* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download John Turner - Ecology rebuttal evidence
Survey
Document related concepts
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Landscape ecology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Ecological economics wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Tree planting wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Farmer-managed natural regeneration wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY PEKA PEKA TO NORTH ŌTAKI EXPRESSWAY PROJECT In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the matter of a notice of requirement and resource consent applications by the NZ Transport Agency for the Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway Project And In the matter of a notice of requirement by New Zealand Railways Corporation / KiwiRail Holdings Limited (trading as KiwiRail) for the realignment of a section of the North Island Main Trunk railway line through Ōtaki STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF JOHN PAUL TURNER (TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY) ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 6 September 2013 Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitors Acting: Paul Beverley / David Randal Email: [email protected] Tel 64-4-499 4242 Fax 64-4-499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6140 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS 4 CONCLUSION 18 ANNEXURE A – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 20 Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is John Paul Turner. 2. I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2 to 4 of my statement of evidence-in-chief ("EIC") dated 12 July 2013. 3. My rebuttal evidence is given in relation to the notices of requirement and resource consent applications lodged by the NZ Transport Agency ("NZTA") and KiwiRail for the Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway (the "Expressway") and North Island Main Trunk ("NIMT") Railway realignment (together, the "Project"). 4. I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2011 and that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code. 5. I attended both rounds of expert ecology conferencing held on 21st and 28th August. I am a party to the outcomes of those conferences as recorded in the Joint Witness Statement on Ecology (the "joint statement") dated 28th August 2013. 6. An updated draft Environmental Management Plan ("EMP") is attached as Annexure A. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 7. In this statement of rebuttal evidence I will respond to the evidence of: (a) Ms Shona Myers, expert witness on terrestrial ecology on behalf of Kāpiti Coast District Council ("KCDC"); (b) Dr Philippa Crisp, expert witness on terrestrial ecology on behalf of Greater Wellington Regional Council ("GWRC"); (c) Ms Jennie Marks, expert witness on technical, planning and policy issues relating to biodiversity and wider ecological matters on behalf of GWRC; (d) Dr Ian Boothroyd, expert witness on aquatic ecology on behalf of GWRC and KCDC; and (e) Ms Paula Warren, expert witness on ecology on behalf of Rational Transport Society. 8. The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised. Rather, I rely on my EIC, Technical Report 11 in Volume 3 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects Report, and this rebuttal statement to set out my opinion on what I consider to be the key terrestrial ecology matters (including wetlands) for this hearing. Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9. I have read all of the statements of evidence provided by the submitters in relation to terrestrial ecology. 10. The key issues raised by submitters focus on the adequacy of ecological investigation that I have undertaken, the approach that I have taken to assess ecological values and the adequacy of mitigation proposed. 11. With the exception of my agreement to additional pre-construction surveys for banded dotterel and New Zealand pipit, I remain of the opinion that the nature and level of investigation that has been undertaken to assess the effects of the Project on terrestrial ecology has been adequate. 12. In terms of my assessment of significance, while for reasons outline below I do not agree that a “policy only” approach to the assessment of ecological values and the effects on those values is appropriate, the fact remains that the key ecological sites affected by the Project (which are also listed in Scheduled 3.1 of the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan) have been identified and determined to be significant. 13. While I agree that mature individual and small groups of native trees have an ecological value, this value is significantly compromised by the fact that they are not part of a functioning forest ecosystem. I remain of the opinion that they do not represent significant indigenous vegetation and note that these sites are not listed as Ecological Sites in Shedule 3.1 of the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan. 14. I remain of the opinion that the original proposed wetland habitat creation (Kennedy Wetland and wetland at Mary Crest) together with the covenanting and enhancement of Cottle’s Bush would more than adequately achieve, if not exceed, no net loss of ecological values associated with the small areas of habitat lost to the Project (0.45ha of bush and 0.5ha of wetland). 15. The new revised Mary Crest proposal to plant the Mary Crest “triangle” with swamp forest (discussed by the ecologists during conferencing and agreed by NZTA) will, in my opinion, achieve a significant net ecological gain. When combined with the protection of Cottle’s bush, or suitable alternative planting/bush protection, and the approximate 15ha of native trees and shrubs that will be created by the landscape planting (now to include a minimum 1000 totara, 100 matai and 100 titoki trees), the overall ecological values created by the Project will substantially outweigh any ecological losses that result from the Project. Page 3 EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS Ms Shona Myers, Terrestrial Ecology Loss of native bush 16. Ms Myers supports the proposed 1.4ha Cottle's bush covenanting and fencing for the mitigation of the loss of 0.45ha of native bush (paragraph 14). However, she considers, in addition to extra mitigation for the loss of native trees (see below), that there needs to be buffer planting (paragraphs 14 and 44), fencing (paragraph 52) and pest control (paragraph 52). 17. I consider that the proposed Cottle's bush offset exceeds a no net loss outcome and provides a substantial offset (as set out in paragraph 87 of my EIC). I have already recommended that this area be fenced (paragraph 86 of my EIC and section 6.2.1 of the draft EMP). I propose that gaps within this area be planted and that the area be maintained, including pest plant and animal pest (possum, rabbit and hare) control, for a period of five years. This is consistent with the agreed outcome in the joint statement (Annexure A, Row 38). The draft EMP has been amended accordingly. 18. I do not support long-term predator control beyond five years. Both I and Ms Myers agree that there are areas being lost to the Project footprint that have ecological value. This ecological value exists despite there being no predator control at present. Small fragments of bush are very difficult to protect from mammalian predators because of rapid reinvasion as demonstrated by research undertaken by King et. al. (2011)1. Their work throws substantial doubt on the value of long-term predator control for small bush fragments. 19. In my opinion it would only be worth attempting longer term animal pest control if there was a particularly rare species found living and breeding in a bush fragment (and then it would have to be tailored to that species). In reality most of the plant and animal species associated with these small fragments of habitat are able to do so because they can tolerate grazing or predation. In my view Cottle’s Bush will continue to support the plants and animals that are adapted to living in fragmented landscapes and will have significant ecological value without longterm pest control (as requested in by Ms Myers, paragraph 64(g)). 20. Although I was not involved in either project, from what I can determine neither Transmission Gully ("TG") nor MacKays to Peka Peka ("M2PP") have predator controls greater than I have proposed. 21. As set out in paragraph 87 of my EIC the Cottle's bush offset, at a ratio of 3:,1 exceeds the 2:1 ratio I consider appropriate. It therefore exceeds the "no net loss" approach to offsetting. Long-term legal protection and secure fencing is a critical aspect of this mitigation option. Most of the bush fragments and areas 1 King, C.M.; Innes, J.G.; Gleeson, D.; Fitzgerald, N.; Winstanley, T.; O’Brien, B.; Bridgman, L.; and Cox, N., 2011. Reinvasion by ship rats (Rattus rattus) of forest fragments after eradication, Biol. Invasions 13:23912408, Springer. Page 4 where there are mature nature trees impacted by the Expressway are currently grazed by stock. Without exclusion of stock, and active human intervention, these areas will continue to decline in ecological integrity and will eventually disappear. The legal protection provided by the QEII Covenant is also important because this provides long-term security i.e. fences must be maintained. 22. In my EIC (paragraphs 88-90) I proposed an alternative area for a bush loss offset at Mary Crest within the designation. This alternative is necessary should landowner agreement not be achieved for the covenanting of Cottle's bush. At paragraph 54 (see also paragraphs 57 and 62(b)) of her evidence Ms Myers states her opinion that planting in this area "would not replace forest and trees on the Hautere Plains which is a different soil type." 23. I now propose that if landowner approval is not received for the Cottle's bush offset proposal that the NZTA plants (and/or protects) a minimum of 1.5ha of native bush (totara-titoki-matai dominant) along the Hautere Plains between Mary Crest and the Ōtaki River. There are sufficient areas within the designation, or within land presently owned by the NZTA, to provide for this planting. As for Cottle's bush, these areas will be permanently protected (including stock exclusion) and maintained, including plant and browsing animal (possum, rabbit and hare) pest control, for a period of five years. Conditions G.34 and G.43 and section 6.1 of the draft EMP have been amended accordingly. 24. In my opinion this revised package, if the Cottle's bush option does not proceed, is appropriate and will achieve, at least, a "no net loss" as a result of the Project. Loss of native trees 25. In addition to the proposed Cottle's bush offset Ms Myers seeks mitigation for the loss of scattered mature native trees that form fragments of forest and provide ecological connections and corridors between remnants (paragraphs 13, 25, 31, 62(a)). Ms Myers refers to the loss of "over 100 mature trees" (paragraph 31) and seeks planting of at least 400-500 trees (totara, titoki, matai and kahikatea) to offset this loss (paragraph 64(j)(i)). 26. Ms Myers does not explain how she calculates her loss of "over 100 mature native trees". As my EIC makes clear (paragraph 40) the number of scattered mature native trees affected by the Project is about 40. The evidence of Jennie Marks (Paragraphs 6.1, 20, 27) refers to 40 mature trees being lost in addition to the loss of 0.45ha of native bush. The "over 100 mature trees" referred to by Ms Myers must also include the mature trees within the 0.45ha of bush remnant lost to the Project footprint.2 In that case Ms Myers is double counting the effect as the loss of the 0.45ha of native bush is already addressed by the proposed Cottle's bush offset. Double counting in the manner adopted by Ms Myers is not an approach I have encountered before. 2 This appears consistent with the wording of paragraph 62(c) of Ms Myers EIC. Page 5 27. My concerns as to double counting aside, I maintain my position (as set out in paragraph 45 of my EIC) that additional offsetting is not required for the loss of about 40 mature native trees. My reasons for this are: (a) while I recognise that scattered mature native trees have some ecological value, in my opinion the value of the trees lost in this case is low; (b) while I recognise that scattered mature native trees play a role in connectivity, and provide some linkages between bush areas, I believe that in the local landscape, as shown by Ms Myers' Figure 2 and the maps in Appendix 1 to my EIC, there is a significant amount of scattered vegetation in the local landscape such that the effect of the loss of about 40 mature trees will be minimal; and (c) in addition to the protection of Cottle’s Bush, it is proposed to plant a substantial area (c.15ha) of the road corridor with native trees and shrubs which will include 1000s of native plants. While landscape planting was not included in my calculation for ecological mitigation or offsetting, in my opinion it provides a substantial boost to the biodiversity, and connectivity along, the Expressway corridor. 28. All native grass, shrub and tree planting associated with the Project will be over 38ha. This includes all the ecological planting and also approximately 15ha of native trees and shrubs associated with the landscape planting (as well as the rest of the native landscape planting). The landscape planting will base its species selection on the recommendations in the Wellington Region Native Plant Guide (Revised edition 2010) prepared by Wellington Regional Council, as indicated in Mr McKenzie’s landscape drawings.3 I have consulted with Mr McKenzie and he will include the provision for a minimum 1000 totara trees, 100 titoki trees and 100 matai trees to be included on the Hautere Plains in the landscape specifications. Proposed condition 78, attached to the rebuttal evidence of Ms Rebecca Beals, has been amended to reflect this requirement. This will provide over 30 times (or over 10 times using Ms Myers' double counting figure) the loss of mature native trees due to the Project. 29. At conferencing the other ecologists considered that this landscape planting (then calculated as approximately 14ha) would only provide "some ecological benefit" and "does not contribute to the mitigation proposed for the loss of mature remnant forest area and scattered trees" (joint statement, Annexure A, Row 23). I have not included the landscape planting in my proposed area of offset required for the loss of 0.45ha of bush. To classify the ecological value of approximately 15ha of native tree and shrub planting as "some ecological benefit" and to deem it insufficient to mitigate the loss of mature native trees, in addition to the proposed 1.4ha Cottle's bush offset, is in my opinion a very academic approach (based on my understanding of their argument that the planting is proposed for landscape rather than ecological purposes) which ignores how ecosystems function. 3 Mr McKenzie’s, EIC, Annexure A. Page 6 30. In my opinion the proposed landscape planting will, in time, provide significant ecological values, and habitat, far in excess of the individual mature trees and areas of bush lost to the Project. As mentioned above all native grass, shrub and tree planting associated with the Project will be over 38ha. Furthermore, the linear nature of these plantings (along the 13.5km Project route) will significantly increase connectivity in the landscape and, because they are within the road reserve, they will be protected from grazing stock, which is not the current case for most of the trees lost. This is all in addition to the proposed ecological mitigation provided. 31. Finally, Ms Myers also refers to the protection of existing similar unprotected forest areas and restoration planting within the Hautere Plains, including Hautere Bush F (paragraphs 62(g), 62(h)). At conferencing Ms Myers (and the other ecologists for the Councils) sought, in addition to the proposed Cottle's bush offset, that an additional area be protected and planted (joint statement, Annexure A, Row 21 and Annexure C). 32. For the reasons expressed in my evidence, and above, I do not agree that additional offsets (over those already proposed) are required to compensate for the loss of native bush, and scattered native trees, as a result of the Project. If such offsets were accepted by the NZTA, or imposed by the Board, they would, in my opinion, result in the Project providing significant ecological benefit. 33. Finally, it needs to be recognised that many scattered remnants referred to by Ms Myers, and the proposed area on Ōtaki Gorge Road raised by the Council ecologists at conferencing (joint statement, Annexure C), are on private land. I acknowledge that some land owners may be receptive to protection and enhancement of remnants. However, the NZTA has no control over this land and cannot force land owners to protect and enhance native bush. For this reason, as set out in paragraph 23 above, I have not identified a specific area if the Cottle's bush proposal cannot get landowner approval. That way, so long as 1.5ha of bush on the Hautere Plains is planted (and/or protected) there is flexibility as to location. Loss of wetland 34. At paragraphs 34, 43 and 55 of her evidence Ms Myers questions the loss of 0.5ha of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland and claims as "likely" that the whole 0.8ha of the wetland will be lost with the whole area will be significantly compromised during construction. 35. As my EIC (paragraphs 69 and 70) and the draft EMP (section 5) make clear following construction 0.3ha of the current Ōtaki Railway Wetland will remain. The construction of the Project will affect the remaining 0.3ha which will require full restoration (including re-contouring) following construction (as set out in section 5 of the draft EMP). Page 7 36. Given the existing modified values of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland (paragraphs 6678 of my EIC) in my opinion the restored remnant of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland will quickly obtain, and due to the proposed maintenance exceed, the value of the present 0.3ha section of the existing wetland. 37. Ms Myers considers that bittern are "likely" at the Ōtaki Railway Wetland (paragraph 35). While it is impossible to disprove that bitterns may use the wetland I consider that use of the wetland by bittern, if at all, to be rare. Ms Myers does not claim that bittern would breed at the wetland but rather use it as a temporary feeding habitat. In my EIC I noted that while I believe the wetland to be significant (due to wetlands being nationally and regionally under-represented) it is highly modified, under significant ongoing pressure (including continued grazing), and subject to access by mammalian predators, including cats (paragraphs 32-37). Due to these factors, and its small size, I consider it unlikely bittern habitat. No bittern were observed during my site visits to the wetland. I note that in the adjacent M2PP project, despite extensive search of 9 wetland areas covering a significantly greater wetland area than the Ōtaki Railway Wetland, only 1 bittern was recorded. 4 38. Ms Myers is concerned as to the duel function, stormwater and ecology, of the proposed new Kennedy Wetland (paragraph 48), and presumably, that this reduces, or negates, its ecological value as she refers to Dr Boothroyd's evidence (which adopts an approach that the Kennedy Wetland should not be included in the mitigation proposal due to its dual function (paragraphs 93-101 of Dr Boothroyd's evidence)). 39. In my opinion this approach fails to recognise the existing stormwater function of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland and the fact that its existence has been substantially determined, and subsequently influenced, by the human activities (as set out in paragraphs 32-37 of my EIC). The Ōtaki Railway Wetland provides a local stormwater function. While degraded, I have assessed the wetland as significant. Ms Myers also considers the wetland to be of significance (at paragraph 35). If a created wetland that provides a local stormwater function, such as the Ōtaki Railway Wetland, can develop significant ecological values then in my view the proposed Kennedy Wetland can similarly obtain significant ecological values. In my opinion the Ōtaki Railway Wetland is proof that wetlands created as a result of human activity, either by design or by accident, and wetlands that provide a stormwater function, can develop significant ecological values. 40. I see no reason why the Kennedy Wetland cannot quickly develop ecological values at least comparable to the existing Ōtaki Railway Wetland. In my opinion, the proposed offset package expressed in the conditions and draft EMP will provide greater ecological value than currently exists in the Ōtaki Railway Wetland. 4 M2PP EIC of Dr Bull, paragraph 55.2. Page 8 41. At conferencing, further development of the Mary Crest landscape planting was proposed (joint statement, Annexure A, Rows 10-17). As recorded, my opinion is that the present wetland offset package is adequate (Row 10) and will achieve a net ecological gain (paragraph 77 of my EIC). 42. The revised Mary Crest proposal is attached as Annexure B to the joint statement. It involves the current area of native planting to be in swamp forest species (Rows 12 and 16) and 75% of the existing stormwater attenuation basin to be planted in swamp forest species (Row 14). This revised Mary Crest planting area is to be maintained, including pest control, for five years (Row 17). 43. All ecologists agreed, myself included, that this outcome would have "significant ecological benefits" (Row 11). The Councils' ecologists agreed (Row 13) that the revised Mary Crest proposal, in addition to the other proposed offsets and with adequate consent conditions and management, "would meet the mitigation requirements for loss or modification of wetland and waterway habitat of the Expressway." 44. The rebuttal evidence of Mr Selwyn Blackmore is that the NZTA accepts the revised Mary Crest proposal. Accordingly, conditions G.34, G.43 and G.46, attached to the rebuttal evidence of Rebecca Beals, and section 6.1 of the draft EMP, have been amended to provide for this new proposal. In summary, the proposal provides: (a) swamp forest planting on all stippled areas on Annexure B to the joint statement being the existing area of landscape native planting and 75% of the attenuation basin (with native wetland species compatible with stormwater requirements planted over the remaining area of the attenuation basin); (b) ongoing protection of the planted area above (which in conjunction with the existing proposed new wetland and riparian planting) will result in the whole "triangle" Mary Crest area in Annexure B to the joint statement being managed and protected as an integrated ecosystem along a kahikatea swamp forest/Carex sedgeland gradient; (c) an access track will be maintained to the attenuation basin inlet and outlet; (d) the exclusion of stock from the whole triangle Mary Crest area; and (e) five years of maintenance of the whole triangle Mary Crest planting area including replanting, pest weed control and browsing animal (possum, rabbit and hare) control. 45. On that basis, my understanding is that all the ecologists (except for Paula Warren) consider that this package appropriately offsets (or mitigates) the adverse effects of the Project on waterways and wetlands (subject to any discussion on the wording of conditions or the draft EMP). In my opinion this package delivers a significant ecological benefit over the effects of the Project. Page 9 Compensation ratios 46. Ms Myers seeks a compensation ratio of at least 6:1 to offset both the extent of loss and the rarity of remaining indigenous vegetation affected by the Expressway (paragraph 62(d)). Ms Myers seeks at least 3ha of indigenous forest restoration (paragraph 64(j)(i)) (however she agreed at conferencing to 2.7ha, joint statement, Annexure A, Row 21). 47. As set out in paragraph 32 to 38 above, Ms Myers' concerns as to wetlands have now been resolved. Therefore, I do not address wetland ratios further. 48. My reasons for the offset ratios for the loss of bush (2:1 for protection of established bush and 3:1 for new plantings) that I put forward are provided in my EIC (paragraphs 81 to 90) and my Technical Report (Section 9.4.3). 49. In my opinion the long-term protection and enhancement of Cottle’s bush, which actually provides a ratio of 3:1 given its size (against my minimum requirement for a ratio of 2:1), will exceed a "no net loss" outcome for the loss of native bush. 50. In addition, as set out in paragraphs 28 to 30 above, the landscape planting of approximately 15ha of native trees and shrubs, with stipulated minimum numbers of totara, titoki and matai. This area will not be grazed. 51. While I agree that compensating for the loss of mature trees takes time, it is important in my opinion to keep the losses due to the Project in perspective. The area of bush lost is very small and represents a very small proportion of the remaining bush in the area. As an example, based on areas of bush given in Schedule 3.1 of the Proposed District Plan, the 0.35ha of bush lost from Cottle’s bush and Hautere Bush F, to the Project footprint, is less than 2% of the total totara dominated bush resource located within 1.2km of Hautere Bush F. Most of the trees lost are from areas substantially impacted grazing and this grazing substantially compromises the value of these areas for biodiversity. While the new landscape planting will take many years to mature, the sheer scale of what is being planted (compared to what is being lost) will represent a significant overall biodiversity gain in the medium to long-term. 52. Ms Myers relies on TG (and M2PP) to support her claim for greater ratios (paragraph 58). Ms Myers was involved in both projects. Ms Myers agrees that ratios need to reflect the values of the individual sites affected (paragraph 78 of my EIC) but seeks "consistency of approach". I was not involved in either project and I caution against "consistently" applying a ratio for one project to another without taking into account the nature and scale of effects which can vary considerably from project to project (for example I understand that TG involved the loss of some 120ha of vegetation5). 53. Ms Myers claims that TG provided a ratio of 6:1 for kohekohe broadleaf forest (paragraph 58). I have tried to check this for myself but have found the relevant 5 EIC of Mr Fuller for TG, paragraph 124. Page 10 provisions confusing. I am unsure how Ms Myers has calculated this ratio, and this reinforces my concerns of relying on ratios from previous projects. Ms Myers refers to condition NZTA.53 of TG. This condition sets out the area (540ha) to be dedicated to active or passive restoration of vegetation and refers to "Approximately 109ha comprising grassed slopes, river flats and stream banks in pasture will be retired and undergo re-vegetation to commence successions necessary to develop into coastal lowland podocarp broadleaf forest appropriate for the site." However, I do not read this condition as requiring "109ha of broadleaf forest for the loss of 17ha of kohekohe forest" as Ms Myers claims in her footnote 8. 54. In my opinion a 6:1 compensation ratio for habitats lost to the Project is excessive and does not reflect the nature and scale of effects of the Project. Interestingly, whatever the final the agreed position for TG and M2PP was with regard to compensation ratios for specific habitats, the original position of the ecologists working on those projects was for compensation ratios in the range 2:1 to 3:16 (acknowledging that I have limited direct experience of the habitats impacted these two projects). Edge effects 55. Ms Myers seeks buffers of at least 40m to compensate for edge effects (paragraph 44). At paragraph 45 she appears to seek buffer planting around all fragments of forest affected and requests a buffer of 10-20m. 56. I have recommended in my Technical Report (Section 9.3.1) planting along the exposed edge of the bush where trees be lost to the Project footprint, to the extent that space between the remaining bush edge and the Project footprint allows, ideally a minimum of 10m. In reality there may only be a small distance between the Project footprint and the edge of the bush as the Project is seeking to minimise the loss of mature trees from these areas. The only way of creating a greater distance is to remove more mature trees, something we have strenuously tried to avoid. What I have proposed, as set out in section 4.2 of the draft EMP, is that where the minimum of 10m wind break planting cannot be achieved, then planting should also be undertaken within the impacted edge of the bush beneath the remaining canopy. 57. In my opinion, the provisions set out in section 4.2 of the draft EMP are appropriate and buffers around all forest fragments of up to 40m is not required to mitigate the effects of the Project. In addition, many of these fragments are very small and 40m of planting around all boundaries would create a significant additional area to these "fragments". 6 Paragraph [459] of the TG Board of Inquiry's Final Decision; Mr Fuller's evidence in TG, paragraph 122; and Mr Park's evidence in M2PP, paragraph 117. Page 11 Significance assessment 58. Ms Myers criticises my assessment of ecological significance as failing to follow the criteria in Policy 23 of the RPS and applying an assessment of ecosystem condition that is not within Policy 23 (paragraphs 16(c) and 29). 59. As my evidence makes clear I did use Policy 23 of the RPS in my assessment (paragraphs 25 and 26). Policy 23 requires, as set out in paragraph 26 of my EIC for only 1 of 57 criteria to be met. However, I did also apply an ecological condition assessment in identifying sites of ecological significance. In my opinion my approach is entirely proper. As an ecologist my assessment has to include the ecological condition (and hence value) of an area, the assessment of significance under Policy 23 is but one part of an ecologist's role.8 It is only then that I can assess the effects of a project on an area. While a site can be considered under a Policy 23 to have "significant biodiversity values" that does not necessarily mean that all sites have the same ecological value or that an effect will be the same for each site. The ecological site listings for the affected areas in the operative and proposed KCDC district plans, as reflected in paragraphs 28, 29 and 37 of my EIC, support my approach. 60. If Ms Myers' approach was adopted then, as she sets out at paragraph 20 of her evidence, every forest fragment in the area is "significant". If that is the case (i.e. one of the Policy criteria is met) then, in Ms Myers approach, no further evaluation is required.9 I fail to understand how that the assists in an assessment of effects of the Project as there is no consideration of the ecological condition of the site affected. Therefore, I do not support Ms Myers "policy only" approach. Adequacy of surveys 61. Ms Myers states that ecological survey methodologies have used desk-top assessments and comprehensive surveys have not been undertaken in some instances (paragraph 16(b)). 62. I disagree with the inference that the primary source of ecological information has been desk-top surveys, as a significant amount of fieldwork was undertaken as part of my assessment. I consider that all ecological surveys necessary to establish the potential effects of the Project have been undertaken. I agree that prior to construction New Zealand pipit and banded dotterel surveys, as addressed at paragraphs 76 and 81 below, should be undertaken. I have addressed the adequacy of fauna surveys, including lizard and bird surveys, in paragraphs 77 to 78 below, in my responses to the evidence of Dr Philippa Crisp. I note however that Miskelly et. al. (2008)10 classify banded dotterel as National 7 Representiveness, rarity, diversity, ecology context, tangata whenua values. This is consistent with the explanation of Policy 23 which says it "sets out criteria as guidance that must be considered ... " I have applied and considered the guidance of the Policy in my assessment. 9 And the ecological sites in the district plan would not be necessary. 10 Miskelly, C.M.; Dowdling, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Powlesland, R.G.; Robertson, H.A.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield R.P.; Taylor, G.A., 2008. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2008, Notornis, 2008, Vol. 55: 117-135. 8 Page 12 Vulnerable and not Nationally Endangered as stated in paragraph 40 of Ms Myers' evidence. Mitigation for loss of additional trees 63. Ms Myers requests mitigation for additional trees which may be affected by the Expressway, for example trees on the terraces on the southern side of the Ōtaki River (Paragraph 62(k)). 64. Access was not permitted to this site during the preparation of our AEE. Based on Ms Myers' description of the vegetation at this location (several large kohekohe trees, a karaka and titoki tree, and scattered totara trees, at paragraph 37 of her evidence) it is my opinion that the offset mitigation package, and the landscape planting proposed at this location, will more than adequately compensate for the loss of the trees in this location. Legal protection 65. Ms Myers requests permanent legal protection for mitigation and restoration areas within the designation (and also for any mitigation/restoration areas that may be proposed outside the designation) (Paragraph 62(h)). 66. I agree that legal protection should be provided for mitigation and restoration areas within the designation. Proposed condition G.35A already provides this protection. Maintenance periods 67. Ms Myers requests that appropriate maintenance periods should be set (longer than the proposed three years) for revegetation (Paragraph 62(i)). 68. Maintenance periods of five years have now been proposed for all ecological mitigation areas and this is reflected in proposed condition G.43 attached to the rebuttal evidence of Ms Rebecca Beals. I support the use of Clarkson et. al. (2003) to monitor wetland restoration site condition in years three and five. I have amended section 8.2.3 of the draft EMP accordingly. Monitoring the effects of the Expressway on the hydrology of the wetlands 69. Ms Myers requests the monitoring of the effects of the Expressway should be undertaken on the hydrology of wetlands (Paragraph 62(j)). 70. I note that the Joint Statement of Groundwater Experts agreed that the potential drawdown of groundwater 50-70m away from the works would be 10cm, with 0.3m drawdown possible adjacent to the alignment (Annexure A, issue 2). The exact effect of this on the restoration of the area to swamp forest and wetland plant communities is difficult to accurately predict. However, should such a drawdown occur it may influence the zoning locations of swamp forest and wetland plant communities in the area i.e. plants more tolerant of an extended dry periods will favour the zone close to the road. That stated, I expect that kahikatea and pukatea, two of the key canopy species for the proposed swamp forest, will Page 13 grow in this zone. Further from the road the effects are the drawdown (10cm) are expected to be small and these areas should support wetland plant communities given the existing high water-table in this area. 71. However, monitoring of vegetation establishment and groundwater will need to be undertaken during the vegetation establishment. Sections 8.1.4 and 9.10 of the draft EMP have been updated to provide, in addition to 6 month pre-construction monitoring, two years of post construction monitoring period of groundwater effects (if any) on the establishment of the proposed Mary Crest swamp forest/wetland. The Groundwater experts also agreed (Annexure A, Issue 6) to a groundwater management plan (GMP). The GMP, in addition to the requirements in the draft EMP satisfies me that groundwater effects on revegetation at Mary Crest (if any) will be identified and section 9.10 of the draft EMP provides for appropriate remedial actions to be implemented. Lizard rescue and relocation 72. Ms Myers requests that a condition be imposed requiring capture, rescue and transfer of indigenous lizards in areas of habitat where they are likely to be found, for example forest remnants (Paragraph 62(l)). 73. Lizard surveys were undertaken as part of the field investigations and no threatened or at risk species were found along the alignment. Only the common skink was found. This is in line with the M2PP project.11 Based on the results of those surveys I do not consider it necessary to mitigate for effects on lizard populations (or undertake further surveys). I note that for the M2PP project lizard surveys were only required for one wetland area12 (not the whole project footprint). However, further surveys prior to construction may be required by the Department of Conservation to satisfy potential technical permit conditions under the Wildlife Act 1953. Avoidance and minimising effects on indigenous vegetation, habitats and trees 74. Ms Myers and Mr Schofield suggest some changes to the conditions requiring general avoidance and mitigation of adverse effects of the Project on ecology. I agree in principle and the proposed conditions attached to the evidence of Rebecca Beals have been amended accordingly. Dr Philippa Crisp, Terrestrial Ecology Adequate fauna surveys to be undertaken 75. Dr Crisp requests that a stand-alone consent condition be imposed for surveys of lizards, New Zealand pipit, snails and wetland birds prior to construction, with the survey methodologies to be approved by WRC. The results of these surveys are to inform the EMP and to set out any remedial methods and mitigation required if these species are found (Paragraph 15). 11 12 M2PP EIC of Mr Park at paragraph 201 where only the common skink was found. M2PP condition G.34(c). Page 14 76. I agree that further surveys for New Zealand pipit be undertaken in two areas of potential pipit habitat; south of Mary Crest; and in the dunes to the North of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland. If pipits are found during these surveys, provisions are to be made to avoid or mitigate effects through habitat manipulation i.e. keeping the grass impacted by the footprint of the Project short prior to construction to prevent pipits nesting in these areas as set out in section 9.8 of the draft EMP. Proposed condition G.38, attached to the evidence of Rebecca Beals, has been updated accordingly. 77. As set out in paragraph 73 above, lizard surveys were undertaken as part of the field investigations and no threatened or at risk species were found along the alignment. In my opinion further surveys are unlikely to provide any additional information in terms of identifying potential effects of the Project. However, further surveys prior to construction may be required by the Department of Conservation to satisfy potential technical permit conditions under the Wildlife Act 1953. 78. Wetland birds were recorded during 3 visits to the Ōtaki Railway Wetland, including during a 4 hour full transect of the wetland to assess wetland condition. Only mallard and pukeko were recorded during these visits. In my opinion the wetland is very unlikely to hold bittern as a breeding species and surveying the wetland to detect potential occasional use of the wetland is unlikely to provide useful information. Fernbird was not observed or heard calling during any of my site visits and I am satisfied that the species was not present at the time. Fernbird is extremely rare in the southern part of the North Island. It is highly unlikely that such a small wetland with substantial predator pressure would provide a sustainable habitat for this species. The fact that I did not hear or observe the species when surveying this site is not surprising. Marsh crake and spotless crake are very difficult to survey for and the Ōtaki Railway Wetland is likely to be marginal habitat for both species, with predation a major issue. Overall I do not consider undertaking further wetland bird surveys will provide any additional information that identifies potential effects of the Project. 79. Land snails are extremely rare and intolerant of grazing and trampling by stock, as has historically occurred in Cottle’s Bush, and continues to occur within Hautere Bush F. They are also extremely vulnerable to predation by mammalian pests. It is extremely unlikely that the habitats along the alignment support land snails and in my opinion a snail survey is unnecessary.13 Mitigation for loss of threatened bird habitat 80. Dr Crisp requests appropriate mitigation for the disturbance to threatened bird species nesting at the Otaki River has not been addressed in the EMP (Paragraph 17) and proposes that an area of breeding habitat equivalent to that being removed by the Expressway works be created elsewhere along the river. 13 I understand from talking to Mr Park that while snail surveys were undertaken for TG no such surveys were undertaken for M2PP. Page 15 81. In the light of the information provided by the 2012 breeding wader survey in Dr Crisp's evidence I agree with the proposed replacement of habitat as described in paragraph 17 of Dr Crisp’s evidence. I further recommend surveys of the gravel bars at the Expressway crossing point be undertaken during the breeding season and exclusion zones around nest sites as set out in sections 8.1.6 and 9.9 of the draft EMP. Proposed condition G.38, attached to the evidence of Rebecca Beals, has been updated to require the surveys. Mitigation for loss of native forest 82. Dr Crisp states that appropriate rehabilitation/restoration mitigation for the loss of native forest would be to plant totara trees in an appropriate area within this ecosystem. Dr Crisp further requests that both affected remnants (Cottle's Bush and Hautere Bush F) should be legally protected, fenced and receive pest control (Paragraph 22). 83. As set out in my EIC (paragraph 87), it is my opinion that the proposed legal protection and fencing of Cottle’s Bush (assuming the landowners approval is obtained) will exceed a no net loss outcome and provide a substantial offset for the loss of native forest. As set out in paragraph 28 above, the conditions now require the planting of at least 1000 totara trees. I agree with the removal of plant pests and also agree that short-term animal pest control (possum, rabbit and hare for a maximum of five years) should be undertaken and this is set out in the draft EMP. However, for reasons set-out in paragraphs 13-15 above I do not agree that long-term animal pest control is necessary to mitigate the effects of the Project. Plant species selection to protect remnant bush edge 84. Dr Crisp questions the selection of species that I have proposed to protect the exposed bush edge following removal of trees stating that Pittosporum tenuiflorum and Aristotelia serrata, as detailed in Section 6.2.2 of the draft EMP are inconsistent with the requirements of condition G47, as these species are not appropriate for planting in this ecosystem type. Dr Crisp states that species lists from nearby totara titoki remnants, such as that from Kiripiti Reserve indicate that species such as Myrsine australis, mahoe, akeake, Melicope simplex, kanuka, Coprosma crassifolia and Coprosma areolata would be more suitable. 85. The planting requirement for buffer zones to protect exposed edges necessitates the selection of robust species that can tolerate exposure and dessication. In my opinion, Melicope simplex, Coprosma crassifolia and Coprosma areolata, while present in the sub-canopy of established forest, are not suitable for this purpose. Furthermore, Pittosporum tenuiflorum and Aristotelia serrata, are listed in the planting guide for the Kāpiti Coast, promoted by KCDC14, as suitable species for this zone. In my opinion the plant species recommended Section 42 of the draft 14 Boffa Miskell, A Guide to Growing Native Plants in Kapiti. Page 16 EMP are suitable for their intended purpose, although I suggest adding totara to the mix. I have updated the draft EMP accordingly. Ms Jennie Marks Adequacy of mitigation for loss of trees 86. Ms Marks states that the proposed mitigation fails to provides for the loss of 40 mature trees (paragraphs 6.1 and 20). 87. I agree with Ms Marks that the trees do not meet the criteria of significance in the RPS but still provide some value. In my opinion (as stated in paragraphs 25-33 above in response to the same issue raised by Ms Myers) the effects of the loss of these trees is low, the effect on connectivity is negligible and, in my opinion, the landscape planting of some 15ha of native trees and shrubs associated with the Project (and forming a subset of the total native grass, shrub and tree total of 38ha for the Project) will significantly outweigh any potential effect of the loss of 40 mature trees. Adequacy of mitigation for loss of bush 88. At paragraphs 6.2 and 25-27 of her evidence Ms Marks states that the proposed offset for the loss of 0.45ha of bush is insufficient. 89. Again, I have addressed this matter in detail in response to Ms Myers' evidence in paragraphs 16-24 above. For those reasons, and as expressed in paragraph 87 of my EIC, the Cottle's Bush mitigation package is substantial and if implemented would exceed the concept of "no net loss". Adequacy of mitigation for loss of wetland 90. At paragraphs 6.3 and 39 Ms Marks states that the wetland mitigation figure should be 0.8ha and not 0.5ha. 91. I have addressed this issue in response to Ms Myers evidence at paragraph 35 above. The area is 0.5ha. Significance of ecosystems affected 92. At paragraph 34 Ms Marks questions my use of ecological condition in my assessment. 93. I have addressed this issue in response to Ms Myers evidence at paragraphs 58 and 60 above. Dr Ian Boothroyd, Aquatic Ecology Mitigation for loss of wetlands 94. At paragraph 100 Dr Boothroyd raises potential inconsistency over what will happen with the remaining area of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland. I have addressed this issue in response to Ms Myers evidence at paragraph 35 above. Page 17 95. Dr Boothroyd states that Kennedy Wetland should not be included in the mitigation proposal for the loss of most of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland, because Kennedy Wetland is intended to have a dual stormwater attenuation and ecological function (Paragraphs 93-101). I have responded to the issue in paragraphs 38 to 40 above. Ecological input to the Landscape Plan 96. Dr Boothroyd expresses concern at the lack of provision for ecological input to the Landscape Plan (Paragraphs 116 – 120). 97. I accept that ecological input to the Landscape Plans will ensure that the full ecological potential of the landscape planting is reached. Proposed condition 76, attached to the evidence of Rebecca Beals, has been amended accordingly. Ms Paula Warren, Ecology Adequacy of biological surveys and assessment of effects 98. Much of Ms Warren’s evidence is concerned with describing how the biological surveys and assessments of effects are inadequate (paragraphs 17 to 63). 99. I disagree with Ms Warren. In my opinion the surveys undertaken with respect to terrestrial and wetland ecosystems are sufficient for the purposes of determining the effects of the Project on these ecosystems and their associated species. Furthermore, the of level survey and assessment that I have undertaken has been consistent with the many other Projects I have undertaken involving similar levels of effect. Effects on some biodiversity elements cannot be mitigated 100. Ms Warren states that no mitigation is possible for some biodiversity elements (Paragraphs 4 and 67). 101. In my opinion, the plans to minimise habitat alteration and the offsets proposed in the EMP do mitigate potential negative effects of the Project on terrestrial and wetland ecosystems and their associated flora and fauna and provide significant ecological enhancement. I reiterate that the scale of terrestrial and wetland habitat loss is small, the habitat altered or lost is currently of low to moderate value, and that in my opinion the proposed offset will exceed "no net loss" and provide enhanced ecological outcomes. CONCLUSION 102. With the exception of my agreement to additional pre-construction surveys for banded dotterel and New Zealand pipit, I remain of the opinion that the nature and level of investigation that has been undertaken to assess the effects of the Project on terrestrial ecology has been adequate. 103. I remain of the opinion that key ecological sites impacted by the Project have been identified and adequately assessed. Page 18 104. I remain of the opinion that individual or small groups of mature trees do not represent significant indigenous vegetation. Notwithstanding this, the trees planted as part of the proposed landscape planting will substantially offset the loss of these trees. 105. I also remain of the opinion that the original proposed wetland habitat creation (Kennedy Wetland and wetland at Mary Crest) together with the covenanting and enhancement of Cottle’s Bush would more than adequately achieve, if not exceed, no net loss of ecological values associated with the small areas of habitat lost to the project (0.45ha of bush and 0.5ha of wetland). The new proposal to plant the Mary Crest “triangle” with swamp forest and wetland (discussed by the ecologists during conferencing and agreed by NZTA) will, in my opinion, achieve a significant net ecological gain. John Paul Turner 6 September 2013 Page 19 ANNEXURE A – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (Overleaf) Page 20