IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... › assets › Documents › ... ·...

Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitors Acting: David Randal / Thaddeus Ryan / Frances Wedde Email: [email protected] Tel 64-4-499 4242 Fax 64-4-499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6140

IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I MUA I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

ENV-2020-WLG-00014 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER OF a notice of motion under section 87G of the Act

seeking the grant of resource consents to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū-Tararua Highway

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF BOYDEN HENRY EVANS ON BEHALF OF WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY

NATURAL CHARACTER

12 June 2020

BUDDLE FINDLAY .

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR THE NORS .............................................................................. 16 COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 17 COMMENTS ON SECTION 87F REPORT ........................................................... 24 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 26 ATTACHMENT BE.1 – PROPOSED PLANTING PLANS FOR CATCHMENTS 5 AND 7 ................................................................................................................... 27

INTRODUCTION

1. My full name is Boyden Henry Evans.

2. I am a New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects' ("NZILA") Registered

Landscape Architect and a Partner at Boffa Miskell Limited ("Boffa Miskell"),

a New Zealand-owned environmental planning and design consultancy.

3. I prepared Technical Assessment I – Natural Character ("Technical

Assessment I") as part of Volume V of the Assessment of Environmental

Effects ("AEE"), which accompanied the application for resource consents

lodged with Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council ("Horizons") on 11

March 2020 in respect of Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway

Project (the "Project").

4. My qualifications and experience are set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 of

Technical Assessment I.

5. In preparing Technical Assessment I and my evidence I have:

(a) provided advice on natural character matters related to the Project to

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency ("Transport Agency") since 2017,

and to Te Ahu a Turanga Alliance ("Alliance") since its engagement by

the Transport Agency in 2019;

(b) drawn on my knowledge of the Manawatū and Tararua areas generally,

and the Project area in particular, which was developed in part through

the landscape and visual effects assessments I prepared and evidence

I gave in the consenting processes for the Te Āpiti Wind Farm in 2003

and stage 3 of the Tararua Wind Farm in 2007;

(c) drawn on my site visits and knowledge from the work I carried out in

2017 for the Transport Agency as part of the team carrying out the

route options assessment and multi-criteria analysis and subsequent

site visits completed during the preparation of the landscape, natural

character and visual effects assessment that I prepared as part of the

AEE for the notices of requirement ("NoRs") for the Project in 2018-

2019 (the "NoRs Assessment");1

1 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway – Notices of Requirement for Designations, Volume 3, Technical Assessment #4. Landscape, Natural Character and Visual Effects Assessment, Boyden Evans, available online at: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/sh3-manawatu/NZTA-NOR-Volume-3.4-Landscape-character-visual.pdf

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/sh3-manawatu/NZTA-NOR-Volume-3.4-Landscape-character-visual.pdf

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/sh3-manawatu/NZTA-NOR-Volume-3.4-Landscape-character-visual.pdf

(d) coordinated and participated in natural character workshops with the

other members of the natural character team2 to prepare a natural

character assessment for the resource consent applications for the

Project; and

(e) responded to the parts of the section 92 request for further information

that relate to natural character matters (with inputs from the rest of the

natural character team); and landscape matters.

Code of conduct

6. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses

contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. This evidence has

been prepared in compliance with that Code. In particular, unless I state

otherwise, this evidence is within my area of expertise and I have not omitted

to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the

opinions I express.

7. While Technical Assessment I was prepared to assess natural character

effects of the Project, and this statement of evidence is also focused on

natural character effects, I also carried out a landscape and visual effects

assessment as part of the NoRs (as noted above) and can assist the Court

on these matters if required.

Purpose and scope of the evidence

8. Technical Assessment I considers the potential effects of the Project on the

natural character of the relevant waterbodies and describes the measures

which will address those effects.

9. My evidence does not repeat in detail the technical matters discussed in

Technical Assessment I. Rather, in my evidence I:

(a) present the key findings of Technical Assessment I, updated to take

into account information received more recently, in an executive

summary;

(b) present the key findings of the NoRs Assessment on landscape and

visual effects;

(c) comment on issues raised in submissions in respect of the Project; and

(d) comment on the section 87F report prepared by Horizons.

2 This team included, Dr Jack McConchie, Dr Alex James, Keith Hamill, David Hughes, Justine Quinn, Josh Markham and me.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

10. As noted above, in this section of my evidence I summarise the key matters

addressed in my Technical Assessment I.

Methodology and assessment process

11. Natural character of rivers, streams, wetlands and their margins is about

condition. It concerns the level of naturalness and the degree of

modification.

12. An assessment of natural character of the rivers, streams and wetlands and

their margins traversed by the Project was carried out by a team of experts

as part of the NoRs Assessment referred to above. As part of preparing the

application for resource consents, another more specific natural character

assessment of the waterbodies was carried out in relation to the Project,

which is based on detailed field work and a specific alignment (i.e. the

Northern Alignment). This assessment is described in Technical

Assessment I.

13. The team who carried out this natural character assessment is mostly a

different team of experts (as compared to the team who carried out the NoRs

Assessment). The members of this assessment team were as follows:

(a) Dr Jack McConchie (hydrology and geomorphology);

(b) Dr Alex James and Keith Hamill (water quality);

(c) Justine Quinn (freshwater ecology);

(d) Josh Markham (terrestrial ecology);

(e) David Hughes (stormwater); and

(f) Myself (experiential).

14. As part of preparing this assessment, the assessment team reviewed all

aspects of the original NoRs Assessment in relation to natural character (i.e.

methodology, assessment matrix and criteria, rating scale, etc) and made

various refinements and modifications. However, in general terms, the

methodology, assessment matrix and criteria, description of attributes and

rating scale applied by the new team was the same as in the NoRs

Assessment.

15. The members of the assessment team also confirmed their collective view

that in terms of "areas" of natural character, as set out in Objective 6-2 of

Horizons’ One Plan, a catchment-scale approach was appropriate when

assessing the overall natural character of streams and wetlands, but that in

determining this, an assessment of natural character at selected crossing

points would also be carried out to inform the overall catchment rating of

natural character.

16. The team also considered, however, that a whole of river catchment-scale

assessment of the Manawatū River was inappropriate. Instead, the team

considered that the Manawatū River Bridge crossing point should be

considered an "area" of natural character in its own right. This was because

of its size, scale, prominence, visibility, accessibility and location at the mouth

of the Gorge. Therefore, a separate natural character assessment of the

Manawatū River Bridge crossing point was carried out without any broader

Manawatū River catchment assessment. This is consistent with the NoRs

Assessment, where the Manawatū River crossing point was assessed but a

broader "catchment" scale of assessment was not undertaken for the River.

17. The team agreed that the assessment process would be run as a series of

workshops enabling robust discussion of the methodology, description of

attributes and ratings, both in terms of individual attributes and the overall

ratings for both catchments and crossing points.

18. The Project traverses nine stream catchments (which all ultimately feed into

the Manawatū River) and during the first two workshops each team member

considered the various attribute(s) of these catchments (and selected

crossing points) relevant to their own area of expertise and assigned ratings

to those attributes. Based on these individual ratings, the team then agreed

an overall rating of the existing natural character of these catchments, and

the selected crossing points.

19. Following this, the team assessed the "post-development" level of natural

character. Again, each team member considered the various attribute(s)

relevant to their own area of expertise and assigned ratings to those

attributes in the different catchments and selected crossing points. In a third

team workshop, the team discussed and agreed the overall post-

development ratings of the catchments and selected crossing points.

20. The team workshops provided a robust and collaborative approach to the

natural character assessment process.

Approach to mitigation

21. In the response to the section 92 request for further information, the team's

approach to mitigation was further clarified. In particular, when assessing the

"post-development" state of natural character, the team assessed what is

proposed to be delivered on the whole at the completion of the Project. This

includes:

(a) the proposed measures in the Design and Construction Report

(Volume II), which include the proposed stormwater treatment; culvert

design, including provision of fish passage where practicable; and

diversion of streams;

(b) implementation of the Construction Environmental Management Plan

("CEMP") and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ("ESCP"); and

(c) fencing of the new highway, which will also result in excluding stock

from certain waterbodies.

22. In addition, the members of the team assessing water quality, exotic aquatic

flora and fauna; indigenous taxa assemblages, ecosystem functioning and

terrestrial ecology (Mr Hamill, Dr James, Ms Quinn and Mr Markham) took

into account the contribution of riparian planting of constructed stream

channels (i.e. stream diversions) in assigning their attribute ratings. Other

members of the team (Dr McConchie, Mr Hughes and myself) did not,

however, these members have confirmed that if they had, this is unlikely to

have affected their individual attribute ratings.

23. While there is some discrepancy in the approach in this respect, each

individual member of the team applied a consistent approach in assigning

their individual attribute ratings.

24. Some of the measures noted above could be considered mitigation and so

the statement in Technical Assessment I that the post-development ratings

were agreed to be "pre-mitigation"3 is not entirely accurate.

25. In addition to the above measures (some of which could be considered to be

mitigation), the team agreed that any adverse effects on natural character

would be further mitigated by the cumulation of many of the mitigation

measures provided to address the environmental effects of the Project. This

includes the mitigation, offset and compensation measures provided for in

both the designation conditions and proposed resource consent conditions.

In particular:

(a) The designation conditions will mitigate effects of the Project on natural

character (as well as landscape and visual effects). The preparation of

3 Technical Assessment I, paragraphs 23 and 241.

a Landscape Management Plan ("LMP") (DC 17), Planting

Establishment Management Plan ("PEMP") (DC 19) and an Ecological

Management Plan ("EMP") (DC 24), all of which involve various forms

of planting, shaping of landform, and enhancement of biodiversity, will

all contribute to mitigate effects on natural character (as well as

landscape and visual effects).

(b) In addition, the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework

("CEDF") which is required by the designation conditions (DC 16)

addresses a range of matters that will have beneficial effects on the

natural character of waterways as well as beneficial landscape and

visual effects. An initial version of the CEDF was submitted with the

NoRs and I understand that it is now being further developed with input

from Iwi Partners and stakeholders. The CEDF sets out an overall

vision followed by a series of corridor design principles and then

describes specific elements that need to be addressed. These include

protection of existing areas of native vegetation, integration of new

landform with existing topography, riparian planting and revegetation.

(c) The Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan

("TWVMMP") required by the resource consent conditions (resource

consent condition TW3) expands on several aspects covered in the

CEDF (e.g. stream retirement, stream and terrestrial mitigation,

removal of weed pests from riparian margins and riparian planting).

(d) The resource consent conditions also cover matters such as retirement

and exclusion of stock around areas of bush and wetland, restoration

planting around wetlands and streams, including a 10-metre wide buffer

planting around restored wetlands, fish salvage, provision of fish

passage, and control and management of mammalian animals and

pest plants.4 Proposed erosion and sediment control conditions and

stormwater conditions will also help to avoid and mitigate adverse

effects on water quality.5 The mitigation measures covered in all of

these conditions will have beneficial effects on the natural character of

waterways.

26. The effects of the Project on natural character as described and rated in

Technical Assessment I could therefore be described as a conservative or

‘worst case’ assessment of natural character effects.

4 See conditions EC1 to EC21. 5 See conditions ES1 to ES9 and SW1.

Key findings

27. The key findings in Technical Assessment I are summarised below:

(a) The team did not identify any areas of existing outstanding natural

character within the areas potentially affected by the Project.

(b) Of the nine catchments traversed by the Project, only one (catchment

9) has an overall high existing natural character rating.

(c) The overall existing natural character ratings for the other eight

catchments range from low to moderate high.

(d) Post-development, there is a reduced level of overall natural character

in catchments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7; in catchments 1, 6, 8 and 9 there is no

change in the overall level of natural character.

(e) In terms of the crossing points that were assessed, there will be a

reduced level of natural character at all of these locations post-

development. In three of the crossing points, there will be significant

diminishment in natural character from an existing level of high natural

character: crossing point 5A will reduce from high to low; crossing point

7A will reduce from high to low; and the Raupō Wetland crossing point

will reduce from high to moderate.

(f) While the level of natural character will be significantly diminished post-

development at these three crossing points, when these are considered

in terms of their respective catchments, the reduction in natural

character is attenuated, as much of the catchment above and below the

crossing point will be unaffected by the Project.

(g) The proposed Manawatū River Bridge crossing point was assessed

separately with the existing level of natural character rated as moderate

high and the post-development level rated as moderate.

(h) Construction activities such as vegetation removal, earthworks,

construction of bridges, access roads, culverts and stream diversions

and other stormwater management structures will have adverse effects

on natural character but several of these effects will be temporary and

short-term. The scale of the construction works is substantial in

relation to the small scale of the streams and wetlands crossed by the

Project. However, following construction the effects will lessen with the

proposed rehabilitation and other mitigation measures.

28. Objective 6-2(b) in the One Plan focuses on potential adverse effects to

natural character in those areas with outstanding natural character and high

natural character.

29. There are no areas with outstanding natural character, therefore One Plan

Objective 6-2(b)(i) does not apply. One catchment was assessed as having

high existing natural character, but the effects of the Project in this catchment

were assessed as not significantly diminishing this area's natural character.

None of the other catchments affected by the Project were considered to

have existing high levels of natural character. It is therefore considered that

the Project does not offend against Objective 6-2(b)(ii). Table I.1 below

summarises the assessed levels of natural character for each of the

catchments, both existing and post-development.

Table I.1: Natural Character Catchment Assessment Summary

Catchment Existing Natural

Character

Post-Development

Natural Character

1 Low Low

2 Moderate Moderate Low

3 Moderate High Moderate

4 Moderate Low Low

5 Moderate High Moderate Low

6 Moderate High Moderate High

7 Moderate High Moderate

8 Low Low

9 High High

Updated assessment

30. As described in the evidence of Ms Quinn, I understand that the Transport

Agency and Alliance have had further discussions with Meridian about the

planting proposed on Te Āpiti Wind Farm and the Transport Agency has now

agreed that some of the proposed stream diversions and associated riparian

planting on Te Āpiti Wind Farm should be removed due to concerns about

bird strike by wind turbines.6 These are the stream diversions previously

proposed for spoil sites 25 and 28, which are now to be unplanted channels,

likely with either rock lined or grassed cut-off drains, and with no associated

riparian planting. These stream diversions were to be located within

catchments 4 and 5.

31. Given the removal of these stream diversions and riparian planting, the

members of the team have reviewed their respective ratings for crossing

points 4D and 5B and catchments 4 and 5, and recorded this in their

respective briefs of evidence (with some discussion of any material changes).

32. I set out below in Table BE.1 where this has resulted in a change to the

various attribute ratings (i.e. in the ‘Post development, current scenario’

column).

33. I also include in Table BE.1, in the 'Comments' column, an explanation as to

why the experiential attribute is unchanged.

Table BE.1: Natural Character Revised Ratings

Pre-

development Post-

development (at lodgement)

Post-development

(current scenario)

Comments

CATCHMENT 4

Flow regime ML L L No change

Morphology ML L L No change

Water quality L L L No change

Exotic Flora & Fauna

M M M Much of catchment remains the same, no change at catchment scale

Indigenous taxa

M ML ML Much of catchment remains the same, no change at catchment scale

Ecosystem functioning

M L L Much of catchment remains the same, no change at catchment scale

Structures & modifications

M ML ML No change

Terrestrial Ecology

M ML ML No change

Experiential ML L L No change - no attribute ratings have changed and the experiential qualities will remain low.

6 Quinn EIC, paragraph 34.

OVERALL RATING

ML L L No change given that none of the attributes have reduced at this catchment scale.

CROSSING POINT 4D

Flow regime M ML ML No change

Morphology ML L L No change

Water quality L L L No change


M L VL Complete loss of stream habitat within the crossing point, unplanted channels may be favourable for exotic flora.

Indigenous taxa

M L VL Complete loss of stream habitat within the crossing point, unplanted channels likely to be unfavourable for indigenous taxa.


M VL VL Further loss of potential habitat values, but remains at VL.


M L L No change

Terrestrial Ecology

M L VL Complete loss of riparian vegetation.

Experiential ML VL VL No change – the experiential rating is already very low post-development

OVERALL RATING

ML L VL Reduces from L to VL given the diminishment in several attributes.

CATCHMENT 5

Flow regime M M M No change

Morphology M ML ML No change

Water quality M M M No change


H M L At catchment level, reduction in available habitat, unplanted channels may be favourable for exotic flora, planted stream diversions replace only 16% of impact length.

Indigenous taxa

H M L At catchment level, reduction in available habitat for indigenous fauna habitat, unplanted channels likely to be unfavourable for indigenous taxa, planted stream diversions replace only 16% of impact length.


H M L At catchment level, reduction in available habitat, unplanted channels will not function like ‘natural’ streams, planted stream diversions replace only 16% of impact length.


M ML ML No change

Terrestrial Ecology

H MH M Loss of existing, not being replaced by any riparian vegetation for 811m. But one stream diversion and riparian planting is retained.

Experiential ML L L No change - while there are reductions in ratings for 4 attributes as a result of the current scenario, flow regime and water quality attributes are unchanged from their pre-development condition. On balance, the current scenario does not warrant a further reduction in the experiential rating.

OVERALL RATING

MH ML ML No change – several attributes have decreased with the current scenario but there are still several attributes where the ratings are moderate, given that the lower part of the catchment is located in the scenic reserve and is not directly impacted by the Project.

CROSSING POINT 5B

Flow regime M L L No change

Morphology M L L No change

Water quality ML ML ML No change


H L VL Further loss of potential habitat values, unplanted channel may be favourable for exotic flora

Indigenous taxa

H VL VL Further loss of potential habitat values, but remain at VL.


MH VL VL Further loss of potential habitat values, but remain at VL


MH L L No change

Terrestrial Ecology

M L VL Complete loss of riparian vegetation.

Experiential M VL VL No change – two attribute ratings are further reduced by the current scenario, but the experiential rating is already very low.

OVERALL RATING

MH L VL Reduces from L to VL given the diminishment in several attributes

34. As can be seen, the removal of the stream diversions and associated riparian

planting does not change the ratings for flow regime, morphology, water

quality or experiential attributes. This accords with our expectation recorded

in the section 92 response and referred to in paragraph 22 above (with the

exception of water quality, which is unaffected by the change).

35. As a result of these post-development attribute rating changes, the overall

post-development ratings were also reviewed by the team. Adjustments

were made to the overall post-development ratings for crossing points 4D

and 5B, both of which were reduced from low to very low. The overall post-

development ratings for both catchments 4 and 5, however, remain the

same.

36. The changes in overall ratings are summarised in Table BE.2 (crossing

points) and Table BE.3 (catchments) below.

Table BE.2: Crossing Point Summary: Existing and Post-Development (current

scenario) Natural Character

Crossing Point Existing Natural Character

Post-Development Natural Character

(at lodgement)

Post-Development Natural Character (current scenario)

2C Moderate High Low No Change

3A Moderate Moderate Low No Change

3B Moderate High Moderate Low No Change

4D Moderate Low Low Very Low

5A High Low No Change

5B Moderate High Low Very Low

6A Moderate Very Low No Change

7A High Low No Change

7B Moderate Low Low No Change

7B Eco-bridge (Raupō wetland)

High Moderate No Change

Table BE.3: Catchments Summary: Existing and Post-Development (current

scenario) Natural Character

Catchment Existing Natural Character

Post-Development Natural Character (at

lodgement)

Post-Development Natural Character (current scenario)

1 Low Low No Change

2 Moderate Moderate Low No Change

3 Moderate High Moderate No Change

4 Moderate Low Low No Change

5 Moderate High Moderate Low No Change

6 Moderate High Moderate High No Change

7 Moderate High Moderate No Change

8 Low Low No Change

9 High High No Change

37. Having reviewed these overall ratings and the updated assessment

completed by the team, I am satisfied that the key findings from the natural

character assessment summarised at paragraph 27 above still stand.

38. However, given the removal of these stream diversions and riparian planting

from Te Āpiti Wind Farm, I recommend that the Transport Agency and

Alliance investigate providing additional fencing of natural waterways within

catchment 5. This will help to mitigate the effects on natural character.

39. Fencing of waterways, even where there is no planting, will benefit natural

character (i.e. by preventing stock fouling waterways and damaging stream

banks and margins).

Approach to cumulative effects

40. The response to the section 92 request for further information further

explains the team's approach to assessing the cumulative effects of the

Project.

41. The response explains that by assessing the effects of the Project on the

existing level of natural character in the nine catchments (i.e. both existing

and post-development levels of natural character), the assessment has

inherently considered how the existing land use activities have modified the

streams and their margins (i.e. this is the "existing" natural character rating),

as well as the cumulative effect of the Project on natural character (i.e. this is

the "post-development" natural character rating).

42. The effects on natural character also need to be considered in the overall

context of the Manawatū River and its attendant streams.

43. While an assessment of natural character has been carried out for each

individual catchment, the summary tables include all of the catchments

together so the results can be seen collectively and in relation to each other.

44. Further, paragraph 239 of Technical Assessment I notes that only a small

proportion of the overall Manawatū River catchment is affected by the

Project. The Manawatū River drains a catchment of approximately 5,890km2

and has several large tributaries. Within the catchment, the landscape varies

from ‘totally natural’ to ‘totally modified’ and the levels of natural character

equally vary.

45. The Project traverses nine catchments of the Manawatū River and of these

the percentage of total stream length impacted by the Project is low when

considered in terms of the nine catchments and the river overall.

46. Therefore in my opinion the cumulative effects of the Project are unlikely to

be significant. The updated natural character assessment referred to above

does not change that conclusion.

SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

PREPARED FOR THE NORS

47. As noted above in paragraph 5(c), I carried out a landscape and visual

effects assessment as part of the NoRs Assessment. The key findings from

this Assessment were summarised in the parts of the response to the section

92 request for further information that relate to landscape matters.

48. In the NoRs Assessment, I concluded that there would be varying levels of

biophysical effects and effects on landscape character (i.e. landscape

effects), which is not surprising given that the Project traverses steep hill

country crossing the Ruahine Range. My assessment concluded that

landscape character effects would be high in three sectors of the route given

that the highway traverses through a landscape that is rural farmland, which

has, in turn, been modified since 2004 by the development by the Te Āpiti

Wind Farm.

49. In that assessment, I also concluded that there would be visual effects and

that these would be low or moderate for most of the Project apart from at the

western end in relation to the proposed new bridge over the Manawatū River.

The two main viewing audiences, in Ashhurst and in Woodville, are

significantly distant from the Project and the broken hilly topography means

that only relatively small sections of the proposed highway would be visible

from Ashhurst and Woodville and the areas adjoining these towns.

50. I further concluded that the Project will not have significant adverse

cumulative effects on the characteristics and values of the two Outstanding

Natural Features and Landscapes ("ONFLs") affected by the Project, being

the Manawatū Gorge and Ruahine Ranges ONFLs.

51. I am able to provide further details on my landscape and visual effects

assessment at the hearing if necessary and/or relevant.

COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS

Dr Hill (Submission 2)

52. The submission by Dr Hill raises concerns in relation to the Project's effects

on old-growth native forest and wetlands, as well as wāhi tapu areas, such as

Te Ahu a Turanga Peak.

53. I defer to Dr Baber and Mr Markham in respect of the effects of the Project

on terrestrial ecology, and the offset and compensation measures proposed

to address residual effects; and the evidence of the iwi partners in respect of

cultural effects.

54. In respect of effects on the Raupō Wetland in catchment 7, I address this

further below in response to the submission by Royal Forest and Bird

Protection Society Incorporated ("Forest and Bird").

Meridian Energy Limited (Submission 13)

55. The submission by Meridian Energy Limited ("Meridian") raises concerns

about the Project’s proposed planting and resultant ecological enhancement

encouraging larger bird populations within the Te Āpiti Wind Farm and

thereby increasing the risk of bird strike by Meridian’s wind turbines. To this

end, Meridian states a preference for “no landscape planting on earthworks

associated with the Te Āpiti works”, but accepts that “diverted stream

channels will require some form of planting to protect the channels from

erosion and ensure habitat for fish.”7

56. In the section 87F report prepared for Horizons and addressed below, Mr

Hudson contends that if the proposed planting and wetland development

does not occur then the mitigation that this planting would provide in

managing the effects on natural character in catchment 5 would be reduced.

57. As noted above from paragraph 30, I understand an agreement has been

reached between Meridian and the Transport Agency that will allow some of

the proposed planting to take place. This agreement has resulted in some of

the stream diversions and associated riparian planting being removed.

However, this has not undermined the key findings from the natural character

assessment.

58. I do recommend, however, that the Transport Agency and Alliance

investigate fencing of additional natural waterways within catchment 5 in

order to help mitigate the effects on natural character in this catchment.

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc (Submission 15)

59. The submission by Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Incorporated

("Forest and Bird") raises several matters in relation to the natural character

assessment; each of these is addressed separately below.

Reliance on mitigation from other technical assessments

60. Forest and Bird suggests that the AEE is inadequate as it has not considered

specific remediation or mitigation measures to address natural character

7 Page 6

effects and has instead relied on the mitigation, offset and compensation

proposed under other technical assessments.

61. The team's approach to mitigation of natural character effects is described

above. In summary, mitigation of natural character effects was considered

as follows:

(a) Some elements taken into account in the "post-development" state

could be considered mitigation.

(b) Mitigation recommended by the individual experts to mitigate adverse

effects on hydrology, water quality and ecology will all have a

cumulative effect of reducing and mitigating adverse effects on natural

character.

(c) Further, the mitigation measures provided for in the designation

conditions in relation to landscape and visual effects will also contribute

to mitigating adverse effects on natural character.

62. Mitigation measures do not occur in isolation from each other. It is common

in any project for mitigation measures to address more than one kind of

adverse effect. Technical assessments by their nature have a narrow focus

and are carried out by one particular discipline but in terms of effects and

mitigation, many aspects overlap. For example, the management of

sediment in water is relevant to stormwater management, freshwater

ecology, water quality and natural character. Consequently, mitigation

measures often result in reducing several kinds of adverse effects and

benefit the Project overall.

63. This is particularly the case for natural character where natural character is

derived from several different attributes which all contribute to natural

character; mitigation measures that address the effects on one particular

attribute (whether that be hydrology, water quality, ecology or experiential)

will also address adverse effects on natural character.

Effects on the darkness of the night sky

64. Forest and Bird suggests that the AEE has neglected to consider any

potential adverse effects on the natural darkness of the night sky and refers

to Horizons One Plan Policy 6-8(c)(v).

65. Horizons One Plan Policy 6-8(c) states that: “Natural character of these

areas may include such attributes and characteristics as” (my emphasis) and

provides a list of some of the attributes and characteristics that could be

considered relevant to natural character. The "natural darkness of the night

sky" is only one of the listed attributes and characteristics.

66. Technical Assessment I provides a comprehensive assessment of the natural

features, patterns and processes of the water bodies affected by the Project.

The darkness of the night sky is not particularly relevant to the natural

character of these water bodies given that the presence of Saddle Road and

the associated headlights of traffic would already affect this characteristic.

However, I can confirm that I took into account the effects of traffic activity

(including associated light effects) when rating the experiential attribute.

Mitigation in relation to crossing points 5A, 7A and the Raupō Wetland

67. Forest and Bird suggests that the AEE has neglected to consider mitigation

in relation to crossing points 5A, 7A and the Raupō Wetland within catchment

7 where natural character will be significantly diminished. In the section 87F

report, Mr Hudson also enquires as to how effects on natural character in

these areas will be mitigated.

68. Horizons One Plan Objective 6-2(b)(ii) specifically refers to adverse effects

on natural character being avoided where they would significantly diminish

the attributes and qualities of "areas" of high natural character. However, the

Objective does not define areas. For both the NoRs Assessment and

Technical Assessment I, the natural character teams defined areas at a

catchment scale; this is explained in paragraphs 72 to 79 of Technical

Assessment I.

69. However, the team did also carry out an assessment of selected crossing

points, and this smaller scale level of assessment assisted in informing the

level of effect at the catchment scale. The natural character assessment

records reduced levels of overall natural character at crossing points 5A, 7A

and the Raupō Wetland as a result of reductions in most of the attribute

ratings in these three areas.

70. The natural character effects at these crossing points will be mitigated in the

following ways:

(a) Attachment BE.1 is a plan that provides a spatial summary of the

mitigation measures that are in the process of being developed for

catchments 5 and 7 in order to meet the requirements of designation

conditions 16, 17, 19 and 24 (CEDF, LMP, PEMP and EMP) as well as

the proposed resource consent conditions.

(b) The series of Proposed Ecological Offset / Compensation Plans (TAT-

3-DG-E-4150-A to TAT-3-DG-E-4162-A) that were lodged as part of the

application provided some indication of the proposed measures and the

details from these plans have been transposed on to Attachment BE.1,

updated to reflect the latest agreement with Meridian described above.

(c) Also shown on Attachment BE.1 are the areas of proposed landscape

planting, which will be included in the LMP and outline plan required

under the designations for the Project in much greater detail.

71. In summary, the measures introduced to address natural character effects at

these crossing points include:

(a) fencing of the highway corridor, which will thereby exclude stock

access from parts of each waterway;

(b) creation of stormwater wetlands and stormwater swales;

(c) creation of sediment basins to treat stormwater from the highway;

(d) stream diversions, which will be planted each side with riparian

vegetation between 5m and 20m as explained in the evidence of Ms

Quinn (including the stream diversion on the stream 5B tributary within

catchment 5, which is to be retained);

(e) provision of fish passage in all culverts where that would provide for

ecological function, based on the advice of Ms Quinn;

(f) establishment and management of ecological offset and compensation

planting using a range of plant species mixes depending on the

particular location and situation; and

(g) establishment and management of landscape planting also using a

range of species mixes.

72. The details of plant mixes, planting details, monitoring and management will

be provided in the PEMP and LMP.

73. Excluding stock access to these waterways will also benefit all the natural

character attributes and therefore assist to mitigate adverse effects on

natural character overall. As noted above, I recommend that in relation to

catchment 5 in particular, the Transport Agency and Alliance investigate

further fencing of natural waterways within the catchment to further mitigate

effects in this catchment.

74. In relation to the Raupō Wetland, the area under the Eco Bridge will be

rehabilitated to restore the wetland hydrology, vegetation and habitat, which

in time will assist to mitigate some of the effects on natural character.

75. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Northern Alignment has reduced the

extent of the Project footprint on stream 7A compared to the original NoRs

alignment. The Northern Alignment has avoided much of the physical impact

on the headwaters of stream 7A.

76. In addition, the Eco Bridge (BR03) now crosses the lower part of the stream

(the Raupō Wetland), which in the original NoRs corridor layout was to be

culverted under an earth embankment. This has led to a smaller footprint in

relation to the Raupō Wetland and avoiding the stand of swamp maire

altogether.

77. The Northern Alignment has a similar footprint extent on stream 5A as it did

in the original NoRs design, but has a smaller footprint in relation to both

stream 7A and the Raupō Wetland. Therefore, the Northern Alignment has

reduced the natural character effects of the Project overall.

Natural character effects of the proposed Manawatū River Bridge (BR02)

78. Forest and Bird suggests that the AEE has neglected to address adverse

effects on natural character in relation to the Manawatū River Bridge.

79. Technical Assessment I assesses the existing and post-development natural

character of the location of the proposed Manawatū River Bridge as one of

the Project's crossing points but also as an "area" of natural character in its

own right. The reasons for this are explained in paragraphs 84-85.

80. At paragraph 224, Technical Assessment I states in relation to the Manawatū

River crossing that, “Many attributes will remain unchanged or will be

modified only slightly but the Bridge will result in significant adverse changes

to the experiential aspects, introducing a prominent structure into the river

environment.” It is inevitable that a new, large-scale structure being inserted

into river environment would result in significant adverse effects on

experiential attributes.

81. The team that carried out the NoRs Assessment determined that the existing

level of natural character at the bridge crossing point was moderate high

because of the existing level of modification, which includes the presence of

the railway line and its associated infrastructure on the northern side of the

river, and on the southern side, the section of former SH3, the carpark for

accessing the Scenic Reserve, the Department of Conservation toilet and

interpretation facilities and track access to the river.

82. The team that completed the current assessment also rated the existing level

of natural character as moderate high because of the level of modification.

Table I.17 in Technical Assessment I records that the bridge crossing will

affect several of the attributes (i.e. flow regime, terrestrial ecology, structures

and human modification and experiential). However, for the other attributes,

the ratings are unchanged. When the attributes were considered together,

the overall level of natural character rating reduces from moderate high to

moderate.

83. The natural character effects at the Manawatū River crossing point will be

mitigated in the following ways:

(a) The adverse effects will be addressed by the mitigation measures

provided for in the designation conditions (specifically designation

conditions 16, 17, 19 and 24, which relate to the CEDF, LMP, PEMP

and EMP) as well as the proposed resource consent conditions.

(b) Most attributes will be unchanged by Bridge BR02 and so mitigation of

these attributes is not required (i.e. flow regime, morphology, water

quality, freshwater ecology and ecosystem functioning). Consequently,

the natural functioning of the river at the bridge crossing will not

change.

(c) Given the presence and scale of the bridge structure and the

modification required on each bank of the river associated with the

construction of the abutments, terrestrial ecology and experiential

aspects will be adversely affected.

(d) On the south bank, which is already significantly modified, substantial

works are proposed to develop this area as the gateway to Te Āpiti and

revegetation and amenity planting will form an integral part of this

mitigation. This planting is also shown on Attachment BE.1.

(e) On the northern side, the culvert under the rail line will be upgraded to

enable fish passage and thus re-establish a connection between

stream 7 and the Manawatū River. Revegetation planting along the

edges of the old growth native forest and adjoining the Raupō Wetland

is also proposed and is shown on Attachment BE.1.

84. In addition, while it will not mitigate effects on natural character, the Project

will provide public access on the bridge (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists) and

access to the track network on the northern side of the river as part of the

River to Ridge design concept. This will enable people to experience the

attributes of wider area, including the river, the gorge and the scenic reserve.

Department of Conservation (Submission 19)

85. In its submission the Department of Conservation has suggested that the

proposed conditions of consent need further development and in particular

that "a robust set of consent conditions that provides baseline standards or

controls (i.e. does not leave fundamental matters to management plans that

may be changed from time-to-time)." In his section 87F report, Mr Hudson

has concurred with this comment. I address the proposed conditions and

management plans below in my comments on the section 87F report.

COMMENTS ON SECTION 87F REPORT

86. Mr Hudson has provided a report on natural character and landscape

character on behalf of Horizons, as part of the section 87F report. In

formulating his response on natural character, Mr Hudson has drawn on

comments and conclusions from Mr Lambie (terrestrial ecology) and Mr

Brown (water quality and ecology), which are covered in their respective

reports.

87. Mr Hudson raises various matters in relation to the natural character

assessment, several of which had already been addressed in the response to

Horizons' request for further information. Mr Hudson has concluded that the

Project’s effects on natural character are acceptable, including the

cumulative effects.8 He has also requested further information on three

specific matters, which I address below.

88. Messrs Lambie and Logan have also concluded that they are comfortable

with the approach to the natural character assessment and also to the

findings in relation to their respective areas of expertise.

89. Mr St Clair in his planning assessment, concludes that relying on the advice

of Mr Hudson, the effects on landscape and natural character will be less

than minor.

8 Paragraph 46 and 62(c). I have assumed that paragraph 49 of Mr Hudson's report contains a typographical error.

Changes in experiential ratings

90. Mr Hudson queries why the existing natural character rating for the

experiential attribute has changed from that in the NoR Assessment for the

QEII East open space covenant area, which is located in catchment 6.9

91. The experiential attribute is influenced by the condition of most of the other

natural character attributes. I assessed and rated the existing experiential

attributes for all of the catchments within the context of working as part of a

different team, drawing on more detailed and refined information provided by

those other team members. In particular, the new team included a

hydrologist and stormwater expert. Moreover, the team had the benefit of the

updated information referred to in the response to Horizons' section 92

request (question 25), including a visual inspection of all of the impacted

stream length and riparian margins, additional stream ecological valuations

and ecological sampling, and additional baseline water quality monitoring and

modelling).

92. For catchment 6, all of the existing ratings for the other attributes were

reduced in the current assessment compared to the NoRs Assessment of

‘QEII East’ whole stream scale.

93. Consequently, I concluded that on a catchment-wide basis, the existing

experiential rating for catchment 6 was high as opposed to high/very high for

the QEII East (Whole Stream) in the NoRs Assessment.

Mitigation at crossing points 5A, 7A and the Raupō Wetland

94. Mr Hudson has requested clarification as to how effects on these three

crossing points will be mitigated.10 I have addressed the approach to

mitigating natural character effects on these crossing points above from

paragraph 67.

Landscape Management Plan and conditions

95. I agree with Mr Hudson that until the LMP has been completed it is not

possible to ascertain definitively how the adverse effects of the Project on

natural character and landscape character will be addressed. However, I

disagree with his assertion that there needs to be specific resource consent

conditions for natural character or landscape character, in addition to the

designation conditions already in effect and the resource consent conditions

proposed to address related effects. That is, many of the resource consent

9 Paragraph 26. 10 Paragraph 58.

conditions regarding ecological offset and compensation planting, control of

pest plants, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management will

result in a range of environmental benefits, including to both natural character

and landscape character. In addition, implementing the LMP (designation

condition 17) and PEMP (designation condition 19) will result in benefits to

natural character and also to landscape character.

96. While in some cases it may be appropriate to have specific consent

conditions that deal with natural character, this is not always necessary

because likewise the conditions around erosion and sediment control,

stormwater management, planting, riparian management, fencing and

terrestrial and freshwater ecology will collectively have natural character

benefits.

97. The various management plans required as part of the designation conditions

are being prepared but to assure Mr Hudson that mitigation measures will

address natural character (and other environmental effects), especially in

relation to crossing points 5A, 7A and the Raupō Wetland, I have provided a

summary of the measures proposed to be implemented in these locations

above and a plan (Attachment BE.1) showing their location.

CONCLUSION

98. It is my opinion that the Project:

(a) will not affect any area of outstanding natural character;

(b) will not lead to a significant diminishment of natural character in any

area of high natural character; and

(c) has appropriately avoided effects on natural character, and where

avoidance has not been possible, mitigated adverse effects.

99. I consider that the conditions proposed for the Project are appropriate in

terms of addressing potential effects on natural character.

100. I recommend that the Transport Agency investigate fencing of additional

natural waterways within catchment 5 in order to help mitigate the effects

within this catchment.

Boyden Evans

12 June 2020

ATTACHMENT BE.1 – PROPOSED PLANTING PLANS FOR CATCHMENTS 5

AND 7

[Provided separately]

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

I

II

II

II

I

I

II

II

I

I

I

II

II

II

II

I

5

7

.

7

5

(

7

2

.

0

)

(

7

2

.

0

)

7

1

.

9

1 5

7

.

7

5

5

3

.

8

2

5

5

.

0

0

5

7

.

7

5

(

7

2

.

0

)

(

7

2

.

0

)

7

1

.

9

1 5

7

.

7

5

5

3

.

8

2

5

5

.

0

0

60.0

65.0

80.0

80.0

85.085.0

115.0

120.0125.0

130.0

125.0

RW

RW

RW

28982900

2950

3000

3050

3100

3150

3200

3250

3300 3350 3400 3450 3500 3550

3600

3650

3700

3750

3800

3850

3900

3950

4000

4050

4100

4150

4200

4250

4300

4350

4400

4450

4500

4550

4600

4650

BR02 - MANAWATŪ RIVER BRIDGE

TARA

RUA

DIST

RICT

COU

NCIL

PALM

ERST

ON N

ORTH

CIT

Y CO

UNCI

L

BR01 - NUTCRACKER FARM UNDERPASS

FITZHERBERT EAST ROAD (SH57)

EXISTING SH3 - NAPIER ROAD

STATE HIGHWAY 3

BR03 - ECO BRIDGE

JOINS SHEET 2

Palm

ersto

n Nor

th - G

isbor

ne R

ail Li

ne

DATE

TITLE

REVISION DETAILSDATEREV APPROVED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

PROJECT

DRAWN

DESIGNED

PROJECT No. TYPE REVPHASE DISC NUMBER

DRAWING No.

SCALE SIZE

A1

.WORK IN PROGRESS

CLIENT TE AHU A TURANGA: MANAWATŪ TARARUA HIGHWAY

TAT 3

Filen

ame:

Plot

Date:

Offic

e:N:

\MAN

AWAT

U TA

RARU

A HI

GHW

AY\IP

AA P

HASE

\05 T

ECHN

ICAL

– DE

SIGN

WOR

KING

ARE

A\DR

AFTI

NG\D

ELIV

ER D

ESIG

N\2 D

RAW

ING\

_SKE

TCHE

S\TA

T-3-

SK-E

-165

6-16

58.D

WG

DCAP

A20

20-0

6-10

10:45

:08

PROPOSED PLANTINGCATCHMENT 5 & 7

SHEET 1

TAT 3 SK E 1656 A

1:2500WORK IN PROGRESS

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

J. SAINI

T. McGEE

D. McGAHAN

A 12/06/2020 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION D. McGAHAN

JOINS SHEET 2

KEY PLAN

8A7A

7C

CATCHMENT 7

NOTE 1. FINAL OFFSET MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS AND LOCATIONS SUBJECTTO

ONGOING LANDOWNER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. ACTUAL AREAS MAY DIFFER.REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT G: TERRESTRIAL OFFSET AND COMPENSATION; AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT H: FRESHWATER ECOLOGY.PEST CONTROL IS INCLUDED IN ALL REVEGETATION, BUSH RETIREMENT AND PEST CONTROL AREAS. REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT F: TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY.

2. FENCING -ALL BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN PLANTING AND PASTURE GRASS, AND THE HIGHWAY TO PASTURE GRASS WILL BE FENCED. FENCING DESIGN WILL BE PROGRESSED AT DETAILED DESIGN

LEGEND $ TAP03 WIND TURBINE

- - - - PROPOSED DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BUSH RETIREMENT COMPENSATION

- - - - COUNCIL BOUNDARY c::::::::J PEST CONTROL COMPENSATION

- - - - KIWIRAIL DESIGNATION =+ STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING

EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING (TE APITI

EXISTING STREAMS WINDFARM)

-- SPOIL SITES

D- - -:J STORMWATER CULVERT (PROPOSED)

REVEGETATION TYPES - ADVANCED SECONDARY BROADLEAF FOREST OFFSET

DIVARICATING SHRUBLANDS OFFSET - EXOTIC WETLANDS (LOW VALUE) COMPENSATION

INDIGENOUS DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (MOD VALUE) COMPENSATION - KANUKA FOREST OFFSET

MANUKA AND KANUKA FOREST SHRUBLANDS OFFSET

--Te Ahu a Turanga Manawato Tararua Highway ------------

·--·-.

- OLD GROWTH FOREST (ALLUVIAL) COMPENSATION LANDSCAPE PLANTING CF1 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 1 - OLD GROWTH FOREST (HILL COUNTRY) - WP1 - WETLAND PLANTING 1 - CF2 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 2 COMPENSATION - - WP2 - WETLAND PLANTING 2 - RRP - RIPRAP PLANTING OLD GROWTH TREELANDS OFFSET

RAUPO DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (HIGH - FP- FEATURE PLANTING - SCP - SCREEN PLANTING - VALUE) COMPENSATION - EP - EDGE PLANTING - RP - RIVER PARK PLANTING

SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST AND -- SCRUBLANDS OFFSET SP - SWALES PLANTED - HP - HARAKEKE PLANTING

SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST WITH OLD - RVB- RE-VEGETATION BUSH - RG - RAIN GARDEN PLANTING

GROWTH SIGNATURES OFFSET G1 - GRASS TYPE 1 - BP- BANK PLANTING

~ G2 - GRASS TYPE 2 - MP - MID PLANTING 25 50 100m

SCALE 1 :2500

-

115.0

115.0

120.0

120.0

120.0

120.0

120.0

125.0125.0

125.0

125.0

125.0

130.0

130.0

130.0

130.0135.0

135.0

135.0

135.0140.0

140.0

140.0

145.0145.0

150.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

155.0

130.0

125.0

125.0

4600

4650

4700

4750

4800

4850

4900

4950

5000

5050

5100

5150

5200

5250

5300

5350

5400

5450

5500

5550

5600

5650

5700

5750

5800

5850

5900

5950

6000

6050 6100 6150 6200 6250

6300

6350

6400

6450JOINS SHEET 3

TARA

RUA

DIST

RICT

COU

NCIL

MA

NA

WA

TŪ

DIS

TRIC

T CO

UNCI

L

STATE HIGHWAY 3

TE ĀPITI WINDFARM ACCESS TRACK

JOINS SHEET 1

DATE

TITLE


REVIEWED

APPROVED

PROJECT

DRAWN

DESIGNED


DRAWING No.

SCALE SIZE

A1

.WORK IN PROGRESS


TAT 3

Filen

ame:

Plot

Date:

Offic

e:N:

\MAN

AWAT

U TA

RARU

A HI

GHW

AY\IP

AA P

HASE

\05 T

ECHN

ICAL

– DE

SIGN

WOR

KING

ARE

A\DR

AFTI

NG\D

ELIV

ER D

ESIG

N\2 D

RAW

ING\

_SKE

TCHE

S\TA

T-3-

SK-E

-165

6-16

58.D

WG

DCAP

A20

20-0

6-10

10:45

:26


SHEET 2

TAT 3 SK E 1657 A



J. SAINI

T. McGEE

D. McGAHAN


JOINS SHEET 3

JOINS SHEET 1

7A

6A

6C

6B

QE II OPEN SPACE COVENANT


CATCHMENT 7

CATCHMENT 6

LEGEND - - - - PROPOSED DESIGNATION BOUNDARY

- - - - COUNCIL BOUNDARY

- - - - KIWIRAILDESIGNATION

- - - - - EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY

1----- EXISTING STREAMS

-- -- SPOIL SITES

[)- - -<J STORMWATER CULVERT (PROPOSED)

NOTE

$ TAP03 WIND TURBINE

BUSH RETIREMENT COMPENSATION

c:::::::J PEST CONTROL COMPENSATION

--+ STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING

STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING (TE APITI WINDFARM)

1. FINAL OFFSET MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS AND LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO ONGOING LANDOWNER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. ACTUAL AREAS MAY DIFFER.REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT G: TERRESTRIAL OFFSET AND COMPENSATION; AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT H: FRESHWATER ECOLOGY.PEST CONTROL IS INCLUDED IN ALL REVEGETATION, BUSH RETIREMENT AND PEST CONTROL AREAS. REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT F: TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY.


REVEGETATION TYPES

- ADVANCED SECONDARY BROADLEAF FOREST OFFSET

DIVARICATING SHRUBLANDS OFFSET

- EXOTIC WETLANDS (LOW VALUE) COMPENSATION

INDIGENOUS DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (MOD VALUE) COMPENSATION

- KANUKA FOREST OFFSET



- OLD GROWTH FOREST (ALLUVIAL) COMPENSATION LANDSCAPE PLANTING - OLD GROWTH FOREST (HILL COUNTRY) - WP1 - WETLAND PLANTING 1 COMPENSATION - OLD GROWTH TREELANDS OFFSET - WP2 - WETLAND PLANTING 2

RAUPO DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (HIGH - FP - FEATURE PLANTING - VALUE) COMPENSATION - EP - EDGE PLANTING - SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST AND - SP - SWALES PLANTED SCRUBLANDS OFFSET

SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST WITH OLD - RVB - RE-VEGETATION BUSH

GROWTH SIGNATURES OFFSET G1 - GRASS TYPE 1

~

0

·-·

CF1 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 1 - CF2 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 2 - RRP - RIPRAP PLANTING - SCP - SCREEN PLANTING - RP - RIVER PARK PLANTING - HP - HARAKEKE PLANTING - RG - RAIN GARDEN PLANTING - BP - BANK PLANTING - MP - MID PLANTING

,,,../

I I

I

I I I I ~

I

' > I

\ \

\ \

'-.. 1 I

I I

I "'------,,.----?--------;>~ --I

I

/ /

~/

-- __ J

I I

) I

I

I I

I

I I

I

I I

I

r-------1 ---1 I I

/'\

·-·-·-

I I

I

_ _r

0

25 50 100m

SCALE 1 :2500

-

285.0285.0

285.0

290.0

295.0

295.0

295.0290.0

290.0

290.0

290.0

295.0

300.0

305.0

305.0

310.0

310.0

315.0

315.0

320.0

320.0

325.0

295.0

295.0

295.0

300.0

305.0

325.0

6200

6250

6300

6350

6400

6450

6500

6550

6600

6650

6700

6750

6800

6850

6900

6950

7000 7050 7100 7150 7200

7250

7300

7350

7400

7450

7500

7550

7600

7650

7700

7750

7800

7850

7900

7950

8000

8050

8100

8150

8200

8250

8300

8350

8400

8450

8500

8550

8600

BR05 - TE ĀPITI WINDFARM UNDERPASS

STATE HIGHWAY 3



JOINS SHEET 2

DATE

TITLE


REVIEWED

APPROVED

PROJECT

DRAWN

DESIGNED


DRAWING No.

SCALE SIZE

A1

.WORK IN PROGRESS


TAT 3

Filen

ame:

Plot

Date:

Offic

e:N:

\MAN

AWAT

U TA

RARU

A HI

GHW

AY\IP

AA P

HASE

\05 T

ECHN

ICAL

– DE

SIGN

WOR

KING

ARE

A\DR

AFTI

NG\D

ELIV

ER D

ESIG

N\2 D

RAW

ING\

_SKE

TCHE

S\TA

T-3-

SK-E

-165

6-16

58.D

WG

DCAP

A20

20-0

6-10

10:45

:40


SHEET 3

TAT 3 SK E 1658 A



J. SAINI

T. McGEE

D. McGAHAN


JOINS SHEET 2

5B

5A

4A 4B




5B

5A

CATCHMENT 5CATCHMENT 6

CATCHMENT 4

LEGEND $ TAP03 WIND TURBINE

- - - - PROPOSED DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BUSH RETIREMENT COMPENSATION

- - - - COUNCIL BOUNDARY c:::::::J PEST CONTROL COMPENSATION

- - - - KIWIRAILDESIGNATION --+ STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING

- - - - - EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREAM DIVERSION PLANTING (TE APITI

EXISTING STREAMS WINDFARM)

-- -- SPOIL SITES

[)- - -<J STORMWATER CULVERT (PROPOSED)

0

NOTE 1. FINAL OFFSET MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS AND LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO

ONGOING LANDOWNER AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. ACTUAL AREAS MAY DIFFER.REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT G: TERRESTRIAL OFFSET AND COMPENSATION; AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT H: FRESHWATER ECOLOGY.PEST CONTROL IS INCLUDED IN ALL REVEGETATION, BUSH RETIREMENT AND PEST CONTROL AREAS. REFER TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT F: TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY.


--

REVEGETATION TYPES - ADVANCED SECONDARY BROADLEAF FOREST OFFSET

DIVARICATING SHRUBLANDS OFFSET - EXOTIC WETLANDS (LOW VALUE) COMPENSATION

INDIGENOUS DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (MOD VALUE) COMPENSATION - KANUKA FOREST OFFSET



- OLD GROWTH FOREST (ALLUVIAL) COMPENSATION LANDSCAPE PLANTING - OLD GROWTH FOREST (HILL COUNTRY) - WP1 - WETLAND PLANTING 1 COMPENSATION - OLD GROWTH TREELANDS OFFSET - WP2 - WETLAND PLANTING 2

RAUPO DOMINATED SEEPAGE WETLAND (HIGH - FP - FEATURE PLANTING - VALUE) COMPENSATION - EP - EDGE PLANTING

SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST AND - SP - SWALES PLANTED - SCRUBLANDS OFFSET

SECONDARY BROADLEAVED FOREST WITH OLD - RVB - RE-VEGETATION BUSH

GROWTH SIGNATURES OFFSET G1 - GRASS TYPE 1

~ G2 - GRASS TYPE 2

CF1 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 1 - CF2 - CUT+ FILL PLANTING TYPE 2 - RRP - RIPRAP PLANTING - SCP - SCREEN PLANTING - RP - RIVER PARK PLANTING - HP - HARAKEKE PLANTING - RG - RAIN GARDEN PLANTING - BP - BANK PLANTING - MP - MID PLANTING

--------~-/ ( I

I ( I I I I I I I I I I

\ \

\ \

\ \

\ \

\ \

\ \

\

~

I I I I I I \..

' ' ' \ I I I )

I ( \

\

25 50

SCALE 1 :2500

I I I I I I

I

I I I I I I

100m

-

IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... › assets › Documents › ... ·...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... › assets › Documents › ... ·...