Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’S Draft Report and Decision
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Party Draft Report Explanation Amendment sought Accepted/ Brief summary of Board’s reference reasons Refused
NZTA / PCC Para [4], bullet The Draft Report describes the NZTA as the “national roading authority.” The That the BoI deletes reference to the NZTA as the “national roading authority” in paragraph [4] Refused Unnecessary point one NZTA considers that such a description could cause confusion as to the extent of the Draft Report and replace it with a reference to the NZTA being the “road controlling of the NZTA‟s statutory responsibilities. The NZTA is the body charged with authority responsible for the State highway network”. operating the State highway network under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. As the BoI is aware, other agencies, such as territorial authorities, manage other parts of the roading network.
Coastal Accepted Amended Draft Report The Coastal Highway Group do not appear to be included in the list of parties who Highway Group Amendment to the Report to note the contribution made by the submitter as a party to the Hearing. Section 10 made submissions. Mr Jessup
NZTA / PCC Para [10] The Draft Report incorrectly refers to the EPA as the “Environmental That paragraph [10] of the Draft Report be amended as follows: Accepted Correction Protection Agency.” The EPA‟s correct full title is the “Environmental Protection Authority.” “…were lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency Authority”
NZTA / PCC Para [18], [57] The BoI records that section 149P of the RMA requires the BoI to consider any That the BoI amends its Draft Report to record the information provided to it by the EPA under Refused All information disclosed and information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G. Other than the section 149G of the RMA, and the extent to which it has considered that information under considered matters themselves and the section 149G reports, it is not clear whether any section 149P(1)(b) of the RMA. other information was provided to the BoI under section 149G of the RMA. Hence, it is not clear (on the face of the Draft Report) whether the BoI considered all the information provided to it by the EPA, in accordance with section 149P(1)(b) of the RMA.
Director Para 19 The first sentence records that 25 minutes, directions and memoranda were issued – Accept Correction General of however the EPA website lists 27 minutes, directions and memoranda. Conservation
Director Para 24 The first sentence refers to a pre-hearing conference held on Thursday 1 December Amend first sentence to read: “The second pre-hearing conference was held on Thursday 1 December Accept Correction General of 2012. The date should be Thursday 1 December 2011. 2012 2011” Conservation
Director Para 28-33 The section of the report that discusses evidence makes no reference to the provision Add paragraph after paragraph 33 to detail further supplementary / rebuttal evidence received from Accept Correction General of (or the Board‟s acceptance of) the supplementary statement of evidence from Ms Applicants‟ experts. Conservation Rickard, dated 13 February 2012; Ms Rickard‟s second supplementary statement of evidence, dated 20 February 2012; Dr Keesing‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 15 February 2012; Mr Fuller‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012; Ms Malcolm‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012; or Mr Martell‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012. Page | 1
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director Para 36 Paragraph 36 states that 26 conferencing statements were received, but there are 30 Amend first sentence to read: “there were 26 30 conferencing statements received.” Accept Correct General of conferencing statements listed on the EPA website (including the officer conferencing Conservation statement – Territorial Authorities 15 Dec 2011)
Director Para 39 Referring to Section 4: Battle Hill, the second paragraph states that at about 11750m it Amend second paragraph in Section 4: Battle Hill to read: “At about 11750m it will cross an unnamed Refused Taken from description in General of [the Main Alignment] will cross an unnamed stream with a bridge. The crossing at this stream Horokiri Stream with a bridge.” application. Approximation is Conservation point is over the Horokiri Stream adequate. May have been clarified in other documents.
Change unnecessary
Director Para 40 This states that the TGP involves approximately 112 stream crossing by either bridges Amend first sentence to read: “TGP involves approximately 112 125 stream crossings by either bridges Refused Taken from description in General of or culverts. However, excluding the replacement of existing perched culverts in the or culverts.” application. Approximation is Conservation Duck Creek catchment, Schedule A: Permanent Culverts (Volume 2: Draft Conditions) adequate. May have been lists 110 culverts; and Schedule B: Bridges, identifies 13 bridges that involve crossings clarified in other documents. over streams or other watercourses. Change unnecessary
These crossings are shown on the Drainage Layout Plans included in Volume 4 – Plan Set. The Drainage Layout Plans show a further two culverts that are not listed in Schedule A
Director Para 41 Paragraph 41 states that the NZTA and PCC resource consents are for non-complying Amend third sentence to read: “The NZTA and PCC resource consents are for non-complying activities, Accept Correction General of activities. Whilst the NZTA applications are for non-complying activities, the PCC the PCC resource consents are for discretionary activities, and the Transpower consents are for Conservation applications are for discretionary activities. restricted discretionary activities.”
NZTA / PCC Para [41] The Draft Report states that the NZTA and PCC resource consents are for That paragraph [41] of the Draft Report be amended so as to record that the resource Accept Correction non-complying activities. This is correct for the resource consents required for consents which are required for the PCC Project are resource consents for discretionary the NZTA Project, however, the resource consents required for the PCC activities. Project are classified as discretionary activities.1
NZTA / PCC Para [59] The Draft Report refers to the notice approving the NZTA as a requiring That paragraph [59] be amended as follows: Accept Amend authority as the “Resource Management Notice 1994”. The correct full name of this approval notice is the “Resource Management (Approval of Transit New “...Resource Management (Approval of Transit New Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice 1994.” 1994,”
NZTA / PCC Para [94] and In the Draft Report, the Applicants‟ marine ecological witness, Dr Sharon De That all references in the Draft Report to “de Luca” be replaced with “De Luca”. Accept Amend subsequent Luca, is incorrectly referred to as “Dr de Luca”. references
NZTA / PCC Para [98] - At paragraphs [98] to [102] the BoI undertakes an inquiry into whether or not That the BoI reconsider paragraphs [98]- [102], in light of the legal position established by the Refused Discussion relates to statutory the objectives identified by the NZTA (and PCC) for their respective projects mandate not applicants‟
1 Rickard (First Statement), 16 November 2011, para 29.2.
Page | 2
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
[102] fall within the statutory mandate of those bodies and therefore whether they case law discussed. objectives. are “appropriate” objectives for the Applicants to have identified. The Applicants respectfully note, as a technical matter, that this inquiry appears to be outside the scope of the BoI‟s legal mandate. Case law has held that it is not the role of someone undertaking a consideration as to whether or not a designation for a project or work is reasonably necessary to achieve a requiring authority‟s objective(s) to inquire into the appropriateness of that requiring authority‟s objective(s).2
Section 149P(4) of the RMA does not give the BoI any wider powers in undertaking this consideration than a territorial authority or the Environment Court would have if the national consenting process was not being used.
NZTA / PCC Footnote 17 The first reference to the Transcript of Proceedings for the TGP hearing is That Footnote 17 be amended as follows: Refused Unnecessary [112] and given as “Notes of Evidence (NoE)”, with subsequent references being “NoE”. 17 following The Applicants consider it would be clearer if the first reference was “ Notes of Evidence (NoE) Transcript of Proceedings (Transcript)…” “Transcript of Proceedings (Transcript)”, with subsequent references being And that all subsequent references to “NoE” in the footnotes be replaced with the word “Transcript”. This would ensure that the references given match the title given “Transcript.” on the Transcript of Proceedings document and avoid any confusion as to what document is being referred to.
NZTA / PCC Para [125] There is an implication in paragraph [125] of the Draft Report that the reason That the BoI reconsider the wording of paragraph [125], in light of the position on the Refused Summary of submission only that the NZTA did not argue that the existing Transmission Gully designation is permitted baseline expressed in the Applicants‟ legal submissions. part of the “existing baseline” is because regional resource consents are required before the State highway authorised by that designation could lawfully be built.
The NZTA considers that, as currently worded, this paragraph might be interpreted in a way which does not correctly reflect the NZTA‟s position on the issue. As noted in the Applicants‟ Opening Submissions, the Applicants‟ position was that:
The existing designated alignment for the TGP only authorises the district land use aspects of that alignment. Therefore, the Applicants considered that it could not form part of the permitted baseline for consideration of the current applications for regional resource consents for the TGP; and
Whilst it is arguable that the permitted baseline approach developed by case law should continue to be applied to the consideration of district land uses that would be authorised by an NoR, the Applicants elected to take a conservative approach and not treat the existing designated alignment as part of a permitted baseline in assessing
2 Olsen v Minister of Social Welfare [1995] NZRMA 385, page 15 (PT) and Babington v Invercargill City Council (1993) 2 NZRMA 480, page 486.
Page | 3
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
effects that would be authorised by the TGP designations.3
NZTA / PCC Para [127] and The Draft Report records in both paragraphs [127] and [132] that the NZTA That paragraphs [127] and [132] be amended as follows: Accept Amend [132] and PCC have applied for all resource consents which are “presently anticipated” or “presently identifiable”. This is not technically correct. “[127]... The notices of requirement and applications for resource consent are intended to include all of the activities which are presently were anticipated to be required for TGP at the At the time the applications for resource consents were lodged with the EPA time the applications were lodged.” the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations “[132] ... In the case of NZTA and PCC their evaluation of TGP has been exhaustive and the 2011 (the Soil NES), was not in force. The Soil NES came into effect on 1 notices of requirement and consents applied for encompass all of the consents which are January 2012 and it is anticipated that additional consents will be required presently were identifiable as being required at the time the applications were lodged.” under this NES.
NZTA / PCC Para [136] The Draft Report records that the Applicants have calculated that, if TGP That the first sentence of paragraph [136] be amended as follows: Accept Amend proceeds, traffic on the existing SH1 coastal route will drop to approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the southern end of Pukerua Bay. This figure “The Applicants calculate that if TGP proceeds, traffic on the existing SH1 coastal route will is incorrect. Figure 4.13 of Technical Report 4 (TR4) (page 60) confirms that drop to approximately 5,000 5900 vehicles per day…” the correct predicted volume south of Pukerua Bay is 5,930 vpd.
The Applicants record that Mr Nicholson’s evidence may have contributed to this error, as it incorrectly records that the traffic volume at the southern end of Pukerua Bay would be around 5,000 vpd.4
NZTA / PCC Para [146] The Draft Report records that one of the beneficial effects of TGP identified by That the word “upgrade” be deleted from paragraph [146] and replaced with a word which Refused Unnecessary the NZTA was the “likely upgrade and improvements to the coastal route which does not have the same technical traffic engineering meaning, such as “alterations”. could occur once TGP was in place...”
The use of the word “upgrade” in this sentence is technically incorrect and could potentially be misleading to some readers of the Draft Report as, from a traffic engineering perspective, an “upgrade” generally implies an improvement in capacity. Rather than improving capacity, the likely treatments would be a downgrade of the coastal route in traffic engineering terms, in the sense that through traffic capacity would be reduced.
TR4 and the evidence of Mr Nicholson and Mr Kelly discuss the package of possible treatments for the coastal route.5
NZTA / PCC Para [147] Paragraph [147] of the Draft Report includes a statement that a “condition may That the BoI reconsider the wording of the comment in paragraph [147] quoted in the Refused Our expression is correct. NZTA have a constraining effect on how NZTA might exercise rights and powers comments column in light of the Applicants‟ concern that it might be interpreted more widely strains meaning of comment. under its empowering legislation but that cannot limit a consent authority’s (or than the BoI intended. Possible alternative wording might be: the Board’s) powers to impose valid conditions under RMA”. “A condition requiring the NZTA to undertake certain works on a portion of its State highway
3 Opening Legal Submissions for the NZ Transport Agency and Porirua City Council, 13 February 2012 (Applicants’ Opening Submissions), paras 86-87.
4 Nicholson, 16 November 2011, para 155.
5 TR4, 1.6.2.2; Nicholson, 16 November 2011, para 156; Kelly, paras 75, 80, 123-124, 146-148.
Page | 4
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
This comment was made in the context of the BoI‟s comment that it could network might indirectly have a constraining effect on how NZTA exercises rights and powers have, if it had considered it appropriate and consistent with the Newbury under its empowering legislation but that does not make it ultra vires for a consent authority or principles to do so, imposed a condition on the NZTA NoRs requiring works to the Board to impose a condition requiring such works to be undertaken”. be carried out on portions of the coastal route whose state highway status might be revoked as a consequence of TGP.
The Applicants are concerned that, as currently worded, the statement made at paragraph [147] might be interpreted as going beyond supporting a condition requiring works to be done on the portions of SH1 which might have their status revoked, and be interpreted as the BoI saying that, if it had chosen, it could have imposed a condition directing the NZTA to exercise a statutory power of decision in a certain way, or prohibiting the NZTA from exercising such a statutory power of decision.
The Board has seen a need to repeat the same condition (NZTA.3B) that was imposed Accept in Condition to be amended to by the Environment Court in its 2001 decision on the upgrading of SH1 between part allow for appropriate Paremata and Plimmerton. assessment of effects of TGP and otherwise as suggested by The Board suggests (paragraph [156]) that “in the event of revocation of state highway NZTA. status for this portion of SH1, the designation under RMA may also be revoked and the conditions imposed by the Environment Court in 2000 would no longer apply”. However the Environment Court‟s condition requires consultation to be undertaken and the response to be made “prior to the completion of the construction of Transmission Gully
Motorway” and we wouldn‟t expect the state highway status to be revoked before then. Instead of addressing this issue, we believe that the Board‟s comment (para 154) compounds the
While there may be advantages (and no harm) in reiterating the condition, we are problems which we were seeking to have addressed – namely the potential for NZTA to delay any action on the existing highway for as long as it wishes, to decide that there is no need to make any changes to Para 154 concerned about an accompanying comment in paragraph [154] of the Board‟s draft Paremata decision which, we believe, pre-empts and negates the intention of the Environment the existing highway on traffic efficiency grounds, and to decline to fund removal of the bridge or the Residents Court‟s condition. That comment is: clearways for any other reasons (ultimately placing that onus on future Porirua ratepayers). Association NZTA.3B It appears to us that the need for removal of the bridge is something which must be We believe that the Board‟s comment contradicts the Environment Court‟s expectations and will considered once TGP is operating and traffic patterns on the old section of state compromise the required consultation process. We recommend that the sentence (in para 154) be highway have been established with sufficient certainty to identify what the removed from the Board‟s final report. requirements for efficient operation of that road are.
This wording implies that (a) the only acceptable response to the required prior consultation by NZTA “must” be to delay consideration of the matters concerned until later, and (b) the only important consideration in determining the fate of the bridge should be “efficient operation of that road”.
This conflicts with the Environment Court‟s intention that the consultation should be carried out and NZTA‟s response should be made known before Transmission Gully is completed, reflecting the evidence given by Transit during that hearing which
Page | 5
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
emphasised, amongst many other things:
The interim nature of the works.
The importance of reversibility in selecting the upgrade option.
Transit‟s commitment that, following appropriate public process, it would demolish the bridge and remove the clearways “in conjunction with the opening of TGM” – not at some future time.
Transit‟s advice that the funding for demolishing the bridge and removing the clearways “would be included in the cost of construction of the TGM” – providing some comfort that the funding would be available at the time.
NZTA / PCC Para [155], The BoI has referred to the Environment Court‟s decision which approved the That the words “Mana Freeway” be replaced with the words “Transit New Zealand’s notice of Accept Correction made [1074] “Mana Freeway.”6 The relevant project is not generally known as the Mana requirement for an upgrade of the Urban Section of SH1 from Plimmerton to Paremata” in Freeway and, therefore, this reference could be confusing. The Applicants paragraphs [155] and [1074] of the Draft Report. consider that the term should be replaced with the words “Transit New Zealand’s notice of requirement for an upgrade of the Urban Section of SH1 from Plimmerton to Paremata”, which more correctly reflect the work which was the subject of the Environment Court‟s decision.
Accept NZTA‟s suggested NZTA / PCC Para [155], The BoI has elected to impose a condition on the NZTA Main Alignment That Condition NZTA.3B be amended as follows: Accept in [1074] (and designation (within Porirua City) which mirrors that imposed in the amendment, but amend first part sentence to read: Condition Environment Court‟s decision in Porirua City Council v Transit New Zealand. “Prior to the completion of the construction of Transmission Gully Motorway the Project the Requiring Authority shall: NZTA.3B) However, the Applicants consider that some technical amendments are
required to appropriately fit the condition to the TGP context. “No earlier than six months after Consult with PCC, WRC, Paremata Residents Association Inc, Plimmerton Residents the commencement of the Association Inc, and Ngati Toa Rangitira in relation to its proposals for the Work Paremata Currently the condition refers to “the Work.” “The Work” as defined in the Project and no later than 12 Road, Mana Esplanade and St Andrews Road following the construction of the Transmission months from that date the definitions section of the designation conditions means “any activity or Gully Motorway Project, including the following matters: Requiring Authority shall: activities undertaken in relation to the Project.” However, it is anticipated that “the Work” is probably intended to refer, in the context of this condition, to (a) Ownership and control of the Work Paremata Road, Mana Esplanade and St Andrews “Paremata Road, Mana Esplanade and St Andrews Road” (or something Road; similar). (b) Options relating to the future of the existing Paremata Bridge; (c) The continuation of four laning of St Andrews Road between Acheron Road and James Street; Further, the words “or High Occupancy Vehicle lanes” in paragraph (i) of the (d) Measures (to the extent that they are legally available) to restrict or discourage heavy condition should be deleted as those lanes no longer exist along the Mana vehicle movements through the Work Paremata Road, Mana Esplanade and St Andrews Road; Esplanade. (e) Other measures required to ensure an adequate level of service for the traffic volumes and traffic type expected to use the Work Paremata Road, Mana Esplanade and St Andrews The words “to the designation” in paragraph (k) also need to be amended to Road; refer “to any NZTA designation”. Consequential amendments are also required (f) Provision of arrangements for cyclists; (g) Alteration of footpath widths; to be made to refer to “the Project”, rather than the “Transmission Gully (h) Removal of traffic lights; Motorway.” (i) Changes to the operation of the clearways or High Occupancy Vehicle lanes; (j) Alteration of arrangements in relation to capacity;
6 See Porirua City Council v Transit New Zealand (EnvC, W52/200, 16 July 2001).
Page | 6
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
(k) Any changes to be sought to the any NZTA designation in relation to those matters; and
Report on the outcomes of that consultation to PCC and WRC for the purposes of ensuring that PCC and WRC are fully informed of the views of the public and those bodies, and of the Requiring Authority’s intended response to that consultation.”
Director Para 163 The second bullet point states that the TGP is intended to be the primary state highway Amend second bullet point to read: “TGP is intended to be part of the primary state highway linking Reject Unnecessary General of linking the North and South Islands via Wellington and through Cook Strait. It is more North and South Islands via Wellington and through Cook Strait;” Conservation appropriate to say that it is part of the primary state highway (it does not constitute the whole of that highway).
Director Para 166 The first bullet point states that “such discharges will only occur in rainfall events Delete first bullet point Accept Amend by deleting first bullet General of greater than those having a ten year annual return period (ARI). Storm water control point Conservation systems proposed for the TGP will be designed to contain runoff water during rainfalls of a ten year ARI or less.” This is incorrect. The storm water control systems are designed to remove 70% of suspended sediment for rainfalls up to a 10 year ARI, but will still discharge water containing sediment and flocculants during rainfall events below a 10 year ARI. Even when treated to this standard, the discharge may breach s.107(1)(d).
NZTA / PCC Para [167] The BoI states in paragraph [167] “we determine that the discharges in That paragraph [167] is amended as follows: Reject Unnecessary question are temporary in nature and also fall within the second exception contained in s107(2)(b).” The Applicants consider the use of the word “also” in “…we determine that the discharges in question are temporary in nature and also accordingly this sentence could cause confusion. fall within the second exception contained in s107(2)(b).”
NZTA / PCC Section 105 of the RMA lists certain matters that the BoI must consider when That the BoI insert a specific assessment of the relevant matters outlined in section 105 of the Accept Amend considering an application for a discharge permit (section 105(1)).7 Section RMA into the Final Report. 105(2) also lists specific matters to be considered when assessing resource consents for reclamations.
The Draft Report omits to contain a specific analysis of the discharge permit applications8 and applications for reclamations9 against the relevant matters outlined in section 105 of the RMA. The Applicants‟ Opening Legal Submissions (relying on the Applicants‟ evidence) discussed these matters.10
Director Para 173 The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (February 2000) is not a draft document. Delete word “draft” on second line, so the text reads: “… in the draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy Accept Amend
7 Section 149P(2) requires that a BoI considering a resource consent application must apply sections 104-112 as if it were a consent authority.
8 RC 2, RC 3, RC 15, RC 16, RC 18, RC 19.
9 RC 4, RC 5, RC 6, RC 7, RC 9, RC 10, RC 11, RC 12.
10 Applicants‟ Opening Submissions, paras 59-60.
Page | 7
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
General of (February 2000) …” Conservation
Director Para 203 The Board has determined that the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan Amendments are sought in respect of the conditions specified in Volume 2 of the Draft Report, to give Accept in Amend General of (EMMP) must be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. However, this effect to the Board‟s findings in paragraph 203, as follows: part
Conservation requirement does not appear to have been translated into the conditions on the Include conditions relating to the EMMP and its certification in the confirmed Notices of Requirement. Reject in Unnecessary Confirmed Notices of Requirement (for NZTA and PCC) – ref Draft Report and Decision part Note: these should replicate the equivalent draft resource conditions, with such amendments as may be of the Board of Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal – Volume 2: Draft necessary. Conditions. Include resource consent conditions relating to certification of the LUDMP (or specified parts thereof) by For example, condition NZTA.43(c) refers to “the Ecological Management and the regional council. Monitoring Plan (EMMP) required to be certified under the Regional Resource Consent conditions”, and no reference is made to certification by the Territorial Authority.
It is noted that Condition G.21 of the NZTA draft resource consent conditions does specify that the EMMP is to be submitted to the relevant Territorial Authority for certification. However, this condition is imposed on a consent that is administered by the Regional Council, and does not give the Territorial Authority jurisdiction to certify the EMMP or enforce its requirements.
Director Para 203 The Board has also determined that the Landscape and Urban Design Management Amend the relevant resource consent conditions as set out in the second part of this schedule. Reject Unnecessary General of Plan (LUDMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. In this Conservation respect, condition NZTA.42 on the NZTA confirmed Notice of Requirement requires that the LUDMP be certified by Wellington Regional Council in relation to their statutory functions. However, it is unclear whether a condition on a confirmed Notice of Requirement – which translates to a Designation within the district plan (s.175 RMA) – can give authority to the regional council in respect of these matters. Amendments (additions) to the proposed resource consent conditions may therefore be required in order to give effect to the Board‟s findings with respect to certification of the LUDMP.
NZTA / PCC Para [203] The BoI concludes that where management plans which are to be certified That paragraph [203] be amended to recognise that the LUDMP will not be certified by any of Accept in Amend impinge on both regional and territorial functions, then they should be certified the territorial authorities, as it will form part of the Outline Plan process under section 176A of part by both regional and territorial authorities. The BoI lists the CEMP, EMMP and the RMA and instead the territorial authorities will have an ability to request changes to the the LUDMP as being examples of plans which will require “dual certification”. LUDMP.
However, it is an error to refer to the LUDMP as being subject to dual certification. The LUDMP will not be certified by the territorial authorities, as the LUDMP will form part of the Outline Plan. Under section 176A(4), the territorial authority can request changes to an Outline Plan, but there is no formal process of certification.
The inconsistencies could be addressed by including in the conditions (rather than the advice notes) the Accept in Amend KCDC Para 203 Paragraph 203 of the decision states: requirement of certification of the CEMP and the LUDMP by the relevant territorial authority, and by Page | 8
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
"For the above reasons we require that where management plans which are to be amending the above conditions and advice notes as required to refer to certification by the relevant part certified impinge on both regional and territorial functions, then they are to be certified territorial authority as well by as the Regional Council. Reject in Unnecessary by both regional and territorial authorities. Any conditions of consent adopted by the In addition, the requirement to have amendments certified (as per condition G.16) is not contained in the part Board for the NZTA/PCC projects will need to reflect that requirement. The designation conditions. If the Board's intention was that amendments to any management plan must be management plans presently falling into the category of dual certification are: certified, this requirement could be stated in a new condition after condition NZTA.7. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);
Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP);
Landscape and Urban Design Management Plan (LUDMP)."
It appears that the Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMPs) need to be added to that list, given that conditions G.26-G.30 require dual certification of the SSEMPs.
The intention in paragraph 203 is reflected in the advice note located before condition NZTA.20 in relation to the CEMP, and in condition G.21 in relation to the EMMP. However, further amendments appear to be needed to reflect that intention in light of the following points:
(a) The designation conditions themselves (as opposed to the advice note, which is non-binding) do not actually require joint certification of the CEMP or the LUDMP.
(b) The two underlined statements below in the advice note to condition NZTA.6 appear to contradict each other:
"The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) may be submitted with the OP for information – but recognising that the Wellington Regional Council shall have the role of certifying this Plan. The Requiring Authority shall ensure that if the CEMP is changed or updated as a result of the WRC and relevant Territorial Authority certification process that the most up to date version is provided to the Council."
(c) Condition NZTA.42 only refers to Regional Council certification of the LUDMP.
(d) Condition G.16 only refers to Regional Council certification of amendments to management plans.
(e) The advice note above condition G.19 states that the CEMP is to be certified by the Regional Council only.
(f) Conditions G.19A and G.19 only refer to Regional Council certification of the CEMP.
NZTA / PCC Para [206] and The BoI records an understanding in paragraphs [206] and [278] that the TGP That the second sentence of paragraph [206] and the first sentence of [278] be amended as Reject Unnecessary, statement reflects [278] will “be designated as a motorway”. This is not correct. follows: NZTA‟s intentions. Statement The BoI appears to have relied upon Mr Edwards’ evidence for its “[206] …The design is based on expressway standards, although the road would initially be
Page | 9
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
understanding. However, Mr Edwards’ evidence is only that whilst the Main designated as a motorway the NZTA currently intends to request the Governor-General to reflects statement in AEE. Alignment has been designed to expressway standards, in most respects it will declare the Main Alignment to be a motorway.” actually meet motorway standards. 11 “[278] For the record, we note that as TGP will be designated as motorway the NZTA currently The BoI also appears to have relied on section 1.2.1 of the AEE which states intends to request the Governor-General to declare the Main Alignment to be a motorway, it is that “The Main Alignment will be declared a motorway (under section 71 of the highly likely there will be no cyclist or pedestrian access to the road itself.” Government Roading Powers Act 1989 (GRPA), and hence will not be available for use by cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders”. (The BoI may also wish to consider amending its footnote references in these two paragraphs so as to refer to section 5.2.1.1 of the AEE). However, as a technical matter, the Applicants note that the ultimate decision whether or not the Main Alignment is declared a motorway sits with the Governor-General, and not the NZTA. As recorded at paragraph 5.2.1.1 of the AEE, “Under section 71 of the GRPA the NZTA may request that the Governor-General declare that road, or land where a road will be constructed, be a motorway”.
Accordingly, it would be technically correct for the Final Report to record that “the NZTA currently intends to request the Governor-General to declare the Main Alignment to be a motorway”, rather than stating that the Main Alignment will be declared motorway.
NZTA / PCC Para [211] Paragraph [211] of the Draft Report refers to the “Champion Street That the words “Champion Street Interchange” be replaced with the words “Mungavin Avenue Accept Amend Interchange.” However, Champion Street intersects Mungavin Avenue Interchange” in paragraph [211]. approximately 100m to the east of the interchange of Mungavin Avenue and SH1. Accordingly, technically this interchange should be referred to as the “Mungavin Avenue Interchange”, rather than the “Champion Street Interchange.”
NZTA / PCC Para [231] In the first sentence of paragraph [231], the BoI records the numbers of vpd That the first sentence of paragraph [231] be amended so as to recognise that the figures Accept Amend which are predicted to transfer from the existing State highway route to the given in that paragraph represent the daily forecast volumes for the TGP, rather than vehicle TGP. However, the figures given in that sentence represent the total number transfers from the existing route to the TGP. of vehicles that the TGP Main Alignment is predicted to carry.12 Accordingly, those figures include some induced travel trips, and some modal shift, rather than only pure transfer of vehicles.13
NZTA / PCC Para [231] Paragraph [231] states that predicted volumes of traffic on the coastal route That the figure “21,470” in the second sentence of paragraph [231] be replaced with “20,470”. Accept Amend
11 Edwards, 16 November 2012, para 12.
12 Kelly, 15 November 2011, para 49.
13 See paragraph 4.3.1 of TR4, which explains that the forecast volumes of major travel movements in the corridor for 2026 (summarised by Figure 4.11) indicate that there will be some, generally small, increases both in the total volume of travel in the corridor and also the proportion of this travel which is undertaken by road as a result of the TGP.
Page | 10
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
will drop to 21,470 on Mana Esplanade. The correct figure is 20,470 vpd.14
NZTA / PCC Para [238] The Draft Report records that the BCR for the wider Wellington Roads of That paragraph [238] be amended to recognise that the calculated Wellington RoNS BCR of Accept in Amend National Significance (RoNS) package (as at late 2009) was 1.2, including 1.2 (as at late 2009), included Agglomeration benefits, but excluded WEBs. wider economic benefits (WEBs). This is incorrect. The calculated BCR of 1.2 part included Agglomeration benefits, but excluded WEBs. The Wellington RoNS BCR, including WEBs, was 1.4.15
Director Para 249 Reference to condition NZTA.27 is incorrect – requirements for the Forestry Harvest Amend to read: “A condition to this effect will be imposed if consent is granted, as proposed by NZTA in Accept Amend General of Plan are set out in condition E.27 NZTA.27 E.27” Conservation
NZTA / PCC Para [261] Paragraph [261] of the Draft Report records “At the hearing Mr Bailey stated That the words “Mr Bailey” be replaced by the words “Mr McCombs” in paragraph [261]. Accept Amend that it is his view that it should be appropriately linked in terms of timing.82”
Footnote 82 refers to page 156 of the Transcript of Proceedings. Page 156 contains the testimony of Mr McCombs (and includes a discussion on timing). Accordingly, it is Mr McCombs who should be referred to in paragraph [261], rather than Mr Bailey.
NZTA / PCC Para [263] and Paragraph [263] discusses the increased traffic volumes expected on That paragraph [263] be amended to recognise that increased delays are likely to be Accept Amend Footnote 84 Kenepuru Drive immediately to the south of the proposed Kenepuru Link Road experienced by vehicles wishing to turn to or from the section of Kenepuru Drive, south of the intersection. The BoI records that “Mr Kelly considered that this area will be Kenepuru Link Road intersection and that Footnote 84 be amended to refer to paragraph 57, able to accommodate increased traffic volumes, although users of those routes rather than paragraph 55, of Mr Kelly’s evidence. may experience increased delays.” Paragraph 55 of Mr Kelly’s evidence in chief is given as the footnote reference for this statement (footnote 84).
Paragraph 55 of Mr Kelly’s evidence does not discuss increased delays on Kenepuru Drive. However, paragraph 57 of Mr Kelly’s evidence explains that whilst Kenepuru Drive will be able to accommodate these increased traffic volumes, increased delays are likely to be experienced by vehicles wishing to turn to or from this section of Kenepuru Drive.
NZTA / PCC Para [279] There is a typographical error in paragraph [279]. That the word “prposed” be replaced with the word “proposed” in paragraph [279]. Accept Amend
NZTA / PCC Para [290] Paragraph [290] states that Mr McCombs noted that a net outcome for the That paragraph [290] be amended to correctly record Mr McCombs’ view that the TGP, Reject Adequate summary TGP is promotion of a positive shift to public transport (referring to page 161 of delivered together with other related improvements in the corridor, leads to a net outcome of the Transcript as the reference). However, Mr McCombs’ written evidence (to promotion of a positive shift to public transport. which page 161 of the Transcript relates) noted that TGP, delivered together with other related improvements in the corridor, leads to a net outcome of
14 TR4, Figure 4.13, page 60.
15 Nicholson, 16 November 2011, para 103.
Page | 11
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
promotion of a positive shift to public transport.16
NZTA / PCC Para [305] The BoI records that a northern portion of the Project lies in the Te Puka That paragraph [305] be amended to recognise that small portions of the northern section of Reject Adequate summary catchment that drains to the west coast. However, small portions of the the Project also lie within the Whareroa and Wainui catchments (in addition to the Te Puka northern section of the Project also lie within the Whareroa and Wainui catchment). catchments.
Director Para 307 The paragraph refers to “drastic” and unacceptable effects on Pauatahanui Inlet. The Delete the words “drastic and”. Reject Statement reflects thrust of General of use of this word dramatises the Director-General‟s case, which was based on scientific Director General‟s case Conservation and factual matters.
Director Para 309 No area limit has been established in the Te Puka catchment and this creates the EITHER: Reject Reference to para [309] General of potential for unnecessary sediment loads in this catchment. Ms Rickard records incorrect, Area limits consistent Add a discussion about the site characteristics for the Te Puka Stream area noting why an area limit on Conservation (Transcript 9 March page 1763/64) that her reason for not supporting this condition was with expert witness open earthworks in this catchment was not considered necessary after consideration of the values, that she agreed that the “primary” concern of the ecologists was sediment runoff and conferencing statement 24 OR effects on Pauatahanui Inlet. This reasoning does not justify why a condition to control February 2012. potential sediment yield is not reasonable or necessary. Ms Malcolm anticipated that Insert a new condition to Volume 2 of the decision after Condition E2 : sediment retention achieved would be less in the Te Puka (transcript Day 4). Dr Joy Non-stabilised areas within the Te Puka catchment which expose more than 300m2 of surface area shall noted that “The lower part of the Te Puka and Wainui Streams in the flatter section from be limited to 6 hectares at any one time. State Highway 1 to the coast is vulnerable to sediment impact from the project. The lower Te Puka/Wainui Stream has very high native fish values and is a stronghold of the threatened giant kokopu. This area has been heavily impacted by sediment in the past and is vulnerable to any increases in sediment.” Both Dr‟s Keesing and Ogilvie state that the streams in this valley have “very high habitat values.”
Six hectares is derived from discussions in the sediment expert‟s conferencing.
NZTA / PCC Para [358] and At paragraph [358], the BoI discusses the reducing effect on the baseline That the BoI reconsider paragraphs [358] and [359], in light of the Applicants‟ comments. Reject Unnecessary [359] sediment generation in the Project area of the retirement and planting proposed as part of the Project.
The BoI refers to Table 15.26 (of TR15) as stating that there will be a reduction of 457 tonnes of sediment generation per year. However, 155 tonnes per year of the total reduction of 457 tonnes per year is in the Te Puka /Wainui catchment (which does not drain into the Porirua Harbour), so if the figures in that Table were relied on the reduction within the Porirua Harbour catchment would be 302 tonnes per year.
The BoI also records at paragraph [358] that the planting proposed was some 534 ha (which was later increased by the Applicants to 625 ha). Although it is not completely clear from the Draft Report, the BoI‟s comments imply that the
16 McCombs, 17 January 2012, para 25.
Page | 12
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
figures in Table 15.26 are based on 534 ha of planting being provided. If this is the BoI‟s intention, then this is not correct. The Applicants have recently been advised by their experts that the area of planting used in the original calculations (that were summarised in Table 15.26) was in fact approximately 650 ha, which was an error.
Paragraph 65 of Ms Malcolm’s evidence in chief (dated 22 November 2011) states that the sedimentation offset period resulting from the planting will be 14 years. This calculation excluded the component of the reduced sediment generation in the Te Puka/Wainui catchment, and was correctly based on a planting area of 426 ha, as was proposed at that time. After Ms Malcolm’s evidence in chief was completed (and those calculations undertaken), the proposed plating area has progressively increased, first to 534 ha and then finally to 625 ha.
Director Para 357, 362 Paragraph 357 comments on the consequences on the Pauatahanui Inlet should major EITHER explain the rationale for omitting the agreed condition Reject Decision consistent with General of and 364 exceedances of estimated levels of sediment occur. The 3024 tonnes referred to in planners evidence OR insert a new condition: Conservation paragraph 362 is the point at which effects start to become evident and it appears as if Non-stabilised areas within the Porirua Harbour watersheds (Pauatahanui Watershed and Onepoto the draft conditions of consent reflect this modelled situation. No precautionary Watershed) in the first year construction trial which expose more than 300m2 of surface area shall be considerations are included, should the modelling be incorrect. Paragraph 364 refers to limited to two trial earthworks areas. Each area shall be limited to no more than 4ha in area and shall be the requirement for conditions to reflect the validity of the sediment modelling established in two different catchments, one with predominantly rock with low erodibility, and the other in assumptions. predominantly erodible soils. The soil types shall be determined in consultation with a suitably qualified Sediment conferencing canvassed this matter in considerable detail and a trial in the specialist. The sediment discharges from these sites shall be monitored and the results shall be used as first year of earthworks was one agreed measure by which the sediment modelling, the for reviews of Adaptive Management trigger/compliance criteria compared with effects monitoring. All efficiencies of control and that of catchment monitoring performance could be results shall be provided to the Manager for information. monitored and verified early on in the project (Sediment Conferencing 24 February For the purposes of this condition, the first year construction trial shall exclude enabling works such as 2012 – Item 3). This was considered a key precautionary approach in relation to access tracks and relocating utilities undertaken in advance of the main construction activities. The first sediment construction yields and the modelling uncertainty. earthworks season shall include cuts and fills for the construction of the main alignment and/or link There are no reasons in the Draft Report for the omission of this condition as agreed by roads. the sediment experts.
Director Para 359 Mr Handyside was also of the opinion that the additional sediment generated could be Amend second sentence to read: “If it turns out to be twice as much, as suggested by Dr Hicks and Mr Reject Unnecessary General of twice the amount. Handyside, then full…” Conservation
Director Para 361 It is incorrect to say that all experts agreed on the overall quantity of sediment likely to Amend first sentence to read : Reject Unnecessary General of be produced by TGP, there is no such agreement recorded in terms of the quantity of “The saving grace for us is that Regarding the quantity of sediment yield from the project, with the Conservation sediment generated by TGP. Mr Handyside in his supplementary evidence at para 17 exception of Mr Hicks and Mr Handyside who carried out his own assessment of sediment yield for the notes that the modelling gave an approximate 3,000 tonnes of sediment to the Harbour project using Duck Creek as an example, the sediment experts have been able to advise there remain and that this amount is “not identified as having any particular environmental effect and no serious matters of disagreement with the revised sediment analysis, which provided an improvement
Page | 13
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
so would appear to be the level to which the sediment inputs from the project should be on the estimate of sediment yield reported in the Applications and that little further improvement could be constrained to.” This does not imply agreement to that level of sediment yield. Instead, expected using the USLE method. Differences remain over the estimates of sediment from storm events Mr Handyside‟s supplementary evidence goes on to demonstrate with his own and the degree of uncertainty that can be attributed to the sediment modelling. In general the experts assessment, using the USLE method and Duck Creek works, that indeed the yield say the key to addressing any uncertainty in the modelling and avoiding the discharge of excessive could “then be about 5,800 tonnes.” (para 22). At para 23 he revises this amount to amounts of sediment lies in careful on site management to minimise the generation of sediment, limiting 5,000 tonnes after making an adjustment for rainfall and length slope differences. For the extent of active earthworks in each catchment, stabilising areas before storm events, the capture of this reason Mr Handyside recommended smaller open areas of earthworks than Ms runoff containing sediment, and the efficient removal of the sediment before discharge and robust Malcolm to achieve a level of sediment generation consistent with the 3,000 tonnes monitoring to inform the adaptive management approach so that changes can be made if necessary. ” estimated by her. Only the NZTA sediment experts were supportive of open area earthworks based on the 3,000 tonnes estimated by the modelling.
The Expert conferencing statement 13 February 2012 at para 6 records that the revised sediment estimate is “an improvement” and “no further improvement can be expected using this modelling method.” Para 7 records that the experts present at that conferencing still held some concerns over the “uncertainty due to the modelling method…” This matter of agreement around uncertainty should also be recorded in the decision.
The sediment generation experts also note the importance of monitoring to “feed back via an adaptive management approach” so that changes can be made if sediment yields are greater than predicted.
17 124 NZTA / PCC Para [362], In this paragraph the BoI notes that Ms Malcolm’s evidence referred to 75% That the words “although Ms Malcolm referred to 75%” be deleted from the fourth bullet Reject Unnecessary. Reflects bullet point four of sediment being retained by sediment control measures (i.e. measures which point of paragraph [362]. remove sediment that has been generated from runoff before it is discharged uncertainties in evidence to waterbodies). presented.
However, Ms Malcolm’s evidence was referring to the effectiveness of erosion control measures (i.e. measures to stop or minimise soil being eroded in the first place), which were assumed to reduce sediment generation by 75% on an average annual basis.
NZTA / PCC Para [369] There is a typographical error in the last sentence of paragraph [369]. That the reference in paragraph [369] to paragraph “[351]” be replaced with paragraph “[352].” Accept Amend
NZTA / PCC Para [376] Paragraph [376] discusses the sediment removal efficiencies of the sediment That paragraph [376] be amended so as to refer to the information in the SKM Report “USLE Reject Unnecessary. Statement ponds, and refers to Table 15.16 of TR15 as the reference. Revised Analysis, Revision B, 20 January 2012”, rather than Table 15.16 of TR15. accurately reflects Mr Gough‟s However, more recent information on the sediment pond efficiencies was evidence. included in Table 11 of the SKM Report “USLE Revised Analysis, Revision B,
17 Malcolm, 22 November 2011, para 45.
Page | 14
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
20 January 2012”(page 15), as part of the Revised USLE Analysis undertaken by Ms Malcolm. This Report was appended to the Expert Conferencing Report to the BoI - Earthworks & Sediment Control Conferencing.18
Director Para 378 - 382 The decision does not record or assess Mr Handyside‟s position that due to the Add to paragraph 382 a discussion regarding the precautionary approach requested by Mr Handyside in Reject Boards findings consistent with General of uncertainties in the modelling of estimates of sediment yield a precautionary approach light of the uncertainties in the sediment estimates and a discussion around development of conditions evidence. Conservation should be adopted and that this could be accommodated by two means: a maximum based on soil erosivity and why such conditions were not able to be advanced. area restriction of 9 ha per annum over two catchments as proposed in his second AND/OR option for limits on open earthworks areas (para‟s 18, 24 and 26 B Handyside Add conditions to reflect these matters (see comments for Volume 2 Conditions). Supplementary Evidence 3 February 2012 and item 7 Erosion and Sediment Management Conferencing statement 15th Feb 2012) or his preference for open areas to be based on erosivity of soils.
The latter approach was discussed in conferencing on the 24th February and it is recorded at item 9 that further information of soils along the road was to be provided by NZTA for the next conference. The matter could not be advanced because the information was not provided and therefore Mr Handyside‟s approach could not be further developed or refined.
The sediment and erosion experts all agreed that “Differences in ground (rock/soil) types and erodibility along the route on this project are significant and should be taken into account in planning for the project.” (item 5 Conf statement 24 Feb) the decision should record why conditions are not included which would either test the erosivity of the soils or restrict the areas in those catchments known to have more erosive soils (e.g. Ration Creek) or add conditions to reflect these matters.
NZTA / PCC Para [386]- At paragraphs [386]-[396] the BoI summarised its main findings on sediment That the BoI clarify its position with respect to the sediment capture percentages which it is Reject Conditions E7 (f)&(g) to apply [396] capture and control. The Applicants understand that the BoI was seeking to requiring for the Horokiri and Te Puka catchments. across entire project. This is impose a conservative sediment control regime (para [386]). If the BoI‟s intention is that one or both of those catchments should be exempted from the consistent with Mr Edwards‟ However, in light of the modelling evidence presented, the Applicants are not requirement that sediment laden runoff from at least 95% of the project earthworks area be evidence. clear as to the BoI‟s position on the sediment control efficiency targets which it captured in a compliant sediment control device, then the Applicants request that the is intending to impose in relation to sediment generated by TGP in the Horokiri conditions be amended so as to reflect to this. and Te Puka catchments. For example, the Applicants suggest that condition E.7(g) could be amended as follows: Paragraphs [386] to [396] of the Draft Report (and changes made to draft conditions) refer to a requirement for sediment laden runoff from at least 95% “… provided the WRC accepts each proposal and the total area from which sediment laden of the Project earthworks area to be captured by a “compliant sediment control runoff emanates does not exceed is generally less than 5% of the total project earthworks device”. area (other than for the Horokiri and Te Puka catchments, where it must not exceed 20% of that area).” However, while the evidence before the BoI indicated that this level of runoff If the BoI does intend for discharges in either or both of the Horokiri and Te Puka catchments
18 Dated 20 January 2012.
Page | 15
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
capture would be achieved in most catchments affected by the TGP it did not to meet the 95% retention requirement, it would increase the clarity of the report if that finding indicate that this level of runoff capture would be achieved in the Horokiri or Te and the BoI‟s reasons for that finding were specifically recorded in the Final Report. Puka catchments. Therefore the Applicants are unsure whether or not the BoI intended the 95% capture requirement to apply to those catchments.
Table 11 of the SKM report “USLE Revised Analysis, Revision B, 20 January 2012”19 shows the erosion and sediment control measures that were assumed in the revised USLE analysis. That table shows that the revised USLE analysis assumed the sediment control efficiency would be:
70% efficiency for Q2 and Q10 events (40% for Q50 events) for 95% of the construction area within the Kenepuru, Duck, Pauatahanui and Ration catchments, and
30% efficiency for all events for the remaining 5% of the construction area within the Kenepuru, Duck, Pauatahanui and Ration catchments.
However, the revised USLE analysis also assumed:
70% efficiency for Q2 and Q10 events (40% for Q50 events) for only 80% of the construction area within the Horokiri and Te Puka catchments, and
30% efficiency for all events for the remaining 20% of the construction area within the Horokiri and Te Puka catchments.
As can be seen from the modelling assumptions recorded above, lower percentages of runoff capture were assumed for the Horokiri catchment (which drains into the Porirua Harbour) and for the Te Puka catchment (which drains into the sea at Paekakariki). Lower sediment capture percentages were modelled in those catchments as the topography is steeper, making the proportion of runoff that can be practically captured also lower. The BoI recognised this in its statement that it might be “impractical” to use compliant sediment control devices in all locations) (para [394]).
The effects analysis, including the ecological effects analysis, was all undertaken on the basis of the sediment modelling assumptions outlined above.
The Applicants‟ uncertainty regarding whether or not the BoI intended the 95% capture requirement to apply to the Te Puka catchment is reinforced by the BoI‟s statement at paragraph [512] of the Draft Report that the Te Puka stream
19 Appended to the Expert Conferencing Report to the BoI- Earthworks & Sediment Control Conferencing, dated 20 January 2012.
Page | 16
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
discharges at Paekakariki Beach, which is “a high energy marine environment... None of the evidence... raised issues of adverse effects on this environment of any consequence arising from TGP.” Further, if the BoI did not intend to provide any exception to the 95% sediment capture requirement for either the Horokiri and/or Te Puka catchments the Applicants are unsure as to what the BoI‟s reasons were for not making such an exception.
NZTA / PCC Para [397] and These paragraphs suggest that the Wainui Stream ends where it joins the Te That paragraphs [397] and [479] be amended to recognise that the Te Puka Stream ends Accept in No change necessary to para [479], bullet Puka Stream, and the Te Puka Stream continues down to the coast. This is where it joins the Wainui Stream, and the Wainui Stream continues down to the coast. part [397]. point one incorrect. It is the other way around; the Te Puka Stream ends where it joins 20 the Wainui Stream, and the Wainui Stream continues down to the coast. Para [479] amended.
NZTA / PCC Para [397]- The Applicants note that the BoI omits to specifically refer to the meteorology That the BoI consider specifically referring to the evidence of Mr Bruce, in the Hydrology Reject Bruce evidence not [421] evidence of Mr Bruce (who appeared for the Rational Transport Society) in the section of their Final Report, or elsewhere in their Final Report. determinative in light of other section of the Draft Report headed “Hydrology”, or elsewhere in the Draft Report. evidence. Concerns incorporated in assumptions made by other expert witnesses.
NZTA / PCC Para [412] This paragraph states that limiting the size of culvert P06 will avoid increases That paragraph [412] be amended to note that limiting the size of culvert P06 will avoid Accept in Amend with addition of word in flooding above the new road. This appears to be a typographical error. increases in downstream flooding. Limiting a culvert size would tend to increase upstream flooding but limit or part „by‟. reduce downstream flooding, while increasing a culvert size would tend to reduce upstream flooding, but at the risk of increasing downstream flooding. Accordingly, limiting the size of culvert P06 will avoid increases in downstream flooding.
NZTA / PCC Para [418] The BoI records, at paragraph [418], that “upgrading of the Waitangirua storm That the BoI consider whether conditions are required relating to the matters discussed in Accept in Amend para [418] by removing water system would be required before the link road could be completed and paragraph [418]. storm water storage in Duck Creek at the culvert under the Waitangirua Link part reference to conditions. Road would be required before drainage from the motorway is provided” and Acknowledge that these issues that these timing constraints need to be identified in conditions. will need to be resolved at time
The BoI does not appear to have amended the PCC conditions to provide for of final design. these matters.
NZTA / PCC Para [431] In paragraph [431], the BoI notes that the NZTA has already undertaken That paragraph [431] be amended to recognise that the Accept Amend accordingly – reflects approximately 31 ha of early retirement planting (pursuant to the existing 31 ha of early retirement planting is not in addition to the mitigation planting identified in designation) and that this planting is in addition to the mitigation planting uncertainties in evidence given
20 Keesing, 17 November 2011, paras 45-46.
Page | 17
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
identified in paragraph [430]. This is incorrect. The 31 ha of early retirement paragraph [430]. to Board. planting was included within the mitigation planting areas discussed in paragraph [430] (i.e. 31 ha of early retirement planting was included within the 426 ha mitigation planting initially proposed by the Applicants21, which has been subsequently adjusted to 534 ha, and then 625 ha).
NZTA / PCC Para [445] There is a typographical error in the last sentence of paragraph [445]. That the word “EEMP” be replaced with the word “EMMP”, in the last sentence of paragraph Accept Amend [445].
Director Para 463 Paragraph 463 infers agreement amongst the experts, whereas in fact, Drs Baber and Amend second sentence para 463 to read: Reject Unnecessary. General of Ogilvie considered the mitigation package initially proposed by NZTA to be inadequate. By the conclusion of our hearing it appeared to be generally accepted by all of the relevant witnesses, Conservation It was only after increased mitigation/offsetting measures were proposed by NZTA‟s that the increased mitigation package proposed by as a result of negotiations with submitters, WRC and experts that Drs Baber and Ogilvie agreed that the mitigation package was sufficient. the Applicants during the course of the hearing to address issues regarding the adequacy of mitigation The point those experts was making was that, adverse effects and offsets need to be was an appropriate response to the effects on terrestrial ecology generated by TGP….” quantified properly. Otherwise it is not possible to establish whether that goal is met.
Director Para 464 The reference to Dr Baber‟s objection to the mitigation package, for reasons that Amend para 464 to read: Delete first three sentences and replace with: Reject Unnecessary General of included the possibility that the consent conditions could be varied because of the over “In addition to other concerns regarding the methods the applicants had employed to develop their Conservation estimation of a mitigation package, being “highly speculative” is incorrect. Dr Baber mitigation package, Dr Baber raised concerns, based on his own experience working for district and made it clear in cross examination that this was his opinion based on his work regional councils, that where a mitigation package went considerably further than what was required experience as an ecologist with district and regional councils. having regard to appropriate mitigation ratios, he considered that this might ultimately lead to the Dr Baber‟s concern was the need for there to be a principled approach to the Applicants seeking to vary the conditions of any consents or designations at a later date to reduce the quantification of mitigation. Dr Baber‟s key issues were that the applicant took an ad- amount of mitigation planting required. We note that any such proposal would be subject to a further hoc approach to mitigation rather than making use of biodiversity offsets models and public process and its success would be far from assured. Any application to reduce……” that mitigation of adverse effects on a number of fauna values was inadequate without offsite mammalian pest control. He was also concerned that a coastal bird survey and monitoring were warranted given the potential need for adaptive management of adverse effects on coastal bird values.
Director Para 470 This paragraph discusses the request by various witnesses for pest control off-site. The EITHER: Reject unnecessary General of final sentence records the Board‟s view that the request to include pest control outside Amend final sentence of para 470 to read: Conservation of the mitigation sites was “an example of parties trying to extract as much as possible However, in regard to the extent which some of the witnesses sought to expand NZTA‟s obligations to from NZTA irrespective of any relationship with effects.” This is an unwarranted pest (such as possum) control in areas such as the Akatarawa Forest outside of the TGP route, although criticism. we understand the position of Dr Baber to be that such offsite pest control would enhance the recovery Both in his Evidence in Chief (para 79) and in cross examination Dr Baber outlined the in the mitigation sites, nonetheless we consider that the extent of mitigation sites and their ongoing relationships and benefits of offsite pest control and onsite effects; that is that pest management will be sufficient in this case. consider that again to be an example of parties trying to control offsite benefits the rate of recovery in the mitigation sites. Particular mention
21 Fuller, 20 January 2012, Annexure 6, Table 11-51.
Page | 18
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
was made of the Akatarawa Forest, being a site close to the TGP route, and the extract as much as possible from NZTA irrespective of any relationship with effects. relationship of keystone species in facilitating and contributing to the rapid recovery of
the mitigation sites within the TGP route by facilitating pollination and dispersing seeds. OR
Consider reinstating NZTA54
Director Para 479 Collins Stream should be included in the list of streams affected by TGP Add reference to Collins Stream Reject No evidence of significant General of ecological effects on Collins Conservation Stream.
NZTA / PCC Para [480] At paragraph [479] the BoI lists the streams affected by the TGP. At paragraph That paragraph [480] be amended to recognise that Whareroa Stream is also not referred to Reject No evidence of significant [480] the BoI records that it has not referred to Wainui Stream in its list of in the list of streams discussed in paragraph [479]. ecological effects on Whareroa streams in paragraph [479]. The BoI has omitted to note that it has also not referred to Whareroa Stream in its list at paragraph [479]. Stream.
Director Para 483 For completeness it should also be noted that Horokiri Stream, Ration Stream, Amend last sentence to read: “For the sake of completeness we note that Appendix 2B of the Reject Unnecessary General of Pauatahanui Stream, Wainui Stream and Duck Creek (and their tributaries) are listed in Freshwater Plan identifies the Horokiri, Ration and Pauatahanui Streams as being water bodies which Conservation Appendix 3 of the Freshwater Plan: Water Bodies with Nationally Threatened are to be managed for aquatic ecosystem purposes; and that Appendix 3 of the Freshwater Plan Indigenous Fish Recorded in the catchment identifies Duck Creek and the Horokiri, Ration, Pauatahanui and Wainui Streams (and their tributaries) as water bodies with nationally threatened indigenous fish recorded in the catchment.”
Director Para 487 With reference to the length of stream to be restored and protected, Dr Keesing Add additional sentence: “In his rebuttal evidence, Dr Keesing advised that the mitigation figure of 30km Accept Amend General of subsequently advised that the figure of approximately 30km was incorrect; and a figure reported in his EiC was incorrect, and that the mitigation proposed involves approximately 27km of Conservation of 27 km was substituted in his statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 20 January 2012 stream way.”
Director Para 500 and The proposal for offset mitigation at Wainui Stream originated from Dr Ogilvie during Amend paragraphs 500 and first bullet of para 504 to reflect that Dr Ogilvie requested the additional Reject Unnecessary General of 504 (first bullet) conferencing with Dr Keesing on the 16 December 2011. It was also supported by Dr mitigation for the Wainui Stream by removal of the perched culvert at SH1. Conservation Joy in his Evidence in Chief submitted on the 21 December.
Director Para 502 The statement in the second sentence of this paragraph regarding the sufficiency of Amend text to reflect the correct situation, which is that Dr Ogilvie had concerns with the level of Reject Unnecessary General of information in the 16 December 2011 Joint Statement (Keesing-Ogilvie) was made prior investigation in the Te Puka stream, which may have led to underestimation of biodiversity and Conservation to Dr Ogilvie visiting the Te Puka catchment. See cross-examination of Dr Ogilvie – ecological values. Transcript p. 1044, lines 7-21.
Director Para 507 It was the intention of all aquatic ecology experts and Mr Kyle that a key outcome of the Amend paragraph 507 to acknowledge that the ecologists supported a peer review panel because of the Reject Planners evidence accepted. General of recommended Ecological Peer Review Panel would be design parameters for the untested and unique nature of fish passage design in the Te Puka valley which would need to be Conservation culverts, particularly in the steeper tributaries due to the largely untested nature of the supported by clear design parameters. fish passage measures proposed. It is outside the Council‟s remit to provide design AND inputs on this project, and without an expert panel there remains considerable risk that Include a condition requiring a ecological peer review panel, if only for the design phase. these experimental measures will fail to provide adequate fish passage.
Page | 19
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director Para 509 The Board has not explicitly addressed the question of whether the TGP (or any part of Amend first sentence to read: “Although the TGP route itself does not intrude into the coastal Reject Unnecessary General of it) is within the coastal environment, but the Application stated that the TGP is environment marine area, …” Conservation considered to be within the wider coastal environment.
NZTA / PCC Para [535] The BoI has considered the effects associated with a 10-year ARI rainfall That the BoI reconsider the summation of Dr De Luca’s evidence given in paragraph [535] of Reject Summary sufficiently accurate. event in the Duck and Pauatahanui catchments with a northerly wind, and a the Draft Report. 10-year ARI rainfall event in the Kenepuru and Porirua catchments with a southerly wind. The Draft Report records that “Dr de Luca considered these two scenarios were the most significant but even then effects were in places of less significance and would be minor and acceptable.”
The Applicants do not consider that this is a technically correct summation of Dr De Luca’s evidence on this issue.
Dr De Luca assessed the 10 year rainfall event in the Duck/Pauatahanui catchments (with a 2 year rainfall event elsewhere in the harbour, occurring with strong persistent northerly winds) as potentially resulting in adverse effects of high significance on marine ecological values of the Pauatahanui Inlet. She assessed the 10 year rainfall event in the Kenepuru/Porirua catchments (with a 2 year rainfall event elsewhere in the harbour, occurring with a strong persistent southerly) as potentially resulting in adverse effects of moderate significance, on marine ecological values in the Onepoto Arm. Dr De Luca explained how, if either of the identified events occur, the adverse effects related to the Project, are likely to be small in comparison to baseline and the habitat that may be affected is likely to naturally recover over time.22 She also acknowledged that, if either event occurs, additional compensation may be required to take account of short term effects on localised areas of marine habitat.23
NZTA / PCC Para [546] – While these paragraphs of the Draft Report discuss what the predicted noise That the section of the Draft Report discussing operational noise be amended, so as to Reject Reflects inadequacies in [615] contain the omitted matters identified in the comments column. levels at the identified PPFs will be at the design year following the Project and evidence. Refer para [610] the noise mitigation proposed by the Applicants being in place, the Draft Report omits to identify to what extent those predicted noise levels are an increase or decrease in the noise levels that would have been received at the PPFs at the design year, if the Project was not in place.
Further in relation to the BoI‟s finding that the Applicants should be required to
undertake noise reduction measures to achieve an internal noise level of 40dB
LAeq(24h) at all properties which fall within certain noise categories, the Draft Report omits to:
22 De Luca, 17 November 2011, paras 17-19.
23 De Luca, 17 November 2011, para 151.
Page | 20
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Identify to what extent that requirement would result in noise levels at properties that are below both:
o The noise levels that will occur at those properties without the Project; and
o The noise levels that would be achieved if the noise reduction measures offered by the Applicants were put in place; or
Address the Planning Tribunal decision (referred to in the Applicants‟ closing submissions) that conditions imposed by decision makers under the RMA must reasonably relate to the project being authorised and a condition which obliged an applicant to ameliorate traffic noise below the level experienced before the project would not be related to the authorisation of the project.24
If the BoI intends to depart from that Planning Tribunal decision, discuss why the BoI considers that it is able to depart from that decision (given the Planning Tribunal‟s status as a Court of record).
NZTA / PCC Para [550] Paragraph [550] states that the maximum external noise level for Category A That the second sentence of paragraph [550] be amended as follows: Accept Amend as proposed PPFs under NZS 6806 is 64dB LAeq(24hr) where there is either an altered or new road. In fact, under that Standard the Category A level for a new road (with a “The maximum external noise level criteria for category A is 64dB LAeq(24hr) where there is predicted traffic volume of 2000 to 75000 AADT at the design year) is 57 dB either an altered road, or 57dB LAeq(24hr) where there is a new road with a predicted traffic 25 LAeq(24hr). This is correctly explained at paragraph [561] of the Draft Report. volume of 2000 to 75000 AADT.”
NZTA / PCC Para [552] and The Draft Report contains references to land being purchased “by NZTA”. The That the third and final sentences of paragraph [552] respectively be amended as follows: Accept Amend [876] NZTA does not purchase the land required for State highway projects. That land is purchased by the Crown. Accordingly, the references in paragraphs “Both options were found to have relatively poor BCRs so no specific mitigation is [552] and [876] to land being purchased by the NZTA should be amended to proposed, although one PPF was purchased by NZTA the Crown.” refer to land being purchased by the Crown. “Aside from properties purchased by NZTA the Crown, there is a need to erect a 2m high earth bund to achieve category A noise levels at the other PPFs.”
That the first sentence of paragraph [876] be amended as follows:
“Mr Edge’s property was included within the designation as NZTA considered that effects on his property could not be adequately mitigated so that ultimately NZTA the Crown would acquire the property.”
NZTA / PCC Para [566] The BoI records that, in respect of five houses, the best practicable option was That the BoI reconsider the inclusion of the words “but the details supporting this conclusion Reject Reflects inadequacies in determined to be to do nothing. The BoI then goes on to state that the cost, were not provided” in paragraph [566] of the Draft Report. maintenance and visual effects of the mitigation options outweighed the evidence. TR 12 does not acoustic benefit and the noise level was deemed acceptable by Dr Chiles, “but adequately explain conclusion
24 Matamata Piako District Council v Matamata Piako District Council (PT, 24 May 1996, A41/96), page 4.
25 Table 12.1, page 5, TR 12.
Page | 21
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
the details supporting this conclusion were not provided”. as to acoustic benefit and However, the details supporting Dr Chiles’ conclusion were provided to the acceptability of noise level. BoI in Section 5 of TR12.
NZTA / PCC Para [584] At paragraph [584], the Draft Report records that the acoustic experts “agreed That paragraph [584] be amended as follows: Reject Accurately reflects joint that 40dB LAeq(24h) (approximately 35dB LAeq(9h) at night) is a reasonable road- statement of 2 March 2012, traffic noise level inside a bedroom with windows partly open near a major “agreed that 40dB LAeq(24h) (approximately 35dB LAeq(9h) at night) is a reasonable road-traffic road.” noise level inside a bedroom with windows partly open near a major road.” para [10].
The reference for this statement appears to be the acoustic expert‟s joint witness statement.26 If this is correct, then the statement in paragraph [584] does not completely reflect the acoustic experts‟ view, as it was expressed in the joint witness statement.
NZTA / PCC Para [592] The Draft Report records that under NZS 6806 “Satisfactory internal noise That the final sentence of paragraph [592] be amended as follows: Reject Accurately records category C levels [in NZS 6806] are given as 40dB LAeq(24h)”. This is not technically correct standard. as NZS 6806 only requires building modification to be carried out for Category “Satisfactory internal noise levels are given as 40dBLAeq 45dB LAeq(24h) but the Standard provides that if building modification mitigation is carried out then that mitigation should, so far C buildings where internal noise levels would be greater than 45dB LAeq(24h). as it is consistent with the BPO to do so, achieve internal noise levels to 40dB LAeq(24) ” Therefore, the Standard treats internal noise levels of up to 45dB LAeq(24h) as being satisfactory.
Para [598] That paragraph [598] be amended to recognise that the Transit Guidelines permitted an NZTA / PCC This paragraph states that where existing noise levels exceed 64dB LAeq(24h), Reject Unnecessary. Para [600] and the BPO permits, the existing noise level is to be reduced (under NZS increase of up to 3dB where the ambient noise level was 64dB LAeq(24h). clarifies 6806). The paragraph then notes that under the Transit Guidelines where noise levels were already high it was not permitted to increase it.
As currently worded, the BoI‟s statement could be interpreted as suggesting that, under the Transit Guidelines, it was not permitted to increase an existing
noise level above 64dB LAeq(24h). However, under those Guidelines where the ambient noise level was 27 64dB LAeq(24h) that level could be increased by up to 3dB.
NZTA / PCC Para [602] At paragraph [602], the BoI states that an external road-traffic noise for new That the BoI consider whether it intended to refer to a 16 hour day time and 8 hour night time Reject Reflects uncertainties in roads of 57dB LAeq(24h) is acceptable, but that it should be adjusted to the 18 period in paragraph [602]. hour daytime and 6 hour night time periods. The Applicants consider the BoI evidence may have made an error with respect to the day and night time periods, and intended to instead refer to a 16 hour daytime and 8 hour night time period. This would be consistent with paragraph [603] of the Draft Report.
NZTA / PCC Para [604] and At paragraphs [604] and [609] on pages 145 and 146 respectively the BoI That the Board review the wording of paragraphs [604] and [609] in light of the concerns Reject Findings need to be read in [609] raised by the Applicants in the comments column. states that on the evidence it was not able to: totality rather than in isolation.
26 Expert Conferencing Joint Report to the Board of Inquiry - Operational road-traffic noise, 2 March 2012, para 10.
27 Transcript, page 1784, lines 28-34.
Page | 22
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Establish appropriate external noise levels for altered roads; or
Determine the appropriateness or applicability of the road-traffic noise criteria in category B in NZS 6806.
However these statements appear to be inconsistent with:
The BoI‟s statement (at paragraph [615] on page 147) that it is “satisfied that controlling noise levels to the category A criteria will preserve adequate levels of amenity”; and The BoI‟s draft noise conditions which rely on the Category A and B criteria from NZS 6806.
Given that the draft conditions are consistent with the recommendations of the caucusing report of the acoustics experts and there was no other acoustic evidence before the BoI it is unclear what the BoI means by the statements in paragraphs [604] and [609] identified above.
The Applicants are concerned that someone might read the statements at paragraphs [604] and [609] as meaning that the BoI imposed the draft conditions despite the fact it was not sure whether or not they were appropriate.
NZTA / PCC Para [612], At paragraph [612] the BoI summarises the additions to the conditions That the third bullet of paragraph [612] be amended as follows: Accept Amend third bullet reflected in Dr Chiles’ and Mr Lloyd‟s conferencing statement.28 The third point bullet point states that the experts agreed: “A new term of “Qualifying “A new term of “Qualifying buildings” is introduced to identify those PPFs that are in category buildings” is introduced to identify those PPFs that are in category C as a C as a result of an altered road as well as those PPFs that are in category B and or C, as result of an altered road as well as those PPFs that are in category B and C.” result of a new road.”
The Applicants consider that, for clarity, the paragraph should be amended to recognise that the term was introduced to identify those PPFs that are in category B or category C, as a result of a new road. This will ensure that the paragraph accurately reflects the experts‟ conferencing statement.29
Further, the Applicants consider that the paragraph should be amended to recognise that a PPF cannot be in category B and category C, but only in one category. The Applicants note that the acoustic experts‟ conferencing statement contains what appears to be a typographical error by using wording suggesting that a PFF could fall within both category B and category C.
NZTA / PCC Para [614] There is a typographical error in paragraph [614]. That the words “Dr D R Chiles” be replaced with “Dr Chiles” in paragraph [614]. Accept Amend
28 Expert Conferencing Joint Report to the Board of Inquiry – Operational road-traffic noise, 8 March 2012.
29 Expert Conferencing Joint Report to the Board of Inquiry – Operational road-traffic noise, 8 March 2012, para 13.
Page | 23
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
NZTA / PCC Para [637] The Draft Report records that Mr Fisher’s evidence was that Mana Esplanade That the reference to Raumati in paragraph [637] be deleted and that the paragraph be Accept Amend and Raumati were areas previously identified as having concentrations close amended to recognise that Mr Fisher’s view was that there will be a reduction in contaminant to exceeding the air quality standards and would benefit from the removal of concentrations along the section of the SH1 coastal route between Porirua and MacKay‟s traffic. This statement is partially incorrect. Crossing that would be bypassed by TGP.
Mr Fisher’s evidence was that previous monitoring of PM10 along the Mana Esplanade has shown concentrations close to the standard and at Raumati, peak PM10 levels currently significantly exceed the standard. After the Project is complete, Mr Fisher’s opinion was that there will be a dramatic reduction in contaminant concentrations for the section of the SH1 coastal route between Porirua and MacKay‟s Crossing that would be bypassed by TGP.30
NZTA / PCC Para [651] The BoI notes that “A Concrete Batching Management Plan (CBMP) is also That paragraph [651] be amended as follows: Accept in Amend proposed to address specific issues relating to the concrete batching plant.” part Whilst a CBMP was initially proposed by the Applicants, the planning “A Concrete Batching Management Plan (CBMP) is also proposed to address Concrete witnesses agreed through the expert conferencing process that the batching management measures are also proposed to address specific issues relating to the requirement to produce a CBMP could be removed with consequential changes to conditions.31 The draft conditions in the Draft Report do not concrete batching plant.” contain a requirement to prepare a CBMP.
NZTA / PCC Para [694]- The BoI‟s discussion of the TGP‟s effects omits to explicitly discuss the effects That the BoI insert a discussion about the effects of operational stormwater discharges from Reject Accurately reflects Mrs [695] of operational stormwater discharges from the Project, except in the context of TGP and the measures which the Applicants propose to undertake to treat that stormwater Pomare‟s evidence. No the BoI‟s discussion of cultural effects. However, that discussion simply into the Final Report. records Ngati Toa‟s views on operational stormwater discharges and notes operational stormwater that “As there is no resource consent required for operational stormwater consents applied for. discharges, mitigation measures to manage stormwater discharges are not embodied in the designation or resource consent conditions.”32
However, the effects of operational stormwater discharges, and the measures the Applicants proposed to undertake to treat operational stormwater, were discussed in the Assessment of Environmental Effects33 and by the Applicants‟ witnesses, including for example, in the evidence of Mr Martell, Ms Malcolm, Dr Keesing and Dr De Luca.34
NZTA / PCC Para [742] There is a typographical error in paragraph [742]. That the word “Hill” be inserted between the words “Paekakariki” and “Road” in the first Accept Amend sentence of paragraph [742].
30 Fisher, 14 November 2011, para 39.
31 Expert Conferencing Joint Report to the Board of Inquiry – Planner (conditions) Expert Conferencing, 1 March 2012, para 17.
32 Draft Report, para [695].
33 AEE, section 7.15.2.
34 Martell, 17 November 2011, paras 21.2, 48-49, 69-75; Malcolm, 22 November 2011, paras 74-93, 129-131,133; Keesing, 17 November 2011, paras 116-122, 153, 256, 268; De Luca, 17 November 2011, paras 20-21, 106-114, 119, 148. See also TR14 (Assessment of Hydrology and Stormwater Effects) and 15 (Assessment of Water Quality Effects).
Page | 24
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
NZTA / PCC Para [756] There is a typographical error in the last sentence of paragraph [756]. That the reference to “NZS 6808:2010” in the last sentence of paragraph [756] be changed to Accept Amend “NZS 6806:2010”.
NZTA / PCC Para [777] There is a typographical error in the last sentence of paragraph [777]. That the last sentence of paragraph [777] be amended as follows: Accept Amend “Regional benefits were also identified, and discussed in Mr Copeland’s economic evidence.”
NZTA / PCC Para [785] Paragraph [785] refers to the evidence of Mr MacLean and states that Mr That the last sentence of paragraph [785] be amended as follows: Accept Amend MacLean “…detailed a number of broken commitments made by NZTA in the past...” “ Mr MacLean detailed a number of what he considered to be broken commitments made by NZTA in the past..” This sentence omits to note that this was only Mr MacLean‟s personal view of past dealings. As currently worded this sentence could potentially be interpreted as a positive finding by the BoI that the NZTA has broken some past commitments. The NZTA assumes that the BoI did not intend to make such a finding as the BoI did not have sufficient evidence before it to make a finding on those issues and the BoI did not indicate to the NZTA that it needed to respond to Mr MacLean‟s statements.
NZTA / PCC Para [791] There is a typographical error in the last sentence of paragraph [791]. That the last sentence of paragraph [791] be amended as follows: Accept Amend “The exception to that is that at the northern end of TGP where it traverses the Te Puka Valley and at the southern end where it traverses urban areas.”
NZTA / PCC Para [800] There is a typographical error in the quote from TR5, given at paragraph That the word “Forrest” in [800iv] be replaced with the word “forest.” Accept Amend [800iv].
NZTA / PCC Para [828] Paragraph [828] refers to the access arrangements negotiated between the That the last sentence of paragraph [828] be amended as follows: Reject Unnecessary NZTA and GWRC. The last sentence of the paragraph notes that “The access arrangements agreed also seem to deal with the issues raised by BHEI”. “The access arrangements agreed also seem to deal with some of the issues raised by BHEI”.
The Applicants are concerned that, as currently worded, this statement could be interpreted as implying that the BoI considered that the access arrangements negotiated with GWRC addressed all the issues raised by BHEI. As is recorded at paragraph [827] BHEI‟s concerns related to restriction of access into BHFFP, but also to loss of trails for riders and potential risk to riders and horses from construction traffic, noise and vibration.
In the Applicants‟ view, these other concerns are addressed by several conditions which require consultation with BHEI (such as designation condition NZTA.42). Accordingly, the Applicants suggest that it would be appropriate to make a technical amendment to the last sentence of paragraph [828] to recognise that the agreed access arrangements deal with only some of BHEI‟s issues.
NZTA / PCC Para [851] The Draft Report states in paragraph [851] that KiwiRail is an affected That the first sentence of paragraph [851] be amended as follows: Accept Amend landowner as part of the area proposed for the Kenepuru Link Road is owned by KiwiRail. As stated in paragraph 2(a) of the New Zealand Railways “KiwiRail has interests as an affected “land owner” as part of the area proposed for the Corporation‟s submission, the land is actually owned by the Crown, and not by Kenepuru Link Road is owned by the Crown for railway purposes, and is administered by
Page | 25
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
KiwiRail. KiwiRail”
The Applicants consider this paragraph should be reworded to more accurately reflect KiwiRail‟s role in administering the land for railway purposes on behalf of the Crown.
NZTA / PCC Para [866] The BoI states that it takes Mr Nicholson’s advice that property owners on the That the first sentence of paragraph [866] be amended as follows: Reject Unnecessary opposite side of Tremewan Street had not been specifically consulted, but were part of the wider engagement process, as “an acknowledgement that the “Mr Nicholson advised that the property owners on the opposite side of Tremewan Street from Edmonds were not consulted”. the designation had not been specifically consulted by NZTA, but were part of the wider public engagement process (which we take as an acknowledgement that the Edmonds were not However, what Mr Nicholson was saying was that the Edmonds were not originally individually consulted).” originally individually consulted, but they were included as part of wider public consultation.
NZTA / PCC Para [874] The BoI notes that it has included reference to 247C Flightys Road in That designation condition NZTA.47 be amended as follows: Accept Amend designation condition NZTA.47. However, designation condition NZTA.47 has not been amended to include reference to this property. “The detailed design of the planting (in the vicinity of the Project stages that are relevant to these landowners) shall be finalised in consultation with the owners and occupiers of the following properties:
…
247B Flightys Road
247C Flightys Road
…”
Director Para 978 This states that the TGP does not trigger the need for any discharge consent under the Amend paragraph 978 to record that a discharge consent is required under the Regional Air Plan with Accept Amend General of Regional Air Plan; however, such a consent is required for discharges from the respect to discharges from the concrete batching plant Conservation concrete batching plant .
Matters pertaining to discharges from the concrete batching plant are not included in the CAQMP as they are separately addressed through the CBP suite of conditions.
NZTA / PCC Para [991] The BoI notes that the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) “is That paragraph [991] be amended as follows: Accept Amend processed and approved as part of the Outline Plan process...”[emphasis added]. “The Board notes that the Applicant proposed that the CTMP is processed and approved as part of the Outline Plan process, whereas the SSTMPs are to be certified by the territorial Under section 176A of the RMA territorial authorities do not approve Outline authorities.” Plans. Territorial authorities may request that changes be made to the Outline Plan and have a right of appeal to the Environment Court if those changes are not made.
NZTA / PCC Para [1015] There is a typographical error in the third bullet point of paragraph [1015]. The That the condition reference for the Chemical Treatment (Flocculation) Plan be changed from Accept Amend correct resource consent condition reference for the Chemical Treatment E.24 to E.25, in the third bullet point of paragraph [1015]. (Flocculation) Plan is E.25, not E.24.
Page | 26
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director Para 1016/1018 There should be a reference in these paragraphs to identify, at least in principle, the Amend para 1016 to read: Reject Unnecessary General of adaptive management approach to deal with non-compliance, which is a requirement of This is an overarching management plan that includes the ESC philosophy, procedures, responsibilities, Conservation proposed condition E7 (i) possible adaptive management principles and responses, general methodologies and typical details.
Add a further bullet point to para 1018
Identification of the adaptive management approach to deal with effects and non compliance including responses and measures to reduce the areas of open earthworks.
Director Para 1019, 1020 Does not list the parameters that must be measured (flow/ turbidity/TSS as described Amend para 1019 first sentence to read: Reject Unnecessary, refer conditions. General of by Table L5 and L6) and leaves it very open to interpretation as to what “sediment The ESCMP is to specify the minimum set of parameters to be measured, how, what, where and how Conservation monitoring” includes. This would appear to be inconsistent with the discussion in paras frequent (including flow/turbidity/TSS etc) and is to include methods to undertake a range of and 194 which states that “Conditions imposed by the Board will identify the standards monitoring……. that activities must meet.”
NZTA / PCC Para [1021] The Draft Report states that the “The ESCMP must be updated and reviewed That paragraph [1021] be amended as follows: Accept Amend by a Sediment Management Peer Review Panel before being submitted to the Regional Council for re-certification.” “The ESCMP must be updated and reviewed by a Sediment Management Peer Review Panel before being submitted to the Regional Council for re-certification.” It is unclear why this paragraph refers to “re-certification”. The Applicants consider “certification” would be a more appropriate word, as this is consistent with the certification process identified in condition G.39.
Director Para 1029 Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMPs) are not part of the EMMP; Add new sub-heading for Site Specific Environmental Management Plans. Accept Amend General of they are separate management plans intended to integrate the requirements of the Amend first sentence of para 1029 to read: Conservation CEMP, ESCP and EMMP. “A critical part of the EMMP is a requirement for tThe consent holder is also required to prepare site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMPs).”
NZTA / PCC Para [1040] There is a typographical error in the second bullet point of paragraph [1040]. That the reference to “Historical Places Trust” be replaced with “New Zealand Historic Places Accept Amend Trust”.
Director Para 1043 This paragraphs records the Board‟s conclusion that the conditions proposed by the Add to paragraph 1043 a discussion which recognises that the final version of conditions proposed by Reject Para [1043] is a limited General of Applicants at the conclusion of the hearing achieved the objectives for conditions noted the Applicants deleted some of the conditions which were previously agreed by the sediment experts, discussion on issues in para Conservation in para 1042. However, the final set of conditions proposed by the Applicants also and provide reasons as to why these conditions were not considered necessary or appropriate despite [1042] deleted a number of conditions which had appeared in previous iterations of the these conditions having been previously endorsed by the experts. conditions or were agreed by the various experts and commented on by submitters in closing. The deletion of the sediment conditions E.3 (first year construction trial), E.4 (Ration Creek open area limit) and E.5 (review of open areas following trial), the winter earthworks conditions and G.29 (Site Specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plans)
Page | 27
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
were agreed through conferencing by the sediment experts but are now deleted.
A condition requiring the preparation of Site Specific Sediment and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (SSESCP‟s) which also received the full support of all the sediment experts has also been deleted. As the deletion of these conditions would appear to be inconsistent with the Boards reasoning at the last sentence of para 361 and the assumptions that the Board relies on in para 364, further explanation of why these conditions are no longer endorsed should be added. IN the alternative, Conditions E3, E4 and E5 should be reinstated into the conditions.
Director Para 1055 Typographical error Reference to “LMMP” in last line should read “EMMP” Accept Amend General of Conservation
NZTA / PCC Para [1055] The BoI has made a finding that the Landscape and Urban Design That condition NZTA.42 be amended as follows: Accept in Amend condition Management Plan (LUDMP) will contain content which relates to GWRC‟s part NZTA.42 functions under section 30(1) of the RMA in riparian areas and concluded that, “… therefore, the relevant parts of the LUDMP must be submitted to GWRC for The LUDMP(s) shall be Certified by Wellington Regional Council in relation to their statutory certification. Condition NZTA.42 gives effect to the BoI‟s finding on this. functions including but not limited to: However, one part of condition NZTA.42 requires the LUDMP to be certified by a) where works are within or directly adjacent to Belmont Regional Park or Battle Hill Farm GWRC where works are within and “directly adjacent to Belmont Regional Forest Park…” Park or Battle Hill Farm Forest Park.” The inclusion of a requirement to have the LUDMP certified where works in land are “directly adjacent” to the (and that paragraph [1055] be amended accordingly). Regional Parks does not appear to be relevant to any of GWRC‟s functions under section 30(1) of the RMA. Therefore, the NZTA seeks the deletion of those words from condition NZTA.42.
NZTA / PCC Para [1055] There is a typographical error in paragraph [1055]. That paragraph 1055 be amended as follows: Accept Amend “We would also expect that in considering the LUDMP, the Regional Council will also have regard to linkages with the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan (LMMP EMMP)…”.
NZTA / PCC Para [1058] The BoI acknowledges that where matters in the CEMP were not already That the BoI amend paragraph [1058] so as to identify which matters that are still being Reject Unnecessary addressed by the plans being assessed as part of the Outline Plan process by addressed within the CEMP would impinge on the jurisdiction of the territorial authorities and the territorial authorities, the Applicants have removed those matters from the would, therefore, require certification by the territorial authorities. CEMP and created new conditions relating to light spill and dirt on roads. Notwithstanding this, the BoI concludes that “to the extent that the CEMP contains these (and probably other matters) that impinge on the jurisdiction of the territorial authorities these must be certified by them as well as by the Regional Council.”
The Applicants are unclear as to what matters that still remain within the CEMP (rather than being covered by other conditions) would impinge on the jurisdiction of the territorial authorities. For the purposes of certainty regarding the application of the conditions, the Applicants request that the BoI clarify this
Page | 28
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
in their Final Report.
NZTA / PCC Para [1058]- The Draft Report suggests that the CEMP and EMMP ought to be certified by That: Accept in Amend conditions in [1060] both GWRC and the territorial authorities. The BoI notes that this change has been reflected in conditions. Conditions G.19, G.19A and the associated Advice Note (and the equivalent PCC part accordance with first bullet point conditions of PCC.E.18A, PCC.E.18 and the associated Advice Note) be amended to However, conditions G.19, G.19A and the associated Advice Note (and the recognise that parts of the CEMP are to be certified by the territorial authorities and equivalent PCC conditions of PCC.E.18A, PCC.E.18 and the associated by GWRC. Advice Note) do not recognise that the CEMP is to be certified by the territorial authorities and do not identify which parts of the CEMP and EMMP need to be The conditions relating to the CEMP and EMMP are amended to clearly identify which certified by the territorial authorities. parts of those plans are to be certified by the territorial authorities.
NZTA / PCC Para [1066] The BoI has imposed a condition on the NZTA designation requiring a safety That the second to last sentence of condition NZTA.83 be amended to read: Reject Unnecessary audit to be undertaken on the coastal route after the commencement of the NZTA.83 operation of the TGP. As currently drafted, the condition assumes that the “The audit shall outline what measures are necessary to remedy those effects any adverse safety audit will identify safety issues needing to be addressed. This may not safety effects arising from the operation of the Project identified by that audit”. necessarily be the result of the safety audit. (and that paragraph [1066] be amended accordingly).
Director Para 1097 The Board has not explicitly addressed the question of whether the TGP (or any part of Amend third sentence to read: “Although TGP itself does not traverse the coastal environment, sSome Reject Unnecessary General of it) is within the coastal environment, but the Application stated that the TGP is elements of TGP could influence that the coastal environment, particularly at Porirua Harbour.” Conservation considered to be within the wider coastal environment.
Director Para 1104 With reference to the length of stream to be restored and protected, a figure of 27 km Amend penultimate sentence to read: Accept Change General of was substituted in Dr Keesing‟s statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 20 January 2012 “…and some 31km 27km of streams will be restored and protected.” Conservation
The comments in relation to the potential visual effects of the concrete batching plant in Reject Unnecessary the S149G report from Porirua City Council were noted by the BoI (Paragraph 1140 of the draft report). It is also noted the comments on the BoI in their consideration of the NoR‟s that they are generally satisfied with the Landscape and Visual Effects of TGP as outlined in Section 12.15 of the draft report. It is considered that these comments in Section 12.15 are primarily focussing on the effects of the Transmission Gully It is respectfully commented that the BoI tend to these possible omissions in their final report so as to Porirua City Motorway which is understandable given its scale and being the reason for the Para 1140 provide guidance to both the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Porirua City Council as to what Council (as proposal being heard by the BoI. It is respectfully commented that Section 12.15 Section 12.15 matters should be addressed in the application for Outline Plan and generally confirm what is an Regulator) should also include a comment(s) on the visual effect of the batching plant which acceptable level of visual effect of the concrete batching plant. although a temporary effect is an environmental effect as defined in Section 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
It is also unclear from the conditions imposed on NoR3 as to how the concrete batching plant should be treated in terms of visual effects. It is unclear as to whether the location and scale of buildings are acceptable and therefore should not be subject of re-litigation and/or more in-depth consideration as part of the Outline Plan process. This is distinct
Page | 29
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
from approving mitigation planting around the Lanes Flat construction area. This observation also extends to what Management Plan should include details of the height, shape and bulk of the concrete batching plant when viewing the draft conditions.
NZTA / PCC Para [1145] The Draft Report identifies two proposed plan changes, Wellington City District That the final sentences of paragraph [1145] be amended as follows: Accept in Amend Plan Changes 70 and 72, as having the potential to affect the TGP. The part Applicants understand that Plan Change 70 became operative on 7 September “Those identified include Plan Change 70 (now operative) and Plan Change 72 relating to Second para unnecessary (refer earthworks and the residential chapter respectively.” 2010. para [1115], [1130]) Further, the Applicants understand that since lodgement of the applications, That the BoI consider whether to refer to the two regional plan changes (Plan Change 2 and two regional plan changes have become operative. Plan Change 2 amends Plan Change 4) in their Final Report. the Regional Plan for Discharges to Land and Plan Change 4 amends the Regional Freshwater Plan. Both Regional Plans have been amended in accordance with section 55 of the RMA to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The changes became operative on 19 December 2011.
Director Para 1156 Second bullet point on p.238 refers to riparian improvements which will restore and Amend second bullet point on p.238 to read: Accept Amend (fifth bullet point) General of protect approximately 30km of streams. This should be changed to 27km, in line with “These effects will be mitigated by riparian improvements which will restore and protect approximately Conservation revised figure given in Dr Keesing‟s rebuttal evidence. 30km 27km of streams.”
NZTA / PCC Para [1162] Section 171(1)(c) of the RMA requires the BoI to have particular regard to That the BoI record the reasons for its finding that the designation mechanism is reasonably Accept Amend whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the necessary to achieve the NZTA and PCC‟s objectives (in accordance with section 171(1)(c) of objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought. the RMA), in the Final Report.
The BoI has concluded that the work and designation are reasonably necessary to achieve the NZTA and PCC‟s objectives.35 The BoI has explained why the work is reasonably necessary to achieve the Applicants‟ objectives, at paragraph [104] of the Draft Report. However, there is no discussion in the Draft Report as to why the designation mechanism (as a planning tool) is reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA and PCC. This matter was discussed in the Applicants‟ Opening Legal Submissions.36
NZTA / PCC Para [1173] The BoI has classified the NZTA resource consents as being for non- That the BoI express a view as to whether or not the TGP is contrary to the objectives and Accept Amend complying activities (and as explained above, has also, incorrectly classified policies of any other relevant regional plan. the PCC resource consents as being for non-complying activities).
However, at paragraph [1173] of the Draft Report, the BoI concludes that the
35 Draft Report, para [1162].
36 Applicants‟ Opening Legal Submissions, paras 244-245.
Page | 30
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
TGP is only not contrary to the objectives and policies of the Freshwater Plan.
Given that the BoI appears to have bundled the NZTA resource consents together, the BoI has omitted to specify whether the TGP resource consents are also not-contrary to the objectives and policies of any other relevant regional plan. Ms Rickard considered the Regional Discharges to Land Plan and the Regional Soil Plan to be relevant to this assessment.37
NZTA / PCC Para [1182] Section 6(a) of the RMA relates to the preservation of the natural character of That the BoI insert a discussion into the Final Report of whether or not allowing TGP subject Accept Amend the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, lakes to the proposed conditions would recognise and provides for the preservation of the natural and rivers and their margins and the protection of them from inappropriate character of the streams affected by the TGP from inappropriate development (in terms of subdivision, use and development. section 6(a) of the RMA).
The BoI has discussed the preservation of the natural character of the Porirua Harbour, in terms of section 6(a) of the RMA. However, the Draft Report omits to discuss the preservation of the natural character of the streams affected by the TGP. This matter was discussed in the evidence of Mr Lister (from a landscape perspective) and Dr Keesing and Mr Fuller (from an ecological perspective).38
NZTA / PCC Para [1182] Section 6(d) of the RMA relates to the maintenance and enhancement of That the BoI insert a discussion of whether or not allowing TGP subject to the proposed Accept Amend public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers. conditions would recognise and provide for the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers (in terms of section 6(d) of the The Draft Report does not contain an assessment of the Project as against RMA), into the Final Report. section 6(d) of the RMA. The TGP‟s effects on public access were considered in the evidence of Ms Hancock, Ms Rickard and Mr Lister for the Applicants.39
Director Para 1182 In addition to the coastal environment, s6(a) is also concerned with the preservation of Add additional bullet point in consideration of section 6(a) as it also relates to the natural character of Accept Amend General of the natural character of rivers and their margins. In this respect it should be noted that rivers and their margins, including streams listed in Appendix 2 of the Freshwater Plan. Conservation Horokiri, Ration and Pauatahanui Streams (and their tributaries) are identified in
Appendix 2 of the Regional Freshwater Plan: Wetlands, Lakes and Rivers and their Margins, with a High Degree of Natural Character.
NZTA / PCC Para [1185] Section 7(aa) of the RMA requires the BoI to have particular regard to the ethic That the BoI insert a discussion of ethic of stewardship (in terms of section 7(aa) of the RMA), Accept Amend of stewardship. The Draft Report does not discuss section 7(aa). This matter into the Final Report.
37 Rickard, 16 November 2011 (Second statement), paras 14-24.
38 For example, Lister, 17 November 2011, paras 34-44; Keesing, 17 November 2011, para 27; Fuller, 17 November 2011, para 15.10.
39 Hancock, 17 November 2011, para 21.5, 58-73; Rickard (Second statement), 16 November 2011, para 63.7; Lister, 17 November 2011, paras 77 and 81 and 131-133.
Page | 31
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
was discussed in Ms Rickard’s evidence.40
NZTA / PCC Para [1185] Section 7(i) of the RMA requires the BoI to have particular regard to the effects That the BoI insert a discussion of the effects of climate change (in terms of section 7(i) of the of climate change. The BoI refers to the effects of climate change in paragraph RMA), into their Final Report. [370] of the Draft Report, however, there is no specific discussion of section 7(i) of the RMA.
NZTA / PCC Para [1186]- The Draft report refers to section 8 of the RMA which relates to Treaty of That the BoI consider re-phrasing paragraph [1187] of the Draft Report, so as to reflect the [1187] Waitangi issues. The BoI notes (with respect to section 8) that it was “not evidence presented on section 8 of the RMA by Ms Pomare. advised of any Treaty issues that arose in this context.”41
The Applicants are concerned that this statement could be interpreted as meaning that section 8 was not a relevant consideration for the TGP. However, the evidence of Ms Pomare explained how the TGP has responded appropriately to section 8 and how the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been taken into account in the Project‟s development.42
Director Appendix 1 The framework presented in Appendix 1 is unclear and does not accurately reflect the Amend diagram in Appendix 1 to reflect the relationship between plans as set out in conditions. Accept in Unnecessary. Appendix 1 is General of relationship between plans as set out in the conditions. For example, the Marine part illustrative only. Conservation Ecology Quality Monitoring Methodology & Adaptive Management Plan (G.21), the Amend to remove reference to Revegetation and enrichment plan (G.24), the Stream Restoration Plan (G.24) and the concrete batching plant. Bat Monitoring Plan (G.38) are all components of the Ecological Management and Delete „management „ from Monitoring Plan (G.21), not the Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (G.26). FMP
Volume 2: Conditions
NZTA / PCC Definition of “Existing network utilities” are defined in the NZTA and PCC NoRs in the Draft That the definition of “Existing network utilities” in the NZTA and PCC NoRs be amended as Amend “Existing Report as: follows: Accept Network Utilities” – “all network utilities existing at 15 August 2011 (the date of lodgement of this “all network utilities existing at 15 August 2011 (the date of lodgement of this Notice of NZTA and PCC Notice of Requirement). Network utility has the same meaning as in section Requirement). Network utility has the same meaning as in section 166 of the RMA” NoRs (Volume 166 of the RMA” 2, Page 9,71) The Applicants consider that it is not necessary or appropriate to include the text in brackets in the final NoRs.
40 Rickard (Second statement), 16 November 2011, para 65.2.
41 Draft Report, para [1187].
42 Pomare, 17 November 2011, para 126.
Page | 32
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
NZTA / PCC Definition of The definition of “WRC: Wellington Regional Council” is not listed in That the definition of “WRC: Wellington Regional Council” be moved to the end of the list of Amend “WRC” – NZTA alphabetical order in the list of definitions. definitions (immediately after the definition of “Work”) in the definitions section of the NZTA Accept and PCC NoRs NoRs, NZTA resource consents, PCC NoRs and PCC resource consents. and Resource Consents (Volume 2, Page 9,35,71,86)
For clarity and consistency, the Board may wish to consider: Reject A, C Amend accordingly
(a) defining the term "Council" in the definitions section of the NZTA resource draft Accept B, D consent conditions (as this term is used in the conditions without further clarification);
(b) altering the position of "WRC", in the definitions section of both the NZTA designation draft conditions and NZTA resource consent draft conditions, to reflect correct alphabetical order; Definitions / KCDC Amendments as listed Terminology (c) in the NZTA designation draft conditions and NZTA resource consent draft conditions, replacing references to "Wellington Regional Council" with "WRC", "Kapiti Coast District Council" with "KCDC" and "Porirua City Council" with "PCC" (where these references come after the relevant definitions section) for consistency; and
(d) replacing "Kapiti District Council" with "Kapiti Coast District Council" at Transpower resource consent draft conditions TL2, TL4, TL5, TL11, TL12, TL15A, TL15B, TL16, TL19 and TL20.
It is noted that the equivalent condition in the Porirua City Council Notices of Amend Porirua City Accept Requirement (NOR‟s 7 & 8) has been deleted. This condition notes that an Outline It is commented that the BoI may wish to take a consistent approach on the inclusion of such a condition Council (as NZTA.5 Plan need not be submitted if the Council waives the need for an Outline Plan. The as NZTA5 between the NZTA and PCC conditions on the respective NoR‟s. Regulator) condition appears to be unnecessary given the provisions of Section 176A(2).
It is noted an Advice Note has been added to condition 6 which sets out that the Amend Accept in Construction Management Plan that may be submitted with the Outline Development part Plan is to be provided for information purposes. The area of concern for WCC in this advice note relates to the certification falling solely on the Regional Council. While it is Wellington City recognised that there are matters within the CEMP that clearly fall within the function of NZTA.6 Extend dual certification Council the Regional Council, it is considered that there are also matters within the CEMP which fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of the Territorial Authorities. This is in line with the legal advice obtained for the board prepared by Philip Milne and identified in the main body of the decision report. WCC has concerns that Wellington Regional Council will be required to certify plans that fall outside its expertise.
Page | 33
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director NZTA.6 The Board has determined that the Construction Environmental Management Plan See above Amend Advice Note as follows: Accept in (CEMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. However, this General of requirement is not reflected in the Advice Note accompanying NZTA.6. part “The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) may be submitted with the OP for Conservation information. – but recognising that the Wellington Regional Council shall have the role of certifying this Plan. The Requiring Authority shall ensure that if the CEMP is changed or updated as a result of the WRC and relevant Territorial Authority certification process that the most up to date version is provided to the Council”
NZTA / PCC NZTA.16, A number of designation conditions in Volume 2 of the Draft Report contain That the notes in the form “(Note: applies to XXXX designation only)” or “(Note: applies in the Amend NZTA.17, notes about the specific designations they apply to. These notes were for jurisdiction of XXXX only)” in conditions NZTA.16, NZTA.17, NZTA.18, NZTA.46, NZTA.50A Accept NZTA.18, working purposes only and were not intended to be included as part of the final and NZTA.63 be removed. NZTA.46, wording of the designation conditions. These notes can be removed from the NZTA.50A, final version of the conditions. NZTA.63
The comments of the BoI are noted in regard to the possible need for dual certification Amend Accept of some management plans including the CEMP (Paragraph 203 of the draft report). The rationale for the BOI‟s decision is understood. It is noted that the Advice Note prior to NZTA20 and NZTA21 itself identify that both the Regional Council and Territorial Porirua City Advice Note It is commented that the advice note in NZTA appears to be an error and that the list of plans to be Authority have a role to play in the certification of the CEMP. Council (as preceding submitted with an Outline Plan has omitted the CEMP. The same comments are applicable to the PCC However when reading the conditions imposed on the designation there is an Advice Regulator) NZTA.20 NoR's also. Note inserted in NZTA.6 and the list of plans to be included with the Outline Plans that appears to be contradictory to this approach. The advice note identifies that the role of certification of the CEMP rests solely with the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC).
Director Advice Note The Board has determined that the Construction Environmental Management Plan Amend Clarify the Board‟s intention with regard to who certifies the CEMP. Accept in preceding (CEMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. However, the General of NZTA.20 Advice Note is ambiguous, in that the first sentence states that the CEMP is to be part Conservation certified by WRC and the relevant Territorial Authority, but the second sentence states that after an initial consultation process the final document is to be supplied for information.
Director NZTA.20 & The Board has determined that the Construction Environmental Management Plan Amend NZTA.20 as per Amend condition NZTA.20 to read: Accept in NZTA.21 (CEMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. This General of previous comment requirement has not been clearly translated into conditions NZTA.20 & NZTA.21. part “At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction, the Requiring Authority shall Conservation submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to the Council for certification that:
1. The CEMP is consistent with the draft submitted with the application (dated July 2011);
2. As a minimum, the CEMP meets the information requirements of, and gives effect to, the matters set out in the Condition NZTA.21.
Works shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Council’s written certification of the
Page | 34
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
CEMP.”
The BoI may wish to consider whether the GWRC should be consulted with and their interests be Unnecessary. Reject The list of recreation groups listed subpart (1) of this condition is noted. It is incorporated into the preparation of the SSTMP. Porirua City commented that a possible omission is the Greater Wellington Regional Council who It is also commented that guidance on whether NZTA30A falls within the definition of a “minor” SSTMP Council (as NZTA.30A are the operator/landowner of both Battle Hill Farm Forest Park and Belmont Regional or “major” SSTMP as per that provided in NZTA28. This will then ensure that both the NZTA and PCC Regulator) Park. are clear as to how many working days in advance this SSTMP should be provided to the Council for certification.
It is noted that cross reference is made to properties listed in NZTA37. It is understood Amend sub-part 3 Accept in that all those properties listed in Condition 37 are within the jurisdiction of the part Porirua City Wellington City Council. It is commented that subpart 2. of NZTA35 should be deleted from NoR3. Council (as NZTA.35 Subpart 3. of NZTA35 states that the CNVMP shall “address all matters listed in this The BoI may wish to amend subpart 3 of NZTA35 to cross reference to the matters identified in NZTA36. Regulator) condition”. However there appear to be no matters listed in NZTA35. It is understand that the intended matters are those listed in NZTA36.
NZTA / PCC NZTA.42 The BoI has made a finding that the Landscape and Urban Design That condition NZTA.42 be amended as follows: Amend Management Plan (LUDMP) will contain content which relates to GWRC‟s Accept functions under section 30(1) of the RMA in riparian areas and concluded that, “… therefore, the relevant parts of the LUDMP must be submitted to GWRC for The LUDMP(s) shall be Certified by Wellington Regional Council in relation to their statutory certification. Condition NZTA.42 gives effect to the BoI‟s finding on this. functions including but not limited to: However, one part of condition NZTA.42 requires the LUDMP to be certified by a) where works are within or directly adjacent to Belmont Regional Park or Battle Hill Farm GWRC where works are within and “directly adjacent to Belmont Regional Forest Park…” Park or Battle Hill Farm Forest Park.” The inclusion of a requirement to have the LUDMP certified where works in land are “directly adjacent” to the (and that paragraph [1055] be amended accordingly). Regional Parks does not appear to be relevant to any of GWRC‟s functions under section 30(1) of the RMA. Therefore, the NZTA seeks the deletion of those words from condition NZTA.42.
Director NZTA.42 The Board has determined that the Landscape and Urban Design Management Plan Unnecessary Amend NZTA.42 by removing the following text and instead include it as an Advice Note : Reject (LUDMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. General of In order to give effect to this requirement, condition NZTA.42 requires that the LUDMP “The LUDMP(s) shall be Certified by Wellington Regional Council in relation to their statutory functions Conservation be certified by Wellington Regional Council in relation to its statutory functions. However, it is unclear whether a condition on a confirmed Notice of Requirement, including but not limited to: which translates to a Designation within the district plan (s.175 RMA), can give authority to the regional council in respect of these matters. Amendments (additions) a) where works are within or directly adjacent to Belmont Regional Park or Battle Hill Farm Forest Park. to the proposed resource consent conditions may therefore be required in order to give effect to the Board‟s findings with respect to certification of the LUDMP. b) where there is an interrelationship with site specific plans required to be certified by Wellington Regional Council such as but not limited to the Revegetation and Enrichment Plan (G.24)”
Add condition(s) to resource consents relating to certification of the LUDMP (or specified parts thereof) by the regional council
Page | 35
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director NZTA.43 & The Board has determined that the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan Unnecessary Include conditions relating to the EMMP and its certification in the confirmed Notices of Requirement as Reject NZTA.44 (EMMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. General of well as being imposed on the regional resource consent conditions; and references in NZTA.43 & The Territorial Authority cannot be given to authority to certify the EMMP by way of a Conservation condition on a consent administered by the regional council. This authority must stem NZTA.44 to certification under the regional resource consent conditions should be amended accordingly from a condition on the confirmed Notice of Requirement. Conditions relating to the EMMP and its certification should therefore be included in the confirmed Notices of Requirement as well as being imposed on the regional resource consent conditions; and references in NZTA.43 & NZTA.44 to certification under the regional resource consent conditions should be amended accordingly.
Director NZTA.53 & G.31 These conditions deal with the dedication and retirement of land for mitigation sites Unnecessary Amend condition NZTA.53 and G 31 to read: Reject and securing that land for protection. These conditions were submitted after the General of closing of the hearing by way of memoranda from NZTA. As worded, the conditions “The Requiring Authority shall undertake works necessary to ensure that a combined total of at least Conservation allow NZTA to secure land for mitigation other than that land shown in the applications. However, one of the purposes of setting aside the mitigation land, and one on which 534ha of land is dedicated protected in perpetuity and subjected to active or passive restoration of the Board appears to have placed significant weight, is to offset the long term effects of sedimentation to the Pauatahanui Inlet. As such, any variation to the mitigation land vegetation and associated….. “ shown in Schedule D should be within the watershed of the Inlet, be as close as possible to the open earthworks, and should be in perpetuity. This should be clarified And amend the following part (c) to read in the condition to ensure that the mitigation land achieves its purpose. …”these areas shall closely correspond to the maps entitled “Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments.” Any variation to these areas shall be within the catchment of the Pauatahanui Inlet, shall be as close as possible to the areas of earthworks, shall be agreed by the Manager unless otherwise agreed with the Manager, and shall be managed in accordance with the actions set out the attached Schedule D.
Porirua City This condition requires that a combined total of 534ha of land is dedicated to the active It is commented that the wording of Condition NZTA53 could be expanded to clarify that the 534ha can Unnecessary Reject Council (as NZTA.53 or passive restoration of vegetation. It is assumed that this figure of 534ha is the total consist of vegetation within all four territorial authorities rather than have to be all within Porirua City for Regulator) figure across the four territorial authorities for which the NZTA NoR‟s cover. instance.
Concern with the active and passive restoration of vegetation identified in conditions Either be place this requirement entirely within the Wellington Regional Council Consent conditions (as Unnecessary Reject Wellington City NZTA.53- NZTA 53 -56. The Wellington City Councils primary concern in this condition relates to they already are), or a condition be imposed requiring the Requiring Authority to provide a Completion Council NZTA.56 the potential difficulties in enforcing this condition when it is prevalent on works that will Report prior to the opening of the main alignment stating that the objectives as set out in conditions 53 – be occurring outside of the District. 56 have been met.
Condition NZTA.53, in conjunction with Schedule D, requires on-going pest control Unnecessary Reject through a 3 year maintenance period as required. This reflects the Board's discussion of pest control in paragraph 470 of the decision. In that paragraph the Board referred with approval to a "multi-species approach to pest control at the mitigation sites" as 1 KCDC NZTA.53 recommended by Dr Baber . KCDC considers that clarification of the envisaged pest species in this condition would be worthwhile.
1 Baber EIC, paragraphs 80-82. Eg paragraph 82: "I consider it necessary to employ a multi-species approach to mammalian pest control at mitigation sites rather than focussing pest control on only possums and rabbits. Limiting pest control to these two species may bring about unintended adverse outcomes for indigenous biodiversity."
Page | 36
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director NZTA.54 See comments on paragraph 470 of the Draft Report Unnecessary Reinsert condition or amend para 470 Reject General of Conservation
Conditions NZTA.55 and G.31A contain requirements in relation to covenants or similar The wording used in these conditions differs, and the Board may wish to address this difference to Amend KCDC NZTA.55 G.31A Accept legal mechanisms to protect the areas of land required for retirement and re-vegetation. ensure consistency.
Director NZTA.55 and As worded, the condition could be read as only requiring NZTA to make its best Unnecessary Amend the conditions to read: Reject in G.31A endeavours to ensure the land is protected in perpetuity. The condition should be General of clarified to ensure that the obligation is to ensure protection, not to make best part Amend to make conditions The Requiring Authority shall use its best endeavours to procure from the Crown the entering into of Conservation endeavours. consistent The condition also needs to be clarified that any covenant referred to in the second appropriate covenants and/or encumbrances (or similar legal mechanism) to ensure that, regardless of Accept in bullet point is to achieve the ongoing retirement and revegetation, not just as NZTA any future ownership/tenure changes, the areas of land required for retirement and revegetation planting part considers “appropriate”. specified in condition NZTA.53 which are held or acquired by the Crown for the Project are protected in As worded, the condition also does not provide for the long term protection of areas already vegetated and shown as “Advanced ecological mitigation” as shown on the a manner that achieves at least the area of land retirement and revegetation planting specified in plans in Schedule D to the draft conditions. Condition NZTA.53 in perpetuity, The Requiring Authority shall and use its best endeavours to procure Condition NZTA.55 is also worded differently to the equivalent condition G.31. They should be the same. from the Crown the entering into of appropriate covenants and/or encumbrances (or similar legal mechanism) for that purpose and shall upon request from the Council report progress on these best endeavours.
The Requiring Authority shall not:
Take active steps for the sale of any of the land required for land retirement and/or revegetation planting or land which is “Advanced ecological mitigation” as identified in the maps entitled “proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments” until an appropriate covenant and/or encumbrance (or similar legal mechanism) is registered against each relevant title; and
Open the Main Alignment for use by the public unless an appropriate covenant and/or encumbrance (or similar legal mechanism) to achieve the ongoing retirement and revegetation has been registered against all the land required for land retirement and/or revegetation planting which is not subject to this designation.
Make both Conditions NZTA.55 and G.31 the same.
This condition requires a plan specifying the timing of the implementation of the It is respectfully commented that this is a potential omission for which the inclusion of a timing provision Unnecessary Reject Porirua City measures to be undertaken to establish and protect the 534ha of land to be actively or would provide certainty to both NZTA and the regulatory authorities as to when the vegetation should be Council (as NZTA.56 passively restored. It is not apparent within the conditions of consent as to when NZTA actively and passively restored by in the context of the TGP programme. The conditions also appear to Regulator) needs to complete the establishment of the 534ha of vegetation i.e. prior to operation of omit the inclusion of a condition to provide a completion report would also assist significantly with TGM. monitoring of the success of compliance with the vegetation requirements.
NZTA / PCC NZTA.62, Conditions NZTA.62 and PCC.38 refer to various Powerco properties as “Site That conditions NZTA.62 and PCC.38 be amended as follows: Amend PCC.38 A” to “Site E”. The references to “Site A” to “Site E” are not defined in the Accept conditions. They are also not indicated as properties on any map lodged as “NZTA.62 …
Page | 37
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
part of the Project application documents. Site B: Road reserve at the southern end of Ribbonwood Terrace adjacent to Lot 4 DP The Applicants consider that the properties are adequately identified by the 78422 legal descriptions given in the condition and no further purpose is served by Site C: Road reserve at Kenepuru Drive adjacent to 34 Kenepuru Drive (Sec 1 SO 36948) labelling them “Site A – Site E”. Site D: North of Rangatira Road Lot 1 DP 82381 Site E: Collins Avenue road reserve beneath motorway overbridge.”
“PCC.38 … Site A: Road reserve at the intersection of Warspite Avenue and Niagara Street.”
NZTA / PCC Definition of The definition of “PPF” given in the designation conditions is “the premises and That the definition of PPF‟s in condition NZTA.71 be amended as follows: Amend “PPFs”, facilities identified in green, yellow, or red in the Acoustics Assessment.” Accept condition (NZTA.71(g)) “(g) PPFs – means only the premises and facilities identified in green, yellow or red in the NZTA.71 Acoustics Assessment and 75B Paremata-Haywards Road and 75E Paremata-Haywards The PPFs identified in the Acoustics Assessment were those existing noise sensitive premises or facilities within approximately 100m or 200m of the Road.” Project (the distance depending upon whether the relevant part of the Project was located in a rural or urban area).43
However, the BoI‟s intention appears to be that, the assessment of whether or not a PPF in the vicinity of a new road is Category B or C ought to be undertaken, “notwithstanding the distance from the road” (see condition NZTA.76(b)).
Accordingly, in order to give effect to the BoI‟s intention, the NZTA has checked with its expert acoustic advisor, Dr Chiles to ascertain whether there are any other existing noise sensitive premises or facilities in the vicinity of a proposed new road that could potentially fall within category B or C but which were not included in the Acoustics Assessment (and hence which would fall outside the current definition of “PPF” given in condition NZTA.71(g)).
Dr Chiles has identified two additional properties in the vicinity of a proposed new road which could potentially fall within Category B as a result of the Project. These are 75B Paremata-Haywards Road and 75E Paremata- Haywards Road.
NZTA / PCC NZTA.76 and The BoI has amended condition NZTA.76 which relates to the identification of That condition NZTA.76 be amended as follows: Amend to clarify paragraphs “Qualifying Buildings.” In particular, the BoI has amended the condition so as Reject in [573] and [614] specify that Category B (and C) buildings by a new road, notwithstanding the "Prior to construction of the Project, a suitably qualified acoustics specialist shall identify: part Internal standard is 40dB distance from that road, are captured within the definition of “Qualifying LAeq(24h) Buildings”. (a) tThose PPFs which are to be treated as PPFs affected by noise from a section of Accept in new road for the purposes of this condition and those PPFs which are to be treated as part The Applicants are concerned that the condition, as currently drafted is ambiguous and lacks sufficient certainty. For example, it is unclear whether PPFs affected by noise from a section of altered road for the purposes of this the BoI intends that a Category B building which is located near an altered condition ("Qualifying Buildings") which.
43 TR12, section 2.1.
Page | 38
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
road and also receives noise from a new road would be classified as a (b) fFollowing the implementation of all the Structural Mitigation measures included in the “Qualifying Building” under the condition. Detailed Mitigation Options: To improve certainty, the Applicants suggest structuring the condition to make (i) which PPFs affected by noise from a section of altered road are in: (a) not in it clear that the acoustics specialist engaged by the NZTA must firstly identify: Noise Criteria Category A or B C by an altered road, and Those PPFs which are to be treated as PPFs affected by noise (b)(ii) which PPFs affected by noise from a section of new road are not in Noise Criteria from a section of new road for the purposes of condition NZTA.76; and Category A B and C by a new road, notwithstanding the distance from the Those PPFs which are to be treated as PPFs affected by noise road, and from a section of altered road for the purpose of the condition. (c) Which of the PPFs identified under either (b)(i) or (b)(ii) above, if any, may require Further, at paragraph [573] of the Draft Report, the BoI discusses the Building Modification Mitigation to achieve 40dB LAeq(24h) inside any bedroom with the windows partly open or 45dB L in any other habitable spaces ("Qualifying appropriateness of a 40dB LAeq(24h) internal noise limit in the context of Mr Aeq(24h) Lloyd‟s statements (at paragraphs 60 and 61 of his section 42A report) Buildings"). regarding the internal noise levels for bedrooms adopted in the NZTA Planning and Policy Manual. Those same paragraphs of Mr Lloyd‟s report make it clear that the NZTA Planning and Policy Manual imposes more stringent noise limits for bedrooms than it does for other habitable spaces in buildings.
Further, the Applicants understand (from para [614] of the Draft Report) that the BoI‟s aim is that internal noise levels should be at such a level that they “do not prevent a regular good night’s sleep”.
In light of this it is unclear whether the BoI intended to impose (through the
conditions) a 40dB LAeq(24h) limit with windows partly open across all habitable spaces at relevant properties, or whether it only intended to impose a 40dB
LAeq(24h) limit with windows partly open in the bedrooms of the relevant properties. If the BoI‟s intention is in fact that an internal noise limit of
40dB LAeq(24h) limit should apply at all habitable spaces at the relevant types of properties, rather than just in bedrooms, the BoI‟s reasons for this are not clear from the Draft Report as currently worded.
NZTA / PCC NZTA.71, 77 The draft conditions include the term “design year” but do not currently contain That conditions NZTA.71, NZTA.77 and NZTA.78 be amended as follows: Unnecessary. and 78 any definition of that term. Reject “NZTA.71 For the purposes of Conditions NZTA.71 - NZTA.81 the following terms will have Internal standard is 40dB The draft conditions now require assessment of the need for building the following meanings: L modification mitigation for Category B buildings near a new road (so as to Aeq(24h) … achieve an internal level of 40 dB LAeq(24h)).
There is a possibility that (following the required assessment) it will be (ci) Design Year – means the Design Year used in the Acoustics Assessment. determined that, with any proposed structural mitigation in place, the relevant …” internal noise levels at some of those Category B buildings will already be
40dB LAeq(24h) (or less) and hence no building modification mitigation will be
Page | 39
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
required. However, this possibility is not provided for in the current wording of “NZTA.77 “Where a Qualifying Building… the conditions. … The BoI may have reached the view that such an outcome was not possible, If any of (b) to (d) above apply to a particular Qualifying Building, or the acoustic assessment on the basis of a misinterpretation of the acoustic evidence. For example, the undertaken under condition NZTA.76(b) identifies that with the proposed Structural Mitigation Draft Report records (at paragraph [585]) that Dr Chiles and Mr Lloyd agreed in place the internal noise levels at all bedrooms at a Qualifying Building at the design year that “internal noise levels of 40 dB LAeq (24h) will not be achieved with external are estimated to be equal to or less than 40 dB L with windows partly open and the noise levels at category B NZS 6806:2010 and windows open” [emphasis Aeq(24h) internal noise levels at all other habitable spaces at a Qualifying Building are estimated to be added]. However, this is not entirely correct. The acoustic experts agreed equal to or less than 45 dBA L , the Requiring Authority shall not be required to that:44 Aeq(24h) implement any Building-Modification Mitigation at that Qualifying Building.” “For external road-traffic noise levels in NZS 6806 Category B, an internal “NZTA.78 noise level of 40 dB LAeq(24h) will not generally be achieved with windows facing the road open for ventilation, but will be achieved with the windows Subject to Condition NZTA.77, no more than six months after the assessment required under closed.” [emphasis added]. Condition NZTA.76(b), the Requiring Authority shall give written notice to the owner of each Qualifying Building: Accordingly, the evidence establishes that there is a possibility that an internal (a) Advising whether or not with the proposed Structural Mitigation in place the noise level of 40 dB LAeq(24h) (or less) could be achieved for a Category B internal noise level at any bedroom at the Qualifying Building at the design building, without building modification mitigation being required. The year is estimated to be greater than 40 dB LAeq(24h) with windows partly open Applicants consider that this possibility needs to be reflected in the conditions. and advising whether or not with the proposed Structural Mitigation in place Further, as noted above, it is unclear from the Draft Report whether the BoI the internal noise level at any other habitable space at the Qualifying Building at the design year is estimated to be greater than 45 dB L . intended to impose (through the conditions) a 40dB L limit with windows Aeq(24h) Aeq(24h) (b) If with the proposed Structural Mitigation in place the internal noise level of partly open across all habitable spaces at the relevant properties, or whether it any bedroom at any Qualifying Building at the design year is estimated to
only intended to impose a 40dB LAeq(24h) limit with windows partly open in the exceed 40 dB LAeq(24h) with the windows partly open or if with the proposed bedrooms of the relevant properties. Structural Mitigation in place the internal noise level of any other habitable space at any Qualifying Building at the design year is estimated to exceed 45
dB LAeq(24h): a. Advising of the options available for Building-Modification Mitigation to the building; and b. Advising that the owner has three months within which to decide and advise the Requiring Authority whether to accept Building- Modification Mitigation for the building to achieve an internal level
of 40 dB LAeq(24h) (for any bedroom) with windows partly open or
45 dB LAeq(24h) (for any other habitable space), and if the Requiring Authority has advised the owner that more than one option for Building-Modification Mitigation is available, to advise the Requiring Authority which of those options the owner prefers”.
44 Expert Conferencing Joint Report to the Board of Inquiry – Operational Traffic Noise, dated 2 March 2012, para 11.
Page | 40
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
NZTA / PCC NZTA.81A and The BoI has imposed a requirement for a Noise Mitigation Plan (NMP) in That conditions NZTA.81A and NZTA.81B be amended as follows: Unnecessary. NZTA.81B. condition NZTA.81A and a Noise Report in condition NZTA.81B. Reject “NZTA.81A The NZTA has identified a number of technical issues with these draft conditions. For example: A Pre Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustics specialist and provided to Council prior to commencement of construction. including details of There are difficulties with the term “corrective actions arising from the The plan shall include:
post-construction validation of the noise assessment” in draft condition a) Specifications of the Detailed Mitigation Options to be constructed. NZTA.81B. At the time the monitoring is carried out, it will be too early to know what the noise levels at the design year will be at any given b) Details of the Qualifying Buildings to be offered Building- Modification Mitigation PPF (and hence, what, if any, corrective action could be required). Further, it is unclear and uncertain what the term “corrective action” c) A Mmethods for the post-construction validation of the noise Acoustic aAssessment. This means. For example, in what circumstances corrective actions would shall include a requirement to prepare an as-built noise model that incorporates the following be required, what those corrective actions might involve, and what will input parameters:
happen if the NZTA cannot obtain access to a third party‟s land to i. Prior to opening: confirmation of the location of the as-built alignment in the noise model, undertake a corrective action or cannot obtain the landowner‟s visual inspection from the far-side carriageway of the relationship of PPFs to agreement to the proposed corrective action. earthworks and noise barriers, verification of as-built noise barrier dimensions, and confirmation of as-built road surfaces, Condition 81B contains requirements relating to the NMP (which is ii. 3 to 9 months after opening and checking the actual traffic volumes, and required prior to construction) and also requirements relating to the iii. Noise monitoring to validate the noise model to be undertaken within 6 months of the Noise Report (which is required post construction). The conditions design road surfaces being laid. would be clearer if the requirements for the NMP and Noise Report i. as-built horizontal and vertical geometry of the road, were split between the two conditions. ii. as-built locations, dimensions and materials of low noise road surface(s) and noise barriers and, Accordingly, the NZTA has proposed amendments to the conditions to make iii. actual traffic monitoring data the conditions both more certain and workable, whilst attempting to retain the BoI‟s intentions in relation to these conditions. d) Noise monitoring to be undertaken post-construction to verify the outputs of the as-built noise model.
e) Post-construction provisions to visually inspect and confirm, from the far-side of the carriageway, the relationship of PPFs to as-built noise barriers.
f) Post construction provisions to confirm the details of the as-built low noise road surfaces.”
“NZTA.81B The Noise Mitigation Plan shall be provided to the Council prior to the commencement of construction.
A report detailing the results and any corrective actions arising from the post-construction validation of the noise assessment shall be provided to the Council within one month of opening of the road
A Post-Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustics specialist after the road is open to the public. The plan shall be provided to the Council within 6 months of the as-built low noise road surface(s) being implemented and shall include:
a) The results of the post-construction validation of the noise modelling assessment.
b) The results of the post-construction noise monitoring and as-built noise model verification exercises.
Page | 41
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
c) Confirmation that the as-built Detailed Mitigation Options have been implemented in accordance with the details provided in the Pre-Construction Noise Mitigation Plan.
d) Confirmation of which Qualifying Buildings have received Building-Modification Mitigation.”
NZTA / PCC Management The BoI has decided that where management plans which are to be certified That the following condition be attached to NOR 1-6, the NZTA general resource consent a) unnecessary Plan impinge on both regional and territorial functions, then they are to be certified Reject conditions, NoRs 7-8 and the PCC General resource consent conditions: Certification by both GWRC and the relevant territorial authorities (see, for example, the b) potentially ultra vires Conditions discussion at paragraph [203] of the Draft Report). Similarly, amendments to “In the event of any dispute, disagreement or inaction arising as to any Council Manager management plans which impinge on both regional and territorial functions and certification required by these consent conditions, the consent holder may elect that this be require certification are also to be certified by both GWRC and the relevant resolved by the following procedure: territorial authority. a) The NZTA Regional State Highway Manager shall confer with the Consents Manager The BoI has decided that a number of plans fall into this category including the from the relevant Council (or Councils), to seek to resolve the matter or otherwise EMMP, CEMP and the SSEMPs. A number of amendments have been made determine a process for resolution. to the conditions to effect this change (see for example, G.21, G.26, G.27 and G.28, G.30). b) If a resolution cannot be agreed, then the consent holder may request that the Council(s) within 10 working days thereafter appoint an independent appropriately The Applicants consider that in light of this change, it is necessary for the qualified expert whom the Council(s) and the consent holder agree is appropriate, to conditions to provide a process for what is to happen if one or more of the take any step or make any decision or direction as the Council(s) delegate to that councils is happy with a proposed plan and one or more of the other councils expert in order to resolve that matter of dispute, disagreement or inaction (and is not. The reason for this is that without such a condition, the Applicants following any process of inquiry of the Council(s) and/or the consent holder as the could find themselves in a “deadlock” situation, because of the councils being expert may consider appropriate in order to resolve the matter as soon as possible).” unable to reach agreement. Such a situation could cause unnecessary and significant uncertainty and disruption to the requiring authority/ consent holder. The references to “consent holder” and “consent conditions” would be replaced with references to “requiring authority” and “designation conditions” for the NoR conditions. Accordingly, the Applicants now propose that a dispute resolution condition be added to the conditions, in order to provide a process for resolving any impasse situation. The proposed condition has been based on the condition imposed by the Board of Inquiry in the Waterview hearing.
The Applicants have designed the proposed condition in a way so as to ensure that the condition does not bind third parties, including the relevant Council(s).
The Applicants have consulted with the territorial authorities and GWRC and the Applicants understand that the territorial authorities and GWRC do not have an objection, in principle, to a dispute resolution condition being attached to the designations and resource consents.
Finally, the Applicants also record, for completeness, that the BoI has amended a number of the advice notes to recognise where management plans are being certified by both GWRC and the relevant territorial authority (for example the Advice Note attached to designation condition NZTA.6). The Applicants‟ understanding is that, whilst Advice Notes are useful, they have no legal effect. Therefore, the Applicants consider that any further clarifications to the certification process should not be done via the advice notes, but via changes to the conditions.
Page | 42
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Wellington Definitions Add capitals to defined terms Compliant sSediment rRetention dDevice Amend Accept Regional Heavy rRainfall eEvent Stabilisation tTrigger eEvent Council
NZTA / PCC Description of There is a typographical error in the description of the granted land use That the second bullet point on page 63 of Volume 2 of the Draft Report be amended as Amend the granted consents (RC4-RC12). follows: Accept land use consents RC4- “Land use consent to undertake permanent works in the beds of streams and associated 12 (page 63, tributaries, including the construction, use and maintenance of culverts and fords; the third bullet construction and maintenance of gabion baskets and rock rip-rap erosion protection point, volume structures; and associated channel realignment and disturbance of the beds of those 2) streams.”
NZTA / PCC RC8 – Land At page 63, the BoI notes that a land use consent and water permit for That the first bullet point on page 63 of Volume 2 of the Draft Report be amended as follows: Unnecessary use consents permanent realignment (diversion and reclamation) (bullet point one) and a Reject and water land use consent to undertake permanent works (bullet point two) is granted in “Land Use Consent and Water Permit – to permanently realign (divert and reclaim) the beds permits for respect of Collins Stream. of steams, being pipe culverts (refer to Schedule A), bridges (refer to Schedule B) and Collins Stream associated erosion protection control structures and stormwater outlet structures (Note: does (page 63, This is an error. The NZTA only applied for a land use consent to undertake not apply to Collins Stream);…” Volume 2) permanent works in the bed of Collins Stream and did not apply for a land use consent and water permit for permanent realignment of Collins Stream.
Wellington G.1 Some evidence presented at the hearing following caucusing modified the original The Project shall be undertaken in general accordance with the plans and information submitted with the Amend Accept Regional application, for example in terms of the offset mitigation package and erosion and application as documented as consent numbers [INSERT WRC REFERENCE NUMBERS HERE] Council sediment control measures. As such, it is recommended that condition G.1 requires subject to such amendments as may be required by the following conditions of consent. compliance with this information as well. The plans and information include:
(a) Assessment of Environmental Effects report, dated 8 August 2011 (b) Plan sets: i. LR00-20: Land requirement plans ii. GM01-21: Road layout plans iii. GM22-84: Longitudinal sections and cross sections iv. DR01-21: Drainage layout plans v. SO1-29: Structures plans vi. LA01-21: Landscape plans vii. AC01-21: Construction access plans (c) Plans and information presented in support of the application at the Board of Inquiry hearing. Where there is conflict between the documents lodged and the conditions, the conditions shall prevail.
Wellington G.7 Given the 35 year consents it is recommended that regular reviews are provided for for The Manager may review any or all conditions of this consent by giving notice of their intention to do so Unnecessary Reject Regional the entire duration of the consents, rather than just the first 7 years following pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, at any time within six months of the first Council commencement of works. anniversary of the date of commencement of the works authorised by this consent and biannually thereafter for any of the following purposes:
(a) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment, which may arise from the exercise of this Given lapse period and consents duration, conditions may also need reviewing as a consent, and which it is appropriate to deal with at that time; and result of legislation or policy updates. (b) To review the adequacy of the construction operating and maintenance processes and the monitoring requirements for this consent so as to incorporate any modifications to the construction operational and maintenance procedures or monitoring that may be necessary to deal with any
Page | 43
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
adverse effects on the environment arising from the exercise of this consent. (c) To facilitate consistency with any relevant National Policy Statement, Regional Plan or Policy Statement or National Environmental Standard.
Wellington G.10 Remediation alone may not be practical or environmentally desirable and mitigation The consent holder shall immediately notify the Manager and the relevant Territorial Authority if any Amend Accept Regional may be the preferred alternative. contaminants (including sediment) or material are released in the undertaking of the Work and enters Council any watercourse due to any of the following: (a) discharges from non-stabilised areas that are not treated by erosion and sediment control measures required under this consent; and/or (b) failure of any erosion and sediment control measures; and/or (c) any other incident which either directly or indirectly causes, or is likely to cause, adverse ecological effects in any watercourse that is not authorised by a resource consent held by the consent holder. If any of these incidents occur, the consent holder shall notify the Manager of any such incidents as soon as practicable after the incident being identified, and shall: (d) re-establish control measures as soon as practicable where these have failed or have not been implemented in accordance with the CEMP, ESCP or SSEMP; (e) liaise with the Manager to establish what remediation or rehabilitation is required and whether such remediation or rehabilitation is practical to implement; (f) carry out any remedial and/or mitigation action as required by and to the satisfaction of the Manager; and ...
Wellington G.14 Clarification added The consent holder shall provide to the Manager by the 30th of June each year (or on an alternative Amend Accept Regional date as otherwise agreed to by the Manager), an annual monitoring report. The purpose of this report is Council to provide an overview of the monitoring and reporting work undertaken, and any environmental issues that have arisen during the construction of the Project. As a minimum this report shall include:
...
Wellington Advice note recommended to clarify management plan structure. Management plans – General Unnecessary Reject Regional Advice note: The conditions of this consent require the following environmental management plans: Council One overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the entire site. The structure as set out in this note is an interpretation of the Board‟s expectations as One Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for the entire site. conveyed in Section 14.4 of the draft decision. One Erosion and Sediment Control Monitoring Plan (ESCMP) for the entire site. One Chemical Treatment (Flocculation) Plan (CTP) for the entire site. One Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) for the entire site, incorporating the Please note that this advice note only clarifies the management plan framework of Marine Ecology Quality Monitoring Methodology and Adaptive Management Plan relevance to the Regional Council consents. One Forestry Harvesting Management Plan (FHMP) for the entire site. One Contaminated Land Management Plan (CLMP) for the entire site. Multiple Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMPs) for the site; one for each stage/location of Works. As set out under condition G26, each SSEMP is to include, for the specific stage of works, existing site information, construction management details, a specific erosion and sediment control plan (including flocculation), vegetation clearance and rehabilitation activities, stream realignment and culverting details for that stage of works. The following management plans will form part of the SSEMPs as relevant: Site specific environmental management and monitoring plans Revegetation and Enrichment Plans
Page | 44
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Stream Restoration Plans Duck Creek Management Plan.
Wellington G.15 Amendment recommended to recognise there will be other documents required by All works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified management plans and other Unnecessary Reject Regional conditions (for example review reports) which need to be certified and complied with. documentation that is required to be certified by these conditions. Council
Wellington G.18 Correction for consistency. The management of key environmental effects associated with the construction phase of the Project Amended previously to FHP Accept in Regional shall be detailed within environmental management and monitoring plans that are included as part Council appendices to the CEMP. This suite of plans shall include: (a) Contaminated Land Management Plan (CLMP) – Condition G.20; (b) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) – Condition E.11 and E.12; a) Chemical Treatment (flocculation) Plan (CTP) - Condition E.24 and E.25; (c) Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) – Condition G.21; (d) Forestry Harvesting Management Plan – (FHMP)- Condition E.27; (e) Environmental monitoring measures – before, during and after construction (Conditions G.34 to G.57): b. Ecological Monitoring measures (contained within the EMMP) – Condition G.21; c. Erosion and Sediment Control Monitoring Plan (ESCMP) – Condition G.39.
Director G.19A and The Board has determined that the Construction Environmental Management Plan Amend Amend wording of condition G.19A and Advice Note to reflect the finding that CEMP is to be certified by Accept preceding Advice (CEMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. This General of Note requirement is not reflected in the wording of condition G.19A and the Advice Note that both WRC and the relevant Territorial Authority Conservation precedes it.
NZTA / PCC G.19A and The Draft Conditions G.19A and PCC.E.18A make references to “requiring That the references to “requiring authority” in G.19A and PCC.E.18A be replaced by Amend PCC.E.18A authority”. These conditions are attached to the resource consents and not references to “Consent Holder”. Accept designations. The correct reference is to the “Consent Holder”.
NZTA / PCC G.19(1) and There is a typographical error in condition G.19(1) Quality Assurance (and in That the words “this designation” in G.19 (1) under the heading “Quality Assurance” be Amend PCC.E.18(1) condition PCC.E.18(1) Quality Assurance). Rather than referring to replaced with the words “this consent” (the same amendment will need to be made to Accept designation conditions, the reference should be to resource consent PCC.E.18(1)). conditions.
Director G.19 In the first paragraph on p.41, and under (1) Quality Assurance, there are incorrect Amend Replace references to “designation” with “consent”. Accept references to “the conditions imposed on [the/this] designation.” General of Conservation
Contaminated Land Management Plan (CLMP)
Wellington G.20 Amendments recommended to clarify CLMP needs to be submitted with the CEMP, As part of the CEMP, the consent holder shall prepare a Contaminated Land Management Unnecessary Reject Regional and that the CLMP needs to be certified, thus ensuring consistency with other Plan (CLMP) and submit this to the Manager for certification with the CEMP at least 20 days
Page | 45
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Council conditions. prior to the commencement of construction. The CLMP shall include information regarding:
...
Director G.21 The Board has determined that the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan Previously amended Include conditions relating to the EMMP and its certification in the confirmed Notices of Requirement as Accept in (EMMP) should be certified by both regional and territorial authorities. General of well as on the regional resource consent conditions; and delete references in G.21 to certification by the part The Territorial Authority presumably cannot be given to authority to certify the EMMP Conservation by way of a condition on a consent administered by the regional council; this authority Territorial Authority or change this to an Advice Note. must stem from a condition on the confirmed Notice of Requirement. Reject in Conditions relating to the EMMP and its certification should therefore be included in part the confirmed Notices of Requirement as well as being imposed on the regional resource consent conditions; and references in NZTA.43 & NZTA.44 to certification under the regional resource consent conditions should be amended accordingly.
Wellington G.23 Recommended changes clarify the performance standards that the consent holder is The objectives of the EMMP shall be to demonstrate how tThe consent holder will shall Unnecessary expected to meet. Condition G.24 states that the EMMP must be prepared to meet the monitor, manage and mitigate for the adverse effects of construction activities and operation Reject Regional requirements of G.23. of the roads on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecological values, and their associated Council biodiversity values, including but not limited to: Recommended change clarifies that the consent holder is required to mitigate adverse (a) Lowland coastal broadleaf forest and associated habitats effects associated with operation of the road. (b) Protected species including: i. Lizards ii. Bats iii. Breeding kaka iv. Breeding falcon v. Coastal birds (c) Terrestrial invertebrates including Peripatus (d) Native fish and other aquatic life (e) Freshwater and the marine environments (f) Valued vegetation (as described in Condition NZTA.51) and the specific areas set out in Condition G.31 (g) Leptinella tenella (h) Carrying out monitoring in a manner that confirms that mitigation meets objectives.
Wellington G.24 SSEMP titles, caps added. The EMMP shall set out the methodologies and processes that will be used to achieve the Unnecessary Reject in objectives requirements in Condition G.23 and shall include but is not limited to: Regional Consistency in wording. (a) Ecological Management part Amend (b) and (d) Council i. Staff training and staff roles and responsibilities Accept in ii. Vegetation and habitat management (including land retirement, vegetation clearance, revegetation, and enrichment) part iii. Management of effects on lizards, terrestrial macro-invertebrates, avifauna and bats including to give effect to Conditions G.37 and G.38 iv. Management of in-stream works including design principles for culverts and diversions and procedures for fish translocations v. The use of eco-sourced plant material (sources from the appropriate Ecological District) vi. Prevent introduction of weeds or pests to the site through importation of materials or on equipment (b) Habitat restoration
Page | 46
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
i. A requirement to prepare an update to the document entitled “transmission gully motorway general approach to ecological mitigation, land retirement and planting” (Beca 2001). The update shall have regard to the success monitoring of earlier revegetation undertaken for the previous designation, and incorporation of requirements in Conditions NZTA.31 and NZTA.51. ii. A rRevegetation and eEnrichment pPlan for each area identified under condition G.31, including monitoring in accordance with condition G.36. iii. A sStream rRestoration pPlan for each affected stream or reach. The sStream rRestoration pPlan(s) for the Te Puka and Upper Horokiri Streams shall determine the methodology that will be adopted to maintain fish passage and an adequate instream habitat. iv. Where innovative treatments are being used (diversion, fern hydromulching) the EMMP shall identify how the treatment shall be deemed successful (c) Ecological Monitoring and adaptive management i. Establishing specific measures and/or criteria to determine the success of ecological management and mitigation ii. Establishing specific approaches and contingency plans that will be employed to undertake adaptive management of adverse effects arising from construction on terrestrial ecology, freshwater ecology and marine ecology iii. Where adaptive management will be applied, the measures of success of the management and the point at which alternative management will be initiated where success has not been achieved iv. Establish procedures for marine monitoring including benthic habitat monitoring, determination of trigger events and effects based thresholds for deposition of sediment. (d) In addition the EMMP willshall: i. Include a programme as required by Condition NZTA.56 setting out timing for achievement of the land retirement, enrichment planting, revegetation and covenanting that is required by Condition G.31; ii. Demonstrate an integrated approach to the development of this EMMP and the LUDMP that is required to be prepared under Condition NZTA.42. iii. Demonstrate an integrated approach to the development of this EMMP and the erosion and sediment control measures contained in the ESCP and SSEMPs. (e) Describe the process for review(s) of the EMMP.
Director G.26 The Territorial Authority presumably cannot be given to authority to certify the SSEMP See amendments previously Delete references to certification by the relevant Territorial Authority. Reject in by way of a condition on a consent administered by the regional council; this authority General of made must stem from a condition on the confirmed Notice of Requirement. part If the Board requires dual certification of SSEMPs then conditions to this effect should be included within Conservation The Board has not determined that dual certification of the SSEMPs is required (ref Amend paras 203 & 1057 in Volume One). the confirmed notices of requirement. Accept in part
Director G26 Condition G.29 which allowed for the preparation of site specific erosion and sediment Unnecessary Insert a new condition to Volume 2: Reject control plans was deleted from NZTA‟s final proposed conditions, with the reasons General of given that neither Ms Rickard nor MS Grant supported these. There is no record in In order to facilitate a rapid review process consistent with adaptive management principles, the consent Conservation either the transcript, written evidence or conferencing statements of any objection by Ms Grant to this condition. holder may, with the prior approval of the Manager, submit the SSESCP component of the SSEMP for SSEMPs will be significant and large documents. Erosion and sediment control erosion and sediment control measures only for a given area or stage of work. The consent holder shall measures need to be detailed yet flexible, and a system should be established that recognises both the need for detail and that of rapid change and flexibility. This is submit the request to the Manager with a programme for additional SSEMP requirements to follow in usually done by the preparation of site or activity specific erosion and sediment control plans (SSESCP) because these much smaller and very specific plans can be relatively stages. The erosion and sediment control SSEMPs shall, as a minimum, incorporate the requirements Page | 47
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
easily prepared and amended compared to the much wider scope SSEMPs. of G.26.
Director G.26 (b) xiv All sediment experts agreed that a condition excluding works in the winter months is Unnecessary Delete part draft condition G.26 (b) xiv and insert a separate and new winter earthworks control Reject appropriate with a provision to allow some works to occur in the winter months with the General of approval of the Manager. Ms Grant recorded some discussion about such a condition condition: Conservation at page 892 of the transcripts 23 Feb noting that… “It‟s a variation on a standard. The standard condition that we have been using for earthworks, and particularly in the The site shall be stabilised during the winter months (30th May to 30th September) unless otherwise Pauatahanui area, says basically no work shall occur unless you get the approval.” approved by the Manager. Exposed erodible soils during seasonally wet periods (e.g. winter which usually has poor drying conditions) can result in unnecessarily elevated levels of sediment being generated and discharged. Even the best sediment control measures do not retain all sediment. Specific winter controls are a common measure by which control can be exerted over the unnecessary exposure of erodible areas during seasons unfavourable to erodible surfaces. A condition to this effect was agreed at the 15 February 2012 sediment conferencing. The current wording of condition G.26 (a) xiv does not adequately reflect the erosion control component of this approach.
Wellington G.26 Defined word. The objective of each SSEMP is to integrate design elements within environmental Amend Accept in Regional management and monitoring methods into a set of plans for each stage or location, in order to part Unnecessary Council define how the Pproject will be practically implemented on site. SSEMPs need to be consistent with all higher order management plans (recommended Reject in Not less than 20 working days prior to the commencement of any stage or location of advice note above G.15 lists the management plans). part construction works, the consent holder shall prepare and submit a Site Specific Environmental Management Plan (SSEMP) to the Manager and the relevant Territorial Authority (in respect See comment above. of their statutory functions) for certification that: 1. The SSEMP has been prepared with inputs from suitably qualified ecologists and erosion
and sediment control specialists; See comments above. 2. The SSEMP has been prepared in accordance with the certified CEMP and any other relevant higher order management plans, EMMP; 3. As a minimum, the SSEMP meets the information requirements set out in Condition G.26 unless alternative arrangements have been agreed in writing with the Manager and the Clarity added. relevant Territorial Authority (in respect of their statutory functions). In the event that an SSEMP cannot be consistent with any relevant higher order management
planeither the ESCP or EMMP, the consent holder may adopt an alternative approach which Defined term shall be developed in consultation with the Manager and the relevant Territorial Authority (in
Clarification in accordance with Board‟s draft decision report (para 1087) respect of their statutory functions), and must be certified before works commence.
The consent holder shall ensure that the CEMP, and any other relevant higher order management plans have been certified prior to the submission of the first SSEMP unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Manager and the relevant Territorial Authority (in respect of their statutory functions).
The consent holder shall adhere to the requirements of each certified SSEMP at all times
during the relevant construction stage of the Project. (a) Each SSEMP shall include, but need not be limited to: i. a detailed design and construction methodology for all works within the area covered by the SSEMP;
Page | 48
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
ii......
(b) In respect of erosion and sediment control, the SSEMP shall be prepared in general accordance with the certified ESCP, NZTA‟s Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure and Draft Field Guide for Contractors or the WRC Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region whichever is more stringent (and any subsequent amendments to those documents that occur after this consent is granted and prior to the commencement of construction), and shall include, but not be limited to: i. a programme for managing non-stabilised areas of earthworks, including commencement dates, progressive stabilisation considerations; and demonstration of how the SSEMP shall ensure compliance with the area limits in Conditions E.1 and E.2; ii. demonstration of how the objectives in Condition E.7 and design criteria in Condition E.8 will be met. iii. detailed design specifications for all erosion and sediment control measures including supporting calculations where appropriate, contributing catchment area; retention volume of structure (dead storage and live storage measured to the top of the primary spillway); shape of structure (dimensions of structure); location of flood water; safety and access; position of inlets/outlets; stabilisation of the structure; and maintenance iv. justification for the use of erosion and sediment control measures other than cCompliant sSediment rRetention dDevices (the use of measures other than 3% detention devices shall be avoided unless absolutely necessary and if such detention devices are employed they shall treat runoff from shall be generally less than 5% of the Project earthworks area by area unless specifically certified by the Manager); v. detailed design of chemical treatment for each of the proposed sediment retention devices; vi. ...
Wellington G.27 Change recognises that other higher order management plans may need to be The consent holder shall ensure that the CEMP, and any other relevant higher order Unnecessary Reject Regional approved prior to submission of a SSEMP. management plans EMMP and ESCP have been certified prior to the submission of the first Council SSEMP unless otherwise agreed with the Manager and the relevant Territorial Authority (in respect of their statutory functions).
Wellington G.31 Change recognises that provided the amendments to the plan still achieve the The consent holder shall undertake works necessary to ensure that a combined total of at Amend in part least 534ha of land is dedicated to the active or passive restoration of vegetation and Accept in Regional outcomes required by consent conditions they can be acceptable. It recognises that associated ongoing management which shall be comprised of the following components: part Council objectives written into an initial version of a management plan may need to evolve to (a) Approximately 319ha comprising land retired from farming to allow natural regeneration; achieve the outcomes/performance criteria set by the conditions. (b) Approximately 106ha comprising pioneer shrubland that will shall be retired and, restored revegetated and/or undergo enrichment planting to direct succession toward coastal Consistency in terminology used in the tables in Schedule D („revegetated‟ rather than lowland podocarp broadleaved forest appropriate for the site; „restored‟). (c) Approximately 109ha comprising grassed slopes, and river flats and stream banks in pasture will shall be retired and undergo revegetation to commence successions
necessary to develop into coastal lowland podocarp broadleaved forest appropriate for Clarification and correct reference to Schedule D added. the site; and these areas, and vegetation planting within these, shall closely correspond to the maps 1 to 8 Clarification added in accordance with the draft decision report (paras. 486 – 488) that entitled “Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments” attached in Schedule D unless otherwise 26.5km of streamside planting is required to mitigate the 10.4km of stream agreed with the Manager, and shall be managed in accordance with the actions and loss/modification, plus 17km of ephemeral stream needs to be replaced with similar management tasks set out the tables attached in Table 1Schedule D. ephemeral habitat, plus fish passage improvements need to be made.
Page | 49
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Within the above areas, at least 26,500 linear metres of stream mitigation including enriching Wording of the draft condition requires management of (d) – (i) only. It is recommended riparian habitat and enhancing fish passage shall be achieved. In order to mitigate for the loss and/or modification of 10.4km of existing intermittently and that more directive language is used in this condition to provide certainty of outcomes. permanently flowing streams, the consent holder shall undertake riparian revegetation along at least 26,500 linear metres of stream within the above areas as illustrated on maps 1 to 8 titled “Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments” attached in Schedule D unless otherwise agreed with the Manager. Riparian revegetation shall include retirement of riparian areas and planting of these areas in native vegetation.
In addition, the consent holder shall replace the 6km (approximate) of ephemeral streams that will be disrupted by the Project with approximately 17km of stream with a similar ephemeral habitat to that which will be disrupted by the Project.
In addition, the consent holder shall provide fish passage in Duck Creek and Wainui Stream accordance with conditions G.32 and G.33.
The mechanisms to achieve protection of the above land shall be set out within the EMMP and shall manage: (d) prevent the felling, removal, burning or taking of any native trees, shrubs or plants or native fauna; (e) require the planting of native species only which have been sourced planting of trees, shrubs or plants with a preference for specimens sourced from the ecological district within which the land is situated unless otherwise approved by the Manager; (f) prevent the introduction of any noxious substance or substance otherwise injurious to plant life except in the control of pests; (g) prevent access by stock by providing and maintaining fences and gates except when the provisions of the Fencing Act 1978 apply; (h) require the control of deer, goats, pigs, and weeds to levels that are necessary to achieve the conditions imposed on the relevant designation and associated consents, and to prevent significant loss of existing natural values; and (i) control all weeds and pests in the land to the extent required by any statute and in particular comply with the provisions of, and any notices given under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977.
Wellington G.31A Clarification that condition refers to Main Alignment road. Prior to the commencement of operation of the Transmission Gully Main Alignment road, the consent Amended in part Accept in
Regional holder shall implement measures, which may include a protective covenant or similar mechanism, to part Council ensure that, regardless of any future ownership/tenure changes, the land required for mitigation of the effects of the Project is protected in a manner that achieves at least the area of land retirement and revegetation planting specified in Condition G.31 in perpetuity.
Director G.31A This condition is worded differently to the equivalent condition on the confirmed See previous amendment Reword to NZTA 55 as proposed above. Accept notices of requirement (NZTA.55). General of Conservation
Wellington G.32 Reference to Schedule A added to clarify which culverts are to be replaced. The replacement of the eight perched culverts within Duck Creek identified within Schedule A shall be Amend Accept
Regional completed within two years of the commencement of construction of any part of the new road between Council chainage 19000 and 23500 on the Main Alignment. Replacement culverts shall be designed so as to
Page | 50
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
provide fish passage for native migratory fish species, and shall be of a similar size and capacity to the existing culverts unless otherwise agreed with the Manager.
Wellington G.34 Consistency in wording The consent holder shall ensure that Amend Accept in Regional (a) All ecological monitoring required under the EMMP shall be undertaken by a suitably Clarity added qualified and experienced ecologist part Council (b) The results of all monitoring carried out pursuant to the Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan shall be: i. available for inspection members of the public during normal office hours; ii. submitted to the Manager at quarterly intervals for their approvalcertification; iii. submitted to the Director-General of Conservation for information; and iv. summarised and submitted as part of the annual report required under Condition G.14. (c) Records shall be kept to show where monitoring is not possible due to dry stream conditions. In the event that an exceedence is recorded for any monitored parameter, an adaptive management process will be immediately instigated as described in the EMMP and in consultation with the Manager.
Wellington G.35 Clarity added that the focus of the condition is on monitoring the success of As part of the EMMP, the consent holder shall develop Mitigation Outcome Monitoring Amend in part mitigation measures. measures which shall set out principles and parameters for monitoring mitigation measures Accept in Regional and an action plan to remedy unsuccessful mitigation. part Council Recommended that the condition requires timeframes to be specified. The measures shall be determined in consultation with Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc, Director General of Conservation and the Manager. Reject in
The principles shall include, but not be limited to: part Correction to ensure consistency in wording. (a) Recording the habitat and biodiversity values found prior to commencement of
construction in a form that will provide a basis for comparison later; Recommended that a timeframe needs to be established though the EMMP for (b) Using those values (identified in (a) above) as a baseline for the monitoring programme; measuring improvement. (c) Measureable outcomes desired for species abundance and habitat abundance, including timeframes; (d) Achieving an comparable position to the existing situation for both habitat and biodiversity, with equal or better numbers of species, and equal or better localities of habitat within a specified timeframe; (e) Maintaining fish passage and habitat in reconstructed/diverted streams; and (f) Clear options for addressing mitigation measures that are demonstrated to be unsuccessful and the timeframes for implementing these. The purpose of the Mitigation Success Outcome Mmonitoring is: (g) to determine whether aquatic habitat and stream functions within the diversion and mitigation reaches have sufficiently improved over the timeframe set out in the EMMP; (h) confirm establishment of revegetation planting, enrichment planting and land retirement areas; and to meet the mitigation requirements established by the analysis in the Ecological Impact Assessment dated August 2011 and submitted with the applications.
Wellington G.36 Changes clarify that planting may occur at different times in each area and therefore All planting that is required to be undertaken under Condition G.31 (and as depicted on Amend Schedule D – Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments) shall be subject to a three year Accept in Regional maintenance period will need to be staggered accordingly. maintenance period which shall commence from the time planting is undertaken in each
Page | 51
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Council planting area. At the completion of the three year maintenance period for any planting area, part the consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified ecologist to carry out a full review of the If maintenance is also required in the retired (but not planted areas) this condition success of the revegetation in that planting area to ensure it has met the mitigation Reject in Unnecessary requirements set out in the EMMP and to identify any remedial actions that need to be carried should be further amended to reflect this requirement. out to achieve those requirements and/or any further monitoring required. The results of the part review shall be provided to the Manager for certification: (a) that the review planting has met the requirements of the EMMP; and/or
Feedback loop requirement reworded to improve legibility of condition. (b) to identify anythat the proposed remedial actions and subsequent monitoring programme that need to be carried outare appropriate. Where any remedial actions are required, the consent holder shall provide a programme and description of remedial actions to the Manager for certification. TheseAny certified remedial Recommended that certification should relate to the success of the planting and/or actions shall be carried out as soon as practicable having regard to weather and appropriate planting seasons. remedial actions proposed to rectify deficiencies identified in the planting review. A further review of each revegetation area shall be carried out after 10 years and no later than 11 years of from completion commencement of the planting in each area to determine
Recommend that a maximum timeframe for further review be included, and start date whether further actions are required to achieve the objective of revegetationrequirements of for that timeframe. Commencement of planting is the easiest to measure in GW‟s the EMMP. The review shall be submitted to the Manager in writing no later than 11 years experience. following the original planting and shall detail the actions to be taken, timeframes for these and further monitoring proposed. The consent holder shall implement the further actions and Recommend that a timeframe for submitting the review be added, and requirements of monitoring certified by the Manager. If the necessary, the revegetation plan in the EMMP will the review need to be specified in the condition as a performance standard. Feedback shall be amended accordingly.: loop also recommended.
Wellington G.37 Timeframes added. As part of the EMMP and prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall Unnecessary engage an experienced herpetologist to develop a programme for management of effects on Reject Regional Change to recognise that relocation may happen in more than one area. lizards during construction. This shall include but shall not be limited to: Council (a) Identification or construction of appropriate relocation sites Recommended changes complete feedback loop. (b) Mammalian predator control prior to and during establishment at relocation sites (c) Methods and timing for pre-construction and during-construction salvage (d) Post-release monitoring of lizards within release sites and revegetated areas for a minimum of five years. The programme shall include criteria for determining the success of relocation and this shall be measured no less than five years and greater than six years after the relocation activities have occurred in each area.
The relocation programme shall be submitted to the Manager for certification with the EMMP.
If relocation is deemed unsuccessful, a proposal for remediation shall be provided to the mManager for certification within 20 working days of obtaining the results from the success monitoring undertaken in each area. The remediation proposal shall be, prepared in consultation with DOC, for and propose further actions that may be required in order to achieve the objectives in the EMMP.
Wellington G.38 Recommend that the condition refers to bats and roost trees. As part of the EMMP, the consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified ecologist to carry Unnecessary out the following: Reject Regional Both road construction and operation need to be referenced throughout the (a) At least two full seasons of monitoring shall be carried out in each of the two years prior
Page | 52
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Council condition for consistency. to the commencement of construction in the vicinity of the Wainui Saddle in the Te Puka and Upper Horokiri catchments in order to determine whether there are bats or bat roost trees present in the area where their habitatsthat may be affected by the construction or Recommend that Manger certification for bat monitoring programme be operation of the proposed road; and obtained as this will commence prior to preparation of the EMMP. (b) If bats or roost trees are found to be present, the consent holder shall undertake a more
detailed study designed in consultation with the Director General of Conservation (or Change reflects that the first preference should be to avoid losses of bats and nominee) to assess the potential for impacts on bats or roost trees from road construction or operationfrom roost tree removal and during operation; and roost trees.
The proposed bat monitoring programmes set out in (a) and (b) shall be submitted to the Manager for certification prior to undertaking that monitoring. The results of the monitoring shall be included in the EMMP.
If bats or roost trees are present in numbers and locations that put them at risk during road construction and operation, the consent holder shall develop submit a plan to the Manager for certification with the EMMP which: i. Describes monitoring required during road construction and operation ii. Confirms whether adverse effects are occurringmay occur iii. Determines the actions required to minimise and mitigate for losses that can not be avoided and monitor the effectiveness of the methods used.
Wellington Advice note and Recommend that tables L5 and L6 be added as new Schedule E. Erosion and Sediment Control Monitoring – General Amend Accept Schedule E Regional Advice note: Tables L5 and L6 of the draft ESCMP have been updated and those updated Council tables supersede the tables in the document lodged with the application. Amended tables L5 and L6 were submitted as exhibit 24 during the Hearing and are attached in Schedule F).
Wellington G.39 Clarification added. 1. It is consistent with the Draft ESCMP lodged with the AEE applications (appended to the Amend draft CEMP); Accept in Regional Corrections. .... part Council In iInspections and physical monitoring of erosion and sediment control devices (a and b above) shall include the monitoring of heavy rainfall, Sstabilisation Ttrigger Eevents and shall Reject in Unnecessary Defined terms. be in accordance with the Chemical Treatment (Flocculation) Plan. part
For all inspection and physical monitoring measures the Consent Holder shall set trigger Amendment recommended to clarify outcome sought. levels at a higher standard than required to comply with consent conditions. These trigger Recommended that recorded actions be supplied to the Manager if requested levels must be linked to management and actions to review and improved the performance of to complete feedback loop. the erosion and sediment control systems, so that improvements are made pre-emptively to avoid non-compliance with consent conditions pre-emptively of consent conditions being exceeded. The actions taken must be recorded and supplied to the Manager if requested.
Wellington G.39A Recommend that this condition be inserted into G.40 under the „Baseline Prior to the commencement of the pre-construction monitoring required under Condition G.40, Unnecessary Reject Regional Sediment Monitoring – pre-construction‟ heading for improved legibility. This the consent holder shall submit a draft ESCMP to the Manager for certification that monitoring Council condition sets a performance standard for baseline monitoring. incorporates an appropriate methodology, timing and monitoring locations suitable to gather appropriate and accurate data. No pre-construction monitoring shall commence until the Recommend that preconstruction monitoring programme be certified prior to Manager has certified that the baseline monitoring programme meets the requirements of this
Page | 53
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
commencing monitoring. condition.
Director G.39 & G39A These conditions refer to Tables L5 and L6 which were updated as Exhibit 24 (8 Unnecessary Clarify the extent of the review of the draft ESCMP to ensure that “consistency” with the Draft ESCMP is Reject in March 2012) however condition G.39.1 requires the ESCMP to be consistent with the General of lodged Draft ESCMP notwithstanding that it has been updated by the experts. A key not required. If necessary, delete G.39.1 part Conservation part of the ESCMP is Tables L5 and L6 (which relates to parameters, catchment monitoring and management actions) and which the sediment control experts Attach amended Tables L5 and L6 as per Exhibit 24 8 March 2012 and as included in NZTA proposed Accept in Amended previously considered sufficiently unsatisfactory during conferencing to recommend its fundamental review (Item 9, 29 February 2012 conferencing). Unfortunately the timing conditions Appendix A - closing submissions. part of the closing of the hearing did not allow the sediment experts to reconvene (despite the efforts made by the D-G‟s sediment expert) to update Table L6, as such it should be clarified that in no way should tables L5 and L6 be required to be “consistent‟ with the Draft ESCMP lodged with the applications as required by condition G 39. 1. It is appropriate and necessary for the Sediment Peer Review Panel to be able to update and review these Tables.
Director G.40 This condition supports a requirement for only one year of “baseline monitoring to Unnecessary Amend first sentence to read: Reject confirm and record existing sediment loads.” Both Dr Hicks and Dr Basher agreed that General of one year of monitoring cannot possibly confirm average annual sediment load, as “For at least one two years prior to the commencement of construction, and prior to the preparation of Conservation sediment loads vary widely in any given year depending on storminess and such a restricted time frame could therefore be misleading. All that one year monitoring could the ESCMP, the Consent Holder shall carry out baseline monitoring to confirm and record existing confirm is the sediment rating curves. sediment loads and the baseline environmental conditions in the following streams: …..”
Director G.40 Mr Hicks provided a memorandum to the Board on 9 March 2012 proposing that an Unnecessary Add as (j) to Condition G.40: Reject addition be made to Condition G.40 to deal with a situation that might occur, in that the General of preconstruction monitoring results differ significantly from the modelled estimates. The (j) If the sediment rating relations compiled from the peak construction monitoring differ significantly Conservation Director-General supports Dr Hicks‟ proposed addition to that condition. from those estimated for the peak construction phase by the assessment of environmental effects investigations, then the relations from the pre-construction monitoring should be used as the reference for setting trigger levels for adaptive management actions.
Wellington G.40 Recommend tables L5 and L6 be included in new Schedule E. (i) Provide a baseline against which to measure post construction changes and determine Amend whether mitigation has been successful (having regard to the amended tables L5 and L6 Accept in Regional contained in Schedule Fthe ESCMP). part Council The catchment control points shall be located upstream and downstream of the Project Recommend rewording to improve clarity. Reject in Unnecessary wherever practicable. Continuous monitoring using automatic sampling devices shall be part undertaken during runoff events for The monitoring shall be continuous for flows and turbidity with and relationships established between turbidity and total suspended sediment by automatic samplers during runoff eventsshall be identified and reported on.
Wellington G.42A If a hHeavy rRainfall eEvent is forecast, the consent holder shall undertake pre-event Amend HRE is a Defined term, and as such should be in capitals Accept in Regional inspections and any maintenance and install any additional measures that are required (refer part Council to ESCMP requirements in Condition G.4139). Condition G.41 requires keeping of monitoring record. Appropriate cross Reject in Unnecessary reference is to G.39. part
Page | 54
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Wellington G.42B If a Sstabilisation Ttrigger Eevent is forecast, the consent holder shall deploy erosion control Amend STE is a Defined term, and as such should be in capitals Accept in Regional measures and stabilise all non-stabilised areas (refer to ESCMP requirements in Condition part Council G.4139). Condition G.41 requires keeping of monitoring record. Appropriate cross Reject in Unnecessary reference is to G.39. part
Wellington G.43 Intent clarified. In the event of a failure of any erosion and sediment control devices, where a discharge Amend Accept in occurs to a perennial or intermittent freshwater body, wetland or estuarine/marine Regional environment the consent holder shall (in addition to the requirements set out in Condition part Council G.10):
(a) ensure that the Manager is notified immediately; Reject in unnecessary Recommend that the ecologist‟s assessment of effects is reviewed by the (b) engage a suitably qualified ecologist(s) within 24 hours, and who shall inspect the part Manager and that any course of action is certified and implemented to relevant area within 24hrs of the consent holder becoming aware of the discharge and monitoring the ecological values where and when appropriate, as per the EMMP; complete the feedback loop. (c) either repair or replace the device as soon as practicable; (d) review the reasons for the failure and, as soon as practicable following the failure, carry out a review of, and any appropriate repair works on, all other erosion and sediment control and devices; and (e) where the ecologist or the Manager considers there has been an adverse effect that is more than minor and is not temporary, confirm provide in writing to the Manager for certification an appropriate course of action in consultation with the Manager and subject to Conditions G.48 and G.49 and implement the certified course of action.
Director G.43 Typographical errors Previously amended Amend (b) to read: Accept in General of part “engage a suitably qualified ecologist(s) within 24 hours, and who shall inspect the relevant area and Conservation monitoring the ecological values where and when appropriate, as per the EMMP;”
Director G.44 Items (b) and (c) are inconsistent with the initial purpose of this condition (“to inform Amend Delete “To inform the EMMP,” from the beginning of this condition and add to the end of (a) “in order to Accept the EMMP”); for example, post-construction surveys cannot inform the EMMP. General of provide two summer and two winter baseline data sets to inform the EMMP; “ Conservation
Wellington G.44 Change clarifies that it is a requirement to monitor in accordance with the To inform the EMMP, a marine benthic habitat monitoring programme shall be undertaken in Amend by changing advice note management plan as a condition rather than advice note. accordance with the updated document “Revised Draft Marine Ecology Quality Monitoring Accept Regional to new condition G.44A Methodology & Adaptive Management Plan” dated December 2011. The monitoring shall be Council undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist on a 6-monthly basis, with Given the duration of the consents, the Board may want to consider whether sample collection occurring in summer (1 December-1 March inclusive) and winter (1 June-1 the condition should provide for certification of deviations to this methodology September inclusive) as follows: (a) Two summer and two winter baseline surveys shall be undertaken immediately prior to to cater for advances in monitoring techniques. the commencement of construction works in the Porirua Harbour watersheds, in order to provide two summer and two winter baseline data sets; (b) Whilst construction is occurring within the Porirua Harbour watersheds; and Two summer and two winter post-construction surveys shall be undertaken following completion of works in the Porirua Harbour watershed.
Page | 55
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Director G.45 For clarity the condition should record that the updated EMMP is provided at Appendix Unnecessary Amend first sentence to read: Reject B of the Marine Ecology conferencing statement of 8 December 2011 and should be General of attached to the decision. “The marine benthic habitat monitoring programme……set out in the EMMP (as updated and recorded Conservation at Appendix B of the Marine Ecology Conferencing Statement dated 8 December 2011 Attached as Appendix x) …”
G.45 Clarity added. The marine benthic habitat monitoring programme required under Condition G.44. shall be Unnecessary Reject undertaken in accordance with the details set out in the draft EMMP (as updated in December 2011) at the locations specified in Condition G.46. and shall include: Given the duration of the consents, the Board may want to consider whether ... the condition should provide for certification of deviations to this methodology to cater for advances in monitoring techniques.
Wellington G.46 Clarity added and consistency in wording. The marine benthic habitat monitoring shall be undertaken within sampling grids broadly Unnecessary Reject established at the following locations as a minimum (as shown in the draft EMMP dated Regional December 2011 update):
Council (a) Seven intertidal locations within the Pauatahanui Inlet;
(b) Seven subtidal locations within the Pauatahanui Inlet; Change recognises that the EMMP will not be prepared 2 years in advance of (c) Three intertidal locations within the Onepoto Arm; construction commencing. (d) Three subtidal locations within the Onepoto Arm; Specific locations and experimental design shall be detailed in the EMMPsubmitted to the Manager for certification prior to commencement of monitoring, and the design of the monitoring programme will shall be based on the Estuarine Environmental Assessment and Monitoring: A National Protocol (Cawthron 2002).
Director G.47 The condition does not address what comprises a “trigger event” as agreed in Marine Unnecessary Amend second sentence to read “Trigger events may shall include, but not be limited to rainfall events Reject General of Ecology conferencing statement Appendix B. It was agreed that this should include and turbidity discharge levels that exceed thresholds and may also include discharges from erosion and Conservation rainfall events and turbidity discharge levels that exceed thresholds that will be sediment control devices that do not meet specific discharge quality criteria in the EMMP (as updated specified in the EMMP, these matters should be clearly stated in the condition. and recorded at Appendix B of the Marine Conferencing Statement dated 8 December 2011 Attached as Appendix X), ECSP or SSEMPs … …”
Add to end of condition
In the event of a “trigger event” for marine ecology habitats the following monitoring, at a minimum, will be undertaken, by a suitably qualified and experienced marine ecologist:
(a) A visual inspection of the intertidal habitat, undertaken at low tide, adjacent to the discharge within 48
hours of the event;
(b) If the deposition of terrigenous sediment is detected, the extent of the deposited sediment should be
mapped, and depth of sediment measured at regular intervals along transects established through the deposited sediment;
(c) Three to five days after the initial mapping of the deposited sediment, the extent and depth of The condition also does not clearly define what the additional marine habitat monitoring sediment should be mapped and measured again. If an agreed threshold of extent and depth of
Page | 56
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
should achieve; the condition is therefore unclear and imprecise. deposition is exceeded, a detailed marine ecological survey of the affected site at eight to twelve days after the deposition should be carried out.
Wellington G.48 Clarification added ... Unnecessary Reject Regional In the event that adverse effects on marine ecology within the Porirua Harbour are identified that can be attributed wholly or partially to the construction of the Project, the consent holder Council shall:
Wellington G.49 Recommend that consent holder seeks Manager‟s agreement regarding ... Unnecessary practicalities of implementing remedial measures. Reject Regional If, in the opinion of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and agreed to by the Manager, it is not practicable to implement appropriate contingency plans and/or remedial Council measures for adverse ecological effects on the Porirua Harbour, the consent holder shall
develop and implement an appropriate programme of mitigation that is commensurate with the scale of effects. Timeframe added to provided certainty. ... The consent holder shall submit a report to the Manager for certification within 20 working
days of obtaining the results of monitoring required under condition G.47, or an alternative timeframe otherwise agree with the Manager, that sets out who has been consulted, the mitigation options that were considered, the mitigation option or options that have been chosen and the reasons why, and a programme for implementation. ...
Director G.50 Items (b) and (c) are inconsistent with the initial purpose of this condition (“to inform Amend Delete “To inform the EMMP shall include” from the beginning of Condition G.50 and add at the end of Accept the EMMP”); for example, post-construction surveys cannot inform the EMMP General of (a): ” …in order to provide two summer and two winder baseline data sets to inform the EMMP.” Conservation
Wellington G.50 Condition reworded to improve legibility and enforceability, intent retained. To inform the EMMP shall include a freshwater benthic habitat and fish monitoring programme Unnecessary Reject Regional shall be undertaken by the consent holder on a 6-monthly basis, with sample collection
Council occurring in summer (1 December-1 March inclusive) and winter (1 June-1 September
inclusive) as follows:
…
The results of the baseline monitoring required under (a) shall be provided in the EMMP and relevant SSEMPs and shall be used to inform monitoring and adaptive management Recommended changes clarify when results need to be supplied to the responsesto the Manager as soon as practicable for certification. Manager and what those results are to be used for (closes feedback loop). Three month period for construction results (highlighted) suggested however the Board may wish to include alternative timeframe. The results of the construction monitoring required under (b) shall be provided to the Manager on a 3 monthly basis and shall be used to inform adaptive management responses required by other conditions of this consent.
The results of the post-construction monitoring required under (c) shall be provided to the Manager for certification within 20 working days of completing that monitoring, including proposals for remedying and/or mitigating adverse effects.
Wellington G.51 … Unnecessary Reject
Page | 57
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Regional Recommend amendments to clarify that results of the survey need to be The results of the survey shall be used to inform along with recommendations to be submitted Council provided with the EMMP for certification (this also places timeframe on to the Manager for certification as part of the EMMP for culvert and channel designss that submission of the results). shall be designed towill provide for ongoing fish passage. , shall be provided to the Manager for certification.
Wellington G.52 Correction made As part of the EMMP, and recognising the unique nature of the diversions proposed in the Unnecessary Reject Regional upper Te Puka and upper Horokiri Streams, the consent holder shall engage a suitably Council qualified ecologist to work closely with, and provide specialist inputs into, the design of the upper Te Puka Stream and upper Horokiri Stream diversions, in order to accommodate habitat reconstruction and fish passage requirements as recommended by the survey required by Condition G.51 as far as practicable.
Wellington G.54 Amendment made to clarify which documents the trial results and subsequent … The trial shall use, but not be limited to, spat rope / culvert system methods that are Unnecessary Reject Regional designs should be included in for certification. proposed to be used for the project. The results of the trial shall be used to inform the design Council parameters for the other culverts in steep tributaries along the alignment. The proposed culvert and channel designs, and rationale for these based on the trials undertaken and shall be included in the EMMP and SSEMPs provided to the Manager for informationcertification.
Wellington G.55 (a) be carried out either within two years of the completion of construction of the upper Te Amend Accept in Agreement of the Manager required for deviation from timeframe. Puka Stream reconstruction; or at a time that, in the opinion of a suitably qualified Regional ecologist and agreed to by the Manager, is an appropriate amount of time to allow for fish part Council to re-establish; whichever is sooner;
(b) take into account density, population structure and species richness of the fish and Reject in Unnecessary
aquatic invertebrates; and part (c) include reference sites and sites well above the sites of effect to accurately measure Timeframe added. upper (fish) populations. The results of each review shall be provided to the Manager in writing within 20 working days of receiving the results of the surveying required under (a) – (c) for each stream or group of streams.
Director G.56 (a) suggests that the ecologist is to both develop and implement the contingency plans Amend Amend (a) to read: Accept and remedial measures; whilst (d) correctly places responsibility for implementation on General of the consent holder. “engage a suitably qualified ecologist to develop and implement appropriate and practicable contingency Conservation Contingency plans are prepared in advance of an event, not afterwards. The focus of this condition is on identifying and implementing remedial measures. plans and/or remedial measures …”
Typographical error in (c) Amend (c) to read:
“provide the results of the review of the success of fish passage methods and of habitat recreation …”
Wellington G.56 Recommend that Manager agreement be sought that methods have been Having regard to the EMMP, if, in the opinion of a suitably qualified ecologist and agreed to by Unnecessary successful or not. the Manager, the methods of habitat reconstruction or fish passage in the Te Puka Stream Reject Regional and Upper Horokiri Stream (as required under Condition G.55) are considered to have been Council unsuccessful, the consent holder shall:
Page | 58
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Wellington G.57 Recommend that Manager agreement be sought regarding whether it is If, in the opinion of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and agreed in writing by the Unnecessary practical to implement remedial measures. Reject in Regional Manager, it is not practicable to implement appropriate contingency plans and/or remedial part Council measures to address unsuccessful fish passage or habitat re-creation methods used in the Te Condition should also refer to habitat re-creation to be consistent with previous Accept in Amend Puka and Upper Horokiri Streams, the consent holder shall: conditions. part
Director E.1 As noted regarding paragraph 361 of the Draft Report, the area limits included in this Unnecessary EITHER: amend the decision in Volume One to record why Mr Handyside‟s two options were not Reject condition were not agreed by the experts (Erosion and Sediment Conferencing 24 Feb General of 2012 item 1). adopted by the Board. Condition E1 reflects findings in Conservation Mr Handyside offered two alternative approaches, and these were outlined in the D- para [362] G‟s Attachment 1 to the Director-General‟s closing comments on conditions. Mr OR Handyside was unable further refine his “Option 1” based on area limits for different rock types. This was designed to offer greater areas available for earthworking Delete Condition E.1 and replace with EITHER: depending on rock type even though, contrary to the Applicants assertion, Ms Grant did not rule an approach like this out. Ms Grant‟s main concerns were how to address E.1 The consent holder shall provide a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced compliance and certification (refer transcript Day 16 pages 1809-1810). As explained by counsel, the wording of the D-G‟s final version of this condition directly addressed sediment control specialist to the Manager to certify that the works have been undertaken in accordance Ms Grant‟s concerns. with this condition. The certificate shall provide details of the quantities, areas, locations and type (work Mr Handyside‟s alternative condition (“Option 2”) which addressed the uncertainty in the modelling, his own sediment yield analysis, and a pre-cautionary approach, was a medium) of the non-stabilised areas of earthworks authorised by this consent condition and shall be limit of 8ha at any one time spread over two catchments. submitted every three months from commencement of works authorised by this condition.
Non-stabilised areas of earthworks authorised by this consent, whether of themselves or in combination with non-stabilised areas of earthworks authorised by the consent granted to the PCC [insert reference] for earthworks within the Pauatahanui Inlet watershed, which expose more than 300m2 of surface area, shall be limited to not are no more than 17 12ha of rock fill equivalent and spread over at least two separate stream catchments at any one time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Manager, with the exception of the earthworks in the first year of construction, which will form a First year construction trial.
Rock fill equivalent shall be determined by the following parameters:
Work medium Ratio Bare area (ha)
Rock fill 1 12
Soil mantle in the 4 3.0 Horokiri/Ration catchments
Soil mantle in the remaining 3 4.0 catchments
Rock fill shall be is defined as 10% silt, 20% sand and 70% rock and have a K value of 0.10, as used in
Page | 59
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
the Universal Soil Loss Equation, (a metric factor is not applied). Fill combinations other than this will require a proportionate adjustment to the K value, and therefore rock fill equivalent bare area, except that the K rock fill value cannot be less than 0.10.
The 12 hectare rock fill equivalent can be made up of any combination of the above.
OR
E.1 Non-stabilised areas of earthworks authorised by this consent, whether of themselves or in combination with non-stabilised areas of earthworks authorised by the consent granted to the PCC [insert reference] for earthworks within the Pauatahanui Inlet watershed, which expose more than 300m2 of surface area, shall be limited to not more than 17 8ha at any one time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Manager. The 8 hectares shall occur over at least two separate stream catchments at any one time.
Director E.3, E.4 and E.5 At para. 382 the Board acknowledges that the conditions were modified as the case Unnecessary EITHER record in the decision why a first year trial and review of open areas following that trial as Reject progressed and the expert conferencing continued. Paragraph 1043 records that the General of Applicant‟s conditions presented at the conclusion of the hearing generally achieved agreed by the sediment control and management experts, was not considered appropriate or necessary Refer para [362], [386]-[396] Conservation the objectives required of conditions as recorded in para 1042 and hence this has been the starting point for the conditions. OR The Board‟s Draft Report does not comment on those conditions which were included in the draft proposed conditions-set as it was developed and updated during the Reinstate conditions E.3 and E.4, E.5 as noted in the Director-Generals Attachment 1 to the closing course of the hearing, and in particular through expert conferencing, but which were ultimately deleted and therefore omitted from the Applicant‟s final iteration of submissions, as follows including adding a definition for first year construction trial : conditions which the Board has largely adopted. No reasons are provided in the Draft Report as to why the Board supported the removal of those conditions, and it is not E.3 Non-stabilised areas within the Porirua Harbour watersheds (Pauatahanui Watershed and Onepoto clear whether the Board turned its mind as to whether those conditions should be Watershed) in the First year construction trial which expose more than 300m2 of surface area shall be reinstated, as there is no relevant discussion in the Draft Report. The final report should either record why the conditions are not appropriate (in limited to two trial earthworks areas. Each area shall be limited to no more than 4ha in area and shall be particular those requested for reinstatement by the Director- General in its closing established in two different catchments, one with predominantly rock with low erodibility, and the other in comments on conditions), or reinstate those conditions. predominantly erodible soils. The soil types shall be determined in consultation with a suitably qualified It is also noted that the inclusion and reinstatement of the conditions dealing with a first year trial and restrictions in Ration Creek would appear to be consistent with the specialist. The sediment discharges from these sites shall be monitored and the results shall be used as Boards reasoning in paras 170, 186, 187, 361, 362, 364 and 386 particularly in regard to adaptive management principles. for reviews of Adaptive Management trigger/compliance criteria compared with effects monitoring. All Condition E.3 provided for a first year trial. This was proposed by T Fisher in the results shall be provided to the Manager for information. conferencing statement of 15 Feb 2012 and agreed by all in that conferencing statement and that of 24 Feb (points 2 and 3). The Boards decision has not recorded For the purposes of this condition, the First year construction trial shall exclude enabling works such as why this condition has been deleted. access tracks and relocating utilities undertaken in advance of the main construction activities. The first Condition E.4 provided for a restriction on earthworks in the Ration Catchment due to earthworks season shall include cuts and fills for the construction of the main alignment and/or link the erosive soil type in this catchment. This condition was agreed by all sediment experts in conferencing 24 February 2012 (point 4 and 5) as they acknowledged that roads. the “differences in ground (rock/soil) types and erodibility along the route on this project are significant and should be taken into account in planning for the project.” E.4 Non-stabilised areas within the Ration catchment which expose more than 300m2 of surface area The Board has not recorded why it agreed with Ms Rickard in removing this and the following two conditions. Ms Rickard states that the “matter may be best addressed shall be undertaken over a minimum of two construction years unless otherwise agreed in writing with through other conditions” but does not record what those conditions are. In the transcript of proceedings (9 March page 1763) when Ms Rickard was questioned the Manager. about this condition it appears that this condition was deleted because she did not understand the reasons for it. This extract from the transcript of proceedings clarifies E.5 The consent holder may request the Manager to review conditions E.1 or .E.2 of this consent at any this; time after the First year construction trial (Sediment) in Condition E.3. The purpose of the review shall “Mr Handyside has also suggested that it‟s not required if he adopts, if the condition Page | 60
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
NE1 but he suggested what the – I wasn't sure what they were trying to manage be to check the size of the non-stabilized areas and the adequacy of these area limits (in combination through that particular condition that wasn't already captured by the general limits in any one and that was a really, something as I say, I don't know that so it would have to with the range of other erosion and sediment control measures and methods required by this consent) be clarified by the sediment experts as to what they were trying to achieve through that.” (A Rickard) by: The reasons for such a condition based on rock type and erosivity of the soils in the (a) lowering the area limits to address any adverse effects on the environment arising from sediment Ration Creek area are recorded in expert conferencing. No other conditions deal with discharges from the works that are the subject of this consent; or the variation in rock type along the route and the effect this will have on sediment yield (b) increasing area limits where erosion and sediment control methods are working well. and yet the draft decision includes a similar condition (E.2) which restricts the earthworks in the Onepoto Arm and Kenepuru Catchment. A condition specifying Area limits shall not be amended upwards until sufficient information has been gathered through the particular area restrictions for a particular catchment would be both clear and enforceable. monitoring programme to give confidence that the adaptive management trigger/compliance criteria Condition E.5 was the “adaptive management” condition which provided for a review of adequately reflects actual and potential environmental effects from the project, and this shall include an the open area limits in condition E.1 following the results of the first year of construction trial (proposed condition E.3) and provided that there be a lowering of assessment of the response of sediment yield to storm events. limits if adverse effects were evident. This is in accord with the position recorded at point 7 of the sediment expert‟s conferencing statement 15 Feb as suggested by Dr Add definition: Fisher and agreed by all the sediment experts. First Year Construction Trial (Sediment)
A trial to determine sediment yield within the Porirua Harbour Watershed. The trial shall be for a period of a year in the first construction year in two catchments within the Porirua Harbour watershed limited to no more than 4ha in area in two different catchments- one with predominantly low erodible representative soils and one in predominantly high erodible representative soils. The first year construction trial shall exclude enabling works such as access tracks and relocating utilities but may include cuts and fills for construction of the main alignment.
Director E.5A A condition to control the area of open earthworks in the Te Puka valley catchment Unnecessary Add new condition E.5A Reject was supported by Mr Handyside following his site visit to the area. The reasons for a General of condition of this type are discussed above in relation to paragraph 309 of the Draft Non-stabilised areas within the Te Puka catchment which expose more than 300m2 of surface area shall Conservation Report. be limited to 6 hectares at any one time.
NZTA / PCC E.6 The draft condition E.6 refers to “any one of the four Territorial Authorities That the reference to “UHDC” in E.6 is replaced by a reference to “UHCC”. Amend (PCC, WCC, KCDC and UHDC).” The reference to UHDC seems to be an Accept error.
The correct abbreviation, as given in the definitions sections of the resource consent conditions, is “UHCC” (Upper Hutt City Council).
Director E.6 The wording of this condition restricts the Sediment Peer Review panel members to Amend to allow panel of 3. Amend the first sentence to read: Accept in “not more than three” persons. The Panel should consist of “at least three” persons to General of ensure it is a proper panel is formed. The current wording could result in a panel of part Prior to the commencement of any works the Consent Holder shall appoint a Sediment Management Conservation only one member being formed. Peer Review Panel, comprising not more than at least three suitably qualified persons. Reject in Unnecessary part Amend (b) to read:
(b) collection and assessment of performance monitoring data for sediment control devices and control Part (b) is unclear. Expertise in stream sediment monitoring is required, rather than control stations. stations stream sediment monitoring;
Page | 61
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Amend (f) as follows:
Typographical error in (f) “make recommendations to the consent holder upon review of methodology for preconstruction monitoring in the Erosion ESCMP and the results from the pre-construction monitoring”
Add the following to the third to last sentence:
The inference from this condition is that the Sediment Peer Review can only offer All findings of the Peer Review Panel shall be provided to the Manager for information. Unless otherwise advice, which may or may not be acted upon. The consent holder should be required to report on the advice of the Panel and implement that advice, with the discretion to agreed by the Manager the consent holder shall adopt and implement the findings of the Peer Review vary from this only on approval by the Manager. Panel.
Wellington E.6 Change made as draft condition would potentially allow one person to form the Prior to the commencement of any works the Consent Holder shall appoint a Sediment See previous amendment Accept in Regional panel. Management Peer Review Panel, comprising not more than three suitably qualified persons. part Council The Peer Review Panel members shall be selected for their expertise in:
...
Accept in See previous amendment (f) make recommendations to the consent holder upon review of the methodology for pre- Corrections made. construction monitoring in the Erosion ESCMP and the results from the pre-construction part
monitoring;
... Clarity and timeframe added for providing review panel feedback to the Reject in .. All findings of the Peer Review Panel shall be provided to the Manager for information as Unnecessary Manager. soon as practicable and with the ESCP, ESCMP and key SSEMPs and any other relevant part management plans submitted for certification..
Director E.7(g) Reference to WRC in the first sentence should be a reference to “the Manager.” Amend Amend first sentence to read: Accept General of “…where it is impracticable to use a compliant sediment retention device provided the WRC Manager Conservation accepts each….”
Wellington E.7 Recommended changes clarify the performance standards that the consent For the preparation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans that will be implemented Amend to provide „shall‟ Accept in Regional holder is expected to meet. These will dictate the design of the ESCPs and during construction of the Project, Tthe consent holder must shallachieve the following part Council SSEMPs, and this is clarified in the recommended wording following (i). objectives:
(a) Minimise the overall non-stabilised earthworks footprint; (b) Minimise non-stabilised earthworks using BPOBest Practicable Options (BPO‟s); It is also noted that the draft wording refers to ESCP‟s (plural) rather than (c) Progressively stabilise completed areas of earthworks as soon as practicable; ESCP (singular). (d) Divert clean run off away from non-stabilised earthworks areas; (e) Design and install a variety of perimeter controls for the management of flows of water and sediment and sediment retention using BPO; (f) Treat all sediment laden discharges from the site arising from the wWorks using a Change Heavy Rainfall Events and Stabilisation Trigger Events to capitals to Ccompliant Ssediment Rretention Ddevice together with any other erosion and sediment recognise defined terms control measures implemented in general accordance with the ESCP and any relevant SSEMP; (g) Notwithstanding the requirements in condition (f) above, other sediment retention devices may be used where it is impracticable to use a Ccompliant Ssediment Rretention Ddevice,
Page | 62
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
provided the WRC accepts certifies each proposal and the total area from which sediment laden runoff emanates does not exceed 5% of the total project earthworks area. (h) Prepare for and manage environmental risks from Hheavy rRainfall eEvents and Sstabilisation Ttrigger Eevents (Conditions G.42A and 42B); and (i) Use adaptive management principles to review and refine the erosion and sediment control and treatment measures used. The ESCP and SSEMPs shall be prepared to show how the Consent Holder will meet the requirements of (a) – (i) of this condition. Reject Unnecessary
The consent holder shall ensure that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are installed prior to and during all construction works.
Wellington E.8 Recommend that the condition also requires the construction and maintenance Unless otherwise agreed with the Manager, the consent holder shall design, construct and Amend Accept Regional of the devices to achieve the design criteria to ensure they perform as maintain all sediment control devices to achieve the following design criteria: Council required. (a) Be Ccompliant Ssediment Rretention Ddevices (refer to definitions); (b) All emergency spillways to accommodate at least a 100 year ARI storm event peak flow; Defined term. and Sediment retention device TSS efficiencies of at least 70% removal for all storm events with up to and including a 10 year ARI.
Director E.10 Condition E.10 excludes link roads from the slope restriction. Slope is an important Unnecessary Amend the condition to read: Reject factor in sediment generation and measures that reduce slope angle have erosion General of control impacts on significantly lowered sediment loads. The maximum construction All cut and fill grades excluding batter slopes and haul roads shall be earthworked to maintain a slope Conservation slope referred to in this condition should apply to all earthwork areas discharging to the Pauatahanui Inlet. that is no greater than the finished slope of the road in that location, (excluding the link roads) until the earthworks reach final grade less otherwise agreed with the Manager.
Wellington E.11 Purpose of ESCP added to this condition (extracted from E.12). The consent holder shall, in consultation with the Wellington Regional Council, prepare an Unnecessary Reject Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). Consultation shall include (but not be limited to) Regional provision for review of a draft ESCP.
Council The ESCP shall be prepared as an overarching management plan that shall include the
erosion and sediment control philosophy, procedures, responsibilities, general methodologies and typical details to be used over the entire site in accordance with the requirements of conditions E.7 – E.10 and E.12. The ESCP shall be given effect to by the SSEMPs required by Condition G. 26. Clarification that E.7 states requirements to be consistent with recommended At least 20 working days prior to works commencing on the Project, the consent holder shall change to condition E.7. submit the ESCP to the Manager, for certification that: 1. The ESCP includes performance measures, actions, and methods designed to
achieve the objectives requirements specified in Condition E.7 above;
Wellington E.12 Purpose/description of ESCP inserted into E.11. The ESCP is an overarching management plan that should include the ESC philosophy, Unnecessary Reject Regional procedures, responsibilities, general methodologies and typical details. The ESCP shall be
Council given effect to by the SSEMPs required by Condition G. 26. Recommend that reference to SSEMPs be added for consistency. As a minimum, the ESCP and SSEMPs shall demonstrate how the y meet the requirements of Capitals for Defined Terms Conditions E.7 and E.8- E.10 will be met, and the following requirements:
Page | 63
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
....
(f) Approach and procedures for ensuring advance warning of a hHeavy rRainfall Event Accept Amend and Sstabilisation Ttrigger Eevents and the responses that are required in accordance with Condition E.7. The ESCP shall detail the procedures and have the resources (supplied, equipment and labour) necessary to deploy the required erosion control measures within the period between forecast and peak rainfall for the sStabilisation tTrigger eEvent; ...
Director E.13 Reference to the “first ESCP” suggests that there may be more than one ESCP; Amend Amend first line to read: Accept however, only one ESCP is required under conditions E.11 & E.12. General of “At least 5 working days prior to submission of the first ESCP for certification, …” Conservation
Wellington E.17 Change recognises that works will be staged and therefore certification needs Prior to any earthworks commencing in each stage of works, other than required for Amend Accept Regional to be on a stage by stage basis. installation of erosion and sediment controls, a certificate signed by an suitably qualified Council erosion and sediment control specialist shall be submitted to the Manager to certify that the erosion and sediment control measures have been constructed for that stage of works in accordance with the certified ESCP required by in Condition E.12 of this consent and any relevant SSEMPs.
...
Wellington E.18 Clarification added. A copy of the sediment control device “as-built(s)” and the certified ESCP and relevant Amend Accept Regional SSEMP/s shall be kept on site, and all erosion and sediment control measures (including
Council staging boundaries and particularly the extent of exposed areas) shall be updated as soon as Recommend that relevant SSEMPs be required on site at all times as well. practicable as changes are made.
...
Director E.20 Condition E.20 should refer to all control measures and not just to the measures Unnecessary Amend the condition to read Reject referred to in the current wording of the condition. General of
No erosion and sediment control measures sediment retention device, silt fence, chemical treatment Conservation systems or perimeter controls shall be removed or decommissioned…..
Wellington E.20 Clarification Added No sediment retention device, silt fence, chemical treatment systems or perimeter controls Amend Accept in Regional shall be removed or decommissioned before the entire catchment area being treated by that part Council device is Sstabilised, unless such removal and decommissioning is in accordance with the CEMP, ESCP or a SSEMP, and the Manager has agreed in writing.
Wellington E.21 Defined Term All „cleanwater‟ runoff from Sstabilised surfaces, including catchment areas above the site, Unnecessary Reject Regional shall be diverted away from earthwork areas via a sStabilised system, so as to prevent
Council surface erosion.
Page | 64
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Wellington E.23 Defined Term Stabilisation field trials Unnecessary Reject Regional Council
Wellington E.24 Clarification Chemical Treatment (Flocculation) Plan (CTP) Amend Accept in Regional Defined Terms Compliant Sediment Retention Devices part Council Draft wording may create confusion as to the number of CTPs required ... (implies multiple CTPs required). At least 20 working days prior to any flocculation works commencing within the relevantany SSEMP area, the CTP shall be submitted to the Manager, for certification that the CTP will assist with achieving appropriate sediment removal efficiencies (with reference to Condition Changes clarify that the CTP needs to be submitted with the ESCP prior to any E.8 and E.12). earthworks. ... Changes require consent holder compliance with certified CTP. Stabilisation Trigger Event
Wellington E.27 Full and correct management plan title added. Forestry Harvesting Management Plan (FHMP) Previously amended to FHP. Reject in Regional Prior to the commencement of removal of any plantation pine forestry for the purpose of part Council construction activities, including enabling works, the consent holder shall prepare a Forestry Accept in Plantation forestry amended Harvesting Management Plan (FHMP). At least 20 working days prior to the commencement part
of removal of any plantation forestry, the FHMP shall be submitted to the Manager for certification.
The FHMP shall include:
... No removal of plantation forestry pine and / or associated works (including establishing haul roads and skid sites) shall occur until the FHMP is certified by the Manager. Replacement of „pine‟ with „plantation forestry‟ for consistency.
Wellington WS.1A Recommend that new condition be added to define the parameters for stream Permanent culverts, bridges and associated stream diversions shall be located in accordance Unnecessary Reject Regional works and therefore effects authorised (other than described in the consent with the tables included in Schedules A and B. Council purpose). While condition G.1 broadly covers this requirement, the proposed The maximum lengths of each permanent culvert and bridge shall be in accordance with the condition adds clarity. tables included in Schedules A and B.
The consent holder shall not divert more than 6.5km of stream in the locations specified in the application documentation associated with the Project.
Wellington WS.1B New condition recommended with wording consistent with condition The consent holder shall prepare and submit detailed design plans and construction Unnecessary methodology, including proposed duration and timing for all structures, stream works and Reject Regional PCC.WS.0 (with minor amendments) and is similar to the requirements in diversions authorised by this consent with the relevant SSEMP(s) for certification prior to
Page | 65
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Council Duck.1 to ensure consistency. works commencing. The detailed design plans and construction methodology shall include: (a) Measures/methods to ensure that fish passage is maintained during and on completion of construction works along the stretches of stream affected by the exercise of this consent; (b) Details of culvert inlet/outlet protection structures e.g. pre-cast wing walls or rock rip-rap; (c) Appropriate sizing of culverts and allowances for secondary flow paths during high flows; and
(d) Details of all new diversion channels (both temporary and permanent), including provisions to achieve fish passage and provide fish habitat.
Wellington WS.2 Consistency in wording with other conditions. The consent holder shall seek to ensure that all works authorised by this permit to be Amend Accept Regional undertaken in the dry bed of the a stream, are completed before the flow of the stream is Council diverted back into the stream bed.
Wellington WS.3 Recommend that condition requires diversions to be constructed and The consent holder shall, design and construct and maintain all diversions in a manner that Amend Accept Regional maintained, as well as designed, to maintain stream flows. seeks to maintains stream flows (both volume and velocity) in a similar state to its natural Council state at the time of commencement of Work.
Wellington WS.7 Consistency in wording and correction made. ... Amend Accept in Regional Explanatory Advice Notenote: Maintenance does not include any works outside of the part Council scope of the applicationthis consent. Any additional works (including structures, reshaping or disturbance to the stream bed) following completion of the construction works as proposed in the application, may require further resource consents.
Wellington WS.8 Timeframe recommended to provide certainty. Within 20 working days Upon completion of the completion of all each permanent stream Amend Accept Regional diversions, the Consent Holder shall provide evidence in writing to the Manager that an Council appropriately qualified engineer and an appropriately qualified ecologist have inspected the completed diversion works, and are satisfied that they have been constructed according to the SSEMP stream diversion plan(s) that were certified by the Manager.
Wellington Duck.1 Recommended amendment defines the parameters for the culvert All culverts shall be located in accordance with the table in Schedule C attached to this Unnecessary consent. Each culvert shall be of a similar length to the culvert it is replacing. Reject Regional replacement works and therefore effects authorised (other than described in The consent holder shall prepare and submit detailed design plans and construction Council the consent purpose). While condition G.1 broadly covers this requirement, the methodology, including proposed duration and timing for the removal and replacement of proposed condition adds clarity. existing culverts authorised by this consent, to the Manager for certification at least 20 working days prior to replacement of the culverts commencing.
...
Wellington S.1 Recommended amendment to specify activity parameters. All temporary culverts shall be located in accordance with the table in Schedule C attached to Unnecessary Reject this consent. Each culvert shall not exceed the maximum length specified in the application Regional documents.
Council
Page | 66
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
All temporary culverts shall be designed to meet the following criteria unless otherwise agreed with the Manager: Amendment recommended to clarify that fish passage is required, unless (a) to pass a 2-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood event without heading up (as assessed at the time of commencement of construction) otherwise agreed (installing culvert 300mm into stream bed may not be (b) culverts to shall be installed in a manner that will to provide for the continuous passage of sufficient on its own). native fish species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Manager, including but not limited to installing the invert of the culvert 300mm below stream bed level in order to provide a continuous wetted perimeter to facilitate thefish passage passage of native fish species; (c) minimum size of any temporary culvert shall be not less than 600mm in diameter; and maximum cover over any temporary culvert shall not exceed 500mm.
Wellington S.4 Recommend removal of „seek to‟ to improve consistency with other conditions … Amend Accept Regional and enforceability of the condition. The consent holder shall seek to ensure that if the inspections by the ecologist identify any Council maintenance requirements, that these are undertaken as soon as practicable to the satisfaction of the Manager.
Wellington CBP.8 Correction of cross referencing error. Operation of the plant shall not commence until the detailed design plans and methodology Amend Accept Regional required by Condition CBP.3 7 of this permit have been certified by the Manager.
Council
Wellington CBP.9 Timeframe added. ... Unnecessary Reject Regional The review shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person and shall be provided to the Manager for certification within 10 working days of completing each review. Council ...
Wellington CBP.22 Condition deleted as it repeats CBP.21 Regular maintenance of the concrete batching process, including weekly visual inspections of
Regional the equipment prior to use, shall be carried out by an appropriately trained operator. Records Council of maintenance and visual inspections shall be kept and made available to the Manager on request.
Wellington CBP.25 Recommend that due to potential for adverse effects, discharges need to be .... Where the turbidity level is exceeded, or pH is greater than 9, the consent holder shall Amend Accept Regional halted until the correct turbidity and pH have been achieved. immediately cease the discharge and shall further treatment the dirty water shall be required Council via chemical treatment and/or pH management to ensure discharges are within the authorised turbidity and pH discharge standard prior to recommencing discharges.
Alternatively this stormwater shall be discharged to the reticulated sewer.
NZTA / PCC PCC.21A The Draft Condition PCC.21A makes a reference to the “consent holder”. This That the reference to “consent holder” in PCC.21A be replaced by reference to “Requiring Amend condition relates to the PCC NoRs and not the PCC resource consents. The Authority”. Accept reference in this condition should be to the “Requiring Authority”.
NZTA / PCC PCC.40, Conditions PCC.40 and PCC.44 in the Draft Conditions make reference to the The Applicants respectfully request that the references to the “Transmission Gully Project” in Amend PCC.44 “Transmission Gully Project”. The Applicants consider it would be clearer and conditions PCC.40, and PCC.44 are replaced by references to the “Project”. Accept
Page | 67
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
more consistent if these conditions instead simply refer to the “Project”.
NZTA / PCC PCC.46 Condition PCC.46 requires “the consent holder” to prepare a Contaminated That designation condition PCC.46 be moved onto the PCC resource consents as new Amend Land Management Plan (CLMP). The Applicants‟ witness, Ms Maize condition PCC.E.45. Accept recommended that a CLMP be attached to the PCC resource consent conditions.45 However, the CLMP condition has been attached to the PCC That existing sub-condition PCC.46 (f) be entirely removed, and sub-condition (g) be re-titled NoRs. PCC considers that it would be more appropriate for the CLMP to form “(f)”. part of the general resource consent conditions.
Sub-condition (f) of PCC.46 relates specifically to unexploded ordnance (UXO). Sub-condition (f) appears to have been copied directly from condition G.20 (which is the equivalent NZTA condition). However, PCC notes that, so far as it is aware, there are no UXO in Porirua City46, and suggest it would be appropriate for sub-condition (f) to be removed from PCC.46.
NZTA / PCC Definitions – The definition of “Project” given in the Definitions section of the PCC draft That the Definition of “Project” in the Definitions section of the PCC resource consents be Amend PCC Resource resource consent conditions is “the construction, maintenance and operation of amended as follows: Accept consents the Transmission Gully Main Alignment and/or the Kenepuru Link Road.” This is an error. The correct definition of the PCC Project (to which the PCC “Project means the construction, maintenance and operation of the Transmission Gully Main resource consents relate) is “the construction, maintenance and operation of Alignment and/or the Kenepuru Link Road Whitby Link Road and/or the Waitangirua Link the Whitby Link Road and/or the Waitangirua Link Road.” Road”.
Wellington PCC.WS.0 Clarity added. As part of the relevant SSEMP(s) required under Condition PCC.E.39, Tthe consent holder Unnecessary shall prepare and submit detailed design plans and construction methodology, including Reject Regional proposed duration and timing for all required structures and stream works authorised by this Council consent with the relevant SSEMP(s) required under Condition PCC.E.39 for certification prior to works commencing. The detailed design plans and construction methodology shall include: (a) Measures/methods to ensure that fish passage is maintained during and on completion of construction works along the stretches of stream affected by the exercise of this consent; (b) Details of culvert inlet/outlet protection structures e.g. pre-cast wing walls or rock rip-rap; and (c) Appropriate sizing of culverts and allowances for secondary flow paths during high flows.
Director Schedule A The Schedule lists a large number of culverts which do not appear to have provision Unnecessary Amend Schedule A where “none” appears to replace this with the appropriate fish passage notation. Reject for fish passage. There still appears to be confusion as to the exact number and General of position of culverts requiring fish passage, in terms of the evidence presented to the Conservation Board.
Wellington Schedule C: Schedule C is a list of temporary culverts. The Council suggests that a map reference Recommend that map reference is added to identify the location of each temporary culvert id listed in Unnecessary Temporary Reject Regional Culverts is added to identify the location of each temporary culverts identified in that Schedule. the table. Council
45 Maize, 13 January 2012, para 23.
46 Maize, 16 November 2011, para 64.
Page | 68
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision.
Wellington Schedule D: Description of required maintenance, success monitoring and actions Amend Schedule D is proposed mitigation sites and treatments. The changes Accept Regional here are to add a time so it is clear when the 10 years runs from for the Initial Planting Contract which will cover: Council purpose of the review and when the maintenance period runs from. Initial fencing Plant sourcing and supply (including eco-sourcing) Initial browser control (rabbit, hare, possum, goat) Initial weed control if required (assessed site by site) The planting treatment including; spacing and density, distribution of species, application of fertilisers, use of matting or mulching, etc.
Three year defects / maintenance period from date of commencement of planting in each area which will cover:...
...
Ten year review from date of commencement of planting in each area
Wellington Schedule E is simply a note to ensure that the Tables L5 and L6 are added in See previous amendment (new Schedule E: Tables L5 and L6 of draft ESCMP Accept Regional New to this Schedule. Schedule F).
Council Schedule E Insert Tables L5 ans L6 of draft ESCMP submitted as exhibit 24 during Hearing.
Page | 69