streams available to enable such mitigation to be undertaken. 160 Item 42 - I support the response in the table attached to the Board s direction. While it is accepted that riparian planting may be one of the forms of mitigation that will be implemented, the final decision on the type of mitigation to be undertaken will be determined by the type of aquatic habitat within the mitigation streams selected. 161 Item 43 - This item indicates that consideration should be given to other forms of in-stream habitat enhancement for fish species in culverts rather than just provision of fish passage. I acknowledge that the freshwater ecology investigation focusses on determining the requirements for fish passage. I agree, however, with the sentiment expressed in this item. In my opinion, culvert design could incorporate such design features as instream structures to control the velocity through the culverts and provide habitat (eg rough surfaces) for resident fish and macroinvertebrates, and daylighting (where the amount of enclosed culvert is minimised). Such features should be site-specific and based on information on the existing aquatic habitat and fish species that are utilising that habitat, and be cognisant of the fact that the principal role of a culvert is to convey water, not provide habitat for aquatic organisms, a fact that the design engineers often reinforce to biologists. 162 Item 44 - The methodology for quantifying each stream habitat being modified and the mitigation that will be undertaken forms part of the Transport Agency s proposed consent conditions. 163 Item 45 - I consider that an adequate assessment of the intermittent streams (albeit under 70 year drought conditions) has been undertaken. 164 Item 46 - The extent of intermittent and permanent streams will be assessed under the conditions, using the methodologies discussed earlier in my evidence. 165 Item 47 - I confirm my opinion that mitigation of stream habitat changes can be accommodated within the designation boundary. CONCLUSIONS 166 The Project will cross a number of intermittent and permanent streams typical of those of the Auckland Region. The intermittent streams generally contained a lack of aquatic fauna. Fauna discovered in the representative permanent streams during our assessments included a range of "tolerant" macroinvertebrate taxa and fish species, such as the inanga and redfin bully, that are in gradual decline (inanga, redfin bully) and one species, the longfin eel, which is at risk nationally.

36 In my opinion, the principal potential effects of the Project, on freshwater habitats, which are unable to be fully avoided by design include a reduction in water quality, as a result of stormwater discharges, a loss of aquatic habitat, as a result of culverting, and disruption to fish passage. 168 The effects of these activities will, in my view, be minor as: The treatment of the construction stormwater will ensure that the quality of the stormwater discharged, as a result of increased TSS, will be reduced to a short period and can be tolerated by the resident fish species; The operational stormwater will meet the ANZECC guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic life; Application of the SEV method to replace the loss of affected permanent stream habitats will mitigate the effects of the modification of aquatic habitats by activities such as culverting; Fish passage will be provided through culverts where adequate upstream habitat is available and I support a condition seeking that culverts also contain habitat features. 169 Fish transfers should be undertaken prior to any in-stream works occurring. 170 I have reviewed all relevant submissions and my views expressed in my technical report and the evidence that I present have not changed except to the extent discussed in this statement. Dr Wayne Donovan 23 January 2014

37 ANNEXURE A (Table A-1, Figures A1-A4) Table A-1 Crossings of Watercourses Watercourse Reference P1 P2 P3 P3a P4 P5 P6 P6a P7 P8 P9 P9a P9b P10 P10a P11 P11a P11b P11c Proposed work activities Okahu Viaduct to be constructed over the Okahu Creek estuary Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. New culvert. Motorway ramps and motorway to be constructed over the stream. New culvert. Puhoi Viaduct to be constructed over the Puhoi River. Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. Stream diversion around the spoil site and new culvert. Hikauae Viaduct to be constructed over the stream. Schedewys Viaduct to be constructed over the stream. Description Permanent, Estuarine (Okahu Creek) Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Permanent, Estuarine (Puhoi River) Intermittent Intermittent Permanent Permanent Uncertain - Requires survey Permanent Intermittent Intermittent Permanent (Hikauae Stream) Intermittent Permanent Intermittent Permanent Permanent

38 1 P11f P11g P12 M13 M13a M13b M13d M15a M16 M16a M18 M19 M19b M19c M21a M21b M21c M21d M21e Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. Stream is to be filled in. Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. The flow is to be diverted around the spoil site area and into a new culvert. stream. Any flow will be captured in a clean water diversion directed into a new culvert. stream. Any flow will be captured in a clean water diversion directed into a new culvert. Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. The stream will be diverted into a new culvert. Motorway and a potential spoil site to be constructed over the stream. Any flow will be captured in a clean water diversion directed into a new culvert. Perry Road Viaduct to be constructed over the stream. Stream to be diverted and Kauri Eco Viaduct to be constructed over the stream. Stream to be diverted and Kauri Eco Viaduct to be constructed over the stream. Wyllie Road overpass to be constructed over Wyllie Road and the artificial watercourse. Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Uncertain Requires survey Intermittent Permanent Uncertain Requires survey Permanent Uncertain Requires survey Permanent Permanent Uncertain Requires survey Uncertain Requires survey Intermittent Permanent Intermittent Intermittent Artificial watercourse

39 2 M22 Permanent M23 Woodcocks Rd Viaduct to be Permanent constructed over the River. (Mahurangi River) M24 Woodcocks Rd Viaduct to be Permanent constructed over the River. (Mahurangi River) M23 Flood Relief Bridge to be constructed over the diverted stream Permanent M23a Permanent M23b Permanent M23c Permanent M23d artificial watercourse with a possible Artificial cattle access track under the watercourse motorway. SH1-700 Uncertain Requires survey PA100A Access to land locked land to be Artificial constructed over the stream. New watercourse culvert. PA200A Access to land locked land to be constructed over the stream. New Intermittent culvert. PA500A Access to land locked land to be constructed over the stream. New culvert. Intermittent Note: Stream M19a is unaffected by the indicative alignment.

40 3

41 4

42 5

43 6