JOY ANDERTON AND JILL ABIGAIL

PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF INQUIRY ON THE MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL

Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.

Good morning Your Honour and members of the Board. My name is Jill Abigail. Dr Joy Anderton and I own a 7.3 hectare property in Te Hapua Road, north of Peka Peka. 4.1 hectares (or 10 acres) of the property is a wetland that is part of the Te Hapua Swamp, a wetland complex that runs from slightly north of Peka Peka almost to Te Horo . The Te Hapua Swamp is designated as having national significance because of the rarity of such complexes, most having been drained for farming or development. The swamp complex is similar to those within the Project‟s footprint.

Our presentation to you today will give particular emphasis to the topic of wetlands. In the expressway proposal as a whole, the loss of some wetland areas may seem a relatively small item, but to us any loss of wetland is tragic. Although New Zealand was one of the last places on earth to be settled by humans, it has one of the worst records of native biodiversity loss (Department of Conservation website). Habitat destruction, including the draining of wetlands and the fragmentation and degrading of ecosystems, is one of the contributors to this loss. 90% of New Zealand‟s wetlands have already gone – any further destruction must not be tolerated.

We ourselves have for the past 13 years been restoring the natural wetland on our property – which we have covenanted for its protection – and have undertaken a great deal of research on these sensitive ecosystems. We have sought and received expert advice, and have gained hands-on practical experience in the management of wetlands, including the observation of cause and effects.

The irony of our situation is that as private landowners, we have had support from government agencies in protecting the natural capital of and wetlands on our own property. Now we find ourselves in the bizarre position of having to advocate for the protection of large tracts of fragile /wetland environment from inappropriate land use proposed not by a developer, but by the Crown.

Since our original submission to the Board, we have read much of the scientific evidence put forward by experts who have been tasked with looking at the effects of the proposed expressway on the Kapiti district. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work that officials and experts have undertaken in seeking to minimise the negative impact of the expressway on the environment.

However, sir, nothing we have read has convinced us that the cost that will be borne by Kapiti‟s human communities and natural environment can be justified if this Project proceeds. In our view, the evidence points to one conclusion: the proposed expressway would disrupt communities, drain wetlands, disturb sensitive dunes, dig up native vegetation, destroy rare plant and animal habitat and disperse toxic waste into the waterways and the air. Despite the litany of mitigation and remedial measures the experts have described, it is our view, sir, that the proposed expressway violates the Resource Management Act, and Dr Anderton will detail our reasons for this view.

A. We believe that the proposal deviates from the stated purpose of the Resource Management Act Part II: 5 (1 and 2a,b,c).

“Purpose–(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, “sustainable management” means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being and for their health and safety while– (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) Safe-guarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

A 1. The Project would leave an extensive, permanent footprint on an area of the country whose environmental threat status is “ Acutely threatened”. (Land Environment of New Zealand – cited by Stephen Fuller, para 50)

If this Project were the only solution to the district‟s traffic congestion, then it could be justifiable. The fact is that there are other efficient, economically viable alternatives that would acknowledge the Kapiti Coast for what it is, an area of nationally significant natural environment and a peaceful place for human, plant and animal species to live. In an acutely threatened environment, no matter how modified by previous development or farming, sustainable management means protection and restoration, not destruction.

A 2.The impact of the proposed expressway on wetland/dune ecosystems does not promote their sustainable management.

A 2. a. We do not believe the Project will result in wetland gain.

Wetlands have long been at the bottom of the conservation stakes – they have been systematically drained for housing, for animal grazing, for rubbish tips, for the construction of airports. They have been undervalued: as natural

2 filters of ground water, reducing nutrients, chemicals and suspended ; as flood protection; as food sources for fish and birds; and as valuable habitats for some of our most endangered fish and bird species. They have not been recognised as living, breathing ecosystems that sustain rich biodiversity.

We have read that wetlands are regarded by Maori as being like the organs that cleanse the body, such as the kidneys and the liver (National Wetland Trust, Our Wet and Wild Places, 2005, page 3). For Maori, wetlands have been sources of food, of medicinal plants, of materials for weaving and carving. They continue to have both spiritual and cultural value.

We acknowledge that effort has been made to avoid some of the best examples of wetlands within the Project designation, but the Applicant accepts that there will be loss of wetland areas in the construction of the proposed expressway. The Applicant claims that this loss will be mitigated by the construction of new wetlands, that there will be a net gain in wetlands as a result of the Project. Yet we see from the evidence that some of what is being proposed are at best artificially constructed stormwater treatment ponds with native planting at their edges and, at worst, lined storage areas for toxic run- off, for heavy metal contaminants. The latter so-called wetlands should more accurately be designated motor vehicle effluent ponds. We submit that utilising the ability of constructed „wetlands‟ to deal with the excrement from this expressway is better than leaving it to seep over the whole surrounding countryside, but their construction can in no way be considered a gain for the environment.

A 2.b. Who would carry responsibility for ongoing care of these new wetlands?

We note that experts advise transplanting plant material from wetlands that would be destroyed by the Project and revegetating some areas of wetland that are at present in a degraded or unprotected state. This sounds a laudable proposal but we have real concerns about its sustainability.

Our question is: who would maintain these plantings? From our years of personal experience, we know the endless hard work that goes into maintaining large areas of planting. We have had to replace some of our plants up to three times. Despite employing the best revegetation practices of proper plant choice, plant protection, and weed control, the challenges are enormous. Rabbits and hares chew plantings to death. Salt winds kill them. Exotic weeds throttle them. Is the Applicant preparing to spend large amounts of money for the next decade or two on the staff and equipment needed to maintain these areas? Or would it be up to volunteers to do the mundane environmental „housework‟ long after the experts have moved on?

We have found little acknowledgement in the expert evidence of the thousands of hours of voluntary labour that has gone into restoring, for example, the fernbird habitat at Waikanae , which would be

3 destroyed by the proposed expressway. If a new habitat is constructed, we can safely predict that it would not be paid scientists who spend cold wintry days building the fernbirds a new home, replacing the plants that have been pulled out by vandals or by pukekos, and resetting predator traps. No, sir, it would be unpaid volunteers, usually elderly people, who put their hands in their pockets to fund these conservation efforts as well as faithfully giving their time and energy.

B. We believe the proposal contravenes the requirements of the Resource Management Act (Part ll:6a, b, c, e) to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate use and development.

“In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, developments, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development: (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna:…. (e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

B 1. The proposal does not adequately value elements of the natural character of wetlands and dunes within the coastal environment

B 1.a. We do not believe that indigenous flora and fauna have been appropriately valued or possibly even identified.

We read from the evidence the disagreement among ecologists as to the value of the flora and fauna of the various wetlands in the Project area. This is no surprise to us. We have been involved over the years in efforts to save the Te Hapua Swamp complex from what we consider to be inappropriate development. We have had the experience of ecologists for the developers saying that an area contains nothing of value while ecologists from the regional council or from a botanical society quickly spot significant populations of rare and valuable plants. Especially around the sometimes wet and sometimes dry margins, the most experienced botanist can easily miss tiny important plants. Once the earthmoving machinery moves in, anything overlooked in a botanical survey will be lost forever.

We are also concerned that debates over the actual extent of indigenous vegetation and wetlands do not represent the precautionary approach required when dealing with wetland ecosystems. The only reason anyone

4 argues for a reduction in wetland boundaries is to enable activities such as roadbuilding, grazing or development to occur or to reduce the area that would incur ongoing maintenance costs.

During 2006/7 we spent many hours in Council and Environment Court mediations arguing against a redrawing of wetland boundaries that diminished one section of the Te Hapua Swamp heritage site. Unlike a forest, where you know you are either in it or not in it, the ephemeral and seasonal nature of wetland water levels means you can‟t be so sure where a wetland begins and ends. Wetlands that are reduced in extent or fragmented are always much more vulnerable to disturbance and weed infestation. They are also less valuable as species habitat. So having generous margins around wetlands and patches of indigenous vegetation is crucially important. We are not confident that this would happen if the expressway were to proceed.

B 1.b. We are concerned that inadequate knowledge of wetland hydrology would expose wetlands within the proposed expressway footprint, as well as those outside it, to unacceptable risk.

One thing ecologists and hydrologists in this Project do agree on is that they don‟t know enough about the hydrology of wetlands to know for sure what impact the expressway construction would have. They also agree that even small effects can have a large impact. Again, citing our experience with the Te Hapua Swamp, in the arguments between developers and conservationists it became clear that nobody had any factual data on the water flows. As a consequence, ahead of any further attempts at development, the Te Hapua Swamp now has hydrological monitoring, with the information being fed back to Greater Wellington‟s headquarters. The reported findings demonstrate that the hydrology of interdunal wetlands is complex, and drainage or earthworks in surrounding dunes makes these vulnerable to unintended consequences (Greater Wellington, GW/EMI-G-10/161). In the case of the expressway proposal, since the Applicant‟s scientists agree that they don‟t know what the effects would be, how can the application be allowed to go ahead before sufficient data has been collected?

B 1.d. We do not believe adequate attention has been paid to the loss and disturbance of peat that would occur during construction of the expressway

The Applicant estimates that approximately 440,000 cubic metres of sand and peat would be removed during the construction of the expressway (EPA, July 2012, 0180, page 5). Peat is a nationally significant material for several reasons: it contains indigenous plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else; it uniquely acts like a sponge, reducing flooding by soaking up excess water and releasing it in periods of drought; and it acts as a carbon sink. Has

5 the cost of contributing to global climate change by the loss of locked up carbon from the disturbed peat been factored into the overall cost of the expressway? Since peat builds at a rate of only one millimetre a year, 90-100 millimetres per century (Janet Hunt, Wetlands of New Zealand, 2007, page 83) it would take many, many thousands of years to replace the lost peat. We consider this adverse effect to be more than minor.

B 2. We do not accept that adaptive management techniques satisfy the RMA requirement to „protect and preserve‟.

Protection and preservation imply measures taken before an event. The Applicant‟s experts suggest monitoring for two to five years and if adverse effects occur, applying adaptive management techniques. „Adaptive management‟ sounds to us like “making the best of a bad job”, or “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”. Sanitising the language does not alter the fact that it means trying to fix something you knew all along was at risk of happening. It also doesn‟t disguise the fact that some effects may be fatal and not able to be fixed at all. Many indigenous wetland plants rely on fluctuating water levels, and would die out if areas stay permanently wet or permanently dry. Others require a relatively stable water table and would also be lost if conditions change. We suggest applying adaptive management techniques is simply not good enough in any threatened ecosystem.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, Your Honour:

We have in this presentation concentrated our concerns primarily on just one aspect of this Project, the loss of environmental values. We would like to conclude by broadening our comments.

Who would benefit from the proposed expressway? Certainly not the local people, we who live here. Waikanae was a few years ago voted the best little town in New Zealand. Waikanae is the community that would be worst affected in this exercise. It is located in such a narrow stretch between the hills and the sea that there would be no part of this erstwhile lovely, peaceful community that would be free from the noise and pollution of this gigantic, elevated structure. It would no longer be a discrete town, with its own special character. It would become merely part of the corridor out of Wellington.

We accept that traffic congestion on State Highway One through this district is a problem and needs fixing. We do not accept that the proposed solution is appropriate. There are alternatives to imposing a four-lane highway through a fragile coastal environment, and the Board has heard the arguments for these from other submitters.

Sir, the Board has had to read thousands of pages of documentation and listen to hundreds of hours of evidence. Engineers, planners and scientists have supplied you with a mass of detail. As community members, we are asking bigger questions:

What is the morality of imposing this expressway on an area that has up till now been known – and chosen by people – for its peace and quiet?

What is the morality of spending millions of dollars on this proposed expressway when our country is in debt and would go further into debt to finance it?

We know that questions of morality are probably not part of the Board‟s terms of reference. But this is the last chance we have, as two citizens who will have to live with your decision, to plead our case from the heart.

We request the Board to decline the application.

Joy Anderton Jill Abigail Submitters 293

8 January 2013

7