DOCSLIB.ORG

Paremata Residents Association Presentation to TGP Board of Inquiry – 6 March 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paremata Residents Association Presentation to TGP Board of Inquiry – 6 March 2012 Paremata Residents Association Presentation to TGP Board of Inquiry – 6 March 2012 1. My name is Russell Morrison and I am the Vice-President of the Paremata Residents Association which covers an area of about 2,100 households encompassing Papakowhai, Paremata, Golden Gate, Mana and part of Camborne. I have lived in residences right next to the Pauatahanui Inlet and used the harbour in many different ways since the age of two when my family moved to Browns Bay in January 1950. 2. Our Association strongly supports the TGP and has been prepared to go to the Environment Court on three occasions in the past to ensure, directly or indirectly, that TGP stayed on the books. We are asking, however, that the Board consider imposing conditions in a number of areas. Adverse Impacts on the Harbour 3. Our submission mentions our concerns about the harbour but does not go into much detail, opting instead simply to endorse the recommendations of the Pauatahanui Inlet Community Trust (PICT) entirely. I would like to elaborate on our views here. - Sedimentation 4. Quite a number of our members have lived next to the Porirua Harbour for many years. We recall the controversy when the initial Whitby subdivision was pouring sediment out onto the beach opposite what is now Postgate Drive. Many still mention the promises about retaining tidal flows when the highway was extended and the lagoons created between Porirua and Paremata. We remember the learned debates which took place when the National Roads Board proposed putting a 6 lane motorway on a causeway along the Dolly Varden beach and up through Camborne. So we became educated in a traditional wisdom which said that any reclamation or other reductions in the tidal prism (no matter how small) should be avoided because they will have a compounding effect on the rate of infill. Essentially, we were led to believe that the more the tidal compartment is reduced (i.e. the shallower the harbour is allowed to get), the faster it will infill. 5. As a result, when NZTA or other agencies have put forward projects which would reduce the tidal prism or restrict tidal flows, this Association has asked for conditions requiring the agency to take equivalent measures to maintain the tidal prism. Up until now, such requests have never been accepted – the usual response being “the adverse effects of the works are expected to be less than minor”, or something along those lines. The cumulative impacts of adopting such a stance have become more and more apparent in recent years. 6. What we have learnt from the experts or from observation over the years is that there are really three inter-related factors that determine the rate of infill (and thus the length of life) of our harbour: The amount of sediment or marine sand coming into the harbour; 1 The rate at which the tidal prism is being reduced by that sedimentation or by works such as reclamations, seawalls, etc; The extent of restrictions which affect the tidal flow and flushing ability of the harbour. We believe that all of these factors need to be considered when addressing issues around sedimentation. 7. The draft Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy and Action Plan identifies excessive sedimentation rates, pollution levels and degraded ecology as major issues affecting the harbour. Sediment rates over the past 35 years are said to have averaged about 6mm per year in the Onepoto arm and 9mm per year in the Pauatahanui Inlet. The Strategy sets targets to reduce sediment inputs from tributary streams by 50% by 2021, and to reduce the sedimentation rate (averaged over the whole harbour) to 1mm per year by 2031. The Action Plan affords immediate priority (over the next 3 years) to reducing run-off from terrestrial sources by, for instance, developing and implementing a whole-of-catchment re-vegetation plan. The investigation of options to reduce or compensate for the effects of harbour structures and other works on harbour dynamics is identified as medium priority (over the next 3-10 years). 8. As we understand it, the final Strategy is due to be launched in April and, regardless of what happens with the TG Project, the “key stakeholders” are committed to its implementation. 9. There still seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the amount of sediment which is likely to end up in the harbour as a result of constructing the TGP. Dr Murray Hicks in his Section 42A report thought that the sediment yield increases during relatively common events could be several (2-5 times) greater than had been estimated by NZTA’s experts. His updated statement of 20 February 2012 states that “there remains an approximately factor- of-two uncertainty on the baseline mean annual sediment yields and a larger uncertainty factor still for event sediment yields”. 10. As I understand it, NZTA’s AEE forecasts that construction of the project will result in about 50 mm of sediment accumulating in the harbour. And yet Transit’s marine ecology expert, Dr De Luca, does not see a need for any measures to mitigate or compensate for accumulation of sediment within the harbour (other than if there is a major Q10 rainfall event during construction) because “the contribution of the Project to the accumulation of sediment within the harbour is minimal compared to the baseline situation and has negligible additive adverse effects”. [Paragraph 55 of Rebuttal Evidence] 11. With respect, we strongly disagree with this assessment. If I have interpreted the information correctly, an accumulation of 50mm is equivalent to 50 years of sedimentation at the normally expected “natural” rate of 1mm per year. I am happy to be corrected, but that suggests to me that the sediment deposited as a result of construction of the TGP will effectively reduce the natural life of the harbour by 50 years. 12. Regardless, my Association believes (in simple terms) that if constructing this project deposits x tonnes of extra sediment into the harbour, then NZTA should be required to take 2 measures that will have the effect of removing the equivalent of x tonnes of sediment from the harbour – not in 20 or 30 years’ time, but either before or as soon as possible after the deposition. 13. We are aware of Dr De Luca’s concern (shared by other experts) that remedial action to remove sediment from ecologically sensitive habitats “is likely to cause more damage than benefit” [Paragraph 131 of her Evidence]. However this need not necessarily preclude removal of sediment from areas of “lesser ecological importance” – perhaps the deeper central muddy basins where most of the sediment is eventually expected to settle out. [Mr Roberts - Page 475/6 of Transcript] 14. Nor would we want to rule out the possible deepening or creation of new channels within the harbour as a means of maintaining the tidal prism – notwithstanding the reported results of a recent modelling exercise by DHI Water and Environment Ltd which have been misrepresented by some local politicians as ruling out the viability of any dredging within the harbour. In fact the report merely purports to show that deepening of several existing channels would be unlikely to improve the flushing ability of the Inlet. It seems to us that, if the flushing ability cannot be improved, then early removal of any extra sediment being deposited in the harbour becomes even more important. 15. We also believe that the options should include the removal of some existing tidal restrictions if that could be shown to have some benefits equivalent to sediment removal. For instance, the removal of the obstructions under the northern end of the rail bridge and replacement of the walkway on piles should be seriously considered. Our observations suggest that this work, carried out when the ferry jetty was installed, has had a major influence in reducing the channel width and tidal flow in that vicinity. 16. On the matter of tidal restrictions, we are also aware of correspondence and discussions back in 1999/2000 relating to the possible effects of constructing the new Paremata Bridge on the infilling of the Inlet. At that time, one local “expert” - using the results of research on inlet tidal stability by Hume and Herdendorf published in 1985 – assessed that the effect of the new bridge in reducing the cross-sectional area of the estuary’s inlet could be to create a reclamation 2 metres deep with an area of 14.5 hectares. Despite my best efforts, it proved impossible to get any expert agreement on this matter, but if removal of tidal restrictions around the estuary’s entrance had even a fraction of the benefits suggested by that analysis, they would certainly be significant. (Having said that, I am not sure that removal of the old bridge should be included as mitigation for this particular project because it has already been used for that purpose in gaining consents for building the second bridge - and at this stage anyhow, there is no guarantee that the bridge will even be demolished.) 17. We note that the Expert Conferencing Report on marine ecology (paragraph 20) suggests some potential compensation including: Re-vegetation of stream margins in key catchments e.g. Duck Creek; Restoration of harbour margins to a more natural state e.g. de-reclamation and restoration of saltmarsh areas; and Seagrass restoration in suitable habitats. 3 18. While not questioning the importance of such measures, we do not believe that they should be included as mitigation for this particular project because: They have all been identified as “immediate priority” in the Harbour Strategy and presumably have been accepted as the responsibility of the Strategy’s key stakeholders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GROUNDUP CAFÉ SUBMISSION - ADDENDUM by Pauatahanui Residents Association
    GROUNDUP CAFÉ SUBMISSION - ADDENDUM by Pauatahanui Residents Association This paper is prepared for the Pauatahanui Residents Association’s oral Submission to the Hearing on the GroundUp Cafe’s retrospective application for Resource Consent to legalise building extensions and additional Cafe seating capacity from 35 to 65. This updates our original submission of February 2014 , and includes responses to subsequent information received from the applicant and Porirua City Council and since our original submission was made some issues have changed. TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT GroundUp Café (the Café ) Rural Trading Post (the Trading Post ) Pauatahanui General Store (the Store ) Porirua City Council ( PCC ) Pauatahanui Residents Association ( PRA ) BACKGROUND • The PRA is: o A voluntary organization started as an Incorporated society in 1975. o A registered charity 1 since June 2008 o Its objectives include 3a) to maintain or improve the community and its environment for all residents while preserving its rural character and scenery. • There are approximately 300 households in the Pauatahanui area. The Association currently has 57 paid up member households. It has 177 people registered on its mailing list for monthly newsletters or notices. Newsletters are also circulated to other groups who distribute them more widely to their members. Notices and newsletters are also posted on PRA’s website 2. PRA’s original submission has been available on this website since February 2014. 1 Registered Charity Number CC42516 2 www.pauatahanui.org.nz Pauatahanui Residents Association (PRA) Version: 17/11/2014 - Page 1 Application on GroundUp Café Submission (Addendum) – Lot 1 DP7316 at 15 Paekakariki Hill Road, Pauatahanui • In addition, PRA uses the Rural Delivery to periodically share information or invite comment on important issues sent out as a community notice to all 300 households.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Snapshot of Porirua
    HISTORICAL SNAPSHOT OF PORIRUA This report details the history of Porirua in order to inform the development of a ‘decolonised city’. It explains the processes which have led to present day Porirua City being as it is today. It begins by explaining the city’s origins and its first settlers, describing not only the first people to discover and settle in Porirua, but also the migration of Ngāti Toa and how they became mana whenua of the area. This report discusses the many theories on the origin and meaning behind the name Porirua, before moving on to discuss the marae establishments of the past and present. A large section of this report concerns itself with the impact that colonisation had on Porirua and its people. These impacts are physically repre- sented in the city’s current urban form and the fifth section of this report looks at how this development took place. The report then looks at how legislation has impacted on Ngāti Toa’s ability to retain their land and their recent response to this legislation. The final section of this report looks at the historical impact of religion, particularly the impact of Mormonism on Māori communities. Please note that this document was prepared using a number of sources and may differ from Ngati Toa Rangatira accounts. MĀORI SETTLEMENT The site where both the Porirua and Pauatahanui inlets meet is called Paremata Point and this area has been occupied by a range of iwi and hapū since at least 1450AD (Stodart, 1993). Paremata Point was known for its abundant natural resources (Stodart, 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Schedules Schedules 12 Schedules
    12 Schedules 12 Schedules 12 Schedules 12 Schedules contents Schedule Page number Schedule A: Outstanding water bodies A1-A3 279 Schedule B: Ngā Taonga Nui a Kiwa B 281 Schedule C: Sites with significant mana whenua values C1-C5 294 Schedule D: Statutory Acknowledgements D1-D2 304 Schedule E: Sites with significant historic heritage values E1-E5 333 Schedule F: Ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values F1-F5 352 Schedule G: Principles to be applied when proposing and considering mitigation and G 407 offsetting in relation to biodiversity Schedule H: Contact recreation and Māori customary use H1-H2 410 Schedule I: Important trout fishery rivers and spawning waters I 413 Schedule J: Significant geological features in the coastal marine area J 415 Schedule K: Significant surf breaks K 418 Schedule L: Air quality L1-L2 420 Schedule M: Community drinking water supply abstraction points M1-M2 428 Schedule N: Stormwater management strategy N 431 Schedule O: Plantation forestry harvest plan O 433 Schedule P: Classifying and managing groundwater and surface water connectivity P 434 Schedule Q: Reasonable and efficient use criteria Q 436 Schedule R: Guideline for stepdown allocations R 438 Schedule S: Guideline for measuring and reporting of water takes S 439 Schedule T: Pumping test T 440 Schedule U:Trigger levels for river and stream mouth cutting U 442 PROPOSED NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN FOR THE WELLINGTON REGION (31.07.2015) 278 Schedule A: Outstanding water bodies Schedule A1: Rivers with outstanding indigenous ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • Paremata Village Plan 2012
    Paremata Village Plan 2012 1 Introduction It’s my very great pleasure to introduce this first edition of the Paremata Village Plan, covering the suburbs of Paremata (which now includes Mana) and Papakowhai. Our plan has been developed in accordance with the Porirua City Council (PCC) Village Planning Programme, an award-winning Council initiative to improve and develop Porirua’s suburban communities through work programmes developed in partnership with the people of those communities. For further information on the Village Planning Programme please go to the PCC Website www.pcc.govt.nz and search under Community, Village Planning. I would like to thank on your behalf the PCC Villages Programme manager Ian Barlow and his team for all the work they have done to get this plan off the ground. My thanks in particular to Jenny Lester, who has been our liaison person and has taken on most of the development work including running surveys of residents to build a picture of what we want our ‘village’ to look like in future. A huge thank you to the 300+ residents who participated in the concept, development, content and comments used in this plan. Here is our template for that vision, now it’s up to us all to contribute to making that vision a reality. Terry Knight President Paremata Residents Association Vision Statement Paremata – where community and environment are in harmony, protecting the best of what we have and embracing the best of what’s new. About Paremata The area covered by the Paremata Residents Association takes in several suburbs; Paremata, Papakowhai, Mana and a section of Camborne.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Safe to Swim in Porirua?
    Is it safe to swim in Porirua? Greater Wellington Regional Council and local councils monitor some of the Wellington region’s most popular beaches and rivers to determine their suitability for recreational activities such as swimming. We monitor eleven coastal sites in the Porirua area. The results from this monitoring are compared to national guidelines and used to calculate an overall grade for each site. Results from the 2014/15 summer season Recreational water quality in Porirua is quite variable with most sites having an overall grade of ‘C’. The best sites are at Karehana and Onehunga bays. These sites have an overall grade of ‘B’ and the Karehana Bay site met the guideline for safe swimming on all occasions. The worst sites were at the southern ends of Plimmerton Beach and Titahi Bay, and Te Awarua o Porirua Harbour at the Rowing Club. These sites recorded high bacterial counts on one occasion during the 2014/15 summer and have an overall grade of ‘D’. Very low risk of illness 0% Low risk 18% (2 sites) B Moderate risk 55% C (6 sites) Caution 27% (3 sites) D Unsuitable for swimming 0% In the Porirua area, 2 sites (18%) are graded ‘B’, 6 sites (55%) are graded ‘C’ and 3 sites (27%) are graded ‘D’. WAIT TWO DAYS AFTER RAIN before you swim again… Water quality at Porirua beaches is at its worst after heavy rain. Rain flushes contaminants from urban and rural land into water and we advise people not to swim for two days after heavy rain – even if a site generally has good water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Te Awarua-O- Porirua Whaitua Implementation Programme
    Te Awarua-o- Porirua Whaitua Implementation Programme Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Committee, April 2019 Front cover: Image of Porirua Harbour looking south Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua process is the collaborative discussion on the future of our streams and rivers, the water that connects us, the land and our communities, and how we manage and protect our natural resources. Stu Farrant Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Committee Chair Foreword from Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Committee Chair Like most areas of New Zealand, the communities within the Te Awarua-o-Porirua catchment have been defined by their intimate relationship with water. Early Māori established kāinga (villages) to utilise transformation of the catchment has been a steady the abundant mahinga kai (food harvested from decline in the quality of fresh and coastal waters and the streams, estuary and land) and other resources, the health of ecosystems. Contaminants are flushed travel routes and to seek protection from invaders. from urban and rural land and aging infrastructure Early European development rapidly spread struggles to serve the demands of a growing along the catchment’s streams and relied on the population, with overflows of wastewater a common reclamation of tidal margins for rail and road links occurrence during large rainfall events. These water and the development of what later became Porirua’s quality issues, coupled with extensive infilling and town centre and Elsdon. As the population grew, reclamation, have resulted in the severance of infrastructure was developed to drain stormwater and communities from the once abundant waterways and wastewater and protect the growing communities food and other resources they provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Porirua Harbour (Pauatahanui Arm) Porirua Harbour
    Steyne Steyne LAGDEN PARK Roa ays d Rd Gr CAMBORNE Grays d R Street o Pope r u r T Acheron Onehunga Bay Road MANA View M Bus routes o t Your key u Mana k Esplanade Esplanade a es Deviat r Jon ion ak Mana a Whitby (The CrowsPoint Nest) – Porirua 230 Grays Bus/Train interchange Mon–Sun NGATITOA Train station Rocky Bay Shelley Porirua Harbour DOMAIN Whitby – Navigation Drive – Porirua St Mana Owhiti 236 D (Pauatahanui Arm) imo Mon–Sun Bus route ck Road Street Wright Street Paenui WHITIREIA PARK Selected trips only John St Titahi Bay Road Lambley Rd RESERVE Richard 220 St Bus stop North School d ST Moult Seaview PAUATAHANUI a Herewini o Whanake WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT R Thornley St Timepoint l l Bay i St Ivey Bay Drive Jillett RESERVE H Oak Avenue i Downes k Hill i JILLETT Browns Bay r Titahi Bay a St k RES Oak Kapiti Paremata a Morere 235 Bradeys k Jillett St e Mana Station a Cres Bay Whitby – P M Gloaming d Rothwell GOLDEN Road a 220 a Ro p Paremata ds Pauatahanui Dimock r Tireti p BROWNS The Crows Nest a l ayw e H b e 236 Kiriwai Ave BAY DUCK ata School Main ck GATE ta m St Parema The are d PARK Dr CREEK P Whitehouse Kah R Leeward 230 Ave u Layline STUART ARNOLD a 236 SCENIC Paremata g Ayton PARK n Post RES PARK Road Cres a 230 210 Chaffey School h M Dr Road o Joseph r Te Onepoto Bay w WHITBY TITAHI BAY n Titahi Bay Banks i o Clipper n PAREMATA 236 r Shops g s i Gate 236 e Shackle T Dr r KURA Drive Way Tireti Matatiro da C k l Samwell e e Oxidation s e Ayton View PARK a E al Creek v Hill t d r RECREATION 230 i a e r e St Pius X Rd Leeward
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Heritage Study for the Upper Stebbings and Marshall Ridge Structure Plan
    Historic Heritage Study for the Upper Stebbings and Marshall Ridge Structure Plan The land stretching from Arohata Prison to the south, 1959, White’s Aviation, WA-51932, ATL. Elizabeth Cox, Bay Heritage Consultants For Wellington City Council April 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 Site Context ........................................................................................................... 5 Historical Narrative ................................................................................................ 9 Maori Tracks .............................................................................................................................. 9 Early Pakeha Settlement ........................................................................................................... 9 Early Colonial Settlement ........................................................................................................ 10 Military Road and Stockades ................................................................................................... 12 Rural Settlement: Late 1840s - 1900 ....................................................................................... 14 Wellington-Manawatu Railway ............................................................................................... 20 Twentieth Century
    [Show full text]
  • Village Plan 2013 2
    Whitby Residents’ Association Village Plan 2013 2. Whitby Residents’ Association Village Plan 2013 Introduction from the Whitby Residents’ Association… “We are pleased to present the 2013 update of our village plan. Village planning is a process which allows us to look at ways in which we can make Whitby a better place to live in. “This revise allowed us to look at what progress had been made with the previous 2009 plan, what remained to be done and what new ideas we had for improving Whitby, and ensuring that we have a village which we can enjoy and be proud of. “This plan includes, for the first time, the residential estate of Silverwood. This estate of about 200 sections has been developed over the past two years, and is now gaining pace. The residents of this area will be using the community facilities of Whitby, and the potential growth of this area will impact on demand for development, particularly in the eastern end of Whitby. “Of course we understand that funding will always be an issue, and we cannot have everything we want immediately, but the projects contained in our 2013 wish list certainly give us some options. There are projects big and small there, and the important thing for our association and our community, is that we have a plan which can be progressed as the opportunity and funding allows. “I hope you enjoy reading our plan, and you support our aims and objectives. The Association is an active one, and we need the support our community to ensure that we achieve the best outcomes for the people of Whitby.” Geoff Mowday Chairman Whitby Residents’ Association March 2013 Whitby Residents’ Association Village Plan 2013 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Pauatahanui Residents Association Minutes of the Management Committee Meeting Held at 483 Paekakariki Hill Road [Joanne’S House]; at 7.30Pm on Tuesday 22 October 2013
    Pauatahanui Residents Association Minutes of the Management Committee meeting held at 483 Paekakariki Hill Road [Joanne’s House]; at 7.30pm on Tuesday 22 October 2013 1. Apologies John Mazenier 2. Present Ken McAdam [Chair], Diane Strugnell [Treasurer], Erica Nicholls [Secretary], Nicky Chapman, Alan Gray, Anna Dellow & Joanne Cross 3. Welcome the Committee welcomed Ken McAdam to the Chair 4. Minutes of the previous meeting of Tuesday 17 September 2013 were approved: Moved - Joanne; Seconded – Diane. 5. Vote of thanks to Rob Foley for his tenure and valuable contributions he has made as a member of the PRA Committee. The Committee are sorry that due to circumstances Rob is unable to continue on the Committee and look forward to working with him in his capacity as member of the Association. It was agreed the Committee would provide Rob a small thank you gift to recognise his contributions. Moved – Nicky; Seconded - Alan. 6. Business arising 6.1.Winstones’ clean landfill application Alan and Diane presented an oral submission on behalf of PRA to the hearing panel on 3 October. Not all of the submissions and evidence was able to be heard within the time allocated and hearing panel will be reconvening to complete the hearing of evidence. One key issue that has yet to be resolved is regarding the traffic impacts on SH58 with the commissioners noting that it was difficult to reconcile the different opinions presented by two agencies – NZTA and NZ Police. To help resolve this “impasse”, the hearing panel is proposing to commission an independent safety audit. Winstones has presented another option (that does not appear to be significantly different or to address the traffic concerns).
    [Show full text]
  • TE AWARUA-O-PORIRUA HARBOUR and CATCHMENT Sediment Reduction Plan Response to Sediment Loss from the Te Awarua-O-Porirua Harbour Catchment
    TE AWARUA-O-PORIRUA HARBOUR AND CATCHMENT Sediment Reduction Plan Response to sediment loss from the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour catchment A document prepared by the partners of the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy and Action Plan Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Sediment Reduction Plan Response to sediment loss from the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour catchment A document prepared by the partners of the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy and Action Plan CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Objective, vision and targets .................................................................... 5 1.2 This plan .................................................................................................... 5 2 The sedimentation issue .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 What is sedimentation and why is it a problem? ..................................... 8 2.2 Where is the sediment coming from? ...................................................... 8 3 How can excess sedimentation be remedied? ...................................................... 11 3.1 Prevent soil from eroding ....................................................................... 11 3.2 Catch sediment before it enters the harbour ......................................... 12 4 Sediment reduction activities ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Water Allocation in Te Awarua-O- Porirua Whaitua
    Title: Hydrology and water allocation in Te Awarua-o- Porirua Whaitua Purpose: To provide an overview of the hydrological systems and current water allocation within Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua. Author: Environmental Science Department, GWRC Date: September 2015 Contact Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Committee PO Box 11646, Wellington 6142 [email protected] T 0800 496 734 F 04 385 6960 Hydrology and water allocation in Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. HYDROLOGY OF THE WHAITUA ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 HOROKIRI STREAM ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 PORIRUA STREAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Kenepuru Stream ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Mitchell Stream ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Belmont Stream .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]