Download John Turner - Ecology rebuttal evidence

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