In relation to: Board of Inquiry Transmission Gully Plan Change

Statements of evidence of Paula Gay Warren for:

Appropriate Technology for Living Association (submission 34) Public Transport Voice (submission 27) Rational Transport Society (submission 19) Paula Warren (submission 12)

______

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1. My full name is Paula Gay Warren.

2. I hold a Bachelor of Science in botany and ecology from the University of Auckland. I have undertaken some post-graduate studies, and continue to carry out voluntary scientific work as a liverwort parataxonomist.

3. I have 24 years professional experience as a central government policy analyst, primarily working on legislation and systems reforms for conservation and environmental management. I have had a range of policy and management roles and am currently employed as a Principal Policy Analyst in the Department of Conservation. I am presenting this evidence in a private capacity, not as an employee of the Department.

4. I have worked on a wide range of legislation and systems reforms in New Zealand.

5. I was involved in the development of the Resource Management Act, including working on secondment to the Ministry for the Environment in finalising the policy and developing the drafting instructions for the Resource Management Bill provisions relating to coastal management, and

1 participating in the select committee process for the Bill. I have subsequently worked to a lesser or greater degree on subsequent reforms of the Resource Management Act and the development of national policy statements and national environmental standards.

6. I have been a statutory decision-maker in the Department of Conservation. For a period in the early 1990s I was responsible for all mining decisions – either approving mining operations under delegation or making recommendations to the Minister of Conservation. That work gave me a clear understanding of the complexity of decisions that involve weighing up competing values, and the importance of ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. My work included recommending approval of a major mine that would have significant impacts on conservation values, but where analysis in terms of the statutory provisions indicated that such approval was the correct outcome in legal terms.

7. I have also undertaken international work. I was New Zealand’s principal technical delegate to the Convention on Biological Diversity for a number of years, was a member of the technical body Bureau, represented the Convention in other international processes, and chaired meetings. I was also the Clearing House Mechanism Focal Point for New Zealand, and in that role carried out extensive work to foster scientific and technical cooperation between New Zealand and other countries. That has included doing work with agencies in Chile, Mexico, and Argentina.

8. I have also worked with the Galapagos as a volunteer for the last decade, helping develop biosecurity regulations and systems. That has provided me with experience in applying scientific principles and policy approaches in a very different legal and social context.

9. I have been actively involved in transport as an advocate for users of public transport and pedestrians for most of the last two decades. I am the user representative on the NZ Transport Agency national Passenger Transport

2 Advisory Group, and have been an appointed member of the Wellington Regional Land Transport Committee.

10. As a member of the Regional Land Transport Committee, considering a different Transmission Gully Project proposal, in a different context, I voted in favour of its inclusion in the RLTS. But I have made a submission against this application, because the analysis I have undertaken as a policy expert with a strong understanding of ecology and transport has led me to the conclusion that the application should not be accepted.

11. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (March 2011) as contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2006), and I agree to comply with it. Although I have submitted against this proposal I have drafted my evidence as far as possible in compliance with the Code, relating my expertise in the areas outlined above to the project and the considerations under the RMA.

12. In my evidence I have sought to draw together relevant information in scientific papers, the grey literature, statutes and statutory documents, to provide an analysis of the proposal.

13. I have included all the relevant material that I have identified, and sought to reach a policy conclusion based on that material. Where the material is contradictory, I have sought to identify the most appropriate overall response to those contradictions. I do not claim that the material I have identified is a comprehensive selection, as in the limited time available and with no financial resources, a full search of the literature and other sources has not been possible, but I have not excluded any material that I am aware of that I believe to be relevant. If I had had available alternative evidence, I may well have reached a different conclusion from a policy perspective (as I did when considering alternative information about an alternative TGP in the Regional Land Transport Strategy context.)

3 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

14. My evidence firstly considers offsetting, largely from a theoretical perspective.

15. It then considers the effects TGP may have on freshwater and the coastal marine area, and the relevant statutory requirements relating to those effects and the plan change as it relates to those effects.

16. It then examines the costs and benefits of the TGP, and considers their relevance in the statutory context, particularly as it relates to infrastructure and transportation matters.

OFFSETTING

17. The issue of offsetting is clearly critical to the consideration of this proposed plan change. . 18. I was responsible for developing an approach to compensation, including offsetting, for mining operations on land administered by the Department of Conservation. I also had responsibility for the policy relating to amendments to conservation legislation that replaced provisions relating to the way compensation was considered in concession processes. I have therefore looked closely at the way offsetting can operate, and the way various forms of offsetting relate to various statutory codes.

What is offsetting – mitigation or compensation?

19. Mr Milne’s advice highlights the need to clearly distinguish between offsetting which is a subset of mitigation and offsetting which is a subset of compensation.

4 20. Making that distinction is, in my view, important (in general and in the current instance) to provide clarity about how offsets should be treated in statutory decisions.

21. It appears that NZTA intends offsets to be something other than mitigation, given that the term is added to a list that includes the term ―mitigation‖.

22. The proposed NPS on Indigenous Biodiversity, which is cited in the evidence of Mr Daysh, defines a biodiversity offset as follows: Biodiversity offset means measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions which are designed to compensate for more than minor residual adverse effects on biodiversity, where those affects arise from an activity after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem function.

23. An important aspect of that definition is that offsets compensate for residual adverse effects. They do not prevent those adverse effects occurring.

24. Offsetting is, under that definition, not part of avoiding, remedying or mitigating. It is compensation for those effects that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Offsetting and protection

25. Nor can that type of offsetting be part of protection, because it does not reduce the effect on the resource being protected.

5 26. At one of the meetings held to discuss the Freshwater Plan change proposal, a member of the public put it this way:

“I am responsible for protecting my children. So under that idea, if I leave them at home every night without food, and go out and save other children from worse abuse, I am still protecting my children because NZ children are, overall, better off? I think not. The Police would still rightly prosecute me for not protecting my children.”

27. I do not consider that compensatory offsetting can provide any contribution to the achievement of a sustainable management objective in line with the section 6 requirement to provide for the protection of natural character from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

28. Equally, it could not be cited as achievement of avoidance, because it does not reduce the severity of the effect on the resource.

29. Whether mitigating offsets can achieve protection of natural values or avoidance will be explored further below.

What actions to improve biodiversity could be considered to be mitigation

30. I have examined this question from a biological perspective, and reached a similar conclusion to Mr Milne.

31. Biologically, mitigation does not have to be at the same site. But it does have to address the specific effect of the development, and therefore the same biological characteristic that is being affected.

32. For example a development may reduce the breeding success of a bird species by reducing its food supply. An activity that increased the breeding success of that population by controlling predators at nesting sites some distance from the feeding area would be mitigation. An activity that increased the breeding success of a different population or different species, even if at the same site

6 as the effect, would not be, because it would not reduce the severity of the effect.

33. Mr Milne has highlighted that the resource being protected may be defined at various scales. I do not disagree, but would emphasise that it is vital that any such definition makes biological sense as well as legal sense.

34. For example he cites the possibility of considering the effects of a culvert on upstream kokopu habitat in a particular stream. But such a distinction would not make sense if that loss of the upstream habitat affected the usefulness of the downstream habitat to kokopu. That could conceivably occur in a range of ways - for example if a lack of occupation of the upstream habitat meant that juvenile fish did not enter the stream because they were not receiving the appropriate chemical signals, or if they were unable to survive or thrive because they lacked the refuges against trout predation that the upstream area had provided, or because the habitat size left was too small for a viable population, or because the culvert changed flow regimes downstream in a way that adversely affected the fish, or because the changes to flow regimes changed the habitat downstream and that had a flow-on adverse effect on the fish.

35. Eikaas and McIntosh1 have provided an example of the importance of being clear on the extent of the actual effect of what may appear superficially to be a site specific effect. Their study examined the potential effects on habitat availability for a range of native freshwater fish of both culverts and landuse changes that acted as fish passage barriers. They found that landuse changes that affected habitat quality in the lowlands to the extent that fish were unable to passage through that part of the river not only caused the loss of the directly affected habitat, but also restricted access to the available habitat upstream of that change. The habitat ―lost‖ for certain species was therefore far greater than that affected directly by those land uses, but for other species that did not normally use all the upstream habitat, the loss was far less.

1 Habitat loss through disruption of constrained dispersal networks, Hans S Eikaas and Angus R McIntosh, Ecological Application 16(3), 2006, pp 987-998

7

36. Equally, it is important to be confident that the action being taken will have the effect intended. There are a number of reasons as to why an action may fail to reduce the severity of the effect of the development, including: a. If a mistake was made, and the resource being addressed was not the same biologically as that being affected. This might occur, for example, if what was thought to be one population was in fact two genetically distinct populations, or even two species b. The mitigation occurred after the effect, and effect on the resource had reduced or destroyed its capacity to benefit. For example the development may reduce the population size, and create a genetic bottleneck that would impede the response to the mitigation action. c. The mitigation might occur after the effect, with the result that there is a delay between the effect occurring and benefits being delivered. During that delay period, there is no net benefit to the community. Economists use discounting mechanisms because future benefits are less valuable than immediate benefits. The longer the delay in the benefits being provided, the larger the net benefit would need to be before the community would be fairly compensated. Normal accounting practice would suggest that a delay of more than 8-10 years would negate the value of the benefit. d. The mitigation action did not result in the result expected. For example predator control might have been expected to increase breeding success, but in fact reduced it by allowing expansion of another species that was competing for food with the affected species. e. The mitigation action did not occur. This has been particularly common overseas, where enforcement of offsetting conditions has been inadequate.

37. The above factors suggest that in general it is important to ensure that any mitigation offsetting and at least some types of compensation offsetting (those with a high risk of technical or outcome failure) have taken place and shown to deliver outcomes before the effect occurs. That will provide

8 certainty to the community, and accurate measures of the benefits of the mitigation.

38. For compensation offsets, a high certainty that the offset will be provided, and a timely provision of the offset, are essential for offsetting to be effective in providing fair compensation.

When can offsets achieve protection or avoidance?

39. As Mr Milne has identified, mitigating offsets can theoretically achieve protection or avoidance in certain circumstances.

Circumstances in which it is theoretically possible 40. I consider that the circumstances in which this is theoretically possible are where: a. the resource that is being protected is of a larger scale than the scale of the effect on that resource; and

either b. there are other threats to the unaffected part of the resource that can be prevented or reduced; and c. those threats are certain to arise and will not be prevented or reduced by other available means;

or d. the unaffected part of the resource has been significantly degraded; and e. recovery will not occur without actions; and f. recovery can be achieved by feasible actions.

41. But I note that determining whether an offset results in a net benefit over the long term is complex and needs extreme care.

9 Defining equivalence 42. A key problem is defining the ―resource‖ and ensuring that the resource is either homogenous or that the heterogeneity within it is well understood. If that is not done, there can be no certainty that the offset is equivalent to the loss.

43. For example if one part of a stream was to be reclaimed, and another part restored, there would be no protection/avoidance if the part being reclaimed had characteristics that were unique. A general tool may indicate equivalence, while a close examination of factors not included in that tool (e.g. distribution of invertebrates or presence/absence of overhangs) might indicate that the two stream reaches are not equivalent.

44. A second problem in defining equivalence is ensuring that the ―restoration‖ or ―protection‖ work in another part of the resource was equivalent to the loss in the affected part of the resource.

45. One problem is that location usually matters. The location of individuals profoundly influences ecological interactions and hence factors such as biodiversity persistence, ecological function, amenity value, etc.

46. Take a simple hypothetical example. A population needs 100 breeding pairs to be self-sustaining (i.e. to be likely to persist over the long term in the face of normal stochastic perturbations). The current population affected by the development is 120 breeding pairs. The development will reduce the population to 80 breeding pairs. It is to be offset by a restoration that increases the adjacent population by 40 breeding pairs. This may appear equivalent, but if the adjacent population had only 40 breeding pairs, then in fact the result would not be equivalence – instead of one self-sustaining population and one that wasn’t, you would have two that weren’t. The chance of local extinction would have been significantly increased.

47. Similarly, if, in our hypothetical example, the fish in the affected population were part of an ecosystem that contained no trout or other introduced species

10 (a rare characteristic), while those in the restored population were in an ecosystem that had a range of introduced species, then the population of fish in the invaded ecosystem would have a much lower value to conservation than the population of fish in the non-invaded ecosystem. So even if the second population was brought up to 120 (giving a net increase in fish numbers of 40), equivalence of ecological value of those fish would still not have been achieved. A measure of fish numbers would say net benefit when there had in fact been a net loss.

48. A further issue in considering equivalence is time. Ecosystems are subject to both cycles (e.g. succession) and fluctuations caused by perturbations.

49. So an area of manuka shrublands and the adjacent broadleaf forest with emergent kauri are equivalent on one resource measure – they are both intact indigenous vegetation on the same LENZ environment. But it is doubtful that any New Zealander would consider the protection of a large area of manuka shrubland as offsetting for the loss of the broadleaf/kauri forest to have resulted in protection of that forest.

50. Differences caused by timing of ecosystem processes may be less obvious. So take two hypothetical streams in a single catchment. They were surveyed three years ago and mapped as equivalent. But they are subject to different frequencies of flood events due to their slightly different catchments. At the time of the survey they both had similar levels of fine sediment on the substrate. But since then the more frequently flushed stream has been subject to a flushing event, that has resulted in very different substrate condition (due to the flushing of fine sediments and deposition of some larger boulders that have added to the substrate heterogeneity), that in turn has significantly affected the habitat quality for benthic invertebrates, that has resulted in significant differences in food supply for wading birds, that has in turn resulted in a very different experience for a birdwatcher visiting the two streams. Their apparent equivalence as invertebrate habitat was the result of a coincidence in conditions between their different flushing cycles that is a relatively infrequent occurrence.

11

51. The birdwatcher highlights another important difference in ecosystem values. Two ecologically equivalent streams may have different human values if one is on private land with no public access, and the other in a regional park. Or one is difficult to reach and the other has a well developed access route. So it is important to define whether it is just the ecological value that matters, or the ecological and accessibility values.

Treatment of threats 52. The treatment of threats to the non-affected part of the resource is also problematic.

53. A frequent proposal in offsetting is the protection of an ―unprotected‖ ecosystem. One problem with that is that the destruction or modification of an ecosystem that has no legal protection is not certain to occur, while the destruction or modification of the ecosystem that is affected by the development being offset is certain. In many cases such proposals ignore forms of ―protection‖ that exist, such as RMA rules, the lack of economic incentives to change the ecosystem, social constraints on change, etc. It is difficult to weigh up a certain threat against an uncertain threat, particularly if the uncertain threat is not imminent and may change over time (e.g. because of the issuing of a national policy statement).

54. It is also difficult to compare the loss of all or most potential for future recovery (e.g. through reclamation or installation of structures that are unlikely to be removed in the foreseeable future) with the value of immediate restoration of a resource that will retain its restorability if not restored. As discussed above, the reason for discount rates is that people value immediate and future benefits differently. But in conservation, the retention of future options is valued extremely highly. The classic example of this is the emphasis on irreversible effects, particular extinction (as in the phrase ―extinction is forever‖).

12 55. Stephens 19972 sets out a methodology for assessing the value of a biodiversity management activity. His discussion of ―project urgency‖ as a factor states: Urgency expresses the time for loss and recovery to occur…These relationships suggest that project worth is best indexed by a multiplicative function of its three components: outcome size, urgency and feasibility, Project Merit = Outcome x Urgency x Feasibility where Project Merit is the index of project worth.

If a threat is fast acting (e.g. fire, wetland drainage) and a project is designed to counter the threat and so maintain the status quo, then urgency has a large threat component but no recovery component. Similarly, if the damage has already been done and a restoration project is designed to recover the damage, then there is a recovery component but no threat component. The absence of either component does not nullify project merit. However, if there is no threat component and recovery is inexorably slow, then merit is negligible. This suggests that the two components of urgency interact in an additive manner but their combined interaction with project return is multiplicative. An index of urgency seems best based on a decay function: Urgency = exp( – 1n(1 + βtT )) + exp( – 1n(1 +βtR )) where tT is the time in years for the projected outcome of the threat to happen, tR is the time in years for the projected recovery to eventuate and β is a scaling term reflecting the value society places on quick results. The index ranges from zero to one and if β is set to 0.01, it generates high values (>0.5) for outcomes expected within 10 years and low values (<0.01) for outcomes expected to take millennia.

56. One of the implications of this approach for offsetting is that a recovery action on part of the resource where the current values are relatively stable or

2 Measuring Conservation Achievement. Stephens, T. In: Biodiversity Now! Joint Societies Conference, Wellington, 29 June–3 July 1997. Selected papers. Ed: P.M. Blaschke and K. Green. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

13 only slowly declining (i.e. there is no ongoing threat and the degradation is the result of historic factors) will generally be of lesser value than protecting the resource that is threatened by the development in question. Looked at in that way, even if the recovery will result in significant improvement to the degraded resource, if that does not remove a threat to the residual values of that resource, then it cannot easily be of higher value than preventing the development which threatens another part of the resource.

57. That would lead me to the conclusion that offsetting can only generally provide positive protection if: a. the effect is short lived or can be readily corrected by future recovery actions (e.g. this may be the case for some short term construction impacts); or b. the offsetting action is addressing a real, imminent, threat that cannot be addressed in other ways (e.g. by an alternative plan change to the Freshwater Plan).

Relevance of offsetting for Appendix 2B streams

58. The current FWP includes policy 4.2.10 which reads: To avoid adverse effects on wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, identified in Appendix 2 (Parts A and B), when considering the protection of their natural character from the adverse effects of subdivision, use, and development.

59. The objective that covers the protection of their natural character is: 4.1.4 The natural character of wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, is preserved and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

14 60. A key requirement for a modified policy would be the requirement in section 32: “whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives”

61. I consider that it is not sufficient for NZTA to show that offsetting could achieve the purpose of the Act, or even achieve the objective, but that it is the most appropriate way to achieve the objective.

62. The objective uses the phrase ―preserved and protected‖. As discussed above and recognised by Mr Milne, mitigation is not generally sufficient to achieve protection, and compensation is never sufficient.

63. NZTA have proposed a modification to the relevant policy to allow compensatory mitigation. Given the discussion above and the advice of Mr Milne, I conclude that such a change to the plan would result in a policy that does not achieve the objective.

64. In his evidence, Mr Keesing has not identified any imminent new threat to the streams in Appendix 2, other than the TGP. If that is the situation, the proposed change to the policy would allow an imminent and serious threat to potentially proceed, in return for offsets to correct past changes to the streams.

65. Mr Keesing has not provided evidence that those past changes will lead to further significant deterioration in the near future. If that is so, then the threat to the streams would be future landuse changes. The plan change proposed by myself and the Appropriate Technology for Living Association would address the major potential threats (i.e. landuse changes in future).

15 66. Given this, I conclude that mitigatory offsets should be rejected as an approach to the achievement of the objective in the current FWP because: a. The objective requires preservation and protection. b. The damage to the streams that would occur as a result of TGP would be immediate, significant (as set out by Mr Keesing in his evidence) and in many cases permanent (e.g. as a result of diversion and reclamation). c. Any other reasonably foreseeable threats to the current values of the streams can be addressed by the proposed alternative plan change that is in keeping with the Act, the National Policy Statement on Freshwater and normal RMA practice. d. There are no imminent threats to the current values of the streams that can only reasonably be addressed through offsetting. e. Offsetting would provide uncertain outcomes in the future, while the impacts of TGP would be certain and occur in the short term. f. Ensuring that equivalence was achieved would be difficult. g. If mitigatory actions were in streams other than the Appendix 2 streams, or in different parts of the streams, then demonstrating equivalence would be particularly difficult.

67. I also consider that the change to the policy would reduce the achievement of the other objectives relating to natural values: 4.1.5 The life-supporting capacity of water and aquatic ecosystems is safeguarded from the adverse effects of any subdivision, use and development. 4.1.6 Significant indigenous aquatic vegetation and significant habitats of fresh water fauna in water bodies are protected.

68. As highlighted, these both contain avoidance/protection wording.

16 Certainty for the public

69. An argument made by Mr Daysh is that the proposal is to introduce a plan change, and does not in itself determine whether damage to the streams would be accepted in a resource consent process in return for offsetting.

70. A key characteristic of an effective plan is that it provides certainty to the public about how decisions will be made. Participating in processes such as this is difficult for the public and community groups. Greater certainty provided by plans will reduce the number of resource consent hearings in which people need to actively participate, and therefore the costs to the public (and developers and councils). It will also increase people’s confidence about the future state of their environment, facilitating investment in its protection, restoration and use. For example community restoration groups will be easier to form and maintain where the members of that group are confident that a future resource consent will not undo their work.

71. In his evidence, Mr Daysh for NZTA, states at paragraph 55 that the current approach in the Freshwater Plan ―introduces an unnecessary level of uncertainty and lack of direction for decision-makers.‖

72. In paragraph 66, however, Mr Daysh states that in his view ―some of the policies in the Freshwater Plan currently allow little flexibility.‖

73. It is my view that flexibility on the one hand, and certainty for those affected by a Plan on the other hand, are simply opposite sides of a coin. Additional flexibility in rules relating to protection of streams will reduce the certainty of protection, by allowing greater discretion for decision-makers in both whether to protect the stream and how that protection is to be achieved. Greater flexibility can only be achieved by allowing greater discretion to decision- makers, which must reduce the degree of direction to them.

17 74. Mr Daysh implicitly confirms that by stating in paragraph 65 that offsetting could be undertaken ―at other appropriate locations‖ outside the catchment of the affected streams. Offsetting outside the catchment cannot contribute to the protection of the catchment, and therefore an offsetting approach of that type will increase the level of uncertainty for those in the community who wish to see those catchments protected.

75. In paragraph 66 Mr Daysh states that a lack of flexibility ―could add significantly to the cost and uncertainty of the Project as well as being impractical to build in certain areas.‖ He appears to be saying that the Freshwater Plan policies relating to protection of significant streams should provide greater certainty for projects that threaten freshwater values. If this is his intent, I cannot agree that this is appropriate.

76. It is my view that the proposed plan change would greatly reduce the certainty of protection for the streams in Appendix 2. I consider that this would be contrary to the natural values objectives and good planning practice.

FRESHWATER AND STREAMS AND FLOW-ON EFFECTS ON THE COASTAL MARINE AREA

Effects

77. Mr Keesing’s evidence sets out a large number of effects that are more than minor that the TGP will have on freshwater along the ―alignment of the project‖.

78. NZTA do not appear to have provided evidence on the potential effects on freshwater from the ―associated works‖ included in the TGP definition in their application. One such associated work is the dumping of around

18 600,000 cubic metres of sediment somewhere south of SH 583. I have not been able to consider those potential effects due to lack of information.

79. Mr Keesing’s evidence relating to culverts appears to be limited to their effects on their immediate footprint – i.e. the habitat that is lost by the culverting itself. He seems to base that on the expectation that the culverts would be designed to avoid any fish passage effects.

80. I would encourage further consideration of that matter by experts in the field. For example a 2006 paper4 reported on modelling work focusing on the ability of fish to overcome velocity barriers. Culverts can create velocity barriers, by either increasing the flow velocity of the stream, or making flow velocity more uniform and thus denying the fish the ability to choose lower velocity paths or to rest between patches of higher velocity. The aim of the work was to improve the ability of fisheries managers to predict the likelihood that culverts and other changes to a stream would create a barrier to fish passage by changing flow velocity. Culverts could also have other effects on fish passage, such as potentially exposing fish to increased predation within the culvert (as culverts will not generally have the range of refuges available in other parts of the stream), or changing the willingness of fish to enter the culvert by altering light or other factors.

81. Given that, it is possible that even a well designed culvert will act as a fish passage barrier for some or all of a fish population. If that was the case, then the lost habitat would be far greater (as discussed by Eikaas and McIntosh5).

82. In 1996 Mr Brian Warburton provided to the Department of Conservation an ―assessment of erosion and sediment discharge‖ from the ―proposed inland motorway‖, in the context of the designation process.6 That assessment

3 That figure is provided in the evidence of Mr Daysh, paragraph 38.4. 4 Modelling the effect of varying swim speeds on fish passage through velocity barriers. Theodore Castro-Santos. 2006. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1230-1237. 5 Habitat loss through disruption of constrained dispersal networks, Hans S Eikaas and Angus R McIntosh, Ecological Application 16(3), 2006, pp 987-998 6 Proposed Inland Motorway: An assessment of erosion and sediment discharge. Brian Warburton. September 1996. Copy attached to this evidence.

19 highlighted risks of sediment discharge from the project during the construction period, including as a result of heavy rainfall events. I am not in a position to compare the conclusions of Mr Warburton with those of the NZTA witnesses, but consider that this is an area warranting further exploration. In considering the potential for pulses of discharge during storm events, the potential for increased frequency or intensity of storm events due to climate change effects should be factored in.

83. The issue of sediment warrants careful consideration because it is the major risk to the Porirua Harbour from TGP.

84. A recent study of sedimentation in Porirua Harbour7 found that sedimentation rates in the Harbour increased over the period 1974-2009, with consequent reduction in the tidal prism. The current rate was estimated at 5-10mm per year, compared to the historic rate of 1-2mm per year. The study states (in the Executive Summary) that: “Allowing for uncertainties, at current deposition rates Pauatahanui Inlet will have ceased to exist over the next 145-195 years (A.D. 2155- 2205) and the Onepoto Arm over the next 290-390 years (A.D. 2300- 2400). Although both marine and terrestrial sources supply the sand and mud to Porirua Harbour, the stream catchments draining into both arms appear to be the dominant source.”

85. Among the recommendations in the report is to “Consolidate and enhance the re-vegetation and silt-trap programmes within the catchments draining into Porirua Harbour to permanently reduce the volume of terrestrial-derived sediment entering the Harbour.‖

7 Patterns and rates of sedimentation within Porirua Harbour. Report prepared for Porirua City Council. Jeremy Gibb and Gregory J Cox. July 2009. C.R. 2009/1.

20 86. It is not only the Inlet that has suffered from past effects. A study of Horokiri Stream8 found significant changes in fish in the stream over a 50 year period, as a result of changes in the habitat. That paper concluded that ―The principle lesson to be learned from the loss of the Horokiwi trout fishery is the way in which a lack of appropriate riparian management can gradually affect an aquatic resource: although the instantaneous rate of change may be small, the collective rate over time can be substantial.‖ These past changes are likely to make the streams more vulnerable to new impacts, such as sediment inputs from the construction of TGP, and there is a risk of additional pressures creating a ―tipping point‖ for some stream elements (e.g. populations of freshwater fish that are already significantly reduced in size).

87. The evidence before me shows that there will be significant effects on the affected streams from TGP, and that any change in sediment in those streams will have flow-on effects on the adjacent coastal marine area. But I do not consider that there has been sufficient information provided to fully quantify the likely effects, and assess their importance for the values of those waterbodies.

88. Plan change needs to clearly specify what effects there will be and how they will be addressed.

The Appendix 2 Streams

89. In his evidence at paragraph 14, Mr Keesing states: In my opinion, based on my analysis of these waterbodies, the natural character and ecological condition of Ration Stream, other than in its coastal reach, does not warrant its identification as having special value. While noting that all waterbodies in the Porirua harbour catchment are modified to a large extent, in my opinion, the Horokiri and the lower Pauatahanui Streams do have sufficient ecological value and natural character to warrant their identification as special value

8 The Horokiwi Stream 50 years on: a study of the loss of a productive trout fishery. DJ Jellyman, GJ Glova, ML Bonnett, AI McKerchar, KR Allen. 2000. NIWA Technical Report 83.

21 waterbodies, largely for their ecological values rather than natural character. In addition, both Duck Creek and Te Puka Stream also have sufficient ecological value and natural character to warrant identification as having special value, although neither of these streams are listed in Appendix 2B. I have reached these conclusions from considering the aquatic habitat, aquatic biodiversity and processes, and aquatic fauna of each stream.

90. I have acquired under the Official Information Act some material from the Department of Conservation’s Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand (FENZ) database. That data appears to confirm the conclusion of Mr Keesing, that Ration Stream has been degraded to a lower level of naturalness than Pautahanui and Horikiri Streams, and that there are other streams in the region that have sufficient naturalness to warrant being added to the Appendix 2 list.

Natural resources

91. Before turning to the relevant RMA policies and plans, I first set out some information I have obtained on the relevant natural values in the area which have informed my analysis and may be of assistance to the Board in its work.

Threatened ecosystems

92. The Government in 2007 issued a Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land.

93. The map provided with that document shows that many of the ecosystems affected by the TGP are priority 1 under the national priorities document.

Threatened fish 94. I have examined the records on the national freshwater fish database. Below is a list of the freshwater fish and invertebrates that have been recorded in the data, for three streams that are affected by the TGP. These include some

22 threatened species under the 2005 listing of threatened species by the Department of Conservation.

Horokiri Stream: koura (freshwater crayfish) (threatened) Long fin eel (threatened) Short fin eel Red fin bully Giant kokopu (threatened) Banded kokopu Estuarine triplefin Flounder spp Yellow-eye mullet Giant bully Inanga Lamprey Common smelt Torrent fish Common bully Shortjaw kokopu (threatened) koaro

Little Waitangi Stream (Pauatahanui Catchment) Long fin eel (threatened) Short fin eel Red fin bully Giant kokopu (threatened) Banded kokopu Inanga Lamprey Common smelt Shortjaw kokopu (threatened)

23 Wainui Stream koura (freshwater crayfish) (threatened) Long fin eel (threatened) Short fin eel Red fin bully Banded kokopu Common bully

Pauatahanui Inlet

95. The Pauatahanui Inlet Action Plan, prepared by the Pauatahanui Advisory Group in 20009 had this to say about the Inlet:

Pauatahanui Inlet is the larger of the two Inlets of Porirua Harbour. The Inlet covers an area of 4,500 hectares, of which about 1,100 hectares are tidal flats. The Inlet's catchment covers an area of 100 square kilometres.

Reserves in the catchment include Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Reserve, a 43 hectare block reserved in 1984, administered for the Department of Conservation by a Forest and Bird Reserve Management Committee. A Wildlife Refuge (169 ha) gazetted in 1956 and managed by the Department of Conservation covers the eastern third of the Inlet. Duck Creek Scenic Reserve (1ha) and Horokiri Wildlife Management Reserve (5 ha) protect areas of saltmarsh and marsh vegetation. Kakaho estuary at the mouth of the Kakaho Stream is an esplanade reserve administered by Porirua City Council. In addition there are a number of other Porirua City Council reserves around the Inlet.

The Inlet is well recognised for its high ecological, aesthetic and recreational values. It is classified as a Site of Special Wildlife Interest

9 Towards Integrated Management: Pauatahanui Inlet Action Plan. Pauatahanui Inlet Advisory Group. August 2000. Greater Wellington Regional Council Publication WRC RP-G-00/33

24 (SSWI) by the Department of Conservation. The Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region recognises Pauatahanui Inlet as an Area of Significant Conservation Value as follows:

"Natural, conservation, geological and scientific values. A wildlife reserve with a diverse waterfowl and wading-bird habitat (local and migratory) threatened fish species (including Galaxias spp) and endangered vegetation. The reserve contains significant salt marsh vegetation." (Regional Coastal Plan, page 233)

96. A 2009 Department of Conservation survey of estuaries10 compared Porirua Harbour with other estuaries in the lower North Island.

97. Porirua Harbour was the only estuary in [geomorphological] category E.11.

98. It ranked second equal, after the Manawatu Estuary (a registered wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention). Pauatahanui and the Waikanae Estuary (a scientific reserve) had a score of 29, compared to the Manawatu score of 30.

99. Appended are the sections of the draft report (being prepared for publication) on Pauatahanui Inlet and Duck Creek.

10 Estuaries in the lower North Island: current status and future management. Matt Todd, Claire Graeme, Helen Kettles and John Sawyer. Unpublished. 11 Category E – Shallow, circular to slightly elongate basins with simple shorelines and extensive intertidal area. They generally have a narrow entrance to the sea that is usually constricted by a spit or sand barrier. Sand bodies occur as ebb and flood tidal deltas at the mouth on littoral drift shores. On zero drift shores funnel-shaped entrances with no sand bodies occur. The tidal prism is a large proportion of the estuary basin volume. The volume of river flow delivered during a tidal cycle is very small compared to the total volume of the estuary. Thus, estuary-scale hydrodynamic processes are dominated by ocean forcing. Wind generated two-dimensional circulation, mixing and resuspension occur at high tide. They have good flushing because much of the water leaves the estuary on the outgoing tide. Category E estuaries generally have homogeneous sandy substrates because of a combination of wave resuspension of the substrate and flushing. They are also well mixed because strong flushing, wind mixing and the shallow depths prohibit density stratification. Salinity is close to that of the sea. Ocean swell can resuspend sediment in the entrance of estuaries with wider mouths at high tide when screening from the ebb tidal delta is minimized.

25 Relevant Policies, Plans and Other Matters

100. I will now identify the relevant policies, plans and other statutory matters that appear relevant to consideration of the impacts on the natural resources of the area.

National Policy Statement on Freshwater

101. Since Mr Daysh prepared his evidence, a National Policy Statement on Freshwater has been issued by the Minister for the Environment. The NPS will take effect on 1 July 2011. The Freshwater Plan must give effect to the new NPS.

102. I believe that the provision in that NPS that has greatest relevance to the proposed freshwater plan change is Objective A2, which requires that: The overall quality of freshwater within a region is maintained or improved while: a. protecting the quality of outstanding waterbodies b. protecting the significant values of wetlands c. improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated.

103. Outstanding freshwater bodies are defined in the NPS as ―those water bodies with outstanding values, including ecological, landscape, recreational and spiritual values.‖

104. Over-allocation is defined as ―the situation where the resource: a. has been allocated to users beyond a limit or b. is being used to a point where a freshwater objective is no longer being met. This applies to both water quantity and quality.‖

26 105. Wetland is not defined in the NPS, but is defined in the RMA as follows: ―wetland includes permanently or intermittently wet areas, shallow water, and land water margins that support a natural ecosystem of plants and animals that are adapted to wet conditions”

106. Wetland in the NPS is therefore not limited to freshwater wetlands, but also marine wetlands, such as the Pauatahanui wetlands.

Indigenous biodiversity

107. The RMA provides some clear references to indigenous biodiversity, including: a. Section 6 requires inter alia that ―In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: b. Section 30(ga) gives regional councils the following function: ―the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity‖ c. Section 86B provides that a rule in a proposed plan has immediate legal effect if the rule—… (b) protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or (c) protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or…

108. The Government has further signalled the importance it places on these aspects of the Act, and the way it anticipates those provisions being implemented, through: a. Issuing a proposed NPS on biodiversity, which is still in its early stages b. Issuing, in 2007, a Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land.

27

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and Regional Coastal Plan

109. I agree with Mr Daysh that at least parts of the TGP will be within the ―coastal environment‖, and that therefore the NZCPS is relevant to the proposed plan change. The Freshwater Plan must give effect to the NZCPS.

110. Policy 1 of the NZCPS provides some guidance on what the coastal environment includes. This includes (inter alia) a. areas where coastal processes, influences or qualities are significant b. coastal vegetation and the habitat of indigenous coastal species including migratory birds c. elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or amenity values d. inter-related coastal marine and terrestrial systems, including the intertidal zone

111. NZCPS is also relevant when assessing the significance of the flow-on effects of sediment for the Porirua Harbour, as is the Regional Coastal Plan. The Regional Coastal Plan identifies the Pauatahanui Inlet as an area of conservation value (ACV). The Freshwater Plan cannot be inconsistent with that plan.

112. I am not able to provide a full analysis of the possible implications of the NZCPS, but will highlight some policies that appear particularly relevant to the TGP and the proposed plan change.

113. Policy 4 on integration states that integrated management requires inter alia ―particular consideration of situations where:…(iv) land use activities affect or are likely to affect, water quality in the coastal environment and marine ecosystems through increasing sedimentation‖.

114. Policy 5 relates to lands or waters held or managed under the Conservation Act or the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act. The policy

28 requires that adverse effects of activities that are significant in relation to the purposes for which the land or waters are held should be avoided.

115. The Wellington Conservation Management Strategy that set out land which falls within that definition within the Porirua/Kapiti area (at the time that the CMS was approved). I have not attempted to determine which of those areas would be in the coastal environment, but clearly those which are immediately adjacent to Pauatahanui inlet would be included.

116. Policy 11 sets out policies related to indigenous biological diversity. This policy requires that certain adverse effects be avoided, including the following that are clearly relevant to the proposed plan change: a. effects on threatened indigenous taxa listed in the NZ Threat Classification System lists b. effects on indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened in the coastal environment, or are naturally rare c. effects on areas containing nationally significant examples of indigenous community types d. effects on areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation e. significant effects on areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment f. significant effects on indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the coastal environment an are particularly vulnerable to modification, including estuaries…coastal wetlands…eelgrass…saltmarsh

117. Policy 13 requires the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, and its protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Among the elements of natural character identified in that policy are some that are particularly relevant to the proposed plan change: a. natural elements, processes and patterns b. biophysical, ecological, geological and geomorphological aspects c. the natural movement of water and sediment

29

118. Policy 14 addresses the restoration of natural character.

119. Policy 21 addresses the enhancement of water quality in the coastal environment.

120. Policy 22 addresses sedimentation, including requiring that ―subdivision, use and development will not result in a significant increase in sedimentation in the coastal marine area, or other coastal water‖ and that ―sediment loadings in runoff and in stormwater systems‖ be reduced ―through controls on landuse activities‖.

121. Policy 23 addresses the discharge of contaminants to water in the coastal environment.

Regional Policy Statements

122. The Freshwater Plan must give effect to any regional policy statement, and the council must have regard to any proposed regional policy statement.

123. There are a number of sections of the operative RPS that are directly relevant to the project, notably: a. freshwater b. soil and minerals objectives and policies relating to the effects of landuses on downsteam river management and water and resilience to storm damage, and relating to the development of Class 1 and Class 2 lands. c. the coastal environment, noting in particular the specific references in Pauatahanui Inlet in Policy 1 d. ecosystems e. landscapes

30 Other regional plans

124. The Freshwater Plan must not be inconsistent with any other regional plan.

125. In his evidence, Mr Daysh suggests that these are not inconsistent, as they ―deal with separate matters unrelated to the issues that the Freshwater Plan considers‖.

126. I do not agree that they are unrelated.

127. The relevant provisions of the Regional Coastal Plan are covered above.

128. The Regional Soil Plan addresses a range of issues relating to soils. One in particularly is clearly relevant to TGP – Issue 2.2.12 Sediment-laden runoff can have adverse effects on the receiving environments during and following soil disturbance activities.

129. In 4.2.15, the plan includes the following policy: To regulate soil disturbance activities to ensure that they are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on: erosion rates; soil fertility; soil structure; flood mitigation structures and works; water quality; downstream locations; bridges, culverts and other water crossing structures; aquatic ecosystems; and historic sites with tangata whenua values.

130. The Air Quality Regional Plan includes policies relating to greenhouse gas emissions. In section 1.3 the Plan states that ―the objectives, policies and

31 methods of the Plan address air quality problems related to emissions from mobile transport sources‖ while noting that the approach is non-regulatory. So any provision in another regional plan that facilitated a roading project that would increase greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be inconsistent.

131. The Regional Plan for Discharges to Land covers discharges of stormwater and has specific provisions relating to roading.

Conservation Management Strategy (CMS)

132. The Act requires the regional council, when preparing or changing any regional plan, to have regard to management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts‖. The CMS is a statutory plan prepared under the Conservation Act.

133. In paragraph 212, Mr Daysh addresses the CMS thus: The key location is reference to the Pauatahanui Inlet; in particular the Pauatahanui Wildlife Refuge, the Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Reserve, the Horokiri Wildlife Management Reserve and the Duck Creek Management Scenic Reserve. I note that all of these areas are outside of the TG Project alignment and directly adjoin the Pauatahanui Inlet. Beyond this there is no specific mention of the streams that are affected by the implementation of the TG Project. In my view the CMS is therefore not directly relevant to the Plan Change.

134. I do not agree that the CMS is therefore not directly relevant. The effects of the TGP are clearly not limited to the areas within the alignment of the TGM, as associated works will affect wider areas, and sediment that enters streams within the alignment will flow downstream to the lower reaches of the streams and the receiving coastal and marine environments.

32 Precautionary approach

135. The current Freshwater Plan includes the following policy: 4.2.26 To adopt a precautionary approach to the management of freshwater in the Wellington Region where information is incomplete or limited. Explanation. This policy provides for the precautionary approach. In essence, this approach suggests that preventative or remedial action does not have to await the presentation of conclusive scientific evidence of significant adverse effects. Rather, preventative or remedial action should be taken if evidence makes it plausible that significant adverse effects on the environment may occur. The precautionary approach has been accepted in New Zealand resource management and it is embodied in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 and the Regional Policy Statement.

136. The operative Regional Policy Statement includes a policy 6 relating to the coastal environment To adopt a precautionary approach to the evaluation of risk in making decisions that affect the coastal environment, recognising that there will be situations where there is a low probability of an event occurring, but that such an event has the potential to create major adverse effects.

Analysis

137. TGP will clearly have significant effects on freshwater, indigenous biodiversity, soils and the coastal environment.

138. The key question relating to the proposed Regional Freshwater Plan change is whether a plan change that would allow effects to occur that are currently required to be ―avoided‖ is consistent with the legal requirements for a regional plan.

33 139. On the information available to me, I would conclude that this would not be consistent, for the following reasons.

140. The TGP will affect Appendix 2 streams. These are streams which have been identified in the Plan as having a high degree of natural character, and the current plan requires that more than minor effects on these streams be avoided. These streams are also home to threatened species, and are highly likely to be significant habitats for those species.

141. The most relevant objective in the FWP are 4.1.4 The natural character of wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, is preserved and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. 4.1.6 Significant indigenous aquatic vegetation and significant habitats of fresh water fauna in water bodies are protected.

142. The relevant objective in the operative RPS is Objective 3 Freshwater resources of significance or of high value for cultural, spiritual, scenic, ecosystem, natural, recreational, or other amenity reasons are protected or enhanced.

143. Section 6(c) establishes as a matter of national importance the protection of significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Section 30(ga) gives the Regional Council the function of setting objectives, policies and methods for maintaining biodiversity.

144. A plan change that reduced protection for the habitat of threatened freshwater species is unlikely to be consistent with all those requirements.

145. In addition, any new provisions in the Freshwater Plan must be consistent with the new National Policy Statement on Freshwater (NPSFW).

34 146. Objective A2 requires that the quality of outstanding waterbodies is protected. The listed streams appear to fall within the definition of outstanding, given that they have been recognised in the current Plan.

147. Objective A2 also requires that the quality of fresh water in waterbodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated is improved. I consider that Ration Stream, based on the objective set for it in the plan and the evidence from Mr Keesing, is over-allocated. Removing the stream from the Appendix would therefore be likely to be inconsistent with the NPSFW, and giving effect to the NPSFW would require the addition of new provisions to restore the natural character of that stream. My submission and that from the Appropriate Technology for Living Association have provided some proposed new provisions that would at least prevent further significant damage to that stream from landuse changes.

148. Objective A2 also requires that significant values of wetlands be protected. That includes marine and freshwater wetlands. Therefore any change to the FWP that resulted in significant increased sedimentation of the high value wetlands within the streams and in the Inlet, diversion of streams in such a way that wetlands were affected, or reclamation of wetlands, would be contrary to the NPSFW.

149. The change in approach would be likely to result in further sediments reaching Pauatahanui Inlet. The inlet in general or lands within the Inlet are explicitly or implicitly addressed under a range of documents, including (but not limited to) the following:

a. The NZCPS requires that adverse effects that are significant in terms of the purpose for which protected areas are managed (Policy 5) or that affect areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation should be avoided. Parts of the inlet are protected areas. b. The NZCPS requires avoidance of effects on nationally significant examples of indigenous community types. The estuary clearly falls

35 within that definition, given the guidance provided in the 2007 Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land. c. The NZCPS requires that significant effects on eelgrass and saltmarsh be avoided, and the Gibb and Cox report shows that unnatural rates of sedimentation will destroy those communities within a relatively short period. d. The NZCPS requires that ―subdivision, use and development will not result in a significant increase in sedimentation in the coastal marine area‖, and compensatory offsetting will not ensure that this does not occur. e. The operative RPS, in objective 1 on the coastal environment, requires the protection of nationally and regionally significant areas and values. Pauatahanui is clearly at least regionally significant, as it is listed as an area of significant conservation value in the regional coastal plan. f. The operative RPS, in Policy 1 of the coastal environment section specifically requires the protection from all actual or potential adverse effects of (inter alia) Pauatahanui Inlet (Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife Management Reserve), and Horokiri (Wildlife Management Reserve) g. The same policy requires the protection of the values associated with Pauatahanui Inlet, and clearly the accelerated sedimentation of the Inlet and its complete loss in a relatively short period would not protect those values.

150. An offsetting approach that allows effects on the estuary to occur cannot, in my view, be consistent with those policies. The Freshwater Plan cannot be inconsistent with any of those requirements and in some cases must actively give effect to them.

151. The proposed plan change is intended to make it more likely that the TGP can be consented. The TGP will involve significant earthworks. In addition to the likely effects of those earthworks on the streams and Inlet, it is difficult to see how a modified plan that is designed to make such earthworks easier to consent and allow significant adverse effects of sediment (through offsetting)

36 could be consistent with the Regional Soil Plan (policy 4.2.15) or the operative RPS provisions relating to soil and minerals. TGP also appears to be inconsistent with the policies in the RPS relating to Class 1 and 2 lands.

152. Because offsetting is highly uncertain, it would not be consistent with the requirements in the FWP and RPS regarding taking a precautionary approach. For example a 2008 literature review for the New Zealand Lamprey12 (which is present in some affected streams) found that the spawning of lamprey had not been observed and knowledge of the type of habitat suitable for spawning was therefore only able to be inferred from the movement of adults.

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE TRANSMISSION GULLY PROJECT (TGP)

Are the benefits of the TGP and possible alternative ways to deliver those benefits relevant to the plan change request

153. I therefore consider that the benefits of TGP is a relevant matter that should be examined, and submissions relating to that matter are not irrelevant.

154. In his evidence, Mr Nicholson, on behalf of NZTA, addresses a number of submissions that have ―a common theme of opposition to the TGP itself, generally because these submitters consider that this Project is not the best transport option and that it is better to invest in alternative schemes or modes instead‖. In response to those submissions, in paragraph 110, he states that ―the Plan Change is not about the Project itself but rather the policy framework that is proposed to exist when the consent applications are considered.‖ He further states that: “Furthermore, the Project is part of the Wellington Northern Corridor RONS, and as such, is a nationally significant project. Its importance is, in my view, not therefore in question and I agree with Mr Daysh‟s

12 Ecology of the New Zealand Lamprey (Geotria australis): a literature review. Dr Alex James. September 2008. Department of Conservation.

37 assessment of the Project against the provisions of the Regional Policy Statement.”

155. In his evidence, Mr Nicholson also cites a number of benefits of the construction and operation of TGP.

156. In paragraph 111 of his evidence, Mr Nicholson also states that “The submission by Michael Nicholson and further submission by Living Streets Wellington and Cycle Aware Wellington both comment on the implications of the TGP for the existing SH1 coastal route, and possible benefits to users of this route after the TGP is constructed. In my view, these implications are irrelevant to the current Plan Change…”

157. In its application, NZTA has made clear that the plan change is to be specific to the particular project, and that this specific exemption from the normal operation of the Freshwater Plan was justified by the importance of the TGP. For example on page 25 of their request report, they state that “This policy recognises that the Transmission Gully Project is particularly important for enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety.”

158. In his evidence, Mr Daysh, for NZTA, states at paragraph 54 that: ―However, there is a risk that a decision maker could find that activities necessary for the TG Project may be contrary to some of the policies of the Freshwater Plan, and in turn, shut out by section 104D. This would set aside the strong national, regional and district support for the Project in the RMA and other statutory documents.”

159. In my view, it is clear from the application and evidence, that NZTA are not seeking to solve a general problem with the Freshwater Plan, but rather are concerned that the level of protection the Plan provides to freshwater, and specifically the Appendix 2 streams, would prevent a weighing up of the

38 effects on freshwater against the benefits of the TG Project. They have, therefore, claimed that the benefits of the TGP is the key matter that justifies their request.

Claimed benefits of TGP

160. In its application, NZTA claimed that the project would was ―particularly important for enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety‖.

161. In his evidence, Mr Nicholson (paragraph 51) identifies the following benefits from TGP. The benefits of the TGP are primarily: 51.1 Improved route security; 51.2 A reduction in journey times between Wellington and the Kapiti Coast (and further north); 51.3 Safety benefits; and 51.4 Improved amenity for the coastal communities adjacent to the existing SH1.

162. I shall now consider the information I have been able to access on those benefits, whether there are other projects that are affected by TGP that could provide greater benefits, and then consider the weight the benefits should be given under the relevant statutory documents.

Route security

163. The TGP route is itself at significant risk of earthquake hazard, according to the Greater Wellington Hazard Maps13. Much of the route has medium to high risk overall, and high risk of slope failure.

13 Combined earthquake hazard maps prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council, http://www.gw.govt.nz/new-linkcollection-44/

39 164. In the event of a major earthquake in Wellington City (e.g. from a movement of the Wellington Fault), TGP will be unlikely to provide access to the city, because it is unlikely that the city end of SH1 will be functional. SH1 crosses the Wellington Fault, and the Greater Wellington Earthquake Hazard Maps identify Ngauranga Gorge as a high risk zone.

165. So even if TGP was not itself affected, the ability for TGP to provide access to the city would be negligible. All it could do would be to get some materials closer to the city for airlifting across the damaged area of highway. That could be equally achieved down the Hutt corridor or by ship.

166. The Main Trunk Railway Line is also an important facility for both freight and passengers. While having some of the same weaknesses, as it also crosses the Wellington Fault, it is less vulnerable than SH1 at the Wellington end, because the diversion through tunnels 1 and 2 avoid some of the hazards associated with the Ngauranga Gorge area.

167. The most vulnerable part of the Main Trunk Railway Line is between Muri and Paekakariki. A feasibility study undertaken in 200514 concluded that two new tunnels should replace that section of the Line, at a cost of $239-272m. That is considerably less than the cost of TGP. NZTA has taken no steps to consider and progress that project.

168. I therefore conclude that while TGP will have some benefits for route security, those benefits are largely related to local events, and are likely to be relatively minor in the event of a major earthquake. The information I have available also suggests that there may be higher priority projects relating to regionally significant transport infrastructure. Those alternative projects are less likely to proceed if available transport infrastructure funding has been allocated to TGP and other RONS projects.

14 Pukerua Bay-Paekakariki Railway Tunnel Feasibility Report, Beca Infrastructure Ltd in association with Parsons Brinkerhoff, March 2005

40 A reduction in journey times between Wellington and the Kapiti Coast (and further north)

169. There are four main modes used by people and freight to move between Wellington and the North via the Kapiti Coast (as set out in the RLTS): (a) freight on the main trunk line (b) passengers on railway services (c) people in cars and buses on SH1 (d) freight on SH1

170. TGP may reduce journey times for people and freight using the road corridor between McKays and Linden, if: (e) The people travelling on SH1 do not have to make a significant deviation to use TGM, compared to the current route (f) The development of TGM does not increase journey times for those who cannot use TGM (g) The grades on TGM do not significantly reduce the speed for freight vehicles (h) TGM does not induce traffic and create new congestion problems

171. TGP will not reduce journey times for people and freight using the rail system. By diverting funds that could be used to improve the rail system, it will remove the ability to improve journey times for those users.

172. Some years ago, as part of my work as a member of the Regional Land Transport Committee, I carried out an exercise with a number of locomotive engineers (drivers of Electric Multiple Unit trains) to identify the projects that would most improve transit times and reliability for passengers on the Wellington rail system.

173. That work identified a range of initiatives that could be undertaken to reduce rail journey times for passengers if funding was available, including increased frequency of services (to reduce waiting times at stations), increased transit speed for the trains (e.g. by removing curves, double tracking single track

41 sections, faster rolling stock, faster points), and more express trains (by providing more services and more passing loops).

174. It is unclear what effect TGP will have on journey times for people and freight continuing to use the old SH route, either to avoid the steep grades of TGM, or because the deviation necessary to get onto TGM makes the use of the existing route more convenient, or because their destination is along the coastal route (i.e. they are local traffic).

175. In his evidence Mr Nicholson does not set out what proportion of passengers and freight will currently and in future benefit from this aspect of TGP, as opposed to those who either do not benefit or are disadvantaged by TGP.

176. I note that in 2007 cordon surveys of Wellington City showed that 25% of people arrived by public transport and slightly over 40% by car15. Most public transport users from the Kapiti area would have arrived by train.

177. The 2009/10 monitoring report on the RLTS16 examines the difference in travel times between public transport and car use, using NZTA data. It states (page 16) that: Over the measurement period, public transport travel time has become more competitive compared to travel by car, but average public transport travel times on these routes remain around 30 minutes slower than by private car during the AM and PM peak periods….

In 2010, it took 28 minutes longer to travel by public transport than by private car during the AM peak, 44 minutes longer during the interpeak and 30 minutes longer during the PM peak….

Further reductions in public transport journey times are required to achieve the RLTS target of peak period passenger transport journey

15 Figure 6, page 12, 2006/2007 Annual Monitoring Report on the Regional Land Transport Strategy, Stepember 2007, Greater Wellington Regional Council 16 2009/2010 Annual Monitoring Report on the Regional Land Transport Strategy, October 2010, Greater Wellington Regional Council

42 times are equal to or better than a similar journey undertaken by a private car.

178. Given this, I would conclude that any available transport funding related to reducing journey times for passengers in the Kapiti corridor should be focused on reducing journey times for public transport users rather than car users. If this is not the case, the objectives of the RLTS in relation to transit times cannot be met, as improvements in car transit times will exacerbate the difference in transit times. It is the difference that is relevant to the RLTS, not the absolute times. To improve public transport transit times on the Kapiti corridor will require investment in rail rather than road because almost all public transport journeys on that corridor are by rail.

179. I therefore conclude that TGP will not have a net positive effect on people journey times across the sector, in terms of the concern about transit times set out in the RLTS.

180. In relation to freight, I would note that when I was a member of the RLTC and considering the TGM proposals as they were at that time, the representative of the Road Transport Forum indicated that they would cease to support TGM if there was a heavy trucking ban on the coastal route after TGM was built. They were clear that at least some fully laden trucks would be unwilling to use TGM in the uphill direction. I therefore question whether all freight trucks will benefit from TGP in terms of travel time, but have not been able to find any clear information on that point. It is likely that those that need to use the coastal route will be disadvantaged in terms of travel times.

181. The KiwiRail Turnaround Plan calls for investment on the North Island Main Trunk rail line that will reduce the travel time a train takes between Auckland and Wellington from the current 14 hours to 12 hours.17 TGP will not address that problem, and is likely to reduce the funds available for addressing the problem. I note, however, that the current proportion of

17 Cited in Wellington Regional Freight Background Report, March 2011, Greater Wellington Regional Council

43 freight carried by rail in the region is very low, and most freight is carried by truck. I therefore conclude that improvements in truck transit times will significantly benefit freight.

182. In conclusion, TGP will have benefits for most freight in terms of transit times (provided trucks are able to use the route), but will not have a benefit for passenger transit times that is relevant to the objectives of the regional land transport strategy. It will not benefit any trucks that are unable to use the route, or rail freight.

Safety benefits

183. Mr Nicholson in his evidence provides evidence for safety problems on the existing highway, but does not provide comprehensive evidence for how TGP will affect those problems.

184. The current SH1 was found to be in the lowest personal risk band (fatal and serious crashes per 100 million vehicle-kilometres) in the KiwiRAP road safety assessment process for state highways18. What generates the high collective risk in that assessment is the high traffic density.

185. That roads induce traffic is now well accepted by traffic engineers internationally. NZTA’s own statements indicate that they believe that TGM will eventually become congested as a result of increased traffic.

186. As currently designed, TGP will result in an overall increase in road capacity of 4+ lanes.

187. The number of crashes and fatalities is directly related to the number of vehicle kilometres travelled (which is why fatalities per vkt is a measure used by the World Health Organisation). The more time spent on the road, the

18 http://www.kiwirap.org.nz/pdf/reg_bro/Taranaki%20Manawatu%20etc%20broch%20final.pdf

44 more likely a motorist is to be involved in a crash and be injured or die as a result.

188. In addition, there is a major difference in safety between modes in New Zealand. The Regional Road Safety Plan notes that ―Public transport is the safest mode of travel and mode shift from less safe modes will positively contribute to safer outcomes" and has as one of its objectives "Promote the use of public transport as a safe mode of travel through local and regional plans and programmes".

189. In 2003-8 nationwide deaths/injuries p.a. per 100 million km were 27.21 for car drivers, 20.42 for car passengers, 2.81 for bus passengers; per million hours travelling 10.12, 8.35 and 0.73 respectively (train passengers would be comparable with bus passengers or better).19

190. Page 20 of ―New Zealand evidence for the health impacts of transport‖ by Prof Tord Kjellstrom and Dr Sarah Hill20 provides a graph of the relative risks of various modes. It shows that the risk to bus passengers is negligible. Rail is not included, perhaps reflecting the fact that there have been virtually no injuries to rail passengers in recent years.

191. Given this, any activity which causes a significant modal shift from car use to public transport use will reduce transport injuries, while any activity which results in an opposite modal shift will increase injuries.

192. Given the above, I do not consider that there is evidence to show that TGP will result in a net increase in road safety. It is clear that alternative projects that resulted in significant modal shift to rail would increase road safety.

19 http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/How%20New%20Zealanders%20travel%20web.pdf , table 11. 20 New Zealand evidence for health impacts of transport: a background paper prepared for the Public Health Advisory Committee, Professor Tord Kjellstrom and Dr Sarah Hill, December 2002.

45 193. This would be particularly the case because providing a more satisfactory public transport service is likely to have a higher modal shift effect on at least some car users who are particularly at risk (because they will be more motivated to shift modes), such as those who have used alcohol or drugs, who are tired (e.g. shift workers). I have a minor disability that makes me less safe as a vehicle operator. I choose not to have a licence because I have other choices. A relative with the same disability, but no public transport options, regularly drives a car. She would change modes if that was possible.

Health effects

194. NZTA has not provided any analysis of health effects of TGM.

195. The Kjellstrom and Hill report cited above highlights a range of health impacts of transport, including effects of motor vehicle air pollution, disturbance effects of noise, the reduced physical activity and associated obesity, and community disruption from major roads.

196. In September 2006 a health impact assessment was undertaken of the draft RLTS for Wellington. It concluded (inter alia)that:

The final major conclusion of the HIA is that the relative proportions of funding used within the draft RLTS should be altered to protect and promote public health. Funding spent on public transport, cycling, walking and certain TDM packages is highly likely to protect and promote public health, in multiple ways and for all sectors of society. Funding spent on new roading (as separate from maintenance of roading) is highly likely to induce traffic, traffic that comes from communities and flows to other communities. Apart from increasing access to the community and services for those people with access to vehicles, new roading is largely damaging to public health and wellbeing. Not only that, but every dollar spent on new roading undermines the other packages, as it slows modal shift and makes it harder to put in place effective programmes that protect public health such as Safe Routes to Schools.

46 We believe that the current funding proportions, while considered generous towards public transport in comparison to other parts of the country, do not go far enough to ensure that public health is protected and promoted by this strategy. The potential negative effects of the new roading that is proposed in the draft RLTS are likely to outweigh the positive public health benefits that might accrue from the planned investments in public transport, walking, cycling and TDM. This is because the new roading is likely to create an environment that will promote additional vehicle use within the region for the foreseeable future. While some of the public transport initiatives are also long term, such as new rolling stock and buses, many are short-term education based initiatives that attempt to mitigate against a vehicle-based environment, for example travel plans. While useful and fully supported, these are less effective than environmental changes for promoting behaviour change.

Furthermore, in the modelling and analysis of the Regional Transport Programme Strategic Options prepared for public consultation, three options were presented to the public – advanced roading (66% of funding allocated to roading); planned investment (60% roading); and advanced passenger transport (54% roading). The analysis noted a number of negative impacts from the advanced roading option, and the draft RLTS therefore stated it would take a middle path of „planned investment‟ to best meet the objectives of the RLTS, and this wording is used throughout the draft RLTS. However, the ratio of funding in the draft RLTS is 67% roading, higher even than the advanced roading option. When analysed by total dollars allocated, passenger transport and TDM is $22 million lower in the draft RLTS than the planned investment option presented in Strategic Options. So not only is the ratio misleading, so is the absolute amount. The strategic options paper noted that advanced roading option „does not perform as well as the planned investment scenario. It results in significant degradation of passenger transport services and mode share without making any overall decongestion improvement‟. We agree with this assessment.

197. Given this evidence, and with no alternative evidence provided by NZTA, I conclude that the TGM will have negative health effects. This negative effect

47 is compounded by the fact that TGM now sits within RONS rather than as part of an overall multi-modal transport package that includes elements to reduce its effects on modal choice.

Improved amenity for the coastal communities adjacent to the existing SH1

198. It was the amenity benefits to coastal communities that was the major factor in my previous support for TGM. These benefits are clear and significant, provided they are delivered.

199. I was involved in the development of the Living Streets and Cycle Aware submission, that sought to set out clearly what changes would be needed to deliver the amenity benefits. I have been concerned for many years that the benefits promised will not be delivered for three reasons:

a. If there is an overall increase in road capacity, the international experience suggests that traffic will be induced, and much of that traffic will be on the coastal route. b. I have been advised by a Porirua CC officer that no heavy vehicle ban can be imposed on the coastal route after TGM is in place, because it would not be enforceable. That could mean that coastal communities will not have significantly reduced noise, vibration, emissions and risk effects from heavy vehicles. c. If the coastal route is not re-designed, there will not be improvements in matters such as intersections between the main route and communities such as Paekakariki.

200. I therefore conclude that TGP will only deliver these benefits if active steps are taken within the project to ensure this occurs.

48 Economic effects

201. The TGP has a benefit cost ratio of 0.621. That means that it cannot provide an overall economic benefit, and therefore will reduce overall economic wellbeing rather than improve it.

202. I note that the Health Impact Assessment of the RLTS also includes the following in its conclusions:

Finally, we believe the modelling data and assumptions that reallocation of funding to public transport would damage economic and regional development, and/or increase congestion require challenging. These assumptions do not appear to stand up to scrutiny when considering recent interventions in cities around the world, nor even to recent data from Wellington. We believe the reverse may be true, that increased allocation to public transport may assist economic and regional development, and reduce congestion. Investigation of these assumptions is critical for informing future transport decisions in the Wellington region.

203. There have been other transport projects developed in New Zealand and overseas with high benefit cost ratios. There would be a clear economic benefit if the funds allocated to TGP were diverted to alternative projects with a high BCR. There would even be a net economic benefit from simply not using the funds for a project with a BCR of under 1.

Social wellbeing (other than amenity effects on coastal communities)

204. Two submissions have highlighted the impact on their economic and social wellbeing of a lack of effective public transport (submission 18 from Nick Fisher and submission 28 from Jan Logie). Around 30% of New Zealanders (including myself) do not have a drivers licence, and therefore cannot utilise

21 Letter from NZTA to Councillor Paul Bruce, dated 16 March 2011.

49 roads such as the proposed TGM independently. Almost all those individuals can independently use public transport.

205. The health impact assessment of the draft RLTS cited above highlighted the need to address affordability and social equity. A road oriented approach to transport, such as RONS, will increase social inequity for those without a drivers licence or unable to drive temporarily or permanently (e.g. because of health problems or alcohol consumption) and those who cannot afford car ownership or use. That inequity will rise as fuel and vehicle prices rise, the population ages, and measures to address road safety reduce the number of people with drivers licences.

206. The health impact assessment of the draft RLTS concluded: Affordability and social equity are not adequately addressed in the objectives of the strategy, despite being included within the New Zealand Transport Strategy. These issues are fundamental to public health and wellbeing. A population health perspective recognises that inequalities in access to determinants of wellbeing, such as transport, lead to inequalities in health. Therefore the draft RLTS should prioritise the needs of disadvantaged groups in order to ensure equitable health gains.

„Assisting economic and regional development‟ for the total population does not necessarily address inequalities. In New Zealand there is evidence that socioeconomic inequalities are widening. Equitable economic development is important to ensure that socio-economic inequalities are not further widened. The Wellington Regional Strategy supports the notion of closing „prosperity gaps‟ and such a focus throughout the RLTS will better achieve that.

As well as not being adequately represented in the objectives, equity and affordability are also only minimally discussed within the draft RLTS (with the exception of policy 6.1). We have suggested a number of recommendations to address this as there is a high likelihood that

50 without intervention, the RLTS may widen inequalities in the determinants of health and health itself, in turn having significant potential to harm public health and wellbeing. Given that Maori and Pacific families are over-represented in low income households, they may be disproportionately affected.

207. I conclude that other than the benefits to coastal communities, there is no evidence that TGP will deliver net social benefits.

Implications of changes in fuel prices and other matters

208. The current predictions are that TGP will not be completed until at least 2020. Significant changes in the transport sector are likely before then.

209. A major change will be in the price of fuel. Increasing fuel costs will have implications for the potential benefits and costs of TGP and the relative benefits and costs of alternative projects relating to regionally significant infrastructure.

210. As fuel prices increase, the relative advantage of fuel efficient modes (rail and mass transit) will increase. This will result in a modal shift to those modes (for both passengers and freight) provided the alternative modes are available and meet user needs.

211. The last major fuel price rise prompted significant modal shifts. These were considered by a meeting of the LTNZ/NZTA Passenger Transport Advisory Group of which I am a member. We noted that Transit had measured reductions in cars on motorways of up to 10%, and bus operators who were members of the Group reported that they had been unable to cope with the increased demand for public transport services. They recommended that steps be taken to provide advance investment in public transport systems to ensure that modal shift from future fuel price rises and other major predicted changes can be accommodated, and those needing or wishing to make the change are not forced back to a sub-optimal option.

51

212. Fuel price increases are also likely to be higher for transport fossil fuels than for electricity, given that carbon prices will influence the latter less than the former. Commuter rail in Wellington is electric, giving it a further advantage in relation to fuel costs.

213. Changes in the cost of driving will have a higher effect on low income households, further increasing the inequality effects of a road-based transport approach identified in the health impact assessment for the draft RLTS.

214. The Kapiti Coast District Council has a population that is older than the average across the country22, and New Zealand has an aging population. The proportion of the population that can no longer safely drive or afford to maintain and operate a car is therefore likely to increase. A road oriented transport approach will therefore increase transport disadvantage.

215. An additional significant change will be in the cost of constructing the road, due to the effects of changing fuel prices on both the operation of machinery and the cost of asphalt. It is therefore likely that increased fuel prices will result in an increased cost for the project. That will further reduce the BCR.

Summary: will TGP provide for economic and social wellbeing

216. The explanation for the plan change provided by NZTA includes: This policy recognises that the Transmission Gully Project is particularly important for enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety. Accordingly, the adverse effects of aspects of the Project may be acceptable, even though they cannot be completely avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

22 ―With a median age of 44.3 years the district’s population is also older than the national median age of 35.9 years. Kāpiti Coast residents have a longer life expectancy than the national average, which could be due to our climate and easier pace of life.‖ KCDC website.

52

217. Taking the analysis above, I conclude that: a. TGP will have a negative effect economically b. TGP will have significant amenity benefits for coastal communities if well designed, including design of the coastal corridor c. TGP will have net adverse effects on health and safety d. TGP will have net adverse effects on the social wellbeing of those residents and visitors who cannot or do not wish to rely on a motor vehicle for transport

218. I also conclude that if the funds allocated to TGP were instead invested in other projects identified in the RLTS, such as rail infrastructure improvements, rail passenger service improvements, and travel demand management actions, there would be high economic and social benefits. Many of the amenity benefits to the coastal communities could also be delivered, but I do not have sufficient information on how the timeframes of that alternative might compare to TGP.

Cultural wellbeing

219. NZTA have provided no evidence on cultural wellbeing, and I have not located any information on this matter

Relevance of the provisions in the proposed Regional Policy Statement on “regionally significant infrastructure”

220. The proposed RPS includes a definition of regionally significant infrastructure: ―Regionally significant infrastructure includes…the Strategic Transport Network, as defined in the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007-2016…‖

221. The RLTS 2007-16 defines the strategic transport network as: The strategic transport network is made up of the region‟s key railway lines, state highways and those major local roads serving an arterial

53 purpose, as listed and mapped below. This schedule may be amended from time to time by application to the Regional Land Transport Committee.

222. The current RLTS contains an almost identical definition (only the name of the relevant committee has changed). I have been advised by Greater Wellington that there have been no amendments to the Schedule in the current RLTS.

223. That Schedule (in both documents) includes both ―SH1‖ and ―Transmission Gully (designed future route)‖. It also includes a large number of other parts of the network, including the North Island Main Trunk Line and the rail corridor between Wellington Station and Waikanae Station (as part of the strategic public transport network).

224. The proposed RPS includes three policies related to regionally significant infrastructure.

225. Policy 6 requires the recognition of ―the benefits from regionally significant infrastructure and renewable energy‖. It requires district and regional plans to include policies that recognise: ―(a) the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally significant infrastructure, including: people can travel to, from and around the region efficiently…‖

226. Policy 7 relates to protecting ―regionally significant infrastructure from incompatible new land uses and activities under, over, or alongside.‖ I do not further consider that policy here, as it is not relevant to a proposed land change for the creation of new infrastructure, except to the extent that that new infrastructure is under, over, or alongside existing regionally significant infrastructure.

54 227. Policy 38 requires that, when considering ―an application for a resource consent, notice of requirement or a change, variation or replacement to a district or regional plan, particular regard shall be given to: the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and/or energy generated from renewable energy resources…‖

228. I consider that it is significant that policies 6 and 38 do not require recognition of the infrastructure per se, but rather recognising the benefits from such infrastructure. That means that the net benefits must be shown, and where infrastructure proposals could be adjusted to increase net benefits, requiring that would be consistent with the proposed RPS.

229. Contrary to Mr Nicholson’s paragraph 111, I believe that would also mean that the relative benefits of competing regionally significant infrastructure project would be relevant, as would any effects of changes to one regionally significant infrastructure on another regionally significant infrastructure.

230. As discussed above, I believe the only significant benefit of the TGP is for the coastal communities. That benefit could potentially be provided through alternative projects relating to regionally significant infrastructure, and such projects would have other economic and social benefits. I therefore do not consider that the provision in the RPS provides support for TGP.

Section 30 responsibilities of the regional council

231. Mr Daysh, at paragraph 127, states that the Plan Change will ―better enable the council to carry out its section 30 responsibilities as it specifically recognises the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use…‖

232. Section 30 contains a large number of functions that may be relevant to this proposed plan change.

55 233. Section 30 contains a number of provisions requiring that there be integrated management of natural and physical resources, control of the use of land to achieve a range of objectives (paragraph (c)), and the control of the discharge of contaminants (including onto land). The current Freshwater Plan and the proposed Plan change do not assist the council to carry out its functions, as it does not control land uses other than those relevant to section 13 of the Act. As I discuss further below, land uses in the Porirua Harbour catchment have had and are continuing to have impacts on the freshwater resources of the catchment and flow on effects on the harbour. The plan should control land uses to address these effects. Two submissions (my own, submission 12 and the submission of the Appropriate Technology for Living Association, submission 34) have sought plan changes to address those impacts. NZTA has not made any similar proposal in its plan change. Nor has there been any inclusion in the NZTA proposals of matters to directly increase integration between freshwater and coastal management, despite the strong evidence for impacts of freshwater sediment loadings on the adjacent coastal marine area, particularly the Pauatahanui catchment.

234. At the same time that paragraph (gb) was inserted, paragraph (ga) was also inserted. This requires ―the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity‖. My analysis below concludes that the proposed plan change reduces rather than enhances the ability of the council to carry out that function.

235. Paragraph (b) requires ―the preparation of objectives and policies in relation to any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land which are of regional significance‖. The proposed plan change aims to facilitate a project that will have effects on a regional park (a matter raised in submission 39) – an area whose protection and use clearly does have regional significance – and does not address any matters related to the effects on the park.

56 236. I therefore conclude that the proposed plan change does not achieve its purpose as set out in section 63 and does not assist the council to carry out its functions under section 30 which are relevant to the TGP, have been raised as matters of concern in submissions.

237. Turning now to the issue of paragraph (gb), which Mr Daysh has considered in his evidence. That paragraph refers to ―the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use through objectives, policies, and methods‖.

238. It has long been recognised that transport infrastructure and landuses are closely related, and integrated consideration of landuse and transport developments is needed. For example the Regional Land Transport Strategy has this to say on the issue of land use and transport integration (page 16):

Ensuring the sustainability of the region‟s strategic transport network requires an approach that includes all elements of the network, including integration between land use and transport planning. For example, new land subdivisions and developments which are located at a distance from public transport or local facilities can increase dependency on cars.

The need to travel can be reduced by encouraging mixed use development, encouraging businesses to locate in areas close to the workforce, and by ensuring critical infrastructure and services are located in high density residential areas.

The WRS identifies the significance of integrating land use and transport planning for its benefits in economic and social participation. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the RLTS will be key mechanisms for addressing this issue by providing a policy framework guiding development of integrated land use and transport.

57 239. The proposed regional policy statement, as amended in light of submissions, has this to say:

A lack of integration between land use and the region‟s transportation network can create patterns of development that increase the need for travel, the length of journeys and reliance on private motor vehicles, resulting in: (i) increased emissions to air from a variety of pollutants, including greenhouse gases (j) increased use of energy and reliance on non-renewable resources (k) reduced opportunities for alternate means of travel (such as walking and cycling), increased community severance, and increased costs associated with upgrading roads (l) increased road congestion leading to restricted movement of goods and services to, from and within the region, and compromising the efficient and safe operation of the transport network (m) inefficient use of existing infrastructure (including transport orientated infrastructure).

240. It then sets out a series of objectives and policies on matters such as supporting a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form and managing rural development. Policy 56 addresses ―integrating landuse and transportation‖, while Policy 57 addresses ―co-ordinating land use with development and operation of infrastructure.‖

241. I find it difficult to see how the proposed plan change enhances the ability for the regional council to achieve integration between infrastructure and land use as envisaged in the RLTS and proposed RPS. A number of the submissions argue that it will reduce the ability to achieve this integration, particularly by inducing new traffic and impeding the development of the public transport network. Those arguments have not been addressed by Mr Daysh.

58

242. I therefore conclude that there is no evidence that the plan change would enhance the ability of the regional council to carry out its functions under section 30. Mr Daysh appears to be arguing that by increasing the likelihood that the TGP will gain consents, the ability to achieve function (gb) will be enhanced. I would argue that the effect on that particular function would be either neutral or negative, given the regional council’s interpretation of integration.

Operative RPS

243. I agree with Mr Daysh that the Freshwater Plan must ―give effect to‖ ―any regional policy statement‖, and that the relevant RPS is the operative Wellington RPS.

244. ―Give effect to‖ is a strong requirement, that necessitates active implementation of the objectives and policies, not simply a lack of clear conflict with them.

245. Objectives and policies in the RPS which may be particularly relevant to TGP and the proposed plan change include:

those relating to freshwater in chapter 5 chapter 6, in relation to soil erosion chapter 7 in relation to the coastal environment chapter 8 in relation to climate change and greenhouse gases chapter 9 in relation to ecosystems chapter 10 on landforms (noting that there are some Geopreservation Inventory sites in the area of the TGP) chapter 10 in relation to recreational values (particularly given the proximity to regional parks) chapter 10 on landscapes and waterbodies chapter 12 on energy

59 chapter 13 in relation to waste transportation chapter 14 on the built environment and transportation

Proposed RPS

246. While this is not operative, it is useful to note the approach taken on the same issues as those in the operative plan, as this provides an indication of whether the changes in the legislation since 1995 have, as suggested by Mr Daysh, had a significant effect on the way the issues relating to TGP would be considered by the RPS.

247. I was not able to find any evidence of major changes in the approach to matters such as energy, greenhouse gases, biodiversity and water management that would support the view of a significant shift in approach to transport infrastructure. I have already considered the potential implications of the inclusion of material relating to regionally significant infrastructure.

Climate change and greenhouse gases and energy

248. Both the operative and proposed RPS include clear objectives and policies relating to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including by reducing transport emissions through travel demand management. Both the operative and proposed RPS include policies relating to energy, and in both cases these include reducing travel demand and therefore transport energy use as part of their approach.

249. The RLTS also emphasises the importance of travel demand management, and the Travel Demand Management Strategy which is part of the RLTS sets out some specific measures to achieve that, in addition to the measures in the public transport, walking and cycling plans.

250. The construction of new road capacity is likely to be contrary to those objectives and policies, because it is likely to both induce traffic and reduce

60 funds available for Travel Demand Management measures and public transport provision.

Transportation of waste

251. The operative RPS contains the following objective 4 in chapter 13: The potential for any accidental or unanticipated effects to arise as a result of the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances is minimised and any adverse effects that do occur are remedied or mitigated.

252. The proposed RPS contains similar provisions.

253. TGP will result in significant transportation of hazardous substances through a new corridor, without preventing transportation through the existing corridor (the existing SH1 and the main trunk railway line). It will therefore result in an increase in the number of ecosystems that are at risk from accidental spills of hazardous substances (or the risk that those ecosystems face), including the high value and highly sensitive Appendix 2 streams and the Pauatahanui Inlet.

The built environment and transportation

254. This is addressed by chapter 14 of the operative RPS. Similar matters are covered in the proposed RPS under the heading ―regional form, design and function‖.

255. If TGP achieved a reduction in transport impacts on coastal communities, that would be a benefit in terms of those policies. As discussed above, I consider that any such benefits must be deliberately created by specific design of TGP, and will not be an automatic result of the current design.

256. In all other ways I consider TGP to be contrary to these policies, as:

61 a. it will reduce rather than increase resource efficiency by increasing resource use for no additional economic benefits, in both construction and operation phases b. there is a strong risk that it will generate new greenfields urban developments along its route c. it will extend roading impacts into areas that are currently rural in nature d. it will generate further traffic, rather than encouraging greater use of public transport, which will reduce the incentives for greater transit- oriented development along the public transport network. The current co-location of the road and rail corridor reduces that effect of the state highway. e. it will create new community severance effects

257. I therefore consider that TGP is inconsistent with those provisions in the RPSs.

62 PORIRUA HARBOUR - PAUATAHANUI INLET

Site Description This broad, shallow arm of Porirua Harbour is the largest (524 ha) relatively unmodified estuarine environment in the lower North Island. It is one of two connected coastal inlets in the harbour, which are linked at the outer harbour by a narrow channel at Paremata Point. Pautahanui Inlet makes up 63% of the total estuary area. The southern shores have extensive modifications to the margin, but large areas of saltmarsh fringe the northern and eastern parts. Several streams enter the Pauatahanui Inlet (unlike the Onepoto Arm where only one stream enters the estuary) and the streams all have associated wetlands. In the south, one stream, Duck Creek, has a well developed wetland, but this is almost completely isolated by a State Highway road causeway, and will be reported in a separate subsection. The intertidal sand and mudflats, which which make up 33% of the area below the high tide mark (Stevens & Robertson 2008) provide important habitat for cockles, other marine fauna and birds.

Roads encircle the inlet almost completely, such that every stream is bridged or culverted. Urban development in the suburbs of Camborne, Mana, Paramata and Whitby enclose the western and southern parts, while the settlement of Pauatahanui lies at the eastern end of the inlet.

Site name Pauatahanui Inlet Location Porirua NZTM (coordinates) 1758980 5448785 NZ Topo50 BP32 590 488 Area 524 ha Department of Kapiti Wellington Conservation Area Tenure Department of Conservation, Greater Wellington, Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society, Porirua City Council, private ownership Council Porirua City Council Existing Rankings WERI – 4 SSWI Moderate-high Area of Conservation Value (Regional Coastal Plan) Ecological District Wellington Estuary Classification, E, Estuary Wetland Form Dominant species and Mud and sandflats habitat Saltmarsh ribbonwood shrubland Restiad rushland Searush rushland Flaxland Remuremu herbfield Raupo reedland Seagrass Exotic pasture grassland

63 Conservation Values Flora The intertidal area in the estuary largely consists of firm mudflats, devoid of vegetation (Milne 2008; Stevens & Robertson 2008). However, there are two large banks of Zostera capricorni (seagrass) in the estuary, both in the western part of the inlet, near the base of Moorehouse Point. With a few smaller patches along the southern shore, the seagrass beds in the inlet cover over 41 ha. Porirua Harbour is the only estuary in this report where seagrass is found (it is found in both Pauatahanui Inlet and Onepoto Arm). Saltmarsh vegetation is similarly represented, with approximately 42 ha cover, or nearly 10% of the inlet. Much of the modified area of the shoreline is unvegetated seawall, although Schedonorus phoenix (tall fescue) has colonised disturbed margins in areas adjacent to pasture. However, the saltmarsh areas around the eastern and northern shores are still relatively intact.

The major component of the saltmarsh is rushland, dominated by Juncus kraussii var. australiensis (sea rush) and Apodasmia similis (oioi). Other significant rush and sedge species include Juncus edgariae (wiwi), Carex geminata (cutty grass), Carex secta (pukio, niggerhead), and Cyperus ustulatus (giant umbrella sedge). Typhus orientalis (raupo) is present in patches. Herbfields of Selliera radicans (remuremu), Sarcocornia quinqueflora (glasswort), Puccinellia stricta (saltgrass) and Samolus repens (shore primrose) are common, particularly in the mid- tidal areas. Cotula coronoipifolia (bachelor’s button) is also found in these areas. Plagianthus divaricatus (saltmarsh ribbonwood), Cortaderia toetoe (toetoe), and Phormium tenax (flax) grow over the rushes in the upper tidal areas. Along the high tide margin, shrubs such as Ozothamnus leptophyllus (tauhinu), Coprosma repens (taupata), and Pittosporum crassifolium (karo) are common.

The tidal zone extends some way up the streams that flow into the estuary. One of these, the Pauatahanui Stream was once lined with native wetland plants and had deep pools where yellow-eyed mullet spawned (J Mikoz pers comm). When the round-about was installed the pools were filled. The remaining lower reaches of the Pauatahanui Stream has been planted with a range of native trees and shrubs overhanging the water in the riparian zone. The other three streams that flow into the north/east saltmarsh (Ration Creek, Horokiri and Kakaho Streams) all pass through grazed pastureland, and are lined with tall fescue, Isolepis nodosa (knobby clubrush), and Salix fragilis (crack willow).

Two species uncommon in the region have been recorded in the saltmarsh. These are Mimulus repens (native musk) and Schoenus nitens (bog-rush) (Ogle 1982). Pauatahanui Inlet has 41.2 ha of seagrass habitat (Stevens and Robertson 2008).

Table 1: Threatened and uncommon plants of Pauahatanui Inlet

Species Status Mimulus repens Threatened: Naturally Uncommon Schoenus nitens Locally uncommon Zostera capricorni Regionally uncommon

Fauna The estuary is a nationally important site for migratory shorebirds and wading species, attracted by the large, invertebrate rich tidal flats. Bar-tailed godwits are known to gather periodically during the summer months; wrybills during the winter. Other species, such

64 as gannets, Caspian terns, pied shags and Royal spoonbills, are regular visitors to feed or roost. Many species of common waders and waterfowl, such as mallards, paradise shelducks, pied stilts, and black swans, are resident in the estuary, while less common species, such as shovelers and grey teal, also occur. Progressive loss of trees following forest clearance has greatly reduced roosting and breeding sites for several bird species. The estuary was included in the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (2007) rivermouth bird survey.

A wide variety of migratory freshwater fish are found in the streams flowing into the estuary. All of the migratory galaxiids, including the rare giant kokopu, are represented. A range of coastal marine species are commonly found in the harbour; kahawai prey on smaller species such as yellow-eyed mullet and smelt. Flatfish, including flounders and stingrays, are well known. Less common visitors include stargazers and leatherjackets. Pauatahanui Inlet is known to be a nursery area for juvenile elephant fish (Callorhynchus milii), rig (Mustelus lenti-culatus ), sand flounder (Rhombosolea plebeia), and kahawai (Arripis trutta) (Jones and Hadfield 1985). Flounder and kahawai form two important fisheries on the west coast of the North Island (Ministry of Fisheries 2009).

Healy (1980) and Jones & Hadfield (1985) recorded a total of 43 species of marine and freshwater fish in Porirua Harbour. This was considered a high figure compared to other comparable estuaries the Ahuriri (275 ha) and Avon-Heathcote (800 ha) with 28 and 29 recorded fish species respectively.

The estuary has a rich invertebrate fauna. Polycheate species dominate in terms of number of species and abundance (Robertson and Stevens 2008), but the New Zealand cockle leads in terms of biomass. In 1976, the large cocklebank in the centre of the inlet contained a population of over 500 million cockles, estimated at the time to contain 80% of the biomass of the intertidal zone. In the 20 years following, the population declined to a figure of just under 300 million, but this has remained stable during subsequent surveys (GOPI 2007). The rest of the fauna include mud snails, whelks, mudcrabs, and at least 59 other species, several of which are currently undescribed (Robertson and Stevens 2008).

43 species of marine and freshwater fish have been recorded here (Jones & Hadfield 1985). Pauatahanui Inlet is known to be a nursery area for juvenile Callorhynchus milii (elephant fish), Mustelus lenticulatus (rig), Rhombosolea plebeia (flounder), and Arripis trutta ( kahawai) (Jones & Hadfield 1985). In recent years there have been afew elasmobranchs studies in Pauatahanui estuary (Francis and Francis 1992), Hendry 2004,) and there is currently a Phd study underway. A fish species survey is planned for the estuary within the next year.

Three species of lizards have been recorded around the fringes of the estuary; Oligosoma nigreplane polychroma (common skink), Hoplodactylus maculatus (common gecko), and Cyclodinea aenea (copper skink) (Brown 1985; Brown 1987 – BIOWEB), while Nultinus elegans punctatus (Wellington green gecko) (Miskelly 1998 – BIOWEB) has also been found locally.

65

Group Species Birds Banded dotterel Bar-tailed godwit Black shag Black swan Black-backed gull Canada goose Caspian tern Eastern rosella Feral goose Gannet Grey teal (winter) Grey warbler (winter) Kingfisher (winter) Little black shag Little shag Mallard Paradise shelduck Pied shag Pied stilt Pukeko Red-billed gull Royal spoonbill Shore plover Shovelor (winter) South Island pied oystercatcher Spur-winged plover Tui (winter) Variable oystercatcher Welcome swallow White-faced heron Wrybill Fish Banded kokopu Banded parrotfish Barracouta Black flounder Blue mackerel Blue moki Brown trout Common smelt Cockabully Conger eel Dwarf common sole Eagle ray Elephant fish Estuarine stargazer Garfish Giant bully

66 Giant kokopu Graham's gudgeon Grey mullet Gurnard Inanga Jack mackerel Kahawai Koaro Leatherjacket Lamprey Longfin eel Long-snout pipefish New Zealand sole Pilchard Pipefish Red cod Rig Rock cod Redfin bully Robust blenny Sand flounder Seahorse Shortfin eel Shortjaw kokopu Snapper Spotted stargazer Spotty Tarakihi Torrentfish Trevally Warehou Yellow-eyed mullet Yellowbelly flounder Aquatic Macro Bubble shell Invertebrates Cockle Estuarine limpet Large wedge shell Nut shell Mudflat crab Mudflat snail Mudflat topshell Mudflat whelk Pillbox crab Razor mussel Spire shell Stalk-eyed mud crab Top shell Trophon

67 Herpetofauna Copper skink Common skink Common gecko Wellington green gecko Note: Little detailed survey work for fauna has been carried out in many estuaries and this is reflected in the site species lists.

Historic, Cultural, and Recreational Although the harbour has been occupied by a succession of iwi, including Ngai Tara, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Ira, it was Ngāti Toa who dominated the area, led by Te Rauparaha, during the early 19th century. While the iwi controlled both sides of Cook Strait, Porirua was the main centre of population. The harbour was a rich resource for shellfish, eels, marine fish, and birds, and also provided a safe haven for the launching of waka. There are many kainga sites and several pa in the area around the Pauatahanui Inlet; Te Rauparaha’s principle residence was Taupo pa, at Plimmerton, while his nephew and second-in-command, Te Rangihaeata, was based at Motukaraka Point.

The inlet is still held as tapu by Ngāti Toa, and they retain a strong interest in its management.

With a substantial urban population immediately adjacent, particularly around the southern, western and eastern shores, Pauatahanui Inlet is today a playground of Porirua City and the wider region. Canoes, surfboards, and sail boats are all common sights on the water, with a marina at Paremata Point, and boatsheds just inside the mouth of the inlet. A water-ski lane is at the eastern and western end. There are several walking tracks around the shore, and bird-watching hides in the salt marshes. Fishing and cockle collecting are also popular activities. Some white-baiting occurs in the streams around the inlet.

Catchment properties The catchment is drained by several streams, and covers an area of 10,600 ha. More than 85% of this is pasture and scrub, with the urban areas of Whitby and Cambourne making up less than 10% of the catchment. The underlying substrate is largely sedimentary rock, so the area is subject to erosion, and sedimentation in the inlet (MacDonald & Joy 2009).

Most of the streams are monitored for water quality (Greater Wellington WaterWatch), and ratings vary between ‘very good’ and ‘very poor’. Overall, the quality of water flowing into the inlet is ‘moderate’, although the Pauatahanui Stream has been listed as one of the Wellington watercourses most frequently subject to contamination. Other than erosion, contamination sources include agricultural runoff, road runoff, stormwater overflow, urban development waste, and at least one consent to discharge treated domestic sewage into surface water (Greater Wellington 2006; cited in MacDonald & Joy 2009).

Two Regional Parks lie in the catchment: Belmont, at the headwaters of Pauatahanui Stream and Duck Creek, and Battle Hill in the Horokiri Valley.

Threats Feral cats, rats, and mustelids are highly likely to be present in significant numbers, posing a threat to any roosting or nesting birds. With a large urban population nearby, uncontrolled domestic dogs and cats are also likely to be in the area. Stock has access to

68 the margins of several of the streams near the upper limit of the tidal zone, although the salt marshes are largely isolated by roads.

Weeds in the salt marshes are mainly pasture species, such as tall fescue and Ulex europaeus (gorse), around the disturbed margins. Around the inlet as a whole, gorse, Chrysanthemoides monilifera (boneseed), Lupinus arboreus (tree lupin) and a variety of other common adventive species may be found. Salix cinerea (grey willow) is known to be present in the Pauatahanui Stream catchment (Townsend 1997 - BIOWEB); this species spreads through a combination of suckering and vegetative dispersal. Undaria pinnatifida (undaria) has established in the sub-tidal zone; this is a highly aggressive, prolific seaweed that can significantly change an ecosystem.

On the western side of Moorehouse Point the intertidal area is used as a road (consented for a limited number of trips per year) by residents to service their houses which have limited road access. There is potential for this traffic to impact cockle beds and habitat such as seagrass along this part of the foreshore.

There are many artifical structures on the margins of the estuary e.g., seawalls. The expanding Porirua population has driven development of new subdivisions around the shores of the inlet. Removal of vegetation and earthworks, for the construction of roads and housing, has greatly increased the rate of erosion and sedimentation along the southern shore. Sediment derived from the catchment is also of concern. In 2009 Gibbs and Cox recommended immediate action was needed to reduce the net average rates of deposition from 5-10mm/year to 1.0-2.0mm/year.

In addition to this, modification of the catchment has long term effects such as the drainage or infilling of wetland areas, and the channelising of streams. As the population continues to expand, so too will the numbers of feral and domestic predators. Pollution from road runoff,sewer overflow and stormwater is also expected to increase without intervention. Sediment in the intertidal areas adjacent to Browns Stream and Duck Creek have elevated concentrations of one or more contaminants. Concentrations of some of these, such as DDT, lead and total high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (HMW PAHs) exceed sediment quality guidelines (Sorensen & Milne 2009).

The proposed Transmission Gully motorway connection will traverse the eastern end of the catchment, following the course of the Horokiri Stream. Despite assurances that environmental impacts associated with major construction work will be alleviated as far as possible through best practice and impact avoidance techniques (NZTA 2007), it is still unknown what the long term effects of the project, on the Inlet will be. The impacts of major roads that surround the estuary are of concern as there is little buffering of vegetation to filter contaminant runoff (e.g. copper and zinc from braking tyre wear).

Conservation Management Current There are three governmental agencies and several non-government organisations that have interests in the management of the inlet. The Department of Conservation has responsibility for the salt marshes at the mouths of the Horokiri Stream (Horokiri Wildlife Management Reserve), Ration Creek and Pauatahanui Stream (both in the Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Reserve). In addition, the whole of the eastern third of the inlet falls within the Pauatahanui Inlet Wildlife Refuge, also administered by

69 Department of Conservation. The Porirua City Council administers the wetland at the mouth of Kakaho Stream as an esplanade reserve, along with several shore side reserves around the inlet. Greater Wellington is responsible for the remainder of the bed of the inlet. The Ministry of Fisheries regulates recreational fishing and shellfish gathering, including the cockle beds. Several other government agencies are responsible for the management of various infrastructural assets that are associated with the inlet.

The Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Reserve is managed on a day-to-day basis by volunteers from Forest & Bird, who carry out maintenance of the facilities, weeding and planting sessions, predator trapping and monitoring of bird populations. A long-term bird monitoring programme for the whole of the Pauatahanui Inlet is conducted by the Ornithological Society of NZ. The Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet (GOPI) are a community group who carry out environmental operations throughout the inlet, including shoreline plantings, and water quality and cockle population monitoring (in association with Greater Wellington), along with public education efforts in Porirua. The Pauatahanui Inlet Community Trust (PICT) is a group concerned with environmental advocacy and strategic planning for the inlet, and frequently lobby governmental agencies. Ngāti Toa advocates on management issues in the inlet on behalf of their people. Their issues particularly revolve around improving water quality and restoration of the health of shellfish beds and fisheries for customary harvest.

There are several areas in or around the inlet that are in the process of ecosystem restoration. These include the riparian strip of the Pauatahanui stream, the saltmarsh at Horokiri stream, and areas along the Cambourne water frontage. A number of the organisations associated with these projects, or the reserves in which they are found, have maintained formed access tracks (often with boardwalks) throughout the restored areas, and erected public information panels at strategic points. There is potential for the construction of roosting structures/frames for coastal birds that would provide refuge, especially at high tide.

There is little physical protection of the inlet, although the roads ringing the shoreline provide a buffer zone. The properties along the northern shore are mostly fenced on the far side of the road. Only in Ration Creek does saltmarsh extend significantly up the stream bed, and this area is fully fenced to exclude stock.

Weed and predator control in the inlet is generally the responsibility of Greater Wellington (where they are listed in the Regional Pest Management Strategy), although the Department of Conservation has some active control schemes in the areas that it administers.

Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington are leading an ongoing research programme for Porirua Harbour. Greater Wellington have undertaken habitat mapping of Pauatahanui Inlet and margins (Stevens & Robertson 2008, Stevens & Robertson 2009a), intertidal macroalgal monitoring (Stevens & Robertson 2009a.and Stevens & Robertson 2010), fine scale survey (Robertson & Stevens 2009a) and assessed risks (Robertson & Stevens 2007a). They are also monitoring sediment quality and benthic ecology in both subtidal (Milne et al. 2009, Stephenson 2009) and intertidal (Sorensen & Milne 2009) locations, with sediment plates deployed in several locations.

70 There is a lot of detailed information available on this estuary and catchment e.g. Blaschke et al. (2010), Swales et al. 2005. There are also various restoration related documents useful for management e.g. White (2005), Blaschke and Anstey (2004).

Potential Following the successful restoration and protection of saltmarsh habitat in public areas, many private landowners are considering wetland protection on their own properties, particularly around the streams on the northern shore. Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington jointly fund and oversee a voluntary retirement, fencing and planting programme with landowners in the Pauatahanui catchment. This is aimed at reducing erosion and sedimentation and protecting habitat. These initiatives should be encouraged, and supported both with finance and advice from governmental agencies.

The population of Undaria requires monitoring and, if necessary, control. There is no general control technique for this species in New Zealand, but methods tested in other outbreaks include physical removal, chemical application to infested piles followed by plastic sheathing (both in Stewart Island and Bluff), and hot water application (to a very small infestation of a sunken hull at the Chatham Islands).

The potential environmental effects of further urban development and the construction of Transmission Gully, while expected to be significant, are still largely unknown (see above). Public opinion on the Transmission Gully project has been polarised, for various reasons. For instance some community groups belive that Transmission Gully may have overall positive effect by reducing traffic using the roads around the estuary and therefore reducing contaminants entering the waters. While strategies are in place to monitor environmental practices and outcomes, it must be ensured that results are considered objectively when calculating the effects of the construction work.

With so many interests in the management of the estuary, a multi-party administration committee will be a huge asset in streamlining and linking environmental strategies in the inlet, improving communication between organisations, and setting priorities for the future in order to successfully deal with rising challenges.

Because so many agencies are involved in management of the Inlet and because it is ranked nationally significant it is important to coordinate effort. Porirua City Council is leading an interagency approach to do this. In December 2008 they set up a Porirua Harbour Inter-agency Advisory Group, and a Science Group, which should prove very valuable as forum for improving the status of the estuary. A new community trust (Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust, PHACCT) is also being set up to advocate for and monitor agency performance in improving the condition of the harbour. A Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy discussion document is due to be released by Porirua City Council in mid 2011;

References BioWeb Weeds database, Department of Conservation Blaschke, P.; Woods, J. Forsyth, F. 2010. The Porirua Harbour and its Catchment: a Literature Summary and Review. Report prepared for Porirua City Council and Wellington City Council. Blaschke, P.; Anstey, C. 2004. Pauatahanui Inlet Restoration Plan. Stage 2 – Southern and Western Catchments. Report prepared for Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington.

71 Francis, M. P.; Francis, R. I. C. C. 1992: Growth rate estimates for New Zealand rig (Mustelus lenticulatus). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 1157-1176. Gibb, J.G.; Cox, G.J. 2009. Patterns and Rates of Sedimentation Within Porirua Harbour. Report prepared for Porirua City Council. Coastal Management Consultancy Limited Report C.R. 2009/1. Hendry, R. T. 2004: An assessment of the spatial extent and relative importance of nurseries, and of the genetic structure among nurseries of rig (Mustelus lenticulatus), an endemic New Zealand shark. MSc thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. 210 p. Greater Wellington.WaterWatch: Pauatahanui Catchments. http://www.gw.govt.nz/section1428.cfm Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet, 2007.The cockles of the inlet. http://www.gopi.wellington.net.nz/cockle/cockles-of-the-inlet.htm Healy, W.B. 1980. Pauatahanui Inlet – an Environmental Study. DSIR Information Series 141. Jones, J.B.; Hadfield, J.D. 1985. Fishes from Porirua and Pauatahanui Inlets: occurrence in gill nets. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19: 477-484. MacDonald, A.; Joy, M. 2009. Freshwater Biodiversity in the Wellington Region. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Wellington Conservancy. Ministry of Fisheries 2009. Draft North Island west coast finfish fisheries plan. New Zealand Transport Authority, 2007. Transmission Gully: About this Project. http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/transmission-gully/about/ Ogle, C.C. 1982.Plant Checklist for Pauatahanui salt marshes, and on raised ground within the area shown on preliminary vegetation map. In: Owen, K.L. 1984. Pauatahanui wildlife management reserve management plan. Management plan series number 1 Ornithological Society of New Zealand. 2007. Wellington Conservancy rivermouth bird survey. Unpublished data. Robertson, B.; Stevens, L. 2007a. Kapiti, Southwest, South Coasts and Wellington Harbour: risk assessment and monitoring recommendations. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council by Wriggle Coastal Management. Robertson, B.; Stevens, L. 2008. Porirua Harbour: fine scale monitoring 2007/08. Report prepared for Greater Wellington by Wriggle Coastal Management. Robertson, B.; Stevens, L. 2009a. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal fine scale monitoring 2008/09. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. 16 pp + appendices. Robertson, B.; Stevens, L. 2010a. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal fine scale monitoring 2009/10. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. Stephenson, G. 2009. Porirua Harbour marine sediment quailty monitoring programe: Identification of sub-tidal benthos from the November 2008 survey. A report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. 59 pp., incl. appendices. Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2008. Porirua harbour: broad scale habitat mapping 2007/08. Report prepared for Greater Wellington by Wriggle Coastal Management. Sorensen, P.G.; Milne, J.R. 2009. Porirua Harbour targeted intertidal sediment quality assessment. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. GW/EMI-T- 09/136. Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2009a. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal macroalgal monitoring 2008/09. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. 4 pp + appendices.

72 Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2010. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal macroalgal monitoring 2009/10. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. Swales, A.; Bentley, S.J.; McGlone, M.S.; Ovenden, R.; Hermanspahn, N.; Budd, R.; Hill, A.; Pickmere, S.; Haskew, R.; Okey, M.J. 2005. Pauatahanui Inlet: effects of historical catchment landcover changes on inlet sedimentation. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council and Porirua City Council, NIWA Client Report: HAM2004-149. Taylor, M.J; Kelly, G.R 2001. Inanga spawning habitats in the Greater Wellington Region, and their potential for restoration. NIWA Client Report CHC01/67 White , P. 2005. Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Reserve Restoration Plan. Pauatahanui Wildlife Management Committee, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc.

73 PORIRUA HARBOUR - DUCK CREEK

Site Description Duck Creek flows into Pauatahanui Inlet, draining the suburb of Whitby, and a significant part of the waterway has been modified by suburban development. A causeway, carrying SH58, has been constructed across the mouth of the stream, and the discharge into the Inlet is through culverts. Despite this, there is a relatively intact area of saltmarsh behind the causeway, isolated from the larger environment of the Inlet. The upper reaches of the tidal area lie within the bounds of the defunct Duck Creek Golf Course.

Site name Duck Creek Location Whitby NZTM (coordinates) 1759579 5447785 NZ Topo50 BP32 596 478 Area Approx 2 ha Department of Kapiti Wellington Conservation Area Tenure Department of Conservation Legal status Scientific Reserve? Council Porirua City, Greater Wellington Existing Rankings PCC SES? Ecological District Wellington Estuary Classification, E, Tidal stream mouth Wetland Form Dominant species and Restiad rushland habitat Searush rushland Saltmarsh ribbonwood shrubland Flax-toetoe-saltmarsh ribbonwood grassland-shrubland Tall fescue grassland

Conservation Values Flora Apodasmia similis (oioi) is the dominant species in the rushland that takes up most of the basin, although Juncus kraussii var. australiensis (sea rush) has a significant presence further upstream and around the rear of the saltmarsh. Along the true left of the stream, Plagianthus divaricatus (saltmarsh ribbonwood) forms a thick band of shrubland, which blends into a more diverse area that includes saltmarsh ribbonwood, Cortaderia toetoe (toetoe), Phormium tenax (flax), and Ozothamnus leptophyllus (tauhinu). Herb species grow amongst the rushes along the stream margins; these include Selliera radicans (halfstar, remuremu), Sarcocornia quinqueflora (glasswort), Samolus repens (shore primrose), and Cotula coronipifolia (bachelors’ button). In all, Wassilieff et al. (1986) listed 31 native species in the area, none of which are threatened.

Schedonorus phoenix (tall fescue) and Agrostis stoloniflora (creeping bent) line the margins of the stream in the upper tidal area. A number of adventive shrubs also crowd the margin, including Ulex europaeus (gorse), Lupinus arboreus (tree lupin), seedlings of Pinus radiata (radiata pine), and Rosa rubiginosa (briar). There is a patch of Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass) adjacent to the stream at the upper tidal limit. Many other adventives are also present, particularly around the fringes of the saltmarsh, and adjacent to the roads.

74

Fauna The stream is a haven for waders and waterfowl, many of which have been known to nest in the wetland. Shorebirds are much less frequent visitors, despite the proximity of the Pauatahanui mudflats. During the survey, white-faced herons, kingfishers, mallards, a pair of paradise shelducks and a single black shag were observed. Other species are likely to visit occasionally including Royal spoonbill, variable oystercatcher, little shag and little black shags.

As with Pauatahanui Inlet, many of the migratory native freshwater fish have been recorded in the Duck Creek catchment. Longfin eels and shortfin eels are both present, as are inanga, redfin bullies, common bullies, smelt, lampreys, banded kokopu, koaro and the giant kokopu. Of these, the first and the last species are threatened. Marine species are not known to enter the stream through the culverts.

There are no records available for either reptiles or invertebrates in this area, although Wellington green gecko and common skinks are known to occur in Whitby (Whitaker 2005; Hitchmough 2007 - BIOWEB).

Duck Creek is one of only five locations nationally where the polychaete Boccardiella magniovara (collected upstream of the Hutt River estuary bridge) has been found. The Hutt Estuary is one of the other sites (NABIS 2010).

Group Species Birds Black shag Black swan Kingfisher Little black shag Little shag Mallard Paradise shelduck Royal spoonbill Spur-winged plover White-faced heron Fish Banded kokopu Common bully Common smelt Giant kokopu Inanga Koaro Lamprey Longfin eel Redfin bully Shortfin eel Aquatic Macro Spionid Boccardella magniovata * Invertebrates Note: Little detailed survey work for fauna has been carried out in many estuaries and this is reflected in the site species lists.

Historic, Cultural, and Recreational

75 As part of Pauatahanui Inlet, Duck Creek is included in the historical and cultural association that Ngāti Toa has with the area. There is evidence of a kainga and agricultural sites in the valley and on the adjacent hilltop. The stream would have been utilised as a resource for eels, flax, and possibly Typha orientalis (raupo). The inlet is still held as tapu by Ngāti Toa, and they retain a strong interest in its management.

The suburb of Whitby was developed during the 1970’s, and it is during this time that the upper part of the tidal reach was developed as part of the Duck Creek Golf Course, and the saltmarsh set aside for a scenic reserve. The golf course is now defunct, and zoned for residential redevelopment. The reserve does not have any tracks and is adjacent to a busy suburban connecting road so it is not a quiet spot. It therefore does not receive much recreational use, other than dog walkers or children playing in the open area of the disused golf course,

Catchment properties Duck Creek drains a short, steep catchment (approx. 800 ha) that includes much of the suburb of Whitby. Approximately 30% of the catchment is urban, while the remainder is a mixture of scrub and pasture, much of which lie within the boundaries of Belmont Regional Park. The stream is the only outlet for the Whitby Lakes.

The stream is monitored at two points, and water quality is rated as ‘moderate’ (Greater Wellington Waterwatch). This is largely due to stormwater and urban road run-off.

Threats Feral cats, rats, and mustelids may be present in significant numbers, posing a threat to any roosting or nesting birds. With a large urban population nearby, uncontrolled domestic dogs and cats could also be frequently seen.

The vacant golf course is regularly mown in order to discourage weeds, but the area is still a source of pasture species, including tall fescue, which grows particularly densely along the stream margins. Scrub weeds, including gorse and pampas grass, are also established in this area. However, as yet, only tall fescue has been able to successfully colonise the dense rushland of the saltmarsh.

Whitby and the Duck Creek defunct golf course area are suburbs still in development, and there are certainly going to be ongoing earthworks in the catchment for the foreseeable future, including the construction of the Transmission Gully motorway connection. Such building projects usually lead to elevated sedimentation levels in the stream. While this is a problem common to the entire Porirua Harbour complex, the issue is of particular concern here as the culverts through which the stream passes at the mouth will arrest much of the suspended sediment particles, and cause build-up of muddy deposits in the saltmarsh. Development also leads to ongoing issues with increased levels of pollution from urban road runoff and stormwater (GOPI 2003).

Conservation Management Current The saltmarsh is administered by the Department of Conservation as the Duck Creek Scenic Reserve, but any daily management and monitoring is organised by members of The Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet (GOPI). These two organisations carry out monitoring of water quality in the stream, and weed and pest control in the saltmarsh. The vacant golf course is currently owned by Whitby Coastal Developments. PICT and

76 Ngati Toa have interests in the management of the reserve as part of Pauatahanui Inlet. The locality is included in periodic bird surveys of the Pauatanhnui Inlet conducted by the Ornithological society of NZ.

State Highway 58 and James Cook Drive are managed by the New Zealand Transport Authority and Porirua City Council respectively.

There is no physical protection of the saltmarsh, although roads on two boundaries provide some measure of buffering against incursion by predators. A formed vehicle track, a remnant from the old golf course, runs along the western margin; this is the only route through the reserve other than the road-sides.

Greater Wellington have undertaken habitat mapping of the area around the Duck Creek saltmarsh (Stevens & Robertson 2008, Stevens & Robertson 2009a) and have assessed risks (Robertson & Stevens 2007a). They have also assessed intertidal sediment quality adjacent to the creek mouth (Sorensen & Milne 2009) and contaminants present in streambed sediments (Milne & Watts 2008). The site is part of the Council’s long term monitoring programme.

There is a lot of detailed information available on Pauatahanui Inlet and these documents have information of relevance to Duck Creek e.g. Blaschke et al. (2010), Swales et al. 2005. There are also various restoration related documents useful for management e.g. White (2005), Blaschke and Anstey (2004).

Potential While the saltmarsh in the reserve is currently in good health, and probably needs little more than the continued monitoring of weeds and water quality in the short term, the planned urban development of the former Duck Creek Golf Course presents issues of elevated sedimentation and pollution. GOPI has previously made submissions regarding these and other issues associated with subdivision (GOPI 2003), specifically requesting the protection of riparian margins, the establishment of anti-erosion/sedimentation measures, and the redesign of stormwater systems to prevent untreated discharge directly into the stream. In the event that the planned development goes ahead, these submissions should be reiterated and supported by Department of Conservation and other governmental agencies involved in the management of Pauatahanui Inlet.

A multi-agency steering committee is currently being created for the management of Pauatahanui Inlet. As part of the inlet, Duck Creek should be incorporated into any general strategies regarding environmental work in the future.

References BioWeb Herpetofauna database, Department of Conservation Blaschke, P.; Woods, J. Forsyth, F. 2010. The Porirua Harbour and its Catchment: a Literature Summary and Review. Report prepared for Porirua City Council and Wellington City Council. Blaschke, P.; Anstey, C. 2004. Pauatahanui Inlet Restoration Plan. Stage 2 – Southern and Western Catchments. Report prepared for Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington. Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet, 2003. Submission by the Guardians of Pauatahanui Inlet on the application for subdivision of Duck Creek by Whitby Coastal Estates. http://www.gopi.wellington.net.nz/submissions/Duck-Creek.htm

77 MacDonald, A.; Joy, M. 2009. Freshwater Biodiversity in the Wellington Region. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Wellington Conservancy. Milne, J.R; Watts, L. 2008. Stormwater contaminants in urban streams in the Wellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. GW/EMI-T-08/82. NABIS (2010). Annual distribution of the polychaete Boccardiella magniovata lineage. Lineage – scientific methodology. www.nabis.govt.nz. Robertson, B.; Stevens, L. 2007a. Kapiti, Southwest, South Coasts and Wellington Harbour: risk assessment and monitoring recommendations. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council by Wriggle Coastal Management. Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2008. Porirua Harbour: broad scale habitat mapping 2007/08. Report prepared for Greater Wellington by Wriggle Coastal Management. Sorensen, P.G.; Milne, J.R. 2009. Porirua Harbour targeted intertidal sediment quality assessment. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. GW/EMI-T- 09/136. Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2009a. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal macroalgal monitoring 2008/09. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. 4 pp + appendices. Stevens, L.; Robertson, B. 2010. Porirua Harbour: Intertidal macroalgal monitoring 2009/10. Report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council. Wriggle Limited. Swales, A.; Bentley, S.J.; McGlone, M.S.; Ovenden, R.; Hermanspahn, N.; Budd, R.; Hill, A.; Pickmere, S.; Haskew, R.; Okey, M.J. 2005. Pauatahanui Inlet: effects of historical catchment landcover changes on inlet sedimentation. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council and Porirua City Council, NIWA Client Report: HAM2004-149. Wassilieff, M.C.; Clark, D.J.; Gabites, I. 1986. Scenic reserves of the Lower North Island. Biological Survey of Reserves Series No. 14. Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington.

78